• PoopBuffet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 days ago

      Na, we got those too. Muons, tauons and neutrinos. But the universe unfortunately hasn’t imploded, meaning I have to go to work and pay taxes and shit.

  • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 days ago

    It is an interesting theory, for sure. Instead of countless 3-dimensional particles, you have a single (or very few) 4-dimensional objects. You can imagine it like a sheet of fabric that is our present, with everything above the sheet being the future, everything below the past. When you want to sew a thread (our electron) through the sheet, you need to pierce the fabric, but to do it again, you first need to piece it the other way, giving you a positron. You can create or destroy arbitrary many of these, but you need create or destroy one of each every time. More interestingly, it is exactly determined which two will annihilate each other, as the allegorical loop of thread gets pulled tighter and tighter until it gets pulled though the sheet. The universe would be deterministic.

    I’m sure there’s a myriad of contradictions to modern QM and particle physics, but it’s fun to think about nonetheless

  • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    7 days ago

    Create the parent entity electron, give it properties, then clone as needed

    That’s just efficient world design, guys, why make assets different if you don’t gotta, yakno?

  • iii@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 days ago

    We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

    • Cascio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 days ago

      Life is just a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here’s Tom with the weather!

      • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Sorry mate, Tom couldn’t make it, so here we have Bill.

        Weather update: it’s raining rocks from outer space

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      You would need a positron to do that and all you might have done is reflect it backwards in time.

      If you could “remove” it by placing it into another dimension, it might disprove the theory, but the causal domain might be larger then previous assumed.

      This is one of those Math Theories that isn’t technically a Science Theory. We can make a mathematical model, but it’s untestable.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            That’s why it would fuck over causality. If I destroyed 1 that could be the natural end of the electrons “life” of bouncing back and forth through time. I would need to destroy a 2nd which would then have to be the same electron from earlier in it’s timeline.

            • iii@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Ah, you’re viewing it as a timetravellers’ dilemma.

              My view was more that we’re an observer in the lagrangian solution to the differential equation we call life. The electron, being a constant in the equation. Remove the electron, you alter the equation, therefore destroying known life.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Careful, reality might just destroy you instead to avoid the paradox. I suspect that’s how it avoids all of the paradoxes if time travel is possible in a single timeline universe. And this idea isn’t compatible with the multiple timeline time travel idea (otherwise the electron will end up in a different timeline each time it jumps backwards).

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        To destroy every other quantum state of the single electron, wouldn’t you need to destroy it at its beginning state? The end state would be at/just after the heat death of the universe, so it wouldn’t really make any difference then.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          The end state doesn’t have to be at the end of time if the electron can travel backwards in time. It can go to the end, head back towards the beginning, and get destroyed somewhere in between.

          Strictly speaking it would have to get destroyed at some point, or at least have something stop it from going back and forth, otherwise the universe would be all electron.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        E=mc2 is the equation for how much energy is created by destroying a given amount of mass.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          No, E=mc2 demonstrates that mass and energy are one in the same. When converting mass to energy, nothing is being destroyed, merely changing state. As far as we are aware, the absolute destruction or removal of energy, and thereby matter, from the Universe is not possible.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 days ago

    Shouldn’t be just electrons though - don’t all instances of any given type of subatomic particle have the same mass and charge?

  • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    The higher dimensional abstractum of the electron emanates through the multiverse. Electron is.

  • Technotica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 days ago

    One reason why that is probably not true is because there are less positrons but if it were true they should number the same as electrons, right?

    But if electrons are moving along the same “time direction” as we are and positrons are moving in the opposite “direction” then wouldn’t we expect there to be less protons? As we can’t measure the protons that already “passed” us? And we would measure more electrons as a some/many/all of the existing electrons are traveling alongside us?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 days ago

      I think you may have put more thought into this than Feynman. But then he probably had someone waiting for him in bed…

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Positrons are different from protons. Both have a positive charge, but a positron is an elementary particle of a similar mass as an electron. They are rather rare in nature which OP was noting. Protons are made of three elementary particles, much heavier than positrons, and are, I imagine, present in nature in about the same order of magnitude as electrons.