×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Physicists Detect Elusive Orbiton By "Splitting" Electron

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the break-it-down dept.

Science 131

ananyo writes "Condensed-matter physicists have managed to detect the third constituent of an electron — its 'orbiton'. Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle. But in the 1980s, physicists predicted that electrons in a one-dimensional chain of atoms could be split into three quasiparticles: a 'holon' carrying the electron's charge, a 'spinon' carrying its spin and an 'orbiton' carrying its orbital location. In 1996, physicists split an electron into a holon and spinon. Now, van den Brink and his colleagues have broken an electron into an orbiton and a spinon (abstract). Orbitons could also aid the quest to build a quantum computer — one stumbling block has been that quantum effects are typically destroyed before calculations can be performed. But as orbital transitions are extremely fast, encoding information in orbitons could be one way to overcome that hurdle."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

131 comments

Lord, Jewsus! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731399)

I hating the life! Becoming faith is no such before! i save

Re:Lord, Jewsus! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731449)

'holon' , 'spinon' , 'orbiton'

This is fucking ridiculous. We need an IUPAC-like standardized naming convention for these particles.

Re:Lord, Jewsus! (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#39731633)

All you have to do is just become a particle physicist yourself, discover a completely new set of even smaller particles and you can setup any IUPAC-like standardized naming convention you want for those. For the current particles, it's probably best to keep using the current standardized names.

Re:Lord, Jewsus! (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#39732923)

Physicists should use the D&D alignment and class system to assign particle names. Muon neutrino becomes neutral evil cleric, Up quark is lawful good fighter, etc.

Re:Lord, Jewsus! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731877)

There are not that many, and there isn't a good systematic way to name them anyway. The root of the word denotes the basic property that describes the particle.

'holon' comes from 'hole', which is the absence of a particle. that may sound weird, but in quantum mechanics, everything is discrete so a particle present or absent is like a binary 1 or 0, and the 0 states (holes) are just as good as 1 states (particles).

'spinon' comes from 'spin', which is the intrinsic angular momentum.

'orbiton' comes from 'orbital', which is the agular momentum from the orbital motition around the nuclei.

There are lots of other quasi-particles that occur in condensed matter, pasmons, phonons, polarons, polaritons, and so on. They all arise as emergent effects from interactions between large numbers of 'fundamental' particles, such as electrons.

Re:Lord, Jewsus! (2)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 2 years ago | (#39733589)

Shouldn't they have renamed the electron the "hardon" because it is so difficult to split into smaller components?

Do you have a hadron for particle physics? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39734055)

Shouldn't they have renamed the electron the "hardon" because it is so difficult to split into smaller components?

They called the atom itself an "atom" because it was considered hard to split (from the Greek: a- = not; tom = split). Since the atom was split, two of the particles inside an atom was itself called the hadron [wikipedia.org], from the Greek word for "thick". The resemblance between "hadron" and a slang term for something else that gets "thick" led to all sorts of dick jokes [largehardoncollider.com] in comments to news articles about the LHC.

Re:Lord, Jewsus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39733031)

hardon

Re:Lord, Jewsus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39733223)

Yeah, instead of descriptive names like "spinon" and "orbiton", they should have totally arbitrary names like "Antimony", 'Cobalt", "Bromine", and "Arsenic" or should be named after people like "Rutherfordium" and "Einsteinium".

silly video game names (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#39733473)

damn, I got excited when I first misread that as Physicists detect elusive orbitron .

Fantasy (5, Funny)

countach (534280) | about 2 years ago | (#39731415)

Let's face it... the particle physicists make all this stuff up. Somehow they figured out how to use particle colliders to synthesise crack cocaine, and ever since then the stuff they've been coming out with has been ever more fantastical.

Re:Fantasy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731437)

These type of comments are annoying. Inevitably made by some clueless techie (IT, CS, even EE). You're not witty. You're not funny.

