Suppose you carry a timetable of your daily routine with you. Whenever you look at the whole timetable, it’s the same; but if you just look at a random single line of the timetable, there’s a “clock observable” (words saying what time it is) and a “state of the universe observable” (words saying what activity should be happening at that time).
This experiment is “evidence” for the emergence of time from entanglement, to exactly the same degree that the experiment I just described, of looking at your daily schedule, is evidence for time being relational. They have a global superposition which remains the same over time, but in which the observed state of one part is correlated with the observed state of the other part.
The “physics arxiv blog” (which has no official relation to arxiv, it’s just someone describing random papers) is completely uncritical, and faithfully repeats whatever claims authors make about the meaning of their work.
So it sounds like you’re saying the details may all be correct but the high level interpretation of the results is significantly overreaching. Not too unexpected, I guess.
Suppose you carry a timetable of your daily routine with you. Whenever you look at the whole timetable, it’s the same; but if you just look at a random single line of the timetable, there’s a “clock observable” (words saying what time it is) and a “state of the universe observable” (words saying what activity should be happening at that time).
This experiment is “evidence” for the emergence of time from entanglement, to exactly the same degree that the experiment I just described, of looking at your daily schedule, is evidence for time being relational. They have a global superposition which remains the same over time, but in which the observed state of one part is correlated with the observed state of the other part.
The “physics arxiv blog” (which has no official relation to arxiv, it’s just someone describing random papers) is completely uncritical, and faithfully repeats whatever claims authors make about the meaning of their work.
So it sounds like you’re saying the details may all be correct but the high level interpretation of the results is significantly overreaching. Not too unexpected, I guess.