Unlike conventional spectrometers, which rely on dispersing light or algorithmic reconstruction to recover spectra, the convolutional spectrometer physically performs a convolution operation on the incoming light. This is achieved using a simple cascade of optical components with periodic spectral responses, such as unbalanced Mach–Zehnder interferometers or micro-ring resonators.
I’ve worked with spectrometers and on spectrometry design before, and that quote from the article is intelligible. It’s also pretentious and poorly explained.
I’ve never worked with spectrometers but physics and chemistry were some of my strongest subjects, so it made some sense to me - but the sentence was definitely written with the intent to say “look peons, I know big science words you do not, and I can string them into a sentence you’ll question the legibility of”.
Is this thing a spectrometer or a fucking turbo encabulator?
I’ve worked with spectrometers and on spectrometry design before, and that quote from the article is intelligible. It’s also pretentious and poorly explained.
I’ve never worked with spectrometers but physics and chemistry were some of my strongest subjects, so it made some sense to me - but the sentence was definitely written with the intent to say “look peons, I know big science words you do not, and I can string them into a sentence you’ll question the legibility of”.
So, not bullshit?
Not bullshit. Just another poorly written popsci article promoting real research.
I literally went onto the comments to post this exact comment about that exact paragraph. Love to see another enjoyer of side fumble prevention.
Dat malleable logarithmic casing doe.