One-electron universe and god

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » One-electron universe and god

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 04:35 pm
Has anyone heard of the idea of a One-electron universe? One-electron universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All electrons seem identical. Some people have the idea that his is because there is really only one in the universe but it appears everywhere at the same time.

This really starts to make you think of there being a god like frequency in this. If you know what i mean?

one electron. Being god. Then there is the question what makes this electron appear in certain places?
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 10:57 pm
@glasstrees,
It is weird that of all the many eletrons that exist in the universe. They are are identity in property, and disposition. There is an intuitive appeal to the notion that there is only one eletron.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 01:41 am
@vectorcube,
So if two electrons interact, it is really just one electron interacting with itself? What about when an electron is detected in two places at once? By what mechanism could this be possible? It's pretty well established that the electron has mass and so cannot exceed the speed of light, so how does it achieve this feat of instant teleportation?

Also, wouldn't it be the case that if they didn't appear identical, we wouldn't call them by the same name? They are considered to be fundamental particles, so what about them would differ from one to the next? Any difference would have to be behavioral, since we detect electrons, we don't see them, so if they had different properties, they would be different fundamental particles.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 09:51 am
@Zetetic11235,
This interpretation certainly simplifies things and is very symmetrical. The electrob can be swinging back and forth creating waves within space/time like a pendulum.

In regards to god, I guess it depends upon how one understands god.

Rich
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 10:02 am
@richrf,
QM again it titillates us with so many possibilities.It means we are all one and we exist every where ,omnipresent, but our consciousness is restricted to here.
 
glasstrees
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 10:16 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;72966 wrote:
So if two electrons interact, it is really just one electron interacting with itself? What about when an electron is detected in two places at once? By what mechanism could this be possible? It's pretty well established that the electron has mass and so cannot exceed the speed of light, so how does it achieve this feat of instant teleportation?

Also, wouldn't it be the case that if they didn't appear identical, we wouldn't call them by the same name? They are considered to be fundamental particles, so what about them would differ from one to the next? Any difference would have to be behavioral, since we detect electrons, we don't see them, so if they had different properties, they would be different fundamental particles.


When i heard this idea and tried to picture how they can be in two places at once I built a very new and beautiful imagine in my head.
I cant begin to explain it well.

This is the best I can do.

The whole of time is created by this electron moving. It comes before time. Thus it can appear anywhere it wants.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 10:19 am
@xris,
xris;73048 wrote:
QM again it titillates us with so many possibilities.It means we are all one and we exist every where ,omnipresent, but our consciousness is restricted to here.


I think that the micro world can be observed in the macro world. I use the ocean and waves, or the movement of a pendulum for my metaphors.

Consciousness may not be restricted to here. We daydream and we dream - and those experiences are much different from here, in my experiences.

Rich
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 11:48 am
@richrf,
It seems like a nice mental image, but the wiki is wrong. Feynman shot down the idea. John Wheeler proposed it, along with a number of equally interesting out-there theories. I need to go learn some quantum mechanics..
 
glasstrees
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 12:24 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;73073 wrote:
It seems like a nice mental image, but the wiki is wrong. Feynman shot down the idea. John Wheeler proposed it, along with a number of equally interesting out-there theories. I need to go learn some quantum mechanics..


Where does it say thiss?
 
joseph knecht
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 01:57 pm
@glasstrees,
This theory links to a now 'aged' belief that black holes are capable of transporting matter seemingly at an instant. If the physics for your theory were possible and one electron, fitting its way into every position simultaneously to prevent chaotic seperation at an atomic level, was the glue that holds it all together, then i believe that an ability for all matter to do the same would also exist.

An interesting but wild theory that causes an eruption of questions concerned with our current beliefs of our universe and how it is held together.
 
bananabuddha
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 03:06 pm
@joseph knecht,
How can you say an electron is god though? What powers does it have to create universe, galaxies, planets and life through conscious decision? Many people would propose that it came "after" the big bang, but God coming after the big bang means he's not God at all. Thought provoking question.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 05:20 pm
@glasstrees,
dwixi;71856 wrote:

This really starts to make you think of there being a god like frequency in this. If you know what i mean?

This is a bit ambiguous, but it makes me think of a few things....in the past ive had some crazy ideas as to the nature of god(if there is one). I tend to think of god more as a force or field more so than a being. Ive thought about Einsteins Unified Field maybe being a kind of god field. Ive thought about two of the fundamental forces of nature maybe being a possible godfield - these would be electromagnet radiation of a certain pitch and energy, or maybe even gravity. The other thing ive considered as a possible godfield is the Quantum Electrodynamic Field associated with Dirac. This field exists everywhere, even in a vaccum.

Just some things I think about from time to time, The QED field being the most recent ive learned about.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 05:03 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;72966 wrote:

Also, wouldn't it be the case that if they didn't appear identical, we wouldn't call them by the same name? They are considered to be fundamental particles, so what about them would differ from one to the next? Any difference would have to be behavioral, since we detect electrons, we don't see them, so if they had different properties, they would be different fundamental particles.


I think this is a really important observation. I think the whole idea is that electrons - or subatomic particles - don't have AN IDENTITY. They are completely impossible to differentiate. Now this means that I don't think they exist in the same way that any 'corporeal objects'. Everything which exists has an identity - it is different to everything else; and it has parts. I think this is what 'existence' means, this is like the criteria that a thing has to meet to exist. Subatomic particles are real in a different way to existing things - they are not distinguishable in any way, and they have no parts. So I don't think they exist if existence is defined in this way.

I don't know why, but I feel this is important.
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 05:17 am
@jeeprs,
Just one amazing song , with everything singing in harmony. When the song ends it will all disappear.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 02:24 pm
@glasstrees,
and you want to be sure you're one of the ones sitting at this point...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 02:31 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;129292 wrote:

I don't know why, but I feel this is important.


So do I. Something about these factory made "parts"....
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 02:51 pm
@glasstrees,
From Wikipedia:

"There are two ways in which one might distinguish between particles. The first method relies on differences in the particles' intrinsic physical properties, such as mass, electric charge, and spin. If differences exist, we can distinguish between the particles by measuring the relevant properties. However, it is an empirical fact that microscopic particles of the same species have completely equivalent physical properties. For instance, every electron in the universe has exactly the same electric charge; this is why we can speak of such a thing as "the charge of the electron".
Even if the particles have equivalent physical properties, there remains a second method for distinguishing between particles, which is to track the trajectory of each particle. As long as we can measure the position of each particle with infinite precision (even when the particles collide), there would be no ambiguity about which particle is which.
The problem with this approach is that it contradicts the principles of quantum mechanics. According to quantum theory, the particles do not possess definite positions during the periods between measurements. Instead, they are governed by wavefunctions that give the probability of finding a particle at each position. As time passes, the wavefunctions tend to spread out and overlap. Once this happens, it becomes impossible to determine, in a subsequent measurement, which of the particle positions correspond to those measured earlier. The particles are then said to be indistinguishable."


Maybe this belongs in this other thread. But anyway, I still say that this argues against the idea that electrons exist. I think they have only a tendency to exist. I think the criteria of an existing thing is that it is distinguisable...this is what 'exist' means. Note 'ex' - this means 'apart'.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:35 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;129417 wrote:

Maybe this belongs in this other thread. But anyway, I still say that this argues against the idea that electrons exist. I think they have only a tendency to exist. I think the criteria of an existing thing is that it is distinguisable...this is what 'exist' means. Note 'ex' - this means 'apart'.


Distinguishable. That's a good point. Theory: electrons only exist as a concept for explaining collisions of the otherwise unknowable subject with the otherwise unknowable object. Both subject, object, and electron are ab-stracted (yanked out) from an otherwise chaotic sensual totality. Anything less than everything is an ab-stract. To exist is to "stand forth." Electrons stand forth because we conceive them, name them.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:53 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129447 wrote:
Both subject, object, and electron are ab-stracted (yanked out) from an otherwise chaotic sensual totality.


And this is where the Tao of Physics etc come in.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:57 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;129458 wrote:
And this is where the Tao of Physics etc come in.


Indeed. And that is a great book.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » One-electron universe and god
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 01:22:08