How about bring up something interesting like how Mott insulators (in particular, they used strontium-copper oxide) are themselves interesting materials in that they point out flaws in conventional band theory. They really should conduct electricity but are clearly insulators.

Re:Fantasy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731551)

These type of comments are annoying. Inevitably made by some clueless techie (IT, CS, even EE). You're not witty. You're not funny.

How about bring up something interesting like how Mott insulators (in particular, they used strontium-copper oxide) are themselves interesting materials in that they point out flaws in conventional band theory. They really should conduct electricity but are clearly insulators.

You aren't human. Seriously get help with a sense of humour, the ability to interact with humans, and resolve your jealousy of "techies". You just sound damaged.

Re:Fantasy (3, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#39731681)

How about bring up something interesting like how Mott insulators [...] are themselves interesting materials

What? You think crack cocaine isn't interesting material?

Re:Fantasy (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#39732143)

How about bring up something interesting like how

much of a knobhead you are. Now that would be fucking hilarious.

Re:Fantasy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732161)

These type of comments are annoying. Inevitably made by some clueless techie (IT, CS, even EE). You're not witty. You're not funny.

And there's where your argument failed. That comment is funny.

Why didn't you just stop at "These type of comments annoy me"?

(Notice that the "me" part is the really important one.)

Re:Fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732703)

Come on mods, let's make the first ever -1, Insightful post =)

Re:Fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732709)

Annoying because you don't have a reasonable response to what he said, perhaps?

Re:Fantasy (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732777)

How about bring up something interesting like how Mott insulators (in particular, they used strontium-copper oxide) are themselves interesting materials in that they point out flaws in conventional band theory. They really should conduct electricity but are clearly insulators.

Sure, here it goes:

Superior human beings (like you and I, who talk mainly of strontium-copper oxide Mott insultators, and NOT like that un-funny, un-witty clueless IT/CS/even EE!!! techies, fron now on referred as UFUWCICEEE) point out flaws in conventional band theory. That's why we are here in life. In fact, that is because ultimately our superior brain IS a Mott insulator. And this is what prevent us from laughing at such ignorant, banal jokes made by UFUWCICEEEs, because although Mott insulators really should conduct the electricity between our brains, our hearts and our ass, they don't!!!! They are insulators, and so the electrical connection doesn't occur.

I too feel sorry for all those inferior UFUWCICEEEs who also can't stop mispelling "Mott insulator" as "Mott insultator" and other unscientific stuff. Dude, don't we rock? Aren't we so much better? Yeah, I know.

Re:Fantasy (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731689)

Play snarxiv versus arxiv: http://snarxiv.org/ [snarxiv.org] , where computer generated article titles compete with real ones.

Re:Fantasy (2)

professionalfurryele (877225) | about 2 years ago | (#39732215)

Thanks for pointing this out, I'm a particle physicist and this was good for a laugh. That said I will admit to feeling a certain amount of relief when I played snarXiv vs. arXiv and was 10 for 10. There are days when you wonder if some random paper you are reading is just a string of meaningless words.

WHY IS THIS MODDED TROLL? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732295)

(Honestly not the same AC): WTF is up with you mods? Snarxiv is hardly a troll website, and neither is pointing it out in this context. (Hint: It was made by a HEP theory researcher, poking a bit of fun at his own field -- it's the kind of thing Human Beings like to do sometimes...)

Re:Fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732057)

enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede

Re:Fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732103)

I don't even think coke could inspire such incredible ideas. It is fascinating that as these guys delve deeper, things stop being smaller, and instead they start being more fundamental properties of nature. Separating an object into its spin, position and charge components is a so astounding to me. To me, this is all sorts of cool.

Re:Fantasy (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 2 years ago | (#39732631)

Man how am I even supposed to take chemistry or physics classes you guys. I cannot draw dots this tiny! PLEASE STOP DISCOVERING SHIT!

Re:Fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732687)

I'm going to go smash a glass on the ground and call the resulting particles glasons. Maybe I can get published.

Re:Fantasy (1)

miscGeek (594829) | about 2 years ago | (#39732817)

Let's face it... the particle physicists make all this stuff up. Somehow they figured out how to use particle colliders to synthesise crack cocaine, and ever since then the stuff they've been coming out with has been ever more fantastical.

Cocaine? Nah, it has to be lsd that they synthesised.

Sigh (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#39731421)

Reading stuff like this makes me wish I'd taken more a lot more science in college, maybe went for an entirely different degree. Because honestly I've no idea what they are talking about. If anyone could possibly explain this a bit more I'd be really very happy.

Re:Sigh (0)

guspasho (941623) | about 2 years ago | (#39731451)

It sounds like they "split" it on paper, mathematically separating the characteristics so they can do computations with them.

I didn't read beyond the summary though, I came in to the comments section looking for confirmation of my theory from a smarter commenter than myself.

Re:Sigh (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731491)

The article is talking about quasiparticles, that is, collective excitations in some medium that behave as though they were individual particles. Think about a Newton's cradle (that thingy with the balls that click back and forth). When a ball hits one end of the device, a ball emerges from the other end of the device. It's as though there were some kind of particle (there's a mandatory rule that we have to give it a stupid name, so let's call it a ballon) that is transmitted through the device. Now, even though we know that there's no actual particle traveling through the device, we can make calculations as though there were, and this makes things simpler to work with.

Condensed matter physicists work with much more complicated media and their particles are quantum rather than classical, but otherwise the idea is the same. In this case, they have a medium consisting of a strontium cuprate wire, which, of course has lots of electrons in its atoms. They fire a beam at it (like the ball hitting the Newton's cradle) and this excites stuff in the wire, which they find acts like quasiparticles of a particular kind.

The exact kind of quasiparticle is one that acts like an electron, but has no charge or spin, just orbital properties. The spin and charge kinds of quasiparticle were previously discovered, and this completes the set, which is why it's news.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731523)

That's a great explanation, thanks. Where are those mod points when you need them?

Re:Sigh (4, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#39731821)

Glad some one else brought this up. Naming the states and calling them particles is a little like saying three dimensions are three particles. Shouldn't there be a particle for height, width, depth? At a certain stage it's pointless naming to rationalize publishing a paper. Is dividing an electron proving multiple particles or is it in fact like splitting a glass of water and claiming that it's two new atoms? And yes I know there are two atoms making up a glass of water so in this case it would mean four atoms since you can divide a glass of water in half. Unless unique properties can be established for the resulting two electrons then you haven't found two new particles you have simply split a single particle in to two pieces.

If you think you understand the world of 10^(-22)m (2)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | about 2 years ago | (#39732097)

Give a short, complete, accurate answer to this question: what is a particle?

If you must be ignorant, keep an open mind. Outside of the scale that human senses are designed to appreciate, extrapolation from experience tends not to be very useful.

Re:If you think you understand the world of 10^(-2 (2)

indre1 (1422435) | about 2 years ago | (#39732633)

Only the likes of Sheldon Cooper with superior intellect to the others' may understand this.

Re:If you think you understand the world of 10^(-2 (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#39733487)

I can't watch the big bang theory. If Sheldon was so smart there is no way he could be a proponent of string theory.

Re:If you think you understand the world of 10^(-2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39733117)

A particle is a quantized pointlike topological discontinuity of the gauge boson fields, whose location is characterized by a complex-valued density distribution that may change over time only in compliance with certain conservation laws associated with the symmetries of the vacuum.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732221)

It just makes it easier to do math with.

Re:Sigh (1)

negativeduck (2510256) | about 2 years ago | (#39732771)

I think to a degree you are right. But there is a great deal to physics which as much imagination and wimsey as there is evidence to support it. But when you start to take the macro view and say it's the study of everything then naming becomes important. Considering the orbiting characteristics of an electron are suspected to be unknown. As mentioned in later comments the idea that you can't know where it is until you measure it and thereby change it's path making it impossible to know where it's going to be.

I don't know that I would have used "split" in this context but in an article that's also to be understood by a more broad public I would love to get access to this article outside of the paywall. But Oh well..

But being able to understand and know the orbiting characteristics of the electrons in the cloud would be fantastic. Understanding how that possible orbit affects the interaction with other particles.

(BTW please correct me if I've miss-represented something)

Re:Sigh (0)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 2 years ago | (#39733465)

Shouldn't there be a particle for height, width, depth?

Yeah, they exist, but they are in the realm of mathematicians, not particle physicists. Specifically in the mathematical subdomain of analytical geometry, where these particles are typically called "vectors". Any complex vector of arbitrary direction and length has been shown to be composed of three elemental vectors that, in informal discussions, are called "taller", "wider", and "thicker". (And there are also the anti-elementals of "shorter", "narrower", and "thinner"). It is conjectured that these elemental geometric particles are sufficient for modeling everything in Known Space. And also everything in all the best 3D games, too, for that matter.

Confabulistic nomenclature: it isn't just for particle physicists any more.

Re:Sigh (5, Informative)

mathfeel (937008) | about 2 years ago | (#39732113)

The article is talking about quasiparticles, that is, collective excitations in some medium that behave as though they were individual particles. Think about a Newton's cradle (that thingy with the balls that click back and forth). When a ball hits one end of the device, a ball emerges from the other end of the device. It's as though there were some kind of particle (there's a mandatory rule that we have to give it a stupid name, so let's call it a ballon) that is transmitted through the device. Now, even though we know that there's no actual particle traveling through the device, we can make calculations as though there were, and this makes things simpler to work with.

Condensed matter physicists work with much more complicated media and their particles are quantum rather than classical, but otherwise the idea is the same. In this case, they have a medium consisting of a strontium cuprate wire, which, of course has lots of electrons in its atoms. They fire a beam at it (like the ball hitting the Newton's cradle) and this excites stuff in the wire, which they find acts like quasiparticles of a particular kind.

The exact kind of quasiparticle is one that acts like an electron, but has no charge or spin, just orbital properties. The spin and charge kinds of quasiparticle were previously discovered, and this completes the set, which is why it's news.

More specifically, "separation" refers to the prediction (and now observation) that in the collection of electrons in the 1D wire, orbital, spin, and charge information travel at different speed. This is in particular a low dimensional effect. Hence this is observed in a quantum wire.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732379)

So what you are saying is lt's like when there is a car crash, and the car at the back slams into a long line of cars, the resulting pile up crumples foward through the line of cars, like a partical, or a caron if you will. untill the partical or crash fround emerges from the front of the line of cars.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732425)

So what happened to the holon(s). Did they disappear or were they carried by one or the other of the spinon or orbiton?

Re:Sigh (2)

AlecC (512609) | about 2 years ago | (#39732489)

Thank you. I think you just stopped my brain melting. I now have a smidgeon of a fragment of a trace of a clue what the article is about.

Re:Sigh (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | about 2 years ago | (#39732801)

Philosophically, what makes these particles any more quasi- than electrons? Surely all we have to work with is the sum of their effects in either case.

Re:Sigh (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#39732961)

But if they didn't actually split a particle the article is misleading.

Why can't scientists review their press coverage?

Re:Sigh (2)

bughunter (10093) | about 2 years ago | (#39733125)

Think about a Newton's cradle (that thingy with the balls that click back and forth). When a ball hits one end of the device, a ball emerges from the other end of the device. It's as though there were some kind of particle (there's a mandatory rule that we have to give it a stupid name, so let's call it a ballon) that is transmitted through the device.

If I understand the physics of this phenomenon properly (not guaranteed), the "particles" transmitted thru the system of balls already have a name: phonons [wikipedia.org].

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39734069)

Such a thing as 'fundamental particle' may not exist. Richard Feynman once said that reality could resemble the onion. You peel off one layer just to discover another underneath.

What the fu- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731445)

You can split an electron into the properties of the electron? including the position and spin?

What the hell? Is this like taking a snowflake from Antarctica and taking the south out of it?

Re:What the fu- (0)

quintesse (654840) | about 2 years ago | (#39732167)

Maybe it's a bit like this: with quantum mechanics stating that you can't know all the properties of a particle at the same time it might be similar to taking a snowflake and wanting to detect if it's from the north or the south pole, but the moment you do that you can't measure it's shape, color or temperature anymore, in fact turning your snowflake into a southflake because that's the only thing you (can) know about it.

What is a one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO3? (1)

kava_kicks (727490) | about 2 years ago | (#39731455)

Can someone actually explain this? I am trying to get my head around a one-dimensional anything ...

Re:What is a one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO (5, Informative)

kava_kicks (727490) | about 2 years ago | (#39731465)

Wikipedia says this about Mott insulators: Mott insulators are a class of materials that should conduct electricity under conventional band theories, but are insulators when measured (particularly at low temperatures). This effect is due to electron-electron interactions which are not considered in conventional band theory.

Re:What is a one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO (3, Informative)

Y.A.A.P. (1252040) | about 2 years ago | (#39731559)

I believe you're over-thinking the one-dimensional attribute. It simply means they're using a straight-line chain of the molecules in question. There are no molecules in the construct branching off at any other angle, that's all.

Re:What is a one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO (5, Interesting)

mathfeel (937008) | about 2 years ago | (#39732117)

I believe you're over-thinking the one-dimensional attribute. It simply means they're using a straight-line chain of the molecules in question. There are no molecules in the construct branching off at any other angle, that's all.

Charge-spin separation and spin-orbital separation are specifically effect of electron collective behavior in one-dimension: that is when the motion of electron is constrained to have one degree of freedom. Think of a single-lane road in which lane change is forbidden.

Re:What is a one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732585)

Isn't it weird that when the word dimension is being used correctly (as it is the case here), folks switch off from the "technobabble".

Re:What is a one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731625)

All I know I know is that they are NOT FUNNY [slashdot.org].

Re:What is a one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731895)

Imagine a long chain of molecules, so that the electrons jump from orbiting one molecule to another along a 1D path.

A Mott Insulator is an insulator (ie it doesn't conduct electricity), but one that is caused by interactions between electrons. In an ordinary insulator (a 'band insulator') doesnt conduct electricity because there are simply no available orbital states for the electrons to move into. Imagine a series of boxes, with electrons as balls moving from one box to another. In a band insulator the boxes are full, so you simply can't move the balls around. In a Mott insulator however, the boxes are plenty big enough but the interactions between the electrons (balls) are strong enough that you can't put more than one ball in each box. So you end up with one ball per box and nothing can move.

The heck with splitting the electron... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731471)

...what about the beer atom?

Re:The heck with splitting the electron... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#39732163)

are they the particles that enable you to light a fart on fire? i've only ever heard of that being possible when you're drunk

Split shmit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731511)

I demand all this BS theoretical physics work STOP IMMEDIATELY until I have my flying goddamned car! I think I speak for just about everyone when I say that.

Re:Split shmit! (4, Insightful)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about 2 years ago | (#39731601)

Maybe a flying car can be made feasible with a new kind of drive, like ejecting orbitons from the bottom.This research is in order to understand stuff. Forget about flying cars, maybe FTL drive is possible.

Think about the laser [wikipedia.org]. When is was first conceived of by Einstein he had no way of doing it and no application for it. When Lamb and Retherford made it work there still was no use for it. But think about the world now: Internet, CD/DVD/Blu ray players and even the next gen IC fabs are based on the laser. Many metal parts are cut with lasers, welding is sometimes done with lasers (high presision work) and many measurements are done with lasers. If there had been no theoretical physics last century we wouldn't have lasers. Who knows what we could do with another century of theoretical research?

Re:Split shmit! (1)

Surt (22457) | about 2 years ago | (#39731663)

It's not going to be FTL. FTL would leave the universe pretty crowded by now. Maybe it will allow exit from the conventional universe, that would explain Fermi's paradox.

Re:Split shmit! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#39731669)

It'd be less fun than you might think. In these post-9/11 days, do you think the government would actually let people fly their cars? No, even if the engineering problems were solved, the car's controls would only be accessible via an autopilot box fitted with more anti-tamper measures than an XBox 360 and embedded in a cube of epoxy. You'd only be able select from it's list of pre-approved 'safe landing zones' and it'd do the rest. The law will be proposed within a month after the first case of a drunk flier crashing into a building. Within a week if a child is killed.

Re:Split shmit! (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about 2 years ago | (#39731755)

Leaving aside all the political gobbledygook, I'm totally in for an automated personal flying car.

Re:Split shmit! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#39732075)

It'd revolutionise transport, yes. A good thing, assuming it's no more energy-hungry than existing cars. But the dream of a flying car you can really fly, free to cruise the skies, to go wherever you please... out of the question.

What would the Megatron be? (1)

craznar (710808) | about 2 years ago | (#39731747)

I think the 'heaviest' particle should be deemed the Megatron, in keeping with the WTFatron naming convention.

Re:What would the Megatron be? (1)

zippo01 (688802) | about 2 years ago | (#39731849)

I tried to email you, but your email address doesn't appear to divisible by 8. Fail.

There is a fourth fundamental particle... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731759)

..it is called a "holdon".

As in; hold on, we better check these results again.

Re:There is a fourth fundamental particle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731925)

I see nothing wrong with these result. And don't call me Holdon.

V.I.Lenin (Ilyin) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39731989)

V.I.Lenin (a Communist leader in Soviet Russia) in his only phylosophic work "MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM" [marxists.org] said:

The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite, but it infinitely exists.

This news proves his views...

Unicorn ponies (-1, Offtopic)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#39732011)

I have unicorn ponies for sale. Males only, 9-12 hands in blue, pink and rainbow. Some have been ridden but most not. Horns are as-found. Pls reply at the usual email for the sale and delivery info.

Re:Unicorn ponies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39732283)

ILL TAKE TWO!

Re:Unicorn ponies (1)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | about 2 years ago | (#39732933)

I have unicorn ponies for sale. Males only, 9-12 hands in blue, pink and rainbow. Some have been ridden but most not. Horns are as-found. Pls reply at the usual email for the sale and delivery info.

ILL TAKE TWO!

If regular unicorns fart rainbows, do gay unicorn ponies fart plaid? Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:Unicorn ponies (1)

bughunter (10093) | about 2 years ago | (#39733179)

If regular unicorns fart rainbows, do gay unicorn ponies fart plaid?

Bloody santorum, I would imagine... or am I being too literal here?

Re:Unicorn ponies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39733725)

I'll need to inspect them to assure that they are well-hung before accepting delivery.

Re:Unicorn ponies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39733911)

I have unicorn ponies for sale. Males only, 9-12 hands in blue, pink and rainbow. Some have been ridden but most not. Horns are as-found. Pls reply at the usual email for the sale and delivery info.

I've got some female unicorn ponies. Couple of Pegasi and earth ponies too. Here ya go!

"Particle Man, Particle Man,
doing the things a particle can.
What's he like, it's not important,
Particle Man [youtube.com]..."

- It's Slashdot, we like any excuse [slashdot.org] to play some TMBG [slashdot.org]!

Anyways, back to physics [equestriadaily.com] class [slashdot.org] (one guy doing classical mechanics in high school, and some other guy doing an intro to nucleosynthesis.)

My sandwich could help the development of quantum (0)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about 2 years ago | (#39733341)

I'm sorry, but every little half-understood news blurb regarding particle or condensed matter physics, or spintronics or lasers or topological insulators or what-ever, "could also aid the quest to build a quantum computer". That's a total blarney. Could we just admit that we don't really know an practicable way to build a useful quantum computer yet, and leave it at that?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...