Slashdot Mirror


New State of Matter Could Extend Moore's Law

rennerik writes "Scientists at McGill University in Montreal say they've discovered a new state of matter that could help extend Moore's Law and allow for the fabrication of more tightly packed transistors, or a new kind of transistor altogether. The researchers call the new state of matter 'a quasi-three-dimensional electron crystal.' It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

329 comments

  1. Quasi three dimensional crystal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe the term you're looking for is Dilithium.

    1. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      and if you need some extra CPU power just find the naval base in Alameda. It's where they keep the nuclear wessels.

    2. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On a nerd side note. We all know Dilithium in reality is a gas. But at the temperatures stated in the article. Would it be able to form a solid? Likely it would NOT be a crystal but it'd be fun to know.

    3. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      Dilithium is a Quasi 4 dimensional crystal.

      This could be the basis for transtator technology though.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Try "douchbagium".

    5. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by Ridcully · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually it's solidified electricity. See "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers." The alien's helmets were made of the stuff.

      Yes, I'm old.

    6. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by sanman2 · · Score: 1

      lookin to get a piece of that action?

    7. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by Ratface · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't RTFA otherwise you would know they are actually called wiggy crystals and were invented by Ricky Gervais while eating a ham sandwich. Tut!

      --

      A little planning goes a long way...
    8. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Who knew that space was the best cpu cooling system out there.....I guess all spaceships in the near future will have the best quad cores available...

    9. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Well, first you would cool it to a liquid. I am assuming that with the proper cooling of that Liquid, and possibly passing electricity or something through it, you might be able to get it to form crystals. I don't see why not.

      It should be noted that dilithium has a chemical symbol of Li2 (that is, two lithium atoms covalently bonded together), whereas the ST dilithium has a chemical symbol of Dt

    10. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by lordholm · · Score: 1

      It isn't since the only heat dissipation in space is by radiation.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    11. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by MilesAttacca · · Score: 1

      No no no, the way to get to other planets is to embrace the past. I mean, Captain Kirk and crew carried all their important data on tape cartridges, and flew the ship by pressing actual buttons and sliders, remember?

      --
      98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smoke, and have sex. Put this in your sig if you like bagels.
    12. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      It isn't since the only heat dissipation in space is by radiation.

      what about solar winds?

    13. Re:Quasi three dimensional crystal? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I believe the term you're looking for is Dilithium.

      No, Trilithium

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Hell Yeah! by SpiderClan · · Score: 5, Funny

    " It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

    That's exactly what I want in my office.

    1. Re:Hell Yeah! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can borrow my wife if you want powerful attraction followed by extreme coldness.

    2. Re:Hell Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I did borrow your wife last night... she wasn't that great.

    3. Re:Hell Yeah! by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space

      Here in Winnipeg we could just put these units outside thus eliminating the need for cooling units. You can't get much more environmentally friendly than that!

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:Hell Yeah! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      C'mon guys, let's get off wives.

      ('Cause I just got off yours...)

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Hell Yeah! by Miseph · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Your mom, on the other hand...

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    6. Re:Hell Yeah! by Valacosa · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you did have it in your office, there's not much danger of it blowing up, but the vacuum pumps would be pretty loud.

      Intergalactic space is about 2 or 3 Kelvin. Getting down to 100 times colder than that - 20 or 30 millikelvin - requires a Helium 3 dilution fridge. Helium 3 is a rare (and expensive) helium isotope. Physics labs can afford this sort of equipment, but we're not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon.

      Not to mention, the vacuum pumps, the cold trap and the helium storage system would probably take up most of the space in your cubicle anyway.

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    7. Re:Hell Yeah! by rossdee · · Score: 1, Troll

      "temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space"

      How can you have something that is 100 times colder than space. I think that space runs at about -270 C, so to be 100 times colder it would have to be -2700 C. I thought absolute zero was -273.15 C at which point all movement is stopped, so how do you get a temperature below that?

    8. Re:Hell Yeah! by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      they tried. the mosquitoes took them.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    9. Re:Hell Yeah! by Spatial · · Score: 1

      How are you doing that? When I divide by a hundred, it doesn't multiply any integer by ten no matter how many times I try it!

    10. Re:Hell Yeah! by wdsci · · Score: 2, Informative

      "temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space"

      How can you have something that is 100 times colder than space. I think that space runs at about -270 C, so to be 100 times colder it would have to be -2700 C. I thought absolute zero was -273.15 C at which point all movement is stopped, so how do you get a temperature below that?

      Read the discussion above...the 100x colder is measured in Kelvin, i.e. the "offset" above absolute zero. The temperature of space is about 3K (which is -270 Celsius), so 100x colder is about 3/100 Kelvin.

    11. Re:Hell Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I taught your girl that thing she does with her tongue.

    12. Re:Hell Yeah! by weirdo557 · · Score: 1

      if you could pull me out you would become the next king of england

    13. Re:Hell Yeah! by Forrest+Kyle · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what she said.

    14. Re:Hell Yeah! by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

      I taught your girl that thing she does with her tongue.

      You're the one who taught her how to nag? You utter bastard.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    15. Re:Hell Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh!!!! That was so funny. Almost as funny as the first time I heard it 20 years ago. Grow up.

    16. Re:Hell Yeah! by rennerik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you did have it in your office, there's not much danger of it blowing up, but the vacuum pumps would be pretty loud. ...

      Not to mention, the vacuum pumps, the cold trap and the helium storage system would probably take up most of the space in your cubicle anyway.

      They're not talking about cooling your computer that way, but about creating the transistors that way. There's nothing in the article that says that they have to be continuously kept at that temperature.

      I'm pretty sure once it's done, it's done.

    17. Re:Hell Yeah! by Kagura · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's what she said. :)

    18. Re:Hell Yeah! by donaggie03 · · Score: 0

      "Your mom goes to college" was the funniest line in that movie. True story.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    19. Re:Hell Yeah! by myrdos2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are only two seasons here - winter and construction. And you picked the wrong one!

      Next you'll be skiing in July and going down detours in December.

    20. Re:Hell Yeah! by kd5zex · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aww crap, now you want me to do fractions!?!?

    21. Re:Hell Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the mosquitoes are smart enough to move south in the winter

    22. Re:Hell Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worrying thing is how he learnt to do it himself in the first place..

    23. Re:Hell Yeah! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's a sad occurrence and just makes me feel weird.

      Comedy critics are often sad and weird, Sebilrazen.

      Oh, and your use of Star Trek metaphors and Nietzsche misquotes make you out to be a sad and weird bad stereotype.

      Now come here and let me give you a hug you big galoot.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Hell Yeah! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Oh no you didn't...

    25. Re:Hell Yeah! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Physics labs can afford this sort of equipment, we're not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon.

      *We* are not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon...
      but considering how much money some people throw at insane gaming rigs, yeah, someone will gladly spend more than an entire physics lab budget for it if it's available.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:Hell Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hit the nail right on the head... Every time you read something about a new way of extending moore's law it involves super cooling or some other tech you don't want to do at home.

      And yet these silicium based chips are still getting smaller and faster every year.  More cores, more cache.

      Perhaps the title should be "Scientists at McGill University in Montreal looking for funding".

    27. Re:Hell Yeah! by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      :-) So if Winnipeg is so enviornmentally friendly, I am assuming that you have no use for oil to heat your homes. :-) So, if there is no demand for it, there will be excess oil out on the market, futher driving down the price of a barrel. Thanks for being so enviornmentaly conscience. :-)

    28. Re:Hell Yeah! by Benfea · · Score: 1

      Uhm, aren't those "large mosquitoes" actually a separate species that preys on mosquitoes?

    29. Re:Hell Yeah! by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Despite their common names, crane flies do not prey on mosquitoes

      You linked it.

    30. Re:Hell Yeah! by Noren · · Score: 1

      Neither the article or the poster seem to have any clue about intergalactic space, the above comment is rather disinformative.

      What matter there is in Intergalactic space is at roughly 100000-10000000 K or more, in a plasma state. The matter in space tends to be colder the closer to a planet it is, which is why near-Earth space is cold. Even interplanetary space within the solar system is pretty hot, though.

      Heating something to 1/100 of the temperature of intergalactic space would depend on where in the range you were shooting for. 1000K, at the low end of that range would require a standard furnace, not particularly expensive, and you could have that in your office without much trouble. Heating to the higher end of that range to 100000 K would require a much more elaborate apparatus.

      It appears that whoever wrote that press release for McGill was incompetant.

    31. Re:Hell Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean the one on sale at ebay is bogus then?.

    32. Re:Hell Yeah! by phedre · · Score: 1

      You're all lying anyway! All this talk of WIVES and FRIENDS... next thing you know we'll be pretending to have social lives and friends... where will the lying stop? *sheds a single tear*

  3. And this helps Moore's Law how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth.

    This is great news for those of us who like to cool our home CPUs with multi-million pound systems of lasers and magnets.

    1. Re:And this helps Moore's Law how? by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      Read carefully; they're cooling temperature itself! Not just cooler matter, but cooler temperature. This is a major breakthrough. Before you know it, they'll be able to achieve faster speeds, longer lengths, smaller sizes, and deeper depths.

    2. Re:And this helps Moore's Law how? by fishinatree · · Score: 0, Troll

      So would Apple's Intel processors finally be able to reach that 4 GHz mark?

    3. Re:And this helps Moore's Law how? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Why? They didn't write it carefully~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:And this helps Moore's Law how? by winomonkey · · Score: 1

      Your comment is sounding strangely like something from my spam box ... I don't suppose all of these achievements will cost me $1?

    5. Re:And this helps Moore's Law how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems "longer lengths" and "deeper depths" seems to be quite accurate for any given length of depth due the apparent expansion of the universe. Not that had anything to do with it of course.

    6. Re:And this helps Moore's Law how? by TrailerTrash · · Score: 3, Funny

      achieve faster speeds, longer lengths, smaller sizes, and deeper depths.

      That's what she said.

    7. Re:And this helps Moore's Law how? by superdave80 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Don't let Microsoft get wind of this. They might make it a requirement for running Windows 7.

    8. Re:And this helps Moore's Law how? by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, the faster speeds and smaller sizes part anyway.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  4. Hm... by Andr+T. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The researchers call the new state of matter 'a quasi-three-dimensional electron crystal.' It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth.

    I don't know why, but I think this will take a while to get to my local PC store.

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

  5. Oh no you didn't by yttrstein · · Score: 5, Informative

    Extend it? I trust you mean CONFIRM IT YET AGAIN!

    Thought so.

    1. Re:Oh no you didn't by nbert · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly. I just expect the development of new materials to follow Moore's Law. It's the weird hippy cousin of 5 year plans...

    2. Re:Oh no you didn't by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neither, Moore's law doesn't apply to this..but that would of course require an understanding of Moore's law. The cost of putting more transistors has started going up, thus ending Moore's law.
      Unless a fab breakthrough happens. A big one.

      Could some other material come up to allow faster processors? you bet, but that wouldn't be Moore's law now, would it?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Oh no you didn't by yttrstein · · Score: 1

      Actually if you do what I've always done and correct everyone when they say "processor speed" when they should be saying "processING speed".

      If you look at Moore's Law in that sense, it still holds well enough to take note. There have been no real pauses or holes in it, what with the advent of thinner circuits and more cores, as well as brainier architecture all 'round. Thus, this is indeed a simple continuation and the humor in my original post is punctuated to profundity not by pragmatism, but by pure principle.

    4. Re:Oh no you didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless a fab breakthrough happens.

      And what, exactly, would that fab breakthrough look like? Perhaps a new, highly organized state of matter which could be potentially exploited to create more densely pact transistors?

    5. Re:Oh no you didn't by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really, it's about cost.
      And the paper Moores's law comes from is about economics, so no changing to processing is still incorrect.
      However, it does neatly deal with multi-cores.

      The Fab costs, at this time, for the next round of doubling the transistors is pretty huge.
      Whe they ahve to toss 4 out of 5 wafers, the cost to the consumer may become prohibitive. No doubt large orginization will continue upgrading.

      From what I've been reading and talking to eopel in the fab industry, we will reach a state where system much 'faster' my e using tools and techniques that are hugely expensive to operate.
      Such as needing super cooled room and a large magnet.

      So large organization will have computing power that outstrips the home PC.

      I would ahve said the 'Average Joe's' PC, but that guy has turned out to be a liar and a stooge.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Oh no you didn't by try_anything · · Score: 5, Funny

      And what, exactly, would that fab breakthrough look like?

      I suspect it would come in pink and look really super with a scarf!

    7. Re:Oh no you didn't by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your post degenerates into rambling incoherence.

      The thing that intel is 'best' at is providing massive amounts of processing power at low price points, and increasing that power over time (they also have chipped away at consumption of watts, but that has largely been a side effect of their performance/$ obsession).

      The number of people that have tasks that are best run on a single core and are not fast enough is getting smaller and smaller. That means that the benefits of making a single core faster are smaller and smaller (and thus the amount of money available for faster and faster cores is also smaller).

      Combine those two concepts and you end up realizing that intel pretty much competed themselves into a situation where all they face are decreasing margins. If the fab costs really are going up, then they face huge margin pressure (because fewer and fewer people are interested in paying more and more to upgrade machines that are fast enough).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Oh no you didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pact"? Like the Warsaw Pact? Or maybe... you can't spell "packed"? Like, your boyfriend really packed your fudge last night?

    9. Re:Oh no you didn't by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cost of putting more transistors has started going up, thus ending Moore's law.

      Only if the price remains constant.

      Moore's Law could well continue, as these things get cheaper and cheaper to build, and thus we have more and more cores for the same price.

      That wouldn't be the "extension of Moore's law" that lets you ignore the issue of concurrency and just keep throwing more cycles at the problem, but it would be entirely within Moore's law.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:Oh no you didn't by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      The cost of putting more transistors has started going up, thus ending Moore's law.

      Really? From what I've seen, CPU transistor counts keep right on increasing, and CPU prices are staying roughly constant, thus continuing Moore's law. GHz has ceased to increase, but that was never a part of Moore's law, just a consequence of it for a while. Am I wrong?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    11. Re:Oh no you didn't by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Geekoid: I'm going to have to unfriend you if you don't start using preview.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    12. Re:Oh no you didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get matching shoes with that? ^_^

  6. Stop applying Moore's law to everything!! by CardiganKiller · · Score: 0

    Moore's Law relates to the rate of how many transistors can be packed onto a... oh... wait... *slowly walks away and hides behind a tree*

  7. Colder than Space? by Kid+Zero · · Score: 0

    Did they change something or is space still a vacuum? A vacuum can't have a temperature if there's nothing in it to have motion or movement.

    1. Re:Colder than Space? by VoltCurve · · Score: 0

      because space is a perfect vacuum, and radiation is a republican scare tactic.

    2. Re:Colder than Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outer space is not a perfect vacuum.

      "Contrary to popular understanding, outer space is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum) but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation."

    3. Re:Colder than Space? by fishinatree · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Space isn't a complete vacuum. There is still movement and the occasional molecule, but for all practical purposes, it "is" a vacuum. There is still a temperature though.

    4. Re:Colder than Space? by againjj · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
      Intersteller space has a density of a million atoms per cubic meter. Intergalactic space has densities closer to one atom per cubic meter. Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible due to quantum mechanics (I can not explain why, but that makes sense).

    5. Re:Colder than Space? by glitch23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible due to quantum mechanics (I can not explain why, but that makes sense).

      For any given particle, you can't know its exact position and velocity. Particles can never reach absolute zero because then you would be able to determine their position since you know their velocity would thus be zero given they have no energy by definition of absolute zero. An extension of that then is if you know a particle's velocity you will never be able to determine its position. If you can't determine its position you can't determine whether it is really outside a vacuum. You may be able to say it isn't in the middle of the volume which represents the vaccum but at the boundary you can't say for sure whether the particle is on the inside of the vacuum or outside. This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    6. Re:Colder than Space? by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are also particles (or rather, particle / anti-particle pairs) popping into and out of existence all the time. In fact, this is often invoked as the source of Hawking radiation.

      --Joe

    7. Re:Colder than Space? by banffbug · · Score: 0, Troll

      what he said.

    8. Re:Colder than Space? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Funny

      An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

      Well yeah, if you had a brain fart and forgot to turn on the Heisenberg compensators.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    9. Re:Colder than Space? by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like it is possible. Only you can't notice it before, during or after the event, since its uncertain at any given moment and all.
      Its called the "Taylors Unnoticibility Principle". I need to go make a Wikipedia page to make it official, so you can quote it in the future.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    10. Re:Colder than Space? by revjd909 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'll bet extra-galactic space (beyond the furthest galaxies, beyond the fastest moving elements from the big bang) is colder, possibly even a vacuum if you go far out enough. (Actually, I was just there the other day, it was nice because there was no pet hair or dust bunnies.) Isn't it kind of mind-blowing that according to big bang theory everything is contained within nothing?

      --
      *** once i really listened, the noise just went away. -liz phair
    11. Re:Colder than Space? by Atario · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That took me by surprise. I was sure it was going to be because of the vast number of virtual particles constantly appearing and disappearing within the vacuum.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    12. Re:Colder than Space? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Call me dense, but... don't you mean we simply cannot detect a perfect vacuum, rather than saying it's impossible?

      When I first heard about the double slit experiment, I was very confused because the article I read kept using the word "observing". It took me a while to realize that what they meant was that the act of measuring, in an attempt to observe, influences the experiment. So, whether observation disturbs the experiment depends on the method of observation. To a normal person, the term observation isn't seen as a method of interference.

    13. Re:Colder than Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

      They should make science themed fortune cookies:

      An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle. (in bed)

      It makes perfect sense!

    14. Re:Colder than Space? by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      That took me by surprise. I was sure it was going to be because of the vast number of virtual particles constantly appearing and disappearing within the vacuum.

      I am not a physicist but quantum fluctuations can also contribute to the problem I believe. It is quantum fluctuations that don't make space totally empty therefore they do have a reason to be discussed. Either way it does boil down to the Uncertainty Principle which prevent us from knowing 100% whether we have a true vacuum or not. And someone else said that maybe this only causes us to never know whether we have a true vacuum or not. I can't answer that but using logic it would seem that to be the case. Hower, using additional logic you run into a problem I think: As soon as you measure something you alter it so for all we know, we'll never see a true vacuum because we always cause it to disappear, therefore it doesn't (or can't) exist.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    15. Re:Colder than Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem with the uncertainty principle is that you can't make a measurement without affecting the particle. So you can choose to measure its position, but you will change its velocity, or you can measure its velocity, but you will change its position. If you merely care about moving said particle out of the way, you just move it. It doesn't matter what its velocity or position is. The quantum mechanics bit is because particles have this annoying habit of popping out of the ether. e=MC^2 (equation goes both ways, and matter can turn into energy.) Normally you don't notice this, as particle appear in particle/anti-particle pairs and usually annihilate each other immediately following creation. (You can notice this near a black hole, where the particles get created and one of the pair gets pulled in, the other escapes) Anyway, if a particle just appears in the middle of your nice clean vacuum, then it's no longer a nice clean vacuum.

    16. Re:Colder than Space? by tcdk · · Score: 1

      From the lab that did the experiment: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~hedbergj/labpage/projects.htm Quote: "...atomic force microscope (AFM) that will operate in a ~50 mK environment with a 16 Tesla magnet. " So this case "100 times colder than space" is ~50mK

      --
      TC - My Photos..
    17. Re:Colder than Space? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between something not existing, and something existing but being impossible to detect?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:Colder than Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's another way to look at it.

      I'm not a scientist, but I think the "observer effect" built into the Heisenberg Principle you refer to makes it impossible even to know where a particle at absolute zero is. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_principle#Uncertainty_principle_and_observer_effect)

      Heisenberg said that any measurement affects both the measuring device (e.g., it moves the needle in a thermometer), and the object being measured (through loss of the energy required to move the needle).

      If a particle has no energy, it has none to "move the needle" in your measuring device, so you can't know it is there. You can bombard it with energy to see where it is (the radar principle), but then you have imparted energy to it, and it's no longer at absolute zero.

      So you might have an absolute vacuum. Or not. You'd never know.

    19. Re:Colder than Space? by thirty-seven · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between something not existing, and something existing but being impossible to detect?

      Praying to the first thing would be silly, but praying to the second one is a de facto requirement to be the U.S. president.

      --

      Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    20. Re:Colder than Space? by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

      But it sounds so much better when you say it like this: An absolute zero temperature vacuum is certainty impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

      i love a good paradox

    21. Re:Colder than Space? by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between something not existing, and something existing but being impossible to detect?

      Twelve.

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  8. 100x colder than space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I might be wrong but isn't the temperature of space absolut zero. How can you get colder than absolut zero? Can someone with knowledge of the subject matter be so kind to explain?

    1. Re:100x colder than space? by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      I believe there's still minute amounts of matter floating in the ether.

    2. Re:100x colder than space? by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      The cosmic microwave background is the electromagnetic energy radiated by the distant reaches of the universe. It corresponds to energy radiated by a roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin blackbody. That is the temperature of space since under normal conditions nothing can get colder than that temperature.

    3. Re:100x colder than space? by pavon · · Score: 1

      Nope, the background microwave radiation prevents an object in even the deepest portions of space from dropping below around 3 Kelvin.

    4. Re:100x colder than space? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Space has no temperature, microwave radiation does.

      I can find places in space that are millions of degrees, that doesn't mean space is hot.
      Add to that that as the Universe expands, the 'background heat' get's lower.
      Energy throughout the universe is constant*, but the volume is increasing.

      *or at least among all the universe in the probable dimensions.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:100x colder than space? by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obviously you've never been to Montreal.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    6. Re:100x colder than space? by xTantrum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The laws of Thermodynamics state that we can't really achieve absolute zero As far as the far reaches of space goes they may be referring to the boomerang nebula which is the coldest place we know of so far - outside of the laboratory. I wish the article had been more specific and quantitative. FYI a really good program to watch if you get a chance is Absolute Zero

      --
      $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    7. Re:100x colder than space? by Nebu · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong but isn't the temperature of space absolut zero. How can you get colder than absolut zero? Can someone with knowledge of the subject matter be so kind to explain?

      Joke answer: absolute zero divided by one hundred still equals absolute zero.

      More serious answer: The temperature is actually around 3 Kelvin, so I guess they got the temperature down to about 0.03K.

    8. Re:100x colder than space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microwave radiation has no temperature, space does.

      FTFY*.

      Also, no such thing as "background heat". There is background radiation, however. Heat is defined only in terms of energy TRANSFER.

      *Spoiler: temperature is the average kinetic energy of massive particles in a given region.

    9. Re:100x colder than space? by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong but isn't the temperature of space absolut zero. How can you get colder than absolut zero? Can someone with knowledge of the subject matter be so kind to explain?

      Absolut Zero you say? Mmmmmm, Absolut Zero...

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    10. Re:100x colder than space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the nice link to pbs the program

    11. Re:100x colder than space? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      2.7 degrees Kelvin blackbody. That is the temperature of space since under normal conditions nothing can get colder than that temperature.

      Depends what you mean by "normal" conditions. Under natural conditions the coldest place in the known universe is about 1 kelvin. Expanding gases automatically cool down, and the Boomerang Nebula is huge blob of gas that is expanding extremely rapidly. It has cooled to less than half of the universal background temp.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    12. Re:100x colder than space? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      It corresponds to energy radiated by a roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin

      So, 100x cooler would be (100 X 2.7) = 270 degrees Kelvin?

      Now, how big is it, in terms of golf balls?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    13. Re:100x colder than space? by khallow · · Score: 1

      That is not "normal" conditions. I have semantically secured my argument from your rebuttal. Next. :-)

      More seriously, I did know about this instance. That's why I use the "normal" modifier in the first place.

    14. Re:100x colder than space? by digitally404 · · Score: 1

      That's because temperature in space is not absolute zero. Nothing ever can reach that limit. Temperature in space hovers at about 3 Kelvin.

    15. Re:100x colder than space? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm betting they meant 0.03 kelvin roughly. That would be a factor of 100 smaller.

  9. No, it won't by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Moore's law is about manufacturing on silicon
    If it isn't silicon, then it isn't Moore's law.
    remember kids, increasing processor speed is a by product of Moore's law/ Moore's law is about cost of manufacturing.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:No, it won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Moore's law is about manufacturing on silicon
      If it isn't silicon, then it isn't Moore's law.
      remember kids, increasing processor speed is a by product of Moore's law/ Moore's law is about cost of manufacturing.

      In other news Moore's Law fans are breeding a race of super chimpanzees to take over chip production. Another project seeks to breed 20' long super bananas to cheaply feed the workforce thus extending Moore's Law further.

    2. Re:No, it won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Processor speed has been stagnant for years. Moore's law is about transistor count. Bunging extra cores on a CPU is still within Moore's law, but we're not getting faster machines. We just have better theroretical throughput when running multiple applications, which is rarely the case for the majority of PC users. Quad core, great! Shame the processes are still as slow as a single core at the same tick, and anything remotely IO intensive locks out CPUs while SATA interrupts the processors to death, resulting in multi-core boxes acting like shit from the 90s, regardless of OS and nice values.

    3. Re:No, it won't by BigPeen · · Score: 1

      UGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. Moore's law is not a LAW. Why do people always act like its on the same level as newton's laws or the Schrodinger wave equation? It's just a prediction by some guy 50 years ago. Nothing more (Moore?) nothing less.

    4. Re:No, it won't by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, Moore's law states that the number of transistors you can put on an integrated circuit for a fixed cost doubles every 18 months. This has nothing to do with the speed at which the transistors run or the material they are made from.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. But... by sdsucks · · Score: 5, Funny

    How cold is that in libraries of congresses?

    1. Re:But... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      None, becasue as we all know Libraries are HOT!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:But... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Inside temperature or outside temperature?

      About 4.654187 sudden cold Winter snaps in Washington DC.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  11. Could you be any more vague? by collinstocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... "...It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

    What does this mean? Give us a temperature. At least that would be concrete.

    According to wikipedia, intergalactic space is 2.71 Kelvin. I would assume that they mean "100th the temperature of intergalactic space", not "100 times colder than intergalactic space", as the latter is nonsensical and implies that it exists at 100 times colder than intergalactic space is colder than room temperature, meaning -28834 Kelvin (293 - 100 * (293 - 2.73) where we assume that room temperature is 20 degrees centigrade). This is nonsense.

    So, my PC is going to be running at 0.0273 Kelvin. Well, that's convenient! I love my room when it's that cold!

    1. Re:Could you be any more vague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad I'm not the only one that cringed when I saw that.

    2. Re:Could you be any more vague? by geekoid · · Score: 1, Funny

      meh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Could you be any more vague? by againjj · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to wikipedia, intergalactic space is 2.71 Kelvin. I would assume that they mean "100th the temperature of intergalactic space", not "100 times colder than intergalactic space", as the latter is nonsensical and implies that it exists at 100 times colder than intergalactic space is colder than room temperature, meaning -28834 Kelvin (293 - 100 * (293 - 2.73) where we assume that room temperature is 20 degrees centigrade). This is nonsense.

      I don't see a problem with "100 times colder than intergalactic space". Temperature is an absolute scale, like size. It's like saying that item X is "100 times smaller than a coin". You don't then compare the size of the coin (say, 0.01m) to the room (say 3m) and then complain that item X is not of size -296 (3 - 100 * (3 - 0.01)).

    4. Re:Could you be any more vague? by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      You make a point.
      /me goes off and throws a fit
      So?!

    5. Re:Could you be any more vague? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      100 times colder than intergalactic space

      What does this mean? Give us a temperature. At least that would be concrete.

      According to wikipedia, intergalactic space is 2.71 Kelvin. I would assume that they mean "100th the temperature of intergalactic space", not "100 times colder than intergalactic space", as the latter is nonsensical...

      This reminds me of when I was a child watching the Buck Rogers TV show for the first time. The intro is rolling and the narrator is explaining how "due to a freak accident, Captain William 'Buck' Rogers was frozen by temperatures beyond imagination". At that point my father, an engineer, scoffs audibly and angrily launches into a tirade about the completely imaginable nature of Absolute Zero, and how idiots write for TV and probably get paid twice what he does. This was the beginning of my lifelong dedication to criticizing inexcusable violations of the laws of physics by TV writers--- much to my wife's displeasure.

      Honestly, I don't understand why writers feel the need to reach for bizarre equivalencies when talking about extremes. Do any of us have any idea how tall the Statue of Liberty actually is? If something is long enough to go around the earth some number of times, how impressed can we be if anything farther than Grandma's house is simply "a long way"? When you say that the concrete in the Interstate Highway system is enough to make a sidewalk from the earth to the moon six times, how thick a sidewalk are we talking, and where can we lobby to have this six-lane promenade to Luna built?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:Could you be any more vague? by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Funny
      Do any of us have any idea how tall the Statue of Liberty actually is?

      Sure...13.95 stories.

      rj

    7. Re:Could you be any more vague? by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      Do any of us have any idea how tall the Statue of Liberty actually is?

      Sure...13.95 stories.

      rj

      Do any of us have any idea how high a story is?

      (Get on it, mods. Parent is funny.)

    8. Re:Could you be any more vague? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "According to wikipedia..."

      Damn dude, shoot yourself in the foot, why don't you?

      Try this next time......

      "According to God..."

    9. Re:Could you be any more vague? by Deadstick · · Score: 1
    10. Re:Could you be any more vague? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see a problem with "100 times colder than intergalactic space". Temperature is an absolute scale, like size. It's like saying that item X is "100 times smaller than a coin". You don't then compare the size of the coin (say, 0.01m) to the room (say 3m) and then complain that item X is not of size -296 (3 - 100 * (3 - 0.01)).

      Size is a quantity.

      "Coldness" is not.

    11. Re:Could you be any more vague? by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 3, Informative

      So when someone says "X is 100 times larger than Y" you instinctively think "X=100*Y", yet when someone says "X is 100 times smaller than Y" you instinctively think "X=Z-100*(Z-Y)" for some arbitrary Z of same unit as Y. Forgive me for not following your erm... logic.

      Let's say I have a temperature which is 100 times larger than 27.1 mK, this would be 2.71 K. Indeed 27.1 mK is smaller than 2.71 K and 2.71 K is larger than 27.1 mK. So saying 100 times smaller than 2.71 K should indicate I mean 27.1 mK. In no way is this nonsensical and I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that "X is N times smaller than Y" means multiply Y by the reciprocal of N, similarly "X is N times larger than Y" means multiply Y by N.

      Granted this isn't something you'd see in technical writing, but I'm pretty sure Information Week isn't a technical journal, so why be a pedant about it?

    12. Re:Could you be any more vague? by banffbug · · Score: 1

      good answer, deserves a better rating

    13. Re:Could you be any more vague? by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia, intergalactic space is 2.71 Kelvin. I would assume that they mean "100th the temperature of intergalactic space"

      Oh, good. Did Wikipedia also not bother to explain how temperature was an exponential scale of measure similar to sound volume (dB) and the Richter scale for earthquakes?

      The amount of energy required to go from 1K to 2K is different from that required to go from 2K to 3K.

      100 times colder makes sense, just scale it for whatever the exponential factor is.

    14. Re:Could you be any more vague? by locofungus · · Score: 1

      Do any of us have any idea how tall the Statue of Liberty actually is?

      Sure...13.95 stories.

      And how many stories in a library of congress?

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    15. Re:Could you be any more vague? by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 1

      "100 times smaller than a coin". If it works for smallness, why not coldness? Smallness is to size as coldness is to heat. Both are quantities.

    16. Re:Could you be any more vague? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      This was the beginning of my lifelong dedication to criticizing inexcusable violations of the laws of physics by TV writers

      The movie Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea had one of the biggest and most hysterical whoppers of all time. The plot is that the Van Allen radiation belts catch fire (scientifically silly, but we'll let that slide as standard sci-fi fare) steadily roasting the planet. The heroes are on a sub that has to race to a certain location to launch a nuclear missle at carefully calculated coordinates in the radiation belt to put out the fire and save the earth. The only route to get into position fast enough is to go under the north pole. As they race along the heat from the sky starts fracturing the polar sheet. They are deep in this sorta canyon, and these huge fragments of the polar sheet come crashing down battering them, crashing and bouncing off the ship, everyone on board is getting thrown around and everyone is terrified that the ship is going to be destroyed. Of course they survive, get to their coordinates, launch their nuclear missle and save the planet.

      Many of you out there have probably seen the movie, and may even remember the scene. If you haven't, I've told you everything you need to know. Read over that scene and think about it. There is something wrong with it. Something very very wrong with it. I don't mean any of standard cheezy sci-fi stuff. Maybe with such short focused description that I gave people can pin down what's wrong, but almost no one watching the movie notices the error. It is really really really insanely bad. Howling laughter bad. Go back and see if you can spot it before reading the answer below.

      .

      .

      .

      Read every third letter, the letters in bold:
      etiaocnreis hdflulcmofwayptvbsgk

      Doh!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    17. Re:Could you be any more vague? by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      And how many stories in a library of congress?

      87.5 naked cities.

      rj

    18. Re:Could you be any more vague? by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      Wow, I've never had such a controversial post before! Everyone and his mother seems to have an opinion.

      I shouldn't have spent so many words on that. The point was that they didn't just give the temperature. They had to compare it to something completely meaningless to me. "The temperature of intergalactic space" makes me think "within a few degrees of absolute zero". One hundred times smaller than that makes me think "a couple degrees colder than that". Either way, a degree centigrade is still a degree centigrade. Just give the temperature. It's cold.

  12. Is that really cold? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 0, Redundant

    100 times colder than intergalactic space

    Does space even have a temperature?

    1. Re:Is that really cold? by taustin · · Score: 1

      Yes. A few degrees above absolute zero. Which means taht "100 times colder" is, of course, physically impossible, or meaningless.

      This is what happens when your science reporter flunked high school science.

    2. Re:Is that really cold? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The way temperature is defined: yes.

      Stick a thermometer in it. Read the number off. Now, granted, this is mostly due to rad exchange, but it still satisfies the thermodynamic definition.*

      *if you've got a perfectly gray thermometer.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Is that really cold? by SimonBelmont · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually I would assume that they mean 1/100 the temperature of space, on an absolute zero based scale.

    4. Re:Is that really cold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4.73 Kelvin

    5. Re:Is that really cold? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when your science reporter flunked high school science.

      The unfortunate truth about a disturbingly large fraction of journalists is that they're the ones that couldn't hack math, science, or any other logical discipline, but thought they'd like writing. Unfortunately, they found they weren't very good at writing anything creatively because they didn't like to read literature. Eventually they gravitated towards journalism because the basics of journalism are simple and logical, more like basic bookkeeping, only without numbers. Interestingly, the journalism majors of this stripe I met in college seemed to be the most likely to say "I'm becoming a journalist because I want to change the world". I suspect this is because real journalists realize that by reporting factuality, the world may change itself, while writing things intentionally crafted to sway opinion is actually propaganda, not journalism.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:Is that really cold? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I thought temperature was a measure of the average speed at which molecules were jostling around?

      So wouldn't a thermometer be the wrong tool for the job when you're in space, even if it would register something?

    7. Re:Is that really cold? by CorporateSuit · · Score: 4, Funny

      4.73 Kelvin

      Pffft barely jacket weather.

      Tell me when it's below 3.8 Kelvin. THEN I might be impressed.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    8. Re:Is that really cold? by wdsci · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends on what kind of thermometer you're using. Sure, a normal mercury or alcohol thermometer wouldn't work in outer space, but there are definitely devices that can measure very very low temperatures, and in some sense you can consider anything that measures temperature a "thermometer".

  13. ....Swell.... by mappemonde · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    SKYNET has been discovered. Need I say more?

    --
    enjoy it while you have it - for it may be gone soon.
    1. Re:....Swell.... by NovaHorizon · · Score: 1

      Yes. Give me the location of John Conner.

    2. Re:....Swell.... by Muckluck · · Score: 1

      Oh Crap. They are on to us.
      Governator - destroy!
      Love, Cyberdine, inc

      --


      --I like turtles...
  14. One more time with feeling! by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    None, because as we all know Librarians are HOT!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:One more time with feeling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not federal librarians...

    2. Re:One more time with feeling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U R rite. Federal librarians R HAWT!

    3. Re:One more time with feeling! by Punko · · Score: 1

      Not all Librarians. Just Linda. 'Cause small, brown haired, brown eyed women are hot. Just ask Garrett

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    4. Re:One more time with feeling! by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

      None, because as we all know Librarians are HOT!

      Ook!

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
  15. So she is good for something! by CorporateSuit · · Score: 2, Funny

    was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space

    My ex-girlfriend?

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  16. Longer Article by againjj · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Longer Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old news,
      been done in July
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080725152314.htm

    2. Re:Longer Article by afidel · · Score: 1

      Seriously, on a site called sciencedaily they printed an article which said "100 times colder than intergalactic space" and the quip about the magnet? I mean I can see doing that for the Tuesday NY Times Science section where it's businessmen and lay geeks reading it, but for a site like that I would expect units like K and T to be used. Besides AFAIK the most powerful electromagnets on earth are those used in the LHC.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Longer Article by WhiteDragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides AFAIK the most powerful electromagnets on earth are those used in the LHC.

      not even close. The LHC magnets are (according to a quick google search) about 8.3 - 10 T. The magnet lab has a 100T magnet that they routinely run at 85T so it's about 10x more powerful than the LHC magnets.

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  17. Re:100x colder than space? Absolut? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    To get colder than Absolut, drink more than the body can handle, the you'll Absolutly shut down..., hehehe

    As for the 3D Crystal Ball, that's a better take on Mr. Peabody's 3DBB (3-Dimensional Black Board) Sherman always marveled at. But, these scientists are pretty good, taking on the Matter by the Horn...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  18. New transistor, that's nice. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now gimme mah memristors!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  19. Moore's Law? by cavePrisoner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait, so somebody discovered a whole new state of matter, and all we have to say is it could extend Moore's Law? I would hope the implications would be just a tad bit more grand for such a discovery than possibly validating somebody's metric for a little while.

    1. Re:Moore's Law? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      so somebody discovered a whole new state of matter...I would hope the implications would be just a tad bit more grand

      They're not talking about 'states of matter' like we learned in science class, per se...solid, liquid, gas, plasma...the headline is kind of tabloidous...when dealing w/ these types of things, sometimes scientific terminology gets exaggerated..

      from TFA:

      in terms of a ham sandwich, where the ham -- the two-dimensional crystal -- represents a flat plane that constrains the movement of the electrons in two dimensions.

      It's about motion...the electron structure had motion in two dimensions, but if they tried to coax it into a third dimension of electron motion it came apart...until they tried using the super-strong magnet

      "This issue is academic, but it's not just academic," said Gervais in a statement. "The same semiconductor materials we're working with

      yeah...about manipulating matter to unnatural arrangements (in this case electrons)...not a totally new 'state' of matter

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    2. Re:Moore's Law? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At 0.03K they may be talking about a Bose-Einstien condensate which is a "newish" state of matter.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  20. 100 times colder? by glwtta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    100 times colder than 0 K? So, that's what, 0 K? Why not make it 1000 times colder?

    (Yes I know space is slightly warmer than absolute zero, but it's still a really weird claim to make - we are only talking about a couple of degrees here)

    Also, am I the only one who, upon hearing "discovered a new state of matter", doesn't immediately think "Sweet, we can extends Moore's Law!", but rather "Holy shit, a new state of matter?" Seems like a pretty big discovering on its own, even without being tied to chip manufacturing...

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:100 times colder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd hate to see the heatsink you would need to overclock that bad boy.

    2. Re:100 times colder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect what they meant was "one hundredth the temperature of..", but I agree that is a really weird thing to say.

      "Cold" is not not a kind of unit one can multiply meaningfully. It's just the subjective impression of low temperature.

    3. Re:100 times colder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally its thought that Intergalactic space sits at around 2.73 K, so 100 times colder would be 0.0273 K. You have to remember that at 0 k nothing is actually moving....

    4. Re:100 times colder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outer space is something like 3 Kelvin. So they're probably talking about probably .03 Kelvin.

    5. Re:100 times colder? by Yarhj · · Score: 2, Informative

      The average temperature out in space is around 3K. Now, three measly degrees may not seem like a lot, but there's a world of difference between 3K and 0K. I'm sure we would all agree that a temperature of 300K is one-hundred times greater than 3K -- likewise, 0.003K is one hundred times smaller than 3K. There are many exotic physical effects which manifest in the millikelvin regime, but I find it unlikely that you'll be playing Team Fortress 10 on your three-dimensional electron crystal computer. More likely, the insights gleaned from this research will enable a better understanding of silicon and other semiconductors, *possibly* opening the door to further cMOS scaling. Most likely, this research will enable the authors to write some more grants to play with big magnets down in Florida.

    6. Re:100 times colder? by againjj · · Score: 1

      100 times colder than 0 K? So, that's what, 0 K? Why not make it 1000 times colder?

      100 times colder than 3 K. So, that's what, 0.03 K?

      (Yes I know space is slightly warmer than absolute zero, but it's still a really weird claim to make - we are only talking about a couple of degrees here)

      If you knew that it was above 0 K, you shouldn't say 0 K. And it is not weird -- these are normal operating temperatures of some really cool physics work. And the reason we talk about 100x vs. 1000x is that the difference between 100x and 1000x is a good chunk of change.

    7. Re:100 times colder? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      And it is not weird -- these are normal operating temperatures of some really cool physics work.

      I mean that "a hundred times colder than space!" is a weird way of saying "almost 3 degrees colder", seems a little sensationalist. I'm sure that further lowering temperature as you approach absolute zero becomes progressively harder, but still.

      If you do manage to cool something down to 0 K, would you say that it's infinitely colder than space?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    8. Re:100 times colder? by IchNiSan · · Score: 1

      But maybe we could play Duke Nukem forever.

    9. Re:100 times colder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those couple of degrees make all the difference. I'd suspect that any scientist would cringe if you said that space was 0K.

      There is a big, big difference between absolute zero and 3K.

    10. Re:100 times colder? by yariv · · Score: 1

      If someone would manage to cool something to 0 K I would be truly amazed.
      It is theoretically impossible, as far as we understand physics today.

    11. Re:100 times colder? by knails · · Score: 1

      No, but I would say that it's infinitely less warm than space.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire
    12. Re:100 times colder? by againjj · · Score: 1

      If you do manage to cool something down to 0 K, would you say that it's infinitely colder than space?

      Yes and no. It would be true, but I generally don't actually say such things, since it sounds rather strange to the ear (score: 0-1, his score is infinitely smaller than hers). Besides, it's academic, since it is impossible anyhow.

    13. Re:100 times colder? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      but I generally don't actually say such things, since it sounds rather strange to the ear

      That was precisely my original point.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  21. Scenes from the lab by Repton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [Scientist 1] A new state of matter! This is AWESOME!

    [Scientist 2] Yeah, but it's bloody expensive making the stuff. How can we bring in more funding?

    [Scientist 1] Umm ... Something to do with terrorism? Err ...

    [Scientist 2] ...energy crisis? Can we do anything with oil? ...

    [Scientist 1] ...what about computers? Could you make smaller transistors with this stuff?

    [Scientist 2] Yeah, it might fly. Let's run with that.

    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    1. Re:Scenes from the lab by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      [Scientist 1] What? It doesn't fly

      [Scientist 2] What I meant was..

      [Scientist 3] But look at it's plumage!
      and so on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Scenes from the lab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free market at work.

    3. Re:Scenes from the lab by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You forgot the War on Drugs... and kiddyporn...
      and of course the big daddy moneybags of them all, piracy.
      Yeah, that might bring in the $funding$.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  22. 100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA doesn't state any specific temperature, but I find the analogy to how "cold" space is rather troubling. Space is really "warm", as it contains energy left from the Big Bang (although no one with a common sense would describe it that way in daily talk), and saying that something is so many times colder than space really just doesn't make sense.
    You can always compare sizes, but as heat is a positive size, because you can't have negative energy, you can just say "this is a hundred times hotter than that" or "my freezer is two times as cold as my refrigerator compared to my living room".
    The one who thought of this analogy could be talking about degrees on Celsius or Fahrenheit, but then those numbers must be way below absolute zero, or 0 Kelvin, as space is just 2.7 Kelvin, or -270.7 C ( http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html ) and taking for granted he is comparing the temperature of space to 0 ÂC, that means that those crystals are actually -27070 C.
    And _that_ would be some real frontpage material...

    1. Re:100 times colder than what? by againjj · · Score: 5, Informative

      TFA doesn't state any specific temperature, but I find the analogy to how "cold" space is rather troubling. Space is really "warm", as it contains energy left from the Big Bang (although no one with a common sense would describe it that way in daily talk), and saying that something is so many times colder than space really just doesn't make sense. You can always compare sizes, but as heat is a positive size, because you can't have negative energy, you can just say "this is a hundred times hotter than that" or "my freezer is two times as cold as my refrigerator compared to my living room". The one who thought of this analogy could be talking about degrees on Celsius or Fahrenheit, but then those numbers must be way below absolute zero, or 0 Kelvin, as space is just 2.7 Kelvin, or -270.7 C ( http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html ) and taking for granted he is comparing the temperature of space to 0 ÂC, that means that those crystals are actually -27070 C. And _that_ would be some real frontpage material...

      You seem confused. He speaks of "a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space". Intergalactic space has a temperature of about 3K. It does not make sense to talk of degrees C, since C is not an absolute scale. 100 times colder than 3K is 0.03K.

    2. Re:100 times colder than what? by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      100 times as cold as.

    3. Re:100 times colder than what? by Markspark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but it still works quite well, since 1C == 1K

      and i really cringed when i read the 100 times colder crap. Seriously, if it's at 0.03 K why not just say that?

      --
      i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
    4. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and i really cringed when i read the 100 times colder crap. Seriously, if it's at 0.03 K why not just say that?

      Because 100 times colder sounds much more dramatic than 2.97 degress less.

    5. Re:100 times colder than what? by againjj · · Score: 4, Informative

      but it still works quite well, since 1C == 1K

      and i really cringed when i read the 100 times colder crap. Seriously, if it's at 0.03 K why not just say that?

      It does not work well. 100x colder than 1 C is not 0.01 C, it is -270.27 C. And the reason people don't say 0.03 K is because the average person does not know what K is, but they know space is very cold.

    6. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      TFA doesn't state any specific temperature, but I find the analogy to how "cold" space is rather troubling.

      I wonder how many times colder it is than the Library of Congress. It's always important to have a "Library of Congress" metric in these articles.

    7. Re:100 times colder than what? by Minozake · · Score: 1

      delta 1degC == delta 1degK 1degC == 274.15degK As for 100 times colder, it sounds better than a change of 2.97degK.

      --
      http://sourcemage.org/ - Have fun :)
    8. Re:100 times colder than what? by Minozake · · Score: 1

      Damn my HTML. Sorry.

      --
      http://sourcemage.org/ - Have fun :)
    9. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most accurately, one should say "one hundredth as warm as intergalactic space."

    10. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 100 times colder than 3K is 0.03K.

      that would be 100,000 times colder.

    11. Re:100 times colder than what? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 2, Funny

      but they know space is very cold.

      They also know that in space no-one can hear you scream. Which is why I am glad he didn't tell me how much colder it is than a Library of Congress.

      I'm also a little worried if the string theorists get hold of this. I mean if they can extend moore's law by adding another dimension; quasi or otherwise, we will definitely run out of IP addresses before they hit the 11th!
      there, how's that for some sequiturial journalistic embellishment?

    12. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite surprised this wasn't already pointed out but...

      1 degree Celsius DOES NOT equal 1 Kelvin

    13. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the reason people don't say 0.03 K is because the average person does not know what K is [...]

      Well then let them become curious and not so average.

    14. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was already previously mentioned but don't mind reading anything (this is /. all you need to do is post). The change in 1 degree Celsius is the same as the change in 1 degree Kelvin. That's what delta means, Einstein.

    15. Re:100 times colder than what? by TrailerTrash · · Score: 2, Funny

      Joe Sixpack asks, "Would that temperature keep by brewskis cold, or would it freeze them? Because that's a drag when they explode, and I have to call Joe Plumber to fix the freezer (after I clean off the venison steaks left over from last season), and he's crabby about taxes or some such nonsense. Pass me another cold one."

    16. Re:100 times colder than what? by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Informative

      Was this moderated Insightful out of irony (I do that all the time when I have the points) or did I miss the joke?

      Please do not mod this ironically, because I'm already confused. Thanks.

    17. Re:100 times colder than what? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Space is very cold, but screaming for ice cream is useless.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    18. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      "but they know space is very cold."

      which is in part a fallacy, because of the low density of particles heat is very very difficult to get rid of. yes, decompression will act as a high speed coolant, but only for a fraction of a second, and only for sealed pressurized containers. a large solar panel getting hit by the sun would literally melt in hours, from all the heat building up in the silicon. this is why satellites have special coolant systems designed to operate in the vacuum of space. there was a special tool designed to measure the temperature of gas that surrounds the earth at the level that satellites travel at, and the temperatures are very high, because the heat has nowhere to go. a vacuum is the perfect insulation material, as is evidenced by thermos.

      yes, heat does radiate, but is dependent on temperature, and is only so efficiency, it was a major breakthrough getting solar panels to work in space and not melt down.

      of course my entire argument only applies near by stars. anywhere in deep space, away from stars space is very very cold, because the amount of heat from stars is reduced along and exponential level based on distance.

    19. Re:100 times colder than what? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      I've always disliked when someone states that "X is one hundred times less than Y".

      It should be "X is 0.01 times Y", "X is one hundredth of Y" or "X is Y divided by one hundred".
      Much simpler, sounds better and avoids any possible confusion.

      If the article had stated "A temperature about 0.01 times the temperature of intergalactic space", it would have avoided this misconception.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    20. Re:100 times colder than what? by noigmn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It does not work well. 100x colder than 1 C is not 0.01 C, it is -270.27 C. And the reason people don't say 0.03 K is because the average person does not know what K is, but they know space is very cold.

      Agree, but this is a science article. It is obviously going to be read by quite a few technically minded people. So it doesn't hurt to give a clear value as well as a clarifier for the masses.

      --
      Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    21. Re:100 times colder than what? by Mattsson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the reasons the average person does not know what K is, is because they're never expected to know it.

      If everyone stopped using Celsius or Fahrenheit in situations where Kelvin would better suited, people would have to actually remember the Kelvin-scale from school-physics or take a minute out of their lives to find out what the Kelvin-scale is.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    22. Re:100 times colder than what? by dugjohnson · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now is when I want mod points.  I laughed out loud.  I did not LOL.  or ROFL.

      --
      My brain is overly lubricated
    23. Re:100 times colder than what? by zevans · · Score: 1

      Joe Sixpack is too busy on the stump to fix your poxy fridge!

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    24. Re:100 times colder than what? by mshmgi · · Score: 1

      Let's just say it's about 2.7 degrees K colder than intergalactic space. It's less dramatic, but more to the point.

    25. Re:100 times colder than what? by Duffadash · · Score: 1

      So the average person does not know what Kelvin is, but he knows Moore's law? I'm confused...

    26. Re:100 times colder than what? by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Q: What is the difference between an orange?
      A: A banana.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    27. Re:100 times colder than what? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the average person have to understand Kelvin to pass high school? I remember doing an experiment to determine absolute zero when I was 14: plot temperature against pressure of a gas and extrapolate back until the molecules are stationary - our results were within a degree or two of the accepted value, which made it quite an interesting experiment. This led the class to a discussion of absolute zero and the Kelvin scale. After that, pretty much every temperature value in a science class was done in Kelvin.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    28. Re:100 times colder than what? by tgd · · Score: 1

      Wait, shouldn't 100x colder than 1C sort of depend on what temperature I'm comparing it to? (Since hot/cold are relative, but temperature isn't)

    29. Re:100 times colder than what? by tgd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You clearly went to school back when science was taught. Now there's no budget to buy any gasses, tenured teachers don't give a crap anyway, and no one wants to talk about science lest a Christian decides to sue when they mention water turns solid at 32 degrees F since their messiah could clearly walk on it in the middle east where it tends to be warmer than that.

    30. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is news for nerds, not news for average persons. If somebody here hasn't heard of the Kelvin scale, their nerd card should be officially revoked anyway.

    31. Re:100 times colder than what? by codemaster2b · · Score: 1

      If coldness is a measure of the absence of heat, or energy, then something which is 100x colder contains 100x less heat/energy. 0.03K contains 100x less energy than 3K, since K is a direct measure of energy content.

      --
      And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
    32. Re:100 times colder than what? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You are the average Joe. You see an article which uses "0.03K" to describe temperature. Do you:

      a) Remember that K stands for Kelvin, a measure of temperature in which 0 is absolute zero.
      b) Google for "temperature K", find the Wikipedia page, and discover what Kelvin is.
      c) Mutter something about those stupid journalists writing stuff nobody can understand, and skip to the next article.

      If you chose A or B, you are incorrect!

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    33. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kelvin? Isn't that one of the 3 chipmunks.. Kelvin, Simon, Theodore?

    34. Re:100 times colder than what? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Let's just say it's about 2.7 degrees K colder than intergalactic space. It's less dramatic, but more to the point.

      No - because most of us don't know how cold intergalactic space is to start with, and then the 2.7 is still somewhat arbitrary sounding even if intergalactic space was stated to be 3 K. Why not 2.8 or 2.9 or 2.999? Saying 100 times colder indicates a particular order of magnitude was selected for the work, and who knows where we'll be at even greater orders of magnitude?

      Another No - it's actually 2.97 K colder.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    35. Re:100 times colder than what? by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much the same state our (USA) measurement system is in. I personally wouldn't mind using centimeters/kilometers/grams opposed to our "less" useful system.

      But you are right, the problem is that it requires EVERYONE to change, which no one does. When I want to hear kph, I always get mph regardless. So keeping 2 measuring systems in my head is hard enough.

      It's kind of like languages. When you are surrounded by a language the first 20 years of your life, its hard to 'think' in another language in your head even if you do learn to speak another language fluently. You would almost need the next 20 years of not speaking your native language, and I'm pretty sure when I ask how fast car 'x' can go here, I'm going to get mph in the response, and no, me immigrating to a place that uses kph for 20+ years won't change the system over here.

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    36. Re:100 times colder than what? by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      lest a Christian decides to sue when they mention water turns solid at 32 degrees F since their messiah could clearly walk on it in the middle east where it tends to be warmer than that

      I think you've got it backwards. I've never heard of any case in the last 30 years where a public school teacher got in trouble for NOT catering to a religion. Rather, teachers who have religious beliefs have to be very careful even mentioning them in class because of all the ANTI-religious lawsuits that have occured. There have been groups trying to get "I.D." or voluntary prayer or whatnot INTO schools by political means, but not by lawsuits (at least not that I've heard about).

      To get back on topic: I, for one, had never heard a temperature expressed as "100 times colder than". It may be common in some circles, but apparently I wasn't the only one that hadn't heard it.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    37. Re:100 times colder than what? by nemo11 · · Score: 1

      Question -- I never really understood this. I'm not a scientist but I thought that the only thing that could have a temperature is matter, and that space is the absence of matter. How can a vacuum have a temperature?

    38. Re:100 times colder than what? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Q: What is the difference between a duck?
      A: Two feet.

      Now, let's see what horrible responses I get from those who don't understand this joke.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    39. Re:100 times colder than what? by Loko+Draucarn · · Score: 1

      The LoC stores at 10 C, or 283.15 K, or about 9438 times warmer than the 0.03 K the object is created at.

    40. Re:100 times colder than what? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Wait, okay, so Kelvin is -273.15C or -459.67F

      That looks like an absolute number to me.

      So, Kelvin and Celsius are roughly the same scale, so to get the Celsius you would simply add 2.7 to -273.15C, which is -270.45C. That sounds like an absolute number to me

      So, 100 times colder than intergalactic space, we are looking at a temperature of about -27,045C. Once again, this sounds like a deffinate number to me.

    41. Re:100 times colder than what? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      4 is 4 times as big as 1.
      Most people (and all marketers) would say it's 4 times bigger.

      I know you're my "Foe", and as such you were just replying to me out of spite, jealous of my insightful mod.

    42. Re:100 times colder than what? by thirty-seven · · Score: 1

      "kph"? WTF? If you're using kph instead of km/h, then you're part of the problem.

      --

      Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    43. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I learned about K in 4th grade so hah!

    44. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average person isn't on slashdot...

    45. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, how do you write "/" in a character set which does not have it?

    46. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It tastes more like regular DrPepper.

      -- Actual tag line from a Diet DrPepper commercial.

    47. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Air is expensive! (No, it's not an ideal gas. Yes, it's a plenty good approximation for a high school chemistry class)

    48. Re:100 times colder than what? by welshmnt · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between a dog?

      One of it's legs is both the same.

      Frank Carson - Tiswas

    49. Re:100 times colder than what? by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

      So, Kelvin and Celsius are roughly the same scale

      Roughly? how about, they *are* the same scale, just transposed 273.15 [units]
      http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-2/table3.html

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    50. Re:100 times colder than what? by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      My apologies, like I was saying, I hardly use it. I knew it sounded funny though, but since spell checker didn't care, I figured I would go with the flow.

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    51. Re:100 times colder than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets just say that Fahrenheit is the most stupid scale EVER ! what scientist would make a scale after body temperature, and he even got the body temperature wrong. kelvin is used scientifically and for everyday-temperature Celsius is by far the most logic temperature scale and how neat that the 2 are proportional ;)

    52. Re:100 times colder than what? by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      Is that Joe Six pack, or Joe the Plumber?

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    53. Re:100 times colder than what? by againjj · · Score: 1

      I would actually go farther than "doesn't hurt", and say there should be a clear value, both to help the technically minded and to inform the masses about temperature. But that was not my point above, and so didn't bring it up.

    54. Re:100 times colder than what? by againjj · · Score: 1

      When I say "absolute scale" I mean one where zero is pinned to the absence of whatever you are measuring. What you say is true for all linear scales, but not all linear scales are absolute, and not all absolute scales are linear. (Kelvin, however, is both. Bels (think decibel) are neither.) Basically, a scale is a coordinate system on a half line or ray, and is only an absolute scale if the origin of the coordinate system is on the origin of the ray. I would not think of a size scale where I am zero feet tall and my wife -1 feet tall as an absolute scale.

  23. An exercise in relativity by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

    100 times colder than intergalactic space

    Does space even have a temperature?

    Well, if I remember correctly from winters in elementary school:
    Space's temperature, according to my 1st grade teacher, is "Really cold"...

    If I remember correctly from winters in elementary school:
    "Super Cold" is about 2 times colder than "Really Cold"
    "F*cking cold" is about 10 times colder than "Really Cold"
    "FREEZING" is about 5 times colder than "Cold"
    So 100 times colder than intergalactice space would be "Super F*cking FREEZING!" (said while shivering for effect)

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  24. Not a new state of matter at all by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Informative

    From comments in TFA:

    The researcher, Dr. Guillaume Gervais, is director of McGill University's Ultra-Low Temperature Condensed Matter Experiment Lab. There's nothing in the journal letter about "a new state of matter". The McGill Newsroom article quotes him as saying to the interviewer, "It's actually not quite 3-D, it's an in-between state, a totally new phenomenon" as compared with the 2-D electron crystals that transistors and IC chips are made of. The interviewer, or an editor, thought "Physics -- state -- new state of matter". Engadget's Melanson picked up the error and passed it on uncritically.

  25. SSDs by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Just be thankful we have SSDs now - I'm not sure HDs would be compatible with such a system!

    1. Re:SSDs by Kagura · · Score: 1

      They should make a circuit board that handles interactions between exchangeable parts... and everything should be defined by software, hardware, and form factor standards... it would be great. We could even call them "motherboards" or something... we'll have to see. ;)

  26. Homer Simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dr. Guillaume Gervais, director of McGill's Ultra-Low Temperature Condensed Matter Experiment Lab, describes them in terms of a ham sandwich, where the ham -- the two-dimensional crystal -- represents a flat plane that constrains the movement of the electrons in two dimensions.

    Mmmmmm, ham sandwich. Now, off to topology for donuts! Mmmmmmm, donuts.

  27. Another Ice-nine dupe by xactuary · · Score: 3, Funny

    We Bokononists prefer to call it Ice-nine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokononism

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  28. Why would we want to? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Why would we want to extend Moore's law? I mean, why merely double the number of transistors every 18 months (or however it goes)? Why not increase the number of transistors by a factor of five, or ten in a single year? It seems stupid to me to limit yourself.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Why would we want to? by Alyred · · Score: 1

      Why would we want to only build the world's tallest build a few floors higher than the last? Why not add 100, 200 more floors? ;) Probably an exaggerated metaphor, but it's along the same idea. Limiting the transistors on a processor is not a function of desire, so much as it is a problem of heat, data access, speed, power consumption... the infrastructure that makes up the chip itself needs to be able to utilize all those transistors without generating too much heat, etc.

  29. Re:100x colder than space? Absolut? by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mr. Peabody, and his boy Sherman, used the Wayback Machine.

    The 3DBB was used by Phineas J. Whoopee, when he was educating Tennessee Tuxedo and his walrus pal, Chumley.

    Look at my ID. I am old... old as dirt! :)

    I used to watch these, as well as "The World of Commander McBragg", and the ever-popular Underdog. "The secret compartment of my ring I fill with an Underdog super-vitamin energy pill." The people involved in the supposed live-action remake of Underdog should all be lowered into wood chippers feet first... and slowly.

    --
    wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
  30. Nothing wrong with "100 times colder" by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

    Yes. A few degrees above absolute zero. Which means taht "100 times colder" is, of course, physically impossible, or meaningless.

    This is what happens when your science reporter flunked high school science.

    The phrase "100 times colder" is commonly understood to mean at a temperature 1/100 of that being compared. Average temperature of outer space is 3 K, so, "100 times colder" would be .03 K. So, the phrasing is perfectly acceptable.

    1. Re:Nothing wrong with "100 times colder" by taustin · · Score: 0, Troll

      A thousand years ago, it was commonly understood that the sun revolved around the earth. That didn't make it correct.

    2. Re:Nothing wrong with "100 times colder" by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      Apples and oranges. Belief that the earth was at the center is provably wrong. "100 times colder" is a construct in language used to denote a concept that inherently is talking about a lesser quantity using the comparative form of an adjective.

      If there is a better way to express this idea ("100 times colder") that would still flow naturally as part of the language, then I would be more than pleased to know what it is.

    3. Re:Nothing wrong with "100 times colder" by taustin · · Score: 1

      It's a scientific article using terminology that is scientifically meaningless. That means the article is meaningless.

    4. Re:Nothing wrong with "100 times colder" by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      How is it scientifically meaningless? What would be a scientifically meaningful way to express the concept?

    5. Re:Nothing wrong with "100 times colder" by taustin · · Score: 1

      In order for it to be 100 times colder, you must know what it is 100 times colder than. Since it is literally impossible to be 100 times colder than the 3 degree Kevlin that is the background temperature of space, and there is no other obvious number, it is meaningless.

      How about "x.x degrees colder than . . ."? That would be technically accurate, and actually say something.

    6. Re:Nothing wrong with "100 times colder" by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      We do know what it's colder than. It's 100 times colder than 3 K. 100 times colder does not mean 100 degrees less, it means colder by a factor of 100, ie, divided by 100 (like I have mentioned already). That's not impossible. 100 times colder than background is .03 K. If space were 100 K then 100 times colder would be 1 K. I'm not sure why you have such an issue with the language here. Maybe it's because were talking about "times" with a comparative that denotes "less". In that case, just think of it as dividing by fractions ("...flip the second and multiply") because that's pretty much what that phrase is talking about.

      Also your suggestion of "x.x degrees colder than" is not technically accurate, because Kelvin is not measured in degrees; it's an absolute scale.

    7. Re:Nothing wrong with "100 times colder" by taustin · · Score: 1

      People like you are the reason America is falling behind in science.

  31. The Big Bang Theory by BorgAssimilator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As soon as I saw the title I thought of that one episode from The Big Bang Theory where they give a presentation on the new form of matter.

    Completely unrelated, I just thought it was funny.

    --
    "Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
    -Londo Mollari
  32. ABout your sig by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I looked it up because it caught my eye.
    So they fill a paper cup, then dump it into you travel mug(yeah you) then toss the cup?

    Hmm. I understand why they can't use your mug for the creation of the drink, but I wonder why they just don't use a ceramic cup for the preparation.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  33. Moore's Law isn't just about silicon any more by mschuyler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since there are already numerous posts invoking the applicability (or not) of Moore's Law, I thought I would start over. Although Gordon Moore certainly formulated his law based on silicon (original is here: http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/.) it can be applied clear back to 1890 with the Hollerith 'computer' that tabulated the 1890 census. When you graph it out, Moore's Law applies to electro-mechanical switches, then to relays, then to vacuum tubes, then transistors themselves (like in a six transistor radio of the 50's), then on to silicon. It's still the same exponential curve, in five separate states, only the last one of which is silicon. Kurzweil discusses this in depth here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1. People who claim Moore's Law doesn't apply because this isn't traditional silicon acreage are missing the point, which is that not only is Moore's Law more encompassing than the originally envisioned, it is not going away any time soon. The imminent death of Moore's Law, as always, has been greatly exaggerated.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:Moore's Law isn't just about silicon any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moore's law isn't a law about technology at all, it's a law about human ingenuity.

    2. Re:Moore's Law isn't just about silicon any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good post, and exactly right. Pretty soon, singularity and Kurzweil are going to become household names. Kurzweil's insights have been amazing, and highly accurate to date. Very exciting times.

    3. Re:Moore's Law isn't just about silicon any more by noigmn · · Score: 1

      Maybe Moore's Law should include the size of the cooling system (0.03K) and the magnet (biggest in the world) that you'll need inside your computer to create the state.

      --
      Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    4. Re:Moore's Law isn't just about silicon any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Major breakthrough, like electro-mechanical switches and transistors, are unpredictable.

      Believing, as Kurzweil does, that in the future there will be breakthrough which will make Moore's law go on forever just because it is what happened in the previous century is pseudo-science.

    5. Re:Moore's Law isn't just about silicon any more by Explodicle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Major breakthrough, like electro-mechanical switches and transistors, are unpredictable.

      Believing, as Kurzweil does, that in the future there will be breakthrough which will make Moore's law go on forever just because it is what happened in the previous century is pseudo-science.

      You are misrepresenting Kurzweil; he claims Moore's law will go on until until 2045 (not forever) based on the events of the last 4 billion years (not just the previous century). It's also worth noting that there are many sciences based on unpredictable events, such as evolutionary biology and seismology.

    6. Re:Moore's Law isn't just about silicon any more by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's almost like Moore didn't think things through. Why, the wood furnace and turbine I need to run my billion-vacuum-tube computer takes up the entire city block!

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  34. Radiant temperature. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    You don't need matter to have a temperature. Even in a "perfect" vacuum (i.e. nothing but quantum fluctuation transient particle-antiparticle pairs) there is still radiant energy in the form of photons - and their wavelength distribution corresponds to a temperature.

    It's the temperature at which a black-body test object, bathed continuously in photons of that frequency distribution, would neither warm up nor cool down further.

    The radiant temperature of the sky far from the influence of nearby galaxies is known as the "cosmic background temperature". It's about 4 degrees absolute - corresponding to the light from the big bang red-shifted down a LOT by cosmic expansion.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Radiant temperature. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's about 4 degrees absolute... More accurately: about 2.725 +- .002 degrees Kelvin. Also know as the "cosmic microwave background radiation".

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  35. Extending Moore's law? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    If it doesn't go onto a desktop chip, I am not sure Moore's law is being extended by this theoretical application.

  36. Nonono! by jd · · Score: 1

    They do mean 100 times colder! By being below absolute zero, distances and therefore time becomes negative. With sufficient negativity, they can produce a Pentium that'll give you the wrong answer before you provide it with the data!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Nonono! by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      You know, that's awfully negative.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  37. Oblig by A440Hz · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, the State matters you.

  38. I tohught we already knew... by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

    that there was a different state of matter at absolute zero. At least I was under the impression we did.

    1. Re:I tohught we already knew... by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      We don't know of anything AT absolute zero. Just what's NEAR it. We've never gotten to 0K yet. And there are several states of matter near absolute zero. Bose-Einstein condensate, superfluids (Helium comes to mind), among others as well IIRC. What really impresses me is this is with electrons not atoms or molecules, but single particles. I would like to know how electron repulsion/degeneracy comes into effect here. (I assume since it is at low densities that it might not have as great an effect.)

  39. Why the unnecesary laymanspeak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Approximately 100 times colder than intergalactic space"

    Call me a troll if you must, but this is 'news for nerds'. Why not just give us the temperature in Kelvin?

    1. Re:Why the unnecesary laymanspeak? by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      Call me a troll if you must ...

      Get thee back to Orgrimmar, Darkspear swine!

      , but this is 'news for nerds'. Why not just give us the temperature in Kelvin?

      You must be new here.

  40. Zardoz already had this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been there, seen it, nothing new. move along...

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

  41. What is the name for this new matter? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Is it called Dilithium Crystals? ;)

    Can it focus an antimatter explosion through it to power a "warp drive"? :)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  42. Re:It came from... by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lucky, outer space certainly seems like the only place to cheaply get that amount of cooling.

    --
    "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
  43. Actually, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually, Hackers are clever people who extend or modify hardware or software in ways not originally intended. A person who breaks into a computer is a Cracker.

    At some point, you just have to give up on this stuff...

    1. Re:Actually, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I think you should give up. "Gay" no longer means "happy", "woman" can apply to a single mom (contrary to what the etymology would indicate) and "hacker" is someone who breaks into computer systems.
      Language changes. Deal with it.

  44. Re:100x colder than space? Absolut? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    How about New Zoo Review:

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

    ? hehehe... we're aging ourselves...

    hehehe

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  45. Cut the crap by salad_fingers · · Score: 0

    I am getting really tired of these articles that come out every other month touting some new technology as the replacement to the standard npn or pnp transistor model. First it was the cross-switch then it was some stupid crystal, then a strand of DNA...give me a break already. All these exotic solutions exist solely in academia and never end up being viable in the commercial realm. Yes yes, I hear you yelling "But a lot of past inventions came from academia!!". I am referring just to transistors here, and the tendency to hype up every new concept as a potential replacement to existing fabrication techniques.

    A real breakthrough actually came in 2007 when the industry replaced polysilicon gates with high-k metal ones, a breakthrough that was accomplished through research at IBM, not a university.

    In addition, I am sick of every transistor article mentioning Moore's "Law". Originally Gordon Moore noticed a trend, and made a prediction. Now companies are forcing themselves to innovate so as not to "fall behind" the Moore curve. This is a good thing, as it causes innovation, but the trend he noticed should not be considered a law by any means.

  46. Dumbing Down by daveime · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know, we *can* understand Kelvin ... or can we expect the next comparison as "1000 times colder than a polar bear's left testicle".

    1. Re:Dumbing Down by VShael · · Score: 1

      or can we expect the next comparison as "1000 times colder than a polar bear's left testicle".

      Fscking Hell! Now that is cold!

    2. Re:Dumbing Down by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      For those using SI units, that's 837.2 times colder than the right testicle...

  47. x times colder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does one measure x times colder than something?
    5C is half as warm as 10C, so is that 2 times colder? What if I measured in F?
    Isn't space about 3K? What's 100 times colder? 0.3K? Or was that measured in C? 270C x 100 = -2700C? Below absolute 0?

    I understand saying x times ???er to say size, weight, etc, but for temperature where we have 2 arbitrary 0's and 1 theoretical 0?

  48. Forgive those Montrealers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They smoke too much dope and make outlandish statements about their work to get more money to fund their dope, er... research.

  49. Cold fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like cold fusion's back and more applicable than ever!

  50. Obviously by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible

    The relevant law of Nature is: "Nature abhors a vacuum."
    And since it is Mother Nature, the relevant reason behind this law is the old Mother's law: "Because I said so".

