For the First Time, Electrons are Observed Splitting into Smaller Quasi-Particles

Strange. Spin and Orbit are separate particles?
That's just strange.

Awesome.

We still have a lot to learn about nature's laws.
Every new piece of information is welcomed.

Ok so two questions.
1) Once the electrons split does the new spinion get a new orbit and does the new orbitron get a new spin?

2)With this new knowledge can we finally turn lead to gold?

question 2 sounds like a joke but I'm serious.

So that means energy can now (soon) be created and destroyed?

Does that also mean that (Were we to personify electrons) each electron would have it's own personality? Oh, watch out for Bill, his orbit is always a little wonky, we almost hit twice last millisecond!

@Muad.dib_forever

1) After the eletron splits in to the spinion and orbitron the orbitron doesn't spin and spinion doesn't orbit.

2) This can't trun lead in to gold because it doesn't change the nuclei of atoms. Also people have been truning lead into gold for many years by eradating lead in nucler reactors.

____________________________________________________________

Now that that's taken care of, this may really cool news for superconductors and quantum computers.

Spinions and orbitrons? really? that just sounds like something from Futurama

So... Where do these smaller particles fit in the standard model? I thought all we were missing was the Higgs Boson and gravitons. Am I wrong?
-Spouting a fountain of nonsense since 1995-

So then centrifugal force and inertia are specified in a particle split?

Orbitron sounds like a Transformer's name.

A question would be then: Can they/must they recombine after splitting, or are they stable particles unto themselves?

Here is a good question, with electrons being quantum entangled, what happens if you split them while entangled?

How does this new information help or hinder the idea that electrons are in multiple places at once? The idea of splitting an electron resulting in one portion simply stopping its forward movement instantly sounds like a major violation in Newton’s First Law. An object in motion will remain in motion until equal and opposite forces are applied. From the description, moving the electron farther away from the nucleus wouldn't arrest forward motion nor would it arrest the orbiting objects rotation since that would require opposite torque to be applied. This observation, if proven and repeated will require a total rethinking of some of the most basic laws we have relied upon for so many years.
These are some fantastic times, the rate at which we discover major breakthroughs continue to increase exponentially. As Ray Kurzweil has theorized, the singularity is indeed near.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

Spin and orbit seems like an interesting analogy for the way space and time work as one entity. A linear pattern with its own motion in itself

@codezero - i dont think they are in two places at once, they just take quantum shortcuts instantaneously, but its the same particle regardless . reflecting off of a flat 2dimensional surface which projects the 4 forces and spactime in the 3 perceivable dimensions. MaybE lol

@BoronMoron, actually they can and do exist in multiple locations at once as proven by the "Dual-Slit Experiment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

@CodeZero:

When particles are in "quantum limbo," they are not in many different places at once, they are nowhere. It is not until after measurement that the probability wave drops to zero and they are actually somewhere.

@HPLovecraft might want to do a little research on that, as with the Young's Experiment proved that they are in fact in all potential locations at once, granted they are also in none of those potential locations at the same time. The act of measuring in flight eliminates the probability wave, however as was shown in Young's Experiment, with no measuring device between the electron gun and the collection plate, when a dual slit shield is placed in the patch, and fired one at a time, electrons are in fact in all potential places and thus interact with themselves causing the wave pattern to be seen on the collection plate. This is fact, not conjecture on my part. Look it up.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

Ok, apparently the electron 'symbiotes' can't thus far be totally removed from the material where they were created.
Also not mentioned is that they look at this as a component of future high temperature superconductivity applications.

So, if everyone's up to speed now; I guess I'll spinoff to a different orbit.

It's spelled "orbiton". #corrections
Normally, I'd restrain myself, but this is for science! ;)

@BoronMoron,

lol yeah and maybe that's the best way to explain our existence/reality since its common in just about every living thing. everthing's constantly in movement. galaxies orbit the universe, star systems orbit galaxies, planets orbit suns, moons orbit planets, electrons orbit the nucleus in an atom. im against religion but this alone could be proof of intelligent design. one cant existence without the other. interesting.....

"religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom"

-Killah Priest

I didn't bother reading many people's posts but is there a possibility that the obitron is the higgs boson because it carries the original electron's momentum with it, and momentum is mass * velocity.

What is the word for 'baloney' in the language of the electrons ? 'The spinon' and 'the obitron' [ it should be 'orbiton'] orbit what ? They just float randomly in space ? As what ? To be a part of an atom, to orbit a nucleus, both 'spin' and 'orbit' are necessary in relation to it. A split demi-electron spinon with no orbit is nowhere, and if it is nowhere then it does not exist. An orbiton with a 'no spin' has no value/'character' in relation to a nucleus, it has no 'number' within the equation of an atom and is then just a mirage.
How do they know that what they see, on this level of [un]reality, is actually what is ? What if they just paint a picture with their minds around a wobbly dot of 'a measurement', paint a nonexistent picture and build a castle in the air of the world of the elementary particles ?
The science has already given us the nonsense of 'the superstrings' of the universe whose existence is magically and conveniently both unprovable and disprovable at the same time and the lunatic nonsense of the theory of the infinite number of the universes which is designed and propagated in order to banish the nightmare of explaining the reason for the mathematical order of the cosmos [Cowards and bigots, I say]. The silly claim of 'the infinite number of the universes' can be refuted by a high school student with just a good common sense.
In the early days of science it was pointed out, with a scorn, that the object of the theological enquiry does not lie within the realm of the direct evidence by the human senses and within the realm of the scientific measurements and proofs and is therefore a fabrication and not a reality. An example of the unscientific silliness of the religion was offered : "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?" These days the Science sits in the exalted chair of authority that once belonged to the Church and claims that unlike the religion it offers the "positivistic" explanation of the cosmos and not a theological metaphysical construct as it was before. The early scientists wanted to see the angels dancing on the head of a pin, they wanted to see the proof. They said if you cannot see, sense or measure something then it does not exist. How many 'orbitons' and 'spinons' can dance on 'a superstring' ? I want to see 'the obitron' and 'the spinon' and not just a number on a blackboard and an explanation "that's it, that's 'a spinon'. I want to see, sense and experience 'a superstring', I want to see its measurements. Science, tell me, I want to know, in which universe, out of the infinite number of universes, in which version is there the freedom of speech, in which universe they do not censor my posts on the internet fora [not 'forums'], in which universe they do not constantly keep erasing them ?

@sszorin

Perception is not reality. What we can not see can not easily be cast aside. Scientists postulate theory through research, observable facts, and experimentation. This is example of such. This is not a declaration of fact but merely theory at work. A step closer to a finite explanation to the nature of things we can not observe with our senses (simply because we are not developed enough for such capabilities). For the things that we do not have experimentation to determine it is hypothesis. For the things we believe without empirical data, we must take on faith. Or not.