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

2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

#21

Post by jessriedel »

graphene wrote: post #17
zeynel1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this is semantics: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1760580

Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

#22

Post by smackfu »

smackfu wrote: post #13

Is this physics or chemistry?

Let me rephrase, since I am interested in the answer and am not sure why I'm getting downvotes. Why is graphene awarded a Noble in Physics, while buckyballs were awarded a Noble in Chemistry in 1996? Is it because fullerene occurs in nature?

Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

#25

Post by InclinedPlane »

runinit wrote: post #16
ja27 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Anything involving 98% H2SO4 is probably not properly described as "DIY" project either...

Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

#26

Post by zeynel1 »

jessriedel wrote: post #21
graphene wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this is semantics: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1760580

"I think this is semantics"

Of course; semantics refers to meaning of words; obviously disagreement between two parties will be about the meaning of words. Probably, you mean "polemics."

Physicists are professional doctors of philosophy; by tradition; they own the right to define any theoretical subject and they defined physics as the fundamental science defining nature; which is not correct. Physics is just one way of looking at nature.

Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

#27

Post by jessriedel »

zeynel1 wrote: post #26
jessriedel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is semantics: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1760580

"I think this is semantics" Of course; semantics refers to meaning of words; obviously disagreement between two parties will be about the meaning of words. Probably, you mean "polemics." Physicists are professional doctors of philosophy; by tradition; they own the right to define any theoretical subject and they defined physics as the fundamental science defining nature; which is not correct. Physics is just one way…

> Probably, you mean "polemics."

No, I mean this is a confusion about the meaning of a word (namely, "physics") not a dispute about facts (empirical or normative).

By the way, saying an argument boils down to semantics is not vacuous. If I disagree with Bob about whether the moon will be full tonight, we have no disagreement or misunderstanding about the meaning of words.

Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

#28

Post by zeynel1 »

jessriedel wrote: post #27
zeynel1 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think this is semantics" Of course; semantics refers to meaning of words; obviously disagreement between two parties will be about the meaning of words. Probably, you mean "polemics." Physicists are professional doctors of philosophy; by tradition; they own the right to define any theoretical subject and they defined physics as the fundamental science defining nature; which is not correct. Physics is just one way…

> Probably, you mean "polemics." No, I mean this is a confusion about the meaning of a word (namely, "physics") not a dispute about facts (empirical or normative). By the way, saying an argument boils down to semantics is not vacuous. If I disagree with Bob about whether the moon will be full tonight, we have no disagreement or misunderstanding about the meaning of words.

"this is a confusion about the meaning of a word (namely, "physics")"

I agree; http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/definition-of-physi... "physics" is a pun; and this is how physicists like it.

Re: 2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

#29

Post by pvxc »

smackfu wrote: post #22
smackfu wrote: post #13

Is this physics or chemistry?

Let me rephrase, since I am interested in the answer and am not sure why I'm getting downvotes. Why is graphene awarded a Noble in Physics, while buckyballs were awarded a Noble in Chemistry in 1996? Is it because fullerene occurs in nature?

The main reason is probably that physicists found graphene more interesting to study than buckyballs. This can be quantified by looking at the number of articles published in top physics-only journals (e.g. Physical Review Letters).

There are a couple of good reasons why so: (i) graphene has a "simple" electronic and atomic structure that has interesting features of its own (Google for the Dirac cone), (ii) graphene flakes are big compared to buckies, so it's possible to study them with common methods that physicists like -- electronic transport, crystallographic methods, you name it, and (iii) many proposed applications of graphene e.g. in electronics fall close to physics.

In short: physicist are fond of simple things, and graphene is simple. So, Nobel prize in physics.

Post reply on HN