[aasimz (OP)]

Not-Quite-So Elementary, My Dear Fermion

In the light of the new findings which we discussed in my previous post Strings? Or Just More Sub-Particles? and as a continuation of the same subject.

In this topic, we want to discuss if this new sub-structure model of the electron can be applied to all fermions and what possibilities are there, which can enable us to explore all the available hypothetical options we can have.

After second thoughts, there is still a possibility that this new sub-structure model can share similarities between atom's & proton's sub-structure models. And that depends on how this discussion goes, I will start by laying a few points and then asking some questions and your suggestion for their answers may help pave the way for some good conceptual ideas (or may not at all) or we may very well reach a dead end.

As I didn't have access to the full papers (not that I would understand everything on them if I did have access), I would love it if those who have; could share their insights here as they would be the ones who should know better about the answers to those questions, and to show us whether they include false assumptions or not with regards to the full papers (or in general), nevertheless, anyone who did not read the full papers is also welcomed to give his opinion.

Before fermions, let's quickly pass by photons and see if bosons might also be included:

• Light has no charge; therefore, we do not need a holon (or chargon) for the photon.
  
• Light has orbital angular momentum, but does it need an orbiton to carry it's OAM as an individual photon?
• Light has spin angular momentum, but can photons be their own spinons?

If the answers to the above two questions were no and yes respectively, we can rule out bosons.


Now About Fermions:
Since all fermions have all three properties of spin, orbital angle, and charge:

• Can they -in theory- also consist of spinons. orbitons, holons?
• If yes, can spinons, orbitons, and holons exist in different types/flavors or mass values each one is a carrier of a different value of spin, orbital angle, charge respectively (like different types of quarks with different mass values -for example-)?
• If yes, can the individual spinon -as an example- be considered a collection of spinons with a collection of individual spin carrying values which together carry the particle's spin value?
• If yes, could these smallest Quantas of spinons be the photon?
• Do orbitons and holons have spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum?

If we were able to answer half of those questions firmly, we would have something, in my opinion, and if I am not being optimistic, these new findings are already an indicator that we (as mankind) will get to the bottom of that rabbit hole very soon.

[Kryptid]

Spinons, holons and orbitons aren't actually sub-elementary particles, they are quasiparticles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93charge_separation

So you can't consider them in analogy to the three quarks inside of a proton.

[aasimz (OP)]

Spinons, holons and orbitons aren't actually sub-elementary particles, they are quasiparticles:
So, you can't consider them in analogy to the three quarks inside of a proton.

Ruling out all questions, in a single move?
God, I hope not.

I understand that quasiparticles is a phenomena which arises in a complicated system in some specific conditions, but when I read them say:

The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three.

I thought it was clear that they are talking about the electron in all conditions including normal ones, have I thought wrong? and they defined the electron as being the bound state of the three, if we were able to somehow radiate all three quasiparticles 100% will there be anything left of the electron? quasiparticles have mass, and together they carry the mass of the whole electron (& it's properties as well), now tell me why can't we think of them as elementary particles? What else do we need to be able to do so?

[Kryptid]

Ruling out all questions, in a single move?

No, I'm just pointing out that thinking of them as sub-particles is incorrect.

I thought it was clear that they are talking about the electron in all conditions including normal ones, have I thought wrong?

I suppose there's a reason they added the word "theoretically" in that sentence. It behaves like a union of those three.

and they defined the electron as being the bound state of the three, if we were able to somehow radiate all three quasiparticles 100% will there be anything left of the electron?

I'm not sure what it would mean to radiate a quasi-particle. Quasi-particles aren't independent entities. They can't, say, travel through a vacuum as individual particles the way that photons can.

now tell me why can't we think of them as elementary particles?

Because they aren't. They are an emergent property of a system. Look up other quasi-particles, such as phonons, to see an analogy.

[aasimz (OP)]

No, I'm just pointing out that thinking of them as sub-particles is incorrect.

Sure, I was also just pointing out that I am aware that all my questions will completely fall apart, and my entire argument will collapse if you were right about this single focal point.

P.S.
Don't get me wrong Kryptid, I admire what you are doing because I would use the same tactic if I were in your position. When I am arguing with someone who I believe is wrong, the first thing I would do is to tackle the one thing he has in which everything else stands on. Unfortunately, most of the time it doesn't work for me and mostly because a lot of the arguments I have are with Flat Earthers (Sadly my own cousins) and you sure all know how difficult it is to deal with such mentalities.

However, I would understand if you (and more others around here) can sometimes have the same impression I would have about my cousins (or Flat Earthers in general) but about me, or feel the same way about some of things I say. and I am totally okay with all that. It's the chain of life.
So, basically, you always need to bear with me longer if you ever felt that way. I am here to learn!
I am not a physicist, but unlike flat earthers, I assure you, I am a very reasonable man?

I suppose there's a reason they added the word "theoretically" in that sentence. It behaves like a union of those three.

Does "theoretically" mean "It just behaves like a union of those three" or does it mean more like "on paper we think that is what actually happening, but in reality, we need more experimental results (in different conditions) to support it.

And if your interpretation were right, why would they use the term "bound state"? Doesn't the term dictate that those particles need to interact with one another for a bound state to be?!
I wonder if they have done calculations on these interactions in the full papers.

It's not just me, tell me why physicists at Nature.com picked " Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron " to be the paper's article title? wouldn't that mean they think that the electron should no longer be considered an elementary particle because now we know that it has a sub-structure? expressing how we were wrong all along, isn't that what was all this irony about?

I'm not sure what it would mean to radiate a quasi-particle.

I meant, "hypothetically" if we were able to dissolve them into light, individual energy Quantas (photons), will there be any matter left of the electron? (Photons being the e in e=mc² & matter being the m in e=mc²)

Because they aren't. They are an emergent property of a system. Look up other quasi-particles, such as phonons, to see an analogy.

I am aware of the collective excitations phenomena with regards to the bosons, I just wanted to focus on the fermions side.
However, I don't' see how them being an emergent property of a system, will affect them being sub-particles or not.
And why them being that emergent property, will not allow them to exist out of that system or at least thought of to exist out of any system or in any different system?

[Kryptid]

Does "theoretically" mean "It just behaves like a union of those three"

I believe this is the correct interpretation.

why would they use the term "bound state"?

It behaves as if it was a bound state of those three particles in the sense that it carries the properties of all of those particles at the same time.

It's not just me, tell me why physicists at Nature.com picked " Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron " to be the paper's article title? wouldn't that mean they think that the electron should no longer be considered an elementary particle because now we know that it has a sub-structure? expressing how we were wrong all along, isn't that what was all this irony about?

It's a catchy title. Pop-sci news articles like this often don't get the exact details right because the average reader may not be able to understand them. It's like the common explanation for Hawking radiation seen in pop-sci articles that invokes virtual particle pairs at the event horizon. It isn't really accurate.

I meant, "hypothetically" if we were able to dissolve them into light, individual energy Quantas (photons), will there be any matter left of the electron? (Photons being the e in e=mc2 & matter being the m in e=mc2)

I'm not sure that question has a meaningful answer. It can't just dissolve into light by itself because that would violate conservation of electric charge.

However, I don't' see how them being an emergent property of a system, will affect them being sub-particles or not.
And why them being that emergent property, will not allow them to exist out of that system or at least thought of to exist out of any system or in any different system?

It says so in the article itself:

“When excited, that wave splits into multiple waves, each carrying different characteristics of the electron; but they cannot exist independently outside the material,” he explains.

This is for the same reason that you cannot shoot a beam of phonons through a vacuum or fill up an empty bottle with them. They are not independent entities with their own identities. They gain their existence (if you can call it that) by the electron's interaction with the other particles in the material.

[evan_au]

all fermions have all three properties of spin, orbital angle, and charge

Neutrinos are fermions, and they have no charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion#Elementary_fermions

[aasimz (OP)]

I believe this is the correct interpretation.

Okay, who am I to say otherwise, I am sure physicists would understand each other better than anyone else.

It behaves as if it was a bound state of those three particles in the sense that it carries the properties of all of those particles at the same time.

Again, I assume here that you don't agree that the term "bound state" dictates the existence of particle interactions among them, and since it is a quantum physics term, it is your area of expertise.

It's a catchy title. Pop-sci news articles like this often don't get the exact details right because the average reader may not be able to understand them. It's like the common explanation for Hawking radiation seen in pop-sci articles that invokes virtual particle pairs at the event horizon. It isn't really accurate.

It's a catchy headline, no one can argue with that, however, am not sure if I can be considered an average reader (or below that), but that headline, (as it turned out) might has completely deceived me, and not only they didn't get the details right, but they brought a headline that is entirely irrelevant to the actual paper! I understand there are diverse types of media, but those which get audited by physicists should not include such toxic propaganda.

I'm not sure that question has a meaningful answer. It can't just dissolve into light by itself because that would violate conservation of electric charge.

Well, I was only trying to draw logical conclusions regardless of the laws of physics (in that particular example) and that was regarding the question: what does it mean for a particle to be of a composite nature or not? and how would we define it?
However, I will be interested to know why that would violate conservation of electric charge, (if you provide a link so I can read about it, searching didn't really help).

It says so in the article itself:

“When excited, that wave splits into multiple waves, each carrying different characteristics of the electron; but they cannot exist independently outside the material,” he explains.

Why do we need them to exist independently outside the material?
We only need them to exist together (not independently at all) at a bound state.

They gain their existence (if you can call it that) by the electron's interaction with the other particles in the material.

Cool statement,
Would you allow me to rephrase it to better match what you have quoted from the article (in my opinion)
"...They gain their existence (as independent quasiparticles) by the electron's...etc."

Because what you are saying means they cease to exist otherwise! how is that possible since we can still see their effect (being the particle properties).

And why do we need them to exist independently outside the material to be able to say that they can be together in a real physical bound state not just a metaphorical one?

[aasimz (OP)]

all fermions have all three properties of spin, orbital angle, and charge

Neutrinos are fermions, and they have no charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion#Elementary_fermions

You are right, that slipped out of my mind, holons would never split out of them in any conditions.
It is safe to say the neutrinos holons do not exist.

Just to point out,

In my previous post when I was trying to explain and gave an example of a sub-structure which contains particles A + Particles B the reason that I thought the neutrino sub-structure would have different ratio of both particles or only one type of them was because its different from other fermions in more than one aspect. and also, an attempt to explain the unstable down quark existed for a quit brief time.

P.S.
Meaning,
My guess was right about them having a different sub-particle combination if all fermions shared the same sub-structure. (We don't know if that was the case. We are still discussing it.)

Could that be considered as an indicator that my critical thinking might sometimes be fruitful? or at least can sometimes be in the right direction? or by other means, can any of the words I have said be of any use for the scientific community?

[Kryptid]

Again, I assume here that you don't agree that the term "bound state" dictates the existence of particle interactions among them, and since it is a quantum physics term, it is your area of expertise.

Just to be clear, I'm not a physicist or scientist of any kind. I have a bachelor's degree in biology, but beyond that I'm just a science enthusiast.

It's a catchy headline, no one can argue with that, however, am not sure if I can be considered an average reader (or below that), but that headline, (as it turned out) might has completely deceived me, and not only they didn't get the details right, but they brought a headline that is entirely irrelevant to the actual paper! I understand there are diverse types of media, but those which get audited by physicists should not include such toxic propaganda.

"Clickbait" is commonplace in all news, science news included.

what does it mean for a particle to be of a composite nature or not? and how would we define it?

A composite particle is one that is composed of literally existing, smaller particles (not quasi-particles). Protons are composite and are made of quarks, which are actual particles and not quasi-particles (as best as we can tell).

