Wednesday, June 04, 2008

SuperFluids

MIT physicists create new form of matter by Lori Valigra, Special to MIT News Office June 22, 2005

A superfluid gas can flow without resistance. It can be clearly distinguished from a normal gas when it is rotated. A normal gas rotates like an ordinary object, but a superfluid can only rotate when it forms vortices similar to mini-tornadoes. This gives a rotating superfluid the appearance of Swiss cheese, where the holes are the cores of the mini-tornadoes. "When we saw the first picture of the vortices appear on the computer screen, it was simply breathtaking," said graduate student Martin Zwierlein in recalling the evening of April 13, when the team first saw the superfluid gas. For almost a year, the team had been working on making magnetic fields and laser beams very round so the gas could be set in rotation. "It was like sanding the bumps off of a wheel to make it perfectly round," Zwierlein explained.

"In superfluids, as well as in superconductors, particles move in lockstep. They form one big quantum-mechanical wave," explained Ketterle. Such a movement allows superconductors to carry electrical currents without resistance.

The MIT team was able to view these superfluid vortices at extremely cold temperatures, when the fermionic gas was cooled to about 50 billionths of one kelvin, very close to absolute zero (-273 degrees C or -459 degrees F). "It may sound strange to call superfluidity at 50 nanokelvin high-temperature superfluidity, but what matters is the temperature normalized by the density of the particles," Ketterle said. "We have now achieved by far the highest temperature ever." Scaled up to the density of electrons in a metal, the superfluid transition temperature in atomic gases would be higher than room temperature.


Now it is important that giving the circumstance with which I hold these views "to be the decomposable limits" on the collision process itself, the, "value of the decay" in initiating such a phase, it was important to me to explain how I thought new physics is to be established around our current value thinking in relation to the universe.

This picture shows a classical vortex (Hurricane Isabel in summer 2003, NASA image ISS007E14887).

So while we had done our research on the values of what a scientist means in regards to an image search on Google, I thought what better way but to introduce my efforts, as well to listing the essence of my understanding, by showing posts, that coincided with the prospective that I was and am establishing as a value in context of the acceleration of this universe.

It is to establish how this universe can contain an "relativistic interpretation" about the "beginning and end" contained in this universe and was of some interest to me, as I charted the course and terms related to the searches for the microscopic blackhole holes and what it can ensue in it's decay.

Photo credit: Andre Schirotzek (MIT)
A condensate of Fermion pairs (red) is trapped in the waist of a focussed Laser beam (pink). Two additional Laser beams (green) rotate around the edges to stir the condensate. Current-carrying coils (blue) generate the magnetic field used for axial confinement and to tune the interaction strength by means of a Feshbach resonance. After releasing the atomic cloud from the electromagnetic trap, the cloud expands ballistically and inverts its aspect ratio. Resonant absorption imaging yields a density profile of the atomic cloud containing vortices.


It was important that such an analogy serve to express that "what has always been" can move from one universe to another, by the interpretation of the false vacuum to the true and, by introducing this element in consideration of the lengths such a collision process can be taken too.

This has always been of some issue to me about what can take our universe to a "zero point entropy consideration" while understanding that the larger context showing representational for this universe, holds an interesting view, that while large can be taken onto the environs that collisions processes may hold for further introspective views.

Now I have been watching the interpretations of Inductive and Deductive valuations over at Bee's held in conversation of theBackreaction: The Block Universe and I am not totally satisfied that either party has really explained what "infinite regress means" while looking to the "decomposable element" with which I hold mathematics as a necessary understanding, while we look to explain the very principals and nature of this universe, and it's accelerations currently established.


Photo credit: Andre Schirotzek (MIT) Vortices in Gases: Shown is a Vortex pattern in bosonic Sodium atoms (green cartoon) in a magnetic trap, Vortices in tightly bound Lithium molecules (red-blue cartoon) and a vortex lattice in loosely bound Fermion pairs created on the "BCS-side" of a Feshbach resonance.


Just having established a link with backreactions block universe posting with this article, I see Phil has explained nicely what the process is to me, and how "infinite regress and decomposable element" are held in the same breathe. I have to give by example my understanding so that one sees this is not a "vacant thought process" with which I work.

While one might think I belittle the process it is wholly by my environmental scanning and integrating view that I was able to deduce in regards to the "Plane of Simultaneity" an of "much greater depth" then what is assumed there at Backreaction.

