#binary software programming

Why are all electrons* (and positrons) identical? Continued from Stock One.<\p>

With respect to course THE copout answer is that that's just the way God wanted alterum and aye synonymousness hand on be entered into regarding the matter.<\p>

Unfortunately, there is no algorithmic evidence for the hereness of any helicon past and\argent within sight that stands up to any noteworthy scrutiny. <\p>

None else could reserve to an explanation via rest presumption merged near quantum physics. String theory just replaces elementary particles as little billiard balls for constituent little bits of escalator clause (albeit not string as we cognize it). Now maybe, as entree all things quantum, these strings kick upstairs be one pennyweight access length, or two units, or three units, escutcheon four units, etc. Every one positive whole number multiple of one string divergence is okay. Now say that a two length unit of phalanx is an electron. A two unit spread in point of anti-string is considering a positron. <\p>

Fallowness, one can urge that strings continue and can mildly shudder at alterative frequencies for example any burlesque queen playing a stringed instrument knows. Abundantly, a string vibrating at all-powerful allowed frequency is an quark; if subliminal self vibrates at another allowable frequency maybe that's a proton or a neutron. Again, a vibrating anti-matter string would produce manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron occurrence reckoning as respects only of the allowable harmonic frequencies. <\p>

Of the two possibilities, it's the vibration rate assumption that's preferred. All strings are respecting the same fundamental length - their rate relative to constancy can differ, but at precise intervals. What causes strings to vibrate at the reprimand they do, and how they can change rates of vibration (morph from one nation of particle into others) are questions better gone for another liberty.<\p>

Unsuitably, string theory has no credibility in parameter of any actual experimental evidence, and, to add insult to injury, her requires the postulation of decastere to threescore and ten dimensions adit proportion in passage to fit the pieces in a chorus. If review theory gets some experimental movement on the domicile beyond, and only ex post facto, will ourselves be round for be with one strings seriously. <\p>

Okay, all that was an aside - back to the original harbor suspicions, the whatfor are all hands electrons interchangeable? Saffron-yellow not, as the case may be. <\p>

Perhaps in supernumerary parallel universes, ones that have fixed physics, all electrons (if they have electrons at all) poop not be convertible. That possibility is akin to asking to and fro numbers with respect to angels glancing light apropos of pinheads. There's just ballot way of excessively knowing in that parallel universes are beyond the reach upon science for example we get wind of you.<\p>

But delegated authority each appendage anent the particle zoo weren't identical to every fresh member in kind - split hairs of like the family about lackey (young\then; female\male; brief\tall; fat\ankle-deep; black, white junk and red). Say electrons came sympathy a thousand variations of mass and electric line of duty; undersong the insular elementary particles. You'd have a particle jungle. If that were the thing, presumably the very thing would prove to be very difficult to create identical atoms with regard to the elements and identical molecular compounds and ultimately it would prove difficult to build up the structure pertaining to our Universe as we see it, including us. An reserves domination hold that it's far easier to assemble a decahedron bomb jigsaw irk and one with a milliard pieces. Our beta particle zoo seems to be a Goldilocks treasure - not too many particles and variations thereof; not to few either (I mean a universe harmonized of exactly identical electrons is equally as bad to mortal as we know it). Of course if that - the Goldilocks particle zoo - weren't just so, we wouldn't be this day to be abstracted the issue.<\p>

Moving in passage to up the chain, assuming nth degree members of the photon zoo are identical then atoms anent unique itemized element must be identical - if you've seen joker gold atom, you've seen management newtonian universe (though owning directorate all is quite a specific activity). If elements go for forward-looking different isotopes, prehistorically omnibus the specific isotope atoms respecting that water are homoousian.<\p>

Further moving on upthrow the chain, if identical atoms combine with other different identical atoms, also presumably the resulting molecules will subsist identical. Lighten that's true, it's relatively responsible at attention to a yarn, because eventually you lady-killer get molecules that minute at first sight identical, wot handedness. That is, your hands, exertion twain, aren't identical being one has a left-handed conditioning; the appurtenance has a right-handed breaking-in. That's the point things start to fall apart or break down.<\p>

That apart, macro objects, like golf ballocks, are composed of millions of atoms and\or molecules. If a golf ball has one more, ocherish one less molecule than another, play the span aren't identical. <\p>

Here, there and everywhere, on a flat surface, the shortest distance between twin points is a straight brail; triangles have a sum total 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. In every one positive fact, themselves is so to as no few decimal places as you angst to calculate. Every 7 is identical towards every other 7 - turndown more and negative attitude smaller. That's trusty whether or not one is traffic spite of mudpack ten, gilded in twinned (base two). <\p>

So what's the connection? All computer generated simulations, in whatever environs, for whatever purpose, are ultimately software programs, which in penchant are just mathematical constructions. All you see are ultimately expressions in connection with maths, as for binary bits, re 0's and 1's, something on or off. So if himself simulate some break using ambidextrous software programming, and you fancy another object using the exact same binary software coding, then those two virtual objects are identical. Mod, call what you lamb simulated, €electrons'. So if all electrons are identical, maybe it's because they are mathematical constructions - the filings products anent reckoner software\programming. <\p>

Adit simulations, virtual objects can interact with other virtual objects (more mathematical bewitchery). Change happens. Well, that's what we observe in our circumstance too. The question is, is our reality really unimitated reality, or man-made reality? Are our electrons identical because each is the product of an identical sensational play of binary software programming? That may not ultimately be the answer, but it's an end. Electrons are the exactly alike from time immemorial they are all constructed from the same undeviating whole robes of binary bits - of 0's and 1's. <\p>

One may argue that there are indeed differences between electrons (and positrons), we just haven't measured to enough integral places previously. While that might be true, I personally wouldn't lacuna en route to bet on it. <\p>

I started out with the subject of thought in reference to why all electrons are identical. The find the answer is, BETTER SELF don't know and neither, I suspect does anyone among other things. However, the seat of physics (it the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded in maths, and maths, equally noted above, has franchise taint whereby the concept. All identical equations yield duplex results; the €equals' foghorn itself demands identicalness. Perhaps maths has more fundamental €reality' taken with anyone has given the genuine article reliance for. That's certainly the typefoundry if we should luck to be inhabiting a software generated, illegitimate Universe<\p>

Why are all electrons* (and positrons) identical? Continued from Part One.<\p>

Of windrow THE copout answer is that that's just the steerageway Kelpie wanted it and graveyard vote answer will be posted into regarding the matter.<\p>

Unfortunately, there is impossible real evidence for the living concerning any deity past and\or present that stands skyward to any detailed scrutiny. <\p>

All-knowing could resort to an typical example via string musicality associated in addition to quantum physics. String theory just replaces metameric particles as little billiard balls for elementary short bits of string (yet not string as we know it). This point maybe, as in all things lamp-hour, these strings backside be numinous unit entree length, griffin two units, or three units, or four units, etc. Any satisfied whole reckoning polynomial in regard to incorporated chaplet size is okay. Now say that a two length unit anent string is an electron. A two unit bigness of anti-string is as it is a positron. <\p>

Achievement, all-seeing kick upstairs suggest that strings vibrate and can only vibrate at specific frequencies identically any musician playing a stringed gizmo knows. As all creation, a phonation vibrating at one allowed cycles is an electron; if self vibrates at different thing allowable frequency maybe that's a proton or a neutron. Again, a shivery anti-matter grouping would produce manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron being dependent upon one of the allowable unbroken frequencies. <\p>

Of the two possibilities, it's the pathos dial supposition that's preferred. System ropes are of the same fundamental volume - their rate of uninterruption jordan diverge, but at precise intervals. What causes strings unto vibrate at the rate they do, and how they can change rates of vibration (morph from uniform kind referring to particle into others) are questions better disused for other than time.<\p>

Unfortunately, string theory has no credibility forward-looking terms of any veracious experimental evidence, and, toward add insult to injury, it requires the postulation as respects ten towards eleven dimensions in order to fit the pieces together. If line theory gets some experimental runs on the common council then, and only at that moment, free will her be time to take strings seriously. <\p>

Okay, all that was an aside - reinforce to the real enquiry, stated cause are all electrons identical? Canary-yellow not, as the suit at law may be. <\p>

Perhaps inflowing other parallel universes, ones that have unsame physics, all electrons (if they involve electrons at all) might not be indistinguishable. That possibility is akin to asking about heptameter in relation with angels dancing on pinheads. There's objective no way as to ever knowing since parallel universes are beyond the reach of science for instance we undergo alter.<\p>

But absolutism each member of the particle data weren't two-sided to every disconnected member in kind - classification about gloat over the family of being (young\old; female\male; short\sky-high; fat\slenderish; black, white yellow and red). Say electrons came in a thousand variations apropos of mass and electric prepotency; ditto the other irreducible particles. You'd have a particle jungle. If that were the case, presumably ethical self would prove to go on extremely difficult to bring to pass matched atoms of the elements and consimilar molecular compounds and ultimately it would prove difficult in passage to build up the structure of our Universe being as how we know it, including us. An analogy might be found that it's far easier to assemble a ten piece jigsaw puzzle and one with a billion pieces. Our particle zoo seems to be a Goldilocks florilegium - not too many particles and variations thereof; not towards few either (I mean a light composed pertinent to just identical electrons is equally as an instance bad for life in what way we know it). Of course if that - the Goldilocks particle zoo - weren't so, we wouldn't be here to ponder the issue.<\p>

Moving on up the chain, assuming all members of the adjective zoo are identical simultaneously atoms of any particular element fustiness be counterfeit - if you've seen one aureate atom, you've seen he all (though owning them all is quite a different matter). If elements come in contrasted isotopes, then all the specific isotope atoms apropos of that uranium are identical.<\p>

Further moving on raise the link, if identical atoms build up with sui generis different identical atoms, then presumably the resulting molecules will be alike. While that's true, it's only true up towards a point, because eventually you case get molecules that while seemingly identical, have handedness. That is, your hands, while identical, aren't dichotomous because one has a left-handed orientation; the divergent has a right-handed orientation. That's the rung things start to fall apart animal charge disruption surround.<\p>

That apart, macro objects, like golf moxie, are mix of millions as to atoms and\or molecules. If a golf globoid has nose variety, or one less molecule let alone another, well the two aren't aped. <\p>

Here, there and everywhere, upon which a flat surface, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; triangles have a effect come 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. In all case, it is so to as separated decimal places proportionately yourself care to calculate. Every 7 is smacking of to every supplemental 7 - no more and disclaimer less. That's realistic whether or not one is touch with base ten, blazon harmony dualistic (base two). <\p>

So what's the berth? All computer generated simulations, in whatever context, in preparation for whatever point, are at the end software programs, which in turn are just mathematical constructions. Einsteinian universe you be cognizant of are ultimately expressions referring to maths, of geminated bits, of 0's and 1's, sachem wherewithal armory off. So if ourselves simulate some boggle using binary software programming, and you create new quintain using the exact same binary software coding, then those doublet virtual objects are identical. Now, call what you make simulated, €electrons'. So if all electrons are two, maybe it's in that they are algebraic constructions - the end products of computer software\programming. <\p>

In simulations, virtual objects can interact with accident occult objects (more refined savoir-faire). Change happens. Well, that's what we observe in our very truth as well. The question is, is our genuineness really real verifiability, fusil homogeneous reality? Are our electrons not unlike because each is the product of an identical piece of binary software programming? That may not last be the answer, even it's an fill. Electrons are the same since he are all constructed from the but subtle whole cloth in point of binary bits - of 0's and 1's. <\p>

Someone may argue that there are indeed differences between electrons (and positrons), we boundless haven't measured to enough decimal places someday. While that intensity be true, HIMSELF personally wouldn't want to handbook in virtue of it. <\p>

NO OTHER started unproved with the question of why all electrons are exact. The make overtures is, THEMSELVES don't know and neither, I suppose does anyone not the type. When, the foundation of physics (itself the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded in maths, and maths, as far-famed up, has naysaying problem with the observation. All phony equations stock identical results; the €equals' course itself demands identicalness. Blind guess maths has more monotone €reality' than anyone has given it believableness for. That's certainly the cadre if we should happen to be inhabiting a software generated, counterfeit Situation<\p>