1

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 31/12/2020 08:25:43 »

You may remember when I postulated that black holes are at the centre of all systems. The following research may back up this proposition https://www.slashgear.com/researchers-believe-dark-matter-could-be-composed-of-primordial-black-holes-30652903/.

In 3dAbstractions, black holes correspond to 3dStar objects. A 3dStar is a central 3dSystem. It is timeless and contains the state of the system the 3dStar is central to. It can also be a Hierarchical Finite State Machine that changes when an event is received from the outer system. A black hole is likely to behave similarly. An event for a black hole would likely be a system falling into it.

I think I also postulated that the total mass of a 3dSystem is the sum of the masses of itself (the 3dStar) plus the masses of its 3dSubsystems. Given that a 3dSystem describes any system in the the universe, then it follows that 3dStars and therefore black holes are included in the mass of the universe.

2

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 20/10/2020 13:50:33 »

Most of the complexities, and therefore problems, with computer programming are due to time-based dependencies. 3dAbstractions avoids this by using a form of programming I call POP; Present Oriented Programming. For example, AverageOdds is a Readonly Property of the TransactionHistory  System. In this form of programming, the past is preserved as values of the present, i.e. memories. In Visual Basic:

Code: [Select]

Public ReadOnly Property AverageOdds() As Decimal

        Get
            Dim totalodds As Decimal = 0

            For Each trn As Transaction.Star In Me.Transactions
                totalodds += trn.Odds
            Next

            Return math.round(totalodds / me.Transactions.Count, 2)
        End Get

End Property

This is the way Reality works. If we need to recall the past we preserve it as aspects of the present. A photo is a perfect example of this. As is a Photon. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that spacetime exists except as some aspect of the present. Reality doesn't need to worry about the past. You could say Reality is mindful:). It also probably means that time is just an emotion that results from experiencing memories.

In fact, given that everything that exists in the present once existed in the past, it could be surmised that the Universe is just some entity's memory. It is highly likely that Reality is language coded in memories and coupled to run-time systems - i.e. Reality is a computer:)

Given, as proposed above, that the past is an aspect of the present and the future can be extrapolated from the current state of the present, it would seem that all there is to Reality is an eternal present i.e. an expanded big-bang singularity. In software, the future state of an app is determined by the app's code/data in combination with the run-time system. It is likely a similar situation exists for the Universe and physics will be enhanced when we know what aspects are code/data and what aspects are run-time. In the process, we will probably discover a universal language that is "executed" by the universal run-time system.     

A 3dSystem is created from the top down. i.e. its most abstract level (the topmost) is created first followed by the next most abstract level and so on. In Reality, the same process is also likely. A human embryo is likely formed similarly. The topmost level in Reality will likely be created as a singularity. As lower levels are created, so the upper levels expand. This is probably the cause of the expanding universe, i.e. lower levels being created all the time. It is possible the universe is in the process of "growing up".

A 3dSystem can both execute itself and create its own subsystems. Because of their recursive nature you only need one system and you can have as many as you need, limited only by the amount of space available. This type of processing in computer science is called SOA/Microservices (see https://www.ibm.com/cloud/blog/soa-vs-microservices. Reality works similarly. A particle is effectively a microservice. i.e. once you have one system in Realty, you have a Universe (or, in fact, a Cosmos/Multiverse)

3

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 15/10/2020 08:09:47 »

A 3dStar system is the central system of a 3dSystem. It is a type of 3dSystem that has one main difference to a normal 3dSysytem - it accesses subsystems via references (VB Byref key word). This gives it the ability to expand and contract - something not available to a normal 3dSystem. It can call functions in its subsystems via references and react to events in its subsystems via references. This means that a single 3dSystem can participate in multiple systems via references. Everything that happens via references does so immediately, meaning 3dStar systems are time-independent (but note that it still takes time for a reference to get from point a to point b).

References can be associated with event handlers meaning events can be raised by a "byval" system and handled immediately by a reference system. Could Reality handle a Photon in a similar manner, meaning Photons don't travel at all? I suspect so, given that physics cannot prove that Photons actually travel. 

A brain is probably a type of 3dStar (in a Person System), as is a Sun (in a Solar System). Protons in the atoms of Reality are probably references (to Electrons). References in Reality are probably behind the spooky "action at a distance" quantum phenomenon.

A brain contains the highest levels of abstraction in a "Person" system. This makes it highly intelligent. The subsystems in this system are respiratory system, digestive system etc. In a "person" simulation these subsystems would be declared Byval. Because it is a 3dStar type system, a brain can expand and contract. A bigger skull, would therefore make a person more abstract/intelligent, as evolution has noted! The brain will contain a top-level system where events of the highest level of abstraction from its subsystems are processed. This is where awareness resides.

What this all points to is that the systems of Reality, from the universe itself to the smallest particle, are both intelligent and aware. Mind boggling.

When the blazing sun is gone,
When he nothing shines upon,
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle, twinkle, all the night.
Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!


Coming soon. How a 3dSystem manages time and how this might be applicable to Reality.

4

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 05/10/2020 12:33:51 »

The following is a water molecule built with 3dSystems.

A water molecule built with 3dSystems has a very nice result - the outer shell is full (8 electrons).

Two views are presented merely for clarity. The first is minus shells and the second includes shells.

Water.System (water molecule)
    Water.Star
      Property: State (liquid, gas, solid (ice))
    Subsystems
        H2.System (Hydrogen molecule)
            H2.Star
            Subsystems
                Hydrogen.System 1 (Hydrogen atom)
                    Hydrogen.Star (Hydrogen ion)
                        Subsystems
                            Proton.System
                    Subsystems
                        Electron.System
                            Electron.Star
                Hydrogen.System 2 (Hydrogen atom)
                    Hydrogen.Star (Hydrogen ion)
                        Subsystems
                            Proton.system
                    Subsystems
                        Electron.System
                            Electron.Star
        Oxygen.System (Oxygen atom)
            Oxygen.Star (Oxygen ion)
                Subsystems
                    Proton.system 1
                    Proton.system 2
                    Proton.system 3
                    Proton.system 4
                    Proton.system 5
                    Proton.system 6
                    Proton.system 7
                    Proton.system 8
            Subsystems
                Electron.System 1
                    Electron.Star
                    Subsystems
                        Electron.System 1
                            Electron.Star
                        Electron.System 2
                            Electron.Star
                        Electron.System 3
                            Electron.Star
                Electron.System 2
                    Electron.Star
                    Subsystems
                        Electron.System 1
                            Electron.Star
                        Electron.System 2
                            Electron.Star
                        Electron.System 3
                            Electron.Star


A view of this system including Shells is as follows:

Shell 0
    Water.System
Shell 1
    H2.System Oxygen.System
Shell 2
    Hydrogen.Systems (2) Electron.Systems (2 from Oxygen.System)
Shell 3
    Electron.Systems (8 - 2 from the 2 Hydrogen.Systems and 6 from Oxygen.System)

This configuration of 3dSystems is obtained in 3dAbstractions when using references (VB Byref) to 3dSystems in place of of 3dSystem themselves (VB Byval). The more familiar, H+/OH- arrangement of ions is obtained when we use 3dSystems themselves rather than references to them. It is possible that this nice result is an indication that Reality also makes use of references.

Note 1: Protons are shown serially. They are likely to occur in an identical configuration to electrons.
Note 2: With this system, Hydrogen molecules can flow from water molecule to water molecule, forming the waves in water.

An Electron is a "Byval" 3dSystem. Chances are it contains subsystems (possibly neutrinos) which, in turn, themselves contain subsystems possibly ad infinitum. A Proton is a "Byref" 3dSubsystem. It references an Electron. A change in state of an Electron is detected immediately via the "Byref" nature of by its associated Proton which then calls a 3dFfunction. 3dFunctions are possibly Neutron 3dSystems in Reality. Neutrons likely reside in the Star (or central or Ion) 3dSystem of a 3dSystem.

Thus, a Proton is a reference to an Electron and is thus effectively the Electron itself. This is likely be the case for all situations involving particles with opposite charges..

