time being purely a consequence of entanglement. It states that the only reason that an object appears to change over time is because it is entangled with a clock.

Wtf. Which clock is this?

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Yeah. I read that multiple times and still have no idea what he’s talking about but it’s the most important part of the article

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago (5 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 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.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)