Talk:One-electron universe

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Current status

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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: .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:
* 
— EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How to expand the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Excellent job, thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed and expanded 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oveview? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  One-particle universe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  if you draw out the Feynman diagrams... single electronic theory becomes vanishing small