Assuming absolute zero were a possibility:?

[drag]

Originally posted by: NerdOfTheNorth

Originally posted by: drag
I know that photons have enough mass to move objects by their impact.

Forgive my limited understanding of Physics, but it was my knowledge that when anything travels at C, its mass is multiplyed by infinity. Thus, if light (photons) had mass, that mass would become infinite and some very weird things would start to happen. I haven't noticed the solar system collapsing in towards my flashlight, for example. Also, light is energy, not matter, and it was to my knowledge that energy, as a rule has no mass. Someone explain where I went wrong, please.

This is another cool thing we've been figure (not me, but mankind in general ) lately due to modern science and technology.

It's now possible to stop light movement completely for short periods of time without destroying it or converting it to another form of energy.

You can now shoot a laser, stop it, then let it go again. They've been able to slow it down considurably. something like this

Then that would be easier to make light-based computers in the distant future because you can create busses and stuff to stop and redirect light to different things. Also in the nearer future they could vastly improve fiber optics performance because then you could time light pulses into backbones and build routers and stuff around this.

That stuff all goes to show how fundamental the concepts of particles vs waves are.

 

[f95toli]

Drag: Again, how do you define temperature? As far as I know the concept of temperature is never used for individual atoms, you need large collection of particles in order for "temperature" to mean anything.

And beyond BEC, what would that mean? A simplified "definition" of a BEC is a condensate where the particles obey Bose-Einstein statistics, how could you go "beyond" that?

Even at zero Kelvin you would (I should write probably, not everyone agrees) still have zero-point fluctuations, but you would still be at zero temperature. so strictly speaking 0 K is not equal to zero energy.

There is nothing that "powers" the electrons, the electrons stay in their "orbit" ("state" is better word) because it is their ground state.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: f95toli
Drag: Again, how do you define temperature? As far as I know the concept of temperature is never used for individual atoms, you need large collection of particles in order for "temperature" to mean anything.

And beyond BEC, what would that mean? A simplified "definition" of a BEC is a condensate where the particles obey Bose-Einstein statistics, how could you go "beyond" that?

Well when you reach BEC the atoms behave differently then when they do at any other tempurature then what it takes to get to BEC.

It's kinda like you expect atoms to behave differently when they are in plasma, or they are a gas, a liquid, or a solid. Now when they reach BEC, don't they follow a new set of rules about how they behave? What if you could get it the atoms cooled to a point below BEC were they did something even more unexpected?

Even at zero Kelvin you would (I should write probably, not everyone agrees) still have zero-point fluctuations, but you would still be at zero temperature. so strictly speaking 0 K is not equal to zero energy.

There is nothing that "powers" the electrons, the electrons stay in their "orbit" ("state" is better word) because it is their ground state.

Well electrons themselves have some sort of mass. Even if it is very very minor, right? So gravity has some effect on them. So their has to be some sort of force that keeps them from being sucked into the nucleus. Then there is another force that keeps them from flying off into space. Now I understand that gravity on this level is very very minor thing and doesn't enter in the equation at all, generally.

But what if you guys figure out how to strip away the forces that keep electrons in movement. A state were gravity between the nulceus (or more likely several million/billon smooshed together) and the electrons would become the dominate force.

Could you then make electrons come to rest on the nucleus?

Or if that is just straight impossible, what about:

What if you have enough atoms (a few moles of atoms or so) at rest so much that they simply stopped and the nucleuses fell together in one tight bunch.(probably still lots of space, not physically touching) What would be the energy "states" of the electrons then, when the nucleuses of millions of atoms are physically within their natural levels(, orbits, states, or whatever)?

 

[sao123]

But what if you guys figure out how to strip away the forces that keep electrons in movement.

This is called the weak nuclear force.

What if you have enough atoms (a few moles of atoms or so) at rest so much that they simply stopped and the nucleuses fell together in one tight bunch.(probably still lots of space, not physically touching) What would be the energy "states" of the electrons then, when the nucleuses of millions of atoms are physically within their natural levels(, orbits, states, or whatever)?

I've been doing more reading...
The Bose Einstein phenomenon only applies to bosons. Bosons with the same quantum state (spin + or - 1) can now occupy the same space. Electrons are fermions with spin + or - 1/2. In the super atom, Fermions do not obey bose-einstein and must still fill up energy states in order from lowest to highest. This is called the...pauli-exclusion principal.

However it has been suggested and supposedly even performed in a lab, where even lower temperatures make it possible (for reversal of P.E.P.) for fermions to exibit similar properties of bose-einstein behavior, thereby all simultaneiously existing in the lowest energy state. (which may be n=1, s) or in the nucleas, I'm not sure where the lowest state is yet.

 

[f95toli]

1/3 of the the last Nobel prize was awarded to Tony Legget for his work in superfluid 3He which is what you are describing. I suggest you try reading the "advanced information" on the prize at www.nobel.se

And, again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do whith the state the atoms are in.