5 ms·

High-temperature Superconductor Spills Secret: A New Phase of Matter

61 points by juiceandjuice 16y ago

BoppreH 16y ago
As a layman, I've grown to associate "new phase of matter" with concepts that I'll never hear about again. It sounds like "there's a hole here, but we made a cork for it, and guess what, it fits!", aka too much model rearranging. Said that, I hope they are right this time.
- jerf 16y ago
  Phases or states of matter at the higher end of physics do not necessarily entirely correspond to the ones you learned in school. For instance, look at this state chart of water, and note how many entries there are: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html It seems likely to me that this new state would be a subset of what you'd call a "solid", just as you'd call both water II and water III "ice" without worrying about it. You can say the same thing about plasma and how it is a subset of what you would call a gas, if you don't care about the electrical differences.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  I believe why they're calling it a "new phase of matter" is because the electron-pairing is remaining at temperatures it is not known to have. IMO this sounds more like there is a required energy level for electrons to actually be singular in their orbits and that at superconducting temperatures the electrons degenerate into electron-pairs. The structure of the cuperates must increase the energy required for the electrons to sustain being singular. I don't think it's likely to be a new phase of matter, but rather an exploited special circumstance.
juiceandjuice 16y ago
I'd like to mention that this sort of research at SLAC and other Office of Science facilities and programs in the DOE, is being targeted for heavy cutbacks. A bill passed the house proposing a 20% cut ($1Bn) from the Office of Science budget, but the consensus is that it won't pass the senate or the president. More extreme examples come from people like Rand Paul who have proposed eliminating the DOE completely.
- Judson 16y ago
  I agree that this kind of research is needed, but surely you aren't suggesting that the DOE is the only entity capable of investing in research of this kind?
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >the DOE is the only entity capable of investing in research of this kind? who else other than government has this kind of money for such fundamental research? (i.e. a lot of money without any feasible productization in the next at least 10 years) May be IBM Almaden comes closest, and yet it is still very far.
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    Investments in research which have a time to profitability longer than 20 years, which is the length of the patent term in the US and most of the world, cannot be supplied by for-profit companies. That pretty much leaves government or philanthropic entities. Philanthropic entities do not invest at the level justified by the expected benefit to society of the research. If you want funding at the appropriate level, you need to either do it through the government or you need to modify patent law to enable corporations to capture profits with very large time horizons. Is there a reason that the DOE is a particularly bad agency, among potential government agencies, for doing this investment?
    - dantheman 16y ago
      Wouldn't it be better to fund this through NSF so that it could be part of a cohesive portfolio? Instead of the through the DOE which adds massive beurocratic overhead/duplication of effort. Wouldn't one science funding research body be sufficient? Also, as for nuclear weapons research wouldn't that be best carried out by the dod, perhaps throug DARPA?
ChuckMcM 16y ago
Nice to see some progress coming out of this. Its one of the areas in basic science that can be massively disruptive overall. (probably no need to tell this crowd was room temperature superconductors would change, I know they would sure lower my datacenter cooling bill :-) I don't doubt for a minute that this is something google.org would fund if the federal gov't money dried up. To much benefit for their business to overlook it.

61 points by juiceandjuice 16y ago

As a layman, I've grown to associate "new phase of matter" with concepts that I'll never hear about again. It sounds like "there's a hole here, but we made a cork for it, and guess what, it fits!", aka too much model rearranging. Said that, I hope they are right this time.

jerf 16y ago
Phases or states of matter at the higher end of physics do not necessarily entirely correspond to the ones you learned in school. For instance, look at this state chart of water, and note how many entries there are: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html It seems likely to me that this new state would be a subset of what you'd call a "solid", just as you'd call both water II and water III "ice" without worrying about it. You can say the same thing about plasma and how it is a subset of what you would call a gas, if you don't care about the electrical differences.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
electromagnetic 16y ago
I believe why they're calling it a "new phase of matter" is because the electron-pairing is remaining at temperatures it is not known to have. IMO this sounds more like there is a required energy level for electrons to actually be singular in their orbits and that at superconducting temperatures the electrons degenerate into electron-pairs. The structure of the cuperates must increase the energy required for the electrons to sustain being singular. I don't think it's likely to be a new phase of matter, but rather an exploited special circumstance.

juiceandjuice 16y ago

I'd like to mention that this sort of research at SLAC and other Office of Science facilities and programs in the DOE, is being targeted for heavy cutbacks. A bill passed the house proposing a 20% cut ($1Bn) from the Office of Science budget, but the consensus is that it won't pass the senate or the president. More extreme examples come from people like Rand Paul who have proposed eliminating the DOE completely.

Judson 16y ago
I agree that this kind of research is needed, but surely you aren't suggesting that the DOE is the only entity capable of investing in research of this kind?
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >the DOE is the only entity capable of investing in research of this kind? who else other than government has this kind of money for such fundamental research? (i.e. a lot of money without any feasible productization in the next at least 10 years) May be IBM Almaden comes closest, and yet it is still very far.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  Investments in research which have a time to profitability longer than 20 years, which is the length of the patent term in the US and most of the world, cannot be supplied by for-profit companies. That pretty much leaves government or philanthropic entities. Philanthropic entities do not invest at the level justified by the expected benefit to society of the research. If you want funding at the appropriate level, you need to either do it through the government or you need to modify patent law to enable corporations to capture profits with very large time horizons. Is there a reason that the DOE is a particularly bad agency, among potential government agencies, for doing this investment?
  - dantheman 16y ago
    Wouldn't it be better to fund this through NSF so that it could be part of a cohesive portfolio? Instead of the through the DOE which adds massive beurocratic overhead/duplication of effort. Wouldn't one science funding research body be sufficient? Also, as for nuclear weapons research wouldn't that be best carried out by the dod, perhaps throug DARPA?

ChuckMcM 16y ago

Nice to see some progress coming out of this. Its one of the areas in basic science that can be massively disruptive overall. (probably no need to tell this crowd was room temperature superconductors would change, I know they would sure lower my datacenter cooling bill :-) I don't doubt for a minute that this is something google.org would fund if the federal gov't money dried up. To much benefit for their business to overlook it.