Buckyballs Detected In Space

Cool by mcvos · 2010-07-22 20:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

I thought the fact that these had to be explicitly manufactured and seemed to be a human-invented molecule meant that they'd never appear naturally in space.

Apparently there are no lab conditions on earth that are not duplicated somewhere else in the universe.

Re:Cool by h4rm0ny · 2010-07-22 21:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Apparently there are no lab conditions on earth that are not duplicated somewhere else in the universe
Somewhere out there is an underfunded galaxy filled with old computers that I can't get permission to throw out?

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 21:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Apparently there are no lab conditions on earth that are not duplicated somewhere else in the universe.
Yet I'm sure somebody holds a patent for these molecules.
Re:Cool by MichaelSmith · 2010-07-22 21:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

I thought the fact that these had to be explicitly manufactured and seemed to be a human-invented molecule meant that they'd never appear naturally in space.
Apparently there are no lab conditions on earth that are not duplicated somewhere else in the universe.
Candle flame is loaded with Buckminsterfullerene. These molecules have been right under our noses for that long.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Cool by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-07-22 21:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Candle flame is loaded with Buckminsterfullerene. These molecules have been right under our noses for that long.
Perhaps a more scientific method of detection than "sniffing fire" would have had better results earlier on.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Cool by twisteddk · 2010-07-22 22:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the "news" is that this time they've been detected in space, where there may be less cnadle flames than there's room for ;)

--
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
Re:Cool by MichaelSmith · 2010-07-22 22:13 · Score: 1

Plenty of hot carbon, particularly around supernovas.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Cool by Velox_SwiftFox · 2010-07-22 22:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Soot was just so ordinary no one ever bothered to distill the different molecules out of it, to see if any had unusual properties.
C60 is just too big a fraction, with too distinct properties, to have been missed otherwise for so long.
Re:Cool by coffii · 2010-07-22 23:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Candle flame is loaded with Buckminsterfullerene. These molecules have been right under our noses for that long.
You're telling me there's a bunch of aliens out there with candles? Shit, break out the nukes.

--
Bitter and twisted, DON'T ever FORGET the TWISTED
Re:Cool by CarpetShark · 2010-07-22 23:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Somewhere out there is an underfunded galaxy filled with old computers that I can't get permission to throw out?
No, no, you have permission. Go ahead.
Re:Cool by feidaykin · 2010-07-23 00:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Apparently there are no lab conditions on earth that are not duplicated somewhere else in the universe.
Not the case for temperature. Scientists have cooled a piece of rhodium metal to 100 picokelvin. The coldest observed temperature in the universe is about 1K. I remember reading an article where some scientist joked that any region of space colder than what we've achieved in a laboratory would have to be in the laboratory of an alien civilization. ;)

--
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
Re:Cool by quantumghost · 2010-07-23 00:49 · Score: 4, Funny

FLASH: Man sues Nature over patent infringement...
Mr I. M. Atwit, lead council for Dewy, Suck'em, and Dry Corp headquartered in Topeka KS, was quoted as saying "Nature has finally overstepped her bounds by infringing on our copyright! We intend to prosecute this to the fullest extent of the law [of man]."
Nature, unfortunately, could not be reached for comment.
In unrelated news, NASA and several prominent astronomers today warned of an impending meteorite strike that was predicted to hit somewhere in the Mid-West of the US. The most like impact site was around Topeka, KS.
Re:Cool by Alsee · 2010-07-23 01:20 · Score: 2, Informative

As others have noted buckyballs are a significant component of common soot. They form naturally in almost any high temperature carbon vapor. The surprising thing is that they had been overlooked by scientists for so long.
Apparently there are no lab conditions on earth that are not duplicated somewhere else in the universe.
Actually there is a pretty easy example of conditions that are not duplicated anywhere in the universe (except perhaps within some alien scientist's lab). Science experiments can't even begin to compete with the natural universe on the high end, the bigger hotter faster high energy stuff. However in the laboratory we have nature beat cold in.... cold. Space is filled with thermal radiation from the big bang. This radiation has a temperature of about 2.7 degrees above absolute zero and it constantly shines from all directions. An object floating in the deepest emptiest intergalactic space will not cool below 2.7 degrees. In fact any object colder than that would be soon be warmed to at least 2.7 degrees because of the thermal radiation from every direction in space.
A expanding gas cloud in space can cool below that temperature because a gas cools as it expands, but that cooling won't go very far. Background thermal radiation will shine into the expanding gas and quickly warm things back up.
In the laboratory we can actively cool stuff. We have gotten temperatures down to a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero. We are pretty dang certain that these conditions have never existed in the history of the universe, unless some alien science lab beat us to it. At these temperatures you can achieve an entirely new state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate.
A superfluid (sort of a liquid equivalent of a superconductor) is another example state of matter that has probably never existed outside a lab. Helium becomes a superfluid at about 2.1 degrees above zero. Expanding gaseous nebulae are known to cool below this temperature, however they would never have the pressure to maintain a fluid in the near vacuum of space.
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Cool by locallyunscene · 2010-07-23 01:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

This reminds me of a story I once heard(maybe a Fable, I'm not sure). There was a village that had the policy of euthanizing anyone that reached past a certain age so that the village would remain strong. A old woman was nearing this age when there appeared a threat to the village. A great conqueror descended upon them that they knew they could not defeat. The conqueror, wishing to take the village by peaceful means to save his men for other battles, sent a messenger proposing that he would give them 3 challenges. If they succeeded he would bypass their village. If they failed they must submit to his rule or be slaughtered. I don't remember the first two challenges, but needless to say the old woman's experience was called upon to pass them. The final challenge was to construct a rope of ash that could hold weight. Of course it was impossible for the weavers of the village to construct and no amount of the warriors' strength could press the ash together to form something cohesive. The village thought they were doomed so once again they went to the old lady because she had helped them through the previous two challenges. She told them to soak a normal rope is salt water and then burn it. This would caused the rope to retain its original shape and strength. The conqueror was confounded at the ashen rope, and the village was saved. From that point forward it let its citizens live to whatever ripe old age they wanted.

