Modern and Theoretical Physics

I just wanted to know if I have the right understanding of what Bose-Einstein condensates are. Are they a state of matter that you get at extremely low temperatures where the atoms that compose it become "smeared out" in a quantum mechanical sense (excuse my crude terminology )? What exactly is happening to the atoms at this low temperature?

I'm just wondering how physicists conceptualize the "point particle" - that is, the model of the fundamental particles that describes them as geometric points (or the size of geometric points). Are we supposed to imagine them literally as tiny points that couldn't logically be any smaller? I have a bit of trouble with this because I can't imagine anything physically existing unless it had some extention to it. If it didn't extend in a certain dimension, it would be infinitely thin in the other two, and therefore could only exist as a geometric concept, not a tangible thing in the world. Maybe that's just me though. I know this topic is somewhat philosophical, but…

I was just reading an old Asimov science book, which stated that at about 750,000 tons per square inch (or 10342 GPa if my calculations are correct), electron fields break down and nuclei approach one another, becoming degenerate matter. What kind of catalyst could result in fusion of degenerate matter (Deuterium, for example)? Would it simply require more pressure? If so, how much?

I'm having this debate on another forum. I'm trying to argue that the atom is the fundamental building block of matter, and therefore when you break an atom down into its particles, what you get is not necessarily matter. Take hydrogen for example: when you break hydrogen down, each atom becomes an electron and a proton. At the macroscopic level, electrons are seen as electricity, and protons are seen as proton beams (or some kind of proton plasma). In either case, what you have is not matter. However, the person I'm debating with defines matter as "that which has mass and occupies space". He goes on to say: "Matter is the substance of which a physical object is c…

Can anyone explain to me how do elements heavier than iron form?

we think that the more the protons found in an atom the more the probability for an increase in the shell of the atom. when external energy is given to an electron, an increse in its outwards movement increase causing an increase in its orbital which we call increase in its energy level. but if the protons arent much, the electrons might fly out the atom in no time. electrons slow them selves down to their individual ground state. the reason why electrons in a hydrogen atom dont have an increase in orbital or 2 different shells is because their is only 1 proton in the atom & thus any little energy given to it , it jumps off the atom. hightest energy l…

The question I would like to pose is, how does one know if what was/is produced in particle accelerators is natural or artificial? Just because we can make it in the lab does not mean it is natural. With particle accelerators we are adding a lot of energy, magnetic force and shattering natural things into fragments that don't last. How do we know we are not producing both natural and/or artificial things? For example, we can make polyethelene in the lab but it does not occur in nature. If we assume it is natural, than one can extrapolate fantasy stuff that will logically follow. For example, If we assume natural polyethylene, than maybe the oil deposits formed from t…

personally I think what they say in the first article (Carr and Giddings) is highly speculative and likely to be wrong----it depends on there really being extra dimensions as imagined by string thinkers. don't hold your breath but maybe someone wants to discuss the possibility that Carr and Giddings raise anyway the first one is: http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000CCC72-2AED-1264-980683414B7F0000 April 25, 2005 Quantum Black Holes Physicists could soon be creating black holes in the laboratory By Bernard J. Carr and Steven B. Giddings "Ever since physicists invented particle accelerators, nearly 80 years ago, they have used them f…

Hi! Today after I logged on the internet a news artical opened my eyes abit about some scientists in the U.S somehow were able to create a tremendous amount of energy in the form of heat. I thought It would be cool to post this to see some reactions from people about this. I read it carefully, It's pretty cool! But the even more interesting thing about the expirement was the fact the scientists dont know how they did it! They speculated it was some unknown energy that was the culprit. Would be cool to know how it happened. They used a Z - machine http://www.livescience.com/technology/050607_z_machine.html

Hi all, I'd like to post a link to the Larry Spring homepage. Larry Spring is a researcher in the areas of physics, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. His website, http://www.larryspring.com, offers Flash demonstrations of scientific principles along with Spring's unique discoveries. The animations cover such topics as heat, audio, electromagnetism and the speed of light. Spring, a 92-year-old inventor, has spent much of his life researching the areas of physics, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. He has created inventions such as the Mendocino Solar Brushless Motor, which uses magnetic levitation technology. He has also made numerous discoverie…

When you boil water, if you watch it from the very beginning when you apply the heat, you will notice that some very small bubbles appear at the bottem of the beaker (or whatever your boiling it in). The bubbles slowly grow larger and finally when they are too big they pop up to the surface. When the water is boiling vigorously, there is lots of bubbles all coming up from the bottem very quickly. It may sound like a stupid question but i want to know what those bubles are. I know that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen and i know about electrolysis. Is this process similair to electrolysis, splitting water up into hydrogen and oxygen?

