Slashdot Mirror


New State of Matter Detected in a Two-Dimensional Material (phys.org)

An anonymous reader cites a report on Phys.org: An international team of researchers have found evidence of a mysterious new state of matter, first predicted 40 years ago, in a real material. This state, known as a quantum spin liquid, causes electrons -- thought to be indivisible building blocks of nature -- to break into pieces. The researchers, including physicists from the University of Cambridge, measured the first signatures of these fractional particles, known as Majorana fermions, in a two-dimensional material with a structure similar to graphene. Their experimental results successfully matched with one of the main theoretical models for a quantum spin liquid, known as a Kitaev model. The results are reported in the journal Nature Materials. Quantum spin liquids are mysterious states of matter which are thought to be hiding in certain magnetic materials, but had not been conclusively sighted in nature. The observation of one of their most intriguing properties -- electron splitting, or fractionalisation -- in real materials is a breakthrough. The resulting Majorana fermions may be used as building blocks of quantum computers, which would be far faster than conventional computers and would be able to perform calculations that could not be done otherwise.

71 comments

  1. Electrons?? by utdpenguin · · Score: 1, Informative

    Are thought to be indivisible?? Since when?

    --
    In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
    1. Re:Electrons?? by sbaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's worse is that Majorana fermions are their own anti-particle - so they have no charge - so if the electron split into three of them - where did it's charge go?

      This stuff is *hard* to understand!

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    2. Re:Electrons?? by utdpenguin · · Score: 0

      I am not a science person, and have no idea what anything you just said means, and I still spotted that that line was BS. In other words, how the hell did it get published?

      --
      In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
    3. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Electrons cannot be divided into more fundamental particles. They're it, baby.

    4. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are thought to be indivisible?? Since when?

      Uhm, for quite a while now?

      "The electron is a subatomic particle, symbol e or , with a negative elementary electric charge.[8] Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family,[9] and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

    5. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we have no evidence that they are divisible. But I guess they overstated our knowledge.

    6. Re:Electrons?? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      What's worse is that Majorana fermions are their own anti-particle - so they have no charge - so if the electron split into three of them - where did it's charge go?

      This stuff is *hard* to understand!

      Can the charge be consumed by the action of splitting? I really don't know about sub-atomic kinetics but the energy has to go somewhere so potential(charge) to kinetic(split) is the only thing I see as an opening... otherwise I'm really not happy with energy just evaporating... Hey maybe there really is æther but it's a very short lived kinetic property of matter!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    7. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it suggest that the electric charge is not a fundamental force but dependent of other fields?

    8. Re:Electrons?? by HumanWiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      I came across this from 4yrs ago: http://www.popsci.com/science/...

    9. Re:Electrons?? by flyingfsck · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The wave-particle duality and the dual slot experiments showed that electrons are divisible a long time ago.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    10. Re:Electrons?? by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      In the standard model, electrons are indivisible.
      Protons and neutrons are made of quarks and are divisible, even though they really don't like it.

    11. Re:Electrons?? by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since the past 100 years or so. They're point particles, which means they have no internal structure, and aren't composed of any other particles. They can be destroyed or created, but that's not division.

      You can also split an electron's wavefunction into multiple pieces, so that it occupies certain distinct regions with various probability amplitude (and these split wavefunctions can actually have physical effects: while I'm not enough of an expert on condensed matter to say for sure, a quick skim of the paper indicates that something like that is what is happening here), that's a bit different from dividing the electron.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    12. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You admit you are clueless, but still call it BS. Wow.

    13. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard to understand because it's bullsh*t.

    14. Re:Electrons?? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are thought to be indivisible?? Since when?

      Electrons were certainly thought to be indivisible when first discovered (see also, atoms, protons). The answer to "since when", because that's since the electron was discovered in 1897. But you meant to imply that the electron was already know to be constituted of component particles. So a better way to do that would be an incredulous "is this XXXX?" or similar that expressed a belief it was already common knowledge.

      Pedantry aside, wikipedia tells me that all 6 leptons (which include electrons) are indivisible. So, I dunno. The Standard Model certainly assumes that they are.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I try to divide they by zero the experiment fails. I firmly believe electrons are only partially divisible.

    16. Re:Electrons?? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dual slot experiments show that electrons have wave-like properties. The electron is indivisible and point-like as far as we know. In quantum mechanics going through two slits at the same time does not mean you're divisible.

    17. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is typical of the rag known as Nature that likes to call itself a journal. No self-respecting scientist would ever publish in it. Absolute garbage. The media loves it though, biologists get to pretend to be real scientists and the main stream media buys it.

    18. Re:Electrons?? by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Funny

      where did it's charge go?

      It re-enfrobulates the flux of the, er, doo-hicky causing the doo-dad to re-distrube the, umm, polarity of the charge of the base pairs leading to a, err, dispersion of the charge across an, um, er, tensor field exhibiting Jacobian properties and cancelling out the, um, potentiation of the matrix. Yeah, that's is, potentiation of the matrix.

      It's quite simple, really. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    19. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have some moldy cheese that may be used to build quantum computers one day.

    20. Re:Electrons?? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dual slot experiments show that electrons have wave-like properties. The electron is indivisible and point-like as far as we know. In quantum mechanics going through two slits at the same time does not mean you're divisible.

      Well, that's one of many areas where quantum mechanics gets hairy. If you see patterns where a single particle behaves like you'd expect from a system of particles (quasi-particles, pseudo-particles) does that mean it actually consists of even smaller particles or not even though we can't pull them apart and study them individually? I think that's the current state of quarks, even though atoms are made up from quarks we've never been able to pull a proton apart and study one in isolation.

      I mean we can send sea waves against slits and see interference patterns. We send a single electron against slits and see interference patterns, it's one quantum wave interfering with itself. It's certainly possible to postulate that what we see as "one" particle/wave duality consists of many near-inifitely small other particles, held together by a force so strong we haven't got a name for it. And what we're seeing in the dual slit experiment is this collection of particles hitting a slit, interfering but not splitting, like a man with a dog on a leash going on separate sides of a lamp post.

      That still wouldn't explain many other weird phenomenons like quantum entanglement though. Apparently if you take two entangled electrons and measure something on one you might get a 50-50 distribution but then when you measure the other it'll be exactly like the first one and vice versa so the order of the measurement collapses the wave function for both electons. But one doesn't exclude the other, some of the batshit weirdness might be because it consists of sub-electron particles and some not. I really don't see any other sane explanations for interference, but then QM is insane.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is typical of the rag known as Nature that likes to call itself a journal. No self-respecting scientist would ever publish in it. Absolute garbage. The media loves it though, biologists get to pretend to be real scientists and the main stream media buys it.

      No kidding. They actually published a hoax article from a couple of pranksters about the double helix form of DNA.

    22. Re:Electrons?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you see patterns where a single particle behaves like you'd expect from a system of particles

      They don't. Electrons travel in strait lines unless acted upon. The double slit experiment shows electrons being detected in impossible places unless you treat them as a probability wave. Even if you treated an electron as a collection of particles, you still couldn't get the results of the double slit experiment.

    23. Re:Electrons?? by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      "I mean we can send sea waves against slits and see interference patterns. We send a single electron against slits and see interference patterns, it's one quantum wave interfering with itself. It's certainly possible to postulate that what we see as "one" particle/wave duality consists of many near-inifitely small other particles, held together by a force so strong we haven't got a name for it." While it's nice to speculate, to dismiss proven and documented science by experts to use your own speculative theories is foolish at best. As said above, electrons CANNOT be subdivided, they are fundamental particles.

    24. Re:Electrons?? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It has been a little while for me, but wasn't the dual slot experiment used to show that photons acted like a wave, not electrons?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Magnetic monopoles? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Have we discovered magnetic monopoles?

    1. Re:Magnetic monopoles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No.

    2. Re:Magnetic monopoles? by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Magnetic monopoles have been discovered as much as invisble humans have been discovered: They exist in fiction, in theories, and as clever just-sort-of-invisible surrogates in illusionist shows. In reality, though: No.

    3. Re:Magnetic monopoles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that there was a candidate for that discovery a month or two ago.

    4. Re:Magnetic monopoles? by whopub · · Score: 2

      No, but we're one step closer to having a disintegration ray. Time to upgrade those sharks!

    5. Re:Magnetic monopoles? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      The magnetic monopoles in spin lattices are "quasiparticles". They aren't fundamental particles. They are basically simulations of monopoles on a crystal lattice. But these crystal patterns can still exist at a quantum scale, so they still act like particles.
      This explains it if you understand enough physics. http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

  3. Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by ffkom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There obviously are no "2-dimensional materials", just thin, 3-dimensional layers of material that may have interesting properties. Also, I don't believe for a second that "electrons break apart" in this "mystical" matter - this will most likely turn out to be just about some fancy maths, using fractional charges to describe a model of the "interesting properties". I stopped reading when the article started fantasizing about the use in quantum computers. That's the point where you know they just want to ride some hype in lieu of some substantial results they could present. Sorry for being so pessimistic - I'm a physicist, too.

    1. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll be more optimistic when I stop being right." - Most of Us

      Seriously though, this article is crap.

    2. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by MaxSmoke · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's has two dimensions for electrons confined in the material. An electron cannot move in the third dimension because it is restricted to motion in a plane. Similarly an electron or other particle (or wave) can be restricted to one dimension in a wire structure, because it only has one degree of freedom, i.e. motion along a line.

      Your objection assumes that our experience of the world, in this case three dimensions, applies at all scale and in all conditions. Modern physics refutes this assumption.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    4. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know, I thought a journalist got a little too carried away, but actually it was the authors of the scientific paper who made these statements.

      Anyways, the electrons don't break apart. The "fractional" particles are just quasiparticles which are just labels of particular patterns found in the spins in crystal lattices. These are not fundamental particles.

    5. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a physicist do you entertain the possibility that maybe we are not as smart as we think the are? That people confuse theoretical physics with non-theoretical physics? There are some substantial gaps in our knowledge of the universe. We profess to know how the universe began but can't explain where 80% of the missing matter went.

    6. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by ffkom · · Score: 1

      The story headline and summary talks about "2 dimensional material", not "2 degrees of freedom for electrons to move". And the material is not quite "2 dimensional", if it was, we could stack an infinite amount of it into a box. Also, talking about an electron having only 2 or 1 degrees of freedom for movement is per se a little weird, as electrons have been shown the ability to tunnel through barriers definitely thicker than one layer of atoms. So if electrons were actually confined to a two-dimensional space, that would at least be a property of not only one layer of atoms, but a 3-dimensional structure of considerable size.

    7. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by sexconker · · Score: 1

      What kind of horse shit is this?
      It's a 3-dimensional material and the electrons within it will move in 3 dimensions whether you want them to or not. The thinner you make it, the more likely it'll be for the electron to tunnel out, Gotta Go Dawg! style. I guess you could restrict them to 2 dimensions if you were at absolute zero, but you'd never be able to check that to verify.

    8. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      I think it's just a layer of a field they are seeing.

    9. Re: Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, using this for quantum computing is actually a thing. They're called topological quantum computers and use the fractional quantum hall effect that has been studied for some years now. The fractional parts can be 'twisted' in a certain sense so as to form knots which are extremely stable methods to store quantum information. The knots can form a network which can carry out calculations. Well, theoretically for now.

      IBM is researching this.

    10. Re:Way too many buzzwords to sound credible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's has two dimensions for electrons confined in the material. An electron cannot move in the third dimension because it is restricted to motion in a plane.

      What a load of hogwash.
      If they were confined to a 2D plane then no electrical interaction wuould ever be possible with such a material.
      But in reality there is such interaction and hence there is no absolute confinement to any 2D plane.

      What you propose is not modern physics but a modern abstraction of physics.

  4. Re:A bit behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uhm... I know Physics was a while ago for me - but can you point to some of that 'elementary science' that indicates how electrons have been thought to be divisible for 50 years?

    At least wikipedia seems to disagree: "Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family,[9] and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure."

    [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron ]

  5. Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My brain is not wired up for this kind of stuff

  6. Standard Model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... If electrons break into parts of some sort in this state, does that imply that electrons are made of some other, more fundamental particles? It was my understanding that all of the standard model particles were supposed to be as basic as if gets, at least until you start talking about strings or some other all-encompassing ultimate particle. For that matter, if electrons break into parts, doesn't that suggest the same is true at least of the other leptons? ...and if any of this is what the summary says, why haven't we been hearing about this for years as a possible avenue of exploration for physics beyond the standard model?

