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.

(Huffington Post)   Quantum Magnetism observed for the first time. No idea what that involves, but apparently it has something to do with bulbous red and blue arrows spreading fairy dust as they float through graph paper valleys   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 33
    More: Interesting, quantum, potential energy, spin model, superconductivity, lattices, absolute zero, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, physicists  
•       •       •

2523 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 May 2013 at 10:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-27 10:41:24 AM  
I read the whole thing. I feel dumb for not getting it. Spin is "up or down"??
 
2013-05-27 10:56:56 AM  
I don't think I have ever been more motivated to say WTF am I reading?
 
2013-05-27 11:04:54 AM  
Where is Fark's resident physics experts. Come help us!
 
2013-05-27 11:17:29 AM  
They haven't observed anything for the first time.  They observed things that have been observed lots of times, but now they did it with a system that offers more control over the variables involved and will be useful for looking at variations on the theme that were impractical to access before.  Ignorant science journalist is ignorant.

For those without a subscription to Science, the preprint is here.
 
2013-05-27 11:22:50 AM  
Perhaps they can finally get Dr. Sam Beckett home.

or not
 
2013-05-27 11:25:27 AM  
All together now:

Quantum magnets, how do they work?
 
2013-05-27 11:29:24 AM  
Actually, I don't understand how they can claim that this is the first time we've witnessed quantum magnetization. We've had nuclear magnetic resonance since the 50s. It's how an MRI works. You take a huge, powerful magnet, cool it with liquid helium, turn on the juice, and observe what energies are absorbed by the nucleii as they flip from -1/2 spin to +1/2 spin. It looks like this:

www.mhhe.com

Maybe a pure physicist could explain to me how the phenomenon they are describing constitutes quantum magnetization, but an NMR doesn't?
 
2013-05-27 11:33:31 AM  

Professor Science: They haven't observed anything for the first time.  They observed things that have been observed lots of times, but now they did it with a system that offers more control over the variables involved and will be useful for looking at variations on the theme that were impractical to access before.  Ignorant science journalist is ignorant.

For those without a subscription to Science, the preprint is here.


That was slightly more comprehensible, so Magnetism is observable on a quantum level, that quanta with different spin repel each other?
 
2013-05-27 11:34:30 AM  

HotnSweaty: I read the whole thing. I feel dumb for not getting it. Spin is "up or down"??


Spin is really just an arbitrary name given to a property of particles.

Or, use the wiki-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
 
2013-05-27 11:34:40 AM  
sorry same spin
 
2013-05-27 12:13:00 PM  

albatros183: Professor Science: They haven't observed anything for the first time.  They observed things that have been observed lots of times, but now they did it with a system that offers more control over the variables involved and will be useful for looking at variations on the theme that were impractical to access before.  Ignorant science journalist is ignorant.

For those without a subscription to Science, the preprint is here.

That was slightly more comprehensible, so Magnetism is observable on a quantum level, that quanta with different

identical spin repel each other?

That's part of it, and that part is a big, important consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle.  It causes interesting things to happen when a lot of particles are close together, like in solids, and the interplay of various attractions and repulsions gets complicated.  This has been known for close to a century, and its consequences have been observed for just about as long, which is one of the many reasons that the headline is retarded.  I'm not laying all the blame for that on subby; it's mostly caused by people thinking "I got a B+ in tenth grade science" means "I'm fully qualified to be a science journalist."

The paper that inspired the article is about using fancy technology (including frickin' lasers) to create lattices of atoms that wouldn't exist naturally, and then watching magnetic phenomena play out in them.  By controlling the structure of that lattice, rather than taking whatever structures nature offers you in the form of solid materials, you can highlight and examine behaviors that are hidden, rare, or nonexistent in natural systems.
 
2013-05-27 12:18:56 PM  

New Farkin User Name: HotnSweaty: I read the whole thing. I feel dumb for not getting it. Spin is "up or down"??

Spin is really just an arbitrary name given to a property of particles.

Or, use the wiki-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)


I wouldn't give too much stock into what physicist choose for the naming of phenomena, particles, units, etc...  They can be pretty misleading/smartass.  See the units of nuclear cross-section for an example.
 
2013-05-27 12:24:03 PM  
If that's true, doesn't that infer an even smaller particle than a string or quantum foam if it's acting to influence another object?
 
2013-05-27 01:23:17 PM  

HotnSweaty: I read the whole thing. I feel dumb for not getting it. Spin is "up or down"??


It generally means clockwise or counter-clockwise rotation.

images.tutorcircle.com
 
2013-05-27 01:59:31 PM  
HotnSweaty: Spin is "up or down"??

Yes, spin as it's known in quantum mechanics is "quantized."  For fermions ("spin half particles") like electrons and protons, there are two quantized directions; for simplicity, we call those two directions "up" or "down".

Fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle.
 
2013-05-27 02:04:24 PM  

Tommy Moo: Actually, I don't understand how they can claim that this is the first time we've witnessed quantum magnetization. We've had nuclear magnetic resonance since the 50s. It's how an MRI works. You take a huge, powerful magnet, cool it with liquid helium, turn on the juice, and observe what energies are absorbed by the nucleii as they flip from -1/2 spin to +1/2 spin. It looks like this:

[www.mhhe.com image 433x288]

Maybe a pure physicist could explain to me how the phenomenon they are describing constitutes quantum magnetization, but an NMR doesn't?



NMR relies on the coupling between an external magnetic field and nuclear spin; you're not directly observing quantum spin with NMR.
 
2013-05-27 02:10:52 PM  
albatros183:

That was slightly more comprehensible, so Magnetism is observable on a quantum level, that quanta with different spin repel each other?

Not all quanta are fermions.  Fermions are "spin-1/2" quanta, where the "spin" is a kind of angular momentum that's intrinsic to the particle and has nothing to do with the particle's rotation.  Photons (particles of light) are quanta with spin-1 ("bosons").

Identical fermions (e.g., two identical electrons) can't be in the same quantum state; either the spatial part of their wavefunctions must be different, or their spin orientations must be different (e.g., one spin up and the other spin down).  This is the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
 
2013-05-27 02:12:51 PM  
SN1987a goes boom:
I wouldn't give too much stock into what physicist choose for the naming of phenomena, particles, units, etc...  They can be pretty misleading/smartass.  See the units of nuclear cross-section for an example.

Yup.

blogs.smithsonianmag.com
 
2013-05-27 02:26:40 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: See the units of nuclear cross-section for an example.


Not to mention that there's also outhouse (10-6 b) and shed (10-24 b)

Add to that the units of elastance (inverse capacitance) "daraf", conductance (inverse resistance) "mho", not to mention particle names partons, quarks, ...
There's a WIMP, a "neutralino" that's a candidate for Dark Matter, and of course an alternate possibility was given the acronym MACHO (massive compact halo objects IIRC)...
And then there's the time two groups discover the same particle at roughly the same time, and we get a particle called the J/Ψ ...  cheers
 
2013-05-27 02:58:06 PM  
I'm sitting at the Particle Zoo today so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/What's the frequency Kenneth?

//Quantum ducks say "Quark! Quark! Quark!"

///Run rabbit run!
 
2013-05-27 03:15:04 PM  

HotnSweaty: I read the whole thing. I feel dumb for not getting it. Spin is "up or down"??


I was gonna post an ICP picture and this popped up.

i3.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-27 03:32:43 PM  
So they just discovered Reddit?
 
2013-05-27 04:21:09 PM  
i3.kym-cdn.com

Quantum Magnets - how do they work?
 
2013-05-27 04:48:35 PM  

OceanVortex: Where is Fark's resident physics experts. Come help us!

si0.twimg.com 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjK9GJMBpt0
 
2013-05-27 06:20:50 PM  

albatros183: I don't think I have ever been more motivated to say WTF am I reading?


If you asked me, this is the part where we observe particulant behavior in a yet-mysterious and elusive fluid we have only begun to understand even exists.

Quantum physics is most likely going to end up looking a lot like particle actors from the theories involving the "ether fluid" when it's all over.
 
2013-05-27 07:21:16 PM  

wjllope: SN1987a goes boom: See the units of nuclear cross-section for an example.

Not to mention that there's also outhouse (10-6 b) and shed (10-24 b)

Add to that the units of elastance (inverse capacitance) "daraf", conductance (inverse resistance) "mho", not to mention particle names partons, quarks, ...
There's a WIMP, a "neutralino" that's a candidate for Dark Matter, and of course an alternate possibility was given the acronym MACHO (massive compact halo objects IIRC)...
And then there's the time two groups discover the same particle at roughly the same time, and we get a particle called the J/Ψ ...  cheers


Ohm I know all about those.  We used to make quick jokes about them in grad school.
 
2013-05-27 08:20:17 PM  
Stibium:
Quantum physics is most likely going to end up looking a lot like particle actors from the theories involving the "ether fluid" when it's all over.

Maybe string theory or dark energy will, but quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are here to stay.  Both QM and QFT make testable predictions, and those predictions have been verified to remarkable precision time and time again.
 
2013-05-28 12:04:34 AM  

FizixJunkee: Stibium:
Quantum physics is most likely going to end up looking a lot like particle actors from the theories involving the "ether fluid" when it's all over.

Maybe string theory or dark energy will, but quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are here to stay.  Both QM and QFT make testable predictions, and those predictions have been verified to remarkable precision time and time again.


Of course, part of the reason why they are so solid and useful is that they don't try to explain why things happen, only what happens.  Richard Feynman likened it to the Mayans counting out days to determine Venus' cycle to precisely predict whether Venus would appear in the morning or the evening, without having to worry about or know the fact that Venus is actually a planet orbiting the sun and what not.
 
2013-05-28 01:53:03 AM  
I've been listening to/watching Thad Roberts trying to explain Quantum Space Theory (QST) to a pretty girl, and I still can't wrap my head around the concepts of quantum movement described with language derived from familiar space, e.g., the x-, y-, z-axis dimensions. Intra-space and Super-space spatial movement that happens but isn't observable?!  Resonance that isn't a vibration in normal dimensions but which gives rise to time?!  No wonder ordinary people don't like science; it's just too darn hard for most people.
 
2013-05-28 05:05:59 AM  
It`s just the phlogiston acting up.
 
2013-05-28 08:36:57 AM  

FizixJunkee: HotnSweaty: Spin is "up or down"??

Yes, spin as it's known in quantum mechanics is "quantized."  For fermions ("spin half particles") like electrons and protons, there are two quantized directions; for simplicity, we call those two directions "up" or "down".

Fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle.


Can you tell me if this effect is simply a consequence of there being a left-handed and right-handed spin on an axis in three dimensions, like there is to everything else? Or different?

/ not a genius
// just a programmer with math skills
 
2013-05-28 07:17:08 PM  
Honestly - this should all be common sense...

Electrons and protons have different charges. Of coarse magnetism happens - on some level - within quantum 'mechanics'.
 
2013-05-28 07:22:45 PM  
Gravity itself is most likely a result of the harmonious interplay between attraction and repulsion from all points of radiation (particles). I think that everything that happens within classical Newtonian mechanics is a direct result of the reverberation of what happens at a quantum level. If this is true, then it is not necessary to marry the two...
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report