Temporal symmetry of nature violation according to nobel prize winner

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of time crystals and their implications for temporal symmetry in nature, as suggested by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. Participants explore the validity of the theory, its current status, and any ongoing research or refutation efforts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the original equations suggesting that atoms can form a lattice in time, which may break time symmetry.
  • There is uncertainty regarding the current status of the theory, with some questioning whether it has been disproven.
  • One participant notes that there seems to be no significant movement to disprove the conjecture, citing a quote about the indefinite timeline for further research.
  • Another participant expresses difficulty accessing relevant academic papers due to account limitations.
  • A suggestion is made to refer to an existing thread for more information on the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the time crystal theory or its current status, indicating multiple competing views and ongoing uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include a lack of recent updates on research progress and the dependence on external sources for information, which may not be fully accessible to all participants.

Superposed_Cat
Messages
388
Reaction score
5
"..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..."

I was wondering about the theory's validity and if you had heard of it?


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/time-crystals/

P.S. I don't know if this is the right section.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks, so they been disproved yet? The previous thread is old.
 
I'm not sure that there's any big movement to work on disproving the conjecture. The original info release was around Sept 2012. The article you linked had a quote from one of the Berkeley team that, " it may take “anywhere between three and infinity years” to complete, depending on funding or unforeseen technical difficulties..."

That was April - I couldn't find anything newer than you did!
 
I don't have an arxix or phy review account so could not view it. thanks again.
 
Please use the already existing thread that TumblingDice linked to.