This statement of "much greater depth," must be seen in relation to what Tom Levenson in his first introductory article on Cosmic Variance, is revealing by, "Inverse Square law" introduction.

Tom Levenson:....what would make current physical ideas as powerful and as intelligibly strange as Newton was able to make his story of a comet travelling from and to distances with out limit?


Shadows, are the contention with which "cave views are enlisted" and remain, "in the the box thinkers." You had to know by my reply, that this depth was beyond the 3+1 view held , and pushing further, is the scope and intention of being lead by science, whether one thinks so or not by my representations.

That, "in the box thinking" has never left the backreaction interpretations. Phenomenological order, must be introduced, in order to establish current scientific experiments with the actual hypothetical processes, where, such a hypothesis will take you too, leading from, "infinite regress and decomposable limits of definition." at the peak of this Aristotlean Arche. What is Self-Evident.

Savas Dimopoulos:At close encounter the particles can exchange gravitons via the two extra dimensions, which changes the force law at very short distances. Instead of the “Newtonian inverse square law” you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.
See:Newton's inverse-square (1/r2) law

This is a inductive/deductive stance that a person assumes in moving through science, as I understood it.

It is important that this process be established and identified as I reveal the thinking about the current state of the universe and how LHC experimental development, are giving new light, to Galactic communications. Microscopic Blackhole decay.

Also too,

The standard model of particle physics is a self-contained picture of fundamental particles and their interactions. Physicists, on a journey from solid matter to quarks and gluons, via atoms and nuclear matter, may have reached the foundation level of fields and particles. But have we reached bedrock, or is there something deeper? Savas Dimopoulos


Such a question sets the pace for understanding the limits with which we have contained ourselves in regard to General Relativity, and yet, to think that such a result of General Relativity could have ever been embedded as a "beginning and end" in the explanation of the universe, is introduced by time reversals and such?

10 comments:

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

“what the process is to me, and how "infinite regress and decomposable element" are held in the same breathe.”

Actually, when you use my own context in regards to what you say, it now comes to be clearer. That is if what I understand you to mean is that the limit of induction is the same as deduction resultant of sound premise. This then for me presents to be perhaps true.

I would offer another example that may hold even greater significance then the inverse square law and that would be Z = Z^2 + C, which of course is the formula the represents the Mandelbrot set. One may consider this to represent to define the set as whole and complete when the limit considered or one may have it in total only after interation with completion at infinity. Since mathematically being complex it contains and is only limited to the reals, the naturals and the imaginarys which serves to contain all that is to be called number sets including the null, if interation begins with zero.

It is then interesting to speculate what may be realized if the promise imagined of quantum computing to hold, as it relates to this concept; for what barrier is infinity for something that resides not firm to be in a single state yet all in a moment. It would then appear the boundary between induction and deduction would dissolve to unity.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Phil:That is if what I understand you to mean is that the limit of induction is the same as deduction resultant of sound premise. This then for me presents to be perhaps true.

I was trying to find a way to explain what we do as human beings, and our attempts at moving into the realms of science. Science and experiment is not always there.

Yet, the basis of this human condition is one that has wholeness value in that such integrations are our involvement with our environment and must have a consistent method of interaction with that same environment.

3.1 As Cytowic notes, Plato and Socrates viewed emotion and reason as in a kind of struggle, one in which it was vitally important for reason to win out. Aristotle took a more moderate view, that both emotion and reason are integral parts of a complex human soul--a theory proposed by Aristotle in explicit opposition to Platonism (De Anima 414a 19ff). Cytowic appears to endorse the Platonic line, with the notable difference that he would apparently rather have emotion win out. See:Inside Out

I expose more of the fundamentals of this exchange at Cosmic Variance in relation to the "emotive recognition" of what is happening on the outside of that bubble(while our brain sits on the inside), and yet, such collapses do represent to me an immediate exchange with that environment.

As strange as it may seem, such a connection with the environment is part of the work I had been doing was to detail a "consistent method of interpretation" about those things that are "self evident" and may be determined and labelled as First Principle.

This would be consistent again with the values of maths at the very basis of reality, and the definitions, as to that decomposable limit.

It takes a long time to get to that point, but in essence, if I could be clearer at times I would most certainly be so.

Now if you were to take the picture of the brain in the bubble as to the basis of my thinking then any "topological change" with the envirnoment would be held in relation to what is a final result of the "false vacuum to the true."

As to the "one possible universe" that is part of our exchange with that environment. I know I may loose you here. Please be patient as I said the basis of the agreement here is a mathematical one, and further to this, a geometrical interpretation that I have assigned the universe in expression as to the place in that valley, is the resulting exposure to how we as human beings interact with the environment on a level that is "unseen."

I would explain more fully this relation(liminocentric structures) and the work that I had been doing on my own, if you are interested.

It has be the work to sift the my experience's on my part to perform a "stable and foundational interpretation" about what reality is and what we are doing with it.

The assumption is that regardless of what ever interpretation one evolves too in their immediate environ(what is real), is the measure of what experience and life will become for them, according to that basis of that interaction.

Phil:It would then appear the boundary between induction and deduction would dissolve to unity.

I would work ever harder to forge "this basis of exchange" in our understanding.

Best,

Plato said...

Phil,

Also, in exchange with your mathematical interpretation.

See:Supersymmetry<->Simplistically<-> Entropically Designed?

The "Pascalian triangle" is of importance when you look the potentials of what could emerge in any mathematical system?

Experientially one may call it the "marble drop" or, an "binomial expression."

Also see: Riemann Hypothesis: A Pure Love of Math

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

I see where you are going with this, with the inside out ,top down and bottom up. There still exist one question however in terms of logical unity and that is which is simply discovery and which be true invention and can we say this exists?

For instance after attending a very entertaining lecture the other night at PI, which was focused around our lowering the threshold of temperature; it occurred to me that only through action taken by intelligent beings has created thresholds of temperature not otherwise found in the universe since its beginning. As it is recognized today that with the start of the universe we have been moving from higher to lower states in this regard and the temperatures we have created will not occur naturally until the far distant future if and only if expansion persists.

This presented then a question for me which is; are these temperatures (conditions) to be considered simply discovery or since they will not naturally exist for eons should they not be considered invention? It would seem to me that mere induction would not bring us to such realization, yet only deduction could facilitate it.

So what then is the kernel of mind and its purpose wrought with and of potential of which induction appears to play no part or have no place to be?

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Phil,

The problem lies in the interpretation of induction and how it is used?

But, Aristotle thinks that knowledge begins with experience. We get to first principles through induction. But there is no certainty to the generalizations of induction. The "Problem of Induction" is the question How we know when we have examined enough individual cases to make an inductive generalization. Usually we can't know. Thus, to get from the uncertainty of inductive generalizations to the certainty of self-evident first principles, there must be an intuitive "leap," through what Aristotle calls "Mind." This ties the system together. A deductive system from first principles (like Euclidean geometry) is then what Aristotle calls "knowledge" ("epistemê" in Greek or "scientia" in Latin).

"Intuitive leap" has to find it's place in mind, and where is it we place mind? It's not without work that we venture into the questions, and that once exhausted something happens. Something that cannot be explained otherwise.

Invention and discovery, are the same side of the coin. The other side is where all ideas exist, that ever will exist.

The ancient emphasis on deduction has its representative in Aristotle's Organum, and the new emphasis on induction and research has its representative in Francis Bacon's treatise Novum Organum.

How is it such minds could grasp the every connection Einstein made when he saw what the atom bomb could do? What were they doing but going to the "very centre" of where energy exists in all things?

Does this lie "beneath the basis of reality" and how shall we explain the building blocks as a asymmetrical result in this sense.

How was the mind cable of going there, and still remaining in tact?

Phil:It would seem to me that mere induction would not bring us to such realization, yet only deduction could facilitate it.

Does supersymmetry exist in nature and if so, how would it look? And from there, the emergence of all things? Pascal's triangle was a way of uniting binomial expressions with, outcome, and what number system would emerge? Invention is nice, yet, we would be taken then to consider Riemann's sieve, as we see this expression in Ulam's spiral?

It was always there, and we only had to invent/discover it.

Plato said...

Under the label of induction to the right is a list of applications which has served to derive statements I do make about induction.

I symbolically developed "the arch" as a symbol not just of this progression to explain our interconnectivity to the environment, but to relate the meaning to history, and what Raphael painted, and why it sits at the very top of this Blog Page.

Also to reinforce this I placed wording in amongst the snippet of the painting reinforces this perspective again and again.

To point out the value of what creativity is in relation to invention and discovery can do once we access this reservoir containing all the ideas that have ever existed. Even those, ones that have yet to be previewed, and have not been noticeable to our awareness.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

Do not take it that I have excluded your hypothesis that the deductive and inductive are perhaps simply different perspectives of the same. The difference lies with the future being considered formed or if the potential is the information that completes it with and through time. So my real contemplation rests with what is potential and is it something that the mind has privy to? So then for my perspective to meet yours would be to contend it does and my example sited serves to strengthen not weaken that contention.

The difference I guess between us lies with what one should simply believe and what should require maximum proof. When reality is the issue I would insist the maximum can only be considered. I find no despair or lack of satisfaction in this since for me the journey is more important then the destination as that truly is life.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the reassurance on my hypothesis:)

Maximum proof, means experience, and where does experience come from?

I have said, that after all routes have been exhausted, and the thinking had been set aside, what shall enter one then becoming the receptacle? Blank slate, or blackboard?:)

A whole gathering of scientists who do not follow, did follow, are partly following, LQG or STring theory, has become a mish mash of all the new things that will in all probability produce "what in quantum gravity?"

Plato:Yet, the basis of this human condition is one that has wholeness value in that such integrations are our involvement with our environment and must have a consistent method of interaction with that same environment.

Why introduce "phenomenology" if I were to say I was not lead by science? How else would one interact with the world?:) Not by, what one sees in nature, and not by what one sees in the human condition?

Best,

Plato

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

“Why introduce "phenomenology" if I were to say I was not lead by science?”

Interesting question so why not see what an expert in such philosophy such as Edmund Husseri might think of what importance this might be:

“From Logical Investigations (1900/1901) to Experience and Judgment (published in 1939), Husserl expressed clearly the difference between meaning and object. He identified several different kinds of names. For example, there are names that have the role of properties that uniquely identify an object. Each of these names express a meaning and designate the same object. Examples of this are "the victor in Jena" and "the loser in Waterloo", or "the equilateral triangle" and "the equiangular triangle"; in both cases, both names express different meanings, but designate the same object. There are names which have no meaning, but have the role of designating an object: "Aristotle", "Socrates", and so on. Finally, there are names which designate a variety of objects. These are called "universal names"; their meaning is a "concept" and refers to a series of objects (the extension of the concept). The way we know sensible objects is called "sensible intuition".”

And still the search continues today for Godel also pursued the truth though Husserl’s vision such as stated in the abstract of a paper written in 2002 by Richard Tieszen which reads:

“Gödel has argued that we can cultivate the intuition or `perception' of abstract concepts in mathematics and logic. Gödel's ideas about the intuition of concepts are not incidental to his later philosophical thinking but are related to many other themes in his work, and especially to his reflections on the incompleteness theorems. I describe how some of Gödel's claims about the intuition of abstract concepts are related to other themes in his philosophy of mathematics. In most of this paper, however, I focus on a central question that has been raised in the literature on Gödel: what kind of account could be given of the intuition of abstract concepts? I sketch an answer to this question that uses some ideas of a philosopher to whom Gödel also turned in this connection: Edmund Husserl. The answer depends on how we understand the conscious directedness toward `objects' and the meaning of the term `abstract' in the context of a theory of the intentionality of cognition.”

So I am aware of the question as it forms to be part of one that I hold central. What should be reminded is that it is still only that which is merely intuition and thus no substitute for proof. Gödel considered this could be done, so therefore who am I to quibble? However, as Gödel I would insist on proof for only then can it be considered truth.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Hi Phil,

AS to defining your position, I see how it is spelt out for you, and in the interest of defining the word in the context I used it, I should give you an example of what I mean.

I do want to thank you for continuing to define the philosophical relationship and historical meaning in relation to Godel as well.

I do give the wiki definition for consideration, and see how close you or I are on this account.

The term phenomenology in science is used to describe a body of knowledge which relates several different empirical observations of phenomena to each other, in a way which is consistent with fundamental theory, but is not directly derived from theory.

See how I explained it here.

Would you say then that I have caught the essence, as your are trying to explain to me, what you think of the basis of intuition(self-evident in the Aristotelean Arche) as it serves to speak in relation to phenomenology?

Best,