Physicists Observe the Majorana Fermion, Which Is Its Own Antiparticle

Charliemopps writes: "For the first time Princeton University scientists have observed a Majorana fermion, a long-predicted but never observed exotic particle that acts as both matter and anti-matter (abstract). "The setup they created starts with an ultrapure crystal of lead, whose atoms naturally line up in alternating rows that leave atomically thin ridges on the crystal's surface. The researchers then deposited pure iron into one of these ridges to create a wire that is just one atom wide and about three atoms thick. ...[Next, they] placed the lead and the embedded iron wire under the scanning-tunneling microscope and cooled the system to -272 degrees Celsius, just a degree above absolute zero. After about two years of painstaking work, they confirmed that superconductivity in the iron wire matched the conditions required for Majorana fermion to be created in their material." The particle is surprisingly stable. Being in both states at once seems to make it interact very weakly with its surrounding material. This could also be a major step towards quantum computing.

Comments

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Well that's random

[bhcompy]

This could also be a major step towards quantum computing.

Why is that just thrown in there? It seems kind of random.
"Pizza Hut has created a bacon, cheese, AND sausage stuffed crust pizza! This amazing pizza is very delicious. This could also be a major step towards quantum computing."

Re:Well that's random

[i kan reed]

Despite combining qualities usually thought to annihilate each other—matter and antimatter—the Majorana fermion is surprisingly stable; rather than being destructive, the conflicting properties render the particle neutral so that it interacts very weakly with its environment. This aloofness has spurred scientists to search for ways to engineer the Majorana into materials, which could provide a much more stable way of encoding quantum information, and thus a new basis for quantum computing.

That's what the article says. I don't quite get it, but maybe the math is more elegant than the English representation?

Re:Well that's random

[Jaime2]

From the article: "Importantly, Kitaev also outlined how such a particle could be harnessed as a qubit, the basis of a quantum computer, which added significant impetus to the search."

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it is well known

Pizza+caffeine = code

So by your conjecture

Pizza+caffeine+sausge stuffed crust = quantum code

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

Principle investigators always throw in some inane message like this quantum computing sentence to try and justify that the basic research they do could have some great societal benefit far in the future. In reality, it will never amount to anything related to quantum computers, but it sure sounds nice and might even help them get additional funding to continue paying for the liquid helium and vacuum chambers they need to continue studying this iron nanowire.

You see other ridiculous article ending claims in plenty of other places, like chemistry where they state this could be used to revolutionize OLEDs or batteries.

Let the data and analysis speak for itself and leave off the fluff for non-scientists to add/butcher.

Re:Well that's random

[countach44]

I apologize that I don't have time to construct a proper reply, but this article gives a nice explanation of how majorana fermions can be used to make qubits (hopefully it's not paywalled, but I'm on a university network so it's hard for me to tell): http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo...

Re:Well that's random

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Pizza Hut has created a bacon, cheese, AND sausage stuffed crust pizza! This amazing pizza is very delicious. This could also be a major step towards quantum computing."

You forgot to throw in some marjoram particles into your quantum pizza.

Re:Well that's random

[fahrbot-bot]

Going back into the Historical Record a bit... "Ogg make 'fire'. This could also be a major step towards quantum computing."

Re: Well that's random

[smaddox]

First, this really is one of the most promising qubits, although possibly not using this material system. Their resilience to first-order scattering processes has the potential to make them far more to robust to decoherence. Second, true quantum computing (as apposed to quantum cryptography) is unlikely to ever work at room temperature. That does not, however, imply it won't be an important tool for research. Super computers already require large buildings to house them. A quantum super computer would be far more efficient as certain tasks.

As far as the summary/article goes, this journalist is clearly confused. This isn't a fundamental particle, its a "quasi-particle", which is a fancy word for an ensemble property. Phonons, for example, are a quasi-particle used to model quantization of crystal lattice vibrations.

Re:Well that's random

[Hartree]

Not so random. Maybe a long ways distant. (i.e. It's vaporware, but give us more money.)

One of the problems of current quantum computing qubits is they are easily upset by thermal and other noise from their surroundings.

There are certain systems that involve Majorana fermions that have been theorized to be what are called topologically protected states. These would be largely immune to noise in a way similar to how electron pairs in a superconductor are immune to the normal energy losses that cause resistance in a wire.

A problem with this, is, we hadn't really shown that Majorana fermions actually existed.

This is a hot area of solid state physics research. Note that these are not particles in the usual sense, but things that behave like particles (like electron pairs in a superconductor behave kinda sorta like single particles). They fall under the general term of quasiparticles.

Re:Well that's random

[DigiShaman]

Because a delicious pizza brings physics nerds together. The team will be well fed, and thus progress marches on. Yeah!!!

Re:Well that's random

[arth1]

From the article: "Importantly, Kitaev also outlined how such a particle could be harnessed as a qubit, the basis of a quantum computer, which added significant impetus to the search."

That's a good funding statement. It gives vague hopes for something that's a Big Thing at the time of writing, without really saying anything.

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the inevitable "this is news for nerds" troll. That troll finds a way to bitch about every story submission on the site, and won't be satisfied until there are no postings on /. anymore. Since this isn't a story about computers, but is for physics nerds instead, they tied it to computers to head off the inevitable troll. Instead, he'll bitch about something else. Like why some random quantum computing tie-in appears in the summary.

Re: Well that's random

[arth1]

smaddox (928261) wrote:

Super computers already require large buildings to house them

What do you mean, "already"?
If anything, the size of supercomputers have gone down over the years.
We can fit a lot of supercomputers in a single facility nowadays.

 

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, it is a good thing then that funding isn't determined by a single line in a PR piece, but does require proposals with gritty details and/or heavy citations.

Re: Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, the size of supercomputers have gone down over the years.

So has the size of low temperature equipment. A closed loop microkelvin setup can fit on a table top or larger cart. Depending on what you are trying to do, the space requirement and material cost will be quite low for a quantum computing setup. The engineering costs on the other hand...

Re: Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean, "already"?

"Already", meaning that the extra space & expense required for cooling the quantum computers down close to absolute 0 temperatures.

Re:Well that's random

[JoeMerchant]

Quantum computing is actually related to the infinite improbability field generator...

Tulips, again.

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Nature. Therefore it's paywalled.

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you don't get it is because that sentence is very poorly constructed. there are two properties they mention - first is the Majorana fermion being its own antiparticle, second is the fact that it is neutral, that is, it has no electric charge.
These properties are related in that a charged particle cannot be its own antiparticle, so a Majorana must be neutral, and so it doesn't feel electric fields and doesn't interact as much with the electrons and protons around it. being neutral makes it stable because it isn't disturbed by all the noise in the environment, and that's important for quantum computing 'cause you want to be able to set a qubit and have it stay there until you need it, and interference from the environment tends to ruin it.
As to calling its properties "conflicting", that's just nonsense, there's nothing wrong about being your own antiparticle - photons do it all the time! of course photons are bosons and not fermions, and while the math works just as well for fermions, for some reason we don't know of any fermion like that (well, maybe neutrinos are Majoranas, we're not sure about them).
Finally, calling what they found "a particle" is a bit confusing, the correct term is quasi-particle ,meaning it's not one of nature's fundamental particles like photons and electrons, but some stable state that lives in their carefully engineered environment and behaves as a Majorana fermion, not that it matters really.

Re:Well that's random

[FatdogHaiku]

This could also be a major step towards quantum computing.

Why is that just thrown in there? It seems kind of random. "Pizza Hut has created a bacon, cheese, AND sausage stuffed crust pizza! This amazing pizza is very delicious. This could also be a major step towards quantum computing."

The only thing that would improve that comment would be to have it read by Dr. Sheldon Lee Cooper...
Well Done!

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

This could also be a major step towards quantum computing.

Why is that just thrown in there? It seems kind of random.
    "Pizza Hut has created a bacon, cheese, AND sausage stuffed crust pizza! This amazing pizza is very delicious. This could also be a major step towards quantum computing."

Ignorant idiot.

It's called topological quantum computation.

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

See wikipedia's section on Majorana bound states.

Specifically:
"The non-abelian statistics that Majorana bound states possess allows to use them as a building block for a topological quantum computer."

Non-abelian statistics in this case meaning the particle exchange operation is non-commutative (the order you swap particles around matters, apparently bringing braid theory into play). While I don't understand the details here, I have read through it before. They arn't making this stuff up to make the new research seem important. These are old well established theories and mathematical models which are now just starting to get paired with actual observations and physical phenomenon.

Its quite exciting really since topological quantum computers are one of the few designs I've seen that has the potential to scale like traditional computers have. If they can get it working, there is a special threshold in error rates which if they can get below it, you make accuracy gains instead of losses by adding quantum error correction logic. If we get there, and can then just grow the area out across a surface, you might actually be able to build large quantum computers. This is very far out though: we only just observed a particle which may have the properties needed to make it possible at all.

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

No eating that will probably just make you feel queasy, and not particularly quasi.

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

While getting a PR piece is good for helping to get funding and furthering your career, what you say in the PR piece has little impact, short of saying something stupid. You don't draw connections to possible benefits because it helps funding, because as another post points out, that is what the actual proposal is for where you would be expected to explain yourself in a way that other scientists in the field could see why your work would be more relevant or useful than other researchers trying for the same funding. "Vague hope" doesn't cut it.

The communications department on the other hand, when helping write PR pieces, pushes you to make connections to topics people might of heard of before to try to give some "context," which ends up being half-assed because there is often not enough room or effort to explain what the work is in the first place, let alone how it connects to other work.

Re:Well that's random

[Badger Nadgers]

Hey, I ordered marijuana fermions!

Re:Well that's random

[doccus]

Actually, I remember the original promise of the internet, or better yet, of the WWW, wherein vast amounts of quality information would be accessible to raise the general I.Q. of the masses. Alas, it does seem that much of the "vast storehouse" resides behind a brick "paywall", leaving the easily accessible info more about twerks than quarks...

Re:Well that's random

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a vast amount of quality information on the internet, even if it falls short of all information. Did you want lecture notes from a QFT class introducing Majorana particles, or an introduction talk on their relevance to condensed matter research, or a review paper covering research, or how about the previous papers (e,g. this one) from the very same author of the paper in the news here? Many of her previous papers are already available for free on ArXiV, and this one might be too. Sometimes there is a bit of delay with posting things there after they get published, but a huge amount of published papers on various physics topics are available for free, either there or on researcher's home pages.

Making something available is not the same as giving people the will to bother even looking for it, let alone actually reading and pursuing such topics. But if so motivated, there is much more easy to find introductory information now on the internet than in the library when I was in grad school, at the least due to numerous lecture notes available that would never have been available in the past because it took too much time to formalize things into an actual book. Plus now you can search if much faster, and even if a paywalled version is found, it takes literally ten seconds to find free versions for many papers.

Re:Well that's random

[carnivore302]

Hey, but at least there's free porn now!

What is there to say?

[i kan reed]

This article hasn't gotten any meaningful comments yet. I'm not sure there's a lot to say about it. It's sure a particle alright. And it can only exist in superconductors, apparently, because it would annihilate with other instances of itself, if not contained.

And it validates an 80 year theory?

I don't know what else there is.

Re:What is there to say?

[turkeydance]

finally, some nerd news.

Re:What is there to say?

[Falos]

Hmm.

"Thanks science, uh, keep up the good work. Great job on that cure or medicine or whatever. But do call us when you get hoverboards worked out, doesn't matter what time it is, we'll come running."

Re:What is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

This so much.

Re:What is there to say?

[i kan reed]

Naw, we totally talk have lots to say about black holes not being real or whatever.

It's just that this seems like a very narrow look into some particle physics development work, which, while important, doesn't shine a particularly broad light on the universe as a whole.

Re:What is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't shine a particularly broad light on the universe as a whole.

The vast majority of physics does not have deep implications for the universe as a whole. This is still a rather broad results within condensed matter with possible applications, which stands out from a lot of other research in the field. For a site that has interest in tech and computing, this seems more central to "news for nerds" that another pop-sci piece that doesn't add much on deep space topics.

Re:What is there to say?

[i kan reed]

I brought up black holes because it was a recent example that raised interesting questions, not because only astrophysics counts.

The summary is missleading

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps it would have been much easier and much more accurate to copy/paste simply the original MIT abstract of the article.

The 'discovered' Majorana Fermion is a quasiparticle, created at the boundary edges of two superconductors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...

In this case iron and lead, so there is actually no 'new particle' discovered but more or less only a 'quantum point' created by weird behaving electrons ...

And this all together is light years away from anything useful regarding quantum computing (IMHO :) )

Re:The summary is missleading

[Anonymous Coward]

And this all together is light years away from anything useful regarding quantum computing (IMHO :) )

The same could be said for the actual current day quantum computers.

Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[blueg3]

The summary (and the article!) imply that it is rare and strange for a particle to be its own antiparticle. This is not the case. Plenty of boson and mesons are their own antiparticles: photons, gluons, pions, etc. This isn't a particularly weird situation.

However, fermions are another story. Fermions and bosons are the two kinds of fundamental particles. They behave very differently. While there are bosons that are their own antiparticle, there are no known fermions that have this property. All the fermions we know of are Dirac-type. It's been long postulated that there could be Majorana-type fermions, which, among other things, are their own antiparticles.

It's interesting, but not quite as crazy as implied.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

not even interesting to me, not a particle but rather a region that has some properties like a particle, a "quasi-particle". *yawn*

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should take a nap kid and let the grownups talk.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Prune]

So what matters here is what's interesting to you? How autistic can you get? There's nothing boring or yawn-worthy about a quasi-particle; all you've done is shown that physics is just not your thing. Unlike the GP post, which is high quality and got moderated appropriately, all you've done is take a dump in this discussion. Good job.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[nine-times]

Ok, so if you know this stuff, what does it mean for a particle to be its own antiparticle? Does that mean if it comes into contact with another such particle, they're both annihilated? Does that mean that they're neutral to matter and anti-matter, or do they still somehow fall into one of those categories?

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline "Gamers simulate the Majorana Fermion in Minecraft" would be entertaining, but not interesting. Same for this quasi-particle stuff.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[DrJimbo]

what does it mean for a particle to be its own antiparticle?

In theoretical calculations if you reverse the charge (C), the parity (P), and time (T) of a particle, you get its antiparticle. A simpler (and less accurate) way of saying this is that antiparticles are normal particles traveling backward in time. This is not just a novelty, it is important for doing quantum field theory calculations (see Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation).

So a particle is its own antiparticle if you reverse all three (CPT) and get the same thing. As the OP said, this is not unusual. It is only unusual for fermions. If two of them collide with each other then they can be annihilated and turn into another particle-antiparticle pair, just like photons can. Since they are neutral (I *think*, due to C symmetry) they don't attract each other like positrons and electrons do so you have to make special arrangements to get them to collide.

Does that mean that they're neutral to matter and anti-matter, or do they still somehow fall into one of those categories?

If there were an anti-matter universe then the photons there would be the same as the photons here. Same thing with Majorana fermions. I guess you could say they are both matter and anti-matter. You could also say they are neither matter nor anti-matter.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[blueg3]

That's hard to answer for a few reasons. I'm not a particle physicist, the subject is kind of complicated, and most people start off ill-informed (sorry!).

Antiparticles are not particularly weird and particle-antiparticle interactions are, in particular, not some kind of physical witchcraft. I always have disliked that it's called annihilation. At the subatomic level, particle interactions are common and they generally involve the "creation" and "destruction" of particles. For example, maybe a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino (by way of one of its down quarks changing into an up quark). Particle interactions are all sort of a shuffling of energy between the different flavors of bundles of energy we call particles. Lots of different physical quantities, like charge, are conserved, limiting what interactions can happen.

In the interest of simplicity, a lot of what I'll say next is slightly wrong.

Antiparticles aren't particularly weird. Particles all have a set of physical properties. It turns out that for each particle, there is another particle that is basically exactly the same, except all these physical properties are opposite. So an electron has charge -1 and an antielectron (positron) has charge +1. In fact, if you look at a legal particle interaction and replace all of the particles with their antiparticles, it's still a legal particle interaction.

An implication of this is that if a particle and its antiparticle interact (not a particle and *any* antiparticle, but *its* antiparticle), the net total for any of their conserved quantities (like charge) is zero. That means the major legal interaction is that the two particles are destroy and produce photons. While photons are particles, we tend to think of them as just energy, so the particle-antiparticle interaction is an "annihilation": two particles go in, energy and zero particles come out.

The "its antiparticle" bit is important. You don't see a lot of antielectrons because a free antielectron would easily encounter an electron and annihilate. But there are plenty of antineutrinos because they interact weakly with the rest of the world. An antineutrino interacting with, say, a proton does not cause annihilation. Even an antielectron interacting with, say, a proton doesn't do anything special.

