'Time Crystals' Could Exist

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yea that guy.

I reckon he just hates cats and used his "thought experiment" as an excuse.

You can just imagine it now...

"I really hate that cat! My sofa is a wreck where he's been using it as a scratching post. I can't just kill it, I'll be hated by a lot of people. Oh, I know. I'll make a "thought experiment" and use the cat! Mwahahahahahaha!"

a reply to: TerryDon79

He shouldn't have opened the box.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: TerryDon79

He shouldn't have opened the box.

Maybe he didn't and the cat is still alive?

Well, until someone opens the box to find out, that is.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

So in other word's a time crystal is a structure that is static in time or has a structure that creates a static disruption in time a little like a structure in a water current may change it's flow but one that, we would move past it as we are bound to the time flow or rather part of it so they lens time or warp it and that warping is also dynamic and changes over time from our perspective inside of the time flow (flow being just an analogy of course).

Quite a predictable structure I should imagine but unlikely to be something we can make ready use of, at least now that is but there may be application's in thing's such as fusion and fission process and complex reaction's if we can create these structure's that would allow otherwise impossible interaction's or subatomic behaviors to to take place.

Interesting and if proven this could be an entire new field with some very major implication's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Surely if it's static in time it would be in a constant fixed point? If it's also static in time, how would it have been created?

I've got too many questions and not enough brain cells.

This is so far above my head, my nose is bleeding virtual blood comprised of virtual particles.

Trying to read the Wiki (I know Wikipedia is not a great source, but it's the best thing I could find at the moment) on Space-Time Crystals and Symmetry in physics (scroll down for Time Translation symmetry, which time crystals apparently are concerned with) hurts my head, but what this article - based on what I just read (the aforementioned head hurting descriptions) - seems to be saying is:

The total gravitational potential of a system of particles which are in their lowest possible energy state and not changing in height, which should be preserved and therefore symmetrical (the total gravitational potential that is,) could be broken (which I can only speculate means changed rather than preserved in this context?) in theory, by virtue of said particles moving in a pattern (such as a circle) which allows them to in some way move away from and return periodically to their original state, despite no rotational energy being radiated from said system of particles.

And now my head hurts even more from writing that because that was me trying to dumb it down for myself, and I still don't fully comprehend it LOL. Calling actual quantum physicists: we need a layperson's conceptualization STAT!

Peace.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: LABTECH767

Surely if it's static in time it would be in a constant fixed point? If it's also static in time, how would it have been created?

It would always have been, not created.

a reply to: Vector99
No. It would have begun when time (and the Universe did). Problematic, cuz, other stuff.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: LABTECH767

Surely if it's static in time it would be in a constant fixed point? If it's also static in time, how would it have been created?

It would always have been, not created.

But that would only be possible if the big expansion and the big contraction has been happening forever. Like an infinity loop.

Or God made everything (yes, I know, but for the "always has been" scenario to be valid you have to include a similar cause for everything. Don't hate me).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
No. It would have begun when time (and the Universe did). Problematic, cuz, other stuff.

That's assuming the universe had a starting point.

a reply to: Vector99
Yeah, well.
Evidence seems to say it did. And that's not really an assumption.

a reply to: Phage

Evidence references a "point". That point could easily be a singularity of continued energy that completely follow the laws of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore there can never be a "starting point" of time. Only checkpoint references. It has always existed.

a reply to: Vector99

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore there can never be a "starting point" of time.

That is a non-sequitur.

Time started when the physical laws of this Universe started.
At the "time" of the singularity there were no physical laws. There was no time.

a reply to: Phage

Wait what?

ALL of the laws of physics currently known allow for the expansion/contraction theory to exist.

a reply to: Vector99

ALL of the laws of physics currently known allow for the expansion/contraction theory to exist.

And none venture to suggest the conditions of the singularity. They don't work there. Just as they don't work with the singularity of a black hole.

a reply to: Phage

THE singularity? Nope, because there never was one. A continual state of contraction and expansion with certain extreme points is the current model as far as I'm aware.

a reply to: Vector99

A continual state of contraction and expansion with certain extreme points is the current model as far as I'm aware.

Huh.
Where does the contraction come into play with an accelerating rate of expansion? When's it going to slow down and reverse?

The "current model" does not talk much about contraction.

a reply to: Phage

You've really never heard of the great crunch? When all matter starts losing energy and contracting on itself to a singular point. Then it kinda goes boom and expands exponentially due to the chemistry involved.

The "current model" does not talk much about contraction.

Actually it does, and the numbers involved are in the hundreds of trillions of years. Nothing we will ever observe in our human conscious forms.

a reply to: Vector99

You've really never heard of the great crunch?

Yes.

It's been superseded. Evidence does not support it. An accelerating rate of expansion does not support it. There is not enough matter (even with dark matter). There will be no crunch, entropy will rule. Ultimately.

a reply to: Vector99

I'm a fan of the Big Bang (expansion) and Big Crunch (contraction) theories. The only issue I have is, what came before the first bang?

There's only a few possibilities that would make any sense (in my opinion)...

-It's an infinity loop
-There was something outside our universe that created it (God, aliens etc)
-Alternate universe loops (takes a while to explain, but basically the collapse of an alternate universe creates a new, alternate universe)