So I have a physics question...

[WarKitty]

*casts shield catgirl*

So I have a slight argument with a player. I started talking about fire atoms. My player thinks I can't have fire atoms, because they wouldn't work and matter would explode or something. So I need to figure out a coherent D&D physics that uses only atoms of the 4 classical elements. Anyone care to help?

[Grinner]

Ask your player to do some deep reflection on how that's relevant as he regularly defies the conservation of energy.

Also tell him to ask himself if it really matters in the end.

[WarKitty]

Ask your player to do some deep reflection on how that's relevant as he regularly defies the conservation of energy.

Also tell him to ask himself if it really matters in the end.

Given all the other detail we have in the game...yes, of course it matters!

Besides, he wants to know if that means he can turn copper into gold by adding the appropriate elements.

[HammeredWharf]

Fire atoms are impossible because fire isn't a chemical element. It's a chemical process that produces energy.

Or do you mean you want to turn D&D elements into chemical elements? I can't imagine that working well, because they're so different on a fundamental level. Fire in a process, water in H20, air is a combination of gasses and earth could be almost anything. "It's magic!" is probably the best explanation in this case.

[Summerstorm]

Dammit, boy. You do not talk about physics in D&D...

I can just say: as far as i am concerned: there are no atoms in D&D. There is matter, there is energy, there is magic, there is soulstuff. Done. No one (Not even the craziest Tinker-Gnome with s super-microscope sees anything different.) No quantum-mechanics, no laws of thermodynamics. Just a metaphysical magical universe.

If you try bringing thought into this there will be problems.

Well, good luck.

[WarKitty]

Dammit, boy. You do not talk about physics in D&D...

I can just say: as far as i am concerned: there are no atoms in D&D. There is matter, there is energy, there is magic, there is soulstuff. Done. No one (Not even the craziest Tinker-Gnome with s super-microscope sees anything different.) No quantum-mechanics, no laws of thermodynamics. Just a metaphysical magical universe.

If you try bringing thought into this there will be problems.

Well, good luck.

Yes but when you have a philosopher running the game metaphysics is probably EVEN WORSE.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I'm the player in question. I can actually get past the lack of conservation of energy, because that's gonna be a problem regardless of whether or not there are fire atoms, given the existence of elementals and such. My problem is with calling fire matter, because I can't figure out how to make it act like proper fire while possessing properties of matter.

And this is important because my character is an alchemist and I need to know how to be able to do things.

[HammeredWharf]

My problem is with calling fire matter, because I can't figure out how to make it act like proper fire while possessing properties of matter.

Easy: You don't call fire matter. You call other matter that burns or you call lots of heat energy.

[Grinner]

There are no fire atoms. There is no +5 vorpal longsword. There is no Pelor, no Grazzt, and no Boccob. It's all just maya, illusion. Everything's just a thoughtform, a reflection of some Platonic ideal. That ideal is you. When that pit fiend eviscerates your Level 7 fighter, that's just your own self-loathing made manifest. Every tragedy you witness, every hapless innocent you kill...When things spiral out of control like that, that's just the feeling of the reins on your own sanity slipping between your fingers.

You've got to get out. You have to take control. Realize the truth of yourself, and then you'll realize the truth of fire atoms.

Or something like that. :smallconfused:

How would one go about formulating a unified theory of D&D magic, anyway?

[Thrudd]

*casts shield catgirl*

So I have a slight argument with a player. I started talking about fire atoms. My player thinks I can't have fire atoms, because they wouldn't work and matter would explode or something. So I need to figure out a coherent D&D physics that uses only atoms of the 4 classical elements. Anyone care to help?

You can have anything you want in your fantasy world. Why would he think you can't have "fire atoms", but you can have magic missiles and creatures made of living fire or water and beings that turn you to stone with their gaze?

I think trying to actually create physics for D&D is a bad idea, it's just going to give the players more ways to argue with you about what is and isn't possible. If it is only for your own edification and not something the players will really know much of, that's one thing, but still probably not worth the time.
Rather than build an entirely new physics, try explaining everything that happens in D&D with a combination of real physics and metaphysics.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Easy: You don't call fire matter. You call other matter that burns or you call lots of heat energy.

Yes, but then we no longer have fire atoms, and it no longer interacts properly with the other elements. Well. For varying definitions of "properly".

[WarKitty]

You can have anything you want in your fantasy world. Why would he think you can't have "fire atoms", but you can have magic missiles and creatures made of living fire or water and beings that turn you to stone with their gaze?

I think trying to actually create physics for D&D is a bad idea, it's just going to give the players more ways to argue with you about what is and isn't possible. If it is only for your own edification and not something the players will really know much of, that's one thing, but still probably not worth the time.
Rather than build an entirely new physics, try explaining everything that happens in D&D with a combination of real physics and metaphysics.

What if we enjoy arguing?

[Coidzor]

I'm the player in question. I can actually get past the lack of conservation of energy, because that's gonna be a problem regardless of whether or not there are fire atoms, given the existence of elementals and such. My problem is with calling fire matter, because I can't figure out how to make it act like proper fire while possessing properties of matter.

And this is important because my character is an alchemist and I need to know how to be able to do things.

Solid fire covers fire that has properties of matter. Though how or why it works I've never seen any thought delving into it because it doesn't really need to have an explanation beyond, hey, it's fire but it's also solid. Look at Fire Mephits as well. They're made out of fire, but fire that's in various solid/semi-solid/gelatinous/liquid forms.

Most things on the Elemental Plane of Fire are made out of fire unless they're imported or occur at a place where Fire rubs up on one of the other Inner Planes. Fire "fills the gaps" left by the absence of the other Elements as best it can, and similar things happen on the other Inner Planes.

I'd say that Fire, Water, Air, and Earth as well as Positive and Negative energy go into making atoms if you're going to have atom theory in the game, and the varying proportions of the different elements and energy types are what makes each substance have its unique properties. Though you'll also need to determine the difference between Air and air, Water and water, Earth and earth, and Fire and fire, or rather, Elemental X and mundane x.

As far as transmuting copper into gold, I'd say you'd have to make a stop off at silver as an intermediary step in the process and from there you can either transmute it into Gold or Platinum, depending upon what you have to work with.

[Grinner]

And this is important because my character is an alchemist and I need to know how to be able to do things.

You'd probably want a subsystem for that, not an extravagant piece of fluff.

I think it's unreasonable to ask someone to dream up a usable theory of physics when it won't see that much use. If we were homebrewing a system from scratch, it might be more reasonable.

[WarKitty]

You'd probably want a subsystem for that, not an extravagant piece of fluff.

I think it's unreasonable to ask someone to dream up a usable theory of physics when it won't see that much use. If we were homebrewing a system from scratch, it might be more reasonable.

Reasonable or unreasonable, I think we're both finding this entertaining. May not see much gameplay use, but who cares?

[Erik Vale]

There are 'fire atoms'. They're atoms who've had their electrons exited to the point that they've become ions due to heat energy. We call the state plasma and note they're the same atom minus electrons.


But yes, silly argument/thing to bring in, but if you just like arguing have a ball *promptly ignores thread*

[cosmonuts]

Don't.

Modern physics relies on mathematical models which are inconsistent with D&D as well as experimental results which are obviously not reproducible within D&D.

It's sufficient to have the elements of real life which give the D&D world verisimilitude, and these are simple things, like simple gravity, or simple heat, or simple fire.

Introducing modern physics without the mathematical models or experimental results to back them up does not give the D&D world verisimilitude, and may as well be magic since they resemble real life phenomena in name only. If you'd like, you can homebrew them, but I think it makes more sense for D&D to give the world more magical stuff than science stuff. After all, it practically makes no difference.

If the D&D world doesn't support thermodynamics, introducing thermodynamics would be no different from saying "a god did it". And in a magical world, I think it makes more sense for the latter to be true.

If you want science in D&D, the world already supports something very similar—the difficult and intellectual pursuit of arcana!

[HighWater]

I'm the player in question. I can actually get past the lack of conservation of energy, because that's gonna be a problem regardless of whether or not there are fire atoms, given the existence of elementals and such. My problem is with calling fire matter, because I can't figure out how to make it act like proper fire while possessing properties of matter.

And this is important because my character is an alchemist and I need to know how to be able to do things.

Hello Cobra_Ikari and WarKitty! I've studied History and Philosophy of Science and I think I can actually be of help here.

In the process, I reject what others have said about being "unable" to build a consistent universe on Fire Atoms. It's perfectly possible and it has been done on multiple occasions. In real world history nonetheless.

What you guys need to look is an old (17th century), outdated, but at the time very popular scientific theory! Yes, it isn't that insane to think of fire as a form of matter, it wasn't until somewhere in the 18th century that it was deduced that it isn't. Use Phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory) (sadly the wiki doesn't do it real justice though, so I'd encourage looking about for a bit). The theory behind phlogiston was that phlogiston was an element that was, like other atoms, embedded in many materials. Whenever you set something on fire, what you saw was the phlogiston atoms leaving the material, which explained why it looked different and felt different afterwards as well as explaining why things that are burned tend to be lighter than things that aren't. (This is eventually why it fell apart in the real world, burning metal can become heavier rather than lighter, but D&D REALLY doesn't require that stay the same. D&D metal violates a bunch of other real-world rules, so just throw in this one that many don't even know about.) Fire = Atoms has been a serious theory, so no need to reject it just because it's "absurd". It wasn't absurd for a long while after the medieval period came to an end, so you're safe.

Another very helpful thing to do is to explore the Classical Four Elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element) for a bit. Don't be stuck in 21st century thought, it has already been established that the D&D universe does not function on 21st century physics (like, at all), so it won't be that difficult to introduce either phlogiston (which allows for a wide range of elements to exist), or the Classical Four. If you want to know more on how the four elements were supposed to make up everything, I could also PM you...

[cosmonuts]

In the process, I reject what others have said about being "unable" to build a consistent universe on Fire Atoms. It's perfectly possible and it has been done on multiple occasions. In real world history nonetheless.

Emulating proto-science is fine, since alchemy is a proto-science and already in D&D.

The basic notions, such as metal, needn't adhere to real world rules; they only need to be present in-game for verisimilitude, just as alchemy was a notion we connect to fantasy. Nuclear energy or electrons are not, however, such a notion. We could add them, and I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with that, but they would only resemble scientific ideas in name without having any predictive power. May as well add magic. Oh wait.

A model is a representational structure which makes all implied sentences true. Adding atomic forces to D&D, what would that even do? If the models are robust, D&D falls apart. If the models are weak, then your model is pointless. May as well add magic!

[HighWater]

Emulating proto-science is fine, since alchemy is a proto-science and already in D&D.

The basic notions, such as metal, needn't adhere to real world rules; they only need to be present in-game for verisimilitude, just as alchemy was a notion we connect to fantasy. Nuclear energy or electrons are not, however, such a notion. We could add them, and I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with that, but they would only resemble scientific ideas in name without having any predictive power. May as well add magic. Oh wait.

A model is a representational structure which makes all implied sentences true. Adding atomic forces to D&D, what would that even do? If the models are robust, D&D falls apart. If the models are weak, then your model is pointless. May as well add magic!

I'd like to add that the notion of atoms is over 2000 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus). Are they exactly what we call atoms now? No, but they were the inspiration for it. Quantum Mechanics and Special and General Relativity do not function in D&D. They are, for one, much too new to make any kind of sense in a semi-Medieval fatansy setting that features Planes of Existence. Part of the modern notion of atoms should be abandoned anyway, might as well roll back to an older, more setting-appropriate meaning of atoms.

Medieval atoms were fire, water, earth, air and ether. Basically just squishing Aristotle and Epicurus together makes perfect sense for a setting where Alchemy is accepted. Their models also had certain predictive power (although their explanative powers were a stronger suit). And in such a setting, fire-atoms would definitely be a thing.

As for the transmutation question: there are spells that transmute one material into another, so in principle it should be possible. However, I think it's fair to make this process like any other crafting process in DnD: it generally costs more money than it gives you when you start selling what you created (exploits notwithstanding). So, should this alchemist be able to transmute lead into gold? Probably. Should it make him rich? No, you do this for "science", sure you may hope to get rich, but you probably never will...

[Cobra_Ikari]

I would also like to context that this first came up with us discussing the splitting of fire atoms and why it would and would not work in a world without radiation.

[weckar]

All matter is a proper mixture of solid (Earth), liquid (Water), Space between them (Air) and Energy binding them (Fire).

[SiuiS]

There's an old planescape article out there about this. Molecules consist of the elements and alignment; positive energy causes agitation, negative energy reverses it.

Fire as we know it is a composition of fire molecules (which are spiny little buggers) buoyed on air. They are positively charged and so constantly rotate, tearing into other objects at the molecule level. This causes energy to transfer, exciting the new object and causing it's latent fire molecules to spin, or else otherwise breaking up a stable relationship. All that's left are the old earth molecules, stable and cold, and negatively charged (ash).

I can't find it though. I've been trying to relocate it for like, two or three years. I think it was on Ymir dot net?

E: FOUND IT (http://www.mimir.net/essays/planarphysics.html)

[HighWater]

I would also like to context that this first came up with us discussing the splitting of fire atoms and why it would and would not work in a world without radiation.

Epicurian atoms can't be split. It's their definition: they are indivisible constituent particles. Basically what you get after you've split everything that could be split. Much more like preons these days.

Splitting atoms makes little sense in a world without radiation. It should not be implemented as splitting atoms is not what alchemy is about. Alchemy is about mixing the right quantities of atoms so one material becomes another.

[WarKitty]

Epicurian atoms can't be split. It's their definition: they are indivisible constituent particles. Basically what you get after you've split everything that could be split. Much more like preons these days.

Splitting atoms makes little sense in a world without radiation. It should not be implemented as splitting atoms is not what alchemy is about. Alchemy is about mixing the right quantities of atoms so one material becomes another.

Yeah I actually realized that after I said it; the four elements should be true atoms. Of course, getting them in pure form and to mix takes work.

[Coidzor]

I would also like to context that this first came up with us discussing the splitting of fire atoms and why it would and would not work in a world without radiation.

Ahh, but is an atom an atom is an atom is an atom or is an atom an atom and an atom an atom and never the twain shall meet? :smallamused:

You should perhaps question what it is to split an atom that has no nucleus, no protons, no electrons, no neutrons, only FIRE, first, rather than the radiation or lack thereof.

[cosmonuts]

I'd like to add that the notion of atoms is over 2000 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus). Are they exactly what we call atoms now? No, but they were the inspiration for it. Quantum Mechanics and Special and General Relativity do not function in D&D. They are, for one, much too new to make any kind of sense in a semi-Medieval fatansy setting that features Planes of Existence. Part of the modern notion of atoms should be abandoned anyway, might as well roll back to an older, more setting-appropriate meaning of atoms.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I heard someone mention modern physics, and I was against using it in D&D, but we don't seem to be disagreeing about that. What you bring up, classical elements, I think is reasonable to have proto-scientific notions in D&D, since it already has alchemy, magic, and who knows what else. These notions fit in fine thematically with D&D.

Also, I'll just take your word for classical elements having "predictive power". Mix water and earth and you get something in between?

Also, I'm pretty sure D&D is at least renaissance-esque as opposed to strictly medieval. Airship technology (without magic) at the least, from Arms and Equipment Guide. I can also swear I saw glass windows somewhere...


I would also like to context that this first came up with us discussing the splitting of fire atoms and why it would and would not work in a world without radiation.

I mean, it could work if you explained the mechanism with "magic" or something else which is thematically D&D. It doesn't work if you bring in the physical models because they don't mean anything in D&D.


There's an old planescape article out there about this. Molecules consist of the elements and alignment; positive energy causes agitation, negative energy reverses it.

Fire as we know it is a composition of fire molecules (which are spiny little buggers) buoyed on air. They are positively charged and so constantly rotate, tearing into other objects at the molecule level. This causes energy to transfer, exciting the new object and causing it's latent fire molecules to spin, or else otherwise breaking up a stable relationship. All that's left are the old earth molecules, stable and cold, and negatively charged (ash).

I can't find it though. I've been trying to relocate it for like, two or three years. I think it was on Ymir dot net?

E: FOUND IT (http://www.mimir.net/essays/planarphysics.html)

Great find.


Epicurian atoms can't be split. It's their definition: they are indivisible constituent particles. Basically what you get after you've split everything that could be split. Much more like preons these days.

Splitting atoms makes little sense in a world without radiation. It should not be implemented as splitting atoms is not what alchemy is about. Alchemy is about mixing the right quantities of atoms so one material becomes another.

As a person who studies mathematical models, with a strong tendency towards physics, I'd like to point out that the closest thing we have to academic consensus on preons is that we have no strong epistemic reason to assimilate their existence into our models. Also I'm an instrumentalist, so I guess it'd be hard to convince me that "cutting" preons really means anything physical the same way people thought Bohr atoms are split, but this is a digression.

Anyways, I think it's fine in a fantasy environment to discuss splitting CLASSICAL atoms. It's very steampunky, close to what I think Eberron is about. It has that great mix of fantasy and, not the modern science part of science, but the exploratory part of science, which is what I think we should be encouraging rather than science fetishization.

[HighWater]

Are we talking about the same thing here? I heard someone mention modern physics, and I was against using it in D&D, but we don't seem to be disagreeing about that. What you bring up, classical elements, I think is reasonable to have proto-scientific notions in D&D, since it already has alchemy, magic, and who knows what else. These notions fit in fine thematically with D&D.
I think we agree on most of it, really. My post was not so much a rebuttal of yours as more of an addendum.


Also, I'll just take your word for classical elements having "predictive power". Mix water and earth and you get something in between?
They were assumed to have predictive power when mixing elements (hence alchemy), but the bulk of their "predictive power" came from what we now call gravity, explaining the behaviour of fluids and gasses, for instance. Of course this wasn't perfect, but it worked often and well enough. It definitely wasn't perfect, or it would never have been rejected. :smallwink:


Also, I'm pretty sure D&D is at least renaissance-esque as opposed to strictly medieval. Airship technology (without magic) at the least, from Arms and Equipment Guide. I can also swear I saw glass windows somewhere...
D&D isn't known for historical accuracy, or even for homogeneity. The described airship technology is beyond Renaissance technology levels so that doesn't fit either (but: magic), glass windows exist since 100AD, although they weren't massively common in medieval europe. Basic D&D is pre-renaissance, the DMG calls it "a medieval level of technology, a Western European flavor..." in the chapter "Building a different world", but steampunk and other influences drift in almost naturally and can definitely be found in some settings as D&D has come to embrace a very wide range of them (variety is the spice).


As a person who studies mathematical models, with a strong tendency towards physics, I'd like to point out that the closest thing we have to academic consensus on preons is that we have no strong epistemic reason to assimilate their existence into our models.
Fair point. I only mentioned them and not quarks, because nobody has posited that preons can be split as well, them being "point-like particles". It was only intended to demonstrate that "Atom" in the Epicurian sense is only similar to, but not the same as "Atom" in the Standard Model. There's a bunch of things you can do with Epicurian atoms that you can do with standard atoms (use them as building blocks for materials) and a bunch of things you can't do (split them). Quarks would've done as well, I suppose.


Anyways, I think it's fine in a fantasy environment to discuss splitting CLASSICAL atoms. It's very steampunky, close to what I think Eberron is about. It has that great mix of fantasy and, not the modern science part of science, but the exploratory part of science, which is what I think we should be encouraging rather than science fetishization.
I'm not sure where the science fetishization comes in? Anyhow, sure you can have "crazed gnome scientists" discussing what happens if you -could- split fire atoms. If you make this actually possible, you lose the benefits of being able to borrow an old theory and come back at the original problem of having to make up your own coherent D&D physics, rather than borrowing a working, but very dated, model of "the way things work".

[Nightraiderx]

Plasma, it's a super heated liquid element, does it have atoms?

And now for some bs logic:

Fire Atoms are tiny packlets of energy that can infinitely burn, but can only affect other matter when
in large enough mass affecting flammable material. The liquid state of the Fire Atoms is lava and the gas state
is heat.

There, now your "process" is now a chemical component.

Wood + Fire Atoms(solid) = Smoke + CO2 and Fire Atoms(gas)

[Gemini476]

I'm currently trying to read through Plato's Timaeus (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html)(Commentary (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/#8)), and I must say that the entire subject is somewhat complicated. That's just one example of a philosopher trying to reason out the universe, but I like some of the ideas.

All atoms are unsplittable by their very definition - the word literally means "indivisible" or "uncuttable". The atoms of the four elements - or five, I suppose - are all platonic solids. Let me quote Wikipedia:

Earth was associated with the cube, air with the octahedron, water with the icosahedron, and fire with the tetrahedron. There was intuitive justification for these associations: the heat of fire feels sharp and stabbing (like little tetrahedra). Air is made of the octahedron; its minuscule components are so smooth that one can barely feel it. Water, the icosahedron, flows out of one's hand when picked up, as if it is made of tiny little balls. By contrast, a highly nonspherical solid, the hexahedron (cube) represents "earth". These clumsy little solids cause dirt to crumble and break when picked up in stark difference to the smooth flow of water. Moreover, the cube's being the only regular solid that tesselates Euclidean space was believed to cause the solidity of the Earth.
The dodecahedron is then connected to the Aether, although in D&D I am unsure if this would be Void (of the Shugenja's five elements) or the elemental alignments. The twelve-sided shape has 4 x 3 sides, which I suppose could be linked to the four alignments as well as the Rule-of-Three.


Everything on the Material is composed of varying amounts of elemental Earth, Water, Air and Fire as well as being charged with somewhat equal amounts of Positive and Negative Energy. Things in the Inner Planes are composed of just a few of those, with the elements making up for the missing ones - the Plane of Fire having liquid and solid Fire was already mentioned, I believe. (As an aside, do note how the four classical elements roughly correspond with four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and plasma.)
The Outer Planes, meanwhile, are mostly just made out of their respective alignments: Celestia is literally made out of Law and Good, for instance. The jury is out on whether or not they are also made out of the classical elements, although it's entirely possible that they're still charged with Positive/Negative Energy given all the undead in the lower planes. They're not even charged to such a degree that they're even minor negative dominant, however.

None of this really corresponds with modern quantum mechanics, but it's not really supposed to. Science was more like religion back then - literally, in the case of Pythagoras cult of mathematicians, but in general it was mostly just philosophical musing. Sometimes it was correct, and sometimes... not.

[Psyren]

:redcloak:: "They're not called reactionals. Some us got passing grades in chem."

[Nibbens]

How would one go about formulating a unified theory of D&D magic, anyway?

Challenge accepted! :)

[Peelee]

All matter is a proper mixture of solid (Earth), liquid (Water), Space between them (Air) and Energy binding them (Fire).
I think this is the best answer by far.

Epicurian atoms can't be split. It's their definition: they are indivisible constituent particles. Basically what you get after you've split everything that could be split. Much more like preons these days.

Splitting atoms makes little sense in a world without radiation. It should not be implemented as splitting atoms is not what alchemy is about. Alchemy is about mixing the right quantities of atoms so one material becomes another.

I originally intended to link this (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3058#comic) solely for the fourth panel, but the whole of the comic is a pretty good argument for this entire thread, as for the realm of what is possible.

[Chronos]

Do helium atoms in the real world bother you? Because you can't make objects out of those, either.

[Someonelse]

I like to mix science with D&D and I have done it in my games. In my home brewed game world, the true elemental planes are what most mortals refer to as pseudo or quasi elemental planes, the planes of iron, gold, lead, etc. I like to think of the 4 "elemental planes" as representing the 4 states of matter; earth (solid), water (liquid), air (gaseous) and fire (plasmic). So the true elemental planes feed matter through the pseudo elemental planes to take their form

[dascarletm]

I like to mix science with D&D and I have done it in my games. In my home brewed game world, the true elemental planes are what most mortals refer to as pseudo or quasi elemental planes, the planes of iron, gold, lead, etc. I like to think of the 4 "elemental planes" as representing the 4 states of matter; earth (solid), water (liquid), air (gaseous) and fire (plasmic). So the true elemental planes feed matter through the pseudo elemental planes to take their form

Interesting. I'm assuming there would be a large variation in pressure and temperature along the 4. Liquid Nitrogen and Liquid gold would be quite the variation.

[Coidzor]

All atoms are unsplittable by their very definition - the word literally means "indivisible" or "uncuttable". The atoms of the four elements - or five, I suppose - are all platonic solids.

Indeed, though why you'd want to split an atom of Pizza, I'll never know. Far better to keep those atoms in a consumable form so that one may devour them.