What is the bose-einstein condensate?how does it look like?
117710
Bose-Einstein condensation is a phenomenon that occurs at low temperatures in systems consisting of large numbers of bosons whose total number is conserved in collisions. \nUsed in the explanation of superfluidity, this phenomenon  enables significant fraction of the particles to occupy a single quantum state. No analogous phenomenon occurs for two or more fermions, which are prohibited by the Pauli exclusion principle from occupying the same quantum state. \n\nThis property of making a group of bosons into the same quantum state so they act like a single entity was done in 1995 by physicists at the Joint Institute of Laboratory Astrophysics, in Boulder, Colorado. They succeed in cooling about 2000 atoms of rubidium gas to 170 nanokelvin (170 billionths of a degree above absolute Kelvin), where they formed a Bose-Einstein condensate less than 100 micrometers across. The condensate lasted for about 15 seconds, and was cooled all the way down to 20 nanokelvin. If the technique can be extended to large aggregates, it will make single ‘quantum particles’ visible.
172024
me! Solid Liquid Gas Plasma and the newest BEC( Bose-Einstein Condensation)
297054
heres the info:\n\nNobody has ever managed to ride a beam of light, although Einstein in his youth imagined what it might be like to do so. Such thinking eventually lead to the special theory of relativity. Although it is still impossible for anyone to travel on a light ray, physicists have managed to stop a laser beam in its tracks! This amazing result builds on earlier work by a research group led by Lene Hau in which light was slowed to 38 miles per hour.\n     Light in a medium travels somewhat slower than 300,000 kilometers per second, its speed in a vacuum. This effect, known as refraction, is responsible for the bending of light in passing from one medium to another. In an ultracold gas of sodium atoms, the index of fraction varies significantly with the frequency of light. The gas is normally opaque, but when the sodium atoms are bathed with secondary "controlling" laser light of a particular frequency, the medium becomes transparent and light can pass through it. Due to the varying index of refraction, a primary laser pulse slows down when it enters the gas. It also becomes greatly compressed. A pulse with a length of one kilometer gets squeezed into a tiny unit one one-thousandth of a meter in length. When the light pulse exits the region of sodium atoms, it expands back to its original length zooming off at 300,000 kilometers per second again. \n     To bring the light to a standstill, Dr. Hau and her co-workers turn off the secondary controlling laser light after the impinging laser beam has entered the ultra cold sample. The medium becomes opaque. One would think that the laser pulse would be absorbed by the sodium atoms. Instead, the information about the light wave is encoded in the atoms. When the controlling laser light is turned back on, the atoms reconstruct the laser beam. It continues its propagation though medium and then out the sample. If the time during which the beam is halted is not too long, the shape of the reconstructed beam coincides to a high degree with the original shape.\n     Imagine a train one kilometer in length consisting of thousands of cars traveling at 300,000 kilometers per second. Suddenly, the track becomes rough, causing the front engine and subsequent cars to come to a screeching slowdown. With the train now moving at 38 miles per hour, the cars pile up and are crushed to the size of an ant. Then a magician snaps her finger and the train disappears but leaves an imprint on the dirt between the tracks. With a second snap of the finger, the imprint vanishes while the ant-sized train reappears and moves forward at 38 miles per hour again. Then the train encounters smooth track. The engine speeds off at 300,000 kilometers per second, and as subsequent cars enter the smooth track region, they too rapidly speed off so that the entire accordion-like structure unfolds. Remarkably, little damage to the train occurs.\n     "Impossible!" You say. Well, in the case of a train, it is impossible because the deformation of metal is an irreversible process. But light is more accommodating and can be stretched or compressed more readily. Still, Dr. Hau's team has done what seems to be magical. Why isn't the light absorbed and lost? How can the atomic information reconstruct the beam? Why isn't the beam greatly distorted when it leaves the sample? The answers to these questions reside in the miracles of quantum mechanics, the dynamics that control the microscopic world of atoms and their interactions with light.\n     A major technological breakthrough has occurred. If low cost means are found to manipulate light in the above manner, then computers and communications will be revolutionized. One can imagine using light instead of electrons to perform computational processes. Such photonic machines would calculate at many times the rate of current computers.
77624
In my opionion, It is more like a very tightly compacted wave, of which light is a part. When matter is released back to it original wave state it emites, heat wave, sound wave, and a full spectrum of radiation waves from micro, to light, to gamma and everything that surrounds that visible and invisible spectrum.
382672
In Physics there is a sub-field called Quantum Physics... this field is the study of motion patterns by the smallest particles of matter.  The Quantum Physicists say that they have got a particle that is so small that even with the Super Collider they cannot SEE this particle... they only can see the energy pattern of this "particle."  They say... they... "have a dance, but no dancer."  This is getting close to Metaphysics... which some may call the spiritual realm... or maybe the "ethers."  Some of the physicists call this small unseen particle... "The God Particle."  There is a book by a physicist named Leon Lederman with the title:  "The God Particle."  Interesting reading... I have no knowledge of this Theory = Quantum Aether Dynamics or of J R RedBourne.  So I cannot comment on that part of your question.  But I like Leon Lederman's book. Go to your local library and see if it is there... it is an interesting book, and very understandable as it was written for the layman with no great foundational knowledge in Physics.  Hope this helps!
1150780
In fact, there is a great deal of evidence showing it is not. What little we know of the dark matter and energy is that they are not composed of baryons. But anti-protons *are* bosons. There are some candidates for the dark matter (axions are a good bet) but anti-matter in the usual sense is ruled out by observation.
202172
It hasn't been observed, if that's what you mean by proven, but it is a widely accepted idea because the theoretical underpinnings are very solid.  I don't think anyone contests the idea much these days.  If we're lucky, when the LHC at CERN comes on line in late 2007, we may be able to make microsingularities and watch them evaporate, giving direct proof of Hawking radiation.
632020
That we've found so far, anyway. The Michael Crichton book Timeline (not the movie, dear God not the movie) talks about light particle/waves as indicative of the existence of parallel universes. It's very interesting. Not only do they exhibit particle/wave behavior but no one can observe a photon where it is, only where it was. And sometimes it seems to have disappeared entirely only to reappear in a different place. Makes me wish I was smart enough to full grasp quantum physics.
1106566
[edit]\nPhysics\nMain Article: Nobel Prize in Physics \n2005 Roy J. Glauber, John L. Hall, Theodor W. Hänsch\n\n2004 David J. Gross, H. David Politzer, Frank Wilczek\n\n2003 Alexei A. Abrikosov, Vitaly L. Ginzburg, Anthony J. Leggett\n\n2002 Raymond Davis Jr., Masatoshi Koshiba, Riccardo Giacconi\n\n2001 Eric A. Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle, Carl E. Wieman\n\n2000 Zhores I. Alferov, Herbert Kroemer, Jack S. Kilby\n\n1999 Gerardus 't Hooft, Martinus J.G. Veltman\n\n1998 Robert B. Laughlin, Horst L. Störmer, Daniel C. Tsui\n\n1997 Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, William D. Phillips\n\n1996 David M. Lee, Douglas D. Osheroff, Robert C. Richardson\n\n1995 Martin L. Perl, Frederick Reines\n\n1994 Bertram N. Brockhouse, Clifford G. Shull\n\n1993 Russell A. Hulse, Joseph H. Taylor Jr.\n\n1992 Georges Charpak\n\n1991 Pierre-Gilles de Gennes\n\n1990 Jerome I. Friedman, Henry W. Kendall, Richard E. Taylor\n\n1989 Norman F. Ramsey, Hans G. Dehmelt, Wolfgang Paul\n\n1988 Leon M. Lederman, Melvin Schwartz, Jack Steinberger\n\n1987 J. Georg Bednorz, K. Alex Müller\n\n1986 Ernst Ruska, Gerd Binnig, Heinrich Rohrer\n\n1985 Klaus von Klitzing\n\n1984 Carlo Rubbia, Simon van der Meer\n\n1983 Subramanyan Chandrasekhar, William A. Fowler\n\n1982 Kenneth G. Wilson\n\n1981 Nicolaas Bloembergen, Arthur L. Schawlow, Kai M. Siegbahn\n\n1980 James Cronin, Val Fitch\n\n1979 Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, Steven Weinberg\n\n1978 Pyotr Kapitsa, Arno Penzias, Robert Woodrow Wilson\n\n1977 Philip W. Anderson, Sir Nevill F. Mott, John H. van Vleck\n\n1976 Burton Richter, Samuel C.C. Ting\n\n1975 Aage N. Bohr, Ben R. Mottelson, James Rainwater\n\n1974 Martin Ryle, Antony Hewish\n\n1973 Leo Esaki, Ivar Giaever, Brian D. Josephson\n\n1972 John Bardeen, Leon Neil Cooper, Robert Schrieffer\n\n1971 Dennis Gabor\n\n1970 Hannes Alfvén, Louis Néel\n\n1969 Murray Gell-Mann\n\n1968 Luis Alvarez\n\n1967 Hans Bethe\n\n1966 Alfred Kastler\n\n1965 Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger, Richard P. Feynman\n\n1964 Charles H. Townes, Nicolay G. Basov, Aleksandr M. Prokhorov\n\n1963 Eugene Wigner, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, J. Hans D. Jensen\n\n1962 Lev Landau\n\n1961 Robert Hofstadter, Rudolf Mössbauer\n\n1960 Donald A. Glaser\n\n1959 Emilio Segrè, Owen Chamberlain\n\n1958 Pavel A. Cherenkov, Il´ja M. Frank, Igor Y. Tamm\n\n1957 Chen Ning Yang, Tsung-Dao Lee\n\n1956 William B. Shockley, John Bardeen, Walter H. Brattain\n\n1955 Willis E. Lamb, Polykarp Kusch\n\n1954 Max Born, Walther Bothe\n\n1953 Frits Zernike\n\n1952 Felix Bloch, E. M. Purcell\n\n1951 John Cockcroft, Ernest T.S. Walton\n\n1950 Cecil Powell\n\n1949 Hideki Yukawa\n\n1948 Patrick M.S. Blackett\n\n1947 Edward V. Appleton\n\n1946 Percy W. Bridgman\n\n1945 Wolfgang Pauli\n\n1944 Isidor Isaac Rabi\n\n1943 Otto Stern\n\n1942 No prize awarded. 1/3 of the prize money for this year was allocated to the Main Fund, 2/3 to the Special Fund of the physics section.\n\n1941 No prize awarded. 1/3 of the prize money for this year was allocated to the Main Fund, 2/3 to the Special Fund of the physics section.\n\n1940 No prize awarded. 1/3 of the prize money for this year was allocated to the Main Fund, 2/3 to the Special Fund of the physics section.\n\n1939 Ernest Lawrence\n\n1938 Enrico Fermi\n\n1937 Clinton Davisson, George Paget Thomson\n\n1936 Victor F. Hess, Carl D. Anderson\n\n1935 James Chadwick\n\n1934 No prize awarded. 1/3 of the prize money for this year was allocated to the Main Fund, 2/3 to the Special Fund of the physics section.\n\n1933 Erwin Schrödinger, Paul A.M. Dirac\n\n1932 Werner Heisenberg\n\n1931 No prize awarded. The prize money for this year was allocated to the Special Fund of the physics section.\n\n1930 Venkata Raman\n\n1929 Louis de Broglie\n\n1928 Owen Willans Richardson\n\n1927 Arthur H. Compton, C.T.R. Wilson\n\n1926 Jean Baptiste Perrin\n\n1925 James Franck, Gustav Hertz\n\n1924 Manne Siegbahn\n\n1923 Robert A. Millikan\n\n1922 Niels Bohr\n\n1921 Albert Einstein\n\n1920 Charles Edouard Gui
1040813
Plasmas:\nPlasmas are a lot like gases, but the atoms are different because they are made up of free electrons and ions of the element. You don't find plasmas too often when you walk around. They aren't things that happen regularly on Earth. If you have ever heard of the Northern Lights or ball lightning, you might know that those are types of plasmas. It takes a very special environment to keep plasmas going. They are different and unique from the other states of matter.\n\nBose-Einstein condensates:\nThis state of matter was the only one created while you were alive. In 1995, two scientists, Cornell and Weiman, finally created this new state of matter. Two other scientists, Satyendra Bose and Albert Einstein, had predicted it in the 1920. They didn't have the equipment and facilities to make it happen in the 20s. Now we do. If plasmas are super hot and super excited atoms, the atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) are total opposites. They are super-unexcited and super-cold atoms.\n\nHope these will help. :D
340809
Quantum Physics tries to explain the mIcrocosm…the atomic and subatomic level of the world. Einstein focused more on the mAcrocosm; hence, his theory of relativity. Even though the equations that Einstein came up with work on the mAcrocosm (motion of planets and behavior of light and gravity)…they don’t work on the subatomic level (electrons and quasars and such). And those that work on the subatomic level, can not be applied to the mAcrocosm. BUT, and this is important: you must remember that the microcosm FORMS the macrocosm and the macrocosm can not exist without its microcosm blueprint (sort of like cells together making ‘the body’). You would THINK that the microcosm world would ‘mirror’ the laws of the macrocosm world that it FORMULATES…but apparently they don’t…and there lies the conundrum…and that is why no one so far has been able to come up with ONE equation that can apply to both worlds! For example in this mAcrocosm that you and I readily and directly experience; cause PRECEDES effect…in other words, you hit the glass (cause) and it falls and shatters (effect)…in the subatomic world, that is not the case. In the subatomic world, effect PRECEDES the cause or is simultaneous with it! Also, in this ‘BIG’ world, things don’t happen (come to being) through thought or intention alone…you must exert an effort for them to occur (like building a bridge…you have to physically carry materials and put them together…etc.) In the mIcrocosm, there is something called the ‘observer effect’ which means, depending on the observer’s thoughts / expectations (most cases the scientist observing the experiment) the outcome is determined. For example, if you observe light as a ‘particle’ it acts like a particle. If you observe it as a wave; it acts like a wave, but never both ‘at the same time’. That’s another ‘conundrum’ of quantum physics…is light a wave or a particle since it acts like both. Yes, I know! Quantum physics is a fascinating subject. I urge you read up on it. ‘Other Worlds’ by Paul Davies is a GREAT book to begin with…followed by Brian Greene’s ‘The Elegant Universe’ which is ‘slightly’ harder to follow; but both are worth the read :)
