Bose-Einstein Condensation

[nova_explored]

hey, nice post. i was reading a little about absolute zero and volume, but i didn't know the extent of electromagnetic, although it makes sense.<br /><br />as for our universe not being able to achieve absolute zero, that is the general consensus and premise of a constant. inside our spacetime created by the singularity cannot be a seperate absolute and that singularity ensured a positive value for a universal temp. <br /><br />UCLA was fantastic. got to turn on some Ion lasers, huge machines. I'll be going back. i know the teachers there (i'm grad student there, but not in physics deparment), but there is so much to BEC we could barely scratch the surface.<br /><br />i'm goig to bring the gas law and zero volume you brought up, next time i visit. later this week i think. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

TALKING TEMP BELOW ABSOLUTE ZERO?At this moment it is unthinkable.Well discussed in Weinbergs First three minutes.But there are other poins of view.Is possible they say.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

 

[nova_explored]

great link btw emperor. i think i mentioned that earlier but am now just really able to search through it. great reading:<br />especially about the shift to 2D for subatomic particles at near BEC temp. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

alokmohan, as far as the wikipedia excerpt, negative temp. merely implies a range set forward on kelvin scale of the different energy levels, below a threshold which (although still kinetic energy at work subatomically) it is considered negative in relation to pressure and energy state, but that absolute zero is still the lowest possible energy state- coincidentally unachievable within our universe ascribed by a constant (3k) set by the singularity in the first 3 mins. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

i realized i had simply restated what you had said emperor. hmm.<br /><br />but as for what happens to electrons, protons, and neutrons...I wonder the same thing myself.<br />In BEC, with no kinetic energy, it would seem that the electron cloud could not survive. And doesn't the opposite charges of the nucleus and the electron account for the kinetic energy (at least some sort of lower bound level?). How can you do away with that type of energy at any condition in the universe?<br /><br />from what i understand BEC can operate successfully regarding individual particles but not complete atoms. once we introduce attractive forces of opposite charges, we are given to electromagnetic energy. or am i missing something entirely in the process here? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dimitrinite]

In BEC all the atoms still have somewhat the same individual characteristics as they had in other states of matter. The important difference is that a change to one atom brings the same change to all the other atoms, a sort of cross "entanglement"(nothing like quantum entanglement). Therefor if you were to spin on atom, all the others would spin the exact same way at the same speed. Using this property of the condensate is how Ni Ling is trying to develope her "gravity sheild". Now this is certainly fringe phsyics, but from a theoretical standpoint it should be possible because all of the combined spinning atoms' gravity in the condensate could cancel out the earths gravity.

 

[nova_explored]

wow, thats very interesting. so we are given to a repulsion. i can imagine the force exchanged would be very great for that repulsion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>