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.

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)

What is the reference to "basic building blocks of life" necessary for? Same relevance as speaking of a "god" particle in a scientific publication?

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.

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.

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.

Science is finding out how God does things.

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.

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.

Oh and goody, cantdrive55 has thrown in with some EU comments! Oh joy! You guys have a 3rd member for your club.

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!

.. 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.

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 :)

.. 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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!