6 ms·
> quantum light That is one of those articles which are meant to impress people with money and make people cringe who understand a thing or two about the subje
by dschuetz 8y ago
> quantum light
That is one of those articles which are meant to impress people with money and make people cringe who understand a thing or two about the subject it is covering.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoWhat’s wrong with “quantum light”? The photon is the quanta of light (or electromagnetic radiation more generally). Quantization is what Planck’s hypothesis is all about.
- kurthr 8y agoYes, but you could also just refer to it as light. In it's most common (visible) form it readily demonstrates both quantized and wave-polarization effects. DeBrogli also showed it with matter, but it's significantly more difficult to observe.
- xelxebar 8y agoIt's like saying "wet water". Not a false statement, but under normal conversational assumptions, it sure sounds like there's some non-wet water or some similar contrasting idea. If you're familiar with Grice's Maxims, then "quantum light" violates the Principle of Quantity by providing too much information, inviting misinterpretation.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoWater has been obviously wet for as long as there’s been water. The theory of quantized light has only existed since 1900. The idea of using light quanta to power logic gates is a very modern innovation, in a very modern field called quantum computing, which is what the article being discussed is about. There’s no such thing as dry water, but there’s a very clear distinction between a technology that processes individual photons and one that just uses light. Perhaps ‘quantum light’ is a bit contrived, but the ‘quantum-ness’ of the light is the novel aspect of both the technology and the underlying physics.
- adrianN 8y agoWhat you're saying is of course correct, but I wanted to mention that there is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water
- talltimtom 8y agoIt’s more akin to saying water droplets. Now you can argue that “all water is made up of droplets” but still not every body of water is a bunch of droplets. When people talk about quantum light, they mean something different from just saying light. You are being pandantic.
- oytis 8y agoIt would be better called 'quantized light' IMO. 'quantum light' sounds like marketing BS.
- dschuetz 8y agoThat's essentially what I meant. Thanks. Quantized light still is like "wet water", but at least it sounds less like some obscure/magical light from the magical world of quanta.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoWell the photon is the quantum of light. I don’t think you’d say ‘quantized computer’, you’d probably say quantum computer, as in relating to quanta.
- oytis 8y agoDon't get your analogy. Photon is a quantum of light. Quantum computer is not a quantum of computing.
- dschuetz 8y agoWhat's wrong with simply stating that there are special transistors now that are capable of being switched with a single photon. But no, there are quantum transistors now which can be triggered by quantum light. It's appalling to get such a read from ieee. Unbelievable even. But, hey, it's ieee spectrum, so who cares anyway besides people with money ready to burn.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoQuantum is the appropriate word for describing quanta. The only thing even slightly dubious about the headline is it’s use of the word ‘light’, but it’s very far from being appalling or unbelievable.
- abdullahkhalids 8y agoPhysicist chiming in. I just want to point out that "quantum light" has a specific meaning in the optics community, and much more restrictive than what you are pointing at. All light is quantum in the sense that it is made of discrete photons, but the "quantumness of a light beam" is a quantification of whether you need quantum theory or classical theory to describe the behavior of that beam of that light. Beams for which you need quantum theory, such as single photons, are called "quantum light". Other beams, like the one coming from the sun, are called "classical light". As such I am fine with the usage of "quantum light" in the title. The usage in the text is a bit odd, but technically correct.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- _Microft 8y agoTo start off with, it doesn't simply say quantum light in the last paragraph of the article (only reference to that term in all of the article) but quantum light transistor. So maybe it's just a typo in the headline. And regarding the last paragraph: Does reading it as (quantum (light transistor)) instead of ((quantum light) transistor) make more sense? I'm not sure if something like a classical optical transistor is possible but if yes then that might justify explicitely mentioning quantum here.
- iovrthoughtthis 8y agoI feel like this is a classic example of a bikeshed. It’s tough to have a genuine opinion about the concept of a light based transistor but it is far easier to have an opinion about the words used to deacribe it. Im not saying your comment isn’t valid, im saying it detracts from other conversation. See all of the comments below.
- dschuetz 8y agoIt's a transistor switching on single photons. It's not even light. Why not use proper terms instead of marketing mumbo-jumbo? What audience is it adressed to? I like the idea that a single photon is enough to make a transistor switch currents, but I don't like the idea that people read "quantum light and quantum transistors" instead. You are clearly missing the point. It's hard to form a genuine opinion on ingenuine dumb shit like that in that article.
- iovrthoughtthis 8y agoYour reaction seems a little extreme tbh. In effect someone named a complex concept wrong. Is it not better that they wrote about it at all, then that they used the correct names for everything. There’s some space for empathy here imo.