4 ms·
Well, perhaps it's only in our time frame. For instance, let's imagine that the electron goes forward from 0 to 5, then bounces back to 1, then to 5 again, and
by V-2 12y ago
Well, perhaps it's only in our time frame. For instance, let's imagine that the electron goes forward from 0 to 5, then bounces back to 1, then to 5 again, and back to 2 etc.
If we were at 1.5, we would see it moving forward TWICE (0=>5 and 1=>5), but only returning ONCE (1<=5; we haven't gotten to observe 2<=5 yet).
Whether it's plausible I have no clue :) it just shows that in principle you can have local asymmetry while everything still balances out at the end.
- aparadja 12y agoWouldn't that only explain an asymmetry of exactly one, just like in your example?
- one-more-minute 12y agoThat doesn't work because you've left the loop open. If the positron just goes back to 2 and stops, from our point of view it has just appeared from nowhere, which isn't physical. In order to close the loop you have to go back to 0 and meet the original electron. Once you've done that you lose the asymmetry again.
- V-2 12y agoWell, I won't pretend that I know how it's supposed to work, but even if the loop was closed, the electron (and the loop itself) still must have come to existence out of nowhere somehow, so it doesn't remove this ontological problem :)
- one-more-minute 12y agoI'm not really talking about an ontological problem though, I'm saying that an electron appearing on its own is a physical impossibility. Electrons must appear or disappear alongside a positron partner, which means that the idea of "local asymmetry" can't solve the symmetry problem.