Majorana particle?

Since the 1930s scientists have been searching for particles that are simultaneously matter and antimatter. Now physicists have found strong evidence for one such entity inside a superconducting material. The discovery could represent the first so-called Majorana particle, and may help researchers encode information for quantum computers.

Physicists think that every particle of matter has an antimatter counterpart with equal mass but opposite charge. When matter meets its antimatter equivalent, the two annihilate one another. But some particles might be their own antimatter partners, according to a 1937 prediction by Italian physicist Ettore Majorana. For the first time researchers say they have imaged one of these Majorana particles, and report their findings in the October 3 Science.

The new Majorana particle showed up inside a superconductor, a material in which the free movement of electrons allows electricity to flow without resistance. The research team, led by Ali Yazdani of Princeton University, placed a long chain of iron atoms, which are magnetic, on top of a superconductor made of lead. Normally, magnetism disrupts superconductors, which depend on a lack of magnetic fields for their electrons to flow unimpeded. But in this case the magnetic chain turned into a special type of superconductor in which electrons next to one another in the chain coordinated their spins to simultaneously satisfy the requirements of magnetism and superconductivity. Each of these pairs can be thought of as an electron and an antielectron, with a negative and a positive charge, respectively. That arrangement, however, leaves one electron at each end of the chain without a neighbor to pair with, causing them to take on the properties of both electrons and antielectrons—in other words, Majorana particles.

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.

The new study shows a convincing signature of Majorana particles, says Leo Kouwenhoven of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands who was not involved in the research but previously found signs of Majorana particles in a different superconductor arrangement. “But to really speak of full proof, unambiguous evidence, 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.”

Source

This article was presented in October, 2nd 2014 it offers an issue and then relates to issue to DNA? A new kind of particle as in something that could be related to DNA?

Particle Accelerators
It is theoretically possible to detect a Majorana fermion with a particle accelerator such as the one at CERN. The current Large Hadron Collider appears to be insufficiently sensitive for that purpose but, according to physicists, there is another possibility: Majorana fermions can also appear in properly designed nanostructures. ‘What’s magical about quantum mechanics is that a Majorana particle created in this way is similar to the ones that may be observed in a particle accelerator, although that is very difficult to comprehend’, explains Kouwenhoven.

Source

After decades of searching, physicists at Princeton University say they've observed an elusive particle that behaves both like matter and antimatter.

Yes, the discovery is an exciting step forward for particle physics, but it may also help advance the creation of powerful quantum computers.

In the early 20th century, as quantum theory emerged, scientists predicted that most common particles, like electrons, had mysterious "antimatter" counterparts with the same mass and opposite charge. Scientists even thought that if a particle came in contact with its "antiparticle," the two would annihilate one another.

Italian physicist Ettore Majorana first hypothesized in 1937 that one particle -- called the "Majorana fermion" -- could serve as its very own antimatter particle, and scientists have been searching for that particle ever since.

Source

The new structure of the Atom illustrated above explains ALL discoveries in science. It includes Antimatter and Matter with ALL Quarks, Squarks, Antiquarks (Supersymmetry-Majorana) and Leptons, Sleptons, and Antileptons (Supersymmetry-Majorana).

The expression or manifestation of each subatomic particle as being Antimatter or Matter is dictated by the status of the subatomic particle as being DOMINANT or RECESSIVE or BOTH as in Majorana particles. Majorana particles and sparticles are either ANTIMATTER or MATTER is dictated by where it exist.

To understand the concept of Antimatter and Matter co-existing together within the same entity, we will discuss the concept of Male (Antimatter) and Female (Matter) gender. In the Male (Antimatter) gender, the person has BOTH Male (Antimatter, Supersymmetry-Majorana) and Female (Matter, Symmetry-Asymmetry) Chromosomes or genes but the Male (Antimatter, Supersymmetry-Majorana) Chromosomes (XY or Majorana…ie…both Female and Male) or genes are DOMINANT and Female (Matter) Chromosomes (XX…ie…ONLY Female ) or genes are RECESSIVE. Therefore, ONLY the Male (Antimatter) physical characteristics and features are expressed or manifested and Female (Matter) physical characteristics and features are suppressed or hidden.

New Structure of the Atom.

('')

My how much we have added to our knowledge of atoms. Protons and Neutrons in the nucleus with electrons were all we knew then, positrons and each additional new discovery has advanced Physics to wonderful new heights. The Universe is the limit now, not just "the sky".

originally posted by: Kashai
This article was presented in October, 2nd 2014 it offers an issue and then relates to issue to DNA? A new kind of particle as in something that could be related to DNA?

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 too found it a very odd remark, but there isn't anything else referring to Biological DNA in the article, so I think it was just there as a metaphor. A very misleading and unnecessary metaphor

a reply to: Ghost147

Fundamentally it would seem that atoms are not what is commonly related to in the standard model.

I fail to understand why the article states it does relate to DNA and why you think that its not discussing living DNA?

Clearly if the article addressed "dead", DNA there would be some kind of referent as to how. This "dead", DNA was actually identified.

a reply to: Kashai

Wow.

You just blew my mind apart.

Thanks for that, and the information.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I fail to understand why the article states it does relate to DNA and why you think that its not discussing living DNA?

I already explained why it doesn't seem like he's literally referring to biological DNA, at least in the first article.

The Second and Third quotes are both from different websites, neither of which state anything about DNA at all.

The last quote that goes into details referencing males and females and so forth (www.cuttingedgenewscience.com) is from a free-made website with no source material or references.

Now, let's just assume that what they are describing is factual; the entire concept they are trying to portray is metaphorical, they even state it is.

So all of that evidence shows that the comment in the original link isn't literally describing biological DNA

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Clearly if the article addressed "dead", DNA there would be some kind of referent as to how. This "dead", DNA was actually identified.

I don't recall anyone mentioning "dead" dna anywhere. Could you please quote that part?

a reply to: Ghost147

The OP makes clear these particles are not metaphorical, they are fundamental to the structure of the atom.

Given the apparent fundamental differences...

Are you suggesting that how an atom is structured has nothing to do with how DNA is structured?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The OP makes clear these particles are not metaphorical, thry are an aspect of the atom.

I never said they were claiming the particles were metaphorical, I stated that the comment that included "DNA" which is what you focused on in your personal remarks in the OP is meant as a metaphor and really has nothing to do with DNA what so ever.

I found the article about the Mojarana particle to be very fascinating, and in no way think they are being metaphorical about the particle itself.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Are you suggesting that how an atom is structured has nothing to do with how DNA is structured?

Not literally, no. He was being metaphorical.

a reply to: Ghost147

I would disagree but I do agree this in potential outside of that issue is fascinating.

Atom formed into DNA because of environmental conditions which does not preclude the conclusion. That DNA forms due to something inherent to atoms under the correct conditions.

Environment being inherent to such a response.

In context such a parameter need not be random.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Atom formed into DNA because of environmental conditions which does not preclude the conclusion. That DNA forms due to something inherent to atoms under the correct conditions.

This has nothing at all to do with the OP, it has nothing to do with the metaphor, and it doesn't even have anything to do with your most recent post.

a reply to: Ghost147

Only because in your opinion the issue of DNA is a Metaphor and where you could actually be completely wrong about.

Consider a closed system where everything that occurs, fundamentally relates to cause. Therefore to define matter one must relate to the systemic effect as a whole, not just conditions that seem apparent to local observation.

a reply to: Kashai

Compared to DNA, which is made out of atoms, which are made out of subatomic particles, there is a vast difference in scale.

I think, as has been pointed out, that the Leo K's DNA reference was a bad metaphor for 'we really need to figure out the structure inside the atom properly'.

Majorana particles are interesting but before we could say "yes, this is it!", we really need to figure out the structure inside the atom properly.

a reply to: chr0naut

I agree an enormous amount of work needs to be done.

Nonetheless this brings up some interesting questions.

Using a two-story-tall microscope floating in an ultralow-vibration lab at Princeton's Jadwin Hall, the scientists captured a glowing image of a particle known as a "Majorana fermion" perched at the end of an atomically thin wire—just where it had been predicted to be after decades of study and calculation dating back to the 1930s.

"This is the most direct way of looking for the Majorana fermion as it is expected to emerge at the edge of certain materials," said Ali Yazdani, a professor of physics who led the research team. "If you want to find this particle within a material you have to use such a microscope, which allows you to see where it actually is."

Source

A NIMS MANA group theoretically demonstrated that the results of the experiments on the peculiar superconducting state reported by a Chinese research group in January 2015 prove the existence of the Majorana-type particles.

A research group led by NIMS Special Researcher Takuto Kawakami and MANA Principal Investigator Xiao Hu of the International Center for Materials Nanoarchitectonics (WPI-MANA), National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS) theoretically demonstrated that the results of the experiments on the peculiar superconducting state reported by a Chinese research group in January 2015 can be taken as a proof of the existence of Majorana-type particle.

The existence of Majorana particle was predicted in 1937 by the Italian theoretical physicist Ettore Majorana. Though it is fermion, it is equivalent to its own antiparticle. While its existence as an elementary particle still has not been confirmed today—nearly 80 years after the prediction, it was pointed out theoretically in recent years that quasiparticle excitations in special materials called topological superconductors behave in a similar way as Majorana particles. However, it is difficult to capture these Majorana particles in materials due to their unique properties of being charge neutral and carrying zero energy. There have been intense international competitions to confirm their existence.

Source

I still do not see the problem with concluding that atoms in response to environment form life. This presenting a systemic definition as to cause and the existence of life.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

The OP makes clear these particles are not metaphorical, they are fundamental to the structure of the atom.

No, it makes it clear that the statement IS metaphorical. He doesn't get an entire sentence and explains what sort of test he means - one that rules out various other particle types.

geez, Kashai, DNA is a large chemical compound made up of sugars, phosphates, purines and pyrimidines. Which are billions of atoms in a typical strand. A damned electron hasn't got DNA. The guy they're quoting meant they'd have to do tests that can determine particle type. Not that an elementary particle has a huge biological construct hidden in it that serves as a template for protein synthesis.

originally posted by: Kashai

I still do not see the problem with concluding that atoms in response to environment form life. This presenting a systemic definition as to cause and the existence of life.

It doesn't say one word about the existence of life. Not. one. Because that's got nothing to do with what they're looking for.

eta: I think if we were having a face-to-face convo about this and you popped out with 'they said it had DNA in', the next thing I'd say to you would be along the lines of "You know, Kashai, I've heard people say 'A rolling stone gathers no moss'. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Can you explain that to me?" and see if you could interpret basic metaphor, or if you're purely concrete. Some people just are that way. I use a lot of metaphor, but I find some folks just get confused.

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.

Under the circumstances.....shall we begin with the meaning of the electron cloud to the multiverse?

a reply to: Bedlam

All things are differentiations structurally so therefore they act in response to what fundamentally they really are.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Bedlam

All things are differentiations structurally so therefore they act in response to what fundamentally they really are.

Righty right. So electrons act like electrons. They do not contain DNA. Fundamentally, they are not giant macromolecules that store protein and structural information in some Terran life forms. So, fundamentally, there is no relationship. At all.