Slashdot Mirror


First Experimental Success of a Superfluid

J writes "Researchers at Rice University have created and observed a state of quantum superfluidity. Cooled to temperatures near absolute zero, fermions overcome their natural tendency to repel one another. These half-spin particles become dominated by the Strong force and couple up in pairs that behave as one particle. Major benefits to matter in a superfluid state include superconductivity, a state where electrons would flow freely with no resistance, thus preserving the most amount of electrical charge during passage and providing the ability to save billions of dollars in 'lost electricity'. Although the conditions set for this experiment are very unlikely to be able to exist outside of a laboratory, we now know that superfluidity is a concept that can exist. Future research in this topic is assumed to be finding a material that exists in a superfluid state at room temperature."

13 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ok, I'm confused by Chaffar · · Score: 4, Informative
    From TFA:

    The research, which appears online this week, is slated to appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Science, together with a paper from MIT reporting related results.

    The content of both articles is beyond my comprehension of physics, but it looks like they're both aware of each other's work...

  2. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    How is this different from a Bose-Einstein condensate?

    Fermions are the group of particles that include leptons (the family that includes electrons and neutrinos), and hadrons (the family that is composed of quarks--makes up nucleons like protons and neutrons). They follow the Pauli Exclusion principle, which states that no two particles can have the same quantum numbers. This article states that it gets around the Pauli Exclusion principle because the particles "link up" by opposite spins. It doesn't exactly say how that occurs. What particles are we talking about? Electrons, protons, or neutrons, or a composite of particles?

    I'm not exactly sure how a Bose-Einstein condensate creates a single quantum state, but is this more of the same?

    1. Re:Question by XchristX · · Score: 5, Informative

      The phrase "link up" is misleading. What happens is that the Fermi sea becomes unstable to the formation of statistically correlated pairs of electrons below a certain temperature. They never violate the Pauli Exclusion principle, but the spin-statistics behavior changes so that they can be thought of as Bosons.


      "I'm not exactly sure how a Bose-Einstein condensate creates a single quantum state, but is this more of the same?"

      Again, the Slashdot article is poorly worded, or the chao who wrote it doesn't really understand what he's talking about:

      In a BEC, all the Bosons occupy one single particle quantumstate, and you thus have a highly coherent many particle state that is not averaged out over large length scales.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    2. Re:Question by dawhippersnapper · · Score: 2, Informative

      [Jin describes her team's work as the "first molecular condensate" and says it is closely related to "fermionic superfluidity," a hotly sought after state in gases that is analogous to superconductivity in metals. "Fermionic superfluidity is superconductivity in another form," says Jin. Quantum physicists are in a worldwide race to produce fermionic superfluidity because gases would be much easier to study than solid superconductors and such work could lead to more useful superconducting materials.]
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/03112 1070929.htm

      --
      Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it.
  3. transmission loss by bheading · · Score: 2, Informative

    Major benefits to matter in a superfluid state include superconductivity, a state where electrons would flow freely with no resistance, thus preserving the most amount of electrical charge during passage and providing the ability to save billions of dollars in 'lost electricity'.

    That does, of course, depend on finding a way of cooling the conductor to near absolute zero along it's entire length, using less energy than would be lost during transmission on a normal cable. In other words, it's a pretty ridiculous suggestion

  4. New news has just come to light! by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Science Daily are a bunch of 'tards who do no fact checking. It was MIT who discovered it, but it wasn't recently.

    Wikipedia knows.

    My guess is that some discovery occurred, but the reporters who have only the vaguest understanding of science, didn't understand it.

    In the spirit of Christmas, I'll forgive the mistake today. As long as they take care of the problem by tomorrow. :)

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  5. Misleading Post by dtmos · · Score: 5, Informative
    Although the conditions set for this experiment are very unlikely to be able to exist outside of a laboratory, we now know that superfluidity is a concept that can exist.

    Superfluid materials are well-known; the first example, the boson helium-4, was discovered in 1937. The superfluidity of helium-3, a fermion, was shown to be a superfluid in the 1970s.

    Superfluidity occurs when particles pair up (half spin-up and half spin-down) to produce a material without viscosity, in a manner analogous to that of the electron Cooper pairs of superconductivity. The novelty here is that superfluidity has been shown to occur in particle populations in which there is an unequal number of spin-up and spin-down particles, and the discovery of a phase change in which "when unpaired spin-up atoms rose above 10 percent of the total sample, the unpaired loners were suddenly expelled, leaving a core of superfluid pairs surrounded by a shell of excess spin-up atoms" (from TFA).

  6. Fermionic lithium-6 by nanopolitan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Helium in superfluidic state has been known for a long time, and studied quite extensively. So, superfluidity is not the issue here.

    This achievement, it seems to me, is about getting superfluidity in a bunch of fermions (such as electrons, or, in this case, 'fermionic' lithium-6), and that too in a system in which the up-spins are not the same as the 'down-spins'.

