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

[Imagine Everything]

I watched a video earlier regarding a brief conversation about quantum decoherence and quantum entanglement and Einsteins 'spooky' definition

My idea seems to be a possible explanation to the behaviour of 1 split particle connected to itself?

I don't know if my new knowledge or understanding of this is explained in the right way at this moment in 'time' but I will try.

I say 'time' because I wonder if 'time' even exists. If it doesn't then would this mean instant connections/quantum entanglements are indeed instant?

Like an arm attatched to a torso rather than an arm on a table and a torso in another room. Does that make sense?

Though perhaps in universal terms the arm is everwhere and maybe the torso is space? Or something like this.

In my very simple yet exponentially complex idea, the edge of item 1 meets the edge of item 2 and the very minute space between them is a merged reaction or phased reaction system of both whatever these 2 edges are or could be made of.

So if item 1 is a paper Quark/Anti Quark system & item 2 is a table Quark/Anti Quark system & the connection between the paper quarks is a gluon which mediates the strong interaction in this & also the same for the  table system then what I think I'm visualising is the merger of both Quarks and Anti Quarks from both the paper and table 0 systems into a new singular interim merged 0 system made up of combined paper and table Q/AQ's?

So hmm, I saw the 2 slot experiment defined by Elise Crux and how the 2 slots actually become multiple slots projected on the wall beyond the 2 slots instead of 2 slots being projected.

The idea I have is that this newly created interim 0 Q/AQ merged reaction system is far from singular (though it is a singular merge) peculiar to whatever the 2 edges are made from .

So before the Q/AQ's go past the slots they are a 0 '??' Q/AQ system and equally the 2 slots are also creating their own singular Q/AQ system peculiar to whatever the slots are made from & interacting with such as metal & air (metal/air Q/AQ 0 system) and when the initial '??' Q/AQ 0 system passes through the metal/air 2 slot 0 system, it then becomes a mixture of the original Q/AQ 0 system and the 2 slot metal/air 0 system (creating yet another pairing) and it's this new double? quadruple? (Q/AQ / 2 SLOT Q/AQ) system that changes the way it behaves and then produces these extra projected slots that seemingly came from 'nowhere'.

The nowhere in question being another newly created interim quarduple 0 system.

The is also related to how I see possible quantum travel or may even be the exact same thing. I wonder if it pssible by the creation of different 0 systems to somehow 'manipulate' quantum particles, change them through using different 0 system formulars and then being able to make a pure type of  ?? quantum particle corridor from one place to another which enables instant 'travel'

So if my body was simply a body Q/AQ 0 system with it's own formula, could a quantum particle corridor, the same as my body Q/AQ 0 system be created so that I may be instantly moved from one place to another, perhaps vis an STMD - Sub Quantum Transfer Manipulation Device? That'sprobably not the right term for the device either but right now, thats all I can think of to call or describe it.

If there was an STMD on Earth and one on Mars, could I instantly travel there?

I call these formulas 'recipes' further on in my idea as I see them a mix of things. Many many many things.

I really hope I've explained that right.

If I changed my 'SQEP' terminology to Q/AQ (or whatever it might be) & change my term 'flux' to Q/AQ 0 system + Q/AQ 0 system, would that better explain what I'm trying to say?.

Maybe another way to say it is how I see the number 3 or the 'third' which is created by all pairings.

So 2 items would be like this - 1-3-2 - the 3 or 'third' is the newly created interim 0 system.

So 4 items and their respective edges all interacting could be 1-3-2-3-3-3-4 and this is potentially more than mind boggling due to the possible different edges that might meet and interact such as the event horizon of a BH.

Edited September 29 by Imagine Everything
typo

[Mordred]

18 hours ago, studiot said:

 

It can be shown that the energy state of completely empty space is greater than the energy state if that space if filled with one of Mordred's Fields.
(Remember Mordred was a black magician  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordred  )

Lol 😆 yes dealing with the mathematics of quantum fields is evil 😈. I also noted you found where I got my callsign image from lol.

 

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

I watched a video earlier regarding a brief conversation about quantum decoherence and quantum entanglement and Einsteins 'spooky' definition

My idea seems to be a possible explanation to the behaviour of 1 split particle connected to itself?

I don't know if my new knowledge or understanding of this is explained in the right way at this moment in 'time' but I will try.

I say 'time' because I wonder if 'time' even exists. If it doesn't then would this mean instant connections/quantum entanglements are indeed instant?

Time is best understood as the property describing rate of change not a self existing entity. 

 

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

In my very simple yet exponentially complex idea, the edge of item 1 meets the edge of item 2 and the very minute space between them is a merged reaction or phased reaction system of both whatever these 2 edges are or could be made of.

So if item 1 is a paper Quark/Anti Quark system & item 2 is a table Quark/Anti Quark system & the connection between the paper quarks is a gluon which mediates the strong interaction in this & also the same for the  table system 

Ok if you want a force between a table and paper or chair you couldn't use the strong force. That force is within protons and neutrons etc.

For everyday objects they are held together by the EM force. So make two systems or states.

State A is the table

State B is the paper 

Each State is describable by a field ( condensed matter lattice network for an official treatment) however let's keep it simple an EM field for each. 

Each State has a boundary condition (edges)

Now there is interactions between State Table and state paper ( two EM fields interacting.) These interactions are mediated by the EM mediator the photon. Example the force between chair and paper where applicable (repulsion/attraction).

It is much the same with quantum states or quantum particle states. Each particle is described as a state via wavefunctions. Those states also have boundary conditions determined by their interaction cross sections. (Your not ready for bare mass vs mass due to field couplings just yet.)

The states interact with one another via mediator bosons such as the photon for the EM field, gluons for the strong force, W and Z bosons for the weak force. For gravity it's possibly the graviton we haven't detected any yet to confirm.

So I recommend you switch your terminology to states with the edges being the boundary conditions.

 

 

Hint when answering one of Studiots questions involving least energy. Apply that to each State. Studiot has been stepping you into a very specific interaction between two states (with two different energy potentials). 

Edited September 29 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Lol 😆 yes dealing with the mathematics of quantum fields is evil 😈. I also noted you found where I got my callsign image from lol.

 

Time is best understood as the property describing rate of change not a self existing entity. 

 

Ok if you want a force between a table and paper or chair you couldn't use the strong force. That force is within protons and neutrons etc.

For everyday objects they are held together by the EM force. So make two systems or states.

State A is the table

State B is the paper 

Each State is describable by a field ( condensed matter lattice network for an official treatment) however let's keep it simple an EM field for each. 

Each State has a boundary condition (edges)

Now there is interactions between State Table and state paper ( two EM fields interacting.) These interactions are mediated by the EM mediator the photon. Example the force between chair and paper where applicable (repulsion/attraction).

It is much the same with quantum states or quantum particle states. Each particle is described as a state via wavefunctions. Those states also have boundary conditions determined by their interaction cross sections. (Your not ready for bare mass vs mass due to field couplings just yet.)

The states interact with one another via mediator bosons such as the photon for the EM field, gluons for the strong force, W and Z bosons for the weak force. For gravity it's possibly the graviton we haven't detected any yet to confirm.

So I recommend you switch your terminology to states with the edges being the boundary conditions.

 

 

Hint when answering one of Studiots questions involving least energy. Apply that to each State. Studiot has been stepping you into a very specific interaction between two states (with two different energy potentials). 

Regarding the States and Boundary Conditions, Thankyou I will, it is super cool that I now have a name for at two of the things I'm trying to explain very badly.

Whoever called it SQEP is crazy (whistles suspiciously)

 

What holds together the boundary condition/s?

 

The interaction of 2 states is mediated by a photon, EM (Electromagnetism?) And solid states are kept solid by the Higgs Bosun? Is a photon quantum entanglement held together by the Higgs bosun?

Or is that not a possiblity, can the photon not be split? I don't know why I'm even asking that right now.

Maybe my brain is split and it's mediator is only sending me bits of questions I need the answer for at a later date... Kind of a weird de ja vu.

Sorry to throw that in the mix too.

It made me immediately wonder if atoms, protons, neutrons etc have more than 1 mediator?

Or can there only ever be one mediator?        My mind.......

And I apologise but I don't think I understand the part of your answer that I italisised.

Or perhaps I didn't quite understand Studiot in the first place.

 

Time is best understood as the property describing rate of change not a self existing entity. 

This for some reason made me think about the ballon analogy, inflation & expansion are the rate of change? as opposed to fixed points changing.

Is time then a similar entity to Quantum Hairs? Not a physical entity but more of a maths certainty?

Are QH's a theory yet? Or a mathematicaly logical conclusion? I might and probably have said that incorrectly.

Edited September 29 by Imagine Everything

[studiot]

23 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

4. I don't totally know what you mean by system but if I may, I think I am tring to describe a tiny system that exists between 2 items.

I casually threw in system to see what resposne it brought.

It is really good to see your response because it means we can make real progress.

 

The concept of analysing a system is very cunning indeed and also very useful.

Basically we mentally divide the universe into two parts.

The system and the rest of the universe (also called the surroundings.).

We mentally (or on paper) draw a dashed line around the system or a dashed surface in 3D  to represent the boundary between the system and its surroundings.

There are several benefits from doing this.

Note I have gone into 'surroundings' mode. We may usually discount most of the rest of the universe as irrelevant or too far away to have any effect and only consider the immediate surroundings.

Then we only consider variables which pass across the system boundary

In mechanics the system is usually called  free body diagram and the variables that act at the boundary are forces.

In thermodynamics (the science of energy) the system is usually called the system and the main variable is energy.

It is often easier to calculate the variables on one side of the boundary or the other and various conservation laws aid us by making the results of those calculations the same on either side of the boundary  -  So , of course, we look for the easiest one.

Furthermore there are many other variables that we can calculate values within (or without) the boundary armed with only the knowledge of those variables on the boundary. 
This applies to various flux laws the most famous is known as Gauss' theorem (he was responsible for many theorems)

 

So back to energy

23 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Hi Studiot,  I've numbered your answer so that I may answer more directly and you can see what I'm referring to more easily.

I did reply to your question about energy but I think I either posted it somewhere else by mistake or perhaps didn't hit the return key.

I'm having trouble finding it

Energy is very important to me, it was the very first reply I made to your above post, I'm so sorry my reply didn't reach you.

I see energy as the very thing that is fundamental to what I'm trying very very hard and very badly lol to explain.

I'm learning though so please bear with me as I gain more knowledge.

I see a few forms of energy

 

Electricity - Kinetic - Static - Piezoelectricity - Heat - there was one other but my head is a bit gluey atm,

I think without energy nothing would happen AT ALL. No life, no universe, dare I say 'nothing' ?

But my knowledge is not as great as yours so I anticipate there are a lot more energy forms.

I actually need an 'energy' type for my idea to work or it fails miserably. I see it as kinetic but no doubt my 'vision' is incorrect.

Another excellent reply, even if your original got lost, don't worry we have enough to be going on with.

At one time energy was thought to be a sort of magic (invisible) fluid that could be added to or subtracted from bodies.
A real but insubstantial substance.

It took about a hundred years of work at the beginning of modern science to dispel this age old notion.

For one thing energy is relative.
Kinetic energy depends upon a body's velocity and that velocity must be relative to something else.
Here we see immediately the system/surroundings concept in play.

Energy is a measure of the effect the system can have on its surroundings or the surroundings can have on the body.

 

So back to the Principle of least energy.

A system can only reduce its energy by passing some on to its surroundings htat is by interacting with its surroundings across the mutial boundary eg by collsion, configuration or some other means.

This idea applies right the way through the scales of systems.

Elementary particles (photons, quarks, electrons and so on) all act this way

Atomic nuclei

Atoms

Molecules

Aggregates of molecules

Planets

Stars

Galaxies.

 

Please note there are also other effects in action so the situation is very complicated.
 

[Mordred]

9 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

What holds together the boundary condition/s?

 

Good question lets try a very simplistic example.

take a lake and the air above it. The boundary is the surface of the lake. So in this instance the EM field is what holds atoms together to make up solids, liquids and gases. So what makes up the boundary condition is the water molecules and the air molecules at the point of intersection between the two. In this case what holds the boundary condition is the EM field.

10 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

The interaction of 2 states is mediated by a photon, EM (Electromagnetism?) And solid states are kept solid by the Higgs Bosun? Is a photon quantum entanglement held together by the Higgs bosun?

 

that last example should answer that question and no the Higgs field only gives mass to certain particles. W,Z boson, leptons and quarks it only accounts for 1 % the mass of protons and neutrons. The remainder of the mass is the strong force and EM force.  These are handled via the Dirac, Yukawa and Higgs couplings. 

10 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

It made me immediately wonder if atoms, protons, neutrons etc have more than 1 mediator?

 the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons are mediated by quarks. To bind neutrons to protons for the atom requires the photon for the EM mediator. part of the mass term for quarks being the Higgs field the Higgs boson is the mediator. So yes you can have several mediator particles involved with particles that interact with multiple fields.

10 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Is time then a similar entity to Quantum Hairs? Not a physical entity but more of a maths certainty?

Are QH's a theory yet? Or a mathematicaly logical conclusion? I might and probably have said that incorrectly.

 

Don't treat time as anything other than the property describing rate of change or duration. Too often ppl want to make time into some substance or allow it to exist on its own. It doesn't its a property of systems, states, objects etc. Much like color doesn't exist on its own. It too is a property. Other physical properties include mass and energy. They too do not exist on their own but are properties.

here is a short list of physical properties.

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

as noted in that link a physical property must be measurable.

[Imagine Everything]

Than you both Studiot and Mordred, too early for me to understand properly right now but I'll look at it again later.

Just wanted to say thanks and also mention this.

So yes you can have several mediator particles involved with particles that interact with multiple fields.

It seems that this could be very confusing, criss crossing many multiple boundary conditions (multiple state / boundary formulars?) and could be the way I'm trying badly to describe as a flux'. A  2+ state interim? mediation. What would be your name for the area between 2 or more boundary conditions?

My idea starts with a very simple 2 state - 2 boundary condition formula? but I see it expanentially growing and creating more mediation 'interims'? which is something I see as seriously complicated but possible extremely useful if it could be manipulated into something or anything we want to use it for.

Manipulated simply by placing different states & their boundary conditions together to create the types of particles/mediatiors we might need to create the type of particles/mediators we want to create or use '???' particles with and even more.

That's why I see it as a recipe but no doubt formula is the better or right term?

 

Hmm not bad for 6am

 

 

Edited September 30 by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

It may seem confusing but one has to keep in mind these a brief loose descriptions. The real detail is the mathematics.

 Those mathematics are what's needed to explain experimental results and the truth is the experimental results involve scattering experiments. Such as produced by particle accelerators or other detectors.

In essence there are very practical reasons the formulas are designed the way that they are. 

 For example those formulas include probability functions involving scatterings and angles to specific observers. 

 

Edited September 30 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

tbh I expect it to be confusing, it is in what I see from my initial idea, I've anticipated the maths part, I think that would be the only way to prove or test it.

I am far far from ready to even think about the equasions I think, I saw that U respresents Upspin, D is Downspin & S is Strange but thats as far as I have so far. And I don't really understand the Strange bit yet but I will

I have no idea at this moment in time what symbols are used to represent what mediators? Particles? Waves? and whatever else I don't know about yet but if you will give me time and help/advice, I think I might be able to grasp it eventually.

I have a brain that gets bored easily with mundane employment and always has but science is a whole other entity like I have never known with so much to learn.

My brain seems to eat every bit of it up as I go along, hopefully it will keep doing it and learn what it needs to.

I have more revison & study to do so I may not post again today.

I don't understand about scattering experiments but this is the first I have heard of them so with time

I do have two questions though please, why is there only a U and a D and not also a leftspin or right spin or even other angle type spins?

Is this because a particle can only be split in half?

Edited September 30 by Imagine Everything
typo

[Mordred]

Ok try not to think of particles as little solid balls.

Solid is an illusion generated by our senses.

Under QFT all particles are field excitations so it's not little balls splitting but rather constructive and destructive interference of a waveform. A waveform can also be split off into seperate waveforms such as a monochromatic light beam splitter performing parametric down conversion of a beam into two separate beams each with their own photons. Conservation laws still apply so the two beams will be half each of the original beams waveform.

For quarks you have 3 generations the names are simply placeholders denoting the fractional charges. The names aren't particularly important except as a label. It's the particle quantum properties that's relevant not the name.

Details here 

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

Edited September 30 by Mordred

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Ok try not to think of particles as little solid balls.

A slight digression from my main thrust to explain a point that Mordred keeps making.

 

If you look at a weather map (perhaps watching the forecast on TV) you will see circular patterns of isobars travelling acrss the map. These represent cyclones or anticyclones (pairs again ? 😀).

Although not solid objects they behave and feel  as though they are and as folks in central Europe and south eastern US have recently found out to the great cost.

They are semi persistant disturbances in the isobar field thaat can (and do) act as a single entity.

 

In Physics, field theories regard 'particles = solid little balls' as disturbances in the same way.

 

You can also see this effect in eddies in a stream bed.

 

Does this help at all ?

[Imagine Everything]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

A slight digression from my main thrust to explain a point that Mordred keeps making.

 

If you look at a weather map (perhaps watching the forecast on TV) you will see circular patterns of isobars travelling acrss the map. These represent cyclones or anticyclones (pairs again ? 😀).

Although not solid objects they behave and feel  as though they are and as folks in central Europe and south eastern US have recently found out to the great cost.

They are semi persistant disturbances in the isobar field thaat can (and do) act as a single entity.

 

In Physics, field theories regard 'particles = solid little balls' as disturbances in the same way.

 

You can also see this effect in eddies in a stream bed.

 

Does this help at all ?

Kind of. I hmm...So particles aren't particles? they are a wave length field?

Or something like this?

An atom is solid but below the atom everything energy of some sort? Or is my head not wrapping itself around properly?

I enrolled on a introduction to physics course yesterday, hosted by Prof Lou Bloomfield and he discussed inertia amongst other things, I previously thought of inertia as something not moving at all but it seems that inertia is the constant movement without net force or net forces cancelling each other out and creating a zero net force that allows constant movement?.

So...as long as something is moving at a constant speed, either at rest or moving is described as inertia?

This to me was bizarre as I hadn't considered it this way and so I kind of understand I think that anything below the atom is not solid?

But arrgghhh science is evil or maybe it's the Matrix 😮 lmao, very hard to retrain my brain though it is slowly.

Have I understood this correctly and also the lower level 'particles' of an atom?

Prof. Lou Bloomfield is a funny and very good teacher.

As are you guys Mordred, Studiot & Swanstont

 

Though I'm also still trying to understand velocity (direction?) Backward acceleration(why isn't it called decelleration?)

And some other stuff I can't remember right now. Bad day for me today.

Edited October 1 by Imagine Everything
more typoo's :)

[KJW]

14 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Backward acceleration (why isn't it called deceleration?)

Because deceleration is an acceleration in the opposite direction. To think of acceleration as increasing speed and deceleration as decreasing speed indicates that you are thinking in terms of some absolute velocity, whereas by changing to some other inertial frame of reference, it becomes clear that acceleration and deceleration are actually the same notion.
 

[Imagine Everything]

27 minutes ago, KJW said:

Because deceleration is an acceleration in the opposite direction. To think of acceleration as increasing speed and deceleration as decreasing speed indicates that you are thinking in terms of some absolute velocity, whereas by changing to some other inertial frame of reference, it becomes clear that acceleration and deceleration are actually the same notion.
 

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

Thankyou for answering.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

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

Thankyou for answering.

What KJW is referring to is the symmetry under change in sign for different observers. One observer will see a deceleration while another observer at the opposite end of the object being measured will see acceleration. 

 In essence deceleration is symmetric to acceleration 

Constant velocity is extremely important to master. Study Newtons three laws of inertia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

This should help with the lecture your learning.

Acceleration cam be in two forms change in velocity or change in direction. This is also important to recognize.

 

Edited October 1 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

What KJW is referring to is the symmetry under change in sign for different observers. One observer will see a deceleration while another observer at the opposite end of the object being measured will see acceleration. 

 In essence deceleration is symmetric to acceleration 

Constant velocity is extremely important to master. Study Newtons three laws of inertia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

This should help with the lecture your learning.

Acceleration cam be in two forms change in velocity or change in direction. This is also important to recognize.

 

mmm I think I have a misunderstanding of velocity, I'm going to redo the lecture after it's finshed and perhaps even again after that.

The part of your reply Mordred that I emblazened, does this mean deceleration is simply aceleration in the oposite direction of motion?

So can I dismiss deceleration completely and just think of it as acceleration regardless of the direction of motion?

