Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PrimeNumbers] [OT] Re: Primes and I

Expand Messages
  • David
    Oops, accidentally just sent this to Jud and Andy when I meant it for the whole list, anyway, here it is: ... Anyway, one reason not to believe the one
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Oops, accidentally just sent this to Jud and Andy when I meant it for
      the whole list, anyway, here it is:

      Jud McCranie wrote:
      >
      > At 12:10 AM 2/1/2002 +0000, Andy Steward wrote:
      >
      > >I think Prof. Wheeler (as in "Gravitation" by Misner,
      > >Thorne and Wheeler) once had the idea that there was only
      > >_one_ electron in our universe, existing in more than four
      > >dimensions, but appearing to us to trace a path projected
      > >onto our four perceived dimensions. When it was going
      > >forwards in time (from our perspective), it appeared to be
      > >an electron, when it was going backwards, it appeared to be
      > >a positron.
      > >
      > >I believe that he had a chat with Feynman (and stopped
      > >drinking beer brewed from mushrooms) and gave up on the
      > >idea.
      >
      > Yes, I've heard that. I don't think anyone takes it seriously.

      Anyway, one reason not to believe the "one electron" theory is that
      there are far more electrons (at least in our visible part of the
      universe) than positrons. i.e. If one "electron" was going back and
      forth through time there "should" be an equal number of electrons as
      positrons.
    • Jud McCranie
      ... That s a very good point! +--------------------------------------------------------+ ... +--------------------------------------------------------+
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 11:47 PM 1/31/2002 -0600, David wrote:

        >Anyway, one reason not to believe the "one electron" theory is that
        >there are far more electrons (at least in our visible part of the
        >universe) than positrons. i.e. If one "electron" was going back and
        >forth through time there "should" be an equal number of electrons as
        >positrons.

        That's a very good point!


        +--------------------------------------------------------+
        | Jud McCranie |
        | |
        | ... algorithms are concepts that have existence apart |
        | from any programming language. The word "algorithm" |
        | denotes an abstract method of computing some output |
        | from some input ... -- Donald Knuth, CACM, 1966 |
        +--------------------------------------------------------+


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • djbroadhurst
        Yes the nipping in and out of 3-d idea was a bit corny. But I want to reinforce what Jud said about absolute indistinguishability in physics. In quantum
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes the nipping in and out of 3-d idea was a bit corny.
          But I want to reinforce what Jud said about absolute
          indistinguishability in physics. In quantum mechanics
          you have a wavefunction for every electron that you
          happen to think is in a box, and then have to antisymmetrize
          to take account of their indistinguishability.
          But in the full quantum theory there is a _single_
          anticommuting field whose potentialities describe
          every electron and positron in the universe. If anyone asks
          "which electron was that?" there is _no_ possible answer.
          Also there no answer to the question: "how many electrons
          in this box"; only the difference #electrons - #positrons
          is meaningful.
          David
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.