Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials

Jun 11, 2012 By Robert Sanders
Collective vibrations in a crystal, called phonons, are a type of Nambu-Goldstone boson. UC Berkeley physicists have proved that counting the number of bosons in a material, whether a solid crystal, a magnet, or a superfluid, tells you what type of behavior the material will have at low temperatures where symmetry is spontaneously broken. Credit: Haruki Watanabe/UC Berkeley. Click 'Enlarge' for animation.

(Phys.org) -- Matter exhibits weird properties at very cold temperatures. Take superfluids, for example: discovered in 1937, they can flow without resistance forever, spookily climbing the walls of a container and dripping onto the floor.

In the past 100 years, 11 have been awarded to nearly two dozen people for the or theoretical explanation of such cold materials – superconductors and Bose–Einstein condensates, to name two – yet a unifying theory of these extreme behaviors has eluded theorists.

University of California, Berkeley, physicist Hitoshi Murayama and graduate student Haruki Watanabe have now discovered a commonality among these materials that can be used to predict or even design new materials that will exhibit such unusual behavior. The theory, published online June 8 by the journal Physical Review Letters, applies equally to magnets, crystals, neutron stars and cosmic strings.

“This is a particularly exciting result because it concerns pretty much all areas of physics; not only condensed matter physics, but also astrophysics, atomic, particle and nuclear physics and cosmology,” said Murayama, the MacAdams Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley, a faculty senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe at the University of Tokyo. “We are putting together all of them into a single theoretical framework.”

The theorem Watanabe and Murayama proved is based on the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking, a phenomenon that occurs at low temperatures and leads to odd behavior. This produces superconductors, which allow electric currents to flow without ; or Bose-Einstein condensates, which have such low energy that every atom is in the same quantum state.

By describing the symmetry breaking in terms of collective behavior in the material – represented by so-called Nambu-Goldstone bosons – Murayama and Watanabe found a simple way to classify materials’ weirdness. Boson is the name given to particles with zero or integer spin, as opposed to fermions, which have half-integer spin.

“Once people tell me what symmetry the system starts with and what symmetry it ends up with, and whether the broken symmetries can be interchanged, I can work out exactly how many bosons there are and if that leads to weird behavior or not,” Murayama said. “We’ve tried it on more than 10 systems, and it works out every single time.”

Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials
Earlier theories by Nobel Laureate Yoichiro Nambu predicted that magnetic spins oscillate in two directions independently, and thus magnets have two Nambu-Goldstone bosons. The new theory shows that in ferromagnets, these two waves are not independent, so that the there is only one Nambu-Goldstone boson, a precession wave as shown above. Credit: Haruki Watanabe/UC Berkeley.

Anthony Leggett of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, who won the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physics for his pioneering work on , pointed out that “it has long been appreciated that an important consequence of the phenomenon of spontaneously broken symmetry, whether occurring in particle physics or in the physics of condensed matter, is the existence of the long-wavelength collective excitations known as Nambu-Goldstone bosons.

“In their paper, Watanabe and Maruyama have now derived a beautiful general relation … (involving) Nambu Goldstone bosons … (that) reproduces the relevant results for all known cases and gives a simple framework for discussing any currently unknown form of ordering which may be discovered in the future.”

“Surprisingly, the implications of spontaneous symmetry breaking on the low energy spectrum had not been worked out, in general, until the paper by Watanabe and Murayama,” wrote Hirosi Ooguri, a professor of physics and mathematics at Caltech. “I expect that there will be a wide range of applications of this result, from condensed matter physics to cosmology. It is a wonderful piece of work in mathematical physics.”

Symmetry

Symmetry has been a powerful concept in physics for nearly 100 years, allowing scientists to find unifying principles and build theories that describe how elementary particles and forces interact now and in the early universe. The simplest symmetry is rotational symmetry in three dimensions: a sphere, for example, looks the same when you rotate it arbitrarily in any direction. A cylinder, however, has a single rotational symmetry around its axis.

Some interactions are symmetric with respect to time, that is, they look the same whether they proceed forward or backward in time. Others are symmetric if a particle is replaced by its antiparticle.

When symmetry is broken spontaneously, new phenomena occur. Following the Big Bang, the universe cooled until its symmetry was spontaneously broken, leading to a predicted Higgs boson that is now being sought at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland.

With solids, liquids or gases, symmetry relates to the behavior of the spins of the atoms and electrons. In a ferromagnetic material, such as iron or nickel, the randomness of the electron spins at high temperatures makes the material symmetric in all directions. As the metal cools, however, the electron spins get locked in and force their neighbors to lock into the same direction, so that the magnet has a bulk magnetic field pointing in one direction.

Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials
A second type of vibrational wave or phonon in a crystal, identical to the second Nambu-Goldstone boson. Credit: Haruki Watanabe/UC Berkeley

Nambu-Goldstone bosons are coherent collective behavior in a material. Sound waves or phonons, for example, are the collective vibration of atoms in a crystal. Waves of excitation of the electron spin in a crystal are called magnons. During the cooling process of a ferromagnet, two symmetries were spontaneously broken, leaving only one Nambu-Goldstone boson in the material.

In Bose-Einstein condensates, for example, “you start with a thin gas of atoms, cool it to incredibly low temperature — nanokelvins — and once you get to this temperature, atoms tend to stick with each other in strange ways,” Murayama said. “They have this funny vibrational mode that gives you one Nambu-Goldstone boson, and this gas of atoms starts to become superfluid again so it can flow without viscosity forever.”

On the other hand, solid crystals, regardless of their compositions or structures, have three Nambu-Goldstone bosons, equivalent to the three vibrational modes (phonons).

“What this Nambu-Goldstone boson is, how many of them there are and how they behave decide if something becomes a superfluid or not, and how things depend on the temperature,” Murayama added. “All these properties come from how we understand the Nambu-Goldstone boson.”

Yoichiro Nambu shared the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics, in part, for explaining that in some systems, the number of broken symmetries equals the number of Nambu-Goldstone bosons.

The new theorem expands on Nambu’s ideas to the more general case, Watanabe said, proving that in weird materials, the number of Nambu-Goldstone bosons is actually less than the number of broken symmetries.

“What Nambu showed was true, but only for specialized cases applicable to particle physics,” he said. “Now we have a general explanation for all of ; no exceptions.”

One characteristic of states with a low Nambu-Goldstone boson number is that very little energy is required to perturb the system. Fluids flow freely in superfluids, and atoms vibrate forever in Bose-Einstein condensates with just a slight nudge.

As a student at the University of Tokyo, Watanabe had proposed a theorem to explain materials’ properties through Nambu-Goldstone bosons, but was unable to prove it until he came to UC Berkeley last year and talked with Murayama. Together, they came up with a proof in two weeks of what they call a unified theory of Nambu-Goldstone bosons.

“Those two weeks were very exciting,” Watanabe said.

Explore further: Controlling core switching in Pac-man disks

More information: Unified Description of Non-Relativistic Nambu–Goldstone bosons, arxiv.org/pdf/1203.0609v2.pdf (PDF submitted to Physical Review Letters)

Related Stories

Vienna physicists create quantum twin atoms

May 02, 2011

At the Vienna University of Technology, sophisticated atomchips have been used to create pairs of quantum mechanically connected atom-twins. Until now, similar experiments were only possible using photons.

New tool for proton spin

May 06, 2011

How the particles that constitute a proton give rise to is to its rotation, or ‘spin’, is an intriguing open question of contemporary particle physics. A technique that could provide some answers ...

Recommended for you

Controlling core switching in Pac-man disks

Dec 24, 2014

Magnetic vortices in thin films can encode information in the perpendicular magnetization pointing up or down relative to the vortex core. These binary states could be useful for non-volatile data storage ...

Atoms queue up for quantum computer networks

Dec 24, 2014

In order to develop future quantum computer networks, it is necessary to hold a known number of atoms and read them without them disappearing. To do this, researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute have developed ...

New video supports radiation dosimetry audits

Dec 23, 2014

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL), working with the National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, has produced a video guide to support physicists participating in radiation dosimetry audits.

Acoustic tweezers manipulate cell-to-cell contact

Dec 22, 2014

Sound waves can precisely position groups of cells for study without the danger of changing or damaging the cells, according to a team of Penn State researchers who are using surface acoustic waves to manipulate ...

