Map of physics 

One of the founding principles of physics is the idea that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words; - there is a constant/fixed amount of energy that continuously transforms between the different possible partitions of it as the world goes on. 

I wonder, could One use my 'map' of partitions, in some way, to map all of physics? And, could this map be a central paradigm, where students study it to learn of the already mapped 'territory', and where the explorers (physicists) use it to locate and navigate towards unexplored and unmapped territory?

If the whole universe is considered as having a sum of energy and that this energy always stays the same, then, this means that; 

- All interactions, of any kind, requires some kind of partitioning. Since an interaction only is recognizable through some kind of change 

-- All interactions can be considered a partitioning. - Even radiationTR

- every sensory impression could be found in the partitions, in the physical worldview..

--So, how would the sense of color or brightness or sound or touch fx.. be carried over as partitions? Well, One shouldn't be too concerned about this, as in the physical worldview, One can just create new senses, instead of being concerned about our own specific senses, which is unlike the other 'map' of meanings, in a certain sense...

- What should I consider each part of the map or partitions as when I review it as a map of physics instead?

-- What should the lines be, their slope, the sum, the dots.. etc..

-- When do I know when I have a 'thing' that I can map on the map of physics? when do I have something that 'contains' energy? Like, 'between' an interaction, what happens there? I suppose it becomes about the noticeable difference.

-- if I measure something like the absorption or emission spectrum of atoms, how would that be transcribed onto the map of partitions? It seems in some ways like a question about the 'system' constituting the atom rather than perhaps the specific partitions... But it can also be seen as I have a white light of input of certain energy and then compare it to the number of total energy outputs..

---Anyway, should it be seen as the energy as the sum, and then the output of its partition... Or should there be more focus on the atom as partitioned? I suppose it is the experience in general that is important... theyre all relevant, in a sense, but how should they be notated?

- I believe the idea that energy can't be created nor destroyed is a logical necessity when viewing our experience as being in a physical world. 

-- energy is really just a measure of doing. What is being done and what can be done. Stuff in the universe is defined by what they do, so defining stuff by their doings are a proper definition. For example, 1 stuff may do A-->B under triggering circumstances, 2 stuff may do A--> C under same circumstances...  But is the stuff the A or the arrow?

I suppose one thing that makes this somewhat difficult, is that the 'persistent systems' object are of, may 'suppress' some energy, until the system is disrupted in some way..

Hej, jeg håber at jeg har ringet rigtigt, for jeg er ikke helt sikker på hvordan jeg skal bærere mig ad med det jeg vil, men jeg føler nu alligevel at fysik er den rigtige afdeling, som bedst muligt kan hjælpe mig videre, selvom det måske er en smule tværfagligt. Ser du, jeg er i gang med projekt der går ud på at få lavet et slags kort og overblik overr al fysik. Den metode som jeg  har i sinde at skabe det med, er et meget matematisk emne og jeg det er derfor noget som jeg godt kunne bruge noget hjælp med, og det er jo et det som jeg håber i kan hjælpe med.

Access to the perfect mind

a paradigm of education & invention

The tangible & palpable mind