Bose-Einstein Condensation

[nova_explored]

Does BEC explain the singularity in a big bang model?<br /><br />A little refresher: BEC says that at absolute zero atoms, all atoms loose their individual properties and become a blob, indistinguishable from the other.<br /><br />The only reason absolute zero is not in our present universe, again because of the big bang model, the remnants of the BB keep a universal temp. throughout the universe at 3 degrees kelvin above absolute zero.<br /><br />if BEC could be the singularity, it seems impossible to reach it in a universe that has a constant temp. as a direct result of the explosion of that singularity that cannot be extinguished.<br /><br />what are your guys thoughts... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

BEC will become a 'big player' in the extreme distant future.<br /><br />As our universe continues to dissipate into time and space . . . . <br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[TheShadow]

BEC becomes somewhat of a super-molecule. The individual atoms don’t actually lose their individual properties, they are simply prevented from transferring the information about their properties through or out of the condensate. For instance, light which has entered the vapor becomes encoded in the spins of the molecules. When all motion ceases and the vapor becomes BEC, the information is trapped, but it is still there. When motion is again allowed, the information continues its original path through the vapor and is emitted as light again.<br /><br />Also, the singularity is characterized as being super dense, with no inter-atomic or inter-sub atomic spacing. BEC retains that spacing intact.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

BEC happens in super heated plasma too, thus the BEC paradox from the super-heated plasma to the super-cold.<br /><br />Approximately ¼ of all the mass in the universe is Helium. Helium 4 phase change from a gas to a liquid at 5K and then to a strange BEC Helium II phase change at 2.17 K degrees. Helium is a true elemental inert gas, because it dont form any true chemical compounds, like some of the other gasses. Helium II phase change is where helium 4 becomes a superconductor, superfluity, has antigravity type tendencies and obeys the BEC. The 2.17 K degrees is pretty darn close to the cosmic background radiation black body temperature of 2.7 K degrees. Helium II phase change can happen with as little as 60 atoms and can be associated with what is called a Helium II vacuum.<br /><br />BEC may be the mysterious phantom effect to what is holding spiral galaxies together. As strange as it may seem, the missing antigravity effect of dark energy and dark matter may simply be the effects of BEC - super heated plasma on the interior of the galaxies and the effects of super cooled Helium II phase change of Helium 4 in the dark reaches of the spiral arms of interstellar space. <br /><br />This was just a thought and not to be confused with reality. Five years ago I wrote this thought down on the blackboard in the advance Physics department in Princeton NJ as I was passing through, I never found out how well received that thought was? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Bose was Indian.He stayed in Kolkata.The place I live in.

 

[nova_explored]

i agree with that vogon. all points given here seem to lend favorably to BEC in a singularity. <br /><br />I know that as it does retain individual property of individual atoms, its physical appearance is one of a singularity, geomertrically, where the atoms line up on top of one another to form that indistinguishable trait, a property exhibited only at absolute zero and retained only at the subatomic level.<br /><br />a singularity doesn't necessarily have to exhibit the trait of occupying zero dimensions in space (although on paper that approach does look good), it just has to remove its inner subatomic structure from scalar geometry. another words: 'appear' to be without structure.<br /><br />in an empty nothingness at absolute zero where matter would behave like nothing, having no properties, (until an outside force acts upon it to release its innate structure) BEC is most definitely a 'big player', as you put it vogon, in that singularity of all the matter of the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[TheShadow]

<i> Helium II phase change is where helium 4 becomes a superconductor, superfluity, has antigravity type tendencies………….. </i><br /><br />Antigravity properties? Sorry, I have to object to that one. I have never seen anything anywhere that suggested antigravity properties for any form of helium.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[TheShadow]

<i> a singularity doesn't necessarily have to exhibit the trait of occupying zero dimensions in space (although on paper that approach does look good), it just has to remove its inner subatomic structure from scalar geometry. another words: 'appear' to be without structure. </i><br /><br />Not so. By definition a singularity would not just lose geometry, but lose all the “empty space” between the molecules, the atoms, and the sub-atomic particles. IOW, all the mass of the singularity would be in actual physical contact. I does not have to occupy zero space, just very little space. A BEC structure that contained all the matter in the Universe would be large, perhaps as big as a galaxy or more.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Antigravity properties? Sorry, I have to object to that one. I have never seen anything anywhere that suggested antigravity properties for any form of helium.<font color="white"><br /><br />I said “has antigravity type tendency.” That is quite different than antigravity properties; I may have said that right when I first posted it but it was just a few minutes after I posted it that I edited my work. There were no responses before I edited it. I didn't want to have to give a long winded explanation of that, but here I go anyway.<br /><br />The tendencies come from something called "film creep" up the side of containers which is a spectacular finding in itself mostly due to the supper fluidity, super viscosity of the liquid. My hypothesis on the missing mass story of galactic mechanics is based on the BEC effect of super-cold Helium and super-hot plasma, if we can find some Helium a little colder than the Cosmic background radiation black body temperature, 2.7 K. Another cause may be found if we can do experiments in space to see if the transition temperature goes up in almost perfect Helium II type vacuum. <br /><br />The antigravity type dark matter and dark energy that we are claiming to occur throughout the universe may be a mirage created by Helium II remarkable properties, the second most abundant mass in the universe in the cold outer reaches of space, and super heated plasma, super-hot star stuff, which obey the BEC - occupy a single quantum state. My thoughts reflected as a similarity as stated in the example below about the remarkable properties of Helium II, “but must be a manifestation of the equilibrium properties of the system,” or as I would like to refer to it on a much grander scale as "the equilibrium properties of the galaxies."<br /><br />Here is a reference from a source, “The New Physics” edited by Paul Davies 1996 copy, a collection of published thoughts from some of the best minds of that era including Stephen Hawkins. <br /><br />It’s</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Bose was Indian.He stayed in Kolkata.The place I live in. <font color="white"><br /><br />Thanks for that update. I need to read more about his work, some very gifted people come from that side of the world.</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[nova_explored]

so in BEC, what happens to the electron? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

hey nice exert rlb2. i need to read that book. very interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I have a growing feeling someday someone will come up with a BEC model of the universe which will replace bigbang model. BEC has all the ingredients without absurdity.<br /><br />Anyway, do you have a link to BEC papers for average technical people not as scary as 'physical review' papers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Meghnad SAHA IS ANOTHER I NDIAN SCIENTIST ,WORK ON SUN.Bose and Saha wre classmates.

 

[robnissen]

Very interesting article. Am I correct, that Helium II exists nowhere in the universe because the temperature at which it comes into existence, 2K, is below the background temperature of the universe? If so, I don't see how Helium II is more than just an amazing curiousity.

 

[nova_explored]

you can do a google search and it will bring up quite a bit (non physical review papers and attachments, books as well).<br /><br />i'm interested myself and am searching. i'll post what i find. anyone else, plz do the same if you come across any more good articles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Am I correct, that Helium II exists nowhere in the universe because the temperature at which it comes into existence, 2K, is below the background temperature of the universe?<font color="white"><br /><br />The Cosmic Background Radiation, CMB, black body temperature average 2.73 K, remember this is what is called the average temperature of the universe there are several places that are now known to be much colder such as the Boomerang Nebula but that is because of the dynamics of the nebula. <br /><br />When I first proposed this in 1998 there were a lot of people set in thinking 2.7 K was the lowest temperature in the universe of which later on we have found that there are much lower temperatures, thats why they call it dark matter its hard to detect. We have much better instruments today to measure what is considered to be the average CMB. My thought have allways been that the outer reaches of Interstellar space and intergalactic space is colder than 2.17 K, to be within the transitional temperature to produce Helium II. However every one wants proof and that is part of science that demands it so I am watching for better measurements from better instruments for that Eureka moment when I can back up my statement with known accepted information instead of conjecture.<br /><br />Another way is to measure the true transitional temperature from T1 to T2 in a good vacuum, there is no human made vacuum on earth that can even come close to the vacuum in even low earth orbit; Particles in the container walls contaminate the vacuum. The best place to do some serious research would be in orbit around the moon, where the average particles per C^3 is about 7 particles per C^3.<br /><br />Another way to help test this BEC hypothesis out and how it would affect galaxies would be to create models that would predict cause and effect of colliding galaxies with BEC lab results. After we do this then we can compare it to known collisions. If it is predictable than we could a</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">i need to read that book. very interesting.<font color="white"> <br /><br />It’s a very good book and the reason I said it might be a little outdated is that high temperature conductivity was soon discovered after its printing. If your in the states then go to Barns and Noble and check it out, they should have a more updated copy there.<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">I have a growing feeling someday someone will come up with a BEC model of the universe which will replace bigbang model. BEC has all the ingredients without absurdity.<font color="white"><br /><br />Here is another thought for you. Helium II is a superconductor, superconductors resistance is exactly 0 and the electric field separates from the magnetic field.<br /><br />If a ring of superconductive material is cooled past its transitional temperature and a current was set up in it then the current can theoretically flow through the ring an infinite amount of times..... 100 percent conservation of energy in an infinite or finite Universe???<br /><br /><font color="orange">Anyway, do you have a link to BEC papers for average technical people not as scary as 'physical review' papers.<font color="white"><br /><br />I will try to find some for you.<br /></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Thanks. To Nova_explored also. I found a few magazine articles, one at PhysicsWeb, and another describing experimental aspects of BEC at<br />http://www-lplgb.univ-paris13.fr/Gb/Equipes/GroupeCOMETA/GroupeCOMETA.htm<br /><br />I have had always complained that scientists were not paying enough attention to the effects of heat (or temperature) on the universe, which is so obvious.<br /><br />What surprised me is the way they lowered temperature of atoms to nK using laser. These guys deserved the Nobel.<br /><br />We now can start thinking what happens to matter (or atoms) at below 0K. I know many of you will scream, 'that's not possible'. Wanna bet? After all 0K is just a number between 0 and infinity (or -infinity to +infinity). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

