Physicists To Attempt To Build Temporality-Bending “Time Crystal”

time crystal

Wired relays top scientists’ plan to build a microscopic “time crystal,” a structure within which time would not be continuous:

In February 2012, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek decided to go public with a strange idea: Impossible as it seemed, Wilczek had developed an apparent proof of “time crystals” — physical structures that move in a repeating pattern 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.

The idea came to Wilczek in 2010: “I was thinking about the classification of crystals, and then it just occurred to me that it’s natural to think about space and time together,” he said. “So if you think about crystals in space, it’s very natural also to think about the classification of crystalline behavior in time.”

When matter crystallizes, its atoms spontaneously organize themselves into the rows, columns and stacks of a three-dimensional lattice. An atom occupies each “lattice point,” but the balance of forces between the atoms prevents them from inhabiting the space between. Crystals are said to break the spatial symmetry of nature — the usual rule that all places in space are equivalent. But what about the temporal symmetry of nature?

Wilczek mulled over the possibility for months. Eventually, his equations indicated that atoms could indeed form a regularly repeating lattice in time, returning to their initial arrangement only after discrete (rather than continuous) intervals, thereby breaking time symmetry.

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.

In June, a group of physicists led by Xiang Zhang, a nanoengineer at Berkeley, and Tongcang Li, a physicist and postdoctoral researcher in Zhang’s group, proposed creating a time crystal in the form of a persistently rotating ring of charged atoms, or ions. An international team led by Berkeley scientists is preparing an elaborate lab experiment, although it may take “anywhere between three and infinity years” to complete.

The hope is that time crystals will push physics beyond the precise but seemingly imperfect laws of quantum mechanics and lead the way to a grander theory. If time crystals are able to break time symmetry in the same way that conventional crystals break space symmetry, “it tells you that in nature those two quantities seem to have similar properties, and that ultimately should reflect itself in a theory.”

, , , , ,

  • mannyfurious

    This has the potential to be interesting. I’m typically on board with Bohm’s assessment of Quantum Physics: that QP only seems weird because our ideas of space and time are false. If we understand that the universe is a unified “whole” without space or time (illusions/constructs created by language), then QP presents no real problems. If this experiment is successful, it might force me to re-think some of this.

    • http://artasith-m-nasdsnre.tumblr.com/ Simon Valentine

      yeah less doubt more struggle is like an electron in the cyclone that we’re going for in these things. synchronized electo-babble. eye of the storm, small valance anomalies conform (factorization problem), and these begin to have increasingly macroscopic effects (‘NP’ ‘problem”), and these couple at the bound that is the outside of the crystal to wires or w/e other crystal or resonant structure they are plugged into.

      infinite batteries per se but i’m sure that any imperfect tech requires occasional recycling, recalibration, refactorization, or reinactment of the eye.

  • http://artasith-m-nasdsnre.tumblr.com/ Simon Valentine

    haha this was my idea :)
    i’m glad he’s got something someone’s saying is proof
    cuz it’s far past time to plug these things into their sockets
    and get those electrons marching in their circles
    again

  • InfvoCuernos

    Don’t let the Slestacks get a hold of your time crystals!

  • Calypso_1

    Jin:
    Assemble your team. You will recieve coordinants for the drop.

    • Grey Knight

      Already done. A strike team teleported in and purged the facility in an action that lasted 37 seconds. Projected time was 40 seconds. They have done the Emperor proud.

  • andrewp3

    Uh Oh. It’s deja vu – all over again.

    Uh Oh…

    • http://artasith-m-nasdsnre.tumblr.com/ Simon Valentine

      you’ve seen it before?

  • Calypso_1

    How so?
    This model has 1800 electrons.

  • Calypso_1

    Right…..but this is dealing with ionic Calcium in a lattice.
    There are many ground state lattices. If this expiriment proves true of course it will yield more deceloped results.
    The reference to a single electron makes no sense.

  • Grey Knight

    How many people do you expect to understand what you just posted?

  • Calypso_1

    Without any commentary from you, I wonder what it is you are trying to imply.

    This is your counter that single electrons make sense in context of a time-crystal experiment in relation to the creation of a ‘Single Electron Computer’, of which you posit this experiment is a crude prototype. Based on your further posts, related to the use of electron qubits, I would think that you would know that prototypes of this model already exist and have very little to do with said experiment.

    Are you perhaps trying to say that the apparent motion predicted in the experiment is caused by coupled phononic excitation in the lattice well?

  • Calypso_1

    I have. And now i suspect you will get all cut & pasty on me.

  • http://artasith-m-nasdsnre.tumblr.com/ Simon Valentine

    have you rigorous (succinct, elegant) proof that it is not in fact at least an NP-hard problem? it of course being whatever it is you are or aren’t talking about.

    physicisism is really philantropy disguised as philanthropy by Planck and Einstein. not so much Schrodinger, eh? ‘physicists’ today are cavaliers. physicisism because it’s camouflaged physicistism. time is omega. omega represents big O ratings for objections, objects, projects, subjects, etc. physics is a tail-chasing game of assuming P = NP or that irrelevancy indicates blah blah et cetera therefore shut up or it doesn’t matter anyway. “by the way have you tried the punch?”

    pop goes the weasel, show me the money, … theoretical academic entity … ha ha and people are thinking corporations as ‘people’ are problematic.

    just wait.

  • Calypso_1

    This person does’t understand.

    It’s all copy n paste BS.

  • http://artasith-m-nasdsnre.tumblr.com/ Simon Valentine

    ‘sounds’ like an overly simplified complex way of saying
    “lawyer lawyer back-off religion lie trap standard standard blah blah racist racist algorithm algorithm geometry geometry vacuum suck broken don’t do this blah blah silly blah stupid repeat of hypothetical bullshit blah blah boss corporate blah kiss butt doppel doppel because we are doing it blah copyright blah worthless existence kill me please”
    it’s like
    reading a forum for a strategy game
    it’s called theory crafting
    otherwise known as go to hell and cut ourselves
    but hey that’s just to say
    obviously
    according to logic
    that’s it’s not all bad
    even fool’s gold is fun
    but hey coercion isn’t illegal
    and who cares about whether or not anything’s compatible
    in which case
    here’s the liar’s word:
    blah blah this isn’t defamation blah and therefore because someone said blah therefore blah e.g. quality of life is better here blah i got shit shit blah this shit blah walk away blah don’t shoot me and this isn’t an inevitable threat blah cruel and unusual blah, blah.

    so yes
    at least one person understands it
    bLah

  • Andrew

    Talking to yourself?

  • Calypso_1

    Do you realize they are not talking about a computer that uses a ‘single’ electron. But rather using the spin state of single electrons as a qubit. Any such device would still use millions of electrons. For example a terabyte processor would use ~8.5 million electrons.

    Saying single electron computer the way you are phrasing it is like saying a standard computer is a single capacitor computer.

  • Grey Knight

    What?

  • Calypso_1

    Why don’t you talk to Simon. His maths are better than mine.

  • Calypso_1

    Not at all. By all means please study math to the heights of heaven.

    It’s a shame you had to change your log on…again.

  • http://artasith-m-nasdsnre.tumblr.com/ Simon Valentine

    sarcasm is good Pur
    we want to help and sometimes help hurts
    trust me, don’t trust me, whatever it takes
    punch me
    first rule Of

21