SINC interviewed Andre Geim, the Nobel laureate and the father of graphene. He said in the interview that although graphene is widely used by us, its quality is not enough to meet the needs of high-tech applications. Graphene takes time to find the right application, and it takes time to make it better and cheaper. Wait for graphene and give it enough time, just like we once did with silicon.
Fifteen years ago, graphene was first isolated by Russian researcher Andrei Gem and his colleague Konstantin Novoselov. Extracting a single layer of carbon atoms from graphite may seem simple at the time, but many exciting applications will emerge. Soon after, the outstanding performance of this new material surprised scientists, who discovered the great potential of graphene. As a result, both Geim and Novoselov won the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics.
This is not the first big prize Geim has been awarded. He won the Funny Nobel Prize in Physics in 2000, a poor imitation of the Nobel Prize for the most representative scientific achievement awarded every fall. Geim received this honor for using the magnetism of water to float frogs. So far, he is the first person who has won both the Nobel Prize and the Funny Nobel Prize.
Geim now works at the University of Manchester. SINC visited him during his visit to Spain. The project is organized by GrapheneFlagship, a long-term European basic science project that brings together more than 150 partners with a total budget of 1 billion euros. Bring into the application market.
1. Graphene is now widely known as a "star material", but not many people paid attention to it 10 years ago. How did you start your research in graphene-related fields?
Before, it has been known that graphite is composed of many "graphene layers", but the properties and characteristics of "graphene layers" are unclear. Prior to this, graphene was never isolated and has not been studied. It's completely unknown to us. In fact, this phenomenon is very common in science: we know that planets have existed for nearly three thousand years, but we did not initially grasp the laws of their operation until after Copernicus appeared. In addition, most people even thought that graphene, a two-dimensional material, could not exist alone.
2. Have you ever expected that the separation of graphene will become a major scientific achievement and won the Nobel Prize?
In fact, this is not our goal for scientific research. At first, we just tried to figure out what would happen when graphite became thinner. We didn't even think of turning it into a single layer. The most important thing was that it was only 1 nanometer thick, but It shows unique attributes that no one can think of. If it was just a single layer of carbon atoms, people would say, 'Oh, this is cute', and then the story is over, but the separated graphene has opened countless discoveries of electronic and mechanical properties, causing the scientific community And the widespread concern of the industry.
3. In your opinion, which of its many properties is the most interesting?
We won the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering the superior electrical properties of graphene. I think the most interesting thing is that the physical laws that can be used to describe copper or iron have not been applied to graphene. It takes us into the world of quantum relativity physics. Suddenly, we could sit at a table and study what should happen only at the speed of light or in the European Nuclear Laboratory. No one had previously thought that this was possible.
In addition, from a broader perspective, we have previously experienced the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, and now the era of silicon and plastic. All of these materials are three-dimensional and there are no two-dimensional materials (the thickness of which is almost non-existent macroscopically). The discovery of graphene has extended our science toolbox to a whole new dimension, and we are still struggling to understand how to use it.
4. People have not reached consensus on the future that graphene will replace silicon materials. What do you think about this?
In my opinion, graphene replacement of silicon materials may not happen. Ten years ago, the idea of graphene replacing silicon was hyped up, but it took two or three decades to develop its applications in electronics. Now we have dozens of new two-dimensional materials. Graphene will be used to make faster electronics-at some point, one of these materials will replace or become a significant asset for silicon. For example, some of our partners in Spain have integrated graphene into silicon circuits.
5. Has the hype hurt graphene?
There is too much hype around graphene. We are people, and our expectations often exceed reality. But we need to understand that basic research conducted in universities may not see the light for ten or twenty years. Now, people have discovered that you don't need primitive graphene for certain applications, not revolutionary just "evolution". I like to call it "diffusion"-these materials have diffused to the market, even though the attributes are only enhanced by 50% and the revolution has not yet arrived.
Scholars and journalists should understand how real life works. Everything is gradually changing. It takes at least a generation to move from basic research to consumer products. People did not start competing immediately after the discovery of graphene in 2004, but a few years later the graphene boom began. Now we can produce graphene in large quantities, there are endless new companies, new products and new enhanced graphene applications.
6. Should we change our views and understand that the scientific revolution does not exist?
We cannot change this. We grew up in an instant world full of software, applications and the internet. Everyone wants the rapid development of graphene, a revolutionary new material. It is believed that Bill Gates invented the computer and Mark Zuckerberg created social media, but in fact, it took almost a century before humans began the chip revolution and developed the first computer. We need to lower our expectations.
7. What is the biggest challenge graphene faces now?
People can now produce graphene in large quantities, but the quality is not high. Although graphene is widely used by us, its quality is not enough to meet the needs of high-tech applications. Graphene takes time, it takes time to find the right application, it takes time for us to learn to make it better and cheaper. Wait for graphene and give it enough time, just like we once did with silicon.
8. Your patents are few and graphene is not among them. Why not apply for a patent?
I have always been skeptical about what a patent is, and it is difficult to protect all the results with one file. Furthermore, they are expensive, you need to spend hundreds or even thousands of euros, and then you have to pay continuously to protect them for 20 years. If we obtain a graphene patent in 2004, the patent will be close to its expiration date without many products.
In fact, I am skeptical of patents in general. I have about ten patents, and I have not paid for them. Some may be around five years. It all involves a very complicated mechanism, you need to determine which areas need protection, you need to communicate with the industry to meet their needs, find new application areas and protect them. People believe that you've chartered "'an idea'," and you'll put down a while and smoke a cigar while waiting for money to come. This rarely happens. You can use patent-protected products, but you have nothing until you get the product.
9. You claim that we are facing a "crisis of knowledge" and that our scientific discovery is now slower than ever. But we tend to think that there are more inventions every day, and they come quickly. Can you explain why you say that?
Everything we have so far is based on the knowledge and scientific progress we have gained in the last century. We run as fast as athletes, not even noticing that the knowledge we have gained is gradually being exhausted. Much of the demise in past history has come from the lack of basic knowledge provided for applications. In the blink of an eye, you have a new technology, a new app that makes them a millionaire. Bitcoin appeared, and everyone suddenly became rich. But as far as I know, Bitcoin has just made a huge contribution to global warming due to the electricity consumed.
People often forget the inevitable link between basic scientific progress and economic prosperity. We want to know what happens if we make graphene thinner and thinner. Someone might say: 'Who cares? What's the use of this? 'But the findings are divided into those that have been applied and those that have not yet been applied. There is nothing purely basic-everything can be applied in the end. Take a look at Einstein's theory of relativity: "All lunatic scholars are looking for something that doesn't matter." But half a century later, we got GPS.
10. These thoughts remind me of what Buzz Aldrin said: "You promise me to colonize on Mars. Instead, I have Facebook."
We need both. I don't like Facebook, or social media-or Bitcoin, although I'm lucky. But I see the big picture: these advances have created faster and more effective interactions between people. It's like Google, but no one blame them. Facebook, Twitter make our communications more efficient, which is vital to us.