Talk:One-electron universe

Criticism

It sounds like the one electron theory has been mostly tossed due to the fact that you need a positron for every electron or something similar to that. The article leaves the theory really "open" and if it's a dead theory, it should be indicated with a criticism section and the like. Krunchyman 3:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, unless neutrons house the positrons and neutrinos explain away the whole issue with anti-protons j/k 69.124.225.237 (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is talking about beta plus (β+) decay, a proton is converted to a neutron and the process creates a positron. Not taught in school simple beta decay. 2A00:1370:812D:F205:B0:521:1461:D126 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is obvious: nobody ever said the worldlines form a connected graph! In particular, you can have an electron and positron polarize from a vacuum and promptly annihilate. Their combined worldline is a loop disconnected from the other parts of the worldline tapestry - thereby immediately falsifying the hypothesis. The article needs published references on the topic ... along with published references on critical commentary. In its present form it is literally nothing more than telephone tag.

Aether

sounds like Wheeler and Feynman converted the Aether into an Electron Bvcrist 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

Modern physics allows considering the proton and the electron as the entry mouth and the exit mouth of the same gravitoelectric wormhole—see The Kerr singularity as a "toy" wormhole. If a particle is passed through a wormhole, the continuity equations for the electric field suggest that the field-lines should not be broken. By this argument, when an electrical charge passes through a wormhole, the particle's charge field-lines appear to emanate from the entry mouth and the exit mouth gains a charge deficit. For mass, the entry mouth gains mass and the exit mouth gets a mass deficit. That is why when the electron is moving backwards in time, it appears as a proton. This eliminates all objections against the theory of the one-electron universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.6.123 (talk) on 06:06, 16 September 2010

note that "proton" and "positron" is not the same thing. if you don't know that, maybe you shouldn't be going around spreading your "theories". 92.196.3.28 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsential

The statement sounds like nonsential. Regarding indistinguishable particles as one or as many is more like a philosophical matter of taste, because if there are X parameter in which elementary particles distinguish themselves and Y parameters in which they're similar, which parameters do we wish to be same to establish sameness? Position and speed use to be distinguishing parameters identifying separateness, but quantum physicists are generally known to deviate from culturally established norms that are prob irrelevant and detremental for their science.

The question is whether or not this article represents a physical theory that makes predictions distinguishable from alternate theories predictions. Otherwise it's kind of an emotional-bliss-statement and not very usable.

The article should try to uplift distinguishability predictions for the reader. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article fails to clarify this, but i'm guessing this is maybe a historical precursor to "the electron field". electrons being the fundamental excitations of that field all look the same (indeed component of feynman's quantum field theory of electrodynamics (QED) for which he got the nobel prize). 92.196.3.28 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "nonsential" mean? That's a nonsensical word. Xardox (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to expand the article

In Feynman's Nobel lecture, he doesn't clearly state what happened to this theory. I did not succeed in finding a full description of the hypothesis in any standard works of physics. Here is a Google search that might be of use: [1].Unfortunately most of the Google hits are in popular books and don't take the theory much beyond the anecdote level.

There is a paper by Ord and Gualtieri that somebody might study to see if it's worth mentioning in the article. It's not a review, however:

"The Feynman Propagator from a Single Path". Physical Review Letters. 89 (25). 16 December 2002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.250403. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

— EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, one answer may be, as i pointed out above, look at the lagrangian of QED. it contains an electron/positron field. electrons are excitations of that field, that look/behave like the particles we know. in that sense one might say "all electrons are one (electron field)". 92.196.3.28 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How not to expand the article

Bizarre speculation on the human Internet have no place in a scientific article, whether or not it proves as notable as Star Trek. And even a professor's theories need commenting on by an independent reliable source (WP:RS) before we can discuss them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question now remains, is Coyne's work notable? Can that independent RS be found? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed all mention of Coyne's theories from the article in this edit. If Coyne's theories are notable, they probably need an article of their own: this article should not be a WP:COATRACK for introducing them to Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the last elements of WP:SYN from the article, and removing its dependence on one giant Feynman quote that risks being a copyright violation, leaves very little of the original article. I'd like to see it expanded from here, but only using WP:RS, instead of synthesis from charry-picked quotes and random stuff off the Internet. The Ord and Gualtieri paper might be a useful source, but I don't have full-text access to it at the moment.

I see that User:89.110.21.5 has had a go at inserting a reference to this in Dark matter as well: it might be a good idea to check if they have touched any other physics-related articles from any of their many IP addresses. -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed references from Wormhole and Technological singularity. There was also one in Electrical treeing which had already been removed. Looking at what links here I didn't see any other obvious candidates. Actually, this article would almost be an orphan if it weren't for Template:Richard Feynman. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. I can't think of anything other than the Feynman connection that makes this theory notable - more's the pity though, it's a lovely notion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly notable in terms of the last quote I've just added to the article: Feynman credits Wheeler with giving him the insight that antiparticles can be represented as reversed world lines. -- The Anome (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this article has previously been semi-protected against IP sockpuppet fruitloopery, This SPI archive might point to some other articles worth checking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given their MO and long history of activity, I've extended the semiprotection on this article to indefinite, as it seems to have been a central part of their idosyncratic grand synthesis of theories. -- The Anome (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and expanded

I think we've cleared out all the unusual material from this article, and got back to the Feynman/Wheeler story. I've also pulled in and adapted some text from Retrocausality that I hope is consistent with the theme of the rest of the article, and adds extra depth. -- The Anome (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job, thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oveview?

You guys might want to correct this spelling error, I'd do it myself if it wasn't protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.27.92 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One-particle universe

All particles are one, with their constituent components (quantum noise of the void) travelling backwards and forwards in space-time.

That's correct, but a childish way to speak about the only true particle. A probabilistic "grain" of quantum noise (this thing doesn't exist, it only constitutes all other things). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410D:8D00:ADDD:53CD:76EA:8769 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you draw out the Feynman diagrams... single electronic theory becomes vanishing small

if you do just a few particles and draw out the feynann diagrams the number of diagrams in which there is only a single electron going back and forth in time, versus diagrams where there are.more than one, that ratio diminishes exponentially as the number of particles increases.

I can't be the first person that thought of this. is there material about this that we can include? 2600:387:C:5511:0:0:0:5 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]