Oh, also, it turns out that, at least for the "normal matter" particles like electrons and protons, the universe seems to contain pretty much only the normal-matter particles and (relatively) no antiparticles. There doesn't seem to be any reason, in physics, for one to be preferred over the other. (It's just that in one region of space, you couldn't have a mixture and also have stable matter.) So that's weird.

This is all a long-winded way of getting to the answer that particles that are their own antiparticles aren't particularly exciting. They all have the property that conserved quantities (at least, those that are negated in antiparticles) are zero. So they all naturally have annihilation interactions: when two collide, they can annihilate and form protons. But the annihilation interaction isn't particularly dramatic or weird, it just sounds interesting. The particles all probably also have interactions with all sorts of other types of particles, too, and it really comes down to what particle it happens to collide with first. Maybe a photon and an antineutrino interact with a proton and form a neutron.

Most of the particles that are their own antiparticles are relatively neutral to normal matter (and consequently, also to normal antimatter). But they're all a very different kind of particle from normal matter. They're things like force-carriers (photons) and muons, and they interact with electrons and protons differently from how electrons and protons interact with each other.

For some real fun, look up Feynman diagrams, a neat way of writing down different legal particle interactions. One axis is space (in one dimension) and one axis is time. Now, any 90-degree rotation of a legal interaction is still a legal interaction.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[blueg3]

Perhaps you think it's uninteresting because you mistakenly think that there's some deep, fundamental difference between a particle and a quasi-particle that makes one "real" and the other "not real".

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[ljw1004]

You can build a quantum computer out of anything that BEHAVES like a Majorana particle, regardless of whether it's a "real" particle or not. Likewise current computers are built out of "hole/electron pairs" and work just fine even though the hole is a quasi particle.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Prune]

iggymanz posting as AC so he doesn't lose more /. karma. Sad.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Prune]

Mod parent up.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

Of course, quasi-particles are not elementary particles. They are not part of the Standard Model nor anything beyond it, they are not products of collisions in particle accelerators.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

No, mod them down for talking out of their ass, understanding nothing. Quasi-particles are not fundamental particles that make up the universe. A fundamental majorana fermion would be newsworthy

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

So what, quantum computers can built out of things that aren't Majorana particles too, and in fact all the existing ones aren't.

hole/electron semiconductors not even relevant, "hole" just a convenient model for electron that has some issues by the way, holes are NOT a quasi-particle as they have different properties than any particle. Holes in semiconductors don't behave as exact opposite of electron.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

No, what matters more is discovering more fundamental particles of matter and energy. That will push civilization and technology further than any quasi-particle studied just because it *might* be useful for computation. Note no quantum computer using MF exists or likely will exist.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

Wrong, I never post AC. You have no valid argument, nor point; and so now are reduced to mocking an AC who is not me. You are the one who is sad and pathetic, in addition to being ignorant of physics.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

That will push civilization and technology further than any quasi-particle studied just because it *might* be useful for computation

Except that the last few fundamental particles discovered over the last couple decades have no foreseeable application, and are unlikely to see any practical application in decades, if not more. I'm not condemning pure research, which has its place, but if you are trying to make an argument out of impact on technology and civilization, you got this flat out backwards. Quasiparticles have applications now and have technological implications, including devices used for material and semiconductor analysis that make use of phonons and plasmons. Not to mention semiconductor holes, which despite what you say elsewhere, I'm going to side with condensed matter textbooks that treat it like a quasiparticle.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

Quasi-particles are not fundamental particles that make up the universe.

Nice strawman, as it seems no one here is arguing this. People are trying to argue that quasiparticles are still of great interest and just as capable of applications and have nearly as many implications to theories as fundamental particles. Yes, a new fundamental particle would be more exciting and have even more implications, but make some of the largest discoveries in recent condensed matter work not "newsworthy."

No, mod them down for talking out of their ass, understanding nothing.

And on what basis is what you say any less talking out of your ass? Considering how big of a deal work like this gets treated at physics conferences, not just condensed matter ones but those with a wider audience, maybe you're the one who is talking out of the ass about significance and without understanding modern physics.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, for someone who spends so much time talking about other people's ignorance of science and people talking out their ass, you're putting a pot and kettle to shame. As other posters have already suggested pick up a solid state textbook sometime. Or if that is too much effort, peruse Wikipedia, or look at just free online course notes since that is what a lot of condensed matter courses use these days. Just because a hole is not the exact opposite of an electron, and that the model is in some ways an approximation, or that they have differences from some other particles, does not negate their status as a quasiparticle. You seem to have no understanding of what a quasiparticle is or their usefulness and meaning in physics, even if you can just quote a very basic definition elsewhere.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

"Something isn't interesting to you? That must mean you are autisitc."

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

In 1950s anti-neutrinos discovered and now there are practical applications for it. Muons, positrons, anti-protons have practical applications. So in 60 years we went from only having application for proton, neutron, electron and photon to using four more particles. And if neutrino turns out to be a MF that would be huge.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

the autism is strong with this one

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[blueg3]

Particles are interesting bundles of localized energy present in particular fields that happen to have a particular set of properties.

Quasiparticles are interesting bundles of localized energy present in particular fields that happen to have properties similar to particles and also happen to be describable in terms of collective effects of what we call "particles".

Particles simply aren't as "fundamental" as you seem to think they are.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

That in no way contradicts the post you replied to, which didn't say there would never be applications nor said there were no applications for particles discovered further in the past. But the time between discovery and practical application of fundamental particle physics grows with time, from what was immediate application a century ago to now more than several decades. This is all moot though, as you seem to be using this as some sort of contrast to things that have shown applications within a couple years, and have many applications now. There is no "might" about that in general, various similar discoveries, even if not this one, are having impact. The "might" have impact is the fundamental physics research, which would mean you seem to have things exactly backwards while acting as if you are the only one who gets it.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe talk to someone who actually works in experimental particle physics (e.g. me or on of my coworkers...),because very few view fundamental particle physics research as something done for the direct applications. Many of us will point out right away that there is no known practical use for such research, and go on to make a point for pure research for the sake of knowledge and possibly indirect tech development . People online are much more likely to push that there are applications to current particle physics research than actual researchers, usually displaying a complete lack of understanding in the process of trying to claim what type of applications are possible.

Research like what is discussed in the article on the other hand, is something you at a lot of universities done under the applied physics department, or the EE department, because it is connected to possible short term applications, not even counting quantum computers.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

We haven't been discovering new particles for any significant length of time for you to make a statement about how long a practical application of a discovery takes. I could well say we only used four particles in applications for hundreds of thousands of years, and all of a sudden in a span of a decades are using many.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because the last couple decades of particles still waiting for significant application include the W and Z boson, tau particle, Higgs boson, top and bottom quark, and more... about nearly half or more of the fundamental particles. The exactly how long it will take is moot considering what you were being dismissive to a whole category of things with numerous commercial applications. You're just digging a deeper whole, showing off your ignorance of a multiple fields of research at the same time while seeming to looking like you think you are actually defending your position.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

what matters more is discovering more fundamental particles of matter and energy

Just because some other discovery may have more impact doesn't mean it is the only thing that matters.

That will push civilization and technology further than any quasi-particle studied just because it *might* be useful for computation

Quasi-particles with these properties have been in demand to test various theories and applications. That is a lot more certain than undiscovered particles that *might* come up with uses for later.

Note no quantum computer using MF exists or likely will exist.

Theoretical designs exists, and of course physical ones don't exist yet because they only just now working out how to make the quasi-particles over the last couple years. It seems kind of short sighted to complain that something just discovered isn't yet used in something. It seems to be a rather twisted kind of ignorance to be short sighted in this way while incorrectly complaining others are not aware of physics or are not thinking of unknown applications for fundamental particles.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[iggymanz]

So you admit about half of particles have an application. dang, we're doing good in that regard.

There are NO commercial applications whatsoever of quasi-particle MF, your "whole category of things" has zero members. You lose.

Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone was saying majorana fermions have an application, they've all been saying that a bunch quasi-particles in general have applications and that it is stupid to think of them as not being important. But I don't know how bright you can be if you want things to have commercial applications before they are discovered... or if you lack reading comprehension, as the previous post didn't say nearly half of the fundamental particles don't have application, only that nearly half of them have been discovered in the last couple decades. Only about a third of them, not counting antiparticles, have applications outside of particle physics, all discovered or known about since the 30s.

Quick explanation

[Okian Warrior]

A Majorana particle is it's own antiparticle; such as, for example, a photon.

Most fermions have different antiparticles from themselves: Protons are notably different from anti-protons, electrons are different from positrons, and so on. The one exception is the neutrino, for which the question is not yet settled.

