Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirimir | Hacker News Reader

So is this basically saying that time is quantized?

Or did we know (whatever that means) that already?

I don't think it's implying that, at least, I'm not seeing it. The notion of spacetime being quantized though is very much not a proven thing, but it is very interesting. Things like QECC popping up in physical process makes it even more interesting to some.

At any rate, I think this paper applies equally well if spacetime is quantized or continuous.

In what physical processes?

Around the event horizons of black holes, would be the big one.

I think it is saying that: if it is true that more precise measurements of time require more energy, then there is a limit to how precisely we can measure time, even in theory.

That's just about exactly what John Baez said about Plank length. So hey, it's space-time that's quantized. Makes sense to me.

If we are living in a simulation, time has to be quantized... at least if the simulating computer has a clock.

Planck time?

I guess. But IANAP. Maybe someone can comment whether Planck time is part of Ruiz et al. (2017).

This is one of my favorites discussion of the Planck scale, I'd strongly recommend it. https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-...

Indeed, very cool. Plus, John Baez commented:

> Another way to think about the Planck length is that if you try to measure the position of an object to within in accuracy of the Planck length, it takes approximately enough energy to create a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius is… the Planck length!

That sounds familiar, here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com