Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > If chargon is a boson, it could support a condensate that enables a charge > accumulation mechanism whereby the large negative electric charge localized > is a small volume can remove the coulomb barrier to allow fusion to occur. > This seems like an interesting line of investigation. It would be pretty cool if a bosonic piece of electron charge were flying off into a proton. When I asked about quasiparticles on physics.stackexchange.com, I was told that their binding energies were very weak compared to the energy of elementary particles, but I suspect that this was an oversimplification. One question I have is whether a collective effect such as spin-charge separation can interact with free nucleons. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
There is a discussion that is underway in the field of superconductivity regarding the mechanism of cooper pair formation. The split of electron quantum properties has been hypothesized for some time now as its ultimate cause. How can to particles with the same charge pair up and stay together for a long period of time. I might add that I believe such cooper pairing also happens in regards to protons. In these situations the coulomb is not a factor. As referenced in the article under discussion in this thread, what this research shows is that the split-up of electron quantum properties has now been verified and real as substantiated by experiment. There are various mechanisms involved with the formation of condensates of these quantum properties that cause cooper pairing. The amount the competing theories terms discussed are “slave boson formalism” or “slave Fermion formalisms”. Recently, in regard to the theory of the cuprite superconductors Patrick Lee suggests that the genuinely new idea that has been developed is: "the notion of emergence of gauge fields and fractionalized particles as low-energy phenomena in systems that did not contain them in the starting model." He suggests that this idea is of comparable importance in condensed matter theory to that of Goldstone bosons. Gauge fields emerge when the electron or spin operators are represented in an alternative manner such as in terms of Schwinger bosons, slave fermions, slave bosons, or slave rotors. But a key question is for a given model Hamiltonian, which is the appropriate representation. For quantum spin models it seems that which side of the Charles River you work on determines your preference for a particular representation? At Harvard, Subir Sachdev favours bosonic spinons, while on the opposite of the river, at MIT Patrick Lee favours fermionic spinons. It has been apparent for me in recent months that cold fusion and superconductivity are similar phenomena. I have been boning up on superconductivity theory to help in my understanding of cold fusion. As a generalist I am no expert….yet, but I smell some smoke in this wind and am looking for the fire. Regards: Axil On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > There is nothing fundamentally new about this. A quasi particle is a state > that scatters or propagate just as it were a particle, but in fact, it > is just an interference pattern perturbation of the medium considered. In > the article, they just made and electron disturb the media by isolating > independently 2 different states that a given electron had, its spin and > its angular momentum in relation to an atom. These 2 states disturbed the > media and the media carried to the measuring device both of these states, > without mixing them. > > This kind of disturbance is generally very weak, it will be destroyed way > before it can cause a fusion process. >
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
There is nothing fundamentally new about this. A quasi particle is a state that scatters or propagate just as it were a particle, but in fact, it is just an interference pattern perturbation of the medium considered. In the article, they just made and electron disturb the media by isolating independently 2 different states that a given electron had, its spin and its angular momentum in relation to an atom. These 2 states disturbed the media and the media carried to the measuring device both of these states, without mixing them. This kind of disturbance is generally very weak, it will be destroyed way before it can cause a fusion process.
RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
Excellent insight, Axil. From: Axil Axil If you remember our discussions on degenerate electrons in the thread: New physical attraction between ions in quantum plasmas Centered around the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.5556.pdf with the title: Novel Attractive Force between Ions in Quantum Plasmas Discussion: Electrons can be placed in a degenerate state by the Pauli Exclusion Principle having been forced into a condition of overabundance where the excess number of electrons cannot find a ground state to reenter therein. This situation has been shown to generate a new attractive force between ions that are shielded by these degenerate electrons in quantum plasmas. The underlying cause is the reversal of charge repulsion. This mechanism could be based on a superconductive like restriction of electron flow into a one dimensional direction regime. Here, the electron can either flow in a backward or forward direction caused by unique topologic constructions in the cold plasma possibly due to the formation of some exotic forms of hydrogen crystallization. This type of one dimensional electron flow may cause electron fractionalization as is suspected to happen in superconductivity where charge can accumulate as a fractionalization phenomenon irrespective of the location of the associated electrons. The charge fraction of the electron may aggregate to form a hard core negative part that serves to shield the positive charge of the ions. Regards: Axil On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I wonder if electron based quasiparticles can be involved or even causative in the cold fusion mechanism. In physics, fractionalization is the phenomenon whereby the quasiparticles of a system cannot be constructed as combinations of its elementary constituents. One of the earliest and most prominent examples is the fractional quantum Hall effect, where the constituent particles are electrons but the quasiparticles carry fractions of the electron charge. Fractionalization can be understood as deconfinement of quasiparticles that together are viewed as comprising the elementary constituents. In the case of spin-charge separation, for example, the electron can be viewed as a bound state of a 'spinon' and a 'chargon', which under certain conditions can become free to move separately. The Mills cold fusion mechanism shows indications of fractionalization of the orbiton/holon, the orbital quasiparticle component of the electrons quantum properties. This fractionalization may be indicative of spin change separation as important and active in the cold fusion mechanism. Spin-charge separation is one of the most unusual manifestations of the concept of quasiparticles. This property is counterintuitive, because neither the spinon, with zero charge and spin half, or the chargon, with charge minus one and zero spin, can be constructed as combinations of the electrons, holes, phonons and photons that are the constituents of the system. It is an example of fractionalization, the phenomenon in which the quantum numbers of the quasiparticles are not multiples of those of the elementary particles, but fractions. Since the original electrons in the system are fermions, one of the spinon and chargon has to be a fermion, and the other one has to be a boson. One is theoretically free to make the assignment in either way, and no observable quantity can depend on this choice. The formalism with bosonic chargon and fermionic spinion is usually referred to as the "slave-fermion" formalism. If chargon is a boson, it could support a condensate that enables a charge accumulation mechanism whereby the large negative electric charge localized is a small volume can remove the coulomb barrier to allow fusion to occur. Mileys observations of superconductive behavior of pockets of hydrogen ions may also be other indications of some sort of quasiparticle fractionalization at work. <>
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
If you remember our discussions on degenerate electrons in the thread: *New physical attraction between ions in quantum plasmas* Centered around the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.5556.pdf with the title: *Novel Attractive Force between Ions in Quantum Plasmas* Discussion: Electrons can be placed in a degenerate state by the Pauli Exclusion Principle having been forced into a condition of overabundance where the excess number of electrons cannot find a ground state to reenter therein. This situation has been shown to generate a new attractive force between ions that are shielded by these degenerate electrons in quantum plasmas. The underlying cause is the reversal of charge repulsion. This mechanism could be based on a superconductive like restriction of electron flow into a one dimensional direction regime. Here, the electron can either flow in a backward or forward direction caused by unique topologic constructions in the cold plasma possibly due to the formation of some exotic forms of hydrogen crystallization. This type of one dimensional electron flow may cause electron fractionalization as is suspected to happen in superconductivity where charge can accumulate as a fractionalization phenomenon irrespective of the location of the associated electrons. The charge fraction of the electron may aggregate to form a hard core negative part that serves to shield the positive charge of the ions. Regards: Axil On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I wonder if electron based quasiparticles can be involved or even > causative in the cold fusion mechanism. > > In physics, fractionalization is the phenomenon whereby the quasiparticles > of a system cannot be constructed as combinations of its elementary > constituents. One of the earliest and most prominent examples is the > fractional quantum Hall effect, where the constituent particles are > electrons but the quasiparticles carry fractions of the electron charge. > > Fractionalization can be understood as deconfinement of quasiparticles > that together are viewed as comprising the elementary constituents. In the > case of spin–charge separation, for example, the electron can be viewed as > a bound state of a 'spinon’ and a 'chargon', which under certain conditions > can become free to move separately. > > The Mills cold fusion mechanism shows indications of fractionalization of > the orbiton/holon, the orbital quasiparticle component of the electrons > quantum properties. > > This fractionalization may be indicative of spin change separation as > important and active in the cold fusion mechanism. > > Spin–charge separation is one of the most unusual manifestations of the > concept of quasiparticles. This property is counterintuitive, because > neither the spinon, with zero charge and spin half, or the chargon, with > charge minus one and zero spin, can be constructed as combinations of the > electrons, holes, phonons and photons that are the constituents of the > system. > > It is an example of fractionalization, the phenomenon in which the quantum > numbers of the quasiparticles are not multiples of those of the elementary > particles, but fractions. > > Since the original electrons in the system are fermions, one of the spinon > and chargon has to be a fermion, and the other one has to be a boson. One > is theoretically free to make the assignment in either way, and no > observable quantity can depend on this choice. The formalism with bosonic > chargon and fermionic spinion is usually referred to as the "slave–fermion" > formalism. > > If chargon is a boson, it could support a condensate that enables a charge > accumulation mechanism whereby the large negative electric charge localized > is a small volume can remove the coulomb barrier to allow fusion to occur. > > Mileys observations of superconductive behavior of pockets of hydrogen > ions may also be other indications of some sort of quasiparticle > fractionalization at work. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/splitting_the_electron/ >> >> Swiss, German physicists split the electron >> >> Spin here, orbit there >> By Richard Chirgwin >> >> 19th April 2012 00:01 GMT >> >> An international research team has observed an electron being split >> into two “quasi particles”, one carrying the original particle’s spin, >> the other carrying its orbital movement. >> >> Spin (giving rise to magnetism) and angular momentum (the path the >> electron follows around the nucleus of an atom) are two out of the >> electron’s three quantum properties (the other is charge). These >> properties attach to a single electron – unless, it seems, you pump >> the right substance with the right amount of energy. >> >> >> >> >
RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
Hi Reliable, Thx for the feedback... I understand the suggestion and the link to an example... I have hundreds of peer-reviewed and other literature on noninvasive glucose, bioelectromagnetics, the effects of poor glucose control on a person's biology, etc... The history of noninvasive glucose is quite interesting (and frustrating for me)... The paper you linked to is all about optical technologies. Over the last 30 years, well over a billion dollars, and probably closer to $2B or $3B, has been put into the field, and 95% of that has been for optical (mostly near-IR) based technologies. We are using RF and microwave frequencies which do not have the drawbacks that light-based technologies have. I don't think that ANY of the optical techs that I've seen have been able to achieve predictive accuracy over weeks and months without a Recalibration finger stick or two... if we had these kinds of results back in the 90s when I was also working on this same tech, we would have had no problem getting funding. -Mark -Original Message- From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com [mailto:integral.property.serv...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron Mark, Perhaps adding references to your web page such as : http://photonicssociety.org/newsletters/apr98/overview.htm may allow a viewer to grasp the complexity and and importance of your efforts. Warm Regards, Reliable MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > > Thanks Dave. I even have a hat that has the phrase, "Think outside the > Box"! > > I've haven't been able to contribute to the idea-tossing within the > Collective for awhile because I've been busy with > discussions/presentations with an investment group for our technology > to do noninvasive (painless) glucose measurement for diabetics. So > far, I've presented the technical evidence three times, the latest to > the CTO, so we're making it up the decision-maker hierarchy. Wish us > me luck! > > We have been working quietly for the last two years, but are preparing > to make our results more widely known. to that end, I have begun to > put together a website with some details and no frills nor > advertisements. I'd appreciate some feedback on the site as to whether > the information is succinct and understandable. does it communicate > the results to the reader in an understandable manner? > > http://webpages.charter.net/markiverson/index.htm > > Thanks, > > -Mark > > *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] > *Sent:* Friday, April 20, 2012 10:20 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron > > It is an excellent idea to think "out of the box" Mark as in this > case. Keep your ideas coming! > > Dave > > -----Original Message- > From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <mailto:zeropo...@charter.net>> > To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> > Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 1:14 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron > > Where does the charge go? > > Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin > and angular momentum are combined... > > -m
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
Mark, Perhaps adding references to your web page such as : http://photonicssociety.org/newsletters/apr98/overview.htm may allow a viewer to grasp the complexity and and importance of your efforts. Warm Regards, Reliable MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Thanks Dave… I even have a hat that has the phrase, “Think outside the Box”! I’ve haven’t been able to contribute to the idea-tossing within the Collective for awhile because I’ve been busy with discussions/presentations with an investment group for our technology to do noninvasive (painless) glucose measurement for diabetics. So far, I’ve presented the technical evidence three times, the latest to the CTO, so we’re making it up the decision-maker hierarchy. Wish us me luck! We have been working quietly for the last two years, but are preparing to make our results more widely known… to that end, I have begun to put together a website with some details and no frills nor advertisements… I’d appreciate some feedback on the site as to whether the information is succinct and understandable… does it communicate the results to the reader in an understandable manner? http://webpages.charter.net/markiverson/index.htm Thanks, -Mark *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* Friday, April 20, 2012 10:20 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron It is an excellent idea to think "out of the box" Mark as in this case. Keep your ideas coming! Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <mailto:zeropo...@charter.net>> To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 1:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron Where does the charge go? Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin and angular momentum are combined... -m
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > Aren't angular momentum and orbital momentum are the same thing? Well, technically no since there is spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum. I was simply clarifying what it meant to separate spin from the orbital momentum. T
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
Does the statement that no observable quantity can depend upon the assignment suggest the multi-universe theory? In that case the spinon and chargon types would be one choice in one universe and the second choice appearing within the other. Our observation would reveal which universe we happen to be within at that point in time. I personally have strong reservations regarding the existence of multiverses but it is certainly an interesting subject. Why would the particles care about our observation? If the concern is that the process of observing causes change due to coupling (such as by photon interaction), then at least there is a physical operation associated with the problem. My suspicion is that one day we will understand the reason for the paradox and it will no longer be an issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 3:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron [...snip] Since the original electrons in the system are fermions, one of the spinon and chargon has to be a fermion, and the other one has to be a boson. One is theoretically free to make the assignment in either way, and no observable quantity can depend on this choice. The formalism with bosonic chargon and fermionic spinion is usually referred to as the "slave–fermion" formalism. .
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
I wonder if electron based quasiparticles can be involved or even causative in the cold fusion mechanism. In physics, fractionalization is the phenomenon whereby the quasiparticles of a system cannot be constructed as combinations of its elementary constituents. One of the earliest and most prominent examples is the fractional quantum Hall effect, where the constituent particles are electrons but the quasiparticles carry fractions of the electron charge. Fractionalization can be understood as deconfinement of quasiparticles that together are viewed as comprising the elementary constituents. In the case of spin–charge separation, for example, the electron can be viewed as a bound state of a 'spinon’ and a 'chargon', which under certain conditions can become free to move separately. The Mills cold fusion mechanism shows indications of fractionalization of the orbiton/holon, the orbital quasiparticle component of the electrons quantum properties. This fractionalization may be indicative of spin change separation as important and active in the cold fusion mechanism. Spin–charge separation is one of the most unusual manifestations of the concept of quasiparticles. This property is counterintuitive, because neither the spinon, with zero charge and spin half, or the chargon, with charge minus one and zero spin, can be constructed as combinations of the electrons, holes, phonons and photons that are the constituents of the system. It is an example of fractionalization, the phenomenon in which the quantum numbers of the quasiparticles are not multiples of those of the elementary particles, but fractions. Since the original electrons in the system are fermions, one of the spinon and chargon has to be a fermion, and the other one has to be a boson. One is theoretically free to make the assignment in either way, and no observable quantity can depend on this choice. The formalism with bosonic chargon and fermionic spinion is usually referred to as the "slave–fermion" formalism. If chargon is a boson, it could support a condensate that enables a charge accumulation mechanism whereby the large negative electric charge localized is a small volume can remove the coulomb barrier to allow fusion to occur. Mileys observations of superconductive behavior of pockets of hydrogen ions may also be other indications of some sort of quasiparticle fractionalization at work. On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/splitting_the_electron/ > > Swiss, German physicists split the electron > > Spin here, orbit there > By Richard Chirgwin > > 19th April 2012 00:01 GMT > > An international research team has observed an electron being split > into two “quasi particles”, one carrying the original particle’s spin, > the other carrying its orbital movement. > > Spin (giving rise to magnetism) and angular momentum (the path the > electron follows around the nucleus of an atom) are two out of the > electron’s three quantum properties (the other is charge). These > properties attach to a single electron – unless, it seems, you pump > the right substance with the right amount of energy. > > > >
RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
Aren't angular momentum and orbital momentum are the same thing? -m -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 11:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > Where does the charge go? > > Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin > and angular momentum are combined... The article speaks about orbital momentum. T
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > Where does the charge go? > > Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin and > angular momentum are combined... The article speaks about orbital momentum. T
RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
Thanks Dave. I even have a hat that has the phrase, "Think outside the Box"! I've haven't been able to contribute to the idea-tossing within the Collective for awhile because I've been busy with discussions/presentations with an investment group for our technology to do noninvasive (painless) glucose measurement for diabetics. So far, I've presented the technical evidence three times, the latest to the CTO, so we're making it up the decision-maker hierarchy. Wish us me luck! We have been working quietly for the last two years, but are preparing to make our results more widely known. to that end, I have begun to put together a website with some details and no frills nor advertisements. I'd appreciate some feedback on the site as to whether the information is succinct and understandable. does it communicate the results to the reader in an understandable manner? http://webpages.charter.net/markiverson/index.htm Thanks, -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron It is an excellent idea to think "out of the box" Mark as in this case. Keep your ideas coming! Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 1:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron Where does the charge go? Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin and angular momentum are combined... -m
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
At 10:28 AM 4/20/2012, Axil Axil wrote: SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(physics) Thanks ... and Nature now has an abstract http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10974.html#/contrib-auth and an article: http://www.nature.com/news/not-quite-so-elementary-my-dear-electron-1.10471
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(physics) On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > Where does the charge go? > > Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin and > angular momentum are combined... > > -m > > _ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:19 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron > > > -Original Message- > From: Alan J Fletcher > > Terry Blanton wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/splitting_the_electron/ > > But where does the CHARGE go ... either? both? If it were to go ONE way > then > the other would be charge-less and could maybe enter a proton. Once in, it > could call its charged buddy to come and join it. > > (Usual ignorant speculation disclaimer comes here). > > It is a good question, and the "buddy system" is not far off metaphorically > (as in a "condensate"). In 1997 we saw the first modern direct evidence > that > electric current can be carried by "quasiparticles" with fractional charge > (Weitzman Inst). But older experiments including those of Robert Millikan > himself, probably saw found this. Here is a good article with relevant > background: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle > > Millikan is regarded by some as one of the founders of American science - > but > he was also guilty of pathological science, ignoring evidence and fudging > experiments. > He held-back progress for a half-century on fractional charge, partly > because of an underserved reputation, not to mention the flawed experiment > (he only used about a third of his actual results - the ones where data fit > into the desired outcome). > > An updated, automated (and equally flawed) Millikan-type experiment was > undertaken at SLAC but it was seriously doomed by the assumption that > nothing less than about 15% of the electron charge would be found. And > nothing was found by them. That constraint changed the way the experiment > can be meaningfully run, since - given the ubiquity of the fine structure > constant, they should have designed a wide range experiment that would at > least look for charge as low as e/137. > > The results of the many experiments agree with a theory which was > formulated > by Robert > Laughlin to explain the fractional quantum Hall effect FQHE. According to > Laughlin, > electrons in strong magnetic fields form an exotic collective state, > similar > to > the BEC state. This does not rule out Shoulder's claims. > > But any BEC-like agglomeration of electrons, although it may fit in with > the > experimental work of Ken Shoulders, will need to "hide" charge somewhere. > Where? You ask. > > The sea, of course. > > Dirac's sea. Probably located "just around the corner" in reciprocal space > > > Jones > >
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
It is an excellent idea to think "out of the box" Mark as in this case. Keep your ideas coming! Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 1:14 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron Where does the charge go? Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin and ngular momentum are combined... -m
RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
Where does the charge go? Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin and angular momentum are combined... -m _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/splitting_the_electron/ But where does the CHARGE go ... either? both? If it were to go ONE way then the other would be charge-less and could maybe enter a proton. Once in, it could call its charged buddy to come and join it. (Usual ignorant speculation disclaimer comes here). It is a good question, and the "buddy system" is not far off metaphorically (as in a "condensate"). In 1997 we saw the first modern direct evidence that electric current can be carried by "quasiparticles" with fractional charge (Weitzman Inst). But older experiments including those of Robert Millikan himself, probably saw found this. Here is a good article with relevant background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle Millikan is regarded by some as one of the founders of American science - but he was also guilty of pathological science, ignoring evidence and fudging experiments. He held-back progress for a half-century on fractional charge, partly because of an underserved reputation, not to mention the flawed experiment (he only used about a third of his actual results - the ones where data fit into the desired outcome). An updated, automated (and equally flawed) Millikan-type experiment was undertaken at SLAC but it was seriously doomed by the assumption that nothing less than about 15% of the electron charge would be found. And nothing was found by them. That constraint changed the way the experiment can be meaningfully run, since - given the ubiquity of the fine structure constant, they should have designed a wide range experiment that would at least look for charge as low as e/137. The results of the many experiments agree with a theory which was formulated by Robert Laughlin to explain the fractional quantum Hall effect FQHE. According to Laughlin, electrons in strong magnetic fields form an exotic collective state, similar to the BEC state. This does not rule out Shoulder's claims. But any BEC-like agglomeration of electrons, although it may fit in with the experimental work of Ken Shoulders, will need to "hide" charge somewhere. Where? You ask. The sea, of course. Dirac's sea. Probably located "just around the corner" in reciprocal space Jones <>
RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
-Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/splitting_the_electron/ But where does the CHARGE go ... either? both? If it were to go ONE way then the other would be charge-less and could maybe enter a proton. Once in, it could call its charged buddy to come and join it. (Usual ignorant speculation disclaimer comes here). It is a good question, and the "buddy system" is not far off metaphorically (as in a "condensate"). In 1997 we saw the first modern direct evidence that electric current can be carried by "quasiparticles" with fractional charge (Weitzman Inst). But older experiments including those of Robert Millikan himself, probably saw found this. Here is a good article with relevant background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle Millikan is regarded by some as one of the founders of American science - but he was also guilty of pathological science, ignoring evidence and fudging experiments. He held-back progress for a half-century on fractional charge, partly because of an underserved reputation, not to mention the flawed experiment (he only used about a third of his actual results - the ones where data fit into the desired outcome). An updated, automated (and equally flawed) Millikan-type experiment was undertaken at SLAC but it was seriously doomed by the assumption that nothing less than about 15% of the electron charge would be found. And nothing was found by them. That constraint changed the way the experiment can be meaningfully run, since - given the ubiquity of the fine structure constant, they should have designed a wide range experiment that would at least look for charge as low as e/137. The results of the many experiments agree with a theory which was formulated by Robert Laughlin to explain the fractional quantum Hall effect FQHE. According to Laughlin, electrons in strong magnetic fields form an exotic collective state, similar to the BEC state. This does not rule out Shoulder's claims. But any BEC-like agglomeration of electrons, although it may fit in with the experimental work of Ken Shoulders, will need to "hide" charge somewhere. Where? You ask. The sea, of course. Dirac's sea. Probably located "just around the corner" in reciprocal space Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
At 02:58 PM 4/19/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/splitting_the_electron/ But where does the CHARGE go ... either? both? If it were to go ONE way then the other would be chargeless and could maybe enter a proton. Once in, it could call its charged buddy to come and join it. (Usual ignorant speculation disclaimer comes here).
Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Hmmm ... two out of three sounds a bit like Ken Shoulder's EVO ? Charge clusters and Hotson's ideas are s underappreciated. T
RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron
Hmmm ... two out of three sounds a bit like Ken Shoulder's EVO ? Ken will probably get a charge out of this story ... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/19/splitting_the_electron/ Spin (giving rise to magnetism) and angular momentum (the path the electron follows around the nucleus of an atom) are two out of the electron's three quantum properties (the other is charge). These properties attach to a single electron - unless, it seems, you pump the right substance with the right amount of energy.
