SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A metallic hydrogen sample that made the news recently has disappeared, possibly returning to its gaseous state:
Scientists achieved the "holy grail of high-pressure physics" last month, when physicists from Harvard University claimed they'd successfully turned hydrogen into a metal - something researchers had been struggling to achieve for more than 80 years. And not only had they made the material, but they were also the first to stably keep it in the lab, making it the only sample of metallic hydrogen anywhere on Earth. But now the team has bad news - the sample has disappeared.
The metallic hydrogen was being stored at temperatures around 80 Kelvin (-193 degrees Celsius and -316 degrees Fahrenheit), and at incredibly high pressures between two diamonds in a type of vice. But further testing around a week ago caused the diamonds to break and the vice to fail, and the researchers haven't been able to find a trace of the metallic hydrogen since.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's been destroyed - the sample was only around 1.5 micrometres thick, and 10 micrometres in diameter - a fifth the diameter of a strand of human hair - so it's possible it's stable somewhere and missing. But it's also a possibility that, once the pressure of the diamond vice broke, the hydrogen dissipated back into a gas, which suggests that the material isn't stable at room pressure - one of the material's predicted properties.
Previous coverage:
Harvard Researchers Report Production and Analysis of Solid Metallic Hydrogen
Solid Metallic Hydrogen, Once Theory, Becomes Reality -- or Maybe Not?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:07AM
Good: Fuck you /pol/
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:22AM
I get this a lot, as a University instructor. "Hey, Prof! My dog ate my metallic hydrogen!" And much more besides.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:17AM (2 children)
I mean, of course the research was definitely robust and completely reproducible. Especially for the same lab. So all they have to do is just... do it again. Easy. That's how science should work, anyway.
In reality I'm seeing more and more where even the same lab couldn't reproduce their own results, nevermind anyone else. Primarily in biological sciences but also in medicine and anything computational where source code isn't disclosed.
It'll be interesting to see which way this goes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @12:26PM
During my PhD (in biological sciences) I had to access journals by previous lab members... most were in unreadable hand writing, in a language that I don't speak (language of the university's country or English), raw data that, or disintegrated (dried gels), or faded (thermopaper photographs) or where data was incomplete (even in theses).
Also I noticed various times that data was pimped up to look better than it actually was (wrongly executing statistical tests (due to lack of knowledge mostly) to support it).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:40PM
The researchers made it clear that their sample was unique. Reproduction can take time because the diamond anvils are so special. Getting them to a sufficient level of polish and quality will involve some luck and trial-and-error. If the experiment were "easy", like you claim, it would have been done long ago.
Let's give them time and peace-and-quiet to do their work. They are serious physicists.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @01:03PM (1 child)
So they created it about a month, or two, ago. The creation process should still even be fresh in the memory of those involved. There really shouldn't be any issue then to re-create it again unless the creation was a mistake or some kind of a fluke that they can't explain how they did it, or the cost was so massive it would require a new grant -- but if that is the case and this is such a unique thing that shouldn't even be an issue either. I guess there is always the option of it being fake and the destruction was just a way of covering that up, but that seems somewhat far fetched.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:41PM
That is farfetched. More likely it was kidnapped - or as they say, liberated - by the hydrogen people. They take care of their own.
(Score: 4, Informative) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 28 2017, @01:40PM (12 children)
Dear Fiona MacDonald, author of TFA quoted in TFS,
The metallic hydrogen was being stored... between two diamonds in a type of vice.
...the diamond vice broke...
I like for those reporting on my science news to know the difference between "moral depravity or corruption [merriam-webster.com]" and "workbench tool for holding something [merriam-webster.com]". It's a basic reporting requirement, really, as science terminology is necessarily more precise than more general terminology.
If an editor at your publication changed your correct wording to the nonsense above, please pass this note along to him or her. Thank you.
(Score: 2, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:51PM (7 children)
I don't see the problem.
between two diamonds in a type of [workbench tool for holding something].
...the diamond [workbench tool for holding something] broke...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:55PM (6 children)
Guh. Well, you learn something new every day. I seem to have gone mumble-mumble years without having to use the word vise.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:58PM (5 children)
DAMMIT! Scratch that. Vice is the UK spelling of vise. I'm not a complete maroon this time!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:35PM (4 children)
American detected.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday February 28 2017, @08:18PM (3 children)
No, British, which is exactly why I couldn't see the original "problem."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:29PM (2 children)
And yet you can't even spell "moron" correctly, or were you referring to the shade of embarrassment your face would make?
I'm joking by the way, can never be too careful with UK citizens these days!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @11:15PM
What a ta-la-la goon-dee-ay
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Wednesday March 01 2017, @05:01AM
Maroon comes from an old Bugs Bunny cartoon.
"What a maroon, what an ignoranamus!*
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:28PM
Had you scrolled down on your first link, you would have found:
Now looking where the site is located, we find: [sciencealert.com]
OK, so BE doesn't necessarily apply. So let's do a short search for "australian spelling vice vise" to find [grammarist.com] very early on:
Australia is certainly outside American English. So "vice" clearly is not an error, but the correct spelling at the place where the publisher is located.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:58PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:18PM (1 child)
I like for those commentating about science news on the internet to know the difference between US English and everyone else's English.
That's certainly fair enough! My apologies to Fiona MacDonald and to my fellow soy-based lifeforms.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:52PM
No pressure to apologise. We wouldn't want you to turn metallic on us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:48PM (1 child)
Just like Elvis, it didn't disappear, it only went home!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:53PM
From what I read it could still be there. The thing is the diamond basically exploded. So the sample may have evaporated (likely) once the pressure was removed. Or shot off in some odd direction and they can not find it being rather tiny. That the diamond shattered is not too surprising. When they originally did the experiment they went through a few of them.
(Score: 1) by bibendumsn on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:50PM