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2012
"What Nambu showed was true, but only for specialized cases applicable to particle physics," he said. "Now we have a general explanation for all of physics; no exceptions."

I'd b careful on the 'no exceptions' part after only 10 tests...but if it pans out that's a Nobel Prize right there.
Origin
1 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2012
IMO the general mechanism of superfluidity is that inside of particle environment are two competitive sources of particle motion: the motion induced with mutual collisions of particles and the motion induced with the vibrations of their environment. For example the pollen grains at the water surface are vibrating both because of their mutual collisions, both because of underwater Brownian motion. At the moment, when the effect of underwater vibrations will prevail over the effect mutual collisions of particles, then the particles will behave like the superfluid, until their speed will not exceed the speed imposed with Brownian motion of water. This mechanism could be modelled with vibrating bed filled with particles of two different sizes but the same density: for example with nuts and with poppy seeds, which will represent a majority of particles. Until the poppy seeds will remain in motion with vibrations of the bed, then the nuts will float in their environment without friction.
Bog_Mire
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2012
....or the nuts will post crap on every subject matter.
Origin
1 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2012
Try to explain the superfluidity by your own words after then. If you cannot do it, why do you prohibit the other people in doing this? Try to analyse the psychosocial motivations of your hostile stance. Why do you call the people, who are doing something, why you cannot do yourself a "nuts"? Why do you feel the tendency for such dishonestation without further arguments? Is it enviousness, fear of being manipulated - or what exactly?

http://phys.org/n...eas.html
Macksb
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
This is identical to a theory that I have posted 40 or more times on Physorg, which I have called a theory of synchronized or coupled oscillators. I also have similar posts on other sites going back to 2007, all with the Macksb pen name.

The general idea is simple. Oscillators have a tendency to synchronize or couple their oscillations, a phenomemon described by Art Winfree, a bio-mathematician, in the late 1960s. Good article by Strogatz and Stewart in Scientific American, Dec. 1993 describing Art's idea. I took Art's idea and applied it to superconductivity, superfluidity and other collective behaviors in physics, and phase transitions broadly. I have argued, based on Occam's Razor, that this must be the unifying explanation for the several types of superconductivity, and the theory that unifies superconductivity and superfluidity.
Macksb
2.3 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
Following up on my post above, let's take the article from top to bottom. The model "describ[es] the symmetry breaking in terms of collective behavior..." The picture of the moving arrows is a picture of synchronized oscillations. The same is true of the second picture, which shows synchronized ocillations of spheres. "Collective vibration of atoms..." "Waves of excitation of...electron spin..." "Atoms tend to stick with each other in strange ways" in a "funny vibrational mode." This is the stuff of synchronized oscillations, and that is the theory that I have described in many posts.
Macksb
1.8 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
Consider the case of Malaysian fireflies. They synchronize their flashes--thousands of fireflies beating as one, all at the same time. One mass synchronized oscillation (on and off, periodically) replaces the many oscillations of the individual fireflies. This is conceptually identical to the "moving arrows" picture above. Same with a crowd "wave" at a baseball stadium.
pauljpease
5 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
Try to explain the superfluidity by your own words after then. If you cannot do it, why do you prohibit the other people in doing this? Try to analyse the psychosocial motivations of your hostile stance. Why do you call the people, who are doing something, why you cannot do yourself a "nuts"? Why do you feel the tendency for such dishonestation without further arguments? Is it enviousness, fear of being manipulated - or what exactly?



Does anyone remember the computer program ELIZA, that attempted to have a conversation with a human? This post, and similar ones, sound just like it. I have a theory that the "people" who make these posts are not people at all, but computer programs made by Google to perfect artificial intelligence and pass the Turing test. They let the programs loose on internet forums to see how they interact with unsuspecting humans.
Terriva
2 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
Google engine would use a better English, if nothing else...
MrVibrating
not rated yet Jun 11, 2012
"In a ferromagnetic material, such as iron or nickel, the randomness of the electron spins at high temperatures makes the material symmetric in all directions. As the metal cools, however, the electron spins get locked in and force their neighbors to lock into the same direction, so that the magnet has a bulk magnetic field pointing in one direction."