In theory you cant have lower than zero degree kelvin.Am I wrong?

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">In theory you cant have lower than zero degree kelvin.Am I wrong?<font color="white"><br /><br />True. Absolute zero is a where there is no movement of individual molecules, all kinetic motion ceases, so every molecule would be a solid in a monatomic gas, helium however, its been said, will never solidify at normal pressure regardless of temperature. You can get close to Absolute zero within one billionth degree K but theoretically can never obtain a true 0 K.<br /><br />That being said, to have a negative K then a new law of physics must be developed. I'm staying inside the box on this one until someone has a Eureka moment....<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[nova_explored]

nice link. thanks emperor.<br /><br />tomorrow i go and visit a physicist at UCLA's research lab, can't wait. i plan on asking his views and thoughts on BEC.<br /><br />as for negative temperature, what would that imply?<br />unlike hot and cold in our normal repertoire when acknowledging heat in the application of kinetic activity subatomically, what would negative be?<br /><br />i'm having a difficult time trying to wrap my thoughts around it. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">There really is no difference between cooling down a substance until there is no more motion and stopping all motion with lasers as they did in the sodium vapor Bose-Einstein Condensate experiments several years ago. If BEC is a not a solid, why would molecules be a solid in gas cooled to absolute zero?<font color="yellow"> <br /><br />Condensed matter physics is by far the largest field of contemporary physics.A lot of progress has also been made in theoretical condensed matter physics. By one estimate, one third of all American physicists identify themselves as condensed matter physicists. Historically, condensed matter physics grew out of solid-state physics, which is now considered one of its main subfields. The term "condensed matter physics" was apparently coined by Philip Anderson when he renamed his research group - previously "solid-state theory" - in 1967. In 1978, the Division of Solid State Physics at the American Physical Society was renamed as the Division of Condensed Matter Physics. Condensed matter physics has a large overlap with chemistry, materials science, nanotechnology and engineering.<br /><br />One of the reasons for calling the field "condensed matter physics" is that many of the concepts and techniques developed for studying solids actually apply to fluid systems. For instance, the conduction electrons in an electrical conductor form a type of quantum fluid with essentially the same properties as fluids made up of atoms. In fact, the phenomenon of superconductivity, in which the electrons condense into a new fluid phase in which they can flow without dissipation, is very closely analogous to the superfluid phase found in helium 3 at low temperatures.<font color="white"><br /><br />Helium 3 is an isotope of helium 4 and makes up a very small percent of all the helium in the universe, it takes a much colder transition temperature than Helium 4 to to be considered with similar properties as BEC somewhere in the range of 2 millikelvin</font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

As another post pointed out, there is no such thing as negative temperature. It's just a method to represent temperature. <br /><br />If I remember it right, Kelvin or absolute temperature came from gas laws, P=kT or V=kT. As you can see when temperature (T) approaches 0, volume (V) or pressure (P) also becomes 0. In other words, at absolute zero volume vanishes. My argument is matters or atoms cannot just vanish, it must turn into something.<br /><br />My other thought about going below 0K comes from the range of electromagnetic waves. Theoretically these waves can have frequency 0 to infinity Hz. Then why not temperature? Why cant we have any value for temperature? <br /><br />There is a new 3rd law of thermodynamics that says, we can not achieve temperature below 0K. If true, doesn't it also mean 'we cannot go back to the state which started all this'?<br /><br />Another answer I couldn't find from this articles I read. What happen to the electrons, protons, neutrons of individual atoms in BEC if they all make a giant atom? <br /><br />Let us know what you learned from UCLA meeting.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>