digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at physorg.com

More Evidence for a Revolutionary Theory of Water

physorg.com — Recent X-ray Spectroscopy studies have revealed that modern theories of the structure of liquid water are incorrect. (Courtesy: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Duositex, on 07/02/2008, -13/+4WARNING: Article may induce drowsiness! Do not read article while operating heavy machinery!
  • uptwolait, on 07/02/2008, -4/+17Must have double-stuttered on the "CTRL-P" for the last few paragraphs.
  • LemurHorde, on 07/02/2008, -3/+9I wonder if it is these transient patches of differently organized water molecules are the liquid analogue of the alternate molecular arrangements seen in ice (i.e. Ice II - Ice XV) See ice-h for more info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Ih
    And no, this does not support polywater, "water-memory," or other such nonsense.
  • philodygmn, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7Check this site for a thorough treatise on water's largely unexplored properties:
    http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/
  • foxhaze, on 07/03/2008, -19/+2Oh look, science is wrong again, friggin surprise. Happens all the time. Let's move on and devise some more incorrect theories to brag about for another century.
    • HairyFotr, on 07/03/2008, -2/+15Actually it's "some more correct theories", but not more as in quantity, but as in theories that explain phenomena better then past theories.
      If you think scientists blindly believe theories just because they exist, you don't know a lot about the scientific method. The scientific method almost begs scientists to prove old theories for themselves, and to disprove theories with new data or more general theories, and that is exactly what happened here.
      I think you find it hard to accept the feeling of not knowing something, so you just don't try... what's even worse is, that it looks like you don't even want anyone else to know. Tell me - what are we supposed to do? Stop all research? No? How about, if we put more effort into making theories correct? Well, that is basically what scientist do - but if it really takes a century, as you say, to find flaws, then the problem seems to be that there are not enough scientists... or do you propose another method of finding things out?
    • Azerael, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11That's the whole point of the scientific method- theories emerge to explain things, when they are proven wrong, they die to give way to better supported, more workable theories.
      • itzac, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2It's almost as though science evolves. ;-)
    • kleptomaniac, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3"But despite its prevalence and importance, liquid water is not well understood, and its molecular structure has been the subject of intense debate for decades."

      key points here would be "not well understood" and "subject of intense debate." And when was the last time you heard a scientist brag about the current theory of water molecule behaviour?
    • PhantomBantam, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Damn you science, and your ability to adapt to new evidence! Damn Yoooouuuuuuuu!
    • warsongs7, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Just to add to HairyFotr's explanations, devising new "incorrect" theories is also solely responsible for all the technological advancements we enjoy. Just because some theory will be proven wrong in half a century doesn't mean that it is of no use in the current world.
    • LibrarianEtarip, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Science: Because an incorrect but close theory is still more useful than saying "God did it".
  • liuite, on 07/03/2008, -9/+4"But despite its prevalence and importance, liquid water is not well understood, and its molecular structure has been the subject of intense debate for decades"...c'mon, we have all these scientists and they don't even understand one of the most abundant substance on earth?
    • ChileanGoD, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6Our knowledge is as good as the technology that give us the possibility to seek it. Take The Large Hadron Collider as an example.
    • apr400, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6but also one of the most complicated. It's that pesky hydrogen bonding.
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/03/2008, -4/+3And yet we are supposed to believe that they can deduce the precise makeup of the atmosphere a million years ago. It's all wild ass guesses.
      • kleptomaniac, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/12/01121 ...
        http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/17 ...

        If by "wild ass guesses" you mean "interpreting the data at hand" then you're absolutely correct. Theories are always changing because of the advent of better technologies and new discoveries, if there were nothing left to discover there would be no need for science.
      • PeeEqualsNP, on 07/03/2008, -3/+0@ klepto: just a quick honest question from the second article:

        "The key lies in the fact that while all isotopes of sulfur behave the same chemically, they have slightly differing masses according to the amount of atmospheric oxygen at the time."

        How do they get this data? It seems they somehow have found a way to organize sulfur isotope masses by atmospheric oxygen levels "at the time", but how do they know what the oxygen levels were that long ago? It surely isn't based in any way on the sulfur masses, so what other measurements are used?
      • kleptomaniac, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/04102 ...
        "ancient oxygen levels"
        http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1920 ...
        "oxygen levels sulfur isotope"

        Both were the first hit for the google query listed. Why don't you try researching it for yourself first before asking the question.
  • madfrogurt, on 07/03/2008, -3/+26Quick chemistry lesson for those who think science is retarded for not knowing something as basic as the structure of water: we know the precise structure of a single molecule of water (central oxygen with two hydrogens 104.5 degrees apart). The problem chemists are trying to address is seeing how large groups of water molecules interact with each other. Water has dipoles (slightly negative and slightly positive parts of the molecule), has hydrogen bonding, and has some acid/base interactions, all of which cause complex interactions.

    The big difference isn't all that revolutionary. By the looks of it (I'm not a chemist) the shift seems to be in the number of molecules of water making up a "flickering unit" of water (an island of interactivity and density within a larger area of less dense general water). What this means for you and me is pretty much nil. What this means for chemists and hydrodynamic engineers is about close to nil.

    But please, don't let this bit of information stop you from raging against something you have the slimmest idea about.
    • Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1I don't think there's a "rage against science" issue here. I think there's a "rage against this article" issue here. It does NOTHING to state the point of the article and just repeats the fact that water is a mysterious and confusing that we're still learning about. Gee... Thanks.
  • Haecceity, on 07/03/2008, -1/+9What a crappy article. It starts repeating half-way through, and never actually says what the second structure is.
    • Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Hence my point with my first comment... nobody seems to have got the joke.
  • lucutus, on 07/03/2008, -1/+16I find it humorous that the "discovery" is a repeat of a 100 year old discovery and that the article repeated it's self in it's self.

    More after the break....

    I find it humorous that the "discovery" is a repeat of a 100 year old discovery and that the article repeated it's self in it's self.
  • cerejota, on 07/03/2008, -5/+1Science PWNDS again!
  • uptwolait, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Sounds like the old theories are all wet.
  • senkmajer, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7I am outraged. This is settled science. We already have had hundreds, if not thousands, of smart scientists that had formed a consensus on the effects and behavior of water--WAY smarter than the people that read and comment on DIgg. The scientists working on this are clearly shills for "big water." Anybody that disputes this is a right-wing, anti-science, bible-thumping, anti-evolution, bigoted misogynist.
  • Nudar, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Third time's a charm.

    The idea that liquid water is made up of two structures is not new. German physicist Willhelm Conrad Röntgen, who discovered X-rays in the late 19th century, published a paper proposing that liquid water comprised two different structures—one tetrahedral "ice-like" structure, and another more loosely arranged structure, which helped explain why water behaves in such unusual ways. Now, more than a century later, the current study is giving new life to Röntgen's "two structure" model.
  • atact88, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4I'm trying to decide if this article actually contains any news or not. At the very least, it does a very poor job of making the novel part of this study obvious.
  • dan_s, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1I wish they said WHAT the second structure is. The link fails to mention it, but judging by the picture it is made up of the small amounts of OH- and H3O+ that form in water normally.
  • jontalisman, on 07/03/2008, -4/+3Okey dokey, we can't even understand water yet but scientists tell us there's absolutely no risk of creating a black hole that will swallow the earth with the Large Hadron Collider???

    http://www.nowpublic.com/technology/potential-dang ...
    • webcrumb, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Oh come now, the possibility of a resonance cascade is highly unlikely.
    • itzac, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Because uncertainty as to how quadrillions of molecules interact together obviously brings into question our knowledge of single sub-atomic particles and the validity of the risk calculations surrounding the LHC.

      Clearly the "science" behind the "dangers" of the LHC only looks like hand waving and shrieking. These are brilliant men who are merely misunderstood.
  • nshady, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1It's such an important revelation that they had to discuss it twice.
  • hba718, on 07/03/2008, -2/+0H2O isn’t?
    I lost appetite to finish the whole article.
    Actually water molecule would change their combination (their looks) if we ‘talks’ to it. Try ‘praise’ or ‘scold’ the water and check water molecule using that X-ray spectroscopy. You won’t believe with the findings…
  • sasmon, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1This article is amazing in that it says absolutely nothing, twice!
  • gangxue, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0I only come to look
    http://www.liwang001.com.cn
  • reddikilowatt, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1"Powerful synchrotron light source" sounds like Dr. Evil's newest weapon.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.