PDA

View Full Version : New particle Matter/Antimatter



shunyadragon
10-03-2014, 02:31 PM
They have found a new particle that is apparently both Matter and Anti-matter


Since the 1930s scientists have been searching for particles that are simultaneously matter and antimatter. Now physicists have found strong evidence for one such entity inside a superconducting material. The discovery could represent the first so-called Majorana particle, and may help researchers encode information for quantum computers.

Physicists think that every particle of matter has an antimatter counterpart with equal mass but opposite charge. When matter meets its antimatter equivalent, the two annihilate one another. But some particles might be their own antimatter partners, according to a 1937 prediction by Italian physicist Ettore Majorana. For the first time researchers say they have imaged one of these Majorana particles, and report their findings in the October 3 Science.

The new Majorana particle showed up inside a superconductor, a material in which the free movement of electrons allows electricity to flow without resistance. The research team, led by Ali Yazdani of Princeton University, placed a long chain of iron atoms, which are magnetic, on top of a superconductor made of lead. Normally, magnetism disrupts superconductors, which depend on a lack of magnetic fields for their electrons to flow unimpeded. But in this case the magnetic chain turned into a special type of superconductor in which electrons next to one another in the chain coordinated their spins to simultaneously satisfy the requirements of magnetism and superconductivity. Each of these pairs can be thought of as an electron and an antielectron, with a negative and a positive charge, respectively. That arrangement, however, leaves one electron at each end of the chain without a neighbor to pair with, causing them to take on the properties of both electrons and antielectrons—in other words, Majorana particles.

As opposed to particles found in a vacuum, unattached to other matter, these Majoranas are what’s called “emergent particles.” They emerge from the collective properties of the surrounding matter and could not exist outside the superconductor.

The new study shows a convincing signature of Majorana particles, says Leo Kouwenhoven of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands who was not involved in the research but previously found signs of Majorana particles in a different superconductor arrangement. “But to really speak of full proof, unambiguous evidence, I think you have to do a DNA test.” Such a test, he says, must show the particles do not obey the normal laws of the two known classes of particles in nature—fermions (protons, electrons and most other particles we are familiar with) and bosons (photons and other force-carrying particles, including the Higgs boson). “The great thing about Majoranas is that they are potentially a new class of particle,” Kouwenhoven adds. “If you find a new class of particles, that really would add a new chapter to physics.”

37818
10-04-2014, 03:14 PM
. . . The new Majorana particle showed up inside a superconductor, a material in which the free movement of electrons allows electricity to flow without resistance. The research team, led by Ali Yazdani of Princeton University, placed a long chain of iron atoms, which are magnetic, on top of a superconductor made of lead. Normally, magnetism disrupts superconductors, which depend on a lack of magnetic fields for their electrons to flow unimpeded. But in this case the magnetic chain turned into a special type of superconductor in which electrons next to one another in the chain coordinated their spins to simultaneously satisfy the requirements of magnetism and superconductivity. Each of these pairs can be thought of as an electron and an antielectron, with a negative and a positive charge, respectively. That arrangement, however, leaves one electron at each end of the chain without a neighbor to pair with, causing them to take on the properties of both electrons and antielectrons—in other words, Majorana particles.

As opposed to particles found in a vacuum, unattached to other matter, these Majoranas are what’s called “emergent particles.” They emerge from the collective properties of the surrounding matter and could not exist outside the superconductor. . . .

Wow.

Here is a fact which is not noted in this way: All observed gamma ray into electron positron pairs observed, do occur [only] in the presence of other matter. Theory may say and allow otherwise.

Electromagnetic energy, where the electric field has simultaneously a magnetic field, and the magnetic field has simultaneously an electric field. One cannot exist without the other. It is in the presence of ordinary matter we get the electron positron pair.

Now I have speculated [so not being a scientist, this speculation would be of little or no merit] that there are northtrons and southtrons. Where they are the counter parts to the electron and positron. It would requires some kind of inverted electromagnetic field to create them, if they existed. The speculation, like as in a photon, electric field magnetic field switch poles as the photon propagates [each wave], a electron coming in contact with a southtron would become a positron northtron pair. Or an electron and northtron would become a positron southtron part. In turn, a positron northtron become an electron southtron and so forth. Question: Could it be this is what is being observed as these Majorana particles?

The Pixie
10-05-2014, 05:50 AM
Physicists think that every particle of matter has an antimatter counterpart with equal mass but opposite charge. When matter meets its antimatter equivalent, the two annihilate one another. But some particles might be their own antimatter partners, according to a 1937 prediction by Italian physicist Ettore Majorana. For the first time researchers say they have imaged one of these Majorana particles, and report their findings in the October 3 Science.
According to this Wiki pagem most bosons, including the photon, are their own anti-matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

37818
10-09-2014, 06:13 PM
According to this Wiki pagem most bosons, including the photon, are their own anti-matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particlesThis is a classic example of so-called "blind" faith. We do not personally have any of this evidence. But we typically believe the scientists that do. (Some of us may have actually observed and done some simple physics experiments and have observed and personally know that the photon is its own anti particle.)

The Pixie
10-10-2014, 07:38 AM
This is a classic example of so-called "blind" faith. We do not personally have any of this evidence.
In what sense is it "blind faith"? I personally looked at the Wiki, so I know to a very high degree of certainty that according to that Wiki page most bosons, including the photon, are their own anti-matter. You want to dispute it? Go to the link, take a screen shot and show that the page says otherwise.

But we typically believe the scientists that do. (Some of us may have actually observed and done some simple physics experiments and have observed and personally know that the photon is its own anti particle.)
So what is your point? Are you saying actually the Wiki page is right, but I am an idiot for saying it is right? Do please tell us.

Sparko
10-10-2014, 09:16 AM
It would seem a neutron would be its own antiparticle (or to be more precise, it would have no antiparticle since it has no charge)

The Pixie
10-10-2014, 02:04 PM
It would seem a neutron would be its own antiparticle (or to be more precise, it would have no antiparticle since it has no charge)
I think that is not the case because it is made up of more fundamental particles and they do have charge (one up quark with charge +2/3 and two down quarks with charge -1/3). According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron).

klaus54
10-10-2014, 09:48 PM
Electric charge is not the only symmetry property.

K54

37818
10-11-2014, 09:24 PM
In what sense is it "blind faith"? I personally looked at the Wiki, so I know to a very high degree of certainty that according to that Wiki page most bosons, including the photon, are their own anti-matter. You want to dispute it? Go to the link, take a screen shot and show that the page says otherwise.

So what is your point? Are you saying actually the Wiki page is right, but I am an idiot for saying it is right? Do please tell us.No. Do you think your faith in the information given in the wiki is unreasonable? Someone did the experiments, research and discovered and confirmed the results. How else would we know? [Electric fields have magnetic fields and magnetic fields have electric fields. Such are photons.]

37818
10-11-2014, 09:33 PM
It would seem a neutron would be its own antiparticle (or to be more precise, it would have no antiparticle since it has no charge)No. For neutrons there are anti-neutrons, even as protons have anti-protons, electrons have anti-electrons known as positrons. Protons are made up of two up quarks +2/3 charge and one down quark -1/3 charge. The neutron two down quarks -1/3 charge with one up quark +2/3 charge. And the anti-proton and anti-neutron are made up anti up -2/3 charge and down +1/3 charge quarks.

The Pixie
10-12-2014, 03:28 AM
No. Do you think your faith in the information given in the wiki is unreasonable? Someone did the experiments, research and discovered and confirmed the results. How else would we know? [Electric fields have magnetic fields and magnetic fields have electric fields. Such are photons.]
What makes you think I have faith in what is written there? What I stated was that what was written there was written there. That was not blind faith, I saw it written there.

What you read was that I was claiming what was written there was true. I never said that. I never professed faith in the information. I was careful to qualify what I said to avoid professed faith in the information, a habit I adopted whilst studying for a PhD. in science, by the way. If you read scientific papers you will find the language is nearly always qualified ("it seems like that..." or whatever). If you read my comment to Sparko (which I see you pretty much repeated), you will see that I start "I think that..." in the same way.

My guess is that the Wiki page is right, and particles like the photon are their own anti-matter. It fits with what else I know about science, but it is not my area of expertise, and this would seem to disagree with the claim in the Scientific American. I was hoping my post might prompt someone more knowledgeable in physics to explain the discrepancy.

I would love to hear how you get from "Electric fields have magnetic fields and magnetic fields have electric fields" to determining that photons are their own anti-matter. Do please elaborate.