Imagine Everything

Very very interesting. Thanks Studiot. I shall go look it up. Thanks for the book covers too. Bit different to what I was seeing but then I'm guess & guestimating here lol, anyway thanks. I'll get mine up as soon as I can. Tell me please, if I do a vector space as IR2 that means 2d real space, is that right? and if so, does that mean if place another IR2 vector space of 2d underneath it, is that 4d? or is that simply 2 states & their vectors next to each other in 2d? That's what I am looking at so far but I think this 'dark? shadow thingy might need a bucket load of vectors in possibly 4d if I understand this right.

Hello, I've been thinking a lot about this and learning more. Even tried drawing a 4d vector field? graph? where I overlaid state 1 & state 2 with each other and tried to envision some sort of vector for how they behaved the way I initially saw this thing. I didn't bode well Studiot lol. Would that be 4d? 1 IR2 with another IR2 overlaid on top? If IR2 is real space 2 dimentional? I'm still working on that so I'll come back it hopefully sooner rather than later, I think it would support the image I have more explanatively. I'll be going back to vector equations today or tomorrow I think, just wanted to show you all how I first saw this idea and how I now see & understand it now. And no I'm not about to state I've found something (it's probably already been discovered by someone already), merely that I had this as the idea when I first came here and you were kind enough to listen and help. So coming up is the original posted idea A bit later on I will hopefuly post a drawing of how I think I understand it now. It by far not the finalization, just where I'm thinking or at right now. But 3 months on, well...it now appears in my head in the same ish' kind of fashion but I see it a bit clearer I hope, than I did (not clear enough yet) and I now have a few proper science names and hopefully descriptions, understandings to better explain it this time Like I said, that isn't how I think now. Mordred, Studiot and Swanston you have all helped me in that respect. Thank you, I appreciate it. Question if I may plz. When you guys measure particles, is there ever the residual faintest amount of a wave length that is just slightly misplaced? Is there a certain tolerance of + or - and perhaps if there was ever a slight slight difference it might be inside that tolerance itself? Slightly more 'up' on the top of the peak, or slightly more 'down' of bottom ? I hope I said that right. Sorry, it's quite difficult to imagine these all and how they might make a difference on such a small small scale. So many of them and behaving in so many different ways. Hmm.. So if you measured an proton for instance after it was created, when measured, does it ever seem to have slightly more charge than it should? No matter how faint that wave length might be? Or is it always perfect? I'm trying to understand a bit more, sorry for the weird questions, hope it made sense. Off to draw up what I currently envisage going on now find out how wrong I am or that someones already thought it up pfft Time always tells eh. (sry for the sqep's Mordred)

Needed to add, I'm not suggesting for a second I have found a way for dark photons to be exist & or be created or if indeed I am exactly thinking of these things in this exact same or correct context, just that they seem to be fit so well from what I've read so far. Very, very similar in ways. Time will tell as always I guess. This really does seem to answer, at least in some parts (until I know more) the definition of what I came up in Aug this year. I mean for myself, not the the world, I haven't invented dark photons. Yet... LoL You clever folks probably want to slap me for that, sorry. @studiot I haven't forgotten about the different number meanings, still on my mind, just re learning other bits atm. Vectors and Negative Vector equasions can go on hold for a bit, sorry. That's some heavy stuff. I will get back to it though. Particle I see equated to the the particle I'm trying to describe (very badly and naively) Kinetic - The energy created by this 'thingy' before it died instantly The Resonance is the entwined and joining of all this energy not just limited to local areas (Milky Way) but everywhere, all at once at any time. Living as a universal body. Could this body be the Field of fields? Watching Sean Carol again made me wonder about the many different fields that exist and are yet to be discovered. Shouldn't there be one Field that incorporates all these different fields even if it is created because of all the existing etc fields. Maybe a few different fields interact with each other in certain way which in itself creates a unique field that influences other fields or multi field fields and so on until there is one huge Field of fields made up of and created by all the other possible variations, collisions, VP energy (expulsions?) I'm guessing you folks already know a great deal about this And I'm convinced (for what it's worth) that DM does and must have a creation point (everything does right?), is it the dark photon? Would that go c? Is it lazy in comparison? I don't know but perhaps if a dark photon exists, so does a dark photon particle of some sort no? A ray or maybe burst of 'dark'? If a Dark Photon existed, would it exist in a superposition before it is measured? Have I said that correctly? Would that be (If I understood this right) at a 1/2 spin opposite to a photon's? Is it possible if they exist? Hope I said and understood superposition correctly. What would that be? DM? Maybe I'm being a bit thick, I haven't checked the web for this and maybe someone already thought of this too. I would imagine all you folks have thought of more or less anything in your life times. You'd never guess this Dark Photon has ahem...maybe a little more than slightly grasped my curiosity would ya. Most of what I wrote is based on (I hope) all the things I have learnt about so far on here (tyvm) with a bit of added curiosity from me.

Wow, wished I'd looked at this before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_photon Name of my post is 1. Sub Quantum Echo Particles...(SQEP's) & Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux My description was slightly off but hmm, Did you already know? I see the resonance as a kind of song between 2 or more of these SQEP/Dark Photons? The similarity is well...If only I could show you how I see this working in my (albeit very badly described) idea as it goes along. It's not a plug and I get your possible reasons for not wanting to so it's cool, just frustrating , this thread does that if anything does. Just so very badly want to run it past at least one of you, then you can tell me I'm mad, or very misguided but close or not. That was my hole aim to start with, nothing more nothing less, wouldn't have got this without you Thx. Need to go learn more about dark photons aswell now pfft , so much reading.

Just watching a video about super symmetry and that the partners haven't been discovered yet. Just wondering as I do and maybe a naive/stupid question, could these super partners only live in he heat of the intital universe as it were and then just kind of got stretched out as it cooled? Which might make them supermassive but super stretched? Can heat stretch into cold? As opposed I guess to cooling down, is cooling down stretched heat or could it be seen that way?

Yes, thanks. I'll try to learn what I'm missing. Thanks for putting up with me too, you and Mordred. My knowledge is clearly not as good as it could be. I appreciate your patience. A thought just occurred to me writing this, I recall from a matrices link from Mordred, in the explanation of them, the tutor showed a box with the following + - + - + - + - + I don't recall much more right now, it's a bit early and I haven't re read that part to catch up on yet.

What do you mean by rule Studiot? Is this a maths thing that I've not learnt? Are there rules in maths that I need to learn? Is it advanced maths? Any help is always appreciated.

from what you posted Genady the answer must be 0 ? Thank you

My wife is really mad at the fact that I have no sense of direction. So I packed up my stuff and right!

Hey Studiot, here's the link to the video https://www.khanacademy.org/math/linear-algebra/vectors-and-spaces/vectors/v/linear-algebra-vector-examples It's at 24.44 or so where he adds -4 - -4 (I got the sum wrong, I thought it was addition) but still he says-4 - -4 = -4 +4 = 0 I think my problem is that he adds -4 when it states -4 - -4 Hope that makes sense. I'm a bit confused. If you can shed some light I'd be grateful. I know I'm doing the analogous equivalent of flying in space before I can walk with regards to maths. Oh and if I may ask, are nucleai specific to atoms or can electrons, protons and neutrons also have their own nucleai? Or perhaps more, like quarks?

mmm That is just....what on earth goes through some peoples heads....how many people could he have fed with that money...and all he got was a banana. Emperors new clothes springs to mind... I only seem to get sick on weekdays. I must have a weekend immune system. My friend was showing me his tool shed and pointed to a ladder. “That's my stepladder,” he said. "I never knew my real ladder.”

Still trawling through bits n pieces but this seemed interesting, I guess it's very similar to the vector matrix in IR2 (Khan Academy) but without the south direction. perpendicularity I know it's just explaining perpendicularity but I kind of envisage my 2 states next to each other idea as well with 'north' perhaps being the gap even though it's in a conserved system. Hope I said that right, still amazed at how much I forgot in just a week or so..damn pc...😠 And tbh, I don't know if I will get to grips with Orthogonality or not. It seems really complex. If I don't post much atm it's just because I'm trawling through still, I am here though I had a thought yesterday and I'll ask it as weird as it might sound. Could DM & gravity be the same thing? Maybe if it is trapped in an atmosphere it behaves differently to outside of an atmosphere? Pushing things down instead of pulling them down maybe?

I understand the 4 + -1 being 5. Your diagram helped a lot with that ty, it was the trying to understand the -4 + -4 = 4 I can't get my head around. Do 2 minuses make a plus? In the Khan lecture he made that sum but in my mind both the minus 4's seem to be pointing in the negative. So wouldn't that make 8 and not 4? It was a 2 part sum, the -4 + -4 was the number at each of the tops of the the 2, 2 tupel columns. There was another sum involved for the bottom part of the vectors but I think I understood that.

I'm wading through as I said, the Khan lectures and at one point he is explaining the vectors & tupels and equasions of a + b and adds -4 + -4 together to make 4 which I don't really understand if this is being explained using something you posted Studiot and he is also posting in the lecture. What is it I'm not seeing?

Still have a fair bit of re reading and lectures to go through. Weird how much slipped from my head in just a week or so. If I haven't posted for a little while, it's just because I'm just catching up. Stay safe

My pc is back again finally but needs some attention. The HD went mad and some data got lost / transferred And I need to do some catch up so I'll be back in a few days.

Hello, Just a quick update, pc is still down Hope you're well.

Hello Hello My pc has decided to go a bit weird, not sure what the issue is but I might not be able to post a lot in the next few days. If you don't hear from me much, that's why. Hopefully it won't be too long.

Thanks both of you, still watching the lectures atm, don't know nearly enough yet.

Immensely, a kind of Rosetta stone ty.

My head is a bit foggy again with magnitudes, vector units, square roots and things. Bit confusing right now but I think I understand vector and scalar more now so thats something. Have a good night. Thanks for your help

I've had to back track a lot on Khan academy to linear vectors and real co-ordinate spaces, I was getting very lost seeing 4 + -1 = 5 - still not sure why that isn't 3. Anyway, it's talking about more than 3d which is interesting. I guess I'm writing this because as I said in my first post, this is a very simple idea but can get very complicated. Little did I know what I was talking about even though I was talking about it lol Anyway, perhaps my 'simple idea' is actually more like 4d, 5d or even further along. I don't know if thats even possible or how far it goes if it is. Left side/right side Inside/Outside Surface/top/bottom Diagonals Nuecleus/decay Information transfer? (quantum hair) Boundary condtions & the behaviour of electrons?, between the boundary conditions, perhaps also what is happening within the states themselves and how they may be affected by quantum tunneling? (if thats a possibility, I saw this as leakage before you mentioned quantum tunnelling to me), fields (EM/Higgs?) and idon't know what else. I have a lot of lectures to watch now before I get back to the determinant lecture you gave me a link for Mordred. I undertstood this, a*d - b*c = But when it went 3d..well thats where it went a bit confusing for me.

Thanks, I took a day out from it all or so I thought. The above link, about halfway down shows a 3d determinat matrix (is matrix the right word) and I am being frustrated by their answers to the 3rd determinant I'm not asking for answer, I need to figure it out but thats where I am atm. So I thought I took a day out, hahaha my bloody brain wouldn't shut up.....so Not too sure about the underlined part, still need to learn more. By the bit I emboldened wouldn't leave me alone. I make the mistake now and then of thinking of literal particles and not energy/wave lengths. I this 'thingy' in my idea exists, from what I have learnt and if it indeed is created to die instantly, it would have to exist as energy I think. I'm still learning as you know so please bear with me. So going back to the emboldened part, it kept making me think and think and think, what could it be if it is in an enclosed/conserved state / system...hmmm...and more hmm..and more hmm.. Then it struck me, perhaps I'm only thinking or have only suggested this in 2d. Atm I can't think of anything that would only have sides. It has to have surfaces too (3d) and therefore state 3 would perhpaps be the meeting of the 2 boundary condtions but maybe..just maybe, there's a bit of quantum tunneling going on and it might not be a 'totally' conserved state even though it is (mmm it sounds weird to me too) due to quantum tunneling (Im still learning about that too). The surface of both state 1 and state 2 would also be next to something making this perhaps a 3d kind of state. After all, isn't everything, even if it is part of a chain (all be it a universally sized chain, in all directions) be connected to each other. Whether 1st gen connection (direct contact), 2nd gen connection, or even 1 billionth gen connection ... So whatever the surface/s is/are in contact with are somehow helping to create this thingy in state 3. A question: Do nuclear force & weak force not count in a conserved system? I'll leave it there as it is already confusing me and thoug I think I can sort of see it in my head, I don't know enough to present it in written or maths form. You guys know more than I do and idk how stupid that may or may not sound to you, but this is kind of where I am so far. Off to try and understand 3 det now again...

Thanks, just curious, did you Studiot or Swansont or even any other scientist / mathematician get frustrated when you started learning about maths and science?

In the Slater determinant are the x1 & x2 the electrons in the 1st part before the =? I'm trying hard to understand this better but hmm, is the 2nd part of it after =, simply the wavelength without the wavelength symbol in front of it? Does the commar in the first x1,x2 have a relevance other than splitting the 2 x's up? This is as far I have got so far, still reading, still mostly confused but it's a lot to take in all at once, so I don't expect I will make much sense of it atm. I will eventually I hope... Oh and when I see RHS mentioned, does it mean Right Hand Side? Going by the Pauli exclusion about Fermions, how is it that a nucleai can have the same protons in the same space, or is this not what is going on in the nucleus? Is it rather, that the protons are simply close to each other in a tight space? Perhaps I've read too much today, the determinants are starting to drive me nuts a bit too. I'll try again tomorrow.