Super-Noodle Quantum Theory

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Bloink1 solid.png

An image or images should be included on this page to improve the quality.

If possible, please add some pictures to properly illustrate this page and then remove this message. Do not remove this notice until it receives some pictures. Failure to comply will result in this notice being added again. If this page is not fixed in 30 days, it may become a candidate for deletion.

The Super-Noodle Quantum Theory refers to a particle theory that was actively researched by the scientific community between late 2007 (october 3rd at 10:10pm) and later 2007 (october 3rd at 10:15pm). This has soon been supplanted by the more accurate "Hyper-Noodle 248-dimentional e-ate hypothesis" but the original article contains some useful insights that may be of absolutely no relevance for upcoming research.

Original paper - "Grasping Super-Noodle Quantum Theory"[edit | edit source]

by Uther Nathan Olson

The main purpose of this paper is to present the public with a new mind-blowing sub-particle theory getting increasingly popular among well-informed scientists. In the same way that String Theory was an attempt to get closer to the TOE (theory of everything) we can safely assume that Super-Noodle Theory is to date the biggest step toward THUMB (the hypothetically universal M bazaar). It has been proven that, should THUMB exist, Noodle Theory (NT for short) must be a part of it. Some strong arguments even hint at the fact that NT may well be a rule of THUMB.

Therefore, as soon as this theory gets an understandable wording, a usable mathematical frame, a quanticization, some loose link with special or general relativity and a clear cooking recipe (all things that can easily be done by the end of the... er... well, some Monday afternoon) it will be able to describe and/or explain everything : gravitons, Higgs bosons, dark energy, EPR paradox, black holes, big bang, UFO sightings, Murphy's law and, of course, the question the answer of which is 42. There's still some debate about whether to include the kitchen sink or not, but it's obviously a minor issue.

Hello.  The correct explanation for Murphy's Law (as well as black holes, the EPR paradox, 
and everything else in the universe) in fact lies with my theory, Quantum Murphydynamics.  
Regarding the "Hyper-Noodle 248-dimensional e-ate hypothesis", attempting to embed the 
Standard Model in E8 won't work because of improper mixing of bosons and fermions.  Sorry, man.

I – Sub-particle structure[edit | edit source]

The central idea behind NT is that all particles and forces are made of tangled noodles. The most fundamental building blocks of our reality are in fact tiny wriggling noodles. They are neither dimensionless entities, as are the particles of the Standard Model, nor are they naive 1-dimensional strings, since their cross-section can't be neglected. They are full 3D noodles. Their inherent sticky texture have them naturally join their extremities from time to time, while the tomato sauce effect keep them from turning to “pasta blob” (although some variant theories see in this outcome a possible explanation for Bose-Einstein condensates). Billions of billions of wriggling noddles. So what? Well, when the noodles join one another end to end, they form long noodle lines from which force field lines arise in our macro-scale reality. But there are more in noodle physics than just lines. When noodle lines collide, they get tangled and occasionally form small greasy knots. Two lines form a "4-legged" knot while three lines form a "6-legged" one. The nature of 4-legged knots is not well understood and has given birth to a whole new branch in NT. This bleeding edge research field - heavily based on computer simulation - is what we call NKS (Noddle Knot Simulation). The case of 6-legged knots is much easier to understand. The study of their symmetries - the mathematical name of which, SU(3)xSL(2)xSK(1), stand for "3 spaghetti units, each having 2 spaghetti legs, forming 1 spaghetti knot" - has clearly proven that the space of the states of the 6-legged knots is dual (some say trial, but that don't seems to mean anything) to the space of the freedom degrees of the particles of the Standard Model. That is to say: 6-legged knots ARE the erroneously-called elementary particles of the Standard Model.

II – The fermion particles[edit | edit source]

Let's describe the substructure of what used to be the elementary particles. Remember that our noodles are wriggling. Therefore, knot legs are also wriggling. But some are wriggling clockwise while other are wriggling counter-clockwise. At this point you may ask yourself what is the meaning of "wriggling clockwise". Well, as long as you don't ask me, it's ok. Let's say it's mag...hem... I mean it's all about quantum numbers. Quantum numbers are things that we don't know what they are but that we know they are because they are in different ways (or at least they could be). Note that they usually are in all that different ways at ONE time. From now on you should think twice before asking any question. Questions in general are out of topic. Period.

Well. So knot legs are wriggling. Let's assume that one leg wriggling clockwise (C) is equivalent to one sixth times the charge of the positron, and that one leg wriggling counterclockwise (A) is equivalent to one sixth times the charge of the electron. Let's also assume that two legs wriggling in opposite directions cancel out (so far as counting charges in concerned). Then we get some very interesting patterns:

(pair of legs inside parenthesis belong to the same noodle)

(CC)(CC)(CC) [+1] - positron
(AA)(AA)(AA) [-1] - electron
(CA)(CA)(CA) [0] - neutrino
(AC)(AC)(AC) [0] - anti-neutrino
(AC)(CC)(CC) [+2/3] - red up quark
(CA)(AA)(AA) [-2/3] - anti-red anti-up quark
(CC)(AC)(CC) [+2/3] - green up quark
(AA)(CA)(AA) [-2/3] - anti-green anti-up quark
(CC)(CC)(AC) [+2/3] - blue up quark
(AA)(AA)(CA) [-2/3] - anti-blue anti-up quark
(AA)(AC)(AC) [-1/3] - red down quark
(CC)(CA)(CA) [+1/3] - anti-red anti-down quark
(AC)(AA)(AC) [-1/3] - green down quark
(CA)(CC)(CA) [+1/3] - anti-green anti-down quark
(AC)(AC)(AA) [-1/3] - blue down quark
(CA)(CA)(CC) [+1/3] - anti-blue anti-down quark

III – The boson (also, mistakenly, "Bosom") particles[edit | edit source]

From time to time, knot legs change their wriggling direction (Why? Well... Why wouldn't they do so? By the way, haven't I been clear about my position on out of topic questions?). These changes, which can propagate along noodle lines are what the bosons are made of. Let's call (+) a leg that change from (A) to (C), let's call (-) a leg that change from (C) to (A) and let's call (.) a leg that doesn't change at all. Since (+) change the corresponding charge from -1/6 to +1/6 it holds a +1/3 charge. In the same way, (-) hold a -1/3 charge. We then get the following bosons:

(+.)(+.)(+.) [+1] - W+ boson
(.+)(.+)(.+) [+1] - W+ boson (opposite handedness :-) )
(-.)(-.)(-.) [-1] - W- boson
(.-)(.-)(.-) [-1] - W- boson (opposite handedness)
(+-)(+-)(+-) [0] - Z0 boson
(-+)(-+)(-+) [0] - Z0 boson (opposite handedness)

Note that this handedness thing kind of work with fermions too. Kind of.
(..)(..)(..) [0] – photon

(no wriggle change here... hmm... only knot translation along the noodles)
(+.)(-.)(..) [0] - anti-red green gluon
(..)(+.)(-.) [0] - anti-green blue gluon
(-.)(..)(+.) [0] - anti-blue red gluon

and so on...
Hey, I have a question.  Are neutrinos Majorana or Dirac particles in this theory?  
(In other words, are all neutrinos left-handed and all anti-neutrinos right-handed?  
Or could we also have right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti-neutrinos?)  
I'm in neutrino astrophysics, so I'm really upset that you've neglected this issue.

Reply: Yep, it seems there used to be right-handed neutrinos and left-handed anti-neutrinos. But since they have been hunted down (out of xenophobia) by their straiter brethren, there are not many left nowadays. A shame...


IV – Other particles[edit | edit source]

Well, let's try to find other particles.

First, imagine that some knots are more complicatedly tangled than others, while still having the same number of legs. They obviously are the higher generation particles: muon, tau, strange and charm quarks, etc. Very pretty. Next, consider the Higgs bosons... er... hum... not easy! But, indeed, who REALLY needs Higgs bosons? I don't. Period. Now, gravitons... Well, has anybody in here ever seen a graviton? No? Perfect! Issue solved. Heh Heh!

In fact, we strongly believe that our theory is so rich and powerful that there is never any problem. Only solutions. So what is the solution? Wait a minute... Mag... Vod... No. ... Mir... Twi...Em... Yes! I got it. Emergence. Hum, well, so... So we have strong evidences that Time and Space are emergent in NT. Hence gravitation. And general relativity. No need for gravitons nor Higgs bosons. And if you find one of them any soon it's because they emerge from our theory. No question? Well.

Unfortunately, this theory fails to explain the existence of the Moron,
a very important subatomic particle.  Hence, Quantum Murphydynamics is better.

V – Emergence[edit | edit source]

Time, in NT, is a local thingy that is somewhat linked to the number of wriggle changes in a system as compared to the number of wriggle changes in another one.

Space, or more specifically distance between two systems, is a measure of the relative frequency at which a system is causally changed by another. The more changes in a system are causally linked to changes in an other, the closer the two systems are to each other.

As the "time" pass, the causal reach of a system tend to increase, as well as the strength of the causal dependencies between two linked systems. And, at the same time, the propagation rules governing noodle networks - due to geometric specificities, shadow effect, etc. - tend to dilute causal links. The net effect of all these contributions is that the relative frequency of causal interactions tend to increase between already close systems and to decrease between those far from each other. The first effect is what we call gravitation, while the second one accounts for dark energy.

VI – Super Noodle Theory[edit | edit source]

It's time to get from Noodle Theory to Super Noodle Theory. Well, the first idea is to add super-dimensions, then point out super-symmetries and finally end up deducing the existence of super-particles (called super-partners but that we choose to name super-mates in the context of NT). That doesn't work. We don't have enough dimensions. Some scientists are in fact exploring new branches of Noodle Theory where noodles are replaced by n-plate-of-noodles (n-dimensional plates of noodles) but these have not been proven very stable. So we have to find another way. There it is: considering that it's very easy to prove that noodle knots (respectively Noodle Theories) are bulletproof, as well as to prove that they are very easy to hide behind a pair of glasses, it naturally follows that they are super noodle knots (respectively Super Noodle Theories). There already exists a famous example. Then just equip a given noodle knot with a super-tight red & blue suit and you get the perfect super-mate. And we get our Grand Super Noodle Theory.

VII – Bleeding Edge Research[edit | edit source]

Some scientists have proposed that, in distant past, two n-plate-of-noodles collided with each other, provoking a n-mess that finally resulted in a Big Noodle Squash from which our universe is born. Why not.

Others say that noodle networks may have been plunged in a kind of liquid soap, resulting in an universe-wide noodle foam. Whether or not this theory is linked to Bubble Universes (by mean of some sort of primeval breath) in unclear.

Conclusion: you now have all the needed elements to fully understand what lies behind the richest (calorie-wise) theory ever. Of course, our theory is very rigorously defined, mathematically consistent, and very elegant. We use a great deal of bra, ket, phi, psi, tensor, spinor, lie group algebra, and whatever is prescribed by 21st century physics. However, all that stuff lies well beyond the scope of this introductory article. Enjoy.

See also[edit | edit source]