Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

arXiv blog

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Email Subscription

Recently on the arXiv blog...

Recent comments on the arXivblog

  • sleeprun : We read a Wharton study of doctors influencing new treatment adoption.  It was not the most...
  • ZephirAWT : isn't completelly new in this context, as the simmilar concept was proposed by Mark Hucko in 1985...
  • ZephirAWT : If I understood it well, by your theory matter universe is surrounded by antimatter universe and...
  • matt_s : Couldn't we theoretically save the earth from the eventual expansion of the sun in it's...
  • ... : This is not about the originators of ideas, but about how the ideas spread. A well connected...
  • debu : Please read my ether-gravity or theory of gravitoethertons which explains many aspects of quantum...
  • ms : So is AMSC selling superconducting wire that doesn't exist?
  • shazl : I believe the results are not only because of somebody being post-paid or pre-paid. It's...
  • ... : I am surprised no one is addressing an immediate need for energy here on earth, and what this...
  • IXANTI666 : THE NEXT STEP HUMAN TELEPORTATION.SINCE WE ARE MADE UP OF QUATUM MATTER TO BEGIN WITH TO BORROW...
  • 020648 : try www.prisonplanet.tv
  • ZephirAWT : And what prohibits scientists in ATTEMPT to replicate J.F.Prins experiments? Are they so...
  • ... : Make me some 90K Tc superconductor and I'll finish my PhD in a month! How's this for a conspiracy...
  • sfrysfry : For ideas on entangling larger structures, I introduce the conjecture of Nicholas Greaves, an...
  • snedunuri : This might explain how UFOs get the energy they need to travel interstellar distances. Either...
  • John... : I offer the following hypothesis for comment because it seems to me that if it's on the right...
  • jojo99 : Charles Stross used a similar sounding quantum entanglement in his entertaining space opera SF...
  • Colonel... : To be honest, I only read like the first 15 replies before my common sense kicked in.   We can...
  • zin6776 : Could we surmise then, that this is why SETI has heard very little? It would seem we have been...
  • javs : "... the really exciting stuff is the implications this has for the foundations of physics." The...
Advertisement
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Acoustic Black Hole Created in Bose-Einstein Condensate

The creation of an acoustic black hole leaves the way open for the discovery of Hawking radiation.

One of the many curious properties of Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs) is that the flow of sound through them is governed by the same equations that describe how light is bent by a gravitational field. That sets up the possibility of all kinds of fun and games: in theory, physicists can reproduce with sound and BECs whatever wicked way gravity has with light.

Today, Oren Lahav and his mates at the Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa, say that they've created the sonic equivalent of a black hole in a BEC. That's some achievement, given that physicists have wondered about this possibility for some 30 years, and various groups with the ability to create BECs have been racing to create acoustic black holes.

The general idea is to set up a supersonic flow of atoms within the BEC. Sound waves moving against this flow can never make any ground. So the region where the flow changes from subsonic to supersonic is an event horizon. Any sound waves (or phonons) created inside the event horizon can never escape because the flow there is supersonic. That's the black hole.

Lahav and co set up a supersonic flow by creating a deep potential well in the middle of a BEC that attracts atoms. The atoms stream into it but cannot give up their energy when they arrive (they're already in their lowest energy state), and so they stream across the well at supersonic speed.

The result is a region within the BEC in which the atoms move at supersonic speed. This is the black hole: any phonon unlucky enough to stray into this region cannot escape.

One reason why sonic black holes are so highly prized is that they ought to produce Hawking radiation. Quantum mechanics predicts that pairs of "virtual" phonons with equal and opposite momentum ought to be constantly springing in and out of existence in BECs.

If one of this pair were to cross the event horizon, it would be sucked into the black hole, never to escape. The other, however, would be free to go on its way. This stream of escapees would be the famous, but as yet unobserved, Hawking radiation.

Lahav and his buddies haven't gotten this far yet, but they've made an important step toward observing Hawking radiation and clearly have their eyes on this goal.

There's no shortage of competition here, and the creation of the first sonic black hole will be sure to spur the competition. Expect to see somebody claim the first observation of Hawking radiation soon.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0906.1337: A Sonic Black Hole in a Density-Inverted Bose-Einstein Condensate

Comments

  • [no subject]
    I guess we'll see thermal phonons following a black body radiation distribution.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ImaginaryUni...
    06/10/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • BEC & blackholes
    Has anyone ever heard it suggested before that the most dense portions of the interiors of blackholes could in fact have many BEC-like properties, including the possibility that all black holes throughout the universe (or, at least the largest ones) are actually instantaneously non-locally quantum entangled, each black hole core having lost its identity in space-time, its wave forms unable to tell the difference between being here or there, so in effect is everywhere through out the unverse at once (wherever there is a large blackhole, anyway), like what happens to the wave forms in BEC's? If it is possible for black holes to periodically transform into white holes, this would mean instantaneously that whatever happens to or by one, happens to all at the same time. The universe might suddenly become rather unfriendly to have lots of mini-big bangs unleashed, especially out of the cores of galaxies. If it has been proposed before, where might I find the reference?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    wierderandwi...
    06/19/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: BEC & blackholes
      According to string theory, at least the version made popular by Brain Greene in his book, The Elegant Universe, the mini-big bangs you speak of open into new spacetimes that are not part of our universe.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      yanniru
      08/07/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: BEC & blackholes
      In AWT black holes are considered as a giant density fluctuations of Aether gas, analogous to smaller ones (stars and planets), so your model has certain meaning here. Stay tuned and think freely!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ZephirAWT
      08/15/2009
      Posts:158
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
  • Hawking radiation
    Is Hawking radiation compatible with the existence of blackholes?
    www.noblackholes.com/hawking_radiation.html
    Rate this comment: 12345

    bhskeptic
    08/03/2009
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Hawking radiation
      Hawking radiation is widely accepted to be compatible with the existence of black holes, but it means that the smaller they are, the shorter their lives (in the absence of an adequate source of energy to replace that which is lost).
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Elroch
      08/12/2009
      Posts:36
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Hawking radiation
    The coexistence of black holes and Hawking radiation may be widely accepted--but their mutual existence is contradicted by simple logic.  Consider the perspective of the distant observer.  A black hole takes an infinite time to form, but before infinity Hawking radiation will have destroyed any black hole that could form.  The second Law of thermodynamics (of which Hawking radiation is just one expression), therefore, must destroy the matter compacting into a black hole before the black hole is actually formed.  For more discussion on this topic, see the papers posted at noblackholes.com.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    bhskeptic
    09/18/2009
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Gravity is a Push
    Black holes are neither. Space-time and matter are mutually antagonistic. Gravity is not a force, just a consequence of this interaction of space-time and matter. When enough matter is concentrated in one place, space-time is twisted to the point that a balance is reached between space-time and matter. This balance results in a "bubble" of matter of nearly infinite density becoming virtually a two-dimensional sphere with nothing on the inside.
    When a star collapses, space-time is stressed to the point that it rebounds forcing the mass outward resulting in a nova. If there is enough matter, space-time pressure (gravity) will balance the outward pressure of collapsed space-time resulting in a black hole.
    Extrapolating backward in time, the beginning of our observable universe can be attributed to the intrusion of matter/energy into this space-time continuum. The reaction of space-time on this intrusion dispersed most the intrusion driving it violently apart. The remainder became a bubble of space-time with a two-dimensional surface; the first black hole.
    Incidentally, gravity is not a force. Gravity is the consequence of the mutual antagonism of matter and space-time. This antagonism results in spherical planets, the limit of the speed of light, and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
    As a consequence, gravity does not precisely follow the Newtonian Inverse Square Law. Observations of trajectories of spacecraft slingshoting around planets show a clear, consistent discrepancy between the mathematical predictions and actual results. These are just some observations that are not adequately accounted for by conventional theories of gravity:
    • Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.
    • Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[1]
    • Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.
    • Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this.
    • Anomalous increase of the AU: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are expanding faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.
    • Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
    • Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
    • Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[4].
    These and other observations suggest a revision of classical gravitational theory is necessary.
    If, as I suggest, gravitation is a consequence of space-time pressure on matter due to mutual antagonism, then gravitational phenomena are not linear but volume dependent, then, instead of an inverse square law, gravitation requires an inverse cube law; Gravity at A = gravity at B × (distance B / distance A)3 .
    Interestingly, this suggests that what is called the Strong Nuclear Force that serves to hold atomic nuclei together is not a separate force at all, but the very same space-time pressure that results in what we perceive as gravity. This theory also accounts for the galactic rotational anomalies “explained” by the fallacy of dark matter and the accelerating expansion of the universe attributed to “dark energy.”
    Using simple, undergraduate level equations, the mass pressure of space-time can easily be calculated as 5.757 X 10-17 gs. Using this, the observable limit of the speed of light in a vacuum becomes a consequence of space-time pressure. This is the calculation: Space-time mass pressure @ C = 1.727 X 10-26 m/gs2. Incidentally, this means that photons have mass, despite what you read in high school physics textbooks.
    Further research to refine mathematical rigor and make the observational measurements necessary is indicated.
    1. ^ Wanted: Einstein Jr, The Economist, 6th March 2008.
    2. ^ Dark energy may just be a cosmic illusion, New Scientist, issue 2646, 7th March 2008.
    3. ^ Swiss-cheese model of the cosmos is full of holes, New Scientist, issue 2678, 18th October 2008.
    4. ^ a b c "Where Matter Fears to Tread", New Scientist issue 2669, 14 March 2009


    Rate this comment: 12345

    jameylynne
    10/29/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.