Physics and math people: I have just figured it all out, and no, the aliens did not tell me.

[originalpckelly]

I hate to inform Deep Thought, but the answer to everything is 0, not 42.

If you fill in v1 in the following equation as 0, won't it cause momentum to be un-conserved in the other, if it has any non-zero value?



Einstein didn't think what it would be like to be a single particle all by itself in it's own lonely universe. Without any reference point, you can't have a v.

I would suggest to you that in fact, the standard model is coherent with itself. Quantum physics and general relativity are the same thing, it's just that quantum physics deals with few points of reference, and relativity is at least two points of reference.

If you have a number line, just one point on the line doesn't tell you anything. It's undefined. It should be for all practical purposes 0.

What if you make the universe the only frame of reference? What can you compare the whole universe to? Nothing, as the universe is the reverse of an atom. An atom (by the thinking of Democritus) is a thing which cannot be divided any further.

The universe by general definition, is the the thing that is not the product of division.

If you can't divide anything any further, then it makes the division in that momentum equation useless. If something can't be divided, it too makes the division in the momentum equation useless.

Can you divide 0? Can you divide by 0?

That is why you could never, but never have v = 0, it appears in both the numerator and the denominator.

It stands to reason that as you approach the indivisible unit of matter that it should be harder to find, after all, you have fewer points of reference when you drill down so far. You would need to have at least three points reference not in the same plane to know where something is in X, Y, Z.

Isn't it curious that electrons behave so wildly and they are thought to be of a class that is the last division of matter so far discovered?

If you stripped away the electrons, the quarks in the protons/neutrons would be necessary for X, Y, Z points of reference, and they would all have to be in different planes, or else it would just be X,Y, or if it was three points on a line, then you'd just have X.

If matter is energy and energy is just a measure of difference (as you'd have un-conserved energy if you made v 0 in the kinetic energy equation), then isn't that kind of like saying probability at some point?

What's the disequilibrium of one point? None, you can't sub-divide a single point. If you had two points, what's the possible disequilibrium (aka difference)? 1/2, however many "units they are apart."

If you had three points, what's the possible disequilibrium? 1/3.

If John has one marble in a bag, and reaches in the bag and pulls out a marble, what's the probability that John is going to get the one marble?

1/1

1=1

How meaningful is it to reach in a bag and get out one marble? It's just one marble. There is no probability/difference of one marble, it's one marble.

What if the marble isn't in a bag, and is all by itself? The bag presumes that you have two things, which you don't in either the case of the universe or a Democritian atom by definition, you have only one thing. How can you know what one thing is all by itself? Don't you need a frame of reference? At least another point?

Energy is just a measure of difference, just like probability. And probability is division. 1/2, how many probabilities are there in one out of two? 2.

0 = 0-0
0 = 1-1
1 = 2-1
2 = 3-1
You need to be able to do that and not get 0 to have a difference, which is what probability and energy are, because you simply cannot subtract one point from itself. Then you have nothing.

One thing by itself cannot truly be analyzed in probability, and no value assigned it for lack of a second thing to make the comparison.
1=1 is really two things, one thing and another which are equal to one another, not just itself.

1 = 0 for the universe and a Democritian atom.

That ladies and gentlemen is the joining of quantum physics with relativity.

There is just one more thing:
Every physicist working on this is a complete and total idiot for not getting this sooner. EOM.

My name is PC Kelly, and I just figured out that you can't have a difference in one thing.