Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Create New Form of Matter

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."

448 comments

  1. Quandry by kinnell · · Score: 4, Funny
    Maybe any quantum physicists around can tell us more about this

    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.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:Quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...the myriad of armchair quantum physicists who think they know what it's all about

      they're the ones that get modded to +5 Insightful

    2. Re:Quandry by Urkki · · 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.

      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.
    3. Re:Quandry by R.Caley · · Score: 4, Funny
      How will you tell the real quantum physicists from the myriad of armchair quantum physicists who think they know what it's all about.

      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.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    4. Re:Quandry by mirko · · Score: 1

      I think this will be the one who'll get a +5 funny because the others will consider his/her theories as some comic bullcrap.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    5. Re:Quandry by johnhennessy · · Score: 1

      You can blame that on all those 'easy-to-read' books on quantum physics. I'm not quite sure, someone might let me know - what is the attraction of attempting to explain something as abstract as quantum physics to lay people.

      This type of book does no good what-so-ever except spawn new breeds of armchair physicists.

      And it probably drives the authors mad - "how do I explain entanglement to complete beginer".

      I'm just waiting for the "Quantum Physics for Dummies" book.

      --
      [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    6. Re:Quandry by scimonkey · · Score: 1, Funny

      Easy! Real answers will tunnel through the armchair barrier...

    7. Re:Quandry by Urkki · · Score: 5, Insightful
      • This type of book does no good what-so-ever except spawn new breeds of armchair physicists.

      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.
    8. Re:Quandry by ScottSpeaks! · · Score: 1
      how will you tell the real quantum physicists from the myriad of armchair quantum physicists

      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.

    9. Re:Quandry by PSandusky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can blame that on all those 'easy-to-read' books on quantum physics. I'm not quite sure, someone might let me know - what is the attraction of attempting to explain something as abstract as quantum physics to lay people.

      Considering that the majority of the people who read /. are likely not quantum physicists, this sounds an awful lot like flamebait. Really, there's no point in writing such things... they should just send their research to you, right? At least you understand it, unlike those of us "lay people" who aren't so enlightened. Bah, waste of paper, those books. Yup. Uh-huh. Yessir.

      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!

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    10. Re:Quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      I wonder who you think are the real quantum physicists who know what all is about. After all, the majority of practicing (quantum) physicists still believes in non-physical explanations for the quantum theory. And even if they did eventually understand why Everett got it right when the others were getting it, well, not wrong, but painstakingly silly, I'd still burst in a sarcastic laughter when someone came suggesting that there's a school of thought that knows "what it's all about".

      Like I did just a few moments ago.

    11. Re:Quandry by Kim0 · · Score: 0

      Sometimes, a real quantum physicist is going to use his 5 moderator point on this thread. Sometime is now. Better get started.

    12. Re:Quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can blame that on all those 'easy-to-read' books on quantum physics.

      Oh sure, blame the guy in the wheelchair why not?!

    13. Re:Quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't it Einstein who that "if you can't explain something to your grandmother, you don't really know about it".

      But then again, I totally agree that some popular science isn't that good. Anyone seen the Coen brothers' movie where this lawyer applies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to criminal investigations? I've seen people talk like that in real life as well.

      But then again why is it bad, that people are applying something they don't understand? Thats what you, me and everyone else is doing here on slashdot. Were just creating Entropy by wasting our breath ;)

    14. Re:Quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoops, looks like the lowID guy got some mod points ;)

    15. Re:Quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you have to bounce a particle off of them... like a bowling ball.

    16. Re:Quandry by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You mean they don't already do that?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:Quandry by netglen · · Score: 1

      Do we change the outcome by reading this and giving it a +5 Insightful mod?

    18. Re:Quandry by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      I'm not quite sure, someone might let me know - what is the attraction of attempting to explain something as abstract as quantum physics to lay people.

      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 could someday be hugely important?

      My advisor used to feel that as long as he understood, his research had succeeded. I never got that.
    19. Re:Quandry by pokeyburro · · Score: 1

      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 only Slashdot could do this. Then, for each article, I could read just one comment, modded +15 Funny/Insightful/Informative, and be done with my day in 1/5 the time.

      --
      Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
    20. Re:Quandry by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Yea, we wouldn't want the unwashed masses to know things, would we? That would be horrible, what with people trying to better their understanding of things. My god! Think of the implications! By writing these books, we might even inspire a whole new generation of people interested in physics who might *gasp* GO TO SCHOOL TO STUDY PHYSICS! We must find all of these "armchair physics" books and burn them!

      I don't know why I bothered to write this post... maybe someone might let me know what the attraction is of trying to explain something as obvious as self-education to a physics idiot-savant.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    21. Re:Quandry by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      There are no real quantum physicists here.
      What universe are you in? In mine, the cosmic background radiation temperature is about 2.7 K, and at this time coordinate the fine structure constant is 1/alpha = 137.03599958 plus or minus 0.00000052.

    22. Re:Quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >except spawn new breeds of armchair physicists.

      And allowing people to get doctoral degrees in physics does nothing more than spawn new breeds of armchair mathematicians.

      What is the attraction of trying to explain something as abstract as pure mathematics to lay people like physical scientists?

    23. Re:Quandry by Noren · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner for his work on Quantum Electrodynamics.

      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 mechanics really can't be well described without lots and lots of math- the point where further simplification makes the explanation wrong happens when the 'simplified' explanation is still very complicated and hard to understand.

    24. Re:Quandry by Mangal · · Score: 1

      Don't assume that a lack of education is equivalent to an inability to understand. We should ENCOURAGE those who understand quantum physics, and all other things scientific, to write for the general public. I don't care if it's in comic book format- as long as it's accurate and gets the point across, then it's worthwhile. As others have said, an educated electorate is not easily fooled.

      --
      I'm not just being paranoid- I've seen the data.
    25. Re:Quandry by dandelion_wine · · Score: 1

      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!

      Actually, a population taught logic, basic philosophy, is far more difficult to manipulate, because they know spurious reasoning when they see it. If you think that a basic understanding of anything technical hinders manipulation, think about expert testimony in courtrooms. It's all about the more convincing presentation, because it takes a layperson's entire faculties just to follow along.

      That being said, I like your general bent -- there is nothing wrong with teaching science to the basic population; many things right with it, I'd say. For one thing, we might get to the point where a majority of the population values and doesn't fear it, and we can ditch superstition forever.

    26. Re:Quandry by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Actually, a population taught logic, basic philosophy, is far more difficult to manipulate, because they know spurious reasoning when they see it. If you think that a basic understanding of anything technical hinders manipulation, think about expert testimony in courtrooms. It's all about the more convincing presentation, because it takes a layperson's entire faculties just to follow along.

      I don't think I was shooting for "a basic understanding of anything technical" so much as I was after some demonstration and acceptance of the scientific method -- under which a phenomenal amount of that courtroom testimony would collapse upon itself (or would only if those in control of it were willing to use the method... for real this time...). A lot of the general issue science books I see have some detail on the method included throughout, so there would be some exposure to the importance of "testing" ideas. Of course, philosophical logic would be another road to Rome. :]

      For one thing, we might get to the point where a majority of the population values and doesn't fear it, and we can ditch superstition forever.

      And with it an unfortunate raw nerve by which the media seems to exert an inordinate amount of control by sensationalism -- remember the "Anthrax Virus" scares after 9/11?

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    27. Re:Quandry by zobier · · Score: 1

      Nice thread developing here but I wonder if the "basic population" can grasp things of a technical nature in enough detail for it to have that profound an effect. On logic & philosophy though, I agree - it would be nice for these things to be instilled in more young developing minds.

      Z

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    28. Re:Quandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could not agree more. Currently, outreach to the general public is a major failing of most scientific disciplines (though luckily many professional science societies have realized this shortcoming and are making strides towards rectifying the situation)

      Any progress that can be made to educate people in any discipline, especially the natural sciences, can only enhance our society, and I fail to see how someone could argue against that (It would take a heck of a cynic to say that an incomplete understanding of the principles of modern physics is far more detrimental to a person and society than complete ignorance). Beyond general awareness of scientific concepts by the public, any increase in the number of young people interested in pursuing careers in physical sciences is also laudable, and general interest science books are a great means toward that end. I personally credit books on quantum mechanics aimed towards the general public for my decision to follow the path I am currently on (obtaining a PhD in Theoretical Chemistry) I do have to wonder whether I am interested in science because I read those books, or if i read those books because I was already interested in science. Regardless of the precise relationship, those books certainly had no ill-effect on my attitude towards science. Did I learn Quantum mechanics from a book I bought at Borders? No. Did I learn some things that were incomplete to the point of being incorrect regarding quantum mechanics and physics in general? Probably. But was this detrimental in the long run? Certainly not - these books get people interested. If people then want to go on to study further, then that's great: they will go on and get the complete picture in a more formal setting. If they want to leave it at that, with an incomplete view of the world of modern physics, then that's fine too: at least they have broadened their knowledge of the physical world, and moved one step further from the grasps of practitioners of 'voo-doo science' and pushers of holistic, magical cures for the world's ills.

    29. Re:Quandry by Graabein · · Score: 1
      > Unfortunatly, there is no way to use this phenomenon to get zero-ping time internet access.

      Ah, but the armchair quantum physicist will tell you that there is a way and he's about to announce it to the world. Any day now...

      --
      And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
    30. Re:Quandry by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      Ah, but the armchair quantum physicist will tell you that there is a way and he's about to announce it to the world. Any day now...

      Well, now you mention it, I do have this idea about accellarating one twin to near the speed of light... Mind you, you have to be sure to entangle their underwear first.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    31. Re:Quandry by Graabein · · Score: 1
      > accellarating one twin to near the speed of light...

      Not a bad idea! Could you start with those annoying Olsen twins?

      --
      And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
    32. Re:Quandry by maysonl · · Score: 1
      Quantum mechanics really can't be well described without lots and lots of math- the point where further simplification makes the explanation wrong happens when the 'simplified' explanation is still very complicated and hard to understand.

      Having just read QED, by Feynman, I'd have to disagree. It's a lucid presentation of quantum electrodynamics, and sum-of=histories, without any significant use of math. Obviously, he doesn't come up with any mathematical results, but he does convey the phenomena observed, and their strangeness.

  2. Too many references to superconductors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    These guys keep talking about superconductors but the fact remains that this is fundamental research with no real applications now or even in the near future.

    Smacks like "gotta tell them at least about some possible application to keep us funded"-talk.

    1. Re:Too many references to superconductors by PSandusky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These guys keep talking about superconductors but the fact remains that this is fundamental research with no real applications now or even in the near future.

      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...

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    2. Re:Too many references to superconductors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, I'm sorry -- is this your field?

      Oh, so if the field is not exactly in my field I cannot comment on its viabilities? What a load of bollocks. I routinely evaluate national grant applications that are not in my 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

      I am entirely qualified to ask: "What are the applications for this and when would you expect the applications to emerge?"

      If the answer is, "I don't know" or "I don't care", I would trash that kind of an application. If the answer is, "This and that application, but it will take decades/centuries for the rest of the technology to develop", I would give it the benefit of a doubt.

    3. Re:Too many references to superconductors by severoon · · 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...

      [T]he answer appears to us before the question.... Practical application is found by not looking for it, and one can say that the whole progress of civilization rests on that principle.... [P]ractical questions are most often solved by means of existing theories.... It seldom happens that important mathematical researches are directly undertaken in view of a given practical use: they are inspired by the desire which is the common motive of every scientific work, the desire to know and understand.
      --Jacques Hadamard, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field
      I have never done anything "useful." No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least idfference to the amenity of the world.... Judged by all practical standards, the value of my mathematical life is nil.
      --G. H. Hardy, Apology
      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.

      sev
      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    4. Re:Too many references to superconductors by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      "Benefit of a doubt?" What about that load of bollocks you spewed about coming up with applications primarily to justify continued funding?

      You're not in the field, but you know enough about it to proclaim that any applications someone proposes (maglevs and better power grids, in this case) are simply meant to justify funding...?

      You're standing on two shores. Pick one.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    5. Re:Too many references to superconductors by severoon · · Score: 1

      Woah, hold up, hair trigger finger.

      My Russell quote is not elitist and arrogant. Keep it in context...I was employing it to make the point that the research-in-question was in fact tied to a practical application--room temperature superconducting, as the article says in several places. Despite this, AC's post said: "These guys keep talking about superconductors but the fact remains that this is fundamental research with no real applications now or even in the near future."

      This is an unfair statement to make, I feel, if he's just going to throw it out there with no support (as he did). I'm a reasonable man, you can say what you want, but if I catch you glibly contributing to some vague, general notion with which I disagree (in this case: "research science bad"), I'm going to challenge it. I was employing that quote in particular as more of an attack on the attitude that the post generally conveys...I wasn't trying to say that we should fund whatever research, no matter how impractical and abstract.

      I do, however, agree with you and Feynman both that tax monies should be spent responsibly. If you reconsider my point and the context of that quote I listed, I think you'll see that I'm right--this research is a massive breakthrough and is likely to amount to something in the future. (Did I miss something, or is that why they were reporting on it in the first place?)

      By the way, do people really add other people to foe-lists over something like this? :-)

      sev
      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    6. Re:Too many references to superconductors by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      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 possible scientific research either, limited resources and all, but I'm perfectly happy spending my tax dollars funding research that may not have any immediate practical value.

      I disagree with the AC to an extent, but he did get across the general idea that scientists feel pressured to dream up practical applications for their research. The general problem is that scientists are not engineers, although the two do frequently resemble one another. Engineers are the guys who dream up the practical uses, though. :)

      By the way, do people really add other people to foe-lists over something like this? :-)

      Yes, people really are that petty. :( I decided awhile back not to have any foes, and to celebrate every new freak that appears on my list. :) I'd rather spend my time liking/loving than hating, and I don't want to spend any time hating unnecessarily. I don't see a practical use for the 'foes' list, come to think of it, except to celebrate the aforementioned freaks. ;)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    7. Re:Too many references to superconductors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Benefit of a doubt?" What about that load of bollocks you spewed about coming up with applications primarily to justify continued funding?

      "Benefit of a doubt" meaning that I won't toss the application into the bin straight away.

      You're not in the field, but you know enough about it to proclaim that any applications someone proposes (maglevs and better power grids, in this case) are simply meant to justify funding...?

      Not any application. These guys are just overdoing it. If you want to pull wool over my eyes when I'm evaluating your application, don't overdo it. Creating a fermi condensate of a small cluster of potassium atoms in a goddamn vacuum chamber cannot be extrapolated to maglevs and room temperature superconductors.

    8. Re:Too many references to superconductors by October_30th · · Score: 0
      By the way, do people really add other people to foe-lists over something like this?

      Huh? Not over an issue like this.

      On the other hand, I do have a very strong opinion about SPEWS. That's why it's in my sig for the time being.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    9. Re:Too many references to superconductors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am entirely qualified to ask: "What are the applications for this and when would you expect the applications to emerge?"

      Then why didn't you?

    10. Re:Too many references to superconductors by Transcendent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These guys keep talking about superconductors but the fact remains that this is fundamental research with no real applications now or even in the near future.

      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?

      ...oh wait...

    11. Re:Too many references to superconductors by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      Superconductivity actually is *my* field, and I'll concur with the anonymous coward: this is an important advance in basic experimental physics, but is *extremely* unlikely to lead in any direct way to the kinds of applications (such as electric power distribution) that are mentioned by the lay press.

      What *might* happen is that these experiments give theorists a good proving ground for more sophisticated theories of superconductivity and other quantum states, which *might* apply to new solid-state materials designed to have newly understood properties, which *might* exhibit desirable engineering behavior, such as high temperature, high field superconductivity.

      It is an important part of the marketing of any experiment to give a compelling, easily understandable civilian and/or military goal which relates to the research being proposed. Marketing is an important part of scientific research, because it leads to funding. Journalists need it because their editors and readers need to have an easily digestible answer to "why should my readers/I care." Good scientists can communicate that. They also know the difference between "possible impact sometime in the next 50 years" and "probable impact for the next round of funding."

      These suggestions of future applications certainly are an attempt to support future funding. And there is absolutely no reason for them to be insulted by it.

    12. Re:Too many references to superconductors by skooba · · Score: 1

      scientists do research. engineers do practical applications.

    13. Re:Too many references to superconductors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Boolean logic. When it was invented (at least according to legend) Boole was real happy he had invented some mathematics that was totally useless.

      (Actually I have always found this hard to believe, but I do know that when I was a student the reason why some of the lecturers were into number theory was that it was totally useless - and looked what happened there)

    14. Re:Too many references to superconductors by k8er · · Score: 1

      Creating a fermi condensate of a small cluster of potassium atoms in a goddamn vacuum chamber cannot be extrapolated to maglevs and room temperature superconductors.