Can anybody help me on this question,Show whether or not the following fields are conservative: E=y[math]z^2[/math][math]i[/math]+(X[math]z^2[/math]+2)j+(2xyz-1)k E=-([math]x^2[/math]-[math]y^2[/math])i-2xyj+4k I dont think if am right I want to start by comparing i follow by j and z,example y[math]z^2[/math]=-([math]x^2[/math]-[math]y^2[/math])

Hi, can you help me choose a scientist, preferably Australian, and discuss his/her work relevant to waves and communication or give me a link to his/her website which details what he/she is working on that is related to waves and communication? Thanks in advance

Can anybody explain to me what and how a phase shifter can be implemented using BJT.or give me the site which can get more details about this.

Ok so atoms make up everything in the universe. Air, water, objects, etc.., are all made out of atoms. Now if you have a glass of water, you can stick your finger into the water. If you have a solid object such as a wood door for example you cannot stick your finger into the wooden door. Is this because the atoms in the water are moving slower then that of the atoms in the door? If so that would mean that if you had an object going the same speed or faster then the speed of the atoms in a solid object the object could go right through a solid object. For example: You have a door and a ball. The ball is thrown at the door faster then the speed of the atoms …

The density (Specific Gravity) is a valuable index of chemical composition of alloys. Although, one can calculate the composition of binary alloys of known metals from their densities (Specific Gravities) in straight forward manner, but for alloys having three or more constituents it leads to a mathematically untenable situation as we have more unknowns than the equations. The densities of such multi-component alloys are always associated to a large number of probable compositions. So, mathematically it is not possible to calculate all such probabilities and then to point out authentically with certainty as to which one particular composition does actually belong to the …

I would like to look at energy from a slightly different angle. If we look at a quanta of energy it defines a specific wavelength and frequency, the product of which equals the speed of light. The specific wavelength defines a very specific measure of distance and the specific frequency defines a very specfic measure of time. This implies that both distance and time are quantitized within any quanta of energy. Most people assume that distance and time are nothing but reference variables. The fact of the matter is that these reference are based on the units we asign to these two quantitized variables and not the variables themsleves. For example, distance can be meas…

i have to do an chain reaction demonstrating 4-5 types of energy forms (heat, chemical, etc.). we can start it and then it must go on my its self. after 15 seconds, it must make a noise. im ok in science, but i don't know what to do or where to start! please help!!!

I have a brand new bar magnet rated as 1.23 Tesla by the manufacturer. However when I measured it with a meter, it gave a reading of 0.61 Tesl. Why?

Does anyone know what is the meaning of "ignoring magnet edge and end effects"?

Which dimension short or long of the magnet is in the direction of motion.

I am looking for information on piezoresistivity. I need a fluid whose resistivity changes with pressure. I tried looking it up on Wikipedia but it wasn't very helpful.

HELP! I've never posted something on this forum before, so I didn't know where to post this... Anyway, does anybody know the effect of temperature on extrinsic (both p-type and n-type) semiconductors, because I can find aboslutely nothing on the internet!!! Thanks

I have a graph of Force(mN) vs Distance(m). The error in the force is 0.0001g and the error in the distance is 0.0254mm. I have 10 points on the graph. Excel gives R^2 = 0.90. My gradient is 1.045. What is it's error? Can someone help?

Idea about black holes... 4 spacial dimensions? This is an interesting idea I had today while re-reading The Elegant Universe. As one passes through the event horizon of a black hole they are destined to meet the singularity - there is no way to avoid it so their fate is destined to end there. Could this mean that time could be thought of as a spacial direction heading in the direction of the singularity in essence giving the black hole 4 spacial dimensions but no time dimension? Thanks for the replies, Ryan Jones