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

[Mordred]

I like that article nice simple approach 

[Imagine Everything]

Hello Hello

My pc has decided to go a bit weird, not sure what the issue is but I might not be able to post a lot in the next few days.

If you don't hear from me much, that's why.

Hopefully it won't be too long.

[Mordred]

No worries hopefully you resolve your PC issues.

[Imagine Everything]

Hello, 

Just a quick update, pc is still down   

Hope you're well.

[Imagine Everything]

My pc is back again finally but needs some attention.  The HD went mad and some data got lost / transferred

And I need to do some catch up so I'll be back in a few days.

[Imagine Everything]

Still have a fair bit of re reading and lectures to go through.

Weird how much slipped from my head in just a week or so.

If I haven't posted for a little while, it's just because I'm just catching up.

Stay safe

Edited December 8 by Imagine Everything

[Imagine Everything]

I'm wading through as I said, the Khan lectures and at one point he is explaining the vectors & tupels and equasions of 

a + b

and adds -4 + -4 together to make 4 which I don't really understand if this is being explained using something you posted Studiot and he is also posting in the lecture.

What is it I'm not seeing?

Edited December 9 by Imagine Everything

[studiot]

Let us change my diagram from the axes of a graph to this little story.

 

My girlfriend and I live on either side of a crossroads.

Fig A shows that I live 4 miles down East road at the end of the arrow.

Fig B shows she lives 1 mile along West Street at the end of the arrow.

How far must I walk to visit her ?

 

 

[Imagine Everything]

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

Let us change my diagram from the axes of a graph to this little story.

 

My girlfriend and I live on either side of a crossroads.

Fig A shows that I live 4 miles down East road at the end of the arrow.

Fig B shows she lives 1 mile along West Street at the end of the arrow.

How far must I walk to visit her ?

 

 

I understand the 4 + -1 being 5. Your diagram helped a lot with that ty, it was the trying to understand the -4 + -4 = 4

I can't get my head around.

Do 2  minuses make a plus?

In the Khan lecture he made that sum but in my mind both the minus 4's seem to be pointing in the negative.

So wouldn't that make 8 and not 4?

It was a 2 part sum, the -4 + -4 was the number at each of the tops of the the 2, 2 tupel columns.

There was another sum involved for the bottom part of the vectors but I think I understood that.

Edited December 9 by Imagine Everything

[Imagine Everything]

Still trawling through bits n pieces but this seemed interesting, I guess it's very similar to the vector matrix in IR2 (Khan Academy) but without the south direction. perpendicularity

I know it's just explaining perpendicularity but I kind of envisage my 2 states next to each other idea as well with 'north' perhaps being the gap even though it's in a conserved system.

Hope I said that right, still amazed at how much I forgot in just a week or so..damn pc...😠

And tbh, I don't know if I will get to grips with Orthogonality or not. It seems really complex.

If I don't post much atm it's just because I'm trawling through still,  I am here though

 

I had a thought yesterday and I'll ask it as weird as it might sound. Could DM & gravity be the same thing?

Maybe if it is trapped in an atmosphere it behaves differently to outside of an atmosphere?

Pushing things down instead of pulling them down maybe?

[studiot]

On 12/9/2024 at 8:02 PM, Imagine Everything said:

I understand the 4 + -1 being 5. Your diagram helped a lot with that ty, it was the trying to understand the -4 + -4 = 4

I can't get my head around.

Do 2  minuses make a plus?

There are very many Khan videos.

We need a link to the one you are referring to along with a time in the video to look at.

[Imagine Everything]

Hey Studiot, here's the link to the video    https://www.khanacademy.org/math/linear-algebra/vectors-and-spaces/vectors/v/linear-algebra-vector-examples

It's at 24.44 or so where he adds -4 - -4 (I got the sum wrong, I thought it was addition) but still he says-4 - -4 = -4 +4 = 0

I think my problem is that he adds -4 when it states -4 - -4

Hope that makes sense. I'm a bit confused. If you can shed some light I'd be grateful.

I know I'm doing the analogous equivalent of flying in space before I can walk with regards to maths.

