Lycurgus Cup, ancient nanotechnology from the Romans.

Originally posted by James1982
One thing that must be kept in mind, is the ability to make something doesn't imply you know why it's happening.

They ground up metal into fine dust and mixed it with glass. That's hardly profound. Today, we understand the actual scientific reasons these things happen, that doesn't mean they did, or that they did these things with the intent of creating such a result.

There is also nothing that says they didn't understand what they were doing. We have no idea if they did this intentionally or otherwise.

Old blacksmiths were able to form carbon nanotubes in steel. That does not imply they designed their method in order to create nanotubes, nor does it imply they were even aware of the existence of such a thing.

It also doesn't imply they didn't.

Same thing with maya blue, there isn't any mystery to it, we know exactly how to make it, and it's a simple process. It's properties are result of its ingredients, not magic of the maya. The ability to produce such a simple product doesn't imply you are aware of chemistry to the point where these ingredients were combined specifically to produce the properties that happen to exhibit.

I do not know much of the Maya blue only what the member above posted. Either way it is still interesting esp since you are taught that they were basically cavemen and didn't know anything yet they knew a lot for their time. It may not be up to our standards but for the time they were "advanced."

These artifacts are definitely cool and interesting, but they in no way imply any sort of advanced ancient knowledge or abilities.

I agree they are cool and interesting but how do we know they don't imply advanced knowledge? I think our ancestors were a lot smarter and advanced than we give them credit for. Just because their advancements don't equal ours doesnt mean for their time they weren't advanced.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate a skeptical reply to this.

Originally posted by yampa
traditional stained glass was often made from colloidal gold - many of the red planes you see in churches will be made from nanoparticle gold. Nanoparticle gold has been around for a long time.

Very cool.

I love stained glass, it's beautiful esp in the old churches.

Originally posted by Haze617
Very interesting. I watched a show the other day on one of the discovery channnels, possibly what the ancients knew? Anyways, they had a thing on roman "caged" glass which is what that cup would fall into and how they aren't quite sure to this day how it was done. The one guy who had come up with a theory on how it was done was using basically a diamond bladed dremel to replicate the caged glass look . The question that raises is where did they get the diamonds from ? As they said on the show , at the time the only place they could have gotten diamonds from was from India . Anyways, very interesting thanks for posting

IS that a new show on Discovery? I don't have cable so I am not up to date on current programing. It sounds like something I"d watch. If it has to do with this cup then I'd like to watch it.

reply to post by aLLeKs


As In a religious ceremony to show transubstantiation. Or water into wine?

Brilliant stuff. Always underestimating the older civilizations...maybe we should start referring to them for technical advice instead of insisting we must discover it ourselves.

reply to post by yampa

That makes this story even more amazing. I figured the church had a hand in all of this, using the same technology. Since it ended up in the hands of the Rothschild family, one can only imagine what the real story behind this ancient technology represents to one course in history we have only just now 1,600 years later begun to understand.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


The topic is quite misleading!

Using particles or creating particles of nano size is one thing.
Using created newly at a nano scale is another.

The Romans didn't create anything at a nano scale - they just reduced the gold etc to a nano scale.
If they had manipulated the structures of the material to create other structures at a nano scale, then it would be nanotechnology, but when its just reduction to nano scale, it aint.

coredrill
reply to post by mblahnikluver

 

The topic is quite misleading!

Using particles or creating particles of nano size is one thing.
Using created newly at a nano scale is another.

The Romans didn't create anything at a nano scale - they just reduced the gold etc to a nano scale.
If they had manipulated the structures of the material to create other structures at a nano scale, then it would be nanotechnology, but when its just reduction to nano scale, it aint.

The topic is exactly how it was worded on the site. I shared something i felt to be interesting.

I know nothing of nano tech let alone the complexity of it.

mblahnikluver

There is also nothing that says they didn't understand what they were doing. We have no idea if they did this intentionally or otherwise.

uh well making a cup like that would make it obvious they meant to do it that way, that cup takes a decent amount of time and skill to make.
assuming that they understood anything beyond grinding up gold and silver and putting it in glass makes it reflect light differently is the problem. they knew what they were doing, that doesn't mean they were nanotech experts.

It also doesn't imply they didn't.

this is an appeal to ignorance, the evidence we have from roman artisans says they didn't know anything about nano tech, assuming otherwise is baseless.

I do not know much of the Maya blue only what the member above posted. Either way it is still interesting esp since you are taught that they were basically cavemen and didn't know anything yet they knew a lot for their time. It may not be up to our standards but for the time they were "advanced."

oh please, only idiots trying to make people thousands of years ago into super-science cultures to sneer at modern culture because most people don't believe them says crap like this.
no one teaches that the mayan were cavemen, stop making stuff up, they just knew less than us.

I agree they are cool and interesting but how do we know they don't imply advanced knowledge? I think our ancestors were a lot smarter and advanced than we give them credit for. Just because their advancements don't equal ours doesnt mean for their time they weren't advanced.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate a skeptical reply to this.

if the romans had advanced knowledge they would have written it down, they were prolific in recording everything.
unless you have evidence of this advanced understanding of how nanotech works from the romans, it doesn't matter what it implies. dude they believed in four elements, that lightning was the product of a god displeased with humans and that leperosy was a curse! the average person wasn't too knowledgeable but the intellectuals did figure out the earth was round 2500 years ago, it moved. sadly they still believed light objects fall faster than heavy ones, the brain was not the center of intelligence and that there was a condition called "hysteria" which was caused by being a woman.

anyone who thinks that this stuff is a matter of "smarts" is wrong, this is a matter of knowledge of the world, and whether you view the answers you have as good enough already. a lot of what the ancients believed persisted for thousands of years, and most of it was wrong.
the ancients were advanced but were wrong on a lot, mostly because of how they went about understanding things.
often it was purely intuition, or aesthetics, logic tended to conform to expectations, not evidence.