sterlingda writes "Physicists at the University of Pittsburgh have demonstrated a new form of matter that melds the characteristics of lasers and superconductors. The work introduces a new method of moving energy from one point to another as well as a low-energy means of producing a light beam like that from a laser. The new state is a solid filled with a collection of energy particles known as 'polaritons' that have been trapped and slowed using a technique similar to that used to produce a Bose-Einstein condensate. The work is published in the May 18 issue of Science (subscription required to read beyond the abstract)."
Or the kinds of weapons we see in Star Wars and Star Trek. Sounds a lot like blasters (solid "chunks" of laser) phasers (variably interacts as a solid or laser) and shields to me.
Hi, I want to explain something here. This thing produces normal lasers, that are the same as the lasers we already know and love. The difference is that it can produce them using much less power input. The traditional method of electron population inversion requires more energy input for the amount of laser beam you get out. This new polariton method can make the same amount of laser for less energy inputted.
For laser-confinement fusion, you'd want that kind of energy savings. Or SDI, or that ballistic missile interception laser mounted on that Boeing aircraft.
I'm even wondering if those desktop particle accelerators based on laser-wakefield effect wouldn't also benefit.
Anything that requires a high-power laser beam could benefit from this new polariton laser method. A turbine is already going round and round like a polariton, and is distinct from the discrete reciprocating motion of a piston, or the population inversion of electrons.
Personally I don't find this development all that interesting. Now, if they can create a form of matter which melds lasers and freakin' sharks, we'd have something...
Selective Laser Melting. It's a relatively new rapid prototyping technology which uses laser beams to melt powdered metal or plastic, so that it can be formed layer-by-layer into 3D parts.
So this would be an example of what this polariton laser would be good for, because the polaritons can generate the laser much more efficiently than conventional electron population inversion. Your power requirements would be reduced by 90%, and possibly even more.
So this thing is like a BEC, but it's made of "excitons" (electron-hole pairs) plus the photons causing the excitation. But these "polaritons" are so short-lived, I'm wondering what this invention could be practically used for. They're calling it a "quasi-equilibrium" system, because it's more of a dynamic equilibrium.
Could this "polariton condensate" be used to probe "quantum foam", or spacetime, or something? They've already said it's more energy efficient than a laser. Surely something this exotic must be able to confer on us some useful ability, that it would have some practical application -- even if only for research purposes.
When I think of an exciton-photon combination as compared to electron inversion, then it reminds me of the difference between a turbine and a piston engine. This "polariton" thingy (exciton-photon combo) would be more efficient than the laser in a way that's analogous to how the turbine is more efficient than the piston explosion. I'd think that the key to maximizing its advantage is by stimulating the excitons with the highest energy photons possible. That way you're maximizing your energy savings from this more efficient process.
Hmm... so maybe it might be useful for laser-confinement fusion after all. Maybe it could be used for laser-based rapid-manufacturing, etc. Whatever it is, you'd probably want it for a short-range application, due to the brief lifespan of the polaritons.
Not trying to troll, but I really fear that all such experiments should be delayed until after humanity moved over to other planets so that any black hole accidents resulting from desire to get a Nobel Prize or just extra funding won't kill us all but only those involved in them.
Nah, you don't need to worry. This is a special class of micro black holes that exist more on the quantum level, so they behave differently. There isn't enough mass on Earth (probably in the solar system) to create a black hole of the sort that would give you a really bad day. It's sort of like our fusion experiments... without enough mass for the reaction to power itself through gravity, they aren't naturally self-sustaining. These micro black holes don't have the mass to influence anything or to exist
I don't think it works like that. Big black holes like the one at the center of the galaxy were made by lots of mass crushing together until it bent space enough to become a black hole. But, it's the mass that's dangerous, not the black-hole-ness. If you create a black hole without the mass then what's going to pull stuff past the schwarzschild radius? If it has the mass of a few atoms that were crushed together to form a black hole, nothing else could get close enough to it to become part of the black hole
Actually, our Universe could be inside the event horizon of a black hole. What is more, as the Universe spreads, the rate of retreat increases; eventually, objects retreat fast enough that light cannot travel between them. It has been speculated that in several billion years, our local group of galaxies will find itself alone, forever isolated from the galaxies we see today.
Somebody has to caution these guys to sound as little as possible like Star Trek lines from Geordie. I think the deflector dish was reconfigured (in minutes) to emit polaritons at least once. Also, my spell checker just flagged "polaritons" as not even being a word.
Of course spell checker flagged it. What part of "new state of matter" didn't process when reading TFA? Spell checkers don't magically learn new words.
And Star Trek is just a prime example of art imitating life. Most of those words do exist in the field. They're often used incorrectly to throw around science-y sounding terms, but would they continue to do it if it didn't actually sound like scientific jargon?
Sigh. From the rest of the post, you might have imagined I was joking. Or maybe criticisms of a show that's been off the air for over a decade are very serious posts to some people. I am sure that many dedicated Trek fans applaud your spirited defence. I apologize unreservedly for the criticism. Please don't hurt me.
I could not possibly care less about criticisms of Star Trek. I simply assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were some 80s baby who didn't know that the science words came first, and that it's not a bunch of geeky scientists sitting around and naming things after random crap uttered by actors.
I imagined you were joking, but this being Slashdot, I erred on the side of idiocy.
It didn't say in TFA - does anybody know how dense these polaritrons are in the superfluid? Being, apparently, energy efficient to create, I'm wondering if this would make a good energy storage device - something to run those electric cars, even. It's hard to conjecture without a clue about how tight they're packed in, though.
I'm also pleasantly surprised to read that Bell Labs is still doing basic science - urban legend was that went out with the AT&T breakup.
Oh, and if anybody from physorg.com is reading, there's a strange display thing going on where ", " is replaced by "-" (not even space emdash space) in many sentences, making clause boundries in the sentences appear awkwardly as pseudo-hyphenated words.
I'm wonder what the most promising practical applications of this new matter could be. What are its constraints and limitations? How much energy-density or power-density can it handle?
Since lasers are being used in experimental development of confinement fusion, and since this polariton-filled matter is supposedly more energy efficient, I'd wonder if this new matter could be used to facilitate laser-confinement fusion.
Or is it just meant for low-power applications? DVD-players, maybe?
Here are my quick thoughts. I am not a physicist however.
It would seem to me that polaritrons would be short-lived and hence could only exist in certain conditions It would seem to me you might be able to use them for high-efficiency lasers. I don't know about superconductors though-- seems like the energy going in required to maintain the state would be a good way to negate the benefits from a superconductor....
A form of matter with the properties of a laser? Does that mean E=mc2 still holds or is this the form of matter that ghosts are made out, allowing a person's hand to pass through the matter when it's in a low energy state? Or _perhaps_ it was supposed to say something along the lines of "properties of substances that are used to generate lasers"?
No, they meant with the properties of a laser [beam]. The polaritons are coherent when they're confined, just* like photons are coherent in a laser beam.
Using specially designed optical structures with nanometer-thick layers-which allow polaritons to move freely inside the solid-Snoke and his colleagues captured the polaritons in the form of a superfluid. In superfluids and in their solid counterparts, superconductors, matter consolidates to act as a single energy wave rather than as individual particles.
I suppose saying "beam" or talking about the photons in the laser beam would have been slightly more clear to the people who didn't read the article, but it's hardly something poorly written enough to be complaining about.
IAA physicist and material scientist, but I don't know enough about superconductors to really make worthwhile comments on that analo
Again, a more energy-efficient laser sounds like it could be used for nuclear fusion, or even just for more energy efficient consumer electronics (eg. DVD players)
Isn't Laser-TV supposed to be coming out this Xmas? I'd read that Novalux is working on improving the power of their Necsel laser modules for that purpose. If polariton lasers are 10 times more efficient than laser diodes and can operate at room temp, then maybe they'd
Good luck combining fermions with photons. Photons are very much a type of boson, which means they're very much _not_ fermions. Perhaps the biologists should just combine mitochondria and chromosomes too, you know, to simplify the math?
Good luck combining fermions with photons. Photons are very much a type of boson, which means they're very much _not_ fermions.
Photon: Integer spin: Boson.
Electron: Half-integer spin: Fermion.
Hole: Half-integer spin: Fermion.
Electron-hole pair: Sum of two half-integer spins = integer spin: Boson.
So an electron-hole PAIR and a photon of the excitation energy hanging around in a crystal full of electrons can be duals - "flipping back-and-forth" or forming a quantum-indeterminancy of which it "really i
Sheesh, you're spewing out pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo like a half-baked Star Trek dialog, and complaining when someone calls you on your BS. You're telling me that fermions are not subatomic bundles of energy?
Subatomic? Bundle of energy? What the hell are you talking about? The ONLY property that defines whether a 'particle' is a fermion or not is whether it has half-integer spin. And the word 'particle' really refers to is a quantization, which can be any quantized excitation, doesn't mean subatomic.
Or, then again, maybe they won't find that new particles fit neatly with what has been established. Theoretical physicists have been trying to unify everything for the last 150 years - the current popular attempt is called string theory. It's not doing so well in the realm of "making useful or even testable predictions," though.
Guys, "Homeless" here *does not know what he is talking about*. Please stop modding him up. Both fermions and bosons are quantum fields (i.e. wave or particles but neither really), but their properties are vastly different for reasons that a real physicist IS taught in 1st year undergrad - The difference between spin odd-integer/2 and spin integer fields is vitally important and fundamental to physics. The ONLY KNOWN WAY to transform bosons into fermions at a fundamental level (as opposed to by mere aggr
Kludges by people who don't know how to refactor their equations? I guess you're hiding the Grand Unified Theory from us, since it's clearly easy and stuff. I bet it's the conspiracy by the burgeiose nouveau-riche oppressive freedom-hating capitalist pig-dogs that's preventing you from telling us, isn't it? I bet they also gave Stephen Hawking ALS to keep him down, too.
Maybe quantum mechanics invites bipolar trolls. If someone claims a wave, they can argue a particle. If someone claims a particle, they can argue a wave. If some claims duality then they can argue ambiguity.
You're totally confusing spin with particle/wave duality, which makes one really wonder what the hell you are talking about. You may be impressing the moderators with your blatantly-incorrect usage of fancy techie-sounding words, but it's quite obvious to the physicists here that you have no clue what you're talking about. And the irony is that you're guilty of that 'whoring out' which you are accusing actual physicists of.
Your original quote misconstrued the nature of fermionic vs bosonic natures of quanta, which the GP clarified, and you resorted to a wikipedia quote, which is quite out of context.
Irrespective of particle-wave nature, photons are spin-1 bosons! Why the hell are you bringing particle/wave duality into the picture at all?
All I suggested is that, rather than pronouncing new unprecedented discoveries every month, maybe the physicists ought to look into solidifying their dual wave-particle of photons. They'll find that all these other "new particles" and "new forms of matter" fit neatly with a which has been established for at least fifteen years.
If you had an inkling of the physics research, including theoretical, simulational, and experimental, that goes on in "highly-correlated" condensed-matter systems, you'd understand that the framework for identifying the various quanta and behaviors are well-defined within the basic "standard model" for realizable laboratory conditions. And this has been well-understood for longer than 15 years, what exactly is this 15-year time frame you're quoting anyway?
What is interesting is how modern 'exotic' materials can exhibit quanta with different charge, spin, phonon, etc properties than 'plain vanilla' systems. See spin-charge separation in a Luttinger Liquid for an older example. Armchair scientists like you may prefer to use the recent buzzword of emergent behavior if you like, although I don't agree Laughlin's mindview on the whole field of emergence.
This business with polaritons in semiconductors sounds a lot like the way phonons [wikipedia.org] in crystal lattices work.
A phonon is a sort of derived particle. It isn't a fundamental particle in itself but it represents a quantized mode of vibration in a lattice of more fundamental particles. But as a quasiparticle it exhibits the same types of behavior as other particles subject to quantum mechanics.
Their classical analogue would be standing waves in a crystal lattice. These lose part of their classical wave-like character and become more particle-like when the vibrational energy in the crystal decreases to near zero. The vibrational energy at extremely low temperatures takes the form of a few phonons bouncing around in the crystal like free particles in a hollow box. Phonons are ultimately responsible for all conduction of sound and heat through solids.
A polariton [wikipedia.org] is apparently the coupling of a photon with one of these, and they're claiming to have gotten interesting collective behavior. I'm not sure if this is a "new state of matter" but we may get some cool toys out of it.
Phonons are ultimately responsible for all conduction of sound and heat through solids. I should have said this for insulators- in conductors the electrons are responsible for most conductivity.
This is really one of the most ignorant posts I've seen.
The community "should spend some time" combining photons, fermions, gluons etc. because "it would probably make much of the math a lot simpler."
Ever heard of string theory? The community has been spending an ENORMOUS amount of time trying to combine this things into a common picture. And trust me - it doesn't make the math simpler. Just ask Ed Witten.
You want "polaritons, and fermions, and gluons, and quarks, and mesons, and bosons, all together with photons". Tell you what, I'll get right on that. After all, it's only a matter of coming up with a Grand Unified Theory, and how hard could that possibly be? Why hasn't anyone taken this simple step yet? How could we, the physics community, have overlooked such an obvious solution to the problem of proliferating subatomic particles? It's such an easy way to win a Nobel Prize and have my name right up the
We didn't end up with a million different atoms, atomitons, atomites, and gluoneoatomiquarks. .... ...these polaritons, and fermions, and gluons, and quarks, and mesons, and bosons, all together with photons.
I find the juxtaposition of those two statements to be hysterical. The fact that they can claim to have found (yet another) "new form of matter" is just another point in the indictment of how broken the Standard Model really is. The dirty secret is that the math happens to work and give some predictiv
Over the last ten years I've watched the news releases about physics--and it seems that physics is wh0ring itself out just for news headlines.
Perhaps you should actually read the scientific journal articles if you're serious about this, instead of reading the popular reviews which are by definition "dumbed down" such that non-PhD's can understand in layman's terms what is going on.
Did they really demonstrate a new form of matter? What did we have at one time? Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. We could have mixtures of the forms--like a suspension was a fine mixture of a liquid with a gas.
Did you actually read the JOURNAL article, or are you just extrapolating bullshit based on a popular science review of the actual journal article? If you actually didn't think physicists were 'whoring themselves out' your post would make you look significantly less ignorant.
You quote liquids and gases as being two distinct forms of matter, yet they're actually the same if you look on a phase-diagram plot. So why do you list them as being two separate phases?
Oh wait, that's right, you can go CONTINUOUSLY from liquid to gas, without any phase transition, along a proper thermodynamic trajectory of course! What makes them look like separate states of matter is whether you have a phase transition as you alter the system. And the phase-transition line (in pressure-temperature space) actually ends in a critical point (see here [chemicalogic.com], such that you can choose a proper p-T trajectory either WITH or WITHOUT the phase transition.
Would you call a superconductor a new state of matter? It certainly is quite different from the metallic state, with a well-defined phase transition as you cool below Tc. What about a Bose-Einstein Condensate? What about a phase-transition from superconducting-like nature to BEC? These have all been well studied, and all are acknowledged as states of matter.
The fact that you question whether it's a new state of matter, and you refer merely solid, liquid, gas, and plasma without any reference to phase transitions, really shows your limited understanding of this subject. And that makes it all the more humorous that you actually go on to claim physicists are whoring themselves out.
The fact that you question whether it's a new state of matter, and you refer merely solid, liquid, gas, and plasma without any reference to phase transitions, really shows your limited understanding of this subject.
"State of matter" doesn't really have a strict definition in terms of phase transitions: most phase transitions don't give rise to new states of matter, and one state of matter may be transformed into another one without a phase transition (as you yourself observe).
A 'state of matter' is typically regarded as having different macroscopic properties brought about by a phase transition. Of course ice/water is a great example, but superconductor/metal in aluminum is another example as well. If you really don't agree with this, then you'd consider gas and plasma to be the same state of matter (a point that the original poster disagrees since (s)he specifically mentioned gas/plasma being distinct states). However, regarding the 'state' itself, it refers to the collective
A 'state of matter' is typically regarded as having different macroscopic properties brought about by a phase transition.
Typically (i.e., to most people), a "state of matter" is regarded to be what people learn in school to be a state of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and sometimes plasma. That definition is what counts in a press release to the general public. If a press release talks about a "new state of matter", it implies that something has been added to that list, or at least obviously belongs on that
What a dumbass you are. State transitions don't define states of matter; many state transitions don't lead to new states of matter at all. Go back to your books.
Quantum electrodynamics is one of the most established, experimentally backed and well understood fields in all of science. The results from current models do not explain links to other theories very well, but in the isolated realm of their operation, they give answers with error ranges analogous to measuring the distance from here to the moon within a few millimetres of error margin. As for combining particles, I think they may have thought about that. In fact, most of Quantum Physics began as a manner of s
Woohoo... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woohoo... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ordinary Lasers, But More Efficient (Score:5, Interesting)
For laser-confinement fusion, you'd want that kind of energy savings.
Or SDI, or that ballistic missile interception laser mounted on that Boeing aircraft.
I'm even wondering if those desktop particle accelerators based on laser-wakefield effect wouldn't also benefit.
Anything that requires a high-power laser beam could benefit from this new polariton laser method. A turbine is already going round and round like a polariton, and is distinct from the discrete reciprocating motion of a piston, or the population inversion of electrons.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Selective Laser Melting (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.mcp-group.com/rpt/rpttslm.html [mcp-group.com]
Selective Laser Melting. It's a relatively new rapid prototyping technology which uses laser beams to melt powdered metal or plastic, so that it can be formed layer-by-layer into 3D parts.
So this would be an example of what this polariton laser would be good for, because the polaritons can generate the laser much more efficiently than conventional electron population inversion. Your power requirements would be reduced by 90%, and possibly even more.
Parent
Seriously -- Advantages? Applications? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/5/17/1 [physicsweb.org]
So this thing is like a BEC, but it's made of "excitons" (electron-hole pairs) plus the photons causing the excitation. But these "polaritons" are so short-lived, I'm wondering what this invention could be practically used for. They're calling it a "quasi-equilibrium" system, because it's more of a dynamic equilibrium.
Could this "polariton condensate" be used to probe "quantum foam", or spacetime, or something? They've already said it's more energy efficient than a laser.
Surely something this exotic must be able to confer on us some useful ability, that it would have some practical application -- even if only for research purposes.
When I think of an exciton-photon combination as compared to electron inversion, then it reminds me of the difference between a turbine and a piston engine. This "polariton" thingy (exciton-photon combo) would be more efficient than the laser in a way that's analogous to how the turbine is more efficient than the piston explosion. I'd think that the key to maximizing its advantage is by stimulating the excitons with the highest energy photons possible. That way you're maximizing your energy savings from this more efficient process.
Hmm... so maybe it might be useful for laser-confinement fusion after all. Maybe it could be used for laser-based rapid-manufacturing, etc.
Whatever it is, you'd probably want it for a short-range application, due to the brief lifespan of the polaritons.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Bozos will blow up this planet one day (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bozos will blow up this planet one day (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ya sarcastic bastard.
Re:Bozos will blow up this planet one day (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But, it's the mass that's dangerous, not the black-hole-ness. If you create a black hole without the mass then what's going to pull stuff past the schwarzschild radius? If it has the mass of a few atoms that were crushed together to form a black hole, nothing else could get close enough to it to become part of the black hole
Re: (Score:2)
In 10^-42 seconds, according to this article: A black hole ate my planet [kressworks.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, as for cosmic rays creating black holes, you might have a look at: Physical Review Online Archive Physical Review Online Arc [aps.org]
Polaritons? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Star Trek is just a prime example of art imitating life. Most of those words do exist in the field. They're often used incorrectly to throw around science-y sounding terms, but would they continue to do it if it didn't actually sound like scientific jargon?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagined you were joking, but this being Slashdot, I erred on the side of idiocy.
Energy Density of Polaritrons in Superfluid? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also pleasantly surprised to read that Bell Labs is still doing basic science - urban legend was that went out with the AT&T breakup.
