Is there only one electron in the Universe?

I started teaching Nuclear and Particle Physics to the 3rd year Physics students today. I decided to warm up with a few basics about elementary particles and their properties – all pretty standard stuff and no hairy mathematics. Cue pretty picture:

This doesn’t show the whole picture, of course, because for every particle there is an antiparticle, so there are antiquarks and antileptons. The existence of these was first suggested by Paul Dirac in 1928 based on his investigations into relativistic quantum theory, basically because invariance of special relativity is compatible with the existence of both positive and negative energy states, i.e.

E^2 = p^2c^2 +m^2 c^4

has two sets of solutions, one with E>0 and the other with E<0. Instead of simply assuming the latter set were physically unrealistic, Dirac postulated that they might be real, but completely filled in “empty” space; these filled negative-energy states are usually called the “Dirac Sea”. Injection of an appropriate amount of energy can promote something from a negative state into a positive one, leaving behind a kind of hole (very similar to what  happens in the case of semiconductor). This process creates a pair consisting of a (positive energy) particle and a (negative energy) antiparticle (i.e. a hole in the Dirac Sea). In the case of electrons, the hole is called a positron.

The alternative, and even wackier, explanation of antimatter I usually mention in these lectures derives, I think, from Feynam who noted that in quantum (wave) mechanics the time evolution of particles involves things like

\exp(i\omega t)=\exp(i Et/\hbar),

which have the property that changing E into -E has the same effect as changing t into -t. This is, in essence, the reason why, in Feynman diagrams, antiparticles are usually represented as particles travelling backwards in time…

This is a useful convention from the point-of-view of using such diagrams in calculations, but it allows one also to raise the wacky bar to a higher level still, to a suggestion that, coincidentally, was  doing the rounds very recently – namely whether it is possible that there may really be only one electron in the entire Universe:

….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!” And, then he explained on the telephone, “suppose that the world lines which we were ordinarily considering before in time and space—instead of only going up in time were a tremendous knot, and then, when we cut through the knot, by the plane corresponding to a fixed time, we would see many, many world lines and that would represent many electrons, except for one thing. If in one section this is an ordinary electron world line, in the section in which it reversed itself and is coming back from the future we have the wrong sign to the proper time—to the proper four velocities—and that’s equivalent to changing the sign of the charge, and, therefore, that part of a path would act like a positron.”
—Feynman, Richard, Nobel Lecture December 11, 1965

In other words, a single electron can appear in many different places simultaneously if it is allowed to travel backwards and forwards in time…

I think this is a brilliant idea, especially if you like science fiction stories, but there’s a tiny problem with it in terms of science fact. In order for it to work there should be as many positrons in the Universe as there are electrons. Where are they?

Advertisements

52 Responses to “Is there only one electron in the Universe?”

  1. Presumably only one positron needed for the one electron. Does that mean that the positron has to appear equally as much as the electron does at any one time (or in a section through the big knot) ? Could its “appearances” be bunched up somewhere else in the Knottyverse ? (Oh, hold on – should we ask Ken Dodd?)

    • No, he’s saying the positron is the electron on the way back. So it would have to be the same number of times going backward as forward.

    • telescoper Says:

      Perhaps the Universe consists of domains in some of which the electron is going forwards in time and others in which it is doing the return leg…

      ..this would be a universe which had equal numbers of electrons and positrons but they would be segregated. That’s not a new idea, actually…

    • Wouldn’t this question be easily resolved by capturing 2 electrons?

    • Shawn bennet Says:

      I can make it much simpler. If there is only one energy(by whatever name) and it is losing it’s ‘life’ by one evenly measured portion at a time, then we are seeing “the same electron” in different states. This gives the universe the simple solution of “1”. Meaning that no matter where or when or how you look there can only ever be a single measure of energy.
      It also creates a finite universe. We cannot know the size of the universe but we can know it ends.
      This ending has in fact already occurred , and we are an intregal part of the replay. Why do we expect to travel to future times if we don’t believe they are there to go to. We can’t of course and never will .

      But science can be exremely contradictary in it’s postulations

  2. I like science fiction stories. Isn’t the simple answer to “Where are they?” just “Somewhere else?”

    Doesn’t seem like the path of the “returning” electrons (today’s positrons) has to be anywhere near us. Their world lines only have to intersect at/after the start and at/before the end of the universe, they could be entirely unobservable for the rest of the time.

    How this might be distinguishable from a universe with lots of electrons having identical mass and charge is … a good question.

  3. I think this is a trick question 🙂

    Wheeler’s idea is that one particle, say “electrono-positron”, travels back and forth in time, so when it travels forward, it manifests as electron, and when travels backwards, as positron. So, the same particle is both, and that’s why not only all electron’s have the same mass and charge, but all positrons share the same value (except the sign changed for the charge).

    I found on google a picture which is self-explanatory http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~ljc/feyn04.jpg

    There is, of course, a problem. The one-loop diagram http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Vacuum_polarization.svg shows an electron-positron pair, created and annihilated. According to Wheeler’s idea (and Feynman’s interpretation of his diagrams), it is one electron cycling through time. But this electron is isolated from the other electrons in the universe. In other words, the Feynman diagrams for all electrons and positrons are disconnected, or at most are connected by neutral particles like photons. So, Wheeler’s idea by itself would not justify the equal masses and charges (and surely he knew, but the idea was to beautiful to be ignored).

    • Anton Garrett Says:

      Yes, the 1-particle Dirac equation becomes self-inconsistent, in the sense of implying pair production, in situations like relativistic-sized potential steps.

    • I’m thinking at a way to answer the problem I mentioned, that

      Q1) if we consider only electrons and positrons, the graph will be disconnected, and Wheeler’s idea falls.

