Slashdot Mirror


Rydberg Molecule Created For the First Time

krou writes "The BBC is reporting that the Rydberg molecule has been formed from two atoms of rubidium. Proven in theory, this is the first time it's been created, reinforcing the fundamental quantum theories of Enrico Fermi. Chris Greene, the theoretical physicist who first predicted that the Rydberg molecules could exist, said: 'The Rydberg electron resembles a sheepdog that keeps its flock together by roaming speedily to the outermost periphery of the flock, and nudging back towards the centre any member that might begin to drift away.' It's a sheepdog with a very short life-span, however; the longest lived molecule only lasted 18 microseconds. Vera Bendkowsky, who led the research, explained how they created the molecule: 'The nuclei of the atoms have to be at the correct distance from each other for the electron fields to find each other and interact. We use an ultracold cloud of rubidium — as you cool it, the atoms in the gas move closer together. We excite the atoms to the Rydberg stage with a laser. If we have a gas at the critical density, with two atoms at the correct distance that are able to form the molecule, and we excite one to the Rydberg state, then we can form a molecule.'"

127 comments

  1. First Molecule! by mrslacker · · Score: 4, Funny

    'Nuff said.

    1. Re:First Molecule! by lintocs · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, will this result in the elimination of pattern baldness, or just "natural male enhancement"?

    2. Re:First Molecule! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      No, there's no possibility of baldness treatments or cancer cures this time; however, Scientists Say the New Discovery Could Result in the Creation of Faster Microprocessors(tm).

      (What, they didn't say that this time? Somebody in the university's PR department must've dropped the ball.)

  2. TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 4, Informative

    They really are short lived. 18 seconds would be an eternity for them, apparently.

    (So, the summary here presently says "the longest lived molecule only lasted 18 seconds." whereas the article says "the longest lived Rydberg molecule survives for just 18 microseconds." Rather large difference.)

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
    1. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's seven orders of magnitude between friends?

      18 microseconds here, 18 microseconds there, before you know it, we're going to be wasting a lot of time!

      ...Here all week, veal, etc.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by mrslacker · · Score: 4, Informative

      > What's seven orders of magnitude between friends?

      Still out by an order of magnitude ;-)

      Anyway, "very short" (as the original article says) in the context of particle physics has often meant measurements of the order of nanoseconds (say, nuclear bomb testing measurements) or even much much small for big bang (Planck time, etc).

    3. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Pearlswine · · Score: 3, Informative

      I bet the submitter used the micro symbol. For some reason that symbol disappears when the story is either submitted or reaches the main page. I couldn't even copy/paste it into this comment

    4. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Of course the editors are going to sensationalize! You can't capture an audience if your summary states 18 microseconds.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by johanatan · · Score: 0

      Mrs. Lacker, is that you? My fifth grade teacher?

    6. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by lgw · · Score: 5, Funny

      The bundle of perl scipts known as Slashcode don't support UTF8 text, or really anything beyone 1960s ASCII. While it would be nice to update slashdot to the current millenium, it's not physically possible to maintain perl code so we're stuck with it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm... not even HTML entities work: 18 µs = 18 s = 18 s (numeric entity)

      Sorry, but the /. developers should be ashamed. They are the only site I know, that does not support UTF-8...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Informative? Who let the mods-on-crack out?

    9. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1, Funny

      And they need to get on that, because I really want to use snowman and jolly roger unicode symbols in my posts!

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    10. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well, I'd more care to use the real apostrophe, real quotes, the ellipsis character, list point, wide dash, Euro symbol, mathematical symbols, write foreign names and many other useful characters, that are on my keyboard. :)

      Instead I am forced to use really stupid replacements.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    11. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's seven orders of magnitude between friends?...

      That's what I always tell the ladies. I mean, 10 inches, 10 micro inches... same thing right? Right...?
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    12. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know how Slashdotters like to lie about the size of their molecules!

