Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Confirm a Pear-Shaped Nucleus, and It Could Ruin Time Travel Forever (sciencealert.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via ScienceAlert: Physicists have confirmed the existence of pear-shaped nuclei, which challenges the fundamental theories of physics that explain our Universe. "We've found these nuclei literally point towards a direction in space. This relates to a direction in time, providing there's a well-defined direction in time and we will always travel from past to present," Marcus Scheck from the University of the West of Scotland told Kenneth MacDonald at BBC News. Until recently, it was generally accepted that nuclei of atoms could only be one of three shapes: spherical, discus, or rugby ball. The first discovery of a pear-shaped nucleus was back in 2013, when physicists at CERN discovered isotope Radium-224. Now, that find has been confirmed by a second study, which shows that the nucleus of the isotope Barium-144 is also asymmetrical and pear-shaped. In regard to time travel, Scheck says that this uneven distribution of mass and charge caused Barium-144's nucleus to "point" in a certain direction in spacetime, and this bias could explain why time seems to only want to go from past to present, and not backwards, even if the laws of physics don't care which way it goes.

13 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. why time seems to only want to go from past... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you backup that statement? Oh wait... never mind.

  2. That's the state of the universe then... by mjm1231 · · Score: 5, Funny

    the whole thing has gone pear-shaped.

    --
    Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    1. Re:That's the state of the universe then... by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      the whole thing has gone pear-shaped.

      I prefer the idea that time is suppository shaped.

      So it's a good thing that time only runs in the forward direction then. (as Cat on Red dwarf found out).

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:That's the state of the universe then... by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny
      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  3. What is this I don't even by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Time only "goes from" the past to the future because we define those terms by the way that time "goes", and time "goes" the way it does, from less-entropic to more-entropic states, because the process of memory formation, like all processes, necessitates an increase in entropy. Time isn't actually "going" anywhere, there are just different possible states of the universe, and the ones we we remember (or are otherwise recorded for us to gather information from) are necessarily more entropic, and we call the states we already remember (or otherwise has record of) "past" and the opposite direction in the configuration space "future".

    What the hell could pear-shaped nuclei possible have to do with any of that?

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:What is this I don't even by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the hell could pear-shaped nuclei possible have to do with any of that?

      TFA adds nothing of value - it's just an unsubstantiated claim. The nuclei point "in a particular direction", whatever that means. If they all point in the same direction that would certainly be interesting, but it's not clear.

      Hopefully will get some better science journalism on this one. Where's the Sixty Symbols video when we need it?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. Re:Galactic North... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nice thought but no, there is no center as you're thinking, space itself expanded with the big bang so the big bang happened literally everywhere. At least as far as we know.

  5. Re:That's the state of the universe [pear-shaped] by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    My body certainly has. Maybe the atoms examined simply reached middle-age. Time* to put the universe on a diet of neutrino shakes; but they are so bland and often just pass right through ya.

    * No pun intended

  6. Re:Galactic North... by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they point toward Mecca, I will be fully freaked out.

    And, dammit, I just bought a bunch of Xmas decorations last year.

  7. Simplest explnation is always true by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    Points to direction of next quest.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Time has a direction independent of entropy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    How do we know time doesn't go backward? Maybe it does. We'd never know it if it did. (think about it.)

    Surprising as it seems we would actually know if time reversed because of what seems to be one of the most forgotten results of particle physics: the laws of physics do not work the same if time is reversed due to something called "T-violation": literally time-reversal symmetry violation. This is NOT the same thing as a glass falling off a table will not reassemble itself and flying back onto the same because this is an effect of entropy.

    The first evidence for T-violation came from the CP-LEAR kaon experiment at CERN in 1998 [Phys. Lett. B 444 43 (1998)] and was confirmed in B-decays by Babar in 2012 (and as evidence that this result is always forgotten they forgot about the CP-LEAR measurement in this article!!). These experiments looked at how a particle oscillates back and forth between two possible states. What they found is that a particle in state A will oscillate into state B faster than one in state B will oscillate into state A. Hence the process prefers to go in one direction more than the other even though in this case the two states have identical entropy.

    So if time were reversed you would be able to detect it by doing the same experiment and finding that now the particles would go from B to A faster than from A to B. Incidentally this symmetry is also closely related by special relativity to the symmetry between matter and anti-matter so reversing time would switch our universe into one which prefers anti-matter over matter and we could detect this flip again with particle physics experiments.

    So amazing as it seems we could detect a flip in the direction of time and the article is just plain wrong when it says that the laws of physics don't care which way time goes: they do and we have evidence to show it!

    1. Re:Time has a direction independent of entropy by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > so why people keep mixing several theories together, is beyond me

      I can tell you that. It's because the only difference between the written down formula for Shannon Entropy and the written down formula for thermodynamic entropy is a single - sign. Which led people to believe that the one is merely an inversion of the other.
      Unfortunately this is an extremely silly conclusion - because although the formulas look the same on paper, they aren't representing the same things. The symbols re the same - but they are not symbols for the same things.
      The conflation of Shannon entropy with Thermodynamic Entropy is only marginally less silly than somebody arguing that carbon dioxide is 2 Oxygen atoms travelling at light speed because C is also the symbol for the speed of light.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  9. Appalling Explained...but really complicated by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    Time only "goes from" the past to the future because we define those terms by the way that time "goes", and time "goes" the way it does, from less-entropic to more-entropic states

    Actually that is not true because of something called T-violation which has been observed in kaon and B-meson oscillations (see my other reply to a post below for details but this is NOT an effect of entropy!).

    What the hell could pear-shaped nuclei possible have to do with any of that?

    This is harder to explain and you are absolutely correct that the article utterly fails to do so! We have three special symmetries in particle physics called C, P and T where T is time-reversal and C and P together, CP, is the symmetry between matter and anti-matter. What relativity tells us is that all three together, CPT, should be a perfect symmetry of nature. This means that CP (the matter-antimatter symmetry) and T (time reversal) are linked because if the T symmetry is violated then the CP symmetry must be violated in exactly the opposite way so that CPT altogether is conserved.

    Now the pear shaped nucleus is interesting because the nucleus is bound together by the strong force and every test so far suggests that the strong force obeys C, P and T separately (and so of course also CPT together). The weird violation of T and CP is only seen in the weak force (which causes nuclear beta decay). Now if a nucleus has a non-symmetric shape it suggests that the strong force also violates P, called parity. If P is conserved then if you flip the direction of the x, y and z axes there is no change. However with a pear-shaped nucleus there would be a change and so parity is said to be violated and this means that CP would also be broken.

    So, if true, this result would be interesting because we have never seen this effect in the strong force despite it being possible to add a term to do this and it has always been a mystery as to why this term appeared to be exactly zero - it is called the "strong CP problem". Since CP is tied to CPT by relativity this means that we would expect time reversal to be broken as well by the strong force. However despite the BBC's best effort to advertize Dr. Who this result says absolutely nothing about whether time travel is possible just that time seems to have a preferred direction...which we have known since 1998 thanks to the CP-LEAR experiment.

    As for the "pointing in the same direction in space" I want to see that written in a journal before I give it any credence. Given there are several errors and mistakes elsewhere in the article I the journalism behind this story is seems appalling and I think they completely misunderstood the explanation given...which as you can see above is not exactly trivial!