Physicists say they've created a new phase of matter with an "extra" time dimension, according to a recently published study in the journal Nature. The researchers didn't set out with the goal of opening a "portal to an extra time dimension," as Scientific American described the experiment. They simply sought to create a new topological phase of quantum matter, which is essentially a form of quantum matter defined by the dynamic motions of its constituents, rather than their static arrangements. But once they got to work, the technique they developed for creating such a phase — without relying on extreme temperatures — ended up creating a new time dimension, they say. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...pc=U531&cvid=a730749be2444a3fba203cb6f285b3ef New Phase of Matter Opens Portal to Extra Time Dimension Physicists have devised a mind-bending error-correction technique that could dramatically boost the performance of quantum computers https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-phase-of-matter-opens-portal-to-extra-time-dimension/
after checking ur links (somehow I was SURE that this came from the onion) I'm now beginning to see that this story's for real. For all the sci-fi fans out there that think that the physics discovered some kind of goop we can make time machines out of, well, no. What they did do is pure math and theory, so far. I for one am very interested in what happens when the other shoe drops...
Not yet. I need to study this a bit before I say anything specific. But generally... Let me quote something from one of the greatest physicists of our time - Richard P Feynman. He is a largely responsible for inventing the subject of Quantum Electrodynamics, which he was describing below. This comes from the introduction of the non-mathematical version of his book on this: "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.: Feynman, Richard P. (1918-198 b. Far Rockaway, New York Richard P. Feynman, QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Penguin Books, London, 1990, p 9. (1) \ Nobel Lecture, 1966 Physicists develop mathematical models that agree with and predict what we measure physically. Then we try to interpret what the math tells us. This is why people who think they can learn physics through words are hopelessly misguided. What we really understand is how to do the math and the rules of existence that we have been learning since Newton. So explaining anything in physics, in words, is always dicey and just an approximation. But after I do some reading I will try to make sense of it. With something this new and exotic, god only knows.
How long will it be before some well meaning scientist creates a time or space disruption and we all disappear? Like we never existed and time and space start all over again.
Well, crap. This is going to take awhile. The Scientific American write up is too general for me to really get a grasp of the concept. I need to see the math. This is seriously big-league stuff. A nibble at a time. Dimensions are perpendicular to each other in 2 dimensions. North could be one dimension and East another. North and East are independent of each other. You can go some degree of North and East but motion in the North direction is never motion in the East direction. They are said mathematically to be "linearly independent". This translates to ideas like the X and Y axis in math. It also means something that is represented as part of an equation. Then we get more complex ideas like "orthogonality" and "normality", which are more sophisticated concepts of perpendicularity. For example, consider a stick stuck in the ground and pointing straight up. The stick is said to be normal to the surface [the ground]. What this means is that the stick is at right angles to the earth in all directions. But it all comes back to the same type of representation mathematically. Dimension are all unique. One has nothing to do with the other. We can have dimensions X, Y, and Z, which are what make space. They are all perpendicular to each other. Einstein came along and showed us that time acts mathematically like a 4th dimension. So then we had x, y, z, and t. So apparently time is somehow orthogonal to the other 3 dimensions, just like they are all orthogonal to each other. Next concept: Location in space versus location in time
by 'create' shall I presume they mean 'theorized'? Seems like this kinda stuff is most often the result of doing math with numbers that are either unrealistically large or unrealistically small. Like, sure, if something with mass spins at infinite RPMs, it destroys the universe, but is that scientifically useful information?
Starting with spinning at infinite RPMS, physics tells us it can't happen. So your example makes no sense. There are effects that we would expect if we could do this or that, but we can never do this or that, at least not for the foreseable future. That is true. For example, we can make a real time machine out of a black hole. All we need is a black hole. This is something that appears to be very powerful as it relates to quantum computers. What it means beyond that, I don't know and it may be that nobody does yet.
But all of the technology that you see around you, the quantum mechanics that makes your computer possible, the Relativity that makes GPS possible, going to the moon, extending life and modern medicine, this all depends on physics being correct. Does your computer work? When physics talks, smart people listen. If this passes muster it could be huge. But even in one of the most respected journals in the world, one paper proves nothing.
Just FYI, even the old black and white TVs from the the 1950s and 1960s depended on Relativity. In order to make the picture, electrons were fired at very high speeds against the back of the screen, which had a phosphorous coating. A spot hit by an electron turned white. Through the use of magnetic fields, the electron gun firing the electrons scanned right or left for each step down. This all had to happen fast enough to not only produce an image, but fast enough to make about 30 images a second, which is what you need for uniform motion. And this all had to be highly accurate or the image on the screen would be unrecognizable. The electrons were moving so fast that they gained mass as predicted by Special Relativity. In order to produce the image accurately, Einstein's equations were required to calculate the trajectory of the electrons.
Then apparently my example does make sense, as that is the precise sense it was intended to make... Im not saying theoretical physics isn't useful. Im just saying I wish they would stop pretending (or phrasing) that they 'created' something other than an equation that represents something that they dont know whether it can actually exist or not.
I wonder if what they are experiencing is like bohms pilot wave theory. Effects happening currently effecting actions in the future due to wave interference. Not two deminsions of time it instead two things interacting on the same time deminsion when it was assumed to be one thing. The particle is a wave is a particle... No! They are two separate things that interact!
I want to do a quick review of another concept before getting into the proper interpretation of their claim. When we are talking about two dimensions, many people may recognize the Pythagorean Theorem from Geometry. The length of side c is equal to the square root of a squared plus b squared - the same equation cited by the scarecrow in The WIzard of Oz, when he gets his brain. It turns out this works in 3 dimensions as well. It continues to work in higher dimensions. I had one professor who was working in ten dimensions [or maybe it was 11 dimensions]. And even then it still applies. In fact physicists and mathematicians work in multiple dimensions all the time. But in physics it is used to model reality. It isn't strictly theoretical. Ultimately it has to agree with what we measure. It has to be an accurate model that not only describes reality, but also predicts it correctly 100% of the time. If we consider the origin to be the lower left, front corner of the cube above, if we call this zero for L, W, and H, then the length and direction of the diagonal gives us the position of something in three dimensions. Just fyi, this is called a Vector - something that has both length and direction. We can assign angles to get the direction and use Pythagoras to get the length of the Vector. So for example we consider a control tower tracking a plane. It could located by saying for example the plane is 70 degrees East of due North, 30 degrees up from the horizon, and 50 miles out following that line. This allows us to identify where the plane is located in 3 dimensions. It is important to have a concept of these ideas to get concept of the experiment in the news. These ideas are what define dimensions. And in math any two dimensions are said to be linearly independent. So North or South are never East or West. And Up or Down is never North, South, East, or West. Likewise, 4 seconds in the future is never a direction in space (unless you happen to be inside of a black hole, but we should ignore that for now. ). Time is like another independent direction. It is another dimension where we can measure the position of something [in time] with a clock. Just FYI, likewise, we can identify the position of something in time and space by using a 4-dimensional vector, the length of which is calculated using Pythagoras. But again that gets into other stuff.
We know the answer using same equations that we use to make satellites work, build machines, and go to the moon. Your alleged point is ridiculous. You don't have a clue what they have done and you don't know the first thing about physics. You should just read and learn. When you go in for surgery, do you tell the surgeon how to do their job too? It would be no less ridiculous than having opinions about physics. I'd bet the answer is no, you don't or wouldn't tell the surgeon how to do their job. Because unlike here, in that case, talking BS and nonsense will kill you. You know you don't know what you're talking about so you keep your pie hole shut.
It's generally the science article writer that makes these more radical assertions. The actual scientists are aware of the pitfall of interpretations related to the math.
You are going to figure it out by looking at a scientific news article from a third party? No actual observations? No experiments? Not even the actual white or scientific research papers? Nothing in the article to link us to the actual experiment and it's setup and data. No I don't think you are going to figure it out and your claim that you will try makes me doubt your claim to being a physicist. Also, If you don't want comments, create a blog or something.
While not the point of the article, I think this story makes the difficulty of quantum computing more clear.
