4 ms·

1. What do you mean by self-reinforcing? Self-replicating? 2. I think using the term reproduction for this is stretching the term to the point of uselessness.

1. What do you mean by self-reinforcing? Self-replicating? 2. I think using the term reproduction for this is stretching the term to the point of uselessness. I mean, for example in a chemical solution you have a redox reaction where molecules on one side of the "equation" turn into the molecules on the other side and back in a cyclical loop, but I wouldn't say that they are "reproducing", as I don't know what the point of saying so would be. The redox reaction and the way organisms reproduce are two of many kinds of cyclical processes. At least that seems to me an useful distinction.

goldenkey 5y ago
I mean that just like life is a specific case of an optimization problem, perhaps the particle types are too. They survived, were the fittest, and then became populous through mechanisms of self-reinforcement.
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  Unlikely for two reasons: 1. Life looks like an optimization problem because living things die often and have to compete for limited resources. Electrons however stick around much longer and don't need oxygen to survive. 2. If this was true, we'd expect to see varying properties for the same type of elementary particle (especially those created in ex. the LHC), but we don't - all electrons act the same, even newly created ones.
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    The identical nature of classes of particles is, as far as string theory posits, due to different possible integer valued vibrational modes / harmonic frequencies. As far as regular physics is concerned, these forms are the stable ones. I don't see why that rules out self-reinforcement. Particles do compete - for energy. Energy bound to one particle is energy that isn't free or bound to a different one.
    - cmeacham98 5y ago
      > As far as regular physics is concerned, these forms are the stable ones. I don't see why that rules out self-reinforcement. For there to be some sort of "evolution" mechanic for particles (like there is for life) there has to be competition between particles of different properties. Then the particles that are better able to capture energy or whatever wins, and those fill the universe. However, to my knowledge, there is no experimental evidence that there can be elementary particles with differing properties, which suggests this is impossible.
      - goldenkey 5y ago
        Even with particle classes being identical, there can still be competition between the classes themselves... Not to mention, there are unstable, rare, and unseen configurations like pentaquarks and such. Some particles are unstable _because_ of their environment. In a different universe, they might be the populous, stable particles. P.S "Elementary" particle doesn't mean much since its definition shifts as we discover more about the structure of the universe.
  - slver 5y ago
    Needing oxygen to survive isn't really the level we need to be thinking at. Actual life at the bottom of our oceans also doesn't need oxygen to survive. Nor will self-replicating robots, which we're close to implementing and then they'll fit all criteria of life. Electrons sticking around longer is probably questionable. Do we stick around for 60-80 years? All our cells get replaced in the interim, multiple times. What if the same is happening in electrons? We know for a fact that it's happening in protons and neutrons. There's no such thing as a "proton" that exists for a period of time. It's a configuration of colored quarks that are constantly in flux, replacing each other. Also the idea that electrons act the same is incorrect. Many people don't realize, but things like the weight of an electron, charge of an electron... they're APPROXIMATE, and they actually vary a little. We only know the average properties of an electron. But we also know the average behavior of a voter from an exit poll. Does this mean people are 100% identical? To someone who only analyzes our average behavior it would seem so, but they'd be completely wrong.
    - cmeacham98 5y ago
      > Also the idea that electrons act the same is incorrect. Many people don't realize, but things like the weight of an electron, charge of an electron... they're APPROXIMATE, and they actually vary a little. We only know the average properties of an electron. Incorrect, we have never experimentally found an electron with a different mass/charge/behavior/etc. We don't know the exact value of these properties because they are very hard to measure, but there is no evidence they differ between electrons. To my knowledge this is the same for all elementary particles. The rest of your comment seems to be latching on to my "stick around for much longer" point which was honestly weak and I probably shouldn't have made it. I consider point 2 to be much more relevant: for some sort of "evolution" mechanic to exist for particles there needs to be particles that have differing properties from the common set. I am not aware of any experimental evidence that has found non-identical elementary particles.
      - slver 5y ago
        Tell me how exactly have we ruled out varying charge on electrons when our tools show varying charge. You can say it’s the tools. But can you prove it?

goldenkey 5y ago

I mean that just like life is a specific case of an optimization problem, perhaps the particle types are too. They survived, were the fittest, and then became populous through mechanisms of self-reinforcement.

cmeacham98 5y ago
Unlikely for two reasons: 1. Life looks like an optimization problem because living things die often and have to compete for limited resources. Electrons however stick around much longer and don't need oxygen to survive. 2. If this was true, we'd expect to see varying properties for the same type of elementary particle (especially those created in ex. the LHC), but we don't - all electrons act the same, even newly created ones.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  The identical nature of classes of particles is, as far as string theory posits, due to different possible integer valued vibrational modes / harmonic frequencies. As far as regular physics is concerned, these forms are the stable ones. I don't see why that rules out self-reinforcement. Particles do compete - for energy. Energy bound to one particle is energy that isn't free or bound to a different one.
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    > As far as regular physics is concerned, these forms are the stable ones. I don't see why that rules out self-reinforcement. For there to be some sort of "evolution" mechanic for particles (like there is for life) there has to be competition between particles of different properties. Then the particles that are better able to capture energy or whatever wins, and those fill the universe. However, to my knowledge, there is no experimental evidence that there can be elementary particles with differing properties, which suggests this is impossible.
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      Even with particle classes being identical, there can still be competition between the classes themselves... Not to mention, there are unstable, rare, and unseen configurations like pentaquarks and such. Some particles are unstable _because_ of their environment. In a different universe, they might be the populous, stable particles. P.S "Elementary" particle doesn't mean much since its definition shifts as we discover more about the structure of the universe.
- slver 5y ago
  Needing oxygen to survive isn't really the level we need to be thinking at. Actual life at the bottom of our oceans also doesn't need oxygen to survive. Nor will self-replicating robots, which we're close to implementing and then they'll fit all criteria of life. Electrons sticking around longer is probably questionable. Do we stick around for 60-80 years? All our cells get replaced in the interim, multiple times. What if the same is happening in electrons? We know for a fact that it's happening in protons and neutrons. There's no such thing as a "proton" that exists for a period of time. It's a configuration of colored quarks that are constantly in flux, replacing each other. Also the idea that electrons act the same is incorrect. Many people don't realize, but things like the weight of an electron, charge of an electron... they're APPROXIMATE, and they actually vary a little. We only know the average properties of an electron. But we also know the average behavior of a voter from an exit poll. Does this mean people are 100% identical? To someone who only analyzes our average behavior it would seem so, but they'd be completely wrong.
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    > Also the idea that electrons act the same is incorrect. Many people don't realize, but things like the weight of an electron, charge of an electron... they're APPROXIMATE, and they actually vary a little. We only know the average properties of an electron. Incorrect, we have never experimentally found an electron with a different mass/charge/behavior/etc. We don't know the exact value of these properties because they are very hard to measure, but there is no evidence they differ between electrons. To my knowledge this is the same for all elementary particles. The rest of your comment seems to be latching on to my "stick around for much longer" point which was honestly weak and I probably shouldn't have made it. I consider point 2 to be much more relevant: for some sort of "evolution" mechanic to exist for particles there needs to be particles that have differing properties from the common set. I am not aware of any experimental evidence that has found non-identical elementary particles.
    - slver 5y ago
      Tell me how exactly have we ruled out varying charge on electrons when our tools show varying charge. You can say it’s the tools. But can you prove it?