5 ms·

That implies there ARE distinct things, doesn't it?

uniqueid 6y ago
'Distinct in some context', I guess. Eg: a person could take a photograph of clouds in the sky and come up with list of rules to categorize them into a number of discrete clouds.
- Borrible 6y ago
  Don't take my comment too seriously, although it is based on serious speculation and thought. I only wanted to refer on the one hand to the philosophical or at least linguistic problem, what a 'thing' is and the possibility of the unification to one field of the, up to now still multiform, thing in the quantum field theory we call Universe. Just a mind game. Or not... ;-) What is meant in the article is that one needs currently 11 coordinates in a mathematical space which is supposed to be a mapping of our physical reality to describe a point in it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jpeanuts 6y ago
Not at all serious but... maybe all electrons have the same mass, charge, etc. because there is only one electron, bouncing backwards and forwards through time. As it passes backwards we see it as the anti-electron (positron). When they meet they annihilate from our perspective, but that's just the electron being reflected and becoming a positron heading backwards. To be clear this is all not at all consistent with observations - just a fun(?) thought experiment.
- Borrible 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
- jstanley 6y ago
  Out of interest, what observations is this not consistent with?
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    The argument against is summarized in the Wikipedia article. Basically it is this: We measure electrons in different places all the time. Due to the speed of light it can't instantly move from A to B, so for this to actually be one electron it would have to travel back in time to be at some place at the right time. However, an electron traveling back in time would appear as a positron, so if that what was going on we should be seeing a fairly equal number of positrons as we do electrons, as the one electron rushes around to appear as an electron where it needs to. Except we don't, electrons outnumber positrons by a huge margin.
    - bostonpete 6y ago
      > However, an electron traveling back in time would appear as a positron, so if that what was going on we should be seeing a fairly equal number of positrons as we do electrons, as the one electron rushes around to appear as an electron where it needs to. What about this part of the article though...? "According to Feynman he raised this issue with Wheeler, who speculated that the missing positrons might be hidden within protons."
      - magicalhippo 6y ago
        As noted, the discussion between Wheeler and Feynman was in 1940, long before the development of the Standard Model[1]. In the Standard Model there is a sea of virtual particles in the nucleus, but they're virtual and hence not real in the sense that the positron in the One Electron model would have to be. At least that's my understanding. Also, electrons can travel over large distances, CRT monitors do that all the time for example. So I'm not entirely sure how Wheeler imagined hiding the positrons in the nucleus would solve the whole positron problem. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#History
    - 6y ago
SubiculumCode 6y ago
are you saying: what if dimensions are not discrete, but fields.?
- Borrible 6y ago
  Ah, no no no. Oh, God, what have I done!? What I wanted to indicate was firstly, as a physical speculation the possibility of a universal field in the sense of the quantum field theory, which shows additional dimensionality with breaking of its symmetry in hierarchical levels and thus there is in a certain sense only one thing, the universal field. Secondly, the question when something is considered as an independent 'thing', which is a philosophical question. Third, the question of the interpretation of the relation of mathematical apparatus and reality. What does the dimensionality of the mathematical model mean? A scientific-theoretical question. And the gluons of this all are just linguistics and semantics. ;-)))

'Distinct in some context', I guess. Eg: a person could take a photograph of clouds in the sky and come up with list of rules to categorize them into a number of discrete clouds.

Borrible 6y ago
Don't take my comment too seriously, although it is based on serious speculation and thought. I only wanted to refer on the one hand to the philosophical or at least linguistic problem, what a 'thing' is and the possibility of the unification to one field of the, up to now still multiform, thing in the quantum field theory we call Universe. Just a mind game. Or not... ;-) What is meant in the article is that one needs currently 11 coordinates in a mathematical space which is supposed to be a mapping of our physical reality to describe a point in it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jpeanuts 6y ago

Not at all serious but... maybe all electrons have the same mass, charge, etc. because there is only one electron, bouncing backwards and forwards through time. As it passes backwards we see it as the anti-electron (positron). When they meet they annihilate from our perspective, but that's just the electron being reflected and becoming a positron heading backwards. To be clear this is all not at all consistent with observations - just a fun(?) thought experiment.

Borrible 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
jstanley 6y ago
Out of interest, what observations is this not consistent with?
- magicalhippo 6y ago
  The argument against is summarized in the Wikipedia article. Basically it is this: We measure electrons in different places all the time. Due to the speed of light it can't instantly move from A to B, so for this to actually be one electron it would have to travel back in time to be at some place at the right time. However, an electron traveling back in time would appear as a positron, so if that what was going on we should be seeing a fairly equal number of positrons as we do electrons, as the one electron rushes around to appear as an electron where it needs to. Except we don't, electrons outnumber positrons by a huge margin.
  - bostonpete 6y ago
    > However, an electron traveling back in time would appear as a positron, so if that what was going on we should be seeing a fairly equal number of positrons as we do electrons, as the one electron rushes around to appear as an electron where it needs to. What about this part of the article though...? "According to Feynman he raised this issue with Wheeler, who speculated that the missing positrons might be hidden within protons."
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      As noted, the discussion between Wheeler and Feynman was in 1940, long before the development of the Standard Model[1]. In the Standard Model there is a sea of virtual particles in the nucleus, but they're virtual and hence not real in the sense that the positron in the One Electron model would have to be. At least that's my understanding. Also, electrons can travel over large distances, CRT monitors do that all the time for example. So I'm not entirely sure how Wheeler imagined hiding the positrons in the nucleus would solve the whole positron problem. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#History
  - 6y ago

SubiculumCode 6y ago

are you saying: what if dimensions are not discrete, but fields.?

Borrible 6y ago
Ah, no no no. Oh, God, what have I done!? What I wanted to indicate was firstly, as a physical speculation the possibility of a universal field in the sense of the quantum field theory, which shows additional dimensionality with breaking of its symmetry in hierarchical levels and thus there is in a certain sense only one thing, the universal field. Secondly, the question when something is considered as an independent 'thing', which is a philosophical question. Third, the question of the interpretation of the relation of mathematical apparatus and reality. What does the dimensionality of the mathematical model mean? A scientific-theoretical question. And the gluons of this all are just linguistics and semantics. ;-)))