So I recently read this article that talks about how scientists have discovered that the nucleus of some elements are pear shaped instead of being symmetrical. The article asserts that the reason for the pear shape is because the nucleus points toward a direction in spacetime meaning time is linear and thus time traveling to the past is impossible.
My question is since the nucleus is pointing in a certain direction, does that mean time has a directional component? Like if we traveled far and fast enough in the direction the nucleus is pointing would approach the future faster than someone who wasn't traveling in that direction?
I don't know much about the subject but it seemed interesting and I was hoping for some clarification on the subject.
spoiler: the "article" is bullshit
>>8167500
this.
It's bullshit in which regard? The shape of the nucleus or the impossibility of time travel?
>>8167496
Source?
>>8167496
>nucleus points toward a direction in spacetime
Space, MAYBE, spacetime, no.
![nature12073-f4.2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/q1jglWg.jpg "nature12073-f4.2[1].jpg")
Source :
http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-new-nucleus-shape-and-it-could-ruin-our-hopes-of-time-travel
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/pearshaped-nuclei-explain-lack-of-antimatter-and-make-timetravel-impossible/
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4q2j6z/experiments_confirm_that_the_barium144_nucleus_is/
Apparently the barium elements nuclei is not symmetrical. Discovered by Marcus Scheck from the University of the West of Scotland
>>8168096
>http://www.iflscience.com/physics/pearshaped-nuclei-explain-lack-of-antimatter-and-make-timetravel-impossible/
>iflscience
There's your problem. IFL science will take a small grain of truth (this nucleus is pear shaped), then take a speculatory wild ass possible theory that the scientist who discovered it suggested as a potential "until we figure this out for realsies", explanation that is the cause of it (points along an axis towards spacetime), then throw some scifi garbage in there to get the dumb-dumbs to start mentally masturbating for the next hour (TIEM TRAVUL).
That being said, I like IFL science because it DOES sometimes get people who would otherwise not give a shit to have some form of interest in the hard sciences. I just hate that they treat articles with such a third degree that it's hard to take anything seriously. Also any "science of sex xDD LOLOL" shit has often been some of the most boring "scientific" shit I've ever seen.
>>8168162
so lets ignore them. I thought all nuclei was symmetrical. Why would this one be distorted ?
haven't seen any explaination for it looking at a particular direction though, thats probably just their idea.
>>8168198
The gravity of other universes, just like one of those crazy theories as blueshift states.
>>8168213
realistic replies please
>and thus time traveling to the past is impossible
There are many, better reasons why traveling into the past is impossible.
>>8167549
The time travel thing.
That part's just irrelevant click bait.
>>8167496
so what's the deal with the shape? ratio of neutrons to protons leads to some kind of particle packing asymmetry? does this affect stability of the nucleus?
>>8167496
Wanted to make a these about this to vent.
How the hell did the get from pear shaped to time travel? And the statement that it points in one direction of spaceyime, are they implying that all the nuclei are pointing in the exact same direction? That would fuck up so many of our theories like conservation of angular momentum. And how does something having a point in space equal having a point in time? how the hell does this mean time moves only in one direction at all? This is the most confusing article I've ever seen, because either I have a fundamental misunderstanding about physics, or everyone on my facebook feed is retarded.
>>8167496
Here's the actual paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01485v1.pdf
Here's an article that actually describes the paper:
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-heavy-barium-nuclei-pear.html
The mainstream media is a smörgåsbord of bullshit.
>>8168880
I'm not well versed in experimental physics but it seems as if they are saying that the nucleus is asymmetrical because it contains a lot of neutrons and therefore has more complex electric field configuration.
That would explain why the electrons in the shell have a prefered spatial location.
Not really seeing much about spacetime or FTL though.
>>8169624
The time travel / spacetime stuff came from an I Fucking Love Science article.
Like a game of Telephone, that level of popsci-media-misunderstanding-other-popsci-media spontaneously generates bullshit in a way that is impossible to predict.
>>8167496
I'm not sure on the specifics but my old supervisor was working on this exact thing, that is pear shaped nuclei and how they relate to T-symmetry violation. Unfortunately I'd been out the previous night and was too hung over to really pay that much attention. That said I do remember him telling me that it was quite speculative, so don't read too much into it. Anyway nuclei become deformed like this because of the way nucleons couple together in, so in this case it would mean that one of the higher multipole moments contributes more than one of the lower moments, or something like that.
>>8167496
This pear shape doesn't minimize surface tension so based on my complete nonexistent nuclear physics knowledge I conclude it's bullsheit.
>>8168198
Electrons exist as a negatively charged area around the nucleus, right? Every element has a slightly different field of forces acting on the nucleus because there is a different pattern of electrons for each element.
What if the electron configuration for this element distorts the positively charged nucleus?
>>8170496
m(nucleus) >>>> m(electron) so its negligible
>>8170496
But it still wouldn't explain why it's static. Since electrons are ravaging around all the time, you'd expect the distortion to be dynamic. This distortion seems to be static.
And we were observing electrons for a long time, why wasn't this discovered a long time ago ? I thought they would be examined all the known nuclei by now.
>>8167496
>the nucleus points toward a direction
>in spacetime meaning time is linear
WAT
