German scientists in Munich and Cologne have discovered that stable magnetic vortices in manganese silicon crystals could be used to store data because of quantum mechanical effects. In February 2009, physicists at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the University of Cologne, led by Professor Christian Pfleider and …
How to use this effect?
Its a very interesting effect but as its so sensitive to electric currents, that would make it very susceptible to disruption if used as a memory in a computer simply as a computer is electromagnetically a very noisy environment. So its hard to imagine this technology being much use as a memory device. But as it is so sensitive, it could make some very interesting nano sized sensors and perhaps even huge arrays of sensors on one chip. That could open up a lot of new applications.
Not sure many companies could afford to run their air conditioning at a fairly chilly -245 degrees C either. I guess there is a chance that now they have identified the effect it may be possible to find/design another material that does it at room temperature (though as I could only understand a fraction of the article I may be wrong).
Whenever I hear of a new memory technology
alittle demon sniggers "MS FND in a LBRY".
Useful. Perhaps not.
Interesting. Definitely. Well it tells us something about the universe we either nether checked or didn't realise about the universe.
My only random thought is a Baryon a kind of Muon? If so this might lead into Muon catalyzed fusion studies. A simpler, cheaper way to make them (with a longer working life) would shove this technology along quite a bit.
Otherwise just a rather lovely pattern.
Surprising what you can come up with if you have a small reactor in the basement.
Muons are a type of elementary particle, not a class of particles - you only get Muons and Antimuons. They are a type of lepton, like the electron.
Baryons are a type of Hadron - they are stuff made up of 3 quarks each (with Hadrons covering all quarky stuff). Examples of Baryons are protons and neutrons.
(I'll not digress about how once upon a type Muons were thought to be Mesons, another type of Hadron!).
What's that? Why, yes, Particle Physics does indeed give me a hadron.
2 Vote downs?
So much for the spirit of Christmas.
Thank you for a succinct answer.
What else are we missing?
I often read things like this and wonder if we are seeing the things we are looking for (odd particles, super-conduction, etc) but not recognizing it when we see it. For instance, what if the particles we are looking for in the LHC are really a lattice of forces which perform the same function. In cases like this we could look forever and never find anything.
We are predisposed to looking at things based on what we know and can perceive. So what are we missing because we haven't ever seen anything like it. Or worse, we are looking for something in terms we already know but missing it sitting right in front of us because it doesn't conform to anything we know or can observe.
It's like asking someone born blind to tell you what color the sky is. They might be able to puzzle out the existence of electromagnetic radiation based on heat but would they be able to conceive of the idea or radio or x-rays because they can't feel or hear them. Nor would they interact with their environment in an observable way. What rules that explain the universe would they come up with? What flaws would be in their equations despite working perfectly for their observations?
your analogy has a flaw, sighted humans can't perceive radio or x-rays either and we've managed to do stuff with them perfectly well through the use of tools
the same is true of the particles and effects they are searching for with the LHC, they have, are or will develop sensors to detect that we cannot
lots of things have been discovered whilst looking for something else and we end up seeing something we never expected
While it is true we sighted humans can't observe radio or x-rays, we are able to observe things father along the spectrum (colors). If you are limited to a single wavelength, would you ever think to look for more?
If you are sure you are looking for a particle, would you ever build anything else but a particle sensor? If what you are looking for is really an interaction of fields that behaves like a particle under the conditions that such a particle is needed would you ever find it?
My point is that we are missing things that might be obvious because we are stuck with a limited why of looking at the universe. How do we break out of that? How many crack pot scientists have we dismissed who may have been headed in the right direction but unable to articulate it to the rest of us? Then ignored because of it.
What 5 or 11 dimensional events are we observing without knowing it? Do we already have 3 dimensional equations for those events and therefore building our understanding of the universe on accurate (for 3) but flawed (for 5) assumptions?
Am I now in the crack pot group?
So once they can do this at room temps then the technology of superman could be real?
Putting programs in a crystal ? Maybe the first program written onto a crystal should honor Jor El.
To quote Isaac Asimov:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Breaking news: Google exec in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google chief Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL