The One-Electron Universe postulate is true - what simple change can I make to change the whole universe?If universe has an end/boundary, what else exists after the boundary?What if we lived near a boundary of the universe?Can you just wait out the heat death of the universe?Lost in the multiverse: how to find home?What objects can be found in the universe when all the stars are gone?What would a world be like with cross dimensional contact?How small can the universe be while still appearing infinite?What would shake a galaxy and what would shake the universe?How to detect that the universe got mirrored?The mass of an economically feasible non-microscopic traversable wormhole

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

Are Warlocks Arcane or Divine?

What does the "3am" section means in manpages?

Why are on-board computers allowed to change controls without notifying the pilots?

Is the next prime number always the next number divisible by the current prime number, except for any numbers previously divisible by primes?

Fast sudoku solver

My boss asked me to take a one-day class, then signs it up as a day off

Greatest common substring

Why are all the doors on Ferenginar (the Ferengi home world) far shorter than the average Ferengi?

How to check participants in at events?

Have I saved too much for retirement so far?

Why isn't KTEX's runway designation 10/28 instead of 9/27?

Bob has never been a M before

node command while defining a coordinate in TikZ

Is a naturally all "male" species possible?

Is there an wasy way to program in Tikz something like the one in the image?

Simple image editor tool to draw a simple box/rectangle in an existing image

What is the term when two people sing in harmony, but they aren't singing the same notes?

What should I use for Mishna study?

What (else) happened July 1st 1858 in London?

Pronouncing Homer as in modern Greek

Superhero words!

How to prevent YouTube from showing already watched videos?

Freedom of speech and where it applies

Simulating a probability of 1 of 2^N with less than N random bits



The One-Electron Universe postulate is true - what simple change can I make to change the whole universe?


If universe has an end/boundary, what else exists after the boundary?What if we lived near a boundary of the universe?Can you just wait out the heat death of the universe?Lost in the multiverse: how to find home?What objects can be found in the universe when all the stars are gone?What would a world be like with cross dimensional contact?How small can the universe be while still appearing infinite?What would shake a galaxy and what would shake the universe?How to detect that the universe got mirrored?The mass of an economically feasible non-microscopic traversable wormhole













5












$begingroup$



The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:



“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe




The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.



Assume that the postulate is true.



Question



Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$


This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    2 hours ago
















5












$begingroup$



The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:



“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe




The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.



Assume that the postulate is true.



Question



Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$


This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    2 hours ago














5












5








5





$begingroup$



The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:



“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe




The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.



Assume that the postulate is true.



Question



Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$





The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a
telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises
that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a
single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to
Feynman:



“ I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at
Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know
why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?"
"Because, they are all the same electron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe




The supposition is that there is only one electron. It stands to reason that if I could change that electron, I could change the properties of the whole Universe.



Assume that the postulate is true.



Question



Given foreseeable science, what properties of a single electron could be changed? In theory, could we change the charge? Could we change the mass?







hard-science universe






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









chasly from UKchasly from UK

18.4k778164




18.4k778164



This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.




This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    2 hours ago













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
    $endgroup$
    – Gryphon
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    2 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
3 hours ago





$begingroup$
We need an Universebuilding.SE - Oh, wait, it's called Physics. You will get the inevitable - "no, it's not possible because we exist" answers.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
3 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Agrajag "Hardly ever sarcastic", eh?
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
3 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
If the postulate is true, then you can’t change an electron. Because many of the electrons around you at present are the future forms of the electron you’re planning to change, thus proving that you didn’t change it.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
I am almost certain that this hard science question uses the word "theory" with a meaning different from the meaning it has in hard sciences...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
3 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
2 hours ago





$begingroup$
@chaslyfromUK Some are past, some are future. You’d expect a roughly 50/50 ratio on average.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
2 hours ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
    $endgroup$
    – chasly from UK
    2 hours ago


















4












$begingroup$

Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142353%2fthe-one-electron-universe-postulate-is-true-what-simple-change-can-i-make-to-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    9












    $begingroup$

    This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



    You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



    So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
      $endgroup$
      – chasly from UK
      2 hours ago















    9












    $begingroup$

    This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



    You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



    So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
      $endgroup$
      – chasly from UK
      2 hours ago













    9












    9








    9





    $begingroup$

    This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



    You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



    So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    This universe is fundamentally impossible, since some electrons have their worldlines terminated in a black hole. Without a full working model of quantum gravity, we can't make any firm predictions about what happens to such electrons, other than the singularity is likely to end their existence. The black hole will inherit the charge, mass and angular momentum, but lose all the electron-ness of the particle's information (no hair theorem).



    You can also have electrons terminated in beta capture events (which turns a proton into a neutron and the electron stops existing).



    So, there won't be anything you can change, because there won't be just one electron. The model is completely incompatible with current understanding of physics.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 3 hours ago









    tylisirntylisirn

    51923




    51923







    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
      $endgroup$
      – chasly from UK
      2 hours ago












    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      3 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
      $endgroup$
      – chasly from UK
      2 hours ago







    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Not to mention that beta decay produces electrons (or positrons) de novo, guaranteed to have had no prior existence.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    3 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
    $endgroup$
    – chasly from UK
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    I like the phrase, "This universe is basically impossible", I must say I frequently think that. If I wasn't living in it I wouldn't believe it.
    $endgroup$
    – chasly from UK
    2 hours ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



    As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$

















      4












      $begingroup$

      Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



      As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



        As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$



        Whether the Wheeler postulate is true or not, under the known laws of physics, you can't change any of the properties of an electron. Mass, charge, spin, magnetic moment, etc. are all intrinsic properties. They are not mutable by any known (or even to the best of my knowledge hypothesized) mechanism.



        As to the postulate itself, as pointed out in comments and in tylisrn's answer, there are strong reasons to not believe that the Wheeler postulate is true. In addition to problems with any mechanism that results in the creation or destruction of a lone electron or positron, the Wheeler postulate runs into difficulties in explaining the observed imbalance of matter and anti-matter. If a single electron is zipping backwards and forwards through time, we should see it moving backwards as often we see it moving forwards. This would imply equal numbers of electrons and positrons, which we simply do not observe.







        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago





















        New contributor




        MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 2 hours ago









        MacAMacA

        414




        414




        New contributor




        MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        MacA is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142353%2fthe-one-electron-universe-postulate-is-true-what-simple-change-can-i-make-to-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            KFNGP 114 zqcdIf7R,UXI,a32,EvlsSr,gHU8LXxFPAQDrGu,LKkxD,6
            wIPoValhuCthluYWx5awKD,sdad7,h C,ZqmBLWbtKceLxAo 3h88TBYL tIEGsV0J Yt,rX FSK,3RnGzJHcbilWjCX5udB

            Popular posts from this blog

            Creating centerline of river in QGIS? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Finding centrelines from polygons in QGIS?Splitting line into two lines with GRASS GIS?Centroid of the equator and a pointpostgis: problems creating flow direction polyline; not all needed connections are drawnhow to make decent sense from scattered river depth measurementsQGIS Interpolation on Curved Grid (River DEMs)How to create automatic parking baysShortest path creation between two linesclipping layer using query builder in QGISFinding which side of closest polyline point lies on in QGIS?Create centerline from multi-digitized roadway lines Qgis 2.18Getting bathymetric contours confined only within river banks using QGIS?

            What is the result of assigning to std::vector::begin()? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat are the differences between a pointer variable and a reference variable in C++?What does the explicit keyword mean?Concatenating two std::vectorsHow to find out if an item is present in a std::vector?Why is “using namespace std” considered bad practice?What is the “-->” operator in C++?What is the easiest way to initialize a std::vector with hardcoded elements?What is The Rule of Three?What are the basic rules and idioms for operator overloading?Why are std::begin and std::end “not memory safe”?