Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature

Yes they can. In fact this could be important for LENR, should it be broad enough to include other boson quasiparticles, such as the magnon.

The definitions are similar: polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. The magnon could be imagined to be the subset of that - where the coupling is only magnetic. However, it may be only a partial subset with other features included.

Polaritons describe the dispersion of light (photons) with an interacting phonon resonance; while the magnon would describe the dispersion of spin current with an interacting resonance.

Using the same general terms, superconductivity where the Cooper pair is the boson, would describe the dispersion of charge within an interacting phonon resonance. (the last is my interpretation, which may not be correct).

Thus we have a linking of three BEC phenomena which may happen either at room temperature or close- in the case of the RTSC. From: Axil Axil

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bose-einstein-condensate-created-at-room-temperature/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bose-Einstein condensation is a dramatic phenomenon in which many particles act as though they were a single entity. The first Bose-Einstein condensate produced in the laboratory used rubidium atoms at very cold temperatures—work that was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in physics. Other materials, like superconductors, exhibit similar behavior through particle interactions.

These systems typically require temperatures near absolute zero. But Ayan Das and colleagues have now used a nanoscale wire to produce an excitation known as a polariton. These polaritons formed a Bose-Einstein condensate at room temperature, potentially opening up a new avenue for studying systems that otherwise require expensive cooling and trapping.

Bosons are part of a large class of particles that can have the same quantum configuration or state. This is in contrast to the fermions, the category including electrons, protons, and neutrons, which resist having the same state. (This resistance, known as the Pauli exclusion principle, leads to the presence of different energy states, or orbitals, occupied by the electrons of atoms.) At extremely low temperatures, bosons can coalesce into a single quantum system known as a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), named for Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein.

Many atoms are bosons, though this characteristic doesn't generally make any difference except at high density or very low temperatures. However, thanks to the wonders of quantum physics, interactions within materials can produce quasiparticles. These are excitations that act like particles, but don't exist independent of the medium in which they occur.

As with normal particles, quasiparticles are either fermions or bosons, obeying the same general rules as their free cousins. For example, one widely accepted model for superconductivity describes the phenomenon as a Bose-Einstein condensation of quasiparticles formed by pairs of electrons. As with atomic BECs, quasiparticle BECs tend to form under very cold temperatures.

Another quasiparticle can be formed by the interactions between photons and excitations in a material. The resulting polaritons are low-mass bosons that should be able to condense at higher temperatures—possibly including room temperature. One signature of a polariton BEC is the production of coherent light—effectively, the quasiparticles act like a laser. Several experiments have created polariton BECs, though still at relatively cold temperatures.

The current study embedded a very thin wire—a nanowire—in a cavity designed to produce standing waves of microwave photons. The nanowire was an alloy of aluminum, gallium, and nitrogen, but with varying amounts of aluminum. The irregular composition created a de facto "trap" for the polaritons. A wire of uniform composition couldn't form a BEC—fluctuations within the material would destroy the condensation, even at low temperatures.

To bypass this, the researchers gradually decreased the amount of aluminum in the alloy to zero in the center of the nanowire, then bookended the aluminum-free segment with a region containing a relatively high amount of aluminum. The microwaves from the cavity interacted with the material, generating polaritons. These drifted preferentially along the wire toward the aluminum-free zone, where they collected and condensed.

In other words, the electronic properties of the material itself replaced the need for cooling, allowing the quasiparticles to gather and condense into a BEC. The experimenters confirmed this effect by detecting the telltale light emission.

This experiment marked the first room-temperature BEC ever observed in the laboratory. While the authors didn't suggest any practical application, the potential for studying BECs directly is obvious. Without the need for cryogenic temperatures or the sorts of optical and magnetic traps that accompany atomic BECs, many aspects of Bose-Einstein condensation can potentially be probed far less expensively than before.

But YOU are going farther: YOU claim the result is from nuclear fusion.
***Where do I claim that? The BECNF isn’t my theory, it’s YE Kim’s theory. That’s why I said you should contact him. But you didn’t. You prefer to argue against me, saying that I claim it, that it’s somehow MY theory. That’s because you can’t hold your own against other physicists. Simple quotes by Feynman prove you to be utterly wrong in your approach.

There are (widely disputed) claims of an experimental result. Fine.
***then do you acknowledge what National Instruments calls an “anomalous heat effect” has been replicated as many times as they claim (more than 180)? If it’s been replicated so many times, how is that “widely disputed”? Why would a $multibillion corporation like NI, or Toyota, or Mitsubishi, or STMicro stick their necks out? Because they like bigfoot-level controversies to ruin their reputations? To use your words, you’re completely full of crap.

First, I don’t need to.
***Yes you do. Because you chose to use the classic fallacy of straw argumentation, again and again, so you no longer have any credibility.

It’s the most likely source of the lack of reproducibility of these experiments and the artifacts seen: the heat is from ambient sources and the helium is already there.
***And those “most likely sources” of helium have been accounted for in these peer-reviewed papers. To use your ridiculous analogy, it would be as if your basement was filled with 100% helium. But you won’t be addressing this any time soon. How do I know this? Because of your pattern of arguing fallaciously. You seem utterly incapable of arguing without using classic fallacies. You should send your professor of the critical thinking class that you took that you have failed his class, again and again as evidenced on this thread.

"Someone who says "it certainly looks like fusion" is lecturing me (or anyone else) on the scientific method.

Apparently you need that lecture, and possibly an entire remedial course. What does a decrease in deuterium coupled with emission of heat and an increase in helium-4 look like to you??? Peanut butter?

"Once more: IF for the purposes of advancing a hypothetical we agree there is experimental evidence of heat and helium that doesn't prove it's been created by fusion. There's heat and helium in my basement. One of them comes from a space heater. The other comes from the Radon decay chain."

Nice strawman. We're not talking about my (or your) basement, but a series of carefully carried out experiments, in which deuterium appears to react generating heat and helium. Samples were taken isolated from any other source, and analyzed simultaneously with ongoing calorimetry. The excess heat correlated with the increase in helium. Potential sources of interference were corrected for (or eliminated by apparatus design). And, interestingly enough, the heat evolved was a pretty reasonable quantitative match for the mass defect between 2D2 and HE4 as PREDICTED BY THEORY.

"The proposition that ordinary low-energy reactions can produce fusion requires extraordinary proof."

No, actually it doesn't. The meme "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" has never been part of the lexicon of science. It was originated by a professional skeptic about psychic phenomena. The meme was widely popularized by another practitioner of pseudoscience.....Carl Sagan.......who pissed away any claim he had to being a true scientist with his "nuclear winter" fiasco.

But the meme is a convenient smokescreen for those who wish to deny data that disagrees with their pet notions. Simple question.....who gets to define "extraordinary proof", and what does it consist of? This is very much like the liberal's constant calls for "common sense gun laws"....who gets to define what that might be.

"You don't have any that actually connects the artifacts seen in an experiment to any plausible model, so you resort to lecturing people about keeping an open mind.

Actually, I'm trying to get people to actually look at the experimental evidence. Apparently you haven't.

Here's a classic physics example.....detection of the microwave background of the universe. There was NO theory about that, yet it was completely accepted by the overall science community as "real" SOLELY on the basis of replicated experimental evidence.

"In the "scientific" world of Kevmo and Wonder Warthog, all of these statements are valid ... because ... wait for it ... wait for it ... please roll drums for our two "scientists" ... THEORIES DON'T MATTER AND EXPERIMENT TRUMPS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL. More strawmen.

"I" certainly never said "theories don't matter", and I seriously doubt that Kevmo did. What I said was theories don't provide proof. Experiment provides proof. Theories are VERY useful ONCE EXPERIMENT HAS SHOWN THE EXISTENCE OF PHENOMENA, as they can allow one to choose between possible explanations for phenomena.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.