From the article: "This information, combined with the starting point of that object, allows its future positions to be calculated."
It doesn’t go into the details of recalibration, I’ll give you that.
It doesn’t go into the details of recalibration, I’ll give you that.
An underground navigation system based on triangulation of UWB cells would be a better solution than some nonstarter project the size of a refrigerator that requires liquid nitrogen.
Is that necessarily true of this quantum thing? I know nothing about it except this article, theoretically if it kept track of exact Plank lengths or something, then there would be no errors to accumulate, right? Lots of the things that seem intuitively true break down in weird ways when dealing with quantum effects.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/679991/which-is-...
TL;DR: this is a StackExchange question with 1 answer, noting it is indeterminate if a quantum gyroscope would be more accurate than a laser-atom-based one.
It looks like you rushed through and missed that in this context, TFA is describing an atom gyro.
That leaves conversation at a point where either A) we assume the scientist interviewed knows what they're doing, or B) following your unstated lead, assume they're a crackpot and the whole article is irrelevant because they're untrustworthy, and thus in an ideal world, there's 0 comments on the article.
All accelerometers tell you is the direction of the acceleration vector (ie how speed is changing and in which direction). You still have to add the individual vectors to derive where you actually are.
And if you don't sample fast enough and your acceleration has frequency components at frequency comparable to your sampling, the acceleration you measure may not reflect where you actually are (ref Nyquist sampling theorem)
Imagine sampling at 1hz, and you just happen to have a bump every 1 sec (eg your wheel happens to have a flat spot and is turning at 1Hz), followed almost instantly later by a bump in the opposite direction. Your sampling only sees (say) the +ve components, misses the -ve and accrues a bunch of error.
If you can sample fast enough, you can minimize this sort of error, but you can't really make it go away.
Oh, btw, if you make it work well enough you're considered munitions for export control purposes, so limits the number of countries you can sell to. Same reason civilian GPS units stop working somewhere around 1200mph
Sure, just show me a way to measure something in terms of "exact Planck lengths" and we're money.
Not really sure what to say, here.
So for a train with an offline positioning requirement, I'd suggest that an odometer based solution is close to ideal.
Don't know, just thinking out loud.
Regardless of material, dynamic friction is always lower than static friction. So for maximum acceleration and breaking it’s important to ensure you wheels stay in “rolling” mode of interaction, and don’t slip.
One big advantage of these atom interferometers is that they actually don't need to be recalibrated because the reference is the wavelength of the lasers which can be controlled with extreme precision.
A big disadvantage is however the limited repetition rate, which is on the order of only 1 Hz at the moment. Currently, combinations with "classical" IMUs seem most promising, and there is lots of interest in these devices for applications in planes, cars and spacecraft.