Incorrect. It is the applied (ie. external, or H) field that causes neighboring domains to align - the inter-domain forces cause exactly the opposite effect - antiparallel alignment - degaussing the material. Changes in B are fueled by heat (ie. lattice phonon) exchanges, however, again, it is not heat absorption or emission per se that lowers or raises B, but rather enables a rise in B when the sample's immersed in an externally-applied field, and conversely enables self-demagnetisation when an applied field is absent.

Fascinating article all the same, though it's just as well to get these things right eh..
MrVibrating
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
@paulipease & Bog Mire - lambasting someone for espousing a pet theory about a poorly-understood effect, on a thread discussing that very issue - and especially on the basis of English not being their first language - is just mindless trolling. Please, comment on the substance of a post, or just hold your peace..?
Auxon
not rated yet Jun 11, 2012
Following up on my post above, let's take the article from top to bottom. The model "describ[es] the symmetry breaking in terms of collective behavior..." The picture of the moving arrows is a picture of synchronized oscillations. The same is true of the second picture, which shows synchronized ocillations of spheres. "Collective vibration of atoms..." "Waves of excitation of...electron spin..." "Atoms tend to stick with each other in strange ways" in a "funny vibrational mode." This is the stuff of synchronized oscillations, and that is the theory that I have described in many posts.

It's great when ones ideas are validated, but it kind of bites that they are going to be the ones getting the nobel prize. ;)

As it says in the article, one guy had an idea, but couldn't prove it without finally talking to someone with the chops to help. Right place, right time, right people, and 2 weeks later they have something deeply significant. I can't wait to see what comes of this.
Terriva
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
I have called a theory of synchronized or coupled oscillators
The atoms within superfluids are entangles and the entanglement is nothing else, then just synchronized vibrations. But this is just a description of the situation, it doesn't explain, why this synchronization suddenly occurs.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
I have called a theory of synchronized or coupled oscillators
The atoms within superfluids are entangled and the quantum entanglement is nothing else, then just synchronized vibrations. But this is just a description of the whole situation, as it doesn't explain, why this synchronization suddenly occurs.
Sean_W
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
@paulipease & Bog Mire - lambasting someone for espousing a pet theory about a poorly-understood effect, on a thread discussing that very issue - and especially on the basis of English not being their first language - is just mindless trolling. Please, comment on the substance of a post, or just hold your peace..?


In this case the person doesn't actually have a pet theory but merely a repertoire of jargon which he calls a theory and uses to spam every article on physics which PhysOrg posts. I should say, "relentlessly spams".
qitana
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
Try to explain the superfluidity by your own words after then. If you cannot do it, why do you prohibit the other people in doing this? Try to analyse the psychosocial motivations of your hostile stance. Why do you call the people, who are doing something, why you cannot do yourself a "nuts"? Why do you feel the tendency for such dishonestation without further arguments? Is it enviousness, fear of being manipulated - or what exactly?



Does anyone remember the computer program ELIZA, that attempted to have a conversation with a human? This post, and similar ones, sound just like it. I have a theory that the "people" who make these posts are not people at all, but computer programs made by Google to perfect artificial intelligence and pass the Turing test. They let the programs loose on internet forums to see how they interact with unsuspecting humans.


Check your emotional circuits, I have detected a jerk response due to a complete lack of empathy
Macksb
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Terriva: Thanks for noticing my comments. Art Winfree answered your question--why?--about 45 years ago, and supplied the math. Kuramoto, Strogatz, Mirollo and others have developed the math. Sync, the book by Strogatz, is partially about this same subject. Their law of coupled oscillators applies to all "limit cycle oscillators," the phrase they use, which are simply periodic oscillations. So I have applied Winfree's law to physics since Dec. 1993. Max Planck's quantum is a periodic oscillation--which makes physics a pretty likely place to apply Winfree's law. In my judgment, now indirectly but definitely endorsed by the work described in the above article, Planck Winfree's "law" explains why we have a periodic table of the elements; why we have normal phases of matter; and why we have the newer "quantum" phases of matter, arising from ultra cold matter--organized externally, preliminarily, by lasers and magnetic fields, both of which are simply external synchronized oscillations.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
The difference is that the researcher finds analogs to describe how the phenomenon behaves to the layman, while the layman tries to turn the analogs themselves into a description of what is actually happening.

The layman explaination is like a tautology; it takes the familiar phenomenon and uses it to explain the more fundamental unfamiliar phenomenon - without realizing that it's the latter that must explain the former.

E.g. the underlying reality that makes particles collide and vibrate can't be explained away by saying that it works the same way, because you've explained exactly nothing.
Macksb
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
When I refer to Planck and Winfree's law, I mean the application of Winfree's general theory about synchronized oscillators to the world of physics as described, fundamentally, by Planck. While the above article focuses on one direction only--downward, to colder temperatures and lower Nambu Goldstone numbers--the concept works in both directions. As temperatures increase, other states of matter unfold: solid, liquid, gas, plasma for example. This is also why pressure is relevant to phase transitions: the internal vibrations (e.g. phonons) or other oscillations (e.g. spin) have greater or lesser influence on their neighbors, and a greater or lesser span of influence--meaning the number of neighbors that are within the aesthetic reach (for want of a better word) of their oscillations.

Importantly, Winfree showed that certain exact patterns of self-organization are permissible, and no others. The patterns are illustrated in the Dec. 1993 Sci. Am. article about Winfree.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012
@paulipease & Bog Mire - lambasting someone for espousing a pet theory about a poorly-understood effect, on a thread discussing that very issue - and especially on the basis of English not being their first language - is just mindless trolling. Please, comment on the substance of a post, or just hold your peace..?


If the crazies only posted their pet theories once every few months and let them go, I don't think anybody would really care. We would crack a couple of jokes and move on. The problem is that every single interesting article on this site gets bogged down with discussion of dense aether theory, cold fusion, global warming denialists, creationists, or religion. Even enabling filters to hide the low ranked comments don't do the trick, because people responding to the trolls get upvoted and then those posts take up half the space.

I wish I had a good solution, but I don't. All I can do is encourage people to not feed the trolls, but it's such a tempting trap...
Ryker
not rated yet Jun 12, 2012
"What Nambu showed was true, but only for specialized cases applicable to particle physics," he said. "Now we have a general explanation for all of physics; no exceptions."

I'd b careful on the 'no exceptions' part after only 10 tests...but if it pans out that's a Nobel Prize right there.
After reading the article, I'm also left unsure of whether they have actually proved the theorem or just found a bigger number of special cases in which it holds.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2012
If the crazies only posted their pet theories once every few months and let them go, I don't think anybody would really care.
IMO no one of us understands the above article anyway. It's physical principle is cryptic for me, it doesn't contain any testable predictions, just some numerology. Such an article shouldn't be published in physics section - only in math section. Because the physics is the science about experiments and experimentally testable predictions, not about abstract concepts. Nevertheless apparently many people are satisfied with this situation, because they're downvoting understandable explanations of superfluidity, so they're behaving like naive Christians of medieval era, who supported the theology just because it sounded so noble and mystical for them and refused all attempts for intuitive explanation of observable reality.
Bog_Mire
not rated yet Jun 12, 2012
Origin, with all due respect down voting is not my game, baby. Your incessant crap is extremely annoying though - and cannot be left unmolested. Also your mutilation of the English language is even worse. You read like a translation AI with advanced stage syphilis. Unless you are ingesting heroic quantities of acid you are a crank.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2012
Your incessant crap is extremely annoying though - and cannot be left unmolested
Do you have a better explanation of superfluidity? Can you prove me wrong? Can you understand, that until you cannot provide any (if not better) alternative of my crap, I'll ignore your comments heartily?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2012
Do you have a better explanation of superfluidity? Can you prove me wrong?

Saying "I don't know" is infinitely better than "I don't know but I'll make up stuff that is just stupid".

He's in the former category. You're in the latter.
Origin
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2012
Saying "I don't know" is infinitely better than "I don't know but I'll make up stuff that is just stupid".
You didn't prove that "I don't know" it or that my stuff is "just stupid". So I don't fall in any category of yours.

You guys simply refuse the logics on my arguments on behalf of your ad-hoced subjective tautological claims. It's you who is not using scientific approach - not me.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2012
You didn't prove that "I don't know" it or that my stuff is "just stupid". So I don't fall in any category of yours.

