

2010 Physics Nobel Prize (Graphene) - kurtosis
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/announcement.html

======
michael_nielsen
There's an excellent short overview (with many links) of why graphene matters
here:

[http://blog.joerg.heber.name/2010/10/05/great-the-physics-
no...](http://blog.joerg.heber.name/2010/10/05/great-the-physics-nobel-prize-
for-graphene-now-dont-overhype-it/)

It punctures some of the hype, while still conveying what's interesting.

------
senthil_rajasek
I really liked this quote at the end of the press release

[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/pr...](http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/press.html)

"Playfulness is one of their hallmarks, one always learns something in the
process and, who knows, you may even hit the jackpot. Like now when they, with
graphene, write themselves into the annals of science."

Congrats to the winners and especially to Konstantin Novoselov who is one of
youngest to win a Nobel at age 36.

~~~
adw
Geim's the guy who levitated the frog:

"Geim shared the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize with Sir Michael Berry of Bristol
University, for levitating the frog. His award of the Nobel Prize for Physics
in 2010 made him the first person to win an Ig followed by the real version."

 _Badass_. (Even if my physics past wants someone to win something big for
work on silicates one day. Dammit, glasses are fascinating.)

~~~
yread
Here is some more info and videos
<http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/>

------
yread
Here is the process of making graphene with a sticky tape -it was posted here
a while ago. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=diy-
graphen...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=diy-graphene-how-
to-make-carbon-layers-with-sticky-tape)

~~~
ja27
Anything involving cleaning with 'piranha' probably isn't really a DIY
project.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piranha_solution#Safety>

~~~
runinit
"...a suitable candidate, prior to using Piranha, is 98% sulphuric acid."

~~~
InclinedPlane
Anything involving 98% H2SO4 is probably not properly described as "DIY"
project either...

------
ugh
Andre Geim is quite a character. He won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for
floating a frog
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#2000)).

~~~
Janteh
He also chose his hamster as co-author for one of his articles:

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4526(00)00753-5>

------
RK
Here is their most popular graphene paper (open access in Nature Materials)

<http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n3/full/nmat1849.html>

------
ugh
Sixty Symbols has already a video out:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZBkpWqrzg>

------
myth_drannon
Although I'm congratulating both of them , it's a prize for engineering
achievement not a physics discovery. Shows how the physics field is stagnant.

~~~
hugh3
I suggest reading through at least 0.1% of the tens of thousands of papers
which have been published on the subject of graphene alone in the last five
years before declaring the entire field of physics to be stagnant.

~~~
zeynel1
I understand your point; but myth_drannon was saying that research on graphene
is more engineering than physics. I know that engineering and physics overlap;
but not sure if this research is engineering or physics; or who decides which
is which.

~~~
graphene
I think the process by which they discovered their synthesis method qualifies
as experimental physics. Keep in mind that it is still hugely infeasible to
produce industrial quantities of the stuff.

Also, as the parent says, a review of the literature shows a wealth of
interesting physics being done with the material, much of it unencumbered by
aspirations of possible engineering applications.

~~~
jessriedel
I think this is semantics: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1760580>

~~~
zeynel1
"I think this is semantics"

Of course; semantics refers to meaning of words; obviously disagreement
between two parties will be about the meaning of words. Probably, you mean
"polemics."

Physicists are professional doctors of philosophy; by tradition; they own the
right to define any theoretical subject and they defined physics as the
fundamental science defining nature; which is not correct. Physics is just one
way of looking at nature.

~~~
jessriedel
> Probably, you mean "polemics."

No, I mean this is a confusion about the meaning of a word (namely, "physics")
not a dispute about facts (empirical or normative).

By the way, saying an argument boils down to semantics is not vacuous. If I
disagree with Bob about whether the moon will be full tonight, we have no
disagreement or misunderstanding about the meaning of words.

~~~
zeynel1
"this is a confusion about the meaning of a word (namely, "physics")"

I agree; [http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/definition-of-
physi...](http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/definition-of-physics/)
"physics" is a pun; and this is how physicists like it.

------
tocomment
So when will we see mass produced graphene? Also same question for carbon
nano-tubes.

What are the obstacles waiting to be overcome?

------
smackfu
Is this physics or chemistry?

~~~
smackfu
Let me rephrase, since I am interested in the answer and am not sure why I'm
getting downvotes. Why is graphene awarded a Noble in Physics, while
buckyballs were awarded a Noble in Chemistry in 1996? Is it because fullerene
occurs in nature?

~~~
pvxc
The main reason is probably that physicists found graphene more interesting to
study than buckyballs. This can be quantified by looking at the number of
articles published in top physics-only journals (e.g. Physical Review
Letters).

There are a couple of good reasons why so: (i) graphene has a "simple"
electronic and atomic structure that has interesting features of its own
(Google for the Dirac cone), (ii) graphene flakes are big compared to buckies,
so it's possible to study them with common methods that physicists like --
electronic transport, crystallographic methods, you name it, and (iii) many
proposed applications of graphene e.g. in electronics fall close to physics.

In short: physicist are fond of simple things, and graphene is simple. So,
Nobel prize in physics.

