http://www.space.com/17769-eternal-clock-space-time-crystal.html?cid=co3945404

 

If this space-time crystal was formed, at the lowest quantum energy state, would it really out-live the universe?

The very matter that it is made up of should still be subject to quantum decay, should it not?

It's interesting and novel but it fails to meet the definition of a 'clock', which is a device that indicates the time. Every clock I know of involves

the coupling of a 'periodic mechanism', to an 'indicating mechanism', and such coupling, to my knowledge, always involves a change of entropy.

http://www.space.com/17769-eternal-clock-space-time-crystal.html?cid=co3945404

 

If this space-time crystal was formed, at the lowest quantum energy state, would it really out-live the universe?

No

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/12472

No

http://blogs.science.../archives/12472

 

Nice workup.

No

http://blogs.science.../archives/12472

 

I have to say I got lucky here. Only yesterday I watched a documentary about how the uncertainty principle affects particles, so I at least have a shaky grasp on the idea rather than no grasp whatsoever. It does make sense to me and I find it a shame that the introduction of the magnetic field and just the measuring itself introduces uncertainty and therefore subjects the "clock" to the effects of decay and entropy.

However my more basic thought was that the "clock" would simply be subject to decay due to spatial expansion as the very ions that are trapped by the electric field would still decay in the same way that all other matter in the universe does as expansion continues.

Clearly whether I am right or wrong doesn't matter a great deal though. It is still a shame to know that it wouldn't work.

I have to say I got lucky here. Only yesterday I watched a documentary about how the uncertainty principle affects particles, so I at least have a shaky grasp on the idea rather than no grasp whatsoever. It does make sense to me and I find it a shame that the introduction of the magnetic field and just the measuring itself introduces uncertainty and therefore subjects the "clock" to the effects of decay and entropy.

However my more basic thought was that the "clock" would simply be subject to decay due to spatial expansion as the very ions that are trapped by the electric field would still decay in the same way that all other matter in the universe does as expansion continues.

Clearly whether I am right or wrong doesn't matter a great deal though. It is still a shame to know that it wouldn't work.

The uncertainty isn't an issue for the "forever" part; that's just a matter of mangling the "ground states last forever" concept. The uncertainty means the clock will not be perfect, which is the other thing the article mangled, and which Ronald Hyde touched mentioned earlier.

The uncertainty isn't an issue for the "forever" part; that's just a matter of mangling the "ground states last forever" concept. The uncertainty means the clock will not be perfect, which is the other thing the article mangled, and which Ronald Hyde touched mentioned earlier.

 

Unfortunately you've lost me. I thought the uncertainty was what caused the ions to become subject to decay.

Unfortunately you've lost me. I thought the uncertainty was what caused the ions to become subject to decay.

No, being in the ground state means there is nowhere (state-wise) for them to go. But the machinery/electronics that comprises the trap which creates that ground state will eventually break down.

No, being in the ground state means there is nowhere (state-wise) for them to go. But the machinery/electronics that comprises the trap which creates that ground state will eventually break down.

 

Ah I see. Not to put your article down, as it's most likely my lack of knowledge in this area, but the way it was written made me come to the conclusion that the uncertainty introduced the decay.

Although I think I also came to this conclusion after watching something about how uncertainty affects whether photons will act as waves or particles, because to my understanding, the photons can be in many places at once (their position is uncertain) and so they behave as waves, then when they are observed their position becomes certain and so they behave as particles. So with my flimsy grasp on this subject, I assumed that the difference between certainty and uncertainty was also the effector in this experiment.

I see now it's far simpler than that. It is surprisingly simple, yet needed explaining to me before I could understand.

Edited October 3, 201213 yr by ElasticCollision