Physicists link two time crystals in seemingly impossible experiment
space.com
space.com
1. This reminds me a bit of the delayed-choice quantum eraser, which is one of the weirdest scientific outcomes and is the sort of thing that inspired me to pursue a physics degree. It implies a certain kind of time travel is possible, in the sense that in the present moment we can cause some past moments to collapse.
2. As my TA, Frank Wilczek successfully scared me off that physics degree by simply being so smart and having complicated things come so easily to him. Being confronted with the kind of horsepower needed to be successful in academic physics was eye-opening.
As an aside, Jeff Bezos had a very similar experience with his physics TA: https://youtu.be/eFnV6EM-wzY .
Thinking back, he was probably just running recitations for fun and to find future phd's, not grading assignments.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-not...
Resorting to some kimd of retro-causality mechanism really shows how many people are uncomfortable with many-worlds.
And many-worlds (though likely only scratching the surface of reality) is pretty much in the vein of panpsychism as it mirors the branching-out biology does with life/consciousness. That’s what I call a tasty correspondence of the universe
We need a new mathematical framework that goes beyond spacetime and amplituhedron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron (from which more re-interpretations can happen, especially ones that can encapsulate consciousness more than just “an observer” (or worst leading to absurdity like the quantum suicide experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortal... which definitely played a role in affecting Hugh Everett’s self-abusive lifestyle leading to his very early death at 51, as well as the suicide of his young daughter
> Everett's daughter, Elizabeth, died by suicide in 1996 (saying in her suicide note that she wished her ashes to be thrown out with the garbage so that she might "end up in the correct parallel universe to meet up w[ith] Daddy"),
Is that correct(ish)?
Oh man, everybody with a physics degree met a guy like that, the sort who claims to have learned differential geometry at 2 or some such bs.
thank you
I ditched the math side soon for the computing section though.
Only if you assert the copenhagen interpretation. If you instead assert that the experimenter merely becomes entangled with one part of a superposition on measurement, causality is just fine.
Grinding is a separate super power — few can grind at an elite level.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_erase...
Makes me wish you could do these experiments with a laser pointer and a piece of paper instead of needing lots of very expensive machinery and a research grant. Everyone should have the chance to play around with quantum weirdness.
> The laws of physics are symmetric through space ... But in a crystal, this gorgeous symmetry gets broken. The molecules of a crystal arrange themselves in a preferred direction, creating a repeating spatial structure. In the jargon of physicists, a crystal is a perfect example of "spontaneous symmetry breaking" — the fundamental laws of physics remain symmetric, but the arrangement of the molecules is not.
I don't understand how crystals break spatial symmetry. Are we talking about some absolute spatial directional bias? If it's just relative the crystal lattice itself I can't see how that breaks symmetry.
A time crystal is similar to an ordinary crystal except that instead of reducing symmetry of translations in space from a continuous symmetry to a discrete symmetry, it reduces symmetry of translations in time from a continuous symmetry to a discrete symmetry.
EDIT: It's a little ironic that if you ask most people, they would say that a crystal is more symmetric that a gas, since a gas will look completely random and asymmetric if you take a snapshot of the positions of all the atoms at a single time. But since physicists care about the probability distribution of atom positions, they say that the gas is more symmetric than the crystal.
"Very small" in this context is less than the lattice spacings, which for a typical crystal can be on the order of the wavelength of an X-ray (i.e., there's ~ 0.1-100 ångströms between the crystal's diffracting planes, so "distance x" must be a fraction of that length).
A typical room is effectively a <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_in_a_box>. If the walls of your box are good X-ray detectors then an isotropically-radiating X-ray source somewhere near the middle of the room will evidence an essentially uniform energy loss at the detectors, and and weak reflection from air molecules back towards the source. However, if you substituted the air in the room with a crystal lattice, the energy loss would be much stronger at detectors in some directions, and there would be strong reflections back towards the source along some directions. See <https://physicsopenlab.org/2018/01/18/bragg-diffraction/> for some details.
Symmetry breaking is very important to the study of condensed matter physics, including solid matter, and arguably it’s the reason your room exists at all.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking
Uhuh, but enough to be physically detectable?
Thanks for the definition. That is close to the math idea of automophic, that is, can map onto itself. So, what physics means is that translations are essentially automorphisms. Simple now that we have a clear definition!
A spatial crystal freezes into a spatially-periodic configuration at its lowest energy: you don't need to add energy to keep a crystalline solid's microscopic components arranged in lattice-like form.
A time crystal freezes into a periodic configuration at its lowest energy: you don't need to add energy to keep a time crystal arranged in its temporally periodic arrangement. If at t_0 we have one spatial configuration, at t_1 another spatial configuration, ... at t_n-1 we have yet another spatial configuration, and at t_n we have the same spatial configuration as at t_0, and we have no net flow of energy into the spatial configuration at any t_x, we have a time crystal. The spatial configurations at any t_x need not be crystalline, they just have to differ at different points in their cycle.
An analogue clock is not a time crystal because even though the configuration of the hands at 12:00->12:01->...->11:59->12:00 is temporally periodic, you have to wind a clock (or power it in some other way) or it gets stuck at some arbitrary configuration -- it stops cycling unless "disturbed" with added energy. The clock's lowest-energy configuration has its hands always pointing to one hh:mm time, and no different time is shown over the course of a day.
A time crystal, being in its lowest-energy state, cycles through all its configurations endlessly until energy is added.
The act of "reading" the configuration of a time crystal disturbs the time crystal. So you either a set of maximally-similar time crystals that you read at various times during a day, or you need to re-freeze your single disturbed time-crystal each time you read it.
There are ordinary crystals which literally melt out of their crystalline state when handled / measured-by-bright-light. The organized pattern is broken with the additional energy. Time crystals are patterened over time, and that pattern breaks when they are handled / measured-by-bright-light.
You could think of it as having to shine a flashlight (or laser) through the time crystal to figure out which way it twists the light at a given time t_x. If you know the temporally-periodic structure, you can predict the different twisting when you turn on the light at t_x versus t_x+1 or t_x-1. But lighting up the crystal breaks the lowest-energy condition of the time crystal -- it's melted by the light it twists -- so you have to re-freeze it back into its predictable periodic structure, otherwise you might get the same twisting (or none) at t_{measured}+1, t_{measured}+2, ..., t_{measured}+n.
(It is fairly literally re-freezing: you have to do laser cooling or the like. And it takes energy to run the cooler, which removes energy from the not-lowest-energy-state broken time crystal, so thermodynamics isn't violated.)
Instead I'll direct you Sean Carroll's "Quantum Interrogation" blog posting as a starting point: <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2006/02/27/quantum...>. ("how you can detect something without actually looking at it")
There is also the 2021 work by the Google & Stanford team (decent press release: <https://news.stanford.edu/2021/11/30/time-crystal-quantum-co...> open-access paper: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04257-w>, the PDF version of which (click in top right) is legible) which is at least suggestive that certain types of time crystals can be interrogated without breaking them.
Energy in.
> will keep vibrating ... lose energy slowly
Dissipative process: energy out. Eventually stop vibrating.
Time crystals cycle through their configurations until you put energy in. Otherwise, they are in lowest energy state, so no energy out. Ever.
Practically all we can do with a time crystal is to measure it with the lightest possible touch and hope it doesn't break the periodicity. (So far, afaik, the periodicity has always been broken by the measurement process's energy input).
I don't know what we could do with large numbers of time crystals, though. One can't pick up a snowflake in one's bare hands and use it like a buzz saw to cut a sheet of paper (the snowflake melts on contact), but an avalanche of snowflakes can snap trees. Maybe for time crystals that rotate light a predictable amount at a given time t_x, we could create some sort of interesting lens from a large cloud of such time crystals arranged at different distances from a bright light source -- a sort of "anti-fog".
Theory guides us, but experimentally you can for example make a whole bunch of time crystals (especially straightfoward for driven time crystals, which have a period that's an integer multiple of the driver, the driving force being laser light or microwaves) with an expected set of states it cycles through, and you can test those states once per time crystal. If you reliably get the states theory predicts, that's good evidence.
> could you outline the proof of the existence
The excellent <https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/5> and decent <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal#Experiments> (the former is [5] in that wikipedia article) are good starting points, with ample references.
This reminds me of the anti-zeno effect, in which a particle evolution is increasingly delayed with more frequent observations.
Imagine doing some experiment in a vacuum. It will work the same no matter which direction you orient the experiment or where in space you put it.
Now imagine doing the same experiment inside a crystal. Now it won't work the same no matter which direction you orient the experiment (because some directions will cause something in the experiment to hit one of the atoms of the crystal, and other directions won't) or where in space you put it (because there are crystal atoms in some places but not in others).
That's how the crystal breaks spatial symmetry.
That is, the view varies depending on direction one looks within a crystal. "Symmetrical" means that the view should not vary that way. If we freeze our gas into a crystal lattice, we break this symmetry.
But in case a crystal gets into the way, it won't be a uniform as a whole.
Similarly an event happening all the time or in some frequency, would be disrupted by a time crystal. (changing the frequency)
Yeah, just relative to the crystal lattice.
When the prof handed back the papers, he'd given me a zero. At the end of class, he asked that I stay. We went over my test paper: I had used little omega as the first infinite ordinal, essentially the same as the set of natural numbers. In an NSF course in axiomatic set theory the previous summer, that notation was standard. I'd thought of my proof, that is, my solution on the test, only at the last moment so just used little omega without defining it. When I gave the prof the definition, he saw that my solution was correct and, indeed, one step shorter than his. So, I got credit on the test.
Then I asked the prof why he had wanted to see me, and he smiled and said that he no longer did.
It was a class of 20+ students, and I doubt that all the other students got a good proof. So, why was the prof picking on me?????
He was regarded as a bright prof. In later years, he did have some fame. So much for such a bright math prof. I smelled I was being dumped on. I didn't know that prof at all.
His lectures were not very clear. The book he had selected was just in typing which is awful for the math of real analysis -- he could have used, say, Royden. And he'd just tried to dump on me for no good reason. Also, I was correct and he hadn't known that -- my meaning for little omega is and was standard.
At times I'd been dumped on in grades 1-12. I did well on standardized tests in math and physics, and that saved me. I was well out of patience being dumped on so walked out of the course and never saw that prof again.
In high school plane geometry the teacher believed that I refused to do any homework. Well, I didn't bother with her homework assignments -- they were too easy. Instead in the back of the book there were lots of more difficult exercises, and I made sure I worked 100% of those, never missed even one. One of those took me the weekend, and when I mentioned it in class on Monday, my first and last class participation, 20 minutes later the teacher was close to screaming exhorting the class to "think". Not wanting to be accused of ruining the class, as I started to give the steps to a solution, the teacher cut me off and screamed "You knew how to do it all along." Guilty as charged! Gee, she was not interested in getting the solution from me!
I've come to suspect: Students with some flair for originality and creativity can look different, not the same as the image of a good student -- nose to the grindstone, ear to the ground, shoulder to the wheel, and from that position dot all the i's and cross all the t's -- and less good than desired instead of better.
The other two courses they had me in were close to what I'd already studied carefully in ugrad school. One of these two was from Kelley, General Topology that I had lectured from to a prof.
I did well at my ugrad teaching, started violin, met my wife, and got a Ph.D. in applied math later at another university.
There, too, at times I did work comparable with that of the brilliant profs.
Net, I'm not so impressed by the super brains of so called brilliant profs.
Or I believe in the standard, "Everyone puts pants on one leg at a time."
More generally, my experience is, given the basic context of data and background, a lot of people can work through and find the immediate consequences.
tl;dw: Crystals are materials which atoms or molecules are aranged in a repeating manner. Time crystals are a material which isn't just repeating in the three dimensions of space but also in the "time dimension". Basically, the quantum spin of the material switches regularly, even though no energy is being applied.
I'm not smart enough to have anything really insightful to say about the article. But I don't know if it is more amusing or vaguely annoying that a technobabble phrase like "we'll have to pick up more time crystals for the ship's navigation computer to keep functioning" could be realistic in the future. Or, if it isn't realistic, the real show-stopper could just be the lack practical long distance space travel.
On the other hand, crystal oscillators (riffing off your "using crystals [...] for time purposes") go way back, and pre-date Star Trek style technobabble I guess.
But the idea of "magical crystals" goes back even further, and the thing that makes them interestingly shiny is tied to their structure. So I guess we knew there was something kind of funky going on there but didn't have the science to describe it really well.
And what's sci-fi anyway? If someone in like 1800 wrote a story about teaching rocks to think, we'd probably call it fantasy. It just so happens that we managed to pull that idea from magic to reality.
(reference to):
https://twitter.com/daisyowl/status/841802094361235456
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think your "or" should just be treated as an inclusive or, and answered with "yes."
And here I was thinking they were talking about crystal oscillators.
Perpetual resonance waves in a bose-einstein condensate.