That is another matter altogether. Apple has that feature that limits the charge to 80%. Easily done. In fact, as we move to AI, we can create much more intelligent charging schemes that can be tailored to the user.
But when it comes to actual charge times, obviously less is better. Not sure why anyone in their right mind would get upset over lower times and claim that things are fine now. It's like fighting against electricity because you love your typewriter.
Android already does that, no AI required. Some fairly simple math is enough.
The device first charges to 80% and holds there. It also calculates how long it will need to charge from there to full and when it will need to resume charging so that it will hit 100% just before the next alarm goes off. Then it does that.
If it doesn't come at the expense of battery wear, then sure, lower charge time is just better. But that would make phone batteries the only batteries that don't get excessively stressed when fast charging. Yeah, phone manufacturers generally claim that fast charging is perfectly fine for the battery, but I'm not sure I believe them too much when battery degradation is one of the main reasons people buy new phones.
I have no clue how other manufacturers do it (so for all I know they could all be doing it right and actually use slow charging), but Google has a terrible implementation of battery conservation - Pixels just fast charge to 80%, then wait until some specific time before the alarm, then fast charge the rest. Compare that to a crappy Lenovo IdeaPad laptop I have that has a battery conservation feature that sets a charge limit AND a power limit (60% with 25W charging), because it wouldn't make sense to limit the charge and still use full 65W for charging.
That exists. It's called adaptive charging. If you have a modern Pixel: Just set an alarm before plugging the phone in, and it will slow the charge to hit 100% when the alarm goes off. I don't know what other phones have this feature but I'm pretty sure it's just part of Android 14 if the hardware is compatible.
It has been available in some form since Android 11. It's no longer limited to Pixels - my Motorola has a similar feature caller optimised charging, which doesn't even require alarms. LineageOS also has like 3 different ways to limit charging. In short, you definitely do not need root.
It doesn't slow charge, at least not on Pixel 7a. Well, you could argue whether 20W is slow charging, but it's all this phone can do.
It just charges normally to 80%, stops, and then resumes charging about an hour or two before the alarm. And last time I used it, it had a cool bug where if it fails to reach 80% by the point in time when it's supposed to resume charging, it will just stop charging no matter what the current charge level is. Since that experience, I just turned this feature off and charge it in whenever it starts running low.
time being purely a consequence of entanglement. It states that the only reason that an object appears to change over time is because it is entangled with a clock.
They mean something that can be used to mark change, they mean clock in the purely physics sense... but don't worry, you're probably not dumb, these articles are so horrible at communicating theoretical physics ideas it might as well be abstract, new-age greeting cards.
I also figured that they meant entangled with some system that can mark change, but change is only possible with a concept of time. So I still don't follow.
I think they mean that a quantum system entangled with another quantum system serving as a clock will create the appearance of classical physics including classical notions of time in the system when you observe it from a macro scale?
That way this theory tries to bridge the gap between quantum notions of spacetime and classical notions of space and time?
If that's not what it is then it's beyond me what they're trying to say.
“Probably not dumb” love the honest appraisal of unknown variables. I’m like the science fan in big hero 6. Not smart enough to do science but smart enough to enjoy it.
This clock concept is still so abstract I don’t know what the “clock” could possibly be or look like
In a very basic sense a "clock" is just a fixed oscillation. In CPUs, for instance, all your data is carried by bursts of electricity that you can think of like Morse code. Bits are delineated by the clock, which is one wire that lights up on a regular interval and does nothing else (the "clock signal"). Every other process uses that clock signal as a reference point to know when one piece of data ends and the next begins. Essentially the time between one clock signal and the next is one "frame" of CPU time and you'll usually have a few million or so of those every second.
So if we think of this in a physics sense instead of a computer science sense, a physics clock could be any particle or particle interaction that happens repeatedly on a regular schedule. It could even happen on an irregular schedule, there's no law saying the clock has to be consistent. I think it's probably on a regular schedule, but for all we know the pico-femto-Planck or whatever the basic unit of time ends up being defined as might have slight variance caused by who knows what. But the important idea to take away is that a "clock" in a fundamental sense is basically just any action that repeats. It could be or look like anything. Maybe time is tied to quantum foam fluctuations, or gravity in a general sense, or specifically the up quark doing something. I have no idea and I think this researcher probably doesn't either.
It has been a common belief in philosophical circles for centuries, but not among physicists. Both Newton and Einstein thought of time as being one of the fundamental properties of the physical universe.
However, in the past decade or two, some theoretical physicists have now come back around to the idea that space and time could instead be emergent properties of a deeper, underlying reality.
If you really want to go cross-eyed, read up on the holographic principle.
This is the crux of quantum field theory, no? Where Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are all entirely emergent properties of fields that are governed by quantum principles? I’m in the cross-eyed camp so I’m way out my depth.
"Einsteinian" physics do unfortunately not arise from quantum physical principles, which is the major flaw in our current understanding of the universe. Quantum physics is very applicable to the microcosm, but cannot accurately solve for the macrocosm, while it is the opposite for gravitational theory.
In relativity time is a real dimension like space , but of a different type, and your speed in time depends on your speed in space and on your proximity to big masses, like planets. This kind of physics is necessary to keep the satellites synchronised otherwise their clocks go at a different speed from those on earth, so this is all very real and confirmed.
The problem that shows exactly how tangled the problem is, is this: accelerating is the same as gravity.
Not "they feel the same" or "We can compare them" or " They're similar in many ways" no, I mean literally. They are the same thing. This has been proven.
The force that is making you stick the planet is the same as being in a car and driving constantly faster and faster forever.
If this makes zero sense to you, that's good, it means you're human. But it also means that our vision of the universe is radically different than whatever kind of objective reality is out there, if there is one.
(What gives is time. Time is what's changing when you move through space AND when in a gravitational field. You can also study this field for decades and barely come closer to being able to visualize it. Our brains were not meant.)
But this is consistent with what i said? Not moving and no mass = frozen in spacetime. Which is why it needed big bang as external factor to spread spacetime (i.e. change to unchanging environment). Right?
You're always moving at the speed of light through time. When you accelerate, you are borrowing from your speed through time and converting it to speed through space. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. The faster you move through time, the slower you move through space.
Time passes more slowly for you than for an outside observer, e.g., if you are moving to some place, for someone on the outside, your journey could take decades, while for yourself only minutes pass.
Objects with no mass traveling at light speed in a vacuum don't experience time.
A photon, traveling through a vacuum for forty years, from its perspective, leaves the instant it arrives.
Likewise, if you can travel at the speed of light for forty years and came back to earth, your twin would age forty years and you wouldn't age at all.
At a much smaller scale we have to use time dilation to keep clocks in space running at the same time as clocks on Earth. Because in geosynchronous orbit they are traveling faster than objects on the ground.
That's another great question that unlocks another incredibly strange point about reality.
You're only moving faster/slower through space/time to an outside observer. Your own rate of time and your own velocity through space will always feel centered on you, and it will always look like the rest of the universe that is slowing or accelerating.
And in fact, another mind-melty point behind relativity is that if you jump out of a 20th story window, there is no action that says you're falling, instead the action is saying that you have changed your velocity (or altered Earth's velocity in respect to your acceleration) and now the rest of the world is passing you very rapidly. It would feel like Earth and the building and everything else is wooshing past you while you stand still. And that's a correct perspective. It is rushing past you, you are sitting still in space. (The problem comes when that wall of asphalt and dirt swings past and doesn't miss you.)
If you fall into a black hole where spacetime is distorted as far as we can imagine, to you nothing will feel different (at first) you will see the whole universe seem to roll into a tight ball behind you and it will look like it's in rapid-motion if you pointed a telescope into it, you would see stars being born and galaxies fading and the entire future of the universe will rush past and you will hit the singularity at the death of the back hole, some billions and billions and of years into the future. If you could magically escape right before you get pulled apart, you would find the entire universe has died outside and all the stars have gone out.
In the article, they show a iPhone 15 Pro, which has a 3274 mAh battery, so let's go with that. Assuming a 3.7 V battery and a 1 minute charging time, that's 3274 mAh × 3.7 V / 1 min ≈ 727 W.
We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it.
"evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems"
Bare with me here because I am not an expert. I think what they're getting is the same as how gravity doesn't exist. Vsauce did a great video on that, but the general notion is that because space time is curved, objects traveling in streight lines will appear to be drawn closer to one another. "Gravity" isn't fundamental, warping spacetime is. Nothing changed but our understanding of it, which does matter for some more complicated areas.
I think this is similar. Just like gravity "doesn't exisit", it's just an emergent phenomenon: they're saying so is time. They're saying time isn't fundemental, except that it's an expected phenomenon that would arise from other factors, those factors being proposed to be some entanglement crap I have zero ability to talk about.
And I'm putting some words in their mouth with "time isn't fundemental". What they're really doing is proposing a new definition that better fits observed phenomenon/models.
And still, none of this explains why we still have daylights savings time.
This is the original paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.13386
I, uh, studied quantum physics at the undergraduate level several years ago and can confidently say that I am thoroughly lost trying to understand what they are talking about.
I consider myself a science enthusiast, having studied it a bit and following the news. I'm not at all an expert, and don't contribute to science, but I like to think I know about science. I thought I understood quantum entanglement, but I'm lost when they start talking about measuring the particles without entangling with them.
The best I can come up with is that this new theory suggests that what we perceive as time is just our observation that things change state in a way that seems like a linear progression but the state change observed is due to particles being entangled/interconnected (?) and not as a consequence of time as some sort of force. Then and now are illusory mechanisms of coping with non-illusory change of our surroundings but that coping mechanism/perception isn't a physical thing that is an underlying cause of the change we observe (because it's being caused by subatomic particles being instantly affected by their entangled partner particles elsewhere in physical space)?
I am in a car driving 100km at an average of 50km/h and get to my destination having experienced 2 hours of time. I am in a car driving the same 100km in the opposite direction at a average of 100km/h and get to my destination having experienced 1 hour of time. The same trip driving slower means my experience is more time passing across the same distance (time passes at an accelerated rate for me, comparatively), and driving faster means I experience less time passing across the same distance (time passes at a decelerated rate for me, comparatively) - given that both things are taking place in the same place, obviously it isn't time that is changing to cause my differing experiences of how much time passes, it's my physical actions that explain my differing experiences of how much time passes. I think they're saying that this holds true for entangled particles anywhere - what is perceived as relative time differences is actually just an observation of things behaving comparatively differently in the physical sense?
bgr.com
Oldest