5 ms·

> scientists believe antiferromagnetic materials could be a more robust alternative to existing magnetic-based storage technologies Scientists working on inter

> scientists believe antiferromagnetic materials could be a more robust alternative to existing magnetic-based storage technologies Scientists working on interesting anti-ferromagnetic materials need a justification for doing so under the crazy grant system we operate, more like. The downside of antiferromagnetic data storage, or skyrmion storage, or any of the other various ideas recently, is that reading the data is very difficult even if it is present, to the point of making a real world device pretty much practically impossible. I know, I also worked on this sort of thing before leaving academia!

reillys 2y ago
Knowledge in itself is good. We don’t need everything to have a direct commercial application. In fact most discoveries by their nature do not have directly applicable commercial applications.
- nick__m 2y ago
  I agree and I am sure physicguy also agree but, alas, those who manage the grants system frequently don't.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Because those who pay for the taxes frequently don't. So some justification needs to happen to spend other peoples money. A better way would be nice, though.
    - westmeal 2y ago
      Divert a percentage of military spending to a pool of money for scientists to use.
      - lukan 2y ago
        What do the taxpayers say? (Me I say yes! But I learned, I usually do not represent a majority)
      - superturkey650 2y ago
        Isn’t that what government grants essentially already are?
        gmueckl 2y ago
        In the US, maybe. But other countries don't need to launder research money through their defense budgets.
        dinkumthinkum 2y ago
        Many such countries have their defense subsidized by the US.
        virgilp 2y ago
        Well we're getting into political territory, but recently that "subsidized" seems to have swiftly changed to "threatened", so, I don't know. What you say used to be true in the past, but it's not so clear anymore. Also: only country that ever invoked article 5 was actually the US. In that sense the opposite is true ("lots of countries have subsidized US defense"). The US "subsidy" came from the strong conviction that "US would act if we needed it", but that conviction is quickly evaporating.
        DrScientist 2y ago
        On the other hand the US is running a large deficit and has a large debt - >120% of GDP - so that spend is in part other people's money. With the foreign countries holding the most US debt being Japan, China, UK, Luxembourg and Canada. I would also point out that you could view US bases in places like Japan or Chagos Islands as 'subsidising' local defence or it could be viewed as simple occupation.
        devmor 2y ago
        Do you believe the US receives no economic benefit from that defense, or that it is providing said defense at a loss?
    - mnky9800n 2y ago
      This is a popular argument but there are plenty of things that cost orders of magnitude more taxes that go towards projects that lots of people don’t agree with. Americas trillion dollar war machine for example.
    - babycheetahbite 2y ago
      Well put. But, of course many on here don't have time for the concerns of simpleton non-elites, and whether they should have a say about where their money goes; I've noticed lately I look for the greyed out comments first on HN.
- thecoppinger 2y ago
  Here's an excellent lecture that drives this point home: "Physics in the Interest of Society Lecture 2019: John Parmentola" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx-55BhuFks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx-55BhuFks
- mnky9800n 2y ago
  You are correct. Please try to convince grant agencies that blue sky research doesn’t need direct application.
HenryBemis 2y ago
Like every other scientific discovery, weaponize it. I can imagine a few ways that one can disable advanced weaponry or cause harmful/adverse effects to weaponry, computer systems, and/or ammunition. I imagine that such a solution would cause the desired harm something without leaving a trace. I don't see "distance" mentioned on the article, but I did see a temperature (118 K = -155 C)(which make it (currently) impossible to use outside a lab). The breakthrough is here though, and now someone must already be at work to see if this can be operated in battlefield/real-life conditions. I remember on TBBT when they made a gyroscope-thingie-invention but it was 'THIS' big, and the army officer was pressing them to remake it 'that' small so it can be fitted on missiles (or whatever). Isn't this how it typically happens?

reillys 2y ago

Knowledge in itself is good. We don’t need everything to have a direct commercial application. In fact most discoveries by their nature do not have directly applicable commercial applications.

nick__m 2y ago
I agree and I am sure physicguy also agree but, alas, those who manage the grants system frequently don't.
- lukan 2y ago
  Because those who pay for the taxes frequently don't. So some justification needs to happen to spend other peoples money. A better way would be nice, though.
  - westmeal 2y ago
    Divert a percentage of military spending to a pool of money for scientists to use.
    - lukan 2y ago
      What do the taxpayers say? (Me I say yes! But I learned, I usually do not represent a majority)
    - superturkey650 2y ago
      Isn’t that what government grants essentially already are?
      - gmueckl 2y ago
        In the US, maybe. But other countries don't need to launder research money through their defense budgets.
        dinkumthinkum 2y ago
        Many such countries have their defense subsidized by the US.
        virgilp 2y ago
        Well we're getting into political territory, but recently that "subsidized" seems to have swiftly changed to "threatened", so, I don't know. What you say used to be true in the past, but it's not so clear anymore. Also: only country that ever invoked article 5 was actually the US. In that sense the opposite is true ("lots of countries have subsidized US defense"). The US "subsidy" came from the strong conviction that "US would act if we needed it", but that conviction is quickly evaporating.
        DrScientist 2y ago
        On the other hand the US is running a large deficit and has a large debt - >120% of GDP - so that spend is in part other people's money. With the foreign countries holding the most US debt being Japan, China, UK, Luxembourg and Canada. I would also point out that you could view US bases in places like Japan or Chagos Islands as 'subsidising' local defence or it could be viewed as simple occupation.
        devmor 2y ago
        Do you believe the US receives no economic benefit from that defense, or that it is providing said defense at a loss?
  - mnky9800n 2y ago
    This is a popular argument but there are plenty of things that cost orders of magnitude more taxes that go towards projects that lots of people don’t agree with. Americas trillion dollar war machine for example.
  - babycheetahbite 2y ago
    Well put. But, of course many on here don't have time for the concerns of simpleton non-elites, and whether they should have a say about where their money goes; I've noticed lately I look for the greyed out comments first on HN.
thecoppinger 2y ago
Here's an excellent lecture that drives this point home: "Physics in the Interest of Society Lecture 2019: John Parmentola" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx-55BhuFks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx-55BhuFks
mnky9800n 2y ago
You are correct. Please try to convince grant agencies that blue sky research doesn’t need direct application.

HenryBemis 2y ago

Like every other scientific discovery, weaponize it. I can imagine a few ways that one can disable advanced weaponry or cause harmful/adverse effects to weaponry, computer systems, and/or ammunition. I imagine that such a solution would cause the desired harm something without leaving a trace. I don't see "distance" mentioned on the article, but I did see a temperature (118 K = -155 C)(which make it (currently) impossible to use outside a lab). The breakthrough is here though, and now someone must already be at work to see if this can be operated in battlefield/real-life conditions. I remember on TBBT when they made a gyroscope-thingie-invention but it was 'THIS' big, and the army officer was pressing them to remake it 'that' small so it can be fitted on missiles (or whatever). Isn't this how it typically happens?