With SONAR, the transmitted sound source is also being received at the same point which allows for the intended measurement. This generalizes that method to a source being captured by a sink in any point in the predefined 3D space. I’d say it’s far more flexible as an emerging technology that sticking with something like SONAR which is primarily used for water-specific applications.
In no way am I qualified to talk about this with any sort of certainty, but I have been studying EE for the past 2 years and live in a house with a physicist who is probably far more well read in this topic. Classical computers are nice because they are predictable; if you want to order some product online, it would't be very helpful if the bit stream of data coming into your computer was fuzzy and muddled, making it hard to tell a 0 or a 1 apart. Quantum computing takes advantage of quantum properties such as the uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement to store bits in a state of being either a 0 or 1 until we "observe" the bit coming through (quantum bits -> qubit). This allows for algorithms, experiments, and other things quantum to be ran much faster than any classical computer since it can encode more data into a single bit. To minimize the fuzz in a q-computer, they freeze the sh*t out of it to keep the energy at a minimum, along with using conducting materials which excel at conducting heat away (like diamonds). I believe the spin of an electron is what determines the qubit value and when used in conjunction with quantum entanglement will affect other electrons that are already entangled. My little knowledge ends here but with this thought on quantum entanglement, you can see how flipping bits values respectively can allow for more ways to store information with the same amount of "stuff" remaining constant vs. a classical computer.
I do understand where the confusion is stemming from, but taking the time to properly learn the clash between Leibniz and Lagrange is very important. It makes a lot of sense to use one versus the other in specific cases. You might be able to protest by saying there are certain cases where the differential operator is treated like a fraction, but not only would I call this a rarity but also a cheat to what is really happening (the chain rule comes to mind). I do think it's cool to think of analogies that could include notation changes for students in early calculus classes though.
Electrical engineer here. Sounds waves are called transverse waves because their displacement moves in the positive/negative y directions, which appears to give the impression that the wave is a single traveling particle. Instead the sum of the displacement creates the "traveling wave", which is similar to a wave an audience might do at a sporting event. I don't think this article did a great job describing what they meant by mass. I believe they blow the word "Phonon" a bit out of proportion. High energy physics is an incredibly hard topics where very few people are smart enough to read such a paper with confidence so these are just my humble thoughts.