Perpetual? Not Exactly
Cibby Pulikkaseril e-mailed me about the "perpetual motion" state post I made a few days ago. He definitely wins a tiny razor with "Occam" engraved on the handle for this:With regards to the perpetual motion demonstration in the BEC: I think it's very pertinent that the term 'perpetual motion' is used by the DailyTech post, NOT by the press release issued by NIST.
Daily Tech:
"The National Institute of Standards and Technology, in conjunction with the University of Maryland's Joint Quantum Institute, created a short-lived "proof of concept" of perpetual motion."
Whereas NIST:
"Using laser light to stir an ultracold gas of atoms, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Joint Quantum Institute (NIST/University of Maryland) have demonstrated the first "persistent" current in an ultracold atomic gas —a frictionless flow of particles."
The researchers call it 'persistent flow'. I think you'll find that real physicists are loathe to make outrageous claims. They're usually very precise in their definitions.
<< Home