Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#31

Post by lwhi »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #19
Towaway69 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re a product of nature, it’s mistaken to believe we are above nature or that nuclear weapons aren’t also part of nature. We’re also very much dependent on nature and natural forces. So everything we do is, even if many steps removed, still an act of nature.

This is a valid argument, albeit a pointless one. We use the term natural specifically to distinguish between the.. natural and artificial. A term like that is necessary.

I think sometimes the distinction is made between natural and artificial (human made) as a way to sway an argument. In many of these cases, the reasoning is tenuous if we examine with an understanding that the difference is sometimes arbitrary.

If anything, we should be more careful with our use of language. For instance; 'naturally ocurring' vs. 'human made'.

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#32

Post by tetha »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #17

One language usage question, and one content question: "Melted sand"?? Isn't it "molten sand"? Is my hunch completely wrong, or is the author not a native speaker? Neither am I, but melted sand sounds so weird to my ears. This all happened in a matter of seconds, so atoms didn’t have time to arrange into stable structures,[...] Isn't seconds kinda like ages at that scale? Atoms needing longer than seconds to arrange…

"Molten" to me implies it is still liquid. Molten salt reactors, molten magma from a volcano, molten sand, molten steel, dipping something into molten cheese. All fluid.

If I was to nitpick, "melted" is kind of inaccurate and not entirely natural in this context. Technically, molten sand is also melted sand, because that's how you get it to that state? Usually, you'd hear about solidified magma, crystalized sand, cast iron, air-cast steel, unevenly settled corium... to make a better point on how it turned back into a solid and what to expect from it - something like "The molten sand crystalized into an unusual structure" would be clearer.

I'd usually rather hear "melted" if it is important to note that this had a phase change and back. Plastic on an electrical device may look melted, indicating heat. A hardened steel part may look melted, which may damage the hardening. Rubber on a hydraulic line may look melted, also indicating heat. A plastic container looking melted in the context of chemicals may indicate some compromise.

Now the words sound weird in my head. Thank you.

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#33

Post by kashunstva »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #17

One language usage question, and one content question: "Melted sand"?? Isn't it "molten sand"? Is my hunch completely wrong, or is the author not a native speaker? Neither am I, but melted sand sounds so weird to my ears. This all happened in a matter of seconds, so atoms didn’t have time to arrange into stable structures,[...] Isn't seconds kinda like ages at that scale? Atoms needing longer than seconds to arrange…

It’s being used as a participial adjective here. I don’t think there’s much semantic nuance in the distinction between “melted” and “molten.” It comes down to common usage. “Molten sand” sounds more suitable to my ears, but “melted butter” also sounds better than “molten butter.” Odd, I think it’s part of a trend to replace the use of the past participle in some adjectival contexts. Maybe melted/molten is just an incomplete transition.

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#34

Post by frereubu »

normie3000 wrote: post #30
frereubu wrote: post #28

> The clathrate’s “cage” shapes are 12-sided dodecahedrons and 14-sided tetrakaidecahedrons made of silicon atoms... Totally OT but if "dodeca" means 12, why isn't 14 just "tetradeca"? What's the "kai" for?

kai means "and" I guess like asking why 120 is said "one hundred and twenty" in some dialects. Maybe that's how 14 and 12 are written in Greek.

Ah I see, thanks!

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#35

Post by gapan »

frereubu wrote: post #28

> The clathrate’s “cage” shapes are 12-sided dodecahedrons and 14-sided tetrakaidecahedrons made of silicon atoms... Totally OT but if "dodeca" means 12, why isn't 14 just "tetradeca"? What's the "kai" for?

As the sibling comment already said "kai" (pronounced ke like in keg) just means "and". So it literally means 4 and 10 sides in greek. But I have often seen it written as τετραδεκάεδρο (tetradecahedron) in greek as well, so without the kai part. I'm not sure why it is 4 and 10 instead of 14 though. It would be more natural in greek that way (δεκατετράεδρο - decatetrahedron). Maybe it is for putting the distinctive part (4) first, or maybe it sounded more "poetic" like that to someone and then it stuck.

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#36

Post by nkrisc »

Towaway69 wrote: post #18
autoexec wrote: post #16

> The only other known naturally forming quasicrystal was found inside meteorite fragments Does it really count as "naturally forming" if we had to artificially construct and detonate a nuke during a carefully conducted experiment to create this one?

We’re a product of nature, it’s mistaken to believe we are above nature or that nuclear weapons aren’t also part of nature. We’re also very much dependent on nature and natural forces. So everything we do is, even if many steps removed, still an act of nature.

With the influence of humans: artificial.

Without the influence of humans: natural.

There’s a useful definition for you. Otherwise according to your definition the term “natural” is completely meaningless and serves no purpose.

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#37

Post by zarzavat »

thejohnconway wrote: post #22
zelphirkalt wrote: post #17

One language usage question, and one content question: "Melted sand"?? Isn't it "molten sand"? Is my hunch completely wrong, or is the author not a native speaker? Neither am I, but melted sand sounds so weird to my ears. This all happened in a matter of seconds, so atoms didn’t have time to arrange into stable structures,[...] Isn't seconds kinda like ages at that scale? Atoms needing longer than seconds to arrange…

To my ears “Molten” would imply that the sand is currently in liquid form. The sense ”melted” is used here, as having been melted, seems right. You melt sand to get molten sand, right?

"Melted sand" sounds strange because English already has a word for that: "glass".

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#38

Post by SecretDreams »

nkrisc wrote: post #36
Towaway69 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re a product of nature, it’s mistaken to believe we are above nature or that nuclear weapons aren’t also part of nature. We’re also very much dependent on nature and natural forces. So everything we do is, even if many steps removed, still an act of nature.

With the influence of humans: artificial. Without the influence of humans: natural. There’s a useful definition for you. Otherwise according to your definition the term “natural” is completely meaningless and serves no purpose.

All natural nuclear weapons has a nice ring to it ~ the OP.

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#39

Post by theowaway »

pocksuppet wrote: post #25
autoexec wrote: post #16

> The only other known naturally forming quasicrystal was found inside meteorite fragments Does it really count as "naturally forming" if we had to artificially construct and detonate a nuke during a carefully conducted experiment to create this one?

Well, it's more natural than something like a lab diamond. This one forms naturally given unnaturally created, but not completely implausible, conditions. There is a big difference between "we blew up rocks and they formed this mineral" and "we treated rocks with X acid and Y acid and then carefully annealed them under extreme pressure and they formed this mineral"

De Beers has entered the chat

Re: Strange crystals found inside wreckage from the first nuclear bomb test

#40

Post by fhars »

gapan wrote: post #35
frereubu wrote: post #28

> The clathrate’s “cage” shapes are 12-sided dodecahedrons and 14-sided tetrakaidecahedrons made of silicon atoms... Totally OT but if "dodeca" means 12, why isn't 14 just "tetradeca"? What's the "kai" for?

As the sibling comment already said "kai" (pronounced ke like in keg) just means "and". So it literally means 4 and 10 sides in greek. But I have often seen it written as τετραδεκάεδρο (tetradecahedron) in greek as well, so without the kai part. I'm not sure why it is 4 and 10 instead of 14 though. It would be more natural in greek that way (δεκατετράεδρο - decatetrahedron). Maybe it is for putting the distinctive pa…

Nobody would be so weird as to put the "four" first when pronouncing "14".

:-)

Post reply on HN