278842
Disregard butchtroll, he doesn't know anything and is obviously just guessing.\n\nA absolute zero, although practically impossible to reach, it is theoretically very easy to calculate. Just assume that all particles have a velocity of zero, and calculate the lowest potential structure according to the lennard-jones potential and possible electro-static potential. The result concludes a structure quite similar to crystals at living-room temperature.\n\nButch - practically as in cannot be obtained through anything but theoretical experiments. Although, temperatures can actually be achieved that is sufficiently low to allow, in some degree, to regard matter as having a temperature of absolute zero. Theoretically, if such matter should exist, it would affect the universe in any significant way. That the universe cease to exist if absolute zero was reached, would be a prerequisite, not a result. You can do that math yourself and see if it is possible - or borrow the particle similator program I've written.\n\nmore: I find it funny that you preach about humility, after calling me an idiot. Especially after mixing different types of energy together and calling the lot for temperature. Sure, if an atom contain absolutely no energy, it would collapse into a black hole. But temperature is NOT a measure of total energy.\n\nyet more: Still you call me an idiot, and still you attempt to call humiliary high ground. I'm not saying I know everything myself - but wheter temperature is all energy, or just momentum of "particles", is pretty far from'everything'. As a student in nanotechnology, I can honestly say that, you sir, are blinded by your own feeble knowledge of physics. Temperature of matter is usually described as the summation of vibrational, momentum, rotational energy and phonons. NOT electronic excitation or any kind of potential energy.\n\nYour question was inane, and I *did* answer it. Nothing would happen with the universe if a cloud of hydrogen would suddenly come into existence with a temperature of zero kelvin. If you don't understand what I'm writing, just say so, instead of stating that I didn't answer your question.\n\nWhat do you attempt to prove with your citation? You seem lost, sir?\n\nWhat do you need a value of? What the temperature of the solid hydrogen would be after 1 second? Sorry, but I don't care enough to calculate how much a certain amount of hydrogen crystal would increase in temperature from background radiation.
642989
Magnetic particle? Are you thinking of a magnetic monopole? They are conjectured, but no observation has been verified (there is an intriguing case from Canberra, though). However, from experiments, we know that no monopole with mass under 600GeV exists.\n\nA phonon is a quantized sound wave (state of vibration) in a crystal, so there is no direct relation.
658260
A bose-einstein condensate occurs a very low temperatures, about 4K in Helium.  When helium forms a condensate it stops following many physical rules.  For example, a bose-einstein condensate can go up the side of the container that it is in against the force of gravity.  The paulli exclusion principle, one molecule per quantum state, breaks down as well. It is found in very few laboritories, and as of yet has no uses, but it probably will eventually.
37926
emilyrose gave a very thoughtful answer. \n\nReality on a small scale is quite a bit different than what we experience on our scale (the so-called "macroscopic scale"). I might make a few comments:\n\n1. Not only do the electrons in an atom have some wavelike properties, but the nucleus of an atom does as well. \n\n2. A "vacuum" is actually not really empty space, but a seething mass of virtual particles appearing and disappearing a very short time later (the Casimir effect is a strange force that is evidence for this mysterious force).
31466
Mit has open courseware on their website.  They've been videotaping the classes, but they don't have this for the quantum physics classes yet.  If you just want basic information, then you can check out some of the other physics.
756806
This may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_atom