Scientists for the first time split an electron into holon, spinon and orbiton.

That discovery might get some use in microchips later.

Article (in German):
http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article106206448/Physiker-spalten-erstmals-das-Unspaltbare.html

EDIT: Apparently it already happened in 2011: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10974.html

"Holon, gurrrrl, I be using science up in here!"


Sorry had to get that out.

I am not a physics major or anything but I bet they can continue splitting the various parts of the atom indefinitely.

I wonder what other uses this discovery might have. Maybe this can save the space program?

Let me know when we get unlimited free energy.

This will never happen since one can't put a meter on it.

So mankind can put a bird on it, but not a meter on it?! Some bull right thar.

http://www.geekosystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/tp_carmagnet.png

But when something is free, it no longer has value. It's like the idea that it would be good if you could turn common metals into gold, because then everyone would be rich.

Or the idea of robots eliminating the need for human labor.

That sounds hilarious, since "a-tom" is "that-which-cannot-be-divided" / "individual" ;P.

Like I said, I ain't a dadgum intelectual or something :P

You and yer fancy book learnin'

And I'm not a physicist either but I'm pretty sure they can't! Though the joke's on me cause before reading this, I "knew" electrons were one of those fundamental particles (ie. particles that can't be split into anything smaller).

So how do you find out what a particle is made from in the first place? I mean, as far as I know an electron isn't made out of ...itself...or however one can describe something not divisible being made out of something.

But value is almost entirely determined by relative scarcity.

Economically, yes. That only determines price, however. The idea I was refuting was that energy would no longer be useful if it was infinitely available. That was what the post I was responding to was essentially saying. It was using one estimation of value (price) to determine another estimation of value (usefulness). Just because something is low priced doesn't mean it is useless. Take water, for instance. Here in Canada, water is cheap. But water still has value because we require water to live. It's the same with energy, though without true necessity. If energy cost next to nothing it would still have value because we still need to use the energy. It's the difference between intrinsic and relative value. Instrinsic value is the value something has because of its intrinsic properties. Relative value is the value given something by economic conditions. Intrinsic value never changes, while relative value obviously does.

Also, "free unlimited energy" does not mean what a lot of people seem to think, at least not immediately. It means any material resources required are renewable at a pace which always exceeds what is used and that the amount of energy put in is less than the amount gained. This extra energy would thus be "free": that is, nothing would truly be lost in gaining said energy. The cost to us would still most likely exist, as the owner of the process would -- at least in the short term -- still require payment for the process. Whether that would change in the long term is another question entirely and there is plenty of fiction available which explores possibilities...

Strictly speaking I don't think they have fissioned the electron in the classic sense of breaking up an atom. Quasiparticles, like spinons, holons, and orbitons, are fictitious, but can be modeled as though they exist. Don't ask me to explain beyond that, because honestly I have no clue and so a physicist is welcome to refute what I've just said as a boorish misunderstanding of quasiparticles. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(physics]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(physics[/url])