1. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    21 May '13 11:45
    "What is a Majorana fermion?
    It is named for the physicist Ettore Majorana, who found that a particle could be its own antiparticle. If a particle has properties with values unequal to zero, then its antiparticle has the opposite values. What that means is that all the properties of a Majorana fermion, the charge, energy, what have you, it's all zero. It is a particle, but it doesn't have properties that we can measure. That makes it very mysterious. It also makes it difficult to find."
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829160.300-nothing-to-see-the-man-who-made-a-majorana-particle.html

    Sounds much like Emptiness to me, or a very, very close cousin.

    When is a particle not a particle? MU!
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91614
    21 May '13 15:151 edit
    Originally posted by Taoman
    "What is a Majorana fermion?
    It is named for the physicist Ettore Majorana, who found that a particle could be its own antiparticle. If a particle has properties with values unequal to zero, then its antiparticle has the opposite values. What that means is that all the properties of a Majorana fermion, the charge, energy, what have you, it's all zero. It is ke Emptiness to me, or a very, very close cousin.

    When is a particle not a particle? MU!
    It shows to me that people aren't reading it, (science and/or Buddhism), or choose to keep their heads in the sand.

    It's not like the Buddhist sympathizers and atheists don't make an attempt to understand the bible - which has been done to death. It is now just another self-replicating virus that preys on the weak [of mind].
  3. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    21 May '13 20:07
    Originally posted by Taoman
    "What is a Majorana fermion?
    It is named for the physicist Ettore Majorana, who found that a particle could be its own antiparticle. If a particle has properties with values unequal to zero, then its antiparticle has the opposite values. What that means is that all the properties of a Majorana fermion, the charge, energy, what have you, it's all zero. It is ...[text shortened]... ke Emptiness to me, or a very, very close cousin.

    When is a particle not a particle? MU!
    I would think science still must get far lest concrete with its concepts before it is anywhere near the vagueness of modern Buddhism.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 May '13 20:48
    Originally posted by Taoman
    Sounds much like Emptiness to me, or a very, very close cousin.
    How is emptiness "Buddhist"? Its as silly as Christians claiming that morality is "Christian".
  5. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    22 May '13 09:31
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I would think science still must get far lest concrete with its concepts before it is anywhere near the vagueness of modern Buddhism.
    I guess the epithet of vagueness applies when you talk of "things" that are empty of "thingness". Can't really be avoided, it appears to be the very nature of what is being looked at in either of Buddhism or science at this ontological level. I see an interface between definiteness and vagueness in both, particularly here.

    Science is precise when it deals with matter almost all the way down, measurement is its other name. But not so much at this level, it would appear to me.

    I fail to see why it is so difficult at least to acknowledge the mysterious nature of this findings, even without any interpretation. That a particle can be it's own anti-particle is mysterious and so vague its hard to conceive what it is that is being referred to. Zero, I guess as it is stated..some "thing" that "exists" in a state of zero....???

    Anyway, I can live with vagueness.
  6. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    22 May '13 09:59
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    How is emptiness "Buddhist"? Its as silly as Christians claiming that morality is "Christian".
    Emptiness here (specifically"sunyata" in Sanskrit), as a philosophical term is strongly associated with Buddhism and central to its philosophy.

    Of course, the ordinary concept of emptiness (as in the nihilsitic absolutely nothing), like morality, belongs to everybody. It is unfortunate that the term is too quickly equated with that common meaning. However it is still the most appropriate in the context of ontological philosophy.

    It has been explained repeatedly that it is not referring to the normal state of emptiness, but rather to refer to an existential concept in which it is reasoned and claimed that everything is interdependent and there is no "thing" that exists unto itself alone, including concepts like "self".

    Yes, some Christians - definitely not all - claim that the only real moral code and the "claimed" moral living that ensues belongs to them alone. That is, by both observation and reason, an error on which we can agree.
  7. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    23 May '13 18:081 edit
    Originally posted by Taoman
    I guess the epithet of vagueness applies when you talk of "things" that are empty of "thingness". Can't really be avoided, it appears to be the very nature of what is being looked at in either of Buddhism or science at this ontological level. I see an interface between definiteness and vagueness in both, particularly here.

    Science is precise when it deals "thing" that "exists" in a state of zero....???

    Anyway, I can live with vagueness.
    A particle being its own anti-particle is mysterious (at least to me - I'm not a physicist), but not as vague. When I read about Quantum Physics, I discover that some very counter-intuitive things may happen, BUT they still happen according to probabilistic rules. We can still predict the results in the aggregate with astonishing accuracy.

    Difficult for the layperson to understand? Yes. Vague? No.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 May '13 18:47
    Originally posted by Taoman
    It has been explained repeatedly that it is not referring to the normal state of emptiness, but rather to refer to an existential concept in which it is reasoned and claimed that everything is interdependent and there is no "thing" that exists unto itself alone, including concepts like "self".
    Well I totally fail to see the connection between that an the particle in question.
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8576
    24 May '13 10:291 edit
    The New Testament teaches that morality belongs to created man. Human beings have a moral sense and various moral codes.

    "For when Gentiles [nations], who have no law, [meaning the law of Moses from Sinai] do by nature the things of the law, these, though they have no law, are a law to themselves,

    who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness with tit and their reasonings, one with the other, accusing or ecen excusing them ..." (Romans 2:14-15)


    The Gentiles, the non-Jewish nations, who do not possess the Law of Moses given by God to Israel, nevertheless show much of the moral content of the law written on their created hearts. Their consciences and their reasonings considering moral judgments.

    Whether men can live up to their moral thoughts and codes is another story. But they have them in their hearts and do not have to be either old covenant Jews or new covenant Christians to claim to have a sense of moral obligation.
Back to Top