this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
64 points (98.5% liked)

Science

5045 readers
225 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (10 children)

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.

[–] Wigners_friend@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

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.xyz 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

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 😛

[–] Wigners_friend@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)