195
submitted 3 months ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Can't even read it.

We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it.

"evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems"

Interesting. Is this related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) ? (Block Time)

[-] batmaniam@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

Bare with me here because I am not an expert. I think what they're getting is the same as how gravity doesn't exist. Vsauce did a great video on that, but the general notion is that because space time is curved, objects traveling in streight lines will appear to be drawn closer to one another. "Gravity" isn't fundamental, warping spacetime is. Nothing changed but our understanding of it, which does matter for some more complicated areas.

I think this is similar. Just like gravity "doesn't exisit", it's just an emergent phenomenon: they're saying so is time. They're saying time isn't fundemental, except that it's an expected phenomenon that would arise from other factors, those factors being proposed to be some entanglement crap I have zero ability to talk about.

And I'm putting some words in their mouth with "time isn't fundemental". What they're really doing is proposing a new definition that better fits observed phenomenon/models.

And still, none of this explains why we still have daylights savings time.

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

science

14352 readers
13 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS