0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three.
Ruling out all questions, in a single move?
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?
now tell me why can't we think of them as elementary particles?
No, I'm just pointing out that thinking of them as sub-particles is incorrect.
I suppose there's a reason they added the word "theoretically" in that sentence. It behaves like a union of those three.
I'm not sure what it would mean to radiate a quasi-particle.
Because they aren't. They are an emergent property of a system. Look up other quasi-particles, such as phonons, to see an analogy.
Does "theoretically" mean "It just behaves like a union of those three"
why would they use the term "bound state"?
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 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)
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?
“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.
all fermions have all three properties of spin, orbital angle, and charge
I believe this is the correct interpretation.
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 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'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.
It says so in the article itself:Quote “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.
They gain their existence (if you can call it that) by the electron's interaction with the other particles in the material.
Quote from: OPall fermions have all three properties of spin, orbital angle, and chargeNeutrinos are fermions, and they have no charge.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion#Elementary_fermions
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 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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
They would "cease to exist" in the sense that they are all just an ordinary electron outside of the material.
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.
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
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.
Although am not sure if they can split the positron in a different experiment into anti-quasi-particles.
what mattered is the question: would there be any matter left of the Electron? which you did not address as well.
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?
I don't see that; they can't cease to exist in any sense other than "cease to exist"
Nevertheless, would you say that these quasiparticles (spinons, orbitons, holons) have no measurable mass?