Imagine Everything

I am reading things all over the place and just got to this one, holy moly springs to mind. Always thought of it as a singlew point explosion not an entire universe going bang at the same time and everywhere. This actually might fit my idea (albeit later on and to do with a repeating universe) so much better than a single point big bang. I feel a bit silly now lol. Probably not the last time I will feel this way either. So a few questions please, If I have this right, light being strectched is redshifting. Can ALL energy be stretched including mediators? If a state has boundary conditions, are boundary conditions themselves a state and also have boundary conditions? When 2 states are next to each other, the EM (field?) mediator generated by both between both of them, can or does this merge? phase? together? Can this create more new states and different 'particles' Can mediators be stretched? And does that then become an EM state with it's own boundary conditions? What is a wave? Is it a constant energy type that when looked at behaves like particles? As in, when they are measured, they are seen as particles and not pure energy? Is that how you tell thedifferent energy types apart? Is the entire universe curved? Lastly, is EVERYTHING in the universe very simply put just a mass of different energy or energies that merge? Thank you condensed matter lattice network - I just briefly looked at this and Yikes But hmm condensed particles(condensed energy? energies?)..multiscale entanglement....interesting, didn't understand it but these 2 things..hmm very interesting thanks. I don't think I will look at this again just yet The multiscale entanglement...In this idea I have, I visualise this I think, badly termed of course but still. I see in my simple' initial thought as being part of a exponentially huge, universe wide entanglement, all interacting with and being a part of, each other. Kaboom!! That was my head exploding again. Sometimes my brain feels like it's a yoyo, on a rollercoaster, in a tsunami during an earthquake

Thank you all for your feedback and advice, I really appreciate it. I have a lot to read now as well as more lectures from Prof. Bloomfield to watch and understand. This will take some time but I will come back when I have and hopefully learnt and understood more. I have more questions relating to my idea and especially the mediators, I think this is or might be what I calling very badly a 'flux' without realising. But I won't for now, it's hard enough posting here, reading all your feedback, going through the links you've sent and doing this physics introduction course at the same time And thank you all so very much for not sending my idea to the trash can immediately, especially as I had no 'proper' knowledge of what I was trying to explain in the first place.

mmm I think I have a misunderstanding of velocity, I'm going to redo the lecture after it's finshed and perhaps even again after that. The part of your reply Mordred that I emblazened, does this mean deceleration is simply aceleration in the oposite direction of motion? So can I dismiss deceleration completely and just think of it as acceleration regardless of the direction of motion?

So is there no such thing as deceleration? Or is that something I wouldn't be able understand with my level of understanding atm? Thankyou for answering.

Kind of. I hmm...So particles aren't particles? they are a wave length field? Or something like this? An atom is solid but below the atom everything energy of some sort? Or is my head not wrapping itself around properly? I enrolled on a introduction to physics course yesterday, hosted by Prof Lou Bloomfield and he discussed inertia amongst other things, I previously thought of inertia as something not moving at all but it seems that inertia is the constant movement without net force or net forces cancelling each other out and creating a zero net force that allows constant movement?. So...as long as something is moving at a constant speed, either at rest or moving is described as inertia? This to me was bizarre as I hadn't considered it this way and so I kind of understand I think that anything below the atom is not solid? But arrgghhh science is evil or maybe it's the Matrix 😮 lmao, very hard to retrain my brain though it is slowly. Have I understood this correctly and also the lower level 'particles' of an atom? Prof. Lou Bloomfield is a funny and very good teacher. As are you guys Mordred, Studiot & Swanstont Though I'm also still trying to understand velocity (direction?) Backward acceleration(why isn't it called decelleration?) And some other stuff I can't remember right now. Bad day for me today.

tbh I expect it to be confusing, it is in what I see from my initial idea, I've anticipated the maths part, I think that would be the only way to prove or test it. I am far far from ready to even think about the equasions I think, I saw that U respresents Upspin, D is Downspin & S is Strange but thats as far as I have so far. And I don't really understand the Strange bit yet but I will I have no idea at this moment in time what symbols are used to represent what mediators? Particles? Waves? and whatever else I don't know about yet but if you will give me time and help/advice, I think I might be able to grasp it eventually. I have a brain that gets bored easily with mundane employment and always has but science is a whole other entity like I have never known with so much to learn. My brain seems to eat every bit of it up as I go along, hopefully it will keep doing it and learn what it needs to. I have more revison & study to do so I may not post again today. I don't understand about scattering experiments but this is the first I have heard of them so with time I do have two questions though please, why is there only a U and a D and not also a leftspin or right spin or even other angle type spins? Is this because a particle can only be split in half?

Than you both Studiot and Mordred, too early for me to understand properly right now but I'll look at it again later. Just wanted to say thanks and also mention this. So yes you can have several mediator particles involved with particles that interact with multiple fields. It seems that this could be very confusing, criss crossing many multiple boundary conditions (multiple state / boundary formulars?) and could be the way I'm trying badly to describe as a flux'. A 2+ state interim? mediation. What would be your name for the area between 2 or more boundary conditions? My idea starts with a very simple 2 state - 2 boundary condition formula? but I see it expanentially growing and creating more mediation 'interims'? which is something I see as seriously complicated but possible extremely useful if it could be manipulated into something or anything we want to use it for. Manipulated simply by placing different states & their boundary conditions together to create the types of particles/mediatiors we might need to create the type of particles/mediators we want to create or use '???' particles with and even more. That's why I see it as a recipe but no doubt formula is the better or right term? Hmm not bad for 6am

Regarding the States and Boundary Conditions, Thankyou I will, it is super cool that I now have a name for at two of the things I'm trying to explain very badly. Whoever called it SQEP is crazy (whistles suspiciously) What holds together the boundary condition/s? The interaction of 2 states is mediated by a photon, EM (Electromagnetism?) And solid states are kept solid by the Higgs Bosun? Is a photon quantum entanglement held together by the Higgs bosun? Or is that not a possiblity, can the photon not be split? I don't know why I'm even asking that right now. Maybe my brain is split and it's mediator is only sending me bits of questions I need the answer for at a later date... Kind of a weird de ja vu. Sorry to throw that in the mix too. It made me immediately wonder if atoms, protons, neutrons etc have more than 1 mediator? Or can there only ever be one mediator? My mind....... And I apologise but I don't think I understand the part of your answer that I italisised. Or perhaps I didn't quite understand Studiot in the first place. Time is best understood as the property describing rate of change not a self existing entity. This for some reason made me think about the ballon analogy, inflation & expansion are the rate of change? as opposed to fixed points changing. Is time then a similar entity to Quantum Hairs? Not a physical entity but more of a maths certainty? Are QH's a theory yet? Or a mathematicaly logical conclusion? I might and probably have said that incorrectly.

I watched a video earlier regarding a brief conversation about quantum decoherence and quantum entanglement and Einsteins 'spooky' definition My idea seems to be a possible explanation to the behaviour of 1 split particle connected to itself? I don't know if my new knowledge or understanding of this is explained in the right way at this moment in 'time' but I will try. I say 'time' because I wonder if 'time' even exists. If it doesn't then would this mean instant connections/quantum entanglements are indeed instant? Like an arm attatched to a torso rather than an arm on a table and a torso in another room. Does that make sense? Though perhaps in universal terms the arm is everwhere and maybe the torso is space? Or something like this. In my very simple yet exponentially complex idea, the edge of item 1 meets the edge of item 2 and the very minute space between them is a merged reaction or phased reaction system of both whatever these 2 edges are or could be made of. So if item 1 is a paper Quark/Anti Quark system & item 2 is a table Quark/Anti Quark system & the connection between the paper quarks is a gluon which mediates the strong interaction in this & also the same for the table system then what I think I'm visualising is the merger of both Quarks and Anti Quarks from both the paper and table 0 systems into a new singular interim merged 0 system made up of combined paper and table Q/AQ's? So hmm, I saw the 2 slot experiment defined by Elise Crux and how the 2 slots actually become multiple slots projected on the wall beyond the 2 slots instead of 2 slots being projected. The idea I have is that this newly created interim 0 Q/AQ merged reaction system is far from singular (though it is a singular merge) peculiar to whatever the 2 edges are made from . So before the Q/AQ's go past the slots they are a 0 '??' Q/AQ system and equally the 2 slots are also creating their own singular Q/AQ system peculiar to whatever the slots are made from & interacting with such as metal & air (metal/air Q/AQ 0 system) and when the initial '??' Q/AQ 0 system passes through the metal/air 2 slot 0 system, it then becomes a mixture of the original Q/AQ 0 system and the 2 slot metal/air 0 system (creating yet another pairing) and it's this new double? quadruple? (Q/AQ / 2 SLOT Q/AQ) system that changes the way it behaves and then produces these extra projected slots that seemingly came from 'nowhere'. The nowhere in question being another newly created interim quarduple 0 system. The is also related to how I see possible quantum travel or may even be the exact same thing. I wonder if it pssible by the creation of different 0 systems to somehow 'manipulate' quantum particles, change them through using different 0 system formulars and then being able to make a pure type of ?? quantum particle corridor from one place to another which enables instant 'travel' So if my body was simply a body Q/AQ 0 system with it's own formula, could a quantum particle corridor, the same as my body Q/AQ 0 system be created so that I may be instantly moved from one place to another, perhaps vis an STMD - Sub Quantum Transfer Manipulation Device? That'sprobably not the right term for the device either but right now, thats all I can think of to call or describe it. If there was an STMD on Earth and one on Mars, could I instantly travel there? I call these formulas 'recipes' further on in my idea as I see them a mix of things. Many many many things. I really hope I've explained that right. If I changed my 'SQEP' terminology to Q/AQ (or whatever it might be) & change my term 'flux' to Q/AQ 0 system + Q/AQ 0 system, would that better explain what I'm trying to say?. Maybe another way to say it is how I see the number 3 or the 'third' which is created by all pairings. So 2 items would be like this - 1-3-2 - the 3 or 'third' is the newly created interim 0 system. So 4 items and their respective edges all interacting could be 1-3-2-3-3-3-4 and this is potentially more than mind boggling due to the possible different edges that might meet and interact such as the event horizon of a BH.

Hi Studiot, I've numbered your answer so that I may answer more directly and you can see what I'm referring to more easily. I did reply to your question about energy but I think I either posted it somewhere else by mistake or perhaps didn't hit the return key. I'm having trouble finding it Energy is very important to me, it was the very first reply I made to your above post, I'm so sorry my reply didn't reach you. I see energy as the very thing that is fundamental to what I'm trying very very hard and very badly lol to explain. I'm learning though so please bear with me as I gain more knowledge. I see a few forms of energy Electricity - Kinetic - Static - Piezoelectricity - Heat - there was one other but my head is a bit gluey atm, I think without energy nothing would happen AT ALL. No life, no universe, dare I say 'nothing' ? But my knowledge is not as great as yours so I anticipate there are a lot more energy forms. I actually need an 'energy' type for my idea to work or it fails miserably. I see it as kinetic but no doubt my 'vision' is incorrect. 2. This is EXACTLY how I see my idea working, at it's most tiniest tiniest possible it can be before the state of 'nothing'. I see it everywhere and linking everything all at the same time, all the time. Always has done and always will do. Quantum entanglment of energy particles? I couldn't agree with you more about it being mind boggling, my head feels like its been fried, eaten and then fried again However, my knowledge...hmmm... lol 3. please do 4. I don't totally know what you mean by system but if I may, I think I am tring to describe a tiny system that exists between 2 items. So small that it cannot be detected unless you see the influence? it has on the next level up. I'm going to say quark without knowing more/better because I read that they couldn't split a quark with the LHC. But if there can't be 'nothing' then... A quark HAS to be made of something, I don't mean to sound like I'm telling you sorry if it sounds like that, it's how I see this idea I have. I wonder later on my idea if the only way to detect it is through it's hum or vibration but still only through the things it influences. I also wondered if it could somehow be maniplulated by what I previously called ( you won't know this because I haven't got to that chapter yet) in my idea an STMD - a Sub Quantum Transfer Manipulation Device. lol thats probably the wrong name for it too. A device or devices that could aid us in all manner of things such as quantum travel, the abilty to cure ailments, reverse global warming & the abilty to change the mass of large objects so they can be moved more easily and others. Sorry if that sounds like sci fi, I don't know how to term it better than that right now. And regarding empty space, in my head it wouldn't or couldn't be empty, not empty at all. I think it would have to have something in it regardless of it's mass or non mass. As primitive as this might sound without knowing more, I actually think Dark Matter & dark energy as driven and made up of these things I don't have the correct terms for yet. For what it's worth, I visualise dark matter as a universal sized ocean, pushed? by dark energy (current) and we are the fish. So I think I actually understand that term about 'empty' space but can't explain it properly atm. It is so very frustrating. But please don't think I ignored or didn't reply to your question about energy. My brain seems to work faster than my fingers can type or my body can move a lot of the time. Can we just do this telepathically please hahah If only, my life would be so much simpler lmao I would so love to send you or a few of you my entire idea but I'm not sure if it would make complete sense in it's primitive form.

Hi Studiot, These axioms, principles, hmmm...., I'm not about to say that I have one (I have no proof) but I think if I am understanding this information correctly, that I am trying to explain (albeit badly) an 'axiom' or 'principle' in my idea from which everything else I have written in my idea ( you haven't seen the entire idea yet) leads on from. I apologise for the bad term (SQEP) I have used to explain what I see but it does seem to be based on one re occuring? situation that in my unskilled eyes goes on to explain (in my imaginative head anyway) the things I mentioned already and more. Obviously I am learning more and more about this and I feel a bit daft for calling them SQEP's now, I'm starting to think of them as quarks or something smaller? if that's possible? The more I learn, the more I will understand and hopefully explain it much better to you very clever people than I have so far at some point in the future. I was very surprised to find out about anti quarks, I really should have imagined anti' things too because of the 'double' idea I also had prior to posting. Just a small thought I am having, should there exist an anti or negative universe? I have had so many double 'events' in my life, not exclusive to, but also including many many de ja vu moments. Regarding the bold, italic and underlined part I have highlighted, I need to know about this, I really really need to know about this My epiphany? took me from a very simple (but extremely complex) thought right the way through to how I see the big bang which I refer to personally as the God Nova. It seems similar to me to a Supernova (without knowing more at this present time) but obviously on a far larger and all emcompassing scale. I'm not ready for this explanation yet but I hope in the future, near or far, I will be. Just want to say a big thank you, not just to you but also the other folks here who have advised and listened to me. You are and have been very kind and wise to this humble nobody of nobodies. (Me)

Thanks Modred, off to go read some more

Does this mean quarks are 'sub' meson and 'sub' tetraquarks ?

If a meson is composed of quarks and they are bigger than protons and neutrons, then does an atom work like this... ATOM > MESON > QUARK > ??? Or are there meson atoms and quark atoms? And if so whats the difference between meson atoms and quark atoms? Is it the electron field they come from? Have I misunderstood this? I'm still currently reading about these, bosuns, fermions etc so please forgive my naivety. What is a valance quark?

One of the web links you gave me above Mordred had a link to quantum entanglement. One part of it states this: The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other particle (assuming that information cannot travel faster than light) and hence assured the "proper" outcome of the measurement of the other part of the entangled pair. Is it possible that a chain of the same quantum particles could move slower than the speed of light but still communicate with each other (no matter how distant) in a chained way so that it would appear they are communicating faster than the speed of light (superluminal if I understood that correctly) and then make them measurable or even manipulatable? Would it possible to create a chain or can quantum entanglement only happen between a single pair?

Yes you did throw a lot at me lol but thats ok, I'll read them and try to understand as best I can, it will probably mean I have more questions for you all though I don't know why but I was wondering what a quark was yesterday and searched them a bit. Only to realise these or their duality(the invisible/unknown? part that makes the quark?) might be what I'm trying to refer to as SQEP's. From what I read, quarks can't or haven't been able to be split by the LHC and this means they are made up of 'something' that hasn't been discovered? yet. Then just to confuse me more, I read that they have discovered TetraQuarks which are made up of 2 quarks and 2 anti quarks. So I have a question or millions lol I think I remember reading that quarks exist only for a few seconds before they are bound to or become protons? or become something else. Tetra quarks only exist for a few fractions of a second according to the website I reads, I can now paste a link if Im allowed to finally show some evidence of what I think I am visualising. I suspect you all already know quite a lot about this but I'm happy to post a link if you want/allow me to. Tetra quarks seem to be close to the size I see my SQEP's as (sorry to use that term again) however, the things I'm trying to describe, in my head I see them as being created and dying or (knowing a little more now) before they also change into something else. So if a quark exists for a few seconds and a tetra quark exists for a few fractions of a second, am I describing Tetra quarks or perhaps does this go further and maybe there are quartet quarks? Quintet quarks that exist but die or are recreated at the point of their creation? Does physics work like this? In a scale? And I think I remember reading that they get changed by the electron field. If this is also right then I think from my idea that perhaps the electron field is what I am describing badly as the resonance of the quarks? Does this make sense? The electron field is the cosmic constant throughout the universe? If I changed the SQEP definition that I'm using to Quark, tetra quark or ??? quark, would that better make sense of what I am trying to explain at the beginning of this topic? I was amazed to read about tetra quarks because this is or is close to how tiny I see my SQEP's. I am confused about the anti quark bit though, where do they come from or is just nature being nature and again producing more pairs? And what is an exotic particle? Is this the same as a quantum particle?

Thank you and thank you. I'd like to explain my above answer to you also Bufofrog, The way you answered me with the monkeybutt thing and wag made me think I had upset you somehow. I wrote in the new members section that I wasn't a scientist and a couple of people directed me to putting my idea in the specualtion area which is why I did. My autism/aspergers couldn't understand why you seemed to be unhappy with me so I wrote what I did. I really wasn't looking for an arguement but in plain text, the context of things doesn't come out as it should or is meant sometimes. It also makes me hyper sensitive in a lot of things and I hate it, autism to me feels like a curse. So I am sorry. Perhaps I should have asked if I had done something to annoy or upset you instead. The way you responded showed great maturity and wisdom.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell This is interesting though I don't understand the maths, I think I get the basics of fixed point distances being seemingly changed as expansion moves further and further. Does this mean our galaxy and all the things in it are also expanding with the expansion? Does it mean our galaxy was once tighlty knitted but after some time we now live in a galaxy that seems to be bigger than it was to start with? If expansion also seems expands the fixed points (planets for instance - so physically impacting but not changing their fixed points) would a telescopes range not also be expanded with & by the expansion allowing us to see further into the galaxy? Does this mean everything gets stretched the more the universe expands or just space/dark matter? Does the expansion work with light this way? It says the inside of the ballon isn't included in the explanation, And here comes my imagination again & also how I see the 'end' of the universe-beginning of a new one,could the inside of a ballon be all the energy in the universe and when the ballon finally starts receding, this energy then draws back into a Singularity which tries to become nothing at the end of recession and then due to it not being able to be 'nothing' then explodes at that point recreating the big bang? Is receding / recession the right way way to describe what I think I'm trying to say or should it be more like retracts & retraction.? Is retracts and retraction the right way to describe this? Another part of my idea/thoughts are that the universe has to expand into 'something' I'm not trying to take credit for anything regarding this and I'm sure you guys and others have already thought of this, it just seems logical that if we live in a universe then our universe must live inside another one? So, is our universe inside another universe which is in turn inside another universe, a cosmic russian doll? And if mother nature is true everywhere, shouldn't there be pairs of universes? And then pairs of those pairs? And so and so on? A Magnaverse? inside a a Mega Magnaverse? Inside a ???? Or is our universe not a universe but a merely pre made area that expands into another pre made area? And that this area and others like it, are inside one super duper massive universe? Maybe like a power suply (our area) inside a house (massive universe). Could inflation have been caused by the final retraction? of all energy/QH trying to become nothing (negative expansion?) and it's very final point can't become nothing and explodes (Big Bang/God Nova?) with both negative and positive expansion at the very same time? Another 'pair' Can something expand and contract at the very same time? Can something expand and contract but in an overlap as it were? So say a ballon losing it's air inside, just before the very last released air molecule, we blow into it again to expand it?

I think I have to understand more so that I can term things better full stop tbh. I'm sorry if I'm confusing you or others with the way I'm trying to explain this. I didn't know there were so many different variations of flux types or meanings. I am definately out of my depth here Also, Phi is right and I it didn't sit with me well posting 4 more extracts/chapters here so if it's possible, could the other posts inc this one be deleted please? Only the ones numbered - 2. 3. 4. 5. not my original post about SQEP's Thanks

Thank you very much for the time and effort you put into this. I'll start reading tomorrow. I really appreciate this

Thanks, I learn something new every day

Thank you Mordred, thats very kind of you to offer this and if it's ok with you, I will think about it overnight. One question though if I may, would I need to have qualifications in anything or an advanced understanding of maths or similiar to learn physics? I also wouldn't want to waste your time, it wouldn't be fair on you or others. This I haven't heard of and interesting to me, does a bossa nova work the same way as super and kilonovas?

Ok, i can see why you said that and I agree my idea is more guesswork than not, however isn't this a SPECULATION thread? I also don't have and no doubt DO need to learn, physics knowledge so I can put this idea across better. I haven't stated and won't state that this is anything other than a speculative idea, not a theory, just an idea based on what I visualise. Am I misinterpretting the word speculation here? Are you being rude just for the sake of it? Should I stop posting? If you or the other people here think what I am posting is wrong or shouldn't be here, tell me, delete my profile, it's fine. I don't mind. It'd be a shame for me but I won't be any worse off. And I took the liberty of getting proof that this idea is mine before I posted anything. Whether it's right/wrong or close to being something.

whats a wag?

From your expert pov, do you think there is only one universe? I know my imagination is a little wild.