    13. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Facegarden · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, I'd more care to use the real apostrophe, real quotes, the ellipsis character, list point, wide dash, Euro symbol, mathematical symbols, write foreign names and many other useful characters, that are on my keyboard. :)

      Instead I am forced to use really stupid replacements.

      Foreign names, who the hell cares about foreign names!? ;)

      Also, my keyboard has snowmen.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    14. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by tritonman · · Score: 0, Troll

      so where does it go after 18 microseconds? Get zapped into some parallel universe where only theoretical particles can survive?

    15. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mathematical symbols would be super handy on a site that claims to appeal to nerds though.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    16. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Dahan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It used to support Unicode, but apparently, due to people using control characters (RTL overrides and such) to do clever things, anything non-ASCII is now filtered or mangled. Too bad they went overboard--seems like the easy way to fix this would be to only filter out control characters. Unicode publishes a handy database that you can use to find out which characters are control characters.

    17. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the bright side their RSS feeds generally don't require you to parse anything past the XML, which is kinda' nifty.

    18. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by sarahbau · · Score: 0

      Yeah. When I read the summary's "18 seconds," I was thinking that it was an extremely long time for something like this.

    19. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      That depends on which side of the gun you are my friend...

      --
      -- dnl
    20. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by krou · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd like to say "Hmmm, yes, that's exactly what I did when I submitted it", and look less of an idiot, but I'm afraid it was a mistake on my part when I submitted it. In my defence, all I can say is I have an attention span of 18 seconds ;)

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    21. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it dissociates back into two independent atoms. I mean duh, what were you thinking?

    22. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Noren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, but this is a chemical experiment, though the physics aspects are certainly interesting. Of course, all chemistry is physics but not all physics is chemistry.

      18 microseconds is on the short lived side for chemistry. On the other hand, The time that it takes a chemical bond to form or break is typically measured in femtoseconds, so this is long enough to demonstrate that it lasts several orders of magnitude longer than just a random chance approach of unbonded atoms.

    23. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      Well its that last order that pisses him off.

      Seven orders is ok but the eighth and you're off my friends list.

    24. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Gerzel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Me sorry. He looked so lonely in there!

    25. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not about size, it's about length....

       

       

       

       

       

       

      (of time.)

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    26. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      I can't wait to start triforcing on my comments! GAH! 4chan has broken my brain... :'(

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    27. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Still out by an order of magnitude ;-)

      Sigh. Strange that a million of something is e7, but a millionth of something is e-8. European number system fail.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    28. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by sveard · · Score: 1

      That it got zapped into some parallel universe where only theoretical particles can survive.

    29. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by billcopc · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, it's still a figment of their imagination ? I thought these sounded useless at 18 seconds, but 18 microseconds makes them REALLY useless.

      Our R&D dollars at work...

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    30. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Thowllly · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Strange that a million of something is e7, but a millionth of something is e-8. European number system fail.

      You were off by one the other way, one microsecond is e-6. And a million of something is e6, not e7, just as a millionth of something is e-6.

    31. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fail: Your understanding of numbers. A million is e6, a millionth is e-6, fail fail fail.

    32. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Just for that, I'm putting annoying beeps on every computer readout in 2012. Just because I know you like them so much...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    33. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Rufty · · Score: 1

      Slashdot - correct to within six orders of magnitude.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    34. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      No. I think in this case 10 microinches won't make a difference if you are the giver or the taker. No one's going to notice a damn thing. As long as you keep her drunk she won't spread rumors the next day. Or if you're drunk you can say you fell asleep before.. uh. Well you get the idea.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
    35. Re:TFA says "18 microseconds", not "18 seconds" by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      if YOU get a 10 microinch penis and say it doesn't make a difference I won't argue with that! :-)

      --
      -- dnl
  3. Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try 18 microseconds...

  4. Not quite 18 seconds by pauljuno · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just a quick correction here, the molecule did not survive 18 seconds. Here's the text from the article: "This ultracold experiment is also ultra-fast - the longest lived Rydberg molecule survives for just 18 microseconds. "

    1. Re:Not quite 18 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I can undo their experiment with the Omega-13 device since it reverts time by 13 seconds. Hah! And I don't need any sissy rubidium to do it either. I just need a beryllium sphere of sufficient density and have to rig my solar matrix for endothermic propulsion and I'm there.

  5. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you modulate an inverse tachion beam you should be able to get the same results.

    1. Re:Well by orclevegam · · Score: 2, Funny

      You fool, if you fail to polarize the deflector dish first you could cause a subspace tear!

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    2. Re:Well by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I didn't know, that Mr. T worked on the Enterprise. Or was he Worf?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Well by argent · · Score: 1

      You made subspace cry! I'm calling Continuum Protective Services!

    4. Re:Well by Rufy · · Score: 1

      I pity the fool who got injected with a synthetic T-cell!

    5. Re:Well by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      Don't worry; we'll just have CleverNickName come by and reverse the polarity of the anti-tachion field and we'll be fine.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  6. Scotty! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Captain, I canna hold the DiRubidium together any longer..."

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Scotty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Captain, I canna cold the DiRubidium together any longer..."

      here. fixed it for u

  7. Smart and Smarter... by geekmux · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...We use an ultracold cloud of rubidium â" as you cool it, the atoms in the gas move closer together. We excite the atoms to the Rydberg stage with a laser. If we have a gas at the critical density, with two atoms at the correct distance that are able to form the molecule, and we excite one to the Rydberg state, then we can form a molecule."

    Uhhh, yeah, what he said.

    18 seconds or 18 microseconds? Could mean the difference between winning or losing the purse at the first-ever electron bull rodeo...

    1. Re:Smart and Smarter... by CompMD · · Score: 3, Funny

      18 seconds or 18 microseconds.

      Sounds like some Verizon math to me.

  8. What are the implications of this discovery? by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 1

    I RTFA, but can someone more well-versed in Physics explain what sort of implications this has?

    Does it validate some kind of Quantum Mechanics theory?

    Does it have any practical application, either now or in the distant future?

    1. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Inexpesnive flying cars and effective robot wives.

    2. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not much. Being able to create Rydberg molecules via physical experiment just serves to help validate the theories that predict them.

      Now if they had created Zoidberg molecules, the implications would be huge, particularly in the realm of Decapodian cell biology.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not real sure of the implications, but after reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that this kind of molecule may behave more like a single atom with two nuclei than a typical two-atom molecule. This may offer new confinement possibilities in fusion research, but I'm no physicist.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    4. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      In the realm of subatomic physics, if you create a molecule that nobody else has ever seen before, than this is considered conclusive evidence that your penis is much bigger than that of all the other scientists. Hence the implication is that these scientists will score much more with all those nubile, hot young physics groupies. "Oh baby, show me your Bose-Einstein Condensate!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure, there's a Wikipedia article about it. If not... Well, to me it looks like a Bose-Einstein condensate, but made of two whole atoms.
      For those condensates, they use pretty much the same technique.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by d3l33t · · Score: 1

      While the creation of the molecule in itself is amazing, it's the process in how they created it that's more profound.

    8. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      [sigh]

      NOT informative. I answered nothing not gleanable from the first few lines of the summary. It was a setup for a piss-poor attempt at Friday humor.

      I swear, sometimes I feel like I have a "Mod me up inappropriately" note taped to my back.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    9. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People mod you informative to give you karma which +1 funny would not.

      Now stop bitching about getting modded up.

    10. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Given that we can no longer assume /.ers will read a summary properly, much less an article, your post may have been more informative than you think.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    11. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well THAT just got you modded up.

      Again.

      Sometimes (especially on Fridays) who can't win.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Flying cars == no brakes.

      Effective robot wives == x^n nagging quotient.

      I'll pass if it's all the same to you...

    13. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by peragrin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Robot wives is an oxymoron. Robots are logical wives are illogical. Therefore no robot will ever replace the wife. Mistress maybe. Though if it lasts only 18 seconds I have my doubts.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    14. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by east+coast · · Score: 2, Informative

      I swear, sometimes I feel like I have a "Mod me up inappropriately" note taped to my back.

      You must be new around here.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    15. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than the "mod me down inappropriately" note on my back...

    16. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I neither care about nor need karma.

      Moderations should be made accurately, not some other fashion to game the karma system.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    17. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either it is "free karma friday," or someone failed to google "Zoidberg molecule" and didn't know it was a joke.

    18. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by radtea · · Score: 5, Informative

      I RTFA, but can someone more well-versed in Physics explain what sort of implications this has?

      Not my field, but this is my sense of what's going on:

      1) Rydberg atoms have one electron in a very high state of excitation, and look like Bohr-model atoms, as the highly-excited single outer electron is so far from the rest of the atom that the combination of the inner electrons and the nuclear charge look like a point-charge, so the outer electron experiences a 1/r potential. This makes Rydberg atoms theoretically tractable with simple Bohr theory, which is always fun to play with.

      2) Rydberg molecules are make from a Rydberg atom and a normal (unexcited) atom. My guess is that the normal atom is actually inside the "orbit" of the Rydberg atom's outer electron, so it will be slightly polarized by the core field, and the resulting dipole will interact with the electron to produce the bound state. Sounds like a job for linear response theory.

      3) In general, testing systems under such extreme conditions allows us to measure precisely various properties of matter, like the fine structure constant or the electric charge or whatever. I don't know if anything like that will come out of this, but extreme systems often allow for precise tests of esoteric phenomena.

      4) Yes, this does validate quantum theory. No, it probably doesn't have much in they way of practical application, but then again, it doesn't have to.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    19. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by $1uck · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can only hope the moderators were being humorous. zoidberg particles? Or maybe its time to start moving my investment portfolio over to sandwiches.

    20. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by teknognome · · Score: 1

      Subatomic physics doesn't give a shit about molecules, cause they're bigger than atoms. Now if you discover a new subatomic particle, however...

    21. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by hurfy · · Score: 1

      "This makes Rydberg atoms theoretically tractable with simple Bohr theory, which is always fun to play with."

      Damn, i bet you were a riot on play dates!

    22. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Moderations should be made accurately, not some other fashion to game the karma system.

      The moderation / karma system exists with or without your best intentions. People will use it as they see fit, regardless of whether or not you consider it "use" or "abuse".

      Long ago I figured "it's utterly trivial" so I stopped worrying about it. Much easier that way, as I don't have to explain myself to some self-appointed slashdot apologist.

      --
      John
    23. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that as:

      I swear, sometimes I feel like I have a "Mod me up inappropriately" note stapled to my back.

      Ouch.

      capcha word: fastens

    24. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by LatencyKills · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's been something like 20 years, but I did Rydberg atom work (using Helium atoms) back in graduate school (another student was running the vacuum rig, and I was providing the lasers for excitation and containment). As the previous poster wrote, a Rydberg atom has a single electron up in an energy state so high that it is almost unrelated to the atom which (weakly) holds it. The creation of a Rydberg molecule allows for the confirmation of a number of quantum mechanical oddities - things that were predicted by theory but couldn't be measured in a lab. It can also allow some real insight into the nature of shared bonds between atoms in a molecule and studies of weak electromagnetic forces. The Rydberg atoms themselves allowed for interactions involving electrons that were essentially at a zero kinetic energy state, teetering on the edge of a relatively enormous potential well (which is why they tend to last such a short period of time before de-excitation to some lower state).

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    25. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a problem, I only last 18 seconds myself.

    26. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you last less than 18 seconds, could still be ok

    27. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by TheEcho · · Score: 1

      Maybe Rydberg based computers..

    28. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by camperdave · · Score: 1
      Robot wives? Did you not see the ST:TOS episode "I, Mudd"?

      Harcourt! Harcourt Fenton Mudd... What have you been up to? Nothing good I'm sure... Have you been drinking again, you miserable sot. Staying out all night and then giving me some silly story...

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    29. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought people have been doing spectroscopy of Rydberg states of molecules for nearly 2 decades now (possibly longer). What might be "new" about this is forming molecules out of an atom in a Rydberg state and a ground state atom, rather than taking a molecule and exciting it to a Rydberg state. Why that made the BBC news, I don't know, though it's better than the usual "science news" like "Unknown little company XYZ claims to invent process to turn water into gasoline, process will be perfected really soon."

    30. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by noppy · · Score: 1

      I see reverse psychology at work here. Which means this post will be modded down.

    31. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by notarockstar1979 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but 18 seconds is long enough for some people around here...........

    32. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I thought if you shot a laser into a supercooled BEC you slowed down light? Though the setup seems pretty well the same.

    33. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Logos · · Score: 1

      Please don't mod my post up - I hate it when someone thinks I've said something funny when it was really informative or vice versawise not the other and it gets twisted into a comment on the fundamental nature of molecular... oh the hell with it, It's Friday, I'm going for a beer.

      --
      We are agents of the free
    34. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if they had created Zoidberg molecules, the implications would be huge

      Yes. When all of your colleagues are investing their retirement savings into Madoff-Rydberg Molecule Fund shares, "The sandwich-heavy portfolio wins again!!!"

    35. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      The Hydrogen atom is fairly well explored, and has a nucleic charge of +e, while the electron orbiting it has a charge of -e. As the electron becomes excited, it moves farther away from the nucleus until it is finally ionized.

      In more complex atom, such as Rubidium, you have a nucleic charge of +37e, and 37 electrons with a charge of -e surrounding it. When observed from a distance, these add to a net charge of 0, making it neutral.

      If you are able to excite the outermost electron of an atom, the electron will move very far away from the nucleus, such that the nucleus and the other electrons are close together compared to the distance between the excited electron and the nucleus. From this outer electron's perspective, the other parts of the atom combine to form a net charge of +e. With a charge of -e orbiting a charge of +e, this atom will behave like a Hydrogen atom. This is a Rydberg atom.

      What they have done is make a molecule out of two Rydberg atoms made from Rubidium. This should be similar to two Hydrogen atoms making a H2 molecule. Very excited electron energies are unstable and have very brief lifetimes, so it's unusual that the entire molecule would have lasted for 18us.

      --
      Fnord.
    36. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For someone living in Sweden, where Rydberg is a relatively common surname, the name "Rydberg atom" evokes a similar picture, as in "What? Are Rydbergs made of different atoms than everybody else?"

    37. Re:What are the implications of this discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Vera Bendkowsky is a woman.

  9. created on earth for the first time... by gzipped_tar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... but if I remember it correctly, Rydberg molecules have been found in interstellar clouds where both matter density and temperature are very low compared to on-Earth laboratory environments. In space, they are not subjected to frequent interaction with other atoms, which could easily destroy their fragile Rydberg states.

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:created on earth for the first time... by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      really? who flew to an interstellar cloud to find them?

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:created on earth for the first time... by Akido37 · · Score: 1

      really? who flew to an interstellar cloud to find them?

      Don't you watch Star Trek: Voyager? No? You're better off.

    3. Re:created on earth for the first time... by b0ttle · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know we've got spectrometers nowadays.

    4. Re:created on earth for the first time... by hweimer · · Score: 1

      Nah. These are not simply highly excited molecular states (i.e., Rydberg states of molecules), but molecules formed by a novel binding mechanism between one highly excited Rydberg atom (not molecule) and a second ground state atom.

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
  10. Error detected. Oblig End Piece missing. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Error detected. All news stories of esoteric pure science experiments must conclude, "Spokesman for the lab, Dr Sor Eass, said that this phenomenon could lead to faster computers in the next five to ten years."

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Error detected. Oblig End Piece missing. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      No no, not faster computers. That's so last century. 200% more efficient solar panels. That's the ticket.

    2. Re:Error detected. Oblig End Piece missing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think about it, the advances in microprosessor speed and transistor density that have occurred definitely prove that many of those researchers were right - thousands of researchers have collectively made all the small inventions that together result in current microprosessor technology.

  11. Slashdot Frost Posted For The Billionth Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AC writes

    "The WWW is reporting that this post has been formed from two atoms of frostidium. Proven in theory, this is the first time it's been created, reinforcing the fundamental quantum theories of Enrico Palonzo. Chris Rock, the theoretical comedian who first predicted that the frosty molecules could exist, said: 'The AC's post resembles a sheepdog that bangs its master by roaming speedily to the outermost periphery of the flock, and nudging back towards the centre of the owner's derriere.' It's a sheepdog with a very short life-span, however; the longest lived molecule only lasted 18 seconds. Vera BendmeOverkowsky, who led the research, explained how they created the molecule: 'The nuclei of the atoms have to be at the correct distance from each other for the electron fields to yadda yadda yadda. We use an ultracold cloud of frostidium -- as you cool it, the atoms in the flatulated gas move closer together. We excite the atoms to the AC stage with pictures of goatse man photoshopped into a picture of a naked and petrified Natalie Portman on the beach. If we have flatulence at the critical density, with two atoms at the correct distance that are able to form the molecule, and we excite one to the AC state, then we can form a molecule.'"

  12. Eatable form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, these molecules are super short-lived. So to enjoy it better, you need to preserve it by baking into rye bread. Dark, marbled kind is the best. Lasts a week. I recommend roast beef with it.

  13. Can't be done by cwiegmann24 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Unimaginably cold temperatures are needed to create the molecules, as Vera Bendkowsky from the University of Stuttgart who led the research explained."

    If you can't even imagine the cold temperatures, how can they get it cold enough? Shenanagins

    1. Re:Can't be done by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's very easy to get unimaginably cold numbers, unless you are using Kelvins.

      Say your temperature is -64 degrees.
      Now take the square root of that.
      What you have left is a temperature of 8i degrees.
      So we have an imaginary temperature.
      Now, to get an unimaginary cold temperature, you've got to start with a positive temperature that is cold.

      So 4 degrees is cold; furthermore, it is unimaginary, since even if you take a square root you will not get an imaginary number.

      There is no problem with that statement.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Can't be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I can imagine what Vera's nipples look like due to the cold temperatures.....

      captcha: pointed

    3. Re:Can't be done by GetTragic · · Score: 0

      the entire experiment took place in Dick Cheney's soul

  14. Lifespan by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    It's a sheepdog with a very short life-span, however; the longest lived molecule only lasted 18 seconds[sic].

    Man, that's just not fair. It was hard enough when my beagle only lived for 12 years. Now my wife will never want a pet Rydberg!

  15. Basic facts about Rb_2 by modrzej · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've done a little research using Scholar (Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2458 - 2461 (2000)) and it seems that basic facts about Rydberg molecules are: 1) These are molecules made of two atoms of the same kind, enormously separated (minima of potential curves for example at about 1500 atomic units); 2) Because of extremly shallow minima of energy curve in witch they exist, they are unstable, so must be ultra cold; 3) This Rb_2 molecule despite being homonuclear, displays large dipole moment, which is unusual but predicted by theory. The experiment with rubidium described here proves that approximate quantum theory (I bet that existence of this molecule was predicted using Born-Oppenheimer approximation) is capable of describing effects subtle as this one (existence of Rb_2 Rydberg molecule is subtle one). I'm not an expert in relativistic effects, but it seems to me that this example of extremely distant separation of atoms in molecule could call for relativistic treatment: one Rb atom doesn't know of the other at once, because the information about the movement of the other can't travel faster than light. This effect may be big because of separation of these two atoms.

    1. Re:Basic facts about Rb_2 by Option1 · · Score: 1

      My eyes glazed over trying to read that, but I'm pretty sure it was very interesting...

    2. Re:Basic facts about Rb_2 by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      1500 atomic units? If it is what I think it is (750 Angstroems), then it's a awful lot of a distance. It's like three ribosomes.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:Basic facts about Rb_2 by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Scratch this. I think I have a dyslexia.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re:Basic facts about Rb_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultra-cold molecules should be fairly free of relativistic effects. The probable speed (v) for a molecule at a temperature T is given by:

      v = [2kT/m]^(1/2)
      k is Boltzmann's Constant
      T 1 Kelvin
      m is the mass of a Rubidium molecule

      This gives: v 0.018 nm/s

      (This is roughly 1.66996414e18 times to slow for special relativity)

    5. Re:Basic facts about Rb_2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, I'm sure you will have a very productive career in the fast food industry.

  16. 0 Kelvin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me naive, but I predict all kinds of weird physics as one approach absolute zero.

    AC

  17. Easy by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you can't even imagine the cold temperatures, how can they get it cold enough?

    They use the guy who totally lacks imagination to set it up. There's at least one in every lab...

    You can do anything if you literal-minded enough and have someone to tell you what impossible thing to do. :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  18. whats worse than telling an unfunny joke? by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    telling a joke and being taken seriously

    happened to me yesterday: i make a stupid joke about skynet, and apparently someone thinks i was insightful

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1209623&cid=27693127

    wtf? its disturbing to be modded insightful for this. who the hell thinks i was being insightful? why?!

    its like going fishing and catching a dead baby. you made the joke for a little fun, and instead you get a horrible line of thought: someone out there is deadly serious about light hearted mirth

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:whats worse than telling an unfunny joke? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      its like going fishing and catching a dead baby.

      What's not to laugh about that? You can't spell slaughter without laughter.

      Reminds me of a story...

      When I was a kid, my oldest sister was a park ranger at a nearby state park with a lake. One day they get radioed by an old guy on a canoe, who said he caught a body. Sure enough, he had... and in trying to retrieve his lure, he dislodged the body from whatever was holding it under, and it floated to the surface.

      Apparently, he wasn't the first one to hook into it... just the first to retrieve it. When the puddlepolice boat motored out to him, he was furtively cutting lures our of the body and putting them in his tackle box.

      Totally irrelevant, I know.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:whats worse than telling an unfunny joke? by d12v10 · · Score: 1

      Applesauce.

    3. Re:whats worse than telling an unfunny joke? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Actually, some people give karma-affecting mods to funny posts, as "funny" doesn't give any bonus. Therefore, rating funny posts "insightful" counteracts any trolls or flamebaits that poster may have gotten (or will get).

    4. Re:whats worse than telling an unfunny joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      metamoderation

  19. Can you find what does not belong in this picture? by rts008 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...all those nubile, hot young physics groupies...

    Scientist: "Hah! well mine is 100 nanometers!, and can go on for up to 18 microseconds"

    All those nubile, hot young physics groupies: "Ohhhh my! That is so large! And lasts so long!"

    Scientist: "Now who's your Daddy?"

    All those nubile, hot young physics groupies: *squeals of delight, desire, adulation, and one porcine*

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  20. So this means what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they have confirmed a fundamental quantum theory that has been widely accepted, so now that they have proven the theory, this means....?

  21. someone should mod you funny by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    or even better

    INSIGHTFUL and INFORMATIVE ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  22. I get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We excite the atoms to the Rydberg stage with a laser. If we have a gas at the critical density, with two atoms at the correct distance that are able to form the molecule, and we excite one to the Rydberg state, then we can form a molecule."

    I get it - this is the first subatomic porn!

  23. Thank god for tags. by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

    I read "18 seconds" and thought, that is a DAMN DAMN long time in terms of weird particle lifetimes go.

  24. really? that's retarded by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    as if humor is somehow less important on a website which is essentially nothing more than a giant time waster

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. What am I missing? by WindShadow · · Score: 1

    Atoms with a single electron in their outermost shell bond. Sounds like hydrogen H2.