Majorana particle?

a reply to: Ghost147

Your only point is that the issue of DNA is irrelevant to the OP and as I have stated I disagree with your opinion.

There is no reason to bring it up is it were not.

That you feel otherwise is an argument in semantics which has nothing to do with intelligent conversation, outside of the fact this is your opinion. There is no "gotcha", element to your point it is simply a point of view you have formed, that expresses nothing about the content.

Which specifically relates to DNA and not in some metaphorical way and despite your objections. It seems clear the authors would have been intelligent enough to clearly define had they wished to a metaphor as you seem to imagine.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Your only point is that the issue of DNA is irrelevant to the OP and as I have stated I disagree with your opinion.

There is no reason to bring it up is it were not.

How is there no reason?

You're falsely making claims that Majorana Particles have something to do with DNA, and that the article is doing literal DNA tests in order to find more about the Majorana Particle.

These are false claims because the article has nothing to do with DNA or even Biology.

That's why you're getting responses about it, because your claims are false, because your understanding of the Article is false.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
That you feel otherwise is an argument in semantics which has nothing to do with intelligent conversation, outside of the fact this is your opinion. There is no "gotcha", element to your point it is simply a point of view you have formed, that expresses nothing about the content.

How is "you're making false claims about the article", semantics?

This isn't a point of view, I've already shown you how:
~ it makes no sense for the researchers to literally do a DNA test.
~ It makes no sense that the researchers would be doing any research at all in Biology when they are researching a particle.
~ The article never once mentions DNA or Biology throughout the entire first article, nor is it mentioned in any article. It's not mentioned because it doesn't apply. It's not mentioned because the term "DNA" was used metaphorically.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Which specifically relates to DNA and not in some metaphorical way and despite your objections.

If it relates to DNA, show me the evidence in the first article, or any other article that the Majorana particle relates to DNA.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
It seems clear the authors would have been intelligent enough to clearly define had they wished to a metaphor as you seem to imagine.

It is clear! You're the only one who doesn't see it!

The article even states:

As opposed to particles found in a vacuum, unattached to other matter, these Majoranas are what’s called “emergent particles.” They emerge from the collective properties of the surrounding matter and could not exist outside the superconductor.

How the heck can the particle be related to DNA if it can't even exist in it?

originally posted by: Kashai
" 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. "

The person being quoted is assuming that the reader is not a concrete thinker, and will understand that he's implying you have to deduce the particle's 'paternity' and I use that in quotes to also denote I am not using it concretely.

Since you are taking every word in the statement literally, let's examine the rest of the sentence. You will note that he states that this test "must show the particles do not obey the normal laws of the two known classes of particles in nature". Literally says this.

Now, with that in hand...

Do DNA tests do this? Ever? NO. No, no, no. They do not. So, how to reconcile this disparity, which occurs within a single sentence?

The correct way is to understand that the man KNOWS there is no DNA in a basic particle. He is using the term "DNA test" as a shorthand, a symbol, a metaphor for a test that will indicate that the particle does not fit into a known class. Because he's assuming the reader will not take him literally.

Otherwise, you have to be stuck with the sad and inescapable fact that DNA tests do not classify elementary particles. Have nothing to do with them. You really can't read the first half of the statement and put your mind in neutral. The same guy states the second half of the sentence as well. And that does NOT describe anything whatever to do with DNA.

Thus the statement makes perfect sense if you assume by "DNA test" he means "a test that will show identity". It makes no sense at all if you take it to literally mean an identification of genomes.

Also, I have to say I find your reasoning that the components contain the assembly to be, well, sort of badly structured.

You have repeatedly said something along the line "DNA contains electrons, therefore electrons inherently have something to do with DNA, and contain DNA", as best I can pry it out.

Cars have ball bearings in. But ball bearings don't have cars inside. They don't assume some aspect of car-ness due to their appearance inside the structure of a car.

Or, one might as well say, every bit of an automobile, every molecule of it, also has electrons in. Since electrons are in every molecule of a car, by your logic, then electrons contain Ford Pintos. After all, if things with electrons in can become a Pinto, then the electron has to have some ineffable attribute that allows Ford Pintos to come forth from structures that contain it...they have essence of Pinto-ness. There must be some part of an electron that is prestructured to want to turn into a sky blue Pinto. That's your logic here, at least as far as I can follow it.

But of course, there IS no inherent "something-ness" to a sub-component. You just built the larger structure out of something. Doing that does not imply the materials used had some sort of Buick LeSabre hidden in their nature that caused a Buick to emerge from the vinyl, rubber, steel and whatnot. The materials don't have to have a secret hidden auto in them for them to be used to build an auto.

I get the feeling you're trying to literally apply some "all is one" philosophy to physics, but it just doesn't work.

originally posted by: Ghost147
[I don't believe he was literally referring to biological DNA, but rather in a metaphorical sense to express that you would have to look at the very core structures of such a particle

I agree with your assessment. When the author said "DNA test" he wasn't talking about literal DNA, but metaphorically saying "we need to figure out the defining traits of these particles".

In biology, a DNA test is what can help uncover the defining traits of an organism, and he was talking about some analogous sort of test (but not a literal DNA test) that could uncover the defining traits of these particles.

Therefore, the metaphor is an apt one, even though it seems that some people (the OP, at least) may get confused by the use of the metaphor and assume he meant a literal DNA test; but it's pretty obvious he didn't mean that at all, considering the context.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I mean do you understand how trivial in relation to the OP your point really is?

How is it trivial? In your OP, you openly wonder what biological DNA has to do with these particles?

The answer is that it has noting to do with study of these particles, and the reference to "DNA test" was not at all a literal reference. DNA has nothing to do with this research.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's the response I was looking for and thank you.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That's the response I was looking for and thank you.

Excellent! I'm glad you've been able to come to an understanding

a reply to: Ghost147

And you get a star from me for maintaining your composure.

a reply to: Kashai

Thanks. I'm not one to gloat. I was just trying to help

It's always refreshing when ATS debates work out with mutual agreement in the end

a reply to: Kashai

Do you think there would be any benefit to some sort of 'what is DNA' thread? One that walks through what it's made of, how it's structured, what it does in the cell, how it breaks, how it gets repaired, how that doesn't work all the time and whatnot?

At least, as far as *I* understand it. YMMV.

a reply to: Bedlam

At a quantum scale environment and observations beyond that could and can relate to structure, beyond classical thinking is actually rather interesting.

Just a thought.

However I do find the more conventional conclusions as to the OP in discovery, absolutely fascinating.

Dissecting such a structure for its own sake seems a valid effort for several reasons.

Music Break