One of the most important problems in materials science solved
February 23, 2009Together with three colleagues Professor Peter Oppeneer of Uppsala University has explained the hitherto unsolved mystery in materials science known as 'the hidden order' - how a new phase arises and why. This discovery can be of great importance to our understanding of how new material properties occur, how they can be controlled and exploited in the future. The findings are now being published in the scientific journal Nature Materials and of great importance to future energy supply.
For a long time researchers have attempted to develop the superconducting materials of the future that will be able to conduct energy without energy losses, something of great importance to future energy supply. But one piece of the puzzle has been missing. There are several materials that evince a clear phase transition in all thermodynamic properties when the temperature falls below a certain transitional temperature, but no one has been able to explain the new collective order in the material. Until now, this has been called the hidden order.
"The hidden order was discovered 24 years ago, and for all these years scientists have tried to find an explanation, but so far no one has succeeded. This has made the question one of the hottest quests in materials science. And now that we can explain how the hidden order in materials occurs, in a manner that has never been seen before, we have solved one of the most important problems of our day in this scientific field," says Professor Peter Oppeneer.
Four physicists from Uppsala University, led by Peter Oppeneer and in collaboration with John Mydosh from the University of Cologne, who discovered the hidden order 24 years ago, show through large-scale calculations how the hidden order occurs. Extremely small magnetic fluctuations prompt changes in the macroscopic properties of the material, so an entirely new phase arises, with different properties.
"Never before have we seen the so-called 'magnetic spin excitations' produce a phase transition and the formation of a new phase. In ordinary materials such excitation cannot change the phase and properties of the material because it is too weak. But now we have shown that this is in fact possible," says Peter Oppeneer.
What explains in detail all of the physical phenomena in the hidden order is a computer-based theory. Among other applications, it can be used to better understand high-temperature superconducting materials and will thus be important in the development of new superconducting materials and our future energy supply.
More information: Nature Materials (22 Feb 2009), doi: 10.1038/nmat2395, http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nmat2395.html
Source: Uppsala University
Aug 24, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
From "Alexia" in previous article: "AWT mechanism of HT superconductivity doesn't requires introduction of magnetic fields".
"But by AWT so called magnetic spin transitions are really made by underlying ether phase transition".
(or some such thing)
http://superstrun...cal1.avi
For example, above video is an example of hidden order condensation in SF6 supercritical fluid. During this the complex phase of nested fluctuations is formed. The formation of this phase is completely driven by geometry, not by magnetic spin transition. The question, what would happen, if we would use for example neutrino gas instead of SF6 is quite relevant here?
AWT basically says, if you use a sufficiently tiny particles and sufficiently high temperature and pressure, you can create a geometry of arbitrary complexity.
For example string theory says, such complexity is limited to 11 dimensions, but for me this complexity can go a much more deeper. For example, holographic principle basically says, shapes inside of our Universe are formed by interference of superluminal waves, which are projected through surface of black hole, where we are living in. It looks strange, but this is exactly, what the holographic theory says.
Analogously by AWT the richness of plant leaves, natural shapes is mediated by weak but fast interactions, which are going well outside of scope of observable Universe. At least we don't have a better explanation for this.
But Occam's razor principle is relentless: the more general theory, the simpler such theory should be. By such way, every TOE would appear a pretty dumb for everybody at the end.
The hidden caveat of this approach is in the fact, you're required the understand subject of underlying theories very well, or the postulates choosen become redundant - or even worse, they become contradicting mutually!
For example, from deeper analysis follows, string theory is inconsistent, because the assumption of hidden dimensions violates Lorentz invariance, on which string theory is based. This inconsistency leads into landscapes of infinitelly many solutions and into subsequent lack of predictability and testability.
It's tic for tat: the more sharper and brilliant you wanna to be in some areas, the more fuzzy, even dumber you become in others. We can consider it as a generalized form of uncertainty principle. Many brilliant people suffers by this duality of general and exact approach.
Therefore I choosed to remain dumb in all areas, so I can never become completelly wrong.
http://89.185.235...m/117343
Einstein: "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources".
For example, who knows, Ed Witten has said the following sentence before years (9 October, 2004):
"One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist%u2019s suspect that spacetime is a emergent Phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics".
http://online.kit.../witten/
This sentence basically means, even most advanced string theorists knows about Aether description of reality for years! But nobody cares about it, even at the case, when they're talking about it openly.
And the trolls on anonymous forum are even fighting against this idea, because they're believing, it violates "their physics".
From AWT follows, every sufficiently large system of intelligent creatures becomes as dumb, as every other particle system, because the intelligent stance of individuals will compensate mutually. Therefore we have very limited ability to influent/control the evolution of our own civilization.
Which is somewhat alarming finding, of course.
