Paradoxical Crystal Baffles Physicists - "completely new physics should be at work"

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/paradoxical-crystal-baffles-physicists/
(More at link....)

(Original Article with more details added: http://www.quantamagazine.org/20150702-paradoxical-crystal-baffles-physicists/ )

Paradoxical Crystal Baffles Physicists

In a deceptively drab black crystal, physicists have stumbled upon a baffling behavior, one that appears to blur the line between the properties of metals, in which electrons flow freely, and those of insulators, in which electrons are effectively stuck in place. The crystal exhibits hallmarks of both simultaneously.

Original story reprinted with permission from Quanta Magazine, an editorially independent division of SimonsFoundation.org whose mission is to enhance public understanding of science by covering research developments and trends in mathematics and the physical and life sciences.

“This is a big shock,” said Suchitra Sebastian, a condensed matter physicist at the University of Cambridge whose findings appeared this month in an advance online edition of the journal Science. Insulators and metals are essentially opposites, she said. “But somehow, it’s a material that’s both. It’s contrary to everything that we know.”

The material, a much-studied compound called samarium hexaboride or SmB6, is an insulator at very low temperatures, meaning it resists the flow of electricity. Its resistance implies that electrons (the building blocks of electric currents) cannot move through the crystal more than an atom’s width in any direction. And yet, Sebastian and her collaborators observed electrons traversing orbits millions of atoms in diameter inside the crystal in response to a magnetic field—a mobility that is only expected in materials that conduct electricity. Calling to mind the famous wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics, the new evidence suggests SmB6 might be neither a textbook metal nor an insulator, Sebastian said, but “something more complicated that we don’t know how to imagine.”

“It is just a magnificent paradox,” said Jan Zaanen, a condensed matter theorist at Leiden University in the Netherlands. “On the basis of established wisdoms this cannot possibly happen, and henceforth completely new physics should be at work.”

It is too soon to tell what, if anything, this “new physics” will be good for, but physicists like Victor Galitski, of the University of Maryland, College Park, say it is well worth the effort to find out. “Oftentimes,” he said, “big discoveries are really puzzling things, like superconductivity.” That phenomenon, discovered in 1911, took nearly half a century to understand, and it now generates the world’s most powerful magnets, such as those that accelerate particles through the 17-mile tunnel of the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

I noticed Mathis gives a few clues about SmB6 in his comments on Boron and Neodymium for Samarium (a double facilitator):

http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
---------

Since the mainstream has long thought that Neodymium was built up from Xenon [being Xe 4f 4, 6s2], it has completely mistaken its configuration. But in a more recent paper on the Lanthanides, I have discovered they are all composed of a core of 45 protons, not 54. The green disk indicates a 5-stack, with a proton sandwiched between two alphas. This is why Neodymium acts nothing like Group 6 elements such as Chromium. We know it acts more like Group, and the diagram above tells you why.

But if Neodymium is not the greatest candidate for magnetism by itself, how does it end up making the strongest magnet in compound? The answer is in the composition of the Neodymium magnet. When the compound is formed, it is formed in a strongly directionalized charge field, and that manufactured field is strong enough to re-arrange these outer protons in the fourth level. The carousel level gives up its protons to the axial level, and we end up with all proton on the axis, like this:

That is a better magnet than Mercury, because although Mercury has four protons in each axial hole, it also has four in the carousel holes. So Mercury is drawing charge heavily to the carousel level and emitting it equatorially. NeodymiumII isn't conflicted like that, and it can conduct all its charge through the axis, in both directions. Samarium and Gadolinium have been rearranged in the same way, also creating strong magnets. Since both can be forced to have all protons top and bottom, they would seem to be even better candidates for magnets than NdII, and the only reason they aren't is that NdII can be linked to Period 4 magnets like Iron or Cobalt using Boron, while the others can't.

You see the trick is to create the linkage between the three protons of NdII and the two protons of Iron. Since Boron has five protons, it can provide that linkage. But a Samarium/Cobalt magnet lacks that linkage, and its bond is thereby weaker. It is about as strong, but not as sturdy. Obviously, Samarium/Cobalt needs a 2 to 4 link, which means it would need a double facilitator. This may have been tried, I don't know. I know Samarium has been doped with Carbon in superconductors, and I suspect the engineers may have tried Carbon as the facilitator between Samarium and Cobalt, due to the fact that the six in Carbon might link SmCo just as the five in Boron linked NdFe. But what they need is Molybdenum (or perhaps Molybdenum and Boron in sequence). I will show you why. Boron works between Neodymium and Iron because this plug sequence is created:






Samarium
Atomic Number: 62

240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf

If we study the elements with the most stable isotopes, we find much more support for my model. We would expect both Molybdenum and Neodymium to be very stable, since they have semi-complete fourth levels. Tellurium would also be expected to be stable, for the same reason. Ruthenium is a semi-completed fourth level, like Molybdenum, but with the inner level single-filled as well. I discuss Samarium below, and its stability is caused by the same filling of the fourth level. The extreme stability of Dysprosium and Cadmium give us a hint to their structure, leading me to propose they are similar to Tin. Cadmium has the same fourth level as Tin, it just has two less protons below. The stability of Hafnium can be understood once you recognize it is misplaced in group 4. Hafnium should actually be a group 18 variant, making it another completed level. It then is like a larger Tin, but with single protons below instead of alphas

Can the lattice system change as heat changes the bonding-charge field flows (like with Nd to NdII)?
------
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonal_crystal_system

Rhombohedral lattice system

There are two descriptions (settings) of the rhombohedral lattice system.

   Hexagonal axes. The unit cell is a = b ≠ c; α = β = 90°, γ = 120°. Two additional lattice points occupy space diagonal of the unit cell and have coordinates 2/3 1/3 1/3 and 1/3 2/3 2/3. Hence, there are totally 3 lattice points per unit cell.

   Rhombohedral axes. The unit cell is a rhombohedron (which gives the name for rhombohedral lattice system). This is a primitive unit cell (no additional lattice points inside unit cell) with parameters a = b = c; α = β = γ ≠ 90°.

In practice, the hexagonal description is more commonly used because it is easier to deal with coordinate system with two 90° angles. However, the rhombohedral axes are often shown in textbooks because this cell reveals 3m symmetry of crystal lattice. The relation between two settings is given below.

The rhombohedral lattice system is combined with the hexagonal lattice system and grouped into a larger hexagonal family. These lattice systems belong to hexagonal family because the same (hexagonal) unit cell can be used for both of them.