5 ms·
The basic principle of the technique was proposed almost 50 years ago by the physicist Walter Hoppe, who reasoned that there should be enough informati
by breadAndWater 8y ago
The basic principle of the technique was
proposed almost 50 years ago by the physicist
Walter Hoppe, who reasoned that there should
be enough information in the diffraction data
to work backwards to produce an image of the
diffracting object.
This kind of statement just absolutely cracks me up, because it's a clear reveal that between this sort of awareness of diffraction principles, and concepts like pilot wave theory, that double slit experiments and entanglement haven't been mysterious for decades.
It's all just media manipulation. There are very firmly understood concepts backing all the mechanics of quantum effects, and the journalists that push the ambiguities are simply trolling would-be amateurs for to fan the flames of confusion as a sort of outsider performance art.
- lixtra 8y ago> It's all just media manipulation. Don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. [Hanlon]
- colordrops 8y agoThank you, for once Hanlon's razor is used properly.
- modells 8y agoI’d say 97%+ is either DGAF, forgetting, emergencies or needs a fire under their posterior. In that 3% though are outliers like sales clerk fabricating a story and SWATing/making-up an unspecified allegation against you because they didn’t like “losing” when it came to them inventing roadblocks to complete a routine retail return. Because they’re a chick, nothing happens to them for you being interrogated at gunpoint and possibly arrested or shot by a six-pack of the fearful blue mafia, it’s all good.
- kurthr 8y agoActually, I don't think it's stupidity... it's greed. Telling stories that sound good is unrelated to truth, but declaring them science or news (when you don't know) is deceptive.
- amelius 8y agoThe problem with this razor is that malicious people will happily incorporate it into their evil plans.
- jarfil 8y agoNice try, but attempting to blame journalists won't make us forget about the Illuminati and lizard people.
- breadAndWater 8y agoWake up sheeple!
- ISL 8y agoThere is enough information, should one be able to retain the phase; getting it from intensity is much more challenging. I'm familiar with the work of one of the authors; he is a world expert on diffraction inverse problems in physical context. From a quick skim of the paper, it would appear that they're simply being careful and clever.
- carapace 8y agoI'm just reading "What is Real?" by Adam Becker (a history of QM published this year) and boy do the Copenhagenists look foolish. Even Bohr comes off as a saintly buffoon. With experimental confirmation that the universe is non-local and "spooky action at a distance" is real, the pilot wave theory "wins" and there's no measurement problem. (It isn't journalists though, it's the physicists themselves that muddied the waters by permitting herd mentality to overwhelm science. Also, von Neumann got a proof wrong! Folks can be forgiven for not suspecting that. But once it was noticed then the "orthodoxy" should have paid attention.)
- Luc 8y ago“What Is Real” is an opinionated book, to put it mildly.
- carapace 8y agoNo doubt. But the facts of which the opinions are held are pretty staggering. Von Neumann got a proof wrong in his textbook on QM. Grete Hermann found the error in 1935 and nobody noticed. De Broglie presented a "pilot wave" theory at the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927. Einstein kept pointing out the problem with non-locality and everybody thought he was getting old and foggy. Physics is hella tribal. Physics. I took the Copenhagen metaphysics pretty seriously. It's so neat and elegant to confound the mystery of quantum wave-function collapse with the mystery of subjective experience. The "observer-created Universe" and all that. It's very disturbing to realize that it's basically metaphysical bunk. It's just staggering. But never mind all that! The Universe is non-local! *And yet-- Relativity!" Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but wave collapse does, so this is going to be some awesome physics!
- moh_maya 8y agoI'm not sure I completely understand your comment. Are you suggesting this is not a significant advance in the field? I am not an EM expert; but the fact that its been through peer review & gotten published in Nature seems to suggest scientists in the field think it is a significant advance. And from what I do know of microscopy, it is still not trivial to image (sub?) atomic size structures. Extending the quoted paragraph: "The basic principle of the technique was proposed almost 50 years ago by the physicist Walter Hoppe, who reasoned that there should be enough information in the diffraction data to work backwards to produce an image of the diffracting object. However, it was many years before computer algorithms were developed that could do this reverse calculation easily and reliably. The pictures produced by ptychographic methods are generated using a computer from a vast amount of indirect scattering data." The news & views article does not claim that this is a basic sciences advance; they are claiming its an engineering / methodology / procedural advance. And those are as important, IMO. Unless you are suggesting that, once the basic sciences are known, any engineering advance is trivial. If so, then you & I have very a different impression of how easy / difficult it is to build new "things" :)
- breadAndWater 8y agoNone of the things you've mentioned are anything close to what I'm bringing up. The point I'm making is that popular discussion of quantum effects are so wildly off-base, and have muddied the waters of even trying to understand what happens between photons and electrons, by casually reading about it. But you see something like this emerge, and it's really obvious that solutions to these problems were on the right track even as far back as the early 1900's, only to be derailed by academics emerging in the 1940's. Principles such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_princi... had it right very early. So, was there an ulterior motive to all the complex obfuscation of math, and inaccurate scientific reporting throughout the later 20th century? Or has it all been one big, innocent misunderstanding, among aloof egg heads distracted by their gigantic precious particle colliders? One wonders.
- moh_maya 8y agoAh; thank you for the reply; I understand what you were trying to say. I'll leave my original comment in place for context for other readers. :)