A theory of everything

Great Debates
1
  • Radical general quantum relativity for other beginners *

Many things can be divided reasonably naturally into objects, photons, electrons and atoms. Any given thing is most simply identified as a superposition of the qualities of the objects, photons, electrons and atoms into which it is most easily divided. Analysis is facilitated in situations where one of these qualities is much more apparent than any of the others; however, most of the interesting research occurs in areas where analysis is complicated by interaction between qualities.

  1. A set of objects constitutes a photon.
    The only identifying quality of a photon is its wavelength, which is determined by the differences between the times of its constituent objects.

  2. A set of photons constitutes an electron.
    The only identifying quality of an electron is its charge, which is determined by the differences between the wavelengths of its constituent photons.

  3. A set of electrons constitutes an atom.
    The only identifying quality of an atom is its energy, which is determined by the differences between the charges of its constituent electrons.

  4. A set of atoms constitutes an object.
    The only identifying quality of an object is its time, which is determined by the differences between the energies of its constituent atoms.

Since this theory contains only qualitative equations, all quantities are arbitrary. However, because we are (self-evidently) mostly objective :-), we have time to play with it and see what it does.

I predict that simulation of suitable situations using these rules and a little statistical mechanics will never yield a result that disagrees with existing physical theory in an uninteresting way.

Have fun!

2

The part I don’t get is how a photon is a both a superset of objects and a subset of them.

3

I wanna know where the protons and neutrons went, in describing what makes up an atom.

4

tracer:

I wondered that early on too, but I think he is redefining all the terms into a generalized set theory symbology.

5

Electrons are not made of photons. I stopped reading at that point.

6

Where are the quarks? The gluons? The W and Z particles? The Higgs boson? And the rest of the particle zoo?

If only it were that simple.

And who says these things are elementary, anyway?

Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue.

7
  1. Huh?
  2. There is no second item.
8

There’s actually only one thing: the Universe as a whole, aka God. Photons and objects are both conceptual consequences of our ability to recognize ourselves.

Inwards.

Neutrons are mostly atom-like and object-like, in that they have not much wavelength, arbitrary energy, and share time with their surroundings until they decay “spontaneously”.

Protons are mostly electron-like and atom-like, in that they have not much wavelength, arbitrary energy, and share charge with their surroundings.

Charge is to protons as time is to neutrons. That’s how come spontaneous neutron decay events get observed, while protons only decay when something object-like smashes into them at high speed (i.e. makes time available to them).

Funny how all those bastards have four meaningless quantum numbers, isn’t it? I expect they’ll turn up sooner or later.

Truth? Beauty? Charm? Strangeness?

Look, NOBODY actually has any idea just what it IS that quantum theory actually refers to, and nobody actually understands time, either, and the main thing that makes trying to glue GTR and QT together difficult is the the inconsistencies in their assumptions.

There are a hell of a lot of people who are good at making both these theories jump through hoops, though. I’m interested in exploring the idea that maybe the SAME quantum theory that’s so useful for subatomic particles is actually generally applicable to ANY collection of similar objects, photons, electrons and atoms that occurs in reality.

My sentiments exactly.

Aristotle. Only he got the names wrong. :smiley:
Particle metaphysics 101

Consider: Each of us is a MORON in a state of APATHY, consisting of a massive central nucleus of CONTRADICTION surrounded by a diffuse cloud of CONTRADICTION, in which there are standing waves that manifest as fleeting glimpses of INSIGHT. Morons couple by exchanging KOANS. A KOAN with a high level of MEANING occasionally couples with an INSIGHT, raising the receiving MORON to a higher state of INTEREST. This makes the MORON all hot and bothered, and soon it emits another KOAN, equivalent in MEANING to the original; or perhaps it discharges its INTEREST as a number of KOANS of lesser MEANING, equivalent in total to the original. This process causes a loss of INTEREST, returning the moron to its ground state of APATHY. The ceaseless flow of koans constitutes CONVERSATION.

Are we having fun yet?

9

The portion of we that is you seem to be. The portion of we that is not you is wandering off to do other things.

<P ALIGN=“CENTER”>Tris</P>

It is the first duty of a hypothesis to be intelligible.
– **Thomas Henry Huxley, ** (1825-1895)

10

Pantheism? Not for me, but thanks just the same.

11

I assume that he meant God in the symbolic “ew, I’m a hypothesising physicist” sense. Still, I refuse to worship any diety of which I am a part.

12

Hey! Y’all have more GUTs than I do…

-David

13

I was going to write a reply, but I left my Black Poison Release Box (now with Atomic Decay Trigger!) open again, and Old Man Schroedinger’s damned cat got into it. Now my entire life is in this indefinite holding pattern until I can figure out what the hell’s going on with Mittens. Cats, man, I tell ya!

(to borrow a sig)The Poster Formerly Unknown as Rodimus

“Are you frightened of snakes?”
“Only when they dress like werewolves.”
-Preacher

14

Theory of everything. This should be good… OK…Let’s see…objects,… photons,… electrons…Hmmm… I have to admit I am unfamiliar with this particular theory…

Let’s look at pqlier’s profile ::click:: ::scroll down::
Interests: <font color=“blue”>compost, earthworms, relativity</font>

Oh, NOW I get it. This thread is about compost. I can’t wait to learn more about earthworms and relativity.

Virtually yours,

DrMatrix

15

“Erwin Schrodinger! What have you done with poor Fluffy! The poor little kitten looks half dead!” :eek:

Wasn’t it Liebnitz who came up with monads? Sounds like pqlier is headed in that direction (with a stopoff in that hotel with the padded rooms ;)).

Just to pick one minor nit on a typo:

16

It’s good to see that the rest of you sort of see this on the same level as I do.

By rule number one, I can say that the set of all objects within five feet of me is a photon. Look, my computer is part of a photon!

And, of course, somehow, the set of photons within five feet of me (yeah, there are probably a lot more than one) is an electron. Now wait a minute it, the object set making up the photon has a lot of electrons, and the photon makes up a single electron?

The only identifying quality of an atom is energy? Whatever happened to such mundanities as location and velocity?

Call me a sucker for sense.

pqlier, this probably does disagree with theory in many ways. Any quantum physicists in the house?

And, pq, the people who study quantum theory daily, make a living off of it, probably have a pretty good idea of what it refers to.

And, just so you know, Truth, Beauty, Charm, and Strange are all just identifiers. Some little joke that is now an established institution. They could have called them Red, Blue, Green, and Orange, but that would have been more boring.

Aristotle was refering to the things he was naming, not to the incredible minutae you refer to, just so you know.

Am I getting this right?

17

Surgoshan:

No, I think you have it all wrong. Aristotle was a photon. You must have been thinking of Nietschtcshtschtsche.

18

Nietschtcshtschtsche was a photon, stretched between an electron and an object. A photon across an atom.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

19

S.M…isn’t that kind of stretching our credulity? :slight_smile:

20

Spiritus:

That is preposterous. If you cannot argue from reason, then why do you couch your terms as reasonable terms? I challenge you to prove my assertion that Aristotle was a photon.

Well, that’s just more of the same crap, isn’t it? I know that Gaudere speaks for me when she says what she says but I don’t know whether I speak for you when you say what I say.

I’m not talking about photons. I’m talking about life. I’m talking about death. I’m talking about God, the devil, heaven, hell, angst, Cro-Magnon man, and the Dairy Queen.

And an what, Spiritus? Why must you be so cryptic? I made a simple statement that Aristotle was a photon, but you’ve switched the argument to electrons.

Of course you object. You always object. In fact, you object abjectly. Isn’t it a fact that you disagree with everything I say?

I thought I made myself plain. Photons do not cross atoms. They cross vacuums. Except when they’re crossing other things.

I submit that you are made of vapor, and that it is quite impossible to get you to answer my points specifically. If necessary, I will muster my allies to tell you what I think.