posted by
Woods
on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:04PM
from the things-that-are-really-big-and-really-small dept.
from the things-that-are-really-big-and-really-small dept.
Imagine connecting several atomic clocks with quantum entanglement to achieve great accuracy. It is extremely challenging, but sounds interesting. You can read the original paper in Nature physics or a short writeup on physics world. A short quote:
The resulting universal time standard would be more accurate than is currently possible with individual atomic clocks, and the network could also be used to do a range of fundamental and applied research, such as mapping the Earth's gravitational field or even testing new theories of gravity. While some of the technologies needed to build the network already exist, other elements still need further development.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:09PM
quark! quark!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:13PM
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Zinho on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:51PM
Is that joke still funny here?
In any case, I'm curious how this will affect NTP implementation. Would this allow remote synchronization of various primary time sources? Would it be worthwhile to reference different Stratum one time servers whose stratum 0 time sources are all in the same entangled network, or is that just redundant? It would be interesting if this became the standard for atomic clocks worldwide; a globally unified time standard would be an amazing feat to accomplish.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 20 2014, @12:34AM
Doesn't that require that gravity and rotational surface speed of the earth be the same all over in order to not mess up the clocks?
The world seems to be consistent and really connected. The reality is that it's a coherence with a latency of light speed. Sans entanglement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @09:32AM
That's why you define a reference point for the reference clock to be in sync with. That reference point is then used to define both timing and simultaneity. Clocks in another position/gravitational field situation then have to be adjusted to comply with the reference. For example, the GPS clocks are running "too slow", as considered from their own frame of reference, in order to correctly measure time down here on the surface.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday June 20 2014, @04:57PM
Well GPS will give you the same time globally far more accurately than NTP can convey (1us vs about 16us), so any improvement on that is fairly irrelevant.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Thursday June 19 2014, @07:45PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday June 19 2014, @08:45PM
Why would I care about that?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 19 2014, @09:00PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 20 2014, @12:37AM
If two clocks are entangled. And one if the clocks is present where a choice is made such that it ends up in another timeline in accordance with a new timeline for every choice in order to avoid the self-killing timetravel paradox. Will this end up with three clocks? or the first clock being affected by the timeline split?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Friday June 20 2014, @12:57AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