Slashdot Mirror


New Form of Matter Melds Lasers, Superconductors

sterlingda writes "Physicists at the University of Pittsburgh have demonstrated a new form of matter that melds the characteristics of lasers and superconductors. The work introduces a new method of moving energy from one point to another as well as a low-energy means of producing a light beam like that from a laser. The new state is a solid filled with a collection of energy particles known as 'polaritons' that have been trapped and slowed using a technique similar to that used to produce a Bose-Einstein condensate. The work is published in the May 18 issue of Science (subscription required to read beyond the abstract)."

4 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bozos will blow up this planet one day by RelaxedTension · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Problem being, they have to do these experiments to get us off of the planet in the first place...

  2. Re:Circus physics by MadUndergrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good luck combining fermions with photons. Photons are very much a type of boson, which means they're very much _not_ fermions. Perhaps the biologists should just combine mitochondria and chromosomes too, you know, to simplify the math?

  3. Re:Circus physics by wass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over the last ten years I've watched the news releases about physics--and it seems that physics is wh0ring itself out just for news headlines.

    Perhaps you should actually read the scientific journal articles if you're serious about this, instead of reading the popular reviews which are by definition "dumbed down" such that non-PhD's can understand in layman's terms what is going on.

    Did they really demonstrate a new form of matter? What did we have at one time? Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. We could have mixtures of the forms--like a suspension was a fine mixture of a liquid with a gas.

    Did you actually read the JOURNAL article, or are you just extrapolating bullshit based on a popular science review of the actual journal article? If you actually didn't think physicists were 'whoring themselves out' your post would make you look significantly less ignorant.

    You quote liquids and gases as being two distinct forms of matter, yet they're actually the same if you look on a phase-diagram plot. So why do you list them as being two separate phases?

    Oh wait, that's right, you can go CONTINUOUSLY from liquid to gas, without any phase transition, along a proper thermodynamic trajectory of course! What makes them look like separate states of matter is whether you have a phase transition as you alter the system. And the phase-transition line (in pressure-temperature space) actually ends in a critical point (see here , such that you can choose a proper p-T trajectory either WITH or WITHOUT the phase transition.

    Would you call a superconductor a new state of matter? It certainly is quite different from the metallic state, with a well-defined phase transition as you cool below Tc. What about a Bose-Einstein Condensate? What about a phase-transition from superconducting-like nature to BEC? These have all been well studied, and all are acknowledged as states of matter.

    The fact that you question whether it's a new state of matter, and you refer merely solid, liquid, gas, and plasma without any reference to phase transitions, really shows your limited understanding of this subject. And that makes it all the more humorous that you actually go on to claim physicists are whoring themselves out.

    --

    make world, not war

  4. Re:Big Supersymmetry Fan, Eh? by wass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe quantum mechanics invites bipolar trolls. If someone claims a wave, they can argue a particle. If someone claims a particle, they can argue a wave. If some claims duality then they can argue ambiguity.

    You're totally confusing spin with particle/wave duality, which makes one really wonder what the hell you are talking about. You may be impressing the moderators with your blatantly-incorrect usage of fancy techie-sounding words, but it's quite obvious to the physicists here that you have no clue what you're talking about. And the irony is that you're guilty of that 'whoring out' which you are accusing actual physicists of.

    Your original quote misconstrued the nature of fermionic vs bosonic natures of quanta, which the GP clarified, and you resorted to a wikipedia quote, which is quite out of context.

    Irrespective of particle-wave nature, photons are spin-1 bosons! Why the hell are you bringing particle/wave duality into the picture at all?

    All I suggested is that, rather than pronouncing new unprecedented discoveries every month, maybe the physicists ought to look into solidifying their dual wave-particle of photons. They'll find that all these other "new particles" and "new forms of matter" fit neatly with a which has been established for at least fifteen years.

    If you had an inkling of the physics research, including theoretical, simulational, and experimental, that goes on in "highly-correlated" condensed-matter systems, you'd understand that the framework for identifying the various quanta and behaviors are well-defined within the basic "standard model" for realizable laboratory conditions. And this has been well-understood for longer than 15 years, what exactly is this 15-year time frame you're quoting anyway?

    What is interesting is how modern 'exotic' materials can exhibit quanta with different charge, spin, phonon, etc properties than 'plain vanilla' systems. See spin-charge separation in a Luttinger Liquid for an older example. Armchair scientists like you may prefer to use the recent buzzword of emergent behavior if you like, although I don't agree Laughlin's mindview on the whole field of emergence.

    --

    make world, not war