What makes tunnels so difficult to detect?
In: Technology
These two things are completely different, so we can’t really compare the technologies used.
To detect a tunnel you will need to send some kind of “pulse” into the ground, and detect a return. In the air we use radar (electromagnetic waves) but these don’t travel well in the ground.
So for the ground we usually use sound, which is also what we use under water. The sound travels until the ground material changes, at which point some of the sound will reflect (and we can detect the reflection) and some continues downwards. By measuring the time and ‘shape’ of the reflected sound we can make a good guess at the depth, and what materials are there.
So we can detect tunnels with this method in theory. The problem is that this kind of sound-based imaging has a very bad resolution. This means that it would be very easy to miss a small tunnel if it is more than a few meters deep.
Tunnels are hard to find because they can’t be seen directly.
One very close to the surface could be directly detected by thumping the ground and listening for a hollow sound, or poking the ground with a sharp probe and feeling for voids under the surface.
Worst case, if you suspect a tunnel you can dig down and see if you find one.
Observing a tunnel indirectly is harder. There are several technologies you can use, but they have limited range. You’d need a lot of tunnel sensors to search a large area for tunnels. Even now the easy way to map a cave or tunnel is generally to explore it directly.
X-ray photolithography isn’t useful for tunnel detection, so there’s a limited amount of overlap between chip creation and tunnel hunting.
That’s an apples to oranges comparison. Same as “we can go to the moon but we can’t explore the depths of the ocean”. In both my example and your question, they’re two very different things that require two very different types of technology.
Consider what sort of device or technique you’d use to detect tunnels? The only things I can think of are out of science fiction movies.
Apart from the obvious things like tunnels being underground and technological advances insanely benefit from being able to be made in lab conditions,
I think there is an even more important thing to learn here about false equivalents.
To compare tunnel detection and making nano-scale chips like that they’d need to have the same prerequisites (like finances flowing into it) or you’d at least have to statistically even them out.
Otherwise it’s like comparing two mma/boxing fighters but on in his prime and the other during his kindergarden age.
False equivalents can lead to confused questions like yours in the best case,
and in the worst they can be used as a tool of propaganda and misinformation.
And seeing your post history I’d really keeping that last point in mind.
Latest Answers