However, I will be interested to know why that would violate conservation of electric charge, (if you provide a link so I can read about it, searching didn't really help).

Electrons have a negative charge, whereas light has no charge. An electron becoming light would thus destroy negative charge, which is in violation of electric charge conservation. If it annihilates with a positron to become radiation, that is just fine as the negative charge of the electron is cancelled out by the positive charge of the positron to zero net charge.

Why do we need them to exist independently outside the material?
We only need them to exist together (not independently at all) at a bound state.

It's to demonstrate their quasi-particle (and not elementary particle) nature.

Cool statement,
Would you allow me to rephrase it to better match what you have quoted from the article (in my opinion)
"...They gain their existence (as independent quasiparticles) by the electron's...etc."

They aren't really independent though. You can't take a bunch of electrons, split them into holons, spinons and orbitons and then fill up three separate jars with them. That would be akin to filling up a jar with sound (which itself is an emergent phenomenon caused by particles interacting with each other). Just as sound is not independent of the medium it travels through, these particles are not independent of the medium they exist in.

Because what you are saying means they cease to exist otherwise! how is that possible since we can still see their effect (being the particle properties).

They would "cease to exist" in the sense that they are all just an ordinary electron outside of the material.

And why do we need them to exist independently outside the material to be able to say that they can be together in a real physical bound state not just a metaphorical one?

Because they are quasi-particles, not elementary particles. Electrons are not actually, literally, a bound state of holons, spinons and orbitons. They simply act like they are because they have the sum off all three of those properties at once.

[aasimz (OP)]

Just to be clear, I'm not a physicist or scientist of any kind. I have a bachelor's degree in biology, but beyond that I'm just a science enthusiast.

Well noted, all respect to you, my friend.
However, I hope you will not be offended. If I said, we could use a second opinion of a physicist with regards to this particular point. because I believe it's important, I don't remember you addressing it anyway

A composite particle is one that is composed of literally existing, smaller particles (not quasi-particles). Protons are composite and are made of quarks, which are actual particles and not quasi-particles (as best as we can tell).

Literally existing!? partly existing!? There are no such things, and they have no meaning in this universe, it's either you exist, or you don't.
I think the name quasi-particles has nothing to do with them being real or imaginary or partly existing. They have mass and they interact, they are a form of matter.

Electrons have a negative charge, whereas light has no charge. An electron becoming light would thus destroy negative charge, which is in violation of electric charge conservation. If it annihilates with a positron to become radiation, that is just fine as the negative charge of the electron is cancelled out by the positive charge of the positron to zero net charge.

Annihilation, thank you, now we found a way to do it.
Although am not sure if they can split the positron in a different experiment into anti-quasi-particles.
Notice it doesn't affect my argument because it was a logical one. So, it didn't really matter how they dissolved or even if it were possible or not, what mattered is the question: would there be any matter left of the Electron? which you did not address as well.

They aren't really independent though. You can't take a bunch of electrons, split them into holons, spinons and orbitons and then fill up three separate jars with them. That would be akin to filling up a jar with sound (which itself is an emergent phenomenon caused by particles interacting with each other). Just as sound is not independent of the medium it travels through; these particles are not independent of the medium they exist in.

Of all weird things in quantum mechanics, you have quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, light wave duality, and you worry about this. The more we zoom in the more the weirdness becomes, and we are talking about the smallest particles we know of. Maybe, they don't need a medium like light, or maybe when they are bound, they are each other's medium, maybe if there is a force that governs their bound state (external factor) maybe, it would be their medium, can you say for sure it is impossible to be?

They would "cease to exist" in the sense that they are all just an ordinary electron outside of the material.

I don't see that; they can't cease to exist in any sense other than "cease to exist"

Because they are quasi-particles, not elementary particles. Electrons are not actually, literally, a bound state of holons, spinons and orbitons. They simply act like they are because they have the sum off all three of those properties at once.

The response to this would be the same as the above.

[Kryptid]

However, I hope you will not be offended. If I said, we could use a second opinion of a physicist with regards to this particular point. because I believe it's important, I don't remember you addressing it anyway

Sure, anyone who wants should feel free to chime in.

Literally existing!? partly existing!? There are no such things, and they have no meaning in this universe, it's either you exist, or you don't.
I think the name quasi-particles has nothing to do with them being real or imaginary or partly existing. They have mass and they interact, they are a form of matter.

I'm not trying to say that quasi-particles aren't real, only that they aren't the same as true elementary particles, and thus aren't "real" particles (in the same sense that "horny toads" aren't "real" toads): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle

Although am not sure if they can split the positron in a different experiment into anti-quasi-particles.

In principle, it should be possible to do so, but you would need bulk antimatter in order to accomplish that. Put a positron in normal matter and it annihilates.

what mattered is the question: would there be any matter left of the Electron? which you did not address as well.

Assuming you could somehow get all three quasiparticles to interact with a positron at the same time, then I think it would annihilate and thus become radiation. In that case, nothing would be left of the electron.

Maybe, they don't need a medium like light, or maybe when they are bound, they are each other's medium, maybe if there is a force that governs their bound state (external factor) maybe, it would be their medium, can you say for sure it is impossible to be?

Being in the right medium is what gives rise to them. That's what makes them quasiparticles. An analogy is phonons, which are another type of quasiparticle. Phonons are quantized vibrational modes in a lattice of atoms. If I had a solid that was filled with phonons and then pulled it apart atom-by-atom, then all of the phonons would be gone because there is no longer any way for lattice vibrations to exist in individual atoms. That's what I mean by quasiparticles being an emergent phenomenon. Take away what's needed for emergence, and you can no longer have them. If you still think that quasiparticles are elementary particles, then I think you still have misconceptions of what a quasiparticle is. Here is a video that explains them:

The takeaway here is that spinons, orbitons and holons are not more fundamental than electrons. Rather, they are more complex than electrons.

I don't see that; they can't cease to exist in any sense other than "cease to exist"

If you pluck an electron out of a solid, then it's just an electron. If it was an orbiton, holon and spinon before you did that, then yes, you can choose to say those three quasiparticles ceased to exist when you did that.

[aasimz (OP)]

Thank you for the video. It was informative as well as enlightening, I think I can see now why you think they can't be considered elementary particles. I believe this discussion has finally ended, or about to!

However, I am still struggling with one last thing:

In the video he mentioned the particle "hole" so let's take this as a reference and compare it with the quasiparticles we are discussing here, so basically, we agree that this particle is entirely imagery and it's not real, however, although I am not sure how would they use this particle to calculate the electrons movement through the solid, but I assume they will do something like assigning the electron's mass & properties to it and maybe calculate it backward in time.

In that case it will be an unreal particle (imaginary) with an arbitrary mass/property which reflects another real particle (the electron or another particle or maybe they give its own properties).

Nevertheless, would you say that these quasiparticles (spinons, orbitons, holons) have no measurable mass? Isn't their mass the only reason they detected them? Can quasiparticles be different in terms of realism, or are they all exactly the same as the "hole" quasiparticle?

[Kryptid]

Nevertheless, would you say that these quasiparticles (spinons, orbitons, holons) have no measurable mass?

This is admittedly a difficult question. In the case of phonons at least, they are essentially a vibration. As such, the energy associated with that vibration should have a tiny mass as per E=mc². In the case of a hole, it's the opposite, as a hole is a lack of an electron. So a hole can be thought of as taking mass away from a system instead of adding to it. I don't know enough about spinons, orbitons and holons to say whether they have mass or not, but their mass is likely partitioned between other particles that already exist in the system (much as the phonon mass is technically distributed between the atoms in a solid).

[aasimz (OP)]

Ya, the phonons mass comparison did the trick, so basically their mass should be something similar, like it could be distributed between the material atoms, meaning, their mass will not be a constant, it would change if we changed the material or if we distorted the material or stretched it. right?