What was special about the first nuclear test, rather than the thousands of others, at least hundreds of which were also in the Nevada desert?
Obviously it's historically significant, and the new forms of matter were first discovered there , so that's why trinitite is named after the site. But 80 years later, wouldn't we expect the other bomb sites to have just as many interesting chemical reactions?
We do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite#Similar_materials says "Occasionally, the name trinitite is broadly applied to all glassy residues of nuclear bomb testing, not just the Trinity test" and lists hiroshimaite and kharitonchiki as similar glassy residues from Hiroshima and the Semipalatinsk Test Site, respectively.
Adding to this, I seem to recall that the specific geological/chemical conditions on the site is consequential for the sorts of glass produced. So presumably, Hiroshmiaite and Trinitite would actually be physically distinct as a material.
As I recall, research on meteorite impacts use the similarly formed Impactite to deduce various things about ancient impact sites. As an aside, I think they also do really elaborate calculations of force and angle of impact based on surveying the spread pattern and distribution of these little glass chunks.
As the sibling comment already said "kai" (pronounced ke like in keg) just means "and". So it literally means 4 and 10 sides in greek. But I have often seen it written as τετραδεκάεδρο (tetradecahedron) in greek as well, so without the kai part. I'm not sure why it is 4 and 10 instead of 14 though. It would be more natural in greek that way (δεκατετράεδρο - decatetrahedron). Maybe it is for putting the distinctive part (4) first, or maybe it sounded more "poetic" like that to someone and then it stuck.
> The only other known naturally forming quasicrystal was found inside meteorite fragments
Does it really count as "naturally forming" if we had to artificially construct and detonate a nuke during a carefully conducted experiment to create this one?
Well, it's more natural than something like a lab diamond. This one forms naturally given unnaturally created, but not completely implausible, conditions. There is a big difference between "we blew up rocks and they formed this mineral" and "we treated rocks with X acid and Y acid and then carefully annealed them under extreme pressure and they formed this mineral"
Diamonds are also product of nature, but when we grow them in a lab they aren't often considered to be "naturally formed". It's just that the lab we used in this instance was part of the Jornada del Muerto.
I think sometimes the distinction is made between natural and artificial (human made) as a way to sway an argument. In many of these cases, the reasoning is tenuous if we examine with an understanding that the difference is sometimes arbitrary.
If anything, we should be more careful with our use of language. For instance; 'naturally ocurring' vs. 'human made'.
One language usage question, and one content question:
"Melted sand"?? Isn't it "molten sand"? Is my hunch completely wrong, or is the author not a native speaker? Neither am I, but melted sand sounds so weird to my ears.
This all happened in a matter of seconds, so atoms didn’t have time to arrange into stable structures,[...]
Isn't seconds kinda like ages at that scale? Atoms needing longer than seconds to arrange under super high pressure sounds also dubious? But I am no expert in that area.
To my ears “Molten” would imply that the sand is currently in liquid form. The sense ”melted” is used here, as having been melted, seems right. You melt sand to get molten sand, right?
"Molten" to me implies it is still liquid. Molten salt reactors, molten magma from a volcano, molten sand, molten steel, dipping something into molten cheese. All fluid.
If I was to nitpick, "melted" is kind of inaccurate and not entirely natural in this context. Technically, molten sand is also melted sand, because that's how you get it to that state? Usually, you'd hear about solidified magma, crystalized sand, cast iron, air-cast steel, unevenly settled corium... to make a better point on how it turned back into a solid and what to expect from it - something like "The molten sand crystalized into an unusual structure" would be clearer.
I'd usually rather hear "melted" if it is important to note that this had a phase change and back. Plastic on an electrical device may look melted, indicating heat. A hardened steel part may look melted, which may damage the hardening. Rubber on a hydraulic line may look melted, also indicating heat. A plastic container looking melted in the context of chemicals may indicate some compromise.
It’s being used as a participial adjective here. I don’t think there’s much semantic nuance in the distinction between “melted” and “molten.” It comes down to common usage. “Molten sand” sounds more suitable to my ears, but “melted butter” also sounds better than “molten butter.” Odd, I think it’s part of a trend to replace the use of the past participle in some adjectival contexts. Maybe melted/molten is just an incomplete transition.
Think of dropping a water balloon onto a pin. It pops instantly, but the water (like the temperature and overpressure) takes a while to dissipate into a puddle.
Something like this came up in Robert R. McCammon's 1987 book Swan Song[1], one of the first novels to win the Bram Stoker award[2] for Best Novel (alongside Stephen King's Misery that year).
One of the survivors finds a glass ring (something like trinitite) among the post-nuclear-blast rubble of Saks Fifth Avenue[3] in New York and sees visions of the future (or something) through it.
Swan Song, coincidentally, is getting a pilot as a TV series. I'm not sure if it's gotten stuck in development hell or if it's actually going somewhere, it's only been 18 months or so since screenwriting started.
While the news is interesting in itself, I found the lack of illustrations disappointing.
When discussing new novel molecular structures, one would think providing a concrete visuals of what they look like more interesting than human-scale photos of materials containing them?
Obviously it's historically significant, and the new forms of matter were first discovered there , so that's why trinitite is named after the site. But 80 years later, wouldn't we expect the other bomb sites to have just as many interesting chemical reactions?
The general term for for the fused glass-like material formed during a nuclear test" seems to be "atomsite" - https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/3001767 . Some images of atomsite from the Trinity and Semipalatinsk test sites are at http://www.radioaktivitaet.uni-bremen.de/downloads/Pittauero...
As a wild guess, what's special is it might be the easiest to get, with many samples to study.
As I recall, research on meteorite impacts use the similarly formed Impactite to deduce various things about ancient impact sites. As an aside, I think they also do really elaborate calculations of force and angle of impact based on surveying the spread pattern and distribution of these little glass chunks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impactite
Totally OT but if "dodeca" means 12, why isn't 14 just "tetradeca"? What's the "kai" for?
I guess like asking why 120 is said "one hundred and twenty" in some dialects.
Maybe that's how 14 and 12 are written in Greek.
Does it really count as "naturally forming" if we had to artificially construct and detonate a nuke during a carefully conducted experiment to create this one?
We’re also very much dependent on nature and natural forces.
So everything we do is, even if many steps removed, still an act of nature.
Without the influence of humans: natural.
There’s a useful definition for you. Otherwise according to your definition the term “natural” is completely meaningless and serves no purpose.
We use the term natural specifically to distinguish between the.. natural and artificial.
A term like that is necessary.
If anything, we should be more careful with our use of language. For instance; 'naturally ocurring' vs. 'human made'.
"Melted sand"?? Isn't it "molten sand"? Is my hunch completely wrong, or is the author not a native speaker? Neither am I, but melted sand sounds so weird to my ears.
Isn't seconds kinda like ages at that scale? Atoms needing longer than seconds to arrange under super high pressure sounds also dubious? But I am no expert in that area.If I was to nitpick, "melted" is kind of inaccurate and not entirely natural in this context. Technically, molten sand is also melted sand, because that's how you get it to that state? Usually, you'd hear about solidified magma, crystalized sand, cast iron, air-cast steel, unevenly settled corium... to make a better point on how it turned back into a solid and what to expect from it - something like "The molten sand crystalized into an unusual structure" would be clearer.
I'd usually rather hear "melted" if it is important to note that this had a phase change and back. Plastic on an electrical device may look melted, indicating heat. A hardened steel part may look melted, which may damage the hardening. Rubber on a hydraulic line may look melted, also indicating heat. A plastic container looking melted in the context of chemicals may indicate some compromise.
Now the words sound weird in my head. Thank you.
One of the survivors finds a glass ring (something like trinitite) among the post-nuclear-blast rubble of Saks Fifth Avenue[3] in New York and sees visions of the future (or something) through it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_Song_(McCammon_novel) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Stoker_Award#External_lin... [3] my memories of this book may be embellishing this a bit....
Which could also result in a B movie, I guess.
When discussing new novel molecular structures, one would think providing a concrete visuals of what they look like more interesting than human-scale photos of materials containing them?