Phenomenon Discovered In Ultracold Atoms Brings Us a Step Closer To Atomtronics

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phenomenon Discovered In Ultracold Atoms Brings Us a Step Closer To Atomtronics

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday June 9, 2013 @07:10AM from the good-luck-replacing-the-hard-drive dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A new phenomenon discovered in ultracold atoms of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) could offer new insight into the quantum mechanical world and be a step toward applications in 'atomtronics'—the use of ultracold atoms as circuit components. Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have reported the first observation of the 'spin Hall effect' in a cloud of ultracold atoms, acting as a single quantum object and then called BEC, the lowest state of matter, with solid and liquid coming next. As one consequence, the researchers made the atoms, which spin like a child's top, skew to one side or the other, by an amount dependent on the spin direction."

42 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Works every time by lesincompetent · 2013-06-09 07:15 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm just gonna pretend i'm totally comfortable with the subject matter and i've understood it all perfectly when i'm gonna talk to my friends about the latest and greatest science news.
I'm gonna look oh so smart.
1. Re:Works every time by TrollstonButterbeans · 2013-06-09 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just remember the safety advice and you'll be ok: Don't stick your penis in it.
  
  --
  Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
The summary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-09 07:21 · Score: 1

The summary, is lousy with, commas. I don't, know how I should, parse it and then called BEC, the lowest state of matter.
1. Re: The summary by smaddox · 2013-06-09 07:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Agreed. When it's not completely wrong, it still manages to be deftly incoherent.
  The atoms don't physically spin. Spin is just a word used, in the absence of a more appropriate one, to communicate an inherent quantum mechanical property of atoms. Spin is closely related to magnetism.
2. Re: The summary by ceoyoyo · 2013-06-09 07:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  What do you mean by "physically spin"? They have angular momentum and behave in a way that is almost always consistent with them physically spinning. The classical description of nuclear spin is as useful as the Newtonian description of motion.
  If you want to be pedantic, go all the way. There aren't really atoms, particularly not in a Bose-Einstein condensate, just excitations of particular fields.
3. Re: The summary by 2.7182 · 2013-06-09 08:00 · Score: 2
  
  You can actually do an experiment that macroscopically results in true spinning of a cylinder due to aligned little spins. I can't find a reference. Anyone recall?
4. Re:The summary by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-06-09 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  "The summary, is lousy with, commas. I don't, know how I should, parse it and then called BEC, the lowest state of matter."
  Not just lousy with commas, but just plain lousy.
  
  For just one example: "spin" is only an analogy. It isn't real "spin like a child's top". That's just false.
  
  The article needs lots of improvement. Interesting subject matter, but pretty shoddy treatment from something called "Science World Report".
5. Re: The summary by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-06-09 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  "What do you mean by "physically spin"? They have angular momentum and behave in a way that is almost always consistent with them physically spinning."
  It's that "almost always" part that gets you.
  
  Look... let's be straight. It is analogous to physical spin in many ways, but getting into the habit of thinking of quantum phenomena like that as though they were the analogous macro phenomena is generally a mistake. Because sooner or later it will bit you in the ass, due to that "almost".
6. Re: The summary by Animats · 2013-06-09 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  The atoms don't physically spin. Spin is just a word used, in the absence of a more appropriate one, to communicate an inherent quantum mechanical property of atoms.
  Angular momentum at the subatomic level is the same thing as angular momentum at the macro level. Conservation applies. It's weird, it's not intuitive, but it's physical reality. It has commercial applications, too, such as NMR and MRI. Feinman's "QED" has a good explanation.
7. Re: The summary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-09 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't have to do with the difference between spin of particles and macroscopic rotation at all. At those scales, the phenomena that is exactly the same as spinning like a top also will behave differently. That is just quantum mechanics appearing when on a relevant scale and free from outside noise/interference. The difference between spin and orbital angular momentum is much more subtle at the end of the day, as they both follow the same principles and math, just with different allowed values.
8. Re:The summary by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-06-09 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  Just imagine it in William Shatner's voice.
9. Re: The summary by Guy+Harris · 2013-06-09 10:54 · Score: 2
  
  Spin is closely related to magnetism.
  The spin of charged particles gives them a magnetic moment (i.e., they have north and south magnetic poles). The spin of neutral particles, not so much.
10. Re: The summary by tbid18 · 2013-06-09 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  There aren't really atoms, particularly not in a Bose-Einstein condensate, just excitations of particular fields.
  I remember reading on Lubos' blog (I know, I know) that Nima Arkani-Hamed doesn't like that characterization of particles (FWIW, Lubos didn't agree).
11. Re:The summary by VortexCortex · 2013-06-09 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  +1 worked for me.
12. Re:The summary by PPH · 2013-06-09 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  We have discovered a new, lower state. Its called Slashdot editing.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
13. Re:The summary by Opyros · 2013-06-09 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, the original paper is paywalled at Nature.
14. Re: The summary by blue+trane · 2013-06-09 12:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In Coursera's recent "Exploring Quantum Physics" class, Ian Applebaum talked about spin. If electrons spin like tops spin, you can calculate the minimum speed it must be spinning from the electron's charge, size, and magnetic field. The problem is that the minimum speed exceeds the speed of light.
  More at http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-spin-in-particle-physics-why-is-it-different-from-just-ordinary-rotation/
15. Re: The summary by Muad'Dave · 2013-06-10 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  The one that gets me is that there are spin-1/2 particles with symmetries that are only apparent after > 360 degrees of 'rotation'. Blows my mind.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
16. Re: The summary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-10 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  That's true, but not evident from reading TFA. A code monkey shouldn't be expected to know that.
17. Re:The summary by aled · 2013-06-10 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  We have discovered a new, lower state. Its called Slashdot editing.
  I would refute you but I have no energy.
  
