Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Attempting To Test 'Time Crystals'

ceview writes "This story at Wired seems to have lots of people a bit confused: '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. ... [A] Berkeley-led team will attempt to build a time crystal by injecting 100 calcium ions into a small chamber surrounded by electrodes. The electric field generated by the electrodes will corral the ions in a "trap" 100 microns wide, or roughly the width of a human hair. The scientists must precisely calibrate the electrodes to smooth out the field. Because like charges repel, the ions will space themselves evenly around the outer edge of the trap, forming a crystalline ring.' The experimental set up is incredibly delicate (Bose Einstein Condensate), so it implies this perpetual motion effect can't really be used to extract energy. What is your take on it? It's unlike to upend anything, as the article suggests, because at a quantum level things behave weirdly at the best of times. The heavy details are available at the arXiv."

146 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Bose never got a Nobel by backslashdot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How the heck is it that Satyendar Nath Bose didn't get a Nobel prize?

    I guess back then they didn't know how awesome his ideas were?

    1. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      They still don't now... I barely understand what is on his wiki page. It bears further research.

    2. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      How the heck is it that Satyendar Nath Bose didn't get a Nobel prize?
      I guess back then they didn't know how awesome his ideas were?

      Actually, he only created speakers. Generally awesome speakers, yes, but just speakers none-the-less.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Nobel prizes are greatly overrated and don't deserve worship. The guy probably had personal politics that didn't agree with the prize committee's.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, there are four sides to that question. It's going to take simultaneous 24-hour corner days to come up with an answer.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Generally awesome speakers

      I was always under the impression that BOSE meant Buy Other Sound Equipment

    6. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by crutchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if runaway government spending gets you a nobel prize in economics, i shudder to think what kind of experiment is required to win the physics category

    7. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by crutchy · · Score: 2, Funny

      bose makes girly sound systems

      real men spend thousands of dollars trying to cram four 18 inch subwoofers into their supra, along with nitro and a v12 chevy... no hood required

    8. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by tehcyder · · Score: 1, Interesting

      if runaway government spending gets you a nobel prize in economics, i shudder to think what kind of experiment is required to win the physics category

      I thought the trendy economists were all deranged fruitbat rightwing extreme free-marketeers at the moment? Or is Keynesianism coming back into fashion now that so-called austerity measures have been seen through by most normal people?

      In any event, the idea that economics is some sort of objective science outside politics is total crap. Whether you're left or right wing.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the sound system doesn't give you involuntary bowel movements, it's not a real sound system.

    10. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the sound system doesn't give you involuntary bowel movements, it's not a real sound system.

      Is that a "true sharts, man" argument?

    11. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1, Troll

      It certainly doesn't look like you went to college to improve your writing skills.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    12. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Not sure, but most likely end up also getting a Darwin Award

    13. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Muad'Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess it would be similar to winning a Nobel Peace Prize by running an experiment in 'peace' by a president with a kill list and an apparent case of latent bloodlust.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    14. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How the heck is it that Satyendar Nath Bose didn't get a Nobel prize?

      There are two qualifications to get a Nobel prize:

      1. Do very important, groundbreaking work.
      2. Live long enough to be recognized by the Nobel committee.

    15. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I were Satyendar Nath Bose, I would consider a name changes to as not to get confused with the biggest snake oil seller in the audio world.

      Little-known fact: hIs nickname during his formative college years was actually "Monster Cable McGee."

    16. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this satire? I can't tell.

    17. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      The link I was going to post was: BOSE Acoustimass - Better Profit Margins Through Shortcuts. But apparently Bose legal team must have found it since it's been removed. This on is similar though: http://liquidtheater.com/editorial_56.html

    18. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought the trendy economists were all deranged fruitbat rightwing extreme free-marketeers at the moment?

      Nope. Pretty much only hear more belligerent Keynesian neofascism from Krugman these days.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    19. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by ScytheLegion · · Score: 1

      Well, there are four sides to that question. It's going to take simultaneous 24-hour corner days to come up with an answer.

      Of all my time on /. (since the very beginning), that joke NEVER gets old :) Gene Ray will finally be vindicated!!!

    20. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      LOL .. that timecube .. time crystals .. hmm that dude could have been onto something.

    21. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      It doesn't, but I wish he hadn't made the timecube rant run off into anti-semitism .. that part sorta ruins it.

    22. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I like your ideas. Do you have a rambling and confusing web site I could go to for more details?

    23. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by crutchy · · Score: 1

      the idea that economics is some sort of objective science outside politics is total crap

      money talks

      i guess they got sick of congratulating each other with pens

    24. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by crutchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      like fdr and his debt, this debt too will shrink massively soon as the economy starts to expand

      it's funny how keynesians hold fdr in such high regard, and how they think his policies made everything better... nothing i say could ever change their clouded view of the world, but their ignorance must surely be bliss

      if only we could all be so happy... oh hang on a minute it's a bit hard when everyone's either broke and indebted or bankrupt

      but of course we should all be out there spending more of what little money we have, just to keep the keynesian gravy train going

    25. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by crutchy · · Score: 1

      ea needs to release battlefield: presidential edition, with drones and thousands of innocent poverty-stricken women and children to mow down

    26. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Qwade79 · · Score: 1

      Dammit - on the one day I don't have mod points ...

      Good Sir, to whom should I address the invoice for the replacement of a coffee damaged keyboard and monitor?

    27. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Is that anything like getting the Nobel peace Prize for ending the Vietnam War in 1973?

    28. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2

      Why the hell would I buy form ANY company that can't release tech specs such as S/N ratio, THD, etc. for their products??

      You know those numbers are pretty much arbitrary anyway, right?

      The test conditions matter more than the actual equipment and basically no manufacturer conforms to any sort of standardized test conditions when taking those measurements. The best you can hope for is that they used the same conditions for different models in their own line-up so that you can at least compare models from the same manufacturer.

      But even that is dicey since the test conditions themselves are rarely ever spelled out so you don't even know if conditions changed from one test to the next, much less what the conditions actually were.

    29. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by crutchy · · Score: 2

      Is that anything like getting the Nobel peace Prize for ending the Vietnam War in 1973?

      that would be the opposite of what is going on today

      if only ron paul was president

    30. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      Why yes, I do! But I'm not going to give you the URL. Finding it on your own will be the first test of whether you're ready to break free from the educated stupid ONEist snotbrain propaganda machine.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    31. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Specter · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I got a Dyson vacuum and it really sucks.

    32. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > basically no manufacturer conforms to any sort of standardized test conditions when taking those measurements.

