Slashdot Mirror


Frictionless Superfluid Found In Neutron Star Core

intellitech writes "NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has discovered the first direct evidence for a superfluid, a bizarre, friction-free state of matter, at the core of a neutron star (abstract). Superfluids created in laboratories on Earth exhibit remarkable properties, such as the ability to climb upward and escape airtight containers. The finding has important implications for understanding nuclear interactions in matter at the highest known densities."

145 comments

  1. Nutron Star? by Froggels · · Score: 0

    Did they crack it open to look at its core?

    1. Re:Nutron Star? by icebike · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They have their own special definition of the word "found".

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Nutron Star? by Peristaltic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not an astrophysicist, but correlating a 4% drop in temperature over 10 years to the existence of a superfluid core seems like a stretch.

    3. Re:Nutron Star? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it is. Remember, it takes a photon emitted by a fusion reaction reaction at the suns core tens of thousands of years to make its way to the surface of the sun, because it is reabsorbed and re-emitted so often. The fact that Cas A can be of a uniform temperature and that the temperature can change so rapidly is pretty good "direct" evidence for a superfluid. Besides, a neutron star is essentially one giant molecule anyways, since in degenerate matter protons, neutrons and electrons are pretty much in direct contact, without any "atomic" or "molecular" structure.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Nutron Star? by kwerle · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, I happend to find unicorns at the center of that same star. My current theory is that the fluid they discovered is actually unicorn urine.

    5. Re:Nutron Star? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      I'm not an astrophysicist, but correlating a 4% drop in temperature over 10 years to the existence of a superfluid core seems like a stretch.

      Dude, it's astrophysics ... to the layman, it all sounds like it's a stretch.

      I'm told the cosmologists are even more vague (with apologies to any cosmologists ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Nutron Star? by fractoid · · Score: 2

      ...seems like a stretch.

      The gravity gradient will do that to you if you look close enough. ;)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    7. Re:Nutron Star? by trentblase · · Score: 1

      So the conclusion is a stretch? Cool, thanks for the info.

    8. Re:Nutron Star? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I realized that later, along with the "fusion reaction reaction". Wish there was a damn "preview" button or something.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    9. Re:Nutron Star? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I found a rare gold coin once. unfortunately it was under a man hole cover I couldn't lift.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    10. Re:Nutron Star? by RsG · · Score: 3, Informative

      Besides, a neutron star is essentially one giant molecule anyways, since in degenerate matter protons, neutrons and electrons are pretty much in direct contact, without any "atomic" or "molecular" structure.

      Respectfully, this isn't correct. The core of a neutron star is indeed degenerate matter, but it's exclusively neutron degenerate matter, with a complete lack of protons or electrons. Every particle is a neutron, with no space at all in between them. Calling it a giant molecule is not accurate in any interpretation I can think of. I have heard of neutron star cores described as one giant atomic nucleus, which is slightly more accurate (in that it's made of subatomic particles in direct contact with each other), though actual nuclei are held together by nuclear force instead of gravity.

      Now, the outer layers of a neutron star are made of electron degenerate matter with a thin surface of highly compressed regular matter. That fact may have been where you got the "protons, neutrons and electrons" part of your post - there are no protons or electrons in the interior, but they are present in the outer layers. Which, while interesting, doesn't really matter in regards to TFA, as they observed evidence of a superfluid core, and the core is nothing but neutrons.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    11. Re:Nutron Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, wtf does your sig mean? Is it just a spelling error or also a missing article - is it "an" NT, is Liberty "a" Savant or named Savant, or what? Seriously, fix it so we know what it means.

    12. Re:Nutron Star? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      it's ment to catch people who can't work it out due to spelling and grammatical errors.

      From Franklin's,
      Democracy is two wolfs and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. [which has some religious connotations]
      Liberty is a well armed lamb.

      sociopath/anti social personality disorder/ psychopath end of the spectrum are well... self centred with human attachment, manipulative.
      Autistic's tend to be very unattached and not people centric at-all, going to the socially awkward but not anti-social Asperger's to more NT
      NT (neuro typical) are somewhere in the middle and go with the flow... which would tend towards the narcissistic due to sociopath/anti social personality disorder/ psychopath end of the spectrum.

      All run in families in one way or another, so I'd call that some form of racial or religious trait. [religion being a way of life]
      but the a bias.

      Scitzoids are just plain bonkers, but who could blame them really.
      society is an artificial construct, the individual is naturally anti-social.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    13. Re:Nutron Star? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      "it's ment to catch people who can't work it out due to spelling and grammatical errors."

      as in, reliant on consensus of knowledge, not intelligence / wisdom.

      A.k.a Grammar Nazi

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    14. Re:Nutron Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh ok so "democracy is a psychopath, an NT, and an autistic choosing reality. Liberty is a savant." Got it.

    15. Re:Nutron Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understood what it "ment," but a lot of EFL learners appreciate people helping them to communicate their ideas better. In the real world people don't usually ask you what you mean and patiently wait for you to explain it, they just jump to the nearest conclusion. Grammar Nazis are never helpful. I'm sorry I tried to be helpful in communicating your meaning. Lesson learned.

    16. Re:Nutron Star? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      ahh... but this is slashdot. I couldn't fit the real world version in a sig,

      but I could encode extra information in the misuses of authority and consensus in relation to understanding.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    17. Re:Nutron Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newsletter: subscribed

  2. My Reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I see stories like this I have an urge to play Mass Effect 2.

  3. Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's a slut, so that's most likely a pretty safe claim to make.

  4. Permo by Metabolife · · Score: 0

    So the universe creates a perpetual motion machine?

    1. Re:Permo by Ancantus · · Score: 2, Funny

      For all intensive purposes the universe is a perpetual motion machine. Yah enthalpy and all that will eventually slow down everything, but we wont be around to see it.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
    2. Re:Permo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      intents and purposes

    3. Re:Permo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to troll, or what?

      It's for all "intents and purposes", and it's entropy that is the ongoing process (enthalpy is removed from the system).

      I'm sorry for being pedantic, but we all have our roles to fill.

    4. Re:Permo by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2

      For all intents and purposes, you don't know what "perpetual" means, either.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Permo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a tiger-repellent rock that will work until the end of time if it is stored properly.

    6. Re:Permo by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but entropy is an intensive property, so in a way, the poster was right.

    7. Re:Permo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Intensive purposes", but you can spell enthalpy? Oh, right, spell-checker.

    8. Re:Permo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, but entropy is an extensive property. It depends linearly upon the size of the system, whereas something like temperature is unaffected by system size (and is thus intensive). So, in conclusion: nice try.

    9. Re:Permo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But certainly wrong about 'intents and purposes' there is no way to argue that one.

    10. Re:Permo by fractoid · · Score: 2

      For all INTENTS and purposes it's not, but since those purposes (if you're looking at supra-galactic time scales) aren't particularly intensive... I guess GP is right. :(

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    11. Re:Permo by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "Intensive" means "highly concentrated" or "highly focussed", and when I'm reading Slashdot that's exactly what my purposes aren't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:Permo by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Stored properly meaning that it is not stored in proximity to a tiger?

    13. Re:Permo by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      Sorry about that. I am a chemical engineer, so I tend to think of specific entropy as the only type worth discussing. Of course, generally entropy is an extensive property.

    14. Re:Permo by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well of course, that would short-circuit the rock's powers. You have a rock in a bock, and a nearby tiger in a cage, the rock wants to repel the tiger but can't, the force feeds back onto the rock, eventually it becomes just a normal rock.

      I've seen more tiger-repelling rocks ruined that way. People think they should keep the rock near a tiger, to keep the rock primed. But it doesn't work that way.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:Permo by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      "Rock in a bock"? Bock. Bock.

      Heh.

      I of course meant to say "Rox in a box".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Permo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Successful troll? Or just pleasantly dimwitted?

    17. Re:Permo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'd like to know is, where are all the usual jackasses who claim, "language evolves, get over it" on this one?

      Also, WTF is this? 42 freaking minutes isn't enough:

      "Slow Down Cowboy!

      Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 42 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

    18. Re:Permo by matrim99 · · Score: 1

      For all, um, Intensive Purposes, we knew what you meant.
      Blame it on... Enthalpy.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
  5. Already seen it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Last time I got close enough to a neutron star to confirm this theory, the tidal forces nearly killed me, despite being in a General Products #2 hull.

    B. Shaeffer

    1. Re:Already seen it by merky1 · · Score: 1

      Now I need to go and re-read N-Space... Thanks.

      --
      --WooooHoooo--
    2. Re:Already seen it by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Funny that you know that, given Puppeteer selective memory erasure technology. ;)

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Already seen it by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Woah, you must be the only survivor besides that one star mangled spanner.

      (OK, OK, but I always assumed that story was a silent nod to General Products. Call it product placement if you will. ;)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:Already seen it by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Be glad your universe doesn't have black holes...

    5. Re:Already seen it by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      He blackmailed the Puppeteers regarding their home world's lack of a moon- I assume part of the contract released him from the memory-wipe clause, as he was able to tell the story to Greg Pelton while playing Gin on the way back to Earth from Jinx. I believe he also had Ander Smittarasheed ghost-write the story for him.

      .

      ...You know what's sorry about this? I've read and re-read Known Space / Kzinti stories so many times that this stuff is lodged in my head and emerges whenever someone makes the slightest reference to it.

    6. Re:Already seen it by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Puppeteer selective memory erasure technology.

      I don't recall this technology. Citation please.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re:Already seen it by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You know what's sorry about this? I've read and re-read Known Space / Kzinti stories so many times that this stuff is lodged in my head and emerges whenever someone makes the slightest reference to it.

      Why is that a cause for sorrow?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. airtight? big deal by alta · · Score: 1

    Ok, so you have a container that you think is air tight. But something escapes it, so obviously your container needs to be tighter than air tight.

    Now, if you can put this stuff in a seamless glass sphere, and it still leaks out, I'll be impressed.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  7. Re:airtight? big deal by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    I believe, what their saying is that, a superfluid can escape a container that air can not. Not that the superfluid can escape an inescapable container.

  8. Re:airtight? big deal by khallow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now, if you can put this stuff in a seamless glass sphere, and it still leaks out, I'll be impressed.

    Normal helium can leak out of a seamless glass sphere, so I imagine you'd see supercooled helium leaking out as well from the same mechanism. Not that exciting, but gives you an idea of how hard some things are.

  9. Useless by TideX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

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

      Let's see... How many people will fall into the (very clever) trap set by this comment?

    2. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

      actually a gram of it would weigh a gram.

    3. Re:Useless by angelbar · · Score: 1

      ooooh my!... try cm3, mililliters, gals, spoons...

      --
      -no sig today-
    4. Re:Useless by egamma · · Score: 1

      Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

      I'm almost positive that a gram will always weigh a gram. Did you mean a cubic centimeter?

    5. Re:Useless by TideX · · Score: 2

      It wasn't a trap just me not reading my posts carefully ._. I mean a cubic centimeter obviously.

    6. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can a gram of anything weigh more than ~1/28 ounces ? * mindblow *

    7. Re:Useless by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

      At first I thought this was a "yo mama" joke, as in "Yo mama so fat, one of her grams weighs a few million pounds."

      Sadly, I'm mistaken.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    8. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farnsworth: "You see, Vergon 6 was once filled with the super dense substance known as 'dark matter', each pound of which weighs over ten thousand pounds!"

    9. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

      1 gram = 0.0022~ pounds always

    10. Re:Useless by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct answer is - a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers. Am I right?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    11. Re:Useless by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      It is possible though for a gram (a unit of measure for mass) to weigh a few million pounds, if the "pounds" you are talking about is "pound force", not "pound mass" (an ambiguity in the Imperial system). All you would need to do is get the 1 gram mass to a place with extreme enough gravity (about 1.33e10 m/s^2.