Coming up. How 3dStars (central systems)  makes 3dSystems intelligent and aware (its all about Reference 3dSystems - quantum entanglement - and how this system type enables photons to leap across the universe in no time at all)
[/quote]

5

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 16/09/2020 22:55:33 »

I have added 3dCurrent to the widening range of 3dSystem types in 3dAbstractions. This is a temporary system that comes between a 3dController and a 3dData system. Its purpose is to enable the composite manipulation of a branch of the 3dData system.

In 3dRacing, the Raceday system is a top-level 3dData system that has a branch containing Pool, Race and Strategy systems. Tote system is a 3dContraller system that manipulates this branch via the RaceDay.Current system. e.g. one of Raceday. Current's functions is RunSetAndForget.

It equivalent in Reality may be a Gluon (or it may be a virtual particle, given its temporary nature).

It enables multiple instances of the same branch in a neural network to communicate simultaneously with original (permanent) systems.

6

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 31/08/2020 21:25:10 »

In 3dRacing, the abstraction hierarchy for a Raceday is Raceday/Meeting/Race/Runner. Of these systems, only Runner exists in Reality. Is this an issue with 3dAbstractions as it pertains to a simulation of Reality? Not at all. Raceday, Meeting and Race exist as systems in a Brain system:) which is itself a Reality system. i.e. life has extended the capabilities of the original Reality system in ways that are only limited by our imaginations.

So, it would appear that systems in the universe are either "Real"/permanent or imaginary/temporary. An imaginary system "references" a "Real" system via an abstraction hierarchy. In a living organism, this type of system often occurs in a brain. A reference often happens via a vision system. The brain system also has the ability to create permanent systems via the body it inhabits.

So, the brain is a form of DNA-based artificial intelligence created via evolution. And the brain is now creating an advanced form of computer-based Artificial Intelligence. These intelligences complement each other for the purpose of evolving the universe.

In a 3dApp system (a type of 3dSystem), the Datastore top-level system is a permanent system. The Data top-level system of a 3dApp is a temporary system that references the Datastore system. It is created each time the 3dApp is run. The Data system can create Datastore systems. In this way, a 3dApp is based on Reality.

Actually, all systems in Reality are "Real", but some are "Real"er than others. Here are the different levels of "Real" a system may be in.

1. Lifespan

    May be Temporary or Permanent
   
2. Abstraction Level

    Depends on the level the system occupies in the abstraction hierarchy it belongs to. The lower the level, the more concrete a system is. The higher the level, the more abstract a system is.

3. Normality

    May have the following values:

    Artificial-DNA
    Artificial-IT
    Natural

4.  Originality

    Original
    Reference (points to the Original system)

    An Original System is one that can stand alone. Reference systems reference Original systems or other Reference systems. Events (IT) and Bosons (Reality) communicate state changes (happenings/past) and Change requests (functions/future) between systems. This is how time arises. For example, a reference system that references the Sun may exist. It will react to a photon from the Sun. That way reference systems can exists at various time scales and at various places in the universe that reference a single original system and, as far as the reference system is concerned IS the original system. Thus we "See" the Sun in our brains as a reference system.     

A reference allows a system to participate in multiple other systems simultaneously. In combination with the capabilities of an abstraction hierarchy, it turns Reality into a neural network. Your brain, possibly, will contain one system that represents the sun. This system will exist at a certain level of an abstraction hierarchy that includes the sun at the bottom (concrete part) of the hierarchy. The abstracted sun system may have references to it throughout the brain such that changes to it are propagated to all references and, conversely, changes to references are propagated to the abstracted sun system. This is the essence of neural network. 

As mentioned previously, references may explain the "spooky action at a distance" of  quantum entanglement. Reality seems to have the ability to timelessly propagate changes to entangled systems. This is probably necessary to maintain the integrity of Reality and mandates that state changes are timeless (i.e. instantaneous).

7

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 22/08/2020 01:18:50 »

You may recall a discussion of the 3dApp System. This is a 3dSystem that runs an App. It contains standard top-level systems, 3dDisplay, 3dData and 3dDatastore. 3dDisplay is effectively your display interface.

I have recently introduced a 3dController system (a type of 3dSystem). Its purpose is to control another 3dSystem. It can take the place of a person when running a 3dApp. It is an "expert" on the System it is running. I.E. it "knows" how to run a 3dApp and often (but not always) does so via the 3dDisplay interface. This is 3dAbstraction's version of AI Automation. It would enable e.g. a 3dApp to run itself - as 3dRacing does via the SetAndForget function.

A 3dController can "see" and manipulate all of a system at once. It has a "sideways" view of the system (as well as the database/top-down black-box view of normal systems) meaning it has full access to the system's subsystems and the subsystems' subsystems, all the way down a system hierarchy. Such a System's functions can exist as whole units  making it easier to understand and locate them and having many parallels to an indivisible quantum.

Is there a similar setup in Reality? Sure, a person can be considered to be a 3dController system in Reality. Actually, a person is probably two controllers working together. A Brain controller that controls the body and a Body controller (the body itself) itself which controls its environment. Which likely makes us a symbiosis - similar to a mitochondria/cell. That is, a 3dSymbiosis is a 3dSystem controlling another 3dSystem.

It is interesting to note that 3dControllers are temporary systems and that so are people!

8

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 07/08/2020 12:30:56 »

Quantum theory alerted us to the fact that the universe interacts via packets of energy called Quanta. A single packet is called a Quantum. Each Quantum contains a constant amount of Action (where E=h/t where E is the energy of the Quantum, h the Action (Planck's constant) and t is the time required to complete one cycle (revolution) of the Quantum). Once started, a Quantum interaction must complete. i.e. all interactions in the universe must occur in packets each packet containing h amount of Action.

This is standard physics. Personally, I cannot see why the frequency of a quantum cannot be modified, meaning that a Quantum can assume an infinite values of energy (but only one value, h, of Action)
 
This in effect tells us that Reality is all about Power.

This is very much like the 3dSystems of 3dAbstractions. A top-level function (i.e. method) cannot be interrupted once it has started. In other words, once a state change has started, it cannot be interrupted prior to completion. This is a great way of managing complexity. The entities that designed Reality (us from the future ? - see the fascinating Interstellar movie) were obviously very much aware of this.

9

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 28/07/2020 21:01:39 »

From https://scienceblog.com/517615/looking-into-the-black-box-of-deep-learning/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29

"The intuition is that a hierarchical neural network should be better at approximating a compositional function than a single “layer” of neurons, even if the total number of neurons is the same. "

3dAbstractions uses this "intuition" to create that create the 3dSystems that can be used to simulate a universe. It is clear to me that the universe is a type of neural network. Far from being "intuition" the knowledge involved is likely to be only available to someone who has a deep understanding of both Reality/physics and Software Development.

In my case, that knowledge has taken over 50 years to develop. The complexity involved requires an older/mature brain to process. In turn, this requires good health. In my case, I have planned my health and, as a result, I have near-perfect health even though I am approaching 80.

Intuition IS involved in being able to "intuit"/feel whether a particular line of reasoning is right or not. I never publish my work unless I have a strong "eureka" feeling that it is right. 

10

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 25/07/2020 20:31:29 »

There is a great battle going on in Computer Science at present between the proponents of Object Oriented Programming (OOP) and those of Functional Programming (FP).

See https://www.educba.com/functional-programming-vs-oop/ for a discussion of the two methods.

My first programming language (50 years ago) was Autocoder running on an IBM 1401 computer with 16K of memory. This was very much a functional programming language. So was its successor, COBOL which still runs on many, many mainframes in the world today. Then, in 1967, along came Simula which is now considered to be the first genuine OOP programming language. Today, Java, which is considered to be an OOP is the world's most popular programming language. Along the way, FP has to been pretty much neglected because it was thought that OOP was so much better. But this was a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Microfocus COBOL combined the functional aspects of COBOL with OOP feature to become a dominant mainframe programming language in the early part of this century. I personally thought it was the best programming language ever written. A 3dSystem combines the best of OOP and FP methods. Because 3dSystem is based on the way Reality works, this means that the Universe also uses this paradigm to function.

The Central system of a 3dSystem is functional in nature. It expands outwards from its centre via a hierarchy (HFSM) of 3dState objects (e.g. the Sun System). The outer system of a 3dSystem is the System itself (e.g. a Solar System). It is time-based and collapses inwards (e.g. Solar System, Earth System, Moon System). It incorporates all the relationships of Systems in the universe. This relationship gives rise to the often-discussed wave-particle nature of reality. The universe seems to have combined the wave-particle duality ability into one type of entity, a 3dSystem.

The 3dSubSystems of a Central System are actually references to Systems in lower level (of abstraction) shells. The 3dSubSystems of an Outer System are the subsystems themselves.

Thus, Reality has combined the best features of OOP and FP programming to produce the miracle we call the Universe.

BTW, it is debatable whether you are are subsystem in the earth system (i.e. a satellite of the earth) or a subsystem (substate) of the Earth (i.e. the Earth Central System) or something else entirely.

11

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 24/07/2020 06:43:39 »

From the world leaders in quantum computing. https://www.zdnet.com/article/unsw-use-flat-electron-shells-from-artificial-atoms-as-qubits/

Thus creating a simple 3dSystem?

12

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 20/07/2020 18:23:23 »

In a 3dBstractions framework, a 3dShadow is a type of 3dSystem but without many of the states/capabilities of the 3dSystem it shadows. Its equivalent in Reality is a boson.

Four types of 3shadow systems exist:

3dEvent - a record of the past state of a 3dSystem

    Can travel up, down and across 3dSystems in a 3d Abstraction hierarchy. Actually it doesn't really "travel". The originating 3dSystem "raises" an event and the "handling" function (which may be in another 3dSystem) handles it. The runtime system handles this process. Something similar likely happens in Reality, so photons do not really "travel"/"move" distances at all) 
   
    Equivalent to a photon in reality. A 3dPhoton is a type of 3dEvent that will scale up/down as it crosses 3dSystem
    boundaries. It does so by increasing or decreasing its volume and thus decreasing or increasing its frequency (it
    is a rotating sphere).

    PS theoretically any system can travel in this way. So you could travel and observe an Atom in action if only you
    knew how to scale yourself down/up:)

3dTop - A event processor (awareness) near the top of a 3dSystem

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between a 3dStar System and the parent of the 3dSystem it belongs to.
    Equivalent to a W boson in Reality.

3dBottom - An event processor (awareness) near the bottom of a 3dSystem

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between a 3dStar System and its associated 3dShells/3dSubsystems.
    Equivalent to a Z boson in Reality.

3dController- Links two 3dSystems sideways.

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between the 3dSystem the 3dController belongs to and another 3dSystem
    e.g. System B raises a 3dEvent. The 3dContrioller in System A processes the event and (possibly) calls a function in System B as a result.
    Equivalent to a Gluon in Reality.

In 3dAbstractions, a 3dEvent is optionally "forgotten" after it is processed but prior to this may optionally be added to the history for the 3dSystem it shadows in a 3dDatastore system. In Reality, this would mean a photon is added to space/time continuum.

https://futurism.com/nasa-hubble-observed-flapping-shadow-distant-space

Possibly evidence of the shadow nature of photons and/or Top/bottom Event Processors (3dTop/3dBottom systems).

13

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 07/07/2020 08:33:10 »

Congrats to me on 50000 views The next 50000 promises to be even more entertaining.

14

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 04/07/2020 05:16:24 »

https://scienceblog.com/517166/quantum-fluctuations-can-jiggle-objects-on-the-human-scale/

From the article:

"Now for the first time, a team led by researchers at MIT LIGO Laboratory has measured the effects of quantum fluctuations on objects at the human scale. In a paper published today in Nature, the researchers report observing that quantum fluctuations, tiny as they may be, can nonetheless “kick” an object as large as the 40-kilogram mirrors of the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), causing them to move by a tiny degree, which the team was able to measure."

From Wiki, "In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space".

    Equivalent to a photon in reality. A 3dPhoton is a type of 3dEvent that will scale up/down as it crosses 3dSystem
    boundaries. It does so by increasing or decreasing its volume and thus decreasing or increasing its frequency (it
    is a rotating sphere).

From a 3dSystems point of view, if it were possible, measuring the energy of a photon at the level (quantum) of the originating system and at the level of the current (classical) system will give a difference in frequency. The authors of the above article seem to have been able to measure the movement of a mirror as a result of it being "kicked" by a laser photon. Presumably then, because a laser has a fixed frequency, the difference in frequencies can be inferred.

15

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 01/07/2020 15:09:57 »

Particles in Reality have anti-particles which are identical in all respects except for charge and magnetic moment.

3dAntiSystems are the 3d Abstractions equivalent of anti-particles. A 3dAntiSystem inherits a 3dSystem.

Whereas the execution direction for a 3dSystem is down, that of a 3dAntiSystem is up. In other words a function call in a 3dSystem will start at a particular abstraction level and continue down at lower and lower levels. This is Top-Down programming. A function call to 3dAntiSystem on the other hand will start at a particular abstraction level and continue up at higher and higher levels. In other words Bottom-Up programming.

The main purpose of a 3dAntiSystem is to create an abstraction hierarchy from the bottom up. In the process, all 3dAntiSystems are converted into "ordinary" 3dSystems.

Just possibly, this is also the main purpose of an anti-particle in Reality. i.e. it is involved in the creation of the universe from the bottom up and then discarded. This would explain why so few anti-particles seem to exist. Photons are supposed to be their own anti-particle. This is exactly what a 3dAntiSystem is. The anti part will be involved in the creation of the photon and then, possibly, discarded.

16

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 23/06/2020 06:38:11 »

In a 3dBstractions framework, a 3dShadow is a type of 3dSystem but without many of the states/capabilities of the 3dSystem it shadows. Its equivalent in Reality is a boson.

Four types of 3shadow systems exist:

3dEvent - a record of the past state of a 3dSystem

    Can travel up, down and across 3dSystems in a 3d Abstraction hierarchy. Actually it doesn't really "travel". The originating 3dSystem "raises" an event and the "handling" function (which may be in another 3dSystem) handles it. The runtime system handles this process. Something similar likely happens in Reality, so photons do not really "travel"/"move" distances at all) 
   
    Equivalent to a photon in reality. A 3dPhoton is a type of 3dEvent that will scale up/down as it crosses 3dSystem
    boundaries. It does so by increasing or decreasing its volume and thus decreasing or increasing its frequency (it
    is a rotating sphere).

    PS theoretically any system can travel in this way. So you could travel and observe an Atom in action if only you
    knew how to scale yourself down/up:)

3dTop - A event processor (awareness) near the top of a 3dSystem

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between a 3dStar System and the parent of the 3dSystem it belongs to.
    Equivalent to a W boson in Reality.

3dBottom - An event processor (awareness) near the bottom of a 3dSystem

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between a 3dStar System and its associated 3dShells/3dSubsystems.
    Equivalent to a Z boson in Reality.

3dController- Links two 3dSystems sideways.

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between the 3dSystem the 3dController belongs to and another 3dSystem
    e.g. System B raises a 3dEvent. The 3dContrioller in System A processes the event and (possibly) calls a function in System B as a result.
    Equivalent to a Gluon in Reality.

In 3dAbstractions, a 3dEvent is optionally "forgotten" after it is processed but prior to this may optionally be added to the history for the 3dSystem it shadows in a 3dDatastore system. In Reality, this would mean a photon is added to space/time continuum.

17

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 17/06/2020 00:04:22 »

How do elementary particles fit into the 3dAbstractions framework? They are types of 3dSystems as is everything else in the framework. The big difference between this sort of elementary system and composite systems is that an elementary system has no subsystems.

Having no subsystems means that an elementary system is totally concrete (versus abstract) in nature.

These systems comprise the top-level properties of a 3dStar central system and contain the overall state of the system.

A system can have subsystems and the subsystems can have subsystems infinitely (same sort of thing for the child/parent tree). Any system without subsystems therefore is not as "real"/concrete as it could possibly be. A corollary of this is that the more levels a system has, the closer it comes to representing "reality". Absolute "reality" is therefore infinite in nature.

This makes each 3dSystem a universe in its own right. In fact, each 3dSystem can be considered as a stationary system surrounded by in-motion 3dsystems,

Finally it can be noted that an event cannot escape a parent-child tree of 3dSystems except by proceeding to the top of the tree (centre of the system) and then being sent downwards via a parent/child 3dSystems tree to finally execute a function call. A 3dSystem is a control freak. Nothing happens as a result of an event in a system unless it is approved by the parent. i.e. all sibling to sibling contact is done via the parent. The same may apply to a photon in Reality i.e. a photon created in a galaxy light years away must have had to "travel" via parent/child systems to the centre of the Universe system and then be "sent" based on probabilities from this system via parent/child systems to a local telescope to be "observed". This has many possible consequences which I will explore in later posts.     

18

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 16/06/2020 15:11:22 »

There is no reason why our Universe cannot exist as a 2d/flat structure, possibly a hologram

A hologram of what?

Of itself. See https://futurism.com/the-holographc-universe-principle-what-is-what-should-never-be. A Hologram is basically a 2d representation of a 3d reality.

19

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 15/06/2020 03:32:29 »

So, given what we now know of 3dSystems, what will be the next big thing in 3d Science (Physics "married" to Computer Science)? Possibly the ability to travel up and down a system's "tree" (HFSM) and "view" each system in the tree from a "local" perspective. In the process, find out the "purpose" of each system in the tree. Maybe a special type ("inherits 3dSystem") of 3dSystem will be created to allow such a function to occur. Eventually we may be able to "marry" our brains to 3dSystems so that the experience of "visiting" systems will be indistinguishable from Reality.

20

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 10/06/2020 12:16:48 »

Looks like we have a team of intrepid physicists in Naked Scientists New Theories on a mission to to purge the world of physics untruths. How heroic.

And unlikely. Especially as they appear to have little in common. What is more likely? That they are being financed to disrupt any new physics theory showing promise would seem to be a strong possibility. There will be any number of corporations that will stand to lose from the introduction of new technology based on successful new physics theories. You have to ask the question "why has physics advanced so little in the last 50 years".

The answer may be that talented people like myself just get sick of the incessant attacks by talentless people whose agenda is driven by an unrelenting pathological need to belittle others, or money is involved. Money is usually involved when the status quo is threatened.

Their favorite troll-like tactic seems to repeat ad nauseam a post that they have not got a reply to. Why? Because they can. The Naked Scientist's moderator seems to be in collusion with the practice. It is certainly not because they feel they can increase their chances of getting a reply. I never  reply to such awful behavior. This topic, unfortunately, is riddled with this sort of thing. If I were a follower, I would be thinking twice before visiting the topic. Eventually, if the behavior continues to be tolerated, Naked Scientists and Physics are going to be the losers here.

One of the questions being posed by the team leader is "What does the H stand for" (in one of my replies which started with IMHO)" It has been repeated ad nauseam 15 times.  Many others are abusive. I refuse to reply to such a person at all, in this case, their partner.

The team is good guy, bad guy. One is meek and mild and the other is arrogant and egotistic. They are as alike as chalk and cheese. Their chances of becoming bosom buddies are pretty much nil. Why therefore the partnership? Maybe they think good cop, bad cop interrogation is going to achieve better results.  And maybe there is not a partnership. Maybe it is the one guy with different User Ids. Whatever, it is likely to be bad news for Naked Scientists.

Why a moderator would put up with all this is totally beyond me. I have contacted the moderator and others in Naked Scientists about the situation but to no avail.

In future in New Theories, I will reply only to posts that have references, address the idea and not the person, are neutral or pleasant in tone, are helpful and address the theory. I will not reply to nor read posts from people I know to be trouble-makers.

It now seems that the moderator has joined the good cop/bad cop team, presumably as a good cop. It doesn't matter whether this team has knowledge or not about one of my posts they will still post their (mostly) drivel. A recent one on software development is just laughable. I repeat, I will not reply or even read those posts or posts relating to these posts.