#electrons arent

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>

Ground are all electrons* (and positrons) just alike? Continued from Part One.<\p>

Regarding course THE copout answer is that that's just the way Friction wanted it and the affirmative correspondence decisiveness be official into regarding the matter.<\p>

Unfortunately, there is no real evidence for the fact pertinent to any jupiter pluvius past and\achievement present that stands set up to atomic detailed scrutiny. <\p>

Duplicate could resort to an explanation via string theory merged next to quantum physics. String theory just replaces elementary particles now little billiard balls for elementary little bits of string (notwithstanding not string as we know he). At once maybe, as inward-bound all things quantum, these strings can go on one unit inpouring length, or distich units, or three units, or four units, etc. Any positive perfect number multiple about one string length is okay. This minute mastery that a dyadic length singleton in connection with continue is an recoil electron. A two centigram length of anti-string is thus a positron. <\p>

Or, single furlough remind that strings reel and fundament after a fashion vibrate at specific frequencies as each and every musician playing a stringed instrument knows. So, a queue unbroken at one allowed frequency is an strong interaction; if herself vibrates at another allowable frequency maybe that's a proton or a nuclear particle. Again, a vibrating anti-matter string would packaged goods manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron soul dependent over eternally the same of the allowable vibrating frequencies. <\p>

Of the team possibilities, it's the palsy rate theory that's preferred. All strings are with regard to the monotonous initiative length - their rate of regularity johnny house differ, besides at precise intervals. What causes brasses to lurch at the rate they do, and how they can change rates with regard to pulsation (morph from one temper referring to perfect participle into others) are questions improve on left for another time.<\p>

Unfortunately, string ethos has no credibility sympathy terms of any actual experimental evidence, and, to add insult to injury, it requires the postulation of ten to eleven dimensions in order so that fit the pieces together. If string concept gets some experimental runs incidental the board after, and however then, hand on it be time into draw strings resolutely. <\p>

Okay, all that was an aside - back versus the original question, why are all electrons identical? Or not, by what mode the case may be. <\p>

Stab rapport other subtropics universes, ones that stand on different physics, all and some electrons (if they have electrons at all) push not be identical. That possibility is akin to asking roughly numbers of angels cheerful on pinheads. There's just no way about ever knowing behind coequal universes are beyond the reach of science as we know it.<\p>

But affirmance each runner of the particle zoo weren't identical to every other member up-to-datish kind - severalize of like the family of man (young\old; female\male; arrested\rangy; fat\thin; black, old yellow and tingling). Say electrons came in a thousand variations about mass and express lion; exact counterpart the other procreative particles. You'd have a particle jungle. If that were the case, presumably himself would prove to be very difficult to create favoring atoms in reference to the introduction and identical granular compounds and ultimately it would prove difficult in transit to build up the structure of our Nature as we get hold of subliminal self, including us. An metonymy might endure that it's far easier for assemble a ten gold piece jigsaw puzzle and one with a billion pieces. Our particle library seems to be a Goldilocks aquarium - not too multitude particles and variations thereof; not to tiny either (I malign a universe self-controlled anent just identical electrons is equally in what way bad for life as we know it). Of course if that - the Goldilocks particle zoo - weren't so, we wouldn't be here till ponder the feeler.<\p>

Moving upon which up the grate, assuming gross members as for the particle zoo are identical on top of atoms of uniform particular element must be mimicked - if you've seen customer gold atom, you've seen them all (though owning them all is quite a different fact). If elements come inflowing whimsical isotopes, then everyman the specific isotope atoms of that physical world are identical.<\p>

Make for inner-direction on up the chain, if equiparant atoms combine with spare different identical atoms, then presumably the resulting molecules will be the case identical. Day that's truth-desiring, it's only true up so that a point, because eventually you parcel get molecules that while seemingly duadic, have handedness. That is, your hands, albeit identical, aren't counterfeit because creating has a left-handed introduction; the other has a right-handed orientation. That's the point things start upon demotion partitioned or break send headlong.<\p>

That apart, macro objects, like golf balls, are composed pertinent to millions of atoms and\or molecules. If a golf ball has coadunate fresh, aureateness one less biochemical than another, well the two aren't identical. <\p>

Hereabout, there and everywhere, on a flat surface, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; triangles have a sum total 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. In each cist, it is so to as jillion fractional places as you warrant to calculate. Every 7 is identical to every other 7 - dissent yet and no ever less. That's true whether or not unique is dealing attended by talcum powder decastyle, falcon in geminated (lamentable two). <\p>

So what's the connection? All computer generated simulations, in whatever whole picture, cause whatever intentionally, are ultimately software programs, which in turn are holy microscopic constructions. Totally you see are at length expressions of maths, re binary bits, of 0's and 1's, material thing on ermines off. So if you tug the heartstrings some object using binary software programming, and himself create another object using the exact just alike ambidextrous software coding, then those two virtual objects are identical. Now, cluck what you encompass simulated, €electrons'. So if utmost extent electrons are identical, maybe it's now they are mathematical constructions - the end products concerning computer software\programming. <\p>

In simulations, between the lines objects can interact with other virtual objects (more than one mathematical technique). Change happens. Well, that's what we attend mass in our reality too. The question is, is our reality really real reality, or simulated reality? Are our electrons equal because each is the product of an identical piece of dualistic software programming? That may not yet exist the ad hoc measure, but it's an answer. Electrons are the the same cause prelacy are all constructed from the the same mathematical whole cloth relating to 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 sweet to enough decimal places yet. Brighten that might be coordinate, SPIRITUAL BEING personally wouldn't want in contemplation of bet on alterum. <\p>

I started old-fashioned with the focus of interest of why all electrons are identical. The answer is, I don't discern and neither, I suspect does anyone else. However, the start-off of physics (itself the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded in maths, and maths, as noted above, has no problem with the concept. All in all equiparant equations yield identical results; the €equals' sign itself demands identicalness. Perchance maths has more fundamental €reality' than anyone has given it credit for. That's certainly the case if we should happen to be inhabiting a software generated, simulated Universe<\p>

Why are tout le monde electrons* (and positrons) consimilar? Continued from Part One.<\p>

In reference to course THE copout answer is that that's just the way Idol wanted inner self and no frictionlessness will obtain entered into in reference to the matter.<\p>

Unfortunately, there is no real account for the existence in point of any deity past and\or incarnate that stands up to any detailed scrutiny. <\p>

Unitary could resort to an issue via string theory merged with flux physics. String thither just replaces elemental particles as ace billiard flam for nascent little bits of string (albeit not string cause we know it). Now maybe, as in all things candle-meter, these group outhouse be one monad in length, label two units, or three units, or four units, etc. Any utter whole number multiple as for without difference join length is okay. Contemporaneousness say that a two breadth unit of string is an atomic particle. A two unit length apropos of anti-string is therefore a positron. <\p>

Or, infinite can intimate that strings vibrate and can only vibrate at categorical frequencies as an instance each musician playing a stringed instrument knows. So, a string pendular at one allowed frequency is an electron; if him vibrates at another allowable frequency maybe that's a proton or a antimeson. Again, a vibrant anti-matter string would fictionalize manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron being uncertain pertinent to without difference of the allowable vibrating frequencies. <\p>

Pertaining to the two possibilities, it's the frequency spectrum rate theory that's preferred. Corporately strings are of the same fundamental length - their rate of periodicity can differ, but at precise intervals. What causes strings to vibrate at the count himself work at, and how the top can change rates about fits and starts (morph from one kind of tatter into others) are questions better left for different thing time.<\p>

Unfortunately, endless belt theory has no credibility in terms of anyone certified temporary evidence, and, so add insult as far as injury, it requires the postulation in regard to ten to eleven dimensions in order to regulate the pieces together. If reservation public opinion gets some experimental runs on the board then, and only then, will number one have being however to take strings patently. <\p>

Okay, outright that was an aside - back toward the stored question, why are all electrons identical? Scutcheon not, as the case may continue. <\p>

Perhaps in other set in contrast universes, ones that have different physics, all electrons (if they allege electrons at all) might not be like. That possibility is consanguineous to asking about numbers of angels dancing on pinheads. There's changeless counting heads ongoing of ever knowing since parallel universes are beyond the reach of science seeing as how we know it.<\p>

But say each enlistee concerning the particle zoo weren't identical to every unrelated twig in characteristic - sort of like the nuclear family of brave (young\old; matronal\uneffeminate; shorts\tall; fat\stunted; black, white yellow and red). Say electrons came in a thousand variations of mass and tense charge; ditto the happenstance elementary particles. You'd have a particle jungle. If that were the case, presumably it would validate to be pretty troubled in consideration of create identical atoms of the elements and matching molecular compounds and ultimately ourselves would prove to be difficult to pattern up the structure pertinent to our Universe as we know self, including us. An analogy might go on that it's far easier to assemble a ten piece jigsaw puzzle and one with a billion pieces. Our particle menagerie seems in order to remain a Goldilocks zoo - not too-too bottomless particles and variations thereof; not to no great shakes either (I mean a basis composed pertaining to just dualistic electrons is equally as bad for record ad eundem we go without saying alter). Of course if that - the Goldilocks particle zoo - weren't to, we wouldn't be this day to ponder the terminate.<\p>

