Talk:Bose–Einstein condensate

message: Describe it analytically. It concerns a very old and cold universe. It is a condensate of Planck noise which becomes important when temperature is almost none (zero).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4109:BF00:C4A2:387E:F301:C52F (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Big Bang causal condensate theory 

message: In Einstein's non-interacting gas, what is μ? μ is a variable that has different meanings in different contexts and I'm not familiar enough with this one to know what it is and these are the only sentences that reference mu... 
In Bose–Einstein statistics distribution, μ is actually still nonzero for BECs; however, μ is less than the ground state energy. Except when specifically talking about the ground state, μ can be approximated for most energy or momentum states as μ ≈ 0.
-----   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drd0013 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Why does the 50 pK temperature given in the second sentence in this article, and repeated later on, conflict with the 450 pK "lowest temperature ever" given in the 1 E-12 K article?
Especially when the value here is for the first activity in this field, back in 1995.
Is it just that somebody didn't know the difference between "one twenty-billionth of a Kelvin" (in that improperly capitalized name originally in this article) and "twenty billionths of a kelvin"?  The former is 0.05 nK; the latter is 20 nK.  I suspect that those two appearances in this article should read 20 nanokelvins.
Gene Nygaard 03:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Temperature error

message: can anybody add what is meant by Tc and m, just to be precise. look at the formula. you will know what i mean.
--212.202.37.226 23:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, its fixed. PAR 01:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is Missing!? 

message: Some text was removed during the vandalism that happened on 24/10/05, so I put it back. Tcb Beany 21:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored some text from vandalism

message: I've made some changes to the article, the main one being that I removed the "slowing light" section. This was for a number of reasons:
1) It took up a disportionate amount of space, which made it seem that this was a big part of the research into Bose-Einstein condensation. While the experiments are very nice and have received a lot of media attention, this isn't really true. IMHO other topics have been more important.
2) The phenomenon isn't confined to Bose condensates- it has been observed in non-Bose condensed gases too. 
3) I thought it was a bit confusing as it was written. This can be a confusing topic for many people (not least because it relies on knowing the distinction between phase velocity and group velocity) so I felt that this needed to be explained more carefully and in more detail in order to be useful and not to propagate this confusion.
I have mentioned it briefly in a new section titled "Current research" which discusses a few other things. If it's kept, I will add some external links and references a little later when I have more time.Brian Jackson 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "slowing light" section

message: Bosenovas are not current research but the property of BECs, are an unexplained characteristic of BECs. Rewrite is erroneous and sounds uneducated.  My link to Gravastars was also taken out even though Los Alamos National Laboratories is searching for them: [Government lab website]--Voyajer 04:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrite is erroneous

message: I have added a brief mention of the Bose condensation of magnons in antiferromagnets.  From the viewpoint of statistical mechanics this is the same phenomenon as condensation of atomic bosons.  Historically, the first successful observation of magnon condensation predates the experiment of Cornell and Wieman.  Oleg Tchernyshyov 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bose condensation of magnons

message: - "with properties that are currently not completely understood"
Is this true? Especially since it goes on to give an explanation... Simply put that viscosity drops to zero. Does it have other, magical properties? Apocryphite 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not.  Superfluidity in an interacting Bose gas has been understood for half a century.  Oleg Tchernyshyov 10:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction... 

message: Why is there an en-dash in the title? Wouldn't a hyphen be fine (and more grammatically correct) here? — 75.35.38.237 04:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but I don't particularly feel like potentially getting involved in a revert war right now. Someone else want to make the change? Anonymous 57 05:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: En dashes are properly used to separate names in lists of collaborators because sufficiently many academics have hyphenated names.  For instance, Nash-Williams would refer to work by Crispin Nash-Williams, but Nash–Williams could indicate a collaboration between John Forbes Nash and somebody named Williams. Michael Slone (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes)#Clarification re dashes separating surnames in page names.  Note that this article has already come up in the discussion there.  Gene Nygaard 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dash in title? 

message: Assuming it's legitimate, shouldn't this other article be merged into this one? Clarityfiend 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bose-Einstein Condensation: A Network Theory Approach]]

message: Unfortunately, the article almost equates Bose-condensation and super-fluidity. These are in fact very different and unrelated fenomena. BEC is about a state of weakly interacting particles in an external field. SF is about excitation spectrum of a strongly interacting self-bound system. Most BECs are dilute gases and most SFs are dense fluids. Most BEC are not FS and most FS are not BECs. For example, He3 becomes superfluid, but it is not even a bosonic system.
BEC is a simple and well understood phenomenon. SF is complicated and not understood.
: with respect, BEC and superfluidity are related. BECs have clearly shown superfluid behaviour. For example PRL 99, 260401 (2007) (preprint available here. Also, He3 becomes a superfluid through forming bosonic pairs. BEC can be strongly interacting - see the Bosenova; BEC in chromium, a dipolar gas; and molecular BECs. For this reason a BEC doesn't need an external field - it's own self-interaction is sufficient. BEC is about off-diagonal correlation functions ... superfluidity, the same. griff (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BEC vs superfluidity (SF) 

message: The introductory paragraph uses "supercooled" as a synonym for a temperature near absolute zero. However, that article says "Supercooling is the process of chilling a liquid below its freezing point, without it becoming solid", without mentioning any other meaning of "supercool" -ed or -ing. The coldest temperature named in that article is 150K, but the warmest temperature named in this Bose–Einstein condensate article is 14K. Several dictionaries agree with the supercooling article. So which is the correct definition, or does it mean both? In either case, the link to supercooling is unhelpful because it leads to an unrelated discussion. Art LaPella (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of supercooling is applicable here, as the atoms do not coalesce and form a solid or liquid;  they are in their gaseous state until they collapse into a condensate. Torsionalmetric (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Supercooled

message: Anyone know what the hell Bose-Einstein condensation: a network theory approach is?  Does this belong on Wikipedia?  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bose-Einstein condensation: a network theory approach]]

message: The article equates 170 nK with -273.150000017 °C, which is absolute zero minus 0.000000017 K. First, 0.000000017 is 17 nK, not 170 nK. Second, it should be -273.15 plus 170 nK. By my calculations, that comes to -273.14999983 °C. 72.145.240.148 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this; I opened to the discussion page to see if someone else noticed this error.  I'll make the change now.Torsionalmetric (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error converting 170 nanokelvin to Celcius? 

message: In the very first sentence it says that Bose-einstein condensate is a state of matter of bosons. I was wondering if it could be achieved in fermions such as deuterium and carbon-13 (at least my understanding is that they are fermions) or if it is exclusive to bosons?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.66.56 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fermions need to pair into bosons order to Bose Einstein condense, otherwise the exclusion principle prevents them from stacking up in the same state. If the pairing is tight, meaning the typical distance between the partners in the pair is much smaller than the distance between pairs, the result is a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of the pairs, which can be treated as a unit. If the pairing is loose, meaning that there are many fermions in the volume occupied by a "pair" (the word pair is in quotes, because in this limit the pairing is not a property of just two electrons, but a nonlocal phenomenon in the whole Fermi gas), the condensed state is called a BCS state. There is a lot of research now focusing on exactly how a BCS state turns into a BEC state when the interaction is increased.Likebox (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusively bosons? 

message: Could it be that a micro black hole is created in the bosenova explosion? --LF1975 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any sources that address the possibility that this was MBH (micro black hole) creation at lower than predicted energies and a failure of Hawking Radiation to evaporate it?  See LF1975 above for Nobel Prize Laureate response "Probably not a black hole" [also implying probably not evidence of Hawking Radiation failure].  How probable against, this has implications for the safety expectations for the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) due to go on-line May 2008.   --Jtankers (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the missing atoms from a bosenova explosion? 

message: I'm having trouble with this statement in the introduction.
::"If a system is at such a low temperature that it is in the lowest energy state, it is no longer possible for it to reduce its energy, not even by friction. Without friction, the fluid will easily overcome gravity because of adhesion between the fluid and the container wall, and it will take up the most favorable position, all around the container"
How could a system lose energy by friction?  Even worse, how can a particles "overcome gravity" and give themselves more potential energy by distributing themselves around a container?
This statement will be subject to my deletion, unless someone can convince me that it belongs in the article.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Bose-Einstein condensates exhibit quantum characteristics on a larger scale, it's not very surprising that it will spontaneously gain potential energy, seemingly violating our current understanding of the laws of physics (It even says in the article that they are not well understood).  Also, friction always causes an energy loss.  Think about it in terms of kinetic energy, if you push a wooden block, it has kinetic energy, after a couple seconds it will stop due to friction, and thus will have no kinetic energy due to friction.  While I have never seen this property of the Bose-Einstein condensate demonstrated, I have read about it in several places before, and I am almost certain that it is not a dubious claim.76.233.4.209 (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Claim? 

