The quasiparticles weren't finished last time, and there was a few more to it. The boson has always been considered a virtual particle, but the experiment is negative it is not.

And some bosons have entered the ranks of quasiparticles without hesitation. Dirac fermions, like Dirac bosons, are derived from Dirac's equations.

The same is true of Weyl fermions. In addition, there are three parts of bosons that are also quasiparticles. The Dirac fermion can be seen as a weyl fermion with left and right chiralities, but can it decay into a weyl fermion?

Dirac fermions have mass, and Weyl fermions have no mass. I am afraid that it is not so easy to go from having quality to not having quality, so it should be not possible under normal circumstances.

We know that Weyl fermions are made up of two Weyl fermions, and Weyl fermions are also massless.

It is naturally easy to go from massless to massless. Einstein's mass-energy formula says that mass and energy are the same thing.

Quality can be regarded as energy, and energy is reflected by quality. Motion can increase mass, and then it is understandable that energy becomes mass.

Weyl fermions have no mass and should refer to the mass at rest, so the question arises, do Weyl fermions have no energy at all when they are at rest?

There are two answers. One is that its resting mass, although tiny, is not zero. Just like neutrinos, physicists in the past generally thought of it as a particle with zero mass at rest.

Later, experimental particle physicists discovered the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations. So, they speculated that neutrinos have a resting mass.

The second is that it does not have quality. Therefore, there is no energy either. Weyl fermions are in a very unstable state due to their zero mass.

Since Weyl fermions have no energy, they are surrounded by objects with energy. It is inherently unstable, coupled with the influence of the surrounding energy.

It is forced to move and thus gains energy. If this is the case, the scope of application of Einstein's mass-energy formula will be modified, and it will no longer be a general formula of universal significance.

So, what's the situation? The encyclopedia says that Weyl fermions can only exist in odd dimensions, so I wonder why?

We know that one dimension doesn't have a width or height, but we still need to use them to describe it. When the width is zero, the real infinite number is missing one.

However, this absence is not as ineffective as we might think. As I said before, zero doesn't mean nothing.

You want to have a notebook that doesn't write anything, and writes it all up. And that's the difference between zero and non-zero words on a notebook.

How to understand it? You may think that a number like 010 is redundant. Yin and yin are 10, why write an extra zero?

However, if we think about it carefully, we will find that the difference is that if you write 10, it means that it is a two-digit number, and if you write 010, it means that it is a special three-digit number.

The biggest difference is that 010 laid the groundwork for the three-digit appearance in the future. A width of zero in one dimension means that its width can be non-zero, which means that it is likely to become two-dimensional.

Why do physicists think that Weyl fermions can only exist in odd-numbered dimensions? My understanding is that different dimensions correspond to different functions.

Neither the primary function nor the cubic function are symmetrical, but there is a certain gradient. Of course, this is a bit far-fetched.

I don't know the specific reason. The antiparticle of the Majorana fermion is itself, that is, one Majorana fermion and another Majorana fermion are antiparticles of each other.

And won't annihilation occur when positive and negative particles meet? We seem to have talked about this issue before, so let's talk about it again.

We know that electrons are negatively charged, while positrons are positively charged. And in other respects, they are almost identical.

That is, they are symmetrical particles with each other. Although the two Majorana fermions are essentially the same, they do not have the full symmetry of two true positive and negative particles.

This is an explanation. There is also the presence of some kind of secondary particle inside them that acts as isolation.

As a result of this particle, the two Majorana fermions do not actually have the opposites and identities of positive and negative particles.

Neutrinologists generally agree that neutrinos are Majorana fermions or Dirac fermions. In a binary β decay event, the neutrinos are assumed to be Majorana fermions, and the two neutrinos produced are annihilated.

That is, the annihilation of two Majorana fermions will occur. Two is easy to understand, but what about three and four?

We know that there is not only one particle of any kind, and so is the Majorana fermions.

What happens to three such particles? For the sake of explanation, I have numbered them. No. 1 and No. 2 are antiparticles with each other, No. 1 and No. 3 are antiparticles with each other, and No. 2 and No. 3 are also antiparticles with each other.

It stands to reason that they should all be annihilated. However, it is clear that it is impossible for all three annihilation reactions to take place at the same time.

Therefore, there must be two reactions that cannot be carried out. And I don't think one of the three reactions will happen.

Because there are no two of the three particles that are more special, the annihilation of the third particle needs to be completely ignored.

I think there are particles that protect them, and this particle is naturally they are each other. Liuzifeng said. The stomach has a size, and there is a time to speak.

It is appropriate to discuss and speak. At this point, the curtain should fall. Mizukawa said.