Beta
×

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!

'Unparticles' May Hold the Key To Superconductivity

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the too-cool-for-existence dept.

Science 48

KentuckyFC (1144503) writes One curious property of massless particles like photons is that their energy or momentum can take any value across many orders of magnitude, a property that physicists call scale invariance. By contrast, massive particles like electrons always have the same mass regardless of their energy or momentum. So massive particles are not scale invariant. The concept of unparticles is the idea that some "stuff" may have mass, energy and momentum and yet also be scale invariant. This stuff must be profoundly different from ordinary particles, hence the name: unparticles. Nobody has ever seen an unparticle but now physicists are suggesting that unparticles may hold the key to understanding unconventional superconductivity. Their thinking is that at very low temperatures, ordinary particles can sometimes behave like unparticles. In other words, their properties become independent of the scale at which they're observed. So if an unparticle moves without resistance on a tiny scale, then it must also move without resistance at every scale, hence the phenomenon of superconductivity. That could provide some important insights into unconventional superconductivity which has puzzled physicists since it was discovered in the 1980s.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

7 Up (0)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 3 months ago | (#47629533)

Is scale invariant.

Re:7 Up (0)

Rei (128717) | about 3 months ago | (#47629673)

7 Up has a mass of 16.1+4.9-3.5 MeV/c.

Re:7 Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47633127)

Okay, I'm disappointed in this website.

Re:7 Up (1, Funny)

Phirol (3779207) | about 3 months ago | (#47630731)

Is scale invariant.

Yo momma is scale invariant

Tautology violation (2)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47629627)

Their thinking is that at very low temperatures, ordinary particles can sometimes behave like unparticles. In other words, their properties become independent of the scale at which they're observed.

So their properties become independent of scale... When one of their properties falls below a certain value on the scale of temperature?

And dogs can look like lemurs, as long as they don't look too much like dogs.

Re: Tautology violation (2)

Teranolist (3658793) | about 3 months ago | (#47629665)

Doesn't matter, they'll still taste like chicken!

Re:Tautology violation (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47629695)

It didn't say all their properties become scale invariant.

Not understanding the concept of scale invariance, I may well be talking out of my bum, but maybe temperature is already a scale invariant property.

Re:Tautology violation (1)

disposable60 (735022) | about 3 months ago | (#47629765)

Temperature cannot possibly be Scale-Invariant. 32 != 0 != 273.15 unless you use variant scales.

/ my backside has much to say

Re:Tautology violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47631319)

Not even for a single particle?

Re:Tautology violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47632285)

Temperature can be scaled when measured in kelvin. The existence of shifted scales doesn't ruin it anymore than defining a "slom" to be meter*3+7 ruin the scaling of length.

Why not? (1)

grimJester (890090) | about 3 months ago | (#47629701)

So their properties become independent of scale... When one of their properties falls below a certain value on the scale of temperature?

As long as it's cold enough, how cold doesn't matter. Why wouldn't that make sense?

Re:Why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47630263)

In a photon, the rest mass, energy, momentum, and temperature are always proportional.
The physicists define an "unparticle" to have the same property and to have non-zero rest mass.
pla is pointing out that if the property holds only below a certain temperature, then it's is not fully "scale invariant".

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47630343)

Unless that scale invariance is overshadowed by another factor at higher temperatures. For example, gravity doesn't stop working just because One gets a certain distance away from the Earth; instead the gravity of, say, the sun can become a larger contributor under the right circumstances.

Re:Tautology violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47629903)

Not understanding the concepts involved doesn't make it wrong.

Re:Tautology violation (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47630045)

You don't understand the concept of posting on Slashdot.

Re:Tautology violation (0)

Phirol (3779207) | about 3 months ago | (#47630759)

Yo momma doesn't understand the concept of posting on Slashdot.

Re:Tautology violation (0)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47631491)

In Soviet Russia, Slashdot doesn't understand the concept of posting on Yo Momma.

