Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beetle Naturally Builds Photonic Crystals

Posted by samzenpus on from the bugs-can-do-everything dept.

esocid writes "Impeding the dream of ultrafast optical computers, we've been unable to build an ideal 'photonic crystal' to manipulate visible light, until now. University of Utah chemists have discovered that nature already has designed photonic crystals with the ideal, diamond-like structure: They are found in the shimmering, iridescent green scales of a beetle from Brazil. The beetle is an inch-long weevil named Lamprocyphus augustus. Bartl and Galusha now are trying to design a synthetic version of the beetle's photonic crystals, using scale material as a mold to make the crystals from a transparent semiconductor. The scales can't be used in technological devices because they are made of fingernail-like chitin, which is not stable enough for long-term use, is not semiconducting and doesn't bend light adequately. Ideal photonic crystals could be used to amplify light and thus make solar cells more efficient, to capture light that would catalyze chemical reactions, and to generate tiny laser beams that would serve as light sources on optical chips."

69 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bartl and Galusha now are trying to design a synthetic version of the beetle's photonic crystals, using scale material as a mold to make the crystals from a transparent semiconductor.

    Man, I remember when I studied this in school. The crystals weren't lining up right no matter what I tried. Eventually I solved it by continuously rotating them during the growing stage, while simultaneously directing acoustic vibrations into their center. I called this the "Twist and Shout" method.

    -- Jon Titor

    1. Re:Been there, done that by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      Galusha and Bartl used optical studies and theory to predict optical properties of the scales' structure. The prediction matched reality: green iridescence.
      Mr. AC, how difficult would it be to theoretically change the structure to reflect a different wavelenth -- red for instance?
      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  2. Alternate Title... by TheRedSeven · · Score: 4, Funny

    Decades of computer debugging efforts wiped out by naturalist...

    1. Re:Alternate Title... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      'First actual case of bug being found'

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  3. Probably for the best.... by ejecta · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well it's probably for the best that we can't simply use the scales else the poor little devils would likely be on the fast track of the endangered species list.

    --
    Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
    1. Re:Probably for the best.... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Well, they ARE weevils; we usually use pesticides on these critters. The bigger problem would be mass-breeding schemes gone awry and all the crops these things live on being wiped out as a result....

    2. Re:Probably for the best.... by Bruiser80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the opposite would be true. If we were harvesting the scales off of these beetles, we would ensure that there were always enough. You don't see cows going on the endangered species list anytime soon, do you? ;-)

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
    3. Re:Probably for the best.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The exact opposite is true.

      Are cows endangered? Chickens? Pigs? Sheep?

      If we need them we'll keep them around, sure they might exist solely on "farms" and be breed to better suit us than their survival in the natural world.

      But they won't be endangered...

    4. Re:Probably for the best.... by ejecta · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, or maybe the prevailing theory was that there would be enough of them that taking some wouldn't matter.

      Eg: Endangered Elephants vs Ivory
      Eg: Endangered Whales vs Blubbler/Whale Meat

      --
      Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
    5. Re:Probably for the best.... by Hojima · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's ironic because the ads by google on TFA are all offering pest control

      --
      Help fight spam
    6. Re:Probably for the best.... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Except those ARE protected and the only people that harvest them do so illegally. I dont think anyone is suggesting to illegalize collecting crystals

    7. Re:Probably for the best.... by debatem1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good thing too; those crystals are the root of all weevil.

    8. Re:Probably for the best.... by Boogaroo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason elephants and whales endangered due to over-hunting is mainly because it is hard to raise them. Otherwise, we could have done the whole livestock thing with them too.
      Even professionals at zoos have a hard time getting reliable elephant birth rates. Just sustaining them is a challenge.
      Oh, and good luck with raising a blue whale in captivity.

    9. Re:Probably for the best.... by ejecta · · Score: 1

      They only became protected after they were endangered however, it was perfectly legal to kill them previously.

      Of note, it's still perfectly legal to kill whales, there's quota systems in place in various countries. Then you have countries like Japan who just disregard international law and sail down to Australian Territorial Waters to hunt whales.

      --
      Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
    10. Re:Probably for the best.... by deroby · · Score: 1

      Didn't Arther C Clarke write a book about that ?

      (out for some wiki-searching...)

      et voila : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deep_Range

      I highly enjoyed reading that one, I'm surprised to learn it's that old.

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    11. Re:Probably for the best.... by tepples · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, they ARE weevils Weevils wobble but...
    12. Re:Probably for the best.... by l3mr · · Score: 1

      No. On the opposite, it would guarantee their survival. Animals that bring direct benefit to humans are much less likely to go extinct than those who don't. We breed those.

      --
      The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before. - Neil Gaiman
    13. Re:Probably for the best.... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      oh it's no problem.. i just claim the world's oceans as my pond for rasing the blue whale...

      but then i don't like whale meat so i wouldn't farm them

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    14. Re:Probably for the best.... by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 1

      ba-dit tchih

      --
      Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
    15. Re:Probably for the best.... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is suggesting to illegalize collecting crystals I hope not. Have you any idea how many video games would be affected by that?
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  4. nature... by namekuseijin · · Score: 2

    Some day we'll find ready-made mattresses somewhere...

    --
    I don't feel like it...
    1. Re:nature... by Keramos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some day we'll find ready-made mattresses somewhere... My cat has already discovered that.

      PS. Soylent green is people too.
    2. Re:nature... by Taibhsear · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's bound to happen. Nature has already made the best pillows ever: Boobs.

  5. But where are the by hovelander · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know it is sickeningly overused, but where will they get the tiny sharks for these tiny lasers?

    We all know the answer...

    Seamonkeys!!!!

    1. Re:But where are the by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      An army of tiny laser wielding seamonkeys would be far more terrifying than a shark, if it didn't sound so cute!

      --
      which is totally what she said
  6. Freeloading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, are they going to pay Brazil for the use of one of their "natural resources"?

    If they don't Brazil (and others) may continue wiping out their biodiversity that could yield similar or greater benefits (cancer drugs, anyone?) to the global village. If the host country does not benefit (=get paid) for preserving biodiversity, what's their incentive?

    We could now go into the whole climate change debate, but that should be obvious to everyone.

    1. Re:Freeloading by AGMW · · Score: 2, Funny
      So, are they going to pay Brazil for the use of one of their "natural resources"?

      Sorry ... are you trying to say that we might be the leaser of two weevils?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  7. Contradiction. by EkriirkE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The summary starts out by saying the beetle has ideal crystals, only to finish by saying they can't be used because they are not ideal.

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    1. Re:Contradiction. by knarfling · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not really. According to the article, it is the structure that is ideal, not the actual beetle scales. The real breakthrough is that the structure can be found in or created from different materials than diamonds. In this case, the structure is made by nature from fingernail like material, not something you normally associate with crystals.

      Having said all that, it is a bit of a disappointment that they have not even created a man-made structure, only that they have confirmed that the structure found naturally on the beetles is the ideal crystal structure.

      --
      Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
  8. Voon by marquis111 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I vollue and globber floopily to you.

    1. Re:Voon by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Funny

      I gave a speech once. You may not instantly see why I bring the subject up, but that is because my mind works so phenomenally fast, and I am at a rough estimate thirty billion times more intelligent than you. Let me give you an example. Think of a number, any number.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Voon by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      42

    3. Re:Voon by marquis111 · · Score: 1

      Wrong, Zem, you see? Don't gup at me like that.

    4. Re:Voon by chrome · · Score: 1

      Epic thread is epic.

  9. Why Nature wins by SaintOfAllChucks · · Score: 1

    is because of it's ability to do this. Many living things (bugs, fish, plants, few birds) have this trait. Even still we humans have a hard time even making good 2-D photonic crystals let alone 3-D.

    1. Re:Why Nature wins by Duradin · · Score: 1

      ID is all fun and games until someone finds a babelfish and renders the whole point moot.

    2. Re:Why Nature wins by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      No fair, Nature has a billion+ years head start!

      I demand a rematch! Make Nature starover! No wait, better not. Nature can have its headstart, but we need the goal to be fair for both sides...

      First one to the moon wins!

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    3. Re:Why Nature wins by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      But something like this has absolutely no reason to develop.

      Just because you can't see the advantage in some feature doesn't mean that there isn't one. In addition, it was my understanding that it's possible for new features to appear and get "carried along" so long as they're not too detrimental to the organism's survival and procreation. They may or may not turn out to be useful later on.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    4. Re:Why Nature wins by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

      When the big dino-killer hit the planet, it most probably threw tons of biological samples off of the planet. Some of these would have struck the moon. Nature wins again!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Why Nature wins by Nasajin · · Score: 5, Funny

      In furtherance to this point, there's also the fact that the ability to grow photonic crystals on one's back benefits this species of weevil through its ability to enter into a mutualistic relationship with homo sapiens. Thus, through the interest garnered by the crystals, human beings will attempt to keep the species alive at least as long as it takes to see if they're useful.

    6. Re:Why Nature wins by nephridium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you get flamed for things that are perfectly explainable (oh, and observable ;)). Any development that doesn't seem to have an obvious evolutionary advantage does not contradict evolution; they could be vestigial like our appendix or even be atavisms whose genes are coupled with a certain genetic mutation that makes it become dominant again.

      Btw, you weren't defending ID here, as you only stated why you think evolution produced some strange effect you couldn't explain. "Defending" it would have meant explaining how putting these seemingly useless traits in there by 'the creator' could in any sense be construed as "intelligent design".

      --


      And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    7. Re:Why Nature wins by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      But where was the cow/horse/whatever like animal that was so reproductively successful because its nose was genetically predisposed to be .1 inches longer than the others?
      In an environment with the food up in tall trees?

      Just a guess.

      By the way, it's much shorter to type "eutherian" than "cow/horse/whatever like animal".
      --
      ResidntGeek
    8. Re:Why Nature wins by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      A better HHGTTG reference in this situation might be that manufacturing has pretty much stopped, because everything one needs grows somewhere if you look around a big enough area.

    9. Re:Why Nature wins by Sangui · · Score: 2, Informative

      But where was the cow/horse/whatever like animal that was so reproductively successful because its nose was genetically predisposed to be .1 inches longer than the others? A breed of Finch on the Galapagos Islands. One one of the islands all of the Finches beaks are 1/3 of an inch longer than all the other islands because the food is slightly deeper in the ground on that island.
    10. Re:Why Nature wins by afidel · · Score: 1

      The selective advantage is obvious, a more pretty display means more mates means more offspring. It's actually one of the classic examples of a selective advantage. The fact that you didn't pick up on it means you probably flunked Bio 101, or you are intentionally ignoring it to further the ID bullcrap. I can't believe it's been over two hours and you haven't been called out, slashdot is really slipping.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Why Nature wins by 246o1 · · Score: 1

      Insightful? The modding compels a response. The logic in this statement is totally lacking, as people just now discovered the value of these crystals. Clearly this couldn't have been a factor in natural selection leading up to now, unless you believe in some sort of psychic evolution, which could anticipate future needs. I hope the problem was just strange modding, not people actually thinking that was a logical argument. Perhaps funny would have been a better mod? I dunno.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    12. Re:Why Nature wins by Nasajin · · Score: 2, Informative

      The logic in this statement is totally lacking, as people just now discovered the value of these crystals. It should be obvious that I do not believe that the crystals have been the reason for the animals success up to now; that is why my statement is not targeting the historical development of the beetles, and instead speaks in the present tense about the current interest in the crystals. There's no point in launching into the fundamentals of Darwinian evolutionary theory in /. - it's been done a thousand times before - but if you can't understand my point and want me to elaborate, I would say that the crystals have, until now, not prevented the genetic meme from reproducing, and it is now possibly increasing their reproductive rates due to the fact that another species is interested in keeping that genetic sequence alive. Conceptually, it's no different than any other mutualistic symbiotic relationship extant in nature. The fundamental point here being that simply because human beings have become involved doesn't mean that evolutionary principles do not apply, and I was making that point to the parent post which was implying that evolutionary theory wasn't applicable in this situation. Also, the term you're looking for isn't 'psychic evolution', it's 'deterministic evolution', and is in either way a moot point as it is not what I was attempting to describe.
    13. Re:Why Nature wins by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      As J B S Haldane said, when asked what biology had taught him about God:

      "I'm not sure, but He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles."

      So it's hardly surprising to find beetles with advanced optical properties, is it?

      Note - I'm as atheist as they come, and my tongue is firmly in my cheek :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    14. Re:Why Nature wins by Omestes · · Score: 1
      Did you read the GP?

      Just because you can't see the advantage in some feature doesn't mean that there isn't one. In addition, it was my understanding that it's possible for new features to appear and get "carried along" so long as they're not too detrimental to the organism's survival and procreation. They may or may not turn out to be useful later on. Basically there doesn't need to be any obvious, nor actual selective benefit for any evolved feature, as long as it is not at a detriment to the individual. If there is no reason to lose an accidental mutation, it will stay. Evolution has no brain.

      That said, at some point these accidental features might become useful as based on the whim of the environment, and then will be actively selected for. Or visa versa, of course.

      The insightful jest here is that these possibly (though doubtfully) useless accidental features have become useful.

      Also a lot of people refuse to mod +1 funny, since it doesn't actually benefit the poster's karma in any way. Insightful at least gives them something.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    15. Re:Why Nature wins by somersault · · Score: 1

      There's also the fact that pretty patterns and colours tend to help to attract mates..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:Why Nature wins by nguy · · Score: 1

      Where did it begin? What "advantage" is the crystal structure over a normal green coloring?

      Surface microstructures exist in lots of insects and they are used for all sorts of different purposes. They may have initially evolved to keep water from wetting the exoskeleton. As they got smaller and more efficient at that task, they also became optically active.

      The ancestor of these beetles had such microstructures already, and all it took to make them green was tuning the spacing and size a little through a tiny mutation.

      But this being slashdot ill probably get flamed for criticizing evolution and defending intelligent design.

      Well, face-to-face, people may be polite enough not to say anything, but don't kid yourself: they still think you're a fool.

    17. Re:Why Nature wins by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Another example going farther off topic, an elephants trunk. A long trunk is obviously helpful. But where was the cow/horse/whatever like animal that was so reproductively successful because its nose was genetically predisposed to be .1 inches longer than the others? Very simple steps: - the pig uses his big nose to find chestnuts under the leaves. - the tapir uses his bigger nose to find roots and breaks down anthouses - the elephant just follows the same evolutionary steps. Just because you don't see why doesn't make it wrong. And as another of your replies stated it doesn't necessarily work in a straight line.
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    18. Re:Why Nature wins by Grym · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the theory of evolution, everything develops because it randomly mutates and gives an individual some sort of reproductive advantage that increases its chances of reproducing and passing the trait along.

      No. See, your problem stems from your lack of understanding of what evolution is and what its implications are. You are viewing evolution as a type of applied engineering where stepwise improvements lead to new features and, eventually, the next species. This is not the case at all. Evolution is far more basic than that. It is simply population genetics over time. That's it; nothing more, nothing less. And yet, when we look at it this way instead of the popular misconception of evolution, we notice some very profound things:

      • Most beneficial mutations in stable, numerous populations are lost. Why? They're simply drowned out in the noise. Unless a mutation offers a significant selective advantage for the population, it is far more likely than not to simply get fixed out, or lost.
      • On the same note, very small populations can be drastically affected by sample size error, leading to the unwarranted propagation of "bad" genes. This is usually called random drift, but it's really just the Law of Small numbers of statistics. The typical way in which this is demonstrated is through the founder effect, but it also has implications for speciation as well, because it almost guarantees that a newly divergent species will undergo sample size error.

      But this being slashdot ill probably get flamed for criticizing evolution and defending intelligent design.

      Evolution is real. In fact, given the phenomenological way in which evolution is described, it can't be disputed. Those who attempt to de-legitimize or disprove evolution do so out of their own ignorance. Don't expect any sympathy.

      -Grym

    19. Re:Why Nature wins by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      This was a better explication than your previous post, which could indeed sound somewhat deterministic in nature.

      The reason it could be misconstrued is that there were two points made in the post to which you replied. The more obvious one (the last sentence) shows that you were not talking about determinism in regards to evolution. However, if the reader were thinking of the first sentence, your post could seem to imply determinism.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
  10. In theory... by GaryOlson · · Score: 2, Funny

    How many petaflops could you process with a Beetle Cluster?

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  11. WE MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS by zegota · · Score: 2, Funny

    For Aiur!

    1. Re:WE MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      We require more vespene gas

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:WE MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

      DOH! You're gonna need a detector and a Dark Archon to kill that Lurker burrowed near the vespene.

    3. Re:WE MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Pylons need 100 minerals, zero vespene gas. ^^

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
  12. Re:Interesting privacy backdoor by Hojima · · Score: 1

    Well I don't have a gmail account, and I live in campus associated housing, so I'm pretty sure that the search results are as obscured as they can get considering I share an IP address with many people and I inherited the IP address of the prior inhabitant (and I reformat my drive quite frequently).

    --
    Help fight spam
  13. photonic structure in nature by clockwork_orange · · Score: 1

    photonic structure in nature is not new there are many places eg http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/emag/butterflies/downloadable_papers.html looking at structure within various insects, looking to replicate it, the beetles talked about with in the article have been studied before.

  14. This new device will work brilliantly - by Geminii · · Score: 1

    - if we can get enough bugs into it.

  15. Re:Interesting privacy backdoor by somersault · · Score: 1

    I live in campus associated housing, so I'm pretty sure that the search results are as obscured as they can get Now you've just given away even more information! You obviously live in an infested campus! :p
    --
    which is totally what she said
  16. And people laughed at Starship Troopers by smchris · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once those beetles can fart at escape velocity it's all over.

  17. Been there, DUNG that by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    NT required.

  18. More reason for preservation... by scubamage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, it makes one wonder what other great secrets lie in wait in the Amazon - if we could get the bastards to stop destroying it.

    1. Re:More reason for preservation... by Paranatural · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good luck with that. They're experiencing a population boom, and need food badly. They use that as the excuse to cut down the trees to sell to lumber mills for their ever-expanding market (China, India) and ever-dwindling supply. Also, keep in mind most of the nutrients from the jungles are all stored up in the trees. The same trees which are shipped off, and what isn't shipped off, is burned and blows away as smoke. Then they let cattle graze the grasses down to nothing and all the soil washes away, and then they obviously need to cut down more forest. This will continue until there is nothing left to cut down, the land is barren, and everyone starves.

      The only ways I know of to stop this particular out of control locomotive is to educate the poor farmers in basic soil retention and agricultural techniques the Europeans discovered hundreds of years ago and to convince the lumber mills to stop imports (I.E. Go out of business). Since 1 may well happen (In fact there are efforts to ensure it) but 2 will not, I don't see how anything will change.

    2. Re:More reason for preservation... by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      BROWN PEASANT NEEDS FOOD BADLY!
      BROWN PEASANT IS ABOUT TO DIE.

      The only ways I know of to stop this particular out of control locomotive is to educate the poor farmers in basic soil retention and agricultural techniques the Europeans discovered hundreds of years ago and to convince the lumber mills to stop imports (I.E. Go out of business). Since 1 may well happen (In fact there are efforts to ensure it) but 2 will not, I don't see how anything will change.
  19. The Obvious Solution by Paranatural · · Score: 1

    The scales can't be used in technological devices because they are made of fingernail-like chitin, which is not stable enough for long-term use, is not semiconducting and doesn't bend light adequately.

    The obvious solution is to genetically engineer the beetles to replace the chitin with Photonic crystals. This would provide a self-reproducing source and it's show those uppity fireflies what's up.