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

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Interesting, can I think of this as predertimined probabilistic randomness creation tested with logical scientificaly proven theorised methods?

Absolutely as long as you recognize anything involving QM or QFT will involve probability and probability functions

[Imagine Everything]

31 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Absolutely as long as you recognize anything involving QM or QFT will involve probability and probability functions

Could I also think of the universe as a self sustaining entity? Finite or not.

Edited October 21 by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

It's better to think of the Observable universe as a closed container to better comprehend any ideal gas law treatments. It's not really a closed system but due to the speed limit that approximation is appropriate.

Here for your interest this is one example of a Dark matter detector in Australia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stawell_Underground_Physics_Laboratory

Closest you will get to your bucket lol.

One of the reasons I'm glad you picked up on the particle are field excitations is that it makes it far easier to understand weakly interactive particles.

For example a neutrino can pass through a 1000 lightyears of lead without a single interaction. That is extremely unlikely if particles were little bullets.

You have neutrinos passing through your body even as we speak but don't worry they have zero effect on your body or health

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It's better to think of the Observable universe as a closed container to better comprehend any ideal gas law treatments. It's not really a closed system but due to the speed limit that approximation is appropriate.

Here for your interest this is one example of a Dark matter detector in Australia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stawell_Underground_Physics_Laboratory

Closest you will get to your bucket lol

Ahh, so as soon as it went into a container, it woud be contaminated with whatever the container was made of or had inside, particles, fields for those particles and so on, so it still wouldn't be able to be defined?

Or could it be defined by eliminating the other bits and whatever is left over is the DM?

Hmm probably too simple maybe and after watching Sean Carrol and speaking with you folks, it seems nature doesn't do easy.

[Mordred]

No nature loves complexity.

Everything in our universe was already in the container and the container is getting bigger over time.

Aka expansion.

[Imagine Everything]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No nature loves complexity.

Everything in our universe was already in the container and the container is getting bigger over time.

Aka expansion.

Sorry, wires crossed, I was referring to the container on the side of a space craft.

Lol you must have thought I was a bit crazy thinking I was talking about removing everything from the universe hahaha, my bad, sorry.

I should have been more specific, it's so easy to lose track with all this.

I get your description & definition though.

Edited October 21 by Imagine Everything
typo

[Mordred]

Excellent keep that in mind when it comes to Cosmology. It will help understand how expansion is a thermodynamic process that involves how the standard model of particles can affect the expansion rate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

I already gave you a couple of articles better detailing the relations in the above link.

Those equations of state were determined by thinking of those particles being in a box and how they interact with the box walls and other particles in the same box.

In that regard they were treated in the same manner as an ideal gas used in engineering applications of which Studiot is quite knowledgeable on.

Much of the mathematics of engineering and Cosmology have very similar relations.

(Recall those terms boundary conditions ?) Same idea another term is partition/partition function or Parton but confined to a single wavelength.

Here is another good site of exercises and video lectures all free

https://www.khanacademy.org/search?search_again=1&page_search_query=Cosmology

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

Thanks Mordred, I'll have a look tomorrow.

I actually stumbled across Partons the other day, can't recall exactly what I was reading but I remember that name.

Have a good night, cya tomorrow.

[Mordred]

Night

[Imagine Everything]

Helloooo,

More questions lol,

So hmm..if a virtual particle ripple is created by 2 electrons banging into each other, is both re absorbed by the 2 electrons but also decays into a 'something'?

If a VP ripple is a singular item (a 3rd state ) , does it then live in it's own temporary VP ripple scalar field?

Do only leptons (electrons, Muons and Taus? - I hope I got that bit right) bang into each other this way? Or is it across the board, Neutrons, Positrons, Protons, Neutrinos and whatever else I haven't learnt about yet?.

And if so (or even including other particles) could these collisions not only be causing the VP ripple (before being re absorbed) but also through decay?, creating a new field of some sort?

A Kinetic/Massless field? Possibly temporary but permanent at the same time due to the constant collisions creating constant re absorbtion/decay

Do Leptons re absorb the newly created energy from VP ripples?

