[RELEASE][URL=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-nobel-chemistry-idUSTRE7941EP20111006]An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to have found an entirely new class of solid material was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry on Wednesday for his discovery of quasicrystals.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Three decades after Dan Shechtman looked with an electron microscope at a metal alloy and saw a pattern familiar in Islamic art but then unknown at a molecular level, those non-stick, rust-free, heat-resistant quasicrystals are finding their way into tools from LEDs to engines and frying pans.
Shechtman, 70, from Israel's Technion institute in Haifa, was working in the United States in 1982 when he observed atoms in a crystal he had made form a five-sided pattern that did not repeat itself, defying received wisdom that they must create repetitious patterns, like triangles, squares or hexagons.
Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening "crusade" against him, saying: "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists."
The head of his research group asked him to leave for "bringing disgrace" on the team.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Scientists had previously thought solid matter had only two states -- crystalline, like diamonds, where atoms are arranged in rigid rows, and amorphous, like metals, with no particular order. Quasicrystalline matter offers a third possibility and opens the door to new kinds of materials for use in industry.
Sometimes referred to as Shechtmanite in the discoverer's honor, hundreds of quasicrystals have been synthesized in laboratories. Two years ago, scientists reported the first naturally occurring find of quasicrystals in eastern Russia[/QUOTE][/RELEASE]
Source: [url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/ridiculed-quasicrystal-work-wins-nobel.html[/url]
Reminds me of this:
"Self-replicating, mechanical nanobots are simply not possible in our world."
– Richard E. Smalley, September 2001
"When a scientist says something is possible, they’re probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it’s impossible, they’re probably wrong."
– Richard E. Smalley, October 2000
No I'm not posting this just to make a point about nanotechnology R&D.
Hahaha, what a fucking champ.
FTL is only a matter of time.
I'm happy for him, but it's frightening that a scientist should be treated like that by [I]other scientists[/I] when one of the core fundamentals of their very profession is making new discoveries.
it's stupid to say anything is impossible
YES FLYING CARS!
I don't get it. Why was Pauling being such an asshole about it?
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;32656586]
"When a scientist says something is possible, they’re probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it’s impossible, they’re probably wrong."
– Richard E. Smalley, October 2000
"Self-replicating, mechanical nanobots are simply not possible in our world."
– Richard E. Smalley, September 2001
[/QUOTE]
what a strange contradiction, especially since both quotes are from the same guy
did he say that second quote a year later in sarcasm, to suggest the opposite?
[QUOTE=Odellus;32656726]it's stupid to say anything is impossible[/QUOTE]
They say you can't go faster than the speed of light
I don't care how much equations show otherwise, there's always a way
[QUOTE=Turnips5;32656822]I don't get it. Why was Pauling being such an asshole about it?[/QUOTE]
because pauling is a cunt
Those who ridiculed him should be ashamed of themselves.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;32656829]what a strange contradiction, especially since both quotes are from the same guy
did he say that second quote a year later in sarcasm, to suggest the opposite?[/QUOTE]
Smalley read Engines of Creation in a single sitting and loved it and was fascinated with the concept of molecular manufacturing. He even attended some of the Foresight Conferences. In the nineties, he went to talk to Eric Drexler about it. He wanted to talk about the tip (The thing that does the underlying chemistry), but Drexler has the mind of a computer scientist and insisted that 100% atomic precision was unecessary ("It's just a matter of getting enough things to work sufficiently right."), but Smalley didn't like that.
Around 2000, when the National Nanotechnology Initiative was being founded, professors started adding 'nano' to their papers, an when the grant money started rolling out the National Nanotechnology Initiative became the National Ordinary Chemistry Initiative, and now we have... Disappointed customers of nanopants.
By the way, [URL=http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/Papers/MinToolset.pdf]we do have the tip chemistry worked out.[/URL]
Even the opinion of well-respected scientists can change when they feel their profession will lose credibility over endless mentions of the dangers of self-replicating nanotechnology, and when there's money involved.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;32656839]because pauling is a cunt[/QUOTE]
I guess even double-unshared-Nobel Prize winners are cunts sometimes
[QUOTE=demoguy08;32656669]I'm happy for him, but it's frightening that a scientist should be treated like that by [I]other scientists[/I] when one of the core fundamentals of their very profession is making new discoveries.[/QUOTE]
That's the nature of science these days. It's entirely politicized. Somebody wants a grant, and Big Science doesn't want to fund research for one reason or another (such as not enough margin of profit), it doesn't happen. It's a little more subtly corrupt than it was in decades past, but still corrupt.
[QUOTE=deathstarboot;32656966][B]Big Science[/B][/QUOTE]
really
[editline]6th October 2011[/editline]
"Good evening Professor.
I see you have driven here in your Ferrari."
[QUOTE=deathstarboot;32656966]That's the nature of science these days. It's entirely politicized. Somebody wants a grant, and Big Science doesn't want to fund research for one reason or another (such as not enough margin of profit), it doesn't happen. It's a little more subtly corrupt than it was in decades past, but still corrupt.[/QUOTE]
The nature of science is to be critical all the time. They were critical to his discovery because it seemed impossible at the time. But after being confirmed a few years later they all accepted it and didn't ridicule him anymore.
Of course it's sad to see grown up scientists do that, but they are human after all.
[QUOTE=Odellus;32656726]it's stupid to say anything is impossible[/QUOTE]
Well it's impossible to get a square to fit in a hole for a triangle with out modifying the hole or the square.
[QUOTE=Odellus;32656726]it's stupid to say anything is impossible[/QUOTE]
what about a cross-eyed cyclops
Definition of underdog.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;32656669]I'm happy for him, but it's frightening that a scientist should be treated like that by [I]other scientists[/I] when one of the core fundamentals of their very profession is making new discoveries.[/QUOTE]
This discovery is like saying 1+1 is not 2.
It sucks for the guy, but this is how it should work. Science works in a way that it doesn't matter how many scientists say the result can't be right. there's like a board, or a group of top scientists that will be called for help to confirm the legimacy of the claim. There are rules, and if they are met, science accepts it.
Whether something is possible or not, I don't see anybody else doing it except for us. Possibilities are limitless!
[QUOTE=Swebonny;32657050]The nature of science is to be critical all the time. They were critical to his discovery because it seemed impossible at the time. But after being confirmed a few years later they all accepted it and didn't ridicule him anymore.
Of course it's sad to see grown up scientists do that, but they are human after all.[/QUOTE]
Part of science is also understanding that every theory we understand has a level of falsifiability though.
You shouldn't be calling scientists quacks because they're suggesting a new theory. Question the theory, yes, but not ridicule the person.
[editline]6th October 2011[/editline]
It's like calling the LHC team hunks of shit because particles in the cannon supposedly moved faster than light.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32657116]what about a cross-eyed cyclops[/QUOTE]
Demoman?
I like it when the underdogs win. Good on him
[QUOTE=deathstarboot;32656662]FTL is only a matter of time.[/QUOTE]
FTL Law.
- In any thread related to Eudoxia, FTL travel will be mentioned. No exceptions.
[QUOTE=OvB;32659588]FTL Law.
- In any thread related to Eudoxia, FTL travel will be mentioned. No exceptions.[/QUOTE]
You hit the nail right on the hea- Wait, where'd the nail go?
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;32657088]Well it's impossible to get a square to fit in a hole for a triangle with out modifying the hole or the square.[/QUOTE]
Not if the square is small enough. :colbert:
[QUOTE=demoguy08;32656669]I'm happy for him, but it's frightening that a scientist should be treated like that by [I]other scientists[/I] when one of the core fundamentals of their very profession is making new discoveries.[/QUOTE]
It's the norm nowdays.
Criticising other peoples work :|
[QUOTE=pyschomc;32661270]It's the norm nowdays.
Criticising other peoples work :|[/QUOTE]
This post doesn't have enough citations or insight.
[QUOTE=pyschomc;32661270]It's the norm nowdays.
Criticising other peoples work :|[/QUOTE]
This guy was calling him a terrible person.
That's not exactly what I call "criticism".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.