6 ms·

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 wil

by 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?
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    Essentially all measuring tools, especially those targeting the subatomic level like electrons, have some degree of error. It is not 100% ruled out, but if electrons do have varying charges it is at an amount smaller than what we can currently reliably measure. Electron charge is constant at amounts we can reliably measure. Additionally, it seems to be near universally accepted by particle physicists that fundamental particles (like electrons) are identical, and I trust they have good reasons for that belief, so while it is not something we can definitively prove I am pretty confident about it.
    - slver 5y ago
      You once again assumed the amount of variance matches exactly the amount of measuring error. But you didn't prove it. In my book, the jury is out. We take the scientific approach, yes? As for what particle physicists accept conventionally, versus what they claim is the actual nature of reality are two things. Again, a scientists to another, when questioned specifically on a topic, won't say "oh it's like that because we've universally accepted it's like that". Because they know history is full of things science accepted, and then was disproven. Either there's sufficient evidence, or there isn't. One of the top ways we get stuck in science is when we confuse model and convention with proven objective reality.
      - 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 My claim is that no evidence exists to support this claim. Obviously, I cannot provide proof for the absence of evidence, the burden of proof is on you to provide _any_ reliable evidence to support this claim. While the absence of evidence does not 100% prove the theory is untrue, we generally treat theories with no evidence as untrue/very likely to be untrue (ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

by slver 5y ago

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?
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  Essentially all measuring tools, especially those targeting the subatomic level like electrons, have some degree of error. It is not 100% ruled out, but if electrons do have varying charges it is at an amount smaller than what we can currently reliably measure. Electron charge is constant at amounts we can reliably measure. Additionally, it seems to be near universally accepted by particle physicists that fundamental particles (like electrons) are identical, and I trust they have good reasons for that belief, so while it is not something we can definitively prove I am pretty confident about it.
  - slver 5y ago
    You once again assumed the amount of variance matches exactly the amount of measuring error. But you didn't prove it. In my book, the jury is out. We take the scientific approach, yes? As for what particle physicists accept conventionally, versus what they claim is the actual nature of reality are two things. Again, a scientists to another, when questioned specifically on a topic, won't say "oh it's like that because we've universally accepted it's like that". Because they know history is full of things science accepted, and then was disproven. Either there's sufficient evidence, or there isn't. One of the top ways we get stuck in science is when we confuse model and convention with proven objective reality.
    - 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 My claim is that no evidence exists to support this claim. Obviously, I cannot provide proof for the absence of evidence, the burden of proof is on you to provide _any_ reliable evidence to support this claim. While the absence of evidence does not 100% prove the theory is untrue, we generally treat theories with no evidence as untrue/very likely to be untrue (ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).