Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Physicists Superheated Gold to Hotter Than the Sun's Surface and Disproved a 40-Year-Old Idea

Physicists Superheated Gold to Hotter Than the Sun's Surface and Disproved a 40-Year-Old Idea

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
science
15 Posts 8 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • C cm0002@lemmy.world
    This post did not contain any content.
    gsus4@mander.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
    gsus4@mander.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
    gsus4@mander.xyz
    wrote last edited by gsus4@mander.xyz
    #2

    Needless to say, at 19,000 Kelvin, the solid gold sample blew past that boundary, heating up to more than 14 times its melting point, which is about 1,300 Kelvin. The team suggests the speed of the heating likely kept the gold from expanding. They blasted the gold to its record-setting temperature in just 45 femtoseconds, or 45 millionths of a billionth of a second.

    “The thing that’s intriguing here is to ask the question of whether or not it’s possible to beat virtually all of thermodynamics, just by being quick enough so that thermodynamics doesn’t really apply in the sense that you might think about it

    The team notes that the second law of thermodynamics, which states that disorder increases with time, still stands—their work did not disprove it. That’s because the gold atoms reached their extreme temperature before they had time to become disordered, White tells Nature’s Dan Garisto.

    Even still, researchers are now faced with a question they had considered all but completely solved nearly four decades ago, per New Scientist: How hot can something really get before it melts? If a material is heated quickly enough, there might be no limit, per the SLAC statement.

    Sort of reminds me of the energy-time version uncertainty principle: if an interval is short enough, energy fluctuations can be extremely high.

    What I’d like to know here is what the duration threshold to would allow fusion to start is.

    W 1 Reply Last reply
    1
    19
    • gsus4@mander.xyzG gsus4@mander.xyz

      Needless to say, at 19,000 Kelvin, the solid gold sample blew past that boundary, heating up to more than 14 times its melting point, which is about 1,300 Kelvin. The team suggests the speed of the heating likely kept the gold from expanding. They blasted the gold to its record-setting temperature in just 45 femtoseconds, or 45 millionths of a billionth of a second.

      “The thing that’s intriguing here is to ask the question of whether or not it’s possible to beat virtually all of thermodynamics, just by being quick enough so that thermodynamics doesn’t really apply in the sense that you might think about it

      The team notes that the second law of thermodynamics, which states that disorder increases with time, still stands—their work did not disprove it. That’s because the gold atoms reached their extreme temperature before they had time to become disordered, White tells Nature’s Dan Garisto.

      Even still, researchers are now faced with a question they had considered all but completely solved nearly four decades ago, per New Scientist: How hot can something really get before it melts? If a material is heated quickly enough, there might be no limit, per the SLAC statement.

      Sort of reminds me of the energy-time version uncertainty principle: if an interval is short enough, energy fluctuations can be extremely high.

      What I’d like to know here is what the duration threshold to would allow fusion to start is.

      W This user is from outside of this forum
      W This user is from outside of this forum
      Wigners_friend
      wrote last edited by wigners_friend@piefed.social
      #3

      Energy-time relations have no link to the uncertainty principle. They apply to classical cameras for instance. There are no “energy fluctuations”, you cannot magically get energy from nothing as long as you give it back quickly, like some kind of loan.

      This is because the energy-time relation works for particular kinds of time, like lifetime of excitations or shutter times on cameras. Not just any time coordinate value.

      Edit: down votes from the scientifically illiterate are fun. Let’s not listen to a domain expert, let’s quote wiki and wallow in collective ignorance.

      gsus4@mander.xyzG G G 4 Replies Last reply
      1
      2
      • W Wigners_friend

        Energy-time relations have no link to the uncertainty principle. They apply to classical cameras for instance. There are no “energy fluctuations”, you cannot magically get energy from nothing as long as you give it back quickly, like some kind of loan.

        This is because the energy-time relation works for particular kinds of time, like lifetime of excitations or shutter times on cameras. Not just any time coordinate value.

        Edit: down votes from the scientifically illiterate are fun. Let’s not listen to a domain expert, let’s quote wiki and wallow in collective ignorance.

        gsus4@mander.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
        gsus4@mander.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
        gsus4@mander.xyz
        wrote last edited by gsus4@mander.xyz
        #4

        Fluctuation implies going up and then back down within the dt, to me at least, so we agree I guess.

