Researchers at Tohoku University have shown that linking quantum sensors in optimized networks can dramatically boost their sensitivity.
Uncovering dark matter, the invisible substance thought to bind galaxies together, remains one of the greatest mysteries in physics. While it cannot be directly observed or touched, scientists believe it leaves behind faint traces that might be captured using ultra-sensitive quantum instruments.
In a recent study, researchers at Tohoku University introduced a new approach to enhance the performance of quantum sensors by linking them in carefully engineered network configurations.
These sensors operate according to the laws of quantum physics, allowing them to detect incredibly subtle signals that traditional sensors would miss. With this improvement, the precise detection of the delicate clues associated with dark matter may soon become achievable.
The research centers on superconducting qubits, tiny electrical circuits that function at extremely low temperatures. Although these qubits are typically used to build quantum computers, the team adapted them into powerful quantum sensors. By connecting multiple superconducting qubits into optimized networks, the researchers found that the system could pick up weak dark matter signals much more effectively than a single sensor working alone—much like a coordinated team achieving more together than any one member could individually.
Testing Different Network Designs
The team tested different network patterns, such as ring, line, star, and fully connected graphs, using systems of four and nine qubits. They then applied variational quantum metrology (a method similar to training a machine-learning model) to optimize how the quantum states were prepared and measured. To refine the results, Bayesian estimation was used to filter out noise, much like sharpening a blurry image.
The findings were striking: optimized networks consistently outperformed traditional methods, even when realistic noise was introduced. This shows the approach can work on today’s quantum devices.
“Our goal was to figure out how to organize and fine-tune quantum sensors so they can detect dark matter more reliably,” said Dr. Le Bin Ho, lead author of the study. “The network structure plays a key role in enhancing sensitivity, and we’ve shown it can be done using relatively simple circuits.”
Beyond dark matter, these quantum sensor networks could advance technologies such as quantum radar, gravitational wave detection, and ultra-precise timekeeping. Furthermore, they may one day improve GPS accuracy, enhance brain imaging with MRI, or help detect hidden underground structures.
“This research shows that carefully designed quantum networks can push the boundaries of what is possible in precision measurement,” Dr. Ho added. “It opens the door to using quantum sensors not just in laboratories, but in real-world tools that require extreme sensitivity.”
Looking ahead, the team plans to extend this approach to larger networks and explore ways to make the sensors more resistant to noise.
Reference: “Optimized quantum sensor networks for ultralight dark matter detection” by Adriel I. Santoso and Le Bin Ho, 1 October 2025, Physical Review D.
DOI: 10.1103/rv43-54zq
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
12 Comments
Scientists Propose Quantum Network to Finally Detect Universe’s Mysterious Missing Substance.
VERY GOOD!
Scientists, please think deeply:
1. What is the difference between quantum networks and vortex networks?
2. Which is clearer in terms of the physical picture between quantum networks and vortex networks?
3. How do you understand the points and domains of topological vortices?
4. Are atoms, electrons, and quanta related to topological spin?
Quantum Materials, as a frontier field in contemporary condensed matter physics, suffer from ambiguity in their core concept “quantum” due to its lack of a strict definition. This leads to conceptual confusion for researchers in theoretical construction and experimental verification, and may even give rise to pseudoscientific issues (such as “observation alters reality” or “spooky action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement”). In contrast, Topological Materials, based on mathematical topological invariants, possess a clear physical framework. In particular, the strictly defined topological vortex and anti-vortex provide more precise theoretical tools for studying the hierarchical structure of matter.
——Excerpted from https://t.pineal.cn/blogs/4879/The-Disciplinary-Reconstruction-of-Replacing-Quantum-Materials-with-Topological-Materials.
5. From CP violation to parity violation, are the Physical Review series publications respecting science?
6. Is denying Natural Laws with Statistical Error because “observation alters reality” in quantum theory?
7. If a natural law can be violated, can it still be called the natural law?
Is denying Natural Laws by Statistical Error because “observation alters reality” in quantum theory?
I know what causes gravity – and where all the ‘unaccounted for’ energy comes from – and Youuuuuuuu, do not. (“you” being all of science)
I am writing it it now – and am quite sure science, largely, will reject it outright. I’m the guy that tells you the earth goes around the sun. And you have your whole efforts invested in what you were told.
You are right.
When we pursue the ultimate truth of all things, the space in which our bodies and all things exist may itself be the final and deepest puzzle we need to explore. This is not only the pursuit of physics, but also the most magnificent exploration of the origin of the universe by human reason.
Based on the Topological Vortex Theory (TVT), space is an uniformly incompressible physical entity, and space-time vortices are the products of topological phase transitions at critical points in space. They create all things and shape the world through spin and self-organization. Topological vortices are point defects in spacetime. Point defects not only affect thermodynamic processes, but are also the core of dynamic processes.
In today’s physics, some so-called peer-reviewed journals—including Physical Review Letters, Nature, Science, and others—stubbornly insist on and promote the following:
1. Even though θ and τ particles exhibit differences in experiments, physics can claim they are the same particle. This is science.
2. Even though topological vortices and antivortices have identical structures and opposite rotational directions, physics can define their structures and directions as entirely different. This is science.
3. Even though two sets of cobalt-60 rotate in opposite directions and experiments reveal asymmetry, physics can still define them as mirror images of each other. This is science.
4. Even though vortex structures are ubiquitous—from cosmic accretion disks to particle spins—physics must insist that vortex structures do not exist and require verification. Only the particles that like God, Demonic, or Angelic are the most fundamental structures of the universe. This is science.
5. Even though everything occupies space and maintains its existence in time, physics must still debate and insist on whether space exists and whether time is a figment of the human mind. This is science.
6. Even though space, with its non-stick, incompressible, and isotropic characteristics, provides a solid foundation for the development of physics, physics must still insist that the ideal fluid properties of space do not exist. This is science.
and go on.
Is this the counterintuitive science they widely promote? What are the shames? Contemporary physics and so-called peer-reviewed publications (including Physical Review Letters, Science, Nature, etc.) stubbornly believe that two sets of counter rotating cobalt-60 are two mirror images of each other, constructing a more shocking pseudoscientific theoretical framework in the history of science than the “geocentric model”. This pseudo scientific framework and system have seriously hindered scientific progress and social development.
For nearly a century, physics has been manipulated by this pseudo scientific theoretical system and the interest groups behind it, wasting a lot of manpower, funds, and time. A large amount of pseudo scientific research has been conducted, and countless pseudo scientific papers have been published, causing serious negative impacts on scientific and social progress, as well as humanistic development.
You are righ.
When we pursue the ultimate truth of all things, the space in which our bodies and all things exist may itself be the final and deepest puzzle we need to explore. This is not only the pursuit of physics, but also the most magnificent exploration of the origin of the universe by human reason.
Based on the Topological Vortex Theory (TVT), space is an uniformly incompressible physical entity, and space-time vortices are the products of topological phase transitions at critical points in space. They create all things and shape the world through spin and self-organization. Topological vortices are point defects in spacetime. Point defects not only affect thermodynamic processes, but are also the core of dynamic processes.
In today’s physics, some so-called peer-reviewed journals—including Physical Review Letters, Nature, Science, and others—stubbornly insist on and promote the following:
1. Even though θ and τ particles exhibit differences in experiments, physics can claim they are the same particle. This is science.
2. Even though topological vortices and antivortices have identical structures and opposite rotational directions, physics can define their structures and directions as entirely different. This is science.
3. Even though two sets of cobalt-60 rotate in opposite directions and experiments reveal asymmetry, physics can still define them as mirror images of each other. This is science.
4. Even though vortex structures are ubiquitous—from cosmic accretion disks to particle spins—physics must insist that vortex structures do not exist and require verification. Only the particles that like God, Demonic, or Angelic are the most fundamental structures of the universe. This is science.
5. Even though everything occupies space and maintains its existence in time, physics must still debate and insist on whether space exists and whether time is a figment of the human mind. This is science.
6. Even though space, with its non-stick, incompressible, and isotropic characteristics, provides a solid foundation for the development of physics, physics must still insist that the ideal fluid properties of space do not exist. This is science.
and go on.
Is this the counterintuitive science they widely promote? What are the shames? Contemporary physics and so-called peer-reviewed publications (including Physical Review Letters, Science, Nature, etc.) stubbornly believe that two sets of counter rotating cobalt-60 are two mirror images of each other, constructing a more shocking pseudoscientific theoretical framework in the history of science than the “geocentric model”. This pseudo scientific framework and system have seriously hindered scientific progress and social development.
For nearly a century, physics has been manipulated by this pseudo scientific theoretical system and the interest groups behind it, wasting a lot of manpower, funds, and time. A large amount of pseudo scientific research has been conducted, and countless pseudo scientific papers have been published, causing serious negative impacts on scientific and social progress, as well as humanistic development.
I’m only here to write a comment.
Me too.
fusion of a byomiter algorithms from mhz of er from satellite dishes. observatories in Alaska would be my question…. if you arbinize the algeriothms from the fusions it could be studied with inverting the fusion
Einstein compromised the special relativity energy calculation in order to preserve the principle of energy conservation. He assumed energy conservation is fundamental and necessary. However, the corrected relativity form proposed by Osiak, that doesn’t conserve energy, conserves something else that’s more fundamental and important, and can account for all phenomena that are constrained by energy conservation considerations in traditional relativistic physics. That leaves unconserved energy in relativistic collisions to fuel cosmic inflation in the very hot early universe and a continuing lesser, decaying expansion to the present.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1FhR34Awe0&t=46s
Cosmologists can assess viability of the corrected relativity dark energy model by simply modifying the relativistic energy formula in early-universe and other large-scale cosmological computer models. Also, there is a low-cost table-top experiment that determine whether the traditional or proposed corrected relativistic energy expressions is correct.
Dark matter is understandable in the corrected relativity framework as a difference of inertial and gravitational mas. This difference can arise only in the corrected relativity framework and if the Harari and Shupe model of quarks and leptons and bosons as matter-antimatter composite objects (of “preons”) is correct. Validating the corrected relativity version will make the Harari-Shupe theory more plausible and possibly lead to new approaches for detecting preons. Rough calculation of the the amount of dark matter expected according to the Harari-Shupe-Osiak model can be easily done and obtain good agreement with observations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7I52_VpE9A
Physics is 100% solved, and dark matter never existed and is a made-up lie to cover for bad math.
Dark matter work and dark energy work and neutrino work on this planet is 100% wasted everything from day one as none of them are what humans think..dark = 0 and neutrino is an echo sound effect of shedding dipoles…so have zero mass and not important and 100% wasted resources on wrong things like quantum computers Obsolete as can be.
Peter whitlock Motion First Physics (MFP) and the Whitlock Field Equation (WFE)