I'mma say it again, it's causing commotion - not that it's revolutionary, but that it's a flawed article and people are questioning whether they saw metallic hydrogen at all. Their only proof that it is, is the intensity of reflections of the sample taken on an iphone camera, with pressure measurements taken from an apparently either incorrect or inaccurate scale. They haven't repeated the experiment either.
[quote] "From our point of view it's not convincing," says Mikhail Eremets, who is pursuing solid metallic hydrogen at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. Others in the contentious field are downright hostile to the result. "The word garbage cannot really describe it," says Eugene Gregoryanz, a high-pressure physicist at the University of Edinburgh, who objects to several of the experiment's procedures.[/quote]
[url=http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-doubt-bold-report-of-metallic-hydrogen-1.21379] Nature are reporting it (well respected physics journal ) [/url]
[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinawallace/2017/01/23/the-limit-does-not-exist-stem-warrior-princess/#129e65d85dcf] Forbes[/url] [url=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/diamond-vise-turns-hydrogen-metal-potentially-ending-80-year-quest]Science Mag report[/url]
is that gaseous looking entity supposed to be an accurate representation of an atom, if yeah its fucking beautiful
If it really is a stable superconductor at room temperature, and assuming they aren't pulling the wool over everyone's eyes / using flawed methodologies, this could revolutionize the way that processors are manufactured (and make it so that processors get way, way, wayyyyy faster).
One of our biggest limitations in processor technology right now is heat, and with a superconductor a processor could not only be operating at massively increased frequencies, but the architecture can be build more vertically (IE instead of a processor just being a flat (or in FinFet's case, mostly flat) chip, layers and layers could be added, multiplying the number of cores and cache space.
[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;51743447]is that gaseous looking entity supposed to be an accurate representation of an atom, if yeah its fucking beautiful[/QUOTE]
It is meant to be an atom yea, but it's not accurate at all. Real atoms are a nucleus with a probability cloud around them. It gets really crazy and hard to imagine as it moves from chemistry to physics and then into crazy maths as you try to describe them more accurately
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;51741332]I'mma say it again, it's causing commotion - not that it's revolutionary, but that it's a flawed article and people are questioning whether they saw metallic hydrogen at all. Their only proof that it is, is the intensity of reflections of the sample taken on an iphone camera, with pressure measurements taken from an apparently either incorrect or inaccurate scale. They haven't repeated the experiment either.
[url=http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-doubt-bold-report-of-metallic-hydrogen-1.21379] Nature are reporting it (well respected physics journal ) [/url]
[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinawallace/2017/01/23/the-limit-does-not-exist-stem-warrior-princess/#129e65d85dcf] Forbes[/url] [url=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/diamond-vise-turns-hydrogen-metal-potentially-ending-80-year-quest]Science Mag report[/url][/QUOTE]
:johnnymo1:
seeing as how it's harvard, i wouldn't think that these researchers are necessarily doing it maliciously, but maybe just got overexcited. it will be interesting to see if they can replicate their results and actually record it well, but i'm unaware of how expensive this experiment was, so maybe they are unable to?
[QUOTE=Zombii;51744010]:johnnymo1:
seeing as how it's harvard, i wouldn't think that these researchers are necessarily doing it maliciously, but maybe just got overexcited. it will be interesting to see if they can replicate their results and actually record it well, but i'm unaware of how expensive this experiment was, so maybe they are unable to?[/QUOTE]
Institute doesn't matter. The journal that publishes it does matter. It's not something that's malicious, but quoting that they "released the paper before doing validation tests" screams anything but scientific to me. It's a dog eat dog world when it comes to publishing things, and this honestly is below the bar, even undergrads in my year are reading both the Arxiv and journal paper and already being skeptical about it
i'm not up to date with the scientific world at all. what are the implications of creating metallic hydrogen?
[QUOTE=portalcrazy;51744524]i'm not up to date with the scientific world at all. what are the implications of creating metallic hydrogen?[/QUOTE]
Partially due to the difficulty in creating it ( Exerting pressure >380,000,000,000 Pascals, compare that to ~101,000 Pa, atmospheric pressure at sea level. Almost 4 million times greater ); nobody has managed to do this succesfully so far. Metallic hydrogen was theorised in the 40's/50's, it was also theorised it'd have superconductive properties, and to have these at a temperature around 0*C (compared to other "room temperature" superconductors which only exist around ~-150*C). It's greatest benefit is this room temperature superconductivity.
I remember reading about how they knew Jupiter had a core that was part "liquid metallic hydrogen" because of its enormous gravity in 4th grade. I thought that was the absolute coolest shit. Man am I glad to see this...
Some critics are saying it might not actually be a metallic hydrogen sample.
Scott Manley explains it pretty well:
[video=youtube;nMfPNUZzG_Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMfPNUZzG_Q&t=0s[/video]
Holy shit. Imagine if hydrogen cars became applicable because of this.. But used metallic hydrogen. I can't imagine it would produce any pollution
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