As Eikka (and others, including myself ) have already told over and over again numerous times: Using a large scale analogy for a fundamental property that is the CAUSE of your large scale analogy in the first place is tautological (and also very wrong, because if its fundamental then it must also be simpler than the large scale entity - since any large scale entity not only includes effects of the fundamental principles but also interactions between the fundamental entities).

It's such a simple thing to understand that, since you don't understand it, you very squarely place yourself in the 'stupid' category.
Origin
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2012
..using a large scale analogy for a fundamental property that is the CAUSE of your large scale analogy in the first place is tautological..
Maybe yes, maybe not - but you didn't prove, that I'm using "..large scale analogy for a fundamental property that is.. blah, blah". You should prove it first, then to apply some generalizations to my situation.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012
Can you prove me wrong? Can you understand, that until you cannot provide any (if not better) alternative of my crap, I'll ignore your comments heartily?


That's not how science and rational dissemination of propositions works.

You haven't even proposed how your stuff could be falsified - you don't have a theory or even a hypothesis that could be replaced by better ones. All you have is a bunch of words strung together that obviously mean something to you, but very little to everybody else.

...but you didn't prove, that I'm using...


Your seeds in water analogies are just that. You claim a mechanism without considering that you have to explain why that mechanism exists. Simply tossing a name like "Dense Aether" doesn't explain it - it's just conjecture to make your analogy work.

Your problem is very similiar to the homunculus argument fallacy: http://en.wikiped...argument
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012
Or to quote the exact point:

The problem with the homunculus argument is that it tries to account for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.


So this statement is obviously a homunculus argument:

the general mechanism of superfluidity is that inside of particle environment are two competitive sources of particle motion: the motion induced with mutual collisions of particles and the motion induced with the vibrations of their environment.


Why? Because it tries to talk about the phenomenon that gives rise to what appears to us as particles and the environment that surrounds them, by the same terms. It takes the phenomenon, and explains it by itself - particles act like particles because they are particles that act like particles because...

Macksb
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2012
This new theory "applies to pretty much all areas of physics," including condensed matter, astrophysics and cosmology. The proposition can't get much bigger than that.

The article also notes that collective behavior drives the bus. In the two dynamic illustrations, a larger collective oscillation--a wave in these two illustrations--subsumes two (or perhaps more) smaller oscillating units.

Those two central propositions are why I refer to my theory of coupled oscillators, which is Art Winfree's theory, ported from biology and math over to physics.

For a theory to be this broad, applying to "pretty much" all fields of physics, the culprit has to be some superset that is all encompassing. Here, the article more or less fingers the culprit: collective oscillations. Oscillations generically; and collective behaviors generically--we have to think in universal terms.

My Macksb-Winfree theory of synchronized oscillations describes the same "what," and, importantly, the "why."
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2012
You haven't even proposed how your stuff could be falsified
This model can be falsified easily: the atoms are wobbling inside of vacuum in similar way, like the pollen grains inside of water. It's visible at helium with naked eye: this stuff doesn't freeze even at the absolute zero temperature under normal pressure.
..it takes the phenomenon, and explains it by itself - particles act like particles because they are particles that act like particles because...
Nope, the superconductivity is not a phenomenon of particle environment, but a particle environment with the particles differing in size, i.e. the dispersion. The homogeneous particle gas will never become superfluous (why?).
..my Macksb-Winfree theory of synchronized oscillations..
The theory of synchronized oscillations doesn't explain, why these synchronized oscillations do occur. But you're still free to explain it.
Macksb
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012
Why do synchronized oscillations occur? My simple answer is: read Art Winfree's 1967 papers; read the Dec. 1993 Sci Am article by Steve Strogatz and Ian Stewart, and check their math. Limit cycle oscillators (read "periodic") have a tendency to synchronize their oscillations due to interactive effects. No magic glue.

Notice that Prof. Murayama and Mr. Watanabe do not address this question. I do. Notice also that no other physicists were cognizant enough to suspect coherent oscillations in the first place--even though they are important and rampant, from ultra cold matter to cosmology. An urgent question since 1986. I saw the possibility in late November 1993, days after reading my copy of Sci Am.

