Scientist discover new form of matter!

mrchimp · Jan 29, 2004

Maskirovka said:
from what jabber posted:

so because of gravity, the electrons combine with protons to form more neutrons.

but in the case of absolute zero, there isn't super high gravity to combine the protons and electrons into more neutrons...therefore matter at absolute zero would not form neutronium because there would still be protons and electrons there...

research about super-low temperature matter usually discusses things like "electron clouds"....meaning that the electrons aren't combining with the protons.

anyway...nobody really knows what happens...i'm just trying to say that it probably wouldn't be the same situation as a neutron star because neutron star = huge amounts of energy and absolute zero = no energy.

If you had a rock orbiting the earth, it would only continue to orbit the earth if it had enough horizontal velocity in relation to the earths surface to stop it hitting the earth. If you took away it's horizontal velocity or decreased it so much that the verticle velocity was now greater, it would move towards the earths surface and hit it, therefor exiteing it's orbit.

The same thing would happen with an electron in a atom at absolute zero because there is no longer any energy to contribute to the electrons horizontal velocity, only the attraction between the proton and electron which will cause the electron to move strait down towards the nucleus's surface. What will happen when it hits the nucleus I don't know, it could split it up causeing a nuclear reaction or it could just stick to the outside of it. Some people here are suggesting it will combine with a proton to create another neutron which would make the nucleus unstable I geuss. I think at a subatomic level the normal rules of physics don't apply and instead you use quantum physics which are random so the result of such a thing happeneing could be variable.

On a side note i bet there's somone reading this with a PHD in quantum physics pissing themselves laughing. :naughty:

Sprafa · Jan 29, 2004

He was a Science teacher that I had.
He was pretty cool in the class, about 40. One day, when he was teaching absolute zero and stuff.
I asked the guy if he believed in what he was saying (that absolute zero was the lowest temp) b/c he didn't looked like he believed in what he was teaching.
He told us that, theoretically, if we could go lower absolute zero, we would propably end up with anti-matter of some sort. I pushed the subject other times and he suggested many theories but he claimed he trusted more in the anti-matter one.

Murray_H · Jan 29, 2004

The lowest recorded temperature was for 2500 sodium atoms that were cooled to within half a billionth of a degree of absolute zero (i don't know what scale the temperature was on) - the atoms were trapped by magentic fields and they subsequently formed a gas which was allowed to expand slowly. This was in September-ish 2003

Lil' Timmy · Jan 29, 2004

Murray_H said:
The lowest recorded temperature was for 2500 sodium atoms that were cooled to within half a billionth of a degree of absolute zero (i don't know what scale the temperature was on) - the atoms were trapped by magentic fields and they subsequently formed a gas which was allowed to expand slowly. This was in September-ish 2003

undoubtedly it was the Kelvin scale, since we're talking about science and absolute zero (0 K). the Celsius and Kelvin scales use the same temperature unit though.

as per the neutronium discussion, Masky (the Y looks less feminine than an I

) is right. without the extreme pressures of a collapsing stellar interior, the electron and proton would not fuse. the electrostatic force of attraction wouldn't be anywhere near enough to overcome the quark-binding in the proton to change the color of the quarks (to get a neutron). remember that p + e- => n + neutrino is an endothermic reaction, it takes an input of energy to push the rxn to the right. in collapsing stars, the pressure is the source of that energy.

as far as cooling below 0 K, i don't know anything about that.. but i suspect it's theoretically possible. however, i have heard a theory that anti-particles have been seen to behave like their normal conterparts traveling backwards in time, which is fairly

. that could just be another whocky theory though, but apparently it's been observed by some physicsts somewhere.

cool topic, i wonder if any other condensates can be made? bosons, fermions.. what else is there? maybe elementary particle condensates? that'd be cool

Dr. Shim · Jan 29, 2004

They're being smart asses.

1. Go to Google.com
2. Type in "define: absolute zero" (without quote)
3. Get your answers.

Do that with anything else you want to know.

Nothing appears for neutronium. But go here instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

The web allows anybody to look like a (smart) ass.

