Can someone explain why Graphene does not qualify for Quantum Physics Forum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DevilsAvocado
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    graphene
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of graphene-related topics within the Quantum Physics Forum, questioning why it was moved to General Physics despite its significant implications for quantum research. Participants argue that graphene's unique properties enable the exploration of quantum effects, such as Klein tunneling, and its potential for advancements in quantum computing and materials science. The Nobel Prize recognition of graphene's properties is cited as evidence of its relevance to quantum physics. Concerns are raised about the perceived trivialization of serious scientific discussions by comparing them to unrelated topics. The conversation highlights the need for clearer criteria on topic classification within the forum.
DevilsAvocado
Gold Member
Messages
848
Reaction score
91
Could someone please explain why the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=435072"?

Not that I have anything against General Physics, but it seems like maybe topics like "Cleaning your PC with a vacuum cleaner", "Rock On Rod Stewart", "My Air Mattress as a Pressure Vessel", "Kevlar and knives", "Throwing a ball in my office", etc, is predominant.

If Graphene were only about "Scotch tape & Pencils", I would have understood the "movement". But that’s not right, is it?

As far as I understand, Graphene has already, and will in the future be very important for the progress of quantum physics.
http://static.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/info_publ_phy_10_en.pdf"[/URL]
...
[B]Graphene also allows scientists to test for some of the more ghost-like quantum effects that so far only have been discussed theoretically[/B]. One such phenomenon is a variant of Klein tunelling, which was formulated by the Swedish physicist Oskar Klein in 1929. The tunnel effect in quantum physics describes how particles can sometimes pass through a barrier that would normally block them. The larger the barrier the smaller the chance of quantum particles passing through. However, this does not apply to electrons traveling in graphene – in some circumstances they move ahead as if the barrier did not even exist.
...[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][PLAIN]http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/press.html"[/URL]
...
However, with graphene, physicists can now study a new class of two-dimensional materials with unique properties. [B]Graphene makes experiments possible that give new twists to the phenomena in quantum physics[/B]. Also a vast variety of practical applications now appear possible including the creation of new materials and the manufacture of innovative electronics. Graphene transistors are predicted to be substantially faster than today’s silicon transistors and result in more efficient computers.
...[/QUOTE]


Talking about quantum physics and computers: What could possibly be more interesting than [PLAIN]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_qubit"[/URL]?
[QUOTE][SIZE="1"][B][url]http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n3/abs/nphys544.html[/url][/B]

[SIZE="3"][B]Spin qubits in graphene quantum dots[/B]

Björn Trauzettel, Denis V. Bulaev, Daniel Loss and Guido Burkard
Nature Physics 3, 192 - 196 (2007)
doi:10.1038/nphys544

Abstract: The main characteristics of good qubits are long coherence times in combination with fast operating times. It is well known that carbon-based materials could increase the coherence times of spin qubits, which are among the most developed solid-state qubits. Here, we propose how to form spin qubits in graphene quantum dots. A crucial requirement to achieve this goal is to find quantum-dot states where the usual valley degeneracy in bulk graphene is lifted. [B]We show that this problem can be avoided in quantum dots based on ribbons of graphene with armchair boundaries. The most remarkable new feature of the proposed spin qubits is that, in an array of many qubits, it is possible to couple any two of them via Heisenberg exchange with the others being decoupled by detuning. This unique feature is a direct consequence of the quasi-relativistic spectrum of graphene.[/B]

[SIZE="1"](Also at [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0611252[/url])[/QUOTE]


A search on arXiv.org for [I]Graphene[/I] under [I]quant-ph[/I] gives [URL]http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/abs:+Graphene/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=100"[/URL]...

[B]So could someone please explain what’s going on?[/B]

It’s quite useless to spend a lot of your private time in finding information about new physics, if the information without any reasonable explanation is dumped in the "Rod Stewart" section...?:confused:?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I suppose because Nobel prize announcements, as interesting as they are, aren't really related to quantum mechanics in-themselves.
 
what alxm said

Nobel Prize material is just likely to be moved to General Physics

I haven't seen the post, but if it was just focusing on graphene itself then I agree with you, it shouldn't have been moved

also: umad
 
The topic of discussion can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2919916#post2919916

I just now posted to the topic. "The Nobel Committee said that the physicists, based at the University of Manchester, have shown that an extremely thin form of carbon just one atom thick had exceptional properties originating in the world of quantum physics."

You can review that quote by following the link (url) I just provided. Thanks and have a great day. :biggrin:
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...
Back
Top