3 ms·
Sure. The article implies that post-entanglement, perturbations of one particle's state will transfer to the other, which is not the case.
by andreareina 4y ago
Sure. The article implies that post-entanglement, perturbations of one particle's state will transfer to the other, which is not the case.
- tbrownaw 4y agoI don't think it does? Atomic clocks don't exactly count atomic oscillations the way a grandfather clock counts pendulum swings. They have a more normal oscillator, and then keep that calibrated by checking it against atomic oscillations measured over some relatively short time. Thirs is a way to let those repeated short measurements be more accurate. It doesn't mean that the oscillations of the atoms in both clocks are somehow locked together over the long term.
- andreareina 4y agoFTA (emphasis mine): Two atomic clocks have been connected using quantum entanglement – a property that intrinsically links them so that changes in one instantaneously affect the other. Paywall beyond there so I don't know how they entangled the clocks, I'm just responding to the popsci description of entanglement which the article repeats.
- tbrownaw 4y agoAh, that's the sketchy-at-best popular description of entanglement rather than anything to do with this experiment in particular. It's wrong in that it's meant for a lay audience, and to a lay audience (I think I've heard that the quantum folks define it differently?) the word "affect" implies things like causality and information transfer.