mosc wrote:Welcome to Watchlords, ET. It's about time we got someone who can get Schrodinger's cat in the box and Seuss's Cat In The Hat into one unified forum topic.
@ Falstaff - Existon; brilliant! I can't wait until you develop the theory for the Antiexiston, and their virtual particle pairs the Virtual Existon and the Virtual Antiexiston.
No need to do so - you just did! That's the beauty of the Existon - no need for such contrivances as anti-existons and the rest. It is simplicity itself - all forms of matter and energy (including all the vast array of subatomic particles) are but different conglomerations (or arrangements, if you prefer) of existons governed by local conditions. Gravity is the prime condition - defined as an affinity of
the existing for
the existing. In other words, things that exist are drawn to other things that exist. Everything that exists must clearly affect every other thing that exists to a greater or lesser extent due to sheer proximity. There is no alternative. So gravity represents a framework of the ability to become
. An arrangement of existons in X space, influenced by not only the proximity of other local existons (or their constructs), but to a lesser extent by all
other existons might be an atom of carbon. In Y space, however, governed (of necessity) by a different set of local conditions, that same arrangement of existons might well be an atom of tungsten or a giraffe. So your posited anti-existon and their virtual twins are simply different arrangements of existons behaving as local conditions dictate.
The Existon is simplicity itself. It's result of the "divide this object in half again and again and again and again" scenario - no matter how many times it is divided in half, 2 halves remain to be divided in half again. There is nothing that can be done to cause them to cease to exist, the pieces simply get smaller. The Existon is my postulated cannot-be-further-divided "smallest piece" - its sole property is that it exists.
I will certainly admit that my reasoning is philosophical rather than empirical, but I'm willing for some other geek to do the maths. The difficulty is in the needlessly confusing, increasingly proliferating number of quantum level constructs - the trees that hide the forest from view. Many of these constructs are no more important or necessary to the actual operation of the universe than a hot dog is to a baseball game.