What do you want, a video of electrons interacting with gamma rays? You are asking for the impossible. The Standard Model says that things behave as I have described, and it is the best theory in history; If that isn't good enough for you, then nothing can be.
This cannot be observed; but if we assume that it occurs, our theory produces predictions that match our observations; and if we assume it does not occur, our theory produces predictions that do not match our observations.
Asking for an observation to back up your claim is perfectly valid. Without one it isn't a provable claim.
You are claiming that particles do not exist in time. You are saying the universe is not disturbed when the number of particles is suddenly increased as would happen if I suddenly went back in time.
The problem is particles existing scattered all around and those same particles participating in the chemistry that is me, and doing so at the exact same time. And doing so at my whim as if I control the activity of all particles in the universe. I don't think the problem is solved by talking about electrons in isolation not participating in complex chemical bonds which requires they exist at a very prescribed area.
You're acting as if particles just exist in vacuums.
Not at all; that is a simplifying assumption. Imagine zooming in to a slice of time in the middle of my diagram. We see two electrons, and a positron; all separated in space. Nothing important changes if those particles interact with other particles in any number of complex ways, between the time when the gamma photon splits into an electron and a positron, and the time that the positron meets an electron and is annihilated to produce a gamma photon.
You cannot negate the chemistry necessary for my body to have size and shape and function. For that chemistry to occur electrons have to exist in prescribed areas.
Of course. But that doesn't mean that, as per the diagram above, they cannot exist in another area as well, at the exact same time. From the point of view of an observer at a fixed point in time, there is no way to tell how many electrons there are, except to count up all the electrons in the entire universe, and subtract all of the positrons in the universe. That 'fundamental electron number' remains unchanged (at least by the phenomenon under discussion), but there is no reason why, at any given point in time, the total number of electrons in the universe cannot be greater than that minimum count; and no way for an observer at a fixed point in time to distinguish between a particle that contributes 1 to the count, and a particle that contributes more than 1. To the observer at a time in the middle of the diagram above, there exist two electrons - both of which are doing unrelated things, in unrelated places (and a positron, in a third unrelated location). Only by observing (or rather, by calculating) over time can we see that those two electrons and one positron are in fact one particle, that has moved in time, as well as in space.
The model looks at too little. There is far more happening than two electrons. There are countless particles that make up me. All those particles have to be accounted for in some model, not just one.
If I were made of one particle you might have a point.
You can't have the same electron contributing to the chemistry of two discreet atoms.
Yes, you can, if it travels back in time at some stage as a positron.
No, no, no. In the real world model of molecules we do not allow that two separate distinct molecules can have the exact same electrons contributing to their structure.
You're violating everything we understand about the chemistry of molecules. You can't violate the chemistry and say you are using physics to do it. Physics is what makes up the chemistry.
This is not intuitive, but it is true nonetheless. As I said before, this is far from the weirdest thing that is required by quantum mechanics; but quantum mechanics works, so we have to accept that reality is weird.
I'm not questioning quantum mechanics. I'm questioning your interpretation of it.
As I said earlier, with your interpretation, an observer can see a net increase in matter at any time. He can see and measure the time traveler who has moved to the past and measure all the scattered matter that makes up the time traveler, that is the exact same matter. Not a transformation of matter but a magic doubling of matter.
Address the logic of that, I understand your model, I don't think it addresses the complexity of the situation, specifically the chemistry, but you don't need to address it anymore.
