3 ms·
A lot of people are making a point of the "quasi-particle vs particle" distinction. Other than an actual monopole particle being a never-before observed thing,
by MostlyStable 3y ago
A lot of people are making a point of the "quasi-particle vs particle" distinction. Other than an actual monopole particle being a never-before observed thing, would there be any actual difference in the use and application of a monopole particle vs a monopole quasi-particle?
In other words, should we expect that this discovery (and the apparently previously discovered monopole quasiparticles) have the exact same use and application as a hypothetical normal particle monopole?
- thatguysaguy 3y agoWell, my understanding is that some theories of physics predict the existence of monopoles, and some say they can't exist. Finding a real monopole would have an impact on our understanding of physical reality, whereas this is more like an incredibly impressive engineering achievement right? (I could be misunderstanding what the researchers have done)
- clankyclanker 3y agoYeah, it seems like it doesn’t break theory, but it’s a potentially useful product instead, and folks are disappointed.
- nabla9 3y agoThey are very different. These are just emergent magnetic charge distributions in certain materials. Real north and south particles would be like magnetic ions. Really weird batteries and magnetic circuits would become possible.