Perfectly accurate clocks turn out to be impossible

Perfectly accurate clocks turn out to be impossible
October 7, 2015

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Salvadore Dali has seen it in his dreams, now it is confirmed by physicists from the Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw: ideal clock is a fiction. Credit: MoMA
Can the passage of time be measured precisely, always and everywhere? The answer will upset many watchmakers. A team of physicists from the universities of Warsaw and Nottingham have just shown that when we are dealing with very large accelerations, no clock will actually be able to show the real passage of time, known as "proper time".

The ideal clock is merely a convenient fiction, as theorists from the University of Warsaw (UW) and University of Nottingham (UN) have shown. In a study published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity they demonstrate that in systems moving with enormous accelerations, building a clock that would precisely measure the passage of time is impossible for fundamental reasons.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-perfectly-accurate-clocks-impossible.html#jCp

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The article concludes with.......

"If our predictions are confirmed experimentally, many things related to our understanding of space-time, the passage of time, and its measurement methods will have to be rethought from scratch. It could be... interesting," concludes Dr. Dragan with a smile.

Hmmmm
Any thoughts on this possibility?

Here is the paper......
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/17/175003/meta

Abstract:
We show that no device built according to the rules of quantum field theory can measure proper time along its path. Highly accelerated quantum clocks experience the Unruh effect, which inevitably influences their time rate. This contradicts the concept of an ideal clock, whose rate should only depend on the instantaneous velocity.
______________________________________________

The paper is a "Purchase this article online"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does this conclusion not naturally arise from the uncertainty principle applied to the energy-time conjugate variables?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

insignificant.

 

...get/view Free @ : http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01025

...get/view Free .pdf @ : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.01025.pdf

 

Thanks...much appreciated.

 

again, insignificant.

 

If you mean the effect itself, than yes, probably correct. Still as referred to in the article, an effect that would have explained the t+10-43 seconds at the BB
extract;
Until now it has been assumed that the concepts of time and space may lose their traditional senses only when certain phenomena predicted by hypothetical theories of quantum gravity begin to play a vital role. It is believed that the necessary conditions prevailed in the vicinity of the Big Bang.

"In our paper, we show that for problems with the measurements of space-time to arise, such extreme conditions are not needed at all. Time, and therefore space, most likely cease to be accurately measurable even in today's Universe, provided that we try to carry out the measurements in systems moving with great acceleration," notes Dr. Dragan.

The results from the physicists from Warsaw and Nottingham mean that at sufficiently high accelerations, the operational capabilities of any theory built on the notion of time, and thus also space, will be disrupted. This raises interesting questions. If in extremely accelerating systems we cannot build a clock that measures time accurately, is this exclusively a fundamental flaw in our measurement methods? Or maybe something is happening directly to time itself? And do properties which cannot be measured accurately even make physical sense?

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-perfectly-accurate-clocks-impossible.html#jCp

 

...

 

Measurement of time is always relative to the state of motion, and in the presence of gravity, also relative to location within that field at rest.

Imagine two particles of matter of equal mass initially at rest with respect to each other. Gravity causes them to attract each other and they begin to move. As soon as they start moving, time dilates. If they coalesce into one mass, time continues to be dilated as an effect of their combined masses. Time proceeds at different rates EVERYWHERE.

Simultaneity is only possible in the case of events which are the same event viewed from different locations, or events which are entangled, the latter being the only mechanism that even affords the possibility of a mechanism for the measurement of time that is more stable than clocks based on the bulk transport of matter or energy that Special Relativity predicts. Entanglement has already been clocked to be a minimum 10k times the speed of light, possibly faster. This is well outside the application range of relativity, and sooner or later, this contradiction will need to be resolved.

 

Have you a link to that "entanglement" speed?
I'm not sure about the contradiction you speak of...perhaps you can elaborate?

 

Entangled pairs probably react instantly, however even that does not violate relativity.

 

The entanglement speed

The minimum 10K x c figure was reported in an earlier release of this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7410/full/nature11332.html

The distance record was broken by a team of Austrian researchers.

A satellite mission to test entanglement communications is in the works in China. A 'key' (pun intended) advance of this mission will be a test of the quantum entanglement distribution of public-key encryption. It will not be possible for intelligence agencies or anyone else to break this type of encryption. If you think this is a joke, think again. My particular technical expertise is in satellite telecommunication error correction coding. I was on the R&D team that brought the first rudimentary Hamming encoding to Intelsat Satellites, and the more advanced layered Viterbi codes many years later. A large portion of our team was Chinese, with PhDs in this area of technology. One of them worked with Mr. Viterbi himself at Linkabit.

How does this violate relativity?

Current definition of a "second" is to be found here:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

"A second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

A "hyperfine" transition is the flipping of the spin state of a bound electron. In the above referenced laboratory standard, the measurement is at rest with respect to a bound electron in cesium 133. The transition itself occurs faster than light, and we are only able to measure the energy of a photon emitted by this transition. The electron itself cannot move faster than light, obviously.

According to special relativity, no bulk propagation of energy or matter may occur at rates exceeding that of the speed of light in a vacuum. Even in the simple case of the transition of this bound electron, it isn't an entanglement state that has propagated, but a photon that is the result of the energy difference in spin for an unpaired electron. Because the energies are evidently different, entanglement states have energies associated with them, but some process other than bulk energy propagation is evidently involved in the transition itself. This is the contradiction.

 

It has nothing to do with relativity theory beyond not violating the axiom that information can't be transferred faster than c [the local invariant speed of light]. Folks keep trying.

 

Ummm, did I say it was a joke? I was simply wondering how you arrived at your figures. Don't be so paranoid.
I don't though accept that it violates relativity.

 

Transferring a public encryption key via entanglement is an experiment designed to settle exactly that issue.

 

It's not that I'm paranoid. My concern is that the satellite R&D that Comsat Labs used to do is now being done exclusively in China, and that in turn is due to the political manipulation of Lockheed Corporation who pressured congress to change the Communications Satellite Act of 1963 so that Lockheed could act as U.S signatory to Intelsat. Lockheed was interested in using our satellite engineering expertise to extend Reagan's Star Wars to a NATO sponsored missile defense shield (a prospect which made me physically ill the day I decided to leave), but had not the slightest grasp of the value of technology they just threw away because they had no idea what it was for. Now this technology has the potential to secure telecommunications in a complete and final technological encryption masterstroke, courtesy of China.

Lockheed's top management has always been from the ranks of the military. They haven't a clue about what technologies are really important. Imagine how their performance on the battlefield will suffer when their encryption is broken and their opponent's military and government communications are perfectly secure.

But if I wanted to be paranoid about security, who just hacked all of our government computers with the greatest of ease? They sold our government the cheap routers with backdoors that made hacking any of their facilities so easy. A blind hacker would have expected that shoe to drop, with or without a cane. Forget convoluted security clearance processes; the main threat to any security system is raw unmitigated stupidity.

 

From Origin Post #12

The above seems analogous to knowing that one spouse from a heterosexual married couple is arriving on an airplane or space ship. When a woman arrives, we immediately know that the distant spouse is a male.

I think that there is a theorem (Bell’s?) which deals with a more complex situation that suggests non-locality of information. At least one proof of the theorem involves comparing two random sequences of information with a hypothetical third random sequence which is never measured because it does not actually exist.

The above proof seems controversial at best, if not down right flawed. The proof I am referring to might be a dumbed down version of a more valid proof.

 

That is much better than the one I have used: A very thick coin (sides good part of light year apart), is flipped by huge giant - when he sees the side up is tails he instantly know the distant side is heads. Thanks.

 

However the information travelled only at the speed of the plane so this obviously does not violate relativity in the way entanglement has often been said to.