The heat is on

Feb 18, 2013

(Phys.org)—Physicists are getting warmer in the hunt for universal truths, thanks to a breakthrough by a team at the University of St Andrews.

Researchers in the School of Physics and Astronomy found that even at ultra- of a trillion trillion degrees, the basic building blocks of life behave in the same way as they do when cold atomic are chilled to a billionth of a degree.

Their results show that, no matter what the temperature or the particle, the rate at which they bounce off each other – 'scatter'– changes by the same amount as the temperature is changed.

Team leader Professor Andy Mackenzie, Professor of Physics at the University, said: "Physics is all about looking for unexpected patterns in the way things behave.

"It now seems as if matter at the extremes of conditions in the known universe behaves similarly when we had no particular reason to expect that to be the case.

"It points to the existence of universal theories that have not yet been formulated.

"These are exciting times for fundamental physics, and the work on electrons in solids also has the potential to underpin ambitious future electronics technologies."

The team examined a range of experiments which had been carried out across the whole range of temperatures known to science.

In , it is possible to create an ultra-high temperature 'soup' of known as the quark-gluon plasma, at temperatures of a trillion trillion degrees.

At the other end of the spectrum, cold atomic fluids can be cooled to a billionth of a degree.

The St Andrews team has worked at intermediate temperatures with entirely different particles, in solids.

Explore further: Researchers demonstrate ultra low-field nuclear magnetic resonance using Earth's magnetic field

Related Stories

Brewing the world's hottest Guinness

Jun 27, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The positive and sometimes unexpected impact of particle physics is well documented, from physicists inventing the World Wide Web to engineering the technology underlying life-saving magnetic ...

Explained: Quark gluon plasma

Jun 09, 2010

For a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, the universe consisted of a hot soup of elementary particles called quarks and gluons. A few microseconds later, those particles began cooling to form protons ...

Electron's negativity cut in half by supercomputer

Jan 12, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- While physicists at the Large Hadron Collider smash together thousands of protons and other particles to see what matter is made of, they're never going to hurl electrons at each other. No ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 26

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

supermop2000
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2013
So... someone help me here. Is this article just stating that hot stuff is the same as cold stuff, just hotter? I honestly don't see any breakthrough here.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2013
The thing they're investigating here is whether some fundamentally different physics start to appear at high tempeatures or not

This is much like when you work with speeds close to the speed of light suddenly relativistic effects become noticeable. If you never look at those kinds of speeds you'd have thought that newtonian laws are all there are.

Science is always about looking at what happens when you go to boundary conditions. That's where you find out whether your theories are universal - or whether they are just relatively good approximations for low temperatures/speed/ etc.

The 'breakthrough' is in validating current approaches. It is very important to test your theories once in a while (and hopefully to destruction - which leads to new advances)
Tausch
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
A consequence of universal 'scatter' is the destruction of Johan.
j/k
Disproselyte
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2013
What is the reference to "basic building blocks of life" necessary for? Same relevance as speaking of a "god" particle in a scientific publication?
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2013
What is the reference to "basic building blocks of life" necessary for? -


Necessary for the support of physics. Analogous to the 'support' religions receive. The LCD (least common denominator) of both is labeled 'life'. No life. No support.

God(s) are to faiths/beliefs what the Science(s) are to Axioms and Postulates.

The 'god' particle is a subliminal attempt to resolve or invoke internal mental conflict. Perturbation theory embraced by Science had an effect on religious 'support' at one time in history:

"Perturbation theory has its roots in early celestial mechanics, where the theory of epicycles was used to make small corrections to the predicted paths of planets. Curiously, it was the need for more and more epicycles that eventually led to the 16th century Copernican revolution in the understanding of planetary orbits."

