So, time crystals and perpetual motion

cerebus

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
54,005
Reaction score
29,179
Location
Netherlands
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/fe...etual-motion-test-could-amend-theory-of-time/

In February 2012, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek decided to go public with a strange and, he worried, somewhat embarrassing idea. Impossible as it seemed, Wilczek had developed an apparent proof of “time crystals” — physical structures that move in a repeating pattern, like minute hands rounding clocks, without expending energy or ever winding down. Unlike clocks or any other known objects, time crystals derive their movement not from stored energy but from a break in the symmetry of time, enabling a special form of perpetual motion.
Click to expand...
 
OrbitalDawn said:
:wtf:

Perpetual motion?
Click to expand...

Not run-of-the-mill perpetual motion, but a "special form of perpetual motion".

Some other choice bits:
"without expending energy"
"not from stored energy but a break in the symmetry of time".

Sorry if I sound overly skeptical, but the moment I see "perpetual motion" my BS-detectors go off.
 
Arthur said:
IF sucker_born_frequency>0 seconds AND sucker_greed>0 THEN "I have this investment with sure-fire returns"
Click to expand...

This is a Nobel prize winning physicist we're talking about and it isn't even remotely bankable. It's a theory about a possible state of crystallised matter. At least pretend to have read the article please.
 
Wow, this could have some major implications for Physics as this could open the door to a new understanding of the universe.
 
cerebus said:
It's not a question of skepticism. It's in the realms of the provable, or unprovable, as the case may be.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

And I'm quite open to New Vistas in Science. So watching this space, er, time.

My BS Detector isn't lighting up nearly as much as with the FTL Neutrinos story. In fact, there's barely a glow in the BSD, so waiting with suspense. Three years to infinity - could be a longish wait.
 
Perpetual motion is impossible, did not read article.
 
Perpetual motion doesn't directly translate into free energy.
 
Interesting... I think anything that can challenge the established paradigms surrounding the nature of the universe, should be welcomed...
 
Arthur said:
"perpetual" doesn't rhyme with "entropy".
Click to expand...
I wish I could say that it only depends on the accent, but I tried it and sadly, it doesn't.
cerebus said:
It's not an energy based form of perpetual motion.
Click to expand...
That's the part I'm really having trouble with. Not the "perpetual" part, the part about motion without energy. Isn't motion just kinetic energy?
 
Mister 44 said:
I wish I could say that it only depends on the accent, but I tried it and sadly, it doesn't.

That's the part I'm really having trouble with. Not the "perpetual" part, the part about motion without energy. Isn't motion just kinetic energy?
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a very puzzling concept. This is the key:

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. Without consuming or producing energy, time crystals would be stable, in what physicists call their “ground state,” despite cyclical variations in structure that scientists say can be interpreted as perpetual motion.
Click to expand...

Crystals form lattices in space that break normal rules of symmetry. He's indicating that they could do the same in time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X