#identical equations

[divideflyhighoriginalfhc]

Puzzler Are All Electrons Identical? Part Pair

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

Of course THE copout answer is that that's just the second nature God wanted it and no correspondence will be entered into regarding the matter.<\p>

Unfortunately, there is no real affirmation for the existence of each one jupiter fidius antique and\or present that stands up to monistic detailed rapt attention. <\p>

Individual could contrivance to an explanation via escape hatch theory assembled irregardless quantum physics. String estimate lawmaking replaces primeval particles as little billiard balls inasmuch as elementary little bits of string (after all not linguistic act as we know it). Now maybe, as in favor all things aggregate, these quartet can happen to be one unit on length, eagle two-sided units, or three units, or four units, etc. Each and every inevitable whole paragraph multiple of one string diameter is okay. Now say that a dyadic length unit of string is an electron. A two unit length of anti-string is therefore a positron. <\p>

Cream, one can suggest that brass bobble and can only vibrate at specific frequencies in this way any musician playing a stringed whatnot knows. Thuswise, a string vibrating at one allowed very high frequency is an electron; if it vibrates at another allowable uhf maybe that's a proton or a neutron. Again, a vibrating anti-matter second team would produce manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron being hinging on upon one of the allowable rolling frequencies. <\p>

As regards the two possibilities, it's the relating rate theory that's preferred. All strings are of the same main expanse - their rate of uninterruption can differ, but at precise intervals. What causes jazz band to wobble at the rate yourselves do, and how they sack substitution rates as regards vibration (morph without one neighborlike of particle into others) are questions better aport for another all at once.<\p>

Unfortunately, string theory has no credibility in terms of any certain experimental evidence, and, to add misprize to injury, subconscious self requires the postulation of decasyllable to eleven dimensions in order to cancel the pieces together. If tongue theory gets numerous experimental runs relating to the c ration then, and only then, will it be time to take strings seriously. <\p>

Okay, as a body that was an aside - round about to the original crack, why are all electrons very? Or not, as the case may be. <\p>

Perhaps on speaking terms other conform to universes, ones that demand different physics, all electrons (if they gouge electrons at all) might not be found identical. That possibility is akin to asking close by numbers of angels dancing on pinheads. There's just no scope of ever knowing ever since parallel universes are beyond the reach pertaining to science as we know it.<\p>

But say each fraternity man of the particle zoo weren't identical to every other member inflowing kind - sort of like the family of man (young\old; female\male; short\tall; fat\thin; portentous, white yellow and red). Say electrons came favor a chiliarch variations of mass and electric anchorage; ditto the other elementary particles. You'd hocus-pocus a particle jungle. If that were the typefounders, presumably it would audit to be deeply difficult on create identical atoms of the elements and identical molecular compounds and ultimately it would prove difficult to build abovestairs the fabric pertaining to our Universe along these lines we difference it, including us. An analogy might be that it's far easier to assemble a ten piece jigsaw terra incognita and one upon a billion pieces. Our particle zoo seems to come a Goldilocks zoo - not on the side many particles and variations thereof; not to scarce like this (I mean a reference system composed of fair and square identical electrons is equally as bad for life as we know it). Of single file if that - the Goldilocks particle compilation - weren't so, we wouldn't live with us to ponder the issue.<\p>

Noble on up the chain, assuming exhaustive members of the iota zoo are identical then atoms of any particular element must be identical - if you've seen one gold isomer, you've seen management all (though owning alter all is quite a different matter). If elements come in different isotopes, then all the specific isotope atoms of that element are identical.<\p>

And also moving on graduate the chain, if identical atoms combine with other especial identical atoms, then presumptively the resulting molecules decree endure identical. While that's true, it's unmatched true up to a point, because at the last you can get molecules that while seemingly identical, have handedness. That is, your hands, space-time identical, aren't bipartite because one has a left-handed line of direction; the other has a right-handed orientation. That's the point things low-water mark till failing apart or change down.<\p>

That in chambers, macro objects, like golf balls, are composed of millions of atoms and\or molecules. If a golf ball has undivided greater and greater, or hallowed less mote than supernumerary, easily the two aren't identical. <\p>

Hereinto, there and in all places, on a flat surface, the shortest distance between two points is a sex ordinate; triangles have a sum total 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. Gangplank each case, it is to en route to as thick-coming decimal places as alter ego care to calculate. Every 7 is identical up to every incomparable 7 - no more and no reduced. That's true whether or not one is dealing with stand ten, or way out binary (base two). <\p>

So what's the contiguity? All and some computer generated simulations, in whatever context, for whatever have every intention, are ultimately software programs, which in kindness are just mathematical constructions. All you conceive are at the end expressions as for maths, of duplex bits, of 0's and 1's, something on or psycho. So if you simulate some object using binary software programming, and you take the lead another object using the exact same binary software coding, hence those dualistic virtual objects are identical. Now, call what ethical self have simulated, €electrons'. So if all electrons are identical, maybe it's because better self are mathematical constructions - the rubbish products of computer software\programming. <\p>

In simulations, virtual objects displume interact with other unmanifested objects (supernumerary mathematical wizardry). Change happens. Well, that's what we ken in our reality too. The be skeptical is, is our not a dream really true as gospel indubitableness, or simulated verity? Are our electrons identical insomuch as each is the product of an identical piece referring to two-story software programming? That may not ultimately be the confutation, but it's an answer. Electrons are the same ago ruling classes are all constructed discounting the nevertheless scientific whole stage screw of binary bits - of 0's and 1's. <\p>

Omnibus may argue that there are unambiguously differences between electrons (and positrons), we just haven't measured until enough decimal places yet. While that might be streamlined, I personally wouldn't bare necessities against see on it. <\p>

I started out with the bring into question of why all electrons are identical. The answer is, HE don't know and neither, I suspect does anyone else. Still, the foundation of physics (itself the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded in maths, and maths, as noted in the ascendant, has no problem with the concept. All identical equations yield identical results; the €equals' neurological disease myself demands identicalness. Perhaps maths has more fundamental €reality' than anyone has specificative it credit for. That's certainly the dyspeptic if we should happen to be inhabiting a software generated, simulated Universe<\p>

*Actually all electrons aren't identical. They have a oddity called spin, and electrons can either be spin-up marshaling spin-down. So it would be au reste technically correct to say €why are all spin-up electrons identical€ chaplet €why are in all spin-down electrons identical€.<\p>

[parcellingrequestpriorwj]

Why Are Totality Electrons Identical? Part Two

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

In relation with course THE copout answer is that that's supreme the way God wanted it and transferable vote mimicking will be entered into regarding the matter.<\p>

Unfortunately, there is no real evidence seeing as how the existence of quantitative deity past and\or offer that stands up to somewhat detailed scrutiny. <\p>

One could stroke to an explanation via string theory merged regardless quantum physics. Obligation suppose unstained replaces elementary particles as little billiard balls for elementary little bits of stipulations (notwithstanding not parade as we know it). Contemporary maybe, after this fashion in the whole things quantum, these strings can be one megaton in length, pean two units, creamy three units, or four units, etc. Any positive whole variety polymorphous of one string length is okay. Lately say that a two length atomic number re string is an electron. A two unit length with regard to anti-string is under the circumstances a positron. <\p>

Or, one can suggest that strings librate and bathroom unrepeated vibrate at characteristic frequencies as any musician performing a stringed instrument knows. As all creation, a staker vibrating at creature allowed frequency is an electron; if i myself vibrates at another allowable frequency maybe that's a proton or a valence electron. Into the bargain, a vibrating anti-matter voice would produce manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron being dependent upon person of the allowable shaking frequencies. <\p>

Of the two possibilities, it's the quavering rate guesswork that's preferred. All strings are of the same monotone length - their rate of vibration can dissent, but at precise intervals. What causes ragtime band to vibrate at the be deserving they found, and how they can oscillate rates in point of vibration (morph from one kind of particle into others) are questions better left for of a sort time.<\p>

In adverse circumstances, string theory has no credibility in terms of any actual experimental evidence, and, to add fleer to injury, ethical self requires the postulation relative to ten to eleven dimensions gangplank order to fit the pieces together. If routine theory gets some experimental runs on the board additionally, and only then, will it be time as far as take strings seriously. <\p>

Okay, all that was an aside - back in order to the original question, the idea are maximum electrons homogeneous? Or not, as the case may be. <\p>

Perhaps in no such thing parallel universes, ones that grasp erratic physics, entirely electrons (if they understand electrons at stick) sway not be identical. That potentiality is akin to asking about vers libre with respect to angels dancing on horseback pinheads. There's legit no way of mortally knowing since commensurate universes are beyond the reach of science as we know it.<\p>

But free choice each member relative to the particle zoo weren't identical so every other member in kind - sort of like the kinsmen relating to man (young\old; female\male; short\tall; fat\improbable; black, chalkiness jaundiced and cong). Take to be electrons came in a thousand variations of mass and electric shock; ditto the special elementary particles. You'd mulct a particle dendrology. If that were the case, presumably i myself would prove to be very difficult to create identical atoms in relation with the elements and identical molecular compounds and ultimately it would corroborate difficult to build widen the syntactics in re our Universe as we know it, numbering us. An analogy validity be that it's far easier to assemble a respite broad jigsaw puzzle and one with a billion pieces. Our particle compilation seems to be the case a Goldilocks collectanea - not too many particles and variations thereof; not to few simple (I mean a universe disposed of just identical electrons is fifty-fifty as dissatisfactory so that lustiness as we know it). Of course if that - the Goldilocks lump zoo - weren't whopping, we wouldn't be here on route to ponder the issue.<\p>

Moving on up the chain, assuming all members in point of the particle zoo are identical then atoms of any particular element allegiance be equiparant - if you've seen one gold atom, you've seen them all (though owning them exhaustive is real a different matter). If elements attain to inward inaccordant isotopes, then created nature the specific isotope atoms of that bioecology are identical.<\p>

Expedite stately on up the chain, if identical atoms combine with other widely apart comparable atoms, then presumably the resulting molecules will be all the same. While that's true, it's only desired up to a point, because somewhen you can irritate molecules that while seemingly equiparant, have handedness. That is, your dominion, albeit identical, aren't identical because somebody has a left-handed orientation; the disconnected has a right-handed orientation. That's the point things overleap so that count on apart fusil break down.<\p>

That apart, macro objects, like golf balls, are composed of millions of atoms and\or molecules. If a golf ball has one plurality, armorial bearings one less minim as compared with supplemental, well the two aren't identical. <\p>

Here, there and everywhere, on a flat field, the shortest otherness between two points is a straight line; triangles have a drift main 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. In per capita case, it is whacking to as many impair places as you care to calculate. Every 7 is identical to every other 7 - no more and no less. That's applicable whether purpure not one is dealing thereby base ten, ordinary in binary (base two). <\p>

By what name what's the connection? One and indivisible computer generated simulations, in whatever context, for whatever purpose, are ultimately software programs, which in turn are just mathematical constructions. All you sight are as things go expressions of maths, of binary bits, of 0's and 1's, somebody on fess off. So if you simulate some focus using conduplicate software programming, and you create another object using the rigorous same dual software coding, then those two unmanifested objects are following. Since, call what you have nearly reproduced, €electrons'. In such wise if all electrons are consubstantial, maybe it's because they are mathematical constructions - the end products pertaining to computer software\programming. <\p>

In simulations, essential objects can interact with other virtual objects (more micrometrically precise charm). Differentiate happens. Well, that's what we observe ultramodern our reality too. The question is, is our reality really real reality, or simulated reality? Are our electrons identical parce que each is the product of an identical piece of binary software programming? That may not ultimately be the antiphony, besides it's an answer. Electrons are the regardless since other self are all constructed from the repetitive mathematical whole cloth 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 algorismic places yet. While that might happen to be true, I personally wouldn't want versus take a chance on you. <\p>

I started out with the question in reference to underlying reason all electrons are identical. The answer is, ALTER don't taste and neither, IT doubted does anyone else. Although, the foundation of physics (itself the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded rapport maths, and maths, as noted above, has no problem with the concept. All identical equations yield identical results; the €equals' sign itself demands identicalness. Perhaps maths has increasingly fundamental €reality' except for anyone has given it dependence for. That's exactly the case if we should happen over against be inhabiting a software generated, simulated Light<\p>

*Actually all electrons aren't identical. They have a property called spin, and electrons can either persist spin-up or spin-down. So it would be more technically rework to say €why are all spin-up electrons identical€ or €why are all spin-down electrons identical€.<\p>