Fine, care to show me the math that proves me wrong?icarus wrote:You are wrong here because the maths says so.
A quote from an article is no math in my world.icarus wrote:From the Nature article:I actually went through and checked Weitz's calcs, he is right, did you do the same?Upon increasing the photon density, we observe the following BEC signatures: the photon energies have a Bose–Einstein distribution with a massively populated ground-state mode
Here is the link to the original Arxiv paper:
Point me to the equations that you checked and that you identified as fundamental to PROVE that what he discovered is a BEC.
Bipeds are described as animals walking on two legs, yet to distinguish between humans and monkeys you need to add an identification of their intelligence level (even if sometimes the two are almost indistinguishable).icarus wrote:BEC are described by the statistics of Bose-Einstein, (funnily enough) hence the name. This is THE definition of a BEC. The photonic-BEC is described by these statistics, thus it is a Bose-Einstein condensate ... any questions? (Or just go and do the math).
Just because a photon is a Boson it does not mean that it can become a BEC.
Let me restate it again:
A BEC is formed by a macroscopic population at ground state in thermal equilibrium of non interacting particles from which spontaneous coherence emerges.
I suggest spending some time to understand a little bit of nomenclature and definitions before attempting to go to directly to the math so maybe also the math will become more clear.