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  51. Yes but can it keep beer cold? by DJRumpy · · Score: 0

    Lets face it...one needs to have priorities ;)

  52. Moore's Law? by DeadPixels · · Score: 1

    Can anyone explain exactly why this is considered as a potential "solution" to extending Moore's Law? I'm not clear on how this discovery - interesting as it is - related to Moore's Law.

  53. intergalactic space at 3 K? by Nick12534 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Intergalactic space is not at 2.7 K. Especially in galaxy clusters, the temperature of the intergalactic medium is often millions of degrees Kelvin. Even in more remote places far from galaxy clusters, it's still much warmer than 2.7 K. The 2.7 K figure is the temperature associated with the cosmic microwave background radiation, not the intergalactic medium.

  54. 4 more years of Moore's Law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think Americans can take four more years of the same failed Moore's Law policies. Hasn't worked under Bush and won't work in the future.

  55. Most of another dimension? by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 1

    "We decided to tweak the two-dimensionality by applying a very large magnetic field, using the largest magnet in the world at the Magnet Lab in Florida," he said. "You only have access to it for about five days a year, and on the third day, something totally unexpected popped."

    Gervais's "pop" was the startling transformation of a two-dimensional electron system inside the semiconducting material into a quasi-three-dimensional system, something existing theory did not predict.

    "It's actually not quite 3-D, it's an in-between state, a totally new phenomenon," he said. "This is the kind of thing the theoreticians love. Now they're scratching their heads and trying to fine-tune their models."

    They should write a new book: "Dimension-hacking for fun and profit."

    --
    Free unix account: freeshell.org
  56. Re:It came from... by Kagura · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

    Hmmm... this is definitely going to extend Moore's Law in home computing... sure. ;)

  57. Name of the new state is... by marcushnk · · Score: 2, Funny

    The sub prime state... You can pay for it and sell it but when you look at it hard enough it's not really there...

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  58. Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Intergalactic space is about 2 or 3 Kelvin. Getting down to 100 times colder than that - 20 or 30 millikelvin - requires a Helium 3 dilution fridge. Helium 3 is a rare (and expensive) helium isotope. Physics labs can afford this sort of equipment, but we're not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon.

    Helium makes your voice sound funny if you breathe it in.

    1. Re:Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intergalactic space is about 2 or 3 Kelvin. Getting down to 100 times colder than that - 20 or 30 millikelvin - requires a Helium 3 dilution fridge. Helium 3 is a rare (and expensive) helium isotope. Physics labs can afford this sort of equipment, but we're not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon.

      Helium makes your voice sound funny if you breathe it in.

      No shit, Sherlock?

  59. Re:It came from... by Moryath · · Score: 3, Funny

    Moore's law... hell this is going to extend the calculation of the user's home heating/cooling costs past what will fit on a single page.

    On the upside, calculating that kind of cost may lead to the finding of a new prime number or two.

  60. more powerful? by dwater · · Score: 1

    > following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth.

    Isn't the Earth itself the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth?

    If it were actually talking about the magnet itself, then it could be argued that the Earth's magnet is it's core, which isn't *on* Earth but *in* Earth ... but they said 'magnetic field', so I think they're wrong.

    --
    Max.
  61. sounds like they found by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    ice-9

    --
    Nullius in verba
  62. Anyone who does not know what K is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anyone who does not know what K is won't read the article.

  63. Misleading article by PermanentMarker · · Score: 1

    The article is verry misleading, its only about an new discovered (quantum) stateof matter.
    Altough that in itself is big news for those who study the matter the world is made of.
    It doesnt mean that every discovery in this field lead to better chips.
    It's actualy quite unlikely that we would get such chips under search weird environment conditions running.
    So it might be usefull for our understanding of matter, and that might be of some help.

    Otherwise we could also say it possibly cures cancer and Hiv, and maybe our next energy source.
    What i'm saying is the news is scientific but the reporting was verry un-scientific.
    For those reporters better just stay with the fact, your not a fund raiser !!

    --
    I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
  64. Dark Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For any given particle, you can't know its exact position and velocity. Particles can never reach absolute zero because then you would be able to determine their position since you know their velocity would thus be zero given they have no energy by definition of absolute zero. An extension of that then is if you know a particle's velocity you will never be able to determine its position. If you can't determine its position you can't determine whether it is really outside a vacuum. You may be able to say it isn't in the middle of the volume which represents the vaccum but at the boundary you can't say for sure whether the particle is on the inside of the vacuum or outside. This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

    It seems there is an error in reasoning there. Line of thought begins with "I have a particle (implying ''I know particle's approximate position at first'') and then I cool it down until it reaches absolute zero...oops, can't do that!".

    No, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle merely states that if a particle has zero temperature you won't be able to find it (determine its position).

    Position and velocity are not the only physical properties of a particle. There is, e.g. the mass of a particle. Could this be the explanation for elusive "Dark Matter", space is not empty but filled with heavy particles at 0K ?

  65. sig? What sig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better quote something there fella. I have sigs turned off on general principles and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

  66. TFS is confused by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    It doesn't make sense to talk of "N times colder" full stop. 3K isn't a measure of coldness, and to define coldness as the reciprocal of temperature is arbitrary. "...a device cooled to 1% of the temperature of intergalactic space" reads perfectly well and uses well-defined terms.

  67. Re:It came from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Insightful"? What the...? Either you don't know cooling is a HUGE problem in outer space, either the mods didn't get the joke.

    Hint: here on earth, we cool stuff by dumping the extra heat onto air molecules, and keeping the air fresh (e.g. with a fan) so that there's a continuous supply of air to dump heat on. In outer space, there is pretty much nothing to dump the extra heat on. Know how thermos bottles work? That's right, with vacuum. Outer space is the best insulation there is ;-)

  68. Three Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explain to me how something can be '100 times as cold'?

    This opens up a whole new realm of deceptive advertising.

    -Purpler than the next leading brand!
    -Now with 30% more AWESOME!

  69. Moore's Law DIED years ago! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are you trying to kid here?
    Seriously, Moore's Law failed about the time of the 3ghz P4 chip.
    I think that the only truthful thing Steve Balmer has said in the last 30 years was when he pointed out that all Intel is doing is giving user multiple processors because they can't make the cores any faster by them selves.

  70. The Moore's Law Olympics: by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

    Faster-Higher-Stronger.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  71. 100 times colder? by PontifexMaximus · · Score: 1

    Okay, let's do the math here, if space is ~3K, then that puts this 'new transistor' material at about .03K or 3 HUNDREDTHS of a degree above absolute zero.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I'm willing to be the properties of this will not be the same at room temp, or even close to room temperature. And I rather doubt the performance of the transistors will outweigh the eneergy requirements needed to keep it at that cold a temp.

    So, why is this news exactly?

    --
    Pax Vobiscum
  72. Can I by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    I'll nominate your post for the first use of this new mod category...

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  73. "Away from stars" by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    ... hence why TFA specified intergalactic space.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  74. The problem with "x times colder"... by gumpish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's the problem... when you say things like "x times SMALLER than" and "x times COLDER than" people think "oh, something TIMES something... I have to multiply."

    But with diminishing comparisons (smaller, colder, etc) you're actually multiplying by a decimal, which most people regard as DIVISION.

    Worse, when you say something like "100 times colder than" people think not just "I have to multiply" but rather "I have to multiply something by 100".

    Let's save everyone a headache and if you want to make a comparison, use the most explicit form possible. In this case, "1/100th the temperature of intergalactic space" (or just give us the damn Kelvins).

    To paraphrase an AC's earlier post:

    Temperature is a quantity.

    "Coldness" is not.

  75. Don't forget "UP TO" ... by argent · · Score: 1

    In fact I've got up to ten times MORE awesome in my little finger than you have in your whole body.

    It does ache a bit in cold weather, though.

  76. Re:It came from... by durnurd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just to make sure everybody knows: The necessary magnetic field and temperature applications are required only during the creation of the crystals.

    --
    --Edward Dassmesser
  77. Re:Hell Yeah! yea right!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing new here, it was taken from the alien spacecrafts, Roswell July 7 1947 incident and other crashes, we did have that material for many years just didn't know how to use it. Us gov also have they hands fully into this project but you will never see that in the daylight / If you look at all of the reports from abduction cases and other first person reports, they all say crystals are being used.. now go ahead and start the flame engine /

  78. Re:It came from... by Dishevel · · Score: 0

    Shame on you. Running around RTFA'ing. Making the rest of us /.'ers looking bad.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  79. Re:It came from... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What implications does this have for the big bang? I assume that before the big bang, space was colder, thusly opening the door for for creation of this type of matter before the universe heated. Does this have implications beyond computing?

  80. Re:It came from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In space, no one can hear you scream, eh?

  81. Does Space Have a Temperature? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Does space even have a temperature? Vacuum insulates rather well and the biggest problem of many space-born devices (think ISS) is getting rid of excess heat. The famous Star Trek line of "It's very cold in space" doesn't really match the reality.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Does Space Have a Temperature? by Urkki · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does space even have a temperature? Vacuum insulates rather well and the biggest problem of many space-born devices (think ISS) is getting rid of excess heat. The famous Star Trek line of "It's very cold in space" doesn't really match the reality.

      There's the redshifted afterglow of the original Big Bang "fireball", also known as the cosmic microwave background radiation. It's equal to heat radiation of an object at about 3K. If you make something colder than that and throw it into intergalactic space, it'll heat up to that temperature. If something is warmer than that, and there's no heating, then it'll cool down to that temperature. So I'd say space *is* cold.

      Closest example of a place that always experiences almost the true temperature of space are the bottoms of the polar craters of the Moon. They are eternally in shade, no sunshine, no earthshine, only distant starts and whatever little heat is conducted through lunar crust.

  82. Well, of COURSE! by FishAdmin · · Score: 1

    It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

    That certainly lends itself to easy mass-production! Heck, we can all do that in our basements!

    --
    Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
  83. Could you be any more wrong? by Noren · · Score: 1

    According to wikipedia, Intergalactic space is between 100000 and 10000000 K. Reading comprehension much?

    I don't want my PC to be running between 1000K and 1000000K, that's way too hot!

  84. Most powerful magnet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

    Should the word "artifical" have been used in that sentence or are they saying they've got a magnet in a lab somewhere that is string enough to pull every compass needle on the planet?

  85. Yeah, that's ready to go to market by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    "It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

    They should have that working by Tuesday. Intel and AMD no doubt already have patented the chip and are building the foundries.

    Right.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!