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
Simple recursive Sudoku solver
Simulating a probability of 1 of 2^N with less than N random bits
How to interpret the phrase "t’en a fait voir à toi"?
Why isn't KTEX's runway designation 10/28 instead of 9/27?
The most efficient algorithm to find all possible integer pairs which sum to a given integer
I2C signal and power over long range (10meter cable)
Perfect riffle shuffles
Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?
Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?
Are taller landing gear bad for aircraft, particulary large airliners?
What is the opposite of 'gravitas'?
What was required to accept "troll"?
What does the "3am" section means in manpages?
How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?
Can a controlled ghast be a leader of a pack of ghouls?
Can a malicious addon access internet history and such in chrome/firefox?
Should my PhD thesis be submitted under my legal name?
The One-Electron Universe postulate is true - what simple change can I make to change the whole universe?
What if somebody invests in my application?
Why does this part of the Space Shuttle launch pad seem to be floating in air?
Meta programming: Declare a new struct on the fly
Stereotypical names
Identify a stage play about a VR experience in which participants are encouraged to simulate performing horrific activities
Freedom of speech and where it applies
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
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
4 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
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
3 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 5 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
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
4 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
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
3 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
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
4 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
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
3 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
4 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
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
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
4 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
4 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
4 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
4 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
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
3 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.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
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
3 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
17 mins ago
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 |
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.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
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
3 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
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
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
3 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
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 4 hours ago
tylisirntylisirn
53924
53924
4
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
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
3 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
17 mins ago
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
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
3 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
17 mins ago
4
4
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
4 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
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
3 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
3 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
17 mins 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
17 mins ago
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
$endgroup$
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 2 hours ago
New contributor
answered 3 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
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
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
4 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
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
3 hours ago