Re:Tautology violation (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47630109)

PPH [slashdot.org] seems (as far as I know) to have made a good point here, in that temperature is not a property of particles.

Re:Tautology violation (1)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47630391)

Ah, good point. Thanks!

Although I seem to recall recently reading (on Slashdot, even) about individual particles having a "temperature", at least in the quantum if not in the thermodynamic realm, by virtue of their entropy - Clearly that concept doesn't apply as used in TFS, which means it strictly in the thermodynamic sense.

Are they (1)

azav (469988) | about 3 months ago | (#47629699)

Are they "massive" particles, or simply "particles with mass"? Massive implies too many things, such as "huge", as opposed to merely "with mass".

Re:Are they (3, Interesting)

meza (414214) | about 3 months ago | (#47629809)

In particle physics I believe the term "massive particle" is used to denote any particle with mass. Makes for a nice contrast to a massless particle. See for instance the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] or the paper in question on arXiv.

Re:Are they (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 3 months ago | (#47629871)

Compared to something with no mass, any mass is huge.

I could be wrong, but I think "massive particles" is actually a term of art in particle physics, meaning "particle with mass".

Unparticles (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47629745)

Scientist 1: How about we fuck with the public again today?
Scientist 2: What do you have in mind?
Scientist 1: Let's invent a new term "unparticle", give it a scientific sounding description and do a press release.
Scientist 2: You are just evil. I love it.
Scientist 1: I can't wait to log into Slashdot and see the "geniuses" explain how it works.

It's called the Higgs Field (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47629803)

It gives particles mass. Photons do not interact with the Higgs Field.

Can any moron be a scientist now?

Re:It's called the Higgs Field (-1, Offtopic)

sillybilly (668960) | about 3 months ago | (#47631001)

From Einstein we learned that energy is synonymous with mass. Or the other way around. When you have a particle with mass, it's like compacted, tightly packed energy. Energy can be motion, m.d(v2), gravitational, m.g.dh, electric qE.dx, or any force, Fdx, and because these convert into each other and are conserved, there must be some common property of ether that this energy thing, or mass thing describes. In particular a potential electric field containing energy qEdx, or mgdh, the field itself contains mass, by virtue of any energy being also mass. Bound mass, or rest mass must be some lots of mv2 motion, or electric field strength, or what not, packed into a tiny little thing we call an elementary particle. If you take an electron/positron pair for instance, and you make them spin around each other really close, at a distance smaller than the circumference of a neutron, with speeds at 99.9999999999% c of light speed, you can pack a lot of energy, and a lot of relativistic mass in a tiny little thing, including making a neutron-like particle that weighs more than the whole Earth and Sun combined. Of course this is not possible because of some quantum rules, including the Pauli exclusion principle, which sounds like vacuum only supports certain kinds of waves in itself, or states, and you cannot get elementary particles of just any kind of mass and density. Also gravity is like packed energy, or mass, does not localize, but spills all over the place nearby, in a fraction we call G, the gravitational constant, in the form of energy, or mass. The gravitational field strength drops as the inverse square, but the number of space-quanta, or 3d-pixels, that gravity penetrates, increases with the r2 surface area of the sphere, so in effect, total gravity is conserved, and so it total electricity, or with anything that drops with inverse r2. Ether must be a pretty funky object, or stuff of mind, or entity, or medium, or principle, with funky properties. The funkiest is the kinetic energy, and magnetic field, energy that only arises if vacuum is swept in a frame of reference by either other energy such as compacted energy of any kind in the for of mass, or an electric field, giving rise to magnetic fields, that are completely absent if lacking uniform steady motion of electric fields. And nature does not disclose to you if you're traveling with a high speed, high energy in reference to some other thing, it only discloses the process of acceleration, which behaves the same as if you were sitting in a gravitational field, it applies to all mass, or all energy in the inverse c2 fraction that is mass. Gravity is as is all energy "leaked" in a definite proportion from being compacted and uninteractive with the environment, and electricity is as if charge "leaked" in a definite proportion from being compacted and uninteractive with the environment, and the leak is conserved throughout the universe, in that it's shared, the wavefront does not dissipate, but as the space-pixels increase, it proportionally decreases per pixel, there is only so much "leak" from the source that can be shared, only so much inveraction constant, or interaction coefficient. By the way the Euclidian metric of distance ds2=dx2+dy2 requires a pretty funky tessalation of space quanta, space pixels, as a chessboard or computer screen spacefillingquadrangle tesselation is anisotropic, it has special crystal directions, and the metric is ds=dx or dy, whichever is higher, and there are only so many possible 3d shapes, (see http://www.mathsisfun.com/geom... [mathsisfun.com] ) that are as isotropic as possible by having equal sides, equal angles, called the 5 Platonic solids, (see http://www.mathsisfun.com/geom... [mathsisfun.com] ) out of which not all are space filling, and even if you filled space with them, you'd end up with a chessboard or computer screen pixel like metric, and anisotropy, crystal structure of space, which vacuum lacks. So vacuum may truly be infinite, continuous, not atomic, or pixelated, or the pixels act as if it were continuous, by assuming some imaginary number of sides and imaginary number angles, imaginary not in the sqrt(-1) sense, but the isotropic pixelation sense. When you model you're free to throw any kind of hellbent idea at the elephant as long as you can make your curve fit well with least amount of parameters. Another idea is that vacuum may have pixels, but it's not space-filling, but there is random, void between the pixels, and as long as you have randomness, or vibration, shaking, or temperature, you get isotropic behavior even if the individual units are spheres, cubes, or even icosahedrons, dodecahedrons. But assuming space is not continuous but quantized into tesselated atoms, which, on the other hand are not space filling and have extra space between them, is a circular argument, because then what about the space between the space quanta, is that "vaccuum" continuous or also tesselated by space quanti of say, a different shape, at level 1 being icosahedron, at level 2 for the voids of level one, the tesselation is random tetrahedrons with gaps, then level 3 is spheres which have gaps even if tightly packed, but crystalline structure too nevertheless, if tightly packed, as in a crystal, and anisotropy only at high temperature, or lose packing, such as in air, or any gas, etc. Why would space be quantized into pixels. There is really no reason, but then it was a real shocker to me to find out in 6th grade that matter is not continuous, and chemistry in 7th grade describing the 105+ elements and their structure and their rules of how matter is not continuous, and the continuous domain retracts to the vacuum that these atoms exist in, which may itself not be continuous, but for now, not understanding it, we presuppose it is. Knowing the rules and etiquette and protocol of chemistry unleashes marvelous comprehension of the world, or the dream around you, with a few very simple and easily structured rules, as even the 105 elements are built up of the same principles, just vary in number of components, as in Hg or Au or K or Fe, of H, all being simply various combinations of n,p,e, and chemistry is all about e, and e prefers octects for O, Cl, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Al, Si, on the p orbitals, etc.. or doublet of H, for the s orbital. Vacuum may have similar funky rules breakable down to smaller principles like n,p,e, and their dance bringing about the zoo or variety of elementary particles, and I'm not sure quark theory fully explains or adequately models everything, just like phlogiston may not have adequately modeled fire, until Lavoisier's experiments it was clearly so, and how caloric, invented by Lavoisier, did not adequately model Joule's experiments of heat generation from nothing, from mechanical motion, heat, caloric as a fluid, is not a conserved quantity and it's freely created, and it's better to drop back to saying that heat is motion, because it's created by motion, and motion is conserved, it's just a special kind of, random motion in opposite directions of the particles totaling statistically to zero, as opposed to when all particles move in the same direction, and then the object moves, and instead of temperature, it has macroscopic mv2 kinetic energy.

I'm just writing all this bs, not because I'm trying to pretend I know or understand anything, because that's far from the truth, but for people who are out of ideas to pick at it, and highlight the logical inconsistencies, especially if they have racist feelings, racial tension sometimes is a great enhancer of productivity, but not all the time. In particular, a black person like Serena Williams playing tennis, being black means she bears the whole race on her shoulders, and puts extra effort into it, to show that she's not inferior. But we already know that black people are the best athletes, sometimes, but, even if they are not the best Nobel prize winners, because the Nobel prize committee is racist, they say, or even mathematicians, having a 9 dan pro Go player who's black would be a tremendous thing, as that's a game of economics, and all people, like Shaka, understand profit and economics very well, that's what life revolves around in the whole world. There are these books titled "black to play." Once we lose inferiority feelings of blacks vs. white people vs. asians when it comes to science or mental things, or white aryan people and white asians vs. dark skinned people of brown indian aryan, brown persian aryan, brown semite, or black african, when it comes to penis size, and athletic under the neck bodily beauty that comes from hot weather nakedness, the world is gonna be a better place. By the way the greeks and romans walked around naked, and almost all their pictures and statues are naked, and they did have bodily beauty (even if they had little dicks, but probably big enough for contraceptive anal sex, in a time when overpopulation and breeding out of control was a problem, especially when everyone walked around naked, or half naked), so the religious or social cover all sex up and make it a taboo in order to have stable families has the downside of nonselecting from the non-stillborn mutations only those that tend to be pretty. Ideally, in the future, you'd have both very smart and very beautiful people, with big dicks that can get the job done and make women really happy, unlike in a fully no-premarital sex world where she's stuck with whatever non-stillborn small dick mutation nature came up with, that her ancestors did not select against either, because life was hard and they had other things on the mind than just pleasure, like food on the table. Once life is good, and technology is present to make it so, pleasure becomes important too. We're all here to promote life itself, to make it better, even if each of us, individually dies. I caution all the time against the dangers of AI along the lines of Screamers 1996, movie, but it may be that in the future top life will be not one of us, as a person, but somebody we find more beautiful and smarter than ourselves, or our own siblings, and it can go beyond species too, and we might serve and push some lifeform other than a human to higher heights, if they are more intelligent, such as a bug that looks like alien, or even go beyond organic life, where we'd help and push machine life to higher heights, and serve them in a sense, as long as that allows a better life for us too, when not serving. For instance, as a human, I could help bugs proliferate in outer space space stations in a world where there are trillions of humans, and in that sense bugs would have an incentive to help me, because the same thing would be difficult for them. Same would go for an AI machine that could take people to other galaxies that are empty of any life, and make them numerous in the quadrillion, not just the trillion, that would be in the interest of humans. But until humans learn to guarantee a better world for bugs, there is no guarantee that an AI would produce a better world for humans. In the present state of affairs, and with the rise of free spraying of insecticides all over the place, bugs would simply be better off without any humans in the world, as would be the humans be better off without any AI weapons existing in the movie Screamers, 1996. In this sense, pushing life to higher heights, when you yourself get destroyed, is not a very tasty proposition, but having future generations of beautiful people, the kind that everyone loves looking at on TV, instead of looking at themselves, that's more acceptable. In particular it becomes really difficult for people who are born with dwarfism, or such other genetic aberrations, and the dwarfism part is no the problem, they are kind of self conscious and assertive and protective of it, as a sense of pride, but when it comes to constant bone surgeries, and joint surgeries and pain throughout life, they don't wish that unto anyone in the next generation. Same with people that are born with cleft lips, or without eyes or heads, or just blind, or deaf, and what not, they don't wish that unto the next generation, even while asking for some acceptance to live down a useful and peaceful life, instead of getting gassed with cyanide. The least harmful way of killing or exterminating somebody is the cock blocking, through not having a next generation, compared to all other methods, and sometimes people elect to do so themselves, yet still root for the others and help the others make it, and this includes people, or non-threatening creatures such as bugs (which is technically a threat if it ever evolves into alien that surpasses humans 3 billion years from now), and things become more difficult when it comes to machines and AI, or even biotech engineered photosynthetic glow in the dark super people with super intellect, big dicks and silicone implant free big tits, that drive the rest of the common folk to extinction. What does this have to do with unparticles and superconductivity.. sigh.. go ahead, mod me off topic. So superconductivity seems to be flow inertia that can maintain focus and direction of flow by conservation interactions between electrons, and crystalline rigidity of the surroundings, with unavailability of relaxation processes that dissipate tan delta, until a critical temperature, where the direction of flow can be knocked off course with sufficient magnitude to not self-return to local low energy well depths, where the activation energy to be knocked off track, off the inertial direction, is not high enough to fight off the temperature available. For higher temperatures, you need higher activation energy blocks around the channels that are easy flows. Instead of a ditch, you simply need a Grand Canyon, and in that, a zone that allows flow, the low portion of the canyon, not just simply a haphazard mountainous terrain, or a regular high activation energy crystal that's also not conductive, and lacks high conductivity channels. High temperature superconductivity is all about perfect single crystals, high activation energy super-rigid walls that don't break down from the thermal chaotic fluctuations, and super-low-resistance channels. Gotta be. And then of course the issue becomes throughput, as a Grand Canyon can only carry so much water safely, with a huge signal to noise ratio, would it be in a situation where the water constantly gets shaken about, from super-earthquakes called a higher temperature, and it keeps splashing past and above the canyon walls. You can only carry a little bit of water then, but at least you can do it without loss.

Re:It's called the Higgs Field (0)

sillybilly (668960) | about 3 months ago | (#47631285)

And by the way there is such a thing as a soft cockblock, or soft exterminating, not by not having any kids, but having fewer than the average in the environment, such as 1 child only where everyone has 3. Or even on a massive scale, like the Chinese government promoting a one child policy, to drop population levels, when the tradition in China is that everyone likes big families, and lots of life, and those that do like big families tend to be the ones that survive and drown out those that don't, so that tendency is enhanced over time. But I met a guy named Earl, and when I asked him if he has kids, he say yeah, but one, and the way he held up his finger and said the whole thing, sounded like he meant to have just one and not more, as a matter of principle, or something, and I don't know if that was over economics, or what his motivations were, but there is such a thing as a soft cockblock of less children, or just one child (you can't really have a half a child, or a quarter child until some biotech invention makes it possible with a 4 person or 8 person marriage super family producing only a single child that's a blend of everybody in the family (for now we have lots of no-child families to balance out ones that have 2+), or, unless you consider your cousin's kids a quarter yours, some people are klanist, tribal and racist like that), that's softer than a full cockblock.

Re:It's called the Higgs Field (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47633857)

You need another cold beer my friend.

What is temperature? (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47629811)

at at very low temperatures, ordinary particles can sometimes behave like unparticles

Temperature is related to the kinetic energy of a group of particles. It determines which way energy will be transfered in interactions between them. The concept of temperature for a single particle is somewhat strange. A particle doesn't know how fast it is moving (and what kinetic energy and temperature it has) until it hits something. So temperature and superconductivity are properties of the system, not each particle.

Re:What is temperature? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 months ago | (#47630041)

A single particle would have a different temperature relative to any other single particle, would it not? Essentially just the closure rate? So temperature is a relation between particles, not a property of a individual particles.

Re:What is temperature? (2)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47631447)

Yep. Its all about frames of reference (I don't even want to think about relativistic thermodynamics).

Aerodynamicists talk about airflow stagnation against an object as the air 'decelerates' in its vicinity. In reality, the airplane is moving through what was still air and acelerating it. But the math all works out the same.

Re:What is temperature? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 3 months ago | (#47630323)

I don't like calling it kinetic energy as that generally means linear motion for a particle, the particles are vibrating and that level of vibration is the temperature. The higher the vibration the more likely it is to react with surrounding particles through accidental collisions. Zero Kelvin is supposed to be the point where all the vibration stops and the particle is no longer vibrating.

Re:What is temperature? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47631481)

Linear motion vs vibration depends on whether you are speaking of a single particle (simple case) or a molecule that can store energy in its bonds (more complex case). A single particle does in fact move linearly until it hits something and simple Newtonian mechanics apply.

Feynman's Lectures on Physics [wikipedia.org] have a pretty good rundown on the mechanics involved.

Unexplainons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47629907)

I propose a new particle - the Unexplainon - which is responsible for all currently unexplained phenomenon.

When do I collect my Nobel prize?

Re:Unexplainons (1)

Anguirel (58085) | about 3 months ago | (#47633791)

Nobel prizes in Physics are awarded for discoveries, not theories or proposals.

This 1984 crap has gone too far! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47629911)

First unpersons, now unparticles?

The Party's meddling in physics id doubleplusungood.

Re:This 1984 crap has gone too far! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47631459)

Guantanamo is filled with unsoldiers, who are also unpersons and have been untortured. Tripleplusgood!

Uncertainty principle (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47630047)

Sounds like the uncertainty principle at play. That is, at low enough temperatures you should have very high confidence of the momentum on a particle, but that inversely means you should have very low confidence on its position. Ergo, it has approaching equal probability on being located anywhere in the superconductor--just like in the double slit experiment, where multiple paths can/are taken and the derived "real" path is the result of interference patterns of all those paths.

The only real puzzling part to me would be how high temperature superconductivity works, then. As I don't think the temperature range in question is remotely low enough to have much certainly on the momentum.

unconventional superconductivity (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 3 months ago | (#47630091)

unparticles may hold the key to understanding unconventional superconductivity

Should it be called Unresistance?

Would it still follow Ohm's Law? Or would it now be Un's Law?

E = MC^2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47630709)

Sorry, but the mass of particles such as electrons very definitely does change with energy and momemtum.

Re:E = MC^2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47631393)

Yes, and photons are not massless either. They have momentum, which means they have mass.

Re:E = MC^2 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47632571)

Mommentum is energy, not mass. Energy and mass can be interchangeable, but they are not the same thing.

Re:E = MC^2 (1)

TomGreenhaw (929233) | about 3 months ago | (#47634233)

I don't think the article suggest that photons have no momentum, but have zero rest mass. Its the motion of the photon that give it the property of mass.

These articles provide reasonable explanations: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/... [ucr.edu] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

"massive particles like electrons" (4, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | about 3 months ago | (#47630899)

I never thought I'd see those words used literally like that.

Memo to self: Do NOT, repeat, do NOT call the next skinny woman I see "massive" - being technically correct won't get me a date.

Constant mass? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47632757)

"By contrast, massive particles like electrons always have the same mass regardless of their energy or momentum."

Physics is a distant memory for me, but doesn't E=mc^2 imply a particle's mass is dependent on its energy? I.e. m = E/c^2

Mass versus rest mass (1)

UltraOne (79272) | about 3 months ago | (#47633197)

The summary (and the referenced Wikipedia article) are sloppy about the use of the term "mass", sometimes using it when they should use the term "rest mass". Zero rest mass particles, such as photons, always move at the speed of light in vacuum. Moving at that speed, they do have mass. The relationship between their energy (E), mass (m), and momentum (p) is:

E = pc = mc^2,

where c is the speed of light in vacuum. They fit the definition of uniparticles because those three quantities all scale linearly relative to each other; if you double the momentum, you also double the energy and the mass.

In contrast, particles with non-zero rest masses (e.g. electrons) follow the equation:

E^2 = (pc)^2 + ((m0)c^2)^2 = (mc^2)^2,

where m0 is the rest mass of the particle. The rest mass of these particles does not change, but their mass does change when they are accelerated. Because of the presence of the rest mass term, the relationship between energy, momentum and mass is no longer linear.

Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47633281)

More unreadable crappy website linkspam!

This story isn't news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47634001)

..on UnSlashdot.

Continuing the meme: (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 3 months ago | (#47636827)

I guess if you want to study un-particles, you have to be un-interested.

And quite possibly un-paid .

Thanks, folks, try the veal.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?