The One Who Connects Posted January 1, 2017 Report Share Posted January 1, 2017 Ah yes, the strong and weak force. Now I have even more reading to do... And I will before I make anything out of this idea. But in essence, I asked because if multiple interactions were all involved with constructing the atom, then I could find an easier way of making Investiture interactions part of the process. Now to learn what each force regulates so I don't overstep their boundaries like last time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK-42 Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 I'm intrigued by the points @Pagerunner @elezraita made, but I think that you guys may be digging into it a bit too far. Brandon was originally a chemistry major, but I doubt he had too much experience with the quantum portion of Physical Chemistry. He may have come up with some investiture versions of electrons, assuming this theory is mostly correct, but I doubt that it will hold up when scrutinized from the more fundamental perspective that you guys are considering. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the discrepancy with the Pauli Exclusion Principle will likely be solved by mere handwaving. That said, it is still fun to theorize! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elezraita Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 28 minutes ago, NavySealsGuy said: I'm intrigued by the points @Pagerunner @elezraita made, but I think that you guys may be digging into it a bit too far. Brandon was originally a chemistry major, but I doubt he had too much experience with the quantum portion of Physical Chemistry. He may have come up with some investiture versions of electrons, assuming this theory is mostly correct, but I doubt that it will hold up when scrutinized from the more fundamental perspective that you guys are considering. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the discrepancy with the Pauli Exclusion Principle will likely be solved by mere handwaving. That said, it is still fun to theorize! You are likely correct. It is very unlikely that Brandon considered quantum chemistry when he came up with Harmonium, and it doesn't matter. As you say, it is fun to theorize. Honestly, the mere fact that he thought about this as deeply as he did is phenomenal. Until Pagerunner posted this theory, I had assumed that the whole thing was hand-wavy. That being said, go big or go home, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagerunner Posted January 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 57 minutes ago, NavySealsGuy said: I'm intrigued by the points @Pagerunner @elezraita made, but I think that you guys may be digging into it a bit too far. Brandon was originally a chemistry major, but I doubt he had too much experience with the quantum portion of Physical Chemistry. He may have come up with some investiture versions of electrons, assuming this theory is mostly correct, but I doubt that it will hold up when scrutinized from the more fundamental perspective that you guys are considering. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the discrepancy with the Pauli Exclusion Principle will likely be solved by mere handwaving. That said, it is still fun to theorize! 22 minutes ago, elezraita said: You are likely correct. It is very unlikely that Brandon considered quantum chemistry when he came up with Harmonium, and it doesn't matter. As you say, it is fun to theorize. Honestly, the mere fact that he thought about this as deeply as he did is phenomenal. Until Pagerunner posted this theory, I had assumed that the whole thing was hand-wavy. That being said, go big or go home, I guess. I think Peter is the in-house physicist; I know he's done some astrophysics calculations for Roshar's moons' orbits (which aren't stable, but won't degrade for millions of years or so) and Taldain's orbit (which is stable). So, Brandon might have run this past Peter, and they could have looked at least consider whether such forces would destabilize the atom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yurisses Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) Brandon also gets help from all kinds of people, and I remember him accepting the help of someone on reddit who said they had a Physics Ph. D or something. Most amazing thread I've ever read. I googled "harmonium oxide" thinking I was a genius and that made me stumble upon that thread, lol. Here are some WoB I'm surprised I didn't see in this thread that hint at your thinking being very much on the right track. You wrote: Quote But, here's the problem: there's extra Ruin. Some of Preservation is in mankind, so if he doesn't physically manifest this extra Ruin somewhere, he won't be in balance. So, he throws in an extra Ruin proton and Ruin electron; this very reactive valence electron. As long as he manifests enough harmonium, the extra Ruin is there in the environment. WoB: Quote How is Harmony balanced when a part of Preservation's power is expended on human sentience? Isn't that what caused all the trouble to begin with? Brandon Sanderson Indeed. Hm... What could Sazed be doing with that extra power...http://www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=977#85 On Harmonium being a combination of ruin atoms and preservation atoms but a not ruin metal and preservation metal alloy: Quote Fire Arcadia Are there 50 Allomantic Metals? Brandon Sanderson Nearly. Does Harmony have a metal? FIRE ARCADIA Is that an alloy of Lerasium and Atium? BRANDON SANDERSON You're along the right lines. Edited January 5, 2017 by yurisses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argent Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 This theory makes me uncomfortable, but I can't find a problem