      So basically they are too fucking lazy. Got it.

      Gee, and the scientific community has error-bars and relative error for what reason? Oh that's right, to provide an _ballpark_ estimate for how accurate the data AND measurements are/ This isn't fricken rocket science when every stat such as temperature to the nearest millionth of a degree is required.

      i.e. Bike weight: 19 lb +/- 2 lb.

      Gee, is that so hard??

      Any company that _refuses_ to provide technical specs only cares about thing: Conning potential suckers.

    33. Re:Bose never got a Nobel by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      > Any company that _refuses_ to provide technical specs only cares about thing: Conning potential suckers.

      It is weird, I don't know if you are just so focused on your rant that you didn't hear me, or if you just didn't express yourself very well.

      By your definition EVERY SINGLE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURER only cares about "conning potential suckers."

  2. Implies? "Can't really"? by vistapwns · · Score: 2

    Can we get something more definite than that? I mean if the submitter doesn't know, and it sounds like he doesn't, why even say anything.

    --
    "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:Implies? "Can't really"? by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      Thats what I was thinking too.

      Wouldn't it be best for them to announce something when they actually get the experiment working?

      It would stop everyone getting disappointed if it turns out not to work, and make the announcement more credible if it does work.

    2. Re:Implies? "Can't really"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it comes from past experience. Whenever Microsoft wanted to enter a particular market segment for their strategic objectives, they'd buy up one company or at least give them a large contract, flooding them with cash to the extent that no other startup would ever get funding. For the bought up company employees, they could expect to be shuffled around to suit Microsoft's needs. Too bad if you had landed your dream job. Consequently many will avoid going anywhere near Microsoft.
      Then there is the "UNIX is legacy, Windows NT is the future" kill UNIX campaign from the mid-1990's, which made many of the big companies like SGI and HP abandon their own flavors like Irix, HP-UX in favor of Windows NT.

    3. Re:Implies? "Can't really"? by rot26 · · Score: 2

      Silence doesn't get you funding.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    4. Re:Implies? "Can't really"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its theoretical science you ninny. What do you think is going to happen? You have to transition to experimental science and test the theory, which is what they're doing now. They're at step 1, you're saying can we get step 2 please? Well, we're on it. But step 1 is here if you'd like to talk about it, otherwise keep to yourself.

    5. Re:Implies? "Can't really"? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, that sentence is bogus. The pure physics all by itself says that you can't extract energy from it.

      What the delicacy of the setup "implies" is that it's not immune to the second law of thermodynamics, or the first law of motion. The "time crystal" is only perpetual as long as nothing else impinges on it. Which is precisely the same as the frictionless pendulum you saw in first-year physics.

      The remarkable part of this experiment has zilch to do with perpetual motion, either in the "free energy" sense or the "first law of motion" sense. It's about a remarkable quantum effect involving transitions even at the lowest possible energy, which wouldn't be allowed by classical physics but is allowed by quantum mechanics. The rest is just mainstream science writers who don't know what they're talking about and are trying to make it sound like magic to attract eyeballs.

  3. Newton? by backslashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article: "How can something move, and keep moving forever, without expending energy? It seemed an absurd idea — a major break from the accepted laws of physics. "

    Isn't that what Newton's first law of motion says? Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Clearly the article isn't explaining this properly.

    1. Re:Newton? by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Informative

      That makes sense if you don't take into account that these puppies will be going around in a circle - without the initial velocity. First law of motion works for orbits - the objects are effectively moving in a straight line but the curviture of space around the planet/body/star is making their straight line circular. From what I can understand of this article (I haven't read the arxiv version, nor will it likely make sense to me anyhow) the interesting thing is that the scientists aren't starting them in a spin - they expect that they will start spinning on their own.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Newton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Our language may fail us as our logic fails us in the world of the very small. Obviously the common mind would conclude that a containment force acts upon that which it contains much like a cowboy acts on a herd of cattle. However we learn about perfect elasticity in chemistry classes so we already have a situation where it is agreed that particles can repel each other without loss of energy. Laws of physics vary with the scale of the object in question. Logic suggests that we can therefore say with some authority that laws of physics are variables depending upon location or focus and that sort of shoots astro-physics square in the foot. We may need to create terms in our informal languages so that concepts in science do not become a linguistic or logical impossibility.

    3. Re:Newton? by ceview · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is that these atoms would do the equivalent of bob up and down without any external energy input. It's kind of analogous to observing an astronomical object moving in an orbit in the absence of a central massive object. That's how I would interpret it. Because this is happening at a super cooled state you could not extract energy from this system because that would disturb it ( ie Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes into play). I speculate this effect may occur but it would not have any real large macroscopic relevance.

    4. Re:Newton? by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      From what I can read in the linked article, the energy is supposed to be taken out of the system by laser cooling. At a low energy state the ions are then supposed to develop a cyclical motion, rather then a continuous one. Such that they wouldn't be moving at a constant velocity. Without adding energy this is not supposed to happen as we understand it. Or thats the idea behind the experiment, to see if it will. I don't grasp what made Wilczek think they would behave this way in the first place, other then crystals having certain spatial properties because of the charge of their ions.

    5. Re:Newton? by trollboy · · Score: 1

      They also can not perform work, so.. no energy created.

      --
      That which is not dead may eternal lie,and in strange aeons even death may die
    6. Re:Newton? by shadowmas · · Score: 4, Informative

      If i understand the article correctly it's not just going round in a circle like a planet but "jumping" around specific point around the circle like a clock hand. it appears from one point to the other without being in between. But rest of your point still applies.

    7. Re:Newton? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They also can not perform work,

      Being observed is performing work.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    8. Re:Newton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Logic doesn't fail us, incorrect information does, usually in the form of assumptions. Also it doesn't suggest that the laws are variable, it suggests that they aren't the laws.

    9. Re:Newton? by fnj · · Score: 1

      However we learn about perfect elasticity in chemistry classes so we already have a situation where it is agreed that particles can repel each other without loss of energy.

      In science, elasticity is a phenomenon of physics, not chemistry. Yes, there is the CONCEPT of perfect elasticity, and NO, it doesn't exist in reality.

    10. Re:Newton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but there are plenty of examples of 'perpetual motion' in quantum mechanics, and they have been known for almost as long as quantum mechanics has been around. Any chemistry undergraduate will be able to tell you about the quantum harmonic oscillator , a model for the vibration of chemical bonds in which the lowest energy level involves some vibration. And of course, since it is the lowest possible energy level, no work can be extracted from the system. Its hardly a major break from the accepted laws of physics.

      I'm not quite clear on how these 'time crystals' differ - it it simply the greater sophistication of the system, or perhaps the system is large enough that is can be considered to follow classical physics?

    11. Re:Newton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being observed is performing work.

      That's not what my boss says!

    12. Re: Newton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what if the act of observation interferes with the experiment to make it not work?

      Sometimes I love "what ifs", but only when it comes to physics.

    13. Re:Newton? by yahwotqa · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, just ask any stripper.

    14. Re:Newton? by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      First law of motion works for orbits

      No it doesn't.
      It only applies when there is no net force on the object (as the law clearly states), and in orbit there is a gravitational force that constantly changes the velocity vector.
      What you are talking about is general relativity, not classical mechanics.

    15. Re:Newton? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think my brain just simply refused to comprehend that bit - and the article was exceptionally vague on the details - or perhaps my dumb kicked in and it just stopped making sense at that point. I figured I wouldn't repeat it here in case I was getting it wrong.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    16. Re:Newton? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      The gravity of the body at the center is pulling the object in, the velocity vector is pushing the orbiting body out, but as they are equally matched the net result is a nice perfect circular orbit (not accounting for the fact that true circular orbits probably only occur in theory and also avoiding all those horrible to write as formulas elliptical orbits). Isn't that the same thing?

      Or is the first law simply saying that a body with movement will continue to keep moving as long as nothing interacts with it? If there are two opposite but equal forces being applied with a new force of zero, would that not be allowed to be the same thing? And I ain't starting a fight here lol, I was exceptional at physics in early school, but loathed it as it seemed immensely boring, so I went down the chemistry path - and now regret it. As fun as it is knowing a bunch of Chem stuff, I would much prefer to have learned all the formulas I am now trying to replicate in programming LOL.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    17. Re:Newton? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it might just be immune to all outside forces so it just keeps on keeping on. I think that's what they were getting at in the end about how it can't be used to generate energy. I'd still put my money on it absorbing one of the many sources of energy that would be available in an experiment like that. It could even run on radio waves for all they know.

    18. Re:Newton? by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      How can you have motion without time?
      Time was so important to Newton he invented a short notation for the derivative with respect to time: an over dot.

    19. Re:Newton? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Or they're attempting to stand still and the Earth is spinning. If it's a constantly spinning object that never slows down, it's immune to outside energy absorption and any friction that would slow it down or speed it up so it may also not want to travel in the unusual motion that the Earth is spinning at while moving around the sun. Wind in a tornado and water in a drain doesn't appear to want to go straight because it does want to go straight and the Earth doesn't, after all.

    20. Re:Newton? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The laser cooling is to get enough energy out of the system to get it in the (ridiculously named) "time crystal" state, and to extract excess energy that is inevitably going to enter the system because you're keeping stuff below ambient temperature. But there's a rub there. The photons are continuously interacting with the system. If the system can't be maintained while turning the lasers off, it's not a stable system and any claims that it is some kind of analog of a crystal, which is VERY stable, are impossible to demonstrate.

    21. Re:Newton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANA Physicist, but I think you're mistaken. To observe a particle you are adding or taking away energy. Your measurement device is performing the work.

      I'm going way out on a limb now becuase I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but...
      I think the idea here, though is that they are going to be applying the continuous, uniform magnetic field, the initial application of which which should cause the rings to move through their channel in the device. Ddespite what the article says, it won't be the motion, but the variations of the motion that they'll attempt to prove. An increase or decrease in rotation when the field's strength and uniformity has not changed, for instance.
      I am having a hard time understanding how this experiment can be done on earth though. It would seem to me that at such a small level, the slightest variation of the density of mass of anything around them would affect space-time and throw everything off.
      But then again, I don't understand quantum mechanics and can say I only barely have a real understanding of general relativity thanks to my college roommate physics major, who left his books out a lot.
      ( Any PhD's out there that want to correct me, I'd appreciate it, I'm merely a fan and follower of science )

    22. Re:Newton? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      You are overthinking it.

      Remember that most of Newtonian physics is a description of what motion is observable on the scale of visibility to the human eye.

      The first law is basically just stating that at a human scale, if velocity changes, something caused it. Nothing will spontaneously change velocity without something acting upon it to effect that change in velocity.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    23. Re:Newton? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your measurement device is performing the work.

      If you perform work on an object, it must perform work back to give your measuring device something to read. Action-equal-opposite-reaction.

    24. Re:Newton? by DrProton · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the article: "How can something move, and keep moving forever, without expending energy? It seemed an absurd idea — a major break from the accepted laws of physics. "

      This is a real groaner to a physicist. Is there any solid matter near you right now? Matter does seem to be real, doesn't it? In the classical regime, accelerating electrons radiate energy. According to Newton, matter should collapse into itself. The electrons should spiral in until they hit the nucleus.

      Electrons in atomic orbits move without losing energy. The orbits are stable. Negatively charged electrons are attracted to the positive nucleus, yet they don't combine. Matter does not collapse on itself. It's not Newton, it's quantum mechanics, in particular, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Heisenberg uncertainty explains the solidity of matter.

      What is different here is the size and mass scale has been upped by orders of magnitude from electron orbits in atoms and molecules in this supercooled atom trap. It remains to be seen if the experiment will produce results. The scientific jury is out.

      --
      "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
    25. Re:Newton? by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      The gravity of the body at the center is pulling the object in, the velocity vector is pushing the orbiting body out, but as they are equally matched the net result is a nice perfect circular orbit (not accounting for the fact that true circular orbits probably only occur in theory and also avoiding all those horrible to write as formulas elliptical orbits). Isn't that the same thing?

      No. While the amplitude of the velocity vector remains the same, its direction changes constantly, the result of the gravitational force.

      Or is the first law simply saying that a body with movement will continue to keep moving as long as nothing interacts with it?

      That is exactly what it says. Or in other words: the velocity vector only changes when a net force is applied to the object.

      If there are two opposite but equal forces being applied with a new force of zero, would that not be allowed to be the same thing?

      That is the case, but here there is only one real force working (gravity). The centrifugal force that balances the orbit is not a real force, but a result of the object's velocity.

    26. Re:Newton? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Aye, I thought about this too, I'm not sure. But I figured I would try to interpret the article anyway for my own sake and just for an informative response (yours). Thanks =)

    27. Re:Newton? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      "Electrons in atomic orbits move without losing energy."

      This intrigues me - wouldn't this, in essence, be an example of 'perpetual motion'? Wouldn't this prove, at least at this level, that perpetual energy is possible?

