Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Find Long-Sought Majorana Particle

New submitter boner writes "In a follow-up to an earlier Slashdot story, scientists at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands yesterday published their findings that they have indeed found the Majorana particle. The announcement on the university website provides both a summary of the academic paper (PDF) and background of this groundbreaking discovery. Quoting: 'Majorana fermions are very interesting – not only because their discovery opens up a new and uncharted chapter of fundamental physics; they may also play a role in cosmology. A proposed theory assumes that the mysterious ‘dark matter, which forms the greatest part of the universe, is composed of Majorana fermions. Furthermore, scientists view the particles as fundamental building blocks for the quantum computer.'"

128 comments

  1. Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or was it just me?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by atsabig10fo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it wasn't just you :)

    2. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had my hopes up for a few seconds there...

    3. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You found WHAT playing scientist? You tell Jimmy and the rest of those kids to get the hell out of my basement right now!

    4. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by srussia · · Score: 2

      Relax, it's just oregano

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    5. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tripped me up for a minute, actually.

    6. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      Oooooooooooh, no wonder it so cheap.

    7. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or was it just me?

      I also.
      FREEWEED

    8. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by tunapez · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? If it's oregano, you can use it in your soup!

      --
      Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
    9. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by ko9 · · Score: 2

      the Marijuana particle: found in the Netherlands, of course
      as for the Hicks-Boozehound particle: they're looking in Switzerland, but if you ask me they'd be better of scouting the southern USA
      the names for these particles are a bit strange, but not without a certain charm imho.. ;-)

    10. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by chaim79 · · Score: 2

      It's a pretty stiff competition between Switzerland and Wisconsin, USA for who will find the Hicks-Boozehound particle, for the moment I think WI is in the lead after formalizing the "Teeth to Tattoo" ratio, and important step in finding the Hicks-Boozehound particle.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    11. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read Marijuana Pharimones

    12. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by digitig · · Score: 1

      It wasn't just you.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    13. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Well I read the damn thing as Majoram, as in the damn spice. Planning dinner right now and I just had to wonder what in hell these idiots are doing with majoram

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    14. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      *Sigh*... I will never understand bistromathematics.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    15. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by interval1066 · · Score: 0

      Put the bong down for a minute Ace.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    16. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      While an associate researcher gave a quick tour of the 50 tonne target detetor reporters he drew out a small metal drawer in th side of the machine and said "...plus it has a place for your weed, man."

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    17. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was some Indian spice. "Add 1 tsp of Majorana..."

    18. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 1

      Or was it just me?

      Let me read this again at 4:20 Eastern and I will let you know what I find.

    19. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that's FUNNY!

    20. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading the headline, I got the munchies... even though I never inhaled

    21. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by RevSpaminator · · Score: 2

      I did some serious research in Marijuana particles back when I was studying physics. :)

    22. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      We should just call it the Munchies Particle.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    23. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I was like "a particle? Jeez they're desperate."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    24. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You guys are both wrong. If it's in Anerica it's obviously Kentucky, the only place you can make Bourbon, and home of Hicks and rednecks, and if it's in Europe it's obviously Irish.

      How many Irish does it take to change a light bulb? Three. One to hold the bulb and two to drink until the room spins. Obviously, the Irish will find the Hicks-Boozehound particle, particularly if it's an Irishman who's immigrated to Kentucky.

    25. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. My first thought was "damn slashdot editors, can't spell marijuana correctly, they must be smoking too much of it", until I re-read it and realised that marijuana doesn't actually make sense in context.

    26. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      it wasn't just you

      Which just goes to show the detrimental effect that majorana can have on your cognitive abilitittties.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    27. Re:Did anyone else read "Marijuana Particle?" by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      I suspect the word "marijuana" has a much higher probability in most people's minds, even among Slashdot readers, than "Majorana." Most people simply have not thought about it enough to make conditioning on "particle" sufficient to change this. Although after this article it should change for many Slashdot readers.

