this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
195 points (92.2% liked)

science

14858 readers
246 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They mean something that can be used to mark change, they mean clock in the purely physics sense... but don't worry, you're probably not dumb, these articles are so horrible at communicating theoretical physics ideas it might as well be abstract, new-age greeting cards.

[–] Waltzy@feddit.uk 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I also figured that they meant entangled with some system that can mark change, but change is only possible with a concept of time. So I still don't follow.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think they mean that a quantum system entangled with another quantum system serving as a clock will create the appearance of classical physics including classical notions of time in the system when you observe it from a macro scale?

That way this theory tries to bridge the gap between quantum notions of spacetime and classical notions of space and time?

If that's not what it is then it's beyond me what they're trying to say.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Science article writers try not to fudge over lack of understanding of physics by writing "quantum" over everything challenge: level - impossible.

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

“Probably not dumb” love the honest appraisal of unknown variables. I’m like the science fan in big hero 6. Not smart enough to do science but smart enough to enjoy it.

This clock concept is still so abstract I don’t know what the “clock” could possibly be or look like

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 7 points 5 months ago

In a very basic sense a "clock" is just a fixed oscillation. In CPUs, for instance, all your data is carried by bursts of electricity that you can think of like Morse code. Bits are delineated by the clock, which is one wire that lights up on a regular interval and does nothing else (the "clock signal"). Every other process uses that clock signal as a reference point to know when one piece of data ends and the next begins. Essentially the time between one clock signal and the next is one "frame" of CPU time and you'll usually have a few million or so of those every second.

So if we think of this in a physics sense instead of a computer science sense, a physics clock could be any particle or particle interaction that happens repeatedly on a regular schedule. It could even happen on an irregular schedule, there's no law saying the clock has to be consistent. I think it's probably on a regular schedule, but for all we know the pico-femto-Planck or whatever the basic unit of time ends up being defined as might have slight variance caused by who knows what. But the important idea to take away is that a "clock" in a fundamental sense is basically just any action that repeats. It could be or look like anything. Maybe time is tied to quantum foam fluctuations, or gravity in a general sense, or specifically the up quark doing something. I have no idea and I think this researcher probably doesn't either.