    28. Re:Newton? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If i understand the article correctly it's not just going round in a circle like a planet but "jumping" around specific point around the circle like a clock hand. it appears from one point to the other without being in between. But rest of your point still applies.

      Isn't that a bit like, to borrow a line from Stargate Atlantis, "looking through a microscope at a cell culture and seeing a thousand dancing hamsters?"

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    29. Re:Newton? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      First law of motion works for orbits - the objects are effectively moving in a straight line but the curviture of space around the planet/body/star is making their straight line circular.

      Not so, orbits are based on there being a force, gravity, that is attracting the objects. This force bends the line. The bending of space is a tiny additional effect.

    30. Re:Newton? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you expect quantum effects to have an intuitive understanding at the human level, you'll be substantially disappointed.

    31. Re:Newton? by snadrus · · Score: 1

      I asked this in middle school when I was first approached with the ideas. The (certainly over-simplified) answer I was given was this:
      If we do something to an entire electron, we can see measure it and often calculate it as a single point.
      However, electrons are not solid things. Their natural shapes around nuclei are various balloon-like structures.
      The entire structure is the one electron, yet anything we do to it will remove it entirely or stretch it somehow (covalent bonds).

      So it's not perpetual motion as much as difficulty slicing-up an electron.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
  4. Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    I didn't know that anyone had a problem with perpetual motion on frictionless surfaces. After all... isn't that how galaxies keep spinning forever? If there's no friction then there's no entropy and of course you can keep doing it.

    Am I missing something here?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by vistapwns · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you meant what that says, but galaxies don't spin forever, they eventually end up in a black hole. Now that's a long time out, but this thing is supposed to actually spin *forever*, not get degraded by any other physical process, well that's how I read it anyway, I'm not a physicist.

      --
      "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
    2. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that anyone had a problem with perpetual motion on frictionless surfaces. After all... isn't that how galaxies keep spinning forever? If there's no friction then there's no entropy and of course you can keep doing it.

      Am I missing something here?

      Galaxies don't spin forever.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      My understanding, and appreciate I am a layman, is that blackholes themselves spin and the spin of the blackhole is determined by the spin of things that fell into it. That is, the angular momentum of everything that falls below the event horizon is preserved.

      Is that wrong?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by vistapwns · · Score: 1

      Well, this is probably the blind leading the blind because I'm only a laymen as well, but my understanding, is that while a black hole will spin for a very long time, and you may somehow be able to extract energy from that (or not), eventually it will stop spinning and then evaporate. Talking about 10^50 years or more here, so a very long time depending on it's size, but eventually it will not be useful to any thing still around. Like I said, this device, will never stop, in theory.

      --
      "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
    5. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Why would they stop? What stops them? My understanding, and appreciate I am a laymen that makes no claim to a deep understanding of the subject, is that large bodies basically follow Newton's laws of motion. And that means they keep spinning unless something causes them to slow or stop.

      Now, you're saying something always slows or stops galaxies. What are we talking about here? Galaxies colliding into each other?

      I believe someone else said something about blackholes stopping glaxeys but in that case wouldn't it be more valid to say that the galaxy BECAME a black hole rather then saying the black stopped the galaxy? Especially since we're talking about the spin of the galaxy. And my understanding... limited though it might be... is that blackholes generally spin... very very quickly... with incredible energy.

      Furthermore, is every galaxy destined to be sucked into a blackhole at its center? Certainly there would have to be some matter that was simply beyond its reach or moving at the wrong orbit or too fast or something to ever be pulled into THAT black hole. And that being the case couldn't that matter spin around the core forever.

      I don't understand what force is supposed to stop the galaxies.

      If I have a really big rock and I throw a golf ball so it orbits that really big rock... how is that not forever? Where is the entropy?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by vistapwns · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, the galaxy is not spinning as you think of it with stars at a constant orbit. What happens is the galaxy's gravitational field is pulling everything towards everything else in the galaxy, very slowly, so it's more like water going down a huge drain, where it circles a few times then goes poof. Same principle with our sun and planets (or your golf ball example), it appears they spin forever at constant distance, but they are slowly being sucked into the sun. So yea the galaxy collapses into the black hole, but the black hole is just a manifestation of the gravity that caused the thing to circle in the first place, and then swallowed it all up so it spins no more. Point is, galaxies are not an eternal event no matter how it plays out, and it must always die and become useless. Where as this thing in the article, possibly does works forever.

      --
      "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
    7. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by fnj · · Score: 1

      ...like those galaxies you mentioned, they will stop eventually, either by colliding with other galaxies or weirder things

      How about things that are not weird at all? Namely, interstellar and even intergalactic space is not a perfect void. Particles are present there; not very many, but a non-zero amount. You can think of these particles as a very rare gas, and they are often described as such, but it is more a plasma, chiefly ionized hydrogen, consisting of detached protons and electrons. A thin "soup" of subatomic particles in actual fact. This soup exerts a slight slowing on moving objects such as the components of galaxies.

    8. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      ah but the universe and galaxies are expanding not shrinking as you seem to think.

      however i do agree there will be a time when they die, nothing is forever

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      Galaxies do not expand. They are gravitationally bound structures and the expansion force is much weaker.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    10. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      yeah but extracting energy from it deliberately is what would violate the system. Perpetual motion machines don't need to claim to produce excess energy merely sustain input energy indefinitely.

      Imagine two large objects in space orbiting each other... why would they ever stop? Why couldn't they spin around each other forever?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      You could extract energy from a black hole in many ways. Consider some of the properties of a black hole:

      1. Lots of mass
      2. Spinning rapidly
      3. Low friction environment

      Sound like anything we use on Earth now? Think Flywheels.

      You could extract energy from a blackhole in a manner similar to the way in which we extract energy from a flywheel.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    12. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's my understanding (I'm a physicist though not in a field at all related to the described work):

      As usual, the summary and the article somewhat mis-state the interesting part. They talk about 'perpetual motion' but there are lots of examples of things that move seemingly without end: e.g. a planet orbiting a star. However if you think about it a bit more, you'll realize that those kinds of motion can't be used to get "free energy" and actually are not even perpetual. If you try to extract energy from some kind of bound system that exhibits motion, you decrease the energy of the system and alter the motion. So you can extract energy from a planetary orbit (in principle), but then the planet will have less energy, and orbit more slowly (its orbit will decay). As other posters mention, all kinds of natural processes inherently perform this kind of "energy extraction": e.g. random collisision with space-dust, or tidal interactions between planetary bodies, will slowly alter these 'perpetual' orbits. Even if you imagine a highly idealized system (perfectly rigid objects orbiting one another in perfect vacuum), we have reason to believe that such a system will radiate away energy (slowly) by emitting gravitational waves.

      What this all amounts to is saying that the system has some 'extra energy' that could be extracted. In physics we would say that the system is not in its ground state, or "minimum energy state". This is the key phrase that the quoted physicists use which the article doesn't properly explain.

      The idea is that a system in its ground state will have lost all the energy it can possibly lose. There is no extra energy left. And, conventionally one would assume that a system in the ground state would no longer exhibit any kind of motion: because any motion is extra energy that could be extracted, obviously. So an idealized orbital system has motion, but is not in the minimum energy state. What Wilczek is proposing is that he's discovered kinds of systems which exhibit motion in their ground state. In other words, the system oscillates as a function of time, and yet one cannot extract energy from this oscillation. Cool!

      The analogy to crystals is this: as you cool atoms, they vibrate less and less, and eventually they settle into their minimum energy state. This state is usually a crystal, where all the atoms are frozen into perfect rows. This is the minimum energy state. Interestingly, at high-temperature the system was spatially homogeneous (a gas has atoms all over the place), whereas the ground state has spontaneously broken space-translational symmetry: the atoms exist in well-defined positions and don't occupy intervening points. Thus the ground state spontaneously breaks a symmetry (space-translation). Wilczek's proposed states, if they really exist, would upon cooling to their ground state (no excess energy left) settle into an arrangement where they are in motion. Thus along the time axis the system is not constant/homogeneous. The system has spontaneously broken time-translational symmetry. Hence this is like a crystal along the time axis: a 'time crystal'.

      I'm not qualified to say whether this is right or wrong. It would be exciting if true. But it doesn't seem to violate any known laws (e.g. you can't use it to violate conservation of energy, so no 'perpetual motion' in the 'free energy' sense), so it seems possible that these states could exist.

    13. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by swalve · · Score: 1

      I believe that's the theory. They seem like magic because they don't emit light and actually suck light in, but that they are exothermic in the long term via Hawking Radiation. IE, they eat galaxies and shit Hawking radiation. So as the supply of nearby galaxies runs out, they eventually shit themselves into not being a black hole anymore.

    14. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Possibly I don't know what is meant by perpetual motion.

      My understanding was something that would go on so long as it wasn't disturbed forever.

      People keep bringing up situations where a machine or system can't sustain motion IF energy is taken out of the system.

      That is not my understanding of what perpetual motion means in that I didn't think extracting free energy from it infinitely was a required parameter.

      Obviously you can't extract energy from a planetary orbit infinitely without degrading the orbit. However, if left alone, my understanding... limited though it is... is that it will keep orbiting forever assuming the orbit is stable and is left alone.

      When I said this looked like a perpetual motion machine and that was nothing that extraordinary that is what I was referring to... stable systems that don't degrade assuming you leave them alone.

      If they had some crazy system that would infinitely emit energy no matter how small that would be sort of remarkable... but that sounds impossible.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 1

      Possibly I don't know what is meant by perpetual motion.

      Well actually I think the term "perpetual motion" isn't particularly helpful. You're right that it's easy to imagine systems that undergo a certain periodic motion without end, as long as they are not disturbed (no energy extracted). Some people call that 'perpetual motion'. Other people might reserve the term 'perpetual motion' for discussions of non-ideal systems (i.e. real systems in our universe), which are subject to incidental effects (like friction). For real systems, there are going to be additional channels of interaction that allow energy to move into other systems, and thermodynamics (entropy wants to increase) thus guarantees that these channels will be used, preventing cyclic/periodic motion from being endless. (One can imagine gas atoms randomly moving around until the end of time, normally that random motion wouldn't be called 'perpetual motion'.)

      However, if left alone, my understanding... is that it will keep orbiting forever assuming the orbit is stable and is left alone.

      In Newtonian physics, this is true: the orbit will continue forever. (An unremarkable example of perpetual motion. Unfortunately only theoretical since our universe doesn't strictly obey Newtonian physics.) In relativity theory, the orbiting bodies will emit gravitational waves, which means they are slowly radiating away energy. The orbit will decay and the system will eventually end up in a minimum-energy state where there is no orbit/motion. (The ambient random energy of space-time will have been increased: hence entropy increased.)

      I believe there are solutions to the equations of general relavitity which include time-oscillatory behavior but do not emit gravitational waves. (Wikipedia says that an ideal spherically-symmetric pulsating mass should not.) But these kinds of ceaseless motion are different than what is being proposed in TFA.

      When I said this looked like a perpetual motion machine and that was nothing that extraordinary that is what I was referring to... stable systems that don't degrade assuming you leave them alone.

      Right. And if that's all that they were talking about, it wouldn't be that impressive. E.g. one can imagine putting an ion in a magnetic trap, giving it a small push, and watching it orbit around through the trap without end. Call it perpetual motion if you like. (In reality it will be radiating electromagnetic energy and slowing down imperceptibly as a function of time.)

      The novel thing about these 'time crystals' is that they would exhibit motion and yet be in a minimum energy state. There would be no way to extract energy from their motion. This also means that the motion would be truly perpetual in the sense that no incidental process could cause the motion to stop, since there is no excess energy to be radiated away. This is the novelty of the new states (assuming they actually exist).

    16. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by slinches · · Score: 1

      Your conception of perpetual motion is technically* correct, but there's an implication in general use that the motion is perpetual for a tangible physical system (one with friction or other non-isentropic processes)

      Obviously you can't extract energy from a planetary orbit infinitely without degrading the orbit. However, if left alone, my understanding... limited though it is... is that it will keep orbiting forever assuming the orbit is stable and is left alone.

      If space were a perfect vacuum and only two point masses existed, one orbiting the other, then the orbit may be perpetual. Although, we still don't understand gravity well enough to be sure that energy isn't radiated away from such a system in the form of gravitational waves (as mentioned by the GP).

      * The best kind of correct

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    17. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "Why couldn't they spin around each other forever?"

      1. Infalling dust and other galactic debris.
      2. Quantum virtual particles.
      3. Gravity.

    18. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by robertinventor · · Score: 1

      Thanks, really helpful especially, when you explain in ground state means can't extract energy from the rotation in any way which is intuitively bizarre :)

    19. Re:Isn't this just a frictionless surface? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I'm just a bit curious and don't know if you will see this. You state:

      In Newtonian physics, this is true: the orbit will continue forever. (An unremarkable example of perpetual motion. Unfortunately only theoretical since our universe doesn't strictly obey Newtonian physics.) In relativity theory, the orbiting bodies will emit gravitational waves [wikipedia.org], which means they are slowly radiating away energy. The orbit will decay and the system will eventually end up in a minimum-energy state where there is no orbit/motion. (The ambient random energy of space-time will have been increased: hence entropy increased.)