      The answer can be given if we consider the photon as composed somehow by one electron and one positron. Louis de Broglie studied this hypothesis. In this case, even if the graph made only by electrons and positrons is disconnected, we can connect them by photons, where the photons are two-way routes for the electrons. In other words, one electron enters the node as part of the photon, and another electron leaves the node, going by the same route as the electron, but in opposite direction (hence as a positron). Thus, this will allow us to extend Wheeler’s idea to disconnected pairs of electron/positron which appear and are annihilated.

      Now there is another question:

      Q2) What happens with the virtual electrons and positrons?

      A Feynman diagram may contain virtual particles too. They can be viewed as having the wavefunction multiplied by a complex number which has the modulus less than one. When considering the other possibilities, it appears that the electron not only traveled backward and forward in time, but it also split in more virtual electrons somehow, and then reunited. This would make the things more difficult to track.

      There is yet another question:

      Q3) Why the charge of the positron equals that of the proton, in fact, why there are only multiples of 1/3 charges?

      This can be answered by replacing the electron from Wheeler’s idea with a rishon. Rishons are hypothetical particles, T of charge 1/3, having a partner V of charge 0, both of spin 1/2 and both having antiparticles. They are also assumed to have color charge. In this hypothesis, leptons and quarks are made of such rishons. So, there is in fact only one T rishon of charge 1/3, going backward and forward in time, and not an electron.

      Q4) Assuming that somehow, Wheeler’s hypothesis can be made to work, even by using two less accepted hypotheses like those described above, there is another problem, concerning causality. Assume that there is a continuous path in spacetime, which describes the one charged particle, in charge to the charges of all other particles. Assume that at one moment of time, in one place, the electron goes back in time. In other words, there is an electron and a positron which at that time will annihilate each other. Can we do something to prevent this? Of course, the positron which represents the electron going back in time already exists, so we can’t change this. But we can add an electron and a positron, to annihilate the original positron and electron, preventing them to annihilate each other. What if this operation breaks the continuous path of the electron through time, in two disconnected paths? It seems that we are free at any moment to destroy Wheeler’s beautiful explanation. Or, the alternative is that somehow the universe anticipates what we plan to do, and in another place connects the two paths to make again only one out of them. This looks in a way similar to entanglement, except that it is not so clear that we cannot use it to signal.

      Disclamier: all of the above are speculations, made for pure amusement 🙂

    • Oh, and if Wheeler’s idea is true, it will reject the hypothesis made in a recent paper , aiming to explain partially the dark matter and dark energy, by postulating an excess of positive charges, as protons.

      • We can already reject the hypothesis in this paper on many other grounds. It is no mistake that it is in the “general physics” category at arXiv, which in many cases is a euphemism for “crackpot”.

        (By the way, the link is broken.)

      • telescoper Says:

        I’ve fixed the link to the paper, although it’s clearly an incorrect paper …

      • “We can already reject the hypothesis in this paper on many other grounds.”
        I noticed that paper yesterday (and the category) when I read the arxiv abstracts, and I remembered about it now and made a connection. I will not read it, so I can’t tell if it is “crackpot”. Also I don’t want to promote it, so maybe that’s why I did not write the link properly :). I wonder if Wheeler’s “one electron” idea would have made it at least to the “general physics” category :).

      • @Phillip Helbig:

        > We can already reject the hypothesis in this paper on many other grounds. It is no mistake that it is in the “general physics” category at arXiv, which in many cases is a euphemism for “crackpot”.

        Because it is in the general physics category it is crackpot? Is the author crackpot, or the paper (I wonder if you had access to the author’s mind, or just to the paper)? When making such hard statements, wouldn’t be nice to provide some evidence? I don’t say that the paper is correct, and probably you know what you are talking, but why should anyone take your word for this? And, assuming he made honest mistakes in his paper, does this mean that he is crackpot? Is there something wrong in exploring all the possibilities in finding an explanation? If LQG and Superstring theory are different, does this make either the LQG researchers, or the ST researchers, crackpots? Only crackpots should prove their theories, and you don’t, and what you say is true just because you say so?

        @Christi: You compared such a well-established theory like that of Wheeler’s unique electron being all of the electrons by going back in time, with such a crackpot hypothesis that the universe may be electrically charged. Now, due to the above comment, it seems you are appologizing for this, finding excuses for even mentioning such a crackpot paper, in such a serious discussion? Are you affraid that you will be labeled as “crackpot lover”?

        @Phillip Helbig:

        Let me summarize: my objection is that you labeled a person or a theory, without providing any evidence (not that there is no evidence). By this, you discourage people to explore alternative views, no matter how implausible they are. And you discourage people to even mention such implausible attempts (except if they come from famous scientists like Wheeler).

        Let the crackpot hunt begin!

      • “Because it is in the general physics category it is crackpot? Is the author crackpot, or the paper (I wonder if you had access to the author’s mind, or just to the paper)? When making such hard statements, wouldn’t be nice to provide some evidence? I don’t say that the paper is correct, and probably you know what you are talking, but why should anyone take your word for this? And, assuming he made honest mistakes in his paper, does this mean that he is crackpot?”

        I meant what I wrote: (a) we can reject the hypothesis in the paper on many grounds, (b) the “general physics” category often (not always) contains crackpot papers and (c) I don’t think that (a) and (b) are unrelated.

        Can a non-crackpot write a crackpot paper? This seems to be semantically splitting hairs. Of course my judgement is based only on the paper (what else should it be based on).

        Evidence? The paper speaks for itself. A blog comment is not the place to dissect a crackpot paper. Also, if scientists dissected all the crackpot papers there are, there would be no time for real work.

        No-one should take my word for it; people can read the paper for themselves.

        They don’t appear to be honest mistakes, but rather the result of ignoring basic research in the field.

        A bit later, you also refer to the paper as crackpot. 😐

      • @Phillip Helbig:

        On Wikipedia, “crackpot” redirects to “crank”, where you can read: “”Crank” is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.”

        They say it is a pejorative term, which means that you use it to insult people, and to label them in a negative way. Such a stigma can deny that person a second chance in the scientific community. This is wrong, this is discrimination. I know you advocate censorship, and it seems that if censorship fails, you appeal to stigma, to make people ignore and propagate the labeling of those you call “crackpots”. I don’t think that we should appeal to labeling people, even if they are wrong.

        Also, the definition implies that the person “unshakably holds a belief”. How can you tell that a person “unshakably holds a belief”, without knowing the person? Do you consider that you have a 6th sense which tells you that a person would not change a belief, without making the experiment to determine whether it will change it or not?

        The impartial reader will see that in your replies to my comments you select parts of my words and twist them. For example, you said that I referred to the paper as crackpot, and obviously you are taking my words out of context. In the context, I never said this. Not only this, but many of my words were distorted in your replies. But you like to use the straw man fallacy to justify why you unshakably hold your extremist beliefs, isn’t it?

        > Can a non-crackpot write a crackpot paper? This seems to be semantically splitting hairs.

        It is not splitting hairs. For example, Wheeler is not crackpot, but is his idea that there is only one electron non-crackpot? We come back to the definition: a person writes his opinion. If the opinion is very flawed, but the person wants to learn, obviously cannot be crackpot. Also, anyone, including the greatest scientists, may have a compulsion to unshakably hold beliefs which the majority consider wrong, or even which are proven to be wrong.

        My point is as always that one should not label people. If we don’t accept the ideas of a person, we can ignore them, or we can say why we don’t accept them, and there is no need to stigmatize that person. I don’t see your interest in stigmatizing people. Are we scientists or bullies?

        Here’s my hypothesis: In general, hatred comes from fear. We are fear that we may be wrong, giving the undeserved credit to someone, and we try to prove with each occasion what good scientists we are, by lynching victims which may please our goods (who probably are the scientists we admire most). Just a hypothesis.

        This is the main (multiple choice) question, which I would like to be answered by you and all crackpotphobes:
        By labeling as crackpots those whose ideas we consider crazy, do we:
        1. really advance science?
        2. or we in fact teach people to make discriminations and to simply ignore the exploration of some hypotheses?

      • “I know you advocate censorship”

        How and why do you “know” that?

        Let me quote you: You compared such a well-established theory like that of Wheeler’s unique electron being all of the electrons by going back in time, with such a crackpot hypothesis that the universe may be electrically charged.

        This seems to me that you are referring to the theory that the universe is electrically charged as crackpot. If not, then you were not clear.

        Some things are right, some things are wrong. Encouraging someone who is deluded does no-one a favour. There are several things typical of crackpot (or should I say “too speculative”) papers and this example has many of the hallmarks.

        If someone comes out with a paper saying that our ideas of the solar system are wrong and what we really have is a geocentric model with epicycles, just more involved than in the old days, or that the Earth is hollow, or that the surface of the Earth we live on is the interior of a sphere, or that they were abducted by aliens, I don’t see who is helped by “taking it seriously”. What does that mean? Is everything equally valid? One has to filter; there is no time to evaluate everything in detail. You, for example, are judging me only on my comments in this blog (unless JSRebell hides some other identity; I continue to post under my real name despite the occasional death threat).

      • > ““I know you advocate censorship”
        How and why do you “know” that?”

        From the comments on another post, when you said that the discussion lists and the eprint archives have to “filter” the papers. I responded that this is the job of journals, not of preprint archives, and they can simply have a filter which allows the reader select only the “moderated” papers, or all if they wish.

        > “Let me quote you: You compared such a well-established theory like that of Wheeler’s unique electron being all of the electrons by going back in time, with such a crackpot hypothesis that the universe may be electrically charged.”

        Read it in the context. If it is not clear to you, maybe I should write “well-established“ and “crackpot hypothesis” between quotes.

        > “Encouraging someone who is deluded does no-one a favour.”

        First, who decides who is deluded or who is not, without having to present the arguments? And, again, since when being wrong equals being deluded? Who is never wrong? Second, I never advocated “Encouraging someone who is deluded”, you are misrepresenting my words.

        > “If someone comes out with a paper saying that our ideas of the solar system are wrong and what we really have is a geocentric model with epicycles, just more involved than in the old days, or that the Earth is hollow, or that the surface of the Earth we live on is the interior of a sphere, or that they were abducted by aliens, I don’t see who is helped by “taking it seriously”.”

        Was that paper about geocentric models, alien abductions, hollow Earth?

        Did I advocate “taking it seriously”, or did I say that “everything is equally valid”? Or it is easier for you to argue against these claims?

        > “One has to filter; there is no time to evaluate everything in detail.”

        I said from the very beginning, on the post about the mailbox of the physicist, that there is no time to evaluate them all. What I ask is just, if you don’t evaluate, to not stigmatize. But you keep trying to misrepresent my comments as asking you to evaluate in detail and take seriously every hypothesis is emitted. I think that critical thinking should be part of the toolbox of any scientist, and misrepresenting other opinions is unfair.

        > “You, for example, are judging me only on my comments in this blog (unless JSRebell hides some other identity; I continue to post under my real name despite the occasional death threat).”

        I judge your comments, not you as a person. I bet you are a very nice person with people you meet, and you certainly are civilized when you discuss with me, without even seeing or knowing me. But we all learn to judge people from childhood, and it is difficult to give up this habit. But I think you understand my point. What I advocate is just a good atmosphere, without pointing fingers to those whose ideas we consider crazy. I never said to read them, but if we don’t read them, and prefer to ignore them, let’s do this without stigmatizing them.

      • “I responded that this is the job of journals, not of preprint archives, and they can simply have a filter which allows the reader select only the “moderated” papers, or all if they wish.”

        I agree that this would be a better solution, but since arXiv does not want to implement it (I think they want to make themselves as independent of journals as possible; even the Journal-Ref feature was probably introduced only because of popular demand), I prefer the “general physics” filter to no filter at all.

        Another problem: one can always try another journal, but there is only one arXiv.

      • As a final(?) point, I don’t consider arXiv re-assigning something to the “general physics” category to be censorship. I think such usage weakens the term and is unfair to people who suffer because of real censorship.

        Similarly, one can’t claim the right to download the latest Lady Gaga song without paying for it because it is “free speech”.

      • @Phillip Helbig:

        > “I don’t consider arXiv re-assigning something to the “general physics” category to be censorship.”

        Neither do I.

        I did not refer to this by censorship, but to the practice of forbiding certain persons to upload their preprints. It may be easier for you to argue against that statement, but it is not what I said 🙂

      • > ““I know you advocate censorship”
        How and why do you “know” that?”

        From the comments on another post, when you said that the discussion lists and the eprint archives have to “filter” the papers. I responded that this is the job of journals, not of preprint archives, and they can simply have a filter which allows the reader select only the “moderated” papers, or all if they wish.

        As far as I know, the only filtering which arXiv does is reassigning preprints to another category, and the fact that I said this was a good idea was the basis for you saying that I favour censorship.

        Perhaps if one sent in a paper which was just random they would reject it outright, I don’t know—but would this be censorship?

      • @Phillip Helbig:

        On arXiv it is written:

        “Effective January 17, 2004, arXiv.org began requiring some users to be endorsed by another user before submitting their first paper to a category or subject class”

        By default, an user is in the category “some users”, and needs endorsment. As a newcommer, you can’t upload the paper without this, so it is impossible to know whether the paper is “random” without having the chance to upload it. And also you can’t make it to the general physics category.

        Just google arxiv censorship. Some examples are here: archive freedom.

        So, you see, I don’t speak about moving to another category.

      • OK, this is another thing. A certain Nobel-Prize winner who, if I do say so myself, is now a crackpot, is quite vocal about arXiv freedom. However, I think he wants the freedom to publish in the category he chooses, not the one the moderator might reassign his stuff to.

        However, with regard to sponsorship, all one has to do is find one person who is willing to be a sponsor. It’s not like the arXiv, let alone one person, decides if one is allowed to publish. In effect, they have outsourced this decision to the community.

        I do see a problem, though, in that the list of moderators for all categories is not public and that there is no way to appeal a decision. This is a reason why something like this should be run by a professional society. If Cornell has taken it over, they should implement some more transparency.

      • @Phillip Helbig:

        My comment in which I initially referred to censorship:

        “Today, even posting a preprint on the arxiv is difficult. And it is just a preprint, nobody claims it passed the peer review test. What would take to make arxiv free, by adding search filters like “eprint from unaffiliated researchers”, “eprint from people with affiliation and endorsement”, “accepted for publication” and “published”? In fact, even on those forums you are moderating this can be done. If someone wants to see all posts, can check “see all posts”, otherwise, “see only the moderated posts”. The practical reasons can be satisfied without introducing censorship based on what a few moderators consider important.”

        Your answer (which seemed to me as advocating censorship, since it was a reply to my previous comment):

        “I think the fact that arXiv has some minimal moderation (not refereeing) is why it is useful; otherwise, there might be too much chaff and not enough wheat.”

        It is possible that you did not know about the endorsement requirement, which I mention in my comment. If you misunderstood my comment, then it is possible that in your reply, by “minimal moderation”, you referred to something else than forbidding users to upload preprints (which I called “censorship”). So, if you don’t object, I’ll consider this a misunderstanding, and “withdraw my charges” 🙂

        @Christi:

        I still don’t see your answer to the question from the main post:

        “In order for it to work there should be as many positrons in the Universe as there are electrons. Where are they?”

      • > However, with regard to sponsorship, all one has to do is find one person who is willing to be a sponsor.

        That person should be endorser. Not anyone with papers on arXiv can endorse: “Endorsers must have authored a certain number of papers within the endorsement domain of an archive or subject class”. Not anyone is willing to endorse you, if he doesn’t know you. If you are grad student you can be endorsed by the advisor. If you are not affiliated, and are doing independent research, good luck finding a sponsor. I receive emails asking me to endorse, and I can’t do this, because I don’t qualify as an endorser. But if I would qualify, would I put my word for someone I don’t know? Would I even have time to read his paper? I probably won’t. How many did you endorse so far? How can a young patent clerk, who doesn’t know Max Plank personally, find endorsement?

        These are serious problems, and I can’t close my eyes and pretend they don’t exist, or that the unaffiliated really don’t matter. It is not up to us to decide if they matter or not, they should be allowed to have their chance.

        We like to think that there is a perfect system, and those who don’t adapt deserve to perish. We even invent names for them, and think that if we name them that way, the problem is solved. Being the fittest is not a good predictor for scientific proficiency. Being the fittest is a good predictor that we can imitate researchers considered successful, so that we get published and receive grants as they do. And if the system rewards us, it definitely should be a perfect system.

      • Censorship implies to me that one person, or group of persons, decides what gets through and what doesn’t. The endorsement system (which I was aware of) provides a hurdle, but not an insurmountable one. All one has to do is find one endorser. I think it is virtually impossible that someone writes a non-crackpot paper and cannot find an endorser. Thus, I don’t see that the endorsement system is hindering progress.

        Another aspect is that the arXiv is essentially run by a private institution. I don’t think they are legally required to allow anything to get accepted (and, if they were, I’m sure someone would have taken them to court). Whether scientists as a group, who use the arXiv, which is the default means of distribution, think that the policy is good or not is another matter. Censorship, to me, implies a legal prohibition. Otherwise, a journal rejecting an article would also be censorship.

        As to the original question: Antimatter can’t be close by, otherwise it would annihilate. Whether the entire universe contains equal amounts of matter and antimatter is, as far as I know, an open question, though I think the evidence is heavily in favour of an asymmetry.

    • Indeed, I should make the answer to the very interesting question of Peter more explicit.

      Everything follows from the hypotheses mentioned above, plus Euler’s theorem.

      If we try to resolve not only the problem why all electrons and positrons have charges of the same magnitude, but also the charges of other particles, like quarks, then we may imagine something like the rishon model. If the elementary charge is provided by the T rishon, and its antiparticle, and if all particles are somehow made of these rishons, then the anti-T particles are part of the electrons, and the T particles part of the protons, and the balance is restored. This answers Peter’s original question. In order to save Wheeler’s idea, we can admit that the anti-T particles composing the electron survive somehow also in the W- particles resulting from a weak interaction (in reply to the objection raised by Eugene Kuznetsov below). To answer my objection about the electron-positron pair creation followed by annihilation, which is a Feynman diagram connected to the rest of the universe only by photons, we can imagine that the charged elementary particle survived also in the photon, as in the idea of Louis de Broglie.

      If the global Feynman diagram is a connected graph, we can view it as being directed, by taking the arrows in the direction given by T. For example, a photon will be made by two arrows directed in opposite directions. A proton being made of two up and one down quarks, will contain 4 arrows directed in one direction and one in the opposite direction.

      Then the charge conservations ensures that the in-degree = the out-degree for each vertex of the graph. We can now apply Euler’s theorem about the existence of an Eulerian circuit in directed graphs, to show that it is possible to have only one T rishon, traveling back and forward in time, which manifests as all T rishons and anti-T rishons, and by this as all charged particles.

      I want to renew the disclaimer, that these speculations are for fun only 🙂

  4. Eugene Kuznetsov Says:

    Even if you assume that positrons are “out there somewhere”, a bigger problem is that electrons (and positrons) are known to appear and disappear via weak interaction, resulting in degree-1 nodes of the world electron graph. So you need at least half as many unique electrons as there are such degree-1 nodes in the history of the world. A conservative lower bound on the number of unique electrons would be given by the 1/2 times the number of strongly beta-radioactive nuclei on Earth today.

    • That’s a good point. Maybe the electron survives somehow in the W^- boson. Its internal space survives in that of W^-, as a factor in the tensor product (but the same can be said about \mu^- and \tau^-).

  5. there are less positrons because the universe is moving forward in time.

  6. Woken Postdoc Says:

    Can horizons break the symmetry in the proper way? Some paths enter black hole horizons (one-way, small surfaces) and other paths emerge from Big Bang or cosmic horizons (one-way, large surfaces). We would need to connect the censored intervals of world-lines that are hidden behind these various horizons. Secret detours?

  7. Similarly, an old friend of mine used to maintain that there is only one yawn, which gets passed around. I don’t think the possibility of anti-yawns was considered.

  8. Crazy idea Says:

    Let’s take the hypothesis that there was an uneven distribution of positrons and electrons soon after the Big Bang and our observable Universe was entirely contained in a region of electron overdensity. You can imagine positron dominated regions of the Universe evolving structure beyond our light cone. The boundaries between these two extremes would be voids (or at least be free of electrons) and there would be little or no communication between the different types of over-densities. The Universe then ends in a Big Crunch so the sole positron-electron can traverse all world-lines.

    • That would require no inflation or at least some sort of chaotic inflation. That might be true. I have no idea why it ends in a Big Crunch though.

  9. Having read with interest the above, one point confuses me. Was not Quantum Physics a “crackpot idea” that went against classical understanding? Theories however absurd need to be considered and if possible disproved and often reassessed in the future as equipment and knowledge improves. It is the ideas that are important: as a stimulus for our future “Great Minds”.

    • Sure. Ideas aren’t wrong. But idea with no evidence are just for fun until they have evidence. QM is probably the best supported theory ever (competing with evolution). So it’s not a great example. Sure all new idea were new…. When they were new. It’s not a good comparisons though,

  10. Finefeather Says:

    THIS IS A FACT! Try to prove the statements I am now going to make wrong 🙂
    There is only 1(one) archetypal ‘basic’ particle in creation, it becomes all other types of particles at the same time, since time = 0, velocity=infinity, it is everywhere at the same time in whatever form it needs to be in. Since everything that exists consists of the same ‘stuff’ at the level we are talking about, everything that exists is created out of the same 1(one) particle. Now, because this 1(one) particle is in reality not a physical thing, but pure energy, everything that exists is pure energy at different rates of vibration.
    So the big question is, where does the source of the energy come from? Is this the real God?

    • I’m with this one. Thanks.

    • When you make no predictions. What can be tested? Let alone. You say something isn’t real if its pure energy? Well energy is equivalent to mass.

      Pure energy is something scifi shows say. It has no meaning.

      Oh god. Yes. If god made the universe. Nothing had to make god, right?

      Ever heard of the infinite regress problem?

      • Finefeather Says:

        Yes in fact I have just demonstrated it to you. The point is that infinity, which is the endpoint of the infinite regression must be god and so to truly ‘find’ ‘god’ we need to seek infinity,

    • you are not proving anything. Everything did not came from any “one” particle, the one particle you are babbling and bullshiting about is also a separate event from others. there is no “one” that created others. Cut out the BS. You have absolutely no evidence of any of this nonsense. I hope you already changed your views because your monistic bs is not even false.

      • One particle rules Says:

        This so long ago,i have forgotten that people with tiny minds still print such cul de sac comments on these pages.
        I learned a good lesson from coming to sites like these. That is that you don’t get discussions, only abuse unless you follow mainstream views. You can’t even get normal , level, responses.
        Continue on little person, as i have indeed moved away from talking to cretins like you. You force me to answer in a similar , vindictive style which marks these forums as domains of the bitchy and the clueless. You may have some book learning , but you don’t have any social skills to have your attitude on.

        See ya

      • telescoper Says:

        That’s enough of that.

  11. THE SEARCH FOR THE FINAL THEORY AN ESSAY
    or
    How the Busy Bee Wrote this Essay!

    From no-thing we get some-thing or one thing. This one thing is different from the nothing in so much has it is mass. Mass in time or mass and time equal energy or movement. The movement of the one thing is the way in which all mass is realized in space. This activity creates everything and is everything. It is for this reason that the large mass appears the same in structure as the small mass and they all arrive from the basic building block or busy bee.

    Beyond the Bang:
    In the search for the final theory one must go beyond the big bang to the beginning of all of it. You may find that words will get in the way or at times even become beyond definition. The word that we begin with is “nothing”. Nothing is not just that thing between two things that we refer to as nothing. Nothing is no-thing at all! This no-thing is the key to understanding the beginning of nothing. Get the sense that the beginning is no thing at all. Some have called this nothing space. Space is a good word for it as space is the absence of things, hence no-thing. But we have gone back to far. The discussion of the final theory must not begin at the beginning. It must start at the end. At the end is “everything” or every-thing that exists. The end is when all space has been filled with everything that can exist. Buy now you may be getting a notion that we are discussing the filling of space. To be specific, the filling of space with things….. and eventually if the process continues, every-thing. Lets look at some of the popular world views that drive us to a search for the final theory.

    The Solar System View:
    Out there in the macro world of the universes we find systems of large masses or things traveling through space at some given speeds to form orbits, paths or journeys navigating space consuming time. Our local world view is that we have a central mass, the sun and it has related mass, the planets and they are in motion in relationship to each other. If you like the expansion theory of the universe then we can say the sun is on a journey outward from the big bang beginning on a journey though space to a destination that ends at the end of space or energy. The one thing we know is that it is taking time. The planets are bound by their relationship to the sun in their orbits around the sun and traveling with it away from the beginning or big bang. Why are not these masses or things colliding? Well some do but for the most part there is some much space that all of this motion takes great time to conflict. So in the macro world we have space, things, travel and time.

    The Miniature View:
    Our miniature view is a mirror of the solar view. We have space and in the space we have a center or nucleus with things bound by their relationship with the center mass or sun. Lets make it simple. One center and one electron. What happens here? The electron is bound in an orbit around the center or appears to be at times. This we call an atom. These atoms are forming larger solar systems or molecules. Think of it as a milky way of mass traveling in space. In the micro world view when we have a lot of mass or things in space we call it dense. You can think of it like the difference between the big dipper and the milky way. When you look at the seven stars that make the big dipper there is a lot of space between them. You can easily envision going between them. When you look to the heavens and see the milky way it is hard to envision going between the stars as they seem many and close to each other.

    Density is Fast:
    If you consider the molecules that make of the wall in your building, you can envision the atoms in the space that is the wall and the speed at which the things or mass orbit and move in the open space fast enough so that you can not put your finger through the space in the wall. While there may only be enough mass to fill a glass making up the wall that mass is moving in the space so fast that your slow attempt to put your finger though it hits the mass each time. Consider a four blade fan. If the fan motor that moves the blades is very slow you could swiftly put your finger though the space in between the fan blades and remove it fast enough to elude the moving blades. Speed up the four moving blades and it might be possible to poke your finger in fast enough to be cut in half. Most fans are moving fast enough that it is difficult to get the finger very far in without a blade showing up to collide with the finger. Get a sense that a two bladed fan only has to double the speed to have the exact same effect. Get it? By operating the two fan blades twice as fast as the four bladed fan you have created the same wall effect. Two blades or four blades have the same effect by traveling faster.

    You and Spiders:
    The fan blade is a thing! Because it is bound to the center the four or two blades travel though the available space in a circle. Depending on the speed of the things the space allotted becomes solid. You become to the fan like the water spider who glides across the water in thin feet of pins without ever sinking. If we speed up the fan to hyper speed the space the blades use becomes a wall or disk. And like the spider you push your finger up against it and there is mass in the space. These things, atoms, molecules or fan blades can fill space in a relative manner. They do this with speed. What is speed? The consumption of distance at intervals of time.

