7 ms·
A Bizarre Form of Water May Exist All over the Universe (2019)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway81523 5y ago2019
- pif 5y ago2019... so what? Chemistry didn't change a lot in the last two years, thus such an article is as good as it had been published yesterday.
- geranim0 5y agoStandard procedure for titles
- adwn 5y agoYou've been active here for 9 years and haven't noticed yet that posts from previous years get a [year] tag in their title?
- pif 5y agoSure I did, and that is fine when talking about the last fad in web programming. But we don't need such nitpicking for articles on more stable arguments.
- adwn 5y ago> Sure I did, and that is fine when talking about the last fad in web programming. But we don't need such nitpicking for articles on more stable arguments. ... right, that is the reason for putting the year in titles ... Or maybe it's done so that you can quickly discern whether it's old news, or a new development of something you've heard about previously.
- burnished 5y agoIt isn't nitpicking, its just regular old helpful. Like, I want to see where you are coming from, but I'm actually kind of stuck on this. How is it nitpicking? Where I'm coming from is the expectation that a citation includes the year of publication.
- generalizations 5y agoSuperionic ice. See for details: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1114-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1114-6
- hpb42 5y agoAnd also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superionic_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superionic_water
- ohuf 5y agoI just read "Black Ice" and it comes to my mind that William Gibson once more was way ahead of his time in 1984, writing "Neuromancer" ;)
- martincmartin 5y agoIce-nine? Update: I originally wrote ice-9, which it turns out is ambiguous. I meant the one from Cat's Cradle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Cradle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Cradle
- robbedpeter 5y agoIce 18 - ice 9 irl is boring, unfortunately.
- mint2 5y agoIt’s funny that scientists actually thought an ice nine type situation had a minuscule but non-zero chance of occurring when they set off the first nuclear bomb: the entire atmosphere would ignite.
- pfdietz 5y agoNo, they didn't. They did calculations showing it was impossible, even with very generous assumptions of cross sections and physical processes (like cooling of the plasma by radiation). They would not have done the test if there was any chance that could have happened.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y agoI was with you until that last sentence.
- mint2 5y agoHere’s a bbc article that inspired my comment. That other response comment was wrong from the start. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210217-the-moments-that-we-could-have-destroyed-humanity https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210217-the-moments-that...
- throwdecro 5y agoNOTE: I am not a physicist. > They did calculations showing it was impossible Doesn't mean they couldn't have been surprised by something their calculations didn't take into account. The yield for the Castle Bravo test in the 1950s was 2.5 times what was predicted [0], because some things they didn't take into account turned out to be important (namely that some of the material in the construction of the device would serve as additional fuel to the explosion). For the first nuclear explosion in 1945, they were initiating an incredibly powerful chain reaction for the first time on Earth. To some extent you just gotta cross your fingers and hope that the chain reaction stops according to your predictions, because you don't know what the "unknown unknowns" are until you try it. The combination of "chain reaction" and "unknown unknowns" is frightening. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo
- blululu 5y agoNautilus recently had a great article about this state of water in the context of our solar systems ice giants Neptune and Uranus: http://m.nautil.us/issue/102/hidden-truths/the-planets-with-the-giant-diamonds-inside http://m.nautil.us/issue/102/hidden-truths/the-planets-with-... I think the line that really stood out to me is ‘in most of the universe rivers of water and coal are rare and ice XVIII and diamonds are common’
- lisper 5y agoDiamonds are actually common here on earth too. The idea that they are rare is propaganda spread by the DeBeers cartel.
- jazzyjackson 5y agoDiamonds are common in an economic sense, there's plenty to go around. But as far as planetary geology goes, diamond is a pretty small share of the crust. I suppose there may be large diamonds in the mantle, that would be cool to see. But maybe it is similar across the galaxy, except for the odd moon-sized diamond here and there, a light dusting of micro-diamonds.
- lisper 5y ago> there may be large diamonds in the mantle Indeed: https://gizmodo.com/is-the-earths-mantle-full-of-diamonds-1827661699 https://gizmodo.com/is-the-earths-mantle-full-of-diamonds-18...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- edgedetector 5y agoThis article claims that the substance conducts electricity through the movement of protons, but last I checked, protons have extremely strong bonds to the nucleus. Most substances conduct electrons. Anyone want to shed some light on whether the article's claim is actually true? If so, are there other such substances that conduct electricity with protons? What is the electrical resistance of such substances? I feel it should be extremely high due to the increased mass of the protons.
- Chris2048 5y ago> last I checked, protons have extremely strong bonds to the nucleus according to the article: > The oxygen atoms form a cubic lattice, but the hydrogen atoms spill free, flowing like a liquid through the rigid cage of oxygens Hydrogen consists of a nucleus of just one proton. > I feel [electrical resistance] should be extremely high electrical resistance measures the opposition to a flow of current, whereas electrical reactance measures the opposition to a change in current. If you are thinking about momentum, do you mean reactance?
- Thiez 5y agoI wonder if heavy water would also be able to turn into this form of ice. Would a nucleus of one proton and one neutron more through the lattice with the same ease? Would heavy superionic ice conduct electricity as well?
- dnautics 5y agoresponding to: > protons have extremely strong bonds to the nucleus Protons are chemical shorthand for the H+ atomic ion. They are bound to the fluffy outer electron shells of oxygen atoms in water. > If so, are there other such substances that conduct electricity with protons? This is basically how the inside of some fuel cells work (note that there is a counter-flow, which is the "useful electricity" of electrons that travels OUTSIDE the fuel cell, but inside of the fuel cell the electricity flow is via H+) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-exchange_membrane_fuel_cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-exchange_membrane_fuel_...
- 5y ago
- excalibur 5y ago> although it has never been seen until now, scientists think it might be among the most abundant forms of water in the universe. Definitely top 10
- GREYWATER 5y agoAnd an even rarer phenomenon, a good-looking female physicist, is working on the project (see article for pic). --old physicist