From flashing fireflies to cheering crowds: secrets of synchronisation
Physicists from Trinity have unlocked the secret that explains how large groups of individual “oscillators”—from flashing fireflies to cheering crowds, and from ticking clocks to clicking metronomes—tend to synchronize when in each other’s company.
Their work, just published in the journal Physical Review Research, provides a mathematical basis for a phenomenon that has perplexed millions—their newly developed equations help explain how individual randomness seen in the natural world and in electrical and computer systems can give rise to synchronization.
We have long known that when one clock runs slightly faster than another, physically connecting them can make them tick in time. But making a large assembly of clocks synchronize in this way was thought to be much more difficult—or even impossible, if there are too many of them.
The Trinity researchers work, however, explains that synchronization can occur, even in very large assemblies of clocks.
Dr. Paul Eastham, Naughton Associate Professor in Physics at Trinity, said:
“The equations we have developed describe an assembly of laser-like devices—acting as our ‘oscillating clocks’—and they essentially unlock the secret to synchronization. These same equations describe many other kinds of oscillators, however, showing that synchronization is more readily achieved in many systems than was previously thought.
Many things that exhibit repetitive behavior can be considered clocks, from flashing fireflies and applauding crowds to electrical circuits, metronomes, and lasers. Independently they will oscillate at slightly different rates, but when they are formed into an assembly their mutual influences can overcome that variation.”
This new discovery has a suite of potential applications, including developing new types of computer technology that uses light signals to process information.
See more here: phys.org
Header image: DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043092
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
The directional drive of the universe is to equilibrium, not entropy.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Herb,
Well, that statement seems self-contradictory:
One can think of ‘The Ultimate Equilibrium’ as the state of ‘Infinite Entropy’ — nothing changes because nothing can…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
I’ve always thought of entropy as a system going from a ordered (uniform) sate to a random disordered state. Instead planets orbiting a sun in a predictable way they would have random paths and velocities. Entropy is the opposite of uniform.
Herb
Reply
gerald brennan
| #
This may also help explain the mechanism of contagion. For those skeptical of the ‘germ theory.’
Reply
Lorraine
| #
Hormonal synchronization happens when women live in the same household or spend a great deal of time in close proximity, menstrual cycles are in sync. Has that relationship been explored?
Reply
dnomsed
| #
Very simple, really.
Vibrations, oscillations, waves of different types connect the individual oscillators. These then gradually adjust, synchronise the oscillators, until all run in tune.
This can be seen in Huygens clock experiment, for instance.
Reply
JaKo
| #
This, IMHO, is another sample of the world which surrounds us and we have no bloody clue about. I think the disrespect some have for the early philosophers and explorers is just a proof of our arrogance as permitted by our real ignorance — failing to deduce that increased knowledge should induce more uncertainty.
Further, anyone who tries to propagate a more open-minded point of view is vilified by the authorities, as it endangers the ‘scientific-consensus’ of their perpetual racket — seeking wealth or tyrannical powers…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo,
“philosophers and explorers” It seems you equate these two very different people. “Explorers have always risked their lives and philosophers never have as they endlessly argue both sides of something which can be absolutely wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry,
I didn’t mean my statement to be a trap to catch you 😉
I should have stressed this as a broad range rather than conflate the delimiters into one package, thanks for pointing this out.
I still think this does not alter the main course of my comment, that was the question of whether we can ever say we have a sufficient knowledge of our reality…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply