Not-Quite-So Elementary, My Dear Electron

[Michaelangelica]

 

Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron

Fundamental particle ‘splits’ into quasiparticles, including the new ‘orbiton’.

 

This just did my head in

http://www.nature.com/news/not-quite-so-elementary-my-dear-electron-1.10471?WT.mc_id=FBK_NPG

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Yep, I said just last month that the electron wasn't a fundamental particle. I only have one fundamental particle in my theory, and that is the zero particle of spacetime.

[Lancewen]

Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron

Fundamental particle ‘splits’ into quasiparticles, including the new ‘orbiton’.

 

This just did my head in

http://www.nature.co...T.mc_id=FBK_NPG

 

 

Well I had to look up quasiparticle (see the link below). It didn't really help me get a handle on the true nature of electrons. But I am happy for physicist as it offers a whole new area of research that might prove very rewarding if high temperature super conducting materials can be developed.:rolleyes:

 

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-8-fold-quantum-states-sidebar.html

[CraigD]

Well I had to look up quasiparticle (see the link below). It didn't really help me get a handle on the true nature of electrons. But I am happy for physicist as it offers a whole new area of research that might prove very rewarding if high temperature super conducting materials can be developed.:rolleyes:

A good, fairly non-technical explanation of what’s meant by a “quasiparticle” can be had at its wikipedia article.

 

Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron

…

As is often the case with science journalism, this headline is witty and attention-grabbing, but at the expense of technical accuracy, and at the risk confusing many readers, especially those not well-versed in modern physics. IMHO, this headline is a case of favoring cuteness over sound teaching. I wish science journalist wouldn’t do this. :(

 

The “holon”, “spinon”, and recently introduced “orbiton” quasiparticles, being “quasi”, aren’t really particles, either actual or virtual. Rather, they’re qualities of electrons that are convenient to think of, and describe mathematically, as if they are, with the understanding that, really, they aren’t.

 

So, despite the article’s title suggesting otherwise, the status of the electron as elementary (or fundamental) remains unchanged by the use of these quasiparticles.

 

Yep, I said just last month that the electron wasn't a fundamental particle. I only have one fundamental particle in my theory, and that is the zero particle of spacetime.

Pincho’s conclusion, show, I think, just how this articles title can lead a casual reader to troublesome misconception.

[Pincho Paxton]

A good, fairly non-technical explanation of what’s meant by a “quasiparticle” can be had at its wikipedia article.

 

 

As is often the case with science journalism, this headline is witty and attention-grabbing, but at the expense of technical accuracy, and at the risk confusing many readers, especially those not well-versed in modern physics. IMHO, this headline is a case of favoring cuteness over sound teaching. I wish science journalist wouldn’t do this. :(

 

The “holon”, “spinon”, and recently introduced “orbiton” quasiparticles, being “quasi”, aren’t really particles, either actual or virtual. Rather, they’re qualities of electrons that are convenient to think of, and describe mathematically, as if they are, with the understanding that, really, they aren’t.

 

So, despite the article’s title suggesting otherwise, the status of the electron as elementary (or fundamental) remains unchanged by the use of these quasiparticles.

 

 

Pincho’s conclusion, show, I think, just how this articles title can lead a casual reader to troublesome misconception.

 

I understood the scientific conception, I chose to ignore it. You have to remember that changing science is much harder than speaking the truth.

[maddog]

Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron

Fundamental particle ‘splits’ into quasiparticles, including the new ‘orbiton’.

 

This just did my head in

http://www.nature.co...T.mc_id=FBK_NPG

Fascinating! I started speculating about 9 years ago that the electron not only might not be fundamental, its internal constituents were in 3's. Oddly enough, if this were really true (esp part about components not being directly "seen" with an isolated electron), then this implies a symmetry similar to the one for QCD in Hadrons, for Leptons.

 

Up til now, it thought to be a SU(2) x SU (3) symmetry. I am now jazzed to consider that maybe the notions of "generation" between electron, muon, taon are actually three different versions of the "same" particle at different configuration of its constituents to appear "different, yet similar". Really kewl! If not shocking... :o

 

maddog

Edited April 24, 2012 by maddog