kristalris Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Seeing that Nobel prize laureate Frank Wilczek has published on space -time crystals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_crystal%C2%A0 As did David Bohm prior to him as I've just learnt. I wonder why it hasn't already been attempted to do a computer simulation whereby you try to get as many as possible as highly as possible conductive identical spheres go to order in a dynamic crystal given that they all have the same speed in random straight trajectories in a as large as possible as highly as possible conductive cube? The walls will act as a disturbance hence the need of a very large simulated box. If a space-time crystal is a reality it should be possible to make a simulation. There is as I understand mounting evidence of several Astronomer scientist groups making mention or predicting of observing large crystal like structures. Further more there are also the same observations as I understand it at a extremely small scale. I know of someone who has tried to do a simulation of spheres ending up by all the spheres having somehow shrunk. I.e. there are problems. It seems to me that what is needed is an as large as possible computer working as accurately as possible in having the 3 D game of billiards work. This must have been attempted before, seeing the idea of a space-time crystal isn't as new as I was led to believe. So what is then the problem?
michel123456 Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 The wiki article on space-time crystals is very short. The other info I could gathered from the links is very technical. I don't quite understand what a space-time crystal is for a concept. From wiki A space-time crystal or four dimensional crystal is a theoretical structure periodic in time and space. It extends the idea of a crystal to four dimensions.[1] The idea was proposed by Frank Wilczek in 2012. His speculation was that a construct would have a lump of particles that move and periodically return to their original state, perhaps moving in a circle, and form a time crystal. In order for this to work it would need to have frictionless perpetual motion. Such states may be possible at cryogenic temperatures.[2] Symmetry could be spontaneously broken with the system in the lowest possible energy state that actually involves continuous movement.[3] bolded mine. What makes it different from a wave?
kristalris Posted January 3, 2013 Author Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) The wiki article on space-time crystals is very short. The other info I could gathered from the links is very technical. I don't quite understand what a space-time crystal is for a concept. From http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/jul/03/space-time-crystals-on-the-horizon Here is some more on the subject. David Bohm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm bolded mine. What makes it different from a wave? I hope this answers your question. As I understand it the crystal is the carrier of all waving particles IMO as in the opinion of Bohm and Wilczek as well. I'm not a scientist or physicist BTW. Edited January 3, 2013 by kristalris
kristalris Posted January 4, 2013 Author Posted January 4, 2013 Given that current science deems the Higgs field probable, one can in current science take it as a hypothetical fact that the Higgs field exists. In the current idea on the Higgs field, if I understand it correctly, it adds / gives mass to particles like atoms. And slows them down. Current science should allow the combination of the Higgs field with the hypothesis in this thread of the space-time crystal as being - most probably then even - the same thing (Occams razor). This because both are assumed then to be by current science as omni-present in the observable universe as the first hypothesis to be investigated. This can also be done in a relative easy test: take a as large as possible gyro with a as massive as possible outer ring and spin it as fast as possible. If there is a rise in gravitational pull of the gyro then it is immediately apparent that the Higgs field is a space-time crystal that can account for dark matter and dark energy (that should better be defined as dark attraction and dark repulsion BTW) (Dark energy as well because it then also immediately provides a probable explanation for the observed law of Hubble: adding mass = gaining momentum in the space-time crystal = acceleration.) The mathematics involved to ascertain how small, light and slow the gyro should be spun in order to get a measurable result in change of gravitational pull shouldn't be that difficult. The curve - given a galaxy spinning at as I understand at 30 km/h in the outer "ring" - of the expected drop in gravitational pull versus the observed dark matter pull is a known. So the hypothesis is that it is this speed that adds the extra dark gravitational pull. Though I expect a measurement problem I don't think we'll need a gyro the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm to get a measurable result. Some quick and dirty mathematics should suffice to show how much effort will be required. Risk is chance times consequence. I.e. it requires a limited effort for a possible great gain. Ergo in research: do the tests.
swansont Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Current science should allow the combination of the Higgs field with the hypothesis in this thread of the space-time crystal as being - most probably then even - the same thing (Occams razor). This because both are assumed then to be by current science as omni-present in the observable universe as the first hypothesis to be investigated. What? Perhaps you should check on the definition of omnipresent, with regard to the existence of space-time crystals.
kristalris Posted January 4, 2013 Author Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) What? Perhaps you should check on the definition of omnipresent, with regard to the existence of space-time crystals. Okay near omnipresent then. If the Higgs field is assumed to add mass to all atoms anywhere in the visible universe, that is close enough. And as space-time crystals are linked to the waving function observed in atoms the same applies. Because it should also apply to smaller particles then atoms, I made thus the slightest of errors - in definition - inherent to the use of word salad for want of a better definition. An error by the way so small to be insignificant, and most certainly so in comparison to the definition error of calling something dark matter and dark energy. As is current science to do BTW. That is not insignificant having the presumed answer as part of the definition for the stated problem. (And I might even reason that I didn't make an error at all because I defined it omnipresent in the visible universe. The parts where current science on the Higgs field / space-time crystals deems it not present are not as yet observable. But I don't find this mincing of words very useful seeing the context. ) Edited January 4, 2013 by kristalris
swansont Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I still don't see a connection between them, or where anyone has pointed out the actual existence of a single space-time crystal.
kristalris Posted January 4, 2013 Author Posted January 4, 2013 I still don't see a connection between them, or where anyone has pointed out the actual existence of a single space-time crystal. No one has pointed out a single space-time crystal as far as I know (neither do I BTW). You don't have to. No one states that an atom placed anywhere in the visible universe would be outside the space-time crystal or Higgs field for that matter. Or does anyone imply or state that to your knowledge? Please then point out the point where the Higgs field or space-time crystal by its protagonists in science would not exist within the visible universe? Or does it appear out of nothing at a point where an atom goes? Does anyone state that as a scientific fact? Or does the atom then take it's own Higgs field / space-time crystal along with it? Does anyone state that to your knowledge? No one can actually exactly know in science, as far as I know. So no-one will absolutely state or have to state anything as a scientific fact in this respect. That is, however baring the fact that for any atom in any part of our visible universe will be subject to the probable Higgs field, to be seen in this thread as a testable hypothesis to be a space-time crystal. Everybody as far as I know does state that for each of the two separately, implicitly, anyway. This because it is a logical necessity. I.e. the Higgs field hypothesis doesn't have to prove that it will work everywhere where you would put an atom. Even though there are places in the visible universe where we can't be certain that atoms can in fact exist or are not subject to the Higgs field. There is however no reason to assume that it wouldn't work there. The same goes for a space-time crystal. (Visible universe in this stipulative definition excludes invisible places such as black holes etc. In other words of course there are places where atoms can't exist. If they exist however they are presumed - by everybody who takes the Higgs field as a fact, or space-time crystals as such - to be in a Higgs-field and thus in this testable hypothesis in a space-time crystal)
swansont Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 No one states that an atom placed anywhere in the visible universe would be outside the space-time crystal or Higgs field for that matter. This is nonsensical. If one builds a space-time crystal (e.g. the Be-ion trap proposed in the wikipedia article) basically all of the universe will be outside of it. Or does anyone imply or state that to your knowledge? Please then point out the point where the Higgs field or space-time crystal by its protagonists in science would not exist within the visible universe? Or does it appear out of nothing at a point where an atom goes? Does anyone state that as a scientific fact? Or does the atom then take it's own Higgs field / space-time crystal along with it? Does anyone state that to your knowledge? The way you are using "space-time crystal" strongly implies that you have confused it with something else, like space-time. I can't parse your statements otherwise. "Space-time crystal" = "some arrangement of particles, configured to behave in a specific way". Where would this not exist? Basically everywhere, given that nobody has yet constructed one. It doesn't appear out of nothing; you have to build one. 1
michel123456 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 In agreement with Swansont, I have the feeling that Kristalris considers the space-time crystal as a cosmological feature. I have understood so far that a space-time crystal is a kind of device you have to build.
kristalris Posted January 4, 2013 Author Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) I indeed misunderstood what science means with the term space-time crystal. Namely a thing that under certain circumstances can be built. However, the premises that underlie the thought that it is possible to build one are the same as is needed to accept the Higgs mechanism. I.e. spontaneous symmetry breaking at the lowest energy state such as with the Higgs boson bearing in mind that the most common way of spontaneous symmetry breaking is the existence of crystals. Taken from: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116 On space-time crystals: "Spontaneous symmetry breaking is ubiquitous in nature. It occurs when the ground state (classically, the lowest energy state) of a system is less symmetrical than the equations governing the system. Examples in which the symmetry is broken in excited states are common—one just needs to think of Kepler’s elliptical orbits, which break the spherical symmetry of the gravitational force. But spontaneous symmetry breaking refers instead to a symmetry broken by the lowest energy state of a system. Well-known examples are the Higgs boson (due to the breaking of gauge symmetries), ferromagnets and antiferromagnets, liquid crystals, and superconductors. While most examples come from the quantum world, spontaneous symmetry breaking can also occur in classical systems [1]." "In nature, the most common manifestation of spontaneous symmetry breaking is the existence of crystals." End qoute Then: The Higgs Boson explained By Frank Wilczek on June 28, 2012 9:54 AM | 12 comments http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/06/the-higgs-boson-explained/ "Supersymmetry has many aspects and ramifications, but two are most relevant here. First, supersymmetry (for experts: more specifically, focus point supersymmetry) predicts that the Higgs particle mass should lie in the range 120-130 GeV. Finding Higgs particles with mass in that range would give strong circumstantial evidence both for supersymmetry and for the unification that supersymmetry enables. Second, supersymmetry predicts the existence of many additional new fundamental particles, besides the Higgs particle, that should be accessible to the LHC. So if supersymmetry is right, the LHC will have many more years of brilliant discovery in front of it. And if not? I’ll be heartbroken. Mother Nature will have shown that Her taste is very different from mine. I don’t doubt that it’s superior, but I’ll have to struggle to understand it." End quote In other words the Higgs boson and the idea of being able to build a space-time crystal go hand in hand in having the same basic premises. Premises that are inherently ubiquitous (omnipresent). Whatever: these scientific premises form the basis with the balls in the Box and the Gyro tests in order to show or falsify an idea that super symmetric dynamic crystals are at the heart of it all. I.e. only one step from premises that part of current science holds possible. Put in another way: what if the balls indeed go to order and / or the gravity in the gyro indeed rises conforming to what dark matter entails? Given current science that would prove a dynamic crystal is at the heart of it all. And, in science one shouldn't argue whether or not to do relatively easy to do tests on major issues: one should do the test and let the observed result speak for itself. No one can argue on any scientific basis that if the balls in the box go to order that would prove a concept on a very high standard of proof. Nor could anyone on any scientific basis contest that if the gravity rises in the gyro test as predicted that this would be a major event. To look on the gyro test in another way: see the galaxy as a whopping gyro spinning and causing an observed dark gravitational attraction. Now downsize the thing to a testable size and see if it does the same when spun up to an appropriate measurable speed. Edited January 4, 2013 by kristalris
swansont Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 I indeed misunderstood what science means with the term space-time crystal. Namely a thing that under certain circumstances can be built. However, the premises that underlie the thought that it is possible to build one are the same as is needed to accept the Higgs mechanism. I.e. spontaneous symmetry breaking at the lowest energy state such as with the Higgs boson bearing in mind that the most common way of spontaneous symmetry breaking is the existence of crystals. This does not mean they are the same thing, or are interchangeable. They are two very different examples of the phenomenon.
kristalris Posted January 5, 2013 Author Posted January 5, 2013 This does not mean they are the same thing, or are interchangeable. They are two very different examples of the phenomenon. So? Point is what is the reason for not doing the proposed tests? I.e. see problem (-s) => see possible answer (-s) => don't assume anything => do test (-s) / investigate possibilities for test (-s).
swansont Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 What would be the point of the test? What is the connection between space-time crystals and gravity, or gyros?
kristalris Posted January 5, 2013 Author Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) What would be the point of the test? What is the connection between space-time crystals and gravity, or gyros? Well if the balls in the box go to order instead of disorder you can rewrite the book. Because the book (on science) says at the moment it should only go to disorder (because it hasn't been done accurately enough hence the need to do an accurate test). The reason to suspect that there is order in the system is that we observe more order than we can explain: hence dark matter. Galaxies should disintegrate given the current book on science yet they don't. Because the test has obviously not been done you can only assume something either way if it possible or not. I.e. current theory says it's dark what we observe: ergo in science devise and do tests, that have any possibility of showing an ordering function. Especially if they can relatively be done quickly at low cost and effort. The possibility of forming a space-time crystal warrants the thought of a possible crystal being found as the form of order in the test. The same goes for seeing if a spinning gyro: if it shows a measurable rise in gravity at higher speeds then you can immediately re-wright a significant part of the book of science. Especially if the rise fully explains the dark matter; being in effect unexplained extra gravity. Because then you've found it. The reason we haven't seen it up till now is that either no-one has come up with the idea to look properly (i.e. test properly) or that has been done but not properly published as a negative result or as an as yet insurmountable measurement problem. Edited January 5, 2013 by kristalris
swansont Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 I don't see any connection to space-time crystals. None at all.
kristalris Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Oh yes there is a connection. Because the successful building of space-time crystal is deemed possible in current science then so the probability that the balls in the box experiment will yield a positive test result is undeniable in current science to be deemed higher then without this possibility to build a space-time crystal. And the connection of course works the other way round as well: if the balls in the box go to order then the probability that the cost and effort to build a space-time crystal are well spent because the probability of success undeniably in current science then has risen considerably. The more so because it will provide then probably essential formulas as well needed for a successful building of a space-time crystal. And, given that the balls in the box go to order it then by current science will be undeniably so that there probably are space-time crystals already in space without the need to build them. That the gyro test is connected to the balls in the box and via that thus to space-time crystals I already pointed out. If the gravity rises then so does the probability that the effort and cost spent on a dynamic crystal computer simulation will come to fruition. And so space-time crystals as well.
swansont Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Oh yes there is a connection. Because the successful building of space-time crystal is deemed possible in current science then so the probability that the balls in the box experiment will yield a positive test result is undeniable in current science to be deemed higher then without this possibility to build a space-time crystal. What's missing in your explanation is the part where you discuss what the connection actually is. It's remarkable that you are advancing the proposal, considering you made it back when you admitted that you didn't understand what a space-time crystal was. So this is really about your pet theory, which is the only connection to spinning balls, etc. Which you were told not to bring up. You already have a thread on that.
Recommended Posts