        1 Reply Last reply
        1
        0
        • W Wigners_friend

          Energy-time relations have no link to the uncertainty principle. They apply to classical cameras for instance. There are no “energy fluctuations”, you cannot magically get energy from nothing as long as you give it back quickly, like some kind of loan.

          This is because the energy-time relation works for particular kinds of time, like lifetime of excitations or shutter times on cameras. Not just any time coordinate value.

          Edit: down votes from the scientifically illiterate are fun. Let’s not listen to a domain expert, let’s quote wiki and wallow in collective ignorance.

          G This user is from outside of this forum
          G This user is from outside of this forum
          gressen@lemmy.zip
          wrote last edited by
          #5

          Link Preview Image
          Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia

          favicon

          (en.m.wikipedia.org)

          W 1 Reply Last reply
          1
          5
          • W Wigners_friend

            Energy-time relations have no link to the uncertainty principle. They apply to classical cameras for instance. There are no “energy fluctuations”, you cannot magically get energy from nothing as long as you give it back quickly, like some kind of loan.

            This is because the energy-time relation works for particular kinds of time, like lifetime of excitations or shutter times on cameras. Not just any time coordinate value.

            Edit: down votes from the scientifically illiterate are fun. Let’s not listen to a domain expert, let’s quote wiki and wallow in collective ignorance.

            gsus4@mander.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
            gsus4@mander.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
            gsus4@mander.xyz
            wrote last edited by gsus4@mander.xyz
            #6

            Fine, I can say this in a way that does not violate energy conservation but still uses the energy-time uncertainty principle:

            Say you have a system with two levels, hot and cold like the gold sheet in this experiment. Then I can take a linear combination of these two (stationary) states, between which which the period of oscillation would be deltat=h/deltaE, which would be the time for the system to “heat” and “cool” within 45 femtoseconds. (lifted from Griffiths, page 143)

            That would give a deltaE>1.5E-20J compared with kT (T=19000K) = 27E-20J 🤔 (T=1300K) = 1.8E-20J so the fusion T is close to the oscillation limit, the extra energy for 19000K is not going to do anything unless the cooling slows down.

            Soo…I don’t understand the point of the experiment. It just looks like they’re exciting atoms metal and then letting them quickly deexcite radiatively…and then wonder why they won’t absorb huge amounts of energy and melt (if the energy remained within the system, it would). I probably would have to get the actual paper, but I don’t wanna 😛

            Z W 2 Replies Last reply
            1
            1
            • C cm0002@lemmy.world
              This post did not contain any content.
              R This user is from outside of this forum
              R This user is from outside of this forum
              redfox8@mander.xyz
              wrote last edited by
              #7

              Link Preview Image
              Gold can be heated to 14 times its melting point without melting

              With fast heating, sheets of gold can shoot past the theoretical maximum temperature a solid can have before it melts – raising questions about what the true limits are

              favicon

              New Scientist (www.newscientist.com)

              “White and his team fired a powerful laser at a 50-nanometre thick sheet of gold for 45 quadrillionths of a second…”

              As a rank amateur I don’t understand the other discussions here, but my thinking is that if a material is heated up for such a short period of time, and also only in a very small location (“The laser was focused to a spot approximately 100 µm in radius”), not across the whole mass, then the energy will dissipate across the mass of the material without building up enough to break the bonds and melt.

              For me, what’d be more significant to know is how long it’d take for melting to occur/what’s the tipping point.

              So I’ve skimmed through the journal article and:

              https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09253-y

              “Notably, the temperatures exceed the proposed limit of 3Tm in both cases for over 2 ps. This time is approximately an order of magnitude longer than the characteristic phonon oscillation period and, thus, much longer than required for homogeneous melting”

              So the gold did melt, just not instantaneously!

              “Our experimental findings raise an important question about the ultimate stability limit for superheating.”

              Right so both news articles avoid stating that melting occured so far as to suggest it didn’t and that was what was significant…oh well, reading the journal article was interesting at least!

              One question of mine I didn’t see was answered is, what significance do the xrays have on the temperature and time taken to melting?

