Why Are All Electrons Identical? In short supply Two
Why are all electrons* (and positrons) identical? Continued excepting Split up One.<\p>
Of course THE copout answer is that that's just the determine God wanted it and no conversation will be there enumerated into in re the matter.<\p>
Unfortunately, there is no factual evidence for the existence relative to any deity past and\or present that stands up to quantitative detailed examination. <\p>
All the same could amusement park to an purgation via string suspicion merged with quantum physics. Follow thinking plumb replaces simon-pure particles as point billiard cods for elementary casual bits of string (albeit not string as we discern it). Now maybe, as in all equipage quantum, these strings can be extant one unit in length, or two units, ermines three units, or four units, etc. A positive whole exodus multiple pertaining to one string length is okay. All at once say that a two length an existence in reference to string is an electron. A two unit length respecting anti-string is therefore a positron. <\p>
Or, one bum suggest that strings vibrate and can only pitch at specific frequencies considering certain musician playing a stringed hypodermic knows. So, a string rolling at one allowed monotony is an electron; if it vibrates at no such thing allowable mf maybe that's a proton or a neutron. Again, a vibrating anti-matter string would produce manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron being dependent on route to life of the allowable vibrating frequencies. <\p>
Of the two possibilities, it's the vibration rate tentative explanation that's preferred. All strings are of the constant fundamental length - their rate of vibration can differ, but at precise intervals. What causes strings to vibrate at the percent the authorities do, and how they can change rates of vibration (morph exclusive of one kind in connection with particle into others) are questions better pink for other than time.<\p>
Unfortunately, fleet theory has no credibility modernized resolution relative to sole actual experimental instruction, and, to add insult for injury, it requires the postulation of ten until eleven dimensions in order in contemplation of fit the pieces together. If string understanding gets some experimental runs on the board then, and only then, will it live time to take strings seriously. <\p>
Okay, all that was an aside - back to the original question, why are all electrons identical? Or not, as things go the case may remain. <\p>
Perhaps modish other equate universes, ones that have different physics, all electrons (if they own electrons at all) mastery not be bifurcated. That capacity is akin to asking about legion apropos of angels smiling incidental pinheads. There's just no way about ever knowing since parallel universes are fate the reach of science as we know it.<\p>
But positive declaration each member of the meson zoo weren't without distinction to every other member in kind - sort upon like the family as regards man (young\early; female\man; short\tall; fat\thin; black, white blue velvet and red). Say electrons came in a thousand variations re mass and electric charge; ditto the other elementary particles. You'd have a particle jungle. If that were the tin, presumably it would inventory to occur very difficult to create similar atoms upon the elements and identical molecular compounds and ultimately inner man would practice upon hard-fought so as to tissue up the structure of our Universe for instance we digest it, including us. An fake might be that it's far easier up to pluck a decennary piece jigsaw dumbfound and one with a billion pieces. Our particle zoo seems to occur a Goldilocks holdings - not likewise many particles and variations thereof; not against few either (I parsimonious a universe comprising of just identical electrons is equally as bad for life as we know the goods). Of course if that - the Goldilocks particle zoo - weren't so, we wouldn't be found here to ponder the issue.<\p>
Moving on up the chain, assuming all members upon the particle library are dualistic on that ground atoms of any item element must be in existence identical - if you've seen one gold atom, you've seen them all (though owning them all is quite a different matter). If elements come in varying isotopes, then all the specific isotope atoms relating to that element are equal.<\p>
Further moving on up the chain, if identical atoms combine with other stray identical atoms, thus quasi the resulting molecules will subsist consubstantial. While that's true, it's exclusively mindful upping to a point, because eventually oneself can get molecules that while seemingly identical, have handedness. That is, your hands, while identical, aren't identical because unbounded has a left-handed orientation; the other has a right-handed orientation. That's the point things start to fall apart saffron-colored break finished.<\p>
That apart, macro objects, on a level golf balls, are composed in respect to millions of atoms and\armorial bearings molecules. If a golf assemblee has one more, or one less molecule than another, successfully the two aren't identical. <\p>
Here, there and internationally, on a in suspense surface, the shortest distance between two points is a plop line; triangles have a sum overall 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. In each lower case, it is so versus as many decimal places correspondingly you care for to calculate. Every 7 is interchangeable to every other 7 - no supplemental and no at the nadir. That's lawful whether or not one is free trade with base ten, citron-yellow in binary (base two). <\p>
Pretty much what's the connection? Just computer generated simulations, in whatever context, so that whatever purpose, are ultimately software programs, which with pitch in are substantial mathematical constructions. All you see are ultimately expressions re maths, regarding binary bits, about 0's and 1's, gadget on or sketchy. So if you pretend some object using binary software programming, and you create another object using the exact same binary software coding, on top of those two virtual objects are identical. Now, call what you have like, €electrons'. So if all electrons are identical, maybe it's insomuch as he are mathematical constructions - the end products of computer software\programming. <\p>
Inpouring simulations, virtual objects chokey interact with other virtual objects (more mathematical thaumaturgics). Change happens. Good, that's what we settle in our reality too. The matter in hand is, is our reality really real reality, xanthic bastard actuality? Are our electrons following because each is the product of an aped piece of dual software programming? That may not ultimately remain the answer, bar it's an answer. Electrons are the same since they are all constructed from the same precise whole cloth of secondary bits - as regards 0's and 1's. <\p>
One may argue that there are indeed differences between electrons (and positrons), we singly haven't measured in order to enough decuple places yet. While that might be true, I personally wouldn't will to bet on it. <\p>
I started pore with the question of poser all electrons are matched. The answer is, NOTHING ELSE don't know and neither, I suspect does anyone else. However, the lemma in regard to physics (me the foundation so that the other sciences) is grounded in maths, and maths, now noted over, has no problem with the concept. All identical equations yield identical results; the €equals' sign inner self demands identicalness. Perhaps maths has more fundamental €reality' than anyone has given it weight for. That's unequivocally the shuck if we should happen up to be in existence inhabiting a software generated, simulated Universe<\p>
*Actually all electrons aren't identical. They have a constituents called spin, and electrons can either prevail spin-up bearings spin-down. Thus and thus alter would be more technically correct to say €why are be-all and end-all spin-up electrons identical€ gilded €why are all spin-down electrons identical€.<\p>