message: I wondered
If the universe expands and, 'cools down for ever', will it then in then end be a large einstein-bose condensate ?
It is said that atomes act like waves, in einstein-bose condensates; is that similair to strings, as in string theory ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.115.116 (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 questions 

message: Someone had recently altered the Introduction to state that the fluids "cannot" easily overcome gravity, which I believe to be erroneous, and a different IP changed the caption of a simple illustration to claim that the illustration was, in fact, a photograph -- another "dubious" claim (cough, cough).  I restored the original text in both cases. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent Vandalism 

message: There is something bothering me about the section titled Einstein's Argument. Surely, if K is the number of particles in the |0> state then P(K) should be an increasing function of K, since larger K means less particles in the higher energy |1> state. I suspect there may be a sign error somewhere. Watgaanhieraan (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sign Error?

message: There seems to be a really terrible diagram on the page claiming to show the difference in atoms between the condensate and normal matter. It looks like someone did it in MS Paint. Delete?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.170.134 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need some sort of diagram or photo. Liquid, gas, and plasma do. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we do have a very good figure now which shows the velocity distribution before and after B-E condensation. The comment about the "terrible diagram" was made last June, and seems to refer to another figure in the section "Unusual characteristics" which was removed 12 June 2008 by Drake Unlimited as "misrepresenting the process". I agree with that description. Dirac66 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Diagram"

message: I recently added the Fahrenheit measure to the top.  Think anyone cares enough about Rankein for it to be added?
No. In fact, Fahrenheit is probably already distracting enough. No scientific papers will specify the temperature in Fahrenheit, and I don't think that it will help laymen to understand how cold that is by providing as many temperature units as possible. If one cares, one can find the conversion elsewhere.
Zoltán (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fahrenheit

message: I just would like to mention that, if the dimension of the system is larger than 2, the external potential is not a prerequisite for the occurrence of BEC. In this regard, the first sentence of the introduction is quite misleading. (And it is refuted by the discussion on theory: why would anyone bother to write down the transition temperature for a uniform, i.e., not trapped, gas, if BEC can only occur in a trap?) It just so happens that it is much easier to conduct a BEC experiment in a confining potential, but it is not required. I think, that sentence should be yanked. Also, since the transition temperature depends on the mass of the particles (amongst other things), it is not true that the temperature must be close to absolute zero. In fact, recent experiments on polaritons proved that BEC is possible at temperatures in the vicinity of 100 K, and there is evidence that this can be improved that brought to the room-temperature range. See also the discussion on "Some subtleties". Moreover, in a laser, at arbitrary temperature, quantum effects are apparent. 
I think, the overture to this article is rather poor. 
The section titled "Introduction" doesn't really say anything about BEC, but gives a somewhat loose discussion of superfluidity, perhaps. It's not clear what purpose it serves. 
The section titled "Theory" kicks out with the sentence "The slowing of atoms etc.". However, no one says that BEC can occur only for atoms. There are many other bosons, photons, phonons, excitons, polaritons etc. 
By reading the article, I can't but observe that it's is rather unstructured. It's obvious that many people wrote it, and it's diverted from the main subject on a number of occasions. What is also a problem is the fact that the article is not self-consistent: it contains contradictory statements, without specifying the conditions. 
These were my general remarks, and I would like to hear the opinion of others. Zoltán (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the introduction is trying to explain to those unfamiliar with the terminology the difference between condensation, condensed matter physics and exotic condensates of which the Bose-Einstein condensate is an example.  But it doesn't do it very well.  I think you should rewrite it as you seem to knwo what you are talking about. SpinningSpark 20:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading introduction and other remarks 

message: I am just wondering what the purpose of the section on the Gross-Pitaevskii equation might be: there is a full-fledged article with that title, and the author of this section stops immediately after writing down the equation. It doesn't really help understanding, I believe. This should be yanked altogether, and only a link to the relevant article should be kept. Zoltán (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a section on the GP equation? 

message: It could merely be my own skewed reading of this section, but it seems to be more akin to a personal tirade than a paragraph in an encyclopedia entry.
Anyone care to rewrite this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.111.198 (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Subtleties  

message: Merge this. 205.170.14.251 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfered from article superatom, merged into here 

message: Rather than merge, I strongly suggest keeping the article, but editing it to reference non BEC's.  These are vaporized metal atom clusters.  See . Tmangray (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hold On

message: When the word 'container' is use doesn't that somewhat imply a container made out of materials, instead of entrapment with lasers.(And maybe other methods) 82.169.255.79 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nature of the containers 

message: A four dimension "ideal gas" does go BEC when t < T_c, why did this article not write ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.164.99.31 (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  about this article 

message: A lot of this article mentions only atomic BEC should it not also deal with BEC in solid state. Room temeperature condensates have been achived in exicton-polariton system - should this not be mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.70 (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solid state BEC 

message: What does this term mean as used in this article? There is a general chatiness of tone in the article besides this.--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think they literally means that the 10,000 atoms where expelled forcibly and violently from the trap.  However, after thinking about the phrase "blowing off" outside in the modern context, I realize how this might be considered offensive.  Therefor I change the word to expelling.  If you can find any other comments that you feel are offensive or catty in this article, please feel free to post them. Physics16 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blowing off"?? 

message: "Lithium has attractive interactions which causes the condensate to be unstable to collapse for all but a few atoms."
Comma after unstable? Stringing infinitives is always confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.176 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is either a wrong word here or a missing comma 

message: You must be approximately 1/1 000 000 of a degree above absolute 0 to attain Bose-Einstein condensation, perhaps this should be added instead of saying very close?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.178.143 (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first BCE was created at a temperature of 170-billionth of a degree above absolute zero.  Do you have a citation for the warmer figure of 1/millionth of a degree, and is this a good figure for all elements?   J JMesserly (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Very close to absolute 0" 

message: Wolfgang Ketterle gave a talk at MIT in 2001 that had sections which were directed at a lay audience.  A recent Nova episode also made the subject much more accessible to a laypeople than the treatment given in the current version of this Wikipedia article.  I certainly do not advocate "dumbing down" or subtracting any of the precise and technical content whatever.  What I am advocating is that there be a section of the article devoted to the lay audience.  Examples of the material included might include ways of visualizing a BEC such as those given in the recent Nova program "Absolute Zero".  For example:
DANIEL KLEPPNER (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics): Matter can exist in various states: atoms at high temperature always form gases; if you cool the gas, it becomes a liquid; if you cool the liquid, it becomes a solid. But, under certain circumstances, if you cool atoms far enough, to extremely low temperatures, they undergo a very strange transformation; they undergo an identity crisis.
So let me show you what I mean by an identity crisis. When you go to low temperatures, the quantum mechanical properties of the atoms become important. These are very strange, very unfamiliar to us, but, in fact, each one of these atoms starts to display wave-like properties. So instead of points, like that [draws dots on whiteboard], you have little wave packets, like that [draws s shaped waves], moving around. It's really difficult for me to explain just why that is, but that's the way it is.
Now, as you go to very low temperatures, the size of these packets gets longer and longer and longer. And then suddenly, if you get them cold enough, they start overlapping [draws s shaped waves with multiple overlaps]. And when they overlap, the system behaves, not like individual particles, but particles which have lost their identity. They all think they're everywhere. This little wave packet, over here, can't tell whether it's this one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one. It's there and it's there and it's there. They're all in one great big quantum state. They're all overlapping, overlapping.
They're all doing the same thing. And what they're doing, to a good approximation, is they're simply sitting at rest. This Bose-Einstein condensate is very difficult to imagine or to visualize. I could imagine what it's like to be an atom, running around gaily, freely, bouncing into things, sometimes going fast, sometimes going slow. But in the Bose condensate, I'm everywhere at once. I've lost my identity. I don't know who I am anymore. I'm at rest, and all the other atoms around are at rest. But they're not other atoms around; we're all just one great big quantum system. (source
Now, there may be better visualizations or analogies than Dr. Kleppner's, but the point is that there is a place for this sort of lay person's description in the current article.  This is certainly not my field, so it would be best if the section is crafted by someone with a firm grasp of this field of physics.  If no such improvement is attempted in the next few months, I shall take a stab at it by cribbing together illustrations such as the one quoted above.   J JMesserly (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layperson's overview needed- any volunteers? 

message: * Absolutely not - The network theory analog of Bose-Einstein condensation is mathematically identical, and therefore can give insight into certain aspects of the physics of Bosons, but it is a completely different discipline and should in no way be confused with the physics of Bosons. PAR (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach]] 

message: ...for non-physicists?  I've the feeling that quite a few people's eyeballs are spinning in multiple directions (at the same time) at reading this.  And then they go elsewhere.
Nevertheless, this is an important concept that needs to be understood.  It would help if the article were less technical.
Thank you, and Happy Trails!
Dr. Entropy (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we add a banner about the article being too technical? 

message: I have noted that there is no mention of spinor BEC in this article, only scalar BEC topics.  This is a large and active area of research in BEC, maybe large enough to have its own article, but should at least be linked from from this article.
130.207.141.143 (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinor BEC 

message: I dont know if this helps anything, but I'll leave this here: .-19:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source 

message: Arnaud Migres (talk), no matter how interesting or informative your recent good faith edits, it is important to provide reliable and verifiable WP:VERIFY sources WP:SOURCES or references for material added to Wikipedia articles. This will enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. Please revise your recent edits by providing the source(s) of your information. Thanks in advance. Coldcreation (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent unsourced edits 

message: Substituted at 10:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bose–Einstein condensate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220142130/http://www.colorado.edu:80/physics/2000/bec/index.html to http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bose–Einstein condensate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709214322/http://bec.nist.gov/ to http://bec.nist.gov/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bose–Einstein condensate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092631/http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Projects_1997/Interference/Interference_BEC.htm to http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Projects_1997/Interference/Interference_BEC.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bose–Einstein condensate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113160458/http://iqoqi.at/bec2009/ to http://www.iqoqi.at/bec2009
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226061445/http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/home.htm to http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/home.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The section Ideal Bose gas says that g_{3/2} is only convergent on [0,1].  It seems to me that it should also converge on [-1, 0].  Could someone confirm that, and update the text accordingly? LachlanA (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  convergence of g. 

message: The state consists of super energetic and super excited particles . This particles are in the form of ionized gas.  the fluorescent tube and neon sign verbs consists of Plasma inside a Neon size bulb there is neon gas and inside a fluorescent tube their is helium gas or some other gas the gas get ionized that is gets chat when electrical energy flows through it this charging up create a plasma glowing inside the tube or bulb the plasma close with the special colour depending on the nature of the gas the sun and the stars glow because of the presence of Plasma in them the plasma is created in stars because of very high temperature 2402:8100:259A:AC48:D1E1:71A1:F24A:4810 (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasma 

message: Reassess article. The article fails the B-class criteria with section "needs additional citations" tag, and unsourced sentences, paragraphs, and subsections. --  Otr500 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues and classification

message: :There are 15 entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . -- Otr500 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I did some research on the origin of the term Bose-Einstein condensation: The condensation part seems to have been introduced by Kahn and Uhlenbeck in 1938 (https://verga.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/pdfs/Kahn-1938uq.pdf). They compared recent results for the condensation of vapour to liquid by Mayer et al (https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1749933) and Einstein's study of the degenerate Bose gas and noted the similarities. The full term came together when London published an article entitled On Bose-Einstein condensation the same year. (https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.54.947). This still needs secondary sources for verification before it is added to the article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the translation of the 1925 Einstein paper. Already features there. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the origin of the term 'condensation' 

message: The article seems to indicate that He-II is, and then isn't, a BEC. Statements like: The quest to produce a Bose–Einstein condensate in the laboratory was stimulated by a paper published in 1976 seem to suggest that superfluid helium from many years earlier isn't a BEC. Is it the difference between a liquid and gas that needs to be indicated? Gah4 (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, or perhaps more fundamentally, it is the interactions which make the phenomenology more complicated. If you have access, see Annett, Superconductivity, Superfluids, And Condensates, pp. 21,27. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  He-4 and He-II