It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Molecule Breaks the Rules, Defies Chemical Physics Theory

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Scientist's have discovered a molecule that spins freely in liquids, clearing water away from itself.



The molecule spins without causing friction [Video]. That shouldn't be possible, according to a chemical physics theory. The finding could alter the way scientists think about chemical reactions in liquids.

Researchers hit a drop of iodine cyanide and water with pulses from an ultraviolet laser, exciting one type of molecule to reconfigure into a small, peanut shape with a carbon atom on one end, a nitrogen atom on the other.

The molecule heated up to 8,000 degrees Fahrenheit (4,427 Celsius) and started spinning at a furious 270 trillion rotations per minute.


LiveScience.com


I love this kind of stuff, when scientists find something that defies what we/they know.

This is what science is all about, discovering new things.


Comments, Opinions?




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
science rocks! i like quantum theory and string theory because they make you realize we live in a world of near limitless possibilities



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Never mind, I posted this post in the wron thread.

Sorry if it confused anyone.

[edit on 3/31/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Whoa, I saw the neutrino show also. 100 billion of them travel through a square inch of us every second without touching an atom? How strange is that?
Fact can outdue fiction anytime!!



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Note that they also said that this has been observed in gasses as well, so it's just another sidenote to add to Newtons 3rd Law of Motion in certain textbooks.

Things get interesting when you get a little extreme either small or large.

Isn't this phenomenon called Superfluidity?

[edit on 30-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Interesting stuff spinning without friction and 270 trillion RPM speeds
A interesting little molecule



Originally posted by ELMO777
science rocks! i like quantum theory and string theory


Im not a fan of String theory its too much like god IMHO. It can never be proven or unproven far too small of a scale to detect. If a atom was the size of our universe a string would be about the size of a tree. Then theres the other dimensions aspect.

More like faith -- then science. It can never be tested



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Everything is a theory until proven.

There are things in science we accept as constants, and fortunately our planets scientists keep trying out whacky things, and sometimes theory gets proven as false.

This is why, I believe in man, not Faith.

Though Faith does teach some really great Moral Guidelines.

-ADHD



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Thats why im not a fan of string theory it can never be tested and thus proven. These are such tiny scales of just (10-33 centimeters)--so small as to be out of reach of any conceivable experiment.

Some people have put forth theories of experimental studies but it would require machines of huge scale, perhaps even as big as the solar system. But I dont know I wont my breath to see if that will work.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I was thinking about this and remembered the speed of light is 186,000 miles a second. I am no physics major but isnt it common sense that this thing is moveing faster then light ? I mean 270,000,000,000,000 times a second ?If so is it moving in time too ?

PS: If it was a sphere, how would you figure out how fast a point on the surface of it is moving and not just one complete roations per second.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by imbalanced]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Nice observation imbalanced

It would make one wonder that because it is moving so fast, that time in relation to it (the molecule) is going slow (time slow down at speed of light).
We observe it as being so fast because we are stuck in our normal time frame, to the molecule it's normal time flow, but in our normal time flow it looks fast.

But it would have to start spinning real fast in our time frame though, before those time bending effects took place.

Hmmm, chicken' n' eggs methinks?!



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
I was thinking about this and remembered the speed of light is 186,000 miles a second. I am no physics major but isnt it common sense that this thing is moveing faster then light ? I mean 270,000,000,000,000 times a second ?If so is it moving in time too ?

PS: If it was a sphere, how would you figure out how fast a point on the surface of it is moving and not just one complete roations per second.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by imbalanced]


Linear velocity is 2pi(r) times the number of rotations.

I think it is premature, very premature to say that any of this proves anything about current physical theories. It could be indication, but this is one experiment; the theories took years to be accepted and have been around for hundreds of years.

Besides, nothing in the article states that the laws of physics will be added upon in anyway. I think this is a typical popular science article; they were so bold enough to make mention about its practical use.

I will ahve to read Science to make up my mind for the time being.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   


Im not a fan of String theory its too much like god IMHO.


People said the same of Frame Dragging, Quantum Particles, Atoms, etc. I have heard of few methods to test for M-Theory, one of them involves Astronomy. If Strings were abundant during the begging expansion phase of the universe, then their "indentations" should be able to be seen by us. How they would show up? I dunno. I'll have to dig up the article again to see as I cannot remember.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   


If a atom was the size of our universe a string would be about the size of a tree.

I thought it was, if an atom was the size of the Earth, a string would be the size of a tree.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei


If a atom was the size of our universe a string would be about the size of a tree.

I thought it was, if an atom was the size of the Earth, a string would be the size of a tree.


Its if a Atom was expanded to size of our solar system

www.pbs.org...

Really really tiny things



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000



Im not a fan of String theory its too much like god IMHO.


People said the same of Frame Dragging, Quantum Particles, Atoms, etc. .


People? People who? I have heard people say many things, and I have heard from many people. Who people?

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Frosty]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by sardion2000



Im not a fan of String theory its too much like god IMHO.


People said the same of Frame Dragging, Quantum Particles, Atoms, etc. .


People? People who? I have heard people say many things, and I have heard from many people. Who people?

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Frosty]


Just referring to the perennial critics to every potential breakthrough, sometimes they're right, sometimes their dead wrong is all I was saying. There are many famous & semi-famous quotes if you dig around google or even ATS for more info.


Not saying that M-Theory or any of those theory's are valid.

Just saying not to throw it out right away, just because we cannot currently see any way to test it. It may turn out to be bunk and the critics may turn out to be right, it hasn't been developed to the point of falsification(to my knowledge), but from read various journals they say they are close...). It may some day. Then again, it may not.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Linear velocity is 2pi(r) times the number of rotations.


Ya I tihnk its premature too, but interesting enough to ponder.

2pi(r) * (# of Rotations)
6.283185307179586476925286766559 * (r) * 270,000,000,000,000/second

Is that right ? Whats Radius ?





[edit on 1-4-2006 by imbalanced]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
er...science isn't about PROVING anything...it's about disproving it.

if we went around trying to prove every damn thing scientifically, we'd have an inverse in scientific advancement.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
2pi(r) * (# of Rotations)
6.283185307179586476925286766559 * (r) * 270,000,000,000,000/second

Is that right ? Whats Radius ?


The radius of the spinning molecule, or half the molecule length, if it was spinning around its geometrical centre.

And the rotations were RPM (per minute), not per second.

Also, I supose that they were "American trilions".



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   


er...science isn't about PROVING anything...it's about disproving it.


I disagree, if scientists would quit trying to disprove anything that does'nt fit into there nice little model, and tryed to figure out if something can exist scientifically, than we'd be alot more advanced than we are today.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join