If fields are everywhere, would this be happening all the time and everywhere? So would predetermined probability predict this in some way?

Could this be how DM is created? And perhaps DE?

If the amout of DM and DE are a constant and don't get bigger or smalleras the expansion is getting faster and bigger, wouldn't they both need a constant fuel source for this to happen as it were?

Especially if there truly can't be a state or system of 'nothing'?

Edited October 22 by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

Not too bad let's change the terminology a bit

The electrons are effectively Operators they are the external lines on a Feymann diagram. The intermediate field is simply put the propogator (this is where virtual particles are applied.) The field is also an operator but the region of the transformation mathematics between the incoming and outgoing particles is the propogator action which is also a field but then so are the electrons as field excitations. 

Hence the Operstor and propogator action separation.

Virtual particles are oft described as field fluctuations (cannot be localized ) where field excitations can be localized via a Dirac Delta function (Fourier transformation)

Edited October 22 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

Is a field excitation the ripple?

And is the propogator action field the temp but permanent field caused by the ripples? excitements?

Hmm sorry maybe I'm not totally understanding what you wrote.

Is a field fluctuation the same as an excitement or ripple?

 

ps. I just saw and read your post Early Universe Nucleosynthesis Mordred.

Didn't understand any of it lol but then I'm nowhere near as clever as any of you on this forum.

Just wanted to say you continue to astound me (you too Studiot) and makes me even more grateful for your time and effort.

On 10/20/2024 at 4:58 PM, studiot said:

OK so scalars.  I am going to use a different kind of fraction called decimal fractions as I am trying to avoid more complicated numbers such

Every night I jog 1 mile for exercise. Or I jog 1.6 kilometres.

The point is that the magnitude of the distance I run is the same whether I measure it in miles or kilometres.

That is why I used value not magnitude for my first use of numbers.

Two different numbers for the same magnitude.

In fact we can convert mile to kilometres by multiplying by a scale factor  or scalar.

Kilometres = 1.6 x miles.

In this case the scalar is a scalar constant, which means it is always 1.6.

In this use of a scalar we call it a coefficient of the distance.

Coefficients can be much more complicated than a simple numeric multiplier, but they always multiply the quantity of interest.

 

Speaking of quantities, remember I quoted some temperatures outside my house ?

Well I have drawn a graph of these for a few days.  Fig 1

The graph has two axes conventionally called the X and Y axes.
The Y axis give a daily figure for the temperature and the X axis tells us which day we are talking about.
This was why I asked if you understood graphs.
So please tell me if this is understood.

In order to describe the physical quantity 'temperature' I require only to quote a single value on any one day.

A physical quantity that require only one piece of information or magnitude to specify it is also called a scalar.

So temperature is a scalar.

But this time it has a different value on different days or it varies from day to day.

So we call it a scalar variable

Further we call  temperature the dependant variable since its value depends upon the day.

We call the day the independant variable since we can pick choose any day to suit us.

This graph represents a function which connects a dependant variable to an independant variable.

In Physics the independant variable is very often time and is also called the running variable.

 

 

The function is

The whole graph, including the dependant and independant variable axes and the plot of every value.

The relationship between the dependant and independant variables is given by a table of values in the first case, but more commonly it is given by a formula or rule as in Fig 2.

 

 

 

 

Fig 3 takes us back to temperature again.

Here I am showing a plan view of a bucket of water into which I have stuck a hot poker.

The concentric  circles show contours of decreasing water temperature away from the central poker, just as we discussed contours before.

A field is an region of space, like the bucket of water, where we can assign a quantity value to each and every point in it.

In this case it is a temperature field and since temperature is a scalar it is a scalar field.

 

Going back to distance, my nightly run goes around local paths at random. So it only has the magnitude of 1 mile.

London is 150 miles east of me.

This distance value has a second part  - east, which specifies a direction.

Quantities that have two parts are called Vectors.

Most physical vectors have a magnitude and a direction.

So distance can be a simple scalar as in my jogging, or it can be a vector as in the distance to London.

You will come across other quantities that lead a double life like this such as velocity.