I've never tried it myself, but I wonder if this is an ancient form of constructing bucky tubes.
Re:Cool by ctchristmas · 2010-07-23 01:58 · Score: 1

Would that be Universal thermonuclear war
Re:Cool by TeethWhitener · 2010-07-23 02:02 · Score: 1

Soot was just so ordinary no one ever bothered to distill the different molecules out of it, to see if any had unusual properties. C60 is just too big a fraction, with too distinct properties, to have been missed otherwise for so long.
There are literally thousands of different species produced when even the simplest organic compound is burned incompletely (i.e., to form soot). C60 is a tiny fraction of what's produced in most soot from ordinary flames. This is why C60 is still $50 a gram. It actually took the researchers who found C60 in candle soot a pretty heroic effort, and even then, they already knew what they were looking for. The manufacture of C60 on an industrial scale occurs by maintaining an electrical arc across two graphite rods in a rarefied atmosphere. The temperature of the carbon plasma created is around 10000-15000 K, as opposed to a candle flame, which usually isn't more than a few thousand Kelvin. The exciting thing about this study is that there have been several groups that have proposed areas in space where these kinds of high temperature, low pressure conditions exist (namely in the atmospheres of aging red giants) which should, with the carbon rich atmospheres of these stars, form detectable amounts of fullerenes. Until now, this was just a theory. Obviously, it's still just a theory, but at least now it has some evidence to back it up.
Re:Cool by gorzek · 2010-07-23 03:01 · Score: 1

Informative? Really? Did a mod just need to burn off a point? :-p

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 03:28 · Score: 0

a candle flame, which usually isn't more than a few thousand Kelvin
A few thousand kelvin, from a candle flame?! - what have you been smoking?
For reference:
Burning point of wood: ~507k
Melting Point of Copper: ~1358k
Melting Point of Stainless Steel: ~1636k
Melting Point of Iron: ~1804k
Melting Point of Titanium: ~2068k
Melting Point of Carbon: ~4000k
Mean temperature (est) of the Sun's surface (non-coronal): ~5500k ...apparently a birthday cake in your house could smelt Titanium...
Really, given your belief in the mean temperature of candles, you must be shocked that it took mankind so long to get into smelting steel! -- didn't you ever wonder why the Bronze Age lasted so long?!
-AC
Re:Cool by tehcyder · 2010-07-23 03:33 · Score: 1

You're telling me there's a bunch of aliens out there with candles? Shit, break out the nukes.

Should we not, instead, welcome these space hippies with open arms and a nourishing bowl of lentil soup?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 03:42 · Score: 0

You really should have posted that as AC. I'd love to hear him use "some AC on /. said I could do it" on his boss.
Re:Cool by dbraden · 2010-07-23 03:43 · Score: 5, Informative

I think I spent way too much time tracking this down ;)
I finally found a version of it in a Japanese folktale called The Wise Old Woman by Yoshiko Uchida. Here's a version of it that looks like it was formatted for a play, but at least it's an easy read: The Wise Old Woman.
Interesting story, thank you!
Re:Cool by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-07-23 03:45 · Score: 1

Don't worry, in a second you'll be modded troll for questioning the holy ones. Then some human sympathizer will mod you underrated. Then someone who is stoned will mod you funny. And finally all those mods will get their mod privileges revoked by kdawson for abuse. Meanwhile you'll end up with a net Karma score of "P." It is Slashdot 2.0 after all.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Cool by gstoddart · 2010-07-23 04:13 · Score: 1

In the laboratory we can actively cool stuff. We have gotten temperatures down to a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero. We are pretty dang certain that these conditions have never existed in the history of the universe, unless some alien science lab beat us to it. At these temperatures you can achieve an entirely new state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Generally I agree with everything you said.
But, I'm more inclined to believe that somewhere, due to some natural process we can't even think of, that if we've done it in a lab, the universe has done it as part of something else. Of course, that's not really based in anything more solid than many years of being amazed that the kind of stuff that comes along that everybody said was impossible.
Same goes for the Bose-Einstein condensate -- I'm fairly confident that the universe has done this before. It might be fleeting and exceedingly rare. But, I also find it highly unlikely we've been able to push the laws of physics beyond what the biggest experiment ever (the universe) has managed to do.
I mean, with all of the vastness and diversity that exists in the universe, it seems somewhat arrogant that we've been able to generate something which has never happened anywhere else. We likely will never know about it, but I still believe deep in space, wacky stuff that we can't even conceive of happens all the time (in a relative use of the word).
Somewhere, there is a whale and a potted petunia falling to the ground. :-P

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Cool by mhajicek · 2010-07-23 08:00 · Score: 1

