---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 09:21:53 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Physics News Update 732

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 732 May 24, 2005  by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein

THE FIRST DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF RECOIL MOMENTUM for single atoms
struck by light in an absorptive medium has been made by Gretchen
Campbell, Dave Pritchard, Wolfgang Ketterle and their colleagues at
MIT.  Parcels of light, photons, do not possess mass, but a beam of
light does carry momentum.  In general, when light strikes a mirror,
the mirror will recoil ever so slightly, and this recoil has
previously been measured.  But what about a single photon striking a
single atom in a dilute gas?  The momentum of a photon equals
h/lambda, where h is Planck's constant and lambda is the wavelength
of the light in vacuum.  In a dispersive medium, a medium which can
scatter or absorb light, the index of refraction for the medium, n,
comes into play: an object absorbing the photon will recoil with a
momentum equal to nh/lambda.  This is what has been measured for the
first time on an atomic basis.  The MIT team used laser beams sent
into a dilute gas; a beat note between recoiling atoms and atoms at
rest provided the momentum measurement of selected atoms.  The fact
that the recoil momentum should actually be proportional to the
index of refraction came as something of a surprise to the
experimenters.  You might expect that in isolated encounters, when
an individual atom absorbs a single photon, that the recoil of the
atom should not depend on n.  That's because the atoms in the
sample---in this case a Bose-Einstein condensate of Rb atoms---is
extremely dilute, so dilute that each atom essentially resides in a
vacuum.  Nevertheless, the interaction of the light with all the
atoms has to be taken into account, even if the specific interaction
being measured, in effect, is that of  single atoms.  The atoms
"sense" the presence of the others and act collectively, and the
extra factor, the index of refraction, is applicable after all.  At
several colloquia before audiences of physicists, Ketterle has put
the question: will the recoil be h/lambda or nh/lambda?  Generally
the opinion among these experts divides about 50/50.  So, on this
basic question of light traveling a medium, a physicist's intuition
can be wrong, at least in half the cases.  Ketterle believes that
this new insight about what happens when light penetrates a
dispersive medium provides an important correction for
high-precision measurements using cold atoms.  (Campbell et al.,
Physical Review Letters, 6 May 2005)

WATER'S CHEMICAL FORMULA MAY ALWAYS BE H2O, and not different on
shorter timescales, according to a new paper.  In earlier
experiments, a research group reported that neutrons and electrons
interacting with room-temperature water molecules for very brief
times (0.1-1 femtoseconds) saw a ratio of hydrogen to oxygen of
roughly 1.5 to 1, suggesting a chemical formula of H1.5O for water
at short timescales (Update 648).  According to the data analysis of
those researchers, incoming neutrons scattered from at least 25%
fewer hydrogen nuclei (protons) than expected.  They proposed that
quantum entanglement between protons (hydrogen nuclei) on a
sub-femtosecond timescale was causing this anomalous scattering.
This result stimulated a flurry of theoretical and experimental
activity, including a new experiment at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute in Upstate New York that now disputes these earlier
results.  The experimenters, coming from Ben Gurion University and
RPI (Raymond Moreh, [EMAIL PROTECTED]), use higher-energy neutrons
which interact with pure liquid water, pure D2O, and mixtures of the
two liquids, on shorter timescales (0.001-0.01 femtoseconds) than in
the earlier experiments.  (Theorists had predicted that the shorter
timescales would lead to an even more pronounced scattering anomaly,
since quantum decoherence would have less time to spoil the proposed
entanglement between protons.)   However, the Ben Gurion-RPI team
did not detect an anomalous dropoff in n-p scattering.  They
conclude that no entanglement takes hold and water is accurately
described as H2O, after all, at these shorter timescales.  They cite
several advantages of their experiment, including the following:
they looked at a single, simpler scattering signal arising from the
three nuclei of the water and D2O molecules (as opposed to the
separate neutron scattering signals for oxygen, hydrogen, and
deuterium in the earlier experiments); and their data did not
require complicated processing, leading to a much simpler data
analysis than was necessary in the previous work. Researchers from
the earlier experiments contend that the new experiment does not
probe the timescales that they originally explored; the new team
counters that their data does address the original team's
timescales. In addition, Moreh and colleagues argue that one would
have to shake many well established notions in physics to explain
the suggested scattering anomaly.  (Moreh, Block, Danon, Neumann,
Physical Review Letters, 13 May 2005.

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE presently goes into summer recess for three
weeks.

***********
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE is a digest of physics news items arising
from physics meetings, physics journals, newspapers and
magazines, and other news sources.  It is provided free of charge
as a way of broadly disseminating information about physics and
physicists. For that reason, you are free to post it, if you like,
where others can read it, providing only that you credit AIP.
Physics News Update appears approximately once a week.

AUTO-SUBSCRIPTION OR DELETION: By using the expression
"subscribe physnews" in your e-mail message, you
will have automatically added the address from which your
message was sent to the distribution list for Physics News Update.
If you use the "signoff physnews" expression in your e-mail message,
the address in your message header will be deleted from the
distribution list.  Please send your message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Leave the "Subject:" line blank.)

Reply via email to