              O 1 Reply Last reply
              1
              7
              • R redfox8@mander.xyz

                Link Preview Image
                Gold can be heated to 14 times its melting point without melting

                With fast heating, sheets of gold can shoot past the theoretical maximum temperature a solid can have before it melts – raising questions about what the true limits are

                favicon

                New Scientist (www.newscientist.com)

                “White and his team fired a powerful laser at a 50-nanometre thick sheet of gold for 45 quadrillionths of a second…”

                As a rank amateur I don’t understand the other discussions here, but my thinking is that if a material is heated up for such a short period of time, and also only in a very small location (“The laser was focused to a spot approximately 100 µm in radius”), not across the whole mass, then the energy will dissipate across the mass of the material without building up enough to break the bonds and melt.

                For me, what’d be more significant to know is how long it’d take for melting to occur/what’s the tipping point.

                So I’ve skimmed through the journal article and:

                https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09253-y

                “Notably, the temperatures exceed the proposed limit of 3Tm in both cases for over 2 ps. This time is approximately an order of magnitude longer than the characteristic phonon oscillation period and, thus, much longer than required for homogeneous melting”

                So the gold did melt, just not instantaneously!

                “Our experimental findings raise an important question about the ultimate stability limit for superheating.”

                Right so both news articles avoid stating that melting occured so far as to suggest it didn’t and that was what was significant…oh well, reading the journal article was interesting at least!

                One question of mine I didn’t see was answered is, what significance do the xrays have on the temperature and time taken to melting?

                O This user is from outside of this forum
                O This user is from outside of this forum
                obstbert@feddit.org
                wrote last edited by
                #8

                I’m also no expert in this particular topic, but the heat transfer to the surrounding material shouldn’t play to huge a role. First because the material is very thin (50 nm) and second because the the X-ray focus is much smaller (5 um) so I would only probe the material in the middle of the heated spot.

                The effect of the X-rays depends strongly on the intensity of the beam (which I can’t figure out on mobile ATM). X-rays can definitely melt or vaporize material of this thickness when the intensity is high enough. In this case here it hopefully shouldn’t affect the measurements to much.

                R 1 Reply Last reply
                1
                1
                • gsus4@mander.xyzG gsus4@mander.xyz

                  Fine, I can say this in a way that does not violate energy conservation but still uses the energy-time uncertainty principle:

                  Say you have a system with two levels, hot and cold like the gold sheet in this experiment. Then I can take a linear combination of these two (stationary) states, between which which the period of oscillation would be deltat=h/deltaE, which would be the time for the system to “heat” and “cool” within 45 femtoseconds. (lifted from Griffiths, page 143)

                  That would give a deltaE>1.5E-20J compared with kT (T=19000K) = 27E-20J 🤔 (T=1300K) = 1.8E-20J so the fusion T is close to the oscillation limit, the extra energy for 19000K is not going to do anything unless the cooling slows down.

                  Soo…I don’t understand the point of the experiment. It just looks like they’re exciting atoms metal and then letting them quickly deexcite radiatively…and then wonder why they won’t absorb huge amounts of energy and melt (if the energy remained within the system, it would). I probably would have to get the actual paper, but I don’t wanna 😛

                  Z This user is from outside of this forum
                  Z This user is from outside of this forum
                  zabadoh@ani.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #9

                  They didn’t say anything about cooling the gold film.

                  They measured it lasted as solid at a certain temperature for a certain length of time after it had reached that temperature.

                  I’m sure it eventually melted, but the question was how long it stayed solid after being superheated past previously theoretical limits.

                  gsus4@mander.xyzG 1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  0
                  • G gressen@lemmy.zip

                    Link Preview Image
                    Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia

                    favicon

                    (en.m.wikipedia.org)

                    W This user is from outside of this forum
                    W This user is from outside of this forum
                    Wigners_friend
                    wrote last edited by
                    #10

                    Did you read it?

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    2
                    • gsus4@mander.xyzG gsus4@mander.xyz

                      Fine, I can say this in a way that does not violate energy conservation but still uses the energy-time uncertainty principle:

                      Say you have a system with two levels, hot and cold like the gold sheet in this experiment. Then I can take a linear combination of these two (stationary) states, between which which the period of oscillation would be deltat=h/deltaE, which would be the time for the system to “heat” and “cool” within 45 femtoseconds. (lifted from Griffiths, page 143)

                      That would give a deltaE>1.5E-20J compared with kT (T=19000K) = 27E-20J 🤔 (T=1300K) = 1.8E-20J so the fusion T is close to the oscillation limit, the extra energy for 19000K is not going to do anything unless the cooling slows down.

                      Soo…I don’t understand the point of the experiment. It just looks like they’re exciting atoms metal and then letting them quickly deexcite radiatively…and then wonder why they won’t absorb huge amounts of energy and melt (if the energy remained within the system, it would). I probably would have to get the actual paper, but I don’t wanna 😛

                      W This user is from outside of this forum
                      W This user is from outside of this forum
                      Wigners_friend
                      wrote last edited by
                      #11

                      A reasonable approach, but melting is a phase transition. It’s a collective behaviour. What the experiment shows is that quantum phenomena happen fast enough to make thermodynamics a bit strange. Probably because it is formulated in terms of continuous maths and atoms are discrete.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      1
                      • Z zabadoh@ani.social

                        They didn’t say anything about cooling the gold film.

                        They measured it lasted as solid at a certain temperature for a certain length of time after it had reached that temperature.

                        I’m sure it eventually melted, but the question was how long it stayed solid after being superheated past previously theoretical limits.

                        gsus4@mander.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
                        gsus4@mander.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
                        gsus4@mander.xyz
                        wrote last edited by gsus4@mander.xyz
                        #12

                        it lasted as solid at a certain temperature for a certain length of time after it had reached that temperature.

                        That’s the problem, reading the quotes from my top reply even they seem to admit that what they are calling temperature is not what is usually called temperature in thermal equilibrium.

                        Z 1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        1
                        • gsus4@mander.xyzG gsus4@mander.xyz

                          it lasted as solid at a certain temperature for a certain length of time after it had reached that temperature.

                          That’s the problem, reading the quotes from my top reply even they seem to admit that what they are calling temperature is not what is usually called temperature in thermal equilibrium.

                          Z This user is from outside of this forum
                          Z This user is from outside of this forum
                          zabadoh@ani.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #13

                          It’s a subtle distinction.

                          High temperature/energy leads to entropy/liquification, but I think what this experiment demonstrated is there’s a short delay or “entropy build up curve” between high amounts of energy and the “transmission” of entropy through the solid molecular structure to a liquid state.

                          I’m not sure if I’m wording all this correctly.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          1
                          1
                          • O obstbert@feddit.org

                            I’m also no expert in this particular topic, but the heat transfer to the surrounding material shouldn’t play to huge a role. First because the material is very thin (50 nm) and second because the the X-ray focus is much smaller (5 um) so I would only probe the material in the middle of the heated spot.

                            The effect of the X-rays depends strongly on the intensity of the beam (which I can’t figure out on mobile ATM). X-rays can definitely melt or vaporize material of this thickness when the intensity is high enough. In this case here it hopefully shouldn’t affect the measurements to much.

                            R This user is from outside of this forum
                            R This user is from outside of this forum
                            redfox8@mander.xyz
                            wrote last edited by
                            #14

                            Thanks for that, much appreciated 🙂

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            1
                            0
                            • W Wigners_friend

                              Energy-time relations have no link to the uncertainty principle. They apply to classical cameras for instance. There are no “energy fluctuations”, you cannot magically get energy from nothing as long as you give it back quickly, like some kind of loan.

                              This is because the energy-time relation works for particular kinds of time, like lifetime of excitations or shutter times on cameras. Not just any time coordinate value.

                              Edit: down votes from the scientifically illiterate are fun. Let’s not listen to a domain expert, let’s quote wiki and wallow in collective ignorance.

                              G This user is from outside of this forum
                              G This user is from outside of this forum
                              gbzm
                              wrote last edited by
                              #15

                              Whether it’s energy-time or position-momentum, the uncertainty principle is just a consequence of two variables being linked via Fourier transform. So position and wave-vector therefore position and momentum, ans time and pulse and therefore time and energy. Sure, it only has consequences when you’re looking at time uncertainties and probabilistic durations, which is less common than space distributions. And sure it also happens in classical optics, that’s where all of this comes from. And I agree that “quantum fluctuations” is often a weird misleading term to talk about uncertainties. But I’m not sure how you end up with “no link to the uncertainty principle”? It’s literally the same relation between intervals in direct or Fourier space.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              1
                              2

                              Reply
                              • Reply as topic
                              Log in to reply
                              • Oldest to Newest
                              • Newest to Oldest
                              • Most Votes


                              • Login

                              • Login or register to search.
                              Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                              • First post
                                Last post