Particle Density Needed for BEC @ 100 nK, A=100

  • Thread starter Thread starter ognik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density Particle
ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


For the observation of quantum mechanical Bose-Einstein condensation, the interparticle
distance in a gas of noninteracting atoms must be comparable to the de Broglie
wavelength, or less. How high a particle density is needed to achieve these conditions
if the atoms have mass number A = 100 and are at a temperature of 100 nanokelvin?

Homework Equations


I found on the web that at the critical temp. for BEC, ##\lambda = \sqrt{ \frac{2\pi \hbar^2}{m k_b T}} ##

I also found a formula for the critical density for BEC at that temp., ##n_c \approx 2.612 \frac{1}{\lambda_{T_c}^3}##

The Attempt at a Solution


I took m = particle mass ## \approx 100 \times m_p = 1.67 \times 10^{-25} kg##
Mechanically plugging the numbers in I got ##\lambda_{T_c} = 3.46 \times 10^{-6} m ##, and ## n_c = 6.3 \times 10^{16} ## particles per ## m^3##

I'd appreciate if someone could tell me if I am on the right track? The numbers seem OK although I think the ##\lambda## looks high?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The approach is correct. I haven't checked the numbers, but they seem reasonable.
 
  • Like
Likes ognik
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top