The coldest chemical reaction in the known universe took place in what appears to be a chaotic mess of lasers. The appearance deceives: Deep within that painstakingly organized chaos, in temperatures millions of times colder than interstellar space, Kang-Kuen Ni achieved a feat of precision. Forcing two ultracold molecules to meet and react, she broke and formed the coldest bonds in the history of molecular couplings.
"Probably in the next couple of years, we are the only lab that can do this," said Ming-Guang Hu, a postdoctoral scholar in the Ni lab and first author on their paper published today in Science. Five years ago, Ni, the Morris Kahn Associate Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology and a pioneer of ultracold chemistry, set out to build a new apparatus that could achieve the lowest temperature chemical reactions of any currently available technology. But they couldn't be sure their intricate engineering would work.
Now, they not only performed the coldest reaction yet, they discovered their new apparatus can do something even they did not predict. In such intense cold—500 nanokelvin or just a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero—their molecules slowed to such glacial speeds, Ni and her team could see something no one has been able to see before: the moment when two molecules meet to form two new molecules. In essence, they captured a chemical reaction in its most critical and elusive act.
Chemical reactions are responsible for literally everything: breathing, cooking, digesting, creating energy, pharmaceuticals, and household products like soap. So, understanding how they work at a fundamental level could help researchers design combinations the world has never seen. With an almost infinite number of new combinations possible, these new molecules could have endless applications from more efficient energy production to new materials like mold-proof walls and even better building blocks for quantum computers.
[...] Already, the team is exploring what else they can learn in their ultracold test bed. Next, for example, they could manipulate the reactants, exciting them before they react to see how their heightened energy impacts the outcome. Or, they could even influence the reaction as it occurs, nudging one molecule or the other. "With our controllability, this time window is long enough, we can probe," Hu said. "Now, with this apparatus, we can think about this. Without this technique, without this paper, we cannot even think about this."
Simulation reveals universal signature of chaos in ultracold reactions
More information: "Direct observation of bimolecular reactions of ultracold KRb molecules" Science (2019). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aay9531
Journal information:Science Provided by Harvard UniversityCitation: With ultracold chemistry, researchers get a first look at exactly what happens during a chemical reaction (2019, November 28) retrieved 29 November 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-11-ultracold-chemistry-chemical-reaction.html
Direct observation of bimolecular reactions of ultracold KRb molecules [$], Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.aay9531)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday December 02 2019, @07:52PM (10 children)
Ok, I know my math sucks, and sucks badly, but:
The average temperature of outer space near Earth is 283.32 kelvins (10.17 degrees Celsius or 50.3 degrees Fahrenheit). In empty, interstellar space, the temperature is just 3 kelvins, (minus 270.15 degrees Celsius or minus 457.87 degrees Fahrenheit) not much above absolute zero, which is the coldest anything can ever get.
How the hell is that millions of times colder?
**source (in case it sucks as well and is wrong) https://sciencing.com/temperatures-outer-space-around-earth-20254.html [sciencing.com]
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rigrig on Monday December 02 2019, @08:13PM
They probably figured something like
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Monday December 02 2019, @08:19PM (5 children)
>
How the hell is that millions of times colder?
3K / 500nK = 3 / 500e-9 = 6,000,000
So, interstellar space is six million times hotter than this experimental environment. Or alternately, the experiment is six million times colder than interstellar space.
That interstellar space is already frikking cold by human standards is irrelevant, human standards are arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary reference point for temperatures is 0K.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday December 02 2019, @08:29PM (4 children)
Thank you both Immerman (3985) and rigrig (5129). I told you my math sucked. The summery could of used a similar explanation for those of us who fell out of the math tree. That's precisely why I left open the possibility I misunderstood.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday December 02 2019, @09:15PM (2 children)
I've heard and read where language like that is a bit sensationalist. Similar to saying something is 400% more expensive. It's a bigger number than the reality. I mean, they're right, and reaching temps that low is an achievement, but people who understand physics would understand 300 nanokelvin just fine. And people who don't will be either astonished, bored, or confused.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday December 02 2019, @09:33PM (1 child)
List me as confused, at least before the rational explanation, then astonished.
I now (think I) understand that is is a matter of the incredible precision of the scale employed. Mind blowing work. Should of studied harder in school....I can't even fathom how much that difference would be to normal room temperature when 6,000,000 times is 3 degrees K above absolute 0.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/3oriO7Cxcsc2Qw7Aje/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611c71bc13f3c85cd04910deb4b8064497da6eb2594&rid=giphy.gif [giphy.com]
So nice to get an explanation instead of a trollish answer. Thanks again Solentils!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday December 03 2019, @04:30AM
Trollish answers? Here? Oh yeah that's right, I almost forgot where I was...
(Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday December 02 2019, @10:29PM
If I'm 10% taller than my g/f it's kinda OK to say that she's 10% shorter than me (9% being the real figure).
If I'm 50% taller than a schoolkid, it's really not OK to say he's 50% shorter than me (30% being the real figure, or 33% if you consider 50% to have 2 significant digits, which it probably doesn't).
If I'm 500% taller than an action man, it's downright garbage to say it's 500% shorter than me (80% or 83% being the real figure, as above).
"X% larger", for almost all "largeness" quantities, is generally interpreted as "the original, plus X/100 of the original". That's fine.
"X% smaller", for almost all "smallness" quantities, is where it gets confusing, and therefore an expression you should avoid. For small values of X, it's correctly interpreted as "the original minus X/100 of the original", but that starts to be not what people mean you start flinging higher X values at the expression. This is because these expressions are implicitly additive. "X% larger" -> "X% more" -> "... plus X%", and "X% smaller" -> "X% less" -> "... minus X%" -> probably not what you really meant.
There's a simple solution, as we have language that is explicitly multiplicative: "6 times larger" -> "original times 6", and if you want to invert the ratio to imply "original divided by 6", then you say "6 times smaller".
Keep the "times", or something more verbose like "by a factor of", and keep everyone sane. This language aspect really should be taught not long after ratios and percentages, but I don't know anywhere in the world there the nomenclature of operations is taught. Sloppy communication is dangerous in a field that's supposed to be precise.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Touché) by Snotnose on Tuesday December 03 2019, @12:46AM
Cop math, if you consider temperature to be an illegal substance.
My ducks are not in a row. I don't know where some of them are, and I'm pretty sure one of them is a turkey.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:39PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:40PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @07:53PM (3 children)
While the linky says that the information came from Harvard, it wasn't clear that the Ni Lab where the work was done is also there... Searching at Harvard gives the same lack-of-answer.
Anyone know where this experiment was done?
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday December 02 2019, @09:19PM
In a cowardly anonymous place.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday December 02 2019, @09:23PM (1 child)
It appears the lab that did the work is indeed at Harvard.
I looked up the scientists themselves and all of them are at Harvard. The NI Lab lists its address as:
12 Oxford St, Cambridge, MA 02138
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University
Harvard-MIT Center for Ultracold Atoms
Our lab is located at Converse 123. (The best way to find our lab is to come through the CCB library [Converse 107])
617-496-2812 and 617-496-2307
https://faculty.chemistry.harvard.edu/kni/home [harvard.edu]
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:59AM
Thanks! I was secretly hoping that the lab was down the river at MIT...but Harvard gets to win sometimes too.
This certainly sounds like very cool (sorry!) research.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 02 2019, @10:40PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves