[Splinter]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/01/28/matter.new.reut/index.html

[Fineus]

Cool! Bring on teh superconductors!

[J3Vr6]

Sweet.  Probably be like 10-15 years before we see an application of this, though.

[karajorma]

6th state of matter MY ARSE! If you're going to count plasma as a state then liquid crystals and super-critical fluids also count. Making this the 8th state not the 6th.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Cool!

[Bad Pun]Very. [/Bad Pun]

[Liberator]

This sounds very cool(literally), but if it has to stay that cold all the time it's not practical.

Now explain to me why plasma isn't a state of matter?

Solid - low energy state
Liquid - medium energy state
Gas - high energy state
Plasma - very high energy state

and now apparently,

Bose-Einstein Condesate - very low energy state
Fermion Condesate - very very low energy state

Where in this list would liquid crystals go?

[Dr.Zer0]

so I guess this will become a thing of the past

[comic]

Interesting that they finaly maaged to make this form of matter.

It has been theorised about for a while now.

Also Plasma is not necessarily a higher energy stat than gas, it is simply a fluid that is fully ionised with all the atoms in it in their inonic form, hence the ability to conduct electricity with the free electrons in the plasma.

Fluid - Gas or liquid

Super critical fluids and liquid crystals may be extream cases but both are part of the standard spectrum covered by already discovered states of matter.

[Ghostavo]

Does anyone here know the "no-gas" state of matter (also called "beam", not sure)?

Also Plasma is not necessarily a higher energy stat than gas, it is simply a fluid that is fully ionised with all the atoms in it in their inonic form, hence the ability to conduct electricity with the free electrons in the plasma.

I don't mean to offend you, but... isn't the plasma form of an element always have an higher energy stat than that same element's liquid or gas form?

The higher the energy stat, the farther each sub-atomic particle stays from each other? Or not?

[comic]

Your are right in most cases but a plasma can exist at a lower energy leval than its gas it the gas is ionised (at a high energy leval) the electrons removed to give a single postotively charged plasma. This can be isolated and redused to an energy leval equivelent to that of its original gas.

This is a tricky but possible process (trying to remember Chemistry lessons AAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!)

What do you mean by no-gas state ??
I havent heard of "beam" but im not shure what you mean, maybe your thinking of somthig else?

The higher the energy state the more kinetic energy each atom has.

As this energy increases the bonds holding solids or liquids together are broken (energy into a system breaks bonds) thus giving you liberate atoms .i.e Gas or weekly bonded atoms .i.e. liquid

the subatomic particals (nutrons and protons) remain fixed as they are bonded by nuclear forces that require HUGE amounts of energy to break.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by comic
Super critical fluids and liquid crystals may be extream cases but both are part of the standard spectrum covered by already discovered states of matter.

Don't buy that. I've often heard of SCF's being refered to as a seperate state of matter. Besides if you say that an SCF is one of the basic states I'd love to know which one. I don't remember ever being told that it was definately a gas or definately a liquid. I was always told that it existed in a seperate state of matter between the two.
 On liquid crystals you're on even shakier ground. I worked on the damn things for 4 years and can produce peer reviewed papers which say that they are a different state of matter from solids or liquids. I don't know where to find any of the papers online but this site pretty much seems to agree with what I studied.

Besides even if I'm wrong what is the huge difference between a gas and a plasma that isn't as large as the differences between liquid crystals and solids or liquids?

Originally posted by comic
Your are right in most cases but a plasma can exist at a lower energy leval than its gas it the gas is ionised (at a high energy leval) the electrons removed to give a single postotively charged plasma. This can be isolated and redused to an energy leval equivelent to that of its original gas.

Didn't know that Sounds interesting.

[Dark_4ce]

Does any of this information help me in figuring out how to build a lightsaber yet?

[Flipside]

Interesting stuff, but then, I'm sure I saw a superconductor running submerged in liquid Nitrogen way back, considerably warmer than this technique.. maybe I'm just getting the wrong end of the stick, it's been years since I did chemistry, but surely this is a step backward, not forward, in superconductor technology?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Flipside
Interesting stuff, but then, I'm sure I saw a superconductor running submerged in liquid Nitrogen way back, considerably warmer than this technique.. maybe I'm just getting the wrong end of the stick, it's been years since I did chemistry, but surely this is a step backward, not forward, in superconductor technology?

This state definately requires temperatures a lot colder than the current crop of high temp superconductors do (and when I say high temp I still mean colder than antartica!). But you never know what it might lead to.

[Carl]

Originally posted by Flipside
Interesting stuff, but then, I'm sure I saw a superconductor running submerged in liquid Nitrogen way back, considerably warmer than this technique.. maybe I'm just getting the wrong end of the stick, it's been years since I did chemistry, but surely this is a step backward, not forward, in superconductor technology?

the goal isn't to make a warmer superconductor, it's to make a more effecient one. the superconductor you saw didn't work nearly as well as the fermion condensate.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Carl
the goal isn't to make a warmer superconductor, it's to make a more effecient one. the superconductor you saw didn't work nearly as well as the fermion condensate.

A superconductor transmits electricty with no loss. By definition a superconductor is 100% efficient. So I'm at a loss as to how this one can be more efficient.

On top of that cooling this one down is going to cost a lot more than cooling down to liquid nitrogen temps. Liquid nitrogen is cheap. We used to use the excess to clean the floors of the lab Liquid helium (The most likely coolant for something like this) on the other hand is a fair bit more expensive to handle.

[Anaz]

Cool. The chemistry teachers were talking about this today in class.

Did this happen at CU, coz it didn't say where they found it...

[mikhael]

Originally posted by karajorma
A superconductor transmits electricty with no loss. By definition a superconductor is 100% efficient. So I'm at a loss as to how this one can be more efficient.
 

In theory, sure. In reality, not even close. Carl is dead on the money here.

[Liberator]

The question remains, how do you put something like this into general use with such extreme maintenance requirements?  Any break of the coolant supply and the whole thing goes down.

[mikhael]

The point is not to use the fermion condensate. The point is to understand superconductivity better in order to make better superconductors that share the properties of the fermion condensate.