Frank Wilczek's Time Crystal Hoax

Philip Ball explains why Frank Wilczek's time crystals are bogus:

"But to make that happen, the researchers must deliver kicks to the spins, provided by a laser or pulses of microwaves, to keep them out of equilibrium. The time crystals are sustained only by constant kicking, even though - crucially - their oscillation doesn't match the rhythm of the kicking. The experiments are ingenious and the results show that this modified version of Wilczek's vision is feasible. But are we right to award the new findings this eye-catching new label, or are they really just a new example of a phenomenon that has been going on since the first primeval heart started beating? If these fancy arrangements of quantum spins deserve to be called time crystals, can we then say that we each already have a time crystal pulsing inside of us, keeping us alive?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/bl...cience-physics

That is, Frank Wilczek's time crystals are regularly "kicked" by the experimentalist - the fraud is obvious.

There are genuine time crystals "kicked" by ambient heat and breathtakingly violating the second law of thermodynamics. Here is perpetual (limited only by the deterioration of the system) motion of water in an electric field, obviously able to produce work - e.g. by rotating a waterwheel:

"The Formation of the Floating Water Bridge including electric breakdowns" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UD1goTFhQ

"The water movement is bidirectional, i.e., it simultaneously flows in both directions." https://www.wetsus.nl/home/wetsus-ne...n-innovation/1

The work will be done at the expense of what energy? The first hypothesis that comes to mind is:

At the expense of electric energy. The system is, essentially, an electric motor.

However, close inspection would suggest that the hypothesis is untenable. Scientists use triply distilled water to reduce the conductivity and the electric current passing through the system to minimum. If, for some reason, the current is increased, the motion stops - the system cannot be an electric motor.

If the system is not an electric motor, then it is ... a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind! Here arguments describing perpetual-motion machines as impossible, idiotic, etc. are irrelevant - the following conditional is valid:

IF THE SYSTEM IS NOT AN ELECTRIC MOTOR, then it is a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind.

In other words, if the work is not done at the expense of electric energy, then it is done at the expense of ambient heat, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. No third source of energy is conceivable.

In the electric field between the plates of a capacitor, the same perpetual motion of water can be seen (we have a time crystal again):

" Liquid Dielectric Capacitor" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg

In the capacitor system the rising water can repeatedly do work, e.g. by lifting floating weights. The crucial question is:

The work (lifting floating weights) will be done at the expense of what energy?

Obviously "electric energy" is not the correct answer - the capacitor is not an electric motor. Then the only possible answer remains "ambient heat". The system is a heat engine violating the second law of thermodynamics!

Pentcho Valev

Catalysis-based time crystals: Here is perpetual motion of dimer A_2 and monomer A between two catalytic surfaces, S1 and S2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...SLTD-Fig1c.jpg

See the explanations he https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan%27s_Paradox

One of absurd implications of the second law of thermodynamics is that, if a catalyst increases the rate of the forward reaction by a factor of, say, 745492, it obligatorily increases the rate of the reverse reaction by the same factor, 745492, despite the fact that the two reactions - forward and reverse - may be entirely different (e.g. the diffusion factor is crucial for one but not important for the other) and accordingly require entirely different catalytic mechanisms. The absurd implication is usually referred to as "Catalysts do not shift chemical equilibrium":

"A catalyst reduces the time taken to reach equilibrium, but does not change the position of the equilibrium. This is because the catalyst increases the rates of the forward and reverse reactions BY THE SAME AMOUNT."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher...um/revision/2/

"In the presence of a catalyst, both the forward and reverse reaction rates will speed up EQUALLY... [...] If the addition of catalysts could possibly alter the equilibrium state of the reaction, this would violate the second rule of thermodynamics..."
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/...lyst-447-3459/

Scientists should have exposed the absurdity of this implication of the second law of thermodynamics long ago. How can the catalyst increase the rates of the forward and reverse reactions BY THE SAME AMOUNT (EQUALLY) if these two reactions are entirely different? Consider the dissociation-association reaction

A - B + C

which is in equilibrium. We add a catalyst, e.g. a macroscopic catalytic surface, and it starts splitting A - the rate of the forward (dissociation) reaction increases by a factor of 745492. If the second law of thermodynamics is obeyed, the catalyst must increase the rate of the reverse (association) reaction by exactly the same factor, 745492. But this is obviously absurd! In the reverse reaction the catalyst's function is entirely different - the catalyst must first get together B and C and then join them to form A. It is nonsense to expect the process involving

getting-together-B-and-C

to have exactly the same rate increase, by a factor of 745492, as the process consisting of

splitting-A.

The catalyst may be able to increase the rates of both - forward and reverse - reactions, this is realistic, but not BY THE SAME AMOUNT (EQUALLY). The second law of thermodynamics is obviously false.

Actually scientists have always known that catalysts CAN shift chemical equilibrium, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics:

"For 50 years scientists have seen in experiments that some monomers and dimers split apart and rejoin at different rates on different surfaces. The eureka moment came when we recognized that by placing two different surfaces close together in a way that effectively eliminates the gas cloud, the energy balance would be different on each of the two surfaces. One surface would have more molecules breaking apart, cooling it, while the other surface would have more molecules joining back together, warming it." https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEne...49600938581128

Here is a publication in Nature describing a catalyst accelerating the forward and SUPPRESSING the reverse reaction:

http://images.nature.com/m685/nature...mms3500-f1.jpg

Yu Hang Li et al. Unidirectional suppression of hydrogen oxidation on oxidized platinum clusters. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3500

That catalysts can violate the second law of thermodynamics (by shifting chemical equilibrium) is presented by Wikipedia as a fact:

"Epicatalysis is a newly identified class of gas-surface heterogeneous catalysis in which specific gas-surface reactions shift gas phase species concentrations away from those normally associated with gas-phase equilibrium. [....] A traditional catalyst adheres to three general principles, namely: 1) it speeds up a chemical reaction; 2) it participates in, but is not consumed by, the reaction; and 3) it does not change the chemical equilibrium of the reaction. Epicatalysts overcome the third principle..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicatalysis

Pentcho Valev