One- electron theory

[lolzcry]

A theory which tries to explain the unusual similarities in all electron by stating that there is just one electron going backwards and forwards in time. This causes it to appear multiple times in the same time-frame and hence is viewed as multiple electrons. Going in past- it is seen as a positron explaning how the said electron would be seen going backwards in time. As someone who just recently had his interest piqued in such topics, I fail to understand how all electrons are so similar meanwhile nuetrons, protons and other particles are not which is the basis for such a theory. Do no other particles follow the above phenomenon? If not, then why?

 

[Daddy]

Protons and Neutrons aren't considered fundamental particles, so they can differ in their arrangements of quarks and strong forces. Electrons are considered fundamental.

Do you have a link that fleshes out the theory more?

 

[lolzcry]

what about other fundamental particles- other leptons?

 

[lolzcry]

The theory itself is quite famous, you can see it anymore on the net

 

[Marbles]

Where can positrons usually be found? Are there as many positrons as electrons?

 

[Marbles]

Seems positrons are considered antimatter. There is far less antimatter than matter? Shouldn't the amount of electrons and positrons be the same if "one electron" theory is correct?

I am not allowed to edit. Sorry about the double post.

 

[lolzcry]

The theory itself was never taken seriously due to problems like you just mentioned- what I dont understand is why only electrons were specifically chosen and not any other elementary particles.

 

[Marbles]

Do you mean why the theory was applied to electrons but not other particles? I have been trying to read up, and the theory seems to have been proposed by John Wheeler to explain why electrons and positrons always have the exact same mass. I guess this means other elementary particles don't, which surprises me. Is that so? Or was it not until later that one discovered that Protons and Neutrons are not in fact elementary particles? Then that goes some way to explain why Leptons have the same mass (like other elementary particles?), but Nucleons don't. That would make the one electron theory redundant, and Daddy seems to be saying that? (thank you, Daddy) Does that mean the amount of type of quarks in Nucleons vary? o_O I'm sorry if I'm confusing anyone with incorrect terms. I'm just learning some of these.

 

[Daddy]

Do you mean why the theory was applied to electrons but not other particles? I have been trying to read up, and the theory seems to have been proposed by John Wheeler to explain why electrons and positrons always have the exact same mass. I guess this means other elementary particles don't, which surprises me. Is that so? Or was it not until later that one discovered that Protons and Neutrons are not in fact elementary particles? Then that goes some way to explain why Leptons have the same mass (like other elementary particles?), but Nucleons don't. That would make the one electron theory redundant, and Daddy seems to be saying that? (thank you, Daddy) Does that mean the amount of type of quarks in Nucleons vary? o_O I'm sorry if I'm confusing anyone with incorrect terms. I'm just learning some of these.

As far as what's on the internet, the subatomic particles in nucleons can't be directly measured because of the strong force. Gluons supposedly carry this strong force and give mass to quarks in a bosonic manner causing them to pop in and out of existence as they interact with these gluons. Apparently computer models can predict the masses, but it's still more of a question mark I think. Each real world instance of an element in the periodic table will have slightly different mass from each other, hence why the atomic weight is an average and not an absolute value.

For the one-electron theory, if a positron annihilates an electron, it no longer exists in the future, but it is said to move from the future to the past. Isn't this a contradiction? This is what I don't understand. How does the theory view time?

 

[Marbles]

What do you mean by "in a bosonic manner"?

If the mass of nucleons varies, what happens when, say, a proton meets an antiproton of slightly different mass? Is the mass discrepancy released as energy? If so, is that related to the energy release happening in fusion and fission?

I agree that the last point you bring up is strange... I would naively expect that the electron never reaches the future, and the positron never reaches the past. Or in other words that the electron stops traveling forward from the moment of impact, and the positron stops traveling backwards. Could I have a link to where you read about this? Maybe what is meant is "it continues to move from the moment of impact to the past, but no longer exists in the future", which is still strange, but maybe not paradoxical.

 

[Daddy]

What do you mean by "in a bosonic manner"?

Gluons are said to be (massless) fields that give quarks the majority of their mass and holds them together. It's similar to a higgs field giving particles mass.

If the mass of nucleons varies, what happens when, say, a proton meets an antiproton of slightly different mass? Is the mass discrepancy released as energy? If so, is that related to the energy release happening in fusion and fission?

I don't know. I think all protons are supposed to have the same rest mass. But their momentum can change that. But since an anti-particle attracts its particle pair, they would match momentum upon collision anyway, I think.

I agree that the last point you bring up is strange... I would naively expect that the electron never reaches the future, and the positron never reaches the past. Or in other words that the electron stops traveling forward from the moment of impact, and the positron stops traveling backwards. Could I have a link to where you read about this? Maybe what is meant is "it continues to move from the moment of impact to the past, but no longer exists in the future", which is still strange, but maybe not paradoxical.

But if it no longer exists in the future, then how do we know it moved from future to past to begin with? If the theory was true, I'd expect the future to show the anti-particle leaving the point of annihilation. Unless we're invoking a non-causal understanding of time. I'd like a link too.

Or maybe this is just a metaphor for saying the anti-particle seems to come from nowhere and then annihilates. I don't think physicists know how to contain anti-particles. Needs more data.

 

[Marbles]

If we imagine the moment of impact as the point where an electron string changes direction along the time axis, then I suppose it makes sense to think of the impact as the death of the electron, but birth of the positron. From our perspective it will look like the positron and electron approach each other, then disappear. The positron travels backwards from that point in time, but does not exist in the future. That again implies that all electrons are destined to meet a positron, while the observable universe contains far more electrons than positrons. Where are all the positrons hiding? So yeah... Based on what little I can gather, the theory looks wrong.

 

[lolzcry]

hope this helps

 

[lolzcry]

It can be said that when an antiproton and electron collide, instead of the electron getting destroyed it gets deflected back in time... from what I have read

 

[ZenRaiden]

I dont know much about this stuff obviously, but Id speculate that ignoring the math is best way. Not only that ignoring the whole thing. Most important thing people should keep in mind is that the negative and positive charge of electron and proton are fiction. What may really be true is that when scientist progress towards many dimensional models they will be able to uncover whole deal of shit.

 

[Marbles]

Thanks, lolz. That's really interesting - I want to learn more physics, now.
I recommend Feynman's book: "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!". One of my favorite reads.

One of the contest winners mentioned in the video: Karel Knightmare? That's a good nick, man xD

 

[Daddy]

Huh, interesting. But I guess it doesn't explain where the positrons would come from or why they interact to create the specific electron world the way it is; i.e. the positron mapping of an electron shifting through time.

I didn't know about CPT; it suggests strong symmetry to matter and anti-matter. That must be why they say the vacuum of space is full of matter and anti-matter because they cancel each other out, hypothetically. I'd love to still be alive when/if humanity figures out better what's really going on beneath the quantum veil.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Eh, so just an expansion on the universe being a hologram? Nothing new, wouldn’t change much.

 

[Marbles]

It can be said that when an antiproton and electron collide, instead of the electron getting destroyed it gets deflected back in time... from what I have read

Cool... Where did you read about that? It seems promising, it probably wouldn't predict an equal amount of electrons and positrons. Do you know if anyone has tried making a model of these antiproton-electron collisions, and if so: does it anticipate the number of positrons we observe? I.E. Would the amount of predicted collisions be proportional to the positrons we observe?

Huh, interesting. But I guess it doesn't explain where the positrons would come from or why they interact to create the specific electron world the way it is; i.e. the positron mapping of an electron shifting through time.

Could what lolzcry mentioned in his last post possibly answer that?

I didn't know about CPT; it suggests strong symmetry to matter and anti-matter. That must be why they say the vacuum of space is full of matter and anti-matter because they cancel each other out, hypothetically. I'd love to still be alive when/if humanity figures out better what's really going on beneath the quantum veil.

You and me both, man... As you hint at, I hope we figure it out at all, considering how long fundamental research in physics has stood still.

It's been interesting exploring this with you guys. I see you're new too, Daddy. I hope we both find reason to stick around.

 

[Grayman]

If electrons all pop in and out of existence in the past, wouldn't you see a light glow slightly before you hit the switch?