      But how do you know that this kind of research will not lead to the discovery of something that can be extrapolated to maglevs and room temperature superconductors? Any time they add to our total knowledge of science, there is a chance that some new connection will be made.

    15. Re:Too many references to superconductors by severoon · · Score: 1

      Riiiiiiight. I wondered what SPEWS meant. Oh, google, how I do love thee!

      You know, my virgin post was just one before the one you replied to, so you can see how I'm still a bit sensitive (super-newbie around these parts). I decided to /. my /. cherry and start posting because people are durn smart around here. I'm really impressed with the calibur of the discussion that goes on.

      sev
      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  3. Not to mention by Photar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Being able to do that cool thing where you take a metal toy and then put a magnet under the desk and make it move around, you know that thing, now you can do it through walls.

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
  4. When can I buy a coil of it? by Beautyon · · Score: 1, Troll

    "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.

    They confined the gas in a vacuum chamber and used magnetic fields and laser light to manipulate the potassium atoms into pairing up.

    "This is very similar to what happens to electrons in a superconductor," Jin said.

    This is more likely to provide applications in the practical world than a Bose-Einstein condensate, she said, because fermions are what make up solid matter."

    Hmmmmm; how are they going to come to a process that can produce an extruded filament that can be bought in Radio Shack, if cooling to such a low temperature is needed in the process?

    Time to dump all your oil shares boys!

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    1. Re:When can I buy a coil of it? by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Hmmmmm; how are they going to come to a process that can produce an extruded filament that can be bought in Radio Shack, if cooling to such a low temperature is needed in the process?"

      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.

    2. Re:When can I buy a coil of it? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      I love the news media. They converted because Americans wouldn't understand how cold -273 C would be but we would have a good intuitive feel for -459 F. Heh.

    3. Re:When can I buy a coil of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus you bring forward what one of the next major inventions must be . . . a cheap and effective method for cooling things to near-absolute zero.

  5. Sixth form of matter? by JessLeah · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Okay, what was the fifth? Solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, ???

    1. Re:Sixth form of matter? by pegasustonans · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The new matter form is called a fermionic condensate and it is the sixth known form of matter -- after gases, solids, liquids, plasma and a Bose-Einstein condensate, created only in 1995." Come on people, RTFA already... :)

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    2. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try following the link to the article. The fifth is Bose-Einstein condensates.

    3. Re:Sixth form of matter? by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Bose-Einstein condensate

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    4. Re:Sixth form of matter? by R.Caley · · Score: 4, Funny
      Okay, what was the fifth?

      Clinton took it.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    5. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, what was the fifth? Solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, ???

      As per the article, Bose-Einstein Condensate.

      Aqueous is often also considerate a state of matter (ions in solution, typically water). However since this is more of a chemistry thing, physicists probably don't recognise it that often. It's a dissolve something in something, rather than heat or cool something issue.

    6. Re:Sixth form of matter? by squaretorus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its the Bose-Einstein condensate - and may I point out what a SHIT name this is for a form of matter.

      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 .... etc... etc.... etc...

    7. Re:Sixth form of matter? by JacksKidney · · Score: 1

      Too bad he's dead, eh?

    8. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on people, RTFA already... :)

      I'm dyslexic, you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:Sixth form of matter? by orius_khan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually they DID call up Douglas Adams and ask him for a name to give their new form of matter, but the only reply he would give is "I'm fucking dead!"

      I think they picked the lesser of two evils when went with "Bose-Einstein condensate"...

      --
      Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    10. Re:Sixth form of matter? by jochietoch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Frankly, I wish they would stop claiming every phase transition to form 'the n-th state of matter'. There are literally hundreds of phase transitions in nature, especially at low temperatures. If you start calling every sector of the phase diagram 'a New State Of Matter (tm)' on an equal footing with gases, liquids and solids, you can't stop at Bose-Einstein condensates and these fermionic condensates. What about superconducting metals, vortex lattices, liquid crystals, flowing sand, and what have you. All New Forms Of Matter. That is to say, it's completely arbitrary. Sure it's cool what these guys have done, but they deliberately misrepresent their result to make a catchy headline. A scientist has a responsibility not to do that.

    11. Re:Sixth form of matter? by mainframemouse · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Bose-Einstein condensate" was created in 1995, Douglas Adams was very much alive and kicking.

    12. Re:Sixth form of matter? by n3tkUt · · Score: 1

      The fifth? You don't remember? Pink hair, spoke with an accent, she ran off with that bald taxi driver... saved the world. Sheesh, some people.

      4am... Am I crazy, or is there something erotic about this artical?-

      "What we've done is create this new exotic form of matter," Deborah

      "It is a scientific breakthrough in providing a new type of quantum mechanical behavior," added Jin.

      "This is very similar to what happens to electrons in a superconductor," Jin said.

      "Our atoms are more strongly attracted to one another than in normal superconductors," she said. .... after reading that I needed some supercooled gas to translate the bahavi- oops, heh, I'll stop there.

    13. Re:Sixth form of matter? by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      thank you, i wondered if someone would think of that!!!

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    14. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine Satyendranath Bose and Albert Einstein thought the name was quite a good one. Also, it would have been hard to call up Douglas Adams in 1924 when they did their work, as he would not be born for another 30 years.

    15. Re:Sixth form of matter? by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      And exactly who the hell do these guys thing they are? "New form of matter?" "Created?" Should I expect a patent soon?

    16. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1

      Ouch. It's too early in the morning for jokes like that. My cheeks ran into my eyelids when I tried to laugh.

    17. Re:Sixth form of matter? by warrax_666 · · Score: 0

      Or maybe ask Terry Pratchett, seeing as Mr. Adams is (unfortunately) dead. Pratchett has the perfect name (can't remember the book): "Surprise".

      --
      HAND.
    18. Re:Sixth form of matter? by egilhh · · Score: 0

      Milla Jovovich?

    19. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 2, Funny
      The fifth? You don't remember? Pink hair, spoke with an accent, she ran off with that bald taxi driver... saved the world. Sheesh, some people.

      That's the fifth element, you boron.

    20. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh! These youngings and their new-fangled forms of matter. When I was a lad we only had three of those and two of them were gases!

    21. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And exactly who the hell do these guys thing they are?
      They think they're the lads and lasses who created a new form of matter. And they're right.
    22. Re:Sixth form of matter? by bfischer · · Score: 0

      The Fifth Element had orange hair.

    23. Re:Sixth form of matter? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      It's only for tax reasons.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    24. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Funny

      Okay, what was the fifth?

      Mila Jovovich. Duh.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    25. Re:Sixth form of matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 5th is the Bose-Einstein Condensate (the 6 are solid, liquid, gas, plasma, BEC, and now the Fermion Condesate).

      BEC were predicted by Bose and Einstein through their letters between each other. The particles involved in a BEC are bosons (have integral angular momentum) and therefore not governed by the Pauli Exculsion principle. BEC were first observed in the lab in 1995.

      Fermions are a bigger problem because they are governed by the Pauli Exclusion principle (that is no 2 ferimons my exist in the same region if they have the same quantum numbers).

      Though I have been out of the research field for sometime, I would believe that this new condesate would is made possible by the potassium atoms coupling so that the resulting 'particle' acts like a boson. This is a similar process why Helium below 4K has superfluidity properties.

    26. Re:Sixth form of matter? by squaretorus · · Score: 2, Informative

      stupidly I was refering to the previous name without being explicit about this - now roughly 300 people have told me that Mr Adams is dead, a fact I know and feel bad about every time I think 'i didnt finish that dirk gently book' - i didnt finish it because neither did he!

      Pratchett is funny - but with no disrespect to the man, Adams pisses all over his big funny hat!

    27. Re:Sixth form of matter? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      What's the atomic weight of Bolonium?

    28. Re:Sixth form of matter? by kevininspace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about the condensed matter that white dwarf stars are made of? Nuclei bouncing about in an electron soup. Heat it and it shrinks! This stuff is held up by the Pauli exclusion principle for crying out loud, it has to be another form of matter

      How about neutronium? this stuff is weird, governed by the strong force.

    29. Re:Sixth form of matter? by n3tkUt · · Score: 1

      Wow thanks dude, I was being completely serious. Now I know, and it's all because of you. Awesome.

    30. Re:Sixth form of matter? by ryanjensen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would imagine you could expect a patent soon ... though not for what you'd like to complain about. Rather than being able to patent the "form" of matter, the scientists will be able to apply for a patent (if they haven't already) on the *specific process* they used to create material in that form.

      Now, if the patented process turns out to be the only way to physically create the new form of matter, then yes, your fears will be realized. Darn, after all that research, the scientists are the only ones allowed to profit from their discovery!

    31. Re:Sixth form of matter? by InvaderSkooge · · Score: 1

      Okay, what was the fifth?

      Heart. And what a terrible form of matter that was. All it could do was sit around talking to animals and bosons.

      --
      Erik
      YOU ARE SAYING IMPUDENCE TO ME! THAT IS IMPUDENCE!
  6. Re:American Scientific Dominance by mirko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    EUians created the US, the US is about to create a computer that'll create instead of them and thus form another derivated world...
    This computer will create some carbonated circuits which will create living beings which will be dumped to another planet where the living beings will evolve into EUians... etc.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
  7. Maglevs? More like... by rtz · · Score: 4, Funny

    more efficient electric motors, and (our favorite) cheaper maglev trains.

    Maglevs are cool, but the real slashdotter wants to know how it will help build space elevators.

    1. Re:Maglevs? More like... by Rovaani · · Score: 1

      Superconducting wires allow the electricity generated by the fusion plant to be conducted to the elevator car of the space elevator, eliminating the need for rockets. Duh.

      --
      Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
    2. Re:Maglevs? More like... by raz2 · · Score: 0

      ... and naturally, how to get rid of Bill and Steve in an efficient and clean way!

      --


      -raz
      "I shoot troubles with a jackhammer"
    3. Re:Maglevs? More like... by fstanchina · · Score: 0

      ...or a Beowulf cluster of maglev trains (all running Linux, of course).

    4. Re:Maglevs? More like... by extra88 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wired Tired Expired
      space elevator maglev flying cars

    5. Re:Maglevs? More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the elevator cars have to be powered by something....one positive superconducting carbon nanotubes, and one negative superconducting carbon nanotube.

    6. Re:Maglevs? More like... by Porag_Spliffing · · Score: 1

      > Maglevs are cool

      At one billionth of a degree above absolute zero, you are damn right they are cool

      --
      Maybe you live in interesting times
    7. Re:Maglevs? More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but the real slashdotter wants to know how it will help build space elevators."

      you miss spelled penis pumps

  8. Practical application by wan-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article seems to highly stress the practical application of this new form of matter. Doesn't this seem too optimistic or unrealistic? If it's a new form of matter, surely there must be properties which even researchers are unsure about. What are the safety and health issues involved in using this in 'practical applications'?

    1. Re:Practical application by rokzy · · Score: 1

      not necessary. the electron is just a single particle and that changed the entire world.

    2. Re:Practical application by danila · · Score: 4, Interesting
      First of all, let me just say that in some way they are correct, since we can expect their work to eventually have some practical applications. But this is not terribly relevant today. What is relevant is that scientists are forced by our society to lie about these uses to get public support and public funding. Read any press releas? and it will claim the invention/discovery will help fight terrorism, fight SARS, bring fusion to reality, save people from falling skyscrapers, save soldiers' lives in the battlefield, or at least create faster computers and more effective batteries.

      Here is a relevant quote from the adorable Feynman:
      I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, hut something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

      For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, hut then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.
      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    3. Re:Practical application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > not necessary. the electron is just a single particle and that changed the
      > entire world.

      Naah - more fun to add all freaks and foes to my friends list! That'll confuse 'em!

    4. Re:Practical application by infolib · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article seems to highly stress the practical application of this new form of matter.

      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, 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.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    5. Re:Practical application by perdelucena · · Score: 1

      What are the safety and health issues involved in using this in 'practical applications'?

      Your comment reminds me about the governement position about trangenics, here in Brazil. No one has proved (yet) these plants are unsafe, but our governement wants studies showing they're safe (!unsafe != safe).
      Stupid bureaucracy. Lets profit first. When something wrong happens we started to care about. If we were afraid of using new technology we would still not using the wheel.

      ----

      Just my 2 cents

    6. Re:Practical application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The article seems to highly stress the practical application of this new form of matter. Doesn't this seem too optimistic or unrealistic?

      True. As physicists in fundamental research, we are forced to exagerate the possible applications. Funding organizations don't get the fact that you cannot force the invention of new technology. That is always a spin-off from fundamental research and you cannot predict which is going to provide you with nice goodies that people can buy.

      If you want to get funding for a Bose Einstein condensate, you say you do it to make a better clock, which can be used for better GPS systems. While theoretically it is true that a better clock will improve GPS, it is definitely not what we are worried about when we are playing around with our atoms.

      If it's a new form of matter, surely there must be properties which even researchers are unsure about.

      Not really. This is not new physics in the sense of new exotic elementary particles. It all derives from old fashioned quantum physics, it's just that there are implications of that theory that might not be completely known yet. Furthermore, from a condensed matter physics point of view, this fermionic condensate is not a really new state of matter. It's the same state of matter, only now with atoms (which have a dipolar interaction) instead of electrons (which have a repulsive coulomb interaction, but also an attractive interaction due to the ionic background).


      What are the safety and health issues involved in using this in 'practical applications'?


      None. These condensates are extremely fragile and consist of a few million atoms. When you read about atoms contained in magnetic field and vacuum chambers, you should not think about fusion reactors and stuff like that. The vacuum chamber is not there to contain the atom, but to keep the air out. For these experiments, the presure in the chamber need to be 14 orders of magnitude lower then atmospheric pressure, because the relatively hot molecules in the air will otherwise collide with your trapped atoms and heat them up, destroying your precious condensate.

    7. Re:Practical application by osgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      scientists are forced by our society to lie about these uses to get public support and public funding

      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.

    8. Re:Practical application by October_30th · · Score: 1
      As physicists in fundamental research, we are forced to exagerate the possible applications.

      Forced? Who's pointing the gun at you?

      What's stopping you from researching something in which you can reasonably accurately predict the possible applications/applied research?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    9. Re:Practical application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which brings us to the other great American institution; if education's broke just throw more money at it.

      [sarcasm]
      I mean if we throw enough money at the educational system, the Teachers unions will eventually get it right, right?
      [/sarcasm]

    10. Re:Practical application by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      No one has proved (yet) these plants are unsafe, but our governement wants studies showing they're safe (!unsafe != safe).

      Um, yes. Before you go making irreversible changes to the biosystem by introducting new plants, you'd better prove it's safe. Don't fsck with our spaceship's life support system. That's common sense.

      If, for some reason I can't fathom, you want to eat GM crops, hey, be my guest. Just grow them in greenhouses with biohazard protections to keep them from spreading.

      If we were afraid of using new technology we would still not using the wheel.

      Non sequitor. Adopting a technology like the wheel (or room-temperature supercondictors) is a reversable change. Putting poorly-understood transgenic plants into the ecosystem is not.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    11. Re:Practical application by gotan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't let them off that easily.

      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.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    12. Re:Practical application by chooks · · Score: 1

      What are the safety and health issues involved in using this in 'practical applications'

      Frostbite from when they cool you down to almost absolute zero.

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    13. Re:Practical application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's stopping you from researching something in which you can reasonably accurately predict the possible applications/applied research?
      The fact that they're physicists in fundamental research. No-one ever knows what the practical consequences of fundamental research will be.

      The fact that there are dimwits and bean-counters around who can't see why, say, the unification of electricity and magnetism is important shouldn't stop these people getting their money.
    14. Re:Practical application by ModifiedDog · · Score: 1

      Looks like the most important practical application is superconductors comprised of particles that are independent thinkers.

    15. Re:Practical application by October_30th · · Score: 1
      The fact that they're physicists in fundamental research.

      That didn't answer my question. My question was, "Why can't these guys also do applied research?". Your answer was "These guys cannot do applied research because they're in fundamental research".

      So I ask again, what's stopping them from doing also applied research? Is it unkosher somehow? Are they afraid that having anything to do with even applied research somehow taints them?

      Or have they "become specialized" in fundamental research. Funny thing, I've never had to limit myself in such an artificial way.

      This is not an either-or situation. You can do both applied and fundamental research on the same topic so that they support each other. That's elegant!

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    16. Re:Practical application by azuretek · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee you that most of the students in schools these days dont care much (if at all) about education. They wouldn't read a book or learn anything new if they didn't "have to" I seriously doubt that even if we shifted all the tax money to education the general population would still be as stupid as it is now.

      The problem isn't that we need more education, the problem is we need to put the people that matter first. It should be, the workers and then the people that are smart. It's a cynical way of thinking but I dont think it's possible to make someone become smart. This is just my opinion and I think it would be a great solution, but then it would cause all kinds of problems with the constitution and stupid people would realise something was different when someone smart disagreed... maybe I'll just continue my life only associating with those that can understand simple scientific concepts....

    17. Re:Practical application by Plimsoles · · Score: 1

      To the contrary: we have "education", and lots of it. Your call for more of it is really a call for a different content. Current education, in contrast, is aimed at developing a certain type of person; at worst, content is only necessary to fool the people paying for the education establishment. The irrelevance of content/fact can be illustrated in the major education thrust to instill self-esteem. Studies (eg, by the National Organization of Women) have shown, however, that self-esteem is generally inversely related to learning. (My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.) As to dishonesty: the schools don't really teach morals; instead, they teach the complete relativity of "values" (don't be judgemental, etc.). Of course, when someone makes statements that contradict the hive mind conclusion, the hidden values come out. As to honesty: If it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath, as many believe(d), then why shouldn't scientists lie to get more money? It is, at least, slightly more altruistic, and thus arguably 'better', than lying to get out of personal liability.

    18. Re:Practical application by Mortgage.ysp · · Score: 1

      ...a solid education for every member of our society. You assume, sir, that education is solid whereas I would provide to you that it is fluid and a constant goal. Education takes people who want to learn and strive for more information, skills and experience and raises them to the next level. The precursor to your argument is choice and correct choice at that. First, people must demand a high level of quality output from their educational source, private or public.

    19. Re:Practical application by resignator · · Score: 1

      You can educate someone out the butt....it isnt going to make them smart or agree with you. I am always suprised to hear someone say education is the answer to anythying. Most arguements have smart and intelligent people on BOTH sides.

      --
      "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
    20. Re:Practical application by jafac · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you can't have Public Education without it being a lightning rod for politicization.

      What exactly do you teach these kids, and who decides how it's taught?

      Do you teach them to use condoms? Or to put a padlock on their zipper?
      Do you teach them that God Created the Earth in 7 days? Or that Accretion process in a primodial solar gas cloud formed the Earth over the space of millions of years?
      Do you teach them that wantonly dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere will doom our species to death due to climate change?
      Do you teach them that anyone who makes more money than the average person is greedy and evil, and should be put to death as a traitor to Humanity?

      It quickly becomes a slippery-slope of political indoctrination.

      It's pretty much one of the key problems with Democracy, and freedom and "The Open Society". (that's not to say that closed societies and authoritarian or totalitarian regimes don't have their problems - I certainly prefer free and open societies myself!).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    21. Re:Practical application by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      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.

      Ouch. While true in some cases, I don't necessarily believe that the article in question is a good example of this problem. First of all, Deborah Jin doesn't need the money--she's a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" recipient.

      Second, the reporter noted "Jin stressed her team worked with a supercooled gas, which provides little opportunity for everyday application." That the reporter placed this tidbit at the end suggests the problem is one of sloppy or sensationalist reporting, not scientific grandstanding. The reporter also placed her own comment between two of Jin's quotes, possibly giving the impression that more was claimed.

      "It is related to a Bose-Einstein condensate," Jin said. "It's not a superconductor but it is really something in between these two that may help us in science link these two interesting behaviors."

      And other researchers may find practical applications.

      "If you had a superconductor you could transmit electricity with no losses," Jin said. "Right now something like 10 percent of all electricity we produce in the United States is lost. It heats up wires. It doesn't do anybody any good."

      Jin clearly states that though related (possibly) to superconductivity, her material is assuredly not a superconductor. The reporter then steered the discussion off on that tangent--and few solid state physicists can resist a talk about the applications of room-temperature superconductivity.

      Perhaps you left off 'sloppy science reporters who are desperate to sell newspaper columns' from your list of individuals complicit in the 'broken system'.

      Third, in addition to Jin's own obvious talents, she also works with Wieman and Cornell, who recently landed a Nobel prize for their work on Bose-Einstein condensates. Perhaps she actually is qualified to make predictions about where her discoveries might lead. She knows the field better than most of the people who work in it, and I daresay better than all the posters on Slashdot. Why is she lying when she makes not-unfounded guesses about the future of her own research?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    22. Re:Practical application by Jonathan+Burns · · Score: 1

      It's a fair question. Supposing there turned out to be industrial applications, as with superconductors. We might have to post more signs saying, WARNING: Strong magnetic fields, cryogenic gases stored here. But that would be about it. The energy involved in the fermionic matter itself is ridiculously low.

      However, industrial (let alone consumer) applications are not the enticing prospect here. What will be lighting up physicists' eyes is a new case of macroscopic bodies of matter being orchestrated by a single quantum wavefunction; and in consequence the most sensitive, precise and totally noise-free measuring instruments, ever.

      Existing example: superconducting quantum interference devices, as used in medicine and elsewhere to make exquisitely precise magnetic field measurements.

      Existing example: the Mossbauer effect, where a fraction of iron nuclei are quantum-coupled to a crystal, so that when they emit gamma photons the recoil is taken up by the whole crystal. That allows measurements of the redshift due to the Earth's gravity: lab-bench general relativity.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossbauer_effect

      Longshot possibility example: A theoretical case has been made by Raymond Chiao, that in the same way a superconductor excludes a magnetic field, it should also exclude a similar component of gravitational curvature. So superconductors might act as detectors, or even generators, of gravitational radiation. The detection aspect alone would put a powerful tool in the hands of astronomers - e.g. for seeing even further back than the cosmic microwave background.

      Chiao's paper, if you want a taste:

      http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0208024

      There's no immediate profit in this except knowledge; but it may very well be a critical turn in the knowledge game.

    23. Re:Practical application by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
      No one "forces" them to lie, they do it of their own volition. ... The answer to most of these problems is "education". Education, education, education.

      Education has never made people good, and never will. Education merely turns Joe Crowbar into Lex Luthor. The sad fact is that even when they know the right thing to do, people often choose to do the wrong thing instead. Even when they know the long term consequences to themselves personally.

      The Law of Moses helps us know what is right. Science helps us know what can be done. Neither can make people good or practical.

    24. Re:Practical application by MrCocktail · · Score: 1

      Rather than go out and blame society for "forcing" scientists to lie about their work in order to get funding, perhaps a simpler explanation is that the reporter was trying to slant the article this way (towards practical applications, rather than the nitty-gritty details of the scientific work), because the average Joe might better appreciate the article (and the science) if they can envision how it will make their lives better. This was after all a Reuters article, not an article from a scientific journal.

      Just trying to give the scientists the benefit of the doubt.

    25. Re:Practical application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay, let's have the nerds run the show... great idea pointdexter. No more push-ups for you!

    26. Re:Practical application by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      They're part of a broken system...
      The answer to most of these problems is "education". Education, education, education...

      Well I have a news for you. The system was broken, is broken and will be broken. The answer indeed may an education, but people are not going to get educated, thus nullifying our beloved answer. Scientists often have to lie to get funding, be that now or thousand years ago. No system will change humans.

      Relax and enjoy the ride.

    27. Re:Practical application by cens0r · · Score: 1

      well without fundamental research they would soon run out of things to apply.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    28. Re:Practical application by October_30th · · Score: 1
      I don't get it. I advocate that research groups should do both fundamental and applied research and that's the reply I get.

      Have the scientists really become so "bipartisan" that it is inconceivable that a lab could not only conduct both fundamental and applied research, but would do it in a manner that the different segments (fundamental/applied) actually support each other?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    29. Re:Practical application by cens0r · · Score: 1

      If that's what you meant by your post I apologize. But when I read it I took it to mean: "Why don't those doing fundamental research switch to applied research." My response to that was you need both. If every one did applied research, you would soon run out of things to apply. But if everyone did fundamental research we'd never get to use anything new.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  9. I want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Heck with maglev, gimme FTL !

    1. Re:I want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already have it, yesterday, you just cant see nor touch it.

  10. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahaha the EU invented almost everything.

  11. i was promised maglevs! by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the 21st century's version of the 20th's "i was promised rocket cars!" will be "i was promised maglevs!"

    maglevs always seem to be just around the corner... perpetually...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i was promised maglevs! by Yohahn · · Score: 1

      Um...

      http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/ 12 /30/daily18.html

    2. Re:i was promised maglevs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maglev trains are the future of transportation, and always will be.

  12. Re:Maglev in U.S. by SB5 · · Score: 1

    Last I heard they are/were working on one... I forget which city but I know it was either Pittsburgh, or Baltimore. They haven't even started construction....

    --
    If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
    it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
  13. Animal experiments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    All the drugs, food supplements and practically anything that people digest, wear or spread on their skin has been tested on animals.

    You militant assholes should refuse medical help when the cops beat you up next time.

    1. Re:Animal experiments by PSandusky · · Score: 0

      Why didn't this get modded offtopic or troll?

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
  14. Liquid Crystal, Bose-Einstein Condensate? by loadquo · · Score: 1

    Although in this case I suspect they count BEC as the fifth as they are particle physcists and it is the chemists and chemical physicists who get exicted by Liquid Crystals.

  15. Connective tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lets see... ...
    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.....

    1. Re:Connective tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they did have room temperature superconductivity you sill WONT get near an MRI machine, due to its cost in buying and runing and maintaining.

      Medical technology = elitest with money only need apply, it will still be out of reach of those that need it.

      If you want medical care, go to India fuck the west when it comes to getting access to MRI machines. They just want to screw you or try give reasons for NOT using it.

    2. Re:Connective tissue by caluml · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you freeze your room to a billionth of a degree C, then you can truly claim to have a room temperature semiconductor.

    3. Re:Connective tissue by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 4, Funny

      A billionth of a degree C? Then you could almost freeze water, but I don't think it'd superconduct. On the other hand, more fingers. If you freeze it to a billionth of a degree K, that might suffice.

    4. Re:Connective tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good idea. While I'm over there I can get my job back!

    5. Re:Connective tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I don't know where in the West you are talking about, but here in the States it's pretty damn easy to get an MRI.

    6. Re:Connective tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It said a billionth of a degree C above absolute zero. Scalawag.

    7. Re:Connective tissue by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, no it didn't. Read the parent post he replied to, not the grandparent post.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    8. Re:Connective tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They cooled potassium gas to a billionth of a degree C above absolute zero or minus 459 degrees F
      A billionth of a degree C above absolute zero is the same exact thing as a billionth of a Kelvin. You niggle inappropriately.

    9. Re:Connective tissue by MadHobbit · · Score: 1

      And in Canada as well - possibly easier. I've had CT scans, an EEG, and an MRI, with no trouble at all, and at no direct cost (obviously tax money goes to it, but the procedure is readily available whether you're an 'elitest with money' (sic) or not. The only criteria is that a doctor recommends it. Given that I know at least three other people in my immediate family that have had MRIs, it doesn't seem to be difficult.

    10. Re:Connective tissue by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1

      Read the parent post, it doesn't say "above absolute zero".

    11. Re:Connective tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in some sense it is a beowulf cluster: A lot of atoms "working together" instead of being independent in their behaviour.

      However, I don't think they can run Linux :-)

    12. Re:Connective tissue by martyros · · Score: 1

      IOW, a billionth of a degree Kelvin. Celcius , by definition, has zero at the temperature water freezes.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

  16. Superconductor hype by squaretorus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Presentation of this story suggests that this work is a step towards room temp superconductors. While this may be true, I suspect it is no more true of this that any other significant development of our understanding of that wierd stuff we call 'quantum'.

    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!

    1. Re:Superconductor hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well that's not exactly true. It's at the extremes that it is simplest to see where our models break down, so we might learn more, adjust our thinking, an make the incremental improvements to what we know well.

      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 curious at times) thinks Mars rovers, and NASA in general are a waste of money. What's ironic is he says this on a program bounce off a satellite; proving, once again, it doesn't hurt to have an education to go together with a vocabulary.

    2. Re:Superconductor hype by Flingles · · Score: 1

      I'd be scared if we didn't find some spooky stuff going on!

      I guess you're scared either way then :)

      --
      Karma: -2^0.5 . Mainly due to the imbibing of dihydrogen monoxide
    3. Re:Superconductor hype by danila · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here is a quote from a great E2 writeup by wheloc:
      The fun thing about bosons is that any collection of things which acts sortta like a particle, and who's spins sum to some integer value, will act like a boson. If, for example, you get two electrons traveling together and reduce their temperature sufficiently under the right conditions they will begin to act like a single particle. If one has a spin of +1/2 and the other has a spin of -1/2 then the composite "particle" will have a total spin of 0, effectively making it a boson (this special type of boson is called a "Cooper pair"). Fermions bump into each other, bosons do not. Resistance in a wire (as in Ohm's Law) is caused by electrons bumping into each other. If all the electrons form Cooper pairs then this no longer happens, and electricity can flow through a material much better. This is the principle behind superconductivity.


      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...
      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    4. Re:Superconductor hype by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      In a way, I lament those who share your lament. Denis Miller (I'm morbidly curious at times) thinks Mars rovers, and NASA in general are a waste of money. What's ironic is he says this on a program bounce off a satellite; proving, once again, it doesn't hurt to have an education to go together with a vocabulary.

      Not to get off on a rant here, but...

      Actually, simply "an education" doesn't quite cut it. Better to make sure that the education includes the sciences, or else the idiot communication majors who have to take sciences classes and complain about it bitterly will force the concept that "an education" doesn't need such... how would they put it -- dead weight, maybe? (!!), and without advocacy for the sciences, idiot college administrators will go with the idea. You can thank that kind of thinking for things like warnings about the "Anthrax Virus" after 9/11.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    5. Re:Superconductor hype by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 3, Informative

      If one has a spin of +1/2 and the other has a spin of -1/2 then the composite "particle" will have a total spin of 0
      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.

    6. Re:Superconductor hype by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      How arrogant of you to suggest that it will take 100 years to get room temp superconductors.

      Come now, let's look back 100 years and see where things stood:

      - Einstein hadn't published his theory yet.
      - Many believed in some sort of universal ether.
      - Air flight was in its infancy.

      I could go on. Who's to say that any one of these small breakthroughs will not spark a gigantic discovery? Who are you to declare that something won't be feasible for another hundred years?

      Gain some perspective man! :)

    7. Re:Superconductor hype by squaretorus · · Score: 1

      Sheesh - who rattled your cage! Having studied chemistry for 4 years, physics for 2, and running a subscription to pop-science crap like New Scientist, Nature, and Science since about 1985/6 I think I have a reasonable perspective on this stuff. Or maybe Im just being arrogant.

      Superconducting is hard. Simple as that. That a room temp superconductor hasn't been created - even a tiny sliver in a lab - at all means applicable technology is guaranteed to be at least 30 - 40 years away. I'm less optimistic.

    8. Re:Superconductor hype by puppet10 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'll let Weimann (researcher at JILA, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, his group was the first to create a BEC) do my talking for me since I only have an overview understanding of the topic:

      "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]

      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, 3]

      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]

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    9. Re:Superconductor hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just being falsely arrogant. Experimental flight began in 1903; planes were produced on assembly lines starting in 1910; the first sustained commercial airline itinerary started in 1919. Start-up times are even faster now.

      You should try either softening up those opinions or researching them better.

    10. Re:Superconductor hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucken ideot

      planes were inventted in austlira... n ur cmrcl flt dates r way to soon

  17. Re:Maglev in U.S. by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe there's a monorail in Springfield, Illinois. It's well documented; I thought everyone knew about it?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  18. Re:Maglev in U.S. by line.at.infinity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, there aren't that many overseas, none of them are long or cost-effective. Some amusement parks have it (Disney World's "Train of Tomorrow,"). IIRC there's one in Osaka, Japan, but it runs wicked slow due to safety concerns.

  19. First fundamental, then applied research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So fucking what?

    Applied research cannot be done without first investigating the fundamentals. You can't call yourself a scientist if you don't understand this.

  20. Re:Wickenberg, Arizona by SB5 · · Score: 1

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&c2coff=1&q=Wickenburg+Arizona+maglev&spell= 1

    I am not an expert and I don't know what you are talking about A Coward, but Google pulls up nothing, you should maybe elaborate your ... mumbling?

    --
    If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
    it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
  21. Whew... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 0, Funny
    The scientists are predicting that this will lead to 'room temperature solid' superconductors,

    Thats good, it was bad enough when I licked a street light with my tongue on a dare in the cold of winter once.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:Whew... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Only a dare? I would think most people would hold out for the TRIPLE DOG DARE before fusing their tongue to a cold lightpost in the dead of winter... :)

    2. Re:Whew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats good, it was bad enough when I licked a street light with my tongue on a dare in the cold of winter once.

      I don't get it. Incidentally, I live in Florida...

  22. Re:Maglev in U.S. by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

    Ha, but monorails aren't maglev.

  23. Un-scientific questions by CGP314 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So... quantum whatever... can I touch it? Without massive pain? What's it feel like?

    --
    In London? Need a Physics Tutor?

    American Weblog in London

    1. Re:Un-scientific questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember.. like everything quantum, you can look, but don't touch... err.. you can't touch it. Or touch it but don't look..

    2. Re:Un-scientific questions by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      So... quantum whatever... can I touch it? Without massive pain? What's it feel like?

      If you're lucky, it would freeze the nerves so fast you wouldn't feel the pain.

    3. Re:Un-scientific questions by Snosty · · Score: 3, Funny

      So... quantum whatever... can I touch it? Without massive pain? What's it feel like?
      --
      In London? Need a Physics Tutor?


      You're the damn physics tutor, you tell me.

    4. Re:Un-scientific questions by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      Best. Reply. Ever.

    5. Re:Un-scientific questions by Ice_Balrog · · Score: 1

      Imagine the coldest thing you have ever touched. Now imagine something several hunderd times colder. So cold that the moment you touched it your hand would instantly freeze, causing all the cells in your hand to die, thus requiring it to be amputated. It probably wouldn't hurt all that much, since the nerves in your hand would be dead, but somehow it still doesn't seem to appealing.

      --
      #include "sig.h"
  24. Are you sure? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    Are you sure of that? I'm not sure, ahem, I mean I'm uncertain, that it's that easy to tell.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  25. Look at Europe, Asia by nniillss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can order a maglev from Siemens, Germany, at any time. Provided you have a deep pocket.

    1. Re:Look at Europe, Asia by batemanm · · Score: 1
      You can order a maglev from Siemens, Germany, at any time. Provided you have a deep pocket.

      Because they only accept pockets as delivery addresses?

    2. Re:Look at Europe, Asia by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1
      You can order a maglev from Siemens, Germany, at any time. Provided you have a deep pocket.

      Hey ... you can order one from me too! Early delivery dates may be a problem though :-)

  26. Re:Maglev in U.S. by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 0, Funny

    Shhh, this is Slashdot, 99.9 percent of the people couldn't tell you the difference but like to think they could. Please, don't shatter their illusions.

    (Cue 20 flames from people who can tell the difference.)

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  27. Re:Maglev in U.S. by TehHustler · · Score: 2, Informative

    The only one I can think of here in the UK is the one between Birmingham Airport and the Birmingham Exhibition Centres, if its still there, that is. I remember it about 10 years ago, maybe more.

    --

    TheHustler
    http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
    http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
  28. A more in depth article on the subject by Guy_Warwick · · Score: 5, Informative

    Deborah Jin the team leader gives more of an idea of her work in this article. http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/4/7

    1. Re:A more in depth article on the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe one day you'll learn about those newfangled hyperlink doohickies.

    2. Re:A more in depth article on the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  29. Arguable by tacocat · · Score: 4, 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

  30. Sentient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How do you know an animal is sentient?

    Does a rock or a vegetable answer you when you ask it a question? No. Does a fish or a monkey answer if you ask it a question? No. Does a human being answer if you ask it a question. Yes! Instant test for sentience.

    Or are you one of those Gaia-nuts trying to say that rocks and vegetables are sentient too?

    1. Re:Sentient? by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3430481. stm

      There is a parrot that is conversant in 100 english words and it's able to use past, present & future tenses in speech.
      It is irrelevant if animals are sentient, what matters is if we will let some smelly bunch of hippies stop vital animal based research.

      Perhaps you've seen 28 Days, the movie where a plague is released because some animal rights activists are stupid enough to release infected monkeys.

      BTW, vegetables have limited sentience because plant leaves compute the best angle for receiving sunlight.

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
    2. Re:Sentient? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
      BTW, vegetables have limited sentience because plant leaves compute the best angle for receiving sunlight.

      Eh? How is phototropism even vaguely related to sentience?

      YLFI
      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  31. The original press release by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 4, Informative
    From Colorado University, the original press release is here.

    If you want the actual paper, and have access to the journal, it's published on the online version of Physics Review Letters Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 040403 (2004)

    abstract here for those with access.

    1. Re:The original press release by Svet-Am · · Score: 1

      From Colorado University, the original press release is here.

      Don't mean to nit-pick, but that would be 'The University of Colorado at Boulder' for the link you provided. 'Colorado University' exists and it is a totally different school with totally different programs.

      --
      [move .sig! for great justice, take off every .sig!]
    2. Re:The original press release by rednaxela · · Score: 1

      There actually isn't a Colorado University, although there is a Colorado College. I also feel obligated to acknowledge the existence of the aggies up at Colorado State University.

      Why do we call the University of Colorado "CU" instead of UC? Can't afford to be confused with University of California. Of course, when I tell people I went to CU in DC, they think "Catholic University," which is rather unfortunate.

      And yes, I recognize this post is both off topic and completely inane.

    3. Re:The original press release by cens0r · · Score: 1

      They were just trying to copy the other schools in the Big 8: Universtity of Nebraska (NU), Universtity of Oklahoma (OU), and University of Kansas (KU)... I'm not sure but I would wager that Missouri is MU.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    4. Re:The original press release by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      And my favorite - I want one of their shirts! - Frinds University of Central Kansas.

      Would that make it F.U.C.K. U? :]

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
  32. This is news?! :-) by ylodi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Croatian scientist Danijel Djurek discovered superconducting ceramic that works reliably at room temperature. Danijel says that current will flow without resistance through the material, which is a mixture of lead, lead carbonate, and silver oxides. Here is article in today's croatian daily paper (sorry, there is no translation). Old news on you.com.au.

    1. Re:This is news?! :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice, but I'll wait for the paper and repeat experiments before I'll go and pop any corks.

    2. Re:This is news?! :-) by narkotix · · Score: 1, Funny

      so do i add this before or after the cold fusion reactor on my vapourware list? :P

      --
      We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
    3. Re:This is news?! :-) by ylodi · · Score: 1

      Colossal Electric Conductivity in Ag-defect Ag5Pb2O6
      Authors: D. Djurek, Z. Medunic, M. Paljevic, A. Tonejc
      Comments: 13 pages, 7 figures
      Subj-class: Superconductivity; Materials Science Journal-ref: Phys.stat.sol. (a) 201, 544 (2004)
      LINK

    4. Re:This is news?! :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Since you obviously speak Croat, it'd be nice to see a loose translation.

      I can read most Germanic and Romanm languages, but Croatian is a closed book to me.

    5. Re:This is news?! :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Between cold fusion reactors and Duke Nukem Forever.

  33. Sensationalism at its best by nniillss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it's impossible to tell from this shitty article what was actually observed, it's clear that this super-low-temperature experiment has nothing to do with high-Tc superconductivity. At least not more than a million previous experiments; a more likely candidate would have been experiments done long ago on superfluid 3He.

  34. The BIG issue now by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1, Funny

    When will this matter?

    1. Re:The BIG issue now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will this matter... what? Please finish your comment.

  35. ... and you're a fucking idiot by n3k5 · · Score: 1
    Actually they DID call up Douglas Adams and ask him for a name to give their new form of matter, but the only reply he would give is "I'm fucking dead!"
    After some BEC had actually been _created_ in a lab, DNA continued to live for almost six years.
    --
    but what do i know, i'm just a model.
  36. PRL going down the drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I thought PRL was supposed to cater to an interdisciplinary field of scientist. At least the last time I wrote an article that was going to be submitted to PRL, I was required to write the introduction so that any scientist could understand what the study was about.

    From what I can see, this is no longer required which is a shame.

    This result is from such a narrow and fundamental field of study that it should be in PRB.

  37. How's this for hype by DarkkOne · · Score: 1

    Or rather, I believe they claim to already have something at least functionally similar if not equivalent to a room temperature superconductor... I wonder how much of this is hype and how much of this is reality. I've actually had the chance to read what they handed out to prospective investors, and although I admit I have a very limited background, the "fluff content" seemed to be backed by relatively stable facts beside the fact that they didn't give away exactly how they pulled it off (for what I suspect are rather clear "or you'd try it to" reasons). I dunno, just thought it was interesting.

  38. What about faster Rollercoaster launch systems by stiggle · · Score: 1, Funny

    Most of the modern coasters use linear motors to launch the trains, so better conductors and magnets would make the launch systems faster (and cheaper) :-)

    Perhaps we can see someone building something to beat the Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point for being the tallest, fastest coaster (when its working).

  39. And I forgot the Ultraconductors URL by DarkkOne · · Score: 1

    http://www.ultraconductors.com/ *feels stupid* I don't deserve to be a /.er

  40. Maglev by Kumkwat · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    Actually there are close to nill long-distance commercial maglev applications.

    I remember reading that China looked likely to cancel the planned Shanghei to Beijing one which was to be constructed by german companies. I rememebr the costs per km running up to US$48M.

    Room temperature super conductors would definately reduce the costs involved!

    1. Re:Maglev by DamnRogue · · Score: 1

      Depending, of course, on how much said room temperature superconductors cost...

  41. Re:i was promised maglevs! The future is here? by jimmydevice · · Score: 0

    It's flying cars, and rocket belts, and dinner in a pill, and robot maids and butlers and 3d tv and moon vacations and computer professors and all we got is this stinking internet.

  42. I really am dylsexic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You insensitive cold.

  43. HIgh Tc by geordieboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think this is possibly a big step towards room temperature superconductivity. The point is that in normal (even high Tc) superconductors, the forces between the cooper pairs are rather weak, hence the need to cool to at least 70K or so to get the effect. In this fermionic stuff, the force is a little stronger (at least, this is claimed in the article). Thus it may be possible to design a material which uses the same principle as the fermionic gas but in the form of a solid material at say 300K (just as high Tc superconductors are essentially solid B-E condensates, more or less).
    BTW, I'm a cosmologist, not a condensed matter person, so I could be talking out of my arse.

    --
    The world is everything that is the case
    1. Re:HIgh Tc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, I'm a cosmologist, not a condensed matter person, so I could be talking out of my arse

      Don't you mean Uranus?

    2. Re:HIgh Tc by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      Reading the article to the end, it seems that they had to chill the matter somewhat to achieve their new condensate, so I think they are a long way off making anything useful, and your last statement is probably true.

      ;)

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    3. Re:HIgh Tc by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd say that a temp of 1e-9K is somewhat chilled.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    4. Re:HIgh Tc by iwadasn · · Score: 1

      First of all, I am a physicist (BA in Physics, if that qualifies). Second of all, one of my professors (Yamura was I think his name, he's at Columbia, teaches physics 2900) was a bit of an expert in the field of superconductors, judging by the fact that there are graphs named after him. Here's basically what I understand from his short lecture on his current research. Basically there are normal and abnormal superconductors (they actually have technical names, but I forget them). Normal superconductors are things like lead and mercury. Any material, if sufficiently cooled will eventually have its electrons form up cooper pairs and become a superconductor. These are not very useful because they need to be so cold. The second group is entirely different. If you look on the graphs it's very clear that there are two lines. The normal superconductors fall on one line, and the abnormal (high temperature) superconductors fall on the other. Basically, it seems that the theory to explain the high temperature superconductors isn't really complete yet. They seem to function through a fundamentally different mechanism, so it's not clear that really understanding cooper pairs well will give us any help with them. It seems that scientists always have to try to envision a use for their breakthroughs though, so I can't fault them for trying. Anyway, that is my two cents. -Tyler

  44. Maglev trains are nice but... by timepilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, I'm all for more efficient generators and maglev trains, but I'd really like to see transporters, warp drive, photon torpedos or at the very least a good tricorder.

    Any chance the *next* form of matter can help here?

    1. Re:Maglev trains are nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tricorder:
      Thermometer + Blinking LED's + satelite cell phone + spaceship acting as gps/satelite.

  45. Space Elevators by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    The Star Ladder could be created by elements formed with the new form of matter, it could be easier to fiddle existing elements into stronger forms.
    Why, because I'm pretty sure buckybulls aren't strong enough to use as a space elevator.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
    1. Re:Space Elevators by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      what about carbon nanotubes? are(n't) they strong enough?

    2. Re:Space Elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not. And that's skipping over the fact that we can only make slurry that contains sub-centimetre-length fragments of nanotube, rather than the millions of kilometres we'd need for a space elevator.

      "Space elevator" is actually a term in a foreign language. Translated into English, the term is "pipe dream".

    3. Re:Space Elevators by Uncle+Ira · · Score: 1

      whether naotubes would be strong enough or not, that's a structural matter. Superconducting materials, OTOH, would (I imangine) be useful as a mechanism for moving cargo up the elevator.

    4. Re:Space Elevators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, lets build a nuclear rocket and start doing some macro-scale physics experiments. How do we know that there are no nanotubes to be created through shaped nuclear explosions?

      Nuclear and nuclear rockets are certainly the key to human space exploration: but I think that elevators are they key to space colonization.

      You can build much bigger spacecraft in space. And everyone likes a nice umbilical cord of oxygen and supplies right?

  46. The Original Article by narftrek · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's the original (and official in my book) article.
    I read this yesterday and thought to myself "wow this would make a great /. article." Lo and behold it shows up here. Damn work for blocking non .gov addresses!!

  47. Cooper Pairs by verloren · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm sure there's a superconductor engineer reading this somewhere, but in the meantime I'll point out that we don't really know what causes superconductivity. Cooper pairs are a good theory, but haven't been proven to be the cause. So coming up with a substance that is similar to a thing that might cause superconductivity is hopeful, but let's not get carried away.

    Cheers, Paul

    1. Re:Cooper Pairs by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      The Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory of superconductivity is widely accepted (see both Ashcroft & Mermin Solid State Physics and Kittel Introduction to Solid State Physics). Part of the reason for this is that the theoretical predictions it makes for various superconductive effects are in excellent agreement with experiment. I would say that proves the validity of the theory to the extent that any scientific theory can be proven, since scientific theories are always subject to revision based on experimental observations.

      That said, I personally think the forced connection between these new Fermionic condensates and the possibility of room temperature superconductors is a gimmick to try to attract funding. :-p

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
  48. You're thinking of monorails by jeti · · Score: 2, Informative


    You're thinking of monorails.
    This is a maglev.
    It routinely does 267 mph.

    1. Re:You're thinking of monorails by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      Oh, I forgot to mention: the maglev in Osaka is at an amusement park... That's why it can be slow and still be profitable (people want to ride it for the priviledge).

  49. question is... by plams · · Score: 2, Funny

    does it matter? or does it anti-matter?

    1. Re:question is... by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      all that doesn't anti-matter now
      now we've got ourselves a black hole out in space

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  50. Heisenberg says... by nacturation · · Score: 3, 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.

    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!

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  51. Brrrr by CrabbMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seeing as this form of matter only exists at billionth of a degree C above absolute zero, I can see this as being useful only for New York trains in the winter. . .

  52. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 0

    Hehe. Mule.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  53. "New" form of matter? by Animus+Howard · · Score: 1

    Unless I am mistaken, it should probably say "extremely old form of matter".

  54. Re:i was promised maglevs! The future is here? by escallywag · · Score: 1

    The future used to be better in the old days...

  55. Douglas adams ? by moneymaker · · Score: 1

    You need a phone into Heaven (or Hell)to do that ...

    unfortunately his preface to H2G2 didn't give *that* number :)

    1. Re:Douglas adams ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure? Maybe it is that number. But unfortunately, he forgot to give us the area code ...

    2. Re:Douglas adams ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen you fucking nerd. You just go right ahead and call it H2G2. And don't forget to use the terms LOTR, FOTR, ROTK, and AOTC. Yeah, that'll make you sound real fucking smart.

  56. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Rico_za · · Score: 1, Funny

    Whoa! Who said Springfield is in Illinois? Isn't the whole idea of Springfield that it is in every state? If there's proof it's in Illinois, please point the way.

  57. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Snarfy · · Score: 1
  58. I used to have a room temperature superconductor by panurge · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I actually had part of a sample on my desk at one point in the early 90s. It was about 3/4 of a turn from an experimental helix, and the reason that it was 3/4 of a turn was that when the current had been put through the helix it had abruptly stopped superconducting and broken up. As I understand it, this is the big problem with superconductors: the runaway thermal destruction the moment the combination of temperature and field strength exceeds the superconducting envelope.

    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?

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  59. show me by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    a non-experimental, longer than a few showcase miles (shanghai?), continuously functional, and most importantly ECONOMICAL maglev

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:show me by jafuser · · Score: 2, Funny

      the economics will never see a real useful maglev

      "never" is a very long time. =)

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  60. Re:Maglev in U.S. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if that was ever a Maglev, in any case I think it only worked for a year or so before it was shut down for years and years and years now it has re-opened and is pulled round the track by big cables - it's definatley not a maglev any longer

  61. Trying to understand what occurs... by GameGod0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so we've got Potassium atoms forming Coopers pairs. In a normal Superconductive state, Coopers pairs are electrons which have opposite spin, thus resulting in a net spin of 0. Because this is a whole integer spin, they behave like bosons (according to Bose-Einstein statistics) rather than fermions. In short, they behave more like photons than electrons.

    Now, according to this more informative article that someone already linked to,

    "Interestingly, the constituents of matter - protons, neutrons and electrons - are all fermions, whereas a composite particle, such as an atom, is a boson if the total number of protons, neutrons and electrons is even, and a fermion if the total number is odd."

    Is it that simple to make a whole atom behave like a boson? Weird.

    (One more thing... According to somewhere on Wikipedia, a proton's spin is 1/2... So if you have (-?)1/2 spin from the proton, and (?-)1/2 spin from the electron in a Hydrogen atom, how DOESN'T it behave like a boson?)

    1. Re:Trying to understand what occurs... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      they dont compensate each other because of the higher proton mass. The magnetic moment produced by the electron spin is >1000 times bigger than the one by the proton spin. (if im not seriously missing something)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Trying to understand what occurs... by geordieboy · · Score: 1

      I think both particles have to be indistinguishable for the composite to behave like a boson. It follows from quantum mechanics (what counts is whether the wavefunction is symmetric or anti-symmetric under particle exchange). Feel free to be bamboozled.

      --
      The world is everything that is the case
    3. Re:Trying to understand what occurs... by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 1

      The particles have to be much more closely-bound than a proton/electron system. For all intents and purposes when considering the quantum mechanics of a hydrogen atom, the electron can be considered to be "independent" of the proton--it only creates an electric potential. However, for tightly bound constructs, such as an alpha particle (2 protons, 2 neutrons), the spins can in fact be summed and viewed as a composite particle, in this case, a boson. That's why you get the superfluidic properties of helium at low temperatures.

      --

      To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

  62. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "We may have invented it, but the US is perfectioning it...."

    o_O

  63. Re:Maglev in U.S. by D-Cypell · · Score: 1

    Yeah... i heard it really put them on the map..

    Along with Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook.

  64. Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm allowed to call watercooling-idiots... "IDIOTS!"

  65. Fermion pairing was observed in superfluid He-3. by poszi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    These are nice experiments but definitly not "a scientific breakthrough in providing a new type of quantum mechanical behavior".

    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 in physics). So getting Bose-Einstein condensate from rubidium atoms is interesting research but this is not a breakthrough and not a "sixth state of matter". This is still Bose-Einstein condensate but made not from atoms but pairs of atoms.

    --

    Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!

  66. Superconductors by pmj · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've seen lots of posts saying "this has nothing to do with room temperature superconductors, but really cold gasses!" and whatnot.

    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.

    --
    Are you BioCurious?
  67. Re:Maglev in U.S. by -brazil- · · Score: 1
    Exactly. The German Transrapid has run exclusively on a test course for about 20 years until they finally managed to get the Chinese to buy it for a prestige project (connecting Shanghai city with its airport, opened last year). But even the Chinese turned to regular high-speed railways for the planned Beijing-Shanghai connection.


    The problem is that Maglev tracks are an order of magnitude more expensive to build than railways, which kinda dwarfs the potential benefits.

    --

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
    --Henry Kissinger

  68. Maglevs? Spacelifts? How bout... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Superconducting computers? CPUs?

  69. Animal rights, AROS and logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully when AROS is completed, these issues will be addressed.

  70. Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    Quite a few Big Ideas writers badly overestimated the time needed to land on the Moon, and were rather surprised by the 1969 date. Of course, in everything afterwards they were terribly optimistic.

    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 already built and working, just not in production.)

    The main problem with widespread personal air transport is that it's harder to fly a plane than it is to drive a car, and managing traffic and congestion are much harder. Both problems should gradually go away as computers get more advanced. Have patience.

    Making tiny things can also be a way to a Big Idea; have a look at carbon nanotubes and the space elevator concept for example. Quite a few Big Ideas have been held up because of the lack of good materials, and the making-tiny-things field (I won't call it nanotech because that carries a truckload of undeserved connotations) can help out a lot in the materials science area.

    Your sentence needs one small but extremely important addition, IMO. "It's interesting how all the big ideas of the 1940s and 1950s have come to nothing as of January 2004."

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  71. Re:EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, go. Do you need help with the airfare?

    Oh by the way, I'm sure you'll be paying back every last penny that was paid to your school, College and University in fees and subsidies the entire time you've been studying. Wouldn't want to be a part of that evil Socialist groupthink now would you?

  72. Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto by arlow · · Score: 1
    I actually had part of a sample on my desk at one point in the early 90s.

    mod parent down; this is bogus for any number of reasons, the most important of which is that NO ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS HAVE EVER BEEN DOCUMENTED, regardless of T_c/H_c/J_c characteristics. I call shenanigans.

    --

    my other lambda is a Y

  73. watch out with the units please.. by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

    They cooled potassium gas to a billionth of a degree C above absolute zero or minus 459 degrees F

    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, or I might just dislike the degrees F scale.. But it remains a good advice.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    1. Re:watch out with the units please.. by Beautyon · · Score: 1

      That billionth quote was straight from the article...and by the way you insane mods, how the hell is that post a Troll?

      Someone has to make practical use develop cost effective manufacturing processes of room temperature superconductors if we are to reduce our reliance on oil, which is crucial not only for the environment, but for world peace.

      Thats no joke, and thats no troll!!!!!

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    2. Re:watch out with the units please.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -459 F is (approximately) correct, though, and far more useful to the lay American reader than -273 C.

      One might think, from reading your post, that they got the conversion wrong, which is definitely not the case.

    3. Re:watch out with the units please.. by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      I agree, If I ever get to meta-moderate this, I'll classify it as unfair. However, even if it remains quite expensive to make for a couple more aeons, it could still be very usefull for experiments.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    4. Re:watch out with the units please.. by Beautyon · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with what another person said in this thread; whatever it costs, it would be more expensive not to do it. If all the powerlines everywhere were replaced with superconductors, we would save billions of euros worth of electricity. Eventually, over maybe decades, it would pay off.

      I wonder if the manufacturing process is going to be patented....uh oh!

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
  74. Re:EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Of course I won't.

    That yet another weird socialist idea I keep running into. As if I somehow "owe the society" for the money they've spent on me. I didn't ask for the money, I didn't sign anything - they gave it to me freely.

  75. Sorry, misprint by panurge · · Score: 1
    A pity you can't edit howlers. I meant, of course "high temperature superconductor", i.e. around 100K.

    Put it down to age and reading the word "room" in the article: it wasn't deliberate.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  76. Privatize Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...it's the one thing that our government absolutely must provide: a solid education for every member of our society.

    Many argue that it is the federalization of education that is to blame for these problems. Public schools and the beauracracies and unions that feed off of them are so bad now that fixing the system is impossible. Radical change is necessary.

    Private schools, homeschools, and cooperative community schools are outright superior.

    1. Re:Privatize Education by TGK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you out of your mind? The only one of those that has the slightest prayer of working is private school.... and even that will only provide an education to those who can afford it.

      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.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    2. Re:Privatize Education by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Crime? Hunger? Even longevity is beneficially affected by education.

      You forgot to mention drug use (including alcohol and cigarettes), teen pregnancy, depression, abuse, run-aways, and suicide.

      Education is the silver bullet.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    3. Re:Privatize Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never thought I'd so heartily agree with someone who sports a Wahoo URL for a homepage...

      (...How 'bout them Hokies?)

    4. Re:Privatize Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So...um where do you think kids pick up these things:
      drugs? school. parents.
      alcohol? parents.
      teen pregnancy? social atmosphere provided by school. parents refusal to supply birth control.
      depression? social paranioia developed at school. Lack of an established place in society (job - no time because of school)
      run-aways? monetary and social connections established at school.
      abuse? parents.
      suicide? parents and school.

      I think young people would be more responsible if they had a greater stake in society. I remember all of my peers being a lot smarter than they were treated by their school systems....a lot of wasted undirected energy if you ask me.

    5. Re:Privatize Education by ZerroDefex · · Score: 1

      Good point, the teachers make the biggest difference in education. A good teacher can get a kid to want to learn and succed while a bad one will kill his/her motivation in no time flat. Math and English teachers especially.

    6. Re:Privatize Education by Crolis · · Score: 1

      Funding is not the solution to the education crisis in the United States. There is already plenty of money being thrown at the problem.

      The real problem is the layers of bureaucracy that the money has to filter through and the inane regulations that suppress out-of-the-box thinking and innovative solutions to educational problems.

      The way you fix that is to completely divest the Federal Government from the education business. Dissolve the Department of Education, and reduce the taxes collected on the people at the federal level. That means dramatic reductions in income and payroll taxes.

      The States would then have the ability to create and administrate an education system tailored to the specific needs of their socio-economic geography. And the liberated tax revenue of their citizens can be tapped to solve their issues.

      You wouldn't need to set particular academic standards because private interests will rate the performance of states against each other, much like J.D. Power and Associates or Consumer Reports and other auditing firms compare companies and product lines.

      The result is that the States will be forced to innovate to compete with fellow states, the the educational effectiveness of their programs will entice businesses and people to relocate.

      This approach could be used for health care, education, welfare, social security, and pretty much anything that the federal government has a habit of screwing up.

      Let the states compete for tax base, and let them have the responsibility and the authority to act.

      -Crolis

    7. Re:Privatize Education by TGK · · Score: 1

      Once again we get to address arguments.

      Drugs -- Drugs have been a problem with humanity far before public education existed. I'm sure you're not positing that teenage drug use is a good reason to close down the public school system, thereby denying millions an education.

      Alcohol -- They're not getting alcohol at school... well, not the smart ones anyhow. It's too bulky to easily smuggle into and out of a school. They're getting it from their friends after school. You don't think that without public schools people won't have friends do you?

      Teen Pregnancy -- It's not a social atmosphere from school. Teen pregnancy is a perfectly natural part of human development. It wasn't until fairly recently that we started giving a shit about it. My grandmother was married at 14 and popping out munchkins at 17 (pesky WWII got in the way). Teen pregnancy has become a problem because of a changing social atmosphere outside schools.

      Depression -- There we go. What an argument. Kids don't like being forced to learn so we shouldn't teach them. Wow... you're more libreal than I thought. Depression is teen angst. Most teenagers are "depressed" because it gets them attention. Depression is like being a fan of the Back Street Boys, something you grow out of. Admittedly, there are the very select few that actualy suffer from a disorder and need treatment... of course, most medical evidence suggests that as this is a neurochemical inbalance the absence or presence of education will not agrivate it.

      Run-aways -- I'm not sure where you're sending your kids. Running away from home is the kind of thing you skip town for. You're generaly not going to school with people from out of town.

      Suicide -- I think you'd be hard pressed to find a suicide note from a teenager lamenting the state of public education.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  77. OK, I'm not a quantum physicist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But I study to become one.
    Essentially, you have two types of particles. Bosons, of which there can exist infinitely many in the same state (place, time, energy and such), and fermions, of which no two can occupy the same state. For the more physics geek among us: Bosons have an integral spin, fermions have halve-valued spins.
    In superconducting material, two electrons (fermions) bind together to form a boson (2 x 1/2 = integer), which form a sort of Bose-Einstein condensate in matter, creating superconduction. (This is a higher hand-waving physics explanation, but this space is too short to explain it fully).
    What the news is now, is that they have now done this, not for electrons in a material, but for actual atoms. Not sure how this can be used for superconduction at high (liquid nitrogen) temperatures though.

  78. Re:the abusing bastich by mirko · · Score: 0

    You are a wonderful human being !

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
  79. 10 forms of matter by billybob2001 · · Score: 0

    There are not six forms of matter as stated.

    There are 10.

    01 It does matter
    10 It doesn't matter

    Guess which one this is?

  80. 6th? What about the fifth by Kinlan · · Score: 1, Funny

    So we have Earth, Water, Wind and Fire???? What is the fifth ;)

    --
    As cunning as a fox, which has just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University. http://www.kinlan.co
    1. Re:6th? What about the fifth by dustmote · · Score: 0

      Probably some other folk rocker entirely. :) Sorry, couldn't resist.

      --


      -1, "1337" speak
    2. Re:6th? What about the fifth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captain Planet

    3. Re:6th? What about the fifth by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      didn't you see the movie? the fifth is a hot chick with orange hair.

    4. Re:6th? What about the fifth by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      So we have Earth, Water, Wind and Fire???? What is the fifth ;)

      A chick whose beauty is far overrated, a lot of bad music, and Bruce Willis who makes everything better. :) (That said, I love that movie :) )

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    5. Re:6th? What about the fifth by cthulhubob · · Score: 1

      So we have Earth, Water, Wind and Fire???? What is the fifth

      The fifth element is Heart, but it apparently only allows you to talk to animals. That kid Ma-ti got gypped when they handed out the rings, huh?

      --

      In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
    6. Re:6th? What about the fifth by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The fifth element is Heart

      I thought it was void.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:6th? What about the fifth by Kinlan · · Score: 1

      Yeah I really enjoyed that film :), however my DVD version of it has a really bad echo on its soundtrack, and I am a bit too lazy to send it back :(

      --
      As cunning as a fox, which has just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University. http://www.kinlan.co
    8. Re:6th? What about the fifth by chrispy666 · · Score: 1

      Alright everyone, sing along :

      "Ceeeelebrate good time, come on !" *clap*

      damn, so early in the morning and my jokes already suck... I need more vitmanins...

      --
      Music is the language of the heart, the sound of the soul. -Joe Satriani
    9. Re:6th? What about the fifth by Xconnect · · Score: 0

      You have it all wrong... it's Earth, Water, Fire, Wood, Metal... :-)

      --
      --- root@127.0.0.1
  81. It shouldn't be necessary by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Research as fundamental as this should be funded, with no regard to practical applications. These scientists shoudn't be forced to think about practical applications, that is the job of other scientists, later in the process.

    1. Re:It shouldn't be necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These scientists shoudn't be forced to think about practical applications

      Why not? Are they royality or something? All expenses paid in return for no real function?

    2. Re:It shouldn't be necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is the job of Engineers.

  82. Re:Hooray! by VickyNaylor · · Score: 0

    I'm an old hippy you insensitive clod!

    --

    ---
    imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie...
  83. this is really cool by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    from the article:
    "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???

  84. lucky for us by whosiwhatsitnow · · Score: 1

    armchair physicists and real working physicists are distinguishable particles. Unlucky for us, you need an expensive detector (like a grad. degree in physics) to tell them apart.

  85. Re:EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they gave it to me freely.
    No, lets be specific here. It was offered to you and you accepted it. It's not as if College & University are compulsory. Just admit it; you took a freebie, something which has advantaged you, and you didn't pay for it. Taking from society and at the same time telling everyone how bad it is that society offered is hyprocritical.

  86. If you use an aerogel for insulation... by ^BR · · Score: 1

    Then the cooling is almost only a one time expense...

    The Amazing Properties of Aerogel

  87. Re:Maglev in U.S. by GlassMaster · · Score: 1, Informative

    The only maglev train in the U.S. that I am aware of is a prototype at Old Dominion University. This project was started several years ago and has yet to be completed due to insufficient funding (or running way over budget). ODU press release

  88. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Emrikol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You know...I'm tired of people just assuming the Simpsons live in Illinois. Just becuase Illinois has a Springfield and a Shelbyville.

    Well, want to know a little secret? Indiana has a Springfield, a Shelbyville, and a DUFF!

    So, for all we know, it could be anywhere!

    --
    You're all bastards!
  89. insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did you read the article? this research is so far away from producing anything useful in the lab (let alone in 'real life' for the rest of us). they will study this new form of matter and try to make it on a much larger scale, they'll compare it to existing states of matter. blah, blah. seriously, how can someone do this kind of work and tell me it's useful?

    really, i have better places to put my money than into research to find efficient forms of transportation. i love my bike.

  90. Room temperature superconductors by oohp · · Score: 1

    ...are the electircal engineer's wet dream. If this research really materializes in some technology and real world aplications, not only would it make our engineer's lives easier (no resitance, less heat, less heat radiating surface, more powerful and energy efficient motors) but also benefit society as a whole (less emissions). Unless they patent it the next day and require six figure licensing fees.

    On the other hand potassium is *very* reactive.

  91. No such thing by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    There's no such thing as "a degree K". It's simply "a Kelvin".

    1. Re:No such thing by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      There's such a thing as "Degrees K".

      It took me a minute to realize the problem, since "K" is indeed the symbol for Kelvin. Then I realized it was the "degree" that was the problem. Sorry, I had an accident and can't remember anything past 1967 when "degree K" was proper. (=

  92. Re:Fermion pairing was observed in superfluid He-3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Exactly. At low enough temperature spin 1/2 particles (fermions) - like He-3, potassium or even electrons - can "pair off". The resulting composite particle is called a "Cooper pair". It has integer spin and may therefore condense into a Bose-Einstein condensate.

    I'm not sure who is responsible for this hyperbole about "creating a new form of matter", but it is shameless. But hey, it made the news...

  93. Re:EU by slavetrade55 · · Score: 1

    Just admit it; you took a freebie, something which has advantaged you, and you didn't pay for it.

