• itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

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

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

    • PoopBuffet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

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

  • Technotica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

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

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

  • iii@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 hours ago

    We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

    • Cascio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

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

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

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

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

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

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            12 hours ago

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

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

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

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 hours ago

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

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

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

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

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

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

  • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

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

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

  • athairmor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    So, if route all of the electricity in my house through my body, how far can I travel in time? What about a car battery’s worth?