Scientists create matter that can dent diamonds

Long-Range Ordered Carbon Clusters: A Crystalline Material with Amorphous Building Blocks Lin Wang, Bingbing Liu, Hui Li, Wenge Yang, Yang Ding, Stanislav V. Sinogeikin, Yue Meng, Zhenxian Liu, Xiao Cheng Zeng, and Wendy L. Mao Science 17 August 2012: 337 (6096), 825-828. [DOI:10.1126/science.1220522]

The Science editors also solicited a commentary

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6096/812.summary

on the article.

AFTER EDIT:

As I read through the full-text article, it seems that the kind of nanoscale observations being reported in the article might be consistent with the "new" material simply being local, small-scale diamonds (the substrate material was carbon molecules, after all, before they were subjected to high pressure), being "as incompressible as diamond," as reported, for the unremarkable reason that it is diamond. But I will defer to someone who is more knowledgeable than I in materials science to see what other interpretation of the published article might make more sense.

Re: Scientists create matter that can dent diamonds

#5

Post by hypnocode » Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 10:20 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #4

Let's see what the actual journal article says. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6096/825.abstract?sid=... Long-Range Ordered Carbon Clusters: A Crystalline Material with Amorphous Building Blocks Lin Wang, Bingbing Liu, Hui Li, Wenge Yang, Yang Ding, Stanislav V. Sinogeikin, Yue Meng, Zhenxian Liu, Xiao Cheng Zeng, and Wendy L. Mao Science 17 August 2012: 337 (6096), 825-828. [DOI:10.1126/science.1220522] The S…

Thanks for posting that!

Re: Scientists create matter that can dent diamonds

#6

Post by SoftwareMaven » Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 10:43 PM UTC

From the paper's abstract:

Solid-state materials can be categorized by their structures into crystalline (having periodic translation symmetry), amorphous (no periodic and orientational symmetry), and quasi-crystalline (having orientational but not periodic translation symmetry) phases. Hybridization of crystalline and amorphous structures at the atomic level has not been experimentally observed. We report the discovery of a long-range ordered material constructed from units of amorphous carbon clusters that was synthesized by compressing solvated fullerenes.

So not a new type of matter, a new type of solid-state material, right? Or are different solid-state materials considered different forms of matter?

Re: Scientists create matter that can dent diamonds

#7

Post by montecarl » Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 10:47 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #4

Let's see what the actual journal article says. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6096/825.abstract?sid=... Long-Range Ordered Carbon Clusters: A Crystalline Material with Amorphous Building Blocks Lin Wang, Bingbing Liu, Hui Li, Wenge Yang, Yang Ding, Stanislav V. Sinogeikin, Yue Meng, Zhenxian Liu, Xiao Cheng Zeng, and Wendy L. Mao Science 17 August 2012: 337 (6096), 825-828. [DOI:10.1126/science.1220522] The S…

Here is the full pdf: https://filetea.me/t1se48ed

Re: Scientists create matter that can dent diamonds

#8

Post by chm » Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 10:53 PM UTC

Scientific journalism at its worst.

Really, this is fucking ridiculous.

Re: Scientists create matter that can dent diamonds

#9

Post by alecdibble » Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 10:58 PM UTC

Actually, the title isn't wrong, it's just misleading. When you read "new form of matter", your first thought was probably liquid, gas, solid, plasma, (something new here?). However, those refer to the "state" or "phase" of matter.

Form: the shape of a thing or person.

Basically, they have "formed" a new type of matter, which is simply the way in which the atoms are arranged in thermodynamic equilibrium. They are not referring to discovering a new "state" or "phase".

Re: Scientists create matter that can dent diamonds

#10

Post by hypnocode » Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 11:21 PM UTC

EDIT:

In light of some controversy over the title of this article I have taken the liberty of removing what I see as being some of the more potentially misleading terms.

The word "create" is rather obviously a misnomer based on Newtons laws, but I'm trying to stay true to the text of the original article, while keeping the discussion on the scientific merit of the subject.

Thank you.