Physicists Blow Up Gold With Giant Lasers, Accidentally Disprove Renowned Physics Model (gizmodo.com) 70
Physicists at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory superheated gold to over 33,000F using giant lasers and X-rays -- far exceeding the limits set by long-standing physics models. From the report: In an experiment presented today in Nature, researchers, for the first time ever, demonstrated a way to directly measure the temperature of matter in extreme states, or conditions with intensely high temperatures, pressures, or densities. Using the new technique, scientists succeeded in capturing gold at a temperature far beyond its boiling point -- a procedure called superheating -- at which point the common metal existed in a strange limbo between solid and liquid. The results suggest that, under the right conditions, gold may have no superheating limit. If true, this could have a wide range of applications across spaceflight, astrophysics, or nuclear chemistry, according to the researchers.
The study is based on a two-pronged experiment. First, the scientists used a laser to superheat a sample of gold, suppressing the metal's natural tendency to expand when heated. Next, they used ultrabright X-rays to zap the gold samples, which scattered off the surface of the gold. By calculating the distortions in the X-ray's frequency after colliding with the gold particles, the team locked down the speed and temperature of the atoms.
The experimental result seemingly refutes a well-established theory in physics, which states that structures like gold can't be heated more than three times their boiling point, 1,948 degrees Fahrenheit (1,064 degrees Celsius). Beyond those temperatures, superheated gold is supposed to reach the so-called "entropy catastrophe" -- or, in more colloquial terms, the heated gold should've blown up. The researchers themselves didn't expect to surpass that limit. The new result disproves the conventional theory, but it does so in a big way by far overshooting the theoretical prediction, showing that it's possible to heat gold up to a jaw-dropping 33,740 degrees F (18,726 degrees C). [...] The team is already applying the technique to other materials, such as silver and iron, which they happily report produced some promising data.
The study is based on a two-pronged experiment. First, the scientists used a laser to superheat a sample of gold, suppressing the metal's natural tendency to expand when heated. Next, they used ultrabright X-rays to zap the gold samples, which scattered off the surface of the gold. By calculating the distortions in the X-ray's frequency after colliding with the gold particles, the team locked down the speed and temperature of the atoms.
The experimental result seemingly refutes a well-established theory in physics, which states that structures like gold can't be heated more than three times their boiling point, 1,948 degrees Fahrenheit (1,064 degrees Celsius). Beyond those temperatures, superheated gold is supposed to reach the so-called "entropy catastrophe" -- or, in more colloquial terms, the heated gold should've blown up. The researchers themselves didn't expect to surpass that limit. The new result disproves the conventional theory, but it does so in a big way by far overshooting the theoretical prediction, showing that it's possible to heat gold up to a jaw-dropping 33,740 degrees F (18,726 degrees C). [...] The team is already applying the technique to other materials, such as silver and iron, which they happily report produced some promising data.
Re: (Score:2)
Gizmodo should be retracting their writeup and slapping the writer for needless sensationalism. The supposed "refuting a well established theory in physics" isn't real - the theory in question is about stability of crystalline lattice structures. And the writeup itself is self-contradictory.
Beyond those temperatures, superheated gold is supposed to reach the so-called “entropy catastrophe”—or, in more colloquial terms, the heated gold should’ve blown up....To be fair, this superhe
imperial units for scientific experiments... (Score:5, Insightful)
my stomach always cringes when someone uses imperial units for scientific experiments... this reminds me of the Mars Climate Orbiter mix up.
Re: (Score:2)
my stomach always cringes when someone uses imperial units for scientific experiments... this reminds me of the Mars Climate Orbiter mix up.
Right, but it is so difficult to get people to use Kelvin degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Kelvin's don't have degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
I typed Kelvins, not Kelvin's, stupid fucking autocorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius is an SI unit. I guess you are too badly educated to know that and not capable of doing a 20 second web-search.
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius is an SI unit. I guess you are too badly educated to know that and not capable of doing a 20 second web-search.
Dude, your claim that I am poorly uneducated is silly. Yes, Celsius is an SI unit. So is Kelvin. Did you see anywhere I posted either wasn't? A degree Centigrade up or down is is the same as a degree Kelvin up or down, just with added increments for Kelvin. You'll see if you looked, I noted that you can convert Kelvin to Centigrade by adding 273 degrees to it in other posts. (273.15+.01 to be more precise.) There are actually some more precise measurements based on the triple point of water, but all I w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: imperial units for scientific experiments... (Score:2)
Some day, I predict slashdot will have an edit comment feature. Hell will probably freeze over too, at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Some day, I predict slashdot will have an edit comment feature. Hell will probably freeze over too, at the same time.
Also, the feature will only exist for a few trillionths of a second, then it will BLOW UP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original quantity does no say how many significant figures it has.
For that one would need to write it in Latex or similar and indicate the significant digits.
Re: (Score:2)
As it happens, the original quantity does indicate how many significant figures it has. It is given in the paper as 19000 plus/minus 4000 kelvin. This corresponds to a range of around 27000 F to 41000 F. It is therefore safe to say that 337
Re: (Score:2)
In your /. text is obviously 5 digits and not 2. ;)
Without explicitly indicating what is significant and what not: everything is significant.
I also never heard about such odd converting rules. But I am not a scientific writer
But perhaps I had rounded it to 33700, or 33750? No idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I’m not sure which part you think has 5 significant figures not 2.
If you treat everything is significant by default you are likely to commit errors of excessive precision like the original article. The value 33740 F is a common side-effect of a converted quantity with excess significant figures, common in journalism. It is like saying “the journey of 1609.344 kilometres begins with a single step.” It has clearly been converted from 19000 K, which itself is 19000K plus/minus 4000K in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius is an SI unit. Except for low-temperature Physics, both C and K are in use and perfectly acceptable.
Give us some credit. (Score:4, Funny)
At least we are inching our way towards the metric system.
Re: (Score:2)
At least we are inching our way towards the metric system.
Lovely turn of phrase there.
We were "inching" towards the metric system in the 1970s. By the 1980s, that was entirely dead for the general public.
Fuck those stupid old reactionary farts. Their ignorance has doomed our entire country. Not doomed from lack of metric, doomed because of views that were outdated 80 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Pounding it into the collective psyche, and going the extra mile for metric accuracy!
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Primitives at work.
Re: imperial units for scientific experiments... (Score:1)
Why? If the math is terrifying, maybe you should go into another field?
You know, the ESAs space program works entirely in metric and their record isn't exactly perfect, yeah?
Maybe just get over the irrelevant side bias?
Three times? (Score:5, Insightful)
gold can't be heated more than three times their boiling point, 1,948 degrees Fahrenheit (1,064 degrees Celsius)
First of all, that is Gold's melting point (not boiling point). Second, what does "three times the temperature" even mean in this case - measured in Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin, it gives different results...? And third - nature does not have such exact limits, so I understand that "three times" must be a rounded figure here.
Re:Three times? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a hyperlink to the actual journal paper, which makes it clear that they're referring to an "inverse" form of something called Kauzmann's paradox, which is an unresolved question about the behavior of supercooled liquids as they are cooled further and their entropy approaches that of a solid. Kauznann hypothesized that these liquids would always freeze before that point.
So, TFS is approximately right if you ignore the bits about it being a renowned physics model, about it being about heating things up, about it being a statement about temperature, about the result of the "energy catastrophe" (blowing up is never the predicted outcome), and about whether this paper addresses the classical model/paradox or a related but different question. I personally would call the TFS "thoroughly wrong" at that point, but maybe I'm being too picky.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a hyperlink to the actual journal paper, which makes it clear that they're referring to an "inverse" form of something called Kauzmann's paradox, which is an unresolved question about the behavior of supercooled liquids as they are cooled further and their entropy approaches that of a solid. Kauznann hypothesized that these liquids would always freeze before that point.
So, TFS is approximately right if you ignore the bits about it being a renowned physics model, about it being about heating things up, about it being a statement about temperature, about the result of the "energy catastrophe" (blowing up is never the predicted outcome), and about whether this paper addresses the classical model/paradox or a related but different question. I personally would call the TFS "thoroughly wrong" at that point, but maybe I'm being too picky.
But aren't we all stunned? I mean in these stories, we're all stunned by the results. 8^)
Re: (Score:3)
But aren't we all stunned? I mean in these stories, we're all stunned by the results. 8^)
I am on the side of Phillip J Fry: I am shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked. (... that Slashdot only quotes someone getting the facts largely wrong.)
Re: (Score:3)
But aren't we all stunned? I mean in these stories, we're all stunned by the results. 8^)
I am on the side of Phillip J Fry: I am shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked. (... that Slashdot only quotes someone getting the facts largely wrong.)
Yup, I really wish we had some better science journalists. There has to be a middle ground between dumbed down clickbait and readable good articles.
In this case, the research paper itself was pretty good and understandable, better than the article referenced in Slashdot. So I know it can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course scientists are stunned. Stunning results bring research funding. Boring confirmations of what theories predicted, that's more difficult to justify
TFS: "... suppressing the metal's natural tendency to expand when heated."
I'm guessing the "3x" prediction depends on researchers *not* doing the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course scientists are stunned. Stunning results bring research funding. Boring confirmations of what theories predicted, that's more difficult to justify
Well, I know my scientists and researchers, and they are excited. Stunned would be creating a black hole that sucked everything local into it. Although I don't know if they'd be conscious long enough to be stunned. 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
What's Slashdot doing about random "AI" generated articles? Just saying...
Re: "thoroughly wrong" (Score:2)
RE: I personally would call the TFS "thoroughly wrong" at that point, but maybe I'm being too picky.
I think the prediction is that beyond that "thoroughly wrong" point it would blow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, no. Gizmodo's description (quoted in TFS) of the research findings is what is thoroughly wrong. The prediction in physics is that the metal would undergo a phase change, not "blow up". Colloquially, "blow up" generally means some form of combustion, usually detonation but arguably deflagration. Phase changes are not combustion and certainly not detonation. (Explosive boiling is a thing, but apparently not part of this research.)
Re: (Score:3)
You're not being too picky. The summary pretends there's only one temperature in play, whereas the original source mentions at least two temperatures (one defined after a phonon-phonon equilibration time; and a more conventional thermodynamical temperature which is only well-defined after a longer time). The sensationalism comes from thinking the longer-time-scale one applies at very short time-scales.
It's shit like that which makes headlines and then makes people distrust research.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm divided into modding this comment as Insightful, Funny or Sad
Re: (Score:2)
gold can't be heated more than three times their boiling point, 1,948 degrees Fahrenheit (1,064 degrees Celsius)
First of all, that is Gold's melting point (not boiling point). Second, what does "three times the temperature" even mean in this case - measured in Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin, it gives different results...? And third - nature does not have such exact limits, so I understand that "three times" must be a rounded figure here.
It is a very well written paper, kudos to the researchers. And in an experiment that figuratively screams out for Kelvin Temperature, and that is what they actually used.
Why the story used two virtually irrelevant temperature standards, Fahrenheit and Celsius, is beyond me. Perhaps the journalist discovered online conversion calculators?
The only thing missing from the story was the standard "Scientists are stunned!" claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius is close enough that people can convert that in their mind to Kelvin.
Why anyone would use more than one unit, is beyond me, though.
I mean: if one insists on Fahrenheit, I divide by 3 and for most things that is close enough ... I do not need to know if that is 57,000 Fahrenheit or 57,844 .... or what ever.
Wait, now everyone is posting different numbers? Was it not 19,000C just a few posts up?
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius is close enough that people can convert that in their mind to Kelvin.
Why anyone would use more than one unit, is beyond me, though.
Nobody can convert Kelvin to Celsius if they never heard of Kelvin, and that means 99.9999% of the human population cannot do that. However, all those people have use C or F all the time. (And by the way, most of those people cannot convert between C and F, either.) That's who the audience is.
If you're so smart, why are you reading articles written for people you think are dumb, when you don't even know how most of the human population measures temperature?
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius is close enough that people can convert that in their mind to Kelvin. Why anyone would use more than one unit, is beyond me, though.
Nobody can convert Kelvin to Celsius if they never heard of Kelvin, and that means 99.9999% of the human population cannot do that. However, all those people have use C or F all the time. (And by the way, most of those people cannot convert between C and F, either.) That's who the audience is.
If you're so smart, why are you reading articles written for people you think are dumb, when you don't even know how most of the human population measures temperature?
Not certain who you are referring to, but I do read the actual papers. This one uses Kelvin. Perhaps you should contact them to let them know they are not using the proper temperature standards, and to do better. I know that there are people out there who go batshit crazy when anything other than metric and Centigrade units are used. I know that. But anyhow, is it my fault that some people are apparently willfully ignorant. If learning what Kelvin temperature standard is too hard, then they can just get b
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius is close enough that people can convert that in their mind to Kelvin. Why anyone would use more than one unit, is beyond me, though.
I mean: if one insists on Fahrenheit, I divide by 3 and for most things that is close enough ... I do not need to know if that is 57,000 Fahrenheit or 57,844 .... or what ever.
Wait, now everyone is posting different numbers? Was it not 19,000C just a few posts up?
Point is if one is doing this kind of work, they use Kelvin. Celsius is as bad as unit as Fahrenheit.
I sometimes enjoy baiting Celsius Supremacists with Kelvin, In this case, I'm using the proper metric. Just like the researchers doing the experiment. At least we should have the respect to follow their lead and use the units of measurement they chose.
Re: (Score:2)
Temps (Score:2)
Why the story used two virtually irrelevant temperature standards, Fahrenheit and Celsius, is beyond me.
Maybe because the journalist realizes that 99.9999% of the human population, which also represents the selected readership of his report, have never heard of Kelvin temperatures, but are familiar with the two scales that he converted the numbers into?
And now you're going to suggest that it is the non-Kelvin-aware people who are dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the story used two virtually irrelevant temperature standards, Fahrenheit and Celsius, is beyond me.
Maybe because the journalist realizes that 99.9999% of the human population, which also represents the selected readership of his report, have never heard of Kelvin temperatures, but are familiar with the two scales that he converted the numbers into?
And now you're going to suggest that it is the non-Kelvin-aware people who are dumb.
I'm going to suggest that the writer have the respect to use the units of measurement the scientists did, perhaps that is not a good thing?
I'm going to suggest that just because people don't know what the Kelvin scale is, it doesn't make them stupid, it just makes them ignorant. Ignorance can be counteracted by a little learning.Then they know more stuff.
You p[robably take a fit when Imperial units are measured. If it helps to resolve your booboo feelings consider that all you have to do is take the Cel
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly gold cannot be heated more than three timeth, as when one heateth lead three times to the point where it melteth and beyond it will turn to gold as every alchemists apprentithe knoweth. Gold but is the ultima refinitio of this metamorphosis of metalth and though can not be altered to a higher element and must therefore vanish into the ether when heated for a third time.
I've seen this movie (Score:2)
I like goooooold Mr Bond.
Re: I've seen this movie (Score:2)
They used the laser that Bond almost got his nuts split with.
Re: (Score:2)
They did have doctors standing by.
As far as I can tell (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is to do some condensed matter physics on that layer.
Giant Lasers (Score:3)
in honor of Shark Week
Re: Giant Lasers (Score:3)
this seems a bit overhyped (Score:2)
The established theory held. The gold exploded as expected.
The only interesting thing about this finding seems to be that they have a very fast thermometer, so fast it could get a reading of temperature within the trillionth of a second window as the gold was in the process of exploding.
Also, can anyone envision a "spaceflight" application of this? I wasnt aware speedy thermometers were a major barrier to space flight development.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have missed this relevant information:
[...] beyond its melting point—a procedure called superheating—at which point the common metal existed in a strange, crystalline limbo between solid and liquid. [...]
“if you could prevent it from expanding, [theoretically speaking] you could heat it forever.”
SOO that's what happened to all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, those were just stolen.
Limbo between solid and liquid (Score:2)
You mean plasma?
Must be fake⦠(Score:2)
If they are using Fahrenheit then they canâ(TM)t be real scientists or something like that?
Re: (Score:2)
*which apparently are now legal on NFTs.
-(TM)
"lets see what else we can blow up!" (Score:1)
you know they said it right after.
What they don't tell you (Score:3)
Is the laser was on for only 45 picoseconds.
That's just "briefly exciting electrons" domain. You're not actually imparting any meaningful energy to the Gold's crystal lattice. Even suggesting a temperature at all is highly questionable.
"common metal" (Score:2)