TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

‘Time Crystals’ Could Upend Physicists’ Theory of Time

126 点作者 Jaigus大约 12 年前

12 条评论

Xcelerate大约 12 年前
Maybe I can help give insight into this topic to those without a physics background. Our current best theory that describes reality at the small scale is quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, each "system" -- a collection of particles that you are interested in -- corresponds to one wavefunction (literally, a mathematical function). Glossing over some details, this is a function of spatial coordinates (a vector r) and time (t). For example, if your system is hydrogen, your wavefunction is a function of two coordinates -- the electron's position and the proton's position -- and time. You can perform some linear algebra on this function to predict what state the system will be in at any future time. And you can also predict what your measurements (position, momentum, spin, etc.) of this system will be. The Schrodinger equation is what governs the evolution of the wavefunction. I'll refer you to Wikipedia if you want to know the details of that equation.<p>In chemistry you have what are called stationary states. These are solutions to the time-independent Schrodinger equation Hψ(r) = Eψ(r) [H is an operator; E is a scalar]. Now, when you plug ψ(r) into the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, you get Ψ(r, t) = exp(-iEt/hbar)ψ(r), where i is the imaginary unit, E is the energy, t is time, and hbar is the reduced Planck's constant. So you can see there is clearly a time dependence.<p>However, when you measure some property of a system, you aren't measuring the wavefunction but rather the results of some linear operator acting on the wavefunction (each operator corresponds to a probability distribution of what measurement you will get). So despite the fact that the wavefunction has a time dependence, your measurement probability distribution functions do not!<p>Now the other thing you need to know is that so far these stationary states all correspond to ground states. What is a ground state? It is the lowest energy level that a system can obtain. You might think that the different orbitals an atom can have in chemistry are all stationary states, but they're not. They can spontaneously decay to a lower-energy state. You need quantum field theory to prove that, and I don't even know how to do that, so I won't.<p>The deal with these time crystals is that Dr. Wilczek has proposed a lowest-energy system that corresponds to cyclical time-varying measurement probability distribution functions. So despite being a stationary state, your measurements depend on when in the cycle you take them! This has not ever been done experimentally, so it looks as though the Zhang and Li group are going to attempt to do so.
评论 #5636044 未加载
评论 #5636026 未加载
评论 #5636122 未加载
tedsanders大约 12 年前
This article doesn't seem fair to physics. For instance, it says:<p>"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."<p>I don't think that something moving forever is a major break from the laws of physics. Consider the following:<p>(1) An asteroid flies through space forever (doesn't violate laws of physics)<p>(2) A current persists in a superconductor forever (again, no violation)<p>(3) Heck, currents can ever persist in non-superconductors (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_current" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_current</a>)<p>(4) The motion of the Earth around the sun (the two-body problem doesn't violate physics)<p>(5) Even the motion of an electron around a nucleus is perpetual motion in a sense<p>(6) The fact that things have temperature means that their molecules are always moving!<p>(7) Etc.<p>Anyway, there are many examples of perpetual motion in physics. The key point is that you cannot extract infinite energy from them, just like you can't extract infinite energy from a time crystal. So why does the article act like time crystals are a big deal in this respect?<p>-A grumpy physicist
评论 #5636359 未加载
评论 #5637138 未加载
ISL大约 12 年前
The seminal papers in this field:<p>Quantum Time Crystals (Wilczek) <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2539" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2539</a><p>Classical Time Crystals (Shapere, Wilczek) <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2537" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2537</a><p>Space-time Crystals of Trapped Ions ( Li, Gong, Yin, Quan, Yin, Zhang, Duan,Zhang ) <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4772" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4772</a><p>All three papers appeared in a single issue of Physical Review Letters (The fancy Physics journal).<p>PRL also issued this Physics Viewpoint, a popular science article:<p><a href="http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116" rel="nofollow">http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116</a>
whatshisface大约 12 年前
<i>"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."</i><p>An object in motion will remain in motion, until acted on by an external force.<p>The real interesting thing here is that something can move, but have no energy - potential or otherwise. Unlike things we are used to, if a time crystal train hit you you wouldn't feel a thing. (Well, not exactly, but it gets the point across.)
评论 #5635985 未加载
评论 #5635469 未加载
dingfeng_quek大约 12 年前
Covers the same thing with more technical jargon, but much more accurate and insightful:<p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=time-crystals-could-be-legitimate-form-perpetual-motion" rel="nofollow">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=time-crysta...</a><p>EDIT: A lot of comments appear confused about stuff in the article from Wired. That's due to the journalism. The Scientific American article addresses many of issues raised here.
评论 #5636763 未加载
评论 #5636801 未加载
jlgreco大约 12 年前
This article seems like it is abstracting away what would actually make this experiment more interesting than, say, spinning a dinner plate in a vacuum in zero-g.
评论 #5635696 未加载
gus_massa大约 12 年前
The experiment is interesting and I'll like to read the results. But I don't like a few details, probably most of them are errors in the press release.<p>* Perpetual mobile:<p>It's theoretically possible to build a system that moves forever. But it's impossible is to connect it to some kind of generator to extract energy for free, while the system continues moving at the same rate. And the real systems have some kind of friction that dissipates a part of the energy, so the real systems usually stop in a while.<p>The few cases where the movement can last forever is the movement in the superfluids and the current in the superconductors. They are not very ordered systems like this 100 Ca ring so they are not cristal-like. But the movement of the electrons in a superconductor is very similar to the moment of the Ca ring.<p>* Tagging a Ca:<p>The problem with quantum systems is that they act strangely. If the system is small enough the Ca lost their individuality and become indistinguishable bosons. (I'm almost sure Ca are bosons, nor fermions.) So to describe their state you must use Slater permanent (or determinants) and not look at each one individually. So any perturbation changes the whole system and is not useful to tag one Ca. (If the system is big enough, you can approximate it classically, but 100 Ca doesn't appear to be very big.)<p>* Quantum Gravity:<p>The Quantum Theory and Special Relativity are joined since 1928 by Dirac. The same ideas were later used in QED, QCD, and all the Standard Model. So all the calculations of the collisions in the LHC use a theory that includes Quantum Theory and Special Relativity. And the only way to use Special Relativity is to have a common structure for space and time.<p>Those theories are not related to the continuity or discontinuity or periodicity of the space or time. Nobody knows how to joint Quantum Theory and General Relativity, but in my opinion the problem is not related at all to the existence of space-crystals and the inexistence of time-crystals.
ryanthejuggler大约 12 年前
Time crystals and ion traps... I must have fallen asleep watching Doctor Who again.<p>Joking aside, this could be the E=mc^2 of our generation. We take for granted that the speed of light is the universal speed limit and that DNA has a helical shape, but a century ago we knew neither of these things. The internet, in the scheme of things, is still in its adolescence (at best). The thing that fascinates and scares me more than anything is that in 50 years science will have already advanced beyond recognition.
评论 #5635718 未加载
brandon_wirtz大约 12 年前
My understanding as explained to me by CERN, You can build a Time Crystal but it is tough to observe it after. The object don't so much spin through infinity, as infinity spins through them. Building a Time Crystal changes how it moves through Space-Time. Since we are moving through Space-Time really quickly if you change for lack of a better word the inertia of matter by changing how it moves through Time it won't stand still for very long, (well not relative to you) this makes observation nearly impossible.
drudru11大约 12 年前
(Humor)<p>Something tells me that as soon as they build these, the cast from Time Bandits is going to bust through the wall and steal them.
riemannzeta大约 12 年前
Is Noether's theorem preserved since we still have energy conservation? How? Very cool.
exabrial大约 12 年前
All I wanna know is, if we dope a time crystal with a transition element like gallium, can we get a flux capacitor/transistor thing?