The One-Electron Universe postulate is true - what simple change can I make to change the whole universe?If universe has an end/boundary, what else exists after the boundary?What if we lived near a boundary of the universe?Can you just wait out the heat death of the universe?Lost in the multiverse: how to find home?What objects can be found in the universe when all the stars are gone?What would a world be like with cross dimensional contact?How small can the universe be while still appearing infinite?What would shake a galaxy and what would shake the universe?How to detect that the universe got mirrored?The mass of an economically feasible non-microscopic traversable wormhole
Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?
How to color a zone in Tikz
Is there an wasy way to program in Tikz something like the one in the image?
Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?
Are Warlocks Arcane or Divine?
Have I saved too much for retirement so far?
How do I repair my stair bannister?
Golf game boilerplate
Is there an Impartial Brexit Deal comparison site?
Why isn't KTEX's runway designation 10/28 instead of 9/27?
My boss asked me to take a one-day class, then signs it up as a day off
What to do when my ideas aren't chosen, when I strongly disagree with the chosen solution?
Superhero words!
Giant Toughroad SLR 2 for 200 miles in two days, will it make it?
Hostile work environment after whistle-blowing on coworker and our boss. What do I do?
Partial sums of primes
Word describing multiple paths to the same abstract outcome
Who must act to prevent Brexit on March 29th?
What do you call the infoboxes with text and sometimes images on the side of a page we find in textbooks?
Simple image editor tool to draw a simple box/rectangle in an existing image
Perfect riffle shuffles
How can I raise concerns with a new DM about XP splitting?
What if somebody invests in my application?
Resetting two CD4017 counters simultaneously, only one resets
The One-Electron Universe postulate is true - what simple change can I make to change the whole universe?
If universe has an end/boundary, what else exists after the boundary?What if we lived near a boundary of the universe?Can you just wait out the heat death of the universe?Lost in the multiverse: how to find home?What objects can be found in the universe when all the stars are gone?What would a world be like with cross dimensional contact?How small can the universe be while still appearing infinite?What would shake a galaxy and what would shake the universe?How to detect that the universe got mirrored?The mass of an economically feasible non-microscopic traversable wormhole
$begingroup$
The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:
“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.
Assume that the postulate is true.
Question
Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?
hard-science universe
$endgroup$
This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:
“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.
Assume that the postulate is true.
Question
Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?
hard-science universe
$endgroup$
This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.
2
$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
8 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:
“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.
Assume that the postulate is true.
Question
Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?
hard-science universe
$endgroup$
The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:
“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.
Assume that the postulate is true.
Question
Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?
hard-science universe
hard-science universe
asked 8 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
18.4k778164
18.4k778164
This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.
This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.
2
$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
8 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
2
$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
8 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
8 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).
You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).
So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
$endgroup$
– immibis
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
$endgroup$
– Finn O'leary
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I was hoping you'd use the term future null infinity...
$endgroup$
– forest
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.
As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142353%2fthe-one-electron-universe-postulate-is-true-what-simple-change-can-i-make-to-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).
You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).
So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
$endgroup$
– immibis
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
$endgroup$
– Finn O'leary
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I was hoping you'd use the term future null infinity...
$endgroup$
– forest
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).
You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).
So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
$endgroup$
– immibis
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
$endgroup$
– Finn O'leary
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I was hoping you'd use the term future null infinity...
$endgroup$
– forest
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).
You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).
So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.
$endgroup$
This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).
You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).
So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.
answered 8 hours ago
tylisirntylisirn
56524
56524
6
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
$endgroup$
– immibis
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
$endgroup$
– Finn O'leary
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I was hoping you'd use the term future null infinity...
$endgroup$
– forest
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
6
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
$endgroup$
– immibis
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
$endgroup$
– Finn O'leary
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I was hoping you'd use the term future null infinity...
$endgroup$
– forest
1 hour ago
6
6
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
$endgroup$
– immibis
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
$endgroup$
– immibis
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
$endgroup$
– Finn O'leary
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
$endgroup$
– Finn O'leary
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I was hoping you'd use the term future null infinity...
$endgroup$
– forest
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I was hoping you'd use the term future null infinity...
$endgroup$
– forest
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.
As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.
As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.
As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.
As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.
New contributor
edited 6 hours ago
New contributor
answered 7 hours ago
MacAMacA
514
514
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142353%2fthe-one-electron-universe-postulate-is-true-what-simple-change-can-i-make-to-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
8 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
7 hours ago