[mxplxxx (OP)]

The energy of a photon is hf. That is all that Planck said, and all than anyone who understands simple equations understands by that statement. And to nobody's surprise, since all photons are electromagnetic radiation, i.e. the same stuff, it's hardly surprising that h is a universal constant.

A photon is a particle. If is is also a wave it will have a wave function but since this has never been discovered the existence of a photon as a wave is unproven. Photons are not electromagnetic waves and so E=hf does not apply to them.

Also, from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/the-dual-nature-of-light-as-reflected-in-the-nobel-archives

"Evidence for the particle nature of light

In physics textbooks two phenomena are usually quoted demonstrating the particle nature of light: 1) the photoelectric effect and 2) the Compton scattering of X-rays.

In some not so critical texts a third circumstance is erronously quoted, namely Planck‘s discovery of energy quanta, which he did in his analysis of heat radiation. The Nobel Committee honoured this monumental discovery by the Physics Prize in 1918, but did not make the mistake to give Planck credit for having discovered the particle nature of light."

[Bored chemist]

Photons are not electromagnetic waves and so E=hf does not apply to them.

Absolutely every experiment on the issue has shown that E=hf does apply to photons.
Why post something which is clearly wrong?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

No, this is ok. A photon (a boson) is the past state of a fermion. The big difference between bosons and fermions is that bosons contain a state that is fixed when they are created and fermions can vary their state.  The electron needs to record this past state somewhere in order to randomly emit a photon of the required frequency.

In this way an electron travels backward in time!!!

Which makes it possible that the universe is, in some way,  travelling forward and backward in time. i.e. things evolve and then revert to their original state. Possibly a reason for birth and death.

In fact, it would seem that the whole purpose of energy in the universe is to enable universal objects to function at higher and higher levels of state/evolution (until the energy is exhausted in some way and regression follows).

[Bored chemist]

In fact, it would seem that the whole purpose of energy in the universe is to enable universal objects to function at higher and higher levels of state/evolution

No.
It may seem that way to you, but that's probably wishful thinking.
The real fate of the universe is the so called "heat death".
On the whole, the universe is grinding to a halt.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The universe consists of systems within systems within systems .... Each system is, in many respects, a scaled down version of its parent. Scaled down in the sense that all systems inherit a common base "System" type  (e.g. all systems contain a central object) and a parent system is a larger version of a child system. Each system experiences itself as "normal" i.e.  if you suddenly became a solar system, you would not notice anything different about the universe apart from the fact that you were now a solar system:).

It is possible that in a galactic photon exists that is a scaled up version of the photon that interacts with an electron. This galactic photon can interact with the earth so that the earth is boosted to Mar's orbit, much like a normal photon interacts with an electron to boost it to a higher orbit (maybe how dinosaurs became extinct:).

Maybe the solar wind is a galactic EM wave? ... Probably not,  but given moving charged particles generate EM fields, the existence of an EM wave as part of the solar wind is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Maybe I should have said " maybe the solar wind generates a galactic EM wave". See also https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JA075i019p03735.

[Bored chemist]

Maybe the solar wind is a galactic EM wave?

No.
Why not learn some science?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The universe consists of systems within systems within systems .... Each system is, in many respects, a scaled down version of its parent.

There will likely exist a constant that is the scale factor for all systems in the universe. Assuming this is 10 all dimensions in a particular system (including time) will be multiplied by 10 in its parent system. The child will observe the parent ageing at a factor of 10 less than it (the child) is ageing. But the parent system won't be aware of this. Because of scaling, the parent will measure things in its system exactly the same as the child system measures them. In fact, from their own perspectives, all systems behave identically to a single conceptual base system. This is effectively Relativity without the need to consider the speed of light limit.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Actually the Universe itself is a system. And there may be other systems on top of it ad infinitum. This means that space and the Universe are separate entities with the likelihood that space is continuous. The fact that systems are digital in nature  indicates that there also may exist an aspect of space that is fully digital in nature. i.e it is filled with null-state points. This aspect may be conceptual only in nature and therefore tied to consciousness in some way. There is no movement in this universe. Each point takes on a state based on changes in other states over time. There will be a single universal algorithm that governs these state changes.

Systems and particles are just ways we mortals have invented to make these state changes easier to understand. Just as a computer language makes it easier to program a computer. They are in effect simulations of spacetime. The smaller a point in the simulation, the closer to reality is the simulation. Continuous space is merely infinitely small points.

[Bored chemist]

Assuming this is 10 all dimensions in a particular system (including time) will be multiplied by 10 in its parent system.

Why do you assume that the universe is determined by the number of fingers you have?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The fact that systems are digital in nature  indicates that there also may exist an aspect of space that is fully digital in nature. i.e it is filled with null-state points. This aspect may be conceptual only in nature

Lets face it there are aspects of reality that don't make sense unless reality IS conceptual in nature. Such as "action at a distance" and gravity in general. Somehow or other, a graviton causes a particle to be "pulled" rather than "pushed". If I were to program this situation in a computer, I would do as as follows

if event  is photon then
    force.direction = forward
elseif event is graviton   
    force.direction = backward
end if

Does reality do something similar? I suspect so.

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by this?

reality IS conceptual in nature.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

What do you mean by this?

reality IS conceptual in nature.

From Google

CONCEPT

noun
noun: concept; plural noun: concepts
an abstract idea.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
synonyms:   idea, notion, conception, abstraction, conceptualization; More
PHILOSOPHY
an idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language.


My take is that there is a "real" part to reality that is continuous/timeless in nature and a conceptual part that is digital/time-bound in nature that simulates aspects of the continuous part. It is very possible that we exist as part of something that is basically a computer.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

An atom is a system. The atom system contains a central Ion object and peripheral electron objects (which are likely to be systems themselves). The Ion object contains proton and neutron objects. It is likely that protons are the equivalent of reference objects in computer science. Each proton object references an electron object.   This means that Systems have two states. One that is basically an abstraction that is the combined states of their children (electrons in the case of an atom) and the other that is an abstraction of the total state of the system itself.   

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by this?

reality IS conceptual in nature.

My take is that there is a "real" part to reality that is continuous/timeless in nature and a conceptual part that is digital/time-bound in nature that simulates aspects of the continuous part.

So, you don't mean anything that could actually be science.
Why post it here?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

What do you mean by this?

reality IS conceptual in nature.

My take is that there is a "real" part to reality that is continuous/timeless in nature and a conceptual part that is digital/time-bound in nature that simulates aspects of the continuous part.

So, you don't mean anything that could actually be science.
Why post it here?

From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science

Is String Theory Science?
A debate between physicists and philosophers could redefine the scientific method and our understanding of the universe

Most of my theories are based on a comparison between physics science and computer science.

In any case, this is the New Theories section in which posts can be "on the lighter side".

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Assuming this is 10 all dimensions in a particular system (including time) will be multiplied by 10 in its parent system.

Why do you assume that the universe is determined by the number of fingers you have?

From Google

assume

VERB
suppose to be the case, without proof.
"topics which assume detailed knowledge of local events" · [more]
synonyms:
presume · suppose · take it · [more]

In other words, I am saying "For example, suppose this is 10, ..."

[Bored chemist]

Assuming this is 10 all dimensions in a particular system (including time) will be multiplied by 10 in its parent system.

Why do you assume that the universe is determined by the number of fingers you have?

From Google

assume

VERB
suppose to be the case, without proof.
"topics which assume detailed knowledge of local events" · [more]
synonyms:
presume · suppose · take it · [more]

In other words, I am saying "For example, suppose this is 10, ..."

Everyone knows what it means.
The question was why are you doing it?

Most of my theories ar

You have yet to post a competent  conjecture, never mind a theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Bored chemist]

In any case, this is the New Theories section in which posts can be "on the lighter side".

Yes, but they can't be vacuous dross.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Computers have been around now for over 50 years. But simulations as a means of describing/explaining physical systems are few and far between.

The reason for this could be that physics was initially described very successfully via mathematics. Ever since then, a gargantuan effort has been made to retain mathematics as the primary means of specifying physical systems. But mathematics is rigid in the extreme and horrendously difficult for lay people to understand. And the latest physical theories describe complex systems which mathematics has always had difficulty with.

The "how" of physical system has been lost in the pursuit of mathematical predictions. But mathematics is extremely limited in its ability to predict the results of  interactions of multiple systems.

Computer programming, on the other hand, is relatively easy to understand and can describe/simulate highly complex systems. Despite this, its uptake by the physics community appears to have been very limited to date . This may be  because computer programming is very general in nature and physicists have difficulty with general concepts. Or maybe it is an aversion to moving away from mathematics.

As my posts on this topic illustrate, a world of possibilities open up if computer science and physics are married. What appears to be dross to a physicist may well be the underlying gold for someone who has knowledge of computer science.

[Bored chemist]

But simulations as a means of describing/explaining physical systems are few and far between.

Not  in my world.

However, if it was true, it could indicate that "maths" is a better way of doing things than computer simulation .
(at this point, the grown ups are laughing but...)
So, maybe trying to model the real world as computer science is a silly idea...

Most of my theories are based on a comparison between physics science and computer science.