News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:As Clocks Get More Precise, Time Gets More Fuzzy by mablap on Saturday March 18, 2017 @07:57PM (#13904177)
You might have heard of the Uncertainty Principle? Basically it says that ΔxΔp ≥ ℏ/2. Well the principle is more general (look up Fourier analysis) and it can be shown that ΔtΔE ≥ ℏ/2 as well.
Re:As Clocks Get More Precise, Time Gets More Fuzzy by schoen on Saturday March 18, 2017 @08:01PM (#13904197)
Have a Unicode Δ and a Unicode ℏ for your future use!
Re:As Clocks Get More Precise, Time Gets More Fuzzy by mablap on Saturday March 18, 2017 @08:07PM (#13904233)
Hey, thank you. I have updated my comment :)
Re:As Clocks Get More Precise, Time Gets More Fuzzy by schoen on Saturday March 18, 2017 @09:03PM (#13904496)
Cool! Then let me also offer you a ≥ in lieu of your >=.
Re:As Clocks Get More Precise, Time Gets More Fuzzy by mirimir on Saturday March 18, 2017 @08:36PM (#13904379)
That's a different sort of "t", isn't it? As in the lifetime of a state, rather than a measurement of duration.
Re:As Clocks Get More Precise, Time Gets More Fuzzy by mablap on Saturday March 18, 2017 @09:14PM (#13904540)
It is indeed, because "time" is not an operator in QM, unlike H or x or p. But from my limited understanding of the time-energy uncertainty relation, you could (as you say) consider it a measure of lifetime - the time it takes for a change in E . So if you get a higher energy, you also should get less change in time, and thus you could probe smaller timeframes.

I might be wrong though. Someone shoot that argument down if you have to ;)

Re:As Clocks Get More Precise, Time Gets More Fuzzy by M_Grey on Sunday March 19, 2017 @11:44AM (#13907759)
The spacetime interval should be invariant across frames, so there should be a problem there.