      To paraphrase that. Gravitational energy is being radiated. This is decaying orbits. Does that mean that it is being transfered some how to the surrounding space which is denting less? Could matter fall in on itself eventually once all gravitational force was uniformly radiated into space?

      This leads me to believe gravity is an effect observed in relation to mass, but not because of mass.

  5. Wait. What? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    What is your take on it?

    Yes, Any other Nobel Prize-winning physicists / Slashdoters with Bose Einstein Condensate experience please chime in.
    But first, let me get some pop corn ... /sarcasm

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Wait. What? by six025 · · Score: 4, Funny

      But first, let me get some pop corn ... /sarcasm

      Unlike the experiment, I predict a great deal of energy will be expended by lay people chiming in.

      Like the experiment, I proclaim this energy to be perpetual while at the same time achieving nothing. ;-)

    2. Re:Wait. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Reading TFA brought to mind phosphorescence. Traditional thinking is that forbidden quantum states prevent rapid emission of stored energy. But (for example) very fine crystals of zinc sulfide with a copper activator might in fact be exibiting this "time crystal" effect. The break in the symmetry of time might be what allows the energy to escape.

      So in short, this research may lead to new phosphorescent chemicals or a better understanding of them.

    3. Re:Wait. What? by skaralic · · Score: 1

      What is your take on it?

      Yes, Any other Nobel Prize-winning physicists / Slashdoters with Bose Einstein Condensate experience please chime in. But first, let me get some pop corn ... /sarcasm

      Let's crowd-source this on reddit!

  6. What does this have to do with time? by Nyder · · Score: 2

    I'll admit I'm not the brightest of people (public school education), but I can't figure exactly what this has to do with time. Any chance of you higher educated science folks want to explain this a bit better?

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:What does this have to do with time? by H0p313ss · · Score: 2

      Don't feel too bad, I have a bachelors degree in computer science, I took the first year physics courses for engineers, my father has a Phd in Metallurgy and a Masters in Engineering.

      Let's just say I've been steeped in science since I was 10.

      And that shit went right the fuck over my head.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:What does this have to do with time? by narcc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, after we produce 6 time crystals we can assemble the key to time. Frank Wilczek is really the Black Guardian in disguise, but the Berkeley physicist heading up the project won't figure this out until the last Slashdot article in the series.

    3. Re:What does this have to do with time? by ceview · · Score: 1

      It might be that time is important in the sense that it provides an asymmetry in that there is a direction to time when you observe an energy change. The idea that energy goes somewhere else, decays to somewhere else ( like heat) in a particular time direction. For example at time A energy goes from one level to another , to time point B. The experiment may suggest that under those special conditions time is symmetrical, there is no before or after event or that they can interchange with no energy changes. Just my interpretation here.

    4. Re:What does this have to do with time? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      A crystal's structure repeats through space - the bit at x+1 looks just like the bit at x. This thing's structure repeats through time - at t+1 it will look identical to how it did at t.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:What does this have to do with time? by akh · · Score: 5, Informative

      IINAScientist but here's how I understand it. Three-dimensional crystals form a regular, repeating lattice in the three spacial dimensions. These lattices are stable and need no energy input to retain their structure. Hypothetically, time crystals extend that lattice into a fourth dimension (time), treating time more-or-less as a spacial dimension. Given that the structure is crystalline, no energy is needed to maintain it even though its 3-dimensional structure, dimensions, etc. may appear to vary over time. Such structures are so far only hypothetical; the goal of this experiment is to attempt to create one.

      --
      Accept Eris as your Fnord and personally sate her
    6. Re:What does this have to do with time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I'm not the brightest of people (public school education), but I can't figure exactly what this has to do with time. Any chance of you higher educated science folks want to explain this a bit better?

      You don't even have to read TFA, the excerpt in the post is enough:

      "[...] move in a repeating pattern, like minute hands rounding clocks [...]"

      Clock, time. Get the connection?

    7. Re:What does this have to do with time? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      The way I read it the "long, thing crystals" go around in circles so they somewhat resemble an analogue watch, so you could possibly use them to build timepieces for the super-rich that don't know on what else to spend their money on.

    8. Re:What does this have to do with time? by negablade · · Score: 2

      Well, a crystal is a repeating arrangement in space where each atom occurs in certain regular positions in the crystal structure. If you look along any direction in the crystal the crystal lattice is repeating and predictable. A time crystal is the same idea but it is repeating in the direction of time. For instance any shape that changes but repeats that same pattern over time in a regular and ordered way would be a time crystal. I'm sure this is a simplification. For instance, I suspect a simple mechanical device (such as a clock) wouldn't constitute a time crystal any more than a tank full of loose balls would constitute a spacial crystal. In fact, I suspect the time crystal would need to be self organising in the same way that a spacial crystal self organises. In other words, the time crystal cycle is self perpetuating, hence the link to perpetual motion and the rather uncomfortable feeling that something might not be correct in the theory. In a spacial crystal it is the charges in the atoms and ionic bonds that self organise the crystal. For a time crystal (and I'm speculating here since I haven't read the arXiv article), maybe the transfer of energy or spin around the crystal would self organise the time crystal.

    9. Re:What does this have to do with time? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I'm not the brightest of people (public school education), but I can't figure exactly what this has to do with time. Any chance of you higher educated science folks want to explain this a bit better?

      Time is defined as the direction in which entropy increases (energy is expended to do something). If this crystal is not expending energy, it is stuck in time. Or something like that.

      Except that as you are observing it, time passes.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    10. Re:What does this have to do with time? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I'm not the brightest of people (public school education), but I can't figure exactly what this has to do with time. Any chance of you higher educated science folks want to explain this a bit better?

      You don't even have to read TFA, the excerpt in the post is enough:

      "[...] move in a repeating pattern, like minute hands rounding clocks [...]"

      Clock, time. Get the connection?

      You don't understand it either.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    11. Re:What does this have to do with time? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Well, a crystal is a repeating arrangement in space where each atom occurs in certain regular positions in the crystal structure. If you look along any direction in the crystal the crystal lattice is repeating and predictable. A time crystal is the same idea but it is repeating in the direction of time. For instance any shape that changes but repeats that same pattern over time in a regular and ordered way would be a time crystal.

