These clocks depend dilute gasses of atoms. Usually the process for preparing and probing the atoms takes at least a few hundred milliseconds, and usually in the seconds range. There's a bunch of reasons for this, probably two main reasons IMO:
1. Generally for precision clocks you need "cold" or "ultracold" atoms (essentially random doppler shifts of hot atoms kill your accuracy). This means something like microkelvins - this is hard to prepare quickly. And atoms are constantly lost/heated due to collisions with stray gas molecules, even though the pressure is usually something like a quadrillion times lower than atmosphere. There's research into continuous ultracold atom sources, and you could prepare way more than you need and siphon a few off at a time, but both are technically challenging.
2. The way these clocks work is essentially you have some laser, and an atom that only reacts to laser light of a very specific frequency. If the laser frequency is off from the exact frequency you can tell. A variety of effects means that the measurement process takes some time. It's like trying to accurately measure your heart rate in 1s vs 10s - a lot easier to do in the latter case.
Nothing fundamental, just technically quite painful.
Just judging by the torque specs and comparing to a nema23 stepper, seems like it needs an order of magnitude more torque to compare. Note that in the comparison chart they compare to a nema11, which is tiny compared to the steppers used in most hobby cncs.
Well it depends on what your bar is for a monopoly. E.g. I can only use Comcast where I live. Comcast is not technically a monopoly - I could move somewhere else where other providers are available. But the friction to change is high enough that they effectively are a monopoly to me.
No company is a monopoly if you are flexible enough. Where antitrust starts to become relevant is a bit of an arbitrary line. If you think "mobile phones" is the industry then Apple does not have a monopoly. But there are many people who would put up with a lot before switching from iOS to Android, because of apps, iCloud, iMessaging, or whatever.
Definitely not a cubic function though, you can't get a polynomial to hit 0 that nicely. Any polynomial's leading order term will dominate as x increases. Unless they're using a super high order polynomial and hiding the blowup off the edge of the plot.
Interestingly, the 100m record difference is about 10%, which is roughly the same as the gap in the ultramarathon records (and in the record mile time). So the difference is fairly consistent across distances.
I'm pretty sure the way analog degrees are freedom are mapped onto symbols is very important. In principle, if you have infinite SNR over a limited bandwidth, you can have infinite rate of data transfer - e.g. if you can have infinitely fine voltage resolution (in reality limited by the thermal noise floor, but you can always increase transmit power). So in that sense the mapping between information and bandwidth depends on SNR.
From the wiki page on QAM: "Arbitrarily high spectral efficiencies can be achieved with QAM by setting a suitable constellation size, limited only by the noise level and linearity of the communications channel."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_amplitude_modulatio...]
If you’re talking about the i9-9900, it’s a very high clock frequency part with “only” 8 cores and part of the consumer line (no ecc support). I’d actually think most people who have it run Windows and use it for things like gaming.
I used to work on trapped ion experiments, and the limitation of the atom size was always the diffraction limit, which is limited by the NA of the lens (f-stop in camera terms) and the wavelength of light. In this case, the optical system (I'm guessing a camera lens) is designed for multiple wavelengths, so it might not reach the diffraction limit at the emission wavelength, which is like 400nm. In that case, the limit would be the aberration of the camera lens, which can be wavelength-dependent. Most camera lenses aren't designed for 400nm light, which is marginally visible.
In short, it's hard to classically model pretty simple quantum mechanical systems and sample the probability distribution of outcomes. Using a quantum computer to simulate the system and sample the probability distribution is easy.
Those numbers aren't that bad, actually. A cell phone's peak power draw isn't much more than 5W, so you'd need 10g / efficiency. At 10% efficiency, that's 100g, which is 5 cm^3 for plutonium. A cell phone battery is about 3 times that size, assuming 3000 mAh and an energy density of 600 Wh/L. Of course you'd have to build in a heat engine, but perhaps even a peltier would work given the generous efficiency allowance.
Indeed, that's accurate (apart from finite temperature and interaction effects). A BEC is in some ways pretty similar to a laser, where all the photons are in the same state, even quantum mechanically.
But it's important to distinguish between a BEC and a superfluid. Superfluids are the substances with strange collective properties, and these properties come from being cold, bosonic, and interacting. BECs with very low inter-particle interactions do not behave like superfluids, but will exhibit e.g. interference (just like a laser, which is kinda like a non-interacting BEC).
1. Generally for precision clocks you need "cold" or "ultracold" atoms (essentially random doppler shifts of hot atoms kill your accuracy). This means something like microkelvins - this is hard to prepare quickly. And atoms are constantly lost/heated due to collisions with stray gas molecules, even though the pressure is usually something like a quadrillion times lower than atmosphere. There's research into continuous ultracold atom sources, and you could prepare way more than you need and siphon a few off at a time, but both are technically challenging.
2. The way these clocks work is essentially you have some laser, and an atom that only reacts to laser light of a very specific frequency. If the laser frequency is off from the exact frequency you can tell. A variety of effects means that the measurement process takes some time. It's like trying to accurately measure your heart rate in 1s vs 10s - a lot easier to do in the latter case.
Nothing fundamental, just technically quite painful.