Researchers Create Glass Just 3 Atoms Thick

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Create Glass Just 3 Atoms Thick

Posted by timothy on Friday February 3, 2012 @02:10AM from the barely-a-glaze dept.

sciencehabit writes "Researchers have created the world's thinnest pane of glass. The glass, made of silicon and oxygen, formed accidentally when the scientists were making graphene, an atom-thick sheet of carbon, on copper-covered quartz. They believe an air leak caused the copper to react with the quartz, which is also made of silicon and oxygen, producing a glass layer with the graphene. The glass is a mere three atoms thick — the minimum thickness of silica glass—which makes it two-dimensional. The team notes that the structure 'strikingly resembles' a diagram drawn by a glass theorist attempting to unravel its structure back in 1932. Such ultra-thin glass could be used in semiconductor or graphene transistors." See Nano Letters for an abstract (and another picture) to the paywalled article.

114 of 160 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just wait until Apple hear about this by Hieronymus+Howard · 2012-02-03 02:12 · Score: 5, Funny

And in related news, iPad 4 rumored to be just 2mm thick.
1. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by ackthpt · 2012-02-03 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  And in related news, iPad 4 rumored to be just 2mm thick.
  Too fat. I'm waiting for the iPad 5, rumoured to be 5 atoms thick.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by zrbyte · 2012-02-03 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you mean 2 mm thin?
3. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by Sinn3d · 2012-02-03 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Just imagine the amount of iPad/phones/4/5/X's prototypes they will lose/misplace then...
4. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by Chemisor · 2012-02-03 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I just don't understand why they make them so thin. Thin brittle things tend to snap in half like crackers.
5. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by Migraineman · 2012-02-03 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Don't dismiss the injury liability associated with this product. Knock it off the bistro table, and it's likely to take your barrista's toes off! (the pointy-end of a razor blade is about 2um wide ... a veritable brick, by comparison.)
6. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by Joce640k · 2012-02-03 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Style, baby, style...
  
  --
  No sig today...
7. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by tlhIngan · 2012-02-03 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Soon we'll have ot worry about getting papercuts from our non-paper tablets!.
8. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by sjames · 2012-02-03 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  It slices, it dices, it chops!
  Next week, Ginsu sues Apple.
9. Re:Just wait until Apple hear about this by jdastrup · 2012-02-03 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Next week, Ginsu sues Apple.
  No, it will be Apple that sues Ginsu.
  
  I still get a kick out of how they patented the magnetic connection for their power supplies, when my grandma's deep fryer had that exact same feature 30 years ago
Two-dimensional? by Scutter · 2012-02-03 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The glass is a mere three atoms thick — the minimum thickness of silica glass—which makes it two-dimensional.
It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.

--

"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
1. Re:Two-dimensional? by DSS11Q13 · 2012-02-03 02:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Perhaps it just had a bland personality?
2. Re:Two-dimensional? by operagost · 2012-02-03 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  This must be one of those theoretical physicist jokes, like a spherical cow.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
3. Re:Two-dimensional? by tungstencoil · 2012-02-03 02:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.
  Someone posted that same criticism in the article. Here is someone's reply (again, from the comments). I'm not a chemist or physicist, but what they say sounds reasonable:
  
  Hi Heather - fair enough, it's not 2D as in the mathematical concept, but 2D has a physical meaning as well - the thinnest version of a material. Because the silicon and oxygen atoms don't lay flat, glass needs a minimum of three layers of atoms (two silicon and one oxygen) to form a chemically stable sheet. Inside some of these technically 3D ultrathin materials, the electrons behave like their world is two dimensional.
4. Re:Two-dimensional? by gsgriffin · 2012-02-03 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Molecularly
  
  --
  jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
5. Re:Two-dimensional? by SJHillman · 2012-02-03 02:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I believe they're calling it two dimensional because it's the minimum thickness possible, so for practical purposes, the thickness is equal to a single point. You can argue semantics all you want, but if you were to "travel" on a glass sheet, you would only be able to go along the X axis or Y axis - there is no ability to travel along a Z axis that is only a single point.
6. Re:Two-dimensional? by Scutter · 2012-02-03 02:39 · Score: 2
  
  It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.
  Someone posted that same criticism in the article. Here is someone's reply (again, from the comments). I'm not a chemist or physicist, but what they say sounds reasonable:
  
  Hi Heather - fair enough, it's not 2D as in the mathematical concept, but 2D has a physical meaning as well - the thinnest version of a material. Because the silicon and oxygen atoms don't lay flat, glass needs a minimum of three layers of atoms (two silicon and one oxygen) to form a chemically stable sheet. Inside some of these technically 3D ultrathin materials, the electrons behave like their world is two dimensional.
  Ok, I can accept that.
  
  --
  
  "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
7. Re:Two-dimensional? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  The glass is a mere three atoms thick — the minimum thickness of silica glass—which makes it two-dimensional.
  It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.
  Really? Graphene is 0.34 nm thick, and I'm quite certain that is a 2 dimensional material. In terms of graphene it's 3 dimensional after 3 layers. So the measurable thickness argument isn't valid
8. Re:Two-dimensional? by koolguy442 · 2012-02-03 03:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The glass is a mere three atoms thick — the minimum thickness of silica glass—which makes it two-dimensional.
  It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.
  Your question can be answered in two ways. First, in the materials science community, it's common to denote a material or chunk of material that has a very high aspect ratio, for instance very large in one or two dimensions and small in size on the order of the atomic scale in the remaining directions as effectively one- and two-dimensional. In fact, quantum dots are thought of in materials science as generally zero-dimensional, even though they most certainly have more than one atom (and even if they comprised a single atom, the electron cloud extends in three dimensions). So, as far as the materials science and electron microscopy fields are concerned, this is two-dimensional.
  Second, you tend to get your paper published in fancier journals and grab more headlines by having sensational things such as 2D (in this case) or quantum or some such buzzword in your title these days.
9. Re:Two-dimensional? by Artifakt · 2012-02-03 03:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's two dimensional, in that the graph of the atomic bonds is a flat, 2 dimensional graph. That's not "a different definition ... than the rest of us", that's called context. It's the definition a chemist would normally use. If you're trying to prove your brilliance by pointing out that the whole universe has nothing physical that is infinitely thin, sorry, but we stopped giving away Nobel prizes for that. At least four people basically modded you insightful for pointing out that atoms are not infinitely small - that makes Slashdot clearly three dimensional, because we have something infinitely thick around here.
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
10. Re:Two-dimensional? by fredrated · 2012-02-03 03:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From a post by the author at TFA:
  "Inside some of these technically 3D ultrathin materials, the electrons behave like their world is two dimensional."
11. Re:Two-dimensional? by koolguy442 · 2012-02-03 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The glass is a mere three atoms thick — the minimum thickness of silica glass—which makes it two-dimensional.
  It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.
  Really? Graphene is 0.34 nm thick, and I'm quite certain that is a 2 dimensional material. In terms of graphene it's 3 dimensional after 3 layers. So the measurable thickness argument isn't valid
  Graphene is most certainly not .34 nm thick. What you are quoting is the equilibrium spacing between one graphene sheet and the next in crystalline graphite. The true "thickness" of graphene is hard to gauge, actually. If you take the standard model of quantum mechanics, the carbon atoms within graphene are point particles, and therefore have no thickness. It is reasonable, then, to measure the extent of the electron clouds from the carbon. Since the electron clouds are statistical formulations, they theoretically extend to infinity. However, because I'm a materials scientist and not some fancy physicist with a deep, quantitative understanding of electron orbital theory, I would say a good guess is to say that the radius of the electron cloud around a particular atom is about equal to half the bond length between one carbon and the next. In this case, about 0.071 nm.
  So if I were pressed to give an answer as to the thickness of a graphene sheet, not that it would generally matter in any context I'd think of, I'd call it 0.142 nm thick.
12. Re:Two-dimensional? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, no, electrons are point particles.
13. Re:Two-dimensional? by littlebigbot · 2012-02-03 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  No real character development.
14. Re:Two-dimensional? by peragrin · 2012-02-03 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Thats just it atoms have measurable sizes therefore it cant be a single point.
  To put it in perspective if you look at the solar system from the side since it is only one planet thick then it is only a point.
  Atoms have orbits wuth measurable distancesunderstanding those distance is a huge part of engineering on that level.
  It can never be 2D. Thinking it as such limits understanding.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
15. Re:Two-dimensional? by SJHillman · 2012-02-03 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, atoms have a measurable size and all that, but from a *practical* perspective, it's a single point in thickness. As another posted quoted, the atoms behave as if they're in a two dimensional environment. Mathematical concepts don't always translate well into the physical world, but it helps to think of something as being two dimensional if it behaves as if its truly two dimensional.
16. Re:Two-dimensional? by Sperbels · 2012-02-03 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't 2 Dimensional PERIOD
  Why not? Is the space we live in not 3 dimensional if there are higher spatial dimensions?
17. Re:Two-dimensional? by jeffmeden · 2012-02-03 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  The glass is a mere three atoms thick — the minimum thickness of silica glass—which makes it two-dimensional.
  It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.
  The space it occupies is certainly 3 dimensional but that doesn't stop it from having properties that only exist in 2 dimensions, such as: if you take this bit off the "top" it is also missing from the "bottom"... To a scientist/researcher, this is an important distinction when the applications all come from combining layers of certain materials. Would you say the visible surface of a piece of paper is a 3 dimensional one? You could answer yes, and you would be pedantically correct, but for any practical purpose the surface is referred to as 2 dimensional.
18. Re:Two-dimensional? by iinlane · 2012-02-03 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.
  It's two dimensional in sense that the third dimension is insignificantly small relative to other two dimensions e.g. it's flat. Also keep in mind that flat does not mean planar, for example earth is flat in spherical coordinates (r=const).
19. Re:Two-dimensional? by Onymous+Coward · 2012-02-03 04:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The concept of 2D is usable in more than just a mathematical context. In other situations it just means "planar".
  The reek you're experiencing is a matter of your own perception rather than something objective. If you over-apply your areas of knowledge, you're being a nerd. A thing is "wrong" if it doesn't conform to the systems you know? You're probably just ignorant of other systems.
20. Re:Two-dimensional? by Onymous+Coward · 2012-02-03 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Since the electron clouds are statistical formulations, they theoretically extend to infinity.
  That's always a fun idea to mull over.
21. Re:Two-dimensional? by unixisc · 2012-02-03 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Glass is SiO2, isn't it - so there's your 3 atoms right there
22. Re:Two-dimensional? by avandesande · 2012-02-03 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  More importantly, it is so thin it is transparent!! ;-)
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
23. Re:Two-dimensional? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 05:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The glass could be described as "wooden".
24. Re:Two-dimensional? by sjames · 2012-02-03 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  In the sense of chemical bonds and structure, it is primarily limited to two degrees of freedom, and so, is two dimensional. Much like we call a photograph two dimensional even though photographic paper has a thickness.
25. Re:Two-dimensional? by sjames · 2012-02-03 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Topographically speaking, a cow is a torus. Astrologically speaking, it's a Taurus.
26. Re:Two-dimensional? by Khyber · 2012-02-03 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347
  It has a size, pal. (scroll left)
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
27. Re:Two-dimensional? by qeveren · 2012-02-03 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Can't be a standard torus. You forgot about the nostrils.
  
