Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:02:54 UTC No. 16630836

>>16630830
Majorana FERMIONS are a particular spin-1/2 representation, which happens to be C-invariant.

Photons are a particular spin-1 representation, which must be C-invariant due to also belonging to the adjoint representation of the gauge group U(1). Adjoint representations are C-invariant by construction.

Just because both apples and oranges are fruits doesn’t mean I can call apples oranges.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:05:40 UTC No. 16630839

>>16630836
I don't think you understand enough QFT to have this conversation

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:06:42 UTC No. 16630840

>>16630839
Ok, correct me then. You must know more than me.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:07:48 UTC No. 16630842

>>16630840
No, I'm just gonna let you stay ignorant.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:08:39 UTC No. 16630844

>>16630842
Cool. Great way to say you’re a pretentious retard. Keep at it.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:24:00 UTC No. 16630886

>>16630836
Majorana fermions don't exist.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:26:32 UTC No. 16630887

Honestly if we purport that majorana Fermions exist then I propose majorana bosons exist, and the photon is actually a majorana boson. Not as crazy as you may think.
https://physicsworld.com/a/majorana-bosons-could-exist-in-dissipative-systems-calculations-suggest/

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:27:58 UTC No. 16630889

>>16630886
Ok, and? This is just jargon for representation theory of the Poincare group.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:31:06 UTC No. 16630892

>>16630887
A implies B isn’t automatically true. You need to actually prove it. Not as crazy as you may think.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:38:17 UTC No. 16630895

>>16630889
Who cares? I can invent the most meticulous jargon to explain why picoscopic unicorns are cryptoamyloids that cause you to dream. If you dismiss this as nonsense, I'll push back and say it's simply a formalized model to explain dreaming and hasn't even been falsified. It can of course be falsified if you construct a picoscale microscope. Alas the current techniques transmogrify the unicorn cryptoamyloids into more ordinary matter. If you gift me $100 million, I can construct an apparatus to search for these cryptoamyloids.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:41:19 UTC No. 16630896

>>16630895
Yes, this is semantics. Nothing but semantics. People agree on jargon so that they don’t have to redefine something ten thousand times over. What you’re doing is either deliberately engaging in semantic sophistry where you’re mangling terms together or simply being dense and not understanding the definition of a Majorana particle. Because “it is its own antiparticle” is not a definition, it’s an implication of the definition. This has nothing to do with something alshuyally existing or not, this is a pure logical fallacy.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:48:07 UTC No. 16630900

>>16630892
>Before something is proven to exist you need to prove it exists
Cute. The logic I provided is the same type that led to the prediction that antimatter exists and that the higgs boson exists. No such mathematical argumentation suggests majorana fermions exist. Just because you can do math doesn't make it physical. Diracs equation was made to force Schrodinger's equation to obey special relativity, and thus it was a well-founded mathematical equation. The equation predicted antimatter must exist. I repeat that nothing indicates the majorana model of fermions is required.
>>16630896
It's not just semantics. It's highlighting that under all this jargon, baseless assumptions are made. These baseless assumptions eat up funding and have consequences. Majorana fermions don't exist, and the model to describe them have no physical grounding. It should be rejected as the nonsense that it is.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:58:04 UTC No. 16630907

>>16630900
Great, I am talking to a low IQ retard who can’t differentiate between logic and phenomenology. Apparently, I can’t establish rules of logic unless I prove that everything I talk about is phenomenological. The syllogism
>Jack Johnson is a bachelor. All bachelors are men. Therefore Jack Johnson is a man.
cannot be determined true or false until I see Jack Johnson’s birth certificate. This is peak retardation of the highest order. I’m out.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:06:12 UTC No. 16630910

>>16630907
This isn't about logic, it's about science. Observe how I use logic to dismantle your argument.
>(You) are uneducated. All uneducated people are wrong on technical topics. Therefore, (You) are wrong on this technical topic.
Logically it is true that you are wrong. Of course, observational evidence in support of or in opposition to this airtight syllogistic logic is irrelevant.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:13:19 UTC No. 16630915

>>16630910
>This isn't about logic, it's about science
Yes, science. Which is about describing phenomena using logically-consistent models. What you’re proposing is a logically inconsistent model. Majorana particles are fermions by the fucking definition (nobody fucking cares what you define them as, deal with it). Therefore your “Majorana bosons” are simultaneously fermions and bosons. Great, so for your Majorana boson model to be logically consistent, the spin-statistics theorem must not hold and by extension Poincare invariance is violated. Amazing, anon. So go ahead and propose your amazing model (which so far has no interesting or useful predictions, just a “what if my grandma had wheels”) and compare it against a gazillion tests of Poincare invariance violation we have compiled.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:19:00 UTC No. 16630922

>>16630907
How could you fall for such a simple troll?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:20:04 UTC No. 16630924

>>16630922
This one doesn’t appear to be a troll desu. Good trolls try to be smart and subtle about these things.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:22:48 UTC No. 16630926

>>16630915
>Which is about describing phenomena using logically-consistent models.
No. I didn't read the rest of your post. No need to since you don't even understand something as basic as what science is.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:25:09 UTC No. 16630928

>>16630926
Yeah, we all know that science is actually just funny nerds in glasses playing with test tubes.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:31:12 UTC No. 16630933

>>16630928
No. It's not about logically-consistent models. It's about both descriptive and predictive models. They first need to describe phenomena while having a damn good reason to be formulated as is, and then to be verified it needs to make a prediction (ideally many) that come true. What you proposed encompasses topics like philosophical ethical models of morality as being science. Or highly theoretical and specialized mathematics in 100+ dimensions as being science. You obviously don't understand what you're talking about.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:34:46 UTC No. 16630936

The actual question is if neutrinos are their own antiparticles. To this day it's unknown what are their actual masses, but must be small enough to enable Neutrino Oscillation. If only we were able to create two, extremely collimated neutrino "lasers" aimed at each other and observe what happens when the very few of them hit each other.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:38:11 UTC No. 16630938

>>16630933
>It’s not about *property X*
>It’s actually about *property Y*
So your descriptive and predictive models are totally fine if they’re logically inconsistent? Amazing, you solved science and immediately put every scientist out of a job. Here’s my predictive model: if I eat ice cream and I don’t eat ice cream then unicorns exist. This one describes a phenomenon of me eating ice cream. You can certainly observe this phenomenon if you wish. And this model immediately proves that unicorns exist. If you deny it, then I must be eating ice cream or not eating ice cream. But this is trivially true, of course I either eat ice cream or I don’t. You can observe me doing it. So unicorns must exist.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:47:02 UTC No. 16630943

>>16630938
You forgot the descriptive part, genius.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:50:44 UTC No. 16630946

>>16630943
I did describe the phenomenon. Me eating ice cream. Do you really need me to spoonfeed you about how I eat ice cream? Ok, I take a tub out of a freezer. I take a spoon and scoop ice cream out of a tub. I put the spoon in my mouth and then ingest ice cream. You can put me in a lab with 10000 cameras and conduct an experiment on it. And the moment you do, my logically-inconsistent model tells you that unicorns exist. You just observed me eating ice cream, there’s your proof.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:21:58 UTC No. 16630975

Okay that rambling was kind of interesting but let's start the thread over.

>Majorana particles are particles that are their own antiparticle
Oh so a photon is a majorana particle
>NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Why are physicists like this?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:27:07 UTC No. 16630979

>”A is B” is the definition I use and not the common definition “A is C”, which implies that “A has property B”
>why am I being called out a retard?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:27:48 UTC No. 16630980

>>16630979
LET'S START OVER!!!

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:28:40 UTC No. 16630981

>>16630980
Yes, I did. You defined things wrong. Want a cookie?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:21:52 UTC No. 16631093

>My model of reality does not describe reality
>How dare you say things in my model don't exist
>*Throws tantrum about logic*
>I will insult you to prove I am right >:[
You should reflect on why being told majorana fermions don't exist upsets you so much

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:57:54 UTC No. 16631148

>>16631093
What upsets me is your walnut brain not comprehending what I’m being upset about.