    Yeah and I bet he and his parents paid absolutely no taxes at all. What a bunch of ungrateful leeches.

    That's the problem with socialists, they steal your money at the point of the gun and when they give some of it back they act like they did you a favor. Yeesh.

  94. Confused by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Are you claiming Nobel was American?

    1. Re:Confused by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      Whaat? You mean the Acme Corporation didn't invent dynamite? Road Runner has been deceiving me all this time.

      Either that or I was talking out of my ass.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
  95. Re:American Scientific Dominance by slavetrade55 · · Score: 1

    Actually, I thought there were a lot of German guys who helped the US build those first atomic bombs...oh, and let's not forget the ones who stayed in Germany and *tried* to make one.

    Luckily the Americans invented "saving Europe from itself" as well.

  96. Re:Maglev in U.S. by rjelks · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the Springfield in the Simpsons has on ocean right by it....come to think of it, they have a desert, mountains and forests too. Maybe they move the town around.

    -

  97. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are. But unlike USians, they share the ideas with the world and don't claim patents. USians don't really own any ideas themselves. Some corporations do and as soon as US starts going down, these corporations, the investors and the CEOs, will gladly move to switzerland or whatever other country is prosperous at the time and wipe their asses with the american flag. These folks have no nationality.

    It's THE BURNING LEGION!

  98. Re:no idea ... by jcuervo · · Score: 1

    Hmm.

    "Scientists create new way to blow up lightbulbs."

    Cool.

    --
    Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  99. How is this a troll? by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, explain to me why this is a troll?

  100. Important Point by Maxdan · · Score: 2, Informative

    A lot of people seem to be saying this has nothing to do with superconductivity and the scientists are deliberately misleading the press. The success of the group was the formation of this condonsate at such a high temperature. I know it doesn't sound high, but it is orders of magnitude above when such a condensate should theoretically form. They acheived this by manipulating other factors in the materials local environment (a particular magnetic field). Superconductors form a similar condensate and if the condonsate could be formed at higher temperature by changing some environmental factor other than temperature, it may be possible to create a room temperature superconductor. I think thats the point that was been made and would have been one of the motivating factors for the research.

  101. Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

    The main problem with widespread personal air transport is that it's harder to fly a plane than it is to drive a car, and managing traffic and congestion are much harder. Both problems should gradually go away as computers get more advanced. Have patience.

    Alright, I'll chime in here. First off, when the flying cars were first envisioned, the dynamics of the situation weren't fully realized.

    That said, let's talk about body first. To make a flying car that is practical, it must be drivable on existing roads at speeds we're used to. Considering that there would quickly be legislation limiting flying areas in cities or eliminating them entirely, we must expect to still road the cars frequently for city driving. That means that aerodynamically, the car needs to be designed to stay on the ground. This is completely counter to the goals of anything that flies, where they need to have lift surfaces and so forth.

    Then you get dead weight. That's everything in your car that doesn't make it fly while you're flying, and everything that doesn't make it drive while you're driving. More on this later.

    Next problem: power source. It's possible, but unlikely to be useful to use the same engine for flying that you use for driving. However, existing street-legal IC engines do not have enough power to push the car on the ground and drive a propellor that is tough and fast enough to life the car, assuming you deal with the aerodynamic problems previously mentioned. So you need to split up the jobs somehow. It's my opinion that the solution lies in electrical motors at each wheel for road-driving and electrically-driven turbines. Either would be dead weight at certain times, but could be build small enough not to impact weight that much.

    Then you've got the whole wing issue, and lift surface problem. It'd be great if some new scientific breakthrough enabled us to generate/use gravity waves to lift and drive the car, thus eliminating almost everything I've mentioned already, but it's not here and now. Here and now it's damned impossible to build a car that can fly, road properly, and still run on an IC engine, because of the lift surfaces required to do so. Assuming you can get the same IC engine to drive and spin a propeller, straighten out the body so it can lift when it needs to and stick to the road when it needs to, you'll still need wings and a tail, and that crap just doesn't fit in the lane. So it needs to fold out, and your problem has just multiplied itself into oblivion. Outside of that, hovering is an excellent option, but since hovering is a brute force method, it becomes very expensive in terms of power requirements.

    When a small, portable electrical power source can be built, flying cars will become at least approachable in a practical sense. So we're either waiting for someone to design a generator that fits under the hood of your car or we're waiting for cold fusion. And that's just the start of solving this problem.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  102. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, Mr. Troll, I'll bite. Granted the USA is not perfect. Still, the USA is the most free (overall) country in the world. (Though the Liberals are trying their hardest to correct this) What really pisses off the rest of the world, is that the US is a success. While they've been busy with socialism-lite, and other failed social/economic models, the USA has continued to grow in power and wealth. As far as the USA "perfecting" genocide and totalitarianism, that's just dreck. You'd better be praying to whatever god/power you believe in that the USA remains free, and the most powerful country in the world. The USA is the worlds ONLY hope for keeping the world from going straight down the tubes. While the rest of the world is content to make money from the REAL genocidal megalomaniacs, the USA has been the ONLY one that has had the balls to finally get fed up, and say "enough". Just remember, while your sitting there sipping your Evian and bashing Bush and the USA, if it wasn't for the USA and men with the cajones to actually do more than pay lip service to their values, your happy ass, if your parents/grandparents hadn't died in some Nazi death camp, or Soviet gulag, would be under threat
    of ending there yourself. So, whenever you wake up in the morning, and you're NOT in a deathcamp, or a totalitarian hell hole, remember the hundreds of thousands of Americans that died so you could have the luxury of spewing ignorance and hate, and NOT get put up against a wall and shot. And, yes, before you start, the US is no choir boy. This is the real world, with real people. All power comes from force, or the perception of the ability to use force. Sorry, that's the way human nature is.
    SOMEBODY will be the most powerful. Who would you like to see filling that spot, China? Iran? Russia? Canada?(sorry, couldn't resist) Puh-lease.

  103. Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

    mod parent down; this is bogus for any number of reasons, the most important of which is that NO ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS HAVE EVER BEEN DOCUMENTED, regardless of T_c/H_c/J_c characteristics. I call shenanigans.

    Call shenanigans all you want, but if you actually understood the post, you would have understood that he was talking about a superconductor that conducted, got too hot, and wasn't capable of conducting anymore. It was still a superconductor in the sense that it was a broken superconductor. I got a light laugh off of it, at least.

    In the meantime, I suggest you do with your mod points as you will, and the rest of us will use ours as we will. We don't need you to tell us how to mod.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  104. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not a troll. Unfortunately, speaking the truth isn't popular with liberals and socialists.

  105. Logic? by wurp · · Score: 1

    On what basis do you not "superconductors becoming feasable (sic) at room temperatures anytime soon (i.e. 100 years)"? Do you have any reasoning to back up this position?

    I have a BS in Physics, and I worked for Drs. Sheng and Shams on the high Tc superconductivity project at the University of Arkansas (as a lab grunt). Superconductivity was for a very long time only found in the domain of a few degrees celsius above absolute zero. Absolute zero is about 270 degrees celsius below freezing, or about 290 degrees below room temperature. When the only superconductors known worked at these temperatures, your position of disregarding the possibility of room temperature superconductivity made sense.

    Then the first high temperature superconductors were discovered, and now we know of substances that superconduct at well over liquid nitrogen temperatures. I believe the highest temperature right now is about 130 or 140 kelvins, about halfway from absolute zero to room temperature. Well, there are no special properties associated with -140 C like there are with near absolute zero. Molecules and atoms are whizzing around at breakneck speed. To claim resolutely that superconductivity can happen at those temperatures, but not at room temperatures, is crazy.

    We don't have a good model of superconductivity. I can't project when we'll discover room temperature superconductors; until we have a good model no one can. However, when we've already made one jump of about 70 C in superconducting temperature, and climbed another 50-70 C in less than 15 years since that jump, it seems pretty precipitous to claim, with apparently no knowledge whatsoever in the field, that we won't make the remaining 160 degrees C any time in the near future.

    1. Re:Logic? by squaretorus · · Score: 1

      Jesus - dont piss of the junior league physicists!!

      I'm inviting a Chemist bashing here - but superconductivity seems to me to be more of a chemistry problem than a physics one - in that its new materials that are required to increase the temperature.

      The current 'high temp' superconductors are, to me (and yes, its only an opinion) a dead end. More and more complex materials are being produced which are SCARY BASTARDS to share a lab with. I've done some lab work on similar materials and they are naasty stuff.

      The model of superconductivity is weak at best - but its getting better and its an exciting 'new frontier' field which is far removed from room temp fusion pseudo science - but it ain't gonna be quick!

      I've spent my fair share of time working with equations you need 2 or 3 sheets of paper to just write down - I have a bit of insight into the research - I read most of the crap that makes it into the popular science press, and the odd snippet of real papers.

      Molecules and atoms are whizzing around at breakneck speed

      If youd left this out of your post it would have had a bit more credibility. Even being a lab grunt didn't put me off too much - I got on quite well with lab grunts!

    2. Re:Logic? by wurp · · Score: 1

      Once again, unsubstantiated assertions, now with attempted character bashing.

      I am indeed junior league in physics - I don't claim to be otherwise. However, your mild attempts at condescension are lost on me. I think people reading our posts can ferret out who knows what.

      Superconductivity is indeed right now more chemistry than physics - last I knew, they were researching chemicals in which the 2D cupric oxide layers were closer together, since there seemed to be a relationship between the distance between layers and the Tc.

      Credibility? I am asserting that the fundamental physics at liquid nitrogen temperatures are essentially the same as those at room temperature, while those at near absolute zero are fundamentally different. We have already broken the barrier. Do you deny this? Do you deny that molecules and atoms are whizzing around at breakneck speed in substances at liquid nitrogen temperatures, while they are nearly still in substances at near absolute zero? If you don't deny it, why did you object to it? If you do, then we can suspend the conversation for a bit while you go learn some physics.

      Why don't you stop attempting to cast aspersions and put forth some facts?

    3. Re:Logic? by squaretorus · · Score: 1

      As a chemist I know I can achieve certain reactions in certain conditions - be it a certain temperature, concentration, pressure, etc...

      My 'quantum' teaches me that 'quantummy effects' as I call them happen more readily at very low temperatures. 'very quantummy effects' only happen within a hens tooth of absolute zero.

      There are so many 'quantummy effects' that have not been successfully observed at 'roomish temp' that superconductivity would be breaking new ground in a pretty wide field.

      A number of recent summary articles from people in various related fields shows a distinct split between those falling on the side of the yay, and those on the nay with regards to the 'superconducting soon?' question - there simply is no concensus that 'the major barrier' has been broken.

      Take that for the bunch of unsubstantiated assertions it is and stick it up your ass!
      You physics puppies always piss me off!

    4. Re:Logic? by wurp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aha! Now I can actually see where you're coming from, and refute it, I think... can you name a 'quantummy effect' that happens at liquid nitrogen temps (other than superconductivity ;), and not at room temp? I can't either, and that's what I base my conviction that we don't know when we'll see room temp superconductivity, but it may as likely be soon as late.

      I think we're arguing based on the same "feel" for what enables superconductivity, I just have different beliefs about where those things happen than you do. To me, the big barrier was making it 30 kelvins away from absolute zero, which is the zone of weirdness. Once it's out of that weirdness zone, it seems like "merely" a technical problem. That said, if you had said we probably won't see it in 20 years, I would have been right there with you. 50, and I would have been suspicious. However, for 100 years out, I think we are talking out of our hat to project anything other than that things will be very different.

      It's nice to know that our feelings for each other are mutual. ;-)

  106. the Pauli Exclusion Principle... by karlandtanya · · Score: 3, Informative
    Says that


    "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.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:the Pauli Exclusion Principle... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "yeah, I've got a degree in it. But engineering pays better."

      unless you invent a room temp. super conductor...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:the Pauli Exclusion Principle... by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm...so, ya think that scientist there gets to keep the patent?

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  107. Re:no idea ... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

    for me superconductors are ONLY magnets. kinda like make ANY shape with copper wire, cool down and add charge, presto a "permanent magnet".

    Can't you add a resistor to prevent blowing up the light bulb? Yeah, yeah, then what's the point of having a superconductor in the first place, right?

    How about in phone lines? Internet lines? How would just having the wire itself be really really fast affect the whole system? In some places, that would move the bottleneck to the routers and switches, but have a net result of a speed increase.

    Of course, the prospect of having a really powerful motor that runs on a 9v battery is sweet! Could they make a motor that'll drive my truck and only run on a bank of AA batteries? ;)

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  108. Great news for nerds by gunnarstahl · · Score: 0

    because stat stuff is matter

    (sorry, to obvious to be funny)

  109. Re:American Scientific Dominance by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    Luckily the Americans invented "saving Europe from itself" as well.

    We all make mistakes.

    Go ahead, mod me down. I have the karma to burn. Anti US comments get modded up, but anything anti Euro gets modded down, even it it's true ;)

  110. I call BS by Wolfier · · Score: 0

    New form of matter.

    That only lasts for some billionth of a second at nearly absolute zero temperature.

    There probably is not any other form of matter at that condition.

    NEXT.

  111. Name Change! by tarsi210 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This will not do! I demand that the scientists come up with a name for this stuff that is more fun. You just can't use this properly in sci-fi films. Observe:

    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*

    1. Re:Name Change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just abbreviate it, e.g. "... with my feco ray!"

      After all, today they don't say "I'll blast you with my Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation gun" in SF films, but they say "I'll blast you with my LASER gun!"

    2. Re:Name Change! by tarsi210 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I was thinking that "plasma" ray gun sounded cooler...it didn't have a neat name like "plasma". But nice point. Perhaps Captain Shamerica will be victorious after all. :)

  112. We know some, but not all by jpflip · · Score: 1

    We are, in fact, essentially certain that the BCS theory of superconductivity is correct for ordinary superconducting metals. As the previous poster pointed out, its precise predictions have been so incredibly good for the past few decades that the physics (and engineering) community are completely satisfied. That said, there is a class of superconducting compounds (high-Tc superconductors) that we really don't understand. These compounds are generally kinds of ceramic, so they don't conduct at ALL at room temperature, but become superconducting at temperatures up to more than 100K (compared to about 4K for the standard metals). And THAT being said, it's still true that this discovery may have nothing to do with superconductors at all.

  113. Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you're new to real academia and you expect it to be all ivory towerish, and bust out a copy of PRL and start reading what amounts to a flame in the form of a Jeopardy answer, it's pretty special.

  114. A Physicist's Answer by jpflip · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not really that simple. The hydrogen atom (taken as a whole) is ALWAYS a boson, there's no doubt about that - the spins add up right. What you are asking about, however, is whether you can see any interesting condensation effects because of it. That turns out to be very difficult to arrange. You need to get a whole bunch of hydrogen atoms together in exactly the same state (no excited states, and they all must be moving with the same velocity). More importantly, quantum effects (like condensation) only become important when the (excuse the jargon) wavefunctions of the particles begin to substantially overlap. Basically, the "particles" are a little smeared out by quantum mechanics, and you only get quantum weirdness when these smears overlap. The size of the smear is inversely proportional to the mass of the object. Hydrogen atoms are 2000 times heavier than electrons, and so they have to be brought to very high densities before they can behave this way. The upshot is that the only way we know to do this is to bring the atoms to a nearly dead stop (hence EXTREME cold) in a small region and watch the magic happen. So the atoms are always boson, but only under extreme conditions do we care.

  115. Re:no idea ... by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

    The light bulb is the resistor. The resistance of the wires is negligible by comparison, and replacing them with superconducting wires would have no ill effect. The original poster is talking nonsense.

    --
    Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  116. how is this related to this year's nobel prize? by sluke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This year one of the nobel prizes in physics went to Tony Legget who explained experiments over twenty years ago in which Helium 3, when cooled low enough exhibited superfluidity. In this scenario the Helium 3 which is a fermion pairs up much like low Tc cooper pairing (except in a p-wave state). This allows it to flow without resistance in addition to giving it interesting magnetic properties. What I would like to know is how this experiment is different from the experimental work on Helium 3. It seems that both involve pairing of fermion atoms to form bosons, except that somehow in this example there are charge carriers... Does someone have a reference to the article at the preprint archive (or in a journal)?

  117. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a maglev TRACK outside my office at Old Dominion University (web.odu.edu). The project has been one big cluster-fsck from all reports (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?st ory=63480&ran=149830).

    With the money they spent they could have bought everyone a Segway, now that is a futuristic campus!!

  118. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anti US comments get modded up, but anything anti Euro gets modded down, even it it's true ;)

    But of course. That's always been a liberal cornerstone. Freedom of speech for those that agree, and violent suppression for those that might have the hubris to disagree with the self-proclaimed "intellectual elite" under such nice euphemisms as "political correctness" and "hate speech" and "freedom of (from) religion". Too bad they feel the need to make up stuff about the USA, instead of deal with the real monsters like Saddam Hussein. As usual, the USA cleans up the rest of the worlds' messes, and gets spit on for its' trouble. Nothing new here, move along.

  119. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Dick+Faze · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Arrrghh!!! You call that an Anchor?

  120. Re:no idea ... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

    Ah, thank you. I thought there was something wrong with it, but couldn't quite put my finger on it. :)

    Of course, he completely understated the usefulness of his "magnet" as well, considering how much of our society is powered by electro-magnetism. :)

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  121. Re:This is news?! :-) - Looooose translation by ZackStone · · 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 kilometars [without recharching i guess] will soon be an everyday occurance. This revlutionary discovery, a material composed of led, silver, oxygen and water [maybee hydrogen], surounded by [i think] copper, performs as a superconductor, insists the croatian physisist Dr. Danijel Djurek. The global independant labaratory already verified this croatian scientists discovery and have announced a new technological revolution.

    Some are skeptical

    The quest for superconductivity, transfer of electricity without loss resulting from resistance, lasted 15 years. Massive production of wires and the installation of new materials in various compontens, ie. speakers and electrical motors, should begin in the upcoming months in Croatia and should expand throughout the world afterwards. If it suceeds, a new industrial branch should make a contribution to croatian economy.

    The world acknowledges

    In order for a scientific discovery to be acknowledged and subsequently published in various journals it has to be verified by independent labaratories whose members are secretely selected by teams of particular journals. Dr. Danijel Djurek's discovery has been given the green light by the independant labaratory. As a result of which an article in The Economist, Scientific American, New Scientist and a scientifict brach of New York Times, about the new superconductive material has been published. This is a landmark discovery for technology and [maybee economy, not sure]. With current techniques, transmition over high power electrical lines, results in a loss of 30% of the manufactured power. An additional 20% is lost at the consumer level. The new material is not only ecologically acceptable and will save electrical energy, time and money - said Dr. D. Djurek. Despite the support of coleagues and scientists from other parts of the word and a despite a worldwide [maybee global] ackowledgment many remain skeptical becuase Djurek's material does not emit a magnetic field. More correcty, Meissner's [something maybee work] which was though to be required in order for a material to be superconductive.

    I will continue in next post as it is not relevant to discussion any more but will be there in case you want to read.

  122. should called it "nobelium" by peter303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When you see hype like this, they are gunning for the Nobel prize. I doubt they'll grant one for fermiotic matter, since it is an extension of the efforts that creatic Einstein-Bose matter and won the nobel in the late 1990s.

    1. Re:should called it "nobelium" by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    2. Re:should called it "nobelium" by bagsc · · Score: 1
      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  123. Re:I might also point out... by symbolic · · Score: 2, 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 explain what we see." Fortunately, a good imagination doesn't require a PhD in quantum physics.

  124. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Emrikol · · Score: 1

    Actually...if I remember right, they do.

    or at least they did in one episode.

    --
    You're all bastards!
  125. hyper-cold and hyper-hot new states of matter by peter303 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Note these new states of matter occur at super-cold or super-hot conditions. At super-cold the atoms stop motion and engage in bizaire quantum mingled quantum states. You needed a micro-degree about absolute zero for Bose matter and a nano-degee for fermatic matter.
    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.

  126. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here we go again. There are some mentally deranged individuals on this board that clearly have a low self esteem, otherwise they would not make such a half-assed comment. The EU does a lot more fundamental research than applied research, and that is why it may seem that the EU does not "create" things: You won't see highly theoretical papers in these popular scientific magazines. Also, research is not that jazzed up by the media as it is in the US.

    But go ahead, feel superior, you probably need it.

  127. sixth form of matter by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    Great, so now matter can take its A-levels. Now they've just got two years to create a university for it!

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  128. Potassium Gas? by gillbates · · Score: 1

    IIRC, Potassium is a solid at room temperature, not to mention at absolute zero.

    So why does the article say potassium gas? Did they mean a gaseous potassium compound? Or am I just missing something?

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Potassium Gas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Think of it like this; if you have one atom of potassium, is it a gas, liquid or solid? Now have 1000 individual atoms (not in a metal lattice), they have the same degrees of freedom as a gas does. For all intense and purposes, it is a gas.

      The process of cooling and trapping atoms, is to inject a relatively small number of atom in to a vaccuum chamber. The atoms behave as a gas.

  129. you are 100% right by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i apologize, "never" was a poorly chosen word, "in our lifetimes" might suffice, sorry, thanks ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  130. Not to cast aspersions on the esteemed Dr. Feynman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HOWEVER!

    Aside from being very interesting cosmology does quite a lot.

    Such as allowing us to better understand the universe, and our place in it, providing an important social common ground for all the developed countries. When you share the same outlook, since it's not a mythology, it's harder to kill someone for not agreeing with you.

    Our advances in high energy electromagnetic fields (neutron stars, pulsars, FUSION POWER) are aided in part by our ability to spy on experiments already in progress that can't be done on the Earth because we don't have two solar masses of iron and quark-gluon plasma to build a neutron star out of. One of those silly inconvieneces.

    Neutreno emmitions might one day give us another measure of advance warning for poor space weather. Which can make power grids fold faster than The Flash at the World Origami Championships. Not to mention destroy pricy satellites which aren't getting cheaper.

    There there are things like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Which are interesting, but indirectly provide a learning opportunity to solve other problems. Like making really bitchin CCD cameras, coorodinating large multi-national projects, and building smart data bases to help federate a vast amount of knowledge, and then make it accessible to everyone. That's right, the best telescope in the world is the internet.

    Not to mention the lessons learned from building ever more sophisticated instruments for looking at things like the background radiation, or even inferometers for looking at other planets. And fixing the mistakes. Adaptive optics and Hubble's initial vision problem?

    The lessons learned, these baby steps, from the international space station, the mars rovers, are going to be the begining of us getting the hell off this rock. And those who come after us will care very little about the motivations behind the task, and venerate the fact that it was done. Columbus goofed upon this accidental hemisphere hoping to find india to make a little extra coin. Beyond that no one but history professors care, and a great many care only that "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue." The other things that Spain might have done instead of bankrolling this fools errand are trivial beyond compare.

    The nature of time, Quantum Chromo-Dynamics, penta-quarks, who knows what answers they might bring to questions we haven't thought to ask. Mr. Feynman sure as hell doesn't. Einstien didn't know that we'd have GPS constallations, Plank didn't know that in the future everyone would be able to own night-vision video cameras, Babbage sure as hell didn't know that anyone for a months work would be able to simulate the universe from origin to end, coarse as though it might be, and none of the three reckoned on 30 megaton hydrogen weapons at their turn of the century, let alone that just such a thing might save our species from a fate that much more impressive looking animals suffered.

    You want to know where NOT to spend money? Corporate and social welfare (beyond free universal education), put the rest into science fundemental and otherwise as needed.

  131. Re:This is news?! :-) - Looooose translation -cont by ZackStone · · Score: 1

    Kraljevic supported investigation

    Former minister of science and technology, Hrvoje Kraljevic, physist, during his mandate financally supported Djurek's work, but as he remembers, the project was not close to completion and subsequent application in everyday life such as what Dr. Djurek is discussing today. Superconductive materials exists, but currently they function at extremely low temperatures close to absolute zero. They are applied today only in special cases. Djurek's superconductive materijal supposedly functions at a much higher temperature of -70 degrees [most likely celsius]. The problem is, as far as i understand it, that it is only superconductive on surface. I don't know whether he was able to perfect his design in the meantime -explains prof. Kraljevic. He adds that the discovery of a superconductive material which would function at fairly normal temperatures would be really revolutionally. (I.K.)

    Discovery verified

    The material [could also be The topic] is very delicate. Dr. D. Djurek's discovery has been verified and the results held their ground. However, Meissner's [something maybee field] is missing. I am assuming it has to do with a type of superconductivity - called hyperconductivity. Additional investigation is necessary - said Dr. Mladen Prester of Zagreb's Physics Institute. The fact that the new material is mising magnetic [i think field's] makes it better for application since superconductive properties extends all the way till 400 degrees celsius, insist Djurek. Even though new technology may improve the local economy, he [there] won't see increased earnings from the superconductive discovery. It is very expensive to patent a new material. When we were suppose to protect manufacturing, croatian government was not interested in the project. Its important that the discovery will improve the overall global economy - concluded Djurek. Croatian physisit Today Dr. Danijel Djurek will annouce/present his discovery to the croatian public.

    Article written by Zoran Turkovic

    pheeeeeeeeew. that was tough.

  132. Re:EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Randroid.

  133. Where do they live? in a box? by Transcendent · · Score: 1

    Quote from Jin in the article:

    Or superconductors could allow for the invention of magnetically levitated trains, she added.

    COULD? They're already here, Jin. Where have you been?

  134. More Information by InfoSec · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a VERY detailed article about the whole thing over at Physics Web.

    --

    Wherever you go, there I am...
  135. star trek episode #134 by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    isn't this the same stuff they bounced off the deflector dish into the dying planet's atmosphere in phase with the warp shield generators to buy them 2 more minutes to beam up the last of the landing party in star trek episode #134?

    or was that the nonphasic tachyon particles they bought form the romulan arms dealer?

    sorry, i get confused...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  136. Translation by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
    Mechanical translation from www.transexp.com:2000/InterTran?

    DANIEL DUREK TOUGH That it is THE PRODUCT Technology REVOLUTIONARY MATERIAL FOR U(C)TEDU Energies
    Croatian physicist I found out medium tide free of wiry
    Upshot have been checked, than destitute of have been add istral(ivanja, kal(e Bridegroom Transplanted substance with Institute for for physics

    transference tide free of loss plus cars w - Unveiling had with substructure meaning for technology plus menage. Danaa;njim technique, over transference dalekovodima, get lost 30 percentages appointed electricial energies, and joa; 20 percentages get lost with potroa;ac(a. Late material, short of a;to had ecologist receivable, considerably bi ua;tedio electricial vim, and hereby plus money kazao had dr. D. ?urek.
    in spite podra;ci cooperator plus literary man with latter area these international worship, many have been jealous because does with ?urekova material does not izbacuje magnetic field. Toc(nije, does not have Meissnerova capacity who does yet deemed terms that some material bude supravodljiv.ho with little boy electric motor verge thousand kilometer soon would to become svakodnevicom. Revolutionary unveiling, material joint with lead, srebra, oxygen plus watery, dressing bakrom who transference does not get lost vim, tough Croatian physicist dr. Daniel ?urek. World Day independent laboratory already have been confirmer unveiling Croatian literary man plus usher in novu technology revoluciju.

    certain have been jealous
    lookout for supravodljivosti, toc(nije, for conductivity tide free of electrically wiry plus back to back loss, uninterrupted had 15 year. Bulky manufacturing l(ica with learner material plus his installation into a unit, for example, megaphone plus electric motor, is required bi begin already next month in Croatia these does proa;iriti per world. Thrive li, money industry spray is required bi considerably help Croatian menage.

    Unveiling acknowledged
    - Object had distinctly scabrous. Unveiling dr. D. ?ureka acknowledged had plus upshot stoje. Than, missing Meissnerov capacity. Deemed that it is a word about podrvrsti supravodljivosti hipervodljivosti. Destitute of have been add istral(ivanja he said dr. Bridegroom Transplanted substance from an zagrebac(kog Institute for for physics.
    this a;to with learner material to leave out magnetic capacity, bolje had as they apply to because does supravodljiva features protel(u yet up to 400 Celzijevih stagger, tough ?urek. Though would money technology up front home menage, greater than wage with unveiling supravodljivosti will not have.
    - Patentiranje learner material had expensively. When smo is required zaa;tititi the product, Croatian mastery haven't bile interested in for project. Intrinsically is that would unveiling yield upgrowth svjetskom menage in summary had ?urek.
    Croatian physicist dr. Daniel ?urek features would unveiling today lie between Croatian world.
    Zorana Turkovic'

    world admitting
    yes we do bi scientifically unveiling whether unquestioned these objavljeno into a workman-like magazine, moraju ga uphold independent laboratory which haply into a privity selection workman-like timovi particular person magazine. Unveiling hrvtskog physicist dr. Danijela ?ureka independent laboratory dali have been green light these had writing about learner supravodljivom material objavljen into a The Economistu, Unisci, Scientific Americanu, New Scientistu plus scientifically feuilleton Big Apple Hereby. prince podupro istral(ivanje
    Biva;i minister lore plus technologies Hrvoje Prince, physicist, for svog mandate ?urekov had workmanship financial podupro, limit how many does memories, project is not been nor near site appliances into a commuter l(ivotu, whereof ?urek today rumour has it.
    - Percentages supravodljivi materialist, but they operation at an distinctly niskim temperature which does Cretean about absolute nule. Primjenjuju does today into a certain specific situation. ?urekov supravodljivi material would-be o

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  137. Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto by localman · · Score: 1

    Surely the remaining proponents of the Big Ideas should have learned to stay quiet by now?

    What an awful thought. I certainly hope that nobody with ideas stays quiet. It is the clash and ferment of ideas, good and bad, that lead us on.

  138. Re:I might also point out... by gilroy · · Score: 1

    I'm just curious how you differentiate the "real physical phenomena" from the other stuff -- what is Newtonian physics, for example, except a best-guess explanation of observed phenomona? And we know that we we see can often mislead us. What makes duality "real" but Feynman sum-over-histories "unreal"?

  139. Why such high costs? by malsdavis · · Score: 1

    Maglev's are cool.

    and sure everything that seems cool has to be a bit pricey. But, like so many other cool civil engineering/construction type projects I don't understand why they are soo, soo expensive.

    Take the International Space Station, sure, putting a science base the size of a soccer pitch into space must cost a lot but why does it cost the billions upon billions it supposably costs? surely a few thousand steal beams and few hundred computer chips etc. doesn't cost 100's of billions.

    The same goes for maglev. If this is the case, the main problem needing to be overcome is not a need for new/cheaper technology but a need to cut out the waist.

    Anyone actually know why maglev (and the ISS for that matter) costs so much?

  140. tsk tsk. missed a great pun opportunity by Savatte · · Score: 1

    Maybe any quantum physicists around can tell us more about this, but it certainly sounds pretty revolutionary

    so, would you say that this matters a lot?

    eh.

  141. Re:I might also point out... by cavebear42 · · Score: 1

    not so much replying to the comment as to the sig. I would hate to have edit to posts.
    Someone posts: Would you really like to see a ditro grandma can use?
    I say: Yea, I'd like to see it, and im sure other's would too. And I know my grandma wants it.
    Someone edits so now reads: I like to run naked on the weekends. I'm hung like a horse, you wanna see?


    think about the dangers.

  142. Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Not true. One of the early researchers (Chu?) claimed in the major peer-reviewed journal (Physics Review: Condensed Matter????) that he BRIEFLY had a sample of the perovskite superconductor that worked at room temperature. In those days the product wasn't very stable and this particular one soon stopped working at room temperature. I don't remember the time frame, but my impression was that this was on the order of a few days.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  143. Space Elevators? More like... by cookie_cutter · · Score: 1

    Rail Guns

  144. Re:EU by ccarson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's pointless to argue this because socialism will fail. It has in the past and will continue to fall in the future. The lack of incentive to work hard is the bullet in the foot for socialist systems. A free capitalism system isn't perfect, but it's far superior to communism, socialism, dictatorships and fascism. They'll find out their short-fall in my lifetime. I'll bet one dollar on it. :)

  145. Nope, I Don't Know New-Clear Phyisics by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    uhmmm, given the method of slowing atoms, could it be applied to better understanding of that elusive cold fussion stunt?

  146. Re:EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it is offtopic, but it *is* "well said, sir!".

  147. Re:Maglev in U.S. by SparkMan · · Score: 1

    As far as I know Springfield in the Simpons has never been localized into a specific state. In fact, they often make fun of the fact that nobody knows where Springfield is.

    During one episode in elementary school they pull out a U.S. map and talk about Springfield with a pointer, but Lisa's head gets in the way so that the "camera" can't see the map.

    --

    -- laws are the opinions of politicians --

  148. The Oil Cartels... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    The oil cartels will probably have something to say (or do) about any practical application of this technology.

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  149. Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your looking to narrowly really. There are fairly practical small vtol designs in existence. As such motoring through cities could possibly be eliminated as a need in cities and as such you eliminate unnecessary stremlining and deadweight. Next to that, vtol vehicles need much less of a wingspan. Small and portable 'powerful' electric systems are not neccesary, though they probably would help make it more economical.

    Quickshot

  150. The US power distribution infrastructure... by pr0ntab · · Score: 2, Insightful

    consumes 30% of generated power in transit.

    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.

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
  151. Re: Law of Moses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was the Law of Moses the one that said if you rape a virgin in a field, it is wrong unless you pay the, well, the "virgin rape" price to her parents, or else you at least marry her?

    Boy, we sure need that to teach us what is right...

    Not to mention that I never can remember exactly the rights and wrongs in treating slaves; if only I had the Law of Moses to sort out how to treat slaves, then I'd be sooooo moral.

  152. Atoms aren't neutral nowadays? by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 1

    So they make all these claims about superconductivity when they have pairs of atoms? Doesn't that seem stupid? How would you carry charge (i.e. electricity) with these neutral particles? So how would you build a superconductor with these thingies?

    It also comes no surprise that the Cooper pair's attractive force is stronger than in the electron-electron case -- there is no repulsive Coulomb force between atoms.

    It sure sounds like someone made up a sensationalist story around some interesting, but not sensational, research.

    Note: I could only read the abstract of the Phys Rev Letters article, not the article itself. Maybe they're talking about ions. But neither the article /. linked to, nor the abstract talk about charged particles.

  153. Obligatory Futurama Quote by ari_j · · Score: 1

    "Not fair! You changed the outcome of the race by observing it!"

  154. Problems with ceramics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only problem with ceramic superconductors is they are unable to be bent or carry a large charge with out braking down in to a normal conductor... Some can't even carry a charge they can onle effect magnetic feilds to a certin extent.

  155. Re:Maglev in U.S. by richdun · · Score: 1

    Didn't the Behind the Music episode call them as a 'northern Kentucky' family? Not just bringing it up because I'm from Kentucky, but still...

  156. Centigrade or Kelvin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean a billionth of a degree K. A billionth of a degree C is only slightly above water's freezing temperature.

  157. What they did... by Darth23 · · Score: 1

    They confined the gas in a vacuum chamber and used magnetic fields and laser light to manipulate the potassium atoms into pairing up. Why don't they just say thatt he scientists did a bunch of Star Trek shit anf get it over with?

    --

    -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

  158. Re:I used to have a room temperature superconducto by Quixadhal · · Score: 1
    It's interesting how all the big ideas of the 1940s and 1950s have come to nothing
    Easily explained by this simple equation: Rate of Progress = Hours of Research / Number of Lawyers I'm not being sarcastic, sarcasm is inappropriate citizen.
  159. the public. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    American society does not countenance massive failure (in the form of deaths). Every space program-related indicident that has had death has caused the space program to be derailed for a significant amount of time.

    Remember Apollo? Challenger? Columbia? Each instance has seriously freaked the US public, regardless of the fact that these astronauts embraced the risks inherent to their endeavors.

    Every engineer knows that a project can be made substantially less expensive by reducing "the nines." Is '99.999% reliable' tolerable in the American space program politically? No, they need 99.99999% (random numbers for illustration) to ensure the project isn't cancelled for political reasons.

  160. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I actually agree with the thrust of your point, I hardly think we can blame the errosion of our civil liberties on liberals. I would challenge you to look at the Patriot Act, DMCA, TIA (defunct, admittedly), CAPS II and tell me whether liberals were responsible for any / all of them. Not that liberals are without blame, granted, but it's the other team that's looming large in the 'threat to liberty' department these days.

  161. /.'ers forgetting to read to end of article, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >

  162. Science fiction for the most part by Pod_Bay_Doors · · Score: 1

    Typical fluff piece. Fermionic condensates are about as useful as Bose-Einstein condensates, which is to say they aren't useful at all. The only thing Fermi condensates and Cooper pairs have in common is the fact that they're both collections of fermions which follow Fermi-Dirac statistics. These fermionic condensates exist at ultralow temperatures which can only be reached via sophisticated laser cooling methods. High Tc superconductors can function at temperatures above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen, and even then they still have limited practical applications. I'm sure these researchers will get millions of dollars in new grant money, but don't expect any technological breakthroughs as a result of this discovery.

  163. Plus... by DarkMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "sixth form of matter"

    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 meme that there are only a very small number.

    Yours, a miffed quantum materials physicist

    1. Re:Plus... by nniillss · · Score: 1
      the one you missed is:

      16. doesn't matter

      Cheers from a theoretical condensed matter physicist (correlated electron systems) ;-)

    2. Re:Plus... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Maybe, just maybe, that's an over hyped term. There are lot's of states of matter. I've probably missed some.

      No, but you've counted some multiple times. Liquid crystals are... liquids. That's under #2. Glass is also a fluid. #2 again. That funky stuff neutron starts are made of is solid neutrons... which make up a solid - category #1. Etc. There really are only a few states of matter, since they're very broad terms, referring primarily to lowest energy states and energy densities. The only state that is not included that could be argued is that of a superfluid, which has some solid characteristics and some liquid characteristics.

      -T

  164. Re: Step 2 by ZerroDefex · · Score: 1

    How about... Step 1. Freeze until cold cold cold (like a regular superconductor) Step 2. Reengineer humans to be comfortable at near absolute temperatures and lower room temperature accordingly. Step 3. Have a room temperature superconductor Step 4. PROFIT!!!!

  165. Scientists want to doom us all! by jameskojiro · · Score: 0

    Someday this will probably happen:

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/strange.htm

    or this:

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/vacuum.htm

    or even this:

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/quantum.htm

    Mabye with nanotech this will happen:

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/graygoo.htm

    I feel great now!!!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  166. Re: Law of Moses by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
    Was the Law of Moses the one that said if you rape a virgin in a field, it is wrong unless you pay the, well, the "virgin rape" price to her parents, or else you at least marry her?

    No, it is the one that distinguishes between city and country in evaluating evidence for rape as opposed to consensual fornication. The penalty for rape is death. The penalty for fornication is paying the bride price or else at least marrying the girl.

    Exodus 22:16,17 If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

    The reference to fields you are thinking of concerns accusations of rape. The problem is that women back then could falsely accuse men of rape, just like today. So if the alleged rape occurred in the city, a charge of rape could be challenged if neighbors did not hear the girls screams or sounds of a struggle. However, if the alleged rape occurred in the field (i.e. in the boonies), then the girls testimony had more weight because "the damsel cried, and there was none to save her". So you didn't want to mess around with country girls. Deuteronomy 22:23-29 Notice that while the penalty for consensual fornication was fairly lenient, the penalty for adultery, even when consensual, was death.

    Also, notice that the legal arrangements given to Israel for how to deal with bad behaviour (like when to execute alleged rapists) were specifically for Israel, and while worthy of consideration for a Gentile or secular government, are not directly applicable. The moral prescriptions, e.g. "thou shalt not commit adultery", are generally applicable.

  167. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
    The US does have some issues, but, I'd rather have the USA as the most powerful country in the world than pretty much most others.

    They know right from wrong and its' full of good people even if their economic laws are a bit totalitarian.

    They saved the world during the cold war and always came in on the right side (however late) during the two world wars.

    --
    Needle Nardle Noo
  168. Re:I might also point out... by AJWM · · Score: 1

    Will slashdot ever drag itself into the year 2004 and provide the ability to edit posts?

    No forum should provide the ability to edit posts -- although I wouldn't argue against an option to delete one's own posts (leaving some kind of "deleted by author" tombstone).

    I'm not going to go into the arguments again -- I developed the (text based) CoSy computer conferencing software (used by BIX, CIX, a number of universities, NLzero, etc) about 20 years ago, and that request crops up from time to time. I'll never allow it in my software, and won't use any forum that permits it.

    The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on.

    --
    -- Alastair
  169. Keeping warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    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.

    "Our atoms are more strongly attracted to one another than in normal superconductors," she said.


    I suppose at that cold temperatures, even atoms like to get close to each other to keep themselves warm!

  170. There's a Problem Here by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    They're claiming this is the 6th form of matter, and that BEC's were the fifth, based on the fact that BECs are made of bosons, right?

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid= 57 0&ncid=753&e=3&u=/nm/20040128/sc_nm/science_matter _dc

    "Bose-Einstein condensates are collections of thousands of ultracold particles that occupy a single quantum state -- they all essentially behave like a single, huge superatom. But Jin says these Bose-Einstein condensates are made with bosons, which like to act in unison."

    Well, they're not. BECs are made of atoms too.

    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/BEC_ ba ckground.htm

    "Predicted in 1924 by Albert Einstein, who built on the work of Satyendra Nath Bose, the condensation occurs when individual atoms meld into a "superatom" behaving as a single entity at just a few hundred billionths of a degree above absolute zero." "The team led by Cornell and Wieman used laser and magnetic traps to create the BEC, a tiny ball of rubidium atoms that are as stationary as the laws of quantum mechanics permit."

    If something were formed from a collection of bosons that were quantally entangled, it wouldn't be a form of matter. Bosons are the force-carrying quanta, such as photons. They are energy, not matter.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  171. Re:American Scientific Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I thought there were a lot of German guys who helped the US build those first atomic bombs...

    Hell no! It was good old American know-how, that's what. As provided by good old Americans like Dr. Werner Von.. er Leo Szilard.

  172. Re: Law of Moses by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
    Not to mention that I never can remember exactly the rights and wrongs in treating slaves; if only I had the Law of Moses to sort out how to treat slaves, then I'd be sooooo moral.

    For instance, forcibly making slaves of your fellow Israelites was a capital offense. Furthermore, all slaves, whether foreign captives or debtors who sold themselves, had to be set free every 7 years. If a slave had such a kind master, that he preferred to remain a slave, he could do so by declaring it in front of the congregation and having his ear pierced as a sign. However, every 50 years was the year of Jubilee. All slaves had to then go free, even voluntary ones.

    Yes, if the US had actually followed Biblical laws of slavery, it wouldn't have been a problem. In fact, if they had just followed the constitution - those born in America to slaves were naturalized citizens - and slaves working in America could apply for citizenship after 7 years - things would have been different.

    In fact, in the early days, before the revolution, both Africans and Europeans came to America as indentured servants. They were essentially slaves for 7 years, and then received a lump sum payment and had the benefit of training in particular skills. If a master was abusive, his indentured servants would often run away. This was a big economic loss. African servants were a minority, and easier to find if they ran away. Africans gradually became preferred as indentured servants for this reason. Eventually, all indentured servants were African. The 7 year time limit was forgotten. By 1776, only a few free Africans remained, and they were in constant fear of being kidnapped as a slave. I am a little worried that the current immigrant worker situation is beginning to look too much like pre-revolutionary indentured service. Will it also turn into full fledged slavery for Hispanics in 100 years?

    Like most evils, slavery in America developed gradually as people forgot existing just laws and began to tolerate new oppressive ones. Reminds me of the evolution of copyright law in America, from the Founding Fathers version to the DMCA.

  173. Re: Law of Moses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not all moral perscriptions, just seven laws in particular (laws of noah.) Some of them don't really have much to do with morality (at least by current thinking.) I think they include:
    1) Don't worship idols
    2) Don't take part in a forbidden sexual union (incest, bestiality, homosexuality, adultery)
    3) Don't eat the flesh of a living animal
    4) Don't give false testimony
    5) Don't murder
    6) Don't steal
    7) Don't blaspheme

  174. Who's a quantum physicist? by backdoorstudent · · Score: 1

    These guys are condensed matter physicists. Anybody that goes by the title "quantum physicist" is likely a crank. I'm a quantum mechanician.

  175. slashdot digest by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

    AlterSlash does a pretty good job of that actually.

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...
  176. Maglev trains by skintigh2 · · Score: 1

    "Or superconductors could allow for the invention of magnetically levitated trains, she added. Free of friction they could glide along at high speeds using a fraction of the energy trains now use."

    I can't wait until the invent those things. I've been waiting for years for someone to invent one.

    Er, I mean, wow, what a great idea! I hope somebody invents those soon!

    Er, I mean, wow, what a great idea! I've never heard of that invention! I can't believe they came upwith that new invention just now!

  177. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Enahs · · Score: 1

    Does Indiana have a Crystal Lake?

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  178. Damnit! by Pete+Brubaker · · Score: 1

    I submitted this story yesterday, as it was run on CNN...

    --
    What's a sig? Pete Brubaker
  179. Fermionic Condensate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having just finished a Ph.D. in solid state physics I do understand a wee bit of this article. While the accomplishment is extraordinary, the hopes of application are a somewhat farstretched. It is remotely possible that the understanding of the interaction between Fermions, in this case potassium, could help raise the temperature of superconductivity. Unfortunately, superconductivity is mediated by phonons, a.k.a. crystal lattice vibrations. In short what we do not understand are the lattices and their interactions with electrons, which are also Fermions. I might add that these researchers are probably in quantum optics, not solid state physics, so it is likely that are conjecturing.

  180. Re:Maglev in U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is widely believed (although not confirmed) that if Springfield, NT is based on any "real Springfield", it is probably the one in Oregon.

  181. Nobel Prize part Deux? by fuqqer · · Score: 1

    I imagine this makes these CU physicists sure candidates for another nobel prize.

    I feel honored to have taken physics at CU. (The #1 party school in America and a BADASS physics dept to boot!).

    (sig intentionally left blank for Nobel Prize winner to fill out)

  182. Shortly after this posting hit slashdot by Perdition · · Score: 1

    Uri Geller already had his mind completely over this matter. In fact, he bent it with his MIND!

    There is no spoon, because Uri bent them all, the jerk!

    --
    Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
  183. From a real physicist friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Posting AC since I didn't right it. This was in response to my question "Are you familiar with this branch of research? I knew you were involved with the Bose-Einstein condensate experiments and was wondering if you had any prior knowledge of this so-called new form of matter." His reply (really long):

    No, I wasn't involved in the Bose-Einstein condensate experiments. That would have been cool (metaphorically and literally), but I was involved in stupid computer simulations of imaginary physics for an imaginary particle accelerator. My only involvement in Bose-Einstein condensates was to try and fix an experiment for an advanced exerimentation class that was supposed to make a condensate. The guy before me couldn't fix it. Neither could I.

    But I can explain the experiments a little bit, although I don't know how much you know about quantum physics. So it is going to require a bit of explaining. As you may or may not know, when there is some confining force field that traps particles, those particles can only occupy a discreet set of states. For example, electrons confined to an atom can only occupy certain states or orbitals. In Newtonian physics, a particle could have any energy value and there was a continuum of possible states. According to modern physics, this is still true for unbound particles, but it is not for bound ones. I think that unbound particles are also probably limited by the structure of space (whatever that is), but nobody understands that stuff.

    Anyway, it ends up that particles have an intrinsic amount of angular momentum that cannot change. There is a smallest unit of angular momentum, and all particles' angular momentum is a multiple of this unit. And the orientation of the spin is quantized. Those with odd multiples are fermions, those with even multiples are bosons, named after the scientists that worked out the statistics of their behaviours. Enrico Fermi and Dirac did work on fermion statistics, and Bose and Albert Einstein worked on that of Bosons. It ends up that bosons can occupy the exact same quantum state, while fermions cannot. I can mathematically derive this, but I have no good intuitive understanding of why. But then, who does have an intuitive understanding of this stuff?

    Well, atoms can be bosons or fermions depending on the atomic number and number of electrons. What Cornell and Wiemann did was take a bosonic ion (I forget what atom) and try to trap them in a special magnetic field within a chamber under high vacuum. To slow them down, they used lasers. Since electrons can only occupy certain energy states, they can only absorb certain frequencies. Other frequencies are ignored entirely. What they did was tune the lasers to a frequency just below one of these absorbable frequencies. If an ion travels towards a laser, the light gets blue-shifted to that special frequency and the ion starts scattering the light, which slows it down. Have six lasers intersect in the center of the magnetic trap, and no matter what direction it travels, an ion at this location will be traveling towards at least one laser and hence will slow down. This is the initial cooling and trapping phase. Then they turn down the energy of the magnetic field to let the most energetic atoms leave, thus cooling the other atoms via evaporation. This is how they get near zero temperatures.

    At these low temperatures, most of the atoms enter the lowest energy level in the magnetic field. Since they all are in the exact same quantum state, they behave as one entity. One can no longer meaningfully refer to it as a collection of individual atoms, for they lose their identities entirely. Thus the term superatom for these things. It is quite a bizarre substance that shows clearly the oddities of quantum physics on a macroscopic scale. Who would have thought that atoms could interfere with each other and make interference patterns? Yet they have make photographs (yeah! quantum physics you can photograph!) where there were stripes of no atoms followed by stripes of atoms when two condensates were f

  184. Who still uses CRT? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Who ever heard of a Cathode Ray anyway?

    Darn right. I achieve enlightenment through Liquid Crystals.

  185. Feco? Really bad name choice. by tepples · · Score: 1

    Just abbreviate it, e.g. "... with my feco ray!"

    Trust me. You do not want to see a feco ray (not work safe).

  186. Like "flat screen TVs real soon now!"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm... oh wait...

    :)

  187. It gets worse... by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
    Frankly, I wish they would stop claiming every phase transition to form 'the n-th state of matter'.

    Now even my browser is making strange claims. At the top of my screen it says:

    Scientists Create New Form of Matter - Netscape 6

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  188. Re:Hooray! by VickyNaylor · · Score: 0

    It doen't take much to loose your karma around here does it!

    --

    ---
    imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie...