The article seemed to imply that graphene is not even real? Just a hypothetical material?
Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov won a physics Nobel Prize for their construction of Graphene, described as carbon arranged in a hexagonal lattice and only one atom thick. They produced something that existed only in theory. Graphene was to find applications in materials technology and electronics.
I didn’t know you could win Nobel prize for just making stuff up. 🤡. Is this for real? Where are the physicfags
I noticed they say it's only a 2 dimensional material. And I'm over here, as an engineer aka (physicfag) wondering how in the hell 2 dimensional objects can exist in a 3 dimensional world... I guess because it's only 1 atom thick?? But then what about the subatomic particles? Seems like a matter of perspective... get it...? Matter of Perspective...
It’s “2D” in the same sense that a drawing on a piece of paper is “2D”. Of course if you look close enough you’ll find some thickness, but for most practical purposes the object stretches out in only two dimensions.
Understandable. So in this instance they must not be counting the thickness of 1 atom as a dimension since it doesn't reach out any further on that plane than a thickness of 1. But on the X and Y it must go beyond the base unit of 1. Well.... that may be the case, but for the sake of arguing, I will still say the thickness of 1 atom counts. Because that 1 atom is supposedly made up of numerous subatomic particles, the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons depending on the atomic structure. Not to mention the fact that we don't even really know what an actual atom really even looks like when not in motion though, so it could literally all be bologna for all us peasants know. Which makes me wonder how they are even looking at this 1 atom thick atomic structure of graphene. Because thanks to experiments like the double slit, and theories such as Max Planck's particle-wavelength duality... Apparently an atom is both a wave and a particle. And they will act as waves until observed in one moment of spacetime. And going further, we humans distort the structure and behavior of the atom as soon as we shine photons of light on them to observe them in the first place. Because the photons bombard the atom and ruin the originality of what whas there before we decided to look. This is why Einstein and Bohr were always arguing. Einstein was quoted in saying, as he defended classical physics against niels bohr's quantum mechanics by saying, "I will choose to believe the moon is there, even when I am not looking at it."
It's real, the Nobel prize was much afterthey were already observing it. It's just expensive and hard to make do you won't see graphene tires or shoes.
"They produced something that existed only in theory."
If they had added [up until that point] it would perhaps be clearer, but it is quite implied. Ie, it was theorized up until it was then proven to exist.
Edit: Air, and it's various elements, was also at one time theoretical.
Because the management of the Nobel price has been stolen by the very same people who kicked Nobel out. It was when he got rich for inventing the dynamite they suddenly got interested, in his money.
The article seemed to imply that graphene is not even real? Just a hypothetical material?
I didn’t know you could win Nobel prize for just making stuff up. 🤡. Is this for real? Where are the physicfags
I noticed they say it's only a 2 dimensional material. And I'm over here, as an engineer aka (physicfag) wondering how in the hell 2 dimensional objects can exist in a 3 dimensional world... I guess because it's only 1 atom thick?? But then what about the subatomic particles? Seems like a matter of perspective... get it...? Matter of Perspective...
Physics humor! Love it!
That’s a good point....isn’t one atom technically 3 D
I believe it is. It technically takes up space. However minute it might be, still space in my opinion.
It’s “2D” in the same sense that a drawing on a piece of paper is “2D”. Of course if you look close enough you’ll find some thickness, but for most practical purposes the object stretches out in only two dimensions.
Understandable. So in this instance they must not be counting the thickness of 1 atom as a dimension since it doesn't reach out any further on that plane than a thickness of 1. But on the X and Y it must go beyond the base unit of 1. Well.... that may be the case, but for the sake of arguing, I will still say the thickness of 1 atom counts. Because that 1 atom is supposedly made up of numerous subatomic particles, the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons depending on the atomic structure. Not to mention the fact that we don't even really know what an actual atom really even looks like when not in motion though, so it could literally all be bologna for all us peasants know. Which makes me wonder how they are even looking at this 1 atom thick atomic structure of graphene. Because thanks to experiments like the double slit, and theories such as Max Planck's particle-wavelength duality... Apparently an atom is both a wave and a particle. And they will act as waves until observed in one moment of spacetime. And going further, we humans distort the structure and behavior of the atom as soon as we shine photons of light on them to observe them in the first place. Because the photons bombard the atom and ruin the originality of what whas there before we decided to look. This is why Einstein and Bohr were always arguing. Einstein was quoted in saying, as he defended classical physics against niels bohr's quantum mechanics by saying, "I will choose to believe the moon is there, even when I am not looking at it."
It's real, the Nobel prize was much afterthey were already observing it. It's just expensive and hard to make do you won't see graphene tires or shoes.
Reading comprehension.
"They produced something that existed only in theory."
If they had added [up until that point] it would perhaps be clearer, but it is quite implied. Ie, it was theorized up until it was then proven to exist.
Edit: Air, and it's various elements, was also at one time theoretical.
You’re right. I didn’t read it correctly.
The intent was probably:
Because the management of the Nobel price has been stolen by the very same people who kicked Nobel out. It was when he got rich for inventing the dynamite they suddenly got interested, in his money.