It's another thing to prove your theories.
It's another thing to spread your knowledge.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but proving truth is difficult.
Are you a genius or a crackpot, I'm with thales on this!
For me such thing is perfectly clear, natural and self evident. The fact, reference frame for light cannot be observed by light (as special relativity considers) doesn't disprove the material nature of vacuum - on the contrary, because no material environment can be observed by its own waves directly - so that the behavior of Universe is still fully consistent in this point.
Now it's your turn to prove, the vacuum is an exception, which should be handled separately, not mine. I'm just following Occam's razor criterion.
The problem is, mainstream science has misunderstood this trivial logic before one hundred years and from this time just the opponents of mainstream are forced to prove self evident things, not vice versa.
This situation is even worse for mainstream, then the adherence to geocentric model, because this model doesn't violates the direct observation at least - while absence of material environment for light spreading cannot by justified by any direct observation. Everybody can make sure, light is spreading in waves by using of common refraction and interference phenomena.
Once again, the direction of proof is given by consistency criterion, only exceptions should be subject of additional evidence, not the general behavior. At the moment, when exception becomes a subject of interubjective consensus, we are facing a problem in less or more distant perspective.
Sorry, that's not Occam's razor:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
If some thing can be explained by using of lower number of assumptions, then by other ways, such explanation should be considered first.
More general theory uses the lower number of mutually independent postulates. Therefore more general theory always should be used for explanation first, only at the moment, when such explanation will fail, a more specific theory should be used.
Anyway, to you AWT proponents, show me experiments that validate your claims. Show me where your theory matches measurement. Better yet, predict some phenomenon with your theory, then show it experimentally in the lab. Then I may consider taking you seriously.
Anyway, this very system was the one that Gödel used for his famous incompleteness theorem.
What I am saying is, be carefull wanting general systems, a sufficiently complex theory can model itself, and at that point very strange things start to happen.
1) By AWT vacuum is material environment for light wave spreading by the same way, like the water surface is the environement for surface waves.
2) The (motion of /location of) water surface cannot be observed by surface waves, for such waves the water surface appear like empty and void space.
3) Therefore the (motion of /location of) vacuum cannot be observed by using of light waves as well. This was proven for example by Michelson-Morley experiment.
Alexa, you show obvious enthusiasm, for which I commend you. However, I am unmoved by your arguments. If, as you have stated previously, science is concerned only with that which can be proved or disproved, I'm afraid your propositions cannot be taken as science. Yet, if you consider science in its most general, and, thus, by your above assertions, simplest, conception, I think you would find that science, as an endeavor distinct from those who profess themselves devoted to its cannons, is a way to knowledge, being itself neither the first nor the only way.
Proof in science is given through observation and measurements, which are, by nature, specific. Thus, in order that science be proof-based, it must necessarily be non-general. Conversely, if it be general, it cannot be proof-based. You cannot have it both ways, my friend.
It is entirely possible, Alexa, that some of your ideas are correct. Still, your command of English is poor, at best, making your arguments seem vacuous. For example, the words, "axiom," "postulate," and "assumption" have very different meanings. If the starting point of your argument is an assumption rather than an axiom, then it's very hard to take it seriously.
By which native people of medieval era differs from conscious people, by your opinion?
Can you show us the difference?
Nothing would happen other than you would again bang words you don't understand together and hope no one notices. Neutrino gas indeed. That's a new height in comedy.
Or perhaps its biology. Wimps to explains fractal geometry, I guess that sure does follow from neutrino gas. Perhaps you should take something for that.
WOW. Thats a new bit on bull. Now Aethercrap is Zoroastrian in nature.
Someone has coopted Alexa's login. That one actually fit the evidence. He is never COMPLETELY wrong just almost completely and he sure is missing out learning about actual science.
And misinterpreting them with wild abandon.
http://www.physor...879.html
Why do you spend so much effort in the fake crankery. That statement implies that you are trolling. Or brain damaged. Hard to tell sometimes whether someone is a crank or an inspired troll. Perhaps I am getting a better feel for this. It reminds me of something I saw long ago.
Words fail me. His words. Well maybe its words. See below.
That one reminds me of the appendix in The Teachings of Don Juan a Yaqui Way to get a Phd without actually researching anything real. Yes its about that time period that I am remembering.
I am coming to the conclusion that Alexa isn't a person. It's a computer program. A basic set of grammar rules that sometimes match English, some science jargon and an algorithm to paste it together into something vaguely resembling actual thought. An advanced version of ELIZA.
AL gorithimic
EX cremental
A nyeurism generator
Ethelred
Who finds the ALEXA nonsense generator entertaining. Much more than ELIZA.
"Every massive environment spreads energy in waves, therefore vacuum is formed by massive environment?"
Or
"No (motion of) environment can be observed by its own waves, therefore the (motion of) vacuum cannot be observed by using of light wave?" or
"No environment can spread energy by higher density, then the energy density of environment, therefore the density of vacuum must be very high" Or
"The higher is density of environment, the more pronounced is the transversal character of wave spreading, therefore vacuum must spread light in transversal waves"
My feeling is, I'm talking with primitive people of medieval era. They can use an advanced tools (formal math and/or internet), but their understanding of reality is childish and religious. They're not willing to understand even simplest deduction, until it wasn't written into their textbooks first.
We already know, the more we're trying to explain the meaningless of female circumcision practicing to native Africans, the more they adhering to it. It's just denial of this mumbo-jumbo, what makes it a part of their social integrity.
Thanks for your compliments. :)
As I'm not a native english speaker I thought I'd better let it be translated by Hyperion1110. :)
That for instance. Plus nothing after that made any sense either.
A program might feel that way if were sentient. A crank might feel that way if asked to make sense. Which is the real answer?
I have seen religions that make more sense than you. Sometimes ELIZA made more sense. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that ALEXA is an advanced algorithm.
I am Agnostic and not given to religious beliefs.
And then ALEXA spins off into religion land. Cranking too hard is my guess.
One question about ALEXA. What is its native language? Its either some FORTH variant, which would explain the abhorrence of numbers or something Slavic which would not explain the dislike of numbers. Just the BableFish like syntax.
Ethelred
The problem is that sometimes you ARE clear. But almost never when you talk physics. It is remotely possible that it is your difficulty in expressing yourself that is leading to you not convincing anyone at all.
Still I suspect its the way you claim AWITBS is the answer to everything, that you don't need math when you actually do, that you bring in OTHER theories and act like they are AWITBS. Heim the other day for instance. Thats not Aether in there.
It would help of course it you responded to what people said instead of acting like you can't read. For instance I pointed out that most systems of logic can produce quantification if you try hard enough and are therefor subject to Goedels Proof and you just ignored it. Didn't claim you used logic that was inherently non-quantifiable nor did you acknowledge the problem in any way. That's intellectual cowardice to me.
If you act like a Chinese Room then you going to be treated like one. Try reading what you write. Check for the words you mash together like 'countplea' above. I can't figure out what you intended to say there. The sentence as whole does smell of sour grapes however.
Actually respond to what people say instead of pretending you are much too superior to bother. If that was true you wouldn't be posting. Again double check what you write. Clarity is king and if you have to ask for help to convey your thoughts clearly you should try it. Either that or stick to your native tongue, get a Phd, a job researching at a major institution, publish a number of papers and convince people that actually count.
Ethelred
Waves can be used to detect movement of the medium for example consider localized wave packets on the surface of water. Imagine three such packets arranged in an L shape:
2____1 all 3 moving to the right at equal speed
_____.
_____3
Now if packet 1 generates a single wave propagating in all directions as they move this wave will reach packet 2 before it reaches packet 3, from this some information about the direction of the motion of the three wavepackets relative to the medium can be deduced.
This shows the movement of the medium for waves can be detected with the waves themselves.
This is however impossible for light so it is interpreted there is no similar *stationary* material medium for light, such stationary medium is what is normally understood as aether.
Do you claim there exists a stationary aether medium? If yes, how do you explain Michelson-Morley null result?
Alexa has two problems there. One is that he isn't a native English speaker and doesn't seem to know he needs to improve if that is the language he chooses to use. Second his logic appears to be deficient. If you can follow his logic in English than you have deficiencies as well. If you are reading the Czech that could be different.
Ethelred
Yes I do. I am trying to find out if Alexa has a point or if he is a crank. I do like to entertain myself in the process.
Answers that actually make sense will do nicely. Do you have a problem with people that try to make sense of things?
Pot meet the kettle cleaner. If you don't like anything I said please try to be specific. Vague ad homonym attacks will not get you anywhere.
Pick something I said and give a response. Use something resembling actual logic. Perhaps a link to a source. You know the standard way to discuss things on the Net when you actually want to be reasonable.
My problem with Alexa was simple. He didn't bother to mention that English is foreign to him. Now that I know that I can take it into account. He still doesn't make any sense though. I am sure that IF he has ideas that are actually logical he can manage it. If you want to get involved then do so. If you only want to complain just continue on as you have and I will do my usual bit with that. Who knows, I might even decide to ignore you.
Ethelred
Well, yeah. So is the standard model of particle physics, which doesn't mesh exctly with the lorentz group. And to use your superluminary theory, you would have to prove the existance of tachyons and related particles.
Plus, it IS impossible to know anything is ablsolutely true, regardless of your views to the contrary, unless someone can offer a counter-proof.