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, 2024 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, 2024 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, 2024 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, 2024 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, 2024 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, 2024 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 December 16, 2024 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 December 19, 2024 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 December 19, 2024 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 December 19, 2024 by Imagine Everything

[Imagine Everything]

I must  admit I'm having trouble with the vectors, I understand them to a certain point now but when they stated talking about sets and constants, it got a little too much, he speaks a little too fast but I think some sank in.

Anyway, so I don't know but I'll try, drawings may come after. Still undecided on things, gone through half a note pad so far.

 

 

                An Illogical Sense Of Order          V4

                                    Chapter 1 - The 3rd State or System 1? Quantum Gap? Corridor?

                                                  (Not sure what that place could be called. BC²?)

State 1 Boundary Condition meets State 2 Boundary condition and creates System 1 between connecting Boundary Conditions creating a Quantum Gap.

With Ke Q Tunneling through and from State 1 and into and through System 1 & then also State 2

and also vice verca. Inside the quantum gap, I see these 'thingy? particles being created to decay instantly with their faint kinetic vibration wave/s being passed on and through and as a part of whatever it comes into contact with.

I don't know enough yet about Q Tunneling yet to form a more detailed explanation.

 

 

The 2 states if indeed, are meeting and connecting through their connected boundary conditions and this was partly being caused by a kinetic quantum tunneling wave/s somehow, then the kinetic quantum tunneling wave/s would also be coming from or connected to another boundary condition and so on.

Even if the Ke was coming from state 1, it would also be a part of another state anyway at the same time.

Everything linked, everywhere, all the time and at the same time.

So state 1 & 2 have turned into state n? A lot of states..I read a bit more  and about SM (standard model) too and the further I went, the more I think I saw or it made sense to what I am trying to explain (probably still badly) and as you saw, I was very excited by dark photons. 

So state after state after state after state after...never ending..but that's actually really good.

Terrifically confusing but really good none the less.

So, 2 different state boundary conditions meet, merge, create particles that decay immediately but also leave behind a residue, or a shadow, or a 'thingy' (something fuzzy?) in their creation or by their creation.

And if have understood correctly, this is hmm, we seem to all live in an entangled environment, where ever we are, whatever we do, doesn't matter, somehow, someway we are all connected by atoms or through the quantum process directly or indirectly, contact or result of contact. Hmm

Whether entangled through entanglement itself, or just in a laymans sense of physics.

So, zooming back down to the 2 states and what I see at the moment as a system ( a group of particles in the same area?) caused by and a part of these 2 states being next to each other.

Electron and Electron? VP's? Gluons, Glueballs? Quarks? and more ?. Maybe a tiny bit too much more?

So state 1 has Ke Q.Tuneling somehow into and through it, this also reacts with system 1 and then also effects or continues through to state 2. All ke driven, but vibrationaly driven, like a domino effect almost. Maybe through and combined with or even helping to create or support other fields as well.

And also having an effect on all other states, fields? atoms? dark particles?    IR 1,2,3,...n ?

During this merger in system 1, particles are on top of each other, in each other, around each other, decaying, exciting?, ionising, colliding? but they themselves as well as being what they all are charge wise, would also be creating Ke when they are created, no matter how faint.

2 things?

1. Could this be where I see my 'thingy' particle.  Could this be where they are created to decay instantly, no way to detect them at all unless you could measure somehow, the effect it has further up the supply chain in atom production or similar, I don't know, just thoughts or things to learn still I guess.

2. Could this thingy' particle be created every single time anything anywhere is created, on a quantum level and that it is actually a kind of attachment to or part of the particle that was just created?. It's 'extra bit' 'thingy particle'? Or I guess, it would in itself be a tiny wavelength within a wavelength. Or a wavelength in a wavelength within a wavelength..hmm..

If it was a Proton for instance, when measured accurately, at the points of tolerance + or - and within this tolerance but outside end of the measurement, would a proton have just ever so slightly a tiny bit more charge than it should or needs after its measured?

I wonder if this is true, and true for everything then is this possible some type of Dark particle or pre build up Dark particle, particle??.

Is this 'extra bit' a shadow of the particle created. Is it possible to create particles this way?  Again I'm not sure.

In system 1, I don't see it as nice and flowing at all, I see it very chaotic, creational & decaying, colliding, exciting everywhere it can be, all at the same time until measured (superpositional?). So many, many vectors if I am thinking about this correctly.

Everything on top of, underneath, to the side, merged, decayed Ke? All vibrating in the same and different wavelengths.

Except of course for the fermions, they would collide, excite and decay or create perhaps. I don't recall it right now and obviously not as powerful but perhaps there would be a bit of fermionic? degeneracy? (I really hope I remembered & said that right). But I don't see it as going supernova lol, I see it as existing but also not existing, everywhere, all the time, always being created to not exist.

Perhaps a quantum hair is merely just a slight slight very faint Ke vibration of what it once was and that's more than enough in that to continually rebuild by passing/influencing other particles, dark or normal just by being what they are.  Butterfly effect? A ripple in a ripple in a ripple...

Maybe there are different versions of DM, I don't know, just wondered if different dark particles are made differently. They must be being made somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be there (and not there at the same time) would they?. I wonder could they get made at the same time as their atomic twin particle, like a particle wearing a cloak you can't quite see. Whatever particle it is maybe?

I see these particles as 'there/not there particles' created so therefore there but decay instantly so also not there but there can't be a state of nothing and this 'thingy' is as close as anything can get to being nothing (whether that's vibrational or not, I don't know) without truly being nothing.

The universe is expanding, so does more DM and DE need producing to keep the rate constant due to expansion? If I recall, albeit vaguely, the %'s of DE and DM are constant?

So hmm, either way or any other, I don't know, I think of system 1 as a Quantum gap or corridor (I did look, didn't see any but forgive me if someone else has already used the term).

If you think of many wavelengths all entwined as a wavelength not the state?, then pull one wavelength out to measure it.

I need to learn more about this next bit, so I'm a bit hazy, sorry. On this single wavelength, somewhere along it's wave is the slightest little 'extra' a really really faint 'extra', not needed but still there none the less.

If it does, does this happen for all things measured? It would have to for this to make a bit of sense as to how 'it's' created, if it even has a 'single' source.

It's a thought right now, one of many I have to study more but if a 1/2 spin is the same particle in mass but different mathematically, could a Dark Particle have a 1/4 spin? and always super positioned because it can't be measured?

Maybe because DM is nothing? but a great big ocean of vibrational kinetic information of whatever it's є once were, helping perhaps to create what also will be. Passing that information on and spreading it to create new 'somethings'.

I was watching a few lectures about HomoTopic waves and wondered if maybe somehow dark particles, dark gluons? etc could be like this. HomoTopic 2, could the DM wave have a something' holding it together if it did.? Maybe these HomoTopic Dark?' glueballs?' could have a 'something' as it nucleus.

Could this be a gravition? A dark particle version maybe? Dark graviton?

Could it be a Dark glueball that becomes part of the bigger 'glueball' or 'something' called space? Is it due to the flavour change in gluons or other influences?

Do all particles have a dark version of them selves?

Does or could that account somehow for the constant % rates of DE, DM and Everything else as the universe expands?

Hmm, still loads to consider and I may not have written this as well as I could but hopefully, without going to much more in depth and I think it covers the gist of it now better, there is a lot more to comprehend and understand but I hope it is now closer to explaining what I first wrote. Might be a load of rubbish but hopefully, if not today, at some point you can tell me how wrong I am or...?

So I hate the word 'thingy', it's well...hmm so I need a name for this particle, I'm thinking  Thingiminium!! Of the Thingiminium field.

 

I'm joking. My name for it is now the smudge particle after my last cat so long as, of course no one else has already used this to term a particle a smudge particle before. Please tell me if someone has and I'll change it.

So without delving deeper into the way I see this working (mainly due to my lack of understanding & ) I will leave it there.

If I can draw you another image, I will.  Thanks for reading, if you did.

Open to your wisdom as always

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2024 by Imagine Everything