Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2005.06321

Reply to "Comment on "Quantum Time Crystals from Hamiltonians with Long-Range Interactions""

Valerii K. Kozin, Oleksandr Kyriienko

Published May 13, 2020• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In the note by Khemani et al. [arXiv:2001.11037] the authors express conceptual disagreement with our recent paper on quantum time crystals [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210602]. They criticise the idealized nature of the considered quantum time crystal, and make several points about properties of Hamiltonians presented in our work. In this reply we answer one-by-one all questions raised in the discussion. As for the ideological dispute, it brightly highlights a bizarre nature of time crystalline order in closed quantum systems, and we offer a different vision for the development of the field.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2005.06321

Related papers

Comment on "Quantum Time Crystals from Hamiltonians with Long-Range Interactions"

Vedika Khemani, Roderich Moessner, Shivaji L. Sondhi

In a recent paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210602), Kozin and Kyriienko claim to realize "genuine" ground state time crystals by studying models with long-ranged and infinite-body interactions. Here we point out that their models are doubly problematic: they are unrealizable ${\it and}$ they violate well established principles for defining phases of matter. Indeed with infinite body operators allowed, almost all quantum systems are time crystals. In addition, one of their models is highly unstable and another amounts to isolating, via fine tuning, a single degree of freedom in a many body system--allowing for this elevates the pendulum of Galileo and Huygens to a genuine time crystal.

arXiv:2001.11037•Jan 29, 2020•5 citations

Reply to Comment on "Space-Time Crystals of Trapped Ions"

Tongcang Li, Zhexuan Gong, Zhang‐qi Yin +5 more

This is a reply to the comment from Patrick Bruno (arXiv:1211.4792) on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 163001 (2012)).

arXiv:1212.6959•Dec 31, 2012•3 citations

Comment on "Reply to Comment on Time-dependent Quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the Unitary Quantum Evolution"

Mostafazadeh, Ali

I point out that if one defines the operator $U_R(t)$ as done by M. Znojil in his reply [arXiv:0711.0514v1] to my comment [arXiv:0711.0137v1] and also accepts the validity of the defining relation of $U_R(t)$ as given in his paper [arXiv:0710.5653v1], one finds that the time-evolution of the associated quantum system is not governed by the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian operator $H$ but an operator $H'$ which differs from $H$ if the metric operator is time-dependent. In the latter case this effective Hamiltonian $H'$ is not observable. This is consistent with the conclusions of my paper [Phys. Lett. B 650, 208 (2007), arXiv:0706.1872v2] which allow for unitary time-evolution generated by unobservable Hamiltonians.

arXiv:0711.1078•Nov 7, 2007•4 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514•Nov 5, 2007•6 citations

Comment on “Quantum Time Crystals”

P. Bruno

A Comment on Frank Wilczek's paper "Quantum Time Crystals" (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 160401 (2012); arXiv:1202.2539).

arXiv:1210.4128•Physical Review Letters•Mar 11, 2013•136 citations

Absence of Quantum Time Crystals

Haruki Watanabe, Masaki Oshikawa

In analogy with crystalline solids around us, Wilczek recently proposed the idea of "time crystals" as phases that spontaneously break the continuous time translation into a discrete subgroup. The proposal stimulated further studies and vigorous debates whether it can be realized in a physical system. However, a precise definition of the time crystal is needed to resolve the issue. Here we first present a definition of time crystals based on the time-dependent correlation functions of the order parameter. We then prove a no-go theorem that rules out the possibility of time crystals defined as such, in the ground state or in the canonical ensemble of a general Hamiltonian, which consists of not-too-long-range interactions.

arXiv:1410.2143•Physical Review Letters•Jun 24, 2015•462 citations
In the note by Khemani et al. [arXiv:2001.11037] the authors express conceptual disagreement with our recent paper on quantum time crystals [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210602]. They criticise the idealized nature of the considered quantum time crystal, and make several points about properties of Hamiltonians presented in our work. In this reply we answer one-by-one all questions raised in the discussion. As for the ideological dispute, it brightly highlights a bizarre nature of time crystalline order in closed quantum systems, and we offer a different vision for the development of the field.
In a recent paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210602), Kozin and Kyriienko claim to realize "genuine" ground state time crystals by studying models with long-ranged and infinite-body interactions. Here we point out that their models are doubly problematic: they are unrealizable and{\it and}and they violate well established principles for defining phases of matter. Indeed with infinite body operators allowed, almost all quantum systems are time crystals. In addition, one of their models is highly unstable and another amounts to isolating, via fine tuning, a single degree of freedom in a many body system--allowing for this elevates the pendulum of Galileo and Huygens to a genuine time crystal.
I point out that if one defines the operator UR(t)U_R(t)UR​(t) as done by M. Znojil in his reply [arXiv:0711.0514v1] to my comment [arXiv:0711.0137v1] and also accepts the validity of the defining relation of UR(t)U_R(t)UR​(t) as given in his paper [arXiv:0710.5653v1], one finds that the time-evolution of the associated quantum system is not governed by the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian operator HHH but an operator H′H'H′ which differs from HHH if the metric operator is time-dependent. In the latter case this effective Hamiltonian H′H'H′ is not observable. This is consistent with the conclusions of my paper [Phys. Lett. B 650, 208 (2007), arXiv:0706.1872v2] which allow for unitary time-evolution generated by unobservable Hamiltonians.
In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.
In analogy with crystalline solids around us, Wilczek recently proposed the idea of "time crystals" as phases that spontaneously break the continuous time translation into a discrete subgroup. The proposal stimulated further studies and vigorous debates whether it can be realized in a physical system. However, a precise definition of the time crystal is needed to resolve the issue. Here we first present a definition of time crystals based on the time-dependent correlation functions of the order parameter. We then prove a no-go theorem that rules out the possibility of time crystals defined as such, in the ground state or in the canonical ensemble of a general Hamiltonian, which consists of not-too-long-range interactions.