7 ms·
It's an interesting result for solid-state physicists, but the title is very confusing to the layman. The finding is about quasi particles that have the same p
by chton 12y ago
It's an interesting result for solid-state physicists, but the title is very confusing to the layman. The finding is about quasi particles that have the same properties as a Majorana fermion (a Majorana bound state), due to how electrons behave in a superconductor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion#Majorana_bound_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion#Majorana_boun...). They did not detect a Majorana fermion itself. This is satisfactorily explained in the article, but the title is sensationalist.
- jherdman 12y ago> ... but the title is very confusing to the layman Given the density of knowledge in your comment, I'm not sure the title could be much different to aid in the understanding of the layman.
- scott_s 12y ago"New Emergent Particle Acts as its Own Anti-Particle". A layman will not know what "emergent particle" means. (I did not.) But they will at least know that the presence of an adjective implies it's not quite "a particle", and the adjective itself gives a hint to the meaning. If the layman is then piqued, they will get clarification in the article itself.
- ethbro 12y agoYou wrote the style guide for Wikipedia's mathematics articles, didn't you? ;) (By which I mean, a balance between immediate understanding vs. links for detail >> primarily links for detail without immediate understanding)
- MaysonL 12y agoWould "Virtual Particle" possibly be a more correct and explanatory term?
- scott_s 12y agoSadly, no, as "virtual particle" has a different meaning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle. The technical term for these, I believe is "quasiparticle": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
- kazinator 12y agoSo, for example, a "hole" in a semiconductor lattice is emergent, but a phonon is quasi? I suppose we would call an L4 Lagrangian point an emergent phenomenon and not a virtual mass (just because it can be orbited). For one thing, if we did a surface integral around the L4 point, of the gravitational field, we would find that there is no mass there; the net flux is zero.
- scott_s 12y agoI do not know, as I am not a particle physicist. I got "emergent" from the popular press article. The terms "virtual" and "quasi" already have meanings in the field, so my point was it would be further confusing to use their non-technical meanings when trying to explain it to a layman.
- jdimov 12y agoTrust me, your description is orders of magnitude more confusing to the layman.
- scott_s 12y agoI disagree. The title implies a state of affairs which is not true; a reader is likely to take a solid understanding away from it, but that understanding is wrong. chton's description will leave such a reader with a greater degree of confusion, but a higher overall level of correct understanding.
- dragonwriter 12y agoSure, but that means that the title is more misleading, while the other explanation is more confusing. Confusing and misleading aren't the same thing.
- scott_s 12y agoI agree. I think, however, we can forgive chton for not parsing out the best word for "kind of badness" prior to our semantic discussion. (If we are to be charitable in understanding his/her comment, then we should assume "kind of badness" was the intent.) For the record, I greatly prefer confusing to misleading. I would rather people have an incomplete understanding than an incorrect one.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> For the record, I greatly prefer confusing to misleading. On this much, we agree -- in general at least. OTOH, often, there are good reasons for prefering particular misleading descriptions over more confusing but less misleading ones (pedagogically, for instance, sequences of progressively-less-misleading explanations are often used, each of which is designed to limit how confusing it is to the target audience, to develop progressively better understanding.)
- 12y ago
- hyperliner 12y agoRegardless of what other folks are pointing out, maybe, confusing or not confusing, some layman child reads the article (or your comment) and somehow decides to go into Physics. That would be great.