with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagerunner Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Argent said: This theory makes me uncomfortable, but I can't find a problem with it... Uncomfortable with the conclusions? The potential future ramifications? Or just the detail of the science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argent Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Just now, Pagerunner said: Uncomfortable with the conclusions? The potential future ramifications? Or just the detail of the science? I don't know, man. Something's weird about it. Normally I'd be all over a theory with this much science in it, but something bothers me about this one. And I can't figure out what. Something about subatomic particles made of investiture, maybe? It's not good feedback, but I don't have better, which is why I tried to downplay it a little bit until I figured out what bugs me about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyman Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Hello all, Wow, how did I miss this conversation? I love this kind of thing! Y'all have been so nerdy about this, and I appreciate it. It's been a really smart conversation so far, and that's good. (I love this site.) Anyway, I'd like to add as a caveat that I'm a theoretical physicist by training, but I'm not working in the field any more. I also didn't do any particle physics beyond the QED class as a grad student; my actual research went into solving the classical wave equation (harder than it sounds). I still try to keep my math and physics to some degree, though. That said, the conversation about the exclusion principle really interested me, because the basic argument that "Ruin" electrons and "Preservation" electrons would be measurably different particles is actually really good. It shouldn't just be Harmonium, either. All of Scadrial should have wildly different chemistry because of the existence of these distinguishable particles. (As an aside, the term "distinguishable particles" is largely a misnomer in modern particle physics. The truly up-to-the-minute widely accepted theories are quantum field theories. In these theories, there is one electron field which exists everywhere, just like the electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere. What we call particles are just quantized excitations of these underlying fields, just like photons are quantized excitations of the electromagnetic fields. Thus when we say two electrons are identical, in modern theories that's pretty meaningless. If they weren't identical, they would be different fields. However, there are different kinds of stable excitations; these correspond to different electron spins and to the positron, the anti-particle. Yes, in modern theories the positron is a necessary part of the electron field. There are also unstable excitations which can exist for only short distances; these are the so-called virtual particles, which are badly misnamed.) Except... Except... The entire thing depends on something called the spin-statistics theorem, which is a complex theorem explaining how quantum fields interact with special relativity. Under certain assumptions, including assuming that all particles are either fermions or bosons, we can come up with the usual statistics and behavior. However, I had a professor who said that it was logically possible that there were types of quantum particles (fields, really) with more complex structure than "I'm a boson" or "I'm a fermion." (We haven't seen any actual evidence for such things in the real world.) If they did exist, they would almost certainly consist of multiple particle types with more complex spin interactions and structure than we are used to, including more complex statistical behavior. I have no idea if this could result in multiple particles looking identical except for having very slightly different spiritual identity, but why not? If I've learned one thing from quantum mechanics, is that the universe is weird. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagerunner Posted February 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 On 12/13/2016 at 1:22 AM, Ironeyes said: If someone doesn't beat me to the punch, I'll try to explore this topic more when I see Brandon in February. I'd like to confirm this theory about Ettmetal containing slightly more ruin than preservation, and ask about the repulsion between protons and neutrons. He'd probably RAFO this but it's even worth asking if the metal has nuclear weapon potential. Hey, is this offer still on the table? If you need any help on phrasing particulars, I'm here to help. A further update, I have the audio files, but I am unable to get a full transcript. I blame the acoustics of the room we were in - a classroom that's designed to bounce the professor's voice out to the audience will also bounce all the audiences' voices back to the professor. So, there are like a hundred people on the recording. It's a mess. I'll do a little more work on cherry-picking specific phrases, but I could make out that he called it "reactive, not unstable." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironeyes Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 16 hours ago, Pagerunner said: Hey, is this offer still on the table? If you need any help on phrasing particulars, I'm here to help. A further update, I have the audio files, but I am unable to get a full transcript. I blame the acoustics of the room we were in - a classroom that's designed to bounce the professor's voice out to the audience will also bounce all the audiences' voices back to the professor. So, there are like a hundred people on the recording. It's a mess. I'll do a little more work on cherry-picking specific phrases, but I could make out that he called it "reactive, not unstable." Sure, I'm still good to ask. I brought my copies of the Mistborn era 1 trilogy from home, so it'll be a perfect time to ask some Scadrial-themed questions. And yes, I'd love help with phrasing. This'll be my first signing, so I don't know what to expect at all. So if you could help me work out how best to phrase the question, I'll print it out and slip it into one of the books I'm bringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironeyes Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 On 1/8/2017 at 11:36 PM, happyman said: Hello all, Wow, how did I miss this conversation? I love this kind of thing! Y'all have been so nerdy about this, and I appreciate it. It's been a really smart conversation so far, and that's good. (I love this site.) Anyway, I'd like to add as a caveat that I'm a theoretical physicist by training, but I'm not working in the field any more. I also didn't do any particle physics beyond the QED class as a grad student; my actual research went into solving the classical wave equation (harder than it sounds). I still try to keep my math and physics to some degree, though. That said, the conversation about the exclusion principle really interested me, because the basic argument that "Ruin" electrons and "Preservation" electrons would be measurably different particles is actually really good. It shouldn't just be Harmonium, either. All of Scadrial should have wildly different chemistry because of the existence of these distinguishable particles. (As an aside, the term "distinguishable particles" is largely a misnomer in modern particle physics. The truly up-to-the-minute widely accepted theories are quantum field theories. In these theories, there is one electron field which exists everywhere, just like the electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere. What we call particles are just quantized excitations of these underlying fields, just like photons are quantized excitations of the electromagnetic fields. Thus when we say two electrons are identical, in modern theories that's pretty meaningless. If they weren't identical, they would be different fields. However, there are different kinds of stable excitations; these correspond to different electron spins and to the positron, the anti-particle. Yes, in modern theories the positron is a necessary part of the electron field. There are also unstable excitations which can exist for only short distances; these are the so-called virtual particles, which are badly misnamed.) Except... Except... The entire thing depends on something called the spin-statistics theorem, which is a complex theorem explaining how quantum fields interact with special relativity. Under certain assumptions, including assuming that all particles are either fermions or bosons, we can come up with the usual statistics and behavior. However, I had a professor who said that it was logically possible that there were types of quantum particles (fields, really) with more complex structure than "I'm a boson" or "I'm a fermion." (We haven't seen any actual evidence for such things in the real world.) If they did exist, they would almost certainly consist of multiple particle types with more complex spin interactions and structure than we are used to, including more complex statistical behavior. I have no idea if this could result in multiple particles looking identical except for having very slightly different spiritual identity, but why not? If I've learned one thing from quantum mechanics, is that the universe is weird. Most of this went over my head, but are you suggesting that there's a "Ruin" electron field and a "Preservation" electron field, and that the particles we're discussing are excitations of those separate fields? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagerunner Posted February 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Ironeyes said: Sure, I'm still good to ask. I brought my copies of the Mistborn era 1 trilogy from home, so it'll be a perfect time to ask some Scadrial-themed questions. And yes, I'd love help with phrasing. This'll be my first signing, so I don't know what to expect at all. So if you could help me work out how best to phrase the question, I'll print it out and slip it into one of the books I'm bringing. This isn't just a signing, right, it's a convention? So that might mean there's more time than at a signing - the one I was at, it was a huge rush to get everyone through (and Brandon still was there for over 6 hours!). If you wait 'til the end of a signing, you can slip more questions in - I didn't know that at the time, and went early and only got a couple of questions, but I hung around anyways and got tips from those who'd been there before and knew how to get 20 or more questions in. But, even though he kept the line moving, if a question was worthy of a good discussion, he'd take a couple minutes to talk it over (and one person, he had to call back up 'cause he wanted to clarify something he'd told them). I didn't see him write answers in anyone's books; it was all discussion, I think. But that was a release signing, so who knows if conventions are the same or not. You might have more time to pick his brain, go down a good tangent. If you're looking for a good yes/no question having to do with this theory, here's what I'd say: Is harmonium's extreme chemical reactivity due to having subatomic particles which are individually either of Ruin or Preservation? That communicates the core idea, doesn't get too specific, and is hopefully worded carefully enough to not trigger his troll mode. You can also name-drop electron shielding, since it would be a similar principle. If he doesn't say no and starts to open up, some good followups would be (in order of mostly-RAFO to total-RAFO): Are the subatomic particles made out of Investiture? Or are they normal particles which have Investiture attached to them? Does harmonium share the electron configuration of a real alkali metal (like cesium)? How does that balance out, since they all have an odd number of electrons? Is a harmonium atom an atomic fusion of a lerasium atom and an atium atom? Does a lerasium/atium alloy have different Allomantic properties than harmonium? When harmonium reacts with water, does it leave behind an oxide, or maybe a hydroxide? Is that reaction product Invested? What happens to the Invested electrons that are transferred away? Are all physical forms of Investiture (god metals, Shardblades, mists, Perpendicularities) formed this same way, with Invested subatomic particles that form a normal atomic structure? For now, I'd steer clear of questions about nuclear instability, whether or not the new interactions would change the overall electron configuration, and the details of the force balance (although I do have some math on the previous page, if you want to print it off and look impressive to the other people in line.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironeyes Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 @PagerunnerThis is a convention that incorporates 2 signings. So I think I should have ample opportunities to pick his brain over the course of the three days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyman Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 On 2/2/2017 at 7:24 AM, Ironeyes said: Most of this went over my head, but are you suggesting that there's a "Ruin" electron field and a "Preservation" electron field, and that the particles we're discussing are excitations of those separate fields? At it's most simple, yes. They'd be related to each other, though, in complex ways which allow them to be exchanged without changing the way the world works. It's subtle, though, and I'm not planning on working out the details. It's enough handwavium for me to remember that things don't have to be either fermions or bosons, but with more fields, they can be more complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The One Who Connects Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Might just be me remembering high school chem because I'm younger, but I figured that for the purpose of Harmonium, it would work within the electron configuration table. Quote 3p ↑↓ ↑↓ ↑↓ Where Preservation electrons were Up, and Ruin electrons were Down, or somesuch similar to this. Or would that break the balance because of the want for Ups and then Downs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagerunner Posted February 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 24 minutes ago, The One Who Connects said: Might just be me remembering high school chem because I'm younger, but I figured that for the purpose of Harmonium, it would work within the electron configuration table. Where Preservation electrons were Up, and Ruin electrons were Down, or somesuch similar to this. Or would that break the balance because of the want for Ups and then Downs? I think it's fine for harmonium, not so much for atium and lerasium (since they can't be all up or all down). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccstat Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 On 2/2/2017 at 1:48 PM, Pagerunner said: Does a lerasium/atium alloy have different Allomantic properties than harmonium? When harmonium reacts with water, does it leave behind an oxide, or maybe a hydroxide? Is that reaction product Invested? These are the most interesting follow-ups, in my opinion. And both remain useful questions whether he answers yes or no to the main theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironeyes Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Can't write details now but I can't wait to say this: This theory is officially confirmed! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagerunner Posted February 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 You rock. Post specifics as soon as you can - the suspense is killing me! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironeyes Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Pagerunner said: You rock. Post specifics as soon as you can - the suspense is killing me! Aww, thanks! OK, here is the gist of it. Harmonium's instability IS caused by some of the subatomic particles being of Ruin and some of Preservation. Harmonium is NOT an alloy, but rather a complete metal. Its particles are NOT composed of investiture, but have a "spiritual identity" that associates them with one of the shards. A portion of the energy that comprises the explosion when harmonium touches water is energy being pulled directly from the spiritual realm and the particles thus losing their spiritual association with one of the shards. Due to this, there is no such thing as Harmonium Oxide, although he did add a cryptic comment that there is "something else" left behind after the explosion which is "interesting" and will be important to Scadrial's future. At this point I figured I couldn't hold up the line much longer and started fishing for a RAFO card. So I asked about Harmonium's nuclear potential. But get this: He didn't RAFO it!! He said that harmonium can't actually create a nuclear explosion but it does something similar which will be "very important" to the cosmere in the future. He explained that this is because he essentially added a third state of matter, since investiture is analogous to energy and matter where one can be transformed into the others through the right processes. So harmonium can create an effect that is somehow similar to a nuclear explosion but instead of transforming matter into energy, it does something with investiture. He didn't elaborate after that. As soon as we get the recording transcript done we can analyze his exact words, but this is what I remember for now. Please ask for any clarifications since I'll probably remember in better detail if a specific question is asked. Edited February 20, 2017 by Ironeyes 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagerunner Posted February 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Ironeyes said: Aww, thanks! OK, here is the gist of it. Harmonium's instability IS caused by some of the subatomic particles being of Ruin and some of Preservation. Harmonium is NOT an alloy, but rather a complete metal. Its particles are NOT composed of investiture, but have a "spiritual identity" that associates them with one of the shards. A portion of the energy that comprises the explosion when harmonium touches water is energy being pulled directly from the spiritual realm and the particles thus losing their spiritual association with one of the shards. Due to this, there is no such thing as Harmonium Oxide, although he did add a cryptic comment that there is "something else" left behind after the explosion which is "interesting" and will be important to Scadrial's future. At this point I figured I couldn't hold up the line much longer and started fishing for a RAFO card. So I asked about Harmonium's nuclear potential. But get this: He didn't RAFO it!! He said that harmonium can't actually create a nuclear explosion but it does something analogous which will be "very important" to the cosmere in the future. He explained that this is because he essentially added a third state of matter, since investiture is analogous to energy and matter where one can be transformed into the others through the right processes. So harmonium can create an effect that is somehow similar to a nuclear explosion but instead of transforming matter into energy, it does something with investiture. He didn't elaborate after that. As soon as we get the recording transcript done we can analyze his exact words, but this is what I remember for now. Please ask for any clarifications since I'll probably remember in better detail if a specific question is asked. Very nice, and good job on the nuclear info. Did you manage to get an actual RAFO card in the end? And, since you're asking for questions... Did you get a confirmation that harmonium shares an atomic structure with cesium? Do we know which subatomic particles are Invested (all electrons, some electrons, electrons and protons)? Did we confirm that lerasium and atium are similarly comprised of Invested subatomic particles? The nuclear part... I'll think on that for a bit, and then I'll get back to you on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironeyes Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Pagerunner said: Very nice, and good job on the nuclear info. Did you manage to get an actual RAFO card in the end? And, since you're asking for questions... Did you get a confirmation that harmonium shares an atomic structure with cesium? Do we know which subatomic particles are Invested (all electrons, some electrons, electrons and protons)? Did we confirm that lerasium and atium are similarly comprised of Invested subatomic particles? The nuclear part... I'll think on that for a bit, and then I'll get back to you on that. I actually didn't get a card. Being on the spot froze me up a bit and I couldn't think of another RAFO-worthy question. I also didn't end up asking any of those questions. Since he'd already opened the topic of the spiritual identity of the particles, I decided to go down that route and see where it took us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendtheking Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Ironeyes said: Aww, thanks! OK, here is the gist of it. Harmonium's instability IS caused by some of the subatomic particles being of Ruin and some of Preservation. Harmonium is NOT an alloy, but rather a complete metal. Its particles are NOT composed of investiture, but have a "spiritual identity" that associates them with one of the shards. A portion of the energy that comprises the explosion when harmonium touches water is energy being pulled directly from the spiritual realm and the particles thus losing their spiritual association with one of the shards. Due to this, there is no such thing as Harmonium Oxide, although he did add a cryptic comment that there is "something else" left behind after the explosion which is "interesting" and will be important to Scadrial's future. At this point I figured I couldn't hold up the line much longer and started fishing for a RAFO card. So I asked about Harmonium's nuclear potential. But get this: He didn't RAFO it!! He said that harmonium can't actually create a nuclear explosion but it does something similar which will be "very important" to the cosmere in the future. He explained that this is because he essentially added a third state of matter, since investiture is analogous to energy and matter where one can be transformed into the others through the right processes. So harmonium can create an effect that is somehow similar to a nuclear explosion but instead of transforming matter into energy, it does something with investiture. He didn't elaborate after that. As soon as we get the recording transcript done we can analyze his exact words, but this is what I remember for now. Please ask for any clarifications since I'll probably remember in better detail if a specific question is asked. Maybe the interesting thing is a perpendiculaturie between the physical and the cognitive realms? I think it's likely that it has to do with the faster than light travel we'll see in the third mistborn triologie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 On 13 December 2016 at 9:11 AM, Pagerunner said: Brandon has referred to ettmetal as super-cesium. Sazium? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts