Harvard Scientists Create Metallic Hydrogen

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/solid-metallic-hydrogen-harvard-physicists.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

It's the type found in the inner parts of Jupiter 

[Dad]

Now this--this sheet right here bruh--is tight. I'm on mobile so it's hard to type, but I can't wait to talk more in depth about this.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's pretty cool because hydrogen does have some similarities to the Alkali metal 

 

It becoming metal-like is strangely fitting 

[GarlandChaos]

I saw a different article about this yesterday on the way home from school.

 

I don't 100% understand it, but I think I have a good enough grasp on what makes this super freaking cool, since this kind of material is usually only found in gas giants (Jupiter, for example), at least as far as we know. The universe is pretty big after all.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

You know a material is awesome when they aren't certain whether it is solid or not.

 

The properties of a single-proton conductor are so mindblowingly perfect. I doubt this will ever be mass-producible, but if it is indeed metastable it has potential for use in the highest-end technology humanity creates, notably supercomputers. Beyond laser calculation, this is one of the best ways to continue making moore's law relevant.

[Progenitor]

I wouldn't get my hopes up yet. This theory is several decades in the making, as the article points out. In fact that's one of the reasons Hydrogen exists in Group 1 on the periodic table, as Winter mentioned. However, this was announced after a single attempt that yielded what appeared to be success. In fact, literally the only reason the Harvard team are making this claim is that the hydrogen became reflective after 72 million psi of pressure. While crystals more often than not refract light, it's not unheard of for denser formations to instead be reflective. Shiny does not a metal make on its own, unfortunately. This was a major jump to conclusion, kinda like the whole Higgs-Boson debacle a while back. Every measurement in the report was derived indirectly and most were estimates too. There's far too many ifs and buts still remaining with the experiment to call it a success.

 

However, that's not to say that it wasn't a success either. It's just the scientific process REQUIRES an outcome to be obtained again over multiple trials. If forget who said it, but: "if you can't repeat it, then it isn't science." Until further experimentation is conducted to not only repeat the "shiny hydrogen" effect, but further test the new form for other metallic properties, I'll remain interested yet skeptical.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I wouldn't get my hopes up yet. This theory is several decades in the making, as the article points out. In fact that's one of the reasons Hydrogen exists in Group 1 on the periodic table, as Winter mentioned. However, this was announced after a single attempt that yielded what appeared to be success. In fact, literally the only reason the Harvard team are making this claim is that the hydrogen became reflective after 72 million psi of pressure. While crystals more often than not refract light, it's not unheard of for denser formations to instead be reflective. Shiny does not a metal make on its own, unfortunately. This was a major jump to conclusion, kinda like the whole Higgs-Boson debacle a while back. Every measurement in the report was derived indirectly and most were estimates too. There's far too many ifs and buts still remaining with the experiment to call it a success.

 

However, that's not to say that it wasn't a success either. It's just the scientific process REQUIRES an outcome to be obtained again over multiple trials. If forget who said it, but: "if you can't repeat it, then it isn't science." Until further experimentation is conducted to not only repeat the "shiny hydrogen" effect, but further test the new form for other metallic properties, I'll remain interested yet skeptical.

To be fair they were right about the Higgs-Boson.

 

Obviously, nothing of this is definitive, but that doesn't discredit it at all.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I'll be more interested when they take the pressure off to see if actually stays as a solid, elsewise all this is hypothetical.

 

I don't think that it actually having metallic properties is the important thing about the discovery, it's more than solid hydrogen would be an incredible source of fuel for deep space travel because it's going to have incredibly high energy density. Metallic properties of interest would be I guess electrical conductivity, but we already have copper for say wiring, and the process would probably remain too expensive for commerical use.

 

Actually wait, it's speculated to be a room temperature superconductor. That would be amazing if true, assuming it's not too tricky to impliment in sheet like current High Temperature Superconductors are. Cost would remain an issue for comerical use, but for industry it would be fantastic for cutting down on coolant costs.

[Progenitor]

I'll be more interested when they take the pressure off to see if actually stays as a solid, elsewise all this is hypothetical.

 

I don't think that it actually having metallic properties is the important thing about the discovery, it's more than solid hydrogen would be an incredible source of fuel for deep space travel because it's going to have incredibly high energy density. Metallic properties of interest would be I guess electrical conductivity, but we already have copper for say wiring, and the process would probably remain too expensive for commerical use.

