Electron No Longer a Fundamental Particle

Spin-Charge Separation Graph

Spin-Charge Separation Graph
Credit: Nature, Schlappa et al

Amazing news: Researchers in Switzerland split an Electron into two smaller particles – a “Spinon” and an “Orbiton;” meaning they have physically separated the spin and the orbit properties of an Electron.

Until now, standard physics generally accepted that an Electron was a fundamental particle – that it was not made of smaller components.

However, as early as 1980 theorists had predicted an electron could be made of three smaller pieces: A “Spinon” (providing spin), an “Orbiton” (providing the orbit) and a “Holon” (carrying the charge).

In 1996, physicists seemed to split an electron into a holon and spinon.

In 1996, American physicists C. L. Kane and Matthew Fisher made a theoretical prediction that if you confine electrons to individual atomic chains, the Wiedemann-Franz law could be strongly violated. In this one-dimensional world, the electrons split into two distinct components or excitations, one carrying spin but not charge (the spinon), the other carrying charge but not spin (the holon).

This year Swiss and German researchers1 led by experimenter Thorsten Schmitt fired a tightly focused X-ray beam at a copper-oxide compound called “strontium cuprate,” special because particles in it can only move in one-dimension, one degree of freedom – forward or backwards.

They observed an electron split into two of the three predicted parts – a Spinon and an Orbitron.

What solidified their observation is finding distinct properties for the two parts. “These quasiparticles can move with different speeds and even in different directions in the material,” said Jeroen van den Brink, a condensed-matter physicist at the Institute for Theoretical Solid State Physics in Dresden, Germany.

For more here is a news report in Nature Journal “Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron

The original paper: Spin–orbital separation in the quasi-one-dimensional Mott insulator [strontium cuprate]

1. Electron Splitting Research Team: J. Schlappa, K. Wohlfeld, K. J. Zhou, M. Mourigal, M. W. Haverkort, V. N. Strocov, L. Hozoi, C. Monney, S. Nishimoto, S. Singh, A. Revcolevschi, J.-S. Caux, L. Patthey, H. M. Rønnow, J. van den Brink & T. Schmitt

Do I hear a Nobel Prize ringing ? :-)

Related articles: “Why Don’t Three Quarks Add Up to One Proton? (and its not even close)


This entry was posted in Basic Science, Particles. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Electron No Longer a Fundamental Particle

  1. NoBody says:

    Till our pseudo “”science”” won’t realize that ,
    Quantum Theory is just plain silly ..
    there would be always plenty of new imaginary particle discovery …
    the fact is ..

    everything went wrong since double-slit misinterpretation …

  2. Yerodretep says:

    Of course the electron is made up of something else; everything is!
    Naively wondering recently which ‘part’ interacts with photons etc….
    Probably curled up energy paves (Particle-waves as we have no nearer human concept)
    Shunyata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81) will no doubt prevail.

  3. Melvin Goldstein says:

    Numbers are the Supreme Court of science. However Godel proved that we may not prove everything using numbers. Physics needs numbers. There must be Physics Foibles. Always more to prove. Is physics diverging?

  4. Marky Mark Ali says:

    This is excellent news, I’ve been recently considering the idea the electrons are not fundamental particles, it explains the double slit experiment, electrons do not appear in two places at once or for that matter teleport from one place to another. What could be occurring is the electron loosing enough mass to be a measurable negative charge and at the same time a different electron gaining enough mass to show a measurable charge. Surely the acknowledgement of entropic effects to energy in a closed system should have destroyed any possibility of an electron being a fundamental particle.

  5. Pingback: Why Don’t Three Quarks Add Up to One Proton? (and its not even close) | Cosmology Science © 2011-2013 David Dilworth

  6. jamal Shrair says:

    Particles and subatomic particles can be coherently structured in only three possible ways.

    One type has a higher number of left hand rotations and this is what we call negatively charged particle.
    The other type has a higher number of right hand rotations and this is what we call positively charged particle.
    The third kind is formed from an equal number of left handed and right handed charges and this is what we call a neutral particle.
    Properties of atoms, particles and subatomic particles are defined by the number of these charges, their orientations and how they are structured to form a coherent object. The transfer of energy among these charges in their orbits is resonant and instantaneous. More importantly, the force that governs these charges, which is also permanently present in them, is the only absolute physical reality and everything else is only an appearance and manifestation of the magnetic structure of matter (MSM).

  7. Melvin Goldstein says:

    Numbers are the Supreme Court of science. However Godel proved that we may not prove everything. Science needs numbers. There must be Science and Physics Foibles!!

  8. Theory says:

    As the universe is fractal in nature, this article’s theory would imply that we could separate the earth into three components, consisting of spin, rotation and charge.

Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>