8 ms·

2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene)

94 points by kurtosis 16y ago

yread 16y ago
Here 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-graphene-how-to-make-carbon-layers-with-sticky-tape http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=diy-graphen...
- ja27 16y ago
  Anything involving cleaning with 'piranha' probably isn't really a DIY project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha_solution#Safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha_solution#Safety
  - runinit 16y ago
    "...a suitable candidate, prior to using Piranha, is 98% sulphuric acid."
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      Anything involving 98% H2SO4 is probably not properly described as "DIY" project either...
senthil_rajasek 16y ago
I really liked this quote at the end of the press release http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/press.html http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/pr... "Playfulness is one of their hallmarks, one always learns something in the process and, who knows, you may even hit the jackpot. Like now when they, with graphene, write themselves into the annals of science." Congrats to the winners and especially to Konstantin Novoselov who is one of youngest to win a Nobel at age 36.
- adw 16y ago
  Geim's the guy who levitated the frog: "Geim shared the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize with Sir Michael Berry of Bristol University, for levitating the frog. His award of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2010 made him the first person to win an Ig followed by the real version." Badass. (Even if my physics past wants someone to win something big for work on silicates one day. Dammit, glasses are fascinating.)
  - yread 16y ago
    Here is some more info and videos http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/ http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/
ugh 16y ago
Andre Geim is quite a character. He won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for floating a frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#...).
- Janteh 16y ago
  He also chose his hamster as co-author for one of his articles: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(00)00753-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(00)00753-5
myth_drannon 16y ago
Although I'm congratulating both of them , it's a prize for engineering achievement not a physics discovery. Shows how the physics field is stagnant.
- scrrr 16y ago
  From Alfred Nobel's Will: "...The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics;..." According to that a price for physics is awarded to both a discovery as well as an invention and this would be the latter. http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html
- harshpotatoes 16y ago
  Yes, it is more of an engineering achievement than a physics discovery, but I would not read much more into it. The nobel prize is very frequently given to more of an 'engineering' discovery, as it's goal is to be given to the achievements which benefit man the most. Just look at several Nobel prizes. The invention of radio, the invention of special gas valves used in lighthouses,the invention of the cloud chamber, the invention of the laser, the invention of the ion trap, etc. Physics is still very active, but unfortunately we can't be discovering QED everyday.
- hugh3 16y ago
  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.
  - zeynel1 16y ago
    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.
michael_nielsen 16y ago
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-nobel-prize-for-graphene-now-dont-overhype-it/ http://blog.joerg.heber.name/2010/10/05/great-the-physics-no... It punctures some of the hype, while still conveying what's interesting.
smackfu 16y ago
Is this physics or chemistry?
- smackfu 16y ago
  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?
  - pvxc 16y ago
    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.
ugh 16y ago
Sixty Symbols has already a video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZBkpWqrzg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZBkpWqrzg
tocomment 16y ago
So when will we see mass produced graphene? Also same question for carbon nano-tubes. What are the obstacles waiting to be overcome?
RK 16y ago
Here is their most popular graphene paper (open access in Nature Materials) http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n3/full/nmat1849.html http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n3/full/nmat1849.html

94 points by kurtosis 16y ago

yread 16y ago

Here 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-graphene-how-to-make-carbon-layers-with-sticky-tape http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=diy-graphen...

ja27 16y ago
Anything involving cleaning with 'piranha' probably isn't really a DIY project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha_solution#Safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha_solution#Safety
- runinit 16y ago
  "...a suitable candidate, prior to using Piranha, is 98% sulphuric acid."
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    Anything involving 98% H2SO4 is probably not properly described as "DIY" project either...

senthil_rajasek 16y ago

I really liked this quote at the end of the press release http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/press.html http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/pr... "Playfulness is one of their hallmarks, one always learns something in the process and, who knows, you may even hit the jackpot. Like now when they, with graphene, write themselves into the annals of science." Congrats to the winners and especially to Konstantin Novoselov who is one of youngest to win a Nobel at age 36.

adw 16y ago
Geim's the guy who levitated the frog: "Geim shared the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize with Sir Michael Berry of Bristol University, for levitating the frog. His award of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2010 made him the first person to win an Ig followed by the real version." Badass. (Even if my physics past wants someone to win something big for work on silicates one day. Dammit, glasses are fascinating.)
- yread 16y ago
  Here is some more info and videos http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/ http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/

ugh 16y ago

Andre Geim is quite a character. He won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for floating a frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#...).

Janteh 16y ago
He also chose his hamster as co-author for one of his articles: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(00)00753-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(00)00753-5

myth_drannon 16y ago

Although I'm congratulating both of them , it's a prize for engineering achievement not a physics discovery. Shows how the physics field is stagnant.

scrrr 16y ago
From Alfred Nobel's Will: "...The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics;..." According to that a price for physics is awarded to both a discovery as well as an invention and this would be the latter. http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html
harshpotatoes 16y ago
Yes, it is more of an engineering achievement than a physics discovery, but I would not read much more into it. The nobel prize is very frequently given to more of an 'engineering' discovery, as it's goal is to be given to the achievements which benefit man the most. Just look at several Nobel prizes. The invention of radio, the invention of special gas valves used in lighthouses,the invention of the cloud chamber, the invention of the laser, the invention of the ion trap, etc. Physics is still very active, but unfortunately we can't be discovering QED everyday.
hugh3 16y ago
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.
- zeynel1 16y ago
  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.

michael_nielsen 16y ago

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-nobel-prize-for-graphene-now-dont-overhype-it/ http://blog.joerg.heber.name/2010/10/05/great-the-physics-no... It punctures some of the hype, while still conveying what's interesting.

smackfu 16y ago

Is this physics or chemistry?

smackfu 16y ago
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?
- pvxc 16y ago
  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.

ugh 16y ago

Sixty Symbols has already a video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZBkpWqrzg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZBkpWqrzg

tocomment 16y ago

So when will we see mass produced graphene? Also same question for carbon nano-tubes. What are the obstacles waiting to be overcome?

RK 16y ago

Here is their most popular graphene paper (open access in Nature Materials) http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n3/full/nmat1849.html http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n3/full/nmat1849.html