What I want to do with the Physics Derivation Graph

For the past few years, completing the Physics Derivation Graph seemed infeasible in one lifetime. This meant I would get a partial result in one lifetime, or I'd have to find motivated collaborators willing to spend part of their lifetime. Working alone towards a partial result wasn't attractive, and I haven't had much success finding collaborators. Faced with these two options, I did almost no work on the project.

A few months ago I realized an exit strategy would be to get the Physics Derivation Graph to the point that I'd be comfortable handing it off to other folks. That way the project wouldn't be bottlenecked by my productivity. This insight resulted in focusing on bugs and inconsistencies which would need to be addressed prior to handing the project off to someone else.

Today I envisioned what success would look like in light of the central claim that "mathematical physics can be represented by a single graph."

• By "graph" I actually mean three levels of granularity: the symbols composing expressions as abstract syntax trees, expressions and inference rules composing derivations, and the relation between topics composed from derivations.
• The scope of Mathematical Physics is broad, but there are major topics which need to be included in order to claim completeness: quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, electromagnetics, thermodynamics, relativity, particle physics, cosmology, and astronomy. 

For each of the major topics, there are corresponding concepts that can be represented mathematically:

• quantum mechanics: particle in a box, Schrodinger's equation, uncertainty
• classical mechanics: work, F=m*a, momentum
• electromagnetics: Maxwell's equations
• thermodynamics: Planck's Law
• relativity: Dirac equation
• particle physics: Dirac equation
• cosmology
• astronomy

Finally, the claim is that each of these topics is related via mathematics. Example: harmonic oscillator occurs in quantum and classical