Data Mining Used to Create New Materials

Roland Piquepaille writes "MIT researchers have successfully integrated data mining tools and modern methods of quantum mechanics. They've designed software which can help predict the crystal structures of materials. To simplify, they say they've used methods used by online sales sites to suggest books to customers. And it seems to work: they claim they can determine in days the properties of atomic structures that might have taken months before. Read more for additional references and pictures."

Comments

About damn time-A Joyous noise.

[Anonymous Coward]

"its about time someone did something worthwhile with datamining ... i'm so sick of everything datamining is used for being big brother/1984 related."

That's just because the cynic grabs all the attention. Datamining has been used for years, by the fortune 500, and you don't hear much about that.

MIT sued by Amazon for patent infringement!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Considering how broadly software patents are worded now a days, I would not be surprised if MIT gets sued by Amazon for patent infringement.

Principles of the universe

[suv4x4]

There are two surprisingly simple and "dumb" principles that exist in our world.

The first is called evolution (random mutation, breeding of the fittest) the result of which is basically everything around us, and it has resurfaced in computer programming as genetic programming, which essentially uses random processes and selection to create new inventions, mechanisms and even intelligent virtual creatures.

The second I'll call "intelligent observation". It's basically how animals and people learn everything they know, by observing and applying "what seems to make sense" in other areas of our lives, even without understanding the underlying mechanisms (and how we discovered fire, or tools by observing similar nature mechanisms/animals). This has resurfaced in computer programming as data mining.

Data mining and genetic programming: these two beat any patent, any existing algorithm, because they are not crippled by our limited brain capacity to understand the world around us. Expect a lot more of both in computer science and our lives in the following years.

Re:Principles of the universe

[GeffDE]

Your view on genetic algorithms is just plain wrong.

One of the reasons that "Intelligent Design" is so palatable to so many people is that nature and life are so damn complex. There is a textbook called Molecular Biology of the Cell; this book's aim is to precisely define the chemical pathways and biological structures that constitute a living cell, and it is roughly 2000 pages long. It is still outrageously incomplete. This massive tome is looking at something that is so incredibly minute that you are formed by trillions of them. It takes a 2000 page book to incompletely describe the simplest part of you. What is mind-boggling to many people (and simply awe-inspiring to the rest) is that such a simple rule as "survival of the fittest/random mutation" could create so complex a system. The fact is, such complexity is inherent in the system, and that complexity arises out of simplicity. A great tutorial on that is Cellular Automata.

Now, you do bring up an interesting point about the positive feedback loop that our brains have created with technology. But if you extend your scenario to a few years after "The Almighty CAD Program" is designed, you may indeed reach that technological singularity, where a machine can design another machine inside a CAD program, and, a few years later, might be able to either make that machine with the automated robots already used for assembly, or even emulate it with its own hardware. Now you have reached the point where "genetic algorithms" are doing exactly what you have claimed they cannot. Genetic algorithms only tackle problems in a simple problem state because they have not been allowed to evolve enough. Bacteria are much simpler than humans, and they also first came around billions of years ago. After nature had time to evolve from the bacteria, it got more and more complex. So too will genetic algorithms.

Lame name.

[Inoshiro]

"The second I'll call "intelligent observation"."

You know, most people would call it statistics (in this example, using a mathematical model to predict results), or the scientific method (in general, observing repeatable events).

I, for one

[eclectro]

I welcome our cyrstalline entity overlords. Oh, wait, they were killed off in season five.

Like Amazon? Really? Cool!

[Gary W. Longsine]

People who liked room temperature superconductors also liked:

• transparent aluminum [Add to Cart]
• broad spectrum LEDs [Add to Cart]
• efficient peltier effect alloys [Add to Cart]
• 3D holographic memory array crystals [Add to Cart]

NOW How Much Would You Pay? (TM)

Re:About damn time

[Kohath]

Yeah. Datamining killed my whole family and gave my dog the runs.

It's the most destructive thing since the PATRIOT ACT, which wiped out most of the population of the Pacific Northwest and caused the birds in my area to sing an octave higher.