return to updates

The Majorana Fermion

by Miles Mathis
In April of 2012, a team at Delft University claimed to discover evidence of Majorana fermions. I will
show that they could not have discovered Majorana fermions, since there are no Majorana fermions.
There can't be, because there are no fermions. The current categories are made up from math, and have
no physical reality.

Even Wikipedia admits that the definition of fermion is squishy:

Fermions are usually associated with matter, whereas bosons are generally force carrier particles; although in the
current state of particle physics the distinction between the two concepts is unclear.

A fermion is one of two categories of quanta, the other category being the boson. The photon is the
only confirmed particle that is a boson. The gluon and W and Z particles are also called bosons, but the
gluon is strictly hypothetical, and the W and Z particles have not been confirmed to be bosons. We
have some indication these very large particles exist, but very much less indication what they are. So
we will leave them to one side for now.

This means that almost all particles are fermions, according to current theory. Fermions are supposed
to have half-integer spins. What does that mean? Well, it originally comes from experiments in the
1920's like the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which I pull apart in another paper. Physicists at that time
made some bad assumptions regarding the E/M field, and especially the dipole characteristics of the
field and particles in the field. Because they were either very poor visualizers of physical problems, or
because they refused to try to visualize the problem (following the advice of Bohr and Heisenberg and
the Copenhagen interpretation), they got it wrong. They thought they needed a spin quantum below 1
when they didn't. So they gave the electron a spin of . Other particles then acted like the electron
regarding spin in their equations, so they also gave these particles spin .

Even worse, these old guys couldn't get their equations to make sense with real spins. The real spins
gave them results that were clearly illogical (the spin speed would be above c, for a start). So rather
than fix the equations, they decided instead to hide the spins. They told us the spins weren't real and
therefore didn't need to be logical. Since they were virtual spins, they didn't have to obey speed limits.

I have fixed the equations for them, with just a few simple steps, and have made the spins real without
breaking the limit at c. This also makes the spins quantized at 1, instead of . This means that the
entire basis for fermions has been overthrown. It no longer exists.

Beyond that, I have unified the photon with the other quanta, showing how to stack spins. My quantum
spin equations unify the photon, which means we no longer have fermions or bosons. This particle
unification and my spin equations also show us how to build the W and Z with spin stacking, so those
particles have also been unified. They aren't bosons, they aren't mediating the weak force, and they
don't come from the vacuum.

Furthermore, we are told that fermions obey exclusion rules, and can't occupy the same quantum state
as another fermion. I have no problem with that, except that it implies that the photon can occupy the
same quantum state as another photon. All I can say to that is, If two photons can occupy the same
quantum state, then the quantum equation for photons is incomplete. We shouldn't be surprised that
the quantum state equation for photons is incomplete, since our theory of photons is so incomplete. I
have shown that the mainstream doesn't have enough math for the photon, and that the math they do
have is garbled and often wrong. The photon is still buried under complementarity and the HUP and
the Copenhagen interpretation and a thousand other heavy theoretical and mathematical blankets. It is
also buried in the gauge math, forced to fit manufactured matrix symmetries.

I have pulled the photon out from under this pile, brushed it off and cleaned it up. And in my new
clarified equations, the photon is no longer mysterious. It is no longer massless, it has a radius, has real
spins, and we can calculate its energy straight from its spin radius. Instead of occupying gauge
equations, it occupies the field equations directly, via Newton's equation, Einstein's equations,
Coulomb's equation, and the revamped Lagrangian/Hamiltonian (revamped as my unified field
equation). I have also rewritten the Schrodinger equation, showing that the photon is the cause of the
wavefunction. This means that the photon's new quantum equation has enough information so that two
photons cannot occupy the same quantum state. This is because a quantum state in my equations is
equivalent to a specific place and time, and no two particles can occupy the same place at the same
timeby the definition of particle and of occupy. This should have been obvious before I came along,
and to many people (outside of physics) it was.

With all this in mind, we must read the data from Delft in a very different manner than the current
physicists are reading it. Although the photon is already accepted to be its own anti-particle, the Delft
data is not being read as photons because these physicists think they need fermions here. Why?
Because they are finding mid-gap states at zero bias voltage. They say, We are not aware of any
mechanism that could explain our observations, besides the conjecture of a Majorana. Curious, since
my charge photon fits their data like a hand in a glove.

To see this, we can look at another quote from the paper:

Despite their zero charge and energy, Majoranas can be detected in electrical measurements.
So can photons. As I just reminded my readers in a recent paper, the photon is not unaffected by these
fields either. See the Faraday effect, the Zeeman effect, the Voigt effect, the Cotton-Mouton effect, the
QMR effect, and the MOKE effect, as a start, all of which are admitted to affect and concern photons.
These physicists at Delft even admit they have created a Zeeman field*, so it is strange to see them
dodging photons so egregiously. They don't even bother to include a paragraph on why they ruled out
the photon.

They do briefly dismiss the Kondo effect, Andreev bound states, as well as weak anti-localization and
reflectionless tunneling. But these are all poorly defined theoretical interactions, derived from the same
bad equations and theories we looked at above. Sliding away from them is meaningless, since they
were so slippery to start with. Why won't these physicists look at the photon?

The reason here is the same reason the charge field has been lost for two centuries. Physicists have
never admitted that the charge field was real, or bothered to give it any real characteristics. It is virtual
to this day. Which means that whenever anomolous effects like this effect at Delft arise, the physicists
have to give the effect to something other than charge photons. They don't have real charge photons
like I do, so they can't possibly assign any effect to them.

If you read the paper closely, you see that the only particle they have before the Majorana is the
electron. They think the E/M field is caused by the electron. Yes, charge exists in the paper and in the
heads of mainstream physicists, but not as anything real. It exists only as an undefined field or
potential, or as undefined math. We see this with the Majorana equation as well, which is written in
terms of spinors and charge conjugates.

Charge itself is completely undefined and hidden. It is nothing more than a ghost in the equations.
What I mean is, the spinor comes from the Dirac equation, where that variable was assigned to the
wavefunction of the electron. Not the wavefunction of the charge field or the charge photon. So here
the electron itself is hiding the charge field.

I have shown that this problem goes back to Bohr, and his conflation of the photon momentum with
that of the electron in his initial derivations. Schrdinger then borrowed that mistake from him, and
Dirac got it from Schrdinger. Majorana then got it from Dirac. The poison is still working today.

The wavefunction was assigned to the electron when it should have been assigned to the photon. In
this way the charge field was buried from the beginning, and has been hidden under the wavefunction
ever since. This is why the photon is still just seen as some sort of interloper in QM, when it is
actually the defining particle of the field and of all the equations.

But in my unified field, the charge photon is the real particle that causes charge. Charge is not caused
by the electron. Charge is only recycled, felt, and passed on by the electron. The electron is like a
charge field signal more than anything else. It is large enough for us to monitor, so it is like a charge
beacon in the field, telling us the charge strength at that location. But it is charge photons that cause
everything. I have now rewritten the quantum field equations in terms of the charge photon, correcting
this longstanding error.

What these physicists in Delft are seeing is simple and direct evidence of the charge photon. Given a
real photon, there is absolutely no need for a Majorana fermion, since a Majorana fermion just restates
most of the known properties of the photon. The Majorana is proposed only because these physicists
don't want a photon here. Why? One, it wouldn't be as sexy as a Majorana fermion. You can make the
journals and papers with a Majorana fermion, where you can't with a boring old photon. Two, a photon
appearing here like this is actually dangerous to the standard model, since it contradicts a lot of their
math and theories. It is the same reason they shunt you off into special effects and dense math and
theory with the Zeeman effect, the Faraday effect, and all the others I mentioned above. If they just
admit that it is a real photon, with no other magic, they are in a bind. They are in a bind because the
standard model can't explain where these photons are coming from. The standard model needs photons
being produced in certain limited ways, and obeying the gauge matrices. Since charge photons are
already everywhere, pre-existing any and all interactions, they don't obey these rules. Since charge
photons have real mass and radius and spin, they don't obey these manufactured rules. But most of all,
the mainstream cannot admit charge as a real field of real particles, because that would destroy not only
a great portion of QM and QED, it would also destroy the field equations in celestial mechanics. If the
charge field exists as a real field, it exists not only at the quantum level but at all levels. Since the old
boys couldn't figure out how to include charge in the old field equations, they have been hiding charge
for decades and centuries. They have hidden it in the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian, calling it potential;
they have hidden it in Laplace's pushes; they have hidden it in perturbation theory and chaos theory;
they have hidden it in complex math and in quaternions and the curved field. They have swept it under
every available bush and squirreled it down every available hole.

Charge is buried so deep they don't even recognize it when it is 95% of their data, as with dark matter.
I have shown that dark matter is just the charge field again, but charge is so well hidden in current
theory, the mainstream has never even considered that possibility.

In fact, they will tell me this particle in Delft can't be a photon because it doesn't fit the old math and
theory. But I have proved that the old math and theory are wrong. The old math and theory were based
on certain assumptions about the photon and the charge field that have turned out to be false. We now
have reams of data and hundreds of experiments showing the old assumptions were wrong. Rather
than admit that, mainstream physicists have buried this inconvenient data and gone on as before. They
are in love with their old equations and aren't prepared to give them up for any data. We see that again
here in this paper from Delft, where they are trying desperately to fit new data to old math and theory
that should have been discarded long ago. We can see even in this short paper how muddled the math
and theory are, and how the physicists are trying to bury the mechanics under piles of undefined fields
and operators. As just the first example, we may ask them to define these B-fields that determine so
much of the paper. That is a field of what? The magnetic field is caused by what? Beyond the body of
the electron, what transmits the field? Without real charge photons with real spins, the magnetic field is
just an empty postulate. It is lines on a blackboard. Uncaused potentials are not physics. The
wavefunction has to be carried across free space somehow, and renaming it a spinor does not tell us
how this is done.

They always noodle away from questions like this by claiming that such questions are metaphysical.
Feynman answered people like me by browbeating us as philosophers. But it is not that I am being
metaphysical, it is that Feynman and his followers are being non-physical. I am being physical,
becausing I am demanding that physics be physical. Charge is a force, and a force cannot be
transmitted by math or lines on a blackboard. It also cannot be transmitted by the authority of
authoritarian physicists. According to the definition of force, force cannot be transmitted by a field or
particle of no mass. The charge field must have a mass or mass equivalence, and it must have that mass
equivalence at all times, or break conservation of energy in the most flagrant and global manner.
Some have tried to tell me that waves carry the charge across free space, but that is also illogical. A
wave is not a thing in itself: it is either a pattern in a field or it is a characteristic of a particle. A
vibrating or spinning particle can create a wave, but that wave then has to be carried by a field. Either
that or the spinning or vibrating particles must bump. There is no third choice. Well, we know the
electromagnetic field is not a field wave, since Einstein proved that himself. Michelson's disproof of
the etherset in stone by Einsteindidn't just kill the old-style ether at the macrolevel; it also killed it
at the quantum level. Light doesn't travel via an ether, which means the wave of light is not a field
wave.

Given that, waves cannot travel across free space. Yes, particles have waves, and I have shown that
real spins cause these waves, but they aren't field waves. Therefore they can only travel via field
collisions. For this reason alone, electrons cannot mediate charge or magnetism. They are too big,
move too slowly, and have densities that are far too low. Only charge photons can explain the data we
see.

This answers the current question, because this existing charge field is present as the definer of the B-
field at all times. The strength of B is a direct measurement of the charge photons present, and of their
summed spin. Therefore, the zero-bias points measured at Delft are simply another measurement of
these charge field photons. The zero or low voltage states are simply caused by real spins offsetting,
and the position of these states is caused by the interactions of the materials used.

For this reason, the experiment is not proof of a Majorana fermion. Ironically, it is (more) proof that
the charge photon is neither neutral nor its own anti-particle. We have clear evidence here of the anti-
photon, since without it we would not be able to achieve spin cancellations and therefore ZBP's (zero-
bias peaks). ZBP's are caused mechanically by photons meeting an equal number of anti-photons and
cancelling spins. This does not mean the photons are annihilated, it simply means they are stripped of
outer spins. They can then rebuild. But where the photons and antiphotons are spin-stripped, the
magnetic field will go to zero. Varying the current across this gap won't matter, because even when
magnetic fields and gate voltages are changed over considerable ranges, this wouldn't be expected to
change the points of cancellation. The points of cancellation are like interference points in the field,
and they wouldn't be expected to move or to gain energy with an increase of voltage across them. The
points will move only if the gates are widened or if the tunnel barrier is moved.

This analysis is confirmed by the fact that the direction of B is down the line from N to S [see diagram
under title, particularly part C]. Because the magnetic field is in that line, and since magnetism is
caused by real spin on the photons, we would expect peaks and troughs along that line as wellas we
are seeing in part D. We are seeing the spin interference pattern caused by the green tunnel barrier
between N and S, and by the width of the gates. This tunnel barrier works almost like the slits in a
Young device, except that here we are more obviously dealing with spins than wavelengths. The
pattern in D can then be read as a sort of signature wavelength of the charge field in the nanowire,
except that it is drawn across the wire instead of along it.

The authors confirm this analysis themselves when they say this:

As shown in figs. S9 and S11 of (20) we do have to tune gate 1 and the tunnel barrier to the right regime in order
to observe the ZBP.

A tuning of the field is an implicit admission that we have field resonances here. They cannot be
electron resonances, since the electron is too large to create field patterns like this, especially across the
wire. The data would either be gapped due to the spaces between electrons, or we would require an
extraordinary electron density, where electrons were existing almost edge to edge. It isn't electron
densities that are causing our field resonances, it is charge photon densities and charge photon spins.
The patterns set up are patterns in the photon field.

This is confirmed again by the end trial of an N-NW-N geometry which gets rid of the superconductor.
This equalizes the field on both sides of the tunnel barrier. The authors found that in this case the peak
doesn't stick to zero bias in the same way. But this is only because they no longer have their
resonances caused by the gates and the barrier. If the resonances are only caused by the gates, they are
freer to vary.

For this reason, it looks to me like the authors are pushing the data to make it seem that Majoranas are
necessary at the red asterisks. Even if we accept all their assumptions, the Majoranas are indicated
only by neutral charge positions, and not by anything else. Since the proposed Majorana is not in the
tunnel barrier, the spectroscopy cannot be seeing the Majorana directly, or even indirectly. Nothing
in this experiment could be called a true measurement of the Majorana, and I would call that very
convenient. What is more convenient is that the Majorana mass is never discussed, here or anywhere
else. The clearest way to decide this is to assign or predict a mass, then see if we have any evidence of
a particle there of that size and mass. But that was the old physics. Notice that new physics has only
recently reached a point of slop where they don't feel compelled to talk of mass or size at all. They can
now propose particles without bothering to to propose a mass or even a mass estimate. This is even
worse than the W and Z, which were at least assigned ballpark masses. It is even worse than the
Higgs, which (once) was predicted in a range of masses. Now they just predict particles based on
gauge symmetries, and any blip in any data can be turned into proof of it.

Since we have no indication of any sort of fermion in those positions of any size or mass, we are
diverted away from mass the entire time and towards the mystical Majorana quasiparticlewhich is
even more of a mathematical ghost than the Majorana particle. But this quasiparticle, like all others, is
simply the sad attempt to fudge the math and theory. Any hole in math or theory can be filled with a
quasiparticle, and now it usually is. But wouldn't it be better to fix the math so it didn't have these
holes?

It is the buried charge field that requires all these hole fillers, from the electron quasiparticle to the
phonon to the Majorana quasiparticle. Because physics refuses to give the charge field a real presense,
it must continue to invent mythical particles. I suggest this experiment be re-analyzed in the light of a
corrected theory, one that is both mechanical and explicit. When it is, all the quasiparticles, including
this Majorana fermion, will evaporate.

*page 1, paragraph 2