 

 

 

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

The part of your reply Mordred that I emblazened, does this mean deceleration is simply aceleration in the oposite direction of motion?

So can I dismiss deceleration completely and just think of it as acceleration regardless of the direction 

One can readily treat deceleration as an acceleration depending on the observer. Yes that is correct.

Velocity is the speed plus the direction so it is represented by a vector. This is an important distinction from speed which is a scalar quantity (magnitude only).

Momentum is the velocity plus the mass. This will become important when determining the amount of force delivered when an object strikes another object.

 

Edited October 1 by Mordred

[studiot]

19 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Though I'm also still trying to understand velocity (direction?) Backward acceleration(why isn't it called decelleration?)

And some other stuff I can't remember right now. Bad day for me today.

Condolences on having a bad day, everybody has them.
The good news is that after a few good/bad/goodcycles you realise that the bad parts come to an end.

As I continue my tour, you may have noticed I am introducing gently new stuff as it is needed.
To try to throw it at soemeone all at one would blow anyone's mind.

I will come to velocity as it is needed.

 

19 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Kind of. I hmm...So particles aren't particles? they are a wave length field?

Or something like this?

An atom is solid but below the atom everything energy of some sort? Or is my head not wrapping itself around properly?

I enrolled on a introduction to physics course yesterday, hosted by Prof Lou Bloomfield and he discussed inertia amongst other things, I previously thought of inertia as something not moving at all but it seems that inertia is the constant movement without net force or net forces cancelling each other out and creating a zero net force that allows constant movement?.

So...as long as something is moving at a constant speed, either at rest or moving is described as inertia?

This to me was bizarre as I hadn't considered it this way and so I kind of understand I think that anything below the atom is not solid?

Although I am mentioning forces, force analysis is moree difficult than energy analysis some I am concentrating on the latter.

 

Please re read this post where I layout the programme as I am trying to show that quarks, atoms solar systems,galaxies and so on have remarkable similarities in the way they work.

There is no sharp macroscopic / microscopic divide, as is often touted.

 

 

 

On 9/29/2024 at 11:55 PM, studiot said:

So back to the Principle of least energy.

A system can only reduce its energy by passing some on to its surroundings htat is by interacting with its surroundings across the mutial boundary eg by collsion, configuration or some other means.

This idea applies right the way through the scales of systems.

Elementary particles (photons, quarks, electrons and so on) all act this way

Atomic nuclei

Atoms

Molecules

Aggregates of molecules

Planets

Stars

Galaxies.

 

We will look at you question of what holds things together  and find out that in energy terms its the same principle of least energy.

Please also read this short extract from Sean Carroll  - he has put the changing view of particles and fields so well, and quite sufficiently for our purposes.

[Mordred]

Good article I enjoyed reading it as well though I've always enjoyed anything written by Sean Carroll. +1.

In regards to particles being field excitations we have a pinned thread covering @StringJunky has a link to an excellent Sean Caroll 

In this thread in his first post of the thread it's an excellent lecture you may enjoy.

 

PS you will note the lecture video will coincide with the article posted by Studiot.

Edited October 2 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Good article I enjoyed reading it as well though I've always enjoyed anything written by Sean Carroll. +1.

In regards to particles being field excitations we have a pinned thread covering @StringJunky has a link to an excellent Sean Caroll 

In this thread in his first post of the thread it's an excellent lecture you may enjoy.

 

PS you will note the lecture video will coincide with the article posted by Studiot.

Great! I've looked for that video a few times and forgot what it was called.

[Mordred]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Great! I've looked for that video a few times and forgot what it was called.

Lol your welcome 

[Imagine Everything]

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.

 

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

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.

 

 As Studiot noted earlier your idea had merit what was lacking was the correct terminology and application. 

Unlike many we see posting personal hypothesis you show a willingness to learn and adapt so for that were more than willing to work with you to improve your knowledge +1

Edited October 2 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

23 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

mmm I think I have a misunderstanding of velocity, I'm going to redo the lecture after it's finshed and perhaps even again after that.

The part of your reply Mordred that I emblazened, does this mean deceleration is simply aceleration in the oposite direction of motion?

So can I dismiss deceleration completely and just think of it as acceleration regardless of the direction of motion?

 

 

 

 

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

Quote

acceleration, rate at which velocity changes with time, in terms of both speed and direction. A point or an object moving in a straight line is accelerated if it speeds up or slows down. Motion on a circle is accelerated even if the speed is constant, because the direction is continually changing.

 

Edited October 2 by StringJunky

[Imagine Everything]

On 9/25/2024 at 7:10 PM, Mordred said:

We have a lot of members that do not have strong math skills and they were able to learn the basics. Obviously there is no practical way to teach enough on a forum to make you a physicist.

 Essentially I will provide recommended links and mention recommended textbooks to get you started. 

Start here there is a couple of lecture notes.

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219 What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf Is it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole?

Training (textbook Style Articles)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein

 

The first section are low level math but at this time don't worry about understanding the math itself they are well explained verbally.

If you can get through those articles you will understand Cosmology far better than the average person. Not an expert but far more well informed.

I will start with Cosmology prior to GR and QM/QFT as most of the formulas are Newtonian approximations.

Any questions on the above can be posted in any relevant main stream forum. Except for the last article on SR the rest can be answered in the Astronomy/Cosmology forum 

Last one under Relativity as its basic SR.

I am reading things all over the place and just got to this one, holy moly springs to mind.

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

This actually might fit my idea (albeit later on and to do with a repeating universe) so much better than a single point big bang.

I feel a bit silly now lol. Probably not the last time I will feel this way either.

 

So a few questions please,

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

Can ALL energy be stretched including mediators?

If a state has boundary conditions, are boundary conditions themselves a state and also have boundary conditions?

When 2 states are next to each other, the EM (field?) mediator generated by both between both of them, can or does this merge? phase? together? Can this create more new states and different 'particles'

Can mediators be stretched?

And does that then become an EM state with it's own boundary conditions?

What is a wave? Is it a constant energy type that when looked at behaves like particles?

As in, when they are measured, they are seen as particles and not pure energy?

Is that how you tell thedifferent energy types apart?

Is the entire universe curved?

Lastly, is EVERYTHING in the universe very simply put just a mass of different energy or energies that merge?

17 hours ago, StringJunky said:

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

 

Thank you

On 9/29/2024 at 3:06 PM, Mordred said:

Lol 😆 yes dealing with the mathematics of quantum fields is evil 😈. I also noted you found where I got my callsign image from lol.

 

Time is best understood as the property describing rate of change not a self existing entity. 

 

Ok if you want a force between a table and paper or chair you couldn't use the strong force. That force is within protons and neutrons etc.

For everyday objects they are held together by the EM force. So make two systems or states.

State A is the table

State B is the paper 

Each State is describable by a field ( condensed matter lattice network for an official treatment) however let's keep it simple an EM field for each. 

Each State has a boundary condition (edges)

Now there is interactions between State Table and state paper ( two EM fields interacting.) These interactions are mediated by the EM mediator the photon. Example the force between chair and paper where applicable (repulsion/attraction).

It is much the same with quantum states or quantum particle states. Each particle is described as a state via wavefunctions. Those states also have boundary conditions determined by their interaction cross sections. (Your not ready for bare mass vs mass due to field couplings just yet.)

The states interact with one another via mediator bosons such as the photon for the EM field, gluons for the strong force, W and Z bosons for the weak force. For gravity it's possibly the graviton we haven't detected any yet to confirm.

So I recommend you switch your terminology to states with the edges being the boundary conditions.

 

 

Hint when answering one of Studiots questions involving least energy. Apply that to each State. Studiot has been stepping you into a very specific interaction between two states (with two different energy potentials). 

condensed matter lattice network - I just briefly looked at this and Yikes

But hmm condensed particles(condensed energy? energies?)..multiscale entanglement....interesting, didn't understand it but these 2 things..hmm very interesting thanks. I don't think I will look at this again just yet

The multiscale entanglement...In this idea I have, I visualise this I think, badly termed of course but still.

I see in my simple' initial thought as being part of a exponentially huge, universe wide entanglement, all interacting with and being a part of, each other.

Kaboom!!

That was my head exploding again.

Sometimes my brain feels like it's a yoyo, on a rollercoaster, in a tsunami during an earthquake

Edited October 3 by Imagine Everything
added a question

[Mordred]

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.