Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Create 'Fastest Man-Made Spinning Object'

dryriver sends this news from the BBC: "A team of researchers claims to have created the world's fastest spinning man-made object. They were able to levitate and spin a microscopic sphere at speeds of up to 600 million revolutions per minute. This spin speed is half a million times faster than a domestic washing machine and more than a thousand times faster than a dental drill. The work by the University of St Andrews scientists is published in Nature Communications. Although there is much international research exploring what happens at the boundary between classical physics and quantum physics, most of this experimental work uses atoms or molecules. To do this they manufactured a microscopic sphere of calcium carbonate only four millionths of a meter in diameter. The team then used the minuscule forces of laser light to hold the sphere with the radiation pressure of light — rather like levitating a beach ball with a jet of water. They exploited the property of polarization of the laser light that changed as the light passed through the levitating sphere, exerting a small twist or torque. Placing the sphere in vacuum largely removed the drag due to any gas environment, allowing the team to achieve the very high rotation rates. In addition to the rotation, the team observed a 'compression' of the excursions or 'wobble' of the particle in all three dimensions, which can be understood as a 'cooling' of the motion. Essentially the particle behaved like the world's smallest gyroscope, stabilizing its motion around the axis of rotation."

159 comments

  1. Jay Carney is all: by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    "You guys ain't even seen angular velocity until you've seen my press conference work."

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:Jay Carney is all: by techprophet · · Score: 1

      A statement like that could only be made at a physics conference.

    2. Re:Jay Carney is all: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... most of this experimental work uses atoms or molecules

      Really? So does mine!

  2. Hey I know! by bmo · · Score: 5, Funny

    "A team of researchers claims to have created the world's fastest spinning man-made object."

    A politician?

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Hey I know! by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      "A team of researchers claims to have created the world's fastest spinning man-made object."

      A politician?

      --
      BMO

      A marketer or political consultant - if they had quantum numbers, well, they'd be quantum!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Hey I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founding fathers (in their graves)?

    3. Re:Hey I know! by bmo · · Score: 1

      "The founding fathers (in their graves)?"

      Roger Williams and William Penn when Tea Party idiots claim that the US is a "Christian Country."

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:Hey I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A team of researchers claims to have created the world's fastest spinning man-made object."

      A politician?

      Its nerdiness suggests otherwise;

      This spin speed is half a million times faster than a domestic washing machine and more than a thousand times faster than a dental drill.

      I think they're saying that this thing could move faster up Gartner's Hype-Curve^tm than Cloud computing ...

    5. Re:Hey I know! by Bringer128 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, a cat with a peanut butter sandwich attached to its back.

    6. Re:Hey I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have to disagree with you. While not all of the same denomination of Christianity. The founding fathers were Christians. Hell, the Anti-Federalists argued against the US Constitution because it didn't mention God specifically.
       
          Many of the founding fathers came from states that DID have an official state religion. It wasn't that they didn't think the US was a Christian country, it was that they didn't want a a national government to dictate which branch of Christianity they were suppose to follow - as was done in Europe.

    7. Re:Hey I know! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Nope, a Fox news talking head.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Hey I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were deists, not christians.

    9. Re:Hey I know! by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      >The founding fathers were Christians.

      No, they were deists at best, which if you describe this to today's "christians" you'd get a horrified reaction as if they were (horrors!) Unitarian Universalists or ... atheists! Today's "christians" believe that God has a direct hand in the lives of everyone. This is in direct opposition to the "clockwork universe" view espoused by the Deists - "God set everything in motion and then abandoned the work to run on its own."

      Which is the only thing that makes sense if you're going to write papers on logic and reason, like the founders did. If you have a god that is fiddling around with everything, where is the room for reason?

      The Letter to the Danbury Baptists by Jefferson where he says "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. and the letter to the Touro Synagogue by none other than George Washington himself prove that the US is not a "christian nation" - that every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid..

      I suggest you read them. They're even short enough for a 4channer to read.

      http://www.tourosynagogue.org/index.php/history-learning/gw-letter
      http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

      Jefferson's version of the New Testament Bible only came to 40 pages, after ripping out what he described as nonsense. "I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."

      People who think that the "founding fathers" were "christian" in the modern sense of the word are wrong. Paine was an atheist and proud of it.

      "Hell, the Anti-Federalists argued against the US Constitution because it didn't mention God specifically."

      This is also just plain wrong. Rhode Island's history was that of a refuge from the theocracy and other bullshit in the Massachusetts colony, where they did things like hang Quakers. The Charter of 1663 granted to Rhode Island by King Charles II a "lively experiment" in religious freedom - you could be anything you liked and not have to toe the line of Christianity or /version/ of Christianity, for example (since the natives were clearly not Christian). This was basically because of the efforts of people like Roger Williams, who didn't see the natives with the disdain that much of the English did. Go read "A Key into the Language of the Americas" for that and "The Bloudy Tenent" for his assertion that a state church "stinks in the nostrils of God," which was also cited by Jefferson when crafting the First Amendment to the Constitution.

      There was an unfortunate time when troops from MA would come into RI chasing "heretics" like Anne Hutchinson.

      Because of this history, RI was a hotbed of anti-federalism by the 1780s One of the prominent anti-federalists was from my hometown of North Kingstown, RI - William West. It's because of him (he marched an army of 1000 into Providence to protest ratification in 1788) and others like him that Rhode Island was the 13'th state, the last of the colonies to ratify the Constitution. The point of the anti-federalists was to be anti-central-government, because people like William West saw central government as antithetical to religious freedom, among other things.

      And I haven't even mentioned William Penn yet. When you're thrown into prison because of your religious views, you tend to come out of prison severely pissed off and wary of state religion.

      Don't try to tell me history. This is my back yard.

      --
      BMO

    10. Re:Hey I know! by bmo · · Score: 1

      I typed:

      "40 pages"

      Clearly I was wrong, I meant 46 pages.

      --
      BMO

    11. Re:Hey I know! by bmo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Nope, a Fox news talking head.

      No, they are talking assholes.

      They are assholes that have been taught to talk and migrated to the top of their bodies.

      The Man Who Taught His Asshole to Talk
      Tags: Dr Benway, Naked Lunch, Texts by Burroughs, William Burroughs
      (aka âoeThe Talking Asshole Routineâ from Naked Lunch)
      William S. Burroughs

      Did I ever tell you about the man who taught his asshole to talk? His whole abdomen would move up and down you dig farting out the words. It was unlike anything I ever heard.

      This ass talk had sort of a gut frequency. It hit you right down there like you gotta go. You know when the old colon gives you the elbow and it feels sorta cold inside, and you know all you have to do is turn loose? Well this talking hit you right down there, a bubbly, thick stagnant sound, a sound you could smell.

      This man worked for a carnival you dig, and to start with it was like a novelty ventriliquist act. Real funny, too, at first. He had a number he called âoeThe Better âOleâ that was a scream, I tell you. I forget most of it but it was clever. Like, âoeOh I say, are you still down there, old thing?â

      âoeNah I had to go relieve myself.â

      After a while the ass start talking on its own. He would go in without anything prepared and his ass would ad-lib and toss the gags back at him every time.

      Then it developed sort of teeth-like little raspy in-curving hooks and started eating. He thought this was cute at first and built an act around it, but the asshole would eat its way through his pants and start talking on the street, shouting out it wanted equal rights. It would get drunk, too, and have crying jags nobody loved it and it wanted to be kissed same as any other mouth. Finally it talked all the time day and night, you could hear him for blocks screaming at it to shut up, and beating it with his fist, and sticking candles up it, but nothing did any good and the asshole said to him: âoeItâ(TM)s you who will shut up in the end. Not me. Because we dont need you around here any more. I can talk and eat and shit.â

      After that he began waking up in the morning with a transparent jelly like a tadpoleâ(TM)s tail all over his mouth. This jelly was what the scientists call un-D.T., Undifferentiated Tissue, which can grow into any kind of flesh on the human body. He would tear it off his mouth and the pieces would stick to his hands like burning gasoline jelly and grow there, grow anywhere on him a glob of it fell. So finally his mouth sealed over, and the whole head would have have amputated spontaneous â" (did you know there is a condition occurs in parts of Africa and only among Negroes where the little toe amputates spontaneously?) â" except for the eyes you dig. Thats one thing the asshole couldnâ(TM)t do was see. It needed the eyes. But nerve connections were blocked and infiltrated and atrophied so the brain couldnâ(TM)t give orders any more. It was trapped in the skull, sealed off. For a while you could see the silent, helpless suffering of the brain behind the eyes, then finally the brain must have died, because the eyes went out, and there was no more feeling in them than a crabâ(TM)s eyes on the end of a stalk.

      This is exactly what you see when you turn on Fox "News" and look at the eyes of the so-called "anchors."

      Lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes.

      --
      BMO

      Yeah, I know, that was a Jaws quote at the end. Sue me.

    12. Re:Hey I know! by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      Nope, a Fox news talking head.

      Because the right are the only spinners out there.

      I love idiots like you. Pick a side that makes you feel good and root for them. Hate the other guy and watch as the other side ruins the country. It does not matter. You are a fool. Neither side wants an informed, empowered public. They want you watching "So you think you can dance" on the left and "Duck Dynasty" on the right. While they pass laws that they are immune from.

      You here all the talk about how Washington has exempted themselves from the very law they created. This though is not new. The critters running things in D.C. are immune from insider trading laws as well and have been for a very long time.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    13. Re:Hey I know! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      That was disturbing.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    14. Re:Hey I know! by q.kontinuum · · Score: 1

      No, Schrödinger. That's why we keep hearing the cat-story being represented as fact. A couple of more times, and they might exceed 700mio rpm.

      --
      Trolling is a art!
    15. Re:Hey I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon dude... doesn't matter what was written by a bunch of dead men hundreds of years ago. Everyone knows that the US belongs to the Jews...

    16. Re:Hey I know! by ketomax · · Score: 1

      Let us have a beyblade battle with two of these.

    17. Re:Hey I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting the Uncertainty principle. If you can determine it's a politician, then you cannot measure it's rotation speed accurately and vice versa.

    18. Re:Hey I know! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      To say most of the founders were Deists is a disservice to the Founders.

      Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention there were 49 Protestants, and two Roman Catholics. There were 28 Church of England, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, and 2 Methodists.

      Increasing "founders" to include scholars and writers of political thought and philosophy, many were professedly Deists (by word and deed), such as Paine, Franklin, Madison. Some were influenced by Deistic philosophy, even if they were more ambiguous in actual beliefs (keeping them more private than others), such as Jefferson who wrote and held many Deistic ideals, but never called hisself such, and called himself a Unitarian.

      Adams was a Protestant and later Unitarian as well. Washington was episcopelian. Hamilton espoused many things, some Deistic, some Protestent, but on the whole his religion was apparently dictated more by the current political needs than any personal beliefs. Jon Jay was Espicolpalian.

      On the whole our Nation was founded by all three groups, each with significant numbers: Religous (chiefly Christians of various flavors), Deists, and Atheists. the one consistant thread between all the founders religious views is that regardless of their personal beliefs the majority of them put them aside and didnt try to force them on the nation or other citizens, and instead held to a rationalism regarding individual choice

      No it was not founded as a specifically Christian nation. But while there is no official state religion, the majority popluation throughout its history has identified as Christian. Thankfully, even though many of them were Christians, they were also very very educated and intellectual and understood the importance of maintaining a freedom of choice in regards to religion. evangelicism movement didnt come around until much, much later.

      The short of it is that to try and rewrite it and say "no no, they werent christians" is insulting to the many founders who were.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    19. Re:Hey I know! by bmo · · Score: 1

      The short of it is that to try and rewrite it and say "no no, they werent christians" is insulting to the many founders who were.

      The problem is that various revisionists have been evangelical christians trying to hold up the founders as if they too were evangelicals.

      And it's still happening, even here. You conveniently ignored the first few sentences where I differentiated between modern "christianity" and the "christianity" of the founders, which was nearly atheism. Indeed if you ask a modern "christian" what a Unitarian Universalist is, you'll get "ungodly" or worse.

      Stop trying to twist history.

      Bye.

      --
      BMO

    20. Re: Hey I know! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The deists of that time were probably analogous to the "I'm a spiritual person but I don't believe in any organized religion" folks of today.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    21. Re:Hey I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this article, that has nothing to do with TFA or the subject of TFA, +4 informative?

    22. Re: Hey I know! by bmo · · Score: 1

      Which is why I brought up Unitarian Universalists.

      They're as close to the Deists you can get in modern times.

      --
      BMO

    23. Re:Hey I know! by bmo · · Score: 1

      Because I didn't let the troll get away with his nonsense and instead gave him a smack upside the head with actual facts.

      Nothing kills trolls dead better than facts with references from reputable sources.

      --
      BMO

  3. DAMN! You guys beat me to... by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    ...the politician jokes!

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  4. Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Are you telling me a dental drill spins at 600,000 RPM? I seriously doubt that. That's ridiculous, it would burn your teeth and anything else it touched. You wouldn't even be able to hear the high pitch whine of the drill at that speed.

    1. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

      "Modern dental drills can rotate at up to 800,000 rpm"

    2. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it spins at 666,666 RPM. Yeah, I know, all dentists are sadists.

    3. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by GodInHell · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you telling me a dental drill spins at 600,000 RPM? I seriously doubt that. That's ridiculous, it would burn your teeth and anything else it touched. You wouldn't even be able to hear the high pitch whine of the drill at that speed.

      I guess that depends who you ask Wikipedia the speed of a modern dental drill is up to 800,000rpm - but the source cited only supports up to 400,000 rpm. these guys say somewhere around 350,000rpm and 400,000rpm - which seems to agree with the other product results turned up by a google of "dental drill rpm."

      So -- if you're looking for a quick fake fact and you accept wikipedia as gospel truth - yeah, dental drills operate at over 600,000rpm - apparently the folks that sell dental drills say 300,000rpm to 400,000rpm is more realistic - still in the range of 1/1000th - off by a factor of 33% - but its PR speak.

    4. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You beat me to it. Dental drills do 10,000 revs per second? I don't think so.

    5. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And washing machines spun at over 30 trillion RPM! The dirt photons are removed with general relativity!

    6. Re: Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      600,000 RPM is 10,000 revs/s. Depending on the nature of the whine, the bulk of the energy may be at harmonics, but given anything short of absolute perfect balance and symmetry, there will definitely be some at the fundamental. Most people have no problem hearing 10 kHz, and many young people will pick up the first harmonic at 20KHz.

    7. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      10khz is well within the normal hearing range for most human beings.

    8. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      600000 RPM = 10kHz fundamental.
      You can't hear a 10kHz tone? seriously?

    9. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Yes actually, they do. Look it up.

    10. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      er, try 1200

    11. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, 300000rpm would be 5000Hz, which seems to be about the right frequency of the noise made by my dentist's drill. I'm pretty sure dental drills are compressed air driven, so yeah, another factor of 2 or so is probably reasonably achievable.

    12. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      more than a thousand times faster than a dental drill
      Reading comprehension.

    13. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could hear tones created a sub 1/x harmonics of the speed

    14. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed wikipedia's entry. Thanks for the tip

    15. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      It's not as fast as you think. Some angle-grinders hit 20,000rpm easilly. RC car and plane motors can be rated from 10k up past 100,000 rpm depending on the application and load. I question their claim of "The fastest spinning object ever created" as it would be extremely simple to purchase a $100, 100k rpm motor and hook it up to 10 to 1 gear... viola - a million rpms. I'm not sure how long the bearings would hold out but it'd definitely hold out longer than their spec of baking soda.

    16. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      scuse my shitty math. 1000 to 1 gear ration. lol

    17. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure it develops harmonics well below that. It's not like the spinning generates a pure sine at 10khz.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    18. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by EETech1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I used to have a brushless R/C motor that would turn 65,000 RPM, and I decided it would be cool to try and make a VCR head turn 250,000 RPM.

      It would spin like a top for over an hour, and made for one awesome display of 'look the fuck out' if you let it fall on edge like a wheel.

      The gyroscopic force was crazy, it was hard to move it all. I would let it slide out of the bearings and land upside down on my table and then lift the table up slightly and make it crawl uphill and try and drive it around as it spun on the stub of the shaft.

      My quest for 500,000 RPM ended rather abruptly as the bearing stuck and pulled the head and very unbalanced lower part (where the head used to be mounted that contained the bearing) out of my hand and it began tearing chunks out of whatever got in the way as it bounced around my room and I ran like hell!

      I wish I had another VCR;)

      (I'm not responsible for any injuries if you try this yourself)

      Cheers!

    19. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      Per minute? You Americans use some odd units. The correct unit for dental drill rotational speed is Hurts.

    20. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, your clothing is just sent back to before it was dirty.

    21. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      Look at some earlier comments -- wikipedia was wrong according to their own citation.

    22. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You owe me a beer, I just spilled mine laughing.

    23. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      From here:

      Modern dentists use air turbine drills driven by compressed air. These drills can reach speeds of over 500,000 rpm. Most modern drills commonly work at the 400,000 rpm range for "high speed" applications while the others operate at 40,000 rpm for "slow speed" applications.

      Okay, not specifically 600,000 rpm, but still pretty darn close, relatively speaking.

    24. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know how harmonics work?

      A violin string doesn't generate a pure sine at 440 Hz for an orchestral 'A', but you don't hear bass notes from the violin at "subharmonics" 220, 110, or 55 Hz, because *they aren't there*. Harmonics from a violin string are at whole number multiples of the 440 root.

      The drill bit would be the same way. The base frequency you would hear would be 10 kHz, not 5 kHz, 2.5 kHz, or what have you.

    25. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you try it and get back to us when you find a 1000:1 gear box that doesn't present too much of a load to the motor (which would still be a factor of 6 short in rotation speed).

      Consider if the output gear and/or shaft was made of some material with the ultimate tensile strength of high end steel, but with the density of water. If the gear had a radius of over 25 microns at that rotation speed, it would shatter.

    26. Re: Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, the vibration of a gear and pinion system supported by a rolling element bearing are not structurally similar to that of a simple oscillator because of the interactions between these components. Read a book on engineering vibrations before dismissing the idea that significant content exists below the output shaft frequency. The fundamental train frequency of the bearing, along with the synchronous pinion frequency, and the lower AM sidebands will be present.

    27. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your gums appears to be unhealthy, they bleed when I hit them with the drill."

    28. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

    29. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh.

    30. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      No, it spins at 666,666 RPM. Yeah, I know, all dentists are sadists.

      Sadist != Satanist

      Though I suspect there is quite a bit of overlap.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    31. Re: Dental drill, 600k RPM? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Most modern dentist drills do not utilize gears, since at the speeds that dentist drills must spin, utilizing gears would induce far too much heat from friction, requiring that they be made much larger (and more massive) to dissipate the heat more effectively, and they would probably also be extremely vulnerable to seizing up and could be unreliable. For something that is essentially used as a surgeon's tool, both of these issues would be problematic, but completely avoided by a dental drill's design.

      In fact, modern dentist drills are driven by a difference in pressure inside of the drill which spins an internal turbine that in turn is *directly* connected to the shaft of the drill, with absolutely no intermediate parts between them so that no energy gets lost. With no components spinning at lower speeds to drive the drill shaft, what you are describing would simply not occur with a dentist drill, although I do not dismiss that it may happen with other types.

    32. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      :) Good pun, but I am honestly confused every time I see RPM.

