Imagine Everything

Interesting question. You might be suprised to learn that the answer is even more interesting. This is because it is like in a police drama or a gangster movie, where there is a knock at the door and a vocie says "Are you Mr Smith ?" Because the answer "depends upon who's asking. Who want to know ?" also applies in Physics. This is a direct result of relativity. So does your answer imply that one magnetic fields can also be electron fields or neutron fields so on and on? Depending on how they are measured or interacted with? Or is it more like, it's just one huge field but it changes in different places due to the vibration it interacts with? I'm not even sure I could begin to answer that, I can kind of envision it but only in a simple' kind of form. I mentioned before I think about 2 mirrors opposite each other reproducing each other endlessly seemingly. Would it be wrong of me to think of the answer to that question possibly being something analogous to many mirrors reflecting each others image. Endlessly x nth? Is that even a possibility? In my head it feels like it could be this. Fascinating, I never considered what it would or could be like to be inside the gravity. So the astronauts would actually be adding to the gravity whilst inside it as well I'm guessing.

oh ok. Thx

Sorry but had to ask, if god existed or exists, how do you know it was a male? And as for measuring god in your heart..well you make and decide who you are. If god is in your heart, then why would you exist? Why would a god make things to put themselves inside if god is everywhere anyway. We would be pointless.

Hello, If you're talking about physical pain, well we feel it because we have nerves, but it is paired with strength or well being as we wouldn't feel either without the nerves. If you mean mental pain, well I think if for example, if we lose someone to death and it makes us feel terrible, it's because we find joy in being around them or having them in our life, perhaps this kind of pain is induced by the shock of no longer being able to interact with them anymore, also knowing this and that we are no longer able to bond with them on a physical or emotional level. If you're speaking broadly regarding the way life seems to be, well, to me it's a chain, food chain, power chain, perhaps just a survival chain and quite possibly other chains too. Some people, perhaps animals and creatures too, get greedy and have to get more of whatever it is they think they need. By doing this, it creates suffering to the lives that their greed/selfishness affects. It's not fair but then life rarely seems to be from what I've experienced. Why is one person born healthy and another born with health issues? I don't suppose there is any real defined answer for this but the good news is that as humans (if we all decided to be nice to each other and work together) we are capable of changing this. Can we??? Hmm..will we..? doubtful. Why are we constantly being warned about global warming and asked to be more green when others are insistent on dropping space shuttle debris in the sea, or having a war and polluting the atmosphere, why are some groups of people determined to quash or destroy other groups of people when perhaps we should be looking toward giving humanity longevity and other planets to live on so we don't die out. It's weird but nature seems to adore doubles or pairs, it seems to me like we want to survive but are also persistent on destroying ourselves as a race. So for all the pain and suffering in the world, there is also a lot of joy and wonderment. We just have to look for the good. And there is always something good, even in the bad things that happen, if only we would look for it and then use that knowledge for betterment, then perhaps the pain and suffering would start to demise.

Hellooo, I've been thinking as always lol, and though I don't have the maths knowledge yet, I think I do see a 'loose' pattern the more I consider how we behave as people or perhaps how planets are formed and perhaps how fundamental particles go on to be or create what they do. I don't want to come across as understanding everything and thinking I know it all because I truly don't but I think I do see a pattern. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Perhaps I could say that humans are predetermined probabilities of randomness. We are created, we become the predetermined human but we have differences/randomness. The first child is born but the second may not be the same gender and even if it is the same gender, it would not be the same person created again. Without going even deeper into this aspect, I see this as predetermined probability. The difference between 2 siblings would be the randomness even though the probability of a human being created is true. Rocky Earthlike planets are formed (from what I have read about and seen) from previous matter collisions which are gravitationally pulled together to become what they do, again perhaps the predetermined probability of this is the way rocky planets are formed and the randomness is perhaps how big they become, or the atmosphere they accrue. The differences. Both the above patterns seem to me to be creation from 'collisions' of some kind. When I was about 14, I was hit by a car which put me in hospital with a broken leg. Another collision if you will.The predetermined probability was perhaps that I would suffer from this injury later on in life, 37 years later, I can tell you that I do. So perhaps the randomness is the age at which this injury would affect me later on in life. Just a few examples of many may I could perhaps offer. So @Mordred, we spoke about this a little in the science respect, a few pages back. And whilst I don't understand the physics or maths, I think the pattern I am seeing is that all things seem to work in a similar fashion, except maybe BH's as far as I know. What am I getting at? Well, I seem to keep zooming in and out of how I perceive the universe to work with my very limited understanding and when I do, I can't help but wonder why things seem to follow this path. I know from speaking to you and Studiot and Swansont etc that it all happens on a fundamental particle and field? origin. I imagine you're already thinking, yes it called the BB. In my weird and wonderful, un-mathimatical idea, I also wonder if the BB is a repeatable event though I still couldn't say how it originally started unless of course there is something beyond our universe that created it. But I'll leave that bit there as it is truly very wild to think about. I have previously mentioned a field of fields in this thread but going on from that and also taking DM a little further if I may be so very bold, I see in my head that everything had to have started from this origin but what tells things to become what they are. What tells a magnetic field to be a magnetic field, what tells an electron field to become an electron field so on and so on. Maybe you already know this so please forgive my naivety if you do. I wonder if there is perhaps some kind of field that is quid pro quo with all the other fields and particles, a fundamental field perhaps? Hope that makes sense. And I have already shown how excited I was when I came across the Dark photon. My thought is analogous perhaps to a bag of sweets encased by a packet to keep them together, that DM is this fundamental field that keeps everything in the universe together as it were. And that this field is not a singular item but quid pro quo with everything inside it. Both reliant on it's inner particles/fields to be what it is and also providing the knowledge for it's inner particles to become and be created the way they do. Another pair, albeit a gigantic one universally sized. And that DM? is simply just is (a collection of memories?) until it is required to create or help re/create. I'm not saying that this 'field' sends out a specific set of instructions but that what it creates and allows it's creations to create, is remembered by all and everything, and in doing so, everything that is created remembers what it was when it becomes pure energy again. For instance, a decayed particle leaves behind very very very faint Ke, literally un-measurable but none the less still 'something' and that this something is the 'nameless particle' I have been so very bad at explaining properly so far in this thread. I don't see it as the Dark Photon but that particle possibility, definitely intrigued me. So my thought is this. If my idea's 'nameless particle' and it's 'nameless field' are quid pro quo with all it's inner particles and fields, does it keep reproducing itself through boundary condition exchanges because (if it could be measured) it would have an entangled counterpart that already exists (DM?) and therefore has to be created to balance or create the pair it needs to. Could this nameless particle exist as 'memory' of what it once was and because something can't be nothing, it keeps existing as 'memory', un-measureable , invisible, massless Ke? or maybe Ke becomes a kind of 'nameless' memory? energy type, connected to everything all the time, everywhere through quantum entanglement. An 'echo of an echo'? A 'shadow of a shadow'? I asked if when a particle is measured and is measured within it's expected +/- tolerances, was there the tiniest little bit of expected measurement/wavelength left over but within this expected tolerance. In my head, I see this as possibly being the nameless' particle. So very faint and seemingly unneeded that it is dismissed as being not neccessary for the measurement. If this is true, is it the same for absolutely every single particle that exists. If it is, I wonder if this could be the nameless particle or nameless residue? particle that continues to exist until another field requires/pulls it in to help recreate whatever the particle was before in whatever field it was before. And ultimately, is this what 'DM' could be? Simply the 'memory' of what it once was but has to exist otherwise, nothing else could be further created. Could fundamental particles be the result of DM (nameless 'memory' particles?') colliding/coming together through requirement/quantum entanglement/connection. And the only way to measure this is through the influence it has on the particles it creates further along the chain. As far as the universe being a recreated event, and this question is perhaps better left for you guys due to my lack of knowledge, is it possible or could it be that all the energy (kinetic residue? Idk) left over after everything else in the universe has decayed, is drawn to itself or 'clumps' back together as one kind of big mass? or massless mass? of some sort until it cannot possibly decay anymore due to something not being able to be nothing and then simply bursts back out (BB) everywhere, all at once and restarts the universe. And on from that, the 'memory' of everything that has gone before, could be created, has been created, is available to go on and create it all again and maybe again and again... This idea might come across as complete madness, I don't know how any of you will perceive this with the knowledge you have and you may very well think it's a WAG and maybe you're right, maybe it is. I have no proof as I said and I need to learn an awful lot more still to see or prove (if it's even possible) whether it's wrong or a little bit right, possible or not. In my idea, I see this nameless particle as being created by the decay of other particles that have the memory of what it once was and that this exists and grows as particles collide and decay back into what they once were, be that memory energy? or a fundamental particle. There's an infamous question I'm sure you all have heard, What came first, the chicken or the egg and that seems appropriate somehow to this. I did read somewhere that it has to be the chicken due to evolution. Could this be how our universe is? Has it evolved from something created in some way initially and has simply evolved bit by bit over eons perhaps beyond our current 14b years. If anyone has read this all the way through, thank you very much for at least doing that. I appreciate it immensely. If I am completely wrong and you know this, please tell me and I will stop posting reading this idea I had. I don't want to waste anyones time and @studiot and @Mordred, I thank you both very much for the input, direction and guidance you have given me. I also appologise if I annoyed you in some way with anything I have said, that was not, and is not something I intended to do. I am aware that sometimes, without realising, I can and do say or write the wrong things. Lastly, I want you to know, Cosmic Dreamer is a work colleague of mine, I didn't ask him to post what he has but for some reason, he is impressed with what I have thought about or written. I say 'some reason' because I doubt myself, my knowledge and see myself as a nobody of nobodies when it comes to science, maths and physics. He flatters me tremendously and it humbles me as much as it does knowing that you guys took the time out of your possibly very busy schedules to help someone like me.

Interesting, thanks Swansont, So if the I.S.S. for instance was big enough, it would have gravity? If it's mass related, then it has a little gravity already but not enough to behave the same way as Earth gravity does?.

Police arrested two kids yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one – and let the other one off. I was studying frequency in my physics class. Now my brain Hertz.

Thanks Swansont. So sound/noise is down to mass. This would be why there is no sound in space I'm guessing. Hmm..and if 'DM' or another 'something' indeed does exist then it would have to be massless at the very least? Can you or someone tell me please, if I was to be left in space in a space suit so I wouldn't die from the effects from space, radiation etc, would I simply just 'hang' there until I interacted with mass in some way? For instance, if I threw a spanner forward and was accelerated backward by the momentum of throwing said spanner. What I am wondering is, if indeed I would just hang there, would that mean that my space suit and myself, has gravity regardless of not being acted on by a planetary source of gravity? Would gravity be the force that kept myself and the spacesuit together? Ultimately I think I am wondering if gravity relates to mass size. The moon has less gravity than Earth and is smaller. A Super Earth has more gravity than our own Earth. Not taking something like a neutron star into account.

Hello again, Can 2 particles, vp or otherwise colliding or..hmm..an electron being excited, fermion repulse or photon transfer and simliar make a very tiny noise of some sort. I'm not talking about something anyone can hear but possibly something that can be picked upon or measured in some way either directly or by the influence they have on other particles / vibrations. I'm wondering if DM behaves somewhat similar. If it isn't a 'something', could it be thought of as if it was a big 'noise' (probably not the right word) in/during or even created by the BB that is merely echoing / expanding on and on and on. Rather than being stretched, it simply carries on due to the huge, possibly unimaginable amount of Ke created by the BB. Can the BB be thought of as Ke? or as having Ke? Hmm maybe I'm asking if energy can have Ke. It's the way I kind of see my idea working but as yet I don't know the maths. Hopefully I will in the future and be able to prove or disprove it. That is all I really want to do. It's why I came here to start with to get you folks expert opinions. Have a good weekend.

When you die, what part of the body dies last? The pupils… they dilate.

@CosmicDreamer Thanks, that's very kind & you flatter me but I really don't know much to be honest. Bits and pieces are starting to sink in but I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as the very clever people that admin & help with this website and the people that visit or post here. I have an awful lot to learn still and regardless of what I saw in my idea, I truly don't know if it will amount to anything or not. +1 for your kind post. I am a nobody of nobodies and if I may be so bold, if you're really interested, I would encourage you to try and learn. It's extremely fascinating and opens up your eyes to a completely different way of understanding things. Few other things if I may, mainly @Mordred & @studiot I know I might have come across as someone who thinks they've discovered something and knows it. I haven't and I don't. I just had this idea regarding how it may be created and what the thing is that might be created. I don't recall actually stating before that I was thinking of it as DM, I might have but don't think I did. I also don't mean to sound like I'm latching onto something that has already been written about. I'm not. It's so very strange to me that the way I see things in my idea have so many times already been termed and explained by clever people like yourselves. It's seriously uncanny. I still have the original idea in all it's glorious & badly described/worded form which goes onto see this created thing as possible DM. I got maybe too excited about the dark photon but it (to me) almost seemed too god to be true when I read about it. It was like a big piece of the jigsaw fell on my lap. I also said I had forgotten a lot in the 2 weeks or so when my pc decided to go nuts and break down. Like anything, if I don't do it or deal with it, day after day after day..., my brain seems to tuck it away somewhere until I see it or deal with it again. I noticed you haven't responded since my pc went down @Mordred and wonder if this is why. I'm sorry if I came across as possibly wasting your time. Your patience and help has not been shown or given for nothing. I wouldn't still be writing or studying if it had. Just wanted you to know that and also that I still appreciate yours, Studiots and others time. Also @studiot I dare say I might have lost you or your support too, perhaps because of my excitement. That said and done, thank you regardless of however this does or doesn't turn out. I guess right now, the future of this thread is in superposition lol. So moving forward this potentially might be part of a much much bigger equation that goes on somehow to describe this nameless particle and how it happens or doesn't. @studiot Sorry if my drawing was too messy, I didn't know how to draw it properly if I'm honest. And from what I saw yesterday and if I understood it correctly, the Feynman diagrams describe collisions more simply but all of them? have to be considered before finding the appropriate collision diagram/s to try and describe the possible way this happens in my idea. At this moment in time, the thought of this is bewildering, having had a glimpse at how many possible diagrams there are. Maybe thats where vectors and det come into it. I don't know. Anyway, @Mordred again, I'm now back to determinants again. I've been watching lectures about upper triangles matrices, rref. Little bit intimidating but I think I'm sort of following it so far, though I did get stuck with one part on a nxn matrix. The teacher was somehow swapping and i for a j and I couldn't quite understand how or why he was doing that. And then 2 i's appeared in a column and that was my call to stop watching for tonight. Right now and then too, I found the extra i's and newly created/added j to be too much to understand. Hopefully I will with time. Lastly, I have a question as always if I may I'm a bit stuck with understanding how this determinant ends up becoming 30 on khan's website https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/thinking-about-multivariable-function/x786f2022:vectors-and-matrices/a/determinants-mvc Can you explain it to me please? The matrix is 4 1 3 0 2 4 3 2 1 I get to the 3 small det and so far so good but I don't understand the sum below = 4 (-6) -1 (-12) +3 (-6) = 30

A man entered a local paper’s pun contest. He sent in 10 different puns, in the hope that at least one of the puns would win. Unfortunately, no pun in 10 did.

I think I might be close to putting together my first formula/equation? Albeit perhaps very roughly. It very early and I'm not sure I understand everything but perhaps you nice people can help show me where I might have gone wrong. I'll refer to it as the gap instead of quantum gap. The BC's are not very conductive and therefore can have more λ than the casimir effect with conductive plates/BC's would (if I understand this correctly, still have more to learn) The gap exists between State 1 BC and State 2 BC - so S1BC & S2BC. S1BC QT = State 1 Boundary Condition Quantum Tunneling... (Gap) a = ± λ1, λ,2...λn ÷ T + S1BC QT + S2BC QT + QT Ke = Nameless Particle (Dark Quasiparticle?) In my full idea, I see this nameless particle as making up or creating DM/DE or in some way being involved with it. I know how that sounds, but hey ho, never know unless you try eh. What I have tried to say is that within this Gap, I see different particles, fields interacting with each other and also with the Ke coming into and through and also interacting with the fields and particles/quasiparticle fields/quasiparticles and VP's... within this gap (I called it smudge before but with more thinking, perhaps nameless 1 is better. I don't` currently have a great grasp on Quantum Tunneling yet but hopefully I'll be able to replace the 'QT' with more determined maths in the future. There is obviously so very much more to this, not least ,of which is explaining the possible different interactions between all the different particles and fields themselves somehow. No doubt as I learn more, I might see this differently. So far i would say that even though science is pretty head bangingly difficult and fascinating, I haven't come across anything YET that has made me think the idea can't work. I constantly wonder how long it will be before something tells me it's impossible. Perhaps I'm not seeing DM/DEor even anything new at all, probably it's nothing....But maybe.. just maybe Still can't help but wonder, even though my original descriptions were off, I seem to keep finding things that explain them scientifically in the same, similar way. Anyons are very interesting. @Mordred I'll be moving back into determinants some time in the next few days all going well. It'll be interesting to find out more about spin too when we get to it. Hmm 15 months ago, I knew nothing at all really about science. 6 months ago, had a thought nova if you will Today I hope I am in some tiny way getting closer to having an equation to work with and see where it takes me. 15 months from now? Tbh I would be very very happy just to know the idea had lasted that long without being quashed. Is there a physics symbol for particle/particle field collision?

Questions please Is string field considered at all as Sub Quantum? Do Super Nova's inflate and then expand before the material ejected starts cooling down as it spreads out everywhere around the cause of it's ejection.? Similar (though on a much smaller scale) as the universe inflating before expansion. I kind of see the initial big bang as being a Alpha Nova if that makes any sense? Perhaps the BB is the Alpha that creates the Alpha particles and SN are Beta and produce the other particles from the Alpha required to keep the universe going. The BB that keeps on Banging. Like a rechargeable battery that slowly loses energy each time it's recharged maybe, only on a supermassive universal sized battery. If DE exists, are SN candidates for producing it? The BB must be responsible for DE if DE exists. So going on from that, could SN be a candidate to produce it too? I'll stop there. Need to go study some more. Taking a 'wild' jump on from this, would or could that mean that indeed some type of particles can or do indeed get created without the need for a hadron collider? Merely 'kicked' along into, over, under, inside, outside, alongside, decaying and creating by and with each other, against each other and because of each others vibrations/kicks? The simply create due to the 'vibration' they incorporate/absorb/merge?

Thanks Studiot, sorry I'm a bit ill atm, I will have more of a look in a few days hopefully. Hope you and everyone else had a good xmas if you celebrate it.