What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Tips to be first in line without camping out in the cold! view!
newegg.com - The Pre-Black Friday Sale. No Lines, No Crowds; Click and Save in the comfort of your own home.
58 Comments
- mckone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"The molecule's activity also runs against Newton's third law of motion, which states that for every action there is an equal, but opposite, reaction."
This is a big deal, not just to be glanced over like this article does, which seriously decreased credibility for me. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"The molecule heated up to 8,000 degrees Fahrenheit (4,427 Celsius) and started spinning at a furious 270 trillion rotations per minute."
Wow, I would have thought that many RPMS to be immeasurable. - niqhil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Don't waste your time watching that video link.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Maybe we could use them instead of ball bearings? That would own.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Breaking friction too me involves the equivilent of a ball rolling all the way back up a hill or something."
No, that would be breaking *gravity*.
Breaking friction would be a sandpaper ball sliding across a carpet without slowing or recieving any kind of push. Positive acceleration from friction would also count as breakage. - Fly1m1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The molecule's activity also runs against Newton's third law of motion, which states that for every action there is an equal, but opposite, reaction."
New ways to produce energy in the future? Who knows, but this really is an exciting time to live in. - Soapdish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok, first of all, a ball rolling is a terrible example of no friction, because for a ball to "roll" there needs to be friction, specifically static friction. Without it, the ball would slip.
So a slipping ball would be better, but people have a hard time picturing a ball sliding with no friction (angular momentum would remain constant).
Therefore the object should be a block sliding.
Now, using the example of a hill just makes people think of gravity, so use a level surface. That way the only role gravity has is a normal force (instead of potential energy changes), and it's the normal force that causes friction.
So, the proper example is a rough block sliding on a rough, level plane, and never stopping, or slowing down.
Also, I don't get how friction applies to a single molecule, since it is typically understood to be due to slight interference of surfaces. I suppose if you just say that friction is another name for the intermolecular forces, that would work in this case. - Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So when is the FBI going to raid the atom's molecule?
- Vulturejoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's already been violations of stuff like that; look at superconductors, superfluids, and supersolids.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you'd really like to know, you could hunt down the journal article. Molecule rotations are quite measurable though. MRI works by imaging the rotation of hydrogen molecules (see: http://science-education.nih.gov/nihHTML/ose/snapshots/multimedia/ritn/Gage/mri.html)
- cliche_kitty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>New ways to produce energy in the future?
Nope. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
"The molecule's activity also runs against Newton's third law of motion, which states that for every action there is an equal, but opposite, reaction."
There was a reaction, they just weren't looking for it. Be sure to check their inertia reference frame. - ISVDamocles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They wouldn't measure it as we normally would think of measuring it. Most likely, the static electric field of the molecule is non-uniform, so when it spins, the electromagnetic fields fluctuate. From these fluctuations they can measure its spinning indirectly.
At 270 trillion RPMs, its probably around the same frequency as X-Rays or Gamma rays. - Writher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"No, because gravity will always be pulling the ball down. So you have help from gravity when the ball is going down, hindrance when it's going up. It will eventually come to rest at the bottom."
Why would it stop? Discounting friction, the acceleration of gravity pushing the ball down hill would exactly counteract its deceleration on the way up the hill, therefore there would be no net gain or loss in acceleration; and since no other force is acting on it the ball would roll forever. (this is all assuming no friction) - Dolphinese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Direct link:
http://www.livescience.com/media/AtomicTop_2.mov - mcherm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Okay, everyone get a grip. The science may be real, but the writeup is simply wrong. Newton's laws DO apply to molecules (with corrections for relativistic and quantum behavior), and the article is simply wrong on this point. It makes one wonder what else they got wrong.
- The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, pretty crappy, doesn't even show it spinning.
That and it's mostly an ad. - dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6i don't get how the scientists can measure this molecule so preceisly .. especially in the midst of a billion other molecules bumping and moving around at fantastic speeds.
I feel like all these numbers come from the math, and not readouts from the instruments. ie. they know it only spun *10* times in 10-trillionths of a second because they already knew the amount of energy they blasted the molecule with.. and that amount of energy calculates out to 10 spins.
Or can someone explain how they get actual measurements? I didn't think we had instruments that could measure time precisly at those intervals.... are the results inferred from residule effects in the environment??
Boy.. and I used to be good at science. - Knoton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>Nope. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
I'm pretty sure he meant in the sense of how a power plant "produces" energy. Not literal production but the transformation into something we can use - Uriah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow this atom's so cool, he doesn't play by anybodies rules but his own!
- Hydroxyethyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm having problems understanding their claim that the temperature of the molecule hit 8000F. I always understood that temperature was more an average energy for a large quantity of particles.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So, in short, my post actually *was* correct :)
Perhaps instead of "friction", they meant Van der Waals forces(1)? That would be an easy mistake for a reporter to make, considering how most reporters are so far from the nearest clue that the number of bus tokens required to get to it would be too heavy for a human to lift.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force - BuG56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There isn't enough info in the article. The goddamn thing breaks laws that we have believed true and constantly proved, you'd think there would be a bigger article with more info. I was almost about to say that the video was going to help credibility....but when I saw it (It's horrible...) it didn't change my opinion at all.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe in the middle of the earth we have millions of these Atoms, because no friction to stop it and gravity is the only force acting on it, So they all would be attracted to the middle
- Agraek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2However, if it is real, it's still amazing...
- Elsidox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If this is real, couldn't it help with our energy issues? By saying "our" I mean the worlds.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Please, be more descriptive.
The video was of two interpenetrated spheres twisting back and forth akwardly as other spheres gently bounced off them. It looked kinda like somebody used a Sonic 3 special stage for a crappy demo of their physics code. - Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Newton's laws don't really apply at the atomic level.
- costoa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The US, Russia* and China have been trying to make a modern, supersonic torpedo for years now and this could make it a reality. Could break Mach 2. Both interesting and disturbing.
* The Russians have the Shkval ("squall"), a high speed, supercavitating, supersonic, rocket-propelled torpedo but its wicked touchy and needs its hand held. Credit goes to them though for beating the others by 20 years. Back in 2000 Canada got busted when there man, Edmond Pope, was caught with plans for the Shkval. Spent some time at Lefortovo for it. Rumor has it China has 40 Shkval-Es (export version). - s0ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1just simply substitute "ball" with "hockey puck" and it makes it much simpler to explain.
- mmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18000 degrees?!?!??! That'd make a awesome oven if it happened instantly!
- illu45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Indeed. Anyone who took high school physics knows Newton's laws to be universal. The fact that the article simply skims over this kind of makes me wonder if it really understands how important something like that is... Also, 8,000 degrees celsius? How many Kelvin is that? How do they get it up so high?
- Hydroxyethyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For anyone interested, some fluids have been observed to be frictionless (in the lab).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_fluid - Burgerman851, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's one hot thermometer; I hope they had a hair-triggered stop-watch to measure 270 trillion rpm in one 10 trillionth of a second.
- Jicksta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Within the first quarter-turn, the molecule created a shock wave that kicked away surrounding water molecules. The peanut molecule created a nearly frictionless zone for itself in the 10-trillionths of a second the reaction lasted."
Can anyone say warp drive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_Drive - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's also not true, which degrades its credibility further.
- boredofthesane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1fgsfds:
If you roll a ball down a hill that has a dip in it, and just opposite the dip there is a hill of equal height, through the laws of conservation of momentum the ball should roll up the opposite hill always. Because of friction, and other forces acting on it, this is not always the case. I believe that is what the parent means. - schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dupe
http://digg.com/science/Frictionless_Motion_Observed_In_Water - rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's 8000 Farenheit, not Celsius.
But that works out to be around 4,700 Kelvin. - LaurelR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not even into the infrared in wavelength.
- crazaalex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nice metaphor!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sure I could find a use for that molecule...can I buy one?? Would be a cool thing to have methinks.
- bowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I see it being used in things like MRI machines where ultra low friction is required before something like ball bearings. The tech will no doubt be expensive
- msprout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2They need to stop making crap that defies friction.
It's the law, you jerks! - sprocketonline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Surely the saying is "swinging a cat"?!!
OK, amateur comedy hour over. The reaction is so obvious - the water atoms come back after the 10 spins.
Surely the action of the atom is pushing the water molecules away, the water molecules are all crushed together (that creates high pressure and the "shockwave" they talk of).
The area of high pressure will either disperse or the molecules will all move back into the vacuum once the atom has done it's thing. - sardon1c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When was the last time you ran ball bearings in water?
- Vulturejoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If atoms were immune to friction, then molecules would be immune to friction. If molecules were immune to friction, then we would be immune to friction.
- MikeSavior, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ball bearings with this molecule don't look difficult to make at all. Make the bearings out of the molecule, and then keep them in fluid, tightly packed while having a good range of motion, between the two moving parts that require the bearing. Provided replacing the bearings would get messy as it's not like, for example, a skateboard wheel bearing, in which it's its own separate part which touches the wheel and thus makes friction- I'm thinking of it as literally a liquid padding.
Maybe it could be easily made another way. - xixixix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it is clearly a wrong interpretation of the experiment. If it is that hot, it can vaporize the water surrounding it. And article says a shock wave occurred. The shock wave might have "swung the suitcases", i mean water molecules. and of course that much spin may have hit the other molecules which is not "no friction".
- jabelar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No it would be breaking friction, not gravity ...
He means that after rolling down a hill, a ball would have enough momentum to carry it back up the same hill. The reason a ball wouldn't would be friction (due to air and the ground). I.e. perpetual motion! - dance, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4It's really interesting to watch the evolution of this word 'owned'. I wonder how long it will be before it appears in the OED.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is