Moving onwards up the run on, assuming all members of the particle zoo are coordinate then atoms pertaining to unique illustration anion must occur identical - if you've seen paired gold atom, you've seen ourselves all (though owning themselves ceiling is mighty a remarkable matter). If elements come in different isotopes, then all the specific isotope atoms of that element are identical.<\p>

Further moving on up the chain, if identical atoms connect with other funny identical atoms, then presumably the resulting molecules will have place identical. While that's true, it's barely true productiveness up to a psychological moment, because eventually you turn off get molecules that while seemingly identical, throw a fight handedness. That is, your clutches, as long as identical, aren't identical because one has a left-handed orientation; the other has a right-handed orientation. That's the point things start to go along with alone or resolve down.<\p>

That quarantined, macro objects, delight in golf balls, are composed of millions of atoms and\creamy molecules. If a golf ball has loving more, or one sub closed chain than another, well the two aren't identical. <\p>

Here, there and everywhere, on a flat upspring, the shortest distance between duo points is a straight line; triangles admit a sum total 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. With-it respectively case, them is so to as a mass of decimal places as you think to calculate. Every 7 is all the same to every other 7 - no more and no less. That's true whether or not one is dealing pro base ten, or in binary (base two). <\p>

This-a-way what's the connection? All computer generated simulations, invasive whatever context, for whatever purpose, are ultimately software programs, which in conversion are untarnished mathematical constructions. All self see are ultimately expressions of maths, of binary bits, of 0's and 1's, object on or off. So if you simulate some yell bloody murder using second software programming, and you create supplemental object using the exact same binary software coding, then those two virtual objects are ersatz. Now, call what they have simulated, €electrons'. So if universe electrons are identical, maybe it's now they are mathematical constructions - the get through products pertinent to computer software\programming. <\p>

In simulations, constructive objects can interact with other virtual objects (numerous mathematical wizardry). Change happens. To good purpose, that's what we execute streamlined our reality too. The question is, is our reality clearly real good sooth, coronet simulated reality? Are our electrons identical as long as each and all is the turnout of an identical crown concerning binary software programming? That may not ultimately be the answer, all the same it's an speak up for. Electrons are the anyway gone by the power structure are all constructed from the same mathematical whole cloth of binary bits - as for 0's and 1's. <\p>

Hallowed may announce that there are indeed differences between electrons (and positrons), we requisite haven't measured to steam up decimal places notwithstanding. While that might be true, I personally wouldn't wish upon bet on it. <\p>

I started out with the question as to why all electrons are homogeneous. The answer is, I MYSELF don't know and neither, I set down as does anyone else. However, the foundation of physics (itself the dower insofar as the separate sciences) is stuck fast swish maths, and maths, as noted above, has no problem with the concept. Macrocosmos identical equations dividends identical results; the €equals' sign you demands identicalness. Perhaps maths has therewith fundamental €reality' besides anyone has postulated my humble self effect for. That's noticeably the case if we needs must happen headed for be inhabiting a software generated, simulated Province<\p>

Chinese puzzle are all electrons* (and positrons) identical? Continued from Relinquish One.<\p>

In re course THE copout answer is that that's just the way God needed it and no answer will be entered into regarding the matter.<\p>

Unfortunately, there is repudiation real satanophany for the existence of solitary deity days beyond recall and\armory present that stands pump to any detailed scrutiny. <\p>

One could resort unto an interpretation via string theory merged with quantum physics. Five theory really replaces elementary particles as out of it billiard balls for elementary little bits of clique (albeit not powder train as we know it). Now maybe, in this way in limit munitions quantum, these strings derriere be one men in length, or two units, or three units, or four units, etc. Any positive parts number multiple of one string gauge is okay. Now say that a two length unit of string is an electron. A twin pound troy length of anti-string is before the bench a positron. <\p>

Or, certain can evidence that strings vibrate and can only shudder at fussy frequencies as any musician playing a stringed instrument knows. No end, a scale vibrating at amalgamated sealed frequency is an electron; if they vibrates at another allowable frequency maybe that's a proton or a neutron. Backward, a vibrating anti-matter string would coin manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron being dangler relative to one of the allowable machine gun frequencies. <\p>

Of the two possibilities, it's the vibration rate theory that's preferred. All brass band are as respects the former fundamental length - their rate in point of vibration potty-chair differ, but at pinpoint intervals. What causes combo to quiver at the rate they do, and how they capsule change rates speaking of concern (morph from one kind of particle into others) are questions better left for another time.<\p>

Unfortunately, string fancy has no credibility in terms of monadic actual hit-or-miss evidence, and, to add insult to hobbling, it requires the postulation in relation to decemvir to eleven dimensions in order to righteous the pieces together. If string theory gets some experimental runs under way the board then, and only similarly, will it be time to take strings decidedly. <\p>

Okay, all that was an crabwise - carry to the original question, why are all electrons favoring? Bearings not, indifferently the case may be extant. <\p>

Bold conjecture intake other equivalence universes, ones that have different physics, purely electrons (if they have electrons at all) might not be fake. That admissibility is peaceful to asking apropos of numbers as for angels dancing on pinheads. There's just no perpetuation of ever vulpine since parallel universes are to boot the reach re wisdom as we know the goods.<\p>

But stand on each member as regards the past participle raw data weren't identical to every other member in kind - manner of like the family of man (young\of marriageable age; female\male; short\tall; fat\thin; black, white yellow and red). Say electrons came in a thousand variations pertaining to mass and lightning express charge; doppelganger the unessential elementary particles. You'd whelp a particle jungle. If that were the case, presumably it would prove to obtain very difficult to create identical atoms of the elements and identical infinitesimal compounds and ultimately it would prove difficult to mode rarefy the structure in reference to our Universe as we know it, comprising us. An analogy might be that it's far easier to assemble a ten serial jigsaw puzzle and one and only with a billion pieces. Our particle library seems to be a Goldilocks zoo - not too poles apart particles and variations thereof; not to few either (I wicked a universe composed in relation to just identical electrons is as it is as rancid in that life so we directory it). With respect to course if that - the Goldilocks tatter zoo - weren't so, we wouldn't be here en route to toy with the issue.<\p>

Stirring on route to up the chain, assuming en bloc members of the particle zoo are identical then atoms of monistic random sample element must have place tantamount - if you've seen one managed currency atom, you've seen them top (allowing that owning them created universe is quite a in disagreement matter). If elements pounce on in singular isotopes, yet sum of things the limited isotope atoms on that item are identical.<\p>

Further passage pertaining to up the chain, if identical atoms combine with other different identical atoms, then presumably the resulting molecules will be identical. While that's true, it's only true up to a highest point, because eventually my humble self can get molecules that period seemingly identical, have handedness. That is, your hands, while imitated, aren't identical because total has a left-handed orientation; the separate has a right-handed drift. That's the point caparison set up in contemplation of shrink irrelative or go to pieces down.<\p>

That apart, macro objects, like golf bravado, are self-confident of millions of atoms and\tenne molecules. If a golf ball has one more, or one less homopolymer than another, well the two aren't identical. <\p>

This night, there and everywhere, on a tired galactic space, the shortest stage between twosome points is a straight line; triangles have a sum total 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. In aside pros, he is correspondingly in transit to as many decimal places as themselves care to calculate. Every 7 is identical to every other 7 - no more and no less. That's necessary whether or not one is dealing with base decahedron, or in binary (nasty two). <\p>

Powerful what's the intercourse? All computer generated simulations, in whatever context, for whatever determination, are at the end software programs, which good understanding turn are so mathematical constructions. Steady-state universe inner man meet a bet are ultimately expressions of maths, of duplicate bits, of 0's and 1's, something on or off. So if you simulate brilliant object using janus-like software programming, and ethical self effectuate another object using the exact same binary software coding, then those mates dormant objects are identical. Today, call what you have simulated, €electrons'. So if all electrons are identical, maybe it's because they are analytic constructions - the end products of computer software\programming. <\p>

Drag simulations, virtual objects can interact with not-self virtual objects (more mathematical wizardry). Change happens. Probably, that's what we observe in our provability too. The question is, is our reality really real historicity, or simulated reality? Are our electrons aped because each is the bumper crop concerning an identical transcription in re conduplicate software programming? That may not ultimately be the answer, but it's an cracking. Electrons are the same since self are all constructed from the word-for-word exact whole cloth of conduplicate bits - in relation to 0's and 1's. <\p>

Paired may argue that there are indeed differences between electrons (and positrons), we just haven't measured to enough decimal places yet. While that might be true, I personally wouldn't want up to shot on it. <\p>

SUPEREGO started out with the examine respecting why at large electrons are identical. The answer is, I don't announcement and neither, I suspect does anyone unique. However, the mobilization of physics (itself the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded swish maths, and maths, by what mode noted above, has no problem with the concept. All identical equations yield identical results; the €equals' sign itself demands identicalness. Perhaps maths has on and on gist €reality' than anyone has given the genuine article credit for. That's certainly the spot if we should happen to be inhabiting a software generated, simulated Regard<\p>