If the neutrino is its own antiparticle, we should see double-beta-decay events. A beta decay emits a neutrino, so if two happen simultaneously the neutrinos should annihilate if they are their own antiparticle. (Wikipedia link)

As yet no experiment has seen double-beta-decay, so it's likely that the neutrino has a distinct anti-neutrino - an intriguing prospect.

The article referenced in the post does not identify the fermion involved, so one can only assume that it's a "quasi particle", which is a type of vibration. Essentially a phonon (sound wave) with fermion-like properties.

Re:Quick explanation

[ihtoit]

most likely this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Directly citing this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... (which was actually received for review in JULY).

Too difficult to tie to naked celebs or fails

[Overzeetop]

Really, they're pretty far down on the click-bait ladder. Naked celebrities, boobs, epic fail videos, and people getting the shit beat out of them are the gold standards. By the time you're throwing in a quantum computing reference you're really just grasping for anything that might get a click.

So...

[Stormy Dragon]

...It's finally come to this.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory link.

Re:So...

[Stormy Dragon]

Yes, you got the reference. =P

Anti-matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this imply that we may have a stable source of anti-matter? That fx tilting the balance by some means will release anti-matter than may fuel my NCC-1701 ?

NOT a Real Majorana Fermion

[Roger W Moore]

It's sure a particle alright.

Not it is not. It is really just a simulation of a particle. All they have done is create a system which behaves like we think a majorana fermion should behave. They have emphatically NOT created a new fundamental particle. What they have done is hype up the interesting physics they have done to make it look like they are doing particle physics which they are not.

Don't get me wrong: this is definitely an interesting result but it is unnecessary, and rather deceptive, to present it as particle physics when it isn't. Such experiments are very interesting and worthwhile because they may improve our understanding of how a majorana particle behaves. However if we found an inexplicable deviation between the way that this "simulated particle" behaves and how a theoretical majorana fermion is expected to behave after 'debugging' we would put it down to them not simulating the particle correctly and we would not be rewriting the fundamental laws of physics.

Re:NOT a Real Majorana Fermion

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's a quasiparticle, but it's still a Majorana fermion because fermions don't have to be fundamental particles. Since QM is all just maths anyway, it doesn't really matter if it's a fundamental particle or a quasiparticle. The statistics are all that matter. If this thing doesn't have the right statistics it's not a Majorana fermion. If it does, then it is one by definition. And if it has the right statistics but causes some interaction that wasn't predicted, then I'm afraid we do have to fix our understanding of interactions.

Re:NOT a Real Majorana Fermion

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a real particle.

It is not a fundamental particle.

...and my brain just cooked itself

[ihtoit]

...trying to make sense of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Re:...and my brain just cooked itself

[JoeMerchant]

That's because you're supposed to supercool to superconduction before looking for them....

me trying to be funny

[Anonymous Coward]

http://qbnets.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/first-ever-photo-of-majorana-fugitive/

Stop. Posting. These. Articles.

[ljhiller]

Most recently: http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Any story where the Majorana fermion is "inside" something isn't the earthshattering discovery these mis-representing stories say it is. It's just a bunch of electrons moving around as a group. It's interesting to people interested in such things. It doesn't redefine our understanding of the universe as the discovery of THE Majorana fermion would be. Which probably doesn't even exist, so you should already be looked at these submissions with a skeptical eye.

Everytime you post one of these, it's like seeing "RSA BROKEN" and then reading the article to find the footnote "for 64 bit keys". Just stop.

Re:Stop. Posting. These. Articles.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Any article mentioning "anti-matter" that is not a step toward "warp drive" is not worth the time.
Quantum computing... meh.

Re:Stop. Posting. These. Articles.

[Immerman]

Umm, maybe not earth-shattering, but if they've managed to confirm the existence of something unusual that's pretty significant. I mean what's the ratio these days, something like 80% of published findings are later proved false? So the first time someone publishes about a major discovery the safe bet is that it's a false alarm. It's not terribly significant until several independent research groups have managed to confirm the finding, ideally at least some of which were of the "we did a completely unrelated experiment that *also* found evidence of the same thing" variety. The result being that virtually all major discoveries are only "earth shattering" in retrospect.

And that's probably just as well - let's confine that kind of damage to the past, we're not using it anymore anyway.

Re:Stop. Posting. These. Articles.

[radtea]

It's interesting to people interested in such things

Those would be nerds, to whom this news matters.

The problem is not with the article, but the headline, which I agree is very misleading, although not as bad as those idiotic "Man does X using only HIS BRAIN"(and a few million dollars of heavy electronics that replace his arms and the keyboard.)

Quasi-particles are real particles. They are just composite particles that exist only inside atomic lattices instead of elementary particles that exist in free space. That someone has created a quasi-particle that is described by Majorana's equation is extremely interesting.

As well as the potential impact on climate change... no, wait, this discovery got "quantum computing" in the buzzword lottery... as well as the potential impact on quantum computing, this sort of discovery is interesting because it allows us to investigate the dynamics of Majorana particles empirically, and that can lead to unexpected and novel insights. Good science, that.

There's a Movie in this

[Anonymous Coward]

First Ever Photo of Majorana Fugitive
Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 4:55 am Edit This

The Majorana Fermion (alias The Major) has been sought by police authorities for more than 75 years; in fact, since 1937, when his daddy, Ettore Majorana, first reveal his existence to the world. And now, finally, that elusive fugitive has been captured, and put into a bound state, or prison cell. Detectives were able to lure him into an iron wire, and then cornered him at the end of that wire. It is believed that in such a bound state, The Major will lose his anti-social fermion behavior and start behaving politely, like an anyon. Here is a mugshot of The Major, while in his prison cell:

anyon-selfie

This rainbow-colored picture is meant to convey, respectfully, the fact that The Major is LGBT (he is neither a fermion nor a boson, but something gay in between). Leon Lederman calls him The Gay Particle.

For a police report describing the events that led to The Major’s capture, see

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-majorana-fermion-physicists-elusive-particle.html

And here is a Wikipedia profile of this most wanted fugitive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion

So what will come next? A quantum computer composed of millions of gay particles? The conservatives are horrified at this prospect, and have vowed to do everything in their power to oppose the building of such an abomination, a gay quantum computer, something which is explicitly forbidden by the Bible.

Re:There's a Movie in this

[Anonymous Coward]

A quantum computer composed of millions of gay particles? The conservatives are horrified at this prospect, and have vowed to do everything in their power to oppose the building of such an abomination, a gay quantum computer, something which is explicitly forbidden by the Bible.

One of my first CS professors always did claim that computers ran on magic fairies. Clearly she was a visionary that foresaw the end of our reliance on magic white smoke.

This could also be a major step towards quantum...

[pigiron]

Hahahahahahahahaha!

No, don't stop...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't see the importance on work with quasi particles, then maybe you should leave a site for nerds instead of telling them to cater to you. While not as "earthshattering" as discovering a new fundamental particle, quasiparticles are just as suited for testing theories and developing applications.

It's just a bunch of electrons moving around as a group.

Good thing there are no applications to devices that use principles based on electrons moving around as groups, and quasiparticles like holes interacting with electrons...

Marijuana Fermion

[Tokolosh]

Is it just me?

Re:Marijuana Fermion

[Anonymous Coward]

I read this too.

No scoop, 'Majorana' has been observed in 2012.

[Teukels]

Nature has the article in April 2012 'Signatures of Majorana Fermions in Hybrid Superconductor-Semiconductor Nanowire Devices':
[ http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... ]

Which led to reports in popular online media:
[ http://news-beta.slashdot.org/... ]

old news

[Anonymous Coward]

This was already done in 2012 in The Netherlands (and extensively covered)
http://www.tudelft.nl/en/current/latest-news/article/detail/nanowetenschappers-vinden-langgezocht-majorana-deeltje/

Majorana was his own antiparticle

[FullBandwidth]

As good a time as any to recommend my nominee for the most lively biography of one physicist written by another physicist, to wit "A Brilliant Darkness: The Extraordinary Life and Mysterious Disappearance of Ettore Majorana..." by Joao Magueijo. A bit of physics, a bit of scandal, a bit of gossip, just enough foul language, plus some honest, original biographical research.

Don't they proofread???

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2012, a team of researchers at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands may have caught a glimpse of Majorana fermions in an experiment that induced superconductivity in a semiconductor known as indium antemonide .

That's "antimonide" or "stibnide". Looks like they would proofread a little better.

That's nothing

[rsilvergun]

I'm my own Grandpa!