    1. Re:Standard Model? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. It's all about pseudoparticles, which don't actually exist.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... has a better description. Click on the link to "fractionalization" which is what this article is talking about.

    2. Re:Standard Model? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      For all you folks who are more versed in electrical engineering than physics, a good example of a quasiparticle is positively charged "holes". These are a lot like electrons but are clearly not fundamental particles.

  7. Quantum computers... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

    This is interesting, but why does every new announcement in physics have to be hailed as a potential breakthrough for quantum computers? At the rate of breakthroughs in the last couple of years, we should have had working quantum computers 5 years ago.

    1. Re:Quantum computers... by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      we should have had working quantum computers 5 years ago

      You can put that down to bad luck. Every time we've opened a quantum computer to determine if it is working or not, the bottle of acid has broken and the quantum computer is dead...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    2. Re:Quantum computers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just put a damn cat inside and ask it if it was working when you open it!

    3. Re:Quantum computers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had working quantum computers for 5-10 years now. What we haven't had is *scalable* working quantum computers. Last I checked T1 was good enough using topology and T2 was close.

  8. Re:A bit behind the times by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    I was going to say that I had thought so, but then I realized that my HS physics class WAS half a century ago!

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  9. Re:A bit behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was going to say that I had thought so, but then I realized that my HS physics class WAS half a century ago!

    Are you sure you are thinking of _electrons_ and not atoms or protons or something else? Electrons are leptons which are considered to be fundamental...

    (wikipedia on electron)

  10. second chapter talks about muons by swschrad · · Score: 1

    but there used to be multiple theories about electron cathode rays, too, so someday they'll all find they're talking the same thing.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  11. per the 1920s. now we know better. by swschrad · · Score: 1, Insightful

    subatomic physics have come a long way from the Greeks.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  12. schmolid schmiquid schmass by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

    An international team of researchers have found evidence of a mysterious new state of matter... known as a quantum spin liquid... in a two-dimensional material.

    Damn. That's a wasted opportunity. I would have called it "flatsma".

  13. Schrodinger's catastrophe by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    AH! I think I finally understand why the internet runs on cats now!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  14. Majorana Fermions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew it. Sex exists at the quantum level; this is why effing is awesome.

  15. Re:A bit behind the times by sexconker · · Score: 2

    You've posted this multiple times. I dare you to explain why the dual slit experiments show electrons to be divisible.

  16. Two Dimensional Particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't all know particles three dimensional objects?

  17. Re:A bit behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That doesn't show they're divisible, just their probability wave can interfere. Going to say photons are divisible now?

  18. Re:per the 1920s. now we know better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is sad, that they have forgot some nice Greek philosophy.

    There is principle, which states, that nothing energetically stable could 'spontaneously split' without requiring external force.

    There is another principle, which states, that even a single contradiction is enough to refute a any claimed truth, and only total absence of a known counter-example is qualified for a current approximation to the truth. Building complicated, unverifiable models is not a science, it is a religious sectarianism. Like Kundalini and other nonsense.

    But who cares about old principles nowadays? Publish fast, publish a lot, get more grants, social status, etc.

  19. Divisibility explained by Argos · · Score: 2

    A comment explains the "divisibility":

    This is just a misunderstanding - the electron wasn't split - only its wake deBroglie wave can be separated into a three components - quasiparticles, whereas the electron itself remains pretty untouched and safe by itself. The more it applies to electrons within magnetic material instead of vacuum, where these quasiparticles can live their own lives independent of original electron.

  20. Re:A bit behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could have just as easily left that as "I dare you to explain the dual slit experiment". the implications of it really frighten people. I understand why divisible electrons is easier to cope with.

  21. Sooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will this help me DL porn faster?

  22. But- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe it's not butter!

  23. Re:A bit behind the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electrons go MOO, MOO you ELECTRONS!!!

    For the win sexconker!

  24. Re:A bit behind the times by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Exactly how would electron divisibility explain the dual-slot experiment? You get interference patterns when you're firing only one or a whole bunch of electrons at a time. If you detect which slot each electron is going through, you get no interference patterns no matter how many. If electrons split into two and headed for the slots, why do you think we'd get interference patterns?

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes