The universe is made of one particle

"Firstly - The law of parsimony - Occam's razor - is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, One should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. "That is true only of hypotheses with equal support by the evidence. Even if your hypothesis was consistent with observations, It makes more assumptions: claims unsupported by experimental evidence. If I claimed that every mystery, From accelerating expansion of the universe to the crashing of MH370, Was caused by wizardry, I would be espousing a model consistent with observations, But with unsupported assumptions. The inferiority of my explanatory example should be clear. As it turns out, Your reference to Occam's razor undermines your own argument, Which is also laden with assumptions, Such as that there is a close parallel between macroscopic properties (such as acidity) and the behaviour of subatomic particles. "Yes, I have the burden of proof and you have the burden of disproof. "That's not how it works. My position, That the universe isn't made from one particle, Is the null hypothesis, Whereas yours is the alternative hypothesis, On which the burden of proof lies. I'll provide an example to demonstrate why. If I claimed that there is an invisible teacup orbiting Alpha Centauri, It's my responsibility to prove it. You wouldn't be able to disprove it, Due to lacking the necessary equipment to detect an invisible teacup from 4. 3 light years away. But even though you can't disprove it, It doesn't mean my claim is true. "The universe is made of only one particle in 3 states. Positive, Negative and neutral. This can be further simplified to left spin, Right spin and no spin. I came to this conclusion by studying nature and observing that everything is divided into 3 groups. "It's a mistake to think that there's a parallel between the macroscopic (large-scale) world, And the subatomic world. The universe behaves very differently on a quantum level, And so it's a mistake to apply our intuition to it, Seeing as intuition is suited for humans living in the macroscopic world. Furthermore, Not all things are divided into 3 groups. There are far more than 3 elements, To use one example. "This particle would be spherical in shape. "You haven't supported this claim. The next two paragraphs are at odds with experimentally trialed models of the universe. They makes no sense, And their claims have no evidence to back them up. "The standard model has many sub-atomic particles which can all be catalogued into groups of 3, 6 or 9. Thus, 3 quarks which are positive, Negative and neutral. Therefore, The standard model particle groupings complies with and compliments my theory. "This is false. The standard model includes 4 gauge bosons, And 1 scalar boson, Which exist in their own separate categories. Neither 4 nor 1 are divisible by 3. Therefore, Not all of the particless can be grouped in the manner you describe. There are 6 quarks, And none of them are neutral. Up, Charm, And top all have fractional charge of +2/3, while down, Strange, And bottom all have a charge of -1/3. The Standard Model completely contradicts your theory. Nothing in the quoted paragraph is factual. Sources:https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Occam%27s_razorhttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Null_hypothesishttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Quarkhttps://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Standard_Model