Talk:Quasicrystal

message: Soft matter systems such as block co-polymers, dendrimers, nanoparticles and mesophorous silica all exhibit self-assembly into quasicrystalline arrangements. Does information on this belong in this page as a section? Or as a separate page linked to this page? WpLila (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft matter Quasicrystals 

message: Are one dimensional quasicrystals possible?
Can anyone give me an example (mathematical example is fine) of a 1D quasicrystal?
(Check the link to S.Weber's Introduction):
10110101101101011010110110101101101011010110...
The Fibonacci sequence is a standard example of 1D quasicrystal: it is neither ordered ('crystal') nor disordered ('noise'). 
The Fourier transform of such nonperiodic systems with well defined long range order exhibits delta peaks with spacings which are  fractions of some irrational number. The absence of this feature is taken as a sign of insufficient long range order and then the systems are taken to be closer to random ones. The Bombieri-Taylor argument allows eventually to identify the quasicrystals.195.96.229.95 07:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1D quasicrystals? 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16393296
It may be worth adding to the article.P0M (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting, although the link to the PNAS article is dead and the doi doesn't resolve.  If anyone can find the original paper somewhere that would be nice.  a13ean (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked. The link was:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/03/1111115109 and clicking on it in the BBC article worked for me.P0M (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news -- from meteorites? 

message: "World's Only Known Natural Quasicrystal Traced to Ancient Meteorite  A theoretical physicist searched for years to find the only known natural occurrence of an exotic type of structure, the discovery of which netted the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry" by Richard Van Noorden  Scientific American  January 3, 2012
99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Meteorite]] resource 

message: 432 deg 
                                 / 
                                 / 
                                 / 
                                 / 
                                 / 
                                 / 
             324 deg  /////////////////////// 108 deg 
                                / / 
                             /   /   /   36 deg   
                          /      /      / 
               288 deg /         / 72 deg   /  144 deg 
                                 / 
                                 / 
                             216 deg 
I apologize for the caveman graphics as that is about as good as I am with these things and feel free to clear up the lines.I need another graphic where the lines reflect the spokes of a hexagonal form based on 324 degrees minus 144 degrees and 288 degrees minus 108 degrees and the central line of 432/216 degrees remains unchanged.There is a purpose to all this and especially as the first 4 sequential geometric values reflect the angles of Penrose tiling and although the overall structure reflects a hexagonal form with pentagonal traits,it is much more interesting than this.Gkell1 (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  E pluribus unum 

message: I just applied the POV tag to the History section of the article because it seems to be written in a way that "rewrites" the history of the actual discovery. The initial discovery was actually extremly controversal which has been well documented. Right now there is nothing about that which strikes me as whitewashing. I'll try to edit things in the near future a bit but since the changes might be controversial it seems like starting things off here might be a prudent course of action. Darkstar949 (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Imho the additions made by Ilanblech should be discarded. 195.96.229.83 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you have in mind? In the end of the history section it says "Other puzzling cases have been reported,[18] but until the concept of quasicrystal came to be established, they were explained away or denied.[19][20] However, at the end of the 1980s, the idea became acceptable". I think this is appropriate. Maybe a further mentioning of this fact in the paragraph before? Or mention explicitly that Shechtman's findings also were explained away or denied? I've been working on quasicrystals only since the mid 90s, but the consensus of the scientific community at this time was (1.) quasicrystals do exist, and (2.) Linus Pauling did damage to both the discipline and himself in denying (1.). The links you cite are newspapers: in newspapers, the headlines tend to exaggerate. I tend to rate them as not to be taken too seriuosly. (The first link even repeats this bullshit on quasicrystalline patterns in medieval architecture.) --Frettloe (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that mentioning that Dan Shechtman's findings were met with hostility from Linus Pauling since most people outside of that field of study have at least a passing knowledge that there was some controversy directed at Shechtman and the Shechtman and Pauling pages mention it. There doesn't necessarily have to be much, but after listening to an extended podcast about the history of quasicrystals and then seeing this Wikipedia page it struck (and still does) me of whitewashing the history. Plus, so what if they are newspapers? Most people don't get their scientific news from "Physical Review Letters" and to ignore the popular media is folly. (PS. I rarely check talk pages so tagging my user talk is the best way to get my attention) Darkstar949 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

text: No new arguments yet. I will remove the POV Dispute Tag, in particular since I've asked around and several colleagues assured me that after 1984 several scientists (Tsai, Nissen, Beeli, Kuo...) started to discover more and more quasicrystals, while Linus Pauling still was claiming that there are no quasicrystals (to a rapidly shrinking audience).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frettloe (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Dispute Tag 

message: The reasons I added a hatnote are:
This article is about completely separate definition of the term Quasi-crystals. It is earlier and completely unrelated use of the term. It is neither sub-type of quasi periodic quasicrystal nor a more general - it is the original, independent, unrelated and standalone earlier dicovery. Thus should be a completely separate and unrelated Wikipedia article. Platanium (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The hatnote is not very helpful: to a layperson, the distinction is unclear, and hence disambiguation fails. A better hatnote would be in the form: , i.e. This article is about (clearly defined topic). For (clearly different topic), see Quasi-crystals (supramolecular). The distinctions should be clear in the hatnote to aid in locating the correct article(s).--Animalparty-- (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a distinguishing hatnote 

message: The 2010's O. E. Buckley Prize was shared with Alan Mackay, for "pioneering contributions to the theory of quasicrystals, including the prediction of their diffraction pattern", so there are a wide acception of  Mackay's articles on Quasicrystal prediction, and was before 2011.
The Mackay's prediction was easy?   Shechtman's work was not "easy"? What is easy?  de Broglie wins the Nobel by the "prediction of the wave mater", that have been proposed in 1924 (before your thesis) in an a half-page article.
There are a good explanation?
::There is far too much emphasis on stupid prizes here, instead of science. The article of 1924 should be specified in detail.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissouriOzark1947 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The remark about 2011 seems to refer the the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, awarded  to Shechtman in 2011.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissouriOzark1947 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Alan Mackay not shared the 2011 Nobel? 

message: The lede has awkward or broken phrasings: "Alan Lindsay Mackay found to apply to"; "The ability to diffract comes from the existence of an indefinitely large number of elements" (diffract light? "comes from", indefinitely? chemical elements?); "this kind of experiment" (which kind?); "Next (yet in 1982)". -84user (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored the lede, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken English in lede 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quasicrystal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130422002036/http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI to http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.cmp/1104159173Completely
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111007225727/http://www.quasi.iastate.edu:80/discovery.html to http://www.quasi.iastate.edu/discovery.html
*Added  tag to http://euler.phys.cmu.edu/widom/ppt/Northwestern_4-7-2006.ppt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is Pentagonite, a rare natural mineral which has five-fold symmetry, a quasicrystal? If so, perhaps this should be mentioned in this article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentagonite 

message: There are problems with content in the last three catagories for this article: Materials science, Applications, and Non-materials science applications. The article needs line-edited.
The last full paragraph under Materials Science is quite poorly worded, enough so that it may be false, or purposefully injected hoax-like jargon. 
(The paragraph is worded different than its own citation paper as well.)
At the very least, that paragraph is not presented in the same manner and quality as the rest of the Quasicrystal article. It is not clear, it introduces multiple new scientific(-like?) terms that appear nowhere else in the article (and are not hotlinked), and seemingly offers no comprehensible material to the reader. It may exist only to provide its own citation.
Even if this paragraph were valid information, and understandable, it would still be far too over-specialized and complex for the general Material Science content it follows.
The content under the catagory Applications is worded in strange ways. The paragraphs change in both tense and perspective at odd moments.
The single paragraph of the final catagory also has odd wording, and its claims cannot possibly be the only available data on this matter. More information needs included.
There have been recent large discoveries in aperiodic tiling, so this quasicrystal article may see an increase in activity soon. Someone may wish to clean it up propperly. 2601:410:4300:50F0:C865:E594:358A:5C15 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in grammer and possibly content. 

message: I suggest it may be useful to add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperiodic_crystal
to the See Also section.
I am not familiar enough with either Wikipedia or the details of these subjects to confidently make the change.
Hence this suggestion.
Note: 
I suspect there is a lot more to write about the general subject of Aperiodic Crystals.
I used to research how to take paper based engineering drawings to CAD systems.  I got very interested in QuasiCrystals and their generalisations.  Also, much more relevant to my research was looking at 1D Aperiodic Crystals, or just long straight digital lines with an irrational slope.
In particular, I got very interested in how such a long straight lines could be automatically recognised.
Sadly, I didn't write a paper about this subject, but I have maintained an informal interest in this subject over the years, along with exploring tiles that are a dual of a set of sets of parallel lines, often regularly spaced.  This corresponds with some very interesting quasicrystal structures. CuriousMarkE (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @CuriousMarkE, a good suggestion -- done plus updating the See Also format Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. CuriousMarkE (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a link for Aperiodic Crystals. 

message: I think in one place the article says "Bohl and Escanglon" where it should presumably be "Bohr and Escanglon." I don't want to change it myself because I'm not certain that I'm correct. NoahSD (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo?