World's only piece of a metal that could revolutionise technology

>Saying “my heart fell” when he heard the news, the lead researcher, Professor Isaac Silvera, revealed this catastrophic failure had resulted in the loss of the sample.

>“I’ve never seen a diamond shatter like that. It was so powdered on the surface, it looked like backing soda or something like that,” he said.

>“I didn’t believe it was diamond, it was such a fine powder.”

>There are a number of possible explanations for the lack of any evidence of metallic hydrogen in the remains.

>It could be that the tiny sample is lost somewhere within the metal ‘gasket’ used to contain it between the crushing pressure of the diamonds.

>It might also mean that metallic hydrogen is unstable and turns into a gas when it is at room temperature and normal pressure, in what would be a major setback for any hopes of a new wonder material.

>But a number of physicists have also claimed that the sample was never actually created in the first place.

>Writing in the journal Nature, they claimed measurements of the sample’s reflective qualities were not conclusive proof of metallic hydrogen.

>However Professor Silvera, who has been attempting to create metallic hydrogen for decades, said the absence of metallic hydrogen “suggests nothing, it suggests we couldn’t find it”.

>“The sample is in the wreckage some place or it’s not meta-stable and it disappeared, it turned into a gas,” he said.

>“If it was meta-stable and if it could withstand the shock of a catastrophic failure, it would still be in the gasket.”
...

>He is due to speak about his research at an American Physical Society meeting the next few weeks.

>And, by then, Professor Silvera hopes to have reproduced the same result that saw people queuing up in his laboratory for a look at the first piece of metallic hydrogen on Earth.

>“We’ve got a pair of diamonds that we are now preparing for a run,” he said.

>“There were a few Doubting Thomases, so we decided we should just reproduce it [use the same method].”

>The controversy exists because Professor Silvera and fellow physicist Ranga Dias decided to keep the sample within the grip of the diamonds and study its properties, rather than risk removing it because of the danger that it was unstable and would be lost.

>This meant it could only be viewed through the distorting prism of the diamonds.

>And a sliver of aluminium had been used to protect the diamonds from the hydrogen, which can cause them to become brittle and break under pressure.

>So some experts suggested that the reflections used as evidence of metallic hydrogen could have actually come from the aluminium.

>Professor Silvera was adamant.

>“Right now we think we have enough evidence that there should be no doubt it is metallic,” he said.

>“I’m completely confident of the measurements we have made.”

>It is a competitive field with a number of teams around the world all striving for the same breakthrough.

>“There have been a number of attempts to make metallic hydrogen. There have been several claims of metallic hydrogen,” Professor Silvera said.

>“I’ve worked on this for many years. When I see a claim I examine it. I’ve written three or four papers when people make claims saying there’s evidence of metallic hydrogen.

>“We would not have published a paper if we weren’t confident that it was metallic, especially after having refuted several other people who had claimed to have made metallic hydrogen.”
...

>When the researchers' original paper in the journal Science was published, the congratulations had flooded in with even some from competitors.

>They decided to open the lab for three hours so anyone could come in and look through the microscope trained on the historic sample.

>“We said we would start it at 11am until 2pm. But someone came in at 7.30am and people were coming in all day long, just streaming in because it was something unique to see metallic hydrogen for the first time,” Professor Silvera said.

>And he expressed confidence the results of their experiment would be repeated when they try again in the next few weeks and an almost incredibly shiny piece of metallic hydrogen will be once again on show.

>“I’ll tell you what you will see with your eye because it will be reflecting like a mirror.”

>>114185
>one of the diamonds had shattered into a fine dust.

Fuck you deBeers -- a diamond *isn't* forever. Now we are forever free from spending a fortune on your shitty warmaking engagement and anniversary ring gems.

>>114185
I had a leprecan once, but I lost him too.
Have any of you seen him?
Or the only metal-H--in the whole wide world--for that other guy?
Didn't a bunch of guys get the nobel for elements they never found? I don't suppose there's any possibility they're saying this for funding?

Well they're just going to recreate it so what's the problem?

>>114212
How can you recreate what was never created in the first place?

>>114206
Fun fact.

Get a flask of liquid O2. Buy a diamond or better yet find a bitter divorcee. Heat the diamond with a propane torch until the fuckers red hot. Drop that bitch in the O2. Poof, diamond gone! Link relevant

https://youtu.be/0tcP9SLKEG4

>>114211
>>114267
Science is a huge lie. What else can you expect when most scientist are libtards?

Just run it again then?
Most experiments like these are done with a number of replicates anyways BECAUSE of naysayers right? I'm sure they'll be given the funding for it.

>>114307
this is so sad because most people who say this really do believe it

political views are just opinions

big oil'd

>>114313
It's all just jüdische wissenschaft.

>>114327
What's up with all the Germanic/nazi slogans on /news/ as of late. There's always a couple of guys in every thread throwing around terms like "lugenpresse."

>>114328
Hail Trump!

>>114328
Don't forget entartete kunst

>>114328
I think they grew tired of shitposting on /pol/ and want to corrupt the other boards with their ideology.

>>114337
/tv/ is pretty much there right now. I think the changeover happened in a week

>>114342
yeah fucking right. typical of far-right cucks wanting to stay anonymous.

Having a name and standing for you believe in always has a leftist slant, always

>>114185
Guess they will just have to make more of it.

>>114206
>a diamond *isn't* forever.
heera hai sada ke liye

>>114299

Don't do this. Waste of diamonds.

>>114356
Yeah with your covered face in anitfa riots
>sucker punch a "nazi" in the face while running at full speed, and then runaway
>doesn't even knock Spencer out.
Stunning and brave

>>114337
They destroyed /pol/ a long time ago.

Its only a matter of time before 4chan as a whole suffers.

Blame moot. He did this.

>>114812
>taking the bait
Stupid and pointless.

>>114731
Back to the loo's you go

>>114328
Satirizing the new leader of the Third Reich. Trump shares many similarities to the previously beloved populist.

Not even sure we had made something that couldnt be made

>>114813
He killed the original news and should have let it stay dead

>>114185
Why would you post this here ?
4chan is anti science because most scientists are leftwing.
this is isnt going to work

>>114999
>everyone using this website is within my ideology

wtf?

I would tell you to go back to your hugbox, but you don't seem to go elsewhere often, so please, feel free to look around