The One-Electron Universe postulate is true - what simple change can I make to change the whole universe?












16












$begingroup$



The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:



“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe




The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.



Assume that the postulate is true.



Question



Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$


This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    yesterday






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday


















16












$begingroup$



The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:



“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe




The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.



Assume that the postulate is true.



Question



Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$


This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    yesterday






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday
















16












16








16


2



$begingroup$



The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:



“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe




The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.



Assume that the postulate is true.



Question



Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$





The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:



“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe




The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.



Assume that the postulate is true.



Question



Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?







hard-science universe






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked yesterday









chasly from UKchasly from UK

18.5k779166




18.5k779166



This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.




This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    yesterday






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday
















  • 3




    $begingroup$
    We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    yesterday






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday










3




3




$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
yesterday






$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
yesterday






2




2




$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday




$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
yesterday




11




11




$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
yesterday




$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday




$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday




3




3




$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
yesterday






$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
yesterday












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















32












$begingroup$

Disclaimer



Because my answer below throws a bit of shade at the other existing answers, and because I'm going for a bit of a flip, humorous, and somewhat defiant tone, I feel that I should point out that I'm a real life physicist and most certainly not a crackpot :-P



Rant



All the naysaying in the other existing answers, e.g.




  • "This universe is fundamentally impossible..."


  • "[There] won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics."


  • "Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. "



seems out of place to me.
Even in a sober discussion with my colleagues in which we were to speculate on the future of physics, I wouldn't go around making statements about what certainly is and isn't possible.
The physics community has been so wrong so many times about how things will turn out even ten years in the future that such definitive statements of impossibility just seem imprudent.
Adding on top of that the facts that




  • We're talking about quantum field theory here, which is already known to have some foundational issues and hasn't yet been reconciled with gravity, and


  • This is a world building site,



I think a little bit of tempered imagination is in order.



Alright let's actually answer the question




In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?




Sure, why the hell not?
Electrons are presently thought of as excitations of the electron field, much like photons are units of excitation of the electromagnetic field.
The electron's "charge" is a word for describing how strongly the electron field interacts with the electromagnetic field.
Can we change that coupling strength?
Yeah maybe, who knows?



Imagine the first time someone discovers that sound is compression waves travelling through some kind of magical continuous medium; they might think that the speed of sound is intrinsic because that medium is unchangeable.
However, they eventually figure out that at smaller length scales, the sound-carrying-ether is not uniform and continuous, but rather a granular collection of billions of little particles of "air", all bumping into each other.
It's only when we zoom out and look at waves whose wavelength is much longer than (the space between) individual air molecules that the wave phenomenon of sound seems to exist in a continuous and uniform medium.
Once they know about the underlying structure of air molecules, they figure out that changing things about those molecules changes the speed of sound.
For example, they can heat or cool the molecules, or supplement them with some other type of molecules like $text{He}$ or $text{SF}_6$.



If the electron field has underlying structure, then it seems quite likely that we can mess with that structure to alter the properties of that field's excitations, i.e. change the properties of electrons.



...and we haven't even talked about the single-electron theory yet...



Suppose spacetime is a big old four dimensional bar with a cube-shaped cross-section.
That is, the spatial dimensions have finite extent but the time dimension goes to plus and minus infinity.
In that spacetime, the single electron's world line can be any path through this four dimensional bar.
Now suppose a being that lives in a twenty dimensional spacetime which contains our little four dimensional one comes along and pokes a hole in the electron field in our spacetime.
Now the electron's path can't be deformed in a way that would carry it through the hole.
Proper hole-punching could wind up tying our electron in knots around the holes!
Would that change it's charge or mass?
I dunno, probably not, but it would change something about the electron's physics because now the set of possible electron worldlines is topologically nontrivial.



A field's (particle's) mass is related to how much energy it costs to create an excitation in that field (a.k.a. create a particle).
Suppose the universe were a Mobius strip and suppose the energy cost of creating an electron is related to the length of the strip because the electron's world line has to make a complete unbroken trip around the strip.
Well then if a twenty dimensional alien could come in and cut a section out of our Mobius strip universe, then the mass of the electron would go down.



