Electron-Ness: Why Are All Electrons Identical?

Electronics (2)

Go to your nearby retailer and invest in a number of products of the exact same solution – say a package of 3 golf balls. Even though the golf balls seem identical, closer examination will reveal ever so slight variations. 1 ball perhaps fractionally bigger yet another ever so slightly much less spherical possibly the third is ever so slightly lighter. The generality that extends from this is that any two seemingly identical solutions will have nonetheless slight variations in their properties.

Now invest in a packet of 3 electrons (or their antimatter equivalent, the positron). Each and every electron, or positron, will be identical in size, mass and electric charge to as a lot of decimal locations as you care to measure. All electrons (and positrons) are 100% completely identical clones. Take a single electron and a single positron and bring them with each other. They annihilate releasing a fixed quantity of power. Take yet another electron and yet another positron and repeat the situation.

The pair will annihilate releasing an identical quantity of power in the procedure. The quantity of power released in every single electron-positron annihilation case is the exact same, to as a lot of decimal locations as you can measure. That is pretty in contrast to taking a match from a box of matches, striking exact same and releasing its stored chemical power as heat power. One more match from the exact same box would not release, to as a lot of decimal locations as you care to measure, the completely identical quantity of heat power. How come identical golf balls are not but identical electrons (or positrons) are?

Electrons (or positrons), obtaining mass, can be developed from power (just like mass can be converted to power as in the case of the electron-positron annihilation procedure). You (human intelligence) cannot build identical golf balls, but a seemingly non-intelligent organic procedure (Mother Nature by any other name) can build or make copies of a basic particle, like an electron (or positron), that are clones of a single yet another down to the nittiest-grittiest detail. Even with quantum mechanics in force, you’d consider power could build or be converted into an electron with twice the normal electron mass or twice the electric charge, or thrice even.

But no. You see a single electron you have noticed them all – every single electron that is, was or will be, anyplace, everywhere, anytime, every single time in our Universe. Electrons, like Black Holes, have no hair. That suggests they have no person character. In truth Black Holes can be stated to have some fuzz since they can and do differ in terms of size, mass and electric charge. Electrons have the precise exact same size, mass and electric charge, so completely no hair! Relative to Black Holes, electrons (and positrons) are completely bald!

Invoking all points quantum is nevertheless a bit of a cop-out in that when quantum suggests points are this or that, a single unit or two, a single power level or two power levels, there is no explanation as to why it is only a single or two, not a single &amp a half. It just is, but why remains a mystery. Why are all electrons (and positrons) identical?

1) Of course THE cop-out answer is that that is just the way God wanted it and no correspondence will be entered into with regards to the matter. However, there is no true proof for the existence of any deity previous and/or present that stands up to any detailed scrutiny.

2) 1 could resort to an explanation through string theory merged with quantum physics. String theory just replaces elementary particles as small billiard balls for elementary small bits of string (albeit not string as we know it).

Now perhaps, as in all points quantum, these strings can be a single unit in length, or two units, or 3 units, or 4 units, and so forth. Any constructive entire quantity many of a single string length is okay. Now say that a two length unit of string is an electron. A two unit length of anti-string is hence a positron. Or, a single can recommend that strings vibrate and can only vibrate at certain frequencies as any musician playing a stringed instrument knows. So, a string vibrating at a single permitted frequency is an electron if it vibrates at yet another allowable frequency perhaps that is a proton or a neutron. Once again, a vibrating anti-matter string would make manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron getting dependent upon a single of the allowable vibrating frequencies. Of the two possibilities, it is the vibration price theory that is preferred.

All strings are of the exact same basic length – their price of vibration can differ, but at precise intervals. What causes strings to vibrate at the price they do, and how they can adjust prices of vibration (morph from a single type of particle into other individuals) are inquiries superior left for yet another time. However, string theory has no credibility in terms of any actual experimental proof, and, to add insult to injury, it demands the postulation of ten to eleven dimensions in order to match the pieces with each other. If string theory gets some experimental runs on the board then, and only then, will it be time to take strings seriously.

3) Nicely, a single other feasible explanation is that all electrons are completely identical since there is only a single electron in actual existence. If you see the exact same object twice, thrice of a zillion occasions more than, then it is the exact same object and the truth that it is regularly identical is not a good mystery.

But how can the Universe include only a single electron? That appears to be the least clear statement any individual could ever make – the statement of a total wacko. Nicely, a single explanation goes one thing like this. Our a single electron has zipped back and forth involving the Alpha and Omega points once again, and once again, and once again. Now multiply ‘again’ by zillions upon zillions upon zillions of occasions. When you take a cross section at any ‘now’ point in time involving the Alpha and the Omega, there will be zillions upon zillions upon zillions of electrons visible ‘now’.

Uncomplicated, is not it? However, when there is no violation of physical laws at the micro level in travelling by means of time (apart from going forward at a price of a single second per second which we do no matter whether we like it or not), no precise causality mechanism has been proposed to clarify how and why an elementary particle shifts gear into time reverse (or forward once again). Back to the original query, why are all electrons identical? Or not, as the case may well be.

4) Probably in other parallel universes, ones that have distinctive physics, all electrons (if they have electrons at all) could possibly not be identical. That possibility is akin to asking about numbers of angels dancing on pinheads.

There is just no way of ever recognizing considering the fact that parallel universes are beyond the attain of science as we know it. But say every single member of the particle zoo weren’t identical to every single other member in type. Say electrons came in a thousand variations of mass and electric charge ditto the other elementary particles. You’d have a particle jungle. If that had been the case, presumably it would prove to be really tough to build identical atoms of the components and identical molecular compounds and in the end it would prove tough to make up the structure of our Universe as we know it, like us.

An analogy could possibly be that it is far less complicated to assemble a ten piece jigsaw puzzle and a single with a billion pieces. Our particle zoo appears to be a Goldilocks zoo – not also a lot of particles and variations thereof not to handful of either (I imply a universe composed of just identical electrons is equally as negative for life as we know it). Of course if that – the Goldilocks particle zoo – weren’t so, we would not be right here to ponder the concern. Moving on up the chain, assuming all members of the particle zoo are identical then atoms of any distinct element will have to be identical – if you have noticed a single gold atom, you have noticed them all (although owning them all is pretty a distinctive matter).

If components come in distinctive isotopes, then all the certain isotope atoms of that element are identical. Additional moving on up the chain, if identical atoms combine with other distinctive identical atoms, then presumably the resulting molecules will be identical. Although that is accurate, it is only accurate up to a point, since at some point you can get molecules that when seemingly identical, have handedness. That is, your hands, when identical, are not identical since a single has a left-handed orientation the other has a ideal-handed orientation. That is the point points get started to fall apart or break down. That apart, macro objects, like golf balls, are composed of millions of atoms and/or molecules. If a golf ball has a single extra, or a single much less molecule than yet another, properly the two are not identical.

5) Introducing the maths connection: Right here, there and everywhere, on a flat surface, the shortest distance involving two points is a straight line triangles have a sum total 180 degrees two + two = four. In every single case, it is so to as a lot of decimal locations as you care to calculate. Just about every 7 is identical to every single other 7 – no extra and no much less. That is accurate no matter whether or not a single is dealing with base ten, or in binary (base two). So what is the connection? All computer system generated simulations, in what ever context, for what ever goal, are in the end application applications, which in turn are just mathematical constructions. All you see are in the end expressions of maths, of binary bits, of 0’s and 1’s, one thing on or off. So if you simulate some object applying binary application programming, and you build yet another object applying the precise exact same binary application coding, then these two virtual objects are identical.

Now, get in touch with what you have simulated, ‘electrons’. So if all electrons are identical, perhaps it is since they are mathematical constructions – the finish solutions of computer system application/programming. In simulations, virtual objects can interact with other virtual objects (extra mathematical wizardry). Modify occurs. Nicely, that is what we observe in our reality also.

The query is, is our reality seriously true reality, or simulated reality? Are our electrons identical since every single is the solution of an identical piece of binary application programming? That may well not in the end be the answer, but it is an answer. Electrons are the exact same considering the fact that they are all constructed from the exact same mathematical entire cloth of binary bits – of 0’s and 1’s. Discussion: 1 may well argue that there are certainly variations involving electrons (and positrons), we just have not measured to sufficient decimal locations but. Although that could possibly be accurate, I personally would not want to bet on it. Conclusion: I began out with the query of why all electrons are identical. The answer is, I never know and neither, I suspect does any individual else. Nevertheless, the foundation of physics (itself the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded in maths, and maths, as noted above, has no trouble with the idea. All identical equations yield identical benefits the ‘equals’ sign itself demands identicalness.

Probably maths has extra basic ‘reality’ than any individual has provided it credit for. That is definitely the case if we must come about to be inhabiting a application generated, simulated Universe Postscript: The idea of identicalness can bring us into some weird scientific and philosophical territory. Two individuals examining the exact same object will not agree to the Nth degree that the object below consideration is the precise exact same object, an identical object, when compared from every single person’s point of view. Perception is in the end a function of brain chemistry and no two individuals have the precise exact same brain chemistry due to numerous aspects like genetics, age, physiology, illness, fatigue, and/or intakes of numerous strong, liquid and gaseous components and compounds that straight influence brain chemistry. The variations may well be seriously tiny and nitpicky but nonetheless present.

To take yet another case, if 3 court stenographers all record and transcribe a days worth of testimony, no doubt there will be (ever so) slight variations in the final 3 versions. Even the exact same particular person experiencing the exact same object or occasion a second, third, and so forth. time – say watching a film once again or listening to a CD track once again, will not have identical experiences, once again due to the internal brain chemistry getting slightly distinctive on every single occasion. That is apart from the truth that external influences like temperature, humidity, stress, and basic put on and tear (entropy) all influence that object or occasion and the atmosphere involving that object/occasion and the particular person experiencing the object/occasion. These external aspects also adjust from moment to moment.

People today although have a tendency to agree (brain chemistry not withstanding) on what an independent umpire says about an object or occasion – the independent umpire getting an instrument or measuring device. Instruments are of course also topic to external influences, but are not impacted by brain chemistry – they have no brains! Measurements have a tendency to be numerical, and numbers are quite straight forward.

Nevertheless, all measurements are topic to some uncertainty or error margins, particularly analogue devices like a ruler – is it 1.510 cm or 1.511 cm or 1.509 cm? Or a thermometer – is it reading 31.37 degrees or 31.38 degrees or 31.36 degrees? Or take a normal watch or clock – is it 12:00:00 or 12:00:01 or 11:59:59? Digital instruments nonetheless have readouts that have a finite quantity of locations in which to show the outcome, so they never have a tendency to give you a plus or minus uncertainty error bar. A digital instrument will readout that the length IS 1.510 cm the temperature IS 31.37 degrees the time IS 12:00:00, and absolutely everyone hunting at the readout will agree. In the case of an electron, the independent umpire offers the exact same numerical benefits for every single electron it measures.

Like it? Share with your friends!