Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by requerdanos on Monday August 30 2021, @10:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the are-laws-of-thermodynamics-overrated? dept.

Eternal Change for No Energy: A Time Crystal Finally Made Real:

In a preprint posted online Thursday night, researchers at Google in collaboration with physicists at Stanford, Princeton and other universities say that they have used Google's quantum computer to demonstrate a genuine "time crystal." In addition, a separate research group claimed earlier this month to have created a time crystal in a diamond.

A novel phase of matter that physicists have strived to realize for many years, a time crystal is an object whose parts move in a regular, repeating cycle, sustaining this constant change without burning any energy.

"The consequence is amazing: You evade the second law of thermodynamics," said Roderich Moessner, director of the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems in Dresden, Germany, and a co-author on the Google paper. That's the law that says disorder always increases.

Time crystals are also the first objects to spontaneously break "time-translation symmetry," the usual rule that a stable object will remain the same throughout time. A time crystal is both stable and ever-changing, with special moments that come at periodic intervals in time.

[...] "This is just this completely new and exciting space that we're working in now," said Vedika Khemani, a condensed matter physicist now at Stanford who co-discovered the novel phase while she was a graduate student and co-authored the new paper with the Google team.

Journal Reference:
Mi, Xiao, Ippoliti, Matteo, Quintana, Chris, et al. Observation of Time-Crystalline Eigenstate Order on a Quantum Processor, (DOI: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.13571)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 31 2021, @04:15PM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday August 31 2021, @04:15PM (#1172873) Homepage
    That a random signal causes a chartist to perceive a pattern doesn't let you conclude anything about the randomness of otherwise of real stock prices. It does tell you something about that chartist, though. They probably won a Fauxbel Prize.

    Got any evidence that E[eps_t.eps_{t+d}] = 0 for small d?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31 2021, @04:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31 2021, @04:39PM (#1172882)

    The answer, as usual, is it depends [sciencedirect.com]:

    The results of first and second generation panel unit root tests rejects the null of unit root which implies that the stock prices do not follow a random walk process and stock markets are not weak efficient. On the other hand, recent panel unit root testing methodologies that considers both structural shifts and cross-sectional dependency across series provides an evidence on weak-form efficiency of stock markets. This finding accepts the random walk behavior of stock prices which implies that the current market prices of stocks include and reflect all the past information. In that case, technical analysis may not contribute to the forecasting of future stock prices because every new information has an impact on the prices. This publicly available and cost-free instant information and intense market competition makes it impossible to predict prices. Therefore, the investors cannot be able to generate returns which are higher than the average of markets by using past price movements.