[mxplxxx (OP)]

To date, no amount of smoothing can handle this situation.
And yet, the bookkeepers all drive expensive cars.

They set the odds. And they often lose in the short term but win over the long term - much like a casino  The tote on the other had takes a 25% cut of outlays before paying a dividend. THEY can't lose.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Of what is an electron the "scaled down" version?
(Or, if you prefer, what do you get when you scale up an electron?)
If there's no clear answer to that, then your central idea is wrong.

Or I have made a mistake.

When I am talking about scaling up/down, I am referring to systems. All central objects occur as part of a system. A sun is the central object of a solar system. An electron is the central object of an electron system. The electron system is the wave and the electron is the particle. The purpose of a system is to enable the central object to move and also (probably) to provide the necessary structure for the central object to interact with the central object of another system. An electron system scales up to an atom system (which is a central ion with electron subsystems) or (same deal) an Atom System scales down to an electron system.  Being an elementary particle, an Electron system has no subsystems (unless a. it contains particles that are too small to be detected (as per the photon systems E and M particles) or b. the electron subsystems are electron neutrino systems).

In the case of an Atom system, the central ion object also contains proton and neutron subsystems.

It is likely the electron system is one of the bottom systems (along with other elementary particles) in the universe system hierarchy.

Central objects in my software contain the internal state of the system they belong to. The external state of the system is given via the sum of the states of its subsystems. The central object can also contain an abstraction hierarchy where the state of the object is contained in a top-level "core" object and other objects radiate out from the core becoming more and more concrete until they reach the surface of the hierarchy where they are as concrete as they can be. It is possible this abstract-to-concrete transformation is present in the universe and is driven by gravity.  Think of the Earth with a very dense simple core and a very light but complex atmosphere.

ps there are Shells involved in all this, but for clarity I have omitted them.
 

[Bored chemist]

Or your understanding of my theory is incorrect.

I can only base my understanding  on what you said which was.

all objects in the universe are scaled-down versions of their parent

An electron is an object.
What parent is it a scaled down version of?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

An electron is an object.
What parent is it a scaled down version of?

It is a mistake. It should read "All systems in the universe are scaled down versions of their parents".

[mxplxxx (OP)]

ps there are Shells involved in all this, but for clarity I have omitted them

A "shell" is a sphere with the "core" object of a system at its centre that encloses a subsystem of a system. For example the solar system has an Earth shell that encloses the Earth system. Its centre is the core of the sun.

Actually, it is two adjoining shells that enclose a subsystem. For example, in the solar system, the Earth Shell in conjunction with the Venus shell encloses the Earth subsystem. This may have the effect of stopping or limiting the number of positions a system can occupy in a quantum universe.

Shells can have subshells where the systems involved are small enough to fit in the subshells.

The outermost shell of of a system encloses the system itself.

In my software, a shell is a category. For example a collection is a category and all objects in a collection are enclosed by the collection category. A similar situation seems to exist for shells.

Of course, a central object in a system also has shells that are subShells of the central object shell. And these subShells will also have subShells to an unknown (?) depth. So the Earth central object is surrounded by a Shell. The first subShell in this surrounding shell is the atmosphere. The atmosphere is composed of four layers (or subshells), troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere and thermosphere and so on.

It is very likely an atomic Ion (the central object of a  Atom system) has a similar makeup. In this case, each shell in the ion would likely correspond to an electron shell. The first ion shell would correspond to the outermost electron shell, the second to the outermost minus 1 electron shell and so on. Each ion shell would likely contain one of more proton systems, equal to the number of electrons in the corresponding electron shell. No idea where neutrons appear in this scheme of things but surmise they will be there to balance out mass in some way.

This makeup of atomic ion shells is likely to extend to all systems in the universe. The solar system central object (the sun) is likely to have shells that correspond to the planets. The fact that these shells  are not visible (or are they?) may be due to the intense gravity of these objects which has pulled apart previously existing systems.

In this scheme of things, a photon ion (i.e a photon system central object) would have a single shell (maybe two) containing two particles corresponding to the M and E particles discussed previously but with opposite charges.

It would seem that the central objects of systems can be regarded as positive and systems themselves as negative. Given positive attracts negative, could this be the mechanism for gravity?

[Bored chemist]

As far as I can tell, all you have said is that any thing has some sort of border between "thing" and "not thing".
That's true, but uselessly obvious.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It would seem likely that the energy of a single photon can be stored and retrieved. https://scienceblog.com/508559/new-approach-aims-to-advance-quantum-computers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29

- sounds a bit like a photon system (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75960.msg575784;topicseen#msg575784) where the subsystems are  also photon systems (i.e. confined photons).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Events in computer science are usually tied to some action. Physics, it would seem, treats photons mainly as random events. What if this were not the case? It makes a lot of sense given that the universe is so ordered. Using the "System" described previously in this post it could be theorized that:

All systems have  parents. Parents react to child photons/events. Child systems react in specific ways to events sent to them by a parent. Reactions, possibly to photons of specific energies, are specifically programmed.  This is essentially how a hierarchical state machine works. Photon reactions going up the hierarchy are "pull" ("react to") events whilst photon reactions going down the hierarchy are "push" ("do something") events.

A photon only exists in the system that it was emitted (created) in. A solar system photon cannot be found in a galaxy system for example. 

Other types of photon/event structures are possible that handle sibling-to-sibling system reactions.

It seems to me that trying to study photons (in fact, any particle!) as stand-alone objects is fraught with difficulty (as quantum physics seems to be telling us).

BTW, in computer science the object type is the basis for all other types in a system Why not in physics?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

In software development, rather than refer to objects directly they are often referred to via a reference. This is the case for Microsoft languages C# and Visual Basic.NET. What this achieves is being able to update the same object instantaneously in multiple places in the program.

It seem to me that a similar scheme in reality would make a lot of sense. Particularly so in the "spooky action at a distance" phenomenon of entanglement where changing one entangled particle results in the changes being replicated instantaneously in another entangled object. Something to ponder.

A proton, for example, may be a reference object to an electron system.

It is also interesting to speculate that, because I am aware and have a mind, that the universe has this capability also. If this capability is used (likely), then the universe can imagine galactic clusters and reference them from any point in its mind. We may be just systems referenced in a universal mind. Maybe this is why galactic clusters seen from earth resemble a brain.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to think that all this is a simplification.
You can talk of "an electron system".
Why not just talk about "an electron"?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You seem to think that all this is a simplification.

A computer is basically combinations of 0/1 digits. These combinations can be used to simulate a universe (which makes it very possible that a universe is simpler than we currently understand) Complexity comes in when language is used to manipulate 0/1 combinations (to make the combinations more understandable).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You can talk of "an electron system".
Why not just talk about "an electron"?

An electron system is basically the wave part of an electron wave/particle duality. The electron itself is the central object of this system and is only found when "observed" (i.e when the system interacts with the "observer").

Actually, things are a bit more complicated than this. The central object of a system is a type of system in its own right and is basically a hierarchical finite state machine (HFSM) for the object. e.g. the central object of a solar system is the sun which is composed of a single top-level state (possibly a black hole) and vast numbers of sub-states. This is awfully difficult to describe unless you have a good knowledge of HFSM's. I may attempt to do so in a later post.

One way to differentiate between a system and a central object system is that the former is an open system and the latter is a closed system.

So it is very possible that an electron comes with software that controls its state and how it reacts with other objects. This is how it would be programmed in a simulation of the universe.

[Bored chemist]

So it is very possible that an electron comes with software that controls its state and how it reacts with other objects. This is how it would be programmed in a simulation of the universe.

"so it is very possible that an electron comes with software that controls its state..."
It's not impossible, but there's no reason to believe it.
It's like saying electrons are always accompanied by imps who tell the electron how to behave.
Also "very possible"  is poor grammar. Things are possible or they are not. It's like being very pregnant.
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/modifying-absolutes

"This is how it would be programmed in a simulation of the universe."
Well, that might be how you would program it. There are clearly alternatives.
Most simulations of electrons that I have seen, draw little coloured balls.

But that's not really important to science because we are interested in how real electrons work, rather than in how simulated ones behave.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

but there's no reason to believe it

Nor is than any reason to disbelieve it. The mechanism for photon interactions with any other object in physics is not known as far as I am aware.

I would have thought that the fact that a software mechanism for photon interactions is available and no other mechanism has yet been discovered would have given credence to the software mechanism theory. Software is, at its most basic, just an arrangement of electricity flowing through logic gates.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Well, that might be how you would program it.

True. As to simulation of the universe alternatives, I have yet to see one that elucidates me as to the underlying programming. Lets face it, we really don't know how the universe works and if we don't how can we simulate it?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Also "very possible"  is poor grammar.

But "very likely" is not? No mention of "very possible" in your reference. A hellish oversight.

[Bored chemist]

Nor is than any reason to disbelieve it.

Actually, there is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

It is far simpler to have a universe than a Universe and the thing that simulates the universe.
(no matter how weird the universe may be).

[Bored chemist]

Software is, at its most basic, just an arrangement of electricity flowing through logic gates.

And the forces that make the electrons move are carried by virtual photons.
So you use a staggeringly huge number of photons to simulate each photon.
How does that help?
You can only build the computer because you already know what photons do.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Software is, at its most basic, just an arrangement of electricity flowing through logic gates.

And the forces that make the electrons move are carried by virtual photons.
So you use a staggeringly huge number of photons to simulate each photon.
How does that help?
You can only build the computer because you already know what photons do.

I am not about simulating the universe.  I am postulating ways that the universe might work. In any case, a simulation is normally an abstraction (model) of the way something works. Given that the universe is an an abstraction hierarchy, it is very likely it is a simulation of something much larger and more complicated (maybe it is a custom-designed as a teaching tool:).). Sooner or later we will design and build our own universe that we can pop into for a fun adventure or just to learn stuff.

Although we refer to the Universe as a single thing, it is a actually a system we are talking about. The Universe system, like all universe-based systems will very likely contain a central system whose centre, in turn, will very likely be a black hole where everything that currently exists will end up.  This central system is THE Universe.

As for Occam's razor, it has to do with energy. The universe has evolved (or is designed) to be as energy-efficient as possible in its evolution. This favors the natural selection of things that work simply because they tend to use the least energy. This does not mean that everything is simple. Human beings are obviously hugely complex entities but maybe we are as simple as we can be:).

My concept of the universe being built on a base/inherited system type is a pretty simple one I would have thought. Designing things to work as simply as they can is a characteristic of a good software developer. It is one of my fortes.

[Bored chemist]

Given that the universe is an an abstraction hierarchy,

That's not "given"