The common constituents of space and particles must be extended, reach up to the cosmological horizon, and be of Planck radius.
This yields the modern version of Dirac's scissor trick and thus yields the Dirac equation. The constituents also yield the gauge interactions and the different elementary particles - all as observed. Also general relativity with the field equations arises. So it seems that all of nature is described with Dirac's idea.
Based on Battey-Pratt and Racey, 1980. There seems to be no other visualization of wave functions in the research literature that agrees with observations.
Presents a way to picture how wave functions arise. Explains interference, entanglement, probabilities, and decoherence, as well as the Schrödinger equation and the Dirac equation.
Thank you. It seems that no other option except strands can explain both space and particles. It appears that a smallest length and a smallest area cannot arise in any other way.
The first half of the paper helps shortening your study of physics.
(Generated many comments 8 months ago. I am the author.)
The second, more daring half leads into modern research.
Free preprint, comments and more at https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines
Enjoy!
In nature, the maximum power value
c⁵/4G ≈ 9 ⋅ 10⁵¹ W
cannot be exceeded, as stated by Sciama in 1973. Still not much known, the value limits the power of explosions, the luminosity of stars and that of merging black holes. It is also a simple summary of general relativity.
Thank you for your candid feedback. I belong to those working in physics for decades. To avoid such misunderstandings in future, I improved a few lines.
One remark: the text is really meant to state that the specific 9 lines given do contain all of physics (and thus all other natural sciences).
The argument differs from "words and Shakespeare": the nine line describe nature exactly, within measurement precision. That is the central content of that page. It is not that physics governs everything. It is that those specific 9 lines describe all measurements, all observations, and contain all equations. This is a much stronger statement.
Of course the 9 lines imply all of physics. Just mention a part of physics that is missing, and I'll buy you a beer.
"Zero entropy" is indeed against the laws of physics - in this universe. It may be different in other universes.
Line 2 does not speak about locality, but about the speed of light. Entanglement does not violate the speed of light - in this universe. It may be different in other universes.
If you know what a Lagrangian is - in quantum theory, in quantum field theory, in the standard model and in general relativity - you also know that there is no random interpretation in the 9 lines.
By the way, I offer an invitation to dinner to everybody who has a good argument for or against the theory of everything presented in the text.