Is space like a chessboard?
March 18, 2011 By Jennifer Marcus
Electrons are thought to spin, even though they are pure point particles with no surface that can possibly rotate. Recent work on graphene shows that the electron's spin might arise because space at very small distances is not smooth, but rather segmented like a chessboard with triangular tiles. (Image: UCLA CNSI)
(PhysOrg.com) -- Physicists at UCLA set out to design a better transistor and ended up discovering a new way to think about the structure of space.
Space is usually considered infinitely divisible given any two positions, there is always a position halfway between. But in a recent study aimed at developing ultra-fast transistors using graphene, researchers from the UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy and the California NanoSystems Institute show that dividing space into discrete locations, like a chessboard, may explain how point-like electrons, which have no finite radius, manage to carry their intrinsic angular momentum, or "spin."
While studying graphene's electronic properties, professor Chris Regan and graduate student Matthew Mecklenburg found that a particle can acquire spin by living in a space with two types of positions dark tiles and light tiles. The particle seems to spin if the tiles are so close together that their separation cannot be detected.
"An electron's spin might arise because space at very small distances is not smooth, but rather segmented, like a chessboard," Regan said.
Their findings are published in the March 18 edition of the journal Physical Review Letters.
In quantum mechanics, "spin up" and "spin down" refer to the two types of states that can be assigned to an electron. That the electron's spin can have only two values not one, three or an infinite number helps explain the stability of matter, the nature of the chemical bond and many other fundamental phenomena.
However, it is not clear how the electron manages the rotational motion implied by its spin. If the electron had a radius, the implied surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light, violating the theory of relativity. And experiments show that the electron does not have a radius; it is thought to be a pure point particle with no surface or substructure that could possibly spin.
Electrons are thought to spin, even though they are pure point particles with no surface that can possibly rotate. Recent work on graphene shows that the electron’s spin might arise because space at very small distances is not smooth, but rather segmented like a chessboard. The standard cartoon of an electron shows a spinning sphere with positive or negative angular momentum, as illustrated in blue or gold above. However, such cartoons are fundamentally misleading: compelling experimental evidence indicates that electrons are ideal point particles, with no finite radius or internal structure that could possibly “spin”. A quantum mechanical model of electron transport in graphene, a single layer of graphite (shown as a black honeycomb), presents a possible resolution to this puzzle. An electron in graphene hops from carbon atom to carbon atom as if moving on a chessboard with triangular tiles. At low energies the individual tiles are unresolved, but the electron acquires an “internal” spin quantum number which reflects whether it is on the blue or the gold tiles. Thus the electron’s spin could arise not from rotational motion of its substructure, but rather from the discrete, chessboard-like structure of space. (Image: Chris Regan/CNSI)
In 1928, British physicist Paul Dirac showed that the spin of the electron is intimately related to the structure of space-time. His elegant argument combined quantum mechanics with special relativity, Einstein's theory of space-time (famously represented by the equation E=mc2).
Dirac's equation, far from merely accommodating spin, actually demands it. But while showing that relativistic quantum mechanics requires spin, the equation does not give a mechanical picture explaining how a point particle manages to carry angular momentum, nor why this spin is two-valued.
Unveiling a concept that is at once novel and deceptively simple, Regan and Mecklenburg found that electrons' two-valued spin can arise from having two types of tiles light and dark in a chessboard-like space. And they developed this quantum mechanical model while working on the surprisingly practical problem of how to make better transistors out of a new material called graphene.
Graphene, a single sheet of graphite, is an atomically-thin layer of carbon atoms arranged in a honeycomb structure. First isolated in 2004 by Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov, graphene has a wealth of extraordinary electronic properties, such as high electron mobility and current capacity. In fact, these properties hold such promise for revolutionary advances that Geim and Novoselov were awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize a mere six years after their achievement.
Regan and Mecklenburg are part of a UCLA effort to develop extremely fast transistors using this new material.
"We wanted to calculate the amplification of a graphene transistor," Mecklenburg said. "Our collaboration was building them and needed to know how well they were going to work."
This calculation involved understanding how light interacts with the electrons in graphene.
The electrons in graphene move by hopping from carbon atom to carbon atom, as if hopping on a chessboard. The graphene chessboard tiles are triangular, with the dark tiles pointing "up" and light ones pointing "down." When an electron in graphene absorbs a photon, it hops from light tiles to dark ones. Mecklenburg and Regan showed that this transition is equivalent to flipping a spin from "up" to "down."
In other words, confining the electrons in graphene to specific, discrete positions in space gives them spin. This spin, which derives from the special geometry of graphene's honeycomb lattice, is in addition to and distinct from the usual spin carried by the electron. In graphene the additional spin reflects the unresolved chessboard-like structure to the space that the electron occupies.
"My adviser [Regan] spent his Ph.D. studying the structure of the electron," Mecklenburg said. "So he was very excited to see that spin can emerge from a lattice. It makes you wonder if the usual electron spin could be generated in the same way."
"It's not yet clear if this work will be more useful in particle or condensed matter physics," Regan said, "but it would be odd if graphene's honeycomb structure was the only lattice capable of generating spin."
More information: http://link.aps.or … t.106.116803
Provided by University of California - Los Angeles
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
30 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
Writing a book so im learning about things, i have some general questions please read
1 hour ago
-
Question about induced E field.
2 hours ago
-
Charging a capacitor in a tesla coil
2 hours ago
-
Water Rocket
6 hours ago
-
why do trucks have bigger brakes?
10 hours ago
-
Solar Sail Physics - Do they work on a large scale?
11 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (20) |
47
|
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
15
|
Hall effect at the speed of light: How can you demonstrate relativistic effects with your mobile phone?
The relativistic Hall effect describing objects rotating at speeds comparable with the speed of light has been reported.
May 21, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (3) |
8
Cloak of invisibility: Engineers use plasmonics to create an invisible photodetector
A team of engineers at Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania has for the first time used "plasmonic cloaking" to create a device that can see without being seen - an invisible machine that detects light. It is the first ...
May 21, 2012 |
4.8 / 5 (16) |
7
|
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
Astronomers seize last chance in lifetime for Venus Transit
Astronomers are gearing for one the rarest events in the Solar System: an alignment of Earth, Venus and the Sun that will not be seen for another 105 years.

Mar 18, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Mar 18, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Mar 18, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (12)
Wrong, there is no such thing as infinity.
Mar 18, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (4)
Mar 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Mar 18, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (10)
http://www1.chem....co24.jpg
The connection of electron spin in graphene to structure of space-time is ad-hoced, because the electron has a spin even outside of graphene. With such "logic" the space-time could have structure of apple without problem, because inside of apple electrons have spin too.
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (12)
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (32)
This doesn't make sense, why would EM loop back on it self? Can you describe how magnetic/electric forces would do that? Also, Since there are different frequencies of light you would have different mass (equivalencies) electrons, which is not observed. Also, what process would emit EM mass equivalent of an electron?
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (37)
It would evaporate away given Hawkings theory, but instead we never see the intrinsic mass different from one electron to another.
The uncertainty principal limits how confined a particle can be located in space, so can't be a Bh.
The electron was also detected as a wave, diffracted through a crystal. So the correct interpretation should be that it is neither a particle nor a wave as it exists apart from experimental observation, and that we impose such forms onto it given how it is described and observed.
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I wouldn't be too sure about that. It appears as though galaxis, incl. our Milky Way, are relatively flat in respect to their overall size. The galaxis, on the contrary to our planets in the solarsystem located nearly in one plane, are located in different planes (3-D).
However immense the universe may be, to my knowledge its extremeties have not yet been discovered. If the universe is contantly expanding at a exponential rate, it cannot have definite physical dimensions. The void into which the universe is expanding is infinite. If this void were finite, our universe could not be expanding. What is not known is if the universe itself is finite or not. If it is finite then it will stop expanding once it reaches its limits. Will it remain at these limits forever or shall it contract in time to the size it had at its supposed "Big Bang"? At any rate, the void into which our universe is expanding is infinite.
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
1. Regular space can be mapped into 2-space. Holographic Theorem.
2. There was a serious attempt to resolve General Relativity Plank scale foam using shifting (with rules) triangular polygons. Think about adding rules as in the article.
3. Quantum Mechanical Interference can be correctly calcualted with only two slits, not three or more. I find this to be a telling and fundamental fact. It's imlications about QMs basis?
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (34)
The universe does not expand into an already existing space, rather, space is expanding as an intrinsic part of the universe.
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
I wonder how position in space works while we are racing through space orbiting the sun and around the galaxy and towards a collision with Andromeda?
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (31)
I don't think this is a valid argument.
The nature of a BH depends on how much mass is confined within a given space,.. its mass and radius,.. therefore if a electron is a "point particle", and it's radius is infinitesimal, then even it's tiny mass would make a BH. A better argument is to say that a electron can not be so confined in space.
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
The smallest black hole has the radius of a Plank length unit or some simple function of it. Something amazing happens when the particle's mass reaches the Plank mass (or some simple function of it). While all particles above this critical mass have an associated length (radius) proportional to the particle's mass (called its Schwarzschild radius), those below this critical mass have an associated length (its Compton/deBroglie wavelength - its region of localization) inversely proportional to the mass. The evaporation time of Black holes also converges at the Plank length. The Plank mass has its Evaporation time*c = Compton wavelength = Schwarzschild radius. So there can be no black holes that can be localized at all below the Plank mass. Beautiful, eh? Singularities, yes (electrons are charge singularities), but no black holes.
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
But i read in a book, something about electrons communicating.
They mimic each others spin, if one changed so did the other faster then light even.
Thing is nothing can travel faster then light, as E=MC^2 suggest.
But if electrons truly are suspended in a sort of space triangular tile sense.
It would be 3D i imagine.
Interconnected, so that if one electrons spin, is altered so is neighbors.
That hang in the same space triangular tile, like if you press down your finger on a pillow, fabric around your finger moves at the same time.
Hope my point is enjoyable.
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Which brings us back to aether.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
If you take this tessellated space-time idea and fold it in such a way that you get two knots, the very motion of the folds through space-time would require something that looks a lot like spin, especially so if there were a plank size tessellation.
And on a related topic the bent or folded space-time would contain energy or mass, much like the curved space-time of two tiny black holes. The two folds coming together would slam together and release their energy in opposite directions, much like two gamma rays.
Or perhaps it is space-time that is knotted up on the plank scale and electrons and positrons are places where space has come unknotted.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I was wondering the same but then I wonder if this chessboard represented in some way the dimensions of space in some way, it's a stretch I know but what if each white tile is one dimension and each black tile is the other and when you move the graphene sheet it merely jumps from it's relative spot? Although it's not really jumping but moving through it's respected dimension. I have no idea how small each of these tiles are supposed to be and I question if tile is merely a laymen description of what they are proposing, but I wonder if they can't be 1 dimensional representations of woven space.
Just my imagination going crazy... I have no idea.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Look up "Planck length" and "Planck mass." Wikipedia has some good articles. Basically, there is a smallest unit of space; approximately 1.6 x 10 ^-35 meter. The Planck mass is the smallest possible mass that could become a black hole if it were compressed into the Planck space. That mass is very large compared to a single electron: 21.7644 µg. So, no, an electron cannot become a black hole.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Sorry for the misunderstanding but I was not talking about space rather void (emptiness, without content).
I don't mean interstellar space and I don't mean interglactic space.
What is the matter density of intergalactic space? One atom / mileł? What is the theoretical density outside of the universe? I assume nothing. Where there is no energy/matter there is just plain nothing. Where there is absolutely nothing, there is neither time nor space; it is the same as human stupidity, boundless without limits and infinite.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Fascinating article!
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
How would you define a point "outside of the universe"?
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
In order to define a point "outside" of the universe you would have to name some quality exclusively exhibited by it and not exhibited by any point within the universe.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (34)
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
including time ...
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I'm not sure that it can be. At the very least, there can be no regular 3D structure at the planck scale. If there were, space would have preferred directions, i.e motion would be faster in some directions than in others.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
That is a common misconception about the universe and the big bang. People tend to think of the big bang as an explosion that occurred at a single point in space and whose blast effects are still spreading, yet to reach distant corners of the universe. The BB was the creation of space-time itself and not an explosion, and it occurred everywhere.
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Which is non-science as a non-physical container containing the universe cannot be object of science as its existence is a non-falsifiable thesis. You could equally well call this container a "god".
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
M-theory itself hings in the fact that there is a lot more than the universe outside of the universe.
If you believe in just the 4-dimensions, in a confined space that makes itself, then you are currently in the minority.
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
You are wrong. A universe cannot expand if there is nothing around it. The laws of physics only apply in the universe. Youre trying to apply the laws of physics in this universe to expanding and pushing aside a null-space with no physics.
Not possible. Only if the null-space has the same physics can this universe expand.
Therefore the concept of there being a space with the same physics as the universe already there is almost certain, which implies the universe is not making itself but rather its expanding into an area of the same physics.
This means the universe did not make the physics its currently using, and by coincidence removes a few useless hypothesis along the way.
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
A little too far fetched for me.
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
No one is "just an" anything, unless we are willing to accept limits to our abilities. Instead consider yourself an Engineer with a mind that seeks understanding and who is unwilling to let your schooling get in the way of your education.
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
That has got to be the most useful group of words I've read so far...classical scientific training can sometimes be a 'ball-and-chain'. Think beyond your training so to speak....outside the proverbial box.
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (33)
The laws of physics as deduced from the known universe are self-contained and make no reference to an a-priori "null-space". It is similar to the case of curved space-time, the description of which does not require being imbedded within a flat Euclidian space for reference, as the mathematics are self-contained.
You may speak of unobservable null-space if you wish to considered meta-physics.
Mar 24, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Yes. That is the assumption.
Self containment guarantees consistency. There are statements arising from self containment that appear (the assumption) as if those statements can not be accounted for, within a self containment.
When that happens we call it 'meta-'.
That name calling is humiliating and degrading. As if those questions arising from self containment are less worthy than from the birthplace (science) those questions arose.
All of your comments are worth reading. Why? Because there is no mutual regret. You do not regret writing them. I do not regret reading them. ...o.k., most of the time, anyway. :)
Mar 24, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
My opinion is, the Universe is only one by its very definition, but the dispersive character of light energy spreading in its makes observable portion of Universe limited like the landscape under the fog. Which enables the presence of many observable Universes, the dimensional scale of which would depend on the scale/energy density of their observers.
Mar 24, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (28)
I meant by 'metaphysics' the unobservable, and thus, unscientific realm,... and not as an insult.
Mar 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
There are many questions arising from the observable, the physical, where answers are first found in the 'meta', in the 'unobservable' - the 'extensional' - the 'meta' part of science - only to be 'rediscovered as an 'observable' not yet previously brought into consideration with the original observation or observables.
What is so 'unscientific' about a 'realm' that contributes directly to the realm of science?
So, 'meta-'anything is not educational?
I demand my 'meta' doctoral degree! lol :P
Mar 25, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (28)
I didn't say meta-... is useless.
Mar 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet