>"The quantum radar story began in 2008, when Seth Lloyd, a quantum engineer at MIT, unveiled his concept of quantum illumination. Lloyd argued that you could m

>"The quantum radar story began in 2008, when Seth Lloyd, a quantum engineer at MIT, unveiled his concept of quantum illumination. Lloyd argued that you could more easily detect an object against a bright background if, instead of merely reflecting light off it, you exploited a quantum connection between particles called entanglement. Every photon has a frequency that determines its energy. Quantum theory says, weirdly, that a photon can have multiple frequencies at once —until it’s measured and “collapses” randomly to one frequency or another. Even weirder, two such photons can then be entangled so that their frequencies, although uncertain, are correlated: They are sure to be identical whenever they’re measured." PDS: Strange Idea: What if you had an object, object A, for lack of a better term (particle, wave, field, thing, ?), at one point in the universe, resonating at one frequency, and another object, object B (which is actually object A), but it's at a different point in the universe, and it resonates at a different frequency... and then (let's go for maximum crackpot here! <g>) -- what if there was an unseen object, object C, which exists in a different dimension, a dimension which links these two objects/points in space, where object C resonates at a frequency which you get by multiplying A's frequency by B's frequency...? In other words, a triangle of frequencies (aka, a "Chord", if you're in to music, chord in music = analogous to triangle in math, although this type of chord is not one you'd hear on your piano because the third tone is a multiple of the first two -- very high pitch). But... what if all of that were the case with sub-atomic particles? If two particles are quantum entangled in space (at different points in space), then there has to be some kind of differentiator (frequency, vibration, other smaller particle?) that determines WHERE in space they are, that is, that determines locality. In fact, here's a challenge for all quantum physicists out there: You've shown how two particles can become entangled, now figure out how two particles which are known to be entangled -- can be differentiated. In other words, given two entangled particles where the space occupied by each is known -- how could someone know WHERE one of them is? It sounds paradoxical, because aren't these just the same particle, and isn't there no way to know WHERE each one of them is? Well, let's imagine a fan blade that rotates around a fan. It's a large-scale non-quantum object. Here, if we turn the fan on, and use a strobe light, we'll see that in one location of space-time the fan blade in question will appear in very small time intervals, and subsequently be moved out (we'll assume this fan only has one blade to make things simpler!). But the same blade will appear (and disappear!) in two or more locations (depending the areas of space we're measuring, and what our strobe light is set for). But there is a way to "know" which blade (the location of space of the blade) we're dealing with, without actually observing that location! We can do this by using TIME, more specifically very small instances of TIME -- that is, in milliseconds or microseconds, how long it takes for the fan blade to change positions in space. Now, that TIME -- is a frequency. That is, for an object like a fan blade, that frequency might have a cycle time in milliseconds or microseconds -- but for smaller particles, especially those that are quantum entangled -- this time scale, this frequency -- might be orders of magnitude smaller (and vibrations/frequency orders of magnitude larger) -- that is, it might not be measurable by the instruments we have today. But, it seems logical to believe that this or something like this is present -- and if it were detectable, could be used to assign a position (in space) to which part of a quantum entangled particle one was dealing with... Anyway, just thinking aloud. I don't have a Ph.D. or anything. I claim to possess Socratic ignorance (along with other forms of ignorance (non-Socratic ingorance!) that I also claim to possess <g>)! In other words, take everything I theorize about with the proverbial grain of salt!