      I'm sure this is a simplification. For instance, I suspect a simple mechanical device (such as a clock) wouldn't constitute a time crystal any more than a tank full of loose balls would constitute a spacial crystal. In fact, I suspect the time crystal would need to be self organising in the same way that a spacial crystal self organises. In other words, the time crystal cycle is self perpetuating, hence the link to perpetual motion and the rather uncomfortable feeling that something might not be correct in the theory. In a spacial crystal it is the charges in the atoms and ionic bonds that self organise the crystal. For a time crystal (and I'm speculating here since I haven't read the arXiv article), maybe the transfer of energy or spin around the crystal would self organise the time crystal.

      Okay, I'm understanding what you are saying. Guess it just seems weird because it would seem time isn't solid, but what the article is suggesting that it is.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    12. Re:What does this have to do with time? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      The explanation is that if you can hint at time travel or faster than light travel in an article, it generates interest, and therefore pageviews, and therefore advertising revenue.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:What does this have to do with time? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that colloquially called resonance?

    14. Re:What does this have to do with time? by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Except that as you are observing it, time passes.

      Except time is relative. So relative to the observer, yes, time has passed. Relative to the crystal, however....

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    15. Re:What does this have to do with time? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      The explanation is that if you can hint at time travel or faster than light travel in an article, it generates interest, and therefore pageviews, and therefore advertising revenue.

      Exactly, sufficiently advanced physics is indistinguishable from technical mumbo-jumbo to a layman.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    16. Re:What does this have to do with time? by negablade · · Score: 1

      Isn't that colloquially called resonance?

      Not really. The scientific definition of a resonant system is a system where the amplitude increases in response to an external driving force. This happens over a narrow frequency band or resonance band and corresponds to the natural frequency or frequencies of oscillation of the resonant system. Time crystals don't require an external driver to show a periodic response. JustinOpinion (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3704889&cid=43599995) explains the Time Crystal concept quite well.

    17. Re:What does this have to do with time? by OldSoldier · · Score: 1

      If you think of regular crystals as "space crystals" instead and that they have a regular structure that repeats in space then "time crystals" doesn't sound so awkward a term. Indeed that's what the principle investigator suggested was his inspiration... eg if Einstein said space and time are really "space-time" then could we have the "space-time" equivalent of crystals but repeating in time instead? At least that's how I'm reading the article.

      Where I'm losing it... is that I never thought "space crystals" broke the symmetry of uniform space but instead that quantization seemed to me to be a function of the crystal (or atoms), not space itself.

      However, taking the physicists enthusiasm at face value, this clearly appears (to me at least) to be another research avenue into unifying the space-time concept of general relativity with the incompatible space-time concept of quantum mechanics, and as far as I know the only one do-able in a laboratory. (Gravity wave experiments are detectors for events that happened "outside of a laboratory".) So... it's easy for me to share the enthusiasm even though I don't quite get it.

    18. Re:What does this have to do with time? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yes, correct, time is NOT a solid.

  7. Sad. Super Duper Sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It always saddens me when scientists are afraid of looking like fools. Fortunately this one over came his fear.

  8. Its the auditors... by shadowmas · · Score: 3, Funny

    OMG the auditors are back at it. Somebody find Susan.

    1. Re:Its the auditors... by shadowmas · · Score: 1

      Susans grandfather can't directly interfere (See hogfather) so it's susan we need.

    2. Re:Its the auditors... by deimtee · · Score: 1

      It's not Susan you need, it's a box of chocolates.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    3. Re:Its the auditors... by shadowmas · · Score: 1

      Ahh. I forgot about him, makes more sense now.

  9. Full paper by hex+socket · · Score: 1, Troll

    The full paper is available on the researcher's website: http://timecube.com/

  10. Yuck by oldhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All these times we've been complaining how the "editors" were trolling with their crap story selection. And now, for once an editor selects an interesting and relevant story, and all the comments are at the level of 4chan crap.

    Slashdot really has fell off the cliff.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Yuck by delt0r · · Score: 3, Funny

      /. was always off the cliff. You just old enough to notice now.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    2. Re:Yuck by fnj · · Score: 1

      I don't know, my impression is that the cream is as good as the cream ever was, and the crap is as bad as the crap always was, and it is not necessary for the cream to volumetrically overcome the crap in order for it to be informative and stimulating.

    3. Re:Yuck by dwsobw · · Score: 1

      A bunch of physicists debating the merrits of a certain technical detail of their lastest super computer will be similarily insightful as the comments here ...

    4. Re:Yuck by jpkunst · · Score: 1

      Score all "Funny" mods at -1 and Slashdot becomes a lot more interesting all of a sudden.

  11. How is this different to harmonic oscilator? by Grantbridge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In all chemical bonds the ground state has non-zero energy which results in a vibration of the two atoms. They will vibrate backwards and forwards forever as there is no lower quantum state to lose energy to. This doesn't really seem all that different, other than they're making a rotating non-zero ground state.

    1. Re:How is this different to harmonic oscilator? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Parent is highly informative. Quantum theory is difficult for me to follow (and, yes, difficult for me to accept - but not impossible), and this idea did not occur to me, but it makes sense.

    2. Re:How is this different to harmonic oscilator? by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, I'll have a stab at it. First of all, ignore the 'crystals of time' hoopla. This is not helpful.

      Imagine a hydrogen atom with one electron and a fixed nucleus. The electron will be in a certain orbital. If you are thinking of the atom according to the Bohr model, the the electron is going around the nucleus like a planet around the sun. However, the position of the electron, or rather the probably of finding the electron in any particular position, is determined by a wave-function. This wave-function is a complex number that varies with space, and possibly with time too. You cannot measure this complex function directly, but if you can detect the particle somehow, you might learn something about the value the wave function had before the measurement started.

      Actually, the stable hydrogen atom wave-function is simple and calculable, and just like the simple harmonic oscillator, it does not change with time. The electron is in a stable orbit, and will need to lose energy or gain energy to go to a different orbit. The same is true for many much more complex wave-functions. If you have a current running in a superconducting loop, then all the electrons in the superconducting band can be described by a single giant wave-function. You still have all the individual electrons, but they are all moving in a coherent manner, so they are not losing energy. Indeed, they probably got into that state by taking energy from the giant wave-state, until it reached some local stable minimum. And even though you may have billions of electrons in the wave-state, the wave-function does not change with time unless something disturbs it.

      Okay, the idea of sucking out energy until a particle or a system reaches a stable state is pretty common, but it is not necessarily universal. You could have two hydrogen atoms, one with the electron in the ground state, and one with the electron in an excited state; and the second atom loses its energy to the first one, and after a while, the first atom gives it back to the second one again, and so it goes on. In real life, the atom would probably emit a photon that would not get caught by the other one, and that would be the end of it. But if you could somehow constrain the photon to just bounce between the two atoms, then you have two electron wave functions that are perpetually flipping between two states in such a way that energy is preserved. This cyclic flipping would mean that the whole system gets back to where it was a short while ago: it is something that happens at regular intervals in time, hence the 'crystals in time' bit. Ugh. Can we describe the whole system, including whatever it is that constrains it by a bigger wave-function that does not change with time, like our superconductors? It's a bit unlikely, because the jumping between states and emitting or absorbing a photon is a sudden transition, where the super-electron interactions were smooth and continuous. But there might be a way.

    3. Re:How is this different to harmonic oscilator? by Vonotar82 · · Score: 1

      OK, so...can ground-state atoms can be arranged in a regular, repeating fashion and thus you have what this article is attempting to explain. What happens if you arrange atoms in such a way that a chain reaction would normally occur, but in a way which preserved the repeating pattern with ground state atoms? Would the process take place? If so, would it continuously take place? If a process did occur, could you harness whatever byproduct of that reaction is? Or how about this: Some crystals are piezoelectric. Could the same type of effect be applied to a crystalline structure along a time axis?

      --
      "I drank WHAT?!"--Socrates
    4. Re:How is this different to harmonic oscilator? by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      In all chemical bonds the ground state has non-zero energy which results in a vibration of the two atoms.

      Ground-state "vibration" of a quantum harmonic oscillator isn't exactly like what you might think of based on the "classical" limit like a swinging pendulum. Quantum harmonic oscillator energy level states (including the ground state) are time stationary: the particle has some probability distribution of being in various locations which does not change as a function of time. Only when you mix different "pure" energy eigenstates together do you get a time-varying probability distribution that "sloshes back and forth" like you'd expect from a classical pendulum. So, what this experiment is trying to do differently is produce a ground state system with periodic, time-dependent variation, which you don't get from simple particle-in-a-well oscillator systems.

  12. Thiotimoline by djl4570 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wasn't all of this in "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" by Asimov?

  13. perpetual motion OK, but won't generate energy by dltaylor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the quantum level, a "ring around the rosie" dance of atoms (really just nodes of a complex wave function) in a BEC is a freebie, however delicately balanced. Provided the containment isn't perturbed, there's no input energy required to keep things "moving". However, any attempt to extract energy from the setup will cause it to collapse. Even extracting information, such as the spin of the BEC will have to provide all of the energy in the probe.

  14. perpetual motion by ssam · · Score: 1

    the term perpetual motion is used in different ways. usually to imply that something is a magical source of endless motion.

    There are actually plenty of physical systems that will move for ever. anything that moves with no friction. bodies in space is almost an example of this, but would actually be a small friction from interstellar (and intergalactic) gas and dust, and interaction with CMBR. also there are plenty of quantum 'motions' that could qualify. you can't extract energy from these systems without slowing them. in the quantum case they might still 'move' in the ground state, so you can't extract that energy.

    Then there are the crazy mechanical designs that people invent. generally (ignoring the flat out fraudsters) the inventor believes that they have found a system that generates a perpetual force that for example rotates a wheel. They usually believe that they just need to get the friction a bit lower, and then it will run. This is a good example http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#stevinprob (in fact everone should go and read that whole site.)

  15. Big stumbling block by davidbrit2 · · Score: 2

    How exactly do they plan to first resurrect both Jim Henson and Madeline L'Engle?

  16. Thiotimoline, or a Shipstone, perhaps? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wasn't all of this in "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" by Asimov?

    heh...glad I'm not the only one who made that connection. That was a specific carbon compound, IIRC, that dissolved 1.12 seconds before water hit it, and Asimov's clever scientists and engineers figured out how to power a stardrive with it. Wonder what would happen if engineers figured out how to move energy into this time cube and then extract it later on. Might be a shipstone in the making... :) (I like Asimov a lot, but Heinlein is a better story teller.)

  17. Crystal structure by Coppit · · Score: 2

    He also found that the crystals were cubes.

  18. Superconductivity by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a kinetic analog.

  19. Thiotimoline Chain Reaction by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Isaac Asimov was right, Keanu Reeves is the chosen one!

    We've replaced the regular coffee in the Turboencabulator on this Feraliminal Lycanthropizer with time crystals. Let's see if we can't raise up something we can't put down...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  20. TimeCube by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    Can we get something more definite than that? I mean if the submitter doesn't know, and it sounds like he doesn't, why even say anything.

    it means they can finally build a lattice for the TimeCube. http://www.timecube.com/

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  21. Magents != no energy by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    Magnets of every form are not a free form of energy. This is a trick using magnets. Maybe something very efficient will come out of it. Maybe it's just cool. Maybe it will lead to other things. What it won't lead to is a reversal of the laws of thermodynamics.

  22. Analogy by Rixel · · Score: 2

    So, it is sort of like the Windows 7 busy cursor. Goes round and round forever.

    --
    Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
  23. Neat by Eddy_D · · Score: 1

    Have no idea if it will work or not, but it sounds hella cool.

    --
    - I stole your sig.
  24. ...and it's interesting because... by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 1

    ...we don't know the answer.

    We can look at the states before and after a quantum transition, but we cannot try and catch an energetic hydrogen atom that is half-way through emitting a photon. Well, we don't actually know that but a lot of people have tried because not being able to take some process apart really irritates physicists like nothing else, and in the last hundred years, quantum physics has not been cracked open at all. We can tell whether an electron is in a particular orbital, or whether a nucleus can spontaneously decay, but we cannot predict exactly how long it is going to stay in any state other than the ground state, because the ground state has no energy to go anywhere.

    We cannot tell when a quantum state is going to change but can another quantum state see something we can't, even if it cannot communicate it? Can you get processes which ping back and forth, or go in circles in a regular fashion; or when a quantum state is reached, is all information lost, and the particle may have been in that state for a quadrillionth of a second or a billion years. My guess, and it is a pure guess with no information behind it, is that the information is lost, and you cannot get these cyclic quantum events. We shall see. Or not.

    Not sure about the piezoelectric bit, though.

  25. Perpetual motion != Free energy by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    No one ever said that a perpetual motion machine would be useful. And a quantum-level perpetual motion machine is barely even interesting unless it is providing free energy, even if only at the quantum level.

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.