Talk:Ghost imaging

Unseen, etc.

Even though popular press is using phrases such as "images that are unseen", this is neither accurate nor explanatory. "Unseen" isn't accurate because light does hit an object and does hit a detector. It just doesn't happen in the same way as camera. Of course, it also doesn't help explain how the technology/science works. Therefore it should be avoided here. Jmattthew (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ghost imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513050042/http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13825-quantum-camera-snaps-objects-it-cannot-see.html to http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13825-quantum-camera-snaps-objects-it-cannot-see.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

More work needed to exploit new sources

The article now seems a bit too concise. In the light(!) of the emerging richness of this topic, more details from the recently added modern sources could be added to the article to enrich it. Layzeeboi (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)