http://en.wikiped...n_theory

Today 'relevance' and usage in a scientific publication is labeled 'blowback' in secret societies.
Tausch
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2013
All Religions are in need*
*Of more and more corrections.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
I would say, this is all about this research, but the factual content of this new is terrible. Prof. Mackenzie is researching quantum criticality inside of pnictide superconductors.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
The free electrons inside of superconductors are highly compressed mutually, so that their repulsive forces overlap and compensate mutually and as the result these electrons are moving freely. We can model it with clusters of mutually repulsing particles, which are compressed with their gravity or some other forces from outside. Such a particles will form a chaotic foamy fluid at the center, which is similar to supercritical fluid. The foamy interior of electron clusters is similar to vacuum, whereas their exterior is composed of very hot wildly moving electrons - in superconductor both these states exists tightly next to each other. The boundary of electron stripes can therefore serve as an example of surface of neutron stars or black holes for example: the outside of which is very hot, the inside of which is formed with boson condensate.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2013
This boundary is pretty interesting by itself, as it can be visualized with magnetic flux pinning, for example. The bubbles of quantum vortices (skyrmions) are topologically inverted at the phase boundary, which behaves like brane in brane cosmology or surface of black hole. It looks schematically like this: the quantum vortices are becoming so "hot" and dense there, that they're forming a "cold" environment for another generation of quantum vortices.
dugiewugie
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
Science is finding out how God does things.
DavidW
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
per: antialias_physorg
But absolute truth no place in science (and BTW: 'absolute truth' doesn't mean anything It's about as meaningful a statement as a 'round circle' - and for the very same reason. It's a contradicion in terms when you look at it closely).

In science it's always "true AS FAR AS WE KNOW RIGHT NOW". There is no absolute. So if you come here with some notion that absolutes exist then you're on the wrong site.


Here you tell us that that those who have lost their children that their loss is not absolutely truthfully real.

Here tell us that have been injured that our pain is not absolutely truthfully real.

Here you tell us that are enslaved that we are not truthfully enslaved.

Here you tell us we are not alive.

Here you tell us that we can change our past.

Here you tell us that we are not alive.

Here you claim that everything is a lie, despite endless evidence to the contrary.

Please seek medical attention as soon as possible.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
Huh, the physics of electrically charged particles (Plasma) is similar across all temp ranges. One day they'll realize plasma is also scalable in regards to size as well, although Alfven proposed this years ago.
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2013
Wow Zephyr that's quite a jumble of ideas all thrown togeather into a soup of mind-numbingly complex wrongness.

So you're sort of talking about a Bose-Einstein condensate that has arisen by applying an undefined force similar to gravity to a superconductor, thus causing electron forces to overcome their mutual repulsion and somehow overlap (the electron or their forces, can't tell which) and this looks similar to pretty pictures that are left undefined and unexplained.

And someone gave you a 5 for that! Impressive how you can use such technically sounding expressions to support your aether-centralized view of he world.

DavidW seems to like your rantings, maybe the two of you should form a mutual admiration club.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
Oh and goody, cantdrive55 has thrown in with some EU comments! Oh joy! You guys have a 3rd member for your club.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
Oh and goody, cantdrive55 has thrown in with some EU comments! Oh joy! You guys have a 3rd member for your club.

Two things, first of all my comment has nothing to do with EUT, it is merely a factual statement about the properties of plasma behavior based upon years of empirical data. And secondly, I can drive 55 all day long(I've got a speeding problem) and now that there is a highway in Texas with a speed limit of 85 I may have to change my ID to something like cantdrive95 or Icandrive85nowhurray!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
.. Bose-Einstein condensate that has arisen by applying an undefined force similar to gravity to a superconductor...
At the case of superconductors this force isn't indeed a gravity, but the repulsive force of another electrons. It boils down into explanation, why we recognize just two types of superconductors of I. type and II. type. It requires, each superconductor will consist of two kinds of electrons: 1) these movable ones, which are mediating superconducting current current 2) and the binding ones, which are holding the first kind electrons together in structures similar to pipes or cages. At the case of I.type superconductors the binding electrons are contained within neighboring d- f- orbitals, at the case of II. superconductors they're held with neighboring atom layers.
supermop2000
not rated yet Feb 20, 2013
The thing they're investigating here is whether some fundamentally different physics start to appear at high tempeatures or not

This is much like when you work with speeds close to the speed of light suddenly relativistic effects become noticeable. If you never look at those kinds of speeds you'd have thought that newtonian laws are all there are.

Science is always about looking at what happens when you go to boundary conditions. That's where you find out whether your theories are universal - or whether they are just relatively good approximations for low temperatures/speed/ etc.

The 'breakthrough' is in validating current approaches. It is very important to test your theories once in a while (and hopefully to destruction - which leads to new advances)


Thanks, pretty much what I had thought. It just seemed so obvious and anti-news though that I thought I was missing something more exciting :)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
.. Bose-Einstein condensate that has arisen by applying an undefined force similar to gravity to a superconductor...
At the case of superconductors this force isn't indeed a gravity, but the repulsive force of another electrons. It boils down into explanation, why we recognize just two types of superconductors of I. type and II. type. It requires, each superconductor will consist of two kinds of electrons: 1) these movable ones, which are mediating superconducting current current 2) and the binding ones, which are holding the first kind electrons together in structures similar to pipes or cages. At the case of I.type superconductors the binding electrons are contained within neighboring d- f- orbitals, at the case of II. superconductors they're held with neighboring atom layers.


I just hope that the readers of this forum have the sense to realize that ValeriaT aka, aka, akak, is suffering from hallucinating dementia!
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2013
Here you tell us that that those who have lost their children that their loss is not absolutely truthfully real.

No. You are telling us that you're incapable of seeing that your very statement is relative.

THEIR loss. The loss is RELATIVE to them.
In all your word games you're constructing contexts WITHIN which what you say is true. But as long as you have a context the truth you are stating is dependent on that context. Such a truth cannot be universal (changing the context changes the 'truth').

E.g. "loss of life" depends on your definition of life. But life is not something that is QUALITATIVELY different from 'non-life'. What we call 'living things' do not have any other physical laws act upon them than 'non-living things'. The difference is QUANTITATIVE (like 'small lake' is quantitatively different from 'ocean' - but not qualitatively a different thing)

Using labels (alive/not alive) does not automatically confer qualitative difference.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
An ABSOLUTE truth would have to be true in any context whatsoever. In fact it would have to exist without any context at all.

Here you claim that everything is a lie, despite endless evidence to the contrary.

I do no such thing. I say that you can have relative (and useful) truths within well defined contexts. Science is about finding such useful/relative truths (called theories or - if they happen to work really well - laws). Newtonian motion is such a useful law. Is it 'absolutely true'? No. It doesn't account for relativistic effects.
Is it a very useful law within a well defined context (speeds slower than light speed)? Definitely.
Within the context of relativistic speeds Relativity is much better.

Does that make Newtonian motion false? No. It just limits it to a specific context. In science the more universal the applicability of a theory (i.e. the bigger the context) - the better the theory is said to be.

But there is always SOME context.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
Newtonian motion is such a useful law. Is it 'absolutely true'? No. It doesn't account for relativistic effects.


All three laws also account for relativistic effects; unless one assumes that that the mass of an object is a constant that does not change with speed! Note Newton's second law states that F=(d/dt)p
where p=mv.
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
In science the more universal the applicability of a theory (i.e. the bigger the context) - the better the theory is said to be. But there is always SOME context. - AP


Like the notion labeled zero.
Or Johan's unitary wave.
God fell short.
Relatively.
Speaking.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
Like the notion labeled zero.
Or Johan's unitary wave.
Unitary? Single? Your problem is that you never really post something that is comprehensible! Does your mind stop half-way or do you post before you think what you want to post?

Disproselyte
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
life is not something that is QUALITATIVELY different from 'non-life' or 'small lake' is quantitatively different from 'ocean' - but not qualitatively a different thing


I don't think so, taking into account emergent properties of systems, which cannot be reduced to properties of the subsystems only: "the whole being more than the sum of its parts": qualitatively new relations can form, which are subject to new "laws". To be clear, the components are still submitted to the more fundamental laws too. Call this the essence of complexification.
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
Unitary? Single? Your problem is that you never really post something that is comprehensible! Does your mind stop half-way or do you post before you think what you want to post? - J

See other thread:
http://phys.org/n...tum.html

Call that the goal post shuffle.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2013
Unitary? Single? Your problem is that you never really post something that is comprehensible! Does your mind stop half-way or do you post before you think what you want to post? - J

See other thread:
http://phys.org/n...tum.html

Call that the goal post shuffle.


I so wish you could post a coherent argument!