Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

NOTES ON THE THEORY OF QUANTUM CLOCK

Igor E. Tralle, Juha-Pekka Pellonpää

Published Jan 1, 2005• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

In this paper we argue that the notion of time, whatever complicated and dicult to define as the philosophical category, from physicist’s point of view is nothing else but the sum of ’lapses of time’ measured by a proper clock. As far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned, we distinguish a special class of clocks, the ’atomic clocks’. It is because at atomic and subatomic level there is no other possibility to construct a ’unit of time’ or ’instant of time’ as to use the quantum transitions between chosen quantum states of a quantum object such as atoms, atomic nuclei and so on, to imitate the periodic circular motion of a clock hand over the dial. The clock synchronization problem is also discussed in the paper. We study the problem of defining a time dierence observable for two-mode oscillator system. We assume that the time difference obsevable is the dierence of two single-mode covariant

Related papers

The Problem of Time

Andrea Rau

Time – what it is and its nature – has from the beginning held mysteries for layman, philosopher, and physicist alike. Periodic phenomena from motions of heavenly bodies and pendulums to quantal atomic clocks provide the means to measure time intervals, and Newton’s absolute time is a background flow against which classical and non-relativistic quantum physics is played out. While internally consistent, these two fields of physics are incompatible with the requirement of treating space and time on an equal footing. Quantum field theories provide the answer, as both treated as parameters, physics residing instead in the states and operators. But even in classical physics and quantum mechanics, time-independent descriptions provide an alternative to an explicitly time-dependent one. These, including a general method of approach called invariant imbedding, are discussed as alternative representations of an underlying reality that is the concern of physics.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Sep 25, 2014•0 citations

Quantum formalism for events and how time can emerge from its foundations

Eduardo O. Dias

Although time is one of our most intuitive physical concepts, its understanding at the fundamental level is still an open question in physics. For instance, time in quantum mechanics and general relativity are two distinct and incompatible entities. While relativity deals with events (points in spacetime), with time being observer dependent and dynamical, quantum mechanics describes physical systems by treating time as an independent parameter. To resolve this conflict, in this work, we extend the classical concept of an event to the quantum domain by defining an event as a transfer of information between physical systems. Then, by describing the universe from the perspective of a certain observer, we introduce quantum states of events with space-time-symmetric wave functions that predict the joint probability distribution of a measurement (observation) at $(t,\stackrel{P\vec}{x})$. Under these circumstances, without assuming collapse, we propose that a well-defined instant of time, like any other observable, arises from a single event, thus being an observer-dependent property. In this manner, we obtain a stationary quantum state written as a sum of a sequence of normalized states of events with increasing memories. As a consequence, a counterfactual asymmetry along this sequence of events gives rise to the flow of time as being successive ``snapshots'' from the observer's perspective. In this proposal, which contrasts strikingly to the view in which time is an illusion, it is the many distinguishable states in which the observer stores information that makes the existence of time possible.

arXiv:2007.00513•Physical Review A•Jan 21, 2021•9 citations

Clocks And Dynamics In Quantum Mechanics

Michael J. York

We argue that (1) our perception of time through change and (2) the gap between reality and our observation of it are at the heart of both quantum mechanics and the dynamical mechanism of physical systems. We suggest that the origin of quantum uncertainty lies with the absence of infinities or infinitesimals in observational data and that our concept of time derives from observing changing data (events). We argue that the fundamentally important content of the Superposition Principle is not the "probability amplitude" of posterior state observation but future state availability conditional only on prior information. Since event detection also implies posterior conditions (e.g. a specific type of detectable event occurred) as well as prior conditions, the probabilities of detected outcomes are also conditional on properties of the posterior properties of the observation. Such posterior conditions cannot affect the prior state availabilities and this implies violation of counter-factual definiteness. A component of a quantum system may be chosen to represent a clock and changes in other components can then be expected to be correlated with clocks with which they are entangled. Instead of traditional time-dependent equations of motion we provide a specific mechanism whereby evolution of data is instead quasi-causally related to the relative \availability\ of states and equations of motion are expressed in terms of quantized clock variables. We also suggest that time-reversal symmetry-breaking in weak interactions is an artifice of a conventional choice of co-ordinate time-function. Analysis of a "free" particle suggests that conventional co-ordinate space-time emerges from how we measure the separation of objects and events.

arXiv:1405.1098•May 5, 2014•1 citation

Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition)

G. Mahler

Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Jun 17, 2004•4 citations

Measurement of time by quantum clocks

Asher Peres

A clock is a dynamical system which passes through a succession of states at constant time intervals. If coupled to another system, it can measure the duration of a physical process and even keep a permanent record of it, such as in a time-of-flight experiment or in observing the lifetime of an unstable atom. A clock can also be used to control the duration of a process, e.g., the precession of a spin in a magnetic field which is turned on and off at prescribed times. This article shows how to construct time-independent Hamiltonians describing these possible uses of a quantum clock. As expected, a good time resolution entails a large energy exchange between the clock and the other system, thereby modifying the evolution of the latter. This evolution may even be halted by using a clock which is too precise (this is the quantum analog of Zeno’s paradox).

American Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 1980•240 citations

Spacetime-covariant approach to inertial and accelerated quantum clocks in first quantization

E. A. Oliveira, André G. S. Landulfo

It is expected that a quantum theory of gravity will radically alter our current notion of spacetime geometry. However, contrary to what was commonly assumed for many decades, quantum gravity effects could manifest in scales much larger than the Planck scale, provided that there is enough coherence in the superposition of geometries. Quantum clocks, i.e. quantum mechanical systems whose internal dynamics can keep track of proper time lapses, are a very promising tool for probing such low-energy quantum gravity effects. In this work, we contribute to this subject by proposing a spacetime-covariant formalism to describe clocks in first quantization. In particular, we account for the possibility of dynamically accelerated clocks via suitable couplings with external fields. We find that a particular decomposition of the (quadratic) clock Hamiltonian into positive- and negative-mass sectors, when attainable, enables one to compute the evolution of the system directly in terms of the clock's proper time while maintaining explicit covariance. When this decomposition is possible, the evolution obtained is always unitary, even with couplings with external fields used to, e.g., accelerate the clocks. We then apply this formulation to compute the joint time evolution of a pair of quantum clocks in two cases: (i) inertial clocks with relative motion and (ii) charged clocks accelerated by a uniform magnetic field. In both cases, when our clocks are prepared in coherent states, we find that the density matrix $ρ_{τ_2|τ_1}$ describing time-measurements of the two clocks yields not only conditional probabilities whose peaks match exactly the classical expected values for time dilation, but also yields coherent quantum fluctuations around that peak, with a profile which is either (i) a pure Gaussian or (ii) a Gaussian combined with a periodic modulation.

arXiv:2508.05897•Physical review. D/Physical review. D.•Jan 21, 2026•1 citation
In this paper we argue that the notion of time, whatever complicated and dicult to define as the philosophical category, from physicist’s point of view is nothing else but the sum of ’lapses of time’ measured by a proper clock. As far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned, we distinguish a special class of clocks, the ’atomic clocks’. It is because at atomic and subatomic level there is no other possibility to construct a ’unit of time’ or ’instant of time’ as to use the quantum transitions between chosen quantum states of a quantum object such as atoms, atomic nuclei and so on, to imitate the periodic circular motion of a clock hand over the dial. The clock synchronization problem is also discussed in the paper. We study the problem of defining a time dierence observable for two-mode oscillator system. We assume that the time difference obsevable is the dierence of two single-mode covariant
Time – what it is and its nature – has from the beginning held mysteries for layman, philosopher, and physicist alike. Periodic phenomena from motions of heavenly bodies and pendulums to quantal atomic clocks provide the means to measure time intervals, and Newton’s absolute time is a background flow against which classical and non-relativistic quantum physics is played out. While internally consistent, these two fields of physics are incompatible with the requirement of treating space and time on an equal footing. Quantum field theories provide the answer, as both treated as parameters, physics residing instead in the states and operators. But even in classical physics and quantum mechanics, time-independent descriptions provide an alternative to an explicitly time-dependent one. These, including a general method of approach called invariant imbedding, are discussed as alternative representations of an underlying reality that is the concern of physics.
Although time is one of our most intuitive physical concepts, its understanding at the fundamental level is still an open question in physics. For instance, time in quantum mechanics and general relativity are two distinct and incompatible entities. While relativity deals with events (points in spacetime), with time being observer dependent and dynamical, quantum mechanics describes physical systems by treating time as an independent parameter. To resolve this conflict, in this work, we extend the classical concept of an event to the quantum domain by defining an event as a transfer of information between physical systems. Then, by describing the universe from the perspective of a certain observer, we introduce quantum states of events with space-time-symmetric wave functions that predict the joint probability distribution of a measurement (observation) at $(t,\stackrel{P\vec}{x})$. Under these circumstances, without assuming collapse, we propose that a well-defined instant of time, like any other observable, arises from a single event, thus being an observer-dependent property. In this manner, we obtain a stationary quantum state written as a sum of a sequence of normalized states of events with increasing memories. As a consequence, a counterfactual asymmetry along this sequence of events gives rise to the flow of time as being successive ``snapshots'' from the observer's perspective. In this proposal, which contrasts strikingly to the view in which time is an illusion, it is the many distinguishable states in which the observer stores information that makes the existence of time possible.
We argue that (1) our perception of time through change and (2) the gap between reality and our observation of it are at the heart of both quantum mechanics and the dynamical mechanism of physical systems. We suggest that the origin of quantum uncertainty lies with the absence of infinities or infinitesimals in observational data and that our concept of time derives from observing changing data (events). We argue that the fundamentally important content of the Superposition Principle is not the "probability amplitude" of posterior state observation but future state availability conditional only on prior information. Since event detection also implies posterior conditions (e.g. a specific type of detectable event occurred) as well as prior conditions, the probabilities of detected outcomes are also conditional on properties of the posterior properties of the observation. Such posterior conditions cannot affect the prior state availabilities and this implies violation of counter-factual definiteness. A component of a quantum system may be chosen to represent a clock and changes in other components can then be expected to be correlated with clocks with which they are entangled. Instead of traditional time-dependent equations of motion we provide a specific mechanism whereby evolution of data is instead quasi-causally related to the relative \availability\ of states and equations of motion are expressed in terms of quantized clock variables. We also suggest that time-reversal symmetry-breaking in weak interactions is an artifice of a conventional choice of co-ordinate time-function. Analysis of a "free" particle suggests that conventional co-ordinate space-time emerges from how we measure the separation of objects and events.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
A clock is a dynamical system which passes through a succession of states at constant time intervals. If coupled to another system, it can measure the duration of a physical process and even keep a permanent record of it, such as in a time-of-flight experiment or in observing the lifetime of an unstable atom. A clock can also be used to control the duration of a process, e.g., the precession of a spin in a magnetic field which is turned on and off at prescribed times. This article shows how to construct time-independent Hamiltonians describing these possible uses of a quantum clock. As expected, a good time resolution entails a large energy exchange between the clock and the other system, thereby modifying the evolution of the latter. This evolution may even be halted by using a clock which is too precise (this is the quantum analog of Zeno’s paradox).
It is expected that a quantum theory of gravity will radically alter our current notion of spacetime geometry. However, contrary to what was commonly assumed for many decades, quantum gravity effects could manifest in scales much larger than the Planck scale, provided that there is enough coherence in the superposition of geometries. Quantum clocks, i.e. quantum mechanical systems whose internal dynamics can keep track of proper time lapses, are a very promising tool for probing such low-energy quantum gravity effects. In this work, we contribute to this subject by proposing a spacetime-covariant formalism to describe clocks in first quantization. In particular, we account for the possibility of dynamically accelerated clocks via suitable couplings with external fields. We find that a particular decomposition of the (quadratic) clock Hamiltonian into positive- and negative-mass sectors, when attainable, enables one to compute the evolution of the system directly in terms of the clock's proper time while maintaining explicit covariance. When this decomposition is possible, the evolution obtained is always unitary, even with couplings with external fields used to, e.g., accelerate the clocks. We then apply this formulation to compute the joint time evolution of a pair of quantum clocks in two cases: (i) inertial clocks with relative motion and (ii) charged clocks accelerated by a uniform magnetic field. In both cases, when our clocks are prepared in coherent states, we find that the density matrix ρτ2∣τ1ρ_{τ_2|τ_1}ρτ2​∣τ1​​ describing time-measurements of the two clocks yields not only conditional probabilities whose peaks match exactly the classical expected values for time dilation, but also yields coherent quantum fluctuations around that peak, with a profile which is either (i) a pure Gaussian or (ii) a Gaussian combined with a periodic modulation.