[yor_on]

You need to change your game.

[yor_on]

Your hierarchies priority isn't truth, it's protection, for themselves. and when it connects to you, trying to keep you satisfied. If that means more lies then so be it. And you, you want it this way.

[yor_on]

They're no different from you, just worse.

[yor_on]

And they become your aspiration, your role models. The game has so many ways to protect itself.

[yor_on]

The only thing that is true under those, let's say fifty, years is this.

[yor_on]

And some physics.

https://mysteriousfacts.com/the-mysterious-disappearance-of-ettore-majorana-finally-solved/

Why?  Well, it's a very odd idea, a particle that is its own 'anti particle'.      The Majorana particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion

and it connects to this. Quantum computing.    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56328980 
=

What's odd about it is that it is a fermion, not a boson.

[yor_on]

Soo?

True?  https://physics.ucdavis.edu/news-events/physics-news/experiment-finds-evidence-majorana-fermion

[yor_on]

It is interesting, reminds me a lot of phonons.  " In condensed matter such as solids and some liquids, the material displays elastic behaviors in atomic level. The bonds between atoms and intermolecular bonds are elastic. This causes the atoms and molecules to oscillate. The collective excitation in a periodic, elastic arrangement of atoms or molecules in condensed matter are known as a phonon.

A set of such oscillating particles are often referred as a quasi-particle. In quantum mechanics, an electron oscillating inside a bond is considered as a one-dimensional quantum well. Since a quasi-particle is a collection of such electrons, it can be considered as a two-dimensional or three dimensional quantum systems. A phonon is a special type of vibration in the lattice where every particle oscillates with the same frequency. This is known as the normal mode in classical mechanics. This is very useful in using the Fourier theorem to calculate the frequencies of arbitrary lattice movements in terms of the fundamental frequency."

Defined as a 'quasi particle'. https://www.sciencealert.com/quasiparticles

This one discuss it too.  https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2014/oct/05/majorana-princeton-particles-fundamentally-confusing

[yor_on]

There are two types of 'fundamental particles', bosons as the photon and fermions as f.ex a electron. Bosons are usually defined as being massless in main stream physics, then again?  Are they? and what about fermions?

Does w and z bosons have a mass?    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

[yor_on]

Let's be done with it using this. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/spinc.html

[yor_on]

But we're not done yet. Because spin doesn't cover all of it. Well, depending on definitions.

" Ask Ethan: What's The Difference Between A Fermion And A Boson? "

"  The first one is that only fermions have antiparticle counterparts. If you ask what a quark's antiparticle is, it's an antiquark. An electron's antiparticle is the positron (an anti-electron), while a neutrino has an antineutrino. On the other hand, bosons are the antiparticles of other bosons, with many bosons being their own antiparticle. There is no such thing as an antiboson. Collide a photon with another photon? A Z0 with another Z0? It's just as good, from a matter-antimatter perspective, as an electron-positron annihilation is. "

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/01/ask-ethan-whats-the-difference-between-a-fermion-and-a-boson/

Heh :) Feeling you understand it?

[yor_on]

I agree with him. This rule is important. " The Pauli exclusion principle only applies to fermions, not to bosons. This rule states, explicitly, that in any quantum system, no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state. Bosons, however, have no such restriction. "

But supercooling helium 4?  https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-can-helium-4-be-a-boson-and-helium-3-be-a-fermion.688535/

[yor_on]

https://phys.org/news/2009-05-frozen-helium-unusual-superglass.html

[yor_on]

Then you have superimposing particles upon each other. Typical for bosons in where you have a infinite magnitude possible. I don't know any experiment setting a limit to how many helium 4 atoms you can superimpose, super cooling them, but it would be interesting to find one.

[yor_on]

And yes. We got the answer to what glass is as we walked the walk.
It's a fluid

[yor_on]

And here's the experiment.  " Chiral Majorana fermion modes in a quantum anomalous Hall insulator–superconductor structure "

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/294

[yor_on]

This might be somewhat evil.

Quantum mechanically, and there I will use Paganini's answer.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/194630/massless-bosons-but-not-massless-fermions


Relativity, and there I think you should read it all.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2690/what-is-the-symmetry-which-is-responsible-for-conservation-of-mass

[yor_on]

Tricky, physics middle name :)

what is mass?

[yor_on]

Let's take a electron. It exist, as a result of a measurement, you can even 'photograph it' as I think they did in Lund (long time ago, well, relatively so). But before you do that measurement you only have a few of all parameters set. You can't set them all together. And that one relates to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

so even if you can 'photograph it' its parameters will still be uncertain, as long as you didn't measure. And it's not a result of your constraints or a failure of your instruments. It's altogether a 'physical fact' coming from quantum physics. It still is a 'fundamental particle' though, a fermion, defined as having a 'rest mass'.

" Jim Al-Khalili, a leading quantum physicist, gives an example of the uncertainty principle at work. He explains why the negatively-charged electron doesn’t fall into the positively-charged nucleus. “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle tells us that trapping a quantum particle [electron] within the tiny confines of a nucleus would imply knowing its position to high accuracy. This corresponds to its momentum being too erratic for the attractive force of the protons to keep it there for long. Quantum particles [electrons] simply could not be imprisoned inside the nuclei.”44 Jim Al-Khalili, Quantum, a Guide for the Perplexed; Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003, London, U.K.; p. 157.

While Al-Khalili uses the word “knowing” in his explanation, he is explaining more than our lack of exact knowledge. He is explaining why the electron does not, in fact, limit itself in position to a small space like the nucleus. And why the electron, instead, occupies a space around the nucleus that is analogous to a cathedral when viewed by a grain of salt. If the electron were pinned down to the tiny space of the nucleus rather than the cathedral, its momentum would vary so wildly, due to the HUP, that the positive electrical attraction could not hold it. The quantum particle would fly out of the atom. The HUP is a law of nature which makes atoms possible. The HUP is not just about our knowledge of atoms. "

http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-hup/

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass

[yor_on]

Then we have the 'spin' of the particle. And that one was found by experiments. " "Starting in the 1920s, Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach of the University of Hamburg in Germany conducted a series of important atomic beam experiments. Knowing that all moving charges produce magnetic fields, they proposed to measure the magnetic fields produced by the electrons orbiting nuclei in atoms.

Much to their surprise, however, the two physicists found that electrons themselves act as if they are spinning very rapidly, producing tiny magnetic fields independent of those from their orbital motions. Soon the terminology 'spin' was used to describe this apparent rotation of subatomic particles. "

But there is no 'spin', not in any classical way at least. electrons doesn't spin. Which you should be able to intuitively guess just by reading the post before. And if they was 'real' particles as some football, physically pinpointed at all times and did 'spin' classically they would do so faster than light, which would redefine quantum mechanics, or destroy it and definitely destroy relativity.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/


syntax