Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is there really 100 tredicillion Planck Time seconds each second?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,429 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 20 January 2017 - 10:17 AM

There was a discussion on the radio a while ago about whether math is invented or discovered. One of the guests proposed the idea of an alien intelligence based on fluid forms rather than solid bodies - to them, the ideas related to real numbers and even calculus might be intuitively obvious but then one of their greatest minds comes up with the shocking and difficult-to-grasp concept of "integers" ...


  • 1

#22 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 7,478 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 20 January 2017 - 01:10 PM

There was a discussion on the radio a while ago about whether math is invented or discovered. One of the guests proposed the idea of an alien intelligence based on fluid forms rather than solid bodies - to them, the ideas related to real numbers and even calculus might be intuitively obvious but then one of their greatest minds comes up with the shocking and difficult-to-grasp concept of "integers" ...

 

Yes that's the sort of thing I meant exactly.  And that radio programme sounds like "in our time" - or something equally as good; do you have a link? or name?


  • 0

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

 

feel free to click the green arrow  ---->

 


#23 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,429 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 20 January 2017 - 01:17 PM

 

Yes that's the sort of thing I meant exactly.  And that radio programme sounds like "in our time" - or something equally as good; do you have a link? or name?

 

 

I think you are probably right. It might have been this one (haven't had a chance to listen again to check): 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/p0054799


  • 0

#24 SciNoodle

SciNoodle

    Quark

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 21 January 2017 - 04:29 AM

Let's do a thought experiment here:

 

If we speed-up an atom to 99-percent light-speed, it would at least travel a distance that could fit around Earth 2 times in 1 second, agree?

 

And can we agree that, when we "shoot" the atom out, at the Starting line, and when it reaches the Finish line (after 1 second), that it will have passed trillions of atoms? 400 million hydrogen atoms an fit in an inch, a ruler is like billions. Our atom went far, indeed.

 

And can we agree that atoms have been seen under microscopes where they aren't perfectly aligned with each-other like a atomic-grid? For example, if you make an L made of 3 atoms, and push the top atom over so it's a triangle, that is un-alignment, even over a crack.

 

--- This means our fired atom not only passes trillions of atoms, but also manyyyy many protons. So instead of saying it passes trillions (of atoms), we should say it passes like quintillions. That right there means there is quintillions of instances/moments/computational-ness each second for a computing transistor!


  • 0

#25 Endy0816

Endy0816

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,020 posts
  • LocationOrlando

Posted 21 January 2017 - 06:22 AM

How are you envisioning this atom interacting with other atoms?

 

They are looking at using wave phenomenon for computing. Probably along the lines of what you are imagining in terms of what it will be capable of.


  • 0

#26 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 7,478 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 21 January 2017 - 08:52 AM

Regarding speed of transitions from on to off - we can (in very special circumstances) already work with spin flips and the hyperfine transition (which in simple terms is spin parallel to spin anti-parallel). 

 

I just don't know the answer to this question - but how quickly can an electron flip?   In a caesium atom it can do it just under 10 billion times a second - and I believe that in a rubidium atom it is significantly quicker.  The energy levels involved are also miniscule (fractions of an electron volt).

 

Funnily enough the hyperfine transition straddles both branches of this thread; it was deemed basic enough and so unambiguously representable that it was included by Drake and Sagan on the Pioneer plaque.  If I remember correctly it is the hyperfine transition time of hydrogen which the plaque uses to provide humanity's notions of both time and distance - the line for distance is 21 and a bit centimetres which is how long light travels for one cycle of transition


  • 0

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

 

feel free to click the green arrow  ---->

 


#27 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 6,116 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 21 January 2017 - 09:09 AM

Regarding speed of transitions from on to off - we can (in very special circumstances) already work with spin flips and the hyperfine transition (which in simple terms is spin parallel to spin anti-parallel). 

 

I just don't know the answer to this question - but how quickly can an electron flip?   In a caesium atom it can do it just under 10 billion times a second - and I believe that in a rubidium atom it is significantly quicker.  The energy levels involved are also miniscule (fractions of an electron volt).

 

Funnily enough the hyperfine transition straddles both branches of this thread; it was deemed basic enough and so unambiguously representable that it was included by Drake and Sagan on the Pioneer plaque.  If I remember correctly it is the hyperfine transition time of hydrogen which the plaque uses to provide humanity's notions of both time and distance - the line for distance is 21 and a bit centimetres which is how long light travels for one cycle of transition

The successor, I think, will be ones based on strontium.

 

 

 

In optical lattice clocks strontium atoms are trapped in the interference pattern of two laser beams. In this so called “optical lattice”, the atomic “pendulum”, i.e. the absorption frequency of the atoms, can then be determined very precisely – currently with an accuracy of 17 digits.      http://www.ptb.de/cm...tice-clock.html

This means that the time difference at a 1cm difference in elevation can be measured and won't gain or lose a second in 15 billion years!


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination


#28 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,429 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 21 January 2017 - 10:25 AM

Let's do a thought experiment here:

 

If we speed-up an atom to 99-percent light-speed, it would at least travel a distance that could fit around Earth 2 times in 1 second, agree?

 

And can we agree that, when we "shoot" the atom out, at the Starting line, and when it reaches the Finish line (after 1 second), that it will have passed trillions of atoms? 400 million hydrogen atoms an fit in an inch, a ruler is like billions. Our atom went far, indeed.

 

And can we agree that atoms have been seen under microscopes where they aren't perfectly aligned with each-other like a atomic-grid? For example, if you make an L made of 3 atoms, and push the top atom over so it's a triangle, that is un-alignment, even over a crack.

 

--- This means our fired atom not only passes trillions of atoms, but also manyyyy many protons. So instead of saying it passes trillions (of atoms), we should say it passes like quintillions. That right there means there is quintillions of instances/moments/computational-ness each second for a computing transistor!

 

 

But there are things smaller than atoms and proteins, so what is the point of using them to measure the distance travelled?


  • 0

#29 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 7,478 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 21 January 2017 - 10:42 AM

The successor, I think, will be ones based on strontium.

 

This means that the time difference at a 1cm difference in elevation can be measured and won't gain or lose a second in 15 billion years!

 

Rubidium Fountains can already exhibit mid 10^-17 of a second accuracy/stability for periods of a year - if I have read the paper correctly

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06776

 

These are functioning atomic clocks used for practical purposes

 

BTW - note the author


  • 2

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

 

feel free to click the green arrow  ---->

 


#30 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 16,556 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 21 January 2017 - 02:32 PM

BTW - note the author

 

For a dollar, I can put you in touch with this physicist. Actually touching him costs more.


  • 1

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken
 


God does have to keep the miracles going, or no one would believe that He is real.


#31 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 6,116 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 21 January 2017 - 09:59 PM

 

Rubidium Fountains can already exhibit mid 10^-17 of a second accuracy/stability for periods of a year - if I have read the paper correctly

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06776

 

These are functioning atomic clocks used for practical purposes

 

BTW - note the author

I think he said rubidium clocks are good for 20cm differences, which is still amazing in my book.


Edited by StringJunky, 21 January 2017 - 09:59 PM.

  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users