New light on the intriguing history of superfluidity in liquid<sup>4</sup>He
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surprisingly, it was 30 years after the first liquefaction of (4)He in 1908 that the discovery that liquid (4)He is not just a 'cold' liquid was made. Below T = 2.18 K, it is a 'quantum' liquid which exhibits spectacular macroscopic quantum behaviour that can be seen with the naked eye. Since the observation of superfluidity in liquid (4)He is one of the greatest discoveries in modern physics, we present a day-to-day chronology of the tangled events which preceded the seminal discovery of zero viscosity in 1938 by Kapitza in Moscow and by Allen and Misener in Cambridge. On the theory side, London argued in 1938 that the microscopic basis for this new superfluid phase was the forgotten phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) first suggested by Einstein in 1925. In 1941, Landau developed a very successful theory of superfluid (4)He, but it was not anchored in a microscopic theory of interacting atoms. It took another 20 years for theorists to unify the two seemingly different theories of Landau and London. Experiments on trapped superfluid atomic gases since 1995 have shone new light on superfluid (4)He. In the mid-1930s, London had emphasized that superconductivity in metals and superfluidity in liquid (4)He were similar. Experiments on trapped two-component Fermi gases in the last five years have shown that a Bose condensate is indeed the basis of both of these superfluid phases. This confirms the now famous Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer-BEC crossover scenario developed for superfluidity by Leggett and Nozières in the early 1980s but largely ignored until a few years ago. The study of superfluid (4)He will increasingly overlap with strongly interacting dilute quantum gases, perhaps opening up a new era of research on this most amazing liquid.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".