    33. Re:Dental drill, 600k RPM? by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Well done sir.

    34. Re: Dental drill, 600k RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC, but you can have subharmonics in any rotating system where the system has some form of bearings to connect it to a stationary component. Even with pneumatic bearings, you can get effects that happen on time scales of multiple rotations. Oil based bearings have a problem with "whirl" where the lubricant will rotate and develop oscillations and instabilities, but at a speed of half or less of the shaft rotation.

  5. That is blatantly false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know that politicians are the masters of spin.

    1. Re:That is blatantly false by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      Unlikely -- if they were really masters of spin we wouldn't accuse them of spinning things.

  6. Thanks for the units, comparison man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This spin speed is half a million times faster than a domestic washing machine and more than a thousand times faster than a dental drill

    Wow! How many libraries of congress is that?

    1. Re: Thanks for the units, comparison man! by x181 · · Score: 1

      Distance in meters displaced per second by a point on the sphere perpendicular to the axis of rotation = (600,000,000 * PI * 0.000004) / 60 = 125.6m Library of Congress shelf space = 850km. Therefore, 0.000147839654287 Library of Congresses per second

    2. Re: Thanks for the units, comparison man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!!

  7. Re:-- MISSING DATA SEGMENT --[byline] block not fo by multisync · · Score: 2

    did I just see that?

    Yup. I saw it too in the byline and user Slashbox areas. Gone after a page refresh.

    --
    I don't care why you're posting AC
  8. Re:-- MISSING DATA SEGMENT --[byline] block not fo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah CmdrTaco will be spinning in his grave when he sees the quality of Slashdot code these days.

  9. Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Today's XKCD is strangely applicable to the summary.

    http://xkcd.com/1257/

    1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this one more appropriate:

      http://xkcd.com/332/

  10. They read the Patriot Act over Jefferson's grave? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Funny

    n/t

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  11. Re:They read the Patriot Act over Jefferson's grav by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    Came here for that, left satisfied.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  12. I tried... by tool462 · · Score: 2

    I spent most of the time I was reading the summary trying to come up with some really clever/sarcastic/funny comment (Electrons spin faster! -- um, no that's lame. I got it, if you spin it backwards, it just says "Paul is dead" in a chipmunk voice.)

    But then I got to this:

    The team then used the minuscule forces of laser light to hold the sphere with the radiation pressure of light — rather like levitating a beach ball with a jet of water. They exploited the property of polarization of the laser light that changed as the light passed through the levitating sphere, exerting a small twist or torque.

    That is so indescribably cool I just had to let that stand on its own. There is so much physics wrapped up in this one experiment.
    I'll just leave it at an obligatory XKCD:
    Science, it works bitches.

    1. Re:I tried... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > I got it, if you spin it backwards, it just says "Paul is dead" in a chipmunk voice.

      I dunno, I think that's pretty funny.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  13. Re:They read the Patriot Act over Jefferson's grav by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    His body doesn't count as a man-made object, or this wouldn't have broken the record.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  14. Re:They read the Patriot Act over Jefferson's grav by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    His body doesn't count as a man-made object, or this wouldn't have broken the record.

    Indeed -- we aren't discussing woman-made objects here.

  15. Backstory by Azure+Flash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know the team member who first suggested this research. As a kid, he was obsessed with spinning tops, bicycle wheels and everything else he could find that spins really fast. Looks like that passion of his spun out of control as he grew older!

    1. Re:Backstory by LiavK · · Score: 1

      I know the team member who first suggested this research. As a kid, he was obsessed with spinning tops, bicycle wheels and everything else he could find that spins really fast. Looks like that passion of his spun out of control as he grew older!

      I could you could say it... spun out of control.

    2. Re:Backstory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know the team member who first suggested this research. As a kid, he was obsessed with spinning tops, bicycle wheels and everything else he could find that spins really fast. Looks like that passion of his spun out of control as he grew older!

      I could you could say it... spun out of control.

      I did he did say that.

  16. So Then What by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 2

    Is the fastest spinning object, man-made or otherwise? Looking for some perspective on this.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:So Then What by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Probably a Pulsar or something like that.

    2. Re:So Then What by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      Blackhole ... you'd think ... the smaller, the faster it spins ....

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    3. Re:So Then What by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, once you get into the quantum mechanical realm, you can get things "spinning" pretty darn fast, though you require increasingly "nuanced" definitions of what "spin" means as you transition from the familiar world of classical mechanics to quantum-mechanical systems.

      The magnetic moment of a proton in a 1T magnetic field precesses at ~2.7*10^8 Hz (which produces the signals that NMR looks at).
      Put an electron in a 1T magnetic field, and it is precessing at ~2.7*10^11 Hz.

      A proton's "intrinsic spin" of hbar/2, for an object with the mass and radius of a proton (~1GeV/c^2, ~10^-15m), would "classically" be equivalent to something spinning at hbar/(2*r^2*m) ~ 6.3*10^22 Hz. An electron has an intrinsic spin oh hbar/2, and a size of 0, "equivalent" to an object "spinning" infinitely fast... of course, at this point, it doesn't make much sense to describe the quantum mechanical spin as though it were a "classical" spinning object.

    4. Re:So Then What by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      definitions of what "spin" means

      OK Bill...

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    5. Re:So Then What by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      This isn't a subatomic particle, it's multiple atoms. The "spin" here is like a top spinning, not "spin" as when you're talking about subatomic particles.

      You knew that, but people reading your comment might not have.

    6. Re:So Then What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wait a minute, wasn't the fastest spinning object Superman and he acheived time travel ?

    7. Re:So Then What by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      The point, though, is that asking "what's the fastest spinning object" is a subtle question without a well-defined answer if by "fastest" you mean "rotations per unit time." You can move from a big, spinning ensemble of atoms, to a rotating diatomic molecule, to electrons "orbiting" an atom, to intrinsic spin in subatomic particles --- getting "faster and faster," but moving at each step from where the "classical limit" of quantum mechanics is a sensible description to where it isn't (and where "rotations per minute" may not be a sensible concept, even though "angular momentum" still is).

      If you want multiple atoms, consider a diatomic molecule, such as Hydrogen (H2), which will have its low-lying rotational states quantized in units of hbar. Two hydrogen atoms, separated by ~10^-10m, "rotating" with an angular momentum of hbar, are "spinning" on the order of hbar/(2*r^2*m) ~ 6*10^12 Hz, but in a rather "quantum-mechnicsy" way. There's no fundamental "dividing point" between such a diatomic system, larger ensembles like the one mentioned in the article, or smaller objects with even higher "rotational speeds" (up to infinity) where "rotational speed" is no longer a sensible quantity to care about (angular momentum is the more "fundamental" quantity, but if you want the most angular momentum you want something "big and slowly" turning rather than "tiny and quickly" turning).

    8. Re:So Then What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Yeah. What he said.

    9. Re:So Then What by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The "spin" here is like a top spinning, not "spin" as when you're talking about subatomic particles.

      Of all the examples... At first I thought it was just strange, but I decided I wasn't down with the way you're trying to confuse people; those who want to get to the bottom of this can look it up, so don't expect to charm your way out of this one!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:So Then What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for clarification: In QM there is nothing "spinning" in the classical sense of something turning. The "spin" of an electron or other parts of the nucleus are mathmatical (!) an agular momentum, but they are no angular momentum we know from classical physics. One and the other have nothing do to, in QM you can just consider the spin a "property without any classical counterpart".

      To illustrate this you can start to calculate how fast an electron would spin if it would be just a small marble (we know it's size). You fill in the classical math and get as result a speed > c. It's simply not working that way and you move on. It is just called "spin" but compare what you call "honesty" with what a politician calls "honesty". They are different concepts that have the same word and it is wrong to mistake one for the other.

    11. Re:So Then What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people reading your comment might not have

      Unless they noticed all the places he puts "spinning" into quotes, and the part about "classically", and all the other places he makes this abundantly clear.

    12. Re:So Then What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blackhole ... you'd think ... the smaller, the faster it spins ....

      While a black hole has angular momentum, it does not have an observable rotation rate. So, while it depends on your definition of spin if it spins or not, it does not spin "faster", because it has no speed.

    13. Re:So Then What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do get a rotating frame around the black hole due to frame dragging that does depend on the angular momentum and can give the appearance of spinning faster or slower. This is mostly a mess unlike a rigid body rotating, except right at the even horizon the Kerr solution gives this rotation is similar to a rigid body rotation.

    14. Re:So Then What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QM has spinning in the classical sense: orbital angular momentum. QM just adds an additional type of spin, but doesn't remove the more traditional type (even if it is not as easy to deal with, but the same could be said of linear momentum too).

  17. Re:They read the Patriot Act over Jefferson's grav by Guru80 · · Score: 1

    Score: 5, Funny doesn't do this post justice. Well played, sir!

  18. No political jokes please by maroberts · · Score: 2

    Syriasly

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  19. Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the robot from adventure time got jokes!

  20. Re:Like My Head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your head is spinning that fast your ears could propel it to the air, like Dumbo, making it possible for you to monitor the grave situation above the border area and report any transgressions to the proper authorities.

  21. Re:Like My Head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's spinning as fast as my head when trying to understand why people don't understand what part of "illegal" in the phrase "illegal immigrant" people do not understand.

    It means "Mexican" right?

  22. velocity of outer edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the velocity of the outer edge is...?

    1. Re:velocity of outer edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 125m/s

    2. Re:velocity of outer edge by Ormy · · Score: 1

      Very simple: Circumference = Diameter (4 millionths of a meter) times Pi --> 4*(1e-6) * 3.141 = 1.257e-5 metres. Circumference x rotation speed = edge speed --> 1.257e-5 * 6e8 = 7540 meters/minute (since rotation speed was given in revs/minute). Which is 126 m/s, not very fast at all, only 281 mph. So if it was spinning at that rate in contact with the ground without slipping it would outrun all conventional cars but not any jet aircraft.

    3. Re:velocity of outer edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the velocity of the outer edge is...?

      Isn't there a theoretical limit; a maximum value due to light speed? Shouldn't there be relativistic effects?

    4. Re: velocity of outer edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the ehrenfest paradox on Wikipedia. The idea of a rigid body rotating such that the circumference achieved relativistic speeds resulted in a great deal of physics. One of the more important results was that relativity constrains physical objects to be non-rigid.

  23. Re:-- MISSING DATA SEGMENT --[byline] block not fo by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    It's been happening off and on all afternoon.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  24. Not "manmade" object, but Chuck Norris is faster by ClassicASP · · Score: 2

    Chuck Norris does not spin his right foot around and roundhouse kick you in the face. He spins the world with his left foot.

  25. Summary wtf by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1, Troll
    Ftfs:

    They were able to levitate and spin a microscopic sphere at speeds of up to 600 million revolutions per minute. This spin speed is half a million times faster than a domestic washing machine

    wtf? Washing machines spin at 599.5 million rpm?

    1. Re:Summary wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that sounded odd as well, where can I get one of the washing machines?

    2. Re:Summary wtf by spazdor · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you think the word "times" means?

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    3. Re:Summary wtf by noh8rz10 · · Score: 0

      The unit of measurement here is rpm, aka times per minute. Unit A is 600m [unit], 500k [unit] faster than unit B. I will accept your apology now

    4. Re:Summary wtf by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Informative

      My washing machine runs at 1500rpm for it's extraction cycle. But most typically run at 1200rpm which multiplied by 500,000 gives you 600,000,000

      It's amazing what math does when you actually run the numbers and then take the time to look up the target measurement.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Summary wtf by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2
      The summary says:

      This spin speed is half a million times faster than a domestic washing machine

      Similarly, I could say "30 is 10 times more than 3". The summary didn't claim that the sphere in question spun 500krpm faster than a washing machine, but 500k times faster, which is another claim entirely (i.e. that a washing machine spins at about 1200rpm).

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    6. Re:Summary wtf by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      The summary says:

      This spin speed is half a million times faster than a domestic washing machine

      Similarly, I could say "30 is 10 times more than 3".

      30 times is 27 times more than 3 times. Amirite?

    7. Re:Summary wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rpm does it need to run to extract that apostrophe?

    8. Re:Summary wtf by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Epic math fail! 600 million / 500,000 = 7500. Actually no, epic simple arithmetic fail.

    9. Re:Summary wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      600M/500K=1200 :)

    10. Re:Summary wtf by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid we're being trolled. I bit, too.

    11. Re:Summary wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "more" in your last statement implies addition, which the original line did not include.

      30 rpm is 10 times (as in x, or multiply) faster than 3 rpm. If there are two meanings to a word [times], and you purposely pick on the obviously incorrect meaning, it doesn't make you brilliant. It makes you a pedant.

    12. Re:Summary wtf by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Even if 'times' is equivalent to revolutions, there is no way it is equivalent to revolutions per minute. Unless you really suck at math.

    13. Re:Summary wtf by bws111 · · Score: 1

      If you're going to play that game, 30 times is 10 times times 3.

    14. Re:Summary wtf by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      self fail

    15. Re:Summary wtf by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      What rpm does it need to run to extract that apostrophe?

      600,000,001

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    16. Re:Summary wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      599.5 MRPM washing machines cost a little more but you save on drying expense.

    17. Re:Summary wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unit of measurement here is rpm, aka times per minute. Unit A is 600m [unit], 500k [unit] faster than unit B. I will accept your apology now

      Well, maybe your math teacher is owed one, but not the GP.

      If you take 600 million, divide it by 500,000 you get 1200.

      So if you're asking for an apology because you suggested a washing machine spins at 599.5m RPMs -- well, that's kinda your problem.

      You're either an idiot, or doing a poor job of being funny.

    18. Re: Summary wtf by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "Times" does not equal RPM.
      Consider for example:
      "How many times did you boink your wife last night? Two? That's impossible!"
      On the other hand the "more" in 500 times more is redundant and confusing.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    19. Re: Summary wtf by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "Dr. I feel that sometimed I am obsessive about precision to a pathological degree"
      "How often do you feel that way? "
      "0.0007 Hz"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    20. Re:Summary wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      600 million / 500,000 equals 7500 in a parallel universe, where idiots like you can't make a simple calculus even with a quantum computer.

  26. Not trapped by radiation pressure by WSOGMM · · Score: 4, Informative

    Optical trapping can sometimes make use of radiation pressure, but that's generally not how you optically trap a particle, nor is that how they did it. Radiation pressure is characterized by absorption and reflection (like tennis balls hitting a wall). To trap a particle, you use refraction (when modeling the system with ray optics).

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

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

    The change in index of refraction between water (or air) and your particle causes the light rays to "change direction" as they enter and leave the particle. There is a net momentum transferred to the particle in the direction of the focus of the laser beam, thus trapping the particle at the focus.

  27. Re:-- MISSING DATA SEGMENT --[byline] block not fo by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    It only happens when the NSA is scooping your data.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  28. Dumb Fsck Comparisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So call me obtuse, but how many Libraries of Congress is this per Internet? What about how many electronic mails I can upload per Internet?

  29. Re:Washing Machine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    600M/500K=1200

  30. RLY? by elistan · · Score: 1

    This spin speed is half a million times faster than a domestic washing machine and more than a thousand times faster than a dental drill.

    ORLY?
    Obligatory xkcd: (from today, no less) http://xkcd.com/1257/

  31. Manna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, my Odin! Do not put a spell on it that feeds on itself and makes it spin faster and faster. You'll use up all the Manna in the area and Magic won't work any more!

  32. Politicians can u-turn even faster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True !

  33. Re:-- MISSING DATA SEGMENT --[byline] block not fo by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    When I was home for lunch today slashdot went down, giving a blank page right before I went back to work, butt it worked from work.

    Someone called with a computer problem last night; his computer froze. I told him how to restart it and he called 20 minutes later saying his facebook account was locked because of an unauthorized entry attempt and I had to explain that his account (probably his computer, he's an idiot) had been hacked. Possibly coincidental but strange anyway.

  34. spinning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about the founding fathers spinning in their graves?

  35. Keep at it by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 1

    I'd like to encode some data in one of these spheres and have these fine gentlemen rotate it at light speed to send it and its information back in time. Why should Biff Tanen have all the luck?

  36. Re:-- MISSING DATA SEGMENT --[byline] block not fo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're looking at the past with rose-colored glasses. Slashcode wasn't any better when Taco was around.

  37. Re:They read the Patriot Act over Jefferson's grav by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    just to play Nancy NoFun: Jefferson expected these kinds of abuses and advocated appropriate responses to it. That's why he's classified as an extremist by DoD these days.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  38. Re:They read the Patriot Act over Jefferson's grav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed -- we aren't discussing woman-made objects here.

    In Jefferson's era, men took all the credit and "man-made" certainly had to be the accepted phrase regardless of the gender that made it. In any event, he was a cooperative effort. Furthermore, he believed that we were endowed by a Creator, whose gender was commonly male. So. I think he qualified as "man-made" if you're willing to piss off the politically correct, which I certainly am.

  39. Re:They read the Patriot Act over Jefferson's grav by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    Indeed -- we aren't discussing woman-made objects here.

    In Jefferson's era, men took all the credit and "man-made" certainly had to be the accepted phrase regardless of the gender that made it. In any event, he was a cooperative effort. Furthermore, he believed that we were endowed by a Creator, whose gender was commonly male. So. I think he qualified as "man-made" if you're willing to piss off the politically correct, which I certainly am.

    While "man" was definitely the gender-neutral term at the time, I think he would have considered you a heretic to consider him "man-made" -- made in God's image by God, who while he spent time as a man, was God. He'd consider himself created, not man-made, no matter how much a humanist he was.

  40. Levitates like a beach ball? by il+dus · · Score: 1

    Now I can understand that the BBC felt the need to fill the article with stupid comparisons, but why can't the summary here just replace them with ellipses for the sake of the presumably more technical readership here? One would think that the typical slashdot reader would understand 600 Mrpm just fine and wouldn't need such twaddle as "This spin speed is half a million times faster than a domestic washing machine and more than a thousand times faster than a dental drill" for edification.

    Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm just old and bitter. Now get off of my lawn.

    --
    "I am Dr. Freud, but you may call me.siggy."
  41. How did they measure it? by mythix · · Score: 1

    seriously, how do you measure 600 000 000 revolutions per minute on a microscopic sized ball?

    1. Re:How did they measure it? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      a teensy weensy sharpie mark along one side, of course.

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

    Chances are they were slowing it down

  43. Yes, but... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    ...will it drain all the mana in vicinity?

  44. Re:Washing Machine? by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 2

    No, it explains that you wasted some poor teacher's time.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  45. Re: Like My Head by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    We don't understand why a sick bird of prey would be relocating to the US.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  46. lucky son of a gun by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    You are beyond lucky that the VCR head didn't shatter from the stress. Work out the kinetic energy of something spinning that fast. Ain't pretty. Out of brazen curiosity: how did you reach 250,000 rpm from 65,000 rpm?

    1. Re:lucky son of a gun by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      I made pulleys out of aluminum and tried to use an o-ring as a belt, but it could not get enough grip to run the motor over 20,000 RPM, so I glued an o-ring around the motor pulley and drove the head shaft pulley directly. I just held the motor in one hand, and the VCR head in the other hand and used my toe to slowly run the throttle stick up on the R/C remote.

      Getting the o-ring to stay on that way was kinda challenging, and fun too! As the pulley sped up it would expand and start to hula hoop, and eventually go flying off! Even finding glue that would hold without driving the shaft was a few days of trial and error and lots of careful surface preparation!

      It took a lot of strength and practice to get it running full blast, keep it aligned and have enough traction without it walking around the shaft. When that happened, there was no way to get it driving properly again without starting over.

      Lots of skinned knuckles, but god it was a fun!

      Cheers!

  47. wtf? by dropkic123 · · Score: 1

    Murrica!