[HN Gopher] What a solid made of electrons looks like ___________________________________________________________________ What a solid made of electrons looks like Author : gmays Score : 100 points Date : 2021-10-01 16:30 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | HenryKissinger wrote: | Fantastic. | | Can Wigner crystals be applied to weaponry? The Department of | Defense would be _very_ interested. | | Cheers, | | Henry Kissinger | eliseumds wrote: | lol | fallingfrog wrote: | I imagine a solid made only of electrons would in fact be a bomb, | and an absurdly powerful one too. More powerful than a | thermonuclear warhead pound for pound, by a big margin. | Koshkin wrote: | Unless there's too many of them: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter | adrian_b wrote: | Link to the original article in Arxiv: | | https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10599 | ionwake wrote: | I saw no photo on mobile or is that just me ? | qwertox wrote: | Visible on mobile, a blue photo. Works in full browser as well | as in a WebView. | ahmedfromtunis wrote: | The title is so clickbaity that it became anti-clickbait | (aclickbaity?): I clicked not to learn how this is even possible, | but to find out what the eventual catch was. | | A better title would be: Here's the first photo ever of a layer | of pure electrons. Still click-attracting, yet factually correct | (as far as I understand). | elil17 wrote: | I don't see how that's not an accurate title. Graphene is a | solid and it's very thin. | ahmedfromtunis wrote: | Graphene sure is a solid, but it's made out of atoms. | However, the thin layer of electrons wedged between the the | other parts of the atoms does *not*, to my knowledge, | constitute a solid. | pininja wrote: | Is their "scanning tunnelling microscope" similar to a atomic | force microscope [0]? It also drags a probe over the surface so | I'm wondering if they are in the same family. | | [0] https://youtu.be/2Kv6KwADn7Q | hexane360 wrote: | They're similar. However, an AFM directly measures the | deflection of a probe you're rastering, while a STM measures | the current caused by quantum tunneling between the probe and | the sample. This is extremely sensitive to height because an | electron's wavefunction degrades as e^(-sqrt(2*m_e*E)*x/hbar) | with distance x and energy barrier E. | ellyagg wrote: | How hard would it be to make a crystal visible to the naked eye? | SCUSKU wrote: | Can anyone explain to me what the implications of this | achievement are? What properties does an electron crystal have? | And what are its potential applications? | elil17 wrote: | As I understand it there are no known uses. | latchkey wrote: | I can only imagine the excitement in the room after running the | same experiment with the graphene layer on top and seeing this | result. I bet it was huge hi-fives! | pdonis wrote: | The phrase "a solid made of electrons" is rather misleading. It's | just an ordinary solid (a semiconductor) in which the electrons | are made to adopt a particular configuration that does not occur | naturally. It is _not_ a "solid" that is only composed of | electrons, with no atomic nuclei present. | crispyambulance wrote: | The first paragraph of the article clearly describes what the | title is actually getting at. It's a perfectly fine title that | catches interest. If the conditions are just | right, some of the electrons inside a material will arrange | themselves into a tidy honeycomb pattern -- like a solid within | a solid. Physicists have now directly imaged these 'Wigner | crystals', named after the Hungarian-born theorist Eugene | Wigner, who first imagined them almost 90 years ago. | Koshkin wrote: | I think the confusion may be the result of a chain of vague | associations (or, perhaps, of the "broken telephone effect"): | "adopt a particular configuration" -> regular spatial | arrangement -> crystal lattice -> crystal-like -> crystal -> | solid. | Pulcinella wrote: | Solvated electrons are kind of _liquid_ electrons in that they | are a liquid and the anion is just a free electron instead of | bound to something. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvated_electron | | They can be used to, among other things, reduce pseudoephedrine | to methamphetamine. | vbezhenar wrote: | A solid made of electrons would wreak lots of havoc. Probably | worse than solid made of antimatter. | gfody wrote: | so _not_ the strong-interaction material from 3bp? damn | hilbert42 wrote: | Right, that headline had me a bit fazed too. I envisioned a | sort of 'crystal' of electrons packed together like people in a | tightly packed elevator or oranges in a box. | | My mind boggles, if electrons were packed like this then we'd | need conditions somewhere between those of a neutron star and a | black hole singularity I'd imagine. | | Does anyone have any concept of what such matter would look | like - its properties, etc.? | zardo wrote: | > Does anyone have any concept of what such matter would look | like - its properties, etc.? | | It would have a lot of charge. | grok22 wrote: | phased => fazed? https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at- | play/phase-vs-faze; sorry off-topic | hilbert42 wrote: | _Duh, ucks, how did miss that? Thanks for that, I 've now | corrected it. It's what happens when posting from a phone | whilst on the move. Most timely correction too, if I'd | reread it tomorrow when too late to correct it then I would | really have been fazed! Here's an upvote. :-)_ | lisper wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28469275 | ddingus wrote: | Thanks for that! | | I read the piece, saw the headline and was immediately | confused: Like we can have matter that is ELECTRONS only? | jerf wrote: | Even science reporters are having a hard time keeping up with | what materials science has been up to lately. With no | disrespect to them really intended, they can just about keep up | with the semiconductor world's concept of tracking "holes" | rather than electrons, but it seems like going any farther into | the quasiparticle world is just too much for them. It's rare to | see an article that doesn't have some sort of verbiage that | indicates the reporter doesn't really understanding what's | going on, if indeed I've ever seen one at all. | OJFord wrote: | In undeserved fairness, I think it's 'just' a clickbait | headline, and the author does have a better understanding | than you suggest. | | The article quickly explains (even the caption on the lead | image) that it's an arrangement within a normal solid sheet. | | I don't really understand in what sense the internal electron | arrangement is 'a solid', but hey, as clickbait, it worked. | pininja wrote: | I think this is the same argument made by Veritasium - | poorly summarized: do whatever it takes to hook people in | that have never heard the topic before, then teach them | something new. https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng | OJFord wrote: | But you make it sound like a good thing! I don't like it | at all. | jacobolus wrote: | Are there any recent summaries by materials scientists | written for laypeople? | karaterobot wrote: | I get that it's hard. | | Often, I'll read a science article in a blog, or local | newspaper, or general-interest magazine. I'll see something | obviously incorrect, and say "well, it's not a science | outlet, they can't be expected to know the science that well, | and they're just explaining it to lay people anyway, so it's | good enough. I'll double check this with a reliable science | news source." | | But you'd think if anyone could get it right, and trust their | readers to care about them getting it right, it would be | Nature! If Nature is going to start going to lower their | standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source | I'm supposed to double check things with. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _If Nature is going to start going to lower their | standards to go after clicks, I dunno what reliable source | I 'm supposed to double check things with._ | | Reddit. | | I'm serious. If you search for the discussion about the | news article on a right subreddit, or HN, or spelunk | Twitter enough, there's a good chance you'll find a domain | expert - sometimes even the paper's author themselves, or | someone who works with them - explaining the science | correctly and/or pointing out the bullshit in the press | report. | | (I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists | were writing press releases themselves, and the | journalists/PR people would be chasing grants for them | instead. It seems like a better match for their individual | skills anyway.) | xnyan wrote: | >Reddit | | >I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient if scientists | were writing press releases themselves | | Agree, and I think everyone here has experienced the | phenomenon where someone on reddit/HN/twitter has | explained something far better than a media outlet. The | thing to keep in mind when trying to understand this is | that absolutely __everyone__ responds to incentives. With | a news organization, no matter what that organization is | or their goals, the chief incentive is readership, not | accuracy or anything else. Not saying that the writers | are anything other than well intentioned and honest or | that they don't care deeply about the truth, but the | reality of mortal existence is to maximize behaviors that | you believe benefit you. | | A news org is benefited by people reading what they say, | not by being right. Reddit/twitter/HN often is a better | source of truth because people often post because they | have a desire to be heard, be understood, share | information, tell the truth or some other reason that | does not involve selling ads against you reading what | they say. | ceejayoz wrote: | > Agree, and I think everyone here has experienced the | phenomenon where someone on reddit/HN/twitter has | explained something far better than a media outlet. | | I've experienced the opposite, though, too. | | Posts with thousands upon thousands of upvotes and a | little comment with a dozen saying "this is entirely | wrong, and here's a bunch of proof, and here's an expert | explaining it properly". | prox wrote: | r/Askscience is pretty good though more often than not. | It depends a lot on which sub you are in. | LargoLasskhyfv wrote: | Sounds like messy _decentralised authority_ to most, I | guess. | | How could _that_ even work? | smoldesu wrote: | I think I've been lied to infinitely more times on Reddit | than I have been on PBS. | all2 wrote: | There's a quote about this that I rather like | | > "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as | follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some | subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, | show business. You read the article and see the journalist | has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the | issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents | the story backward--reversing cause and effect. I call | these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of | them. | | > In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the | multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to | national or international affairs, and read as if the rest | of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine | than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and | forget what you know." - Michael Crichton (1942-2008) | | Pulled from https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann- | amnesia/ | xondono wrote: | I really wonder how much is willful ignorance for the benefit | of clickbait | mabub24 wrote: | A lot of reporters don't get final say on the headlines for | their articles. That could be the case here. | xxpor wrote: | My first reaction to the headline was "I wonder how many teslas | the magnets they're using to keep it together are?" | colechristensen wrote: | It's essentially impossible to make an electron-only | substance. The highest density normal-matter stars (white | dwarfs) are kept from collapsing with the force of electric | repulsion in atoms and they do collapse by proton-electron | collision and conversion into neutrons. | | From Feynman: | | If you were standing at arm's length from someone and each of | you had one percent more electrons than protons, the | repelling force would be incredible. How great? Enough to | lift the Empire State Building? No! To lift Mount Everest? | No! The repulsion would be enough to lift a "weight" equal to | that of the entire earth! | eloff wrote: | Wow! That is a great visualization of how strong the forces | are. It's incredibly strong, I had no idea | a1369209993 wrote: | > If you were standing at arm's length from someone and | each of you had one percent more electrons than | protons[[0]] | | The latent energy of electromagnetic repulsion between the | two of you (never mind between the parts of each of your | bodies) would be a bit more than | ((1%*80kg/2amu*electroncharge)^2 coulombconst / meter), or | on the order of a megaton. Not megaton _tnt_ , a megaton of | just _energy_ (comparable to a million tons of antimatter). | | 0: https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/what- | if-i-... | MaxikCZ wrote: | So we only need to push a lot of electrons into some matter | and get maglev trains without superconductors? | colechristensen wrote: | Not really. "only", no. Trying to levitate trains with | static charge would introduce all kinds of hard problems, | some easy to imagine, some probably would take a lot of | engineering to discover. | | The electric field would be hard to contain just under | the train, the charge would really really try hard to | find somewhere else to be, there would be some crazy | ionization of the air going on... flying a kite in a | thunderstorm would probably be quite safe by comparison | to being close to such an apparatus. | theophrastus wrote: | So this results in a single wavefunction constrained to a | particular space group[1]? | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_group | rvieira wrote: | I find materials science fascinating. Is there any recommendation | of a blog on this topic for laypeople? | jordanpg wrote: | Just take care not to touch it... | 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: | Mandatory reminder that hexagons are the bestagons. | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=thOifuHs6eY | amelius wrote: | How does that generalize to three dimensions? | LeifCarrotson wrote: | As a Hexagonal Close Packing lattice, which is the correct | way to represent the maximum density arrangement of equal | spheres. | | If you've seen a stack of spheres, with the bottom layer in | rows offset by one radius such that each sphere touches six | others at the same height, and the next layer nestled in the | intersections of this bottom layer, that's a hexagonal close | packing. | | Also, the "hexagons are the bestagons" attitude generalizes | to three dimensions by dismissing face-centered cubic packing | as an inferior way to look at the arrangement. | | To generalize the Youtube video aspect, see also this Matt | Parker/Steve Mould video on spherical packing: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3inLMXcetUA | amelius wrote: | Given that the stacking of spheres is built from a stack of | planar layers, wouldn't that mean that the stack is prone | to shearing forces, sliding the layers over each other? | | Wouldn't a packing that is irregular in all directions be | more robust? | | In the "bestagons" video, it is explained that the hexagons | win because there are no straight lines in the packing, but | I'd expect these to correspond to planes in the 3d case. | Yajirobe wrote: | How does that generalize to four dimensions? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-01 23:00 UTC)