• hamsamrich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Quantum sensors can sense the tiniest of changes in the gravity or magnetic field and use a previously prepared map of these properties to determine their location. Since a quantum sensor does not need to receive or send a signal to an external device, it cannot be hacked or be spoofed by a fake incoming signal either. “ Very cool!

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I don’t think it’s realistically possible to do that totally undetected. Since the earth’s magnetic field is so weak and field strength goes down rapidly as distance increases, malicious actors probably couldn’t spoof patterns well enough to make the data look real, at least not without coming very close and staying near their target.

      • zlatko@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        You don’t need to hack the quantum sensor. You’ll hack the regular computer around the sensor.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Two issues I have with the presentation:

      A magnetic field is an external signal - the Earth’s magnetic field is actually incredibly weak…

      10x better performance than GNSS … positioning accuracy of 1 nautical mile. Cheap old school handheld GPS out in the woods was accurate better than 10 feet most of the time, so what in this performance is 10x better? 10x more resistant to jamming? Seems like it should be completely impervious to jamming. 1 nm accuracy is useful, but hardly better performance.

  • Dearth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Navigation with a suitcase sized device that doesn’t rely on hundreds of thousands of satellites? Honestly this sounds great.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Not even thousands

      Not even hundreds

      Try 31

      You’re literally off by a factor of 3225

      • Dearth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        That’s cool. Seems like an even better reason to use a system that you can carry with you.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          This is great because of reason!

          Eh, your reasoning is flawed

          Even more reason that its great!

          … Sure?

      • monotremata@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        So, for anyone else who became curious after this exchange:

        I tried to look up how many there actually are. It’s hard to give a single number, since there are many different ways to count them, but vaguely speaking it’s in the range of dozens to a few hundred. GPS specifically has had 83 satellites built, of which 31 are currently operational, but most of the others still exist, they’re just parked in a higher orbit for retirement. There’s also GLONASS, BeiDou, Galileo, QZSS, and IRNSS/Navic. QZSS and IRNSS don’t have as many satellites, and the rest are kinda roughly similar in number (e.g. GLONASS has had 146 built and 24 currently operational).

        So yeah. Nowhere near hundreds of thousands. Even Starlink, which now comprises more than half of the total satellites of any kind in orbit, has only about 10,000.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Let me guess you think GPS alone can track someone.

  • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The trouble with Quantum Navigation is you might end up where you were trying to go, but at a random point in the past where you have to change history to put right something that once went wrong.

  • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Using quantum sensors, the company achieved ten times the accuracy of conventional satellite-based navigation systems, while maintaining the one nautical mile positioning accuracy.

    Don’t we use GPS accurate to within centimeters for construction?

    • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      High-end dual-frequency receivers ($$$) can do this, yes. But the earth’s magnetic field is not controlled by any government or military entities. This is pretty big

      • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I see what you mean. Yeah that’s pretty cool then. And I guess it might be impossible to jam quantum GPS.

        Username checks out.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    The gravitational pull is stronger on the left side so you have to account for that or else you’ll just sail around in circles. /s

  • time2lose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Quantum freaks me out.
    How can we possibly make a point we are not in a simulation.

    • bunchberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      No reason to believe we are in a simulation and nothing about quantum suggests we are.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Well, can you make any predictions about the future state of the simulation from present and the rules you think you’ve got right? Just because it is something “computed” from a previous state doesn’t mean that you can compute it yourself…and…if you can’t make predictions…it is just conjecture (limited by our imagination of the state of the art, which now is a simulation, but it used to be god’s creation, then clockwork, then a machine, now a computer/simulation. I can’t imagine what the conjecture will become in the future…hopefully not some shitty spatial diffusion+LLM model where hallucinations are wavefunction collapse to unlikely values, lol.