Generally, fermions are double fermions, and bosons are quadruple fermions. But there is a kind of particle that is triple combined. This is because there are three energy levels present in particles. And the energy of the three energy levels is the same. Since the energy is all the same, why are there three energy levels? Some people say it's because the spin number is different, and I'm going to ask whose spin is different. As a quasiparticle, who will it contain? We know that the energy of the three energy levels is the same, but why are there three different spins? I guess it's probably a combination of three particles, but the experts say no. At first I thought about triple degeneracy, and now I think about why it has three spins. There are two kinds of spins of electrons, but electrons are elementary particles. At present, there is no more fundamental particle than an electron. It is also unknown whether electrons have a structure or not. If the electron is made up of two kinds of particles, it may explain that it has two spins. And the same should be true of triple degenerate fermions. For a long time, whether theta and τ are the same particle has been a question for physicists. Although physicists believe that they are the same particle, their decay products are different. Of course, it's all π mesons. However, the quantity and variety are not the same. According to the conservation of cosmology, the decay products should be the same cosmology. However, this is not the case. Yang Chen-ning and Lee Tsung-dao conducted research with the help of Wu Jiaxiong and finally proposed that the cosmic symmetry of weak interactions is not conserved. It can be seen that there must be a reason for the difference. The electron has two spins, and it is again negatively charged. Isn't there a connection? You think, the object gets electrons negatively charged, while loses electrons positively charged. Not only is the electron itself charged, but its gains and losses also make the particles charged. To say that it has nothing to do with its spin is probably unconvincing. Mizukawa said.

Some people say that a spin of 1/2 means that a certain point of the particle must be rotated twice before it returns to its original position. There are even people who have made models. But I wonder if the particles rotate a little more than 1/2 and then go back to 1/2? We generally think of rotations as directional and not directional. But isn't quantum unpredictable? In the macrocosm, orientation is justified and change direction is incredible. In the microcosm, this should not be the case. No one has ever seen the spin of particles or quasi-particles, it is just subjective speculation. Maybe orientation is more realistic, after all, according to the principle of lowest energy, shouldn't particles choose orientation?

Although the three spins produce three energy levels, the energy of the three energy levels is the same. And this sameness must have an effect on the spin, and there is some kind of entanglement between the three spins. As a result, the three spins cannot be in the same direction. Since the three energy levels are in the same direction, the spin must be in the same direction. Due to entanglement, the three spins cannot be in the same direction. Therefore, all three spins must be dedirectional.

Is hourglass fermion shaped an hourglass? According to the search results, it is a kind of spatial group topological insulator. I speculate that hourglass fermions have nothing to do with an hourglass, or nothing to do with an hourglass as we understand it. Like the Antarctic Wall, we take it for granted that it has something to do with the South Pole of the Earth. Actually, this is a misunderstanding. It refers to the super-large group of galaxies, not on Earth. However, it has to do with Antarctica. It's just that the Antarctic region in the Eighty-One Days of astronomy is related.

Is the spiral of the helix plane fermion here a plane spiral or a solid spiral? If you don't understand, you don't have a voice, so I won't say more.

Molecular current is a new word. It sounds incredible, but when you think about it, it makes sense. When the molecule is moving, the electrons are also moving. The movement of electrons generates an electric current, so there is a molecular current. Liuzifeng said.

Although the actor Fermizi is remote, it is still worth mentioning. However, if it is Margarita, it may be even more exciting. Water says.