web stats
Track your comments!
[x]


If you registered, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Alan Gillis | July 2nd 2008 10:53 PM | 10 comments

About Alan Gillis

I'm a journalist, photographer, and novelist in cottage country, Muskoka Canada. Science is such a big issue in our lives, I feel obliged to investigate big science megaprojects, that can have a... Full Bio

More from Alan Gillis

All

In a familiar world of solids, liquids and gases, we find the fourth state of matter, the plasmas of lightning to the aurora borealis and fluorescent tubes at the office. Further out, minor phenomena becomes the big event in space, our shining stars are plasma being fused producing light. Not until 1924 was a fifth state of matter considered possible. Intrigued by quantum statistics, invented by the Bengali physicist, Satyendra Nath Bose from observations of light, Einstein applied Bose’s work to matter. The Bose-Einstein Condensate(BEC) was born. Was there any truth to the theory, Einstein himself wondered, that matter that could condense at ultracold temperatures into something new?

Einstein’s theory was left hanging, as a mathematical artifact, until 1938. Fritz London, a German theoretical chemist and physicist, working on helium at the same time as the Russian Pyotr Kapitsa who discovered its superfluid state at just under 2.2 K, found it behaved like Einstein’s theoretical BEC. Subsequent research confirmed London’s insight. Both stable isotopes, ordinary helium-4, and the rare helium-3 at much lower temperatures, are quantum superfluids, behaving like matter-waves or superatoms, undifferentiated matter with vastly different properties from their gas state or their ordinary bottled fluid state. Now scientists had a way of studying laboratory tabletop quantum physics. These, the only two superfluids known with zero viscosity, have sparked intense interest, helium-4 a bosonic superfluid and helium-3, a fermionic superfluid. Bosons are force carriers like photons of light and fermions are the matter we can touch. A gateway opened which eventually led to the laboratory production of other BECs when finally ultracold states could be induced, starting in 1995.

Viewing superfluid helium in action, demonstrates the baffling counter-intuitive nature of quantum fluids and other BECs. Some of the stunning properties of superfluid helium were observed if not understood back in 1908 when the Dutch physicist, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, cooled helium-4 to -269 Celsius. Not only was there no resistance to flow, the superfluid could climb the walls of the vessel, like a film, always 30 nanometers thick, defying gravity, or pour through the smallest hole or fissure, or leak through some apparently non-porous matter.

Further studies showed that this superfluid, now called Helium II, behaved as a two-fluid model, partly in a low energy ground state, and partly in an excited state. With a little added heat and manipulation of the superfluid, an interaction of the two states was enhanced, producing a fountain effect, as though 2 fluids existed.

In our own Sun and countless other stars, hydrogen fusion produces helium, the second most abundant element, and is in turn eventually fused by steps into carbon-12. On Earth there isn’t much, a trace atmospheric gas but found in quantity up to 7 percent in some natural gas. It’s produced by nuclear decay, as from radium and polonium, dangerous alpha radiation releasing, in fact bare nuclei of helium that eventually pick up electrons and form stable helium isotopes.

Given an electric charge, helium can fluoresce like neon. Even rarer molecules of helium-3 have been produced in helium-4 during ionization. Superfluid helium is also a superconductor, 30 times more efficient than copper as well as a thermal conductor 300 times that of copper. And both helium-3 and helium-4 have been cooled to near absolute zero, helium-4 retaining its superfluidity, helium-3 crystallizing, yet still capable of movement like other BECs. Adding enormous pressure of 25 atmospheres and more, forces even helium-4 to act like other BEC ‘solids’.

If superfluid helium can tell us a lot about other ultracold BECs now being studied and produced by over 200 research teams worldwide, then BECs that also appear to be superfluids and have two coexisting states like the two fluid state of superfluids, could show us how superfluids behave. It’s more than satisfying the curiosity of pure research. BECs have been turned into atom lasers and BECs have produced bosenovas, an inexplicable phenomenon where BECs explode, releasing more than the energy present in the system and where about half of the BEC sample literally vanishes without a trace. Fascinating and worrisome in any lab working with small amounts of BECs, but superfluid Helium II BEC is being used in great quantities as a coolant in certain nuclear reactors and particle accelerators.

