Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Recent news on Ettore Majorana?

  1. Feb 8, 2015 #1
    Hi everyone,
    I was watching a TV programme the other day, where they talked about an Italian physicist, Ettore Majorana, who disappeared in 1938:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana

    Apparently they've recently found evidence that he lived in Venezuela in the 50's, and that his disappearance was actually a personal choice (rather than more elaborate theories of kidnapping, suicide, retiring to spiritual life in a convent, etc...). Many people are already disputing such evidence as very shaky and biased.

    However, in the programme they also mentioned something related to his work as a physicist:
    1) that he may have decided to leave because he got 'scared' of the potential applications of some of his discoveries.
    2) that he had (reportedly) built a 'machine' that could convert matter into energy, obviously producing enormous amounts of energy at very low cost. They even said that after his disappearance, the machine was inspected by physicists under the guidance of a famous professor (I didn't catch his name, or what the outcome of the inspection was). Then it was never heard of again. The implication was that 'someone' wasn't happy with a virtually infinite source of cheap energy, and made the machine disappear, having already taken care of its inventor.

    Question for the physics experts who visit these forums: do you know of any discoveries of his that could have produced catastrophic consequences in the 'wrong' hands? And what do you make of this elusive machine? Is it something at least theoretically possible?

    Thanks
    L
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 8, 2015 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    No and no.
     
  4. Feb 8, 2015 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Given the timeframe and description, sounds a lot like nuclear power to me.
     
  5. Feb 8, 2015 #4
    Sounds like an exciting SciFi novel.
     
  6. Feb 8, 2015 #5

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Sounds like something you could make trillions out of it. Why would someone make that vanish?

    There are conspiracy theories for everything, and few of them are even remotely plausible. Decades of particle physics experiments found nothing that could set free more energy than nuclear reactions (unless you produce antimatter first, but then you don't gain anything). And those mechanisms were known at the time he disappeared.
     
  7. Feb 8, 2015 #6

    epenguin

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Story too simple and conclusive. This case needs Inspector Montalbano on it.
     
  8. Feb 8, 2015 #7

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    This does not sound like a happy guy:

    His paper N.10 introduces the concept of statistics applied to social phenomenon, used by Asimov in his Foundation series... page 55 here
    https://books.google.com/books?id=r...BDgK#v=onepage&q=marjorana psychology&f=false

    interesting guy
     
  9. Feb 8, 2015 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If it was nuclear power, it was worth trillions of dollars, but it didn't vanish.
     
  10. Feb 9, 2015 #9

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh! My favorite physicist!
    selfAdjoint posted a paper about him once but it's no longer accessible!:oldcry:
     
  11. Feb 10, 2015 #10
    Interesting.
    They said he was much ahead of his time, so who knows. Maybe the machine exists and it's hidden somewhere so we have to keep buying oil from... or gas from...
    OK, maybe not in this case, but let's not be naive. We've all seen what greedy psychopaths are capable of.
    It says here that Majorana particles are their own antiparticle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion
    Note that I know close to nothing about particle physics - but doesn't this mean that this is a particle that gets annihilated in contact with itself? How can it exist then? <insert exploding-head smiley here>
     
  12. Feb 10, 2015 #11

    epenguin

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Perhaps he met his antimajorana.
     
  13. Feb 10, 2015 #12

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    A particle is not in contact "with itself". And interactions between different neutrinos are so rare they are completely negligible.
     
  14. Feb 11, 2015 #13
    But that would be him! ;)
     
  15. Feb 11, 2015 #14
    Yes, I meant with _another copy of_ itself.
    I see, so these particles are usually found far apart in space, so they don't tend to collide very often.
    It's a bizarre world... :)
     
  16. Feb 11, 2015 #15

    epenguin

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    No, even I know that's wrong. They are not far apart - a zillion zillion of them have gone through your fingernail since I started writing this. But you didn't notice did you? That's because they didn't notice you either. A zillion zillion particles passing through everything without affecting anything would be a metaphysical belief. But once in a zillionzillion times (approximately) they do do something to an atom. These neutrinos were predicted from theory and what they do was predicted and the prediction has been reliably and often verified. So now I looked up something and if I'm not mistaken there are about 1017 of them going through a cubic meter per second, almost at the speed of light, and they interact with an atom in a detector the size of a swimming pool a few times a year. But detected they are and that makes all the difference from a metaphysical belief and makes Science bloody marvellous.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2015
  17. Feb 12, 2015 #16
    Well, no 'even I' needed: don't underestimate how ignorant someone can be about something you know. :O)
    I suppose I was applying my own little chemist's view to particles, as if one could have a jar of them on a shelf.
    As a consequence, I was assuming that when particles (seen as a 'substance') are 'concentrated' in space, they will occasionally collide, and that collision implies interaction. That's why I didn't understand how a particle could be its own antiparticle and at the same time exist in close proximity with copies of itself without quickly annihilating.

    Thank you for setting the record straight about it!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Recent news on Ettore Majorana?
  1. This is news? (Replies: 23)

  2. Sad News (Replies: 63)

  3. Local news ? (Replies: 8)

Loading...