Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Magazine)   News: Scientists accidentally make a sheet of glass only three atoms thick, analyze its structure. Fark: It exactly matches a prediction made by a glass theorist in 1932   (news.sciencemag.org) divider line 45
    More: Cool, atoms, graphene, Nano Letters, electron microscopes, theorists, predictions, glass, structures  
•       •       •

9170 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Feb 2012 at 10:53 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-02-06 10:14:02 AM  
In other news: There is such a thing as a "glass theorist"
 
2012-02-06 10:21:49 AM  

ManateeGag: In other news: There is such a thing as a "glass theorist"


Be careful. He's very fragile.
 
2012-02-06 10:29:04 AM  
There are quite a few "ass theorists" on Fark...they pose such questions as, "Does Coco's butt have it's own zip code?" and "has Kim Kardashian's ass seen more rubber than a dead rat lying in the middle of the highway?"
 
2012-02-06 10:37:13 AM  
Meh -- Nostradamus predicted it way before 1932....
 
2012-02-06 10:37:13 AM  

ManateeGag: In other news: There is such a thing as a "glass theorist"


Yes, and their answer to all the pressing questions of the day is "I'll have another pint".
 
2012-02-06 10:39:21 AM  
That's impossible. I've been assured by many of Fark/s finest creationism/vaccine/climate/moonhoax/troofer experts that scientific "models" based on "theory" are worthless and can be safely ignored. You can't argue with "scare quotation marks further emphasized by italics".
 
2012-02-06 10:40:23 AM  
I'm tickled by all the people at the article complaining that it's not truly "two-dimensional" if it has width. Here's the thing- the object isn't two-dimensional, the GLASS is. three atoms thick is the MINIMUM for glass, because of how the atoms arrange themselves. If you tried to cut it thinner, it would cease to be glass.
 
2012-02-06 10:40:25 AM  
I'm sure this is somewhere on the Mayan calendar
 
2012-02-06 10:41:07 AM  

chimp_ninja: That's impossible. I've been assured by many of Fark/s finest creationism/vaccine/climate/moonhoax/troofer experts that scientific "models" based on "theory" are worthless and can be safely ignored. You can't argue with "scare quotation marks further emphasized by italics".


Even more dangerous are the Alarmist Computer Models.
 
2012-02-06 10:49:55 AM  
WHAR Scotty WHAR
 
2012-02-06 10:53:36 AM  
That is pretty farking cool right there.
 
2012-02-06 10:56:47 AM  
OH MY GOD!
 
2012-02-06 10:57:30 AM  
I bet he had a fragile ego.
 
2012-02-06 11:01:13 AM  

Nogrhi: ManateeGag: In other news: There is such a thing as a "glass theorist"

Be careful. He's very fragile.


I see through what you did there
 
2012-02-06 11:08:49 AM  
Meh. If they can produce 3-atom thick transparent aluminum, that would be something.
 
2012-02-06 11:14:22 AM  

gopher321: There are quite a few "ass theorists" on Fark...they pose such questions as, "Does Coco's butt have it's own zip code?" and "has Kim Kardashian's ass seen more rubber than a dead rat lying in the middle of the highway?"


As to the second question, the answer is "no."

Kimi likes bareback.
 
2012-02-06 11:25:47 AM  

GAT_00: WHAR Scotty WHAR


Seconded
 
2012-02-06 11:28:15 AM  

kingoomieiii: chimp_ninja: That's impossible. I've been assured by many of Fark/s finest creationism/vaccine/climate/moonhoax/troofer experts that scientific "models" based on "theory" are worthless and can be safely ignored. You can't argue with "scare quotation marks further emphasized by italics".

Even more dangerous are the Alarmist Computer Models.


It's never been clear to me if these are (Alarmist Computer) Models or Alarmist (Computer Models), and the trolls never satisfy requests for clarification. I like to think that they think it's the former.
 
2012-02-06 11:29:27 AM  
Finally, nanobots will be able to put windows in their drafty little buckyball houses.
 
2012-02-06 11:47:52 AM  
You mean theoretical science based on mathematical principles works?

Holy shiat!?

Oh wait, I forgot for a second there that modern technology wasn't based entirely on smashing together blocks of wood and rock until it formed into an internets.

/sarcasm isn't sincere communication
 
2012-02-06 11:50:10 AM  
so if its only 2D, does that mean its not possible for it to cut me, when it falls out of the sill as I release it thinking the caulk is set and will hold it in place?
 
2012-02-06 11:52:27 AM  
what's the e-rating, muthafukaaas?
 
2012-02-06 11:52:47 AM  
There is such a thing as a 'glass atom'?
 
2012-02-06 11:53:16 AM  
This is why teams of very skilled researchers need at least one person working in the lab who is either forgetful, lazy or somewhat sloppy - the "best" discoveries are often accidents.
 
2012-02-06 12:00:03 PM  

kingoomieiii: I'm tickled by all the people at the article complaining that it's not truly "two-dimensional" if it has width. Here's the thing- the object isn't two-dimensional, the GLASS is. three atoms thick is the MINIMUM for glass, because of how the atoms arrange themselves. If you tried to cut it thinner, it would cease to be glass.


That does not make it "two-dimensional", no matter how "cool" that sounds. Yes, it would cease to be the compound we call "silica glass", but it would not cease to be. Even a single atom is "three-dimensional".

Sensationalist terminology is sensationalist.
 
2012-02-06 12:15:19 PM  

FormlessOne: kingoomieiii: I'm tickled by all the people at the article complaining that it's not truly "two-dimensional" if it has width. Here's the thing- the object isn't two-dimensional, the GLASS is. three atoms thick is the MINIMUM for glass, because of how the atoms arrange themselves. If you tried to cut it thinner, it would cease to be glass.

That does not make it "two-dimensional", no matter how "cool" that sounds. Yes, it would cease to be the compound we call "silica glass", but it would not cease to be. Even a single atom is "three-dimensional".

Sensationalist terminology is sensationalist.


This.
 
2012-02-06 12:17:33 PM  

FormlessOne: That does not make it "two-dimensional", no matter how "cool" that sounds. Yes, it would cease to be the compound we call "silica glass", but it would not cease to be. Even a single atom is "three-dimensional".


The reading audience of Nano Letters gets this, but it's a useful term to explain the structure. The abstract also contrasts the glass with "bulk" silica, but it's understood that the planar-ish form being discussed has mass and volume too.

FormlessOne: Sensationalist terminology is sensationalist.


Meh. It's harmless shorthand. Better things exist to get mad about.
 
2012-02-06 12:19:05 PM  

FormlessOne: kingoomieiii: I'm tickled by all the people at the article complaining that it's not truly "two-dimensional" if it has width. Here's the thing- the object isn't two-dimensional, the GLASS is. three atoms thick is the MINIMUM for glass, because of how the atoms arrange themselves. If you tried to cut it thinner, it would cease to be glass.

That does not make it "two-dimensional", no matter how "cool" that sounds. Yes, it would cease to be the compound we call "silica glass", but it would not cease to be. Even a single atom is "three-dimensional".

Sensationalist terminology is sensationalist.


If Flatland taught me anything, it's that 2D objects and 4D objects cannot exist in 3D space. It's just unpossible.
 
2012-02-06 12:19:57 PM  

FormlessOne: kingoomieiii: I'm tickled by all the people at the article complaining that it's not truly "two-dimensional" if it has width. Here's the thing- the object isn't two-dimensional, the GLASS is. three atoms thick is the MINIMUM for glass, because of how the atoms arrange themselves. If you tried to cut it thinner, it would cease to be glass.

That does not make it "two-dimensional", no matter how "cool" that sounds. Yes, it would cease to be the compound we call "silica glass", but it would not cease to be. Even a single atom is "three-dimensional".

Sensationalist terminology is sensationalist.


"Two-dimensional" is a materials science / physics term that refers more to the approximation of allowed energy states than of the technically correct existence of width.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-06 12:22:13 PM  

FormlessOne: kingoomieiii: I'm tickled by all the people at the article complaining that it's not truly "two-dimensional" if it has width. Here's the thing- the object isn't two-dimensional, the GLASS is. three atoms thick is the MINIMUM for glass, because of how the atoms arrange themselves. If you tried to cut it thinner, it would cease to be glass.

That does not make it "two-dimensional", no matter how "cool" that sounds. Yes, it would cease to be the compound we call "silica glass", but it would not cease to be. Even a single atom is "three-dimensional".

Sensationalist terminology is sensationalist.


The reason why the term 2D is used a lot is partly because it's a mono-layer but more importantly it has to do with electron transport. In the case of graphene (graphite mono-layer) the electrons only travel in 2 dimensions because there is nothing above or below it, therefor it behaves like a "2D" material. Since then this terminology got applied to every other mono-layer regardless if it was conducting or not.

/Works with graphene
/It's cool stuff
 
2012-02-06 12:49:48 PM  
It's stuff like this that make me wish I'd gone into the material sciences. Damn you, metaphysics!
 
2012-02-06 01:01:04 PM  

Arbitrator: FormlessOne: kingoomieiii: I'm tickled by all the people at the article complaining that it's not truly "two-dimensional" if it has width. Here's the thing- the object isn't two-dimensional, the GLASS is. three atoms thick is the MINIMUM for glass, because of how the atoms arrange themselves. If you tried to cut it thinner, it would cease to be glass.

That does not make it "two-dimensional", no matter how "cool" that sounds. Yes, it would cease to be the compound we call "silica glass", but it would not cease to be. Even a single atom is "three-dimensional".

Sensationalist terminology is sensationalist.

"Two-dimensional" is a materials science / physics term that refers more to the approximation of allowed energy states than of the technically correct existence of width.

Link (new window)


So, it's shorthand jargon, and not the mathematical descriptor for dimensionality? Even the article to which you linked, which only tangentially applies here, recognizes that it's jargon and not an accurate descriptor - the article itself describes a 2D electron gas, which, while constricted in its movement within a third dimension, does not actually describe a "two-dimensional" object.
 
2012-02-06 02:57:49 PM  

ManateeGag: In other news: There is such a thing as a "glass theorist"


"Glass" in materials science terms means something much broader and more encompassing than the specific visible-light-transmitting amorphous silicate substance in you drink your beer out of. The category encompasses almost every solid material that lacks long-range order.

Not that the arrangements of absorption bands isn't important, designing glass that, say, passes UV or X-ray light as well as (or rather than) visible is pretty important to vacuum science especially. But it's hardly the only glass you use, a number of "ceramic" materials fall into the category, for instance.

FormlessOne: So, it's shorthand jargon, and not the mathematical descriptor for dimensionality? Even the article to which you linked, which only tangentially applies here, recognizes that it's jargon and not an accurate descriptor - the article itself describes a 2D electron gas, which, while constricted in its movement within a third dimension, does not actually describe a "two-dimensional" object.


Sort of. Two-dimensional generally means that the substance has two dimensions long enough to approximate bulk conditions, whereas the third dimension is small enough that bulk properties no longer apply and quantum properties dominate. It's something of a fuzzy line, but the functional difference is there and extremely important, and pretty much corresponds to what most people mean when they say "two-dimensional".

I mean, the average person wouldn't go to a 2d movie and claim it's actually in 3d because the screen on which the film is projected has atomic-level roughness, so this is consistent with the general use of the word. Stop being a dick.
 
2012-02-06 03:02:57 PM  

gopher321: There are quite a few "ass theorists" on Fark...they pose such questions as, "Does Coco's butt have it's own zip code?" and "has Kim Kardashian's ass seen more rubber than a dead rat lying in the middle of the highway?"


Kim Kardashian's ass was also predicted in 1932, apparently by extrapolating from Mae West's.
 
2012-02-06 04:19:31 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I mean, the average person wouldn't go to a 2d movie and claim it's actually in 3d because the screen on which the film is projected has atomic-level roughness,


That still wouldn't be 3D; it'd just be a 2D surface curved through a 3D space, like a shadow on the floor.
 
2012-02-06 04:24:44 PM  

kvinesknows: so if its only 2D, does that mean its not possible for it to cut me, when it falls out of the sill as I release it thinking the caulk is set and will hold it in place?


The key is putting caulk firmly in the crack.
 
2012-02-06 04:30:25 PM  

kvinesknows: so if its only 2D, does that mean its not possible for it to cut me, when it falls out of the sill as I release it thinking the caulk is set and will hold it in place?


Glazier points. Get them.
 
2012-02-06 04:39:02 PM  

MontanaDave: kvinesknows: so if its only 2D, does that mean its not possible for it to cut me, when it falls out of the sill as I release it thinking the caulk is set and will hold it in place?

Glazier points. Get them.


I did, after bandaging myself up and going back to the store to buy more glass.
 
2012-02-06 06:56:20 PM  

chimp_ninja: That's impossible. I've been assured by many of Fark/s finest creationism/vaccine/climate/moonhoax/troofer experts that scientific "models" based on "theory" are worthless and can be safely ignored. You can't argue with "scare quotation marks further emphasized by italics".


Really? Someone has actually said that all models in all scientific fields ever are always wrong?

That seems pretty incredible. As in lacking credibility.
 
2012-02-06 08:21:57 PM  

Nogrhi: He's very fragile.


Must be French!
 
2012-02-06 11:57:14 PM  
I thought that Apple invented this for the screens on the iPhone...
 
2012-02-07 12:38:47 PM  

watson.t.hamster: Really? Someone has actually said that all models in all scientific fields ever are always wrong?


In practice, they conveniently only say this about scientific theories that predict things that don't agree with their political ideologies.
 
2012-02-07 06:37:14 PM  
Materials science consists of a very bizarre process. A lot of progress is murky due to copyright and even government classification (not just talking about USA here). The useful stuff is complicated and protected. You might hear about it decades after it was actualized, if that soon.

The oddest alloys are copyrighted. The most interesting chemical reations are classified. The most useful physical reactions result in the targeted assassinations of the scientists involved.

What a wonderful world.
 
2012-02-07 09:50:04 PM  
scienceblogs.com
 
2012-02-07 10:51:39 PM  

kingoomieiii: I'm tickled by all the people at the article complaining that it's not truly "two-dimensional" if it has width. Here's the thing- the object isn't two-dimensional, the GLASS is. three atoms thick is the MINIMUM for glass, because of how the atoms arrange themselves. If you tried to cut it thinner, it would cease to be glass.


That just doesn't work that way... If I cut my car in half, it ceases to be a car, but it is not a 2 dimensional car because of that. This glass has 3 dimensions, breaking it does not change that fact.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report