Scientists Create New Form of Matter 448
soren100 writes "Yahoo News has a story about scientists creating a sixth form of matter. They are calling their new state of matter a 'fermionic condensate.' Somehow they got potassium atoms to form pairs similar to the 'Cooper pairs' that make superconducting possible. Maybe any quantum physicists around can tell us more about this, but it certainly sounds pretty revolutionary. The scientists are predicting that this will lead to 'room temperature solid' superconductors, which in turn will enable us to have better electricity generators, more efficient electric motors, and (our favorite) cheaper maglev trains."
Quandry (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe, but how will you tell the real quantum physicists from the myriad of armchair quantum physicists who think they know what it's all about.
Re:Quandry (Score:5, Funny)
Why, by making an observation of course! After that their quantum state collapses to just one state, either a real or an armchair quantum physicist.
There are some experiments underway to use this to encrypt articles about quantum physics, so that only intended recipients can decrypt the text, even.
Are you sure? (Score:2)
Heisenberg says... (Score:4, Funny)
The problem is that you'll either be able to read what they wrote, or determine how intelligent the post is -- but by knowing one, the other is forever lost. Quite the quantum quandry!
Re:Quandry (Score:5, Funny)
The real quantum physicist will post a superposition of all possible comments with attached probabilities, so your browser will be able to randomly select which one to show you.
If you are one of twins, your sibling will always see a comment presenting the precise opposite point of view. Unfortunatly, there is no way to use this phenomenon to get zero-ping time internet access.
The original press release (Score:5, Informative)
If you want the actual paper, and have access to the journal, it's published on the online version of Physics Review Letters [aps.org] Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 040403 (2004)
abstract here [aip.org] for those with access.
Re:Quandry (Score:2)
You'll just have to settle for a probability cloud in the general vicinity of where a real quantum physicist might be located at any instant.
Re:Quandry (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is bad because...? To put it bluntly, that's a bit elitist attitude, "if you can't understand this thing, you shouldn't even think about it, just go and do your daily work and pay your taxes so scientists get their grants and particle accelerators, don't bother your little brain with this stuff".
Anything that makes layman more familiar with basic scientific research and principles and generally interested in those is good IMHO, even if they get it a bit wrong.
Re:I might also point out... (Score:3, Insightful)
That even with the so-called "pros," much of the ideas associated with quantum dynamics is theory. While some is based on real physical phenomenon (the particle/wave duality of light for example), other ideas, like the notion that there exist quantum entities that float around in spacetime (moving backward and forward in time - we notice their presence only when they happen to share the same point in spacetime that we occupy), qualify as nothing more than "the best way we can think of at the moment to expla
Re:Quandry (Score:3, Interesting)
It is said that in order to teach a subject well you have to understand it well- this is likely one of the reasons it's so hard to teach or explain Quantum.
When trying to explain a complex subject simply, there comes a point where the only way to simplify a subject further is to either miss the point entirely or to get something drastically wrong. Quantum mec
Re:Quandry (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that the majority of the people who read
What, precisely, is wrong with explaining science to the general populace? I would consider such a thing a laudable goal, regardless of discipline to be disseminated, not only because of the sheer enlightenment value, but also because a population taught to think scientifically and flexibly, as from exposure to the sciences, is far more difficult to manipulate than one that has no understanding of any of it!
Re:Quandry (Score:3)
Other than the fact that it's cool and interesting in its own right? Or that the fruits of science aren't meant to be hoarded by the privileged few? How about because they are voters and it's in the best interest of the Republic that its citizens be informed as well as engaged? And that devices made possible by this discovery coul
Not to mention (Score:2, Funny)
Maglevs? More like... (Score:4, Funny)
Maglevs are cool, but the real slashdotter wants to know how it will help build space elevators.
Re:Maglevs? More like... (Score:2, Funny)
space elevator maglev flying cars
Practical application (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Practical application (Score:2)
Re:Practical application (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a relevant quote from the adorable Feynman:
Re:Practical application (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't let them off that easily. They're part of a broken system whose causes can be found all over our society.
- We have a public that's incredibly ignorant of science... which is a compliment, considering that they're mostly just stupid.
- We have ignorant politicians elected by that ignorant/stupid public who don't understand science well enough to know how we should be spending public funds.
- And back to the Scientists: We have a Scientific community with members who lie their asses off like a bunch of whores for money. No one "forces" them to lie, they do it of their own volition.
- Finally, we have supporters of Science in the public who make excuses for poor ethical behavior by saying "scientists are forced by our society to lie".
The answer to most of these problems is "education". Education, education, education. Besides the defense of our borders, it's the one thing that our government absolutely must provide: a solid education for every member of our society.
Re:Practical application (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoa, wait a moment here, it's now accepted and good behavior of corporations to lie to get at your money. They lie about their products to get money from their customers, they lie about their business perspectives (as much as they are allowed to) to get money from shareholders, and they lie, bitch and whine to politicians (e.g. lobbying) to get laws bend their way and be subsidized. Aparently everyone has accepted that, at least i didn't hear outcries of public rage about it, the people even expect to be lied to and think it's good business style.
I don't like it either but that's how things are now, and unless you think that a few honest scientists can fundamentally change the way the population is thinking you might go a little easier on them. The result of being honest with the future perspective of their research would probably be that funding goes to other projects headed by someone whithout any qualms to tell bold lies. Of course the system is bad and tends to bring the biggest assholes to the top (see politics where the process has worked for a longer time to see the results). I can live with a scientist that doesn't tell the whole truth (maybe by omitting the point that all those fancy products are to be expected at least 20 years from now), it's better than someone blatantly lying and just presenting works of his imagination as experimental results (yeah, that happened, everyone thought the guy was just great unless someone found the same diagram explaining totally different facts, until then there were only a few puzzled scientists who couldn't reproduce any of his research).
We need that basic science and we have to look farther into the future than the next business quarter or even the next two years. It's fine to have industrial funding, but you'll only get that for technologies that go into a marketable product in the next 3 years. We'd never have gotten semiconductor-technology if science were only dependant on such industrial funding, we'd be building better and better relay switches by now and computers would be prohibitively expensive, let alone digital watches.
It's the job of our politicians to secure our future by funding such basic science now, but those politicians fail to see anything that's beyond their term of office (see education systems worldwide). At least it's not politicians who decide which project gets funding and which doesn't, it's usually other scientists who assign parts of the total "science budget" to specific projects. Thos other scientists have quite a good grasp how long this project will take to yield any marketable results, but they know as well, that it'll probably be worth it (you never can say for sure, maybe we all get hit by a huge asteroid and should have put everything into an effort to get a foothold on mars, who can say).
I think these new materials give us a great chance for better understanding of high-temperature superconducting materials, and, hell, they found a totally new form of matter, we don't even know what we could use it for.
Re:Privatize Education (Score:5, Interesting)
Argue all you like, there is a fundamental truism in Education. Those who can do, those who can't teach. The reason is simple, teaching doesn't pay shit. The related catch 22, which is that if you pay teachers more you'll attract some decent teachers but a lot of people who are just looking for job security and a nice salary, is also pretty much inescapable. Again, argue all you want, at this stage it's about what you believe about human nature.
So moving on, if the basic problem is that teachers (as a whole, there are of course individual exceptions) are some of the least qualified people in their fields. We are confronted with the problem of how to get good teachers into the classroom while introducing a minimum number of disinterested individuals. Let's examine how the three methods you advocate do that.
Private Schools -- Have the option of paying more, but frequently don't. They do have the advantage of being more or less immune to the completely insane federal regulations (such as No Child Left Behind) and therefore able to operate within the bounds of reality, but will ultimately fail the American People because we need to educate more than just the children of the wealthy. Higher scores? Of course, most standardized test scores can be expressed as a function of socio-economic status
Home schools -- Again, a problem of who can get into it. Most American families require two incomes to survive, and that's not addressing those with only one parent. How can you home school these kids?
Community Schools -- Here you encounter many of the same problems as public schools (in terms of teacher pay and regulations). This isn't solving the problem, it's shifting it off onto a community with fewer resources less able to deal with the it.
So what can we do? Well a big part of the problem is funding. Michigan has boosted test scores through the roof by socializing their education across the state. No longer is the funding of a school tied to the taxes generated locally, rather all those taxes are thrown together and applied to all schools across the state. The result is the application of funds where they are needed the most.
Another part remains the ability to attract good teachers to bad areas. Wealthy school districts with well behaved kids and lots of resources will never have problems attracting teachers. Ask at your local college's education school... most of the applications go to the ritzy 'burbs. So how do you get teachers into the inner city? The rural backwoods areas? You pay them for it of course, and you pay them in the best way possible.... student loans. Granting temporary licensure to BA and BS holders to teach for three years is fairly easy to do in most states (No Child Left Behind will make it all but impossible). Let these young graduates teach the next generation, let them emerge from those disadvantaged schools debt free and able to enter the professional world with solid experiance and confidance. The forgiveness of tens of thousands in debt will draw graduates to these jobs like nothing else and will allow these underfunded schools some of the nations brightest minds, if only for a few years.
What we're doing now doesn't work. You're right, we need real change, but not the kind of change that only benefits the few. Public education must benefit all. Should we fail even a few, we have failed the community as a whole. Education is the silver bullet. Crime? Hunger? Even longevity is beneficially affected by education. We don't need "No Child Left Behind" or school vouchers, we need to actually leave no children behind, and we need to do it be strengthening the public schools.
Re:Practical application (Score:4, Informative)
That is to say the least. It talks about superconductors for maglev trains etc. but in reality the new form of matter is a small blob of gas hanging trapped by lasers in a vacuum chamber. The only connection is that these studies may help us develop better theories about how superconductors work. (The current theories on high-temp superconductors are quite weak). A less popular introduction to Jins work is here [physicsweb.org], but it's not quite recent.
What are the safety and health issues involved in using this in 'practical applications'?
None. There are no practical applications yet, and when you look at the experiment it's just a submillimeter blob of potassium. The moment someone disturbs the experiment it will disintegrate and fill the vacuum chamber with very dilute potassium gas. Potassium can be dangerous, but there's a thousand times more in the bin they take it from, and I'm not worried about that at all.
i was promised maglevs! (Score:5, Insightful)
maglevs always seem to be just around the corner... perpetually...
Look at Europe, Asia (Score:5, Interesting)
show me (Score:2)
i can prorbably order a space shuttle too... so what?
the tracks are just too expensive dude, the economics will never see a real useful maglev
we can have my rocket cars too... but the economics don't work, that's the real issue, not if you can order it or not
Re:Look at Europe, Asia (Score:2)
Hey ... you can order one from me too! Early delivery dates may be a problem though :-)
Connective tissue (Score:4, Funny)
They cooled potassium gas to a billionth of a degree C above absolute zero or minus 459 degrees F -- which is the point at which matter stops moving.
Step 1. Freeze until cold cold cold (like a regular superconductor)
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Have a room temperature superconductor
Step 4. PROFIT!!!!
Ok, seriously... Whats to say that you can't get any kind of matter to act like superconductors at a low enough temperature?
And while I'm at it:
Imagine a beowulf clust.....
Re:Connective tissue (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Connective tissue (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Connective tissue (Score:2, Interesting)
Superconductor hype (Score:5, Insightful)
I really dont see superconductors becoming feasable at room temperatures anytime soon (i.e. 100 years) unless we all decide we actually like it when our rooms are well below freezing.
New forms of matter are interesting - but that they are found only at a billionth of a degree above absolute zero is no more interesting to me than the fact that we can build a fridge able to get stuff down to those temperatures in the first place. I'd be scared if we didn't find some spooky stuff going on!
Re:Superconductor hype (Score:2, Interesting)
I think room tempeture superconducting is probably outside the scope of possible. But that doesn't mean I don't think there are tangible rewards to be had from double checking, even if my guesses are ultimately vindicated.
In a way, I lament those who share your lament. Denis Miller (I'm morbidly
Re:Superconductor hype (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, what these guys did was closely related to forming Cooper pairs. When they found out other things related to this, we might be able to understand how to create these pairs at +25C. Right now one of the requirements seems to be to cool down the fermions, but if we find a way around...
Re:Superconductor hype (Score:4, Informative)
This part is bogus, spin addition is more complicated than that. Whether you get a spin 0, 1/2 or 1 composite particle depends on the proper superposition of pair states. You can get an integer spin particle by combining two half-integer spin particles.
WRT the article, I don't see why they talk about having created a new state of matter. This is wrong, a claim only made up to attract attention. Superfluid Helium II is a Bose-Einstein-condensate of Helium 3, which has a half-integer spin -- exactly the same thing. There is one interesting difference, though: they managed to pick fairly heavy atoms, Potassium is much heavier than Helium.
Disclaimer: I'm a graduate student in physics.
Re:Superconductor hype (Score:4, Informative)
"Although superfluid helium exists in conditions much warmer than the Bose-Einstein condensate that the Colorado researchers made, it is widely considered a Bose-Einstein condensate, even though it is in a very different sort of system than Einstein was talking about."[1 [whyfiles.org]]
Additionally in a Bose condensed gas strong interactions in the fluid state are eliminated making the system easier to understand and measure its properties.[2 [physicsweb.org], 3 [physicsweb.org]]
So while it may be arguable whether its a new state of matter, based on how different the state is from a superfluid state, it is important because it makes the study of these systems in detail possible by eliminating many confounding interactions.[2 [physicsweb.org]]
Un-scientific questions (Score:4, Interesting)
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]
American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Un-scientific questions (Score:3, Funny)
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
You're the damn physics tutor, you tell me.
A more in depth article on the subject (Score:5, Informative)
Arguable (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a Quantum Physicist by any stretch, just a Materials Engineer. But it seems to me that the condensates have a small issue about them. They seem to hold an extremely narrow definition of a material.
Considering solid, gases, liquids, and even plasmas, they all have a range of environmental factors within which they can exist and have some level of application/interaction to the rest of the newtonian universe. I'm not disputing that they are able to get all these little bits together, but at a billionth of a fraction above absolute zero? That's going to make for a pretty cold ride on the maglev
This is news?! :-) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is news?! :-) - Looooose translation (Score:3, Interesting)
I finally get to use my croatian knowledge for something ....
Here we go:
Huge Discovery
Danijel Djurek manufactured a techologically revolutionary material that helps conserve energy.
Croatian physycist discovered a conductor of electicity without resistance. Even though results are verified additional investigation is still needed according to Mladen Prester from the Physics Institute
Conduction of electiricity without loss and vehicles which with their small electrical motors travel thousands of
Sensationalism at its best (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, let's count, shall we - we have:
1. Solid.
2. Liquid
3. Gas
4. Plasma
5. Bose-einstein condensate
7. Nemetic liquid crystals
8. Smetic liquid crystals
9. The other type of liquid crystals whoes name escapes me
10. Glass (Arguable)
11. That funky stuff that neurtron stars are made of
12-15 truely wierd QM stuff, like charmonium
And now, the newest member: 6
Maybe, just maybe, that's an over hyped term. There are lot's of states of matter. I've probably missed some.
Can we please kill the
The BIG issue now (Score:2, Funny)
HIgh Tc (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, I'm a cosmologist, not a condensed matter person, so I could be talking out of my arse.
Maglev trains are nice but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Any chance the *next* form of matter can help here?
The Original Article (Score:2, Informative)
I read this yesterday and thought to myself "wow this would make a great
Cooper Pairs (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers, Paul
Re:Cooper Pairs (Score:2)
question is... (Score:2, Funny)
Brrrr (Score:2, Funny)
I used to have a room temperature superconductor (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting how all the big ideas of the 1940s and 1950s have come to nothing: no people walking around on the Moon or Mars, no widespread personal jet aircraft, no fusion reactors, nuclear power limited by safety concerns and the availability of cooling water, limited use of superconducting magnets, lasers being used in CD players rather than as enormous weapons. Fifty years later, most research seems to be into making things smaller and smaller, or making tiny quantities of exotic things (as in this case.) Surely the remaining proponents of the Big Ideas should have learned to stay quiet by now?
Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto (Score:2)
Fusion reactors and lasers are just slower than originally thought. Fusion is very close, and basically reduced to an engineering problem at this point. Giant laser weapons are at hand, and are the subject of at least a couple of military projects slated to go into service Real Soon Now. (And I mean they're alrea
Sorry, misprint (Score:2)
Put it down to age and reading the word "room" in the article: it wasn't deliberate.
Trying to understand what occurs... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, according to this more informative article that someone already linked to,
"Interestingly, the constituents of matter - protons, neutrons and el
Re:Trying to understand what occurs... (Score:2)
Fermion pairing was observed in superfluid He-3. (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, fermions (particle with spin which is an odd multiple of 1/2) are different beasts than bosons (with integer spin) and fermions cannot form Bose-Einstein condensate but fermions can form pairs that are bosonic. It has been observed in many cases. Superfluid He-3 (which is fermionic) requires fermion pairing and it has been observed quite long ago (and given 1996 Nobel Prize
Superconductors (Score:3, Informative)
The point is that the pairing formation of these fermions is potentially related to the Cooper pairing in electrons (also fermions). While it obviously isn't going to lead directly to a high temperature superconductor, the better we understand the mechanism IN GENERAL, the easier it will be for materials scientists and other condensed matter physicists to start figuring out how to get the critical temperature of REGULAR, SOLID superconductors up.
In that regard, this is big news.
this is really cool (Score:3, Insightful)
"They cooled potassium gas to a billionth of a degree C above absolute zero or minus 459 degrees F -- which is the point at which matter stops moving. "
So you have something that could bring a superconductor closer, which would save HUUUGGGEEE amount of energy. Only 1 thing... you need to cool it down to minus 459 degrees F. And that would cost exactly how much energy???
If you use an aerogel for insulation... (Score:2)
Then the cooling is almost only a one time expense...
The Amazing Properties of Aerogel [slashdot.org]
Room temperature superconductors (Score:2)
On the other hand potassium is *very* reactive.
the Pauli Exclusion Principle... (Score:4, Informative)
"Only one fermion of a given type is allowed to be in a specific quantum state. A quantum state is a discrete level that can be labeled. The labeling gives information about the spatial characteristics (e.g. the orbit) and the spin of the particle. Two electrons can exist in the same quantum orbital, but only if they have different spin states. No two electrons of the same spin can occupy the same orbital state. "
That's why this is interesting.
yeah, I've got a degree in it. But engineering pays better.
Just google for "Pauli Exclusion Principle" and Fermion.
Re:the Pauli Exclusion Principle... (Score:3, Interesting)
unless you invent a room temp. super conductor...
Name Change! (Score:5, Funny)
Captain Shamerica: Cease and desist, foul scum!
Grokthor: Never! *rowr*
Captain Shamerica: Then I shall blast you with my fermionic condensate ray!
See? Poor Captain Shamerica now looks like a pussy because he's using some weirdo-thingy to whack the bad guys.
New name! New name! *forms picket line*
how is this related to this year's nobel prize? (Score:3, Interesting)
should called it "nobelium" (Score:3, Interesting)
hyper-cold and hyper-hot new states of matter (Score:3, Informative)
There was a physics conference earlier in january debating whether gluon plasmas have been seen or not. When you heat and collide protons to billions of degrees, almost the speed of light, they may just merge into one big quark soup, not seen since the Big Bang.
More Information (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:2)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:2)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Clinton took it.
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:2)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:5, Funny)
When you're naming a star, a hurricane, or a child you know you have a good chance of some more coming along later - so hell - John or Mary will do nicely.
But with forms of matter I think they missed a trick. Plasma is a pretty cool name after all. I would have thought a few minutes spent searching for the phone number for Douglas Adams and a quick "Hey - Doug - can I call you Doug - No? - Okay - Mr Adams - You were joking? - cool - very funny - ANyway - we have a new form of matter - and we can only think up really shit scientificy names for it - any chance of you coming up with some options we can present to the board? - None of your stupid numbers or shit - a proper kick ass name
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:3, Funny)
I think they picked the lesser of two evils when went with "Bose-Einstein condensate"...
... and you're a fucking idiot (Score:2)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:2)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:2)
It's only for tax reasons.
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:3, Informative)
Pratchett is funny - but with no disrespect to the man, Adams pisses all over his big funny hat!
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, what was the fifth?
Mila Jovovich. Duh.
Re:Sixth form of matter? (Score:3, Funny)
That's the fifth element, you boron.
Animal experiments (Score:2, Insightful)
You militant assholes should refuse medical help when the cops beat you up next time.
Re:Maglev in U.S. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maglev in U.S. (Score:2)
Along with Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook.
Re:Maglev in U.S. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maglev in U.S. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maglev in U.S. (Score:2)
You're thinking of monorails (Score:3, Informative)
You're thinking of monorails.
This is a maglev [about.com].
It routinely does 267 mph.
Re:Too many references to superconductors (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sorry -- is this your field? Yes, now I understand. You are entirely qualified to discuss the viabilities of this research for the purposes of application now or down the road, you brilliant slashdotter, you.
Just what makes that "fact?" Surely facts are universal -- so would I be getting a reflection of that if I went to a chemistry Ph.D. friend of mine (who happens to specialize in development of superconductors) and asked about honest prospects regarding applications?
Smacks like "gotta tell them at least about some possible application to keep us funded"-talk.
Smacks of "if it ain't instant gratification it's worthless"-talk to me, actually...
Re:Too many references to superconductors (Score:5, Insightful)
Ooh...this sort of comment makes me mad. There's no possible way anyone can know what will come out of any fundamental research tomorrow, a year from now, or ten years from now. Many, many conveniences of modern day life sprang forth from researches into the most arcane of topics.
It especially gets me in this particular case, because we're talking about research that will likely bear as much fruit as the early 1900's physics research that later served as the foundation for the modern transistor.
I shall not be as vainglorious as to assume I can say it better than it's already been said, so let's see what a few of the titans had to say on this...
Hardy is speaking of his contributions in general, of which the search for prime numbers was significant, one of the most abstruse and abstract areas of pure mathematics one could name at the time of the research. Even this, however, in a mere 70 years yielded important practical applications in public key encryption.Bertrand Russell spent much of his time trying to find a definition of "number" in terms of pure logic, having found a flaw in Gottleb Frege's attempt to do the same. This was the purest of pure intellection and Russell himself would have hooted with laughter if you'd asked him about practical applications at the time. He even found himself wondering: "It seemed unworthy of a grown man to spend his time on such trivialities..."
In fact, Russell's work eventually brought forth Principia Mathematica, a key development in the modern study of the foundations of mathematics. Among the fruits of that study have been, so far, nothing less than victory in World War II (at least, victory at lower cost than would otherwise have been possible) and machines like the one on which I type this.
I just previewed this post and read it, and I realized I've used words like "vainglorious" and "intellection". I've clearly been watching too much Dennis Miller.
sevRe:Too many references to superconductors (Score:2)
I do, however, agree with you and Feynman both that tax monies should be spent responsibly.
Catch-22, dude. Your post also cited that Russell had no idea there would be a practical use for his research and had a little-dick problem with that, but pursued the research anyway. In the absence of any conceivable practical application, how can a scientist know that his work will ultimately lead to a breakthrough that seriously impacts human life? He can't. Now, I'm not about to go off trying to fund all pos
It shouldn't be necessary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too many references to superconductors (Score:4, Insightful)
Wanna talk about pointless research, I heard about these zany scientists that were looking into interactions between electicity and magnetism (like anything good could come of that). I think they were trying to make something called a "Cathode Ray". I mean, what good would that do the general public? Are we going to zap things with this mysterious "Cathode Ray" or something? It sounds like something from a bad sci-fi movie.
These people should be cut from funding... they're just waisting tax payers money. Who ever heard of a Cathode Ray anyway?
The US power distribution infrastructure... (Score:3, Insightful)
Superconductor research (especially that which works at "room temperature") could be immediately applied to this problem once refined, drastically reducing energy costs and our largest source of pollution.
The sooner, the better, I say.
watch out with the units please.. (Score:2)
Uhum.. That's quite a bit colder than the temperature at the south pole of mars, where Nasa lost a lander because they mixed up some units.. We should have learned a lesson there: don't mix up units. hint.
So a better version could be something like this:
They cooled potassium gas to a billionth of a degree C above absolute zero or minus 273,15 degrees C
Agreed, I might be a bit pedantic about this for some, o
Re:When can I buy a coil of it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the point is the process, or some future decendant of it, will produce materials that will superconduct AFTER it is warmed up to room temperature. That this is only the first step to creating new, heretofore unknown superconductors that will perform to different specs.
As for how it would be economical, which I think your point is: how economical is the process that builds silicon processors? How incredibly, ridiculously persnickity and expensive. But economies of scale and massive investment by both government and private concerns made factories theat could turn out enough chips to change the world.
Superconducting materials at room temperature will change so many things. Motors. Power transmission. Industrial manufacturing. Transportation. No matter how hard it is to make the room temperature superconductors, it would be more expensive NOT to make them. It'll be done.
Re:When can I buy a coil of it? (Score:2)
How is this a troll? (Score:2)