 

 

Oh and if I may ask, are nucleai specific to atoms or can electrons, protons and neutrons also have their own nucleai?

Or perhaps more, like quarks?

[Genady]

46 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

-4 - -4 = -4 +4 = 0

-4 -  4 = -8

-4 -  3 = -7

-4 -  2 = -6

-4 -  1 = -5

-4 -  0 = -4

-4 - -1 = -3

-4 - -2 = -2

-4 - -3 = -1

-4 - -4 = ? 

[Imagine Everything]

from what you posted Genady the answer must be 0 ?

Thank you

[studiot]

Just now, Imagine Everything said:

Hey Studiot, here's the link to the video    https://www.khanacademy.org/math/linear-algebra/vectors-and-spaces/vectors/v/linear-algebra-vector-examples

It's at 24.44 or so where he adds -4 - -4 (I got the sum wrong, I thought it was addition) but still he says-4 - -4 = -4 +4 = 0

I think my problem is that he adds -4 when it states -4 - -4

Hope that makes sense. I'm a bit confused. If you can shed some light I'd be grateful.

I know I'm doing the analogous equivalent of flying in space before I can walk with regards to maths.

 

 

Oh and if I may ask, are nucleai specific to atoms or can electrons, protons and neutrons also have their own nucleai?

Or perhaps more, like quarks?

OK so I was able to see what the narrator was talking about.

He did go through it very quickly, not only because he was distracted by a malfunctioning pen but also becasue the issue has nothing to do with vectors.

It is more basic than that and stems from the problem many people have with signed numbers.

 

you have two signed numbers   viz minus 4   as well as minus 4 again.

That is one use of the negative sign -4   ;   -4

The signs belong with the numbers. they do not signify any operation at all, they are part of the  (signed) number.

Then you have an operation  -  in this case subtraction.

So you have minus 4 take away (or subtract) minus 4

(-4)   -  (-4)

So the negative sign inside the brackets is a different animal from the negative sign between the brackets.

 

For the operation subtractio I recommend the rule

 To subtract  -  Change the sign od the second quantity and add to the first.

 

minus 4  subtract minus 4  

Change the sign and add

 

So we have

minus 4 add 4

(-4)  -  (-4)  =  (-4)  +  (4)  =  0

 

does this help  ?

[Imagine Everything]

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

For the operation subtractio I recommend the rule

What do you mean by rule Studiot?

Is this a maths thing that I've not learnt?

Are there rules in maths that I need to learn? Is it advanced maths?

Any help is always appreciated.

Edited December 12 by Imagine Everything

[studiot]

Just now, Imagine Everything said:

Is this a maths thing that I've not learnt?

Are there rules in maths that I need to learn? Is it advanced maths?

Yes it looks like it.

In mathematics there is nearly always more than one way to do something.

No it is not advanced maths.

I think somewhere in these many pages I have already mentioned signed numbers and sign conventions.

There are plain 'ordinary' numbers we use for counting, measuring etc. They may be whole numbers or fractions.

We use them for the four basic operations of arithmetic add  - subtract -  multiply - divide.

But often we want our numbers to represent more than this.

For instance up  or down  ;   electrical positive or electrical negative ; clockwise or anticlockwise ; left or right and so on.

To do this we establish a sign convention.

The most common convention is that we attach a plus or minus to each and every number so the numbers we use are then called signed numbers.

We do this because we can benefit from using the signed numbers in the same formulae we use for basic arithmetic.

However in order to make this work we must learn some extra rules for these basic processes.

The Kahn narrator is using signed numbers, not plain ordinary numbers in his column vectors.

 

does this help ?

 

Edited December 12 by studiot

[Imagine Everything]

6 hours ago, studiot said:

does this help ?

Yes, thanks. I'll try to learn what I'm missing.

Thanks for putting up with me too, you and Mordred.

My knowledge is clearly not as good as it could be. I appreciate your patience.

A thought just occurred to me writing this, I recall from a matrices link from Mordred, in the explanation of them, the tutor showed a box with the following

+ - +

- + -

+ - +

I don't recall much more right now, it's a bit early and I haven't re read that part to catch up on yet.

 

 

Edited December 13 by Imagine Everything

[Imagine Everything]

Just watching a video about super symmetry and that the partners haven't been discovered yet.

Just wondering as I do and maybe a naive/stupid question, could these super partners only live in he heat of the intital universe as it were and then just kind of got stretched out as it cooled? Which might make them supermassive but super stretched?

Can heat stretch into cold? As opposed I guess to cooling down, is cooling down stretched heat or could it be seen that way?

[Imagine Everything]

Wow, wished I'd looked at this before.

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

Name of my post is

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

 

My description was slightly off but hmm, Did you already know?

I see the resonance as a kind of song between 2 or more of these SQEP/Dark Photons?

The similarity is well...If only I could show you how I see this working in my (albeit very badly described) idea as it goes along. It's not a plug and I get your possible reasons for not wanting to so it's cool, just frustrating , this thread does that if anything does. Just so very badly want to run it past at least one of you, then you can tell me I'm mad, or very misguided but close or not.

That was my hole aim to start with, nothing more nothing less, wouldn't have got this without you Thx.

Need to go learn more about dark photons aswell now pfft   , so much reading.

 

Edited Monday at 03:46 PM by Imagine Everything

[Imagine Everything]

Needed to add,

I'm not suggesting for a second I have found a way for dark photons to be exist & or be created or if indeed I am exactly thinking of these things in this exact same or correct context, just that they seem to be fit so well from what I've read so far.

Very, very similar in ways.

Time will tell as always I guess. This really does seem to answer, at least in some parts (until I know more) the definition of what I came up in Aug this year. I mean for myself, not the the world, I haven't invented dark photons.

Yet...

 

LoL You clever folks probably want to slap me for that, sorry.

 

@studiot I haven't forgotten about the different number meanings, still on my mind, just re learning other bits atm.

Vectors and Negative Vector equasions can go on hold for a bit, sorry. That's some heavy stuff.

I will get back to it though.

 

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Particle Kinetic Resonance

Particle I see equated to the the particle I'm trying to describe (very badly and naively)

Kinetic - The energy created by this 'thingy' before it died instantly

The Resonance is the entwined and joining of all this energy not just limited to local areas (Milky Way) but everywhere, all at once at any time. Living as a universal body.

Could this body be the Field of fields?

Watching Sean Carol again made me wonder about the many different fields that exist and are yet to be discovered.

Shouldn't there be one Field that incorporates all these different fields even if it is created because of all the existing etc fields.

Maybe a few different fields interact with each other in certain way which in itself creates a unique field that influences other fields or multi field fields and so on until there is one huge Field of fields made up of and created by all the other possible variations, collisions, VP energy (expulsions?)

I'm guessing you folks already know a great deal about this And I'm convinced (for what it's worth) that DM does and must have a creation point (everything does right?), is it the dark photon? Would that go c? Is it lazy in comparison? I don't know but perhaps if a dark photon exists, so does a dark photon particle of some sort no? A ray or maybe burst of 'dark'?

If  a Dark Photon existed, would it exist in a superposition before it is measured? Have I said that correctly?

Would that be (If I understood this right) at a 1/2 spin opposite to a photon's? Is it possible if they exist?

Hope I said and understood superposition correctly.

What would that be? DM? Maybe I'm being a bit thick, I haven't checked the web for this and maybe someone already thought of this too. I would imagine all you folks have thought of more or less anything in your life times.

You'd never guess this Dark Photon has ahem...maybe a little more than slightly grasped my curiosity would ya.

Most of what I wrote is based on (I hope) all the things I have learnt about so far on here (tyvm) with a bit of added curiosity from me.

 

[Imagine Everything]

Hello,

I've been thinking a lot about this and learning more.

Even tried drawing a 4d vector field? graph? where I overlaid state 1 & state 2 with each other and tried to envision some sort of vector for how they behaved the way I initially saw this thing. I didn't bode well Studiot lol.

Would that be 4d? 1 IR2 with another IR2 overlaid on top? If IR2 is real space 2 dimentional?

I'm still working on that so I'll come back it hopefully sooner rather than later, I think it would support the image I have more explanatively.

I'll be going back to vector equations today or tomorrow I think, just wanted to show you all how I first saw this idea and how I now see & understand it now. And no I'm not about to state I've found something (it's probably already been discovered by someone already), merely that I had this as the idea when I first came here and you were kind enough to listen and help.

 

                                   

So coming up is the original posted idea 

 

 

 

A bit later on I will hopefuly post a drawing of how I think I understand it now.

It by far not the finalization, just where I'm thinking or at right now.

But 3 months on, well...it now appears in my head in the same ish'  kind of fashion but I see it a bit clearer I hope, than I did (not clear enough yet) and I now have a few proper science names and hopefully descriptions, understandings to better explain it this time

 

Like I said, that isn't how I think now. Mordred, Studiot and Swanston you have all helped me in that respect. Thank you, I appreciate it.

Question if I may plz. When you guys measure particles, is there ever the residual faintest amount of a wave length that is just slightly misplaced? Is there a certain tolerance of + or -  and perhaps if there was ever a slight slight difference it might be inside that tolerance itself?

Slightly more 'up' on the top of the peak, or slightly more 'down' of bottom ? I hope I said that right. Sorry, it's quite difficult to imagine these all and how they might make a difference on such a small small scale. So many of them and behaving in so many different ways.

Hmm.. So if you measured an proton for instance after it was created, when measured, does it ever seem to have slightly more charge than it should? No matter how faint that wave length might be? Or is it always perfect?

I'm trying to understand a bit more, sorry for the weird questions, hope it made sense.

Off to draw up what I currently envisage going on now find out how wrong I am or that someones already thought it up

pfft   Time always tells eh.

(sry for the sqep's Mordred)

Edited Thursday at 02:28 PM by Imagine Everything

[studiot]

Just now, Imagine Everything said:

I've been thinking a lot about this and learning more.

Even tried drawing a 4d vector field? graph? where I overlaid state 1 & state 2 with each other and tried to envision some sort of vector for how they behaved the way I initially saw this thing. I didn't bode well Studiot lol.

Would that be 4d? 1 IR2 with another IR2 overlaid on top? If IR2 is real space 2 dimentional?

I'm still working on that so I'll come back it hopefully sooner rather than later, I think it would support the image I have more explanatively.

I'll be going back to vector equations today or tomorrow I think, just wanted to show you all how I first saw this idea and how I now see & understand it now. And no I'm not about to state I've found something (it's probably already been discovered by someone already), merely that I had this as the idea when I first came here and you were kind enough to listen and help.

Since you like drawing things here are the front and back covers of a delightful book which will tell you something about drawing in the 4th dimension.

 

Just now, Imagine Everything said:

Question if I may plz. When you guys measure particles, is there ever the residual faintest amount of a wave length that is just slightly misplaced? Is there a certain tolerance of + or -  and perhaps if there was ever a slight slight difference it might be inside that tolerance itself?

This is actually a very good question  +1

 

Yes, setting aside experimental accuracy that we can achieve, there is some fuzzyness (called line broadening) in spectroscopy, where we measure the 'wavelength' of particles that is observed.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 06:40 PM by studiot
add missed picture

[Imagine Everything]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes, setting aside experimental accuracy that we can achieve, there is some fuzzyness (called line broadening) in spectroscopy, where we measure the 'wavelength' of particles that is observed.

Very very interesting. Thanks Studiot. I shall go look it up.

Thanks for the book covers too. Bit different to what I was seeing but then I'm guess & guestimating here  lol, anyway thanks. I'll get mine up as soon as I can.

Tell me please, if I do a vector space as IR2 that means 2d real space, is that right? and if so, does that mean if place another IR2 vector space of 2d underneath it, is that 4d? or is that simply 2 states & their vectors next to each other in 2d?

That's what I am looking at so far but I think this 'dark? shadow thingy might need a bucket load of vectors in possibly 4d if I understand this right.

Edited Thursday at 08:58 PM by Imagine Everything