My MIT Tech Review Comment: Resolution of Infrared Detectors

Over at MIT's The Physics arXiv Blog, there's an article talking about a new development of an infrared detector. The basic idea is that they're using a four-wave mixing process to upconvert the infrared wavelengths to the visible spectrum. In my mind, that's heterodyning. They're mixing several wavelengths together inside of some rubidium atoms and one of the output wavelengths occurs in the visible spectrum. From that point, they pass the signal to a normal visible light image processor (CCD, CMOS, whatever) and VIOLA! (Yes, I meant to say "Viola!" It's a joke. No comentz on me porr speeling. Kay?)

Now take a look at the image. The first few lines were created with a normal visible camera; the last line was created using the above-discussed technique. Note that the last line is a bit fuzzier than the first ones. Here's how the MIT article explains this fuzziness (read "lower resolution"):

The technique clearly has some limitations, not least of which is the drop in resolution that this process causes. That's largely because of the motion of rubidium atoms in the gas, which must be heated to 140 degrees C.

I think they're getting too complicated with this explanation. How about the reason for the lower resolution is due to the fact that the original image was created using infrared wavelengths? Resolution, meaning the ability to resolve objects within an image, is related to wavelength. The longer the wavelength, the lower the resolution becomes. Infrared wavelengths are longer than visible light. Hence, it makes sense that an infrared wavelength image is going to be lower resolution than one made using visible light.
This was going to be the comment that I was going to leave at the MIT Tech Review site, but I decided not to.

Why MIT's Technology Review Has a Dearth of Comments

I follow MIT's Technology Review. It's a pretty decent website for all-things-tech. One thing I don't like, however, is their system for commenting. One of my favorite blogs, The Sensuous Curmudgeon, has a very simple method for adding comments. You type in your comment, give it an e-mail address and the "name" by which you want to be known, and click "Submit". Done. No muss, no fuss.

MIT's system, on the other hand, is far more arduous. First, you have to sign in with an account. They give you the "option" of signing in with your Facebook (blech), Twitter, Google, or Yahoo! account. Since I'm here, I already have a Google account. I signed into that thinking that would then allow me to post a comment. Wrong! No, as shown by the image above, once I've signed in with my Google account, I still have to create a "Technology Review" account. Put simply, WTF!?!?! You want two accounts for anyone to post a comment? I thought MIT was supposed to be the bastion of high tech. Apparently, their website didn't get that memo. Now they're a bastion of high bureaucracy.
Whatever, MIT. Keep your web site. I'll post my comments here.