Wrote this for someone (now slightly modified); you may be interested:
In looking at science puzzles I found it helped to:
simplify things; look for common ground among
different parts of the puzzle; let the variety of
perspectives on a problem interact.
Example: Einstein Relativity and Quantum Mechanics:
Sitting in a train at a railway station I was
expecting my train to move and was probably reading
something. I looked up and at first thought my train
was moving backwards.
But how could that be, it would crash into the end of
I quickly realised the next door train was moving
forwards; my train was stationary.
The question "a train is moving, but is my train
moving forwards or is the next-door train moving
backwards?" represents simple (everyday)(or Newtonian)
relativity. It is usually solved by referring to a
common fixed reference frame (in this case, the
railway station would do, or the tracks on the
You could call this reference to the common fixed
frame "having a bob each way", or "differentiation"
(keeping them apart)(knowing the difference between
the two trains by knowing the same thing about them
(by integrating them indefinitely)(so maintaining a
distance between them) (treating them as both moving
in a fixed way i.e. relative to the station would do.)
What if my only independent reference frame available
was a third train that could also be moving forwards
or backwards relative to my train and/or relative to
the second train?
This uncertainty in defining a fixed reference frame,
I could call "an uncertainty principle". This kind of
double relativity, I could call "Einstein Relativity".
How do I know if my train is moving forwards or
backwards, if the next-door train could be moving
either way and the train next to that could be moving
with my train or with the next door train or neither?
Or my train could be the stationary one. This impasse
is resolved by being "quantum mechanical"; that is by
assuming a jump in my (or one of the other trains)
positions from point "A" to point "B". By marking my
position twice against the "indeterminate" background
of slipping trains; I get "an imaginary station" that
is I have constructed a gauge with which to measure
the accumulated differences in positions among the
So by treating my train AS IF it were stationary; I
APPEAR to freeze time; my ruler (made from just the
beginning position and the ending position I mark of
my train against the other trains) becomes my
imaginary clock, by which I can compare the changing
of the other two trains regarding each other (by
referring back to my two positions when marking a
third position, i.e. by creating an imaginary track
(called a "wave-function": it's bumpy but has a
So I assume a jump in my train's position (called
"quantum of action"), by "fixing a gauge" (marking two
positions of my train against the slipping of the
By making this "meeting of trains" dependent on a
fixed jump in my train; I have turned "Einstein
Relativity" into "quantum mechanics". The meeting of
trains is now broken into discrete bits ("atoms").
If I were to "split the atom" I would need to have two
options for marking a beginning and ending position of
my train. This would leave some flexibility for
accounting for the other trains movements (giving them
an equivalence in principle; due to my "Shrodinger's
equation" i.e. my wave equation (my slack in defining
my starting and ending positions).
If I placed limits on that slack (if I allowed my
imaginary ruler and my imaginary clock to swap
places)(If I froze-unfroze time, so to speak; that is
if I made an imaginary stop-watch) then I would be
keeping track of the other trains by strangely enough,
"not" keeping track of them (by noting only their
relative differences over time (that is their "sum of
history" (their combined movements with respect to my
If I tried to combine movements in my own train; this
would generate increasing amplitudes of slack in
defining the relative location (the zero-sum or
null-line) of the other two trains. But if I tried to
combine these increasing "amplitudes of slack" (these
problem-ability amplitudes (probability amplitudes));
I would need to keep deflating them in step with their
increase (so creating a series of steps in maintaining
my "Plank's constant" i.e. my quantum of action (my
original clock/ruler)(my gauge field)(my indeterminacy
principle)(my option in having alternatives for
beginning and ending where I mark the location of my
What I have been doing above is seeing physics as
patterns of information.
If one tries to be mathematical about physics:
What is mathematics? It seems to often be about
numbers; and what allows you to count is "category";
the category "orange" allows you to count "how many
oranges" and to imagine that oranges are exchangeable
If I try to treat the pattern of Einstein Relativity
as involving exchangeable units; I turn it already
into Quantum mechanics. If I try to treat the pattern
of a fixed meeting of items (a mechanical meeting) as
if it involved exchangeable units; well the
"fixed-ness" of the meeting already supplies a degree
of exchangeability so to keep this visible I will need
to re-invent Einstein Relativity (allow some
uncertainty as to what goes where).
If I try to define Einstein Relativity separately from
Quantum mechanics I will need to invent "imaginary
categories" (possibly M-theory); if I try to do this
with mathematics I will need to keep things very
"stringy" (by making imaginary relative
categories)(e.g. think of an orange relative to
"fruit" and you get some other fruit required e.g. a
New Scientist magazine describes a virus as like a
What is chemistry? In simple terms: a basketball team
is said to have "chemistry" when the players can read
each others game. They can make allowance for each
others skill; they can "gel" as a team. So to
simplify, I can call "chemistry": "accommodations".
To keep track of accommodations you would need to
establish limits (periods)(where each accommodation
begins and ends).
To keep track of these periods you would need
flexibility in defining where they begin and end (so
the ability to group the accommodations).
To keep track of the periods AND the groups (to know
the "radioactivity")(the atomic waits)(to give the
accommodations a cell structure)(to cross multiply
them)(to tabulate them)(to cover all possible
combinations in the basketball team) you would need to
define "elements" (specific features of each
individuals basketball skill).
A virus is like "a chemistry set", according to New
A "chemistry set" = "an accommodation set"?
But "set" implies "set in place" that is "already
A set of cards is a group of cards; they are already
accounted for regarding each other in-so-far as they
form a set, that is they are together.
An accommodation between two items (such as "A"
accommodates "B" or "B" accommodates "A") that is set;
implies communication between the items, that is,
factorisation or "common ground".
An "accommodation set" (or "chemistry set") between two
basketball players in a team in a game; is like they
have a plan of action (a set play) that involves
mutual allowance for each other and a combined
I could call this pattern "via us"; as the two players
act "via us" as in "via themselves together as a
Curiously, "via us" also sounds like "virus".
Practical experience: I stayed up most of the night
once, got tired, felt my health may be compromised;
and the idea occurred to me that maybe if I don't
listen to my body, a virus may step in to help my body
listen to itself. So I got the idea of "virus" as
"nature's cell phone"; a communication system. This
fits the New Scientist article notion of a virus as a
"chemistry set" because if "chemistry" is "set" then
"accommodation" is a matter of communication.
"common cold" is literally like "being cold in common"
that is "items have less room to move AS A GROUP" so
like a wave travelling in the group (hidden energy
i.e. hidden alternatives i.e. a "via us" or "virus").
Suppose "flu" = "relative common cold" so a "wave
function": hidden energy in 2 dimensions, so "hidden
matter" i.e. placing limits on defining combinations
in a group of items.
Suppose "bird flu" is: "flu flu*" that is "relative
flu" that is "every way an event can happen" that is
"factorisation" that is "the mechanics of meeting"
that is "quantum mechanics".
If this is the pattern of information then: "bird flu"
= "mutual rotation" = "mutation".
A "bird flu" "mutation" would be impossible; unless
there was a "leak" (input-output from
A "bird flu" "mutation" PLUS "breathing" would be
impossible; unless the breathing was uncertain
(input-output getting mixed up).
Without going into other detail; it is possible that
intensive farming practices re: chickens has placed
them "in a jam". They needed more space to maintain
their integrity as chickens (and to AVOID jumping
species and behaving like something else e.g. humans
that caged them in giant factories).
Geese fly in formation; a virus may have helped geese
read the slipstream (communicate as one geese when to
change positions in the air). Chickens in a jam may
have co-opted this virus to "factorise" "to create an
imaginary "back to earth" that is an "imaginary
bacteria" that is to maintain a globalised
chicken-integrity pattern amongst themselves as a
Bird flu may be saving chickens.
Humans in a jam might co-opt the virus. Eating yoghurt
(acid-loving bacteria) may insulate humans from
catching bird flu
(but jamming among humans still needs to be resolved).
Releasing battery-farmed chickens into the wild might
-this is rushed; computer time limited
-for your consideration"