wsmith@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/20/86)
Postulate a new universe with elementary particles that look, smell and taste like our electrons, quarks, photons etc. The difference is that charge is a normal random variable in time with mean the same as our mean for each particle and a standard deviation of for a particle of charge q, 10^-6*q. Would such a universe have noticible differences from our own? What if the 10^-6 were changed to 10^-3? The charge for each electron would be varying randomly as a function of time. Bill Smith ihnp4!uiucdcs!wsmith
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/24/86)
In article <10800018@uiucdcsb> wsmith@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >Postulate a new universe with elementary particles that look, smell and taste >like our electrons, quarks, photons etc. The difference is that charge >is a normal random variable in time with mean the same as our mean for >each particle and a standard deviation of for a particle of charge q, >10^-6*q. > >Would such a universe have noticible differences from our own? What if >the 10^-6 were changed to 10^-3? > >The charge for each electron would be varying randomly as a function of time. The immediate answer is, you've broken charge conservation, so atoms would blow apart, etc. A better answer is, it isn't permissible to postulate arbitrary changes like this. Charge conservation is linked to other physical principles; everything is deeply intertwingled (to quote Ted Nelson). Here's another, only slightly less off-the-wall question: Suppose all charges could "simultaneously" (ignore relativity for a moment) be doubled. Would the resulting universe look any different? If you don't like this formulation, then replace "charges" with "local vacuum light speeds".
breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (03/25/86)
||Postulate a new universe with elementary particles that look, smell and taste ||like our electrons, quarks, photons etc. The difference is that charge ||is a normal random variable in time with mean the same as our mean for ||each particle and a standard deviation of for a particle of charge q, ||10^-6*q. ||Would such a universe have noticible differences from our own? | |The immediate answer is, you've broken charge conservation, so |atoms would blow apart, etc. A better answer is, it isn't |permissible to postulate arbitrary changes like this. Charge |conservation is linked to other physical principles; everything |is deeply intertwingled (to quote Ted Nelson). I think this reply is untenable. You are extrapolating from current physical theories into a realm to which they are not applicable anymore. First of all, it is not clear to me at all that we would, or even could, rule out experimentally that the unit charge is changing randomly within a very small standard deviation. It seems to me that all measurements of charge are purely statistical in nature, due to technical constraints on measurement setups, and, ultimately, due to the constraints of quantum mechanics. I am not saying that, in principle, you could not devise an experiment that limited the standard deviation of the unit charge arbitrarily; I'm saying that probably nobody has thought about it or done such an experiment@. I *think*, however, that it is impossible, *in principle* to prove that the unit charge doesn't vary at all (rather than just limiting the standard deviation with which it could vary). Secondly, from a purely theoretical point of view, there is no reason whatsoever, that our current physics might not be a statistical physics in the same way that classical thermodynamics or classical mechanics is. Altogether, I would say that, not only are interesting universes conceivable whose physical laws include a randomly varying unit charge@@, there is no reason to rule out that *our* universe is one of those. Thomas. @ before you reply to this point, think carefully whether the experiment you have in mind really limits the standard deviation of the mean value of the unit charge, or whether it limits the (possible) standard deviation of individual unit charges around the measured mean. However, there are probably good arguments about an upper limit to the standard deviation of individual unit charges that one can make on the basis of current experimental facts. If \sigma were 2e, for example, things would probably start to look wrong even macroscopically... @@ there are various find points about the meaning of 'random', 'interesting' vs. 'existing' universes, &c. in this statements that may need some more explanation... perhaps when the misinterpretations start, we can talk about them...
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/25/86)
>|The immediate answer is, you've broken charge conservation, so >|atoms would blow apart, etc. A better answer is, it isn't >|permissible to postulate arbitrary changes like this. Charge >|conservation is linked to other physical principles; everything >|is deeply intertwingled (to quote Ted Nelson). I stand by my previous statement. Rather than get into an interminable arguing match with Bruehl, let me point out that he has a rather different view of what physical laws are. To me, no single aspect of physical reality is independent of all the others; a complete theory has to interlink all aspects of physical behavior. This means that if one contemplates a modification to charge conservation, as proposed, then the rest of the theoretical structure is also affected. It may even be possible that such a change would result in an irreparable inconsistency in the overall structure. It is incumbent on the proposer of a theoretical change to reconcile it with the framework of known laws; it's a waste of time trying to analyze the effect of breaking a known symmetry out of context. Accuracy of measurement has nothing to do with my point.