It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

'Time Crystals' Could Exist

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I personally think it's a continuation, and the fundamental laws of thermodynamics are correct.

Saying that sucks because due to those laws eventually intelligent life will forcibly become non-existent due to energy reverting to truer forms, but who knows maybe at some point in time a life form will gain the knowledge needed to survive and exist through a "crunch" type situation.




posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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It's been superseded.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.

So Einstein was wrong?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



So Einstein was wrong?

About a couple of things, yes. Not relativity though, so far.

What did he say about the fate of the Universe?

edit on 9/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




What did he say about the fate of the Universe?

That the cosmological constant baffled him? Expansion is the current constant, but the sources involved are still a mystery written in theoretical physics which require either a starting point, or a receding continuation of a point?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



That the cosmological constant baffled him?

He invented it. Do you know why?




Expansion is the current constant
Expansion is accelerating. It is not a constant.

edit on 9/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

To explain a universe itself that doesn't contract or expand?

That doesn't mean the matter inside the universe won't, just the area for it to expand in is finite, and actually somewhat leads to the explanation of a "crunch" theory.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
nvm. I misread.
edit on 1292016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




To explain a universe itself that doesn't contract or expand?
More along the lines of showing that the Universe does not expand, I think. A fudge factor to explain away the observations that the Universe is expanding. It didn't work. He realized that after a while.


and actually somewhat leads to the explanation of a "crunch" theory.
Hypothesis, not theory. But evidence does not support it.


edit on 9/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




More along the lines of showing that the Universe does not expand, I think.

Einstein more so used the term "universe" as a measurement rather than an actual object. The universe is indeed finite. it has a certain limitation, and that is the contents of what it has always contained. Just like a balloon can expand and contract, it never changes the amount of matter it contains. That is the constant.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



Just like a balloon can expand and contract, it never changes the amount of matter it contains.

The universe is not a balloon and Einstein knew that space is not matter. He, actually, gave us a clear distinction. He gave us the math to describe spacetime as distinct. Expanding space does not require more matter. Nor does it require any "place" or "time" to expand into. Albert didn't like the idea of that.

edit on 9/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Think everyone is a little confused about what a time crystal would be. You guys are sort of on thr right track discussing thermodynamics, however your a little off base. Everything in thr universe seeks it's lowest ground state for example gas expands heat dissapates and things fall. But there is another way as well that involves symetry. Think of symetry as the old rule every action has an opisit and equal reaction.

But magnets find there lowest energy state in a diffrent way.Think of a magnet it has a north and a south pole. Both are diffrent this is called asymmetrical, which just means they don't look the same on both sides. Crystals also have asymmetrical ground states. When a crystal reaches its ground state it's not the same on both sides some parts are pointy others smooth. Now lots of things can have asymmetrical ground states and does. But this is the crystals lowest energy state it is asymetrical in space.

Now we are finally at thr mythical time crystal. Some scientists believe an object can have asymmetrical ground states across time rather than space. So what would this cause. Well a crystals ground state although asymetrical it won't move on its own it requires energy such as me picking it up. A time crystal being asymetrical through time instead of space to us observing it would move it change on its own. It's not actually moving it would just appear to change as time progresses.

Now before some wild tangent starts off what I said thus isn't perpetual motion. We couldn't capture extra energy from the crystal it's all ready at its ground state. It would just look really cool as we watch it change as time moves forward. As far as practical uses I can't think of one other than be a really cool coffee table piece. And it gives us an idea of how time works if they do exist. Though good luck on finding one since it was created the moment the universe was if it exists at all. Saying there is a theory that shows it to be possible and actually existing are two difrent things.
edit on 9/12/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
This one is way, way over my layman head, BUT. The best I think I understand it is as Wikipedia starts off explaining it, as a 4D crystal structure (as opposed to 3 we're more familiar with) in perpetual motion that periodically returns to it's original state. My brain insta-simplifies this, as an infinite pattern on the 4D scale.

I may be way off here in trying to over-simplify, but I think the closest thing that might make sense would be the behavior (not so much structure) of the Trekverse's Omega molecule. Going from chaos to order, but with regularity rather than unpredictable spontaneity. And without the massive explosive power & subspace destruction XD

Edit: Dragonridr beat me to it & simplified better!
edit on 9/12/2016 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Again, the universe was meant as a unit of measurement, not an actual object. As physical observations expand in size, so will the universe. He didn't give us a free pass as to something that is never-ending, infact quite the opposite. his math confirmed the basic laws of physics. We aren't seeing expansion of matter, just expansion of visible matter, or simply put there isn't more stuff, it's just further apart.

edit on 12-9-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




Again, the universe was meant as a unit of measurement,

No. "I get three universes to the gallon", doesn't make much sense. Does it?


He didn't give us a free pass as to something that is never-ending, infact quite the opposite.
He didn't like the idea that the Universe is not static. That is why he came up with the CC. He didn't like parts of quantum mechanics, either. That didn't make them go away. Entanglement does seem to be there.

edit on 9/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




No. "I get three universes to the gallon", doesn't make much sense. Does it?

Horrible example of a unit of measurement in relation, no clue why you would even say such a thing tbh.



Entanglement does seem to be there.

Yes, he called it spooky action at a distance and acknowledged it's existence.
edit on 12-9-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99




Again, the universe was meant as a unit of measurement,

No. "I get three universes to the gallon", doesn't make much sense. Does it?


He didn't give us a free pass as to something that is never-ending, infact quite the opposite.
He didn't like the idea that the Universe is not static. That is why he came up with the CC. He didn't like parts of quantum mechanics, either. That didn't make them go away. Entanglement does seem to be there.


I'm still laughing but I don't think that he will get it though. Since he doesn't seem to know what a unit of measure is.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



Horrible example of a unit of measurement in relation, no clue why you would even say such a thing tbh.

It was because you said the Universe is "a unit of measurement."


Yes, he called it spooky action at a distance and acknowledged it's existence.
As he later acknowledged the expansion of the Universe?

You have not explained how Einstein supported a "big crunch."

edit on 9/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So exactly how big is the universe? What is it's shape? Does it change?

The universe indeed is simply a unit of measurement. It is the known contents of all matter in all directions. When we see further the universe expands, not the contents.



You have not explained how Einstein supported a "big crunch."

Because according to him gravity will eventually overpower the kinetic energy of all matter, causing contraction of matter.


edit on 12-9-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Phage

So exactly how big is the universe? What is it's shape? Does it change?

The universe indeed is simply a unit of measurement. It is the known contents of all matter in all directions. When we see further the universe expands, not the contents.




Can't have an infinite unit of measure defeats the purpose don't you think??



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Phage

So exactly how big is the universe? What is it's shape? Does it change?

The universe indeed is simply a unit of measurement. It is the known contents of all matter in all directions. When we see further the universe expands, not the contents.




Can't have an infinite unit of measure defeats the purpose don't you think??

So what is the universe exactly then? A container? Isn't that a unit of measurement? Just because it is constantly changing doesn't mean that isn't what it is.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join