In some circumstances we can place a vector at every point in some region of space, like with the temperatures in the bucket.

Suprisingly such a placement is called a vector field.

I have shown one such vector field in fig 4 concerning the flow of water in a river.
The magnitudes of the flow (ie water speed) are given by the lengths of the arrows and the arrows themselves show the direction of flow.
This sort of flow when everything is smoothly in step is called laminar flow and shows speed variation from top to bottom.

Fig 5 shows what happens over a rough bed. The water turns turbulent and though the overall flow is still left to right, the water now moves up and down and sometimes even backwards as shown by the arrows. Also the even gradation of water speed is lost.

 

Any questions ?

 

Hey Studiot,

Still trying to understand this but I have some more questions please

Can you give me few different types of magnitude please, it might help my head get round it a bit better.

Is the following a maths field rather than a field that 'particles' respond to or create?

Suprisingly such a placement is called a vector field.

And what is the emboldened part of thie next sentance below? What does it mean?

Coefficients can be much more complicated than a simple numeric multiplier, but they always multiply the quantity of interest.

Thanks

 

Edited October 22 by Imagine Everything
added a question

[studiot]

OK so here goes.

Consider the statement

There are 500 cars travelling at 50 mph towards London.

"50 mph towards London" is a vector

It has two parts and the value of that vector must be able to indicate or report both of these parts in full.

The first part is the magnitude of the vector  -  50 mph.  (magnitudes usually refer to numbers)

The second part refers to a direction which in this case is towards London.

The 500 cars might be called a traffic coefficient, which in this case is 500 but might be any (whole) number.

If each car requires 3 gallons of gas to get to London  we might use this information to calculate the total gallons of gas required.

We can call 3 gallons the gas coefficient.  Unlike the traffic coefficient it is not variable but constant (the same for every car or fixed)

 

So  total gallons =

• = number of cars times the number of gallons per car
   
• = traffic coefficient (variable) x gas coefficient (fixed)
• = 500 x 3
• = 1500 gallons

I hope this example helps with

Value

Magnitude

Vector

Coefficient

Variable

constant

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Is the following a maths field rather than a field that 'particles' respond to or create?

Every 'field'  I will talk about is a Field as Physicists and Engineers use the word.
 

A field in mathematics is an entirely different thing so I don't recommend using the term maths field.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 22 by studiot

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Is a field fluctuation the same as an excitement 

 

Take for example the sinusoidal plane wave here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phase_(waves)&wprov=rarw1

This wave you have no means of determining a beginning or end so you cannot localize the wave. This would be an example of a fluctuations.

Now an example of an excitation. Specifically the Dirac Delta function which is used to localize your electrons via the Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations ( don't worry about those last two terms just yet.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function#:~:text=The Dirac delta is used,impact by a Dirac delta.

Notice in the animation the sharp spike leading to infinity. You can clearly see a beginning or end of that spike. That is an example of an excitation..

Now the interesting part is that the Delta function also works with a specific set of math treatments to determine the mean lifetime of a particle as well as it's mass/momentum relations. Via the Breit Wigner distribution ie the cross section of a particle. Again don't worry yet on that distribution function that requires considerable preliminary teachings to understand how that works.

 

4 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

ps. I just saw and read your post Early Universe Nucleosynthesis Mordred.

Didn't understand any of it lol but then I'm nowhere near as clever as any of you on this forum.

Very few members on this forum would understand what I'm doing there even though every formula in that thread is taught by the time one gets a Bachelors in either Cosmology or particle physics. 

My goal there is to help organize my goals in a personal line of  research into all the Cosmological applications specific to the Higgs field. As well as working out a more specific timeline for early universe processes from BB to CMB.

In essence expanding on some of the literature I provided you before your break.

 

Edit I should add a detail to further help take that Dirac delta link .

If you draw a vertical line parallel to the x axis halfway up the amplitude this is where in a cross section function the mean lifetime of the particle is determined.. 

If the width at that line is greater than the amplitude I can no longer consider that wavefunction as representing a particle. In essence it becomes a fluctuation and not an excitation.

The peak itself is the highest likelyhood of the particles location..

Now to step this up a bit The more certain you become of the particles location the less certain you become of its momentum ( this is largely due to Fourier transformations itself but not entirely ) and vice versa.

Aka Heisenburg uncertainty principle 

To help understand parity (one of the quantum numbers) take that same image and add an identical spike but in the negative Y axis. The two particles have opposite parity.

To help understand parity (one of the quantum numbers) take that same image and add an identical spike but in the negative Y axis. The two particles have opposite parity.

Here is a video for the right hand rule for you to watch 

 

This will provide an essential detail to understand helicity in regards to all standard model field treatments. Including electromagnetism

Edited October 22 by Mordred

[Mordred]

An essential lesson to also understand charge, parity and time symmetry between particles and anti particles.

This link will help visualize the propogator above don't worry about the math just look at the images and descriptives.

https://web-docs.gsi.de/~wolle/TELEKOLLEG/KERN/LECTURE/Wollersheim/2020/53-FeynmanDiagrams.pdf

To help with Studiots lesson.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html

https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html

https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-cross-product.html

 

As well as the Right  hand rule 

Edited October 22 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

11 hours ago, studiot said:

OK so here goes.

Consider the statement

There are 500 cars travelling at 50 mph towards London.

"50 mph towards London" is a vector

It has two parts and the value of that vector must be able to indicate or report both of these parts in full.

The first part is the magnitude of the vector  -  50 mph.  (magnitudes usually refer to numbers)

The second part refers to a direction which in this case is towards London.

The 500 cars might be called a traffic coefficient, which in this case is 500 but might be any (whole) number.

If each car requires 3 gallons of gas to get to London  we might use this information to calculate the total gallons of gas required.

We can call 3 gallons the gas coefficient.  Unlike the traffic coefficient it is not variable but constant (the same for every car or fixed)

 

So  total gallons =

• = number of cars times the number of gallons per car
   
• = traffic coefficient (variable) x gas coefficient (fixed)
• = 500 x 3
• = 1500 gallons

I hope this example helps with

Value

Magnitude

Vector

Coefficient

Variable

constant

Every 'field'  I will talk about is a Field as Physicists and Engineers use the word.
 

A field in mathematics is an entirely different thing so I don't recommend using the term maths field.

 

Thanks Studiot

So hmm sorry to possibly repeat what you said, just trying to understand it better in my brain.

The value is the same as the vector?

Which in itself is the 'number' magnitude & direction of 'whatever' ?

I think I get the coeffient thing, just have to try and remember it lol.  Variable and constant!

Hammers into my head. Variable and constant.

The Universe is variable but DM/DE is constant?

Hmm, would you please throw a couple of sums at me to see if I understand?

Not too hard please.

[Imagine Everything]

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

Take for example the sinusoidal plane wave here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phase_(waves)&wprov=rarw1

This wave you have no means of determining a beginning or end so you cannot localize the wave. This would be an example of a fluctuations.

Now an example of an excitation. Specifically the Dirac Delta function which is used to localize your electrons via the Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations ( don't worry about those last two terms just yet.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function#:~:text=The Dirac delta is used,impact by a Dirac delta.

Notice in the animation the sharp spike leading to infinity. You can clearly see a beginning or end of that spike. That is an example of an excitation..

 

So Fluctuations have no discernable beginning or end & Excitements do.

Interesting thanks for the definition.

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

Take for example the sinusoidal plane wave here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phase_(waves)&wprov=rarw1

This wave you have no means of determining a beginning or end so you cannot localize the wave. This would be an example of a fluctuations.

Now an example of an excitation. Specifically the Dirac Delta function which is used to localize your electrons via the Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations ( don't worry about those last two terms just yet.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function#:~:text=The Dirac delta is used,impact by a Dirac delta.

Notice in the animation the sharp spike leading to infinity. You can clearly see a beginning or end of that spike. That is an example of an excitation..

Now the interesting part is that the Delta function also works with a specific set of math treatments to determine the mean lifetime of a particle as well as it's mass/momentum relations. Via the Breit Wigner distribution ie the cross section of a particle. Again don't worry yet on that distribution function that requires considerable preliminary teachings to understand how that works.

Can VP's have a cross section that can be measured?

And if they can, would they themselves collide with other VP's or VP cross sections?

Or perhaps I'm grasping at nonsensical straws lol

You'd never guess I was still trying to prove this tiny little 'whatever it is' I saw in my idea would you.

 

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

Edit I should add a detail to further help take that Dirac delta link .

If you draw a vertical line parallel to the x axis halfway up the amplitude this is where in a cross section function the mean lifetime of the particle is determined.. 

If the width at that line is greater than the amplitude I can no longer consider that wavefunction as representing a particle. In essence it becomes a fluctuation and not an excitation.

The peak itself is the highest likelyhood of the particles location..

Now to step this up a bit The more certain you become of the particles location the less certain you become of its momentum ( this is largely due to Fourier transformations itself but not entirely ) and vice versa.

Aka Heisenburg uncertainty principle 

To help understand parity (one of the quantum numbers) take that same image and add an identical spike but in the negative Y axis. The two particles have opposite parity.

To help understand parity (one of the quantum numbers) take that same image and add an identical spike but in the negative Y axis. The two particles have opposite parity.

 

I'm not sure how to do this.

Is the x axis the horizontal always and the y axis is the veritcal? Forgive my naivety.

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

Here is a video for the right hand rule for you to watch 

 

This will provide an essential detail to understand helicity in regards to all standard model field treatments. Including electromagnetism

Fascinating, I'm not sure exactly why and I don't understand all the symbols or the relevance but still...fascinating.

Just a thought/question...

Can an EM field be both positive and negative? I don't know why I'm even asking. Just interested for some reason my brain isn't telling me yet.

Edited October 23 by Imagine Everything
teepoo typos

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

So Fluctuations have no discernable beginning or end & Excitements do.

Interesting thanks for the definition.

 

Your welcome 

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Can VP's have a cross section that can be measured?

And if they can, would they themselves collide with other VP's or VP cross sections?

 

Excellent question we can never measure individual virtual particles we can only infer their existence through indirect evidence through effects such as the Cassimer effect. They have insufficient energy/lifetime to individually be measurable and once you can make a measurement your measuring a particle itself and not a VP.

One of the problems with oversimplification to get the conceptual ideas across is often one must drop certain details.

Cross sections for example is an ensemble of particles with probability functions giving rise to probability currents as well.  It's the weighted averaging of a large collection of measured scattering events done in an experimental apparatus.

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Can an EM field be both positive and negative? I don't know why I'm even asking. Just interested for some reason my brain isn't telling me yet.

Positive and negative charge. Think back to that sine wave anytime the wave is in the negative x and y portion of the graph it's negative charge . When it's in the positive x and y axis it's positive charge. 

Energy and energy density is always positive unless it's being compared to a baseline with a non zero value.

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Is the x axis the horizontal always and the y axis is the veritcal? Forgive my naivety.

 

That's the typical layout it's doesn't have to be that way but it's a standardized layout. We also usually use the x axis for the direction of the particle.

The right hand rule is useful to determine which direction the force of a field operates with its relation to its current flow. That's its primary relevance this gets applied also when in other field treatments for much the same reasons 

Don't worry it does take practice to fully grasp 

Going to add a further detail. Those Feymann diagrams that look like 2 incoming particles colliding is in the mathematics a mean average of each particle ensemble of a specific type so each leg is a ensemble or beam of incoming and outgoing particles.

Edited October 23 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

In this Feymann diagram

 

Am I right in thinking the following?

e+ is the positron

e- is the electron

t- time

y photon

q quark

q- anti quark

g gravity

Oh and are these free particles?

If not and they are part of an atom, how am I seeing this, where's the neucleas?

And another thought If a VP existed long enough to be measured directly, would it be travelling at or faster than the speed of light?

Edited October 24 by Imagine Everything
typo

[Mordred]

G is a residual virtual gluon field rest is correct. They are the free particles not part of the nucleus.

No particle ever exceeds c virtual particles are off shell meaning they typically be bosons hence massless except W and Z bosons after Higgs coupling so their momentum depends on mass  and kinetic energy as it has mass it cannot travel at c must be less than c

[Imagine Everything]

24 minutes ago, Mordred said:

G is a residual virtual gluon field rest is correct. They are the free particles not part of the nucleus.

No particle ever exceeds c virtual particles are off shell meaning they typically be bosons hence massless except W and Z bosons after Higgs coupling so their momentum depends on mass  and kinetic energy as it has mass it cannot travel at c must be less than c

Thanks Modred, I'm going to have another crack at my original post again, see if I can't make a bit more sense with it

Probably tomorrow or saturday.

Appreciate all your help as usual.

And may I ask where these free particles exist please?

Are they just everywhere all the time and look like this?

Is the photon the photon/electron field? Or a mediator for the quarks and electrons?

Edited October 24 by Imagine Everything

[Imagine Everything]

Lets see what I've learnt from you nice people and the various sites I've read (and understood as much as I could)     

 

        An Illogical Sense Of Order            V3

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

In it's very basic form, I see a boundary condition of one system meeting the boundary condition of another system and inbetween these 2 boundary conditions is a system formed from various Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions.

I see this system & it's components as the very smallest (relativistic?) anything can be.

 

System 1 & System 2

Merging System 1's Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions during and just after it's boundary condition and System 2's  boundary condition Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions , between the 2 boundary conditions where both System 1 and System 2 Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions become entwined in upspins, downspins, strangeness and more (I haven'thave learnt 'more' at this time but so please bear with my lack of knowledge at this time).

Not 50% System 1 boundary condition Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions and not 50%  System 2 boundary condition Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies leakage?/collisions but instead graduating & merging from both states boundary conditions across their respective mediators/fields and going in both forward & backward, downward, upward & all other pissble directions accelerations and also creating more and all possible homogeneous, Isotropic, Inhomegenous & anistropic directions once the mediators merge from system 1 to system 2  -  System 1 99.9% / System 2 0.01% Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions all the way through until eventually it becomes System 1 0.01% / System 2 99.9% and vice versa and possible in their Millions? Billions? Trillions? QuadZillions? Infinite until the Systems are changed/added to?

This in itself it what I see as System 3. The System created by this ongoing merger between until one of the other 2 Systems is removed or another 1 or more is/are added.

In my head, I think what I am seeing and tried to explain as a flux in my first attempt at explaining this, is the Fluctuation of all of these different events/scenarios happening at the same time as a whole.

Like the inside of a golf ball if you will. Where does one rubber band start and finish???? And a golf ball is made up of quite a lot of rubber bands.

I see System 3 as being created by 2 systems being next to each other but undeterminable starts or ends due to the vast amount of Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions, (VP remnants, the energy these ripples produce that lives on, even though the VP has been re absorbed/decayed)

The VP's are absorbed/decay but the energy/energies/force? from their creation carries on as 'nothing' (or so I have read) cannot exist and this/these energ/energies (no matter how faint) are so small that they are literally one step away from being 'nothing'.

This/these energy/energies created, create in their selves, another new state. Without knowing better at this time, I see this State as the one that as it grows and grows ands grows, possibly becomes DM & DE.

I'll call this State/Sytem Unknown for now. I'll come back to it at the end to better explain how I see it working.

 

State 1 / boundary condition 1 - Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions System 1.

Item 2 boundary condition - Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions System 2.

State 1 + State 2 Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions System, Homogeneous Isotropic, Inhomegoneous and Anistropic  System 3.

I see System 3 in the same way people shed their skin. Always happening.

The System 3 between two boundary conditions is now phased or merged with each of the other boundary condition/constraints Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions mediators at all times while these 2 Systems are next to each other.

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/constraints are connected with, through & to each other & the new System 3 Hadrons, Leptons, Quarks, VP's, Fields and Energies quantum tunneling?/collisions being created.

I see these new Systems as being everywhere all the time, wherever they are.... in us and our organs, blood, neurons, food, drink, liquids, gases,heat, vehicles, planets, Solar Systems, Galaxies & BH's  as EVERYTHING in the universe appears to have a boundary condtion/constraint to me.