  --
  Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
28. Re:Two-dimensional? by treeves · 2012-02-03 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  Topologically, not topographically. Topographically, cows are oval brown spots, but you have to zoom way in to see them.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
29. Re:Two-dimensional? by treeves · 2012-02-03 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  That's the stoichiometric ratio, but glass is a framework, not a collection of individual SiO2 molecules.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
30. Re:Two-dimensional? by camperdave · 2012-02-03 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  The glass is a mere three atoms thick — the minimum thickness of silica glass—which makes it two-dimensional.
  It's not two dimensional if it has a measurable thickness, which you stated in that same sentence. Unless you have a different definition of "two dimensional" than the rest of us.
  It can't be made thinner and remain glass, so within the context of being glass, it is essentially two dimensional.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
31. Re:Two-dimensional? by Khashishi · 2012-02-03 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  It can be treated as 2D in some models, because the structure along one direction is simple enough to be treated as an ignorable direction. Similarly, some aspects of chemistry that occurs in a lipid bilayer can be treated as 2D, not because there is no thickness, but because the thickness isn't a significant degree of freedom for the configurations of molecules in the surface.
  Another common reason to make use of a 2D physical model is when one dimension is very large (ideally infinite) and uniform compared to the other two. Then the large dimension can be ignored by using symmetry arguments.
  In this usage, 2D means, "can we use two dimensional models to describe this?" and not "does this have zero depth?".
32. Re:Two-dimensional? by Z00L00K · 2012-02-03 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  And then it would be interesting to see what properties this thin wafer actually has. There's a chance that this can behave in a different way compared to ordinary glass.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
33. Re:Two-dimensional? by spauldo · 2012-02-03 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Space doesn't get that small. Anything smaller than the Planck length can't be measured in any way that is meaningful.
  Granted, the radius of an electron is several orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
34. Re:Two-dimensional? by Sulphur · 2012-02-03 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Space doesn't get that small. Anything smaller than the Planck length can't be measured in any way that is meaningful.
  Granted, the radius of an electron is several orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length.
  Planck is orders of magnitude larger than that.
35. Re:Two-dimensional? by spauldo · 2012-02-03 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  No, because at smaller than Planck length, the concept of length starts to get fuzzy and weird. The idea of dimensions at the size also gets weird.
  I'm not a physicist, but from what I can tell, distance itself becomes meaningless at that size. If you don't have distance, you don't have dimensions.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
36. Re:Two-dimensional? by sjames · 2012-02-03 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the right word, but my fingers weren't listening :-)
37. Re:Two-dimensional? by Onymous+Coward · 2012-02-04 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's hot.
OH yay by Lumpy · 2012-02-03 02:23 · Score: 1

More glass cellphones with easy to break screens and backs!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:OH yay by ackthpt · 2012-02-03 02:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  More glass cellphones with easy to break screens and backs!
  Easy?!? I've pounded on these things with my finger when they don't .. do .. what .. I .. effing .. want I assume you are wearing metal gauntlets, Sir Lumpy of Oatmealshire.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:OH yay by MightyYar · 2012-02-03 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  I usually have to drop mine from 4 feet up onto tile to break them. I'm not sure what could be done to make them survive that reliably and still fit in my pocket.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
3. Re:OH yay by TWX · 2012-02-03 02:46 · Score: 2
  
