Science
Related: About this forum‘Time Crystals’ Could Upend Physicists’ Theory of Time
BY NATALIE WOLCHOVER
In February 2012, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek decided to go public with a strange and, he worried, somewhat embarrassing idea. Impossible as it seemed, Wilczek had developed an apparent proof of time crystals physical structures that move in a repeating pattern, like minute hands rounding clocks, without expending energy or ever winding down. Unlike clocks or any other known objects, time crystals derive their movement not from stored energy but from a break in the symmetry of time, enabling a special form of perpetual motion.
Most research in physics is continuations of things that have gone before, said Wilczek, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This, he said, was kind of outside the box.
Wilczeks idea met with a muted response from physicists. Here was a brilliant professor known for developing exotic theories that later entered the mainstream, including the existence of particles called axions and anyons, and discovering a property of nuclear forces known as asymptotic freedom (for which he shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 2004). But perpetual motion, deemed impossible by the fundamental laws of physics, was hard to swallow. Did the work constitute a major breakthrough or faulty logic? Jakub Zakrzewski, a professor of physics and head of atomic optics at Jagiellonian University in Poland who wrote a perspective on the research that accompanied Wilczeks publication, says: I simply dont know.
Now, a technological advance has made it possible for physicists to test the idea. They plan to build a time crystal, not in the hope that this perpetuum mobile will generate an endless supply of energy (as inventors have striven in vain to do for more than a thousand years) but that it will yield a better theory of time itself.
more
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/time-crystals/all/
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)but it sounds absolutely fascinating. I love the moments when the paradigms shift.
demwing
(16,916 posts)to a whole lot of shift happening in our generation.
yonder
(9,631 posts)we are witness to a whole lot of "shift" TO our generation.
demwing
(16,916 posts)this is a positive report...
And the only damned thing that I can see saving us is science. Fuck the politicians, and fuck the corporations.
yonder
(9,631 posts)tclambert
(11,080 posts)We should keep watch for a clearer explanation.
matt819
(10,749 posts)I understood, "In February 2012." After that, nothing.
gordianot
(15,226 posts)with some support from science. Revolutions are happening on concepts far beyond the grasp of the general public. Maybe humans are evolving on levels beyond our apparent social and political decay.
colorado_ufo
(5,717 posts)Unfortunately, this does not apply to all aspects of the human race. The advancement is uneven, and this is very dangerous. That is why we have countries with medieval cultures and atomic weapons.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)because of oppression from countries with atomic weapons. Witness the way we keep propping up repressive rulers in places like Saudi Arabia, who have kept the wealth in the House of Saud while their people languish. Greed has kept the human race from advancing in a linear manner. And I wonder if any new discovery, like atomic power, would have applications that would be put for the betterment of mankind or for the promotion of implements of war.
yesphan
(1,586 posts)were on to something ?
eppur_se_muova
(36,227 posts)Moondog
(4,833 posts)to explore this theory is, to those of us without the necessary background and education, a marvel.
Thanks for posting this.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)turn out to be plausible, although remotely so.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)alchemists of our time.
I like the ancestor simulation theory the best. Makes as much sense as any of the others.
goldent
(1,582 posts)physics in the last 60 years or so.
Edit: Really intended to respond to the original post, but this works also.
montex
(93 posts)Physics don't just "deem" perpetual motion machines impossible, the universe forbids them. Wilczek may have found an interesting gimmick, but it will be proven - without a doubt - to fit in within the standard model of physics. There has never been an exception, ever. Because there cannot be. The universe is moving from a high state of entropy to a lower state. This applies to everything - no exceptions. For a perpetual motion machine to exist there would have to be a case where low entropy moved to a high state. And that is as likely as a glass of spilled milk jumping off the floor and back into the glass. It. Doesn't. Happen.
tomp
(9,512 posts)...and stated as if wilczek never heard it before. i'd love to hear you debate that with wilczek.
I read the entire article and didn't get the impression they were trying to build a perpetual motion machine. What the universe forbids, I do not know, and I doubt anyone truly does. We "know" very little and no doubt many experiments that prove whether or not some yet to be imagined theories are true or false are in our future.
It does seem that a number of scientists are interested enough in the idea of a time crystal to fund the experiment. It is doubtful that Mr. Wilczek, a respected physicist and a Nobel Prize winner, is interested in gimmicks.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Basically, the 2nd Law is statistical, it doesn't say entropy must increase, it says that there are many more possible high entropy states than low entropy states so a system tends to move to higher entropy. It certainly doesn't have to do that.
I'm not the best one to explain the 2nd Law to you, so here's physicist Sean Carroll to explain it.
So, of course there will be exceptions. Statistically, the 2nd Law predicts that, too.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)A similar argument can be drawn to explain how life (low entropy) emerged from non-life (high entropy). It's just a matter of statistics, time and chemical reaction-kinetics.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)You write as if we understand everything. That is very, VERY improbable, from our ant-like point of view of the Universe, and considering how recently scientists began to understand even the most basic concepts--really just in the last hundred years or so.
It is a very dangerous--and I would say, unscientific--thing to say that something "applies to everything - no exceptions." Truly, we are at the edge of an ocean of knowledge, like ants on a leaf floating on a wavelet. We barely know "what's out there." We only barely understand our own DNA. As for subatomic particles, they do such strange, inexplicable things, that physicists plainly admit that they are mystified, and no one has yet come up with a 'unified theory.'
It's NOT a time to be dogmatic, to pretend that there are fixed "verities" that no one--not even a Nobel prize winner--dare challenge. That kind of thinking dumbs people down. Considering the breadth of the ferment in numerous sciences right now, I would advise you not to use words like "never" and "impossible" without that caveat "as far as we know now."
gateley
(62,683 posts)prize to be returned!
I'm guessing you have one, too, seeing as how you're smarter than this group.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Case closed.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)If you want to change a system over the course of time, you need energy.
If you want to change a system over the course of space, you need momentum.
The more energy and the more momentum, the bigger changes are possible.
I was shocked to read in the article that a quantum-physicist claims that a ground-state were equal to zero energy. It just means, you can't get any more energy out of the system, but that doesn't necessarily mean zero:
The quantum harmonic oscillator has a ground-state of 1/2*hbar*omega.
And there have been claims of states with fractional quantum-numbers below the ground-state of an atom. (Personally, I don't trust this theory.)
Btw, anyons are a hypothetical classification of particles that would exist in a world with two spatial dimensions, replacing fermions and bosons.
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)See, I knew it all along.