So wil it be stable.... metallic hydrogen?
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
You'd think a physicist would know that if you need 71.7 million psi and absolute zero to change the state of an element, it ain't gonna stay like it if you put it at STP.
Spend the time/money on nuclear fusion.
It's unlikely, but diamond is pretty stable, despite the pressure required to form it.Spend the time/money on nuclear fusion.
AW111 said:
It's unlikely, but diamond is pretty stable, despite the pressure required to form it.
Interesting analogy; though what works for one element can be very different to what works for another.'A key question is whether the pressurised hydrogen maintains its metallic properties at room temperature, which would make it extremely useful as a superconductor.'
They could put it at room temperature and see...Look forward to collecting my Nobel Prize.!
Moonhawk said:
AW111 said:
It's unlikely, but diamond is pretty stable, despite the pressure required to form it.
Diamond is stable after formation because of the covalent bonds that are formed. Metallic hydrogen would not have any covalent bonding.
For all those lining up to say "it couldn't be stable", a big career in Physics beckons if you can explain why not. Because there are plausible theoretical reasons to suggest that it might be.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. An awful lot of people who work in the field are saying the Harvard team's claims are implausible and that their paper shouldn't have been published.
P.s. I've just read the article in the OP. The reporting is "a bit naive", if we're being generous, in the light of what had been reported elsewhere.
Edited by ATG on Monday 30th January 14:47
ATG said:
Uhm ... obviously? If the binding was covalent, it wouldn't be metallic. But clearly you don't need covalent bonds to be a stable solid ... because plenty of metals are stable at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.
For all those lining up to say "it couldn't be stable", a big career in Physics beckons if you can explain why not. Because there are plausible theoretical reasons to suggest that it might be.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. An awful lot of people who work in the field are saying the Harvard team's claims are implausible and that their paper shouldn't have been published.
P.s. I've just read the article in the OP. The reporting is "a bit naive", if we're being generous, in the light of what had been reported elsewhere.
I didn't say it wouldn't be stable - I was merely pointing out that the analogy being drawn (using diamond being formed at high pressure and being stable as a point of comparison) wasn't really valid due to the different bonding in diamond and metals.For all those lining up to say "it couldn't be stable", a big career in Physics beckons if you can explain why not. Because there are plausible theoretical reasons to suggest that it might be.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. An awful lot of people who work in the field are saying the Harvard team's claims are implausible and that their paper shouldn't have been published.
P.s. I've just read the article in the OP. The reporting is "a bit naive", if we're being generous, in the light of what had been reported elsewhere.
Edited by ATG on Monday 30th January 14:47
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 31st January 21:00
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff