Here is a copy for free. Often Paywall articles, or the predecessor version - are available on arXiv or the University site or elsewhere on the net (for free) if you dig around.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5833v1.pdf We can only wish that you and Axil, in particular, would try to find and read these articles first, before commenting - since this is a very important point in the big picture; and he especially tends to cite articles from abstracts, which only partially apply to the point being made - and often without having read the details. In fact the details often support the opposite conclusion being proposed. In this case "superheated" is still very, very cold and this is one of the poorest written scientific papers I have ever seen. It is almost written specifically to deceive. Of course --- if you want to argue that 1.5 degrees K is not "near" absolute zero - then have at it but even then it would not relate to gamma suppression. I think you owe Ed an apology. He is exactly correct - and this article proves, not disproves, his contention. Let's be clear - polaritons can possibly transform photon frequency in the IR spectrum, but in NO WAY do they absorb or thermalize gamma radiation. That point is ludicrous, yet the BEC keeps coming up here on vortex from time to time - as if there were some evidence for an ability to absorb gamma radiation. There is none. From: Kevin O'Malley No I did not read it because you have to pay money for it. http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n5/full/nphys2587.html I do have to admit that I misread the article, there's a graph showing -10, 0 , +10 and +30 in what appears to be a temperature axis, but its labeling is quizzical. I had thought when I read it that this meant room temperature, i.e. in degrees Celsius. Now I don't know what is intended for that axis. Jones Beene wrote: Did you read the paper cited in the post, Kevin? If so, then what temperature are we talking about? Is that temperature not "near absolute zero" as Ed states? QED From: Kevin O'Malley Edmund Storms wrote: I'm saying that BEC is known to form near absolute zero but has not been shown to form BETWEEN ATOMS at higher temperatures. ***Is an optically trapped potassium-39 gas somehow not formed of ATOMS? <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg78827.html> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg78827.html
