Imagine Everything

Thanks @Markus Hanke

I can see why you or indeed other people would see that way. However for me, the goalposts aren't moving, if anything is, it is my knowledge. Prior to posting here I assumed particles were little tiny dots, I found out that they are packets of energy. The goalposts moved (my knowledge grew) I knew nothing about anything I suppose, just this vision or whatever it is. So my knowledge has grown, the goalposts didn't move, they simply don't seem to have been goalposts to start with. The one thing I have gone looking for & also stumbled across is something very very tiny. Echo like, ghost like even. With a connection (my first thought was a merger between 2 particles.). That connection must be some sort of information albeit very tiny & perhaps extremely simple. So perhaps I was always going to bump into QM's smallest or close to, at some point if I kept looking/researching. This kind of links nicely to something I read a week or so ago. I posted the following in my other thread 24/9/25 - sorry for the repeat but I'll explain. I have shortened the paragraph a little. Black Holes Quantum Hairs are imprinted onto a BH’ gravitational field once what they were is decayed. The only thing left measurable is angualr momentum & charge & mass. The rest of the information is imprinted. ‘Lost forever’ into the BH gravitational field. However they do have a ‘release’ from the BH in the forms of Hawkin Radiation, Superradiance, Disks and jets. So they can ‘escape’ / relay information outside of the BH & everything between the inside & outside of a BH. The information can & is passed on / between them all instantly I see these QH’s as all connected directly or indirectly, the superpositioned possibility of acting as one at some point or as groups & any other type of collaboration. I posted a link to an article talking about Professor Maria Strømme theory of conciousness furthe back in this post, it can't be read now, daily mail stuck it behind a paywall The article I read a week or so ago https://www.livescience.com/space/black-holes/stephen-hawkings-black-hole-information-paradox-could-be-solved-if-the-universe-has-7-dimensions Torsion and the birth of stable black hole remnantsThe study shows that torsion generates a repulsive force that becomes important at extremely small scales, near the end of a black hole's life. As the black hole shrinks through Hawking radiation, this force eventually counteracts further collapse. "This repulsive force acts as a brake, halting the evaporation before the black hole vanishes completely," Pinčák said. Instead of disappearing, the black hole stabilizes into a tiny remnant. According to the model, this leftover object has a mass of about 9 × 10⁻⁴¹ kilograms ‪—‬ some 10 billion times smaller than an electron. Crucially, this remnant can store the information that fell into the black hole, avoiding any violation of quantum mechanics. The information is encoded in subtle oscillations known as quasinormal modes, which act as carriers of the lost data. I did a check on whether 7 dimensions is seen as cranky & also whether Live Science was a credible website. The first article spoke about an information field if I recall correctly & the Live Science article proposes 7 dimensions where information is never lost & is perhaps retained as something 10bn times smaller that an electron. The article I have linked to, for me it was another moment where this thing is proving itself as something, I don't know what that is, perhaps it is just mere coincidence. Perhaps with a PPO, maybe some people are going to think similiarly about something That is ghost like to me. I don't know how you folks see 7 dimensions, I don't know if this is good or bad science, only that the article suggests it can't be or hasn't been proven yet. I don't know what to make of this, I'm really not trying to shortcut, I am searching. No doubt my knowledge will increase & more questions will follow. I'm aware also that I don't appear to listen to people sometimes (or appear that way) or I forget things, that's me I'm afraid. It's not intentional, my mind wanders. I think too deeply about some things & not enough about others. I am also aware that I see things quite differently to other people & sometimes, just sometimes I get something right, such as my swipe n go idea (chip n pin) I won't say or think that I am right with this but again (the above link) something comes along that kind of supports my scientific journey, for want of a better description. I have written way too much again I apologise, I just do not know how to explain this in a short format. I do have 2 questions I must ask please. How do you folks see or think of 7 dimensions? Is it cranky or not? I said pointless because I can't explain it properly though perhaps with more knowledge... I do feel that way mainly due to my lack of maths, If I knew maths perhaps I could explain it or at least put it across better. All I can do is keep asking questions, researching & stumbling.

Thanks I'm looking for something. Pointless trying to explain what it is but the more I learn what it can't be, the more I look for what it could be. Ooh I got emoji's. I knew you liked me. On a sensible note, I am glad you were so definitive with your answer. It helps. If memory serves this was merely part of my thoughts. Not something I'm categorically stating as true.

Does this mean as far as you know, that the BB was created from energy alone? If so would that imply that there is an axiom?/god? frequency that not only kick started the universe but also propogates/pervades through/with all matter & energy since & will continue to until the universe ends (if it ever does) in some representation/pattern of itself. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks @swansont That's both interesting & helpful.

To clarify, if a proton always has the same properties each time it is observed spin, vibration, frequency, those properties are unique all protons. The proton is merely an example, I could have chosen any particle if they are indeed all truly the same as themselves when observed every time. I don't see it as unique or different to other protons. Or that neutrons are unique or different to other neutrons. As for bandi'ing science words, I'm not, as I am trying to understand more, I am using more scientific terminology. I think I have come a very long way since my first post which described this as a SQEP. So forgive me if you have that impression but how else am I supposed to describe it with a lack of maths. Thank you @TheVat , I wasn't aware & might just do that. Also, no matter how it sounds, I am not trying to invent something out of nothing. If this is real, it has to be a part of science & only science can confirm it. I am still learning.

@exchemist I didn't say because I don't know. I only have thoughts at the moment. I read that all particles are the same. All protons identical, all neutrons identical so in this respect they have unique signatures(frequencies?/information that 'says' a proton is a proton so to speak. I'm wondering if one part of a particle (it's unique frequency for instance) is passed on to the energy being carried by a wave between particles. Possibly as an Eigenstate.

I have labeled the steps up to a point as I can go no further than that without your help please. Observation The 'mysterious' connection between humans. Hypothesis Quantum Information is being transferred & exchanged between each of us constantly. Experiment This is where you nice people come in if I may be so bold as to request your help please. It's very