 

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 from the above, through my perception (right or wrong) of organs, blood, neurons, food, drink, liquids, gases, heat, vehicles, planets, Solar Systems, Galaxies & BH's, etc to the universe itself as a container for all this.

I'm probably very very wrong lol.

 

So as mad I might have sounded, I will attempt to explain better my thoughts behind State/System Unknown.

If memory serves, DM & DE are constant %'s. However the universe is expanding and speeding up.

So hmmm, I found myself thinking there must be a driver, a fuel source or some sort to keep it that way.

Otherwise, as the universe expands, wouldn't there be more DM & DE produced? Thus meaning an increasing rather constant amount of each?

I was once told that regardless of the amount or rain, snow, ice or water was produced, that the quantity of 'water' was always the same. The % if you will.

I don't know if that is true or not but for this explanation, I assume it is. It doesn't matter really, it's only used to better explain State Unknown.

So (and I apologise for my lack of science knowledge) I'm wondering if this faint energy created in System 3, left over by the VP's created, is not only creating a Field but also the gravity and Mass as it grows in volume(I think that's the right word.

On it's own, it wouldn't seem to do much at all but expanding that to the entire universe, could it not be large enough to have a gravitational influence, in a big enough volume?

Could it cause gravity to exist itself?

If something spins within it's Boundary condition (like a spinning top), does it create & cause gravity within the spinning top to keep it together in one spot? (more or less - that more or less is important to my thinking, again right or wrong)

The Earth is spinning but also orbiting the sun. The Sun is also moving, Our Solar Sytem is moving (spinning?) And these are all spinning/moving in more or less the same spot?

Our Galaxy is moving (spinning?) So on and so forth. Is the Universe spinning? Is it even possible to see that?

I don't totally understand how this Gravity force was created to start with (the BB Itself) but perhaps the seriously hot BB created an enormous amount of collsions which then caused an enormous amount of a certain type of VP's which then left their very faint but enormous amounts of energy to go and produce what we see now and what will be created/destroyed in the future?

In my thinking (I know it's probably wrong lol) I now see this VP energy as being THE thing that makes everything else happen.

Maybe it is the cross section of a VP? maybe it's the cross section of the cross section of the VP?  Maybe it's the cross section of the hahahaha, where does it end lol.

My thinking doesn't mean that there is 'more' DM & DE as it were, just that more needs to be produced to allow the unviverse to expand & stays at the same %'s regardless.

And that the universe cannot expand as it does without them but also that they cannot produce more energy if there isn't more universe to go into or perhaps the universe would swell up and go BANG!

Hmmm

I feel a gif coming on...

Hopefully I have written this a bit better this time. I don't think I have enough understanding to prove it, just merely present it as the idea that came into my head one day, a couple of months ago.

@Mordred Could this be a predertimined probabilistic randomness creation?

Could it be tested with logical scientificaly proven theorised methods?

 

 

Edited October 27 by Imagine Everything
removed definitions & added defintions

[Mordred]

Try a term we haven't  covered.

You have system one with its boundary conditions system 2 also has a boundary condition. The two boundary conditions form a potential barrier.

The leakage replace with quantum tunneling.

We cross posted see above

Edited October 27 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Try a term we have covered.

You have system one with its boundary conditions system 2 also has a boundary condition. The two boundary conditions form avpotential barrier.

The leakage replace with quantum tunneling.

Thanks Mordred, I will. It seems I have missed some things you've posted.

I get confused not just by my idea, trying to understand my idea with your guidance and implementing them as best I can but also the amount of information I am trying to take in while not being at a level of understanding to take them in lol.

 

[Mordred]

We didn't cover quantum tunneling I was about to make a correction spell check interference when I saw the cross post notification it should have read didn't cover.

The earlier DE models uses quantum tunneling just an FYI so did Allen Guth's False vacuum inflation which is the first inflationary models.

So quantum tunneling is workable for DE but not DM 

Edited October 27 by Mordred