  I'm thinking that the tract-home builders will start using this new glass for the windows in the cheapass houses they build...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re:OH yay by Phics · 2012-02-03 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Usually?!? How many phones do you go through, man?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
5. Re:OH yay by tmosley · 2012-02-03 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Considering they are sandwiched in graphene, that might actually be better than modern windows. I don't think graphene transmits heat very well across the plain.
6. Re:OH yay by TWX · 2012-02-03 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  How about sound though? When we put in the new dual-pane windows at the previous house we had a marked drop in external sound inside the house.
  As close together as many modern tract homes are, I wouldn't want to hear my neighbor fart like I fear would be the case.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
7. Re:OH yay by mcgrew · 2012-02-03 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I want a Razr -- gorilla glass front and kevlar back. Too bad you have to get on T-Mobile to get one, though :(
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
8. Re:OH yay by amRadioHed · 2012-02-03 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  You mean Verizon? If it was on T-Mobile I'd be very tempted to get one.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
9. Re:OH yay by sjames · 2012-02-03 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  For some reason, you made me picture your house surrounded by your neighbor's very special stereo system preparing to annoy you greatly drawn in a sort of Dr. Seuss meets Mad Magazine style.
  Finally, a practical use for the sub-woofer.
10. Re:OH yay by ibutsu · 2012-02-03 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  I actually had my V3 Razr get run over by a Volvo station wagon, the outer screen was toast but the rest was fine, still works to this day.
11. Re:OH yay by tmosley · 2012-02-03 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds like a neat experiment. I have no idea how sound would propagate through graphene in any direction.
12. Re:OH yay by Lumpy · 2012-02-03 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your fingers are fleshy sausages. That is why it does not break.
  and no I have not worn gauntlets while using my iphone cince they went out of style in California. Nobody wears gauntlets after June, it's a fashion faux pas to do so.
  you are supposed wear fingerless gloves made of silk after june, thus the lack of breakage on glass phones.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
13. Re:OH yay by Lumpy · 2012-02-03 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  I work with him, he breaks about 6 a week, he refuses to stop putting them in his shirt pocket. Problem is IT does not realize that we have completely ran through the stock of 27 iphones we had in case of breakage.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
A new property of graphene... by plerner · 2012-02-03 02:25 · Score: 1

it can also create very thin glass! Go graphene!
1. Re:A new property of graphene... by ackthpt · 2012-02-03 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  it can also create very thin glass! Go graphene!
  Computer! I bring up the molecular structure for Transparent Grapheneium!
  We miss you, Mr. Scott
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I hate to break it to them... by Shoten · 2012-02-03 02:26 · Score: 5, Funny

...but I think an old landlord of mine managed to do this, many years ago.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
1. Re:I hate to break it to them... by Prod_Deity · 2012-02-03 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  Wish I had mod points. Looks like we had the same slum lord
So... by NevergoldMel · 2012-02-03 02:27 · Score: 1

How long before they broke it?
Re:Also? by Aladrin · 2012-02-03 02:28 · Score: 3, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz "It is made up of a continuous framework of SiO4 silicon–oxygen tetrahedra, with each oxygen being shared between two tetrahedra, giving an overall formula SiO2."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide "Silica is used primarily in the production of glass for windows, drinking glasses, beverage bottles, and many other uses."
Glass and quartz.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Serendipity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 02:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Serendipity showing its hand in science once again.
This is just great! by Haxagon · 2012-02-03 02:32 · Score: 2

Now I'll have to keep kids from breathing on my windows, much less throwing a baseball through them!
You know what they say... by nairnr · 2012-02-03 02:32 · Score: 2

Those people in atomic glass houses really shouldn't throw anything!
How tall are you? by Haxagon · 2012-02-03 02:34 · Score: 1

You must have never dropped an iPhone 4/S from a foot up on something that isn't memory foam.
1. Re:How tall are you? by DrgnDancer · 2012-02-03 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  My wife dropped hers from chest height, (Probably around 4 feet, she's a fairly tall woman) onto a a train track rail. We were fully expecting to have our next stop be the AT&T store, but the phone was completely undamaged. I'm not saying they're indestructible, but they seem study enough for day to day use.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
2. Re:How tall are you? by ackthpt · 2012-02-03 04:27 · Score: 2
  
  You must have never dropped an iPhone 4/S from a foot up on something that isn't memory foam.
  Try leaving it on top of the car and then driving away -- hearing a clatter -- thinking 'um where's the phone?' and going back to find it -- fully functional, just some case scratches. Done it not, once, but twice.
  BTW, there's some great news on Alzheimers Research in a following news post. Hope they get this sorted before I really need it. Ok.. I have the phone, but where's the car?
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
3. Re:How tall are you? by flink · 2012-02-03 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  I've dropped my iPhone 4 from 5' up and watched it bounce down half a flight of concrete steps to no ill effect. On the other hand, my girlfriend had hers fall 6" from her breast pocket while she was bending over to pick up her car keys and the screen complete shattered. They build these things out of some pretty amazing materials and they do their best to make them hardy, but when it comes down to it you are still rolling the dice when you drop one.
4. Re:How tall are you? by isorox · 2012-02-03 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  My wife dropped hers from chest height, (Probably around 4 feet, she's a fairly tall woman) onto a a train track rail
  And a train ran over it?
5. Re:How tall are you? by spauldo · 2012-02-03 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  I did that once. I couldn't find it. I did find the rubber case cover though, and gave it to the clerk at Radio Shack (she had an iPhone) when I bought my Android. That rubber case cover was why the phone didn't fly off 'til I was going 75 down highway 412.
  I missed my contacts, but other than that I didn't miss the phone. My HTC has a plastic case cover, so maybe next time I leave my phone on the car it'll fall off before I'm out of the parking lot.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Sucker. by Haxagon · 2012-02-03 02:35 · Score: 3, Funny

I'll be spending my money on the iPad5S, four atoms and a suspended quark thick! Have fun wasting your money!
1. Re:Sucker. by treeves · 2012-02-03 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  iPad X will be three atoms thick, with a protective coating of Higgs bosons on both sides, hand made by people in China with desktop LHCs.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
2. Re:Sucker. by kenboldt · 2012-02-03 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  iPad X will be three atoms thick, with a protective coating of Higgs bosons on both sides, hand made by people in China with desktop LHCs.
  wouldn't they be SHCs?
3. Re:Sucker. by treeves · 2012-02-03 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Of course not. They're colliding large hadrons.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re:Are there any practical applications? by SJHillman · 2012-02-03 02:36 · Score: 2

While you post comments, do you read the summary at all? Or do you just read the first few letters and decide to post your thoughts?
"Such ultra-thin glass could be used in semiconductor or graphene transistors."
Re:Are there any practical applications? by daktari · 2012-02-03 02:38 · Score: 1

I'm sure we'll invent something for this invention.

--
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. -- Willam Blake
Re:Are there any practical applications? by imboboage0 · 2012-02-03 02:43 · Score: 1

I'm thinking it could be used as an insulator sandwiched inside of something. Don't know of any actual uses like that, but I'm sure someone else can come up with one.

--
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
Re:Are there any practical applications? by mattr · 2012-02-03 02:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is said the most amazing discoveries come from a scientist saying "gee that's funny..."
By accidentally producing this very cool new material they have according to the abstract made the first electron microscopy of glass, allowed by this very thin layer being supported by but not bonded to the underlying graphite. And from the amazing picture they took, which amazingly resembles drawings made by a glass theorist 80 years ago, they were able to make calculations showing that the weak van der waals force is what's keeping this thing stable.
It is a totally awesome thing they found and probably gives them whole new ideas about how to grow thin 2d structures. Just a week ago there was another bit of news about awesome 2d ice channels in graphite that open and close to keep helium from going through them. Sounds like there are tons of totally awesome things that are possible in these crenulated 2d realms and graphite is helping us discover them.
Perhaps someone else here can theorize about what it all means.
Re:Also? by Geoffrey.landis · 2012-02-03 02:51 · Score: 2

Glass and quartz.
Glass that consists of nothing other than silicon and oxygen-- chemically known as "silica"-- is referred to as "quartz".
When they say they grew the material in "quartz" tubes, they mean: tubes made of silica glass. (Mineralogists reserve the word for only crystalline silica, but when they say a quartz tube, it's quartz glass, i.e. silica, not the mineral.) When they say that the substrate was "copper-covered quartz" they mean: "copper-covered silica glass". When they say they made glass consisting of two atoms of oxygen and one atom of silicon, they mean: silica glass.
So: they're saying that silica glass is silicon and oxygen, and, also, so is silica glass.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Only a few more years... by eternaldoctorwho · 2012-02-03 02:52 · Score: 1

...until transparent aluminum!
Re:Also? by Garble+Snarky · 2012-02-03 02:56 · Score: 2

Quartz has a regular crystal structure, glass doesn't.
Re:If it's three atoms thick... by pavon · 2012-02-03 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

If I draw a picture on a piece of paper, we call that drawing two-dimensional despite the fact that the graphite and pulp that is formed with have thickness. Likewise, if a crystal only grows along a plane (rather than in three dimensions), then that crystalline structure is two-dimensional, even though the crystal itself is a three dimensional object. This is the same thing, the sheet of glass is three-dimensional, but the structure of the amorphous solid is two-dimensional.
Re:If it's three atoms thick... by DrgnDancer · 2012-02-03 03:07 · Score: 1

This was already said and responded to. Apparently the material is (obviously) not mathematically two dimensional, but there's also a physical concept of 2D which involves a material having reached its absolute minimum thinness. The molecules in glass are three atoms thick, therefore the thinnest possible glass is three atoms thick. According to the physical definition of 2D, this material is.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
MOS transistors? by scharkalvin · 2012-02-03 03:11 · Score: 1

Might this be a good for improving MOS transistors (gate/channel insulator)?
Hello computer... by micahjc · 2012-02-03 03:12 · Score: 1

A keyboard! How quaint.
Quartz Re:Also? by Geoffrey.landis · 2012-02-03 03:15 · Score: 2

"Quartz has a regular crystal structure, glass doesn't."
If you're a mineralogist. Try looking up "quartz glass" or "fused quartz" in google.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. Re:Quartz Re:Also? by Garble+Snarky · 2012-02-03 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so there are several "isomers" of silica? Don't they all have different properties? What's the problem with distinguishing between them? I don't see how making this distinction is very different than making the distinction between diamond and graphene.
Pane of glass or coating? by AbrasiveCat · 2012-02-03 03:24 · Score: 1

Not having access to the full article I can't tell, but there is a big difference between coating a copper layer (on silica) with another layer of very thin silica and a pane of glass, which I would think is a stand alone structure. Anyone know? Still quite neat.
Silicon and Oxygen? by gsgriffin · 2012-02-03 03:25 · Score: 1

Sounds like the glass is half full to me.

--
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Re:Are there any practical applications? by PPH · 2012-02-03 03:26 · Score: 1

Screens for the next generation of iPads?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Serious question: by mcgrew · 2012-02-03 04:06 · Score: 1

What's the chemical difference between regular glass and Gorilla Glass? How thin could you make Gorilla Glass? How strong woud it be at its thinnest?

--
Free Martian Whores!
1. Re:Serious question: by Pope · 2012-02-03 04:19 · Score: 2
  
  Gorilla Glass is made out of gorillas, like Girl Scout cookies.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
2. Re:Serious question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 04:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Girl Scout cookies are made out of gorillas?
3. Re:Serious question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's a little known fact that "Girl Scouts" is the colloquialism of "Gorilla Scouts" that has gained common usage, so yes, Girl Scout cookies are in fact made from gorillas. The ones made from girl gorillas are known to be of higher quality, and are sold only in specialty markets (Beverly Hills, etc...), Most of what you can buy in the midwest come from a mixed batch, manufactured in China and shipped back over...
4. Re:Serious question: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-03 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_Glass
  
  The glass is toughened by ion exchange. It is placed in a hot bath of molten potassium salt at a temperature of approximately 400 C (~750 F). Smaller sodium ions leave the glass, and larger potassium ions from the salt bath replace them. These larger ions take up more room and are pressed together when the glass cools, producing a layer of compressive stress on the surface of the glass. Gorilla Glass's special composition enables the potassium ions to diffuse far into the surface, creating high compressive stress deep into the glass. This layer of compression creates a surface that is more resistant to damage from everyday use. Like all glass, Gorilla glass can be recycled.[2]
  If you are unfamiliar with basic materials science and/or physics, the inherent compressive stress resists the tensile stresses encountered in everyday use. It does make it weaker against compressive loads, but material capacity for compression is much higher than tension.
5. Re:Serious question: by tchdab1 · 2012-02-03 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  And baby powder.
Re:There's got to be a way... by itsdapead · 2012-02-03 04:30 · Score: 1

In an earlier version of the script, the crew travel back in time to rescue the sperm whale, rather than the humpback whale, but due to an unfortunate communications error they end up trying to make a very small glass tank...

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Dupe Dupe Dupe by sexconker · 2012-02-03 04:51 · Score: 1

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=28788557
Re:Are there any practical applications? by treeves · 2012-02-03 07:09 · Score: 1

I'm thinking that the leakage through such a thin layer of oxide would make it useless as an insulator in transistors.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re:Are there any practical applications? by Sulphur · 2012-02-03 08:32 · Score: 1

I'm thinking that the leakage through such a thin layer of oxide would make it useless as an insulator in transistors.
Maybe one could do a tunneling junction.
Re:Are there any practical applications? by mcgrew · 2012-02-03 08:33 · Score: 1

Practical applications for new materials and other discoveries are seldom apparent at first. Even new inventions. Fifteen years ago everyone was asking me "why on earth do you have a computer?" When Edison invented voice recording, there were no practical applications for that, either, until Bell turned the wax cylinder into a shellack disk and people started listening to records.
And what's wrong for discovery for the sake of discovery? I'll bet you think astronomy is a wasted science and never should be funded, too.
It boggles the mind that a comment like that would show up on slashdot, of all places. WTF???

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:There's got to be a way... by chuckugly · 2012-02-03 12:33 · Score: 1

Aluminum Oxide, AKA Sapphire, is transparent aluminum.
Re:If it's three atoms thick... by idbeholda · 2012-02-03 13:37 · Score: 1

If the object itself is three dimensional, it's a physical impossibility for the structure to also be two dimensional. A two dimensional structure has NO THICKNESS WHATSOEVER. What you're describing is the mollecular bond of the crystalline structure running along the same plane. That's not a two dimensional object, there, buddy, that's a FLAT SURFACE. Big difference. Am I going senila or are the basic laws that govern our universe really that difficult to grasp? Fuck, if this is our future...
Re:If it's three atoms thick... by idbeholda · 2012-02-03 13:43 · Score: 1

Well, excuse me for hitting the "end" button when I loaded the page. In the meantime, why don't you read something relevant to the laws of the universe AND the discussion instead of arguing with fallacy and half-baked theoretical conjecture. Incidentally, physical concepts are ENTIRELY mathematical, in case you haven't been paying attention in class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#In_physics

Enjoy.
Re:Are there any practical applications? by MarkRose · 2012-02-03 14:53 · Score: 1

Two words: DOUBLE RAINBOWS!

--
Be relentless!
Re:Are there any practical applications? by sound+vision · 2012-02-03 21:11 · Score: 1

Theorizing...

It is a totally awesome thing they found and probably gives them whole new ideas about how to grow thin 2d structures. Just a week ago there was another bit of news about awesome 2d ice channels in graphite that open and close to keep helium from going through them.
This reminds me a bit of a transistor...

Perhaps all these ways we're figuring out to manipulate things on an atomic scale will have some payoff in computing. It could be as simple as smaller fab processes for conventional computer chips. It could be evolutionary advancements of current chip technology, that's somehow augmented by using this new atom-level manipulation. Or it could mean revolutionary advancements, like quantum computing or some as-of-yet unimagined computing paradigm.
mnemonic by erdraug · 2012-02-04 12:46 · Score: 1

I was hoping for a monofilament wire :(