I’m confused. A little. I thought that
a Bose-Einstein condensate occurred
only in a gas and that the first time it
was achieved was in 1995 using rubidium atoms. “A matter of solidity” (SN:
9/11/10, p. 22) states, “Superfluidity
arises when the atoms in superfluid
helium join up in a quantum state
called a Bose-Einstein condensate.”
Further reading leads me to believe
that the quoted statement may not be
accurate. Are the helium atoms just
behaving similar to a Bose-Einstein
condensate?
By the way, just so you can add me to
any demographic data, I’m a machinist, typical blue-collar, 54 years old and
have been reading Science News since I
was about 10 years old.
Eric R. Snow, Whidbey Island, Wash.
Bose-Einstein condensation, in which
atoms lose their individual identity
and begin to move as a collective
quantum mass, was indeed observed
experimentally for the first time in 1995
in supercooled rubidium atoms. But it
was proposed theoretically in the 1920s
and, soon after superfluidity was discovered in liquid helium in the 1930s,
researchers argued that Bose-Einstein
condensation could be the explanation.
Today scientists think that superfluidity is associated with a more generalized
version of Bose-Einstein condensation as
laid out in the 1950s by Oliver Penrose.
— Alexandra Witze
The source for science news
I really liked chief editor Tom Siegfried’s
column in Science News (“Staying on the
lookout for rumors disguised as news,”
SN: 9/25/10, p. 2) about “lax reporting” in science journalism nowadays
and how your magazine tries to fight
that tendency. I thought, “This is why
I read Science News” — your content is
trustworthy, and I’m an interested (in
science) layperson (which doesn’t mean
professional scientists can’t read SN).
The Internet makes it easy for inaccura-cies to become global. Tom mentioned
a blogger who thought Heisenberg’s
famous uncertainty principle had been
overturned. No, not yet (if ever). Tom
describes how SN writer Laura Sanders
got to the truth of the matter (Deleted
Scenes blog, SN Online: 8/5/10). I
humorously offer an informational
correlate to Heisenberg’s quantum
uncertainty: If it’s not in Science News,
be wary (uncertain).
Paul Rizzuto, Orange, N.J.
The September 25 issue was excellent,
especially the volcanoes (“Fire and
ice,” SN: 9/25/10, p. 16) and wheat rust
(“Rust never sleeps,” SN: 9/25/10, p. 22)
articles, the latter of which explained
the whole situation in prose that was
clear as a bell.
I found the article about general
relativity and thermodynamics (“A new
view of gravity,” SN: 9/25/10, p. 26)
intriguing and frustrating: Clearly
the math is so complex that only a
small number of humans can really
grasp these theories. My thanks to the
author for making it as clear as he could
without using any equations, but the
surface nature of the explanation is
obvious to the reader, and I’m sure to
the author too.
Regarding the editorial, I don’t
bother reading or listening to the regular media, Internet sites or anybody
else reporting announcements of new
progress in science. I just wait for the
article in Science News to explain what
really happened. Thanks, you are doing
a great job.
Park Chamberlain, via e-mail
Entropic gravity
“A new view of gravity” (SN: 9/25/10,
p. 26) was a wonderful article on both
gravity and entropy! I’m no scientist,
but I have always wondered if entropy
really is at its peak inside a black
hole. Could the unbelievable grav-
ity in a black hole force matter into
an organized state, and thus into an
extremely low state of entropy? Or,
when information “enters” a black hole
the entropy of our universe increases
but the entropy inside the black hole
decreases? (Perhaps the physics inside
a black hole is different from outside
the hole.)
I enjoyed the article on the potential
for entropic roots to gravitation. Only
very occasionally are there real breakthroughs in theoretical thinking; this
could be one of them, once it’s fleshed
out. It also looks like a very promising
lead toward an approach to a grand
unified theory, something which
Einstein sought. But I think the most
promising aspect of this approach is
that it might eliminate the need for
the phantasmagorical “dark energy.”
The search for dark energy has grated
on my amateur theoretical instincts
for years, as it represents a “
correction factor” for the incorrectness of
our theories. We should be looking
to improve our theories, not looking
for correction factors. (Einstein himself disliked these.) Dark energy has
always reminded me of phlogiston, or
the ether. It’s good to see an approach
being explored that does not require it.
Tom DuBois, Glens Falls, N. Y.
Kudos to Tom Siegfried for an essay
on a topic requiring deep thought that
is understandable to laymen. Decades
ago I majored in physics and have since
then been annoyed with the “discovery”
of every new particle, force, string and
fabricated explanation that just seemed
to make a unifying concept more distant. This “primacy of information
over matter and energy” conjecture
is unique and profound as this report
describes so many aspects of reality that
seem to be mathematically consistent.
Maybe someday it will be confirmed,
and if so, perhaps we’ll learn that this
primacy of “information” is consistent
with “intelligence.”
Greg Tullo, Raleigh, N.C.
Send communications to: Editor, Science News,
1719 N Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 or
editors@sciencenews.org. Letters subject to editing.