The possibilities of a giant BEC bosenova produced in superfluid Helium II haven’t been investigated. The matter is urgent as 120 T of superfluid Helium II are being used at the Large Hadron Collider at Geneva, whose energies far surpass any other collider’s, not only beam energies, but RF applied, extreme Tesla Fields by superconducting magnets, and electrical energies equivalent to the consumption of Geneva, powering the 27 km ring system. Startup of the LHC at 5 TeV per proton beam has been delayed to this September but for other technical reasons.

The problem too, is that BECs are new and strange. It wasn’t until 1995 that an ultracold BEC was produced by new methods of supercooling, in this case applied to a gas of Rubidium-87 to bring it near absolute zero. For physics it was a sudden explosion in the quantum world. A new field of study, Condensed Matter Physics, a new state of matter positively confirmed, but far from understood. Matter acting as one giant atom with the properties of a superfluid. Shared Nobel Prizes awarded in 2001went to the team leaders at JILA, the joint NIST project with CU-Boulder, Carl E. Weiman and Eric A. Cornell. A third share in the Nobel for a sodium-25 BEC developed independently went to Wolfgang Ketterle now at MIT. Research at MIT is on a massive scale with several big BEC labs, working in part on BEC atom lasers. Don’t worry, Ketterle has said, atom lasers only work in a vacuum and would only travel a meter without one. Nevertheless matter-wave lasers are bound to be improved. There’s always military interest and funding.

What astonished some physicists was another BEC event in 2001, well beyond anything anticipated. The BEC discovery team at JILA produced a new rubidium-85 BEC. While an electromagnetic field was applied to cause a stronger attraction among the BEC atoms, the BEC started to shrink and then exploded like a supernova. The result was a release of particles in various streams, leaving behind a much smaller BEC remnant. The thermal energy released was greater than the energy in the BEC and about half of all the thousands of atoms of the rubidium-85 disappeared. The effect was at first nicknamed the bosenova, and still a total puzzle to this day. After 7 years of study, the latest research on whatever goes on in a bosenova, now referred to as a BEC loss, needs a “new microscopic BEC physics” to explain it, says N.R. Claussen et al of a joint BEC team at the U of Colorado at Boulder, in a paper published in February this year. A second team at UC-Boulder led by Elizabeth A. Donley published the following month, also could not account for the bosenova phenomenon nor the apparent loss of atoms.

Though the bosenova effect is staggering in its repercussions for the Standard Model, none of the more than 200 teams experimenting with BECs appear interested. The only study groups working seriously on bosenovas are those at JILA. Other research teams are looking for new BECs and a few are looking for applications of BECs to create things like better atomic clocks, interferometers or even studying light by teasing BECs with lasers to slow light down or stop it! In the future, quantum computing might use BECs and lasers. BECs could be big business.

What happens next at the LHC will be the next big experiment in a superfluid Helium II BEC. It’s not part of the design parameters, as physicists assume that the helium will be stable based on its use in the much smaller, much less powerful, up to 250 GeV per beam, RHIC collider in Long Island, NY. CERN’s interests lie in producing the Higgs boson at the LHC, perhaps micro black holes and quark-gluon plasma. Even in the much awaited CERN safety study released last month, there’s absolutely nothing on a possible bosenova implosion/explosion. Of course to test the safety of the enormous LHC to handle foreseen and unforeseen events you’d need another disposable one. But at least it is possible to subject Helium II to some of these high energies and hadron beams as a test. Not at the low energies of the RHIC, but at Fermilab’s Tevatron, currently the most energetic collider with 0.9 TeV per beam, though still far short of the power of the monster LHC at ordinary operating conditions of 7 TeV and ultimately 1,150 TeV collisions of lead ions at nearly twice light speed. Helium II could simply be used as a target by Tevatron beams to see what would happen, besides being exposed to high and fluctuating Tesla fields, ionized by electrical currents, subjected to some of the extreme conditions anticipated at the LHC. 

