Researchers see signature of “Majorana particles” inside superconducting iron (opens in new tab)

That's because neutrons aren't fundamental particles. They are made up of (charged) quarks.

There is no rule requiring antiparticles to also have spin 1/2, nor that they in general be n+1/2 spin particles (fermions).

All lepton/quarks observed have half half-integer spin so there are no examples there. The SUSY sleptons/squarks would have anti-particles but integer spin if they exist, though. The W+/W- have spin 1 and are eachother's antiparticle. Z0 and the photon are their own anti particles, also spin 1. Gluons (spin 1) have anti-particles that are all another types of gluon. For composite particles, anti-deuterium and anti-helium both have integer spin.

For what anti-particles actually are, I suggest looking up both C and CP conjugation.

> For a particle to be its own antiparticle, it would have to have spin 1/2

This is wrong. Being anti-particle has nothing to do with a particular spin. Photon is anti-photon (which by the way has spin 1).

Photons are generally considered to be their own antiparticles: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=27107

Neutrons are fermions with neutral charge.

Here's the layman's version:

Some particles are actual particles - like photons, electrons, protons, etc. Think of them as a droplet of water.

Some particles are not really particles, but kind of behave like a particle in some ways. Think of them as bubbles inside a liquid.

If you ignore the air inside, the bubbles don't really exist - they are just the absence of some liquid, that happens to look sort of like a particle with funky properties. Similarly, the particles described in this article don't really exist - they are "holes" in a lattice of other particles, that can mathematically be treated as if they were particles, but aren't actually real in a non-mathematical way.

That said, if Quantum Mechanics has taught us anything, it's that those "purely mathematical" concepts can have very real impacts on the world, so in a sense, it is exciting that these "pseudo-particles" have been found to exist, because the maths might reveal all sorts of funky shit we can do with them that would be impossible with regular particles, and the maths doesn't care that they're not regular particles - it works with either kind of particle.

I 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.

Here's a simpler version:

What these people have done is a way of arranging some electrons such that they behave like Majorana fermions (a fermion [particle] whose anti-particle is itself).

> Trust me, your description is orders of magnitude more confusing to the layman.

Fundamental physics tends to do that to laymen. A lot.

"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.

From a theorists perspective there is not much difference, they are both modeled by Quantum Field Theories. However condensed matter theory deals mostly with non-relativistic phenomena. The idea of quasiparticles, like the one they have discovered is also present in particle physics, they are called "resonances". Depending on the energy scale you can integrate out the higher energy modes of your theory to get an effective theory, in which those resonances are now the "fundamental particles", examples include pions, Kaons etc. This is analogous to how you describe quasi-particles in condensed matter theory.

In contrast to condensed matter theory which is able to observe electrons on their own, the fundamental constituents in high energy particle physics have not all been observed on their own. So called quarks, the building blocks of protons and neutrons among other things, ordinarily never occur alone, due to something called confinement. This is analogous to how at low temperature in super conductors electrons appear as so called cooper pairs coupled by phonons, here quarks are in a "cosmic superconductor" coupled by gluons. One of the aims of the LHC experiment is to go to high enough energy to induce a phase transition to a quark gluon plasma, which would be analogous to the state electrons are normally in a metal.

So in conclusion, it's not a coincidence that both the renormalization group by wilson and the idea for the Higgs mechanism, which also has an analogue in the theory of high temperature superconductivity and was originally proposed by Anderson in the context of condensed matter theory, were discovered by theorists working in condensed matter theory.

Yes, there is a significant difference: although the quasiparticle shows the same behavior as the 'real' particle in some respects, it shows different behavior in other respects.

For instance, the quasiparticle can be destroyed by the addition of some heat to the system, while a 'bare' Majorana fermion would not cease to exist in the presence of that amount of energy.

Analogy: in certain measurements (e.g. distribution of reflected light frequencies), a red circle is indistinguishable from a red sphere. However, in other respects (e.g. distribution of reflected light intensity), they are quite different.

There is a pretty strong overlap between material science and quantum field theory. To name just one example, the idea of the Higg's particle actually has it's genesis in theoretical solid state physics [1].

Most material solids can be described as a lattice, where there is some unit cell of a given size, say L, which is repeated periodically in all directions.

There are various types "quasi-particles" that can move through a lattice, examples include phonon's and poloron's. The thing that makes the quasi-particle concept useful is that it is greatly simplifies the description of the collective motion of a large number of particles which are all interacting.

An electromagnetic field in a region of space can (sort of) be described as a lattice, and this result is one of the deepest and most profound results in theoretical physics, imo. The basic idea is the EM field can be thought of in the following way: every point in space can be treated mathematically as a simple vibrating spring (harmonic oscillator).

In other words, the analogy between fundamental particles and quasi-particles breaks down because in a material solid there is a unit cell of size L, but in the vacuum this lattice size is 0.

The idea that every point in space is a harmonic oscillator works in the sense that it makes predictions that agree with experiment; however theoretically it has an extremely severe flaw which has motivated a large amount of research on the quantum vacuum. The problem is that the energy of a region of space with zero EM field (i.e. a vacuum) comes out to be infinite. There are various tricks to avoid this infinity, but the simplest one is to just use some non-zero value for the lattice spacing of the vacuum.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Warren_Anderson