  --
  
  "I think this line is mostly filler"
18. Re:The summary by Erwartungswert · 2013-06-10 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  The article was now fixed, at least in parts, thanks to what Wikipedia says about BEC: atoms are in the lowest quantum state. It is just one of many exotic states of matter. ---- The spin matter is debated, but the quoted sentence actually came from NIST itself, the institution that first observed a BEC.
19. Re: The summary by ceoyoyo · 2013-06-10 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine rotating a globe around the N-S axis AND the E-W axis at the same time, but only half as fast on the E-W axis. After a 360 degree rotation around the N-S axis you'll be looking at the same hemisphere you started with, but it will be upside down. Only after a 720 degree rotation around the N-S axis will it look the same as when you started.
20. Re: The summary by ceoyoyo · 2013-06-10 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of people don't like it. Nevertheless, that's the usual interpretation of quantum field theory. All the other interpretations are at least as weird.
21. Re: The summary by ceoyoyo · 2013-06-10 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  You could say the same thing about motion. Yet we think about things moving in a classical way all the time.
  The classical idea of spin works very well so long as you're talking about a reasonable number of particles. If you're not, you have to keep in mind that spin is quantized. In magnetic resonance imaging, for example, unless you're doing something obscure, classical spin is just fine, and it's what everyone uses. It's certainly good enough for a popular science article.
22. Re: The summary by thisisnotreal · 2013-06-11 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  that's feyn. just feyn.
23. Re: The summary by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-06-11 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Writing something in a science article that is technically wrong is still wrong, even if it is "just" intended for the general public.
environment maintenance by chuckinator · 2013-06-09 07:27 · Score: 2

I'm not even going to pretend I understand how this would work, but I doubt anyone but those with the deepest pockets could afford an ultracold computing device.
1. Re:environment maintenance by cyberchondriac · 2013-06-10 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Not at present; but if we ever get to the point of regular interplanetary travel (or beyond), just having a small section of ship not insulated from the deep cold of space should suffice as a housing, I would think. Certainly wouldn't hurt.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Ultracold Atoms by rossdee · 2013-06-09 07:43 · Score: 1, Funny

Is this a new low power CPU family from Intel?
1. Re:Ultracold Atoms by ericloewe · 2013-06-09 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  No, if you're in doubt, read a few comments. You should see a pretty good mixture of "ARM is killing Intel!", "Intel is killing ARM!", "Why doesn't AMD make better stuff these days?", "Intel is a convicted monopolist!" and "Why don't we have low-end hexa-core processors yet?" comments.
2. Re:Ultracold Atoms by sconeu · 2013-06-09 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, they just stuck the wafers in the refrigerator for a while.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Complexity != veracity by DeathGrippe · 2013-06-09 08:22 · Score: 1

Gee, I'm completely mystified, so it must be TRUE!
Applications? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-09 08:36 · Score: 1

Deep space probes maybe? Maybe for super-computing tasks the economies of scale would make it practical to have cryogenic cooling?
Atomtronics? by kenj0418 · 2013-06-09 10:46 · Score: 2

I thought Disney World mastered that stuff years ago.
Great summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-09 12:35 · Score: 1

What, the, fuck.
A step closer to atomtronics by manu0601 · 2013-06-09 14:10 · Score: 2

Slashdot title says we are a "Step Closer To Atomtronics". Nevevermind that TFA says "that it is unlikely to be a practical way to build a logic gate"...
Re:BEC = Battery Ellimination Circuit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-09 14:24 · Score: 0

According to Wikipedia the first battery eliminator circuits were for sale in 1925 while the BEC was originally predicted in 1924.
Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-10 00:10 · Score: 0

Lowering a BEC's temperature to create a set of coherent atoms is nothing new. Coherent meaning they all have the exact same "spin", whether you believe it is that or not. The real problem here, is that BEC's are extremely poisonous, cost a fortune to keep at nearly absolute 0 degrees, expensive to produce and not the best logical step towards any sort of quantum computing. What they're essentially talking about is a magnetic liquid similar to mercury.
1. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-10 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  The real problem here, is that BEC's are extremely poisonous,
  
  Poisonous? We know sodium isn't good for you... but less than an attogram isn't going to make a big impact on your diet. Even for Rubidium, where you body already has milligram quantities in your body, another million atoms isn't going to make any difference.
Re:BEC = Battery Ellimination Circuit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-10 01:20 · Score: 0

BEC = Burn Earned Completely