Electron's negativity cut in half by supercomputer

Jan 12, 2012 by Ashley Yeager
This illustration shows the arrangement of electrons and magnetic field lines that cause the particles to have fractional negative charge. Courtesy of Science and T. S. Duff and T. Kovacs, AT&T Bell Laboratories

(PhysOrg.com) -- While physicists at the Large Hadron Collider smash together thousands of protons and other particles to see what matter is made of, they're never going to hurl electrons at each other. No matter how high the energy, the little negative particles won't break apart. But that doesn't mean they are indestructible.

Using several massive supercomputers, a team of physicists has split a simulated electron perfectly in half. The results, which were published in the Jan. 13 issue of Science, are another example of how tabletop experiments on ultra-cold atoms and other condensed-matter materials can provide clues about the behavior of .

In the simulations, Duke University physicist Matthew Hastings and his colleagues, Sergei Isakov of the University of Zurich and Roger Melko of the University of Waterloo in Canada, developed a virtual crystal. Under extremely low temperatures in the , the crystal turned into a quantum fluid, an exotic where electrons begin to condense.

Many different types of materials, from to superfluids, can form as electrons condense and are chilled close to , about −459 degrees Fahrenheit. That's approximately the temperature at which particles simply stop moving. It's also the temperature region where individual particles, such as electrons, can overcome their repulsion for each other and cooperate.

The cooperating particles' behavior eventually becomes indistinguishable from the actions of an individual. Hastings says the phenomenon is a lot like what happens with sound. A sound is made of sound waves. Each sound wave seems to be indivisible and to act a lot like a fundamental particle. But a sound wave is actually the collective motion of many atoms, he says.

Under ultra-cold conditions, electrons take on the same type of appearance. Their collective motion is just like the movement of an individual particle. But, unlike sound waves, cooperating and other particles, called collective excitations or quasiparticles, can "do things that you wouldn't think possible," Hastings says.

The quasiparticles formed in this simulation show what happens if a fundamental particle were busted up, so an electron can't be physically smashed into anything smaller, but it can be broken up metaphorically, Hastings says.

He and his colleagues divided one up by placing a virtual particle with the fundamental charge of an electron into their simulated quantum fluid. Under the conditions, the particle fractured into two pieces, each of which took on one-half of the original's negative charge.

As the physicists continued to observe the new sub-particles and change the constraints of the simulated environment, they were also able to measure several universal numbers that characterize the motions of the electron fragments. The results provide scientists with information to look for signatures of electron pieces in other simulations, experiments and theoretical studies.

Successfully simulating an electron split also suggests that physicists don't necessarily have to smash matter open to see what's inside; instead, there could be other ways to coax a particle to reveal itself.

Explore further: Thermoelectric power plants could offer economically competitive renewable energy

More information: "Universal Signatures of Fractionalized Quantum Critical Points," Science. 2012. 335: 193-195. DOI: 10.1126/science.121220

Related Stories

Opposites interfere

Jul 26, 2007

In a classic physics experiment, photons (light particles), electrons, or any other quantum particles are fired, one at a time, at a sheet with two slits cut in it that sits in front of a recording plate. For photons, a photographic ...

Still in the dark about dark matter

Dec 06, 2011

Dark matter, the mysterious stuff thought to make up about 80 percent of matter in the universe, has become even more inscrutable.

Recommended for you

User comments : 36

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Callippo
1.2 / 5 (26) Jan 12, 2012
In AWT electrons are nearly pin-point particles (six-dimensional vortices), but they're doing vacuum more dense around itself because of their motion (de Broglie wave is analogy of wake wave around boat at the water surface). Because of quantum fluctuations of vacuum, the electrons undergo a Brownian noise, so that their de Broglie waves remain pronounced even at zero Kelvin temperatures. If we compress the electrons sufficiently, their de Broglie waves overlap in such a way, the electrons move in collective way. They're still pinpoint particles, but they're moving collectively inside of single de Broglie wave shared with their motion.

http://www.aether...sate.gif

Callippo
1.1 / 5 (25) Jan 12, 2012
This process may occur at the arbitrary temperature, if we just manage to compress the electrons sufficiently. Before some time I proposed an artificial superconductor, composed of "well" insulated wire, charged into high voltage in vacuum. The electrons collected and compressed with EM field to the surface of insulator should form a superconductive layer, which would be stable even at the room temperature and could be controlled easily with external voltage.

http://www.aether...ctor.gif

IMO even more interesting such device could be, if we would compress the protons and initiate cold fusion in such way. The main problem of this concept is the choice of sufficiently resistant insulator, because ordinarily material are rather permeable for tiny charged particles.
Standing Bear
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2012
supposedly an electron was a single quark. IF this is divisible, then we should scrap the standard model and look for the real basement particles under the level of quarks. Two thirds of a charge seems odd to me anyway so never believed that the quantized charges would be broken up that way. Gotta be more levels down. That also means new and vastly more powerful energies are also possible..chemical<< atomic << nucleic << elementary particulate << quark << [['X']]

Folks in the 1800s believed that a society's strength and developement related directly to the amount of energy that it could control and generate. It is still true whether out of fashion...or not!
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (27) Jan 12, 2012
supposedly an electron was a single quark
IMO it's two quark particle, composed of 1/3 and 2/3 charge quarks: compare the knot model of neutron/proton hadrons and electron lepton.
http://www.aether...rons.gif http://www.aether...uark.gif
IF this is divisible, then we should scrap the standard model
The internal structure of electron was revealed with electron/proton collisions already (HERA experiment at DESY).
Deathclock
4.4 / 5 (24) Jan 12, 2012
Gotta be more levels down


It's turtles all the way down...
Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (19) Jan 12, 2012
My hypothesis, for which I have no evidence whatsoever, is that there is no such thing as matter, only energy, and that the notion of a "solid" is an illusion caused by attraction and repulsion forces. Therefore, particles are not really particles but quanta of energy, and these constructs at various hierarchies of scale (molecules, atoms, atomic particles, subatomic particles, etc) are simply organizations and interplays of energy densities... so what's at the bottom would be the smallest divisible unit of energy, whatever that may be.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (21) Jan 12, 2012
there is no such thing as matter, only energy
Why not, until this energy is formed with motion of another matter, etc.. As you may guess, I'm not taking any biased model with broken symmetry of space and time or matter and energy too seriously. From AWT follows, at the sufficiently distant/general scales these two concepts will converge to 1:1 ratio and they become indistinguishable each other for human observers.
Parsec
4.5 / 5 (11) Jan 12, 2012
My hypothesis, for which I have no evidence whatsoever, is that there is no such thing as matter, only energy, and that the notion of a "solid" is an illusion caused by attraction and repulsion forces. Therefore, particles are not really particles but quanta of energy, and these constructs at various hierarchies of scale (molecules, atoms, atomic particles, subatomic particles, etc) are simply organizations and interplays of energy densities... so what's at the bottom would be the smallest divisible unit of energy, whatever that may be.

That is essentially the basis of string theory, sorta. Strings are just vibrating packets of energy.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (25) Jan 12, 2012
Strings are 2D wires of mater. In AWT the notion of strings follows from the fact, inside of dense particle systems their density fluctuations have character of foamy mesh, i.e. strings, as this picture of supercritical fluid illustrates.

http://www1.chem....co24.jpg

In accordance with it, the string theory has been originally proposed for description of gluons inside of dense atom nuclei, where the energy spreads along linear paths, rather than through bulk volume ("bosonic string theory"). Apparently the density fluctuations of nuclear fluid are behaving like the "strings" here - but the whole behavior of this model cannot be explained without having the dense particle character of atom nuclei on mind.

http://www.aether...foam.gif
Osiris1
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2012
I wonder if Mr Parsec ever heard of Ludvig van Vogt and his postulated theory of matter as 'ether vortices'
Standing Bear
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2012
Think I read about those Vogt'ian vortices as a kid. In a book called 'Design of the Universe' by Fritz Hahn. But of course folks do not accept the ether any more. If space is quantized somehow maybe it could get a rebirth. Especially if we discovered a force that could compress and/or expand it without using the gravitational force.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (18) Jan 12, 2012
Descartes explained the matter as an convective cells of aether already before nearly four hundreds of years http://upload.wik...rbel.jpg
Lord Kelvin worked on this idea extensively, too.
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (19) Jan 12, 2012
It seems, Parsec, NeptuneAD, bewertow, Osiris1, Standing Bear and others are pretty unhappy from explanation of string theory with aether model...;-)
Simonsez
4 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2012
For shame, PhysOrg commenters - you let Zephir get in the first comments and dominate the thread with AWT garbage. Someone is slacking!
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (20) Jan 12, 2012
Why is it garbage? Because some anonymous troll believes so? The people, who cannot use arguments have no place at scientific forums, the censors of original thinking the less. Whole the physical community is infested with these parasites. They don't understand anything, they cannot explain anything, they just prohibit the further evolution of reality understanding for the sake of their jobs and salaries.

http://www.aether...memo.gif

And please, don't tell me, you're an exception. Most of proponents of mainstream science are behaving in the same way.
Raygunner
1.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2012
IMHO, electrons and most fundamental particles are pin-prick holes (or tiny wormholes) between our reality and the quantum foam we are immersed in. Quantum foam-energy is trickling out of these holes, giving shape and properties that appear to us as the fundamental particles that we detect and try to measure. This quantum energy leak is the "power supply" for these and larger complex particles (where else does a particle get the energy to run practically forever?). Of course I have no idea what I'm talking about - just a layman here thinking out loud.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2012
Wow...the crank posters are out in force today.

No knowledge but infinite amounts of unsubstantiated theories - not even mathematically substantiated.

What a waste of (everybody's) time.
Osiris1
1.1 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2012
Someone said once about politics: "Let a thousand flowers bloom!". Well look about us here too. Before we seek to criticize, come up with something better first! We need ideas if our species is to survive.
brant
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2012
My hypothesis, for which I have no evidence whatsoever, is that there is no such thing as matter, only energy, and that the notion of a "solid" is an illusion caused by attraction and repulsion forces. Therefore, particles are not really particles but quanta of energy, and these constructs at various hierarchies of scale (molecules, atoms, atomic particles, subatomic particles, etc) are simply organizations and interplays of energy densities... so what's at the bottom would be the smallest divisible unit of energy, whatever that may be.


Excellent. Now just think of everything in waves instead of "strings"... and "11 Dimensions"
Andy C
4 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2012
IMO electrons in this case are computer script, so what does it actually mean that these electrons split in half?
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2012
We need ideas if our species is to survive.
Agreed. But (viable) ideas do not grow out of a vacuum. You can have an arts major throw out ideas about quantum physics all day long - it'll just be like putting a monkey at a typewriter.

Before you have an idea on such fundamental stuff it is indispensable to STUDY such stuff in the first place. THEN you may make a contribution that is worthhile. Any other approach is just wasted time.
rowbyme
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2012
Speaking of putting a monkey at a typewriter, could someone please take Callippo's keyboard away...I can't take the way he pollutes this site with such garbage.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (57) Jan 13, 2012
supposedly an electron was a single quark
IMO it's two quark particle, composed of 1/3 and 2/3 charge quarks: compare the knot model of neutron/proton hadrons and electron lepton.
http://www.aether...rons.gif
IF this is divisible, then we should scrap the standard model
The internal structure of electron was revealed with electron/proton collisions already (HERA experiment at DESY).


Then why doesn't U(1) X SU(2) work for quarks?
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2012
Then why doesn't U(1) X SU(2) work for quarks?
Because of high energy density inside of atom nuclei. In sparse foam like the vacuum behave for EM waves the deform occurs along toroidal shape in accordance to U(1) symmetry group (rotation), like the deform of elastic mattress when you're jumping on it.
http://www.aether...tral.gif
When you increase the frequency of jumping, then the inertia or rotating matter cannot be neglected anymore, so that symmetry breaking will occur and the mattress will start undulate in accordance to U(1) X SU(2) gauge group (shear and rotation) in another set of dimensions too (labelled with red color at the animation bellow):
http://www.aether...rged.gif
But when the energy density increases even more, then the packing geometry of resulting vortices cannot be neglected anymore, because the vacuum foam is behaving like the massive body at the place, where its deform takes place
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2012
Inside of dense particle system the symmetry of their deforms increases gradually and the right-angled geometry of U(1) X SU(2) transforms is not energetically advantage anymore. Instead of this, the vortices get packing described with Lie exceptional gauge group, i.e. they're packing like nested kissing hyperspheres, the center of hyperspheres at each level of nesting appears between centers of hyperspheres at the parent level.
http://www.aether...roup.gif
Such vortices will get various mixing angles at each level of nesting, as described with Cabbibo matrix.
http://www.aether..._lie.gif
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2012
Now just think of everything in waves instead of "strings"... and "11 Dimensions"
It's as biased perspective, as the idea, universe is composed of energy only. But the energy cannot exist or even propagate without some material environment, which is enabling its spreading. For example, the light is spreading through vacuum in the same way, like the ripples through elastic foam or dense inertial fluid. Even the classical Maxwell's theory was derived so and it works quite well.
Mainstream physicists are very innovative in proving, vacuum is composed of nothing. But we know, in many aspects the vacuum doesn't differ from water surface, being observed with its own waves. So, without matter concept the energy concept remains abstract, biased and incomplete and it lack many important clues, which are helping in the another predictions. It's just these predictions, which can help to move the whole physics forward.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2012
Why is it garbage? Because some anonymous troll believes so?
Waw ha ha! An anonymous Crank calls people 'anonymous' and troll as if being anonymous was some sort of Commie, Pinko, Nazi, Libertarian, Freudian, Scientologist, Lovcraftian evil from the bottomless pit of Newton's Secret Alchemical Laboratory at the British Mint in the Tower of London.

All of science is in a SECRET anonymous conspiracy headquartered in Milan to keep Ecat Wonder Generators from destroying their vile monopoly of science funding so that AWITSBS can never proved to be math free and fancied by women everywhere so that Zephir can't get laid by those nasty Czech girls that move to the US to make porn movies instead giving BJs to the secret genius that knows more about science than anyone else because Zephir's three Czech blogs say he is the wonder of the Age of Aquarius which is playing at Petrik Palace Czech Republic.

Zephir's real name is in there. Somewhere. But not in two consecutive words.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2012
Then why doesn't U(1) X SU(2) work for quarks?
- Noumenon

Like most late 20th century pseudo physics, its probably because you are watching as an observer and with all the smoke and mirrors the emperor still has no clothes.
Eoprime
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
Then why doesn't U(1) X SU(2) work for quarks?
- Noumenon

Like most late 20th century pseudo physics, its probably because you are watching as an observer and with all the smoke and mirrors the emperor still has no clothes.


Can't get the rating up with one 5 against 6 new registered 1s, but i like your comment :)
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2012
Zephir's real name is in there. Somewhere.
You needn't waste your time too much about it, as I'm using aliases of aliases routinely. You should focus to the physical model, which I'm proposing here, the actual names aren't relevant here.
why doesn't U(1) X SU(2) work for quarks
It's result of hyperdimensional nature of elastic particle environment at higher energy density. At low energy density the deforms follow the right angled Euclidean geometry, at higher density it follows rather particle packing geometry and their geometry becomes non-euclidean.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2012
You needn't waste your time too much about it, as I'm using aliases of aliases routinely. Y
And you lie a lot about that. Still your name is there.

You should focus to the physical model,
It is impossible to have variations in density when the density is infinite. You need to use less nonsense.

Eoprime
Now if only he wasn't the one that has no clothes and using bullshit and nonsense. And lying a lot about real scientists.

Ethelred



rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2012
It is impossible to have variations in density when the density is infinite. You need to use less nonsense.
Try to imagine density fluctuations inside of dense supercritical vapour of density D. Nevertheless, the relative density of these fluctuations will be a much lower, deltaD. What we are observing as a density of stars and atom nuclei is just this deltaD., but the actual density of vacuum is much larger. You can imagine, we are residing inside of black hole of density D, which is residing inside of black hole of density D plus deltaD, which is residing inside of black hole of density D plus deltaD plus deltaD ... and so on, ad infinitum...

In this way, the hypothetical "outer" black hole would be of infinite density for being able to maintain all possible members of this infinitely nested hierarchy. Why such model appears impossible for you?
Still your name is there.
I never mix my publicly available nick names with my private data in any way.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2012
It is impossible to have variations in density when the density is infinite. You need to use less nonsense.

Try to imagine density fluctuations inside of dense supercritical vapour of density D.
Try to remember what INFINITE means. There is no possibility of having variation, relative or otherwise, either way it is still INFINITE.

I never mix my publicly available nick names with my private data in any way.
So you lied to the ISPs then. Just like you lied about your frequent use of sockpuppets to uprate and downrate.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2012
There is no possibility of having variation, relative or otherwise, either way it is still INFINITE.
For example, fractal curve is infinite, yet it has variations at all scales of it.
..so you lied to the ISPs then..
Sounds well from people, who are lying the provider of PO account... http://www.physor...Ethelred
HF770
not rated yet Jan 17, 2012
"There is no possibility of having variation, relative or otherwise, either way it is still INFINITE." Think an argument could be made against this from basic Cal.3 "infinite series" class.

If you had certain densities with unique variations of properties (ie.quantum), wouldn't you essentially have a Variation of Density similar to phase variation (ie. Phases)?
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2012
For example, fractal curve is infinite, yet it has variations at all scales of it.
Yet another example of something without infinite density, except as an idea.

Sounds well from people, who are lying the provider of PO account... http://www.physor...Ethelred
I never lied. I use a handle like almost everyone else here. YOU lied about your use of sockpuppets.

If you had certain densities with unique variations of properties (ie.quantum), wouldn't you essentially have a Variation of Density similar to phase variation (ie. Phases)?
You would not have the infinite density he claimed. Not even if you were Polish like Zephyr claimed for one handle.

I am assuming that this was not another Zephyr sockpuppet.

Zephir's theory is not only vague and ambiguous the only two parts he was recently willing to be clear on were both so wrong none of the rest can have any value.

Ethelred Hardrede

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.