One thing that occurred to me when watching this is that the resolution of the image is independent of how far away the detector is from the object, in the configuration where the object is illuminated with the patterns. Of course, you might need a telescope or other optical devices to increase the signal to noise ratio at the detector. I'm not sure where that setup with a close projector, but a distant detector would be helpful, but who knows.
Instead of using an optical delay (around 9:45 in video), could one keep the intensifier running at some frame rate and calibrate the timing of the electronic signal arrival and intensifier activation by building an image from a "reference object?" By using a known reference object and determining the best "focus" of the reference, one could know the time differential of optical and electronic signal arrivals. Put the camera frame rate (200,000 per second was mentioned as possible), to intercept the signals with the intensifier running at said frame rate. Does that work? Is it easier than calibrating an optical delay? Or, is the light source not periodic enough that one loses too many photons due to the "slow" intensifier frame rate such that this scheme is not worthwhile compared to the optical delay scheme?
all entangled pairs are correlated. The point he wanted to emphasize is that you just need photons with correlation. Creating entangled pairs is an easy way to know for sure that your photons are correlated.
Entangled photons are correlated, but correlated photons are not necessarily entangled. Entangled means that there is some quantum connection between the photons, like photons that are generated in the same nonlinear crystal. Correlated means that there is a known relation between the photons. Parallel beams of light from two laser pointers are correlated, but not entangled, because if you measure one beam, you know the state of the other beam.
Fantastic explanation
best shit I've seen
One thing that occurred to me when watching this is that the resolution of the image is independent of how far away the detector is from the object, in the configuration where the object is illuminated with the patterns. Of course, you might need a telescope or other optical devices to increase the signal to noise ratio at the detector.
I'm not sure where that setup with a close projector, but a distant detector would be helpful, but who knows.
Instead of using an optical delay (around 9:45 in video), could one keep the intensifier running at some frame rate and calibrate the timing of the electronic signal arrival and intensifier activation by building an image from a "reference object?" By using a known reference object and determining the best "focus" of the reference, one could know the time differential of optical and electronic signal arrivals. Put the camera frame rate (200,000 per second was mentioned as possible), to intercept the signals with the intensifier running at said frame rate. Does that work? Is it easier than calibrating an optical delay? Or, is the light source not periodic enough that one loses too many photons due to the "slow" intensifier frame rate such that this scheme is not worthwhile compared to the optical delay scheme?
Does any expert can explain, is that correlated pair of photons mean the same as those photons are entangled?
all entangled pairs are correlated. The point he wanted to emphasize is that you just need photons with correlation. Creating entangled pairs is an easy way to know for sure that your photons are correlated.
Entangled photons are correlated, but correlated photons are not necessarily entangled. Entangled means that there is some quantum connection between the photons, like photons that are generated in the same nonlinear crystal. Correlated means that there is a known relation between the photons. Parallel beams of light from two laser pointers are correlated, but not entangled, because if you measure one beam, you know the state of the other beam.