    What Time Is it:
    What is time? Time is a place! A place in space. Let’s get right down to it! Time is a place in the nothing. The way we can define it is by the thing in that spot or place. Everything becomes relative to it’s position in space or everything in it’s own time if you will. Each thing is only fixed by its place in time and space. And it is relative to everything else from the perspective of their location and time. One could say at this time, all things are relative and relate. More importantly two things do not occupy the same place at the same time. This time is the order to our reality. In time we can find the nature of our personal reality. At this time we are looking at the nature of all reality. When an xray or neutrino mass travels through another mass it is just moving through space faster than the blades of the fan. Get the sense that there is a lot of space out there and the less time you take the more mass you can avoid by being quick. Remember time is a place, so the less you the mass are in a place the less chance you have to collide with another mass. We now have machines and equipment that attempt to put two mass in the same place at the same time. It can’t be done so instead we get a bomb. A bomb is one mass becoming two or two mass trying to get away from each other. This kind of relativity results in our best bombs. When you put your finger in the space soon to be occupied by the fan blade the bomb is the mass in your finger colliding with the fan blade. Your personal bomb or at least it feels like one. We now know what relativity is about. What thing is in what place at what time. So as the great one said “all things are relative”. If all things are relative then all things relate. And if all things all things relate then it follows that all things are related. All things being every-thing. Everything must be related therefore connected by some-thing. Good! This will keep the order. The chair never gets in the space of the table and the table never gets in the space of the chair. These two things use this space at different times. They use the larger space at the same time but never collide with other things. We can rearrange things in their space. At the micro level the atom is in its space traveling just fast enough to be in the space that makes the wall a wall. Only faster smaller things can go though the wall using the excess space and going faster.

    Koala Bear Tree:
    Consider the koala bear! It spends its life in the eucalyptus tree. What does it eat? It eats the eucalyptus bark and leaves. What does the eucalyptus leaves become when eaten by the koala bear? It becomes the koala bear hair, the koala bear teeth, the koala bear eyes. And koala bear shit. What does the koala bear shit become? Dirt and fertilizer to become the eucalyptus tree. The question is what is the difference between the eucalyptus tree, the koala bear and the koala bear shit? If we take the micro solar world view we can see that the koala bear, the tree and yes the shit are all made of the same building blocks or bricks. Why then the difference? The Koala and the tree certainly manifest differences. What are these differences? If the bear and the tree have the capability of being made of fundamentally the same building blocks how does one become the other and once again, what is the difference in the same building blocks manifesting them selves differently?

    Its All About Space:
    There is a reason for no two building blocks to be in the same place at the same time. Because of this rule it is possible for the building blocks to make the tree in one space and a bear in the other. While we can agree that the building blocks from the tree become the bear it is not until they stop being in the space of the tree and become in the space of the bear. This fundamental element that is the building block of reality manifests itself differently in different space. We should be able to agree that you the reader, I the writer, and the paper these words are on are all made of the same building blocks residing in different locations in space and manifesting them selves differently based on their location in the space.

    Its All About Time:
    In a paradyne of space and time we are confronted with what is where and when? The what, is the building block, the where, are those areas or locations in space the building block can be at a given time. To make a wall the building block simply has to move in a region of space consistently and faster in time than those creations outside the wall can penetrate. Like the fan blade it just has to be there when something else attempts to be there to stop it and act as a wall. We can also deduce that a four bladed fan can travel 4 times slower then a one bladed fan to permeate the space and become a wall. We can agree that the same kind of building blocks can make the bear and the tree. Can we also agree that the faster the building blocks move in time the less that are needed. permeate the construction of the reality that is the tree or bear.

    Why Time is Relative:
    Just like we sped up the fan to have the one blade do the job of creating the wall of four we can have one building block speed up and do the job of many. The sense of solidity comes from the speed of the building block the same way it comes from the fast fan blade. If we have tree with a hole 10 feet up the tree and another hole at the base of the tree we can have a squirrel poke his head out of the bottom hole and run to the top and do the same. If the squirrel keeps making the trip from the top hole poking out his head to the bottom hole poking out his head. As the squirrel increases his speed on these trips the observer soon will reach a point where the squirrels head appears to be poked out of both the top and bottom hole at the same time. This is a relative viewpoint that takes place at a point when the observed reality is overcome by the speed of the object. One could say that the viewer is not looking fast enough to see the particle reality. To tune a car there is a mark on the fly wheel. A strobe light is ignited by the timing circuit or spark plug to show the mark in a window over the fly wheel. If all is right the light comes on just as the mark is below the window indicating the coordinated timing. If the timing is slightly advanced the mark will be off the center of the window when the light comes on. If the process is very fast will always see a mark in the window. Once the light is going on and off faster than we can detect with our eyes the mark will always appear to be there in the window. By having the light only come on when we wish to see the mark we are in effect being blinded to the workings and only having our eyes opened when it is time to see the finished relationship. It is this magical time when we see the mark and how it exist in its location. In this case the time when the mark is in the window is relative to the time the light is on and the viewer sees it. If there is another viewer with there own light they will be able to see the construction that is required to set up that instance in time when the mark is in the window for the other viewer. The viewer with the other light is seeing the process of the instant of creating the mark in the window. If we expect building blocks to create a tree we have to wait in time until the process is complete then and only then the tree. The tree and the bear must be in different spaces. This is the relative nature of time. Creation is not spontaneous as to the labor of it. The tree is created and after that creation the bear. They then become relative to their time and place in space.

    Consider Only One:
    If one fan blade can do the job of four by simply moving four times faster than one building block can do the job of four also. It is just required that the building block be four times faster. If you consider that there is only one building block it will be very busy. The speed of the building block just has to be at the speed of creation. Just like the mark in the window, it only has to be in the window while you are looking for it. When your not looking the mark is in a different place presenting a different or relative viewpoint. These relative viewpoints present alternatives to the single picture or instance of where the mark is in the window. Consider the mark in the window to be a tree and an alternative view point to be a bear. Our very busy bee or building block is moving through space to create the density and fabric of reality that is the tree. In this linear process the bee goes to the next time and place and creates the bear. On a micro level the bee creates the eyes, teeth and fabric of a bear. Because of the speed, at which our busy bee moves the fabric is easily created buy achieving the fundamental frequency of motion in space that is the nature and density of the fabric to be created. It is then we open our eyes or ignite the light that allow our fabric (that is us) to see and experience this realty that is “Now”.

