1. Sub Quantum Echo Particles...(SQEP's) & Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux

[Imagine Everything]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Lol yeah quite a bit of a leaning curve for some of those articles. 

In regards to waves you have two distinct types waveform which is physical ie measurable where the amplitude also relates to the particle number density. Those links in the training section will detail how to determine the number density via the blackbody temperature of the CMB.

Though the same formulas are also used under QFT the format is different. Though equivalent with regards to say the EM field as one example.

The other case is wavefunctions which is a probability function and the amplitude peak is the highest probability. (This also has a probability current but don't worry about that right now).

So in regards to light, the intensity or energy density can be used to calculate the number density of photons. So it's better to think of redshift as a decrease in the number density of photons due to the reduced wavelength rather than mediator wavefunctions being affected.

After work I will step you through the basics of Cosmology in terms of the BB (rapid expansion of spacetime not an explosion) different dynamics.

The global geometry of spacetime averages as close to flat which I will detail further this evening.

Any system or state will typically have a boundary condition if it's finite. There is no boundary condition of an infinite system or state however when one renormalizes we  remove infinite quantities for the finite portion as every infinite quantity or set of values etc has a finite portion. 

 

 

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

These articles I wrote will help.

woooah, lol that is like just wooooah

I err ummm huh? lolol ok, you'd never guess I don't know how to reply to the bit I emblazened would you. 

But it's cool, I'll learn I hope. 

 

And I can reply to the 2 links you posted, my immediate reaction, was wow **** me, you wrote them 😮

Told you I was a nobody lol.

Sorry for the swearing, I knew you guys were really clever and a couple of things you have mentioned has led me to believe you are a university professor or Nasa related Astrophysicist or similiar.

Now I'm sure you are And I am even more overwhelmed by not just your help, but the time you have taken to help, advise and tutor? someone with my lack of physics & maths knowledge.

I can't say thank you enough.

I also suspect the other guys who have replied are similar to yourself and I bow to you all.

I can't do much on a forum but I can show you my appreciation in the way of compliments and honesty.

I think you are not just clever but brilliant brilliant minds. I'm not trying to butter you up, I honestly mean that.

Edited Thursday at 08:06 PM by Imagine Everything
typo

[Mordred]

  No I'm not a professor but I do help teach at our local university. I have a Masters in Cosmology and a Bachelors in particle physics. Swansont has a Ph.D.

Early universe processes are my specialty focus from BB to CMB primarily. The only reason I come to forums is to help others like yourself learn so it's pleasant to have someone willing to learn.

[Mordred]

Th

4 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

I don't know how to reply to the bit I emblazened would you. 

 

If your referring the portion of the quote that you highlighted and underlined.

"Any system or state will typically have a boundary condition if it's finite. There is no boundary condition of an infinite system or state however when one renormalizes we  remove infinite quantities for the finite portion as every infinite quantity or set of values etc has a finite portion. "

 Lets push your understanding of boundary conditions can oft also be referred to as a constraint. Now as you likely do understand is that the language of physics is mathematics so lets mathematically describe how a boundary condition works with regards to the quote. ( without overwhelming you with mathematics lol)

Lets take the the x axis for simplicity. Now this set has an infinite range of values however we can limit this set to have a minimum or maximum range of values. Whatever the reason for the constraint or boundary we now have a finite set. The set is made finite by the boundary condition of the set.

 That is a straightforward example of an infinite set showing a finite portion and how boundary condition applies to that set. Now that's a very simple example the set can be a group under group theory or some formula with a limited range being finite. On graphs the Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions are commonly used. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirichlet_boundary_condition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neumann_boundary_condition

from those links they also mention other types of boundary conditions. In QFT they use the IR (infrared and Ultraviolet ) boundary conditions 

Now it gets worse because some boundary conditions can apply to reflection or region of some interaction.

say for example your describing a wave bouncing off a mirror. You have a limit on the range of values (the surface of the mirror) but the interaction with the mirror can alter the waveform direction etc. Thats a rough and dirty simplified descriptive mathematically it is far moer rigidly defined.

Good examples where boundary conditions apply is fluid hydrodynamics container walls, regions where you have an average density different than another, or different properties such as temperature than another region

With regards to your OP  the gap 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:47 PM by Mordred

[Mordred]

14 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Always thought of it as a singlew point explosion not an entire universe going bang at the same time and everywhere.

 

 

Lets look at the difference between an explosion vs an expansion. Yes we can distinguish mathematically and through observation the difference between the two. Here is how.

take a triangle This triangle will be any three reference points such as 3 different galaxies. Label each point of the triangle 1,2,3. Between 1 and 2 label \(R_{12}\) between 2 and 3 \(R_{23}\) and between 3 and 1 \(R_{31}\). The R is for the length of each side of the triangle.

Now think back to the balloon analogy I posted earlier  as the universe expands The length of each R changes equally and the shape of the triangle is preserved with zero changes in any of the triangles angles.

so we can describe this mathematically as

\[r_{12}(t)=a(t)R_{12}(t_0)\]

\[r_{23}(t)=a(t)R_{23}(t_0)\]

\[r_{31}(t)=a(t)R_{31}(t_0)\]

where \(t_0\) is the time now (today) and a{t} is the scale factor. The scale factor is very easy to understand for example

\[a=\frac{R_{then}}{R_{now}}\]

radius then of the universe compared to radius now using scale factor gives

\[H=\frac{a}{a_{now}}=\frac{0.5}{1}\] where we set \(a_{now}=1\) so when a=0.5 at some previous time and setting a{now} to 1 we can see that the universe was half the volume it is today. That expansion has no inherent direction as shown by the triangle above. The rate of change on all 3 sides remain identical to each other. H is the Hubble parameter.

Now with an explosion if you place the point labelled 1 closest to the explosion source then sides \(R_{12}\) and \( R_{31}\) will expand at the same rate but side \(R_{23}\) will not its expansion would be at a different rate than the other two sides. This in turn will cause a change in angles between the three different sides.

The first case is a method to prove a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. (homogeneous=no preferred location, Isotropic= no preferred direction).

in the explosion case we have a preferred location ( BB source) and a preferred direction galaxy movement radiating outward from the source.

( unfortunately if I tried to include an image the latex above will get messed up its some forum software glitch ).

However the first case above is described as the Cosmological Principle.

this link isn't bad as it includes another piece of evidence (Olber's paradox)

https://pages.uoregon.edu/jschombe/cosmo/lectures/lec05.html

Now as the universe expands its temperature reduces this is in accordance with the ideal gas law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

as a volume of gas increases the density and temperature decreases.

Now an interesting relation arises above with this and the scale factor. If you take the inverse of the scale factor you will get the CMB temperature at any value of the scale factor compared to the temperature today. )2.73 Kelvin today. This isn't accidental but a consequence of the ideal gas laws and how matter, radiation and Lambda (Dark energy aka cosmological constant) relate to the changes in volume.

Let stop there and see if you understand the above as its extremely important to any other equations involved. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 03:39 AM by Mordred

[Mordred]

16 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

So a few questions please,

If I have this right, light being strectched is redshifting.

Can ALL energy be stretched including mediators?

 

Can mediators be stretched?

 

 

lets address this as well in greater detail. Expansion of the universe does not affect everything equally. In terms of any gravitationally bound object, expansion does not affect. Nor does it affect particles themselves nor atoms. The local binding forces due to those interactions overpowers what drives expansion. Today the primary driving term is the cosmological constant. 

 In redshift it isn't the photons being stretched. It is the wavelength of a light ray. That wavelength will correspond to a number density of photons received. This is true for all forms of Doppler shift

This can be applied in terms of photon flux....

The energy of a single photon is hv or \(\hbar\omega=\frac{h}{2\pi}\omega\) where 'h' is the planck constant \(6.626*10^{-34}\) Joules-sec. One photon is roughly \( 10^{-19}\) joule 

photon flux \(\phi\) and P as beam power ( in Watts) gives

\[\phi=\frac{P}{hv}\]

this will give you the photons per sec photon/\(s/m^2 \)

for bright sunlight it will be roughly on the order of\( 10^{18}\) photons per second

lol if you want to play around here is a calculator for it to give you some feel the numbers and relations involved

https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/photon-flux

 

 

Edited Friday at 05:58 AM by Mordred

[studiot]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:17 PM, Imagine Everything said:

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.

 

I had understood you were 'taking a break'.

But from subsequent post I see that perhaps I gained the wrong impression.

 

Anyway and others have ploughed on so here are a few thoughts.

 

On 10/2/2024 at 9:24 PM, StringJunky said:

Acceleration is change in velocity, and that means up or down and which way

 

 

When driving an automobile we use at least two pedals.

We call one the accelerator (some americans call it the gas pedal)  its purpose is to develop more power for some reason.

Now that reason may be to go faster (increase speed). Or it may be to change direction, whilst maintaining constant speed. (A touch on the accelerator as to get you round the bend as my long ago driving instructor used to say.)

Now I have never heard of anyone calling the other pedal a decelarator, although that it what it does.
Of course we call it the brake.

Whenever there is an acceleration, whether the speed changes or not, there is an aassociated force or forces.

Next time we will consider the difference between force and energy, a distinction so many get confused over.

 

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

Lets look at the difference between an explosion vs an expansion.

Amazingly Mordred is a physicist teaching you maths and I am a mathematician (retired) explaining physics.

Sometimes it is worth considering from another science point of view.

So explosions and expansions.

Chemists distinguish explosions as reactions that accelerate indefinitely.
This is either because the rate of energy input is greater than it can be distributed.
Or it is because the reaction is of the 'chain' variety where there are several stages and one stage produces more than one output (next stage) for any input.

 

 

Edited Friday at 01:58 PM by studiot

[Imagine Everything]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I had understood you were 'taking a break'.

But from subsequent post I see that perhaps I gained the wrong impression.

 

Anyway and others have ploughed on so here are a few thoughts.

 

 

When driving an automobile we use at least two pedals.

We call one the accelerator (some americans call it the gas pedal)  its purpose is to develop more power for some reason.

Now that reason may be to go faster (increase speed). Or it may be to change direction, whilst maintaining constant speed. (A touch on the accelerator as to get you round the bend as my long ago driving instructor used to say.)

Now I have never heard of anyone calling the other pedal a decelarator, although that it what it does.
Of course we call it the brake.

Whenever there is an acceleration, whether the speed changes or not, there is an aassociated force or forces.

Next time we will consider the difference between force and energy, a distinction so many get confused over.

 

Amazingly Mordred is a physicist teaching you maths and I am a mathematician (retired) explaining physics.

Sometimes it is worth considering from another science point of view.

So explosions and expansions.

Chemists distinguish explosions as reactions that accelerate indefinitely.
This is either because the rate of energy input is greater than it can be distributed.
Or it is because the reaction is of the 'chain' variety where there are several stages and one stage produces more than one output (next stage) for any input.

 

 

I can understand why you would think I was taking a break, again my wording isn't the best.

It will take me some time to get through everything, however the more I read, the more questions I have and so I come back to ask and then so on and so on, and hmm, I'm sometimes not great at getting things in the right order, I tend to jump before I can walk a lot while I'm swimming sometimes.

So please forgive me and my odd terminology and wording.

I also think my brain is searching sub conciously for things that relate to my idea and that also leads me all over the place.

The studying will take and is taking time, I don't anticipate understanding things quickly, though some things are sticking more than others such as the term multiscale entanglement.

I guess I am as confusing as I am not. I'm sorry.

I'm as clever as I am thick.  I do try to write things in the right way but hmm..I know I don't always.

And I'm not surprised that you and Mordred are speaking about each others fields of expertise, it's a perfect pair/opposite/pair/opposite merger merger Does that even make sense? More confusion lol, sorry.

That though, I understand lol, things to me seem to be this way in life.

Anyway, thankyou for your reply as always, very helpful.

Next time we will consider the difference between force and energy, a distinction so many get confused over.

This would be very useful please do, I only hope I can understand it. I must admit I have been wondering if energy creates a force and what force types and energy types there are and also if quantum energy(particles?) can also produce other different merged? types of energy.

Am I right in thinking Isotopes are the same as their chemical parent but with smaller masses and come and go at will?

I haven't read too much about these but perhaps they are what I am calling the merged energies (sqep's, I know thats a bad term) between 2 boundary conditions and the their respective EM mediators?

Do EM mediators create or can they create another different form of EM or new energy mediator?

Can all mediators do this if they do?

I am also going to try (well I hope) to rewrite my idea in a better more informed scientific way this weekend.

I look forward to all your thoughts on that when I do it.

I also don't smile much in real life but I use them here so you can see the impact you are all having on me.

I know typed text can be misunderstood out of context.

 

You wrote:

Chemists distinguish explosions as reactions that accelerate indefinitely.
This is either because the rate of energy input is greater than it can be distributed.
Or it is because the reaction is of the 'chain' variety where there are several stages and one stage produces more than one output (next stage) for any input.

This last part underlined, would this happen because of Si? I hope I've understod that correctly. My apologies if I haven't.

 

I must also admit that the maths part and all the symbols are very confusing to me and I'm not sure if I can or will ever understand them.

Is that going to be an issue for me trying to explain this idea?

Or can I write it just aswell without knowing the maths? If I write something that makes sense to you folks, would it be something you could prove/disprove with your great understanding of maths?

 

Thank you

Edited Friday at 03:26 PM by Imagine Everything
typo

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Amazingly Mordred is a physicist teaching you maths and I am a mathematician (retired) explaining physics

Lol interesting role reversal 

[Imagine Everything]

                                              An Illogical Sense Of Order

Chapter 1 - The Third State or State 3 (short version)

In it's very basic form, I see a boundary condition of one state meeting the boundary condition of another state and inbetween these 2 boundary conditions is a state formed from hadrons, energy & forces.

I see this state & it's components as the very smallest (possible superluminal? or relativistic?) anything can be before it tries to become 'nothing'.

State 1 & State 2

Converging state 1's hadrons at it's boundary condition and also doing the same to state 2 and it's boundary condition, create a merger between the 2 boundary conditions where both state 1 and state 2 hadrons become entwined in upspins, downspins, strangeness and possibly? 'more' (I don't think I have learnt 'more' yet).

Not 50% state boundary condition 1 and not 50%  state 2 boundary condition but instead graduating from both states boundary conditions across their respective mediators and going in both forward & backward accelerations and also creating more and all possible homogeneous & Isotropic directions once the mediators merge (a third entity of air? would also be added to the mix with it's own states & boundary conditions) from state 1 to state 2  -  State 1 99.9% / State 2 0.01% hadrons all the way through until eventually it becomes State 1 0.01% / State 2 99.9% and vice versa and possible in their millions? billions? trillions?

The hadrons & their forces are created directly to die once measured but the energy/force? from their creation carries on with the QH (quantum hair) data from all hadrons as 'nothing' (or so I have read) cannot exist and these hadrons are so small that they are one step away from being 'nothing'.

These energies?/forces? created, create a new state - State 3. Albeit very brief and very small througout the EM mediators and also now all over the place both Homogeneous and Isotropic.

This merged hadron state contains all energy/force? created by the SQEP's between these 2 items.

State 1 / boundary condition 1 - Hadron/Energy/Force State 1`.

Item 2 boundary condition - Hadron/Energy/Force State 2.

State 1 + State 2 Hadron/Energy/Force States = Homogeneous Isotropic Hadron/Energy/Force  State 3.

I see State 3 in the same way people shed their skin. Always happening, all the time while different boundary conditions are next to each other.

The gap between to 2 boundary conditions is now phased or merged with each others boundary condition hadrons & forces/mediators at all times while these 2 items are next to each other with the added state of air (if on Earth).

As soon as one state is moved or removed, State 3. would change to assimilate the new 'pairing' of whatever they then ended up next to boundary condition to boundary condition.

So now think about the room you are in and how many boundary condtitions are connected with & to each other & the new States(& boundary conditions?) being created.

I see these new States as being everywhere all the time, wherever they are in us and our organs, blood, neurons, vehicles, planets, Dark Matter?  as EVERYTHING in the universe appears to have a boundary condtion.

 

So I hope I've made more sense with this now.

I'm sure I have made some mistakes or maybe I haven't grasped the proper meanings of things and as I said before, I look forward to your feedback, advice, knowledge (should that be knowlboundary condition?) and tuition.

 

The name An Illogical Sense Of Order is the name of my idea/book that goes across 19 chapters from the above all the way through to the universe itself.

I'm probably wrong lol.

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:56 PM by Imagine Everything
added text

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

                                              An Illogical Sense Of Order

Chapter 1 - The Third State or State 3 (short version)

In it's very basic form, I see a boundary condition of one state meeting the boundary condition of another state and inbetween these 2 boundary conditions is a state formed from hadrons, energy & forces.

 

Overall not bad a descriptive far better improved. Lets start here

you have two states that are well defined with well defined boundary conditions. Now here is where things get tricky, we haven't defined the states themselves to be able to determine what occurs when those two states interact however we can ignore that for the moment. Under QFT treatment the region between the two states simply describe as quantum fields. This is where the interaction between the two states is mediated. So if for example your two states are two separate EM fields. The region between the two will still be an EM field which is good as the EM field is mediated by photons. However we still want a term to describe that region between states. However this becomes problematic as the interactions between two states can vary so its best to simply treat this region as some relevant field or assign it to the type of interaction itself between states. That interaction can be widely varied so its best to allow for all possibilities and simply keep that as an interaction region via the relevant fields.

Now here is an important distinction  in QFT/QM states are mediated by Operators (they have a minimal of one quanta of action) An operator is a function that maps of one state vector into another a simple expression is Dirac notation

\(|\psi\rangle\) is the initial state \(\langle\psi|\) is the final state .\( A\) is some Observable (Minimal 1 quanta of action for any observable) \(\hat{A}\) is some linear operator. So we have some state \(\psi\) the expectation value of A between the initial and final state can be defined as

\[\langle\psi|\hat{A}|\psi\rangle\] 

so for example you have an initial state followed by a final state and for this example we want a time evolution between the initial state and the final state that last expression therefore becomes 

\[\frac{d}{dt}\langle\psi|\hat{A}|\psi\rangle\]

so if we take the time dependent Schrodinger equation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation

Yes I'm going to skip a few steps but those steps involve defining the different Operators such  time evolution, projection, momentum, position Operators

\[\frac{d}{dt}\langle\psi|\hat{A}\psi\rangle=\frac{i}{\hbar}\langle \psi|[\hat{H}\hat{A}]\psi\rangle\]

\(\hat{H}\) is the Hamilton operator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)

the expression above directly applies the quantum uncertainty to the initial and final state via the quantum harmonic action of the quantum field.

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Overall not bad a descriptive far better improved. Lets start here

you have two states that are well defined with well defined boundary conditions. Now here is where things get tricky, we haven't defined the states themselves to be able to determine what occurs when those two states interact however we can ignore that for the moment. Under QFT treatment the region between the two states simply describe as quantum fields. This is where the interaction between the two states is mediated. So if for example your two states are two separate EM fields. The region between the two will still be an EM field which is good as the EM field is mediated by photons. However we still want a term to describe that region between states. However this becomes problematic as the interactions between two states can vary so its best to simply treat this region as some relevant field or assign it to the type of interaction itself between states. That interaction can be widely varied so its best to allow for all possibilities and simply keep that as an interaction region via the relevant fields.

Now here is an important distinction  in QFT/QM states are mediated by Operators (they have a minimal of one quanta of action) An operator is a function that maps of one state vector into another a simple expression is Dirac notation

|ψ〉 is the initial state 〈| is the final state .A is some Observable (Minimal 1 quanta of action for any observable) A^ is some linear operator. So we have some state ψ the expectation value of A between the initial and final state can be defined as

 

〈ψ|A^ψ〉

 

 

so for example you have an initial state followed by a final state and for this example we want a time evolution between the initial state and the final state that last expression therefore becomes 

 

ddt〈ψ|A^ψ〉

 

so if we take the time dependent Schrodinger equation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation

Yes I'm going to skip a few steps but those steps involve defining the different Operators such  time evolution, projection, momentum, position Operators

 

ddt〈ψ|A^ψ〉=iℏ|[H^A^]psi〉

 

H^ is the Hamilton operator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)

the expression above directly applies the quantum uncertainty to the initial and final state via the quantum harmonic action of the quantum field.

 

 

'Just when I thought I'd made it out, they pull me back in' grrr lolol, I joke.

I'm glad I made some sense

I saw and agree on a couple of things from my basic basic basic and lack of physics / maths knowledge but I'll reply tomorrow if you don't mind.

Also, urrrgh more maths (bangs head on wall) lmao. Sorry but clearly that ain't my strong point. I will try to understand as best I can though.

Have a great night Mordred and everyone else, 'see' you tomorrow

[Mordred]

good night unfortunately Physics is all about math and you wont learn physics properly without the math. Trust me its a challenge keeping the math as simple as possible. I certainly wouldn't be able to show you the entire math contained in say a single textbook on a forum lol. ( though some may feel I have thrown the textbook at their heads ).

 For example you would require mathematics to describe how state A affects state B with any predictive and testable accuracy. However in order to even describe the interaction via math one must also mathematically define the states themselves.

 a little hint on the math. If you study the difference between how scalar quantities ie magnitude only examples being temperature and speed. When you require force you need a direction of force or motion as well so vectors. The other key math study is spinors (rotations) example torque, vorticity, 

flux will involve both vectors and spinors as will any wavefunction or waveform.

These are fundamental relations to any and all physics formulas without these skills you never really understand any physics formula.

Lets use that last equation as an example. Someone knowledgeable in the mathematics involved will automatically recognize that this expression 

 \[\frac{d}{dt}\langle\psi|\hat{A}\psi\rangle=\frac{i}{\hbar}\langle \psi|[\hat{H}\hat{A}]\psi\rangle\]

describes a particle field that includes the harmonic action, which describes the fluctuations using the symmetry relations between the fluctuations and the equations of motion for a Spring but you a spring at every coordinate....

Here is a well recommended site Professor Matt Strassler has a lot of good simpified articles on his site. With regards to his article on the harmonic oscillator 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/quantum-fluctuations-and-their-energy/zero-point-motion/

here is the link to his other articles it will be a huge recommendation to read them as he does an excellent job on any of his articles.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

17 hours ago, Mordred said:

good night unfortunately Physics is all about math and you wont learn physics properly without the math. Trust me its a challenge keeping the math as simple as possible. I certainly wouldn't be able to show you the entire math contained in say a single textbook on a forum lol. ( though some may feel I have thrown the textbook at their heads ).

 For example you would require mathematics to describe how state A affects state B with any predictive and testable accuracy. However in order to even describe the interaction via math one must also mathematically define the states themselves.

 a little hint on the math. If you study the difference between how scalar quantities ie magnitude only examples being temperature and speed. When you require force you need a direction of force or motion as well so vectors. The other key math study is spinors (rotations) example torque, vorticity, 

flux will involve both vectors and spinors as will any wavefunction or waveform.

These are fundamental relations to any and all physics formulas without these skills you never really understand any physics formula.

Lets use that last equation as an example. Someone knowledgeable in the mathematics involved will automatically recognize that this expression 

 

ddt〈ψ|A^ψ〉=iℏ〈ψ|[H^A^]ψ〉

 

describes a particle field that includes the harmonic action, which describes the fluctuations using the symmetry relations between the fluctuations and the equations of motion for a Spring but you a spring at every coordinate....

Here is a well recommended site Professor Matt Strassler has a lot of good simpified articles on his site. With regards to his article on the harmonic oscillator 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/quantum-fluctuations-and-their-energy/zero-point-motion/

here is the link to his other articles it will be a huge recommendation to read them as he does an excellent job on any of his articles.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/

 

 

Morning,

 

Thanks Mordred, I haven't read it all yet and I'm trying to get to grips more with Zero Point Motion, this is potentially how I see the State 3 idea, at least from what I've read so far.

The small always make the big....

I have already kind of forseen (as much as an uneducated physics person could) just how 'busy' this State 3 idea can or could get to, to a certain point and theorise (in a laymans definition) later on in another chapter that if this State 3 & it's  components could be predicted to some extent and manipulated (grid mapped to some ectent), lol I don't think that would even be possible due to the vast (universe wide) amount of interconnecting (entangled?) boundary conditions in the gap could be, that maybe science would need a super duper quantum computer the size of Mars to do this. Probably even bigger depending on what or how much of these State 3's it would be trying to calculate.

Analogous perhaps to a golf ball.

A golf ball is made up of many entwining (entangled?) elastic bands, going all over the place, sticking to each other, decaying, merging, going through each other and maybe even more homogeneous & isotropic options that I haven't written here (at least thats how it looked to me when I opened one up once).

If I expand that 'golf ball analogy' in my head to the Earth, our solar system, our galaxy and even the universe then.... well you can or maybe do already know how that might be.

Hhahahaha sorry but this might hurt your head a bit, what kind of Super Duper Quantum Computer would be needed to try and calculate the event horizon of a BH. Yet alone the BH itself and the event horizon (this on it's own would create a State 3 in my head. The event horizon might be more of State of State 3's or even a State of a State of a State of State 3's and so on again in my head / idea.

Anyway, thanks for those 2 links, I've read a couple and will now get back to the rest.

'There once was a commuter,

With a super duper computer,

Who travelled the stars and beyond,

He went round and round, up, up and down,

Got confused and realised his brain was not fond,

Not fond of confusion, Nor fond of the mess,

So went back to Earth and got into bed.'

 

Sorry just came to me so I thought I'd share.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Imagine Everything
typo

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Morning,

Good morning !

 

I have been trying to get the time to post my next installment, but I can't keep up with these flights of fancy round the universe.
 

My whole thesis is that  the overall picture of things great and small looks very similar.

We are part of the larger aspect so finding and observing phenomena at our space and timescales is easier for us to appreciate.

Then we can transfer some of this experience to other scales, making allowance for the the fact that whilst there are several kinds of force and several kinds of energy, different forces operate over specific ranges of distance, but energy is indifferent to distance.

So to return to human scales here is a report of a physics experiment I did in school and its connection to our discussion.
 

Aside we do not do enough hands on experiments is schools these days. / aside

 

One day our physics teacher came into class with a large handkerchief/bandanna which he proceeded to roll up and tie a large knot in one end.

Then he went to a large metal weight he had hanging between two lab stools and started swinging the bandana so that the knot hit the metal weight.

He kept talking ( I forget what about) whilst he struck the weight repeatedly until he had the weight swinging to and fro.

Then he told us about the experiment.

It explains resonance, it explains 'little packets of energy', it explains forces, all at the pace of human observation rather than that of an electronic oscilloscope display.

 

Are you still with me ?

 

Edit

Oh I have been meaning to ask you as I have a little bit of maths in mind.

Do you know what a graph (or plot) is  ?

 

Edited 1 hour ago by studiot