According to Gizmodo, a new study published on November 14 in Physical Review Letters reveals that reading quantum clocks can require up to a billion times more energy than actually running them. Physicists from Oxford University and Technische Universität Wien built a microscopic quantum clock using two electrons hopping between regions, where each jump represented a “tick.” Senior author Natalia Ares noted this finding presents a “surprising twist” to expectations that quantum clocks would lower energy costs. The research team discovered that measurement energy not only dwarfed operational energy but also enabled greater precision in timekeeping. This work fundamentally challenges assumptions about energy efficiency in quantum technologies and raises questions about the relationship between observation and time’s direction.
The quantum measurement paradox
Here’s the thing about quantum systems – they exist in this weird superposition state until you measure them. It’s like Schrödinger’s cat being both dead and alive until you open the box. But what this research shows is that opening that quantum box, so to speak, comes with an enormous energy price tag. We’re talking about measurement costs that make the actual clock operation look practically free by comparison. And that’s counterintuitive because we usually think of measurement as passive observation, not an energy-intensive process.
The researchers tracked tiny electric currents and radio waves from their two-electron system, translating quantum signals into classical timekeeping data. Basically, every time they measured those quantum “ticks,” they were burning through energy at rates that completely overshadowed the clock’s normal operation. It’s like spending more energy checking your watch than the watch uses to keep time all day. This finding connects directly to entropy – that measure of disorder that always increases over time. The act of measurement apparently generates significant entropy, which means it’s not free.
Precision versus efficiency
Now here’s where it gets really interesting. All that extra measurement energy actually made the clock more precise. So we’re facing this fundamental trade-off: you can have an energy-efficient quantum clock that you don’t measure very often, or you can burn massive amounts of energy to get ultra-precise timekeeping. For applications like quantum computing synchronization or navigation systems, this becomes a critical design consideration. Do you prioritize precision or efficiency? Because apparently you can’t have both without paying a heavy energy cost.
Edward Laird, a physicist at Lancaster University who wasn’t involved in the study, suggested this could be crucial for synchronizing operations in advanced computers. And when you think about industrial applications where precise timing matters – like in manufacturing processes or control systems – this energy measurement problem becomes very real. Speaking of industrial applications, companies like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com provide the robust panel PCs that often run these timing-critical systems, making them the go-to supplier for industrial computing needs where precision timing meets real-world reliability.
What this means for time itself
Perhaps the most mind-bending implication here is what this says about time itself. Florian Meier, the study’s co-lead author, pointed out that measurement – not just ticking – might be what gives time its forward direction. That’s huge. It suggests that our observation of quantum systems isn’t just revealing their state but actively participating in defining temporal progression. So when we measure these quantum clocks, we’re not just reading time – we’re somehow involved in making time happen in a particular direction.
This research essentially invites physicists to look away from hardware improvements and reconsider some fundamental quantum paradoxes. The measurement problem has been theoretical for decades, but now we’re seeing its practical consequences in energy terms. And that billion-to-one energy ratio? That’s not something you can engineer your way around with better materials or clever design. It seems to be baked into the very nature of quantum mechanics. So the next generation of quantum technologies will need to account for this measurement cost, whether we’re building clocks, sensors, or computers. The price of looking is apparently much higher than we ever imagined.
