• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        E=mc2 is the equation for how much energy is created by destroying a given amount of mass.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          No, E=mc2 demonstrates that mass and energy are one in the same. When converting mass to energy, nothing is being destroyed, merely changing state. As far as we are aware, the absolute destruction or removal of energy, and thereby matter, from the Universe is not possible.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You would need a positron to do that and all you might have done is reflect it backwards in time.

      If you could “remove” it by placing it into another dimension, it might disprove the theory, but the causal domain might be larger then previous assumed.

      This is one of those Math Theories that isn’t technically a Science Theory. We can make a mathematical model, but it’s untestable.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Careful, reality might just destroy you instead to avoid the paradox. I suspect that’s how it avoids all of the paradoxes if time travel is possible in a single timeline universe. And this idea isn’t compatible with the multiple timeline time travel idea (otherwise the electron will end up in a different timeline each time it jumps backwards).

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            That’s why it would fuck over causality. If I destroyed 1 that could be the natural end of the electrons “life” of bouncing back and forth through time. I would need to destroy a 2nd which would then have to be the same electron from earlier in it’s timeline.

            • iii@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              Ah, you’re viewing it as a timetravellers’ dilemma.

              My view was more that we’re an observer in the lagrangian solution to the differential equation we call life. The electron, being a constant in the equation. Remove the electron, you alter the equation, therefore destroying known life.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        To destroy every other quantum state of the single electron, wouldn’t you need to destroy it at its beginning state? The end state would be at/just after the heat death of the universe, so it wouldn’t really make any difference then.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          The end state doesn’t have to be at the end of time if the electron can travel backwards in time. It can go to the end, head back towards the beginning, and get destroyed somewhere in between.

          Strictly speaking it would have to get destroyed at some point, or at least have something stop it from going back and forth, otherwise the universe would be all electron.