More?






share|improve this answer








New contributor




DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$





















    11












    $begingroup$

    This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



    You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



    So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 6




      $begingroup$
      Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      yesterday






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
      $endgroup$
      – chasly from UK
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
      $endgroup$
      – immibis
      21 hours ago






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
      $endgroup$
      – Finn O'leary
      20 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The postulate says there is one electron, it does not claim that it always will look like an electron to us and it specifically says that what we think is the electron is just a manifestation of a single something else. There is absolutely nothing in event horizons or nuclear phenomenon that contradicts that. It is the manifestation that changes or vanishes, the actual electron does not. Or would not if we assume the postulate and all that
      $endgroup$
      – Ville Niemi
      15 hours ago



















    10












    $begingroup$

    Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



    As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      Why not all properties? You "just" need to find the right fulcrum. Measurement techniques could be a good entry point.



      Say you manage to change any of these universal constants, how does the universe react? Do you care to manage the consequences? What are you willing to invest?



      Or do you adjust them only from your perspective? In my eye that resembles shifting into parallel dimensions. A bit broader than time travel in scope, similar in technology. Can you imagine the loneliness? Would you want to maintain your "sanity", once you're independent from all of humanity?



      Perhaps you could arbitrarily expand your perspective before making the shift. Then again, is that how you want to occupy your time, with cosmic escapism? Maybe you have a very good reason.



      I need more fart jokes. Good luck.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$









      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The question is tagged hard science, but this answer doesn't satisfy the requirements.
        $endgroup$
        – L.Dutch
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Fart jokes? Try here worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=fart
        $endgroup$
        – chasly from UK
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
        $endgroup$
        – Frostfyre
        22 mins ago











      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142353%2fthe-one-electron-universe-postulate-is-true-what-simple-change-can-i-make-to-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      32












      $begingroup$

      Disclaimer



      Because my answer below throws a bit of shade at the other existing answers, and because I'm going for a bit of a flip, humorous, and somewhat defiant tone, I feel that I should point out that I'm a real life physicist and most certainly not a crackpot :-P



      Rant



      All the naysaying in the other existing answers, e.g.




      • "This universe is fundamentally impossible..."


      • "[There] won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics."


      • "Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. "



      seems out of place to me.
      Even in a sober discussion with my colleagues in which we were to speculate on the future of physics, I wouldn't go around making statements about what certainly is and isn't possible.
      The physics community has been so wrong so many times about how things will turn out even ten years in the future that such definitive statements of impossibility just seem imprudent.
      Adding on top of that the facts that




      • We're talking about quantum field theory here, which is already known to have some foundational issues and hasn't yet been reconciled with gravity, and


      • This is a world building site,



      I think a little bit of tempered imagination is in order.



      Alright let's actually answer the question




      In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?




      Sure, why the hell not?
      Electrons are presently thought of as excitations of the electron field, much like photons are units of excitation of the electromagnetic field.
      The electron's "charge" is a word for describing how strongly the electron field interacts with the electromagnetic field.
      Can we change that coupling strength?
      Yeah maybe, who knows?



      Imagine the first time someone discovers that sound is compression waves travelling through some kind of magical continuous medium; they might think that the speed of sound is intrinsic because that medium is unchangeable.
      However, they eventually figure out that at smaller length scales, the sound-carrying-ether is not uniform and continuous, but rather a granular collection of billions of little particles of "air", all bumping into each other.
      It's only when we zoom out and look at waves whose wavelength is much longer than (the space between) individual air molecules that the wave phenomenon of sound seems to exist in a continuous and uniform medium.
      Once they know about the underlying structure of air molecules, they figure out that changing things about those molecules changes the speed of sound.
      For example, they can heat or cool the molecules, or supplement them with some other type of molecules like $text{He}$ or $text{SF}_6$.



      If the electron field has underlying structure, then it seems quite likely that we can mess with that structure to alter the properties of that field's excitations, i.e. change the properties of electrons.



      ...and we haven't even talked about the single-electron theory yet...



      Suppose spacetime is a big old four dimensional bar with a cube-shaped cross-section.
      That is, the spatial dimensions have finite extent but the time dimension goes to plus and minus infinity.
      In that spacetime, the single electron's world line can be any path through this four dimensional bar.
      Now suppose a being that lives in a twenty dimensional spacetime which contains our little four dimensional one comes along and pokes a hole in the electron field in our spacetime.
      Now the electron's path can't be deformed in a way that would carry it through the hole.
      Proper hole-punching could wind up tying our electron in knots around the holes!
      Would that change it's charge or mass?
      I dunno, probably not, but it would change something about the electron's physics because now the set of possible electron worldlines is topologically nontrivial.



      A field's (particle's) mass is related to how much energy it costs to create an excitation in that field (a.k.a. create a particle).
      Suppose the universe were a Mobius strip and suppose the energy cost of creating an electron is related to the length of the strip because the electron's world line has to make a complete unbroken trip around the strip.
      Well then if a twenty dimensional alien could come in and cut a section out of our Mobius strip universe, then the mass of the electron would go down.



      More?






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$


















        32












        $begingroup$

        Disclaimer



        Because my answer below throws a bit of shade at the other existing answers, and because I'm going for a bit of a flip, humorous, and somewhat defiant tone, I feel that I should point out that I'm a real life physicist and most certainly not a crackpot :-P



        Rant



        All the naysaying in the other existing answers, e.g.




        • "This universe is fundamentally impossible..."


        • "[There] won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics."


        • "Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. "



        seems out of place to me.
        Even in a sober discussion with my colleagues in which we were to speculate on the future of physics, I wouldn't go around making statements about what certainly is and isn't possible.
        The physics community has been so wrong so many times about how things will turn out even ten years in the future that such definitive statements of impossibility just seem imprudent.
        Adding on top of that the facts that




        • We're talking about quantum field theory here, which is already known to have some foundational issues and hasn't yet been reconciled with gravity, and


        • This is a world building site,



        I think a little bit of tempered imagination is in order.



        Alright let's actually answer the question




        In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?




        Sure, why the hell not?
        Electrons are presently thought of as excitations of the electron field, much like photons are units of excitation of the electromagnetic field.
        The electron's "charge" is a word for describing how strongly the electron field interacts with the electromagnetic field.
        Can we change that coupling strength?
        Yeah maybe, who knows?



        Imagine the first time someone discovers that sound is compression waves travelling through some kind of magical continuous medium; they might think that the speed of sound is intrinsic because that medium is unchangeable.
        However, they eventually figure out that at smaller length scales, the sound-carrying-ether is not uniform and continuous, but rather a granular collection of billions of little particles of "air", all bumping into each other.
        It's only when we zoom out and look at waves whose wavelength is much longer than (the space between) individual air molecules that the wave phenomenon of sound seems to exist in a continuous and uniform medium.
        Once they know about the underlying structure of air molecules, they figure out that changing things about those molecules changes the speed of sound.
        For example, they can heat or cool the molecules, or supplement them with some other type of molecules like $text{He}$ or $text{SF}_6$.



        If the electron field has underlying structure, then it seems quite likely that we can mess with that structure to alter the properties of that field's excitations, i.e. change the properties of electrons.



        ...and we haven't even talked about the single-electron theory yet...



        Suppose spacetime is a big old four dimensional bar with a cube-shaped cross-section.
        That is, the spatial dimensions have finite extent but the time dimension goes to plus and minus infinity.
        In that spacetime, the single electron's world line can be any path through this four dimensional bar.
        Now suppose a being that lives in a twenty dimensional spacetime which contains our little four dimensional one comes along and pokes a hole in the electron field in our spacetime.
        Now the electron's path can't be deformed in a way that would carry it through the hole.
        Proper hole-punching could wind up tying our electron in knots around the holes!
        Would that change it's charge or mass?
        I dunno, probably not, but it would change something about the electron's physics because now the set of possible electron worldlines is topologically nontrivial.



        A field's (particle's) mass is related to how much energy it costs to create an excitation in that field (a.k.a. create a particle).
        Suppose the universe were a Mobius strip and suppose the energy cost of creating an electron is related to the length of the strip because the electron's world line has to make a complete unbroken trip around the strip.
        Well then if a twenty dimensional alien could come in and cut a section out of our Mobius strip universe, then the mass of the electron would go down.



        More?






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$
















          32












          32








          32





          $begingroup$

          Disclaimer



          Because my answer below throws a bit of shade at the other existing answers, and because I'm going for a bit of a flip, humorous, and somewhat defiant tone, I feel that I should point out that I'm a real life physicist and most certainly not a crackpot :-P



          Rant



          All the naysaying in the other existing answers, e.g.




          • "This universe is fundamentally impossible..."


          • "[There] won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics."


          • "Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. "



          seems out of place to me.
          Even in a sober discussion with my colleagues in which we were to speculate on the future of physics, I wouldn't go around making statements about what certainly is and isn't possible.
          The physics community has been so wrong so many times about how things will turn out even ten years in the future that such definitive statements of impossibility just seem imprudent.
          Adding on top of that the facts that




          • We're talking about quantum field theory here, which is already known to have some foundational issues and hasn't yet been reconciled with gravity, and


          • This is a world building site,



          I think a little bit of tempered imagination is in order.



          Alright let's actually answer the question




          In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?




          Sure, why the hell not?
          Electrons are presently thought of as excitations of the electron field, much like photons are units of excitation of the electromagnetic field.
          The electron's "charge" is a word for describing how strongly the electron field interacts with the electromagnetic field.
          Can we change that coupling strength?
          Yeah maybe, who knows?



          Imagine the first time someone discovers that sound is compression waves travelling through some kind of magical continuous medium; they might think that the speed of sound is intrinsic because that medium is unchangeable.
          However, they eventually figure out that at smaller length scales, the sound-carrying-ether is not uniform and continuous, but rather a granular collection of billions of little particles of "air", all bumping into each other.
          It's only when we zoom out and look at waves whose wavelength is much longer than (the space between) individual air molecules that the wave phenomenon of sound seems to exist in a continuous and uniform medium.
          Once they know about the underlying structure of air molecules, they figure out that changing things about those molecules changes the speed of sound.
          For example, they can heat or cool the molecules, or supplement them with some other type of molecules like $text{He}$ or $text{SF}_6$.



          If the electron field has underlying structure, then it seems quite likely that we can mess with that structure to alter the properties of that field's excitations, i.e. change the properties of electrons.



          ...and we haven't even talked about the single-electron theory yet...



          Suppose spacetime is a big old four dimensional bar with a cube-shaped cross-section.
          That is, the spatial dimensions have finite extent but the time dimension goes to plus and minus infinity.
          In that spacetime, the single electron's world line can be any path through this four dimensional bar.
          Now suppose a being that lives in a twenty dimensional spacetime which contains our little four dimensional one comes along and pokes a hole in the electron field in our spacetime.
          Now the electron's path can't be deformed in a way that would carry it through the hole.
          Proper hole-punching could wind up tying our electron in knots around the holes!
          Would that change it's charge or mass?
          I dunno, probably not, but it would change something about the electron's physics because now the set of possible electron worldlines is topologically nontrivial.



          A field's (particle's) mass is related to how much energy it costs to create an excitation in that field (a.k.a. create a particle).
          Suppose the universe were a Mobius strip and suppose the energy cost of creating an electron is related to the length of the strip because the electron's world line has to make a complete unbroken trip around the strip.
          Well then if a twenty dimensional alien could come in and cut a section out of our Mobius strip universe, then the mass of the electron would go down.



          More?






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$



          Disclaimer



          Because my answer below throws a bit of shade at the other existing answers, and because I'm going for a bit of a flip, humorous, and somewhat defiant tone, I feel that I should point out that I'm a real life physicist and most certainly not a crackpot :-P



          Rant



          All the naysaying in the other existing answers, e.g.




          • "This universe is fundamentally impossible..."


          • "[There] won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics."


          • "Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. "



          seems out of place to me.
          Even in a sober discussion with my colleagues in which we were to speculate on the future of physics, I wouldn't go around making statements about what certainly is and isn't possible.
          The physics community has been so wrong so many times about how things will turn out even ten years in the future that such definitive statements of impossibility just seem imprudent.
          Adding on top of that the facts that




          • We're talking about quantum field theory here, which is already known to have some foundational issues and hasn't yet been reconciled with gravity, and


          • This is a world building site,



          I think a little bit of tempered imagination is in order.



          Alright let's actually answer the question




          In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?




          Sure, why the hell not?
          Electrons are presently thought of as excitations of the electron field, much like photons are units of excitation of the electromagnetic field.
          The electron's "charge" is a word for describing how strongly the electron field interacts with the electromagnetic field.
          Can we change that coupling strength?
          Yeah maybe, who knows?



          Imagine the first time someone discovers that sound is compression waves travelling through some kind of magical continuous medium; they might think that the speed of sound is intrinsic because that medium is unchangeable.
          However, they eventually figure out that at smaller length scales, the sound-carrying-ether is not uniform and continuous, but rather a granular collection of billions of little particles of "air", all bumping into each other.
          It's only when we zoom out and look at waves whose wavelength is much longer than (the space between) individual air molecules that the wave phenomenon of sound seems to exist in a continuous and uniform medium.
          Once they know about the underlying structure of air molecules, they figure out that changing things about those molecules changes the speed of sound.
          For example, they can heat or cool the molecules, or supplement them with some other type of molecules like $text{He}$ or $text{SF}_6$.



          If the electron field has underlying structure, then it seems quite likely that we can mess with that structure to alter the properties of that field's excitations, i.e. change the properties of electrons.



          ...and we haven't even talked about the single-electron theory yet...



          Suppose spacetime is a big old four dimensional bar with a cube-shaped cross-section.
          That is, the spatial dimensions have finite extent but the time dimension goes to plus and minus infinity.
          In that spacetime, the single electron's world line can be any path through this four dimensional bar.
          Now suppose a being that lives in a twenty dimensional spacetime which contains our little four dimensional one comes along and pokes a hole in the electron field in our spacetime.
          Now the electron's path can't be deformed in a way that would carry it through the hole.
          Proper hole-punching could wind up tying our electron in knots around the holes!
          Would that change it's charge or mass?
          I dunno, probably not, but it would change something about the electron's physics because now the set of possible electron worldlines is topologically nontrivial.



          A field's (particle's) mass is related to how much energy it costs to create an excitation in that field (a.k.a. create a particle).
          Suppose the universe were a Mobius strip and suppose the energy cost of creating an electron is related to the length of the strip because the electron's world line has to make a complete unbroken trip around the strip.
          Well then if a twenty dimensional alien could come in and cut a section out of our Mobius strip universe, then the mass of the electron would go down.



          More?







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 15 hours ago









          DanielSankDanielSank

          30327




          30327




          New contributor




          DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          DanielSank is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.























              11












              $begingroup$

              This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



              You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



              So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 6




                $begingroup$
                Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
                $endgroup$
                – AlexP
                yesterday






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
                $endgroup$
                – chasly from UK
                yesterday






              • 4




                $begingroup$
                The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
                $endgroup$
                – immibis
                21 hours ago






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
                $endgroup$
                – Finn O'leary
                20 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                The postulate says there is one electron, it does not claim that it always will look like an electron to us and it specifically says that what we think is the electron is just a manifestation of a single something else. There is absolutely nothing in event horizons or nuclear phenomenon that contradicts that. It is the manifestation that changes or vanishes, the actual electron does not. Or would not if we assume the postulate and all that
                $endgroup$
                – Ville Niemi
                15 hours ago
















              11












              $begingroup$

              This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



              You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



              So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 6




                $begingroup$
                Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
                $endgroup$
                – AlexP
                yesterday






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
                $endgroup$
                – chasly from UK
                yesterday






              • 4




                $begingroup$
                The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
                $endgroup$
                – immibis
                21 hours ago






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
                $endgroup$
                – Finn O'leary
                20 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                The postulate says there is one electron, it does not claim that it always will look like an electron to us and it specifically says that what we think is the electron is just a manifestation of a single something else. There is absolutely nothing in event horizons or nuclear phenomenon that contradicts that. It is the manifestation that changes or vanishes, the actual electron does not. Or would not if we assume the postulate and all that
                $endgroup$
                – Ville Niemi
                15 hours ago














              11












              11








              11





              $begingroup$

              This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



              You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



              So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



              You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



              So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered yesterday









              tylisirntylisirn

              58724




              58724








              • 6




                $begingroup$
                Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
                $endgroup$
                – AlexP
                yesterday






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
                $endgroup$
                – chasly from UK
                yesterday






              • 4




                $begingroup$
                The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
                $endgroup$
                – immibis
                21 hours ago






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
                $endgroup$
                – Finn O'leary
                20 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                The postulate says there is one electron, it does not claim that it always will look like an electron to us and it specifically says that what we think is the electron is just a manifestation of a single something else. There is absolutely nothing in event horizons or nuclear phenomenon that contradicts that. It is the manifestation that changes or vanishes, the actual electron does not. Or would not if we assume the postulate and all that
                $endgroup$
                – Ville Niemi
                15 hours ago














              • 6




                $begingroup$
                Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
                $endgroup$
                – AlexP
                yesterday






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
                $endgroup$
                – chasly from UK
                yesterday






              • 4




                $begingroup$
                The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
                $endgroup$
                – immibis
                21 hours ago






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
                $endgroup$
                – Finn O'leary
                20 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                The postulate says there is one electron, it does not claim that it always will look like an electron to us and it specifically says that what we think is the electron is just a manifestation of a single something else. There is absolutely nothing in event horizons or nuclear phenomenon that contradicts that. It is the manifestation that changes or vanishes, the actual electron does not. Or would not if we assume the postulate and all that
                $endgroup$
                – Ville Niemi
                15 hours ago








              6




              6




              $begingroup$
              Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
              $endgroup$
              – AlexP
              yesterday




              $begingroup$
              Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
              $endgroup$
              – AlexP
              yesterday




              5




              5




              $begingroup$
              I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
              $endgroup$
              – chasly from UK
              yesterday




              $begingroup$
              I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
              $endgroup$
              – chasly from UK
              yesterday




              4




              4




              $begingroup$
              The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
              $endgroup$
              – immibis
              21 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              The universe isn't fundamentally impossible: We don't know that it's possible because we don't know what happens to the electron inside the black hole. That's different to saying that we have proved that it's impossible.
              $endgroup$
              – immibis
              21 hours ago




              5




              5




              $begingroup$
              I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
              $endgroup$
              – Finn O'leary
              20 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              I could be mistaken here. But I'm downvoting this because the question very clearly says "Assume that the postulate is true". You are saying the concept is impossible, but many other threads here deal with outright impossible things like magic and other fantasy devices. I don't know why it's difficult to imagine a universe where most of what we know comes out as true, but things are altered or handwaved where they need be.
              $endgroup$
              – Finn O'leary
              20 hours ago




              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              The postulate says there is one electron, it does not claim that it always will look like an electron to us and it specifically says that what we think is the electron is just a manifestation of a single something else. There is absolutely nothing in event horizons or nuclear phenomenon that contradicts that. It is the manifestation that changes or vanishes, the actual electron does not. Or would not if we assume the postulate and all that
              $endgroup$
              – Ville Niemi
              15 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              The postulate says there is one electron, it does not claim that it always will look like an electron to us and it specifically says that what we think is the electron is just a manifestation of a single something else. There is absolutely nothing in event horizons or nuclear phenomenon that contradicts that. It is the manifestation that changes or vanishes, the actual electron does not. Or would not if we assume the postulate and all that
              $endgroup$
              – Ville Niemi
              15 hours ago











              10












              $begingroup$

              Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



              As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              $endgroup$


















                10












                $begingroup$

                Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



                As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                $endgroup$
















                  10












                  10








                  10





                  $begingroup$

                  Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



                  As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$



                  Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



                  As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.







                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited yesterday





















                  New contributor




                  MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered yesterday









                  MacAMacA

                  1296




                  1296




                  New contributor




                  MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.























                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      Why not all properties? You "just" need to find the right fulcrum. Measurement techniques could be a good entry point.



                      Say you manage to change any of these universal constants, how does the universe react? Do you care to manage the consequences? What are you willing to invest?



                      Or do you adjust them only from your perspective? In my eye that resembles shifting into parallel dimensions. A bit broader than time travel in scope, similar in technology. Can you imagine the loneliness? Would you want to maintain your "sanity", once you're independent from all of humanity?



                      Perhaps you could arbitrarily expand your perspective before making the shift. Then again, is that how you want to occupy your time, with cosmic escapism? Maybe you have a very good reason.



                      I need more fart jokes. Good luck.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      $endgroup$









                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        The question is tagged hard science, but this answer doesn't satisfy the requirements.
                        $endgroup$
                        – L.Dutch
                        3 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        Fart jokes? Try here worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=fart
                        $endgroup$
                        – chasly from UK
                        2 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
                        $endgroup$
                        – Frostfyre
                        22 mins ago
















                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      Why not all properties? You "just" need to find the right fulcrum. Measurement techniques could be a good entry point.



                      Say you manage to change any of these universal constants, how does the universe react? Do you care to manage the consequences? What are you willing to invest?



                      Or do you adjust them only from your perspective? In my eye that resembles shifting into parallel dimensions. A bit broader than time travel in scope, similar in technology. Can you imagine the loneliness? Would you want to maintain your "sanity", once you're independent from all of humanity?



                      Perhaps you could arbitrarily expand your perspective before making the shift. Then again, is that how you want to occupy your time, with cosmic escapism? Maybe you have a very good reason.



                      I need more fart jokes. Good luck.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      $endgroup$









                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        The question is tagged hard science, but this answer doesn't satisfy the requirements.
                        $endgroup$
                        – L.Dutch
                        3 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        Fart jokes? Try here worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=fart
                        $endgroup$
                        – chasly from UK
                        2 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
                        $endgroup$
                        – Frostfyre
                        22 mins ago














                      0












                      0








                      0





                      $begingroup$

                      Why not all properties? You "just" need to find the right fulcrum. Measurement techniques could be a good entry point.



                      Say you manage to change any of these universal constants, how does the universe react? Do you care to manage the consequences? What are you willing to invest?



                      Or do you adjust them only from your perspective? In my eye that resembles shifting into parallel dimensions. A bit broader than time travel in scope, similar in technology. Can you imagine the loneliness? Would you want to maintain your "sanity", once you're independent from all of humanity?



                      Perhaps you could arbitrarily expand your perspective before making the shift. Then again, is that how you want to occupy your time, with cosmic escapism? Maybe you have a very good reason.



                      I need more fart jokes. Good luck.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      $endgroup$



                      Why not all properties? You "just" need to find the right fulcrum. Measurement techniques could be a good entry point.



                      Say you manage to change any of these universal constants, how does the universe react? Do you care to manage the consequences? What are you willing to invest?



                      Or do you adjust them only from your perspective? In my eye that resembles shifting into parallel dimensions. A bit broader than time travel in scope, similar in technology. Can you imagine the loneliness? Would you want to maintain your "sanity", once you're independent from all of humanity?



                      Perhaps you could arbitrarily expand your perspective before making the shift. Then again, is that how you want to occupy your time, with cosmic escapism? Maybe you have a very good reason.



                      I need more fart jokes. Good luck.







                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer






                      New contributor




                      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      answered 3 hours ago









                      WillemWillem

                      101




                      101




                      New contributor




                      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      New contributor





                      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      Willem is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.








                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        The question is tagged hard science, but this answer doesn't satisfy the requirements.
                        $endgroup$
                        – L.Dutch
                        3 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        Fart jokes? Try here worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=fart
                        $endgroup$
                        – chasly from UK
                        2 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
                        $endgroup$
                        – Frostfyre
                        22 mins ago














                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        The question is tagged hard science, but this answer doesn't satisfy the requirements.
                        $endgroup$
                        – L.Dutch
                        3 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        Fart jokes? Try here worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=fart
                        $endgroup$
                        – chasly from UK
                        2 hours ago










                      • $begingroup$
                        This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
                        $endgroup$
                        – Frostfyre
                        22 mins ago








                      1




                      1




                      $begingroup$
                      The question is tagged hard science, but this answer doesn't satisfy the requirements.
                      $endgroup$
                      – L.Dutch
                      3 hours ago




                      $begingroup$
                      The question is tagged hard science, but this answer doesn't satisfy the requirements.
                      $endgroup$
                      – L.Dutch
                      3 hours ago












                      $begingroup$
                      Fart jokes? Try here worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=fart
                      $endgroup$
                      – chasly from UK
                      2 hours ago




                      $begingroup$
                      Fart jokes? Try here worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=fart
                      $endgroup$
                      – chasly from UK
                      2 hours ago












                      $begingroup$
                      This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
                      $endgroup$
                      – Frostfyre
                      22 mins ago




                      $begingroup$
                      This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
                      $endgroup$
                      – Frostfyre
                      22 mins ago


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142353%2fthe-one-electron-universe-postulate-is-true-what-simple-change-can-i-make-to-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029