'Time Crystals' Could Exist

anaturein g created

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Phage

So exactly how big is the universe? What is it's shape? Does it change?

The universe indeed is simply a unit of measurement. It is the known contents of all matter in all directions. When we see further the universe expands, not the contents.

Can't have an infinite unit of measure defeats the purpose don't you think??

So what is the universe exactly then? A container? Isn't that a unit of measurement? Just because it is constantly changing doesn't mean that isn't what it is.

no its not a container its a word we chose to represent everything around us. There is nothing outside the universe it doesn't have an end if somehow you could reach the edge of the known universe ie what we can see you would find more universe.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

So... the particle does and doesn't exist. It exists everywhere all at once (all dimensions) ?

leolady

scientists have been on an American Idol for the past year and half.

the wildest theories get more clicks and attention and interviews and funding, while sensible and more plausible researchers are slowly losing fundings and dying out...

I wonder how time crystals would look like?
And if there are fowarded crystals and backward crystals?

a reply to: odzeandennz

More like the media sensationalises fringe/exploratory research, giving the impression of far more important and credibility than the works deserve. It's not like this particular research is going to receive more funding because of a click bait article.

originally posted by: leolady
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

So... the particle does and doesn't exist. It exists everywhere all at once (all dimensions) ?

leolady

No it exists within time and space. Einstine showed us they are interconnected. Problem with a time crystal is it not only expanded in spatial dimensions but time dimensions as well. Don't think of some sci fi version of dimensions that's not right. A dimension in physics is nothing more than a location. When we say we live in 4 d space that's 3 spatial and one time we need all of these to locate an object. Knowing where something is and not knowing when it will be there is useless.

This time crystal sort of breaks that rule seeing that it's also spread out through time we can only see part of it at a time meaning the where part sort of gets messed up and we just have the when being now. Best way I can describe this is a movie. You can watch a movie frame by frame if you choose. In each frame your only seeing it at that moment in time. Put each frame together and you perceive motion.

This is thr time crystal we can't see thr whole only one moment in time to us it would appear to move just like our film appears to show us motion when we watch each frame at a high speed. Just like our film seeing one moment in time and space we can't view all the frames at once. But they exist but we have to wait and see them one at a time. This is our time crystal we can't see all the crystall at once just parts of it as it moves through time. Never realized how hard this is to explain much easier to show the math and put everyone to sleep.

www.reddit.com...

The comments here really help to understand.

Normally I can understand the gist of these articles.


Here I got nothin.

The only thing my little brain got out of this is that it would be a cool term to use in Dr. Who.

"Doctor, Why aren't we moving?"

Doctor: "It appears the TARDIS collided with some time crystals." -_-'

I understand 'time translation symmetry breaking' to be an observed effect in a system under thermal equilibrium which places the observed effect outside the time equilibrium of the system. That is to say that the thermodynamics of the system generally places all the parts of the system in the same time frame and time flow...that's the symmetry, the system's uniformity.

This system symmetry should not be broken, if it is, it's basically a contrary and unexpected effect. A system emerges and falls under it's thermodynamic time constraints. It grows and reaches a peak optimal and then begins to break apart. The human body is such a system.

Then again, I might not know what the hell I have just written?

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Here's a link to the theory described in layman's terms, it almost made sense to me even!

li nk

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Here's a link to the theory described in layman's terms, it almost made sense to me even!

li nk

Literally the only article posted so far that I can begin to comprehend regarding this lol. Thank-you!

Peace.

a reply to: dragonridr

Wow! Actually, that helped a LOT! Thank you for that explanation. Understanding time crystals beyond knowing it has something to do with time was beginning to be like understanding Planck time beyond the concept that it's "very small." Lol

Well done explaining it to us "simpler folk."

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

But, but. Absolute zero cannot be reached. Not in this universe, anyway.
Maybe one of them Mandala ones.

Hey what up...

Efficient energy storage

The above ideas got me thinking. If you used energy to cool an object down then in theory you could get this energy back by using the object as the cold sink for a heat engine. This might be used as a way of storing energy. Indeed liquid nitrogen has been used to power an engine, but it own produces about 5% of the energy of the same weight of gasoline - although it has its uses in safety critical situations. If you do the sums for liquid helium it doesn't work out much better. But if there's the possibility to store an infinite amount of energy in a finite amount of matter then you would think that there would be plenty of useful applications - for instance getting into orbit.Unfortunately there's a catch.

