: I still don't really get it. I suppose if it's proven irl
: (in real life) then I'm gonna have to accept it but
: there is probably something different about a head
: rather than an electron. I'll stop arguing against
: your bring yourself into existence thing but how can
: you bring yourself into existence if their is no you
: to bring yourself into existence to start? It seems
: more likely to me that it was an electron that already
: existed that was taken (in the future) moved to
: another location and then sent back in time giving the
: appearance that an electron spontaneously appeared at
: the point it was moved to in the future. If that's not
: how it happened my theory can still never be disproven
: because it's always possible (however unlikely) that
: knowledge terrorists in the future are doing what I
: said and then sending electrons back in time to
: confuse experiments that they knew would later take
: place.
Sure there's a you to bring yourself into existence. It's the one you brought into existence. :-)
It's not like the alternative is much better. If everything is brought into existence by something else, then how can the entire universe have had a beginning? Unless it's infinitely old, it must have created itself. (I'm talking philosophy here, not physics.)
As for the electron thing--well, mathematically it works. Pair production and annihilation is a well-known phenomenon. There are other ways to interpret the process--the whole time-travel thing is just one way to conceptualize it--but what happens physically is well-established.
--SiliconDream