 

Actually wait, it's speculated to be a room temperature superconductor. That would be amazing if true, assuming it's not too tricky to impliment in sheet like current High Temperature Superconductors are. Cost would remain an issue for comerical use, but for industry it would be fantastic for cutting down on coolant costs.

TBH we can already make solid hydrogen, it's just it can only exist at temperatures very close to absolute zero. As far as using it as a power source, combusting a metal is a bit more complex than simply burning fuel. Hydrogen was never really a good fuel choice because its combustion is increadibly fast and unstable. It's very hard to contain and even harder to control, thus making other, longer burning and more stable fuel sources more viable. However, if hydrogen can become a metal, then theoretically it should have properties similar to the other Alkali metals, specifically it should react violently with water. This could be a method of controlling hydrogen's burn, but it's still not a very efficient fuel source.

 

As far as being a superconductor, to be honest it sounds a lot more impressive than it actually is. A superconductor is very simply a material that can conduct electricity without applying resistance. It isn't exactly a measurement of how conductive the material is though. Common superconductors include pure silver, copper, and gold which have the highest conductivity, but it also includes things like aluminum, mercury and lead, which are far less conductive and thus not very useful for this purpose, but are still technically superconductors because they don't have any internal resistance.

 

If you want a material that can potentially cut coolant costs, take a look at vanadium(IV) dioxide. It's already an incredibly strange material because it changes from a monoclictic insulator to a tetragonal superconductor above 67 degrees Celsius, without changing its state of matter. Yet even further adding to its weirdness, scientists running various tests on its metalic form to get a better understanding of it found that it completely deffies the Wiedemann-Franz Law: it is a superconductor whose electron flow is very resistant to thermal conduction. The measured value was ten times less than calculated. >tfw an exception exists for a LAW of science.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I do know we could make essentially anything solid by cooling it or applying enough pressure, it's not very useful because it requires it being really cold or really high pressures. Solid hydrogen that stays solid at room temperature is more a more useful property to me than the metallic properties. If only because Hydrogen, whilst not massively efficient when burnt, is very light. Whilst I haven't crunched numbers, that could mean that one could in theory store substantially more fuel in space flights than we can currently, and thus travel further. Simply on the virtue of that whilst less efficient, the mass difference between it and current fuels makes up for it.

 

There's more to Superconductors than just having zero resistance, a perfect conductor would also have zero resistance. One cannot be remise about the Meissner effect, even if it's practical usage is more limited than the conductive qualities. And being able to conduct electiricity without resistance is a pretty useful thing given it keeps the thing from getting really really hot when you put big electrical currents through it. It's the whole reason we have s*** like MRI's and the Hadron Collider in CERN. Which I think would love a room temperature Superconductor that needs no pressure to maintain.

 

I'm actually doing a research piece on HTSC right now, and I've not seen any research about Vandium (IV) Dioxide being a HTSC, the highest termperature Superconductor I'm aware of is like Hydrogen Sulfide under immense pressure, and that's still nowhere near 67 Celcius. It's like 203K, which speculation that addition of different elements could dump it up to 273K. But that still requires pressure, which limits applicable uses.

 

The Weiderman Franz Law has had some issues for a long time, it's never been perfectly accurate to measured data. But that's fine, it's part of the process. It's not especially outlandish to see a mistake in it. We still can't combine Quantum and Newtonian Mechanics after all.

[Progenitor]

The stuff on vanadium dioxide was actually fairly recent. Like a few days ago recent. Just google the name and you're sure to find articles on it. The Wikipedia page as well won't talk about defying the WF law (cuz it was too recent) but it goes into further detail about the structure change that takes place at such a surprisingly low temperature. The main issue with the WF measurement was that it wasn't just wrong, it was WRONG. Like the projected value and the measured value differed by a factor of 10. The WF law may not be perfect, but such drastic difference is indicative of either error in the experiment or an exception to the law.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yeah I see stuff on the Weidemann-Franz stuff, and mentions of electrical conducitivity increasing by like 5 orders of magnitude under certain conditions but nothing about superconductivty.

 

The law itself was bad for intermediate temperatures temperatures iirc because of inconsitentencies in the electron behavoir within the solid structure, in part because I think the Weidemann-Franz law is based around a Free Electron model of solids instead of a more accurate nearly free electron model. It's been really accurate, but there's always been room for inconsitency within it. Mostly it's been the case of I think inelastic collisions of electrons.

 

I think they've found bigger violations within the Law before. In 2011 there was a lithium compound conductor that had a violation of 5 orders of magnitude to the expected ratio. It seems like that there's some unknown factor within some of the more weird conducting materials, but the law holds true for most conventional metals and conductors.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The stuff on vanadium dioxide was actually fairly recent. Like a few days ago recent. Just google the name and you're sure to find articles on it. The Wikipedia page as well won't talk about defying the WF law (cuz it was too recent) but it goes into further detail about the structure change that takes place at such a surprisingly low temperature. The main issue with the WF measurement was that it wasn't just wrong, it was WRONG. Like the projected value and the measured value differed by a factor of 10. The WF law may not be perfect, but such drastic difference is indicative of either error in the experiment or an exception to the law.

Curious, does it become similar to an Alkali metal?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Curious, does it become similar to an Alkali metal?

Vandium Dioxide?

 

It doesn't appear too, given that it's an oxide, and Vandium itself isn't an Alkali metal I don't see why it should. It doesn't have the same electron structure as the Alkali metals so it won't react similarly.

 

Admittedly I've only learned of the stuff today, but nothing would appear to suggest it would.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Vandium Dioxide?

 

It doesn't appear too, given that it's an oxide, and Vandium itself isn't an Alkali metal I don't see why it should. It doesn't have the same electron structure as the Alkali metals so it won't react similarly.

 

Admittedly I've only learned of the stuff today, but nothing would appear to suggest it would.

Metallic Hydrogen 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Metallic Hydrogen 

But the thing you quoted was about the Vandium dioxide, and made no mention of the Hydrogen. You could have been more clear, or even just read a little more. Whatever;

 

Hydrogen could in theory. It had already been said in the thread that it could in the post Johnny made about Hydrogen metal as a fuel. He said that it's theorised to act as an alkali metal which would allow it to be used as a fuel in a more controlled manner. We don't know if it would because we've never had any to throw in water and see if it goes bang. But it is theorised too precisely because it's in group 1.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But the thing you quoted was about the Vandium dioxide, and made no mention of the Hydrogen. You could have been more clear, or even just read a little more. Whatever;

 

Hydrogen could in theory. It had already been said in the thread that it could in the post Johnny made about Hydrogen metal as a fuel. He said that it's theorised to act as an alkali metal which would allow it to be used as a fuel in a more controlled manner. We don't know if it would because we've never had any to throw in water and see if it goes bang. But it is theorised too precisely because it's in group 1.

There's no need to cover for me, clarity has nothing to do with it. It was a wrong quote. My apologies. I think half awake me meant to quote Prog's first post, but still, my error

 

---

 

This metallic hydrogen thing is really fascinating though. As you know metals work with the seal of electrons idea, if hydrogen becomes metallic, would it have a similar property? Can we make metallic helium, and would that make it more open to bonding.

 

And I've heard differing accounts on the state of matter this substance would take. There's just so much with this new breakthrough that's fascinating to look into

[Aerion Brightflame]

This metallic hydrogen thing is really fascinating though. As you know metals work with the seal of electrons idea, if hydrogen becomes metallic, would it have a similar property? Can we make metallic helium, and would that make it more open to bonding.

 

And I've heard differing accounts on the state of matter this substance would take. There's just so much with this new breakthrough that's fascinating to look into

 

Seal of Electrons? Did you mean sea of electrons?

 

If Hydrogen is in a metallic state then yes, it will have a 'sea of electrons' because it's an intrinsic property to metallic elements that valence electrons can freely pass through the material with  relatively little interference because of a issue with the fermi energy that I forget exactly. It's something along the lines of the fermi energy and the bands exist in such a way that it becomes energetically favourable for the electrons the have free motion through the solid when an electric field is applied.

 

Metallic Helium might be more open to bonding but I think you still have the issue of having a complete shell, and thus it's not really open to forming any bonds in it's ground state. There's presumably non covalent bonding that may be applicable in that case, but I figure Helium will remain really inert. I'm not really sure on that because I'm a physics undergrad not a chemistry one, so we generally don't care about bonding.

 

It just seems like the fact that Helium has a complete shell really close to the nucleus will render it consitently inert. I don't even know if we could create metallic helium because of hat.