Oh, and if anybody from physorg.com is reading, there's a strange display thing going on where ", " is replaced by "-" (not even space emdash space) in many sentences, making clause boundries in the sentences appear awkwardly as pseudo-hyphenated words.
Applications? Laser Fusion? (Score:2)
What are its constraints and limitations? How much energy-density or power-density can it handle?
Since lasers are being used in experimental development of confinement fusion, and since this polariton-filled matter is supposedly more energy efficient, I'd wonder if this new matter could be used to facilitate laser-confinement fusion.
Or is it just meant for low-power applications?
DVD-players, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem to me that polaritrons would be short-lived and hence could only exist in certain conditions It would seem to me you might be able to use them for high-efficiency lasers. I don't know about superconductors though-- seems like the energy going in required to maintain the state would be a good way to negate the benefits from a superconductor....
Editor Foo! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they meant with the properties of a laser [beam]. The polaritons are coherent when they're confined, just* like photons are coherent in a laser beam.
Using specially designed optical structures with nanometer-thick layers-which allow polaritons to move freely inside the solid-Snoke and his colleagues captured the polaritons in the form of a superfluid. In superfluids and in their solid counterparts, superconductors, matter consolidates to act as a single energy wave rather than as individual particles.
I suppose saying "beam" or talking about the photons in the laser beam would have been slightly more clear to the people who didn't read the article, but it's hardly something poorly written enough to be complaining about.
IAA physicist and material scientist, but I don't know enough about superconductors to really make worthwhile comments on that analo
Polariton Lasers Are More Efficient (Score:3, Informative)
http://optics.org/cws/article/research/27439 [optics.org]
Again, a more energy-efficient laser sounds like it could be used for nuclear fusion, or even just for more energy efficient consumer electronics (eg. DVD players)
Isn't Laser-TV supposed to be coming out this Xmas? I'd read that Novalux is working on improving the power of their Necsel laser modules for that purpose. If polariton lasers are 10 times more efficient than laser diodes and can operate at room temp, then maybe they'd
Re:Circus physics (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Funny man... cytologists don't use math!
Try again (Score:2)
Photon: Integer spin: Boson.
Electron: Half-integer spin: Fermion.
Hole: Half-integer spin: Fermion.
Electron-hole pair: Sum of two half-integer spins = integer spin: Boson.
So an electron-hole PAIR and a photon of the excitation energy hanging around in a crystal full of electrons can be duals - "flipping back-and-forth" or forming a quantum-indeterminancy of which it "really i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're telling me that fermions are not subatomic bundles of energy?
Subatomic? Bundle of energy? What the hell are you talking about? The ONLY property that defines whether a 'particle' is a fermion or not is whether it has half-integer spin. And the word 'particle' really refers to is a quantization, which can be any quantized excitation, doesn't mean subatomic.
/.ed Mastercard Commercial (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, when you say things like that do you actually expect to be taken seriously by scientists here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big Supersymmetry Fan, Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're totally confusing spin with particle/wave duality, which makes one really wonder what the hell you are talking about. You may be impressing the moderators with your blatantly-incorrect usage of fancy techie-sounding words, but it's quite obvious to the physicists here that you have no clue what you're talking about. And the irony is that you're guilty of that 'whoring out' which you are accusing actual physicists of.
Your original quote misconstrued the nature of fermionic vs bosonic natures of quanta, which the GP clarified, and you resorted to a wikipedia quote, which is quite out of context.
Irrespective of particle-wave nature, photons are spin-1 bosons! Why the hell are you bringing particle/wave duality into the picture at all?
All I suggested is that, rather than pronouncing new unprecedented discoveries every month, maybe the physicists ought to look into solidifying their dual wave-particle of photons. They'll find that all these other "new particles" and "new forms of matter" fit neatly with a which has been established for at least fifteen years.
If you had an inkling of the physics research, including theoretical, simulational, and experimental, that goes on in "highly-correlated" condensed-matter systems, you'd understand that the framework for identifying the various quanta and behaviors are well-defined within the basic "standard model" for realizable laboratory conditions. And this has been well-understood for longer than 15 years, what exactly is this 15-year time frame you're quoting anyway?
What is interesting is how modern 'exotic' materials can exhibit quanta with different charge, spin, phonon, etc properties than 'plain vanilla' systems. See spin-charge separation in a Luttinger Liquid for an older example. Armchair scientists like you may prefer to use the recent buzzword of emergent behavior if you like, although I don't agree Laughlin's mindview on the whole field of emergence.
Parent
Re:Circus physics (Score:4, Interesting)
A phonon is a sort of derived particle. It isn't a fundamental particle in itself but it represents a quantized mode of vibration in a lattice of more fundamental particles. But as a quasiparticle it exhibits the same types of behavior as other particles subject to quantum mechanics.
Their classical analogue would be standing waves in a crystal lattice. These lose part of their classical wave-like character and become more particle-like when the vibrational energy in the crystal decreases to near zero. The vibrational energy at extremely low temperatures takes the form of a few phonons bouncing around in the crystal like free particles in a hollow box. Phonons are ultimately responsible for all conduction of sound and heat through solids.
A polariton [wikipedia.org] is apparently the coupling of a photon with one of these, and they're claiming to have gotten interesting collective behavior. I'm not sure if this is a "new state of matter" but we may get some cool toys out of it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said this for insulators- in conductors the electrons are responsible for most conductivity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The community "should spend some time" combining photons, fermions, gluons etc. because "it would probably make much of the math a lot simpler."
Ever heard of string theory? The community has been spending an ENORMOUS amount of time trying to combine this things into a common picture. And trust me - it doesn't make the math simpler. Just ask Ed Witten.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's such an easy way to win a Nobel Prize and have my name right up the
Re: (Score:2)
I find the juxtaposition of those two statements to be hysterical. The fact that they can claim to have found (yet another) "new form of matter" is just another point in the indictment of how broken the Standard Model really is. The dirty secret is that the math happens to work and give some predictiv
Re:Circus physics (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should actually read the scientific journal articles if you're serious about this, instead of reading the popular reviews which are by definition "dumbed down" such that non-PhD's can understand in layman's terms what is going on.
Did they really demonstrate a new form of matter? What did we have at one time? Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. We could have mixtures of the forms--like a suspension was a fine mixture of a liquid with a gas.
Did you actually read the JOURNAL article, or are you just extrapolating bullshit based on a popular science review of the actual journal article? If you actually didn't think physicists were 'whoring themselves out' your post would make you look significantly less ignorant.
You quote liquids and gases as being two distinct forms of matter, yet they're actually the same if you look on a phase-diagram plot. So why do you list them as being two separate phases?
Oh wait, that's right, you can go CONTINUOUSLY from liquid to gas, without any phase transition, along a proper thermodynamic trajectory of course! What makes them look like separate states of matter is whether you have a phase transition as you alter the system. And the phase-transition line (in pressure-temperature space) actually ends in a critical point (see here [chemicalogic.com], such that you can choose a proper p-T trajectory either WITH or WITHOUT the phase transition.
Would you call a superconductor a new state of matter? It certainly is quite different from the metallic state, with a well-defined phase transition as you cool below Tc. What about a Bose-Einstein Condensate? What about a phase-transition from superconducting-like nature to BEC? These have all been well studied, and all are acknowledged as states of matter.
The fact that you question whether it's a new state of matter, and you refer merely solid, liquid, gas, and plasma without any reference to phase transitions, really shows your limited understanding of this subject. And that makes it all the more humorous that you actually go on to claim physicists are whoring themselves out.
Parent
don't confuse the issues (Score:2)
"State of matter" doesn't really have a strict definition in terms of phase transitions: most phase transitions don't give rise to new states of matter, and one state of matter may be transformed into another one without a phase transition (as you yourself observe).
Important as this result may be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, regarding the 'state' itself, it refers to the collective
you're missing the point (Score:2)
Typically (i.e., to most people), a "state of matter" is regarded to be what people learn in school to be a state of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and sometimes plasma. That definition is what counts in a press release to the general public. If a press release talks about a "new state of matter", it implies that something has been added to that list, or at least obviously belongs on that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for combining particles, I think they may have thought about that. In fact, most of Quantum Physics began as a manner of s
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be next tuesday?