There's an excellent short overview (with many links) of why graphene matters here:
http://blog.joerg.heber.name/2010/10/05/great-the-physics-no...
It punctures some of the hype, while still conveying what's interesting.
2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
11–20 of 29 posts
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#12Although I'm congratulating both of them , it's a prize for engineering achievement not a physics discovery. Shows how the physics field is stagnant.
I suggest reading through at least 0.1% of the tens of thousands of papers which have been published on the subject of graphene alone in the last five years before declaring the entire field of physics to be stagnant.
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#13Is this physics or chemistry?
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#14Here is the process of making graphene with a sticky tape -it was posted here a while ago. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=diy-graphen...
Anything involving cleaning with 'piranha' probably isn't really a DIY project.
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#15Although I'm congratulating both of them , it's a prize for engineering achievement not a physics discovery. Shows how the physics field is stagnant.
I suggest reading through at least 0.1% of the tens of thousands of papers which have been published on the subject of graphene alone in the last five years before declaring the entire field of physics to be stagnant.
I understand your point; but myth_drannon was saying that research on graphene is more engineering than physics. I know that engineering and physics overlap; but not sure if this research is engineering or physics; or who decides which is which.
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#16Here is the process of making graphene with a sticky tape -it was posted here a while ago. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=diy-graphen...
Anything involving cleaning with 'piranha' probably isn't really a DIY project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha_solution#Safety
"...a suitable candidate, prior to using Piranha, is 98% sulphuric acid."
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest reading through at least 0.1% of the tens of thousands of papers which have been published on the subject of graphene alone in the last five years before declaring the entire field of physics to be stagnant.
I understand your point; but myth_drannon was saying that research on graphene is more engineering than physics. I know that engineering and physics overlap; but not sure if this research is engineering or physics; or who decides which is which.
I think the process by which they discovered their synthesis method qualifies as experimental physics. Keep in mind that it is still hugely infeasible to produce industrial quantities of the stuff.
Also, as the parent says, a review of the literature shows a wealth of interesting physics being done with the material, much of it unencumbered by aspirations of possible engineering applications.
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#18Although I'm congratulating both of them , it's a prize for engineering achievement not a physics discovery. Shows how the physics field is stagnant.
I think you're belittling their work.
The Nobel Prize wasn't just for the method of extracting graphene, it was for 'groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene'. This includes extracting, identifying and characterizing the material.
Interesting to note, by the way, that the real innovation was in being able to identify (and characterize) the material - the same extraction method was used by another team.
To me, this is the essence of science - observing a phenomena (in this case - a material) and understanding it.
Equating Experimental Physics 'engineering' is a little to 'Sheldonistic' for me.
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#19Sixty Symbols has already a video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZBkpWqrzg
Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)
#20Although I'm congratulating both of them , it's a prize for engineering achievement not a physics discovery. Shows how the physics field is stagnant.
Your comment and the replies are basically just disagreeing about semantics. In basically any use of the word "physics" for organizations (like "physics departments", "Nobel prize in physics", the "American Physical Society"), "physics" is a discipline which is much broader than simply the search for new fundamental physical laws. It basically includes any field that uses the training and techniques useful for searching for new fundamental physical laws. For example: condensed matter, optics, astronomy, astrophysics, quantum computing. That is, physics organizations (like most academic organizations) are united by a common set of training and techniques, not a common objective. This is just a fact about the useful way to organize human beings.
But, if you are defining "physics" to mean "fundamental physics"---i.e. new laws of nature--then...
(1) There hasn't been a confirmed theoretical physics discovery since 1967 when the Higgs mechanisms completed the Standard Model (although some might argue that the profoundly new understanding of existing fundamental physical law provided by asymptotic freedom, in 1973, qualifies as fundamental physics even if no fundamental laws were discovered per se).
(2) There hasn't been a non-trivial (in the sense of being both not-easily-predicted by theory, like the top quark, and not trivially incorporated into existing theory, like neutrino masses) discovery in experimental physics since 1973-4, when the electroweak and strong theories were more or less confirmed. (It doesn't qualify as "easily predicted" since there were serious doubts beforehand.)
There are possible exceptions to (2), depending on which experiments you consider to be most important for dark energy, dark matter, and cosmology/CMB. There haven't really been any decisive experiments---only a steady accumulation of evidence. I wouldn't consider any theory related to these three as confirmed.
So yes, the field of fundamental physics is profoundly stagnant.
(This is just the best historical understanding of a myself, a grad student, so I could be wrong or disagreed with by more prestigious physicists. Take it with a grain of salt.)