Massless electrons behave relativistically

  • Thread starter ZapperZ
  • Start date

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,132
3,930
"Massless" electrons behave relativistically

This is just one of a zoo of examples from condensed matter where relativistic forms manifest themselves via condensed matter phenomena.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/11/6/1

Just imagine. One could have a benchtop demo of QCD!

Zz.
 

Hans de Vries

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,085
21
ZapperZ said:
This is just one of a zoo of examples from condensed matter where relativistic forms manifest themselves via condensed matter phenomena.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/11/6/1
Just imagine. One could have a benchtop demo of QCD!
Zz.
Nowadays I thrust physicsweb no more than New Scientist or Scientific
American.... Electrons with zero rest-mass moving 100 million times faster
through a solid state material than normal.....?!

This must be signal speed. The explanation would be as follows. If the
string of zeroes are electrons in the graphite and electron A kicks in
resulting in electron B being kicked out at the other side then the speed
of A to B would appear to be extremely high.


A ---> 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

------ 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ----> B


They somehow don't see the electrons in the graphite structure as mobile
charge carriers. This coincides with the other bizarre remark that the
conductivity remains even if there are "no mobile charge carriers in the
graphite
".

Current without charge.... ?!


Regards, Hans
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,132
3,930
The DIFFERENCE here from New Scientist etc. is that Physics Web is REPORTING a paper published elsewhere AND that they include the exact citation, something New Scientist and Sci Am are notorious for not consistently doing.

I read the Nature papers (there were TWO separate papers on the same subject in the same issue) and the News and Views on these two papers in the same issue, and the PhysicsWeb article is accurate! These results illustrates the bizzare behavior of what we mean as "charge transport" in 2D material.

And I don't see anything wrong with "current without charge". After all, I have seen current without any bias voltage potential (Josephson current). The fact that these papers are producing unusual results is the reason why they got into Nature in the first place.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
574
0
The Nature papers were an interesting read. There also was a mention in one of the papers that one or two theory groups had independently predicted the same behaviour so it seems that there's nothing wrong with physicsweb's credibility.
 

Hans de Vries

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,085
21
inha said:
The Nature papers were an interesting read. There also was a mention in one of the papers that one or two theory groups had independently predicted the same behaviour so it seems that there's nothing wrong with physicsweb's credibility.
The whole point is that physicsweb talks as if we have to take all these
things literally while the document repeatedly uses the word "fictitious".

This speed of 1 million m/s per second comes from an effective calculation
where [itex]E=m_cc_*^2[/itex] where [itex]c_* = 10^6 m/s[/itex] is called the "effective speed of light".
This is something entirely different then saying that the electrons are actually
moving with this speed.

The two theory groups you mentioned had predicted the Quantum Hall
Effects and not the "behavior" as suggested by physicsweb.

Well, here are the papers.

http://marcuslab.harvard.edu/jc/marcus0510.pdf [Broken]
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0509/0509330.pdf


Regards, Hans
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,132
3,930
Hans de Vries said:
The whole point is that physicsweb talks as if we have to take all these
things literally while the document repeatedly uses the word "fictitious".

This speed of 1 million m/s per second comes from an effective calculation
where [itex]E=m_cc_*^2[/itex] where [itex]c_* = 10^6 m/s[/itex] is called the "effective speed of light".
This is something entirely different then saying that the electrons are actually
moving with this speed.
But if we're going to pick on that kind of terminology, then you should also pick on condensed matter people who work in "quantum teleportation" and "heavy fermion systems". I mean, when they talk about the electron in UPt having 200 times the mass of a bare electron, they are also talking about "effective mass". One could easily use your argument and accuse them of using "fictitious" notion.

I really don't see this as a problem, and certainly will not fault PhysicsWeb for using it especially the News and Views article in the same issue says the same thing.

Zz.
 
334
1
The "relativistic" here means that the energy dispersion relation of a quasiparticle follows [tex]E = c^{*} P[/tex], rather than the usual dispersion relation [tex]E = \frac{P^2}{2m_{eff}}[/tex], with P being the momentum of a quasiparticle and [tex]m_{eff}[/tex] the effective mass of the quasiparticle.

From this, the quasiparticle shows signs of effective relativistic phenomena, rather than the non-relativistic effects shown by the quasiparticles experiencing the ordinary dispersion relation.
 

Related Threads for: Massless electrons behave relativistically

  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
8K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top