Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Material State “Defies” Laws of Physics

page: 3
43
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 





Perhaps the reference was about some posters on ATS that seem locked into 'known science' in that they only believe in that which is currently known and often discredited anything said about possibilities of 'unknown' science, such as those that deny the possibility of interdimensional / interstellar travel / the possibility of aliens / UFO being of extra terrestrial origin etc. just because it doesn't fit their current definition of science 'fact' and it's boundaries.



You are my hero !!!!

Someone should engrave these words over the ATS entrance.




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   
When I read this it sounded to me a lot like another similar phenomenon called Bucky Balls...
I don't know much about it, except they are associated with asteroid impacts (produced by heat and pressure), have "space" within their expanded lattice "cages", and could be useful for other stuff I also don't know much about.


Applications[edit]

The C60 molecule can also bind large numbers of hydrogen atoms (up to one hydrogen for each carbon) without disrupting the structure. This property suggests that buckyballs may be an efficient medium to make hydrogen fuel more accessible to the general economy. A peer-reviewed report[48] published by the American National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in 2005 proposes that a modified form of buckminsterfullerene called organometallic buckyballs (OBBs) may be a vehicle for "high density, room temperature, ambient pressure storage of hydrogen". These OBBs are created by binding atoms of a transition metal (TM) to C60 or C48B12 and then binding many hydrogen atoms to this TM atom, dispersing them evenly throughout the inside of the organometallic buckyball. The study found that the theoretical amount of H2 that can be retrieved from the OBB at ambient pressure approaches 9 wt %, a mass fraction that has been designated as optimal for hydrogen fuel by the U.S. Department of Energy.

In the medical field, elements such as helium (that can be detected in minute quantities) can be used as chemical tracers in impregnated buckyballs. Buckminsterfullerene could also inhibit the HIV virus. In particular, C60 inhibits a key enzyme in the human immunodeficiency virus known as HIV-1 protease; this could inhibit reproduction of the HIV virus in immune cells.

The optical absorption properties of C60 match solar spectrum that favors C60-based films for photovoltaic applications. Conversion efficiencies up to 5.7% have been reported in C60-polymer cells.[49]

Buckminsterfullerene

Similar properties and applications?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


You need to read the article again.

It isn't a new 'matter' that isn't currently understood, it is a known matter's reaction to pressure under certain lab conditions, it's structural behaviour, that doesn't adhere to that which human science currently holds as the norm.


I didn't say "new matter". I said "new material".

How a material acts/reacts under certain conditions is Material Science, and material science uses physics in order to understand these materials.

For example, Steel reacts differently under different conditions. It reacts a certain way under tension, and a different way under compression, and yet a different way when heat is applied. Scientists apply the physical laws in order to understand how steel reacts under differing conditions, and try to understand/explain those different reactions by using known physics. Someone else above mentioned "buckyballs", which is a carbon cage, and has some simalaritis to carbon nanotubes. Both buckyballs and carbon nanotubes are also relatively new materials.

This new material in the OP article (and again, I did NOT say "new matter") is one that seems to be understandable using our current physics and current laws, although the physics may need to be applied in novel ways. It is NOT necessarily going to require whole new laws of physics. The article said it is counter-intuitive and it "seems" do defy physics, but that same article said that they did come to a basic understanding as to how this new material works (and presumably they came to this understanding without rewriting the laws of physics, or we would have heard about these new laws).



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The material used wasn't a ''new material''. It was Zinc Cyanide.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Thanks, I agree that something like these words could be ATS motto 2.

''Deny Ignorance and Accept that Science isn't done yet''


Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 




Perhaps the reference was about some posters on ATS that seem locked into 'known science' in that they only believe in that which is currently known and often discredited anything said about possibilities of 'unknown' science, such as those that deny the possibility of interdimensional / interstellar travel / the possibility of aliens / UFO being of extra terrestrial origin etc. just because it doesn't fit their current definition of science 'fact' and it's boundaries.



You are my hero !!!!

Someone should engrave these words over the ATS entrance.
edit on 14-6-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The material used wasn't a ''new material''. It was Zinc Cyanide.


Carbon isn't a new material either, but arrange it a certain way in a tube, and you have what they call a new material -- a carbon nano tube. Carbon is just carbon, but it can be arranged in different ways to make different materials (e.g., graphite, diamonds, etc.)

Zinc Cyanide can be just lumps of zinc cyanide -- or in this particular arrangement (or mentioned in the link in the OP) it is this certain new material that becomes porous when pressure is applied.



edit on 6/14/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Oh gawd...Yada yada yada....

This post is irrelevant..




The laws of physics are our best interpretation of the natural laws we see around us


And you´ve been around "alive" for a millions of years, seen all, done all and been everywere. NO




If you stand on a cliff and drop a rock, that rock will fall down the cliff. You can do it a million times, and it will likely fall down that cliff every time


Yes, on the same planet in the same o f f s...
Whatever...

Im done...



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I wish we had some video of this substance expanding under pressure.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if our laws of physics are distorted to fit our reality only, and they are not laws of the universe. Of course this is only my opinion,



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


This will be used to make new patentable drugs out of all drugs that went generic, anyone willing to place bets?

So for all those SSRI's that are now generic, look for upswing in prescribing when they use this technology to stuff more SSRI into some smaller pill and give it a new name with a new patent.
edit on 14-6-2013 by LastStarfighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Religion 0
Science 348,852,985,238,597,238,728,773,309,059,603,904,395



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The wording of the article and the comments from the researchers are pretty accurate, it says it like it is.

The 5 new stages this material underwent is a reaction not currently understood by physics, simple as.

There might be ways of explaining it under current 'physics laws' but there might not be, it could require tweaking or there could be infinite possibilities for new science emerging.

I think the basic thing some do not understand is that current physics and science in general is EVOLVING.

To say ''we do know that already we just don't know it yet'' as an argument about the article is a tad facetious.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by LastStarfighter
 


I guess misuse by some greedy pharma is a possibility, or even patenting misuse.

Let's hope it stays good, I guess it might take a revolution before materials ethics appears.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
I wish we had some video of this substance expanding under pressure.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if our laws of physics are distorted to fit our reality only, and they are not laws of the universe. Of course this is only my opinion,


I guess the current laws of physics are fitting our reality, chances are they might not be universal under variant systems.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The wording of the article and the comments from the researchers are pretty accurate, it says it like it is.

The 5 new stages this material underwent is a reaction not currently understood by physics, simple as.


No. The article never says that the reaction of this material to pressure "cannot be understood by physics". It says it "seemingly" defies the laws of physics, and is "counter-intuitive", but the article also says that the researchers finally DID come to understand why this material is acting like it does under pressure (although the research took several years before they could understand it).

Again, the explanation for how this materiel becomes more porous under pressure is NOT based on all new physics, but rather just by applying existing physics. Sure -- the reaction of this materiel is counter-intuitive, but it is also something that our existing understanding of the laws of nature CAN explain.




There might be ways of explaining it under current 'physics laws' but there might not be, it could require tweaking or there could be infinite possibilities for new science emerging.

I think the basic thing some do not understand is that current physics and science in general is EVOLVING.

Well, yeah. Our understanding of the laws of nature are always evolving. I don't think you would get an argument from a scientist regarding that....

...I mean, that's exactly what science is -- i.e., Science is the process in which we continually learn about the laws of nature. Through science, our understanding of Nature is ever-changing, and always has been ever-changing. Science is all about tweaking, evolving, and changing our understanding of the natural world.

Science isn't so arrogant that it thinks it knows everything. As Dara O'Biain once facetiously, but pointedly, said,

"Science KNOWS it doesn’t know everything. Otherwise it would stop"


However, having said that about science always evolving, the current Newtonian view of physics is a very good explanation of the world. It may not always work at very detailed levels (such as the way Newtonian Physics breaks down on the quantum level), but the our current physics that has been built upon the shoulders of Newton's work seems to be a viable explanation for how things work in the macro world (and even chemical reactions such as in the OP article is something that is considered the macro world).

That's not to say that there would not be some (as you said) tweaking of our understanding of physics along the way, but it doesn't mean our physics is wrong. That sort of tweaking is always being done.


edit on 6/14/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
**sorry -- double post**
(I clicked 'quote" instead of "edit")
edit on 6/14/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tindalos2013
 



Excellent,

Thank you sir.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
No. The article never says that the reaction of this material to pressure "cannot be understood by physics". It says it "seemingly" defies the laws of physics, and is "counter-intuitive", but the article also says that the researchers finally DID come to understand why this material is acting like it does under pressure
The abstract is a little ambiguous:

pubs.acs.org...

While an increase in volume with pressure is counterintuitive, the resulting new phases contain large fluid-filled pores, such that the combined solid + fluid volume is reduced and the inefficiencies in space filling by the interpenetrated parent phase are eliminated.
First they say the volume increased, then they say the volume is reduced. And of course the volume being reduced under pressure is exactly what we'd expect and not counter-intuitive at all.

I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct, but it sounds like the volume of the solid only is increased. When considering the fluid also, total volume (solid + fluid) under pressure decreased, and this is not counter-intuitive, it's what I would expect.

PS. Why is this in "Space Exploration"?
edit on 14-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It was in science.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Maybe twisting other posters words and attacking articles for the wording, which was and is accurate then spouting off things the article does a better job of, and clearly tells of the science for, makes you feel like more of a science geek or something but for most they would rather just read the article and let the research scientists who did the research choose the wording. Thanks.

Maybe you should give the APS lab a call and tell them you disagree to their wording, frankly it's getting tedious hearing about it.
edit on 14-6-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Maybe you should give the APS lab a call and tell them you disagree to their wording, frankly it's getting tedious hearing about it.
Actually it's scitechdaily who has wording problems, and it's useless to call them because this is typical of science reporters reporting on science they don't understand.

The paper is titled: "Exploiting High Pressures to Generate Porosity, Polymorphism, And Lattice Expansion in the Nonporous Molecular Framework Zn(CN)2", not "New Material State “Defies” Laws of Physics" which is a sensationalized headline and I don't think scitechdaily's representation of the science is all that accurate either.

When you read in the paper abstract that total volume of solid + fluid is reduced under pressure, that really doesn't sound nearly as sensational as the scitechdaily headline and article suggests.


Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
It was in science.
So the mods moved this thread from Science and Technology to Space Exploration? Does that make any sense?





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join