Quantum Bose Einstein effects on a macro scale?

[maboomba]

If say a hundred or more objects, at a human scale, are connected by a string, and they can be made to synchronize in an oscillation, could that be considered a bose einstein condensate?

 

[DrClaude]

No. It would have none of the many quantum properties of a BEC. A BEC is not a collection of things that can oscillate in synchrony.

 

[maboomba]

Thanks for that answer DrClaud. Impressive that this question was answered within 4 minutes of posting. I'm curious as to whether anyone else has any opinions to share on this subject. (?) Any more answers?

 

[DrClaude]

Since you don't seem satisfied by my answer, maybe you could explain why you think such a system would be like a BEC.

 

[maboomba]

Hello DrClaude: It's not that I'm not satisfied with your answer, in fact I am most grateful for even a single answer. Thank you. I'm hoping to get more than one opinion, i.e. a "discussion". Also, you didn't really go into much detail. I actually tend to agree with your answer, but even though I was once a physics major, I don't have the background for a complete analysis. The reason I posted this question is to answer a person who claims that a hypothetical simultaneously-oscillating (synchronized) stack of kites would constitute a "bose-einstein condensate". My off-the-cuff opinion is he is suffering from delusions of grandeur, hoping that invoking the name Einstein will make him "a genius". My take is that my 8-cylinder car engine, for example, does not rise to the level of a quantum phenomenon or a "Bose-Einstein condensate", even though the parts are synchronized and operate in harmony. Maybe a better analogy would be the same engine with all cylinders firing at the same time, to qualify as a BEC. Or say you have 24 dancers on a stage shaking their butts back and forth to the music - synchronized, yes, but a BEC? Just because multiple similar macroscopic objects have synchronized motion of some type, are they a B.E.C.? My guess would be "no". But I may also be wrong. I'd like to know the reasons why it is, or is not, a "bose-einstein condensate". So I'm seeking a more complete explanation, and was hoping for a discussion with several detailed opinions. Ideally, I'd like to see a flame-war with lots of name-calling, capital letters, exclamation points, etc., but I can only dream... (sigh) )

 

[maboomba]

By the way, I don't mean "like" a BEC, I mean whether it IS or ISN'T a BEC. The guy already thinks it IS a BEC because in his opinion, it is
"like" a BEC. He bristled at my reporting that you said it is not, invoking the names "DeBye" and "DeBroglie", and making fun of your avatar, implying that a character from "The Simpsons" is not an authority. I beg to differ - there is no higher authority than "The Simpsons", but anyway...

 

[DrClaude]

My answer was terse because there is nothing to discuss. My guess is that the person read in some popular science account that the atoms in a BEC were "oscillating in synchrony" or something like that. But that's not how it works. At the minimum, you will need indistinguishable particles, which microscopic objects will never be, and they have to be bosons. Bose-Einstein condensation is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon, and can be observed only with quantum objects.

Note that on PF, we only discuss mainstream science. Discussions of pseudo-scientific ideas is not allowed, even to debunk them.

making fun of your avatar, implying that a character from "The Simpsons" is not an authority.

I only look like that in a parallel universe where we all have only 8 fingers

 

[ddd123]

maboomba, the main point of a BEC isn't synchronization but particles that share the same state. A BEC is a collection of bosons that, thanks to a phase transition, condense into a single state (even spatially). The classical equivalent, which is impossible, would be a collection of objects that compenetrate into one and occupy the same place, like the trick of many clowns in a car (this thread is already silly so...):

 

[Nugatory]

Ideally, I'd like to see a flame-war with lots of name-calling, capital letters, exclamation points, etc., but I can only dream... (sigh) )

I'm sorry, but you've come to the wrong place.
Now, if you want well-moderated answers from people who know what they're talking about... That's our specialty.

 

[maboomba]

As a famous clown once said: "I'm all ears!" :)

 

[ddd123]

I'm sure you're not getting more answers than this, we've already spent too much time on this. There's not going to be a discussion because we all agree. It's like as if you went into a biology forum asking "do dogs lay eggs?" and when they tell you "no, they're mammals" you keep asking why as if they had to go back to eukaryote biochemistry: that's simply not going to happen :)

 

[maboomba]

OK thanks for that. Here's the latest 4-paragraph response from the kite guy:
"Phonons are thermodynamic quanta of mechanical action classed as bosons, just as Doug's cartoon physics advisor demands. Yes, you must apply Debye temperature or de Broglie wavelength, based on characteristic dimension (macroscopic Planck length), or you are stuck with classical physics, and won't understand how cool our kites really are.

The phonons excited in a kite by wind are wave packets of potential and kinetic energy. The kite itself is like an engineered electron hole media, or phonon hole rather, hosting a complex phonon packet during flight. In stable flight the phonons form standing waves, and in dancing or tacking flight are strong oscillators, which is a useful dynamic state for AWE.

By arranging kites in stacks and lattices, like semiconductor chips on a grand scale, they can sustain long-range-order in coherent phonon states, harvesting and transmitting power effectively. The WindJammers kite team comes to mind. Even their 30 year old UHMWPE lines, that have crept longer over time into ever higher crystalline order, are a marvel of physics.

It does not take an Einstein to appreciate all this."

This all gets a bit over my head, although I'd say phonons on a kite string would be higher frequency, as in a tin-can telephone. Any responses to this line of thinking by the kite guy? Can you have a macroscopic Bose-Einstein Condensate based on phonons? Would kites moving together even constitute phonons?

 

[ddd123]

Maybe you misunderstood him? He doesn't mention a BEC. Phonons do follow the Bose-Einstein statistics since they are bosons.

Actually it seems it has been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensation_of_quasiparticles#Polaritons

But with phonons it's different since they are quasiparticles. And you can't say it's a classical effect.

 

[maboomba]

Well he's been invoking the term B.E.C. quite a bit, concerning his hypothetical stacks of kites, just not in that one partial response I passed along. The idea is the kites all oscillate together and power something on the ground. Not that he's built one or anything, mostly a lot of hot air. To me, a flipping kite does not quite rise to the level of even phonons, let alone a "phonon-hole", let alone a B.E.C., let alone an economical power solution, but what do I know? (This message and this facility powered by the wind)

 

[DrClaude]

By arranging kites in stacks and lattices, like semiconductor chips on a grand scale, they can sustain long-range-order in coherent phonon states, harvesting and transmitting power effectively.

Kites in the wind will never be coherent.

 

[Nugatory]

OK thanks for that. Here's the latest 4-paragraph response from the kite guy:

I'm sorry, but we cannot conduct an argument by proxy - there is just too much misinformation on the internet to refute it all.

This thread is closed.