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    12. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's no problem here, since pounds are units of force :)

      Little-g is quite large near a neutron star.

    13. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gram of anything will weight a few million pounds in a sufficiently deep gravity well.

    14. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously did since a gram is a measurement of mass and pounds are a measurement of force (typically gravitational force on an object).

    15. Re:Useless by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not if it's Jumbonium!

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

      As the AC pointed out, a gram never weighs a gram, because a gram is not a unit of weight, it's a unit of mass. A gram will weigh about 0.0098 Newtons on earth, though it will vary slightly from place to place.

      I like to point this out to illustrate that humans have fucked up the SI as well, and the it's hardly an advantage over the US Customary system when your answer is off by a factor of ten, you are less likely to know where you screwed up your units in the calculations. :-)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    17. Re:Useless by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Apparently many, with the 'Cowards being the standard bearer for falling into the trap.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    18. Re:Useless by fractoid · · Score: 1

      actually a gram of it would weigh a gram.

      Not if it's made of feathers. FFS dont you know any physics. It's bad enough that slashdot is full of misinformation...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    19. Re:Useless by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Oh snap, that old weight / mass dichotomy. Well played, sir.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    20. Re:Useless by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I like to point this out to illustrate that humans have fucked up the SI as well

      SI was much better before humans got involved. I guess.

      I am trying to think who may have invented SI, before the advent of humanity. Alien astronauts? God? Cthulhu? FSM? Morgoth? the Hainish?

      /shrug

      It's a mystery.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    21. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

      I'm almost positive that a gram will always weigh a gram. Did you mean a cubic centimeter?

      Pounds are really a measure of force, though. So if the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s^2, a gram will weigh about 0.0098N.

      On the surface of a neutron star that was 1.5 solar masses and whose radius is 8km, a gram would weigh 6.99 * 10^8 pounds, so the original poster is in the ballpark.

    22. Re:Useless by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      A gram is a mass measurement, not weight.

      The weight of a gram of matter is relative to the gravitational forces exerted on it. A gram of mass that weighs a pound on Earth does not weigh a pound on the moon.

      Cubic centimeter is a unit of volume. It may contain one gram of matter, or it may not, as the density of the matter determines how much mass will fit into the cubic centimeter, and likewise it may weigh one pound or it may weigh an intentesimally large/small value, depending on what forces are acting on it. Near the neutron star one cubic centimeter of any mass is probably compressed to be very dense and likewise very heavy. In open space, not so much.

      Gram is not a measurement of weight.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    23. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was of course Xenu.

    24. Re:Useless by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      It is not a problem with the SI or the humans who made it that most people still don't understand the difference between mass and weight.

      It is a problem with the Imperial-derived systems that when forced to deal with the reality that there is a difference between mass and weight, they decided to overload their unit of weight to also be a unit of mass, allowing one to correctly though very confusingly say "A pound doesn't always weigh a pound."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    25. Re:Useless by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      A gram will weigh about 0.0098 Newtons on earth, though it will vary slightly from place to place.

      And I'll guarantee that a gram will weigh a HECK of a lot more than that on the surface of a neutron star...

    26. Re:Useless by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      In the Imperial-derived system the pound is not a unit of mass - it is purely a unit of weight.

      For some odd reason we don't buy flour by the slug at the store, however....

    27. Re:Useless by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      In the Imperial-derived system the pound is not a unit of mass - it is purely a unit of weight.

      No, the pound is also a unit of mass.

      Yep, the Imperial system is even weirder than you thought.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  10. how dense? by Fulseman · · Score: 1

    "The finding has important implications for understanding nuclear interactions in matter at the highest known densities." So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?

    1. Re:how dense? by mangu · · Score: 1

      So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?

      Note that they mentioned "the highest known densities". The part of the black hole that's under the event horizon is unknown and will remain so forever. We have theories and extrapolations about those parts, but no experimental evidence that any of it is true, so we don't "know" anything about the density of a black hole.

    2. Re:how dense? by gtbritishskull · · Score: 1

      So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?

      No, it isn't (as far as we know). And they never claimed it was. Unless you are trying to claim that understanding nuclear interactions in neutron stars WILL NOT help with the understanding of other, more dense nuclear interactions (such as black holes).

      You could also argue that a black hole might no longer have nuclear interactions and instead only have sub-atomic particle interactions.

    3. Re:how dense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?"

      No, but I'm guessing you might be. Reading comprehension -- try it sometime.

  11. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the takeaway for the average Slashdot reader is that if the researchers can find away for this fluid to maintain its properties at or around [alive human] temperatures, you can reduce your Astroglide budget accordingly.

  12. Re:airtight? big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liquid hydrogen also leaks thru containers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen

  13. ah lubricant... by binaryseraph · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm trying really hard to not make a KY joke out of this.

    1. Re:ah lubricant... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      I'm trying really hard to not make a KY joke out of this.

      Not hard enough apparently ... besides, it would have to be an Astroglide joke in this context.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:ah lubricant... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      When it comes to science, Kentucky is already a joke.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:ah lubricant... by binaryseraph · · Score: 2

      well played, sir.

    4. Re:ah lubricant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to science, Kentucky is already a joke.

      As I go to school in Kentucky and will be going to the University of Louisville Speed School of Engineering, I'm kind of offended at this.

      Take your assumptions elsewhere.

  14. Re:airtight? big deal by Fus · · Score: 1
    --
    _____^_-________ Fus Was Here
  15. God Sperm! by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    Sloppy remnants of the Big Bang!

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  16. Re:airtight? big deal by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    >> . But something escapes it, so obviously your container needs to be tighter than air tight.

    Try a congressional sub-committee, nothing valuable ever gets out of that.

  17. Business Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1: Collect friction-free matter from the core of a neutron star.
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: Profit!

  18. Re:airtight? big deal by ep32g79 · · Score: 1

    Try a congressional sub-committee, nothing valuable ever gets out of that.

    Thats different because nothing of value is ever put in...

  19. Re:airtight? big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except for all that hot air, right?

  20. New Product Development? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what we have here is actually "Astral Glide" right?

  21. Re:airtight? big deal by N0Man74 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe, what their saying is that, a superfluid can escape a container that air can not. Not that the superfluid can escape an inescapable container.

    So, we should hold off on naming it 'Houdinium'?

  22. Oil by blair1q · · Score: 2

    Leave a bottle of vegetable oil somewhere (back of an upper cabinet is excellent) for a long time (year or 2) without disturbing it.

    When you finally do disturb it, you are likely to find that its exterior is sticky, and that it may be puddling around the base of the container.

    Oil can climb, and it can get through seals you thought were tight. All it takes is thermo- and electro-dynamics.

    Quantum-fluid frictionlessness not required.

    1. Re:Oil by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " thought were tight."

      See, superfluids get through materials that ARE tight. meaning air tight.

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

      I just tested this. It's bullshit. No leakage whatsoever.

    3. Re:Oil by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      No, they get through materials that were THOUGHT to be inescapable. You're trying to define air tight as inescapable, which is clearly wrong. 'Air tight' simply means that given a specific set of conditions, the container will not transfer 'air'.

      It very well might transfer oil however. For instance, set a bottle of vegetable oil somewhere for long enough and the oil will escape slowly, even though air will not. At least thats the perception. Reality is generally entirely different than perception.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Oil by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Explain to me how a seal will pass long carbon chains but not O2 molecules.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:Oil by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Not if it's a superfluid that's made of AIR.

      "Air tight" doesn't promise to hold H2 anyway.

    6. Re:Oil by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Long carbon chains can be pushed from behind while wriggling thermally.

      O2 will just bounce off.

    7. Re:Oil by blair1q · · Score: 2

      You didn't wait long enough, and probably used the wrong container.

      The right container is your alimentary canal.

      Swallow a liter of Canola Oil.

      Wait at least two days.

      Tell us what your results are.

    8. Re:Oil by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You're the one bringing inescapable into this, the original post said "air Tight' At NO point to I compare air tight to inescapable.

      Did you even read the post I was responding to before making yourself look like a fool?

      I even quoted the specific part of the sentence I was responding to.

      "For instance, set a bottle of vegetable oil somewhere for long enough and the oil will escape slowly, even though air will not."

      Yes, the oil will escape slowly...unless he seal is actually air tight, in which case it will not.
      Making in incorrect statement, then then talking about perception is a bullshit, hackneyed, 9th grade debate tactic.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. Re:airtight? big deal by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Normal helium can leak out of a seamless glass sphere

    Really? What, it just seeps out through the actual glass? Are the helium atoms small enough to squeeze through the gaps between molecules, or just really sneaky?

    I continue to be awed by all of the wacky shit that is apparently everyday physics.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  24. Superfluid helium behaves differently to liquid He by AC-x · · Score: 1
  25. Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to call her a bitch, since she fucks everyone but you?

  26. Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    well, if you look at her 9 months later and she's having a baby, that's pretty good corroborative evidence.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  27. Let the infomercials begin! by electricprof · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the infomercials about this new superlubricant!

  28. Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one by fractoid · · Score: 1

    Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but at best they can guess that's what it is. It's like looking at a picture of kim kardashian's ass (with clothes on!) and caliming to find sperm in her cooch.

    No, it's like taking an infrared picture every day for a fortnight and finding her skin temperature is 0.4 degrees C higher than average. From that you can say with pretty good confidence that *someone's* sperm has been in her cooch in the last three weeks.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  29. Re:airtight? big deal by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    Correction, sub-committees are more like a black hole, because no matter how much money and time you throw at them nothing ever comes out, and sub-committees can take an infinite amount of both without trying.

  30. Re:airtight? big deal by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    Except what you posted a video to was a cylindrical container with an open top in which you are looking at capillary action/forces draw the liquid up the side walls of the container and then back down the sides to drip off the bottom.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  31. Re:airtight? big deal by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are the helium atoms small enough to squeeze through the gaps between molecules, or just really sneaky?

    Yep, pretty much. Practically speaking, it's one of the things that keeps a helium-based Stirling engine from being one of the most efficient methods of solar power production - the stuff leaks out at every opportunity.

  32. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex lube.

  33. Re:Superfluid helium behaves differently to liquid by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 0

    Again, that video is of a cylindrical container with an open top. The liquid "escapes" using capillary action/force in which the liquid is drawn up the sides of the container, out/over the top, and then back down the sides to then drip off the container.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  34. Re:airtight? big deal by fractoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yep, that's how it goes.

    Although I was disappointed to find that the "climbs the walls of the container" thing was actually just in a one-atom-thick layer. (At such scales, surface tension beats gravity, and with no viscosity to hold it in check, the fluid flows up the sides molecule-by-molecule. It looks like it's just dripping through a hole in the container. :( )

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  35. Re:airtight? big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Or shes got a yeast infection.

    Or she's got a viral infection.

    Or she's got a bacterial infection.

    Or you took your original reference pictures in the shade and the 'raised temperature' happened because you took the pictures in the Sun.

    Or about a billion other reasons why the differences showed up that are more likely since she's a slut and probably pretty good at taking her birth control.

    I can make random shit up that is apparently true when you have basically 0 factual information about what you are 'studying'. When you make it all up as you go its pretty easy to make all the pieces fit, you have to be a real idiot for your conclusions to fall apart when you're making up all the supporting evidence as well.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  37. The actual physics by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The Chandra x-ray satellite can measure the spectrum of x-rays emitted by the neutron star, which is relatively close, only 330 light years away. From this they can infer the temperature. Over the last ten years they have seen the roughly 4% temperature drop.

    According to the two teams of scientists who analyzed the Chandra x-ray data to determine the cooling rate, these observations provide strong evidence for superfluidity in neutron-star cores. Indeed, the onset of neutron superfluidity opens a new channel for neutrino emission from the continuous breaking and formation of neutron pairs.

    The energy is leaving the star via neutrino emission, which in turn is a result of the neutron superfluid inside the neutron star. That's the important discovery.

    This is very interesting physics, because there is no way to produce these conditions in the lab, or anywhere outside a neutron star.

    Of course you could just read the abstract and get all this information yourself, but this is Slashdot so knoledge takes a back seat to bad jokes and uninformed opinion.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:The actual physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chandra x-ray satellite can measure the spectrum of x-rays emitted by the neutron star, which is relatively close, only 330 light years away. From this they can infer the temperature. Over the last ten years they have seen the roughly 4% temperature drop.

      According to the two teams of scientists who analyzed the Chandra x-ray data to determine the cooling rate, these observations provide strong evidence for superfluidity in neutron-star cores. Indeed, the onset of neutron superfluidity opens a new channel for neutrino emission from the continuous breaking and formation of neutron pairs.

      The energy is leaving the star via neutrino emission, which in turn is a result of the neutron superfluid inside the neutron star. That's the important discovery.

      This is very interesting physics, because there is no way to produce these conditions in the lab, or anywhere outside a neutron star.

      Of course you could just read the abstract and get all this information yourself, but this is Slashdot so knoledge takes a back seat to bad jokes and uninformed opinion.

      The neutron star is actually 11,000 light years away (as it is located in the supernova remnants Cassiopeia A).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_A

      The 330 years refers to how long ago it (the explosion of the supernova) appeared to have occurred from earth.

    2. Re:The actual physics by caywen · · Score: 1

      Wait, how could we know something happened 330 years ago from something 11,000 light years away?

    3. Re:The actual physics by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The key phrase was "appeared to have occurred from earth".

      So, from our subjective viewpoint, we would have seen the star explode about 330 years ago. Relative to the stars reference frame, whatever point in time it was at when the photons we're seeing today were emitted, about 330 years before that is when it exploded.

      Because the speed of light is also the speed of causality, therefore nothing that has happened after the point we're seeing now could have affected us in any way, it makes sense in a Relativistic universe to talk about the star exploding 330 years ago, as long as we qualify it with (or it is understood) that we're talking about how it appears from our reference frame. Notions of "now" and the ordering events is always relative to a given reference frame.

      And in contrast, it doesn't make sense to talk about the star exploding 11,330 years ago because that implies a false precision. There are error bars in that distance measurement, and while they may not be larger than 330 years, they are certainly larger than the precision in the value 330 itself. Or a more exaggerated example: We could say that a picture just taken by a telescope is exactly 25 minutes and 13 seconds old. But we couldn't possibly say that what we're seeing is what the star looked like 11,000 years, 25 minutes, and 13 seconds ago. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:The actual physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is Slashdot so knoledge takes a back seat to bad jokes and uninformed opinion.

      And typos.

    5. Re:The actual physics by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, wouldn't the only real observation be that the temperature dropped?

      The hypothesized mechanism for this temperature drop requires that the material be a superfluid. However, is there any data supporting that this is actually the case?

      Or, could the energy be radiated by some unknown mechanism that has nothing to do with superfluids?

    6. Re:The actual physics by rahultyagi · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is about 11000 light years away. The 300-odd years mentioned is actually the time when the supernova was observed on earth. A young neutron star just 300 light years away from earth would have been impossible to observe (since the supernova creating it would've wiped out any future observers. :) )

  38. It must be done because there is SCIENCE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Organic Superlube? Oh, it's great stuff, great stuff. You really have to keep an eye on it, though - it'll try and slide away from you the first chance it gets.
    T. M. Morgan-Reilly, Morgan Metagenics

  39. Re:airtight? big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, if you can put this stuff in a seamless glass sphere, and it still leaks out, I'll be impressed.

    So you wouldn't be impressed if they just put it in a seamless glass sphere, but only by it coming out again? Wouldn't the first part be equally impressive?

  40. Re:airtight? big deal by geekoid · · Score: 1

    No it wasn't. It was flowing through the glass. The even SAY it in the video. Yes they top was open, but what was being shown was the liquids moving through the glass.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  41. Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I can make random shit up that is apparently true when you have basically 0 factual information about what you are 'studying'. When you make it all up as you go its pretty easy to make all the pieces fit, you have to be a real idiot for your conclusions to fall apart when you're making up all the supporting evidence as well.

    Which describes you, if you think this describes the situation in TFA.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  42. Dark Matter! by DarthVain · · Score: 0

    Superfluid? I thought we were blaming "Dark Matter" for crap we don't understand yet this week? Did I not get the memo?

    1. Re:Dark Matter! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You can blame the things you don't understand on anything you want. I guess it's "scientists blame everything on dark matter" this week?

      I'm okay not getting any update memos.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  43. bad jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My life is a bad joke, you insensitive clod!

  44. Re:airtight? big deal by xMrFishx · · Score: 2

    No, it doesn't. It's at ~0K and once it hits that point the atoms become essentially still, aligning and allowing it to pass through the solid container. As Pratchett says: "Because of Quantum". Whilst that video is a short clip, if you watch the recent BBC Horizon episode - "What is one degree?" (I believe it was that episode). Unfortunately I don't know the quantum theory of superfluids to explain this any further but that is my understanding of it. Atomic alignment allowing one thing to pass another.

  45. Ok, you got me. Nice!! by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    I haven't did the coke out nose thing on /. for a while. Thanks!

  46. Re:airtight? big deal by jace_d · · Score: 1

    when the fluid reaches the rim and starts to fall, won't it start being siphoned(siphoned?) out because of gravity and the attraction between the molecules? ... if it is, it will definitely be a sight to behold, a cup refuses to stay full.

  47. Re:Ok, you got me. Nice!! by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

    I haven't did the coke out nose thing on /. for a while. Thanks!

    Hey man, it looks like you've been doing a bit too much of the coke UP the nose thing for a while!
    --sniff sniff--

    --
    soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
  48. Re:Superfluid helium behaves differently to liquid by AC-x · · Score: 1

    Em, did you listen to the video? "The moment the helium turns superfluid it leaks through". It's mostly leaking through the pours bottom, not climbing the sides. The very next segment of the video shows superfluid helium doing that, and it's dripping at a considerably slower rate than the previous demonstration.

  49. Astroglide, perhaps? by Slicebo · · Score: 1

    Bada boom!

  50. Superconducting protons? by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    Based on observations of Cassiopeia A, Dany Page and his collaborators pinpoint the critical temperature of the neutron superfluid to half a billion degrees and argue that the protons in neutron-star cores are superconducting.

    Hey folks, help me out here. My understanding of "superconduction" deals solely with electron pairs traveling through a special medium. How would protons in a neutron star be "superconducting"? Is that to say that protons move through the neutron star material with zero resistance? And if that's the case, what happened to all the electrons? I thought that the very definition of a neutron star was one in which gravity had caused the collapse of atoms, and that one byproduct of that collapse was that the protons and electrons merged to become neutrons themselves...

    ???

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  51. the paper by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    Here is the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6142

  52. Re:airtight? big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Superfluids can likely act as if they have infinitesimally thin viscosity. Even air has *SOME* viscosity. Even the best vacuum we can create has *SOME* viscosity. Make Sense? It's hard to design a container for it because we lack a valid test case. It would be like trying to design an air-tight container, but only being able to use sand as a test material. In addition to "Sand", "Water" would be helpful as a test case, "Pressurized Filtered Plain Air" would be as well.

    Anyway. In our case, we can't fathom anything more difficult than "pressurized air" or "pressurized air with nuclear explosion inside" (more precisely), so we will likely never be able to design an open-able physical container that can contain a superfluid...

    Anyway this would not be the end-all-be-all-of-everything. You could still play games like: "Well I can't contain you, but I have gravity on my side; and I can definitely play the "my container is larger" game, no problem", to beat a superfluid. There are also magnetic tricks you could play, etc. etc. etc...