Majorana particle?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Bedlam

It makes very little sense to not relate environment to biology outside the classical sense from the context of the fundamental.

It makes no sense whatever to ring in a biological macromolecule as being relevant to the behavior of electrons in magnetically biased superconductors. None.

It wouldn't even have crossed your mind if the guy hadn't said "DNA test" as a stupid metaphor for identity.

a reply to: Bedlam

Nonetheless the DNA contains electrons and so in order for DNA to form there needs to be electrons.

Beyond that there needs to be an atom who's structure would define how matter is structured beyond atoms.

There is no reason why there should not be an inherent relationship between environment and fundamental structure.

Do you disagree?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Bedlam
Nonetheless the DNA contains electrons and so in order for DNA to form there needs to be electrons.

Beyond that there needs to be an atom who's structure would define how matter is structured beyond atoms.

There is no reason why there should not be an inherent relationship between environment and fundamental structure.

Do you disagree?

This has absolutely nothing to do with any of the 4 articles in the OP. Why are you even arguing this?

a reply to: Ghost147

Because in relation to what is offered matter is inherently different and therefore so is matter as defined. This due to its structure beyond the atom, related to how the atom is structured.

Environmental condition's reflect systemically a reflection of the potential of the atom that generate life. Are inherently due to environment as systemic to the development of matter into life as well as with Consciousness.

Its actually really simply to understand the complexity of matter relates to the complexity of structure at the grand scale.

a reply to: Kashai

You're arguing a position that doesn't exist.

No one is denying anything that you're saying (regardless if it's factual or not), no one is accepting anything that you're saying, we are telling you is that the argument you're putting forth has nothing at all to do with any of the 4 articles you yourself mentioned in the OP.

If the researcher in the first article implied what you're implying, he would have gone into immense detail on the matter.

He doesn't.

The other 3 articles don't.

You're arguing a point that doesn't exist

Theoretical physics has kind of hit the buffers. These announcements of new particle almost-discoveries are really nothing but the speculation of hopeful physicists praying for the next breakthrough.

The LIGO experiment on gravity waves apart, I would, just now, advise readers to take any article about physics in any consumer media as 90% wishful thinking.

"I think you have to do a DNA test.” Such a test, he says, must show the particles do not obey the normal laws of the two known classes of particles in nature—fermions (protons, electrons and most other particles we are familiar with) and bosons (photons and other force-carrying particles, including the Higgs boson). “The great thing about Majoranas is that they are potentially a new class of particle,” Kouwenhoven adds. “If you find a new class of particles, that really would add a new chapter to physics.”


That does not matter as there is no reference to dead DNA.

a reply to: Astyanax

You said that before but you used other words.

originally posted by: Kashai
That does not matter as there is no reference to dead DNA.

Why do you continue to use the term "Dead DNA" as if it's some kind of scientific terminology.

The guy said DNA as a Metaphor, it's obvious that it's a metaphor. That's final.

You're arguing a point that doesn't exist.

a reply to: Ghost147

Actually you are arguing a point that would not exist if it were not for things like environment and observable existence being interrelated at the fundamental level.

Which for the record does not appear to be the Classical Perspective.

a reply to: Kashai

Neutrons are their own anti parts. Two or more neutrons have never been observed together!

a reply to: graysquirrel

Exactly but then there is this issue.

a reply to: Ghost147

Wow and I guess you are certain about that?

Guess there then is no reason for you to participate is there?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

Wow and I guess you are certain about that?

Guess there then is no reason for you to participate is there?

Yes, I am absolutely certain that his use of the term DNA was meant for metaphorical purposes. Just like two other members here also pointed out.

I will stop participating in the thread once you can acknowledge that his use of the term DNA was nothing more than metaphorical.

There is nothing in any of the 4 articles that you posted which suggests the Majorana particle specifically deals with DNA. Please provide the explanations and content in any of the 4 articles which suggest it does. Otherwise your argument is totally baseless and doesn't even exist.

a reply to: Ghost147

There is every reason to understand that DNA is the result of two factors.

These two factors are obvious in relation to environment being one, while the other is related to a structure inherent to environment.

The OP beings up a factor that is clearly well beyond your head.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

There is every reason to understand that DNA is the result of two factors.

These two factors are obvious in relation to environment being one the other related to a structure inherent to environment.

Yes, understanding DNA is fantastic. The thing is, it has nothing to do with the articles in the OP

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The OP beings up a factor that is clearly well beyond your head.

Feel free to present the evidence that was laid out in the 4 articles you posted so I too can understand.