  2. Hey now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why's my paper on the Oregano particle being all ignored? Eh? Helloo! Eh?

  3. Not Fundamental by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not like finding the Higgs Boson. The majorana fermion they created was (hard to tell exactly how from TFA) a condensed matter excitation with the properties of a majorana fermion, not a fundamental particle. Pretty cool though.

    1. Re:Not Fundamental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drat. For a moment I thought they may have found some indication of supersymmetry. ( The most likely place you will see a majora fermion in the standard model is in the supersymmetric sector. )

    2. Re:Not Fundamental by dintech · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is not like finding the Higgs Boson

      That's just the bong talking man.

    3. Re:Not Fundamental by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2

      Right. So it's kind of misleading to mention dark matter in this context. This "quasiparticle" is not dark matter.

    4. Re:Not Fundamental by Jamu · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was excited when I read the BBC's headline until I'd read the story. Ettore Majorana's disappearance is more interesting.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    5. Re:Not Fundamental by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      He obviously turned into dark matter.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Not Fundamental by sempir · · Score: 0

      This is not like finding the Higgs Boson

      That's just the bong talking man.

      Nope: if it was the bong talking he would be looking for the Hoggs Bison, and that's one huge mass of "Dark matter".

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    7. Re:Not Fundamental by Anarchduke · · Score: 0

      nah, man. but if you've put enough majorana particles in the air, it can get pretty hazy.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    8. Re:Not Fundamental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it portend practical interstellar travel?

      Let me know when it does.

    9. Re:Not Fundamental by kencurry · · Score: 1

      nah, man. but if you've put enough majorana particles in the air, it can get pretty hazy.

      That would be purple haze... (jimi hendrix reference for you youngsters)

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    10. Re:Not Fundamental by dwye · · Score: 1

      nah, man. but if you've put enough majorana particles in the air, it can get pretty hazy.

      That would be purple haze... (jimi hendrix reference for you youngsters)

      Who is Jimi Hendricks, grandpa?

      And what was his unit, rank, and service number before he left the US Army? Seriously, if they don't recognize the reference to one of his most popular songs (as measured by radio play on FM radio, sponsored by stores with names like Heads Together) why would they recognize his name?

    11. Re:Not Fundamental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he went into hiding because he "joined the darkside"??

  4. Re:I found it first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last I checked there were about six inside of Delft, thank you very much.

  5. Not a fundamental particle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    My understanding is that what's been discovered is a pseudo-particle, a quantum excitation which behaves like a Majorana particle, not an actual particle like an electron or a neutron.

  6. A Revelation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's like... all connected, maaaan!"

  7. MS by gadzook33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did I read the article correctly that this was funded by Microsoft? That's sort of coolish...

    1. Re:MS by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

      Yep.
      Microsoft Corporation Station Q.

      (What's Station Q?)

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they're a regular Robin Hood.

    3. Re:MS by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is their quantum computing research group. http://stationq.ucsb.edu/

    4. Re:MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know it is popular to view MS as if they eat babies... But they actually have some very cool research going on.

    5. Re:MS by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did I read the article correctly that this was funded by Microsoft? That's sort of coolish...

      So it's probably already patented.. That, and we'll all be forced to run Windows 9 on our quantum computers. How is that cool?

    6. Re:MS by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Funny

      Particularly into how to make babies with less gristle. Also computing.

    7. Re:MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the research program that funded this research is a public private partnership between MS and the Dutch Physics funding agency FOM. Both payed half of the budget for this research.
      (I know since worked at the HQ of the funding agency)

    8. Re:MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't understand quantum computing if you think it'll run Windows 9.

      A proper quantum computer will be running a superposition of Windows 0.8beta through Windows Finale. Unfortunately, it will usually waveform collapse into ME with a Metro interface.

    9. Re:MS by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why is that so surprising? Microsoft software has been based on quantum physics for a very long time now. Users are constantly struggling with the uncertainty principle, and can often make systems collapse simply by observing them.

    10. Re:MS by gadzook33 · · Score: 1

      You're right, better that our quantum computers only be available in one model that's produced by one company. Or maybe it'll run an operating system that comes in 101 different flavors. Who wants a generic, hardware agnostic, fairly open and friendly OS after all?

    11. Re:MS by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Something like this:I never joke about my work.

    12. Re:MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This makes me feel like black mesa

    13. Re:MS by knight24k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh for mod points....you almost made me spray coffee all over my screen.

    14. Re:MS by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 2

      the prophet speaks. that's exactly why microsoft wants this. then they can license the patent to facebook, to show you all of your potential friends from all the parallel universes in which you actually meet the people on your list.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    15. Re:MS by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      I know it is popular to view MS as if they only eat babies...

      FTFY.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    16. Re:MS by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Actually, the research program that funded this research is a public private partnership between MS and the Dutch Physics funding agency FOM. Both payed half of the budget for this research.
      (I know since worked at the HQ of the funding agency)

      If there are two, then is your name Schrodinger?

    17. Re:MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's too cool myself, I'm not in favor of a company with a rich history of patent whoring like Microsoft gaining any research ground. If they gain even more IP or have a better opportunity to use what research they acquire against others in domains other than software then it's worse than if they didn't.

      Granted I have no idea how the hell they would use patents about Majorana fermion production against anybody but their research advances still give me the creeps knowing their history.

    18. Re:MS by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 1

      You're right, better that our quantum computers only be available in one model that's produced by one company. Or maybe it'll run an operating system that comes in 101 different flavors. Who wants a generic, hardware agnostic, fairly open and friendly OS after all?

      ROFL Hardware agnostic? Fairly open? Friendly? You must be a Microserf.

      Have you ever heard of Windows Genuine DisAdvantage? Upgrade your graphics card and The Allseeing Eye of Redmond decides to cut you off from the eternal stream of XP patches.

      The only way to lift that spell that is to drop all of your XP licenses in the fires of Doom Mountain. Not easy, since "one does not walk simply into Redmond".

    19. Re:MS by gadzook33 · · Score: 1

      Save it pal, I've coded on both linux and MS for years and you're not going to convince me that the experience on linux comes anywhere close to what it is on windows. Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

    20. Re:MS by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 1

      Save it pal, I've coded on both linux and MS for years and you're not going to convince me that the experience on linux comes anywhere close to what it is on windows.

      Hey, I think it's great you can write your Minesweeper clones in Visual Basic on XP! Too bad MS sends the *user* 'critical' XP updates that break 3rd party firewalls, break Wordpad backward compatibility, or install an unwanted new version of IE. It makes you hold your breath every time you boot, and keeps you on your toes.

      Oh, and by the way, I just LOVE flamewars about a soon-to-be obsolete OS with random slashdot posters!

    21. Re:MS by gadzook33 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and by the way, I just LOVE flamewars about a soon-to-be obsolete OS with random slashdot posters!

      I can tell.

  8. Re:I found it first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only 6? Never knew Delft was such a small town.

  9. "On the border between matter and anti-matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A particle that is its own anti-particle? Sounds pretty special! Of course, that would also describe photons, the commonest particle in the universe.

    Come on, science reporting.

    1. Re:"On the border between matter and anti-matter" by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      A particle that is its own anti-particle? Sounds pretty special! Of course, that would also describe photons, the commonest particle in the universe.

      Come on, science reporting.

      Photons are bosons. Bosons being their own antiparticle is nothing unusual. A fermion that is its own antiparticle has never been observed in nature before.

    2. Re:"On the border between matter and anti-matter" by mark_osmd · · Score: 3, Informative

      A fermion that is its own antiparticle has never been observed in nature before.

      There is one possible exception, the neutrino is a half spin fermion and if it really is zero mass it would be its own anti-particle. But recent evidence suggests a tiny but non-zero mass so if that's true it's not. Maybe one experiment would be to try to observe neutrino-antineutrino annihilation, if that occurs then they are Dirac fermions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion

    3. Re:"On the border between matter and anti-matter" by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is one possible exception, the neutrino is a half spin fermion and if it really is zero mass it would be its own anti-particle.

      Actually it's the other way around: massless Fermions are Dirac, because of Chiral symmetry: in the Standard Model with massless neutrinos, all neutrinos are Dirac particles, with neutrinos being left-handed and all antineutrinos being right-handed. Mass terms break chiral symmetry, and a massive neutrino could be either Dirac or majorana depending on how the mass term is generated:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino#Majorana_or_Dirac.3F

    4. Re:"On the border between matter and anti-matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that photons can't annihilate each other.

  10. it's own antiparticle? by jstave · · Score: 2

    From one of the articles: "a particle that is its own anti-particle" Can one of the physics geeks on here explain how that works? I was under the impression that when particle and antiparticle meet, they go boom. How can this thing not annihilate? Or is it that this bit of matter *can't* turn into energy? The wikipedia entry on this didn't make any sense to me.

    1. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antiparticles aren't fundamentally different from regular matter, they're just particles with opposite electric charge. A photon is also its own antiparticle, since it has no electric charge. I'm guessing this means that these majorana particles also have no electric charge.

    2. Re:it's own antiparticle? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When two of them meet, they annihilate. Note from the article that there are two of these things, and they are at opposite ends of the nanowire. Presumably when you turn off the power or cooling they get together and turn back into energy.

      Dark matter is suspected to be the same - when two particles meet, they annihilate, potentially giving us a signal we can measure. They don't meet very often though, because dark matter barely interacts with anything, including itself.

    3. Re:it's own antiparticle? by jstave · · Score: 1

      But, neutrons have no electric charge and there's such a thing as an anti-neutron. What am I missing here?

    4. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are in fact anti-neutrons (composed of three antiquarks). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron

    5. Re:it's own antiparticle? by su5so10 · · Score: 2

      Neutrons are actually composite particles made of three charged quarks whose charges add up to 0. Antineutrons are made up of the corresponding antiparticles.

    6. Re:it's own antiparticle? by jstave · · Score: 2

      OK, thanks. That makes some sort of sense (in the "I don't understand the math" kind of way). So what's the difference between two particles meeting and a single particle by itself? The former is the same as the latter, just double the amount, right?

    7. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying to simplify, particle behaviour is "driven" by their "wavefunction", particles and antiparticles have similar complex wave functions (complex as complex numbers, i.e. 2+5i), but happen to have the imaginary part of opposite signs, lets say if in a place and time a particle's wavefunction is 2+5i, the antiparticle would show 2-5i.
      Majorana fermions do not present any imaginary part in their wavefunctions, so as 2+0i =2- 0i they are own antiparticle as well.
      It has to be said that these particles found are not "real" particles as electron or neutrinos, what they are talking about is something similar to the holes (positive charges) moving into a semiconductor, as I understand that opens the door to those "real" particles, but is not a proof of their existence.
      Cheers.
      E

    8. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can this thing not annihilate?

      It needs another one to annihilate with.

    9. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      Spin. Anti-neutrons spin the opposite way. ("Spin" here being a particle physics term--it's not the same thing as spinning in the macro world).

    10. Re:it's own antiparticle? by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Antiparticles are not just particles with opposite electric charge. They're not magically, fundamentally different, but other particle properties are negated as well.

      If it was just electric charge, then neutral-charge particles would have no antiparticle. But they do -- for example, the neutrinos (and antineutrinos).

    11. Re:it's own antiparticle? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually for the Neutrinos, the question is not yet settled. That's why experimentalists are seeking for neutrino-less double-beta decay.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re:it's own antiparticle? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not a technical explanation, but a good one I heard: if you look at a Feynman diagram (they're pretty easy to understand for a layman) you'll find that you can read them in any direction - if you go "against the time arrows" you're just looking at the antiparticle versions interacting instead, it's still a valid diagram. However, the photons don't have arrows as they don't experience time, so they're identical in either time direction, and therefore their own antiparticles.

      The interesting thing here is that it's a massive particle with that property, rather than a massless one.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    13. Re:it's own antiparticle? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Particles have all sorts of properties that may have to be conserved in any decay, including annihilation. Any stable Majorana particle would have to be only able to decay into energy if it meets another particle with complementary quantum numbers.

    14. Re:it's own antiparticle? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      OK, all I really want to know is how one reverses the tachyon beam.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:it's own antiparticle? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Trying to simplify, particle behaviour is "driven" by their "wavefunction", particles and antiparticles have similar complex wave functions (complex as complex numbers, i.e. 2+5i), but happen to have the imaginary part of opposite signs, lets say if in a place and time a particle's wavefunction is 2+5i, the antiparticle would show 2-5i.

      Simplify.

      You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Shrug) He simplified it to the level of junior high school math. If you don't understand complex numbers, you're not going to get anything out of this thread but a headache.

    17. Re:it's own antiparticle? by dissy · · Score: 1

      So what's the difference between two particles meeting and a single particle by itself? The former is the same as the latter, just double the amount, right?

      Wouldn't that be half the amount, not double?

      After all
      if particles = 1 then amount = 1
      if particles = 2 then annihilate =1 && amount = 0

      Of course zero can't be half of something, and you can't have twice of zero, so now I'm just more confused!

    18. Re:it's own antiparticle? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Neutrinos are just an example, but yes.

    19. Re:it's own antiparticle? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      "Go boom" is just an inaccurate way of describing a particle-antiparticle interaction. Particle interactions generally involve some particles going in and some other particles, or particles in different states, coming out. If a particle and it's antiparticle interact, neither of them are products of the interaction. (Often the product is just photons.)

      It's in theory more impressive if you have bulk antimatter, since matter holds a ton of energy. Individual particles, though, have relatively little energy, so their annihilation is not so spectacular.

      Some particles are already their own antiparticle. Photons, for example.

      Also, note that there cannot exist matter that "cannot turn into" energy. All matter, by definition, has mass. Mass and energy are the same thing. So all particles contain a nonzero amount of energy. There are no known "noble" particles: that is, one that cannot interact with another particle and thereby transfer its energy.

    20. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      (Shrug) He simplified it to the level of junior high school math. If you don't understand complex numbers, you're not going to get anything out of this thread but a headache.

      He's looking for an anti-headache.

    21. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But, neutrons have no electric charge and there's such a thing as an anti-neutron. What am I missing here?"

      You are not missing anything. The definition of antiparticles as being particles with "the opposite charge" is just plain wring.
      The proper definition is particles withe the opposite values of all conserved quantities except mass.
      Aside from charge a conserved quantity is Baryon number. neutrons have +1 baryon number, anitneutrons have -1 baryon number.

    22. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kinda fun showing off knowledge, but it's nowhere near as impressive as actually teaching people what you know. To teach requires so much more knowledge, of course....

    23. Re:it's own antiparticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, all I really want to know is how one reverses the tachyon beam.

      By recombining the power module array and redirecting it through the deflector shields.

      duh

    24. Re:it's own antiparticle? by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      He did simplify, he did not however make it simple. Complaining however that someone hasn't made it simple enough for you to understand is however part their failing for not being able to explain it well enough, but also part your problem for not having the required background to understand the first attempt at an answer to the question.

      Let me try a different answer to the question, try thinking of it like this:
      bosons (i.e. photons in the example) do not tend to interact with each other, one laser does not deflect the path of another it intersects with; fermions (i.e. protons & anti-protons, or more fundamentally quarks) do interact.
      An anti-particle and a particle are truly opposite, they have opposite charge, when they annihilate their mass is converted into energetic photons. Photons however have nothing opposite to cancel out. A photon has no mass to convert to energy, it is already the force and energy carrier for particle interaction.

      If you stop thinking of the proton as a single particle and think of it as a composite structure made of billions of quarks then things might start to make more sense. Only when you have the right number of these particles do you get a stable configuration. All that happens when you get an annihalation is that in one location the stable number gets upset, destabilised and falls apart. In my mind it's analagous to the process that means that electron shells exist in well defined energy zones.
      So the question becomes why and how are a certain number of quarks stable and form a proton, neutron etc and other combinations fall apart and annihilate. That I can't claim to know the answer to but I will offer this: It's easy to imagine that a certain number of quark-antiquark pairs are needed to collect enough strong nuclear force to hold the proton together (like you need enough gravity to hold the sun together in the face of the heat forcing it apart*) Too many however and the like an atom with too many protons there is also not enough strong force to hold it together.*
      Or you can look at the wikipedia explanation of what proton is says that a proton is just two ups and a down, which is a simpler model and requires none of the above confusion but is incorrect.

      I strongly suggest reading:
      http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/
      http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/particleanti-particle-annihilation/
      http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/why-do-particles-decay/most-particles-decay-why/

      * this is a flawed analogy, but i think it will do for now

      So let's try again: what of the above made sense and I can try and gauge what to try and explain anything that still does not make sense, but sooner or later you have to stop asking for analogies and explanations and just look at, study and understand the equations; at which point no explanation is needed or useful once you understand how to do that maths.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  11. Majorana is bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmk?

  12. Implications for the standard model? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    I know that some sorts of proposed Majorana particles would require extending the Standard Model. Is this discovery consistent with the Standard Model or a conservative extension thereof?

  13. A Majorana particle not THE Majorana Particle by forand · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary makes it sound like there is a particle that physicists have been seeking called a Majorana particle when in fact a Majorana particle is named because of its quantum field theory behavior. In this case NO particle was discovered but an excitation of a novel condensed matter state which behaves in an analogous way to a Majorana fermion. So in conclusion this very interesting discovery was both summarized and publicized in a misleading way.

    1. Re:A Majorana particle not THE Majorana Particle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NO particle was discovered but an excitation of a novel condensed matter state which behaves in an analogous way to a Majorana fermion.

      How perfect is the analogy? If there's no difference, there's no reason to say that it's not a particle. Maybe the "real" particles are similarly excitations of yet other phenomena.

  14. Selling 20 Majorana Particles for $20 but .. by burni2 · · Score: 0

    you have to pry them from the quarks of the my cold dead Marijuana plant.

    No particle Accelerator included!

  15. Re:I found it first! by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sometimes it looks like there's twelve.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. Well... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 0

    It works like this, the more you find out the less you know because of exponential growth in knowledge does not gain wisdom does it now? No big deal. Higgs maybe bigger deal. They know nothing. It's the force, that is what holds it all together. Yoda--

  17. If I have enough of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can I make my own Tina Majorino?

  18. For those that have to look it up by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1, Funny

    (like myself), here is the Wikipedia link

    A Majorana fermion is a fermion that is its own anti-particle.

    What the heck?! I am starting to think that my knowledge of physics will never reach even a mediocre level just because every time I start to think that I got some stuff covered, some smart-ass physicist comes by and pulls jet another particle out of his, ehem, hat.

    1. Re:For those that have to look it up by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Physicists feel the same way about the universe. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  19. Re:Boggled Brain by interval1066 · · Score: 2

    It hasn't "become" complex, it simply is, and uncovering its true nature and describing it is complex becuase we're essentially putting our hands in a black box, feeling around, and trying to describe what we feel in a logical way. Trying to describe something you can't directly observe is nessessarily going to have a complex way about it. You can describe the physics of a bouncing ball in a simple way, or you can describe it exactly using mathematical terms. Same with particle physics, bet we're trying to describe objects and phenomena that don't have good parrallels in the everyday world. But you can describe them in general terms as well, see Hawkings "A Brief History of Time".

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  20. Marijuana particle by plopez · · Score: 1

    LOL, that's how I first read it. I thought, "What have they been smoking" followed by "Cool, there's no stopping it now".

    I just thought I'd share that with all.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  21. How i originally read the title. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists Find Long-Sought Majora's Particle

    In other news, the moon grew a face and is heading towards Earth.

  22. When did The Knack get into particle physics? by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Oh. "Majorana", not "My Sharona". Never mind.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  23. Other uses for dark matter by PFritz21 · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone want to waste these particles on quantum computers, when they could be used to power spaceship engines for intergalactic delivery services?

  24. Legalize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Majorana

  25. quasiparticles unite! by dsdtzero · · Score: 1

    I believe (in a metaphysical sense) that all particles will be found to be "quasiparticles" in sence that they are emergent from some other phenomena. So, stop hating on the fact that this is not a "fundamental" particle. The idea of the quasiparticle is one of the most significant physics developments evar.

    In other news:
    Condensed matter physicists enherit the earth!!!!!

  26. Pass it on man by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

    "Scientists Find Long-Sought Majorana Particle" and they had all raided the vending machines down the hall and where found in their lab coats sitting cross legged in a circle each in turn sharing there own far-out theories of reality... "hey man don't Bogart that marjorana particle pass in on man".

  27. Re:I found it first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    City, TYVM. Back then it had some 60k people, now it seems there's nearly 100k (sayeth wikipedia). Possibly a couple more coffeeshops too then. Recall this is yurp, where cities are measured by rights bought hundreds of years ago (Delft: 1246), not size. Contrast with the 500k souls (and some soulless) The Hague that never used to have city rights (fixed in 1806, eight years after it ceased to make sense), and was derided for it too. Even so, go visit Delft and notice that it's a real city in the old sense, where say Emmen (no city rights) still very much feels like a small province town despite being a tad bigger than Delft. If you'd rather see something you might think of as a city, tour Rotterdam (1340), but that's because it got leveled in 1940, then rebuilt anew instead of like it used to be.

    As to coffeeshops, they're bloody everywhere, certainly not restricted to that well-known tourist trap. Not that I mind, though I never go there either. Just could give detailed directions to four or five out of the six, because the pommy band members kept asking. Sole reason they deigned to come and "play" at our venue, if you ask me.

  28. No, but it would explain a lot by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1, Interesting
    In particular what the paper referees were smoking when they let the first sentence of the paper:

    All elementary particles have an antiparticle of opposite charge

    get published. That would be "all" except for the photon, gluon and Z which are their own anti-particle and possibly the neutrino which might actually be a majorana fermion (we just don't know yet - underground experiments are looking into this). The webpage article is no better because it gets hopelessly confused about the difference between a fundamental particle and a condensed matter excitation. However at least that did not have to pass a referee - the journal Science should be ashamed!

    1. Re:No, but it would explain a lot by honkycat · · Score: 3

      The statement is perfectly true as written. Every particle has an antiparticle, not necessarily a distinct antiparticle, and its antiparticle has the opposite charge. (Hint: zero is its own opposite.)

    2. Re:No, but it would explain a lot by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1
      Sorry - should have included more context. The full sentence reads:

      All elementary particles have an antiparticle of opposite charge (for example, an electron and a positron); the meeting of a particle with its antiparticle results in the annihilation of both.

      which requires a distinct antiparticle.

  29. I found the Higgs Bosun particle by ozduo · · Score: 1

    It was in this piece of unobtanium I had floating around

    --
    I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
  30. Patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a patent on the Majorana Particle. Envisioned it looong time ago. Now dark matter and what not belongs to me.

  31. did anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did any else read that summary and think the science is now just making shit up to get funding?
    i mean this combination sounds really dubious to me:
    - Majorana fermions
    - uncharted chapter of fundamental physics
    - role in cosmology
    - dark matter
    - fundamental building blocks for the quantum computer

    so this brand new particle is fundamental to physics and the way the very universe works, is a part of dark matter (which is yet to be truly proven) and may and may finally get quantum computing off the ground
    seems to get more fantastical as i read it

  32. Dibs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dibs

  33. Amazing Confession by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    I parsed it as Marijuana Particle too.