Some small percentage of carbon soot from poorly burning acetylene is naturally buckyballs and tubes. The hard part is separating them out, or making a larger percentage of the soot become fullerenes.
Re:Cool by Anonym1ty · 2010-07-23 10:34 · Score: 1

No... Fullerenes can occur naturally in soot, like lamp or carbon black. Though it is true that certain fullerenes are unlikely to occur in nature, varieties of fullerenes most certainly exist in nature. The real cool man-made stuff are the perfect fullerenes and the ones made with certain atoms traped inside like gold to change some of the material's properties, but remember fullerenes just mean molecular balls of carbon. Unless you think it must be buckminsterfullerene (C60) or Icosahedral fullerene (C540)... But if you just say fullerene then it encompasses all sorts of varieties of balls of carbon

--
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
Re:Cool by BraksDad · 2010-07-24 08:09 · Score: 1

Space is big. Reminiscent of the infinite monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters.

--
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."

Dark matter? by captainpanic · 2010-07-22 21:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're still searching for dark matter, right?

So, now we found yet another material that absorbs light. So that could mean that the stars we see actually burn brighter (and are more massive?) than we thought. And in addition, there is a material previously unknown to exist in space.

Could is be possible that dark matter is just ordinary matter, made up of atoms and such, and that we just haven't found it yet because it absorbs the radiation we scan for?

-- I admit that I'm no expert, so don't mod me down for stupidity. Just correct me instead, please.

Re:Dark matter? by psone · 2010-07-22 21:16 · Score: 4, Informative

There are several theoretical candidates for Dark Matter. Non-Baryonic Dark Matter (aka matter not made of quarks, protons, neutrons and not interacting with electrons and photons) is expected to contribute for the greater part to it. Fullerenes fall in the first category. Additionally, the observations of stars (gravitational interactions) are in accordance with the standard model and that pleads for the absence of Dark Matter in or around stars. However the cohesion or consistency of galaxies is not expectable if the only mass present in them comes from stars and stellar systems. That pleads for the presence of dark mater in the halo of galaxies and in clusters of galaxies.
Re:Dark matter? by twisteddk · 2010-07-22 21:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Also not an expert. But if we eventually manage to find a molecule that can absorb energy without emitting it again in some form or other, that'd be pretty amazing from a chemistry standpoint. Our current undestanding of energy is that all energy input corresponds to a certain output. That is, energy may change form, but it may not cease to exist. this is generally also how we manage to identify molecules and objects, by measuring how they reflect radiation, or convert it to heat, mass etc.
But certainly a molecule that can absorb radiation without leaking it again, would revolutionize nuclear waste storage and facilities, where currently excess materials are encased in glass, then stainless steel, then put into storage for 6-800 years before the decay is sufficient for the material to be reused as nuclear fuel. Throughout those 6-800 years emission can be detrimetal to your health, a case that ensures 100% absorption of the radiation would be excellent !
That said, I doubt that is the case. I love the idea of it though. And I'm sure that in the future we will have a far better understanding of physics which will hopefully yield such bounties.

--
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
Re:Dark matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 21:40 · Score: 0

It still exists, it just transverses dimensional boundaries.
Re:Dark matter? by captainpanic · 2010-07-22 21:43 · Score: 1

While I agree that energy absorbed must eventually be emitted, the emissions can be extremely faint.
Dark matter is supposed to be the majority of the matter in the universe. So, even if it does absorb and emit radiation, it will be extremely cold.
We did find a cosmic background radiation of just a few degrees above absolute zero. It's supposed to originate from the early days of the universe... which makes sense (since we can also see very old stars).
But couldn't that also be radiation with an origin much closer to home, emitted by dark (but ordinary) matter?
-- I should keep stressing that I am no expert... and that this is just speculation, not an actual theory.
Re:Dark matter? by morty_vikka · 2010-07-22 23:21 · Score: 1

Could is be possible that dark matter is just ordinary matter, made up of atoms and such, and that we just haven't found it yet because it absorbs the radiation we scan for?
Thankyou. I have often wondered the same thing. How exactly can we assume that all non-dark matter is detectable using today's instruments? Isn't it possible that there is one hell of a crapload of normal matter out there that we just can't see? That it isn't some mysterious force that we have to give a spooky name to?

Hope some cosmologists out there can shed some light on this, preferably in layperson's terms.
Re:Dark matter? by psone · 2010-07-22 23:37 · Score: 1

"First category" was meant for 'baryonic matter' — which vanished between my brain and fingers.
Re:Dark matter? by juasko · 2010-07-23 00:51 · Score: 0

Who says it does not emmit energy in an unknown way? How did we first manage to find darkmatter, trough electomagnetic radiation or?
Re:Dark matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 00:56 · Score: 0

I'm also no expert, but if a star has a certain mass and composition of elements that are fusing, it surely emits light with specific wavelength and intensities.
If dusts absorbs some of the light and glows, that effect is surely distinguishable.
More mass doesn't mean only brighter, but also a different spectrum. Higher temperature means more energy emitted at shorter wavelength. The star becomes more 'blue'.
Re:Dark matter? by BForrester · 2010-07-23 01:05 · Score: 1

Isn't it possible that there is one hell of a crapload of normal matter out there that we just can't see? That it isn't some mysterious force that we have to give a spooky name to?
If anyone is thinking of mentioning midi-chlorians, please beat yourself senseless and save us the time and effort.
Re:Dark matter? by michaelwv · 2010-07-23 01:42 · Score: 1

Anything that absorbs also emits. When we (IAAA) say "dark" matter, we mean matter that does not interact at all with photons. We've scanned much of the electromagnetic spectrum and do not see it.
Re:Dark matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 02:00 · Score: 0

There are several theoretical candidates for Dark Matter. Non-Baryonic Dark Matter (aka matter not made of quarks, protons, neutrons and not interacting with electrons and photons) is expected to contribute for the greater part to it. Fullerenes fall in the first category.
But these Fullerenes absorb light which means they must interact with photons, right?
and they are made or Carbon which, in turn, is made up of the things you say its not made of.
and now I'm confused. poop.
Re:Dark matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 02:11 · Score: 0

Normal matter gathers photons.
Anything that gathers photons heats up, and anything that is hot glows. There is no "black" regular matter in space.
When you add spectrum analysis to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_analysis) you can say that all regular matter in space is pretty much detectable and identifiable.
Re:Dark matter? by mcgrew · 2010-07-23 02:23 · Score: 1

I admit that I'm no expert, so don't mod me down for stupidity. Just correct me instead, please
You got a 2 so far, so don't panic, Captain.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Dark matter? by mcgrew · 2010-07-23 02:39 · Score: 1

That is, energy may change form, but it may not cease to exist.
It can appear to cease to exist, though. If you take two waves of identical frequency and combine them exactly out of phase, both waveforms will disappear; they cancel each other out.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Dark matter? by marcosdumay · 2010-07-23 04:28 · Score: 1

Most dark matter isn't dark, it is transparent. In fact, it is nearly invisible (and completely invisible to light), and can only be detected by gravity. Of course, not shnning, planets and gas are dark matter, but they are the minority out there, there is something else that is much more massive.

--
Rethinking email
Re:Dark matter? by Artifakt · 2010-07-23 04:38 · Score: 1

Fullerines are made of baryonic matter (a.k.a. normal matter). That sort of thing is the first category of possible dark matter. Whole planets, rocks, brown dwarf stars, and such would all be baryonic matter, and all dark, at least at the ranges we would be looking for them. We could probably detect some big, solid dark bodies floating in interstellar space by their occasionally passing between some star and a telescope, and other methods.
Now put non-baryonic matter in a second category. Neutrinos are known to exist, and mostly don't interact with normal matter, but do just a little. Let's put them in category two, along with other, more exotic possibilities. Some of these category two types are only semi-weird, such as the neutrinos I mentioned. Others are very weird hypotheticals, such as kinds of matter, as yet unnamed, having irrational numbers for spin states and a tendency to couple with Higgs bosons only on alternate Tuesdays. In between is a laundry list of particles that have not really been confirmed, but either seem predicted by a few observations, or should be there if some theory such as supersymmetry or one of the many string theories is right.
There are some good, reliable observations on how fast stars at different distances from a galaxy's core orbit the center, that make it look very, very unlikely that all the dark matter can be any combinations from the first category. There's some evidence for a kind of acceleration to the universe's expansion, which would require a form of what's called dark energy and some particular types of dark matter as well, and some recent observations of more mass in distant galaxies that adjust the problem further.
Right now, the galaxy rotation data suggests we need an explanation that includes some form of second category dark matter, but if it turns out we also need to explain an oncoming big rip, or if it turns out we have underestimated how much conventional matter there is and how close to a flat universe we are in, then the explanation needs to fit those things too, so one reason astrophysicists have to leave this question open is there are a few things which definitely need explained, but there are also a bunch of related things which may or may not all be true and so may or may not have to be part of the final explanation.
It's like we know a bank was robbed, but we have some conflicting descriptions of the robbers. One witness swears the get-away card was a Mazda, the other says it was a Toyota, One witness swears he saw a fourth guy get in the car down the block as it pulled away, the others don't remember seeing that at all. One camera wasn't working, and the other caught something of the robbery on tape, but it wasn't at an ideal angle. Even if we are very confident that there really are some bank robbers on the loose, it's hard to figure out just what should be put in the APB.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Dark matter? by painandgreed · 2010-07-23 04:41 · Score: 1

Could is be possible that dark matter is just ordinary matter, made up of atoms and such, and that we just haven't found it yet because it absorbs the radiation we scan for?
In short, no. The argument for dark matter comes from multiple different sources. If there was normal matter absorbing stuff out there and not emitting in a manner we are detecting, then we'd detect it also because we would detect a star or galaxy far away and it would get in the way of it. We'd determine several different ways to tell how far the object was and how bright it should be, and when it comes up less bright than what we expect or with unusual absorbtion lines, we'd know that there was stuff between us. If it emits light, we detect it. If it absorbs light, we'd detect it. If it was sitting behind other things we do detect, there are ways we'd detect it. If it was all in massive black holes in galaxy centers, we'd be able to detect it. I can't remember all the different methods off the top of my head right now, but you can read up on it if you don't trust me. There have not been just one case where evidence has suggested dark matter, but multiple different approaches where dark matter seems to be the only answer. We can come up with upper and lower bounds of the amount of normal matter in the universe and it falls so short of how much stuff we actually think is out there, that there is no real way that we could be off that much.
Re:Dark matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 06:35 · Score: 0

That's not dark matter, those are brown dwarfs.
Re:Dark matter? by treeves · 2010-07-23 11:22 · Score: 1

I think it doesn't appear to disappear, it appears to be somewhere else. In the classic double-slit diffraction experiments that show the kind of destructive interference you're talking about, there is complementary constructive interference. The photons that "cancel each other out" in the troughs, add together in the peaks. Net result: same number of photons you started with, but formed into a periodic pattern.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re:Dark matter? by mcgrew · 2010-07-26 01:11 · Score: 1

If you take a sound and run it through a phase shifter making it 180 degrees out of phase, and combine it with the original sound, silence is all you get. Likewise, if you take a ten watt 60 Hz alternating current and feed it out of phase with another ten watt 60 Hz alternating current you get zero watts. Constructive interference is the opposite; if you feed them together in phase there's an amplification.
I think I see what you're getting at, that the constructive interference balances out the destructive interference, but I don't see how there's any linkage between the two.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Cellulose Detected in Space, too by mhh5 · 2010-07-22 21:01 · Score: 4, Informative

The molecular weight of cellulose in deep space might not surpass C70, but it *might* exceed C70... see one of the questions in this TED talk:
http://blog.ted.com/2009/10/qa_with_garik_i.php

We can detect tiny, molecules... by h4rm0ny · 2010-07-22 21:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

and tell what they are at a distance that take light slightly longer than our recorded history as a species to travel.

Fuck yeah!

(That is all)

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by Rogerborg · 2010-07-22 21:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Preach it! It's at times like this that I like to break out the SCIENCE: it works, bitches shirt.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by Tom · 2010-07-22 22:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

But remember, it's only a theory! If you find a tiny snippet in some backwater part of the bible that contradicts it, then of course the old book is right. So don't get your hopes up.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 22:51 · Score: 0

best xkcd tshirt ever!
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by FuckingNickName · 2010-07-22 23:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

We've decided we can do it because we assume the conclusion is correct, and we assume the conclusion is correct because we've decided we can do it. It's all too easy in astronomy and theoretical physics to go all Platonic and rejoice at something seductively beautiful rather than something with enough evidence.
What if we are misinterpreting the results as referring to a combination of other signatures or combination fo sources, perhaps partially absorbed? What if we're hearing local noise? This is a uniquely sensitive telescope and results have not been duplicated.
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 00:08 · Score: 0

I think we all expect more from you, #822. Space is very, very weird and very, very big. Try not to be so small.
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by roman_mir · 2010-07-23 00:51 · Score: 1

Obviously god faked the results of these measurements to test our resolve to worship him.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by Eudial · 2010-07-23 01:07 · Score: 1

Well, the universe is only 6000 years old, and light did not exist before "let there be light". So it's blasphemy to acknowledge anything farther away than 6000 lightyears.

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by arthurpaliden · 2010-07-23 01:30 · Score: 1

Except God can change physical constants if She wants to. She can make if go faster in space and the slow it down when we go to measure it.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by Tom · 2010-07-23 02:12 · Score: 1

Space doesn't exist. The bible doesn't mention it, so it doesn't exist. Was it created, hm? No! The stars and the moon, yes. Cosmic nebula? No. Black holes? No. All wishful thinking of these science heretics! Burn them, burn... oh, wait. What do you mean, "wrong century"?
(in case you need it spelt out: yes, I am being sarcastic. We have all this wonderful, fantastic, blow-your-mind stuff out there in the universe, and we are seriously debating whether some folk lores from two-, three-, four-thousand years ago, written by people who thought the earth is flat, light is magical and infinite in speed, and all-powerful beings talk through burning bushes at the wayside could be true in any meaningful sense of the word.)

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by MaWeiTao · 2010-07-23 02:56 · Score: 1

Get over it already. The religious conspiracy to force you to stop believing in science exists only in your mind. Every time a scientific story is posted dealing with the nature of the universe somehow, someone has to inevitably drag out the tired stereotype that anyone who's religious, well specifically a christian is an uneducated moron who believes in the 6000 year old universe.
The Vatican has specifically stated that science and Christianity can co-exist. One doesn't refute the other. There have been discussions and debates on all kinds of scientific discoveries and in the end they choose to accept them. They've embraced evolution for example.
This is not to say there aren't religious idiots out there and even some odd denominations somewhere preaching garbage. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people probably don't care about science nearly as much as people here seem to think they do, admittedly that's not necessarily a good thing. Most people aren't ever questioning the veracity of scientific discovers so there isn't even a conflict of science contradicting anything they believe.
Of course, don't let that stop you from stereotyping. I've dealt with a few programmers who were elitist jerks not nearly as talented as they liked to believe they were. I suppose it's safe to say all programmers are like that.
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 03:49 · Score: 0

Only in his mind, eh? You might have heard of an event known as 9/11? You might want to read up on the philosophies of its perpetrators for starters (see qutbism on wikipedia) and their views on science, economics, and 'forbidden knowledge'.
The "religious conspiracy" (or, rather, many such conspiracies and oppositions) exists currently, and has existed for thousands of years. You really need to read some history, or just read some news! Sure, some religious people are happy to live alongside science. Plenty aren't. From the first tribal shamans, through the prosecution of Greek philosophers and Galileo, to the present day Pope (God bless his funny hats) speaking out against HIV/AIDS prevention, 'Intelligent Design' museums seeking to undermine science in schools, and many religious and political leaders declaring war openly or not on science, you'd have to be blind or stupid not to see it.
You speak about the Vatican and Christianity as if that's the be-all-and-end-all of religious opinion. There are thousands of other religions out there, many adhered to by vastly greater numbers of people than Christianity (or just Catholicism for which the Vatican speaks, not Christianity as a whole), and many are quiet unashamedly anti-science, in whole or in part. Sounds to me like your mind is just as closed as the those religious zealots of which you seem to know so little.
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by marcosdumay · 2010-07-23 04:33 · Score: 1

We've decided we can do it because every time we simulated those conditions in lab, we got the right answers. Now, those people may be wrong, that being a unique experiment and so, but they got the most obvious problems ruled out. As is there in TF Summary, "The spectrum is incredibly convincing".

--
Rethinking email
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by BitZtream · 2010-07-23 07:05 · Score: 1

Wow, the arrogance.
No, we don't know what they are, but the guess is pretty confident.
The fact that we make new discoveries about things that we 'know' on a daily basis should tell you not to make such bold statements.
What was detected could be something completely unrelated that simple appears like something else to our instruments because we haven't learned to detect its differences.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by Tom · 2010-07-25 10:11 · Score: 1

The religious conspiracy to force you to stop believing in science exists only in your mind.
Oh, I see. That explains why abortion doctors are killed by religious nutjobs, airplanes are flown into skyscrapers by religious nutjobs, proper education for our children is endangered by religious nutjobs, and people like Dawkins get death threats for writing books. It's all in my mind, that explains a lot.

anyone who's religious, well specifically a christian is an uneducated moron who believes in the 6000 year old universe.
That, or a cowardly non-decider whose life is a lie. Only religion allows you to believe in two mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time. One that can be verified, and one that - sorry for the pun - exists only in your mind.
The fanatics are at least honest. The people who go to church at christmas, and try hard not to think too deeply about either religion or science, lest they discover that it is impossible for both to be true, they are the ones providing the foundation that the fanatics can hide behind and grow in.

But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people probably don't care about science nearly as much as people here seem to think they do, admittedly that's not necessarily a good thing.
Science is fast becoming a new religion, or rather: Magic. Only a few people really understand it, but everyone relies on it. Soon our cell phone networks will be like rain dances - we pray it works, and we don't understand how.
But science is not like a rain dance. For one, it actually works. Two, there is something that can be understood. The problem is the many people with the old mindset. It's too much to expect that it would die out in a few generations after it survived several ten thousand years. The old mindset that works the other way around - not knowledge is power. In magic and religion, supposed knowledge is power, and secrecy not transparency, is necesary to solidify it. Control over knowledge is key, and especially meta-knowledge (who may know what).
The real poison of religion isn't in the unholy books - it's in the minds.

Of course, don't let that stop you from stereotyping. I've dealt with a few programmers who were elitist jerks not nearly as talented as they liked to believe they were. I suppose it's safe to say all programmers are like that.
Believe whatever you want to believe, we're on /. anyways. I've read more books about science of the mind than science of computers. It's more fascinating, too. But understanding both definitely helps, there are many cross-references, though not so many and not the ones that pop science wishes for.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:We can detect tiny, molecules... by gravis777 · 2010-07-26 03:42 · Score: 1

No, no its not - the EARTH and the SOL system is only 6,000 years old. Did you ever actually read the Bible?

First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don't see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God's Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss.
3-5 God spoke: "Light!"
And light appeared.
God saw that light was good
and separated light from dark.
God named the light Day,
he named the dark Night.
It was evening, it was morning—
Day One.
6-8 God spoke: "Sky! In the middle of the waters;
separate water from water!"
God made sky.
He separated the water under sky
from the water above sky.
And there it was:
he named sky the Heavens;
It was evening, it was morning—
Day Two.
9-10 God spoke: "Separate!
Water-beneath-Heaven, gather into one place;
Land, appear!"
And there it was.
God named the land Earth.
He named the pooled water Ocean.
God saw that it was good.

That's from The Message translation, I used it for readability purposes. Anyways, it (the Bible) never says God created the Universe in one day (read other translations if you wish). In fact, it says that on day 1, he created the Sun, and on Day 3 he created the Earth. What a concept, the sun is older than the Earth, and the Universe is older than the Sun. Funny that science doesn't teach us anything like that (oh, wait, it does).
If you continue reading, the first things to appear on earth are plants, followed by creatures in the water, followed by land animals, followed by man. Too bad science doesn't teach us anytihng like that. Oh wait, it does, its called Evolution. :-)
So, either the writter of Genesis knew some 3500 years ago a few things about science, or had some help writing it by something or someone outside of this world.

SETI can't find aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 21:04 · Score: 0

SETI can't find aliens, however they can detect individual molecules?

Reminds me of this joke:

"Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our [British] government could track a
single cow, born in Bourne almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the county of Lincolnshire?
And, they even tracked her calves to their stalls.
But they are unable to locate 125,000 illegal immigrants wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow. "

Re:SETI can't find aliens by SimonTheSoundMan · 2010-07-22 21:06 · Score: 1

Just to clarify, the joke as used because we seem to be able to detect one thing which is tiny from a long distance, but the bigger thing (planets with life) we can't find.
Re:SETI can't find aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 21:22 · Score: 0

Maybe we should give each of them a cow. "
The solution would be to pierce every person's ear with an RFID-enabled ear tag. They could even be colour-coded by ... oh I don't know ... how about religion? White for christians, black for atheists, yellow for jews ... yes ... yes I went there.
Re:SETI can't find aliens by MichaelSmith · 2010-07-22 21:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

It is possible that aliens will make conclusions about our development of semiconductors by looking for the signature of LEDs and lasers in our night side light emissions, but would be in the dark about our biology. Photons are a great invention.

In 1835, Auguste Comte, a prominent French philosopher, stated that humans would never be able to understand the chemical composition of stars. He was soon proved wrong. In the latter half of the 19th century, astronomers began to embrace two new techniques—spectroscopy and photography. Together they helped bring about a revolution in people's understanding of the cosmos. For the first time, scientists could investigate what the universe was made of. This was a major turning point in the development of cosmology, as astronomers were able to record and document not only where the stars were but what they were as well.

link

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:SETI can't find aliens by dimethylxanthine · 2010-07-22 23:34 · Score: 0

How will you give them one if you can't find them? And if you find them to give them one, then you would have already found them...
Re:SETI can't find aliens by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 00:46 · Score: 0

The aliens are already taking our cows and mutilating them. I guess they want to prevent themselves being tracked that way...
Re:SETI can't find aliens by Alsee · 2010-07-23 01:53 · Score: 1

Photons are a great invention.
Shhhhhhh!
You don't want the software-patent-nazis hearing that sort of talk.
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:SETI can't find aliens by mcgrew · 2010-07-23 03:22 · Score: 1

It is possible that aliens will make conclusions about our development of semiconductors by looking for the signature of LEDs and lasers in our night side light emissions
They'd have to have some damned impressive telescopes to do that. From a bit of my own fiction:

"Of course not. Any electromagnetic communications would be completely drowned out by the radiation from the system's star. 'Listening' for electromagnetic radiation is futile; no way would we ever hear another intelligence's electromagnetic communication, and even if we did it would appear to be random noise."

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:SETI can't find aliens by Artifakt · 2010-07-23 04:48 · Score: 1

A subtle Godwining is still a Godwining.
(And if I really believed that, the thread would be over in my eyes so I couldn't post to it.)
Now as a Zen Gnostic*, what color earring do I get?
* I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill your Buddha on the road for you.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:SETI can't find aliens by MichaelSmith · 2010-07-23 09:26 · Score: 1

Yes, I assume that aliens will have impressive telescopes.
(MOTD says Pournelle must die!)

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

hope they won't find... by eexaa · 2010-07-22 21:04 · Score: 1

...atomic-scale vuvuzelas in space.

Re:hope they won't find... by SimonTheSoundMan · 2010-07-22 21:16 · Score: 4, Funny

At least in space, nobody will be able to hear your vuvuzela.
Re:hope they won't find... by c0lo · 2010-07-22 21:39 · Score: 1

At least in space, nobody will be able to hear your vuvuzela.
If not in space, what about in time? Maybe if you listen to the space long enough, you'd be able to hear them even now?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:hope they won't find... by JustOK · 2010-07-22 22:37 · Score: 3, Funny

it's just the farting of the Time Lords

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:hope they won't find... by BasilBrush · 2010-07-22 23:26 · Score: 1

...atomic-scale vuvuzelas in space.
Bucky balls, not footy balls.
Re:hope they won't find... by Alsee · 2010-07-23 01:42 · Score: 2, Funny

I suggest anyone blowing a vuvuzela be placed in the vacuum of space so we don't have to hear it.
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:hope they won't find... by marcosdumay · 2010-07-23 04:42 · Score: 1

Talking about time, I never notice it before, but that (found here) looks quite like a vuvuzela. It gets more clear if you expand the graphic a bit near the singularity, but I didn't find a better figure.

--
Rethinking email
Re:hope they won't find... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 14:31 · Score: 0

You do know what shape a buckyball is don't you? It is the shape of a football (check the Wikipedia article).

Actually by twisteddk · 2010-07-22 21:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, the C-60 has been known to exist (albeit in extremely limited number) in nature on earth. Fullerenes have later been found to exist also in very "short" chains, AFAIK down to like 20-30 atoms.
The real challenge is making stuff like tubing in desired lengths and thickness. Though the ball that is the C-60 is also very intresting, because like some of the molecular medical delivery systems invested recently, you may be able to contain smaller molecules within. This is very helpfull for nano weaponry and medicines, where all you'd need is a molecular glue that will attach (only) to your target, a container (like the buckyball) something within the container, and some sort of trigger, as presumably the fulerenes are very very stable.

--
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?

Re:Actually by Zocalo · 2010-07-22 21:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

AFAIK down to like 20-30 atoms

Given that a single molecule of C-60 contains 60 carbon atoms, you probably meant to put "molecules" there.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Actually by Culture20 · 2010-07-22 21:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Given that a single molecule of C-60 contains 60 carbon atoms, you probably meant to put "molecules" there.
GP was referring to buckytubes.
Re:Actually by twisteddk · 2010-07-22 21:36 · Score: 1

Oh no. A fullerene is a molecule of ATOMS. The C-60 fullerene is merely a molecule consisting of 60 carbon atoms. They (fullerenes) DO exist in forms of lesser (and greater) density. Like C-50 and C-72.
Good chemical engineering indicates that it may be possible in the future to generate some very long chains arteficially. Try reading the wikipage, it's very good at putting things into laymans terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckyballs

--
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
Re:Actually by Zocalo · 2010-07-22 21:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, I know. As in they might be naturally found in lengths of 20-30 molecules of BMF and not 20-30 carbon atoms. Technically through, bucky tubes are not actually formed from a collection of bucky balls, but are actually molecules in their own right with a structure resembling a single bucky ball that has been split in half and had a cylinder of carbon atoms inserted at the split. In theory it should be possible to create bucky tubes of arbitrary length by repeating the structure of the cylindrical section, it's "just" a matter of working out how.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 22:47 · Score: 0

Oh no. A fullerene is a molecule of ATOMS.
Durrrrr. What molecules are not made up of atoms, genius?
Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 23:12 · Score: 0

atomic molecules, twit.

No by AmonTheMetalhead · 2010-07-22 21:33 · Score: 1

We cannot condone bouncing of the seventh variety.

Re:No by macara · 2010-07-22 21:54 · Score: 1, Funny

The Elders tell of a young ball much like you. He bounced three metres in the air. Then he bounced 1.8 metres in the air. Then he bounced four metres in the air. Do I make myself clear?

Think GeeK? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 21:33 · Score: 1, Funny

Doesn't thinkgeek sell these?

Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 21:44 · Score: 0

Aren't space buckyballs usually found just the other side of Uranus?

What? No Spaceballs jokes or references? by erroneus · 2010-07-22 21:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Am I really that old?! Oh well...

May da schwartz be witcha.

Ah... I understand by twisteddk · 2010-07-22 21:55 · Score: 1

You were talking about buckyballs in specific, I was talking about fullerene in general, of which the buckyballs is only one of many combinations.

Now I understand the cause of the misunderstanding. Thank you very much for the clarification.

--
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?

They do exist in nature by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 22:18 · Score: 0

Bucky-balls have been observed in natural things such as carbon rich fires albeit in minute quantities They have even been observed in a standard candle flame.

Re:What? No Spaceballs jokes or references? by JustOK · 2010-07-22 22:38 · Score: 1

Hey! That's the combination to my luggage! Wait. I don't have any luggage.

--
rewriting history since 2109

Natural Buckyballs by Montrey · 2010-07-22 22:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Does this mean that there will be a new group of people calling for the use of "only all-natural, organic" buckyballs?

Deep space, the new frontier... by ctrl-alt-canc · 2010-07-22 23:13 · Score: 2, Funny

...for patent attorneys! Now they can start arguing if alien prior art exists about methods for synthetizing fullerene, thus voiding several patents. A good excuse for skyrocketing their bills.

A Tank of the Precious Juice by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2010-07-22 23:26 · Score: 1

Already added to the Wiki entry on interstellar molecules. Now if we could only find some gasoline floating around out there, if only to make pundits' heads spin...why is our oil (product) floating in their planetary nebula!?!?!?

Re:A Tank of the Precious Juice by mcgrew · 2010-07-23 03:40 · Score: 1

Now if we could only find some gasoline floating around out there, if only to make pundits' heads spin...why is our oil (product) floating in their planetary nebula!?!?!?
I read last year about a nebula containing ethyl alcohol. Unfortunately my googlefu is weak today, and I can't find the citation.

--
Free Martian Whores!

The thing's hollow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-22 23:28 · Score: 0

The thing's hollow... it goes on forever, and... oh my God! It's full of balls!

Lots of Buckyballs Here in Wisconsin by mim · 2010-07-23 00:00 · Score: 1

But many have been found to be ego inflated.

The Chaga is coming by Lproven · 2010-07-23 00:16 · Score: 1

We can expect the first biological package to hit Kilimanjaro soon... right after Iapetus turns black and Hyperion disappears.

(Hint for the terminally unhip.)

--
Liam P. ~ "Intelligence is a lethal mutation." (me)

new patent meme by Darth+Sdlavrot · 2010-07-23 00:19 · Score: 1

Instead of "on the internet" now we can re-patent everything with "in space."

Buckyballs in space.

ecommerce -- in space.

software delivery -- in space.

etc.

Re:new patent meme by JazMuadDib · 2010-07-23 04:31 · Score: 1

Piiiigs iiin Spaaaace!

Am I the only one... by HopkinsProgramming · 2010-07-23 00:28 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who read the title and started wondering how the magnetic "BuckyBalls" toy ended up in outer space?

Re:Am I the only one... by ironicsky · 2010-07-23 02:37 · Score: 1

I thought the same thing... My first thought was, "Why is NASA allowing people to bring strong, small magnets in space. Surely this will mess up some electronics" My BuckyBalls are safely attached to the side of my fridge where they cant do any harm

Incorrect Geometrical Assumptions by Wdi · 2010-07-23 01:51 · Score: 2, Informative

The interior of a buckyball (even the larger variants with C70+) is too small to hold any molecule of pharmacological interest. One or two metal ions, yes, even ammonia, methane and similar small molecules (all known), but nothing beyond that. The only payload with some potential usefulness are radioactive metal atoms for radiation therapy, but certainly not normal drugs.

SETI signature by GayBliss · 2010-07-23 02:33 · Score: 1

Maybe ET thinks it's better to send messages through chemical patterns rather than electro-magnetic patterns.

New discovery!!!!! Buckyballs are..... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 03:31 · Score: 1, Funny

Buckyballs = Proto Proto Proto Planets

heh heh you said "balls" by Thud457 · 2010-07-23 03:57 · Score: 1

Who would've thought Bucky was such a manslut.
We keep finding his balls everywhere, and people are always talking about his balls.
"World's most successful failure"?

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:What? No Spaceballs jokes or references? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 04:51 · Score: 0

Spaceballs? There goes the neighborhood!

117 comments