The trouble is that the above calculations assume a constant heat capacity over temperature, and heat capacity is certainly not constant when you decrease the temperature - it drops to zero. If you look at the theoretical energy required to cool something to absolute zero you then get a finite answer. Indeed this enables us to define absolute zero as the temperature at which everything has zero entropy - the Third Law of Thermodynamics. The third law is often said to mean that absolute zero is unattainable, but I don't see how to deduce this. True, it might seem that you could use an object at absolute zero as a cold sink for a heat engine, and thus generate useful energy without increasing the temperature of the cold sink, but in fact the increase in temperature isn't 0, it's 0/0, implying we need a new way of looking at it.

Quantum considerations

In the case of a normal solid, the temperature is related to the atoms vibrating with respect to each other. However, quantum theory tells us that vibration of the atoms is quantised. Cooling in these circumstances is a case of removing the quanta of energy from the system, and reaching absolute zero means removing the last quantum of energy. This doesn't seem that simple, at least using technology we can think of today, but I'm not sure that it's theoretically impossible. Of course low temperature quantum systems lead to things such as Bose-Einstein condensates, where a collection of atoms are cooled so much that they all adopt the same quantum state, and it's harder to understand the concept of temperature to such a state.

Zeno's paradox

So if the amount of energy input to reach absolute zero is finite, what other problems might there be. Well the usual argument is that a cooling process like adiabatic demagnetisation proceeds in cycles. Firstly the sample is magnetised and then cooled by demagnetisation. When you look at this you find that it would require an infinite number of cycles to reach absolute zero. This is a reasonable argument, but to my mind it has too much of Zeno's paradox. If Achilles gives the tortoise a 100 metre head start, but goes at 10 times the speed then first Achilles has to cover the 100 metres - but the tortoise has covered an extra 10 metres. Achilles covers this, and the tortoise is 1 metre ahead. It seems that Achilles will never overtake the tortoise as there are an infinite number of such episodes. However, we know that in fact he does so after 111 1/9 metres. Although it isn't as straightforward, it's possible to imagine that there may be some process which can reduce the temperature to absolute zero without going through an infinite number of cycles.

So is it possible?

Do I think that it might be possible to reach absolute zero? Well, on balance I think the belief that it's impossible is probably right. However, I would like to see more a more convincing argument to be certain.

www.chronon.org...


Can you offer us a more convincing argument?

Abstract

The black hole is a region in space in which nothing can escape its pull. The two important parts of the anatomy of a stable black hole are the event horizon and gravitational singularity. The main discussion is regarding the temperature of a black hole. Absolute zero is a state which enthalpy and entropy is zero. The temperature of a black hole approaches the gravitational singularity in which space-time possibly ceases and entropy is zero producing absolute zero or possible sub- absolute zero.

Summary

As a matter gets closer to the gravitational singularity, there will be a point in the black hole in which atoms stop moving because of cessation of space-time. The point is absolute or possibly sub-absolute zero. Therefore, absolutely zero (and possibly sub-absolute zero) does occur in nature. The point at which atoms are not moving near or at the gravitational singularity. This means that at the very least, absolute zero exists in nature.

file.scirp.org...

Not just one of those "Mandala ones".

a reply to: Kashai

Your link and quotes reinforce the idea that absolute zero cannot be achieved.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Kashai

Your link and quotes reinforce the idea that absolute zero cannot be achieved.

Absolute zero would be a complete lack of energy. I don't think anywhere in the universe qualifies yet.

a reply to: dragonridr

Give it a couple dozen trillion years.

Chilly.

And dark. Really, really dark.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian
Well! Wow! That is great news.

Finally this solves the problem in the reverse polarity matrix of quantanium symmetry. I suppose with these time crystals scientists will finally be able to power a turbo Encabulator. All they need to do now is figure out a way to reverse-reverse polarity of the novatranians, and bilateral synchronization discombobulation thingamajiger amulites.

So cool, these time crystals are the next best thing since the turbo encabulator.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Kashai

Your link and quotes reinforce the idea that absolute zero cannot be achieved.

Absolute zero would be a complete lack of energy. I don't think anywhere in the universe qualifies yet.

Yep, that's exactly what I said.