LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+28 28 0
Published 11 months ago with 8 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • leweb
    +4

    I don't want to be a party pooper, but it gets a bit old when all the "science" articles claim that someone cured cancer, or proved quantum mechanics is wrong, or completely overturned everything we know about evolution, or built a quantum computer, etc. I'm going to copy the abstract of the paper here in case someone can explain how this "breaks quantum mechanics":

    The reaction of 249Bk(OH)4 with iodate under hydrothermal conditions results in the formation of Bk(IO3)3 as the major product with trace amounts of Bk(IO3)4 also crystallizing from the reaction mixture. The structure of Bk(IO3)3 consists of nine-coordinate BkIII cations that are bridged by iodate anions to yield layers that are isomorphous with those found for AmIII, CfIII, and with lanthanides that possess similar ionic radii. Bk(IO3)4 was expected to adopt the same structure as M(IO3)4 (M = Ce, Np, Pu), but instead parallels the structural chemistry of the smaller ZrIV cation. BkIII–O and BkIV–O bond lengths are shorter than anticipated and provide further support for a postcurium break in the actinide series. Photoluminescence and absorption spectra collected from single crystals of Bk(IO3)4 show evidence for doping with BkIII in these crystals. In addition to luminescence from BkIII in the Bk(IO3)4 crystals, a broad-band absorption feature is initially present that is similar to features observed in systems with intervalence charge transfer. However, the high-specific activity of 249Bk (t1/2 = 320 d) causes oxidation of BkIII and only BkIV is present after a few days with concomitant loss of both the BkIII luminescence and the broadband feature. The electronic structure of Bk(IO3)3 and Bk(IO3)4 were examined using a range of computational methods that include density functional theory both on clusters and on periodic structures, relativistic ab initio wave function calculations that incorporate spin–orbit coupling (CASSCF), and by a full-model Hamiltonian with spin–orbit coupling and Slater–Condon parameters (CONDON). Some of these methods provide evidence for an asymmetric ground state present in BkIV that does not strictly adhere to Russel–Saunders coupling and Hund’s Rule even though it possesses a half-filled 5f 7 shell. Multiple factors contribute to the asymmetry that include 5f electrons being present in microstates that are not solely spin up, spin–orbit coupling induced mixing of low-lying excited states with the ground state, and covalency in the BkIV–O bonds that distributes the 5f electrons onto the ligands. These factors are absent or diminished in other f7 ions such as GdIII or CmIII.

    BTW Berkellium is not on the "edge of the periodic table". I'm guessing the last time the writer of this article saw a periodic table was in the mid 90's.

    If we stopped trying to make science as sensational as the series from Bravo TV, maybe there would be fewer stupid people claiming that science is a conspiracy by the evil illuminati. Then again, maybe not :/

    • AdelleChattre
      +4

      That's the fun, though, in reading popular science coverage: how full of shit is it? Mostly, or entirely? Typically it's in proportion to how popular it's trying to be. Anything from iflscience.com or sciencealert.com is likely to be alamentary. You know when you see kurzweilai.net, though, you're in for a coprophagist's delight.

      • leweb
        +4

        I should be doing this. I'm sure the people who write this bullshit earn more than I do. Real science is boring for most people

        • kxh
          +4

          We have a radio science show here where I live, that I love, and is fascinating, but that inevitably puts me to sleep.

    • kxh
      +3

      Science is about getting unexpected results. I like unexpected results. Awesome abstract BTW!

      • leweb
        +4

        Thanks! Although it's not really my abstract, it's from their paper :)

        TBH science is just about finding what fits the available evidence. This is what makes it boring for a lot of people. It's not about what you'd like to be true, or what would be exciting, or what confirms what you believe.

    • sashinator
      +2

      I'm going with not.

      • leweb
        +4

        Yeah, betting on human stupidity is always the safe bet.

Here are some other snaps you may like...