this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
793 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

10815 readers
2721 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 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

[–] callyral@pawb.social 14 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

second, slightly different electron shows up

universe implodes or something

[–] PoopBuffet@lemmy.world 11 points 4 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 12 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

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?

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Wait, I'm lost. What does it have to do with the amount of protons?

Positrons are different from protons. Both have a positive charge, but a positron is an elementary particle of a similar mass as an electron. They are rather rare in nature which OP was noting. Protons are made of three elementary particles, much heavier than positrons, and are, I imagine, present in nature in about the same order of magnitude as electrons.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I think you may have put more thought into this than Feynman. But then he probably had someone waiting for him in bed...

[–] Technotica@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I know! Horrible isn't it? I just can't help it, thinking about stuff is actually fun for me... so embarrassing!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It was more a joke about how Feynman had two great loves: physics and fucking. And probably fucking more than physics.

[–] Technotica@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Ah I see ;) I also have two loves, but my gaming pc is too heavy to drag to bed...

[–] lulztard@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

Heavy means he's too fat to leave you.

[–] rain_worl@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago

positrons are just really far away

[–] iii@mander.xyz 21 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

[–] Cascio@lemmy.world 12 points 14 hours ago

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

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 86 points 1 day ago (2 children)

When is it my turn with the electron?

[–] Dogs_cant_look_up@lemmy.world 19 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It already is been again and soon now.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Maladius@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Ask The Smiths.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 66 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can have it as long as you don't observe it.

[–] voldage@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

don't worry guys I'm keeping track of it it's moving very fast but oh fuck sorry guys my bad

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

For fuck sake Pauli, stop trying to smush it in the palm of your hand!

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

No Peter, this isn't an electron, this is the power of the sun

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 73 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I see, charge is a class method and not an instance method. Well played universe creator.

[–] AkatsukiLevi@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Fuck I knew it was made with OOP

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 18 points 20 hours ago

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

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago

🏳️‍⚧️

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 day ago (6 children)

So if I can destroy 1 electron I destroy every electron?

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I mean...if energy can not be created nor destroyed, it kind of lends to this hypothesis... 🤔

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

No, E=mc^2^ demonstrates that mass and energy are one in the same. When converting mass to energy, nothing is being destroyed, merely changing state. As far as we are aware, the absolute destruction or removal of energy, and thereby matter, from the Universe is not possible.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 14 points 23 hours ago (8 children)

Only in its future. Probably you’d have to find the electron precisely at the end of its timeline.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

If you destroy it, that will be the end of its timeline

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You would need a positron 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›