/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4593293]

Regarding the splitting an electron into an orbiton, holon and spinon, why does this happen in materials and not in free space?

[Anonymous No.4593304]

>sci
>physics

pick one

[Anonymous No.4593310]

Because they aren't splitting the electron. They're producing quasiparticles, like phonons. There are no particles being created, and no electrons being destroyed.

You looked up the names holon and spinon - don't miss the "quasi" in front of "quasiparticle".

[Anonymous No.4593320]

>>4593310
>HURR quasiparticles arnt real

[Anonymous No.4593323]

>>4593320
>HURR quasiparticles are particles

The "quasi" is EXACTLY why they can't "exist" outside of the solid.

If you take a slinky and push one end, a compression wave goes down the slinky, bounces back, etc. It's essentially a phonon, a kind of quasiparticle.

>HURR BUT WHY CAN'T THE SLINKY COMPRESSION WAVE EXIST OUTSIDE THE SLINKY

[Anonymous No.4593360]

>>4593320
They're called quasi particles because the math describing the phenomenon can be modelled as if they were actual particles. But they aren't. It's just a convenient math trick.

[Anonymous No.4593362]

>>4593293
You're making words up.

those aren't things though, seriously. They can't be things, electrons are fundamental particles.

[Anonymous No.4593387]

actually electrons (and pretty much everything) is wave-particle.
they are just discovering the music of reality, i.e. electron particle resonance.
by locking the electron on a string and plunking (resonant inelastic X-ray scattering on the one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO3) is like producing a standing wave and so, the individual troughs and peaks can be observed (i.e. individual quasiparticles)
don't forget kids, E=mc^2

[Anonymous No.4593394]

Given that you start from an elementary theory (say standard model) then electrons being "elementary" really just means that these are the particles, which are represented in it's Lagrangian density. Quasiparticles is the name for emergent degrees of freedom, e.g. not being a represenation in that sense. From a good quantum mechanical positivist point of view, what matters are the observables, that is the matrix elements of the theory. Then that debate becomes a argument about language.
>why does this happen in materials and not in free space?
Again, if you start with the fundamental Lagrangian, what does "material" really mean, but a spatial area with alot of particles in (otherwise empty) space? Think about that - what means material to you?
Then with a material, because you have a large system, there are emergent phenomena like the ones you ask about. That's not a surprise, because more is different.

http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

[Anonymous No.4593407]

>>4593360
yes this

presumably you could decompose a free electron's behavior similarly, but it would make the math harder instead of easier.

[Anonymous No.4593422]

>>4593310
>>4593323
yes, thank. I know what a fucking quasi particle is.

>>4593360
i know, but how does it work?

>>4593362
it is real

>>4593387
i have no idea what you are trying to say.

>>4593394
ok, so is it correct if i say that the electron is switching its spin with one electron, so that you get a spinon traveling in that direction, while its at the same time switching with a hole, so that you have a holon going in that direction? (and its switching its orbital momentum with a third one to make a orbiton move in a third direction to complete the 3).

[Anonymous No.4593476]

>>4593422
I'm trying to say, that electron resonance is being described as quasi-particles, like describing light as electric and magnetic radiation while it is in fact electromagnetic in nature.
the electron is a wave just the same and picking out individual wave-forms and naming them does not change the nature of the wave-particle.

[Anonymous No.4593479]

all particles are quasi in some model

[Anonymous No.4593484]

electrons are fundamental you retard.

[Anonymous No.4593488]

>>4593476
but following that, you can construct a purely electric or purely magnetic field in space, can yoy construct a purely spinon field outside of matter?

[Anonymous No.4593490]

>>4593488
... but EM radiation actually happens in space...

You can make math that says just about any bullshit you want, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality.

[Anonymous No.4593503]

>>4593490
electrons, photons, etc, are just models.

[Anonymous No.4593515]

>>4593488
no, my friend, you can not construct a purely electric or magnetic field. every electric or magnetic field creates the other by its mere presence, the electric by producing flow and thereby orientation i.e. magnetic field, and the magnetic field my producing orientation, thereby producing flow i.e. electric field.

you can marginalize these effects but they are always there, it is called the ELECTROMAGNETIC force for a reason.

the uniformity of nature

[Anonymous No.4593534]

biofag here, i know i'm way over my head, but this is all very interesting to me.
How do you know these are even specific particles and not just pure energy, or even random debris after collision. why do subatomic particles have to be made of smaller particles?
>inb4 child laughter

[Anonymous No.4593540]

>>4593515

True, this also why you can't have a singley charged particle. (electron) Everything has two poles.

[Anonymous No.4593555]

>>4593534
there is no random debris in particle physics.
you have a point tho, current dogma is almost entirely centered on observing particles as particles, but they are in fact wave-particles
see graph:
>>4593476

[Anonymous No.4593560]

>>4593540
>Everything has two poles.
>he has never broken a magnet to split south from north pole

[Anonymous No.4593568]

>>4593540
wat

[Anonymous No.4593572]

>>4593560

[Anonymous No.4593590]

>>4593540
for there to be force, there must be a relative change in state i.e.:
force is a process, an effect, like shouting. charge is a property, a state, like having a voice to shout.
I am done arguing with you!
lrn2 physics (or common sense for starters)

[Anonymous No.4593594]

>>4593503
You're missing the point.

All models are wrong, yes, but some are useful. Some are just bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4593609]

>>4593590
>I am done arguing with you!
after one post?

[Anonymous No.4593610]

>>4593555

Clearly you've never seen a particle collider data file in your life. There are GeV's of random clutter, missing neutrinos and particles flying through the gaps in the detectors in every direction (but mostly along the beam axis).

[Anonymous No.4593625]

>>4593555
I think he >>4593610 knows what i'm trying ask.
how do you know these even have mass?
like photons. they dont exist "independently" outside of an accelerator as a mass.

[Anonymous No.4594214]

>>4593625
>like photons. they dont exist "independently" outside of an accelerator as a mass.
Wut. You think photons don't exist outside of particle accelerator experiments?

Photoelectric effect, man. Anyone with a decent undergrad physics lab has done this.

[Anonymous No.4594232]

>>4593323
in the quantum world it can

[Anonymous No.4594600]

>>4594214
haven't taken the lab yet, but I know about Einstein won his nobel prize that way. Thought it was theoretical. Nvm

[Anonymous No.4594605]

>>4594232
>implying "quantum" means "magic is real, anything can happen if you believe hard enough!"

[Anonymous No.4595882]

>>4594605
haw did he say this?