    Creation:
    The busy bee creates the universe including us each in its own place in time and space. The speed that the bee is operating is “Absolute Speed”. Some call this the speed of light. It is actually the speed of creation and if you were to travel at that speed you would be as fast as the bee and part of the creation of the fabric not the fabric itself. If you were to approach the absolute speed of the bee you would see only part of the tree. It would be a creation in process much like the mark before it is at the window. Consider the window as a window to the nature of our reality. We are created by the bee and our nature is to experience the total creation like the mark in the window. We can not see the creation taking place only the effect when completed. Before the beginning there was NO-THING! Nothing. The nature of nothing “IS” to exist. Its existence or isness (the first to happen before the bang) has an effect. The effect is to have been or the creation of time. This have beenness or wasness of nothing demands time to exist and once the nothing has been there is something. The something is something else. With nothing existing the only other existence can be something. The effect of no-thing is time and some-thing or one thing. We are now in the process of the big bang with nothing effectively birthing something. Because of the nature of time the something is and then was. Once it was it is something else. The way in which this happens is for the one thing to move. Its motion is through the nothing or space that was. By moving its position in space and time it is solid and linear in nature. It is the fundamental block, solid or mass. I have called it the busy bee.

    Time and The Bee:
    The nature of time and space will allow you to perceive that once the mass has been in time and space it was. This wasness dictates that the mass is no longer what it was, it is something else, somewhere else, doing something different. Once it was something else that too was and something else exists. This chain reaction is the bang of the process of creations. The mass or bee is in the process of becoming everything that can fill time and space. For our purposes there are only three states of existence, nothing, something and everything. Everything is that state when all time and space has been filled by the bee. The busy bee creates everything and only ones existence is left outside of everything that is the no-thing. Once the bee began the production of the fabric of everything we perceive the process as the expanding universe. A finite amount of space that was created by isness of time and being filled by the something, one thing, mass or bee becomes the expanding universe. We perceive this only from our time and place.

    Summary:
    From no-thing we get some-thing or one thing. This one thing is different from the nothing in so much has it is mass. Mass in time or mass and time equal energy or movement. The movement of the one thing is the way in which all mass is realized in space. This activity creates everything and is everything. It is for this reason that the large mass appears the same in structure as the small mass and they all arrive from the basic building block or busy bee. When the one thing creates all things possible nothing, one of the things possible will be created. It is at this point the motion of the bee or mass will go to absolute zero all things created will cease to exist along with time motion and isness of everything.

    FORMULA:
    The formula can be expressed as: 1m=omega over time. Single mass = everything over time.

    Copyright Vergal C. Dawson, 1956 to 2006 Corrales NM draft sp/err

  12. i realised our universe was an electron expanding out to the next shell, always expanding within the twelve noble gas, i have tried to show this expansion through an extended/expanded periodic table
    http://alphaomegadotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/period-table-element-expanded11111.xls

  13. Shawn bennett Says:

    Please google theory of inevitability to read me blog. It found this in a theory of a finite universe was quite viable

  14. boyreop Says:

    Destroy one electron completly…..i means…yeah well you cannot destroy completEly just do something that changes tht electron completly and if other electrons are its time revanent then they’ll be just like it……their you habe the amswer

  15. I am a student of the single electron idea. I see that there is not “much”energy , but instead “much variation”of the same energy.

    This prposes that a single “packet” is dying or losing energy at a rate of one quanta at a time.

    It’s rate is simply too fast for us to percieve the progress.

    We also have a genuine barrier which I cannot find a way to break us out of. The process has already completed and we are a part of a result of the pattern the process took.

    I cannot change what is already completely ordered and finished.

    The pattern is so strict that one variation collapses the whole. This creates a view that quantifies itself as equal to “one” no matter where you look.

  16. I couldn’t see how to edit, so i will just add to it. IT never ceases to amaze me that ever one is quite sure that the universe expanded to it’s current size from the incredibly small and dense , but other “next steps” are never considered.

    Ok. The universe appears incredibly dense and then there was more of it. Nothing seems to connect the dots (so to speak).

    As a human, I cannot even see the speed of localised events right in front of my eyes. Even though, the reality is that almost nothing is there. The function of my being causes me to percieve a world full of great big “things” that move very slowly. But even regular proofs show that it’s just a lot of very small things moving very fast.

    We kid ourselves that we are “up to” following the tracks of the universe with any surety. Given that we occupy a limited realm within the spectrum, it would not be surprising that we can never know the universes dimensions and get the answers via measuring.

    I know the universe has a beginning and an end , because I can see variation in it. If the universe were infinite then I the knot would never form and the universe would be completely evenly distributed.

    As it is not. Then it is finite.

    Because it is finite, then it has cause and effect, biggest and smallest, beginning and end.

    For cause to work, I need step one, step two. Single energy prevents this unless the energy suffers loss of itself to final inhialation. This is a one time deal and means that we occupy part of the complete pattern of loss. We, like everything else are not actually here . Nor is anything else.

    A big question was why was there NOTHING in the universe that did not have motion. I don’t mean relative to something else. If you can cite me anything in the universe that does not move . I will happily abandon this line of enquiry.

    The reason nothing is stationary is that the position in space cannot be be occupied move than once . The rule also says that every position in space will be occupied once.

    The trouble with this line of enquiry is that you can never step out of it to prove it via experiment. If you could , it would not be true. I read about the God factor this way of looking at things attracts. Actually , it means that everything is as valid as everything else. Including santa clause , the easter bunny, war , peace, famine , joy , hate and love.

    Because a pattern is the basis, the individual nuances of the pattern are important to the result. Nothing can be removed, and nothing is wasted.

    It is a completed CD that is made and wouldn’t be functional without the programme written in just such a way.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: