Once thought impossible, quasicrystals revealed a hidden order that challenges our understanding of materials.
Their structure follows rules from higher dimensions, influencing both their mechanical and topological properties. Recent research has uncovered bizarre time-related behaviors in these crystals, suggesting deeper physical principles at play.
A Revolutionary Discovery in Crystallography
In April 1982, Prof. Dan Shechtman of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology made a groundbreaking discovery that would later earn him the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: the quasiperiodic crystal. When he examined the material using electron diffraction, it appeared “disorganized” on a small scale, yet displayed a distinct, symmetrical pattern when viewed at a larger scale.
At the time, this type of structure was thought to be impossible, and Shechtman faced years of skepticism before the scientific community accepted his findings. The first physicists to provide a theoretical explanation were Prof. Dov Levine, then a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania, and his advisor, Prof. Paul Steinhardt. Their key insight was that quasicrystals follow a periodic structure — but in a higher-dimensional space beyond the three dimensions we experience. This realization allowed them to describe and predict the mechanical and thermodynamic properties of quasicrystals.
Higher-Dimensional Insights into Quasicrystals
The concept of higher spatial dimension extends our familiar three-dimensional space – length, width, and height – by introducing additional directions that are perpendicular to all three. This is difficult to visualize, as we can only perceive the world around us as a three-dimensional space, and even more challenging to measure. An example of a four-dimensional object is the tesseract, also known as hypercube. Just as a cube consists of six square facets, a tesseract comprises eight cubic cells. Although we cannot fully visualize a tesseract, we can represent it through its projections, much like looking at the shadow of a three-dimensional cube on a two-dimensional piece of paper.
New Research Sheds Light on Hidden Structures
In a new manuscript published in Science, researchers from the Technion, together with the University of Stuttgart and University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany, shed new light on this phenomenon. In their study, led by Prof. Guy Bartal and Dr. Shai Tsesses from the Andrew and Erna Viterbi Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Prof. Harald Giessen from the University of Stuttgart, and Prof. Frank Meyer zu Heringdorf from the University of Duisburg-Essen, the research group demonstrated that not only do the higher dimensional crystals dictate the mechanical properties of quasiperiodic crystals – they also determine their topological properties.
The Role of Topology in Understanding Quasicrystals
Topology is a branch of mathematics that investigates the geometric properties that remain unchanged under continuous deformations. The topology of higher-dimensional spaces focuses on the properties of objects in more than three dimensions and can assist, for example, in studying the structure of the universe and developing quantum computing algorithms. The researchers examined quasiperiodic interference patterns of electromagnetic surface waves and discovered, to their surprise, that although the patterns appeared different, their topological properties in two dimensions could not be used to differentiate between them. They found the only way to distinguish between the patterns was by referring to an “original” higher-dimensional crystal.
This understanding agrees with the explanation given by Levine and Steinhardt, which was based on an earlier discovery by British mathematician, Sir Roger Penrose (2020 Nobel Prize laureate in Physics) and later conveyed by Nicolaas de Bruijn.
Time and the Unexpected Behavior of Surface Waves
The researchers also discovered another intriguing phenomenon: two different topological patterns of surface waves appeared identical when measured after a specific time interval. This interval was extremely short, measured in attoseconds – a billionth of a billionth of a second. The original theory by Levine and Steinhardt again explains this phenomenon as a “competition” between the topological and thermodynamic (energetic) properties of the crystals.
Advanced Techniques Unlock New Possibilities
The findings were achieved using two methods: near-field scanning optical microscopy conducted in Prof. Guy Bartal’s lab by Dr. Kobi Cohen and two-photon photoemission electron microscopy, measured in collaboration between the University of Stuttgart and the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. The discoveries reported in the manuscript pave the way for new methods to measure the thermodynamic properties of quasiperiodic crystals.
In the near future, the researchers plan to expand their findings to other physical systems and delve deeper into the interplay between thermodynamic and topological properties. Potentially, the unique higher-dimensional topological properties of quasicrystals could be used in the future to represent, encode, and transfer information.
Reference: “Four-dimensional conserved topological charge vectors in plasmonic quasicrystals” by Shai Tsesses, Pascal Dreher, David Janoschka, Alexander Neuhaus, Kobi Cohen, Tim C. Meiler, Tomer Bucher, Shay Sapir, Bettina Frank, Timothy J. Davis, Frank Meyer zu Heringdorf, Harald Giessen and Guy Bartal, 6 February 2025, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.adt2495
The research was supported by the European Research Council (ERC), the German Research Foundation (DFG), Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), BW Stiftung, Carl-Zeiss Stiftung, the Russell Berrie Nanotechnology Institute at the Technion (RBNI), the Helen Diller Quantum Center at the Technion (HDQC), and the Sarah and Moshe Zisapel Nanoelectronics Center at the Technion (MNFU).
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
12 Comments
Two different topological patterns of surface waves appeared identical when measured after a specific time interval. This interval was extremely short, measured in attoseconds – a billionth of a billionth of a second. The original theory by Levine and Steinhardt again explains this phenomenon as a “competition” between the topological and thermodynamic (energetic) properties of the crystals.
VERY GOOD. At different times, two different topological patterns of surface waves appeared identical.
Ask the researchers:
1. Is the identical absolute or relative?
2. Is’ The Blind and the Elephant ‘just a fable?
Scientific research guided by correct theories can enable researchers to think more.
A topological vortex is a concept in physics that describes the natural gravitational field or the fluid-body coupled system. A topological vortex is formed by the interaction and balance of vortex and anti-vortex field pairs, which can be set into resonance by the body motion and interaction.
Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) treats space as an ideal fluid, posits that the topological vortex gravitational field is fundamental to the structure of the universe, and emphasizes the importance of topological phase transitions in understanding mass, inertia, and energy.
According to the Topological Vortex Theory (TVT), spins create everything, spins shape the world. There are substantial distinctions between Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) and traditional physical theories. Grounded in the inviscid, incompressible, and isotropic spaces, TVT introduces the concept of topological phase transitions and employs topological principles to elucidate the formation and evolution of matter in the universe, as well as the impact of interactions between topological vortices and anti-vortices on spacetime dynamics and thermodynamics.
Within TVT, low-dimensional spacetime matter serves as the foundation for high-dimensional spacetime matter, and the hierarchical structure of matter and its interaction mechanisms challenge conventional macroscopic and microscopic interpretations. The conflict between Quantum Physics and Classical Physics can be attributed to their differing focuses: Quantum Physics emphasizes low-dimensional spacetime matter, whereas Classical Physics centers on high-dimensional spacetime matter.
Subatomic particles in the quantum world often defy the familiar rules of the physical world. The fact repeatedly suggests that the familiar rules of the physical world are pseudoscience. In the familiar rules of the physical world, two sets of cobalt-60 can form the mirror image of each other by rotating in opposite directions, and should receive the Nobel Prize for physics.
Please witness the grand performance of some so-called peer review publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.). https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-854286. Some so-called academic publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.) are addicted to their own small circles and have deviated from science for a long time.
As the background of various material interactions and movements, space exhibits inviscid, absolutely incompressible and isotropic physical characteristics. It may form various forms of spacetime vortices through topological phase transitions. Hence, vortex phenomena are ubiquitous in cosmic space, from vortices of quantum particles and living cells to tornados and black holes. Stars and radioactive elements are one of the most active topological nodes in spacetime. Utilizing them is more valuable and meaningful than simulating them. Small or micro power topology intelligent batteries may be the direction of future energy research and development for human society.
Under the topological vortex architecture, science and pseudoscience are clear at a glance. Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) can play a crucial role in elucidating the foundations of physics, establishing its principles, and combating pseudoscience. Therefore, TVT has been strongly opposed and boycotted by traditional so-called peer review publications (such as PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.).
These so-called peer review publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.) mislead the direction of science and are known for their various absurdities and wonders. They collude together, reference each other, and use so-called Impact Factor (IF) or the Nobel Prize to deceive people around.
Ask the so-called peer review publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.):
1. What are your criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience?
2. Is your Impact Factor (IF) the standard for distinguishing science from pseudoscience?
3. Is the Nobel Prize the standard for distinguishing science from pseudoscience?
4. What is the most important aspect of academic publications?
5. Is the most important aspect of academic publications being flashy and impractical articles?
Pseudo academic publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.) are neither inclusivity nor openness, nor transparency and fairness, and have already had a serious negative impact on the progress of science and technology. Some so-called peer review publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.) are addicted to their own small circle and no longer know what science is. They hardly know what is dirty and ugly.
Publications that mislead the public under the guise of scholarship are more reprehensible than ordinary publications. The field of physics faces an ongoing challenge in maintaining scientific rigor and integrity in the face of pervasive pseudoscientific claims. Fighting against rampant pseudoscience, physics still has a long way to go.
While my comments may be lengthy, they are necessary to combat the proliferation of rampant pseudoscience and to promote the advancement of science and technology, and also is all I can do.
Appreciate the SciTechDaily for its inclusivity, openness, transparency, and fairness. If the researchers are truly interested in cosmic matter, please read: A Brief History of the Evolution of Cosmic Matter (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-873523).
Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) is based on topology and fluid dynamics, which have solid mathematical and physical foundations. Under the topological vortex architecture, science and pseudoscience are clear at a glance. Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) can play a crucial role in elucidating the foundations of physics, establishing its principles, and combating pseudoscience.
However, some individuals, some AI, and some so-called peer review publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.) stubbornly believe that two sets of cobalt-60 can form the mirror image of each other by rotating in opposite directions (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-854286), and stubbornly believe that the Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) currently lacks validation. This is because they have been misled by pseudoscientific information.
Vortex phenomena are ubiquitous in cosmic space, from vortices of quantum particles and living cells to tornados and black holes. The inviscid and incompressible spaces have been widely used in engineering simulation (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-870077). These all are the most powerful verification.
Ask some so-called peer review publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.) again:
1. Does space not exist?
2. Does time not exist?
3. Does the ideal fluid not exist?
4. Do scientific experiments require time and space?
5. Do certain engineering simulations require ideal fluids?
6. If non-existent things are applied to scientific experiments and engineering simulations, and good results can be achieved. So, what is the difference between the non-existent thing and God?
Some individuals and some so-called peer review publications (including PRL, PNAS, Nature, Science, etc.) have been misleading the public with confusing concepts (https://pic2.zhimg.com/v2-4127b0b58fe8b88feb27c189fb705029_1440w.jpg?source=172ae18b), unscientific logic and reasoning, and self righteous Impact Factor (IF), hindering the progress of science and technology.
Fighting against rampant pseudoscience, physics still has a long way to go.
I’m really intrigued by your post.
I’m going to step out on a ledge here.
I don’t see reality in any conventionally described way. What I do see, what my own reasoning has shown me, resonates with this notion of topological vortices. Not sure if I’m accurate in my understanding of this but I rings true for me so far.
I don’t believe in particles. I don’t see the nature of reality in the ways that we’re generally being taught. I’m know that time is not the fourth dimension, and I find it endlessly insulting that it’s so widely touted as such. What I see instead is a universe of infinities. For example, it appears that the universe has no beginning but rather instead is a thing that never stopped starting to happen.
Within each moment observed there is an infinite series of shorter moments. By observing an event, such as the movement of an apparent object, we can forever shorten the observed time interval. I posit that motion is not real either. Instead of what we know, we are interpreting what seems apparent and calling it real.
Most people don’t agree with me, and I don’t have evidence. I don’t really believe in gravity. Instead, I think that what we experience of gravity is an effect of static attraction. That makes me a crackpot. So it goes with most of what I see.
But the pattern in my head which presents when I consider such phenomena as the passage of time shows me that a particle in motion is not a finite thing in itself but an infinitely complex wave-form which happens to exist in resonance with everything else. Its infinite aspects are constantly collapsing and translating to and from the spaces around it. Therefore it appears to be in motion but in fact does not truly exist.
I’m not sure if what I can share is relevant to you but I figure it’s worth a shot.
Time, as we experience it, behaves more like a property of a dimension. If it were a true dimension, time travel would be no different than walking to the corner store.
Thank you for browsing. I hope more people dare to stand up and fight against rampant pseudoscience.
@ Dustin Kirk,
Thank you for browsing. I hope more people dare to stand up and fight against rampant pseudoscience.
At last, an article that falls squarely within your line of country! Enjoyed the reading! You have a good day now.
NO! NO! NO!
Pseudo science knows no borders. Every person who opposes pseudoscience is an individual hated by current mainstream peer review publications.
The ‘your line of country’ comment is an American-ish saying, referring to an idea or topic that someone is familiar with. I suspect the translation software didn’t pick that out. My bad. Again, have a good day.
Thank you for your understanding.
Enjoy your every day！
do you consider “forensic science” as pseudoscience?
How about evolution? Big Bang? etc.
“Science” has become religion and the scientists are the high priests. If you go against them, look out!
In fact, when I studied the Philosophy of Science (only one college course) it was interesting that thy used to try to define what “science” is. “Falsifiability” etc. Now, I don’t think that is the case. “True” science is now an obscure concept that is merely determined by the High Priests what is or what is not acceptable to them, the holy keepers of the faith.
Perhaps this is a window into the metaphysical, which the Bible calls the “spiritual” realm, and which I consider are higher dimensions.
It doesn’t take a tremendous understanding of mathematics to understand the possibility of higher dimensions.
The Bible says we were made a little “lower” than the spiritual realm, which people perceive is a “height” reference, but no, it is a “dimensional” reference.
Very interesting.
But don’t mention this to an atheist.