|
Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank Display comments: newest first antialias_physorgmaterials could be made that didnt require 'dopant' or nancarbon atoms to provide a source for the electrons Now this would be truly revolutionary. It would make a single step process for manufacturing electronics possible. Cheap, bendable - probably transparent - next to no resistance... hell, this stuff has got it all. KinedrylEven if this compound could exist, it may not provide a better electric properties than the graphene. The regularity of structure is the key for high carriers mobility. The more different structures the charge carriers have in their path, the more they will be dispersed during their travel, so that their mobility and free path will decrease. http://physicswor...ws/48385
hjbasutuDo physcists ever rest....i doubt
antialias_physorgDo physcists ever rest....i doubt Sometimes they really don't. A lot of the scientific work is done by PhD students. And if my own past experiences (and those of the about 30 fellow PhD students at the same institute) are anything to go by then there are days/weekends (and towards the deadline fo your PhD thesis entire months) where you don't see the sun at all. It's not a healthy lifestyle at times. But then again what is when you do something for which you feel highly motivated (to avoid the phrase 'driven'... ) TabulaMentisNow this would be truly revolutionary. It would make a single step process for manufacturing electronics possible. Cheap, bendable - probably transparent - next to no resistance... hell, this stuff has got it all.I just cannot wait until we can do this on the ultramicroscopic (preatomic) level. Now that is when all hell is going to break loose. axemasterSo are these alternate structures stable? I should think that would be the most important question...
antialias_physorg(preatomic) level. What does that even mean? So are these alternate structures stable? Since they have already been created in the lab (as the article states) it seems they are stable. TabulaMentisWhat does that even mean?Of or belonging to the time before the use of, existence of, or capability for atomic energy or weapons. http://www.thefre...reatomic KinedrylDo physcists ever rest....i doubtThere is whole army of them. Actually, the news at the PhysOrg are just a tip of iceberg. For every scientific article presented at mainstream news you can find dozens of more specialized ones at ArXiv and another sources. I'm pretty sure, many scientists cannot handle the information flow even in their narrow range of specialization. You'll need a simple, yet effective meta-theory or paradigm to orient yourself inside of fast expanding ocean of information (a foamy density fluctuations enabling the propagation of information at distance so to say). We shouldn't forget, despite this frenetic activity of physicists the practical applicability of these results is very low. We even don't have a single molecule of graphyne. It's merely an informational noise from perspective of practical applications. Lurker2358(preatomic) level. I think he means "subatomic", as in building stuff out of protons, neutrons and other fundamental particles directly, instead of using atoms and molecules. For example, Hypernuclei, etc, might allow some freaky physics or exotic structures or meta-molecules if you could mass produce them and do chemistry with them. I'd say we've got quite a while to go before anything like that is possible, never mind mainstream practice. It is interesting to find a new lattice for Carbon which may have interesting structural, thermal, and electrical properties. Someone is bound to find useful applications for these materials, eventually. antialias_physorgas in building stuff out of protons, neutrons and other fundamental particles directly, instead of using atoms and molecules. And this is going to work...how? Electric forces are strong. Protons and electrons want to pair up to form atoms. To give you an idea how strong the electric force is that attracts these two: It's a million million million million million million times stronger than gravity (no typo. That's 36 orders of magnitude). Or as Feynman once calculated it in a lecture: If you and I stand 10 meters apart, and we each have just 1% excess electrons (or protons) we would repel by a force adequate to lift an entire Earth off the Earth(!) TabulaMentisI think he means "subatomic", as in building stuff out of protons, neutrons and other fundamental particles directly, instead of using atoms and molecules.No. Quarks, protons, neutrons and electrons are made of preatomic particles. Dark matter is also made of preatoms, however they are not composite particles, sort of. They are both fermonic and bosonic. See the previous description again: Of or belonging to the time before the use of, existence of, or capability for atomic energy or weapons. http://www.thefre...reatomic antialias_physorgOf or belonging to the time before the use of, existence of, or capability for atomic energy or weapons. Erm...that use of the term "preatomic" refers to human history. It denotes the time of civilization from stone age axes (and before) to coal power plants in times of the industrial revolution. Lurker2358as in building stuff out of protons, neutrons and other fundamental particles directly, instead of using atoms and molecules. I know this. I'm talking about exotic nucleus configurations which have been discovered in particle accelerators, which may lend themselves to lighter or stronger building materials, perhaps by being "stable" with a lower number of neutrons, or some other spooky phenomenon. Imagine a stable isotope of Element 118. TabulaMentisErm...that use of the term "preatomic" refers to human history. It denotes the time of civilization from stone age axes (and before) to coal power plants in times of the industrial revolution.You are viewing it from the macroscopic scale. I am viewing it from the ultramicroscopic scale. antialias_physorgwhich may lend themselves to lighter or stronger building materials, perhaps by being "stable" with a lower number of neutrons, or some other spooky phenomenon. It takes oodles of power to create these. Individually. You have any idea how many atoms are in even a gram of matter? That's pretty unrealistic to create atoms from scratch to have some exotic properties for mainstream applications. Not in this lifetime. I am viewing it from the ultramicroscopic scale. Nope. You just confused subatomic with preatomic (and no. You can't build stuff out of subatomic particles) TabulaMentisNope. You just confused subatomic with preatomic (and no. You can't build stuff out of subatomic particles).No, I have not confused anything. Preatomic means before atomic energy, including subatomic. I have been using the term "preatomic" for twenty-one years, maybe even longer than the Internet dictionaries. You sound old-fashioned and not willing to allow for new ideas, including new words, or new definitions to existing words. antialias_physorgPreatomic means: before the INVENTION or USE OF of atomic energy.
[qI have been using the term "preatomic" for twenty-one years Well, then you've been using it wrong for twenty-one years. Because all english speakers and all dictionaries disagree with your definition. You may call an apple a banana for twenty years. But that doesn't make it correct that an apple should be called a banana. This has nothing to do with being 'old fashioned'. It just has something to do with knowing what words mean. TabulaMentisIt just has something to do with knowing what words mean.I have created over 500 words to explain things that there are currently no words. If you do not like the word "preatomic" in the contexts in which it is being used, then that is too bad. If you have a better word to explain what I am talking about, then spit it out! antialias_physorgI have created over 500 words to explain things that there are currently no words. And not a single one has caught on. that should tell you something. Making up words is all fine and dandy as long as you're in your own head (and whatever for would you need to make up words when you're only talking to yourself? YOU know what you mean.). But when talking to real people in a real world? You might want to use real language. If you have a better word to explain what I am talking about There are a lot of real words that denote subatomic particles: E.g. fermions, quarks, bosons, hardons, leptons, baryons, mesons, ... If you don't mean any that fall under those kinds of categories then you probably need to visit a physics class or write a paper on your revolutionary findings. TabulaMentis@antialias_physorg
I was talking about the subject of "Zero-dimensional Space" about a year ago or so with Physorg.com members. Everyone argued with me about how stupid the idea of Zero-dimensional Space was. Now you can find a Web page on the subject at Wikipedia although Im not sure its definition is what I was talking about. See the following link: http://en.wikiped...al_space I'm sure the word Preatomic will pop-up on Wikipedia before you know it. You keep on equating preatomic particles with atomic and subatomic particles. Again, preatomic particles are what atoms; including subatomic particles, are made from. If that surprises you, then the string theorists do it all the time by saying atoms, including subatomic particles, are made of tiny closed strings that vibrate. I will take your advice on writing a paper, whatever that may be. I have already created and copyrighted the Theory of Everything (ToE) and the equation for the ToE. CallippoZero dimensional space is a common concept of dense aether model, in which energy dispersion gradually loses a dimensionality in similar way, like the ripples at the water surface or waves spreading through particle foam. The waves use a surfaces (membranes) of foam, then the one dimensional string network and at the very end they're spreading with collisions of individual particles. The longitudinal waves are zero-dimensional waves for transverse waves and nothing mysterious is about it.
antialias_physorgwas talking about the subject of "Zero-dimensional Space" about a year ago or so with Physorg.com members. So, let me get this straight: you said something (totally unrelated to what we are discussing) a year ago. That phrase pops up somewhere on the web - but in a sense that is again different from what you meant at the time. And this is supposed to be an argument FOR you using words different than all 7 billion people on this planet? If you think THAT is logic FOR your argument then you are completely screwed up. (and BTW: a zero dimensional space is a topological construct. It's an abstract, mathematical IDEA. Not a model of reality) I have already created and copyrighted the Theory of Everything So why are you on a forum? You should be in Stockholm. Oh wait...you aren't ..because you're a crank. Callippoa zero dimensional space is a topological construct.It's abstract construct for abstract people, but it has physical roots. After all, like the space itself: you cannot have a geometry without physical space, which makes the geometry a bit more relevant to physics, than just pure math. If we compress the dense supercritical gas, then a foamy density fluctuations will emerge. The energy will spread along surface (mem)branes of this foam, i.e. in two dimensional form. When we heat this gas, these density fluctuations will dissolve. Their dissolving will proceed gradually, though. At first, the membranes dissolve, only their linear connections will remain, so that the energy will be transferred along string net. And if you heat this mixture even more, only 1D particles will remain. In this way the phase transitions and changes in dimensionality of space-time can be modeled with particle environment. Callippoerrata: "only 1D particles will remain" should be "only 0D particles will remain" indeed. The zero dimensional space is effectively the aether space composed of particles, where the energy propagates via mutual collisions of particles, rather than along density gradients between them.
TabulaMentisIf you think THAT is logic FOR your argument then you are completely screwed up. So why are you on a forum? You should be in Stockholm. Oh wait...you aren't ..because you're a crank.I used zero-dimensional space as an example of the past in which people like you who did not know what I was talking about. I will lay it out to you one more time. There is zero-dimensional space, one-dimensional space and two-dimensional space. There are also "Preatoms." Take it or leave, it's your choice! |
|
|