There are various quantum patterns that emerge from Winfree's work--from full synchrony to other precise patterns of partial synchrony. I say those are quantum patterns, in the Planck sense. And partial synch = vibration.

All of this goes far beyond what you read in this article.
AnandVTA
1 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2012
Can there be bosons on the scale of human civilisation?

Can you treat jasmine revolution as a boson??

Don't take boson literally, but as an implied concept
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2012
The ideas or theories could be considered bosons, i.e. units of information exchanged by people.
Why do synchronized oscillations occur? My simple answer is: read Art Winfree's 1967 papers
You simply don't know how to answer and the people, who are pushing ideas without their understanding are dumb sectarian insect for me.
sirchick
not rated yet Jun 16, 2012
@Origin, instead of saying something then asking people to prove you wrong to win what ever argument is going on.... why not prove yourself correct thus saving the argument and name calling from the start?

It would save time and people will take you much more seriously if you show a sound insight to what you are talking about. If you have nothing to show and all you can say instead is "prove me wrong"...

I could say...

"Theres a Mexican playing Spanish guitar in the center of the black hole in the center of our galaxy.... prove me wrong..." That doesn't mean I'm correct.. nor does it mean you are any more correct. It just isn't scientific to say "prove me wrong" its just childish.

Granted the name calling you receive is childish too, just save yourself the trouble.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2012
"Theres a Mexican playing Spanish guitar in the center of the black hole in the center of our galaxy.... prove me wrong..."
It's easy to disprove it, the central black hole is too distant for travel from Mexico. I already explained, that the coupled resonators theory is homological and it doesn't explain, why resonators are coupled. Until the theory doesn't provide testable predictions, it has no meaning to bother with it at all - it's actually not a theory, only a model or hypothesis at best. We already know, that the electrons in Cooper pairs are entangled, i.e. their quantum vibrations are coupled with phonon vibrations. In this sense the idea of coupled resonators is redundant - BCS theory already provides a much better description based on detailed understanding of phenomena. But what I really don't like are the people, who don't understand the stuff, they're promoting under hope, someone will learn it instead of them.
sirchick
not rated yet Jun 16, 2012
@Terriva my post wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at origin - if you are the same person... why the double account seems a bit strange...
Macksb
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2012
From Scientific American, Dec. 1993, Coupled Oscillators by Steve Strogatz and Ian Stewart:

"Synchrony emerges cooperatively. If a few oscillators happen to synchronize, their combined coherent signal rises above the background din exerting a stronger effect on others. When additional oscillators are pulled into the synchronized nucleus, they amplify its signal. This positive feedback leads to an accelerating outbreak of synchrony.... Winfree discovered an unexpected link between biology and physics...[behavior] strikingly analagous to a phase transition."
Macksb
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2012
In your words, "the electrons in Cooper pairs are entangled, i.e. their quantum vibrations are coupled with phonon vibrations." I agree. I also agree that BCS theory is an excellent description of that specific phenomenon.

But as the above article points out, even a great theory may in hindsight prove to have been a special case that can be generalized. And the above article does so by showing that symmetry breaking can result from collective behavior (or synchronized oscillations, in my phrasing). That is my theme as well, and has been for a long time before the above article. Same focus too--collective behavior, coupled oscillations. And I provide the intellectual history (Winfree) for my argument, which most physicists do not know.

All in all, that is pretty good work for a "dumb sectarian insect."





Macksb
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2012
I also accept your charge, Terriva, that my theory is homologous--in many respects--with BCS theory. We both focus on oscillations of electrons and phonons, and the capacity of those oscillations to self-organize.

Homologous reasoning is not always a vice. It can be a virtue, as Richard Owen showed us in biology. It is also a necessity, up to a point, if one is trying to extend an existing theory, such as BCS theory in this case.

My approach is simple. BCS theory focuses on phonons per se. I see phonons more generally as a type of periodic oscillation. And then I look at the functional behavior of oscillations generally--they tend to behave coherently. This is essentially the process that biologists have applied in developing Richard Owen's concept since 1846, and it is the process I have followed by considering both form and function.

So go ahead...throw me into the homologous briar patch.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.