  7. This is amazing.. by magnumquest · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well to the people who said 'Superfluidity is old news' It is true superfluidity has been around for many years (discovered by Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, John F. Allen, and Don Misener in 1937). However the 'study of superfluidity' (also known as Quantum hydrodynamics) is a recent advancement. (and a very important one I might add)

    For those wondering about its 'practical uses', Superfluidity not only unleashes possibilities for new technologies dealing with energy and heat transfer (superconductivity), it also brings us another step closer to developing a better means of energy production. (Check out the link below for more details)

    For those of you with a background in atomic physics; If some how (using further experimentation in Superfluidity of helium) we can proove the possibility of electrons in quantum states 'lower' than n=1 (i.e. n=1/2, 1/4 etc) the amount of energy we can produce using hydrogen would increase by almost 70% compared to our present technology (greater than the amount produced by nuclear means) This in turn means that the race for nuclear energy going on in the east (russia, iran, cuba, north korea, china, india etc.) would end.

    For more information on the possibility and importance of fractional primary quantum numbers click here.

  8. Link to paper... by n0mad6 · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...describing result here.

  9. Crackpot alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Randall Mills is a medical doctor and well known crackpot who has been bilking investors out of their money for years now with his "hydrino" theory, which rests on the idea that there are energy states in the atom lower than the ground state (as the above poster mentioned). The only problem is that no such states actually exist as far as all experiments are concerned, except mysteriously Mills' own experiments, which no one has ever reproduced and the details of which he refuses to release. His hydrino theory itself is based on his "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics", found in his 1200-page self-published book, which purports to unify electromagnetism, gravity, Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and quantum theory.

    +4 Informative, my ass.

    (And to address another point, I cannot think of any "new technologies" in "energy and heat transfer" that have been "unleashed" by superfluidity.)

    1. Re:Crackpot alert! by magnumquest · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll only reply to the points that I find are necessary to repeat. You said 'Einstien was well respected for General Theory of relativity and that his studies were published in 4 years after he came up with them'. I would say you are wrong. I have friends who are Einstein historians and we know that his theory of general relativity met alot of scientific criticism and resistance. The point that his theory was published within 4 years has nothing to do with how 'acceptable' his theory was. By chance in mid-europe they had determined experimentaly, aspects of his theory and he was given a call of confirmation when that happened. That is when the scientific community remotely said 'okay lets give this a chance'. In a recent seminar by Dr. Clifford Will (who is working on the famous frame drag experiment to prove assumptions made by general relativity) he was explaining the resistance this theory met even after Einstiens death, by the scientific community. These bogus and ludicrous claims come from well renouned sources hehe.

      As for Mills again, well he might be a crackpot, his studies in energy release were published in the Journal of Applied science (hardly a bogus journal) and they were supported by James Vicarro and most of his team (editor). (Most does not mean none, atleast in classical english hehe). Infact recently a research done by Jonathan Philips of the University of New mexico (did not find hydrinos) but did evaluate Mill's conditions and found certain properties and observed certain characteristics of plasma that only Mill's theory could accurately explain. (J. Appl. Phys. 96, 3095 (2004)) Right after that, the research team at University of colorado commented on a flaw in that experiment (J. Appl. Phys. 98, 066108 (2005)). After which Philips published another explanaition (J. Appl. Phys. 98, 066109 (2005)). So I have realy no idea what kind of educational institution you work with, it is definately some place without complete access to modern scientific debates. For you to conclude 'no scientist respects Mills work' would be a serious error in judgement.

      I have yet to find a well renowned scientist who says 'everything Mills said is complete crap'. In fact, nobel prize winner Douglas Osheroff said a few years ago that Mills might be concluding his research to be more fundamental than it realy is, he was willing to attest that Mills is definately 'on to something'.

      I am not here to claim that Mill's theory is a successor to QM. I have been exposed to QM ever since I was 8 years old and I have developed a great appreciation of the theory and its applications. At the same time the claim of Mills theory being 'total crap' does not realy make sense to me. It is hard for me to believe a blogger and ignore years of exposure to well respected scientific community. One person (i.e. Randall) cannot provide an acceptable replacement to the QM theories (they were a collaborative effort of more than 2 decades of research and literally hundreds of scientists)

      For the Maxwell boundary conditions. Using Maxwell's nonradiative boundary counstraints to solve the wave equation you can predict higher levels of energy release from n states. Which Randall (either mistakenly or accurately) assumed is due to fractional Quantum states. I am aware of mathematical limitations of Randall's research (as well as the serious mistakes he made) and the possibilities as well. Most independant experiments done to disprove Randall have concluded that the 'energy yield produced' can be explained due to 'technical errors and limitations during experimentation'.

      As for me giving journal citations to prove QM relates to energy production. It is realy trivial, read almost any random journal entry on Energy production and just read reference citations, atleast 60% of all advances in the field have indirect links with QM. QM are not magical energy source?. QM theory was first used to define energy production caused by light rays which NASA is still using as a propulsion energy source on space probes.

  10. Re:Very confused article! by Vilim · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fermions are anything with spin (2n+1)/2, whereas bosons are anything with integer spin n. In both cases n is an integer. Atoms can also be fermions if the electron configuration dictates it (electrons are fermions but the electron configuration may cancel out and make the net atom into a boson), For example helium atoms are bosons but silver atoms are fermions. In fact, the original Stern Gerlach (did I spell that right?) experiment was done with silver atoms. About a year ago I saw a presentation where some people in Spain I believe were using BEC to slow light down. They had some pictures of a monoatom which were black dots. I barely remember the presentation though.

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill