Is there just ONE ELECTRON in the universe?! (spoiler: no)

[@DeltaDemon1]

He was going to make a time travel joke...But he ran out of time.

[@noway8233]

Dont play in the quatum lottery , they always change the numbers when the masere them😊

[@Irondragon1945]

"Dont forget to like and subscribe" -Richard Feynmann

[@Jouzou87]

Surely, he must be joking.

[@guitarslim69]

😂

[@ParticleClara]

Brilliant explanation and video!! I always look forward to the next one ☺️

[@FundamentallyExplained]

Thank you! 😃

[@ParticleClara]

Also, I'm afraid your timetravel joke broke causality. I laughed 😄

[@capnam_12]

Love your videos!

[@ikemeitz5287]

great video! I like the animations!

[@glarynth]

Similarly, there's only one Olsen twin

[@FundamentallyExplained]

Aaaaah, I see what you did there 😏🤓

[@dirremoire]

Student: Can you explain electrons to me? Physics Teacher: Sure, electrons are.. um..er..Hey look! There goes a Higgs Boson!!

[@FundamentallyExplained]

Me: What? WHERE?! 😮

[@MrJimbissle]

Excellent explanation. Ending with Feynmann ? Beautiful ! Subd

[@NiteTrain345]

Me too.

[@connordelaney6254]

HES BACK LETS GO

[@kasumimori1798]

The problem with the imbalance of matter and antimatter debunk is that we only observe much less antimatter in comparison to matter... however, the observable universe is much, much less than the entire universe, over the period where humans have been observing it. It is hubris to say that the Observable Universe is a truly accurate representation of the entire universe... any more than the Milky Way galaxy is a truly accurate representation of the entire universe. There are not nearly as many stars per cubic parsec between the Milky Way and Andromeda as there are within either of those galaxies themselves. The undeniable truth is that we DO NOT KNOW how much antimatter there is in the universe, because we have never and can never observe the entire universe... not even a quarter of it, and statistics is not a good tool for declaring something impossible.

[@armantas8846]

another fact that would disagree with one electron universe is that electrons don't all have same spins, they can be in spin +1/2 or spin -1/2 and if you placed them in magnetic field they can either be in high energy state or low energy state, so if all electrons are one electron, that would constantly for no reason at all switching its spin, and that would violate conservation of energy law.

[@AlbornozVEVO]

but what if half±1 of the electrons we're observing are actually positrons but due to quantum dynamics we can't tell unless measured?

[@reynalindstrom2496]

Exactly!!! Is the "Quantum Dynamics" who are messing everywhere with oss! Love from Sweden 💛💙

[@apothecurio]

we also are using our 3d space to claim there are imbalances. No thought to if the entire structure actually is consistent.

[@nzuckman]

Ok, hear me out: what if the standard model is wrong and all the "matter" we see in the universe is actually composed of equal parts of matter and antimatter? John Wheeler somewhat jokingly suggested that all the missing positrons could actually be "hiding" inside protons, but I think his idea deserves more interrogation. Earnest Sternglass wrote a fascinating paper in the 1960s where he correctly predicted the masses and lifetimes of pions and muons by describing them as composites of electrons and positrons. You should give his work a look! I know it contradicts the idea that protons and neutrons are made of quarks, but I've always felt that quarks may just be a useful fiction, considering QCD says it's strictly impossible to directly observe a single quark in isolation.

[@FundamentallyExplained]

Sounds cool 🙂 I have not heard of this, but I will certainly have a look! Though I must say: the "idea" that protons and neutrons are made of quarks is a bit more than an idea; quarks are actually observed in nature. It *sounds* like it would very much contradict most of the physics studied at the LHC, but I might be wrong of course (as said: I have not read about the idea), so if I turn out to be, I'll definitely let you know 😄

[@nzuckman]

@@FundamentallyExplained wonderful! Could you elaborate on how quarks have been observed? I know particle collider data is consistent with the predictions of QCD, but I don't think that's the same as a direct observation of an isolated quark... As far as I understand, quark confinement makes it so that no single quark can be observed on its own. They only exist within baryons and mesons because the amount of energy you'd need to separate a quark from the composite is enough to create new quark-antiquark pairs. I know there's a slight caveat with top quark, which can decay so quickly that it doesn't hadronize, but I think my issue still stands because that also implies there is no time for the top quark to interact with any detector.

[@franck3279]

I guess it could be fun to see how this theory explains the weak nuclear force. After all, it takes quite sole guts to go against a model that brings unmatched numeric accuracy of predictions.

[@nzuckman]

@@franck3279 that's actually something I've been thinking about a lot! Part of what draws me to this particular model is that it suggests that unstable particles are actually composed of their decay products. It makes particle physics analogous to chemistry - you wouldn't say that O2 and H2 annihilate to create H2O, the atoms just rearrange themselves into new molecules! So one idea I've been considering is that weak nuclear decay could be associated with an imbalance in the center of mass for a particle. First, consider the π0: it is only known to decay electromagnetically, into 2 γ, 1 γ and 1 e- and 1 e+, 2 e- and 2 e+, or 1 e- and 1 e+. This makes a lot of sense if the π0 is a relativistic e- e+ pair. They could directly annihilate into 2 γ, or separate; when they separate, the kinetic energy from the orbit could create 1 γ, create an e- and e+, or be carried away as the kinetic energy of the original e- and e+. Because the π0 is made of two particles with equal mass, the center of mass is exactly in the center of the orbit and has no motion in the π0's rest frame. Now let's examine the neutron (n0): it decays weakly into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino. Setting aside the notions of the standard model, this led me to consider the idea that the neutron has a similar structure to the π0, but with a proton instead of a positron. A semiclassical picture has the electron moving in a precessing, elliptical orbit around the proton. The precession of the orbit carries hbar/2 of angular momentum, and the eccentricity of the orbit causes the neutron's center of mass to slightly wobble around the proton's center of mass as the electron moves closer and farther away. I think the angular momentum of the precession and the motion of the center of mass could be identified with the neutrino, or at least the origin of the neutrino's angular momentum, in the same way that the kinetic energy of the e- and e+ in the π0 can create an extra γ and e- and e+. I still need to flesh out the details of this idea before I can turn it into anything the academic community would seriously consider, but for now this is just a rough sketch based on my intuition.

[@FundamentallyExplained]

It is true that isolated quarks have never been observed, but in the same way that the you can find out atoms are mostly just a cloud of electron by shooting high energetic particles at it, it is also possible to detect the substructure of protons. In other words: you can detect the quarks inside a proton or neutron. These experiments are called deep inelastic scattering experiments, you can read more about them here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering.

[@hai.1820]

Thanks, Feynmann was a great guy!

[@ycajal]

Please keep up your great work❤❤

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

Thanks for your interesting video. Area under a curve is often equivalent to energy. Buckling of an otherwise flat field shows a very rapid growth of this area to a point. If my model applies, it may show how the universe’s energy naturally developed from the inherent behavior of fields. Your subscribers might want to see this 1:29 minutes video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced. The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Containing the column must come in to play before over buckling, or the effect will not work. The sheet of elastic material “system”response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( ie peeks and troughs) of the fields “sheet” produced a stable structure when the undulations are bonded to a flat sheet that is placed above and below the core material. Some say this model is no different than plucking guitar strings. You can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. kzbin.info/www/bejne/raOlpKSfepWpfZYsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 At this time in my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed that is produced before phase change. In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, can produce a “U” shape or square wave form. Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here too? If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps between energy levels. The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my LinkedIn and KZbin pages. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in some school essay folders. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!

[@franck3279]

To every problem, there is a simple, elegant and perfectly wrong answer.

[@seekvapes9641]

The universe doesn't contain only electron and photons, it also has nucleons. So what about inverse beta decay aka positron capture? What if all those missing positrons just turned a bunch of neutrons into protons? We have about the number of these as electrons. Somehow, the nature would have to preffer to only keep positive nucleii and negative leptons, some kind of broken symmetry that would explain the lack of antiatoms.

[@zachary7032]

DUDE WHAT IF THE POSITRONS ARE ALL SOMEHOW HIDDEN INSIDE THE PROTONS? No, I did not come up with this idea. How can you not read the entirety of the conversation between Wheeler and Feynman before writing, animating and editing a 9-minute video? Too much output with insufficient input from your brain

[@elizabethreyna8354]

On thing i do not understand is why it is said that the interection between two electrons is mediated by photons. Are those photons real or virtual? . I am asking you that because it is said that a particule in movement radiates real photon, so why theninteraction between two electron will only be by virtual photons of they are also moving to get in contact. For example contact heat tranfer vs radiation heat transfer. Does contact trasfer is by virtual photons and radiation tranfer is by real photons? How is it possible. Sorry for my english i am foreing. Excelent chane

[@franck3279]

What I understood of Feinman view on the subject is that the real interaction is the sum of all possible individual interaction multiplied by their probability (fortunately, most of them cancel each other out). The thing is, you can’t see this situation with classical mechanic googles. The electron does not spontaneously emit photons here (it would mean it bleeds it energy out, which is not the case), but is surrounded by a field of potential interactions (modeled by virtual photons). When 2 of those fields overlap enough, an interaction will actually happen, resuling in a photon that is both real (it caries energy between those electrons) and just the average of an infinity of virtual interactions. So, in a way, it’s jot the photon that causes the interaction, but it’s the other way around.

[@elizabethreyna8354]

@@franck3279 thanks a lot it help me a lot. So while talking avout electormanetic radiation or heat transfer radiation those are real photon ? I mean is it because they are not so close enough to consider them in contact? My question is in the context that how is it the enough distance to consider qe are tranfering heat by radiation or contact? Because if i am in a near a hot body , it is said that contact never happens because the repulsion EM force, so if i am not touching that body in real, the way of transmiting heat must be still radiation but in a very close and short distance ? That means ithe heat body is sending me real o virtual photons? Hope you can help me and undestand my question 🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@NiteTrain345]

IIRC, QED describes them as virtual photons.

[@elizabethreyna8354]

@@NiteTrain345 so what virtual photons mean ?

[@NiteTrain345]

@@elizabethreyna8354 Mathmatical artifacts.

[@skit555]

Love it!

[@rogerkearns8094]

I was going to make a time travel joke, but people laughed first so, to fool them - _I didn't!_

[@TojosWizzyWorld]

You said that electrons are waves in a field, like a pool, and that this is why all electrons are same. BUT, in a pool, waves can be different sizes, which drastically effects the properties of the wave: a 10cm wave might be fun to play with, yet a 30m tsunami can wreak havoc on a beach or city. Similarly, different sizes of waves in the electron field should cause electrons with different properties(a small electron wave would not interact with the Higgs field as much as a large electron wave, causing the 2 to have different masses). So why doesn’t this happen?

[@NiteTrain345]

IIRC, the Higgs Field only explains the masses of the W and Z bosons.

[@TojosWizzyWorld]

Still, I don’t understand why electrons don’t have different properties due to wavelength size. Can you explain this?

[@itzani8051]

Love from India

[@RicardoAlcalaReynaud]

What if the lines extend infinitely to the past and the future?

[@grantjohnston7148]

Except it has nothing to do with time travel. A one electron universe means that particle is traveling so fast that it appears to be traveling forward and backwards in time. There is no sure method of knowing how much anti matter there is in our known Universe, especially when they've just discovered our known Universe is much bigger than originally thought to be. Also, one electron universe is quite literally the only explanation for spooky action at a distance !

[@esperanzawright284]

we find no positron doesn’t mean they are no exist

[@WAMTAT]

What if the one electron was the friends we made along the way?

[@philiphunt-bull5817]

Understood, there are two electrons.

[@spitsmuis4772]

Why is this video about electrons? Does the "they're all the same" part not hold for other fundamental particles?

[@FundamentallyExplained]

You are completely correct! The video could also have been about there being just one up quark or just one muon neutrino; the idea and message would remain the same. Still, the one-electron universe is a relatively well-known concept (in that it actually has its own wikipedia page), while the concept of a "one-W-boson universe" definitely isn't. I do make a statement along the lines of your comment in the video WHY ARE ALL ELECTRONS THE SAME? though ^^. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIrPk5hsj66Iqbc

[@spitsmuis4772]

@@FundamentallyExplained Well indeed, and I never understood why the "one-W-boson universe" is not a concept. It's as if there is something crucial about the electron that I was missing. Nobody talking about one-electron universe seems to touch this, but I will watch your video now :)

[@FundamentallyExplained]

O, there is nothing crucially different about electrons! It's just: the antimatter equivalent of electrons was discovered first. I guess the argument was deemed unlikely by the time other antimatter particles were discovered, or that the name one-electron universe just stuck as the name for the concept in general. As to why *I* am (still) calling it the one-electron universe: the ugly truth is that waaaay more people are familiar with electrons than with w-bosons, muons, neutrinos and quarks. If I would have named the video "is there just one charm quark in the universe?!" I am afraid most people would not be watching it because they don't know what a charm quark is in the first place :$... It's a bit of an ugly (or at least: unscientific) argument, but I think there is a truth to it. Your comment is absolutely valid, though, but the "debunk" in this video still holds ;-)

[@zionsky3342]

So what your saying is, the only evidence it isn't is because we can't see the same amount of antimatter?? Hmm... i dunno, maybe there is an equal amount and we can't observe it...

[@MisterZalgo]

But….but…. It’s so much cooler if it’s 1 time traveling electron! :p

[@jensraab2902]

Let me preface the following with saying that I think the one-electron idea sounds completely bonkers and I have a hard time considering it to be true. That said, I don't find your falsification convincing because it relies on there being a negligible amount of antimatter compared with matter. Sure, it looks like that but can we know that this is true in the entire universe? Maybe you have addressed this is in your video on antimatter already but I guess it is theoretically possible that matter and antimatter has been separated into different regions of the universe (perhaps during the inflations phase of the early universe). I'm not sure what the latest hypotheses are, or whether there are actual theories, to explain the seeming or actual imbalance between matter and antimatter. There are probably other options than the one I mentioned. I wonder if any of these have any impact on this crazy idea of the one-electron universe.

[@juliavixen176]

There should be somewhere in the universe where the electrons and positrons will collide and emit a 1.24x10^20 Hz gamma ray... and we don't see anywhere in the universe to be glowing with gamma rays in this frequency range.

[@juliavixen176]

I think the leading theory about why there's more matter than antimatter is because the weak force is not symmetric, so things like beta decay will actually depend on whether a particle has a clockwise or counterclockwise spin (relative to what it's interacting with).

[@phantomblindsight907]

then it would be the "entire universe"

[@SK-rs5wn]

😂 Love it so much for this video too!

[@JavierSalcedoC]

Feynman was the GOAT

[@muuubiee]

Hear me out. What if it's 2 electrons instead?

[@TheRealGauravBhandari]

What if the One Piece is the Electron?

[@noway8233]

The electron must have infinite speed for work and go back in time as positron 😊 but its an Stupid funny idea😊

[@lewis7515]

Before the thing even starts, it's a whole minute devoted to a painful little routine, torturing one lame gag... That's probably a habit to avoid if you value engagement and views.

[@2010RSHACKS]

Spoiler: we don’t know

[@qenisharrit]

the theory does not say that the electron travels back in time midway between the begining and ending of univers. the theroy takes in account the moment of creation after bigbang and its complete path till the end, where it is funneled back to the moment of creation again. so any point in the "world line" you meassure the electric charge for us it will be constant relative to the number of electrones are there, becouse we happen to live in this world line. BTW i came here with hopes to entertain myself and got realy disapointed at your cheap take on this matter.

[@jkugler1776]

Definitely only one

[@jaca2899]

Armin Arareruto

[@javierlagos5555]

Plus with positrons it dosent conserve mass🤓 And what if electrons go back to the start of the universe so there isnt a difference on mass o charge?😴

[@FundamentallyExplained]

Allow me to blow your mind: mass is actually not conserved 🤯. It is possible to convert energy into mass and the other way around using E=mc^2 😮!

[@brandyraccoon1473]

@@FundamentallyExplained As Javier conjectures, the difference in charge is only if the electron does its u-turn during a presumed "regular" time frame. But it does not include extremely long time frames such as at (or before) the big bang or after the big crunch.

[@franck3279]

What I would point out is why woukd there be roughly the same number of electrons that there are protons and not an infinity?

[@NiteTrain345]

Maybe there is an infinite number of electrons, the question is where are the positrons.

[@DrunkJester]

Breaking News! James Webb has done it again it has proved there is only 1 electron. Don't ask how, if James says so it is so. 😂 ❤&✌️

[@killianobrien2007]

Maybe the theory isnt well known, your audience is just too niche in itself

[@Tim-Kaa]

What if all positrons are located in the unobservable part of our universe which already expanded beyond our detection?

[@ronaldjorgensen6839]

model entire universe on electron then substitute tesla electron bias and as by mujik see there is only energetic field /particles exist between 6-8 Hertzian scale physics outside the box operations of all in one electronic Bunsen burner / string theory or else go play with hyperion widget spinner for good math practice

[@sveu3pm]

so you are right and everybody else is idiots. we get it.