via Royal Society of Chemistry:
Scientists in China have used a laser to carve out a pattern of ridges and valleys on layered graphene oxide to mimic two of nature’s tricks in one go - iridescence and superhydrophobicity.
The resulting surface has a magnificent shimmering sheen like the wing of a butterfly or the shell of a beetle, while at the same time collecting water into almost spherical droplets, as a rose petal does.
In nature many surfaces show superhydrophobicity - where water does not spread but gathers into almost spherical droplets.
This arises because of microscopic ridges and indentations on the surface that traps air and prevents droplets from spreading - as seen in many plant leaves and flower petals.
Similarly, iridescence arises from periodic structures which have order at both the micro- and nanoscale. These act as diffraction gratings that split white light into its constituent wavelengths. In this way a butterfly’s wing can shimmer with different colours while having no inherent pigmentation.
The Jilin team created iridescent graphene by merging two laser beams to create an interference pattern on the surface of layered graphene oxide. This burned out a series of parallel grooves on the surface, around 2um apart.
Torben Lenau is an expert on biomimetic surfaces at the Technical University of Denmark. ‘If both hydrophobicity and iridescence are needed it is very interesting that they can be achieved in a single operation,’ he says. ‘They talk about liquid transportation in microfluidic systems and biomedical surfaces that stem cells can adhere to. Both obvious needs - and nice to be able to control the degree of hydrophobicity. Concerning the iridescence, I can imagine that it could be an advantage for colour coding. The user will easily know - just by looking at it - if the surfaces are in the right state for flow or cell growth.’
![A Couple in the Street, 1887 CHARLES ANGRAND
From SEED Magazine:
To answer our most fundamental questions, Science needs to find a place for the Arts.
By Jonah Lehrer
Human eyes are horizontally offset from each other, and the visual system uses that offset to calculate depth. When an object is fixated upon, images are cast on the same place on each retina.
A view with many identical (or similar) objects casts multiple images on the eyes, which can either be correctly matched, giving a flat impression, or mismatched, so one image corresponds to the other, but at a different depth.
I think that the artists from the impressionist and post-impressionist periods figured this out. They said they could paint air and managed to do so by creating false stereopsis cues, which manipulate depth perception. So Angrand’s painting actually looks more three-dimensional when you view the painting with both eyes instead of with a single eye.
—Margaret Livingstone, Neuroscientist, Harvard University
~
In the early 1920s, Niels Bohr was struggling to reimagine the structure of matter. Previous generations of physicists had thought the inner space of an atom looked like a miniature solar system with the atomic nucleus as the sun and the whirring electrons as planets in orbit. This was the classical model.
But Bohr had spent time analyzing the radiation emitted by electrons, and he realized that science needed a new metaphor. The behavior of electrons seemed to defy every conventional explanation. As Bohr said, “When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry.” Ordinary words couldn’t capture the data.
Bohr had long been fascinated by cubist paintings. As the intellectual historian Arthur Miller notes, he later filled his study with abstract still lifes and enjoyed explaining his interpretation of the art to visitors. For Bohr, the allure of cubism was that it shattered the certainty of the object. The art revealed the fissures in everything, turning the solidity of matter into a surreal blur.
Bohr’s discerning conviction was that the invisible world of the electron was essentially a cubist world. By 1923, de Broglie had already determined that electrons could exist as either particles or waves. What Bohr maintained was that the form they took depended on how you looked at them. Their very nature was a consequence of our observation. This meant that electrons weren’t like little planets at all. Instead, they were like one of Picasso’s deconstructed guitars, a blur of brushstrokes that only made sense once you stared at it. The art that looked so strange was actually telling the truth.
[Read More]
An excellent article on the role of Art in Science.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxfns7yoe31qaxrh5o1_500.jpg)
A Couple in the Street, 1887
CHARLES ANGRAND
From SEED Magazine:
To answer our most fundamental questions, Science needs to find a place for the Arts.
By Jonah Lehrer
Human eyes are horizontally offset from each other, and the visual system uses that offset to calculate depth. When an object is fixated upon, images are cast on the same place on each retina.
A view with many identical (or similar) objects casts multiple images on the eyes, which can either be correctly matched, giving a flat impression, or mismatched, so one image corresponds to the other, but at a different depth.
I think that the artists from the impressionist and post-impressionist periods figured this out. They said they could paint air and managed to do so by creating false stereopsis cues, which manipulate depth perception. So Angrand’s painting actually looks more three-dimensional when you view the painting with both eyes instead of with a single eye.
—Margaret Livingstone, Neuroscientist, Harvard University
~
In the early 1920s, Niels Bohr was struggling to reimagine the structure of matter. Previous generations of physicists had thought the inner space of an atom looked like a miniature solar system with the atomic nucleus as the sun and the whirring electrons as planets in orbit. This was the classical model.
But Bohr had spent time analyzing the radiation emitted by electrons, and he realized that science needed a new metaphor. The behavior of electrons seemed to defy every conventional explanation. As Bohr said, “When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry.” Ordinary words couldn’t capture the data.
Bohr had long been fascinated by cubist paintings. As the intellectual historian Arthur Miller notes, he later filled his study with abstract still lifes and enjoyed explaining his interpretation of the art to visitors. For Bohr, the allure of cubism was that it shattered the certainty of the object. The art revealed the fissures in everything, turning the solidity of matter into a surreal blur.
Bohr’s discerning conviction was that the invisible world of the electron was essentially a cubist world. By 1923, de Broglie had already determined that electrons could exist as either particles or waves. What Bohr maintained was that the form they took depended on how you looked at them. Their very nature was a consequence of our observation. This meant that electrons weren’t like little planets at all. Instead, they were like one of Picasso’s deconstructed guitars, a blur of brushstrokes that only made sense once you stared at it. The art that looked so strange was actually telling the truth.
An excellent article on the role of Art in Science.
He had the Maxwell Equations tattooed on his wrists.
A physicist who works for …..
Microsoft.
I was sad.
————————
(Thanks for the submission, jonesyjones!)
(Thanks for the submission, jenasaurus!)
This is really funny. I hope you enjoy. (:
(Thanks frefre! We had a good laugh.) :D
P.S. Happy π (pi) day everyone!
“There is nothing that living things do that cannot be understood from the point of view that they are made of atoms acting according to the laws of physics.”
- Richard Feynman [1918-1988]
(Thanks catbusterminalkiosk!)