Maskirovka · Jan 29, 2004

lol thanks for bringing the math in...my physics knowledge is mostly intuitive...hehe

well supposedly, from reading the article, the fermions hold their quantum states...and they're made up of the same buliding blocks of everyday matter...unlike the bosons. so that's what's exciting about them.

there are a whole slew of elementary particles that have been found...who knows if they're similar.

the thought of actual true, feasible superconductors is pretty amazing...the amount of applications is incredible.

Lil' Timmy · Jan 29, 2004

Maskirovka said:
the thought of actual true, feasible superconductors is pretty amazing...the amount of applications is incredible.

sounds nice sure, but you do realize that sooner or later we're going to acidentally collapse reality though, don't you? it'll suck to cease existing, but it's not like we're going to suffer for very long. time to get drunk!
:cheers:

Lil' Timmy · Jan 29, 2004

oh btw, i don't think even a collapsed star has enough energy to overcome the strong nuclear force and convert the nuclei into free quarks.. that'd only happen as the electroweak force (a unified force itself) unifies with the strong nuclear force, afaik.. those forces underwent symmetry breaking like a few millionths of seconds after the big bang..

maybe in an actively collapsing star you could get free quarks for a period of time, but they'd surely revert to grouped quarks. oh and mr. chimp metioned somthing about quantum mechanics being random. that's not quite right. it's that the underlying principles in QM are about statistical probabilties, not absolutes. it's not random, just "fuzzy", but all within the framework of likelihoods. but i don't know enough about QM to know whether or not it's impossible for a particle to be cooled (or created at) < 0 K, or just improbable.

marksmanHL2 :) · Jan 29, 2004

Wowzors!

I do physics at As (this year) and A level (next year) but you guys really know your stuff!!

Did you just read up on it all or do some of you do physics at university or as a job?

Oh and whats a job in theoretical physics like if anyone knows?
I have heard there is a shortage of people going into the field. I could consider it if I decide for some reason that computer science isnt for me.

Sprafa · Jan 29, 2004

Read DR. Shim's post.
And Maskirovka's answer.
Thye reveal the truth.

jabberwock95 · Jan 29, 2004

Dr. Shim said:
Nothing appears for neutronium. But go here instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

The web allows anybody to look like a (smart) ass.

You do know you just gave away the source of my information, don't you? Thanks a lot, now I look like a dumbass (a surprisingly short step from a smartass).

Oh well, my secret had to come out sooner or later. Probably sooner, seeing as I left 'From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.' on both my copy-paste posts.

Maxi · Jan 29, 2004

Wow, look what I started... a thread containing stuff I'll learn in school in a year... might this mean that if I read this thread that I don't have to got to school!?

jabberwock95 · Jan 29, 2004

marksmanHL2 :) said:
Wowzors!

I do physics at As (this year) and A level (next year) but you guys really know your stuff!!

Did you just read up on it all or do some of you do physics at university or as a job?

Oh and whats a job in theoretical physics like if anyone knows?
I have heard there is a shortage of people going into the field. I could consider it if I decide for some reason that computer science isnt for me.

I haven't exactly shone in this thread (see previous post: 'What the HELL are you on about?'), but I can reveal that my physics knowledge (limited) comes from google mainly. Plus it's one of the perks of being a certified geek.

Maskirovka · Jan 29, 2004

marksmanHL2 :) said:
Did you just read up on it all or do some of you do physics at university or as a job?

just 2 semesters of physics at university and then a few books on the theoretical stuff. i keep saying this, but i'll say it again...Michio Kaku is a great writer and physicist...he has enough complexity and straight-up in-your-face physics to keep you on your toes, but puts everything in layman's terms for the parts you're less interested in...

no idea what theoretical physicists' jobs are like...but you'd better get ready to take 23894273498 math classes.

and who cares if people use google to provide info? it's a legit source for almost anything, like you said....and he even cited the website...and it was CLEARLY a copy/paste job....

...and my info came right from my brain, thx...not just regurgitating random websites.

qckbeam · Jan 29, 2004

You know, I just read that gravity is slowly seeping out of our universe, or rather the effects of gravity are beginning to reverse, at least on astronomical magnitudes. Apparently this explins why the universe is expanding. Anyone have any ideas as to whether this is bull or has some basis in reality?

marksmanHL2 :) · Jan 29, 2004

Thanks for the replies guys. I think I might look up some more stuff. Probably from google

.

Its all very interesting to me. And it irritates me to think that as an individual I know relatively nothing about the world I live in. Let alone the universe

.

One of my friends older brothers does theoretical physics and apparently its really interesting. But like you said, its all geared towards mathematical proof. Which is incredibly difficult to master on such levels

.

I think as a carrier I will stick with computing but I will definatly look more into the subject. Thanks again

Lil' Timmy · Jan 29, 2004

qckbeam said:
You know, I just read that gravity is slowly seeping out of our universe, or rather the effects of gravity are beginning to reverse, at least on astronomical magnitudes. Apparently this explins why the universe is expanding. Anyone have any ideas as to whether this is bull or has some basis in reality?

gimme a link or something so i can follow up on that. i do know that super-brane theory (related to super-string theory) allows for gravitons (the thorized gravity-force carrier particle) to travel between branes. branes are "objects" theorized by M-model string theory, just like open and closed strings are objects, and from what i understand, we live in a three dimensional brane (according to the theory). so in a sense, branes are like sub-universes. everything we can observe is confined to this brane. however, apparently.. something about gravitons allows them to traverse between branes, something about gravitons being of a higher dimensional order? (i'm not very knowledgable about string theory, maybe someone else here can elaborate or just flat-out correct me

) anyway, since gravitons are not confined to this brane (read: sub-universe) then we could lose the gravitational energy you speak of out into other branes. the flip side of this is that we could be receiving gravitons from other branes.. other dimensions/universes. i think some physicists are actively trying to detect this flux of 'phantom gravitons' (i.e. detect gravity that doesn't have an apparent source in this sub-universe).

on a barely related note: i believe there is also a thought that the big bang was not necessarily the 'beginning' of space-time for our brane, but could have been the energy release from branes "colliding". which apparently could happen again.. at anytime. time to get drunk again!
:cheers:

i get all of this (mis?)information from reading and various books/websites. i'm not a physicist so my understanding olny goes so deep. kinda a hobby i s'pose.

qckbeam · Jan 29, 2004

Lil' Timmy said:
gimme a link or something so i can follow up on that. i do know that super-brane theory (related to super-string theory) allows for gravitons (the thorized gravity-force carrier particle) to travel between branes. branes are "objects" theorized by M-model string theory, just like open and closed strings are objects, and from what i understand, we live in a three dimensional brane (according to the theory). so in a sense, branes are like sub-universes. everything we can observe is confined to this brane. however, apparently.. something about gravitons allows them to traverse between branes, something about gravitons being of a higher dimensional order? (i'm not very knowledgable about string theory, maybe someone else here can elaborate or just flat-out correct me ) anyway, since gravitons are not confined to this brane (read: sub-universe) then we could lose the gravitational energy you speak of out into other branes. the flip side of this is that we could be receiving gravitons from other branes.. other dimensions/universes. i think some physicists are actively trying to detect this flux of 'phantom gravitons' (i.e. detect gravity that doesn't have an apparent source in this sub-universe).

on a barely related note: i believe there is also a thought that the big bang was not necessarily the 'beginning' of space-time for our brane, but could have been the energy release from branes "colliding". which apparently could happen again.. at anytime. time to get drunk again!
:cheers:

i get all of this (mis?)information from reading and various books/websites. i'm not a physicist so my understanding olny goes so deep. kinda a hobby i s'pose.

That is actually exactly what the theory proposes. Gravity on the largest of scales is acting as a repulsive force for some reason. Some attribute this to Dark Energy, while others believe that it is actually a sign that the standard laws of physics just don't work at the largest scales. A new law of gravity emerges from string theory, which is one of the leading efforts to prepare a unified theory of nature. Because string theory allows for 6-7 extra dimensions on top of our three, gravity can explore other dimensions. If we had a leak it would warp the space-time continuum and cause cosmic expansion to accelerate It may even have an observable effect on planetary motion.

This is what I have pieced together from the Feb. 2004 issue of Scientific American. There is tons of great stuff in this issue, even some interesting things about how the Universe may have been shaped by sound waves. Tolkiens fictional creation story wasn't so fictional after all

jabberwock95 · Jan 29, 2004

As far as I remember my string theory, all forces and matter that make up our universe are made up of open strings, with both ends attached the the 'brane that our universe is on. Gravity is the exception. It's particle (a graviton) is a closed string, thus not attached to our brane. This means it can move between branes, which is why gravity is such a weak force (compared to others). Scientists are trying to spot a graviton leaving our dimension by smashing atoms in their particle accelorators, but so far no luck.

Source of Information: Memories of TV show on string theory.

EDIT: As for gravity beginning to reverse, I have no idea. According to relativity, gravity is a warp in the space-time continuum (never thought id have to say that), and any object with mass bends space-time around it. I don't recall anything about reverse gravity though.

dfc05 · Jan 29, 2004

jabberwock95 said:
Source of Information: Memories of TV show on string theory.

heh, i saw a tv show on string theory too. but i don't remember it

i could sort of follow along while i was watching it, but after it finished i was like, "whoa, what... umm...."
as for this thread, really interesting except it gave me a headache. too many smart people here.

iamironsam · Jan 29, 2004

Lil' Timmy said:
however, apparently.. something about gravitons allows them to traverse between branes, something about gravitons being of a higher dimensional order? (i'm not very knowledgable about string theory, maybe someone else here can elaborate or just flat-out correct me )

In string theory, gravitons are special because they actually exist outside our nine spatial dimensions (three extended and possibly looped, and six tightly curled up). Matter and the unified forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic), are though of a small loops of string. If you simplfy our nine spatial dimensions into a one dimensional line, you could say that the small loops of string are actually wrapped around the line, unable to escape. The graviton, on the other hand, isn't wrapped around this line, so it's free to roam the space around it but also able to affect the line universe simarly to the rest of the strings.

String theorists associate the "repulsive effects" of gravity to a duality of nature. It's really tough to understand, but they propose that as the universe is expanding from our point of view, from an opposite and equally viable point of view it appears to be contracting. The laws of gravity act exactly the same way in the opposite point of view, so as the universe contracts (expands to us), matter appears to gets closer together, thereby accelerating the contraction (again, expantion to us). Once the universe contracts to a certain point (from the opposite point of view), it's supposed to undergo a "great-bounce", and start expanding again. So far though, string theorists can't predict what this "great-bounce" will appear like to us who visualize the univserse as undergoing an expansion. But, by then the universe will be so immense and matter and energy so scattered that our universe won't resemble much of a universe anyway.

It's probably impossible to visualize all of this for us, but mathematically it makes alot of sense.

jabberwock95 · Jan 29, 2004

!

iamironsam said:
In string theory, gravitons are special because they actually exist outside our nine spatial dimensions (three extended and possibly looped, and six tightly curled up). Matter and the unified forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic), are though of a small loops of string. If you simplfy our nine spatial dimensions into a one dimensional line, you could say that the small loops of string are actually wrapped around the line, unable to escape. The graviton, on the other hand, isn't wrapped around this line, so it's free to roam the space around it but also able to affect the line universe simarly to the rest of the strings.

String theorists associate the "repulsive effects" of gravity to a duality of nature. It's really tough to understand, but they propose that as the universe is expanding from our point of view, from an opposite and equally viable point of view it appears to be contracting. The laws of gravity act exactly the same way in the opposite point of view, so as the universe contracts (expands to us), matter appears to gets closer together, thereby accelerating the contraction (again, expantion to us). Once the universe contracts to a certain point (from the opposite point of view), it's supposed to undergo a "great-bounce", and start expanding again. So far though, string theorists can't predict what this "great-bounce" will appear like to us who visualize the univserse as undergoing an expansion. But, by then the universe will be so immense and matter and energy so scattered that our universe won't resemble much of a universe anyway.

It's probably impossible to visualize all of this for us, but mathematically it makes alot of sense.

Wow.... The first paragraph is understandable, the second paragraph makes sense but is kind of hard to get your head around. A couple of questions. From what point of view would our universe appear to be contracting? And what would cause the 'great bounce'? Once all the matter and energy in the universe becomes evenly spread out (a long time away) what forces would cause it to start contracting? Otherwise, good explanation. Gotta go to bed now though. See ya in the morning!

:cheers:

qckbeam · Jan 30, 2004

I swear, after reading through this thread I feel so very stupid

iamironsam · Jan 30, 2004

jabberwock95 said:
Wow.... The first paragraph is understandable, the second paragraph makes sense but is kind of hard to get your head around. A couple of questions. From what point of view would our universe appear to be contracting? And what would cause the 'great bounce'? Once all the matter and energy in the universe becomes evenly spread out (a long time away) what forces would cause it to start contracting? Otherwise, good explanation. Gotta go to bed now though. See ya in the morning!

:cheers:

Man, I tried to keep it simple cause it took me two whole readings of Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and many issues of Scientific American to at least vaguely figure it out for myself. Anyway, I'll try and explain:

If string theory is correct, there are two different properties of the strings that can effect it's energy level. One is it's tension and the other is it's vibration. If you stretch the string out, it will have more tension, but less vibration. If you contract the string, it will have more vibration and less tension. It turns out that these two properties are inversly proportional, and therefore, indistinguishable as far as mathematics is concerned.

In our world the strings may appear to be getting longer and longer, and therefore the vibrational energy is getting lower and lower. But, at the same time, the tension energy is getting higher and higher. Since labeling these two properties is just a matter of convenience, who's to say what is actually occuring? So, from an opposite and equally viable point of view, the vibrational energy may be getting higher and higher, and the tension energy may be getting lower and lower, which means that the strings are getting shorter and shorter. Therefore, from the opposite point of view, the universe would appear to be contracting.

From the opposite universe's point of view, it will contract to a certain volume (Planck's length cubed, uh, very small), and instead of collapsing completely on itself will begin to expand. This expanding opposite universe could, for all intents and purposes, end up looking exactly like our universe and suffer the same fate. But again, string theorists aren't in a position to answer what exactly will happen to our expanding universe when the opposite universe begins to expand. If you go by symmetry, our universe will stop expanding at some point and begin to contract due to the gravitational forces of our opposite counterpart.

Farrowlesparrow · Jan 30, 2004

Lil' Timmy said:
sounds nice sure, but you do realize that sooner or later we're going to acidentally collapse reality though, don't you? it'll suck to cease existing, but it's not like we're going to suffer for very long. time to get drunk!
:cheers:

Who knows...maybe when reality collapses, it somehow "goes the other way" and every single little thing is the opposite of what it was. Or perhaps it will suddenly reapear again because something has to fill the void.

Its weird thinking about this sort of stuff, because it really is impossible to know. For instance, on the absolute most basic level, everything could be made up of small dancing sailors. (This is beyond and bellow all the theoretical multidimensional strings and such)

Tr0n · Jan 30, 2004

.....I'm confizzled...I think my brain is gonna explode...

mchammer75040 · Jan 30, 2004

dfc05 said:
heh, i saw a tv show on string theory too. but i don't remember it
.

Was it this one?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Thats a 3 hour documentary(you can stream them off that site) based on the book "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.

Brian Damage · Jan 30, 2004

Maskirovka said:
you're talking pure theory now...find some articles or something on it if you want to talk about it...

cause as far as i know, energy is a positive only thing...you can't have negative energy...and heat = energy...so how can you have negative heat?

i'm not saying you're wrong...i'm not an expert (though i have had 2 semesters of physics in college) but i need more info before i can take sides...or whatever...

Negative energy exists... apparently you'd need it to keep a wormhole open. And you might be able to use it to bend space and make a warp drive. The problem is separating it from positive energy...

qckbeam · Jan 30, 2004

Brian Damage said:
Negative energy exists... apparently you'd need it to keep a wormhole open. And you might be able to use it to bend space and make a warp drive. The problem is separating it from positive energy...

yep, negative energy does indeed exist, but to sustain a wormhole the size of a pinhole you would need an amount of negative energy 10 billion times more than the energy given off by the sun.

LoneDeranger · Jan 30, 2004

Guys, what in the word is negative energy? I never heard of it before. I think you might be confusing it with something else ..

Brian Damage · Jan 30, 2004

Red Dwarf - style explanation:

Negative energy is energy that wibbles in the opposite way from the way that positive energy wibbles...

Or something like that.

iamironsam · Jan 30, 2004

qckbeam said:
yep, negative energy does indeed exist, but to sustain a wormhole the size of a pinhole you would need an amount of negative energy 10 billion times more than the energy given off by the sun.

So Maski was right, negative energy is just a theoretical possibility, like macroscopic elemental particles or singularities. The fact that they're a possibility of our thus-far incomplete theories of nature doesn't necessarily mean they exist.

Brian Damage · Jan 30, 2004

Actually, I think that they can actually measure negative energy in some fashion...

iamironsam · Jan 30, 2004

Brian Damage said:
Actually, I think that they can actually measure negative energy in some fashion...

There are plenty of physical phenomina for which it's been suggested that negative energy could be the cause, but to my knowledge it's never actually been observed, detected or measured. I'm a pretty big physics buff, so I'm quite sure I would have heard about it.

Just to make sure, you're not refering to negative energy as the constituant for anti-particles, correct? Cause anti-particles (which have been detected), are made of the same "positive" energy as their counterparts. They just spin in the opposite direction.

LoneDeranger · Jan 30, 2004

I though anti particles has the opposite charge and same mass ...

Brian Damage · Jan 30, 2004

No, I'm not refferring to negative energy as a constituent of antiparticles. I'm fairly sure it can be measured, because I remember reading an article in New Scientist about a research team that were trying to isolate the stuff, but every time they managed to separate negative energy from its accompanying positive energy, the act of separation itself released positive energy.

EDIT: On a slightly off topic note, my computer's been delayed to Monday. Banging my head against the desk, here!

iamironsam · Jan 30, 2004

LoneDeranger said:
I though anti particles has the opposite charge and same mass ...

They do, the opposite charge is caused by the direction of their "spin". Sorry, I was using the quantuum mechanical meaning of the word spin, which is the physical property of elemental particles that determines their charge.

dfc05 · Jan 30, 2004

mchammer75040 said:
Was it this one?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Thats a 3 hour documentary(you can stream them off that site) based on the book "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.

yep it was that one.
weird thing is, i know i only watched one 1-hr long episode and not all 3 hours, except i have no idea which episode it was. all of the pictures they show look familiar. i remember seeing the ladies playing the cello (1st episode) but i think i also remember the "five flavors of string theory" (2nd episode) and i definitely remember the bread-slicing thing (3rd episode) yet i know i only watched one hour!! hmm.... weird.

LoneDeranger · Jan 30, 2004

iamironsam said:
They do, the opposite charge is caused by the direction of their "spin". Sorry, I was using the quantuum mechanical meaning of the word spin, which is the physical property of elemental particles that determines their charge.

Yeah .. I forgot about that.

Anyway, does anyone else remember that story where scientists at CERN were planning to create small black holes? That freaked out a bunch of people.

iamironsam · Jan 30, 2004

LoneDeranger said:
Yeah .. I forgot about that.

Anyway, does anyone else remember that story where scientists at CERN were planning to create small black holes? That freaked out a bunch of people.

Sounds like some Ice-9 type of talk. I'd be scared.

Scientist discover new form of matter!

Newbie

Tank

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Spy

Tank

Tank

Tank

Tank

Newbie

qckbeam

Guest

Spy

Newbie

qckbeam

Guest

Tank

Tank

Newbie

Tank

qckbeam

Guest

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

qckbeam

Guest

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads