The Quasi Particle Zoo

00:00 Quasiparticles are not part of the Standard Model. Why?
03:05 A Brief History of Particles
14:20 Why the prefix ‘quasi’?
17:00 The first quasiparticle: the soliton
19:00 Lev Landau invents the quasiparticle to explain fermion interaction.
20:30 Definition of quasi particle.
22:20 List of ‘quasies’
24:35 The sole purpose of quasies is technology.
28:05 The anyon
30:40 The bion & the bipolaron
32:50 The bogoliubon & Cooper pairs
35:10 The configuron, dislon, fracton, & holon
40:00 The exciton
41:40 The dropleton
43:40 Quasies have to do with collective behavior of ‘particles’ (atoms, molecules, electrons, etc.) and with developing gadgets: technology.
45:10 The purpose of experiment is to persuade and prove.
47:05 The Gaede Standard Model of Quasiparticles
48:40 Conclusions

#bgaede #rationalscience #RopeHypothesis

Free illustrated book on the Rope Model of Light and Gravity

Rational Science lectures (Sun & Wed 19:00 UTC)

[aurorian]

I appreciate your contributions to science and comedy, Bill. I am currently studying the Beliefaton that we seem to have an abundance of.

[ranc]

You say that light is the torque of the rope and the rope connects us to the sun. I say that rope is light. We know what a rope is, because if we didnt assume we knew then we would just have 2 strands that were tangled together like we didnt know the function of a rope. So, light is a rope. We don't understand any thing more of the sun or of a rope either to get any more confusing on it. I do not accept and toss out your definition. Its confusing and extra steps which are not needed, which can be used to confuse people with.
What is on hte other end of the rope if the light isn't rope? You didn't explain what light is. Does it have shape?

[RickLambert]

Why are you ignoring responses to “light doesn’t slow down”, “electricity doesn’t flow in a vacuum”, “plasma isn’t as object”.

I’ve used three search engines and everything I find says light slows down and speeds back immediately entering and leaving a medium such as a prism or water.

Of coarse electricity works in a vacuum, what now vacuum tubes don’t exist because exist hasn’t been defined in the irrational rational science dictionary?

Plasma which we use in television, neon signs and fluorescent lights. Stars, lightning, the Aurora, and some flames consist of plasma. This is an object (the fourth state of matter) a material thing that can be seen and touched that has 3 dimensional properties which has weight in a 3 dimensional locational environment. WTF is a dynamic concept, another oxymoron out of the irrational rational science dictionary? Even by your definition an object is that which has shape, plasma is an object.

[RickLambert]

Your “biggest contribution to science is the definition of object: is that which has shape.” That sums up why nothing practical has come out of this and nothing ever will.

Basic common definition. Object: (noun) a material thing that can be seen and touched.
Basic physics definition. Object: (noun) 3 dimensional properties which has weight in a 3 dimensional locational environment.

Add them together. Object: (noun) a material thing that can be seen and touched that has 3 dimensional properties which has weight in a 3 dimensional locational environment.

A square isn’t an object because it can’t be touched or weighed and isn’t 3D in a 3D environment. A shadow isn’t an object because it can’t be touched or weighed and isn’t 3D. A vacuum (space) isn’t an object, it can’t be seen, touched, or weighed.

You agree that space is a vacuum, so there is obviously vacuum and what is not vacuum. So the vacuum in between all that isn’t vacuum has a 3D shape. By your definition space (vacuum) is an object.