The LSAG safety review at CERN, even their new report, is still a 4/5 majority internal assessment, and with an independent SPC Report/review of that review that’s still a CERN committee of 5 physicists, though the mainstream media is content with the CERN press releases, ‘No Danger That The LHC Will Destroy The Earth’, about everywhere. Though now black holes are now unlikely, but previously predicted to occur rapidly by CERN in the ‘LHC black hole factory’, but initially ignored, until a physicist wrote about the possibility in a letter to Scientific American that sparked the initial 2003 CERN safety assessment. There’s hard science and there’s French farce. Which one are we getting? Pushing the LHC big button as a test is a risky way to go. CERN has always insisted that small amounts of hadrons can’t do very much, but there’s an enormous amount of energy in the LHC and 120 T of BEC superfluid. There’s still a suit in the Hawaii courts to delay LHC startup because of safety concerns like black hole and strangelet production. Lately and since I first considered the possible dangers of superfluid helium in my article of March 7, 2008, ‘The Almost Thermonuclear LHC’, the plaintiffs, Dr Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho have announced they will seek an addendum to their suit to include bosenova risks at the LHC.

Seven years after the rubidium-85 BEC produced the first bosenova, we still don’t know what happened to half of the Rubidium-85 atoms that disappeared.  


Baum, Michael.  From Supernova to Smoke Ring: Recent Experiments Underscore Weirdness of the Bose-Einstein Condensate, NIST 2001


Boyle, Alan.  Doomsday Under Debate, Cosmic Log, MSNBC 2008 

Braun-Munzinger, Peter, et al. SPC Report On LSAG Documents, CERN SPC 2008


Claussen, N.R. et al.  Microscopic Dynamics in a Strongly Interacting Bose-Einstein Condensate, JILA 2008 

Donley, Elizabeth A. et al.  Dynamics of collapsing and exploding Bose-Einstein condensates, JILA 2008


Ellis, John, et al.  Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions, CERN LSAG 2008 

Gillis, Alan.  The Almost Thermonuclear LHC, The Science of Conundrums, 2008


Ketterle, Wolfgang.  Ch 9, Bose-Einstein Condensation: Identity Crisis for Indistinguishable Particles, in “Quantum Mechanics at the Crossroads”, Springer Berlin, 2006 

Schewe, Phil et al.  Supersolid, Quantum Crystal, A Bose-Einstein Condensate in Solid, Physics News Update, The AIP Bulletin of Physics News, 2004


Comments

CERN judging their own LHC is safe is like a drunk deciding he's all right to drive... with 6,700,000,000 passengers. Who cares about a Higgs Boson particle or some quark gluon goop except a handful of frustrated geeks who have run out of ideas and have to experiment with forces they don't even understand. These freaking physicists waste money and energy time and time again building atom smasher after atom smasher and end up with more questions, not answers. Now they've built one so powerful they say themselves it will create mini black holes at the rate of one per second! Which would change your life more; knowing they found some particle or getting crushed and sucked into a black hole along with everyone and every thing you ever cared about? That sound like a good risk vs. benefit to you?!? Just because you can't wrap your mind around it does not mean it can't happen. See for yourself; http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm http://www.LHCDefense.org/ http://www.LHCFacts.org http://www.SaneScience.org/ Popular Mechanics - "World's Biggest Science Project Aims to Unlock 'God Particle'" - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4216588.html"
The 'bosenova' phenomenon has been reproduced many times with specific types of BEC. But helium is not rubidium. Have you thought to check whether 'bosenova' has ever occurred in helium BEC? Have you even asked Claussen or Donley whether they consider it at all plausible that 'bosenova' occurs in superfluid helium? The papers by them you link to (which you label '2008') were actually written in 2001-2002, perhaps they are now way out of date and there is some better understanding of why bosenova events happen. It is curious that you are able to get the dates of the two crucial papers so completely wrong...
Alan Gillis's picture

Although there are over 200 labs working on BECs and ultracold physics, the only published material comes from UCBoulder, on this rubidium-85 Bosenova. Perhaps other labs have data on other Bosenovas they have produced, but not as yet analyzed. You would think there would be great interest in this new field. Since the Bosenova is inexplicable with current physics, other researches though, might be giving it a wide berth.

Asking busy physicists to comment on questions, that would require a lot of time to answer, isn't polite or practical. Though an article like this one might reach some researchers already working on the subject, who hopefully would comment here.

As to the wrong dates on Donley et al and Claussen et al, read the actual internally dated first page of each paper, not the arXiv dates. If they're old papers as you say, then these must be, without a doubt, 2008 updates.


I left the following related comment at Alan's article Suit Alleges CERN in Violation of Human Rights, which addresses possible BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate) safety issues. University of Stuttgart scientists are creating bosenova implosion/explosions with chromium-52. [1] Bosenova implosions occur when a large number of atoms condense to a point of extreme density, thousands or millions of atoms condensed to the size of a single atom, theoretically capable of creating a micro black hole (yes, a real micro black hole, a microscopic version of a large dieing star collapsing to a black hole then exploding as a Supernova). No one knows if these experiments have actually created any micro black holes, but when half of the atoms disappear you have to wonder if this indicates stable micro black hole creation. A fascinating article including input from scientists who won Nobel prizes for research in this area in the article Collider Incidents.[2] This research is a mirror image of the CERN Safety controversy, including speculations of potential danger and denials of the same, and even apparent misinformation, though it could also just be differences of scientific opinion. Absolutely Fascinating. James Tankersley Jr. Middleton WI (JTankers) [1] http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35556 Cold atoms explode like cloverleafs (August 27, 2008) [2] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=19 Collider Incidents (May 24, 2008)
Man's technology has exceeded his grasp. - 'The World is not Enough' Zealous Nobel Prize hungry Physicists are racing each other and stopping at nothing to try to find the supposed 'Higgs Boson'(aka God) Particle, among others, and are risking nothing less than the annihilation of the Earth and all Life in endless experiments hoping to prove a theory when urgent tangible problems face the planet. The European Organization for Nuclear Research(CERN) new Large Hadron Collider(LHC) is the world's most powerful atom smasher that will soon be firing subatomic particles at each other at nearly the speed of light to create Miniature Big Bangs producing Micro Black Holes, Strangelets and other potentially cataclysmic phenomena. Particle physicists have run out of ideas and are at a dead end forcing them to take reckless chances with more and more powerful and costly machines to create new and never-seen-before, unstable and unknown matter while Astrophysicists, on the other hand, are advancing science and knowledge on a daily basis making new discoveries in these same areas by observing the universe, not experimenting with it and with your life. The LHC is a dangerous gamble as CERN physicist Alvaro De Rújula in the BBC LHC documentary, 'The Six Billion Dollar Experiment', incredibly admits quote, "Will we find the Higgs particle at the LHC? That, of course, is the question. And the answer is, science is what we do when we don't know what we're doing." And CERN spokesmodel Brian Cox follows with this stunning quote, "the LHC is certainly, by far, the biggest jump into the unknown." The CERN-LHC website Mainpage itself states: "There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions,..." Again, this is because they truly don't know what's going to happen. They are experimenting with forces they don't understand to obtain results they can't comprehend. If you think like most people do that 'They must know what they're doing' you could not be more wrong. Some people think similarly about medical Dr.s but consider this by way of comparison and example from JAMA: "A recent Institute of Medicine report quoted rates estimating that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 people a year in US hospitals." The second part of the CERN quote reads "...but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator,..." A molecularly changed or Black Hole consumed Lifeless World? The end of the quote reads "...as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe." These experiments to date have so far produced infinitely more questions than answers but there isn't a particle physicist alive who wouldn't gladly trade his life to glimpse the "God particle", and sacrifice the rest of us with him. Reason and common sense will tell you that the risks far outweigh any potential(as CERN physicists themselves say) benefits. This quote from National Geographic exactly sums this "science" up: "That's the essence of experimental particle physics: You smash stuff together and see what other stuff comes out." Find out more about that "stuff" below; http://www.SaneScience.org/ http://www.LHCFacts.org http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm http://www.lhcdefense.org/ http://www.lhcconcerns.com Popular Mechanics - "World's Biggest Science Project Aims to Unlock 'God Particle'" - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4216588.html"
It could be worse. Consider Newton's notion that the speed of gravity is infinite. Alter that to just a very large number. From the electromagnetic/gravitational couple, it comes out at h = c^2 / b^2 where b is the speed of gravity. Now let's say that all particles are becs. They have to hide a tremendous amount of gravitic energy inside the scwartzchild radius. (otehrwise we'd see it) When two compton wavelenght photons hit each other they can create an electron positron pair. That can only happen when their two grav cores hit smack on, most times they miss each other by "miles." The gravitational hidden mass of an electron would be over a tonne. The core will be smaller than h. Gold atoms smacking into each other can have all the cores missing each other but if one hits we get about 2E-19 kgs going off in a tiny volume. The bec particle doesn't create a black hole, its energy profile is w shaped. It would still go off with a horrible bang though.
Bosenova Explosions Can these statements be true? 1. Every atom is a BEC condensate. 2. Electrons spinning around the nucleus provide the necessary magnetic field for the nucleus to be in a condensed state.
This claim has been thoroughly debunked by a couple scientists at CERN. Helium simply cannot collapse, as explained by the above authors. I have blogged on the topic, possibly explaining the situation in simpler terms than the CERN authors. The Claussen and Donley papers are indeed from 2001 and 2002 as you can most trivially check by clicking on your own links, looking at the date written in the sidebar (the date below the names is generated by latex, and corresponds to the date the paper was last generated to pdf from the latex source). And, the phenomena is now fully understood. The atoms never "disappeared" but formed molecules (which were undetectable by the experimental apparatus), and were also ejected from the trap by some fairly complex dynamics in the collapse. Shame on you Alan for not even doing the simplest level of fact-checking, and for promulgating fear with your wild and incorrect speculation. You are actively harming the public understanding of science and a major scientific program.
Asking busy physicists to comment on questions, that would require a lot of time to answer, isn't polite or practical.
It is your duty to check your facts, and our duty as scientists to review the ideas of others. If you disagree, please remove the word "journalist" from your profile, and close this blog on "Scientific Blogging", a title which give you more credibility than you actually deserve.
Well, I think the 'busy physicists' would be most willing to give a concise answer, if it meant the difference between correct reporting and uninformed scaremongering. It is borderline dishonest to blame the 'business' of physicists for a writer's unwillingness to check that what he is writing is at all accurate. As to the dating of papers, anyone who uses the arXiv should know that the pdf files are generated from the source text as required. So although the latest generated versions of the pdf file may be from 2008, the papers were written and published in 2001-2. Try reading about the \date command in LaTeX. Besides, there are many more recent papers that show the 'bosenova' has a perfectly good theoretical explanation... try Saito & Ueda Phys Rev A65 (2002) Santos and Shlyapnikov, Phys Rev A66 (2002) Savage, Robins and Hope Phys Rev A67 (2003) Milstein, Menotti and Holland New J. Phys. 5 (2003) eg. abstract from the last paper: "Abstract. We investigate the quantum state of burst atoms seen in the recent Rb-85 experiments at JILA. We show that the presence of a resonance scattering state can lead to a pairing instability generating an outflow of atoms with energy comparable to that observed. A resonance effective field theory is used to study this dynamical process in an inhomogeneous system with spherical symmetry." Duine & Stoof: "We show that elastic collisions between atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate with attractive interactions can lead to an explosion that ejects a large fraction of the collapsing condensate. We study variationally the dynamics of this explosion and find excellent agreement with recent experiments on magnetically trapped 85Rb. We also determine the energy and angular distribution of the ejected atoms during the collapse." To say that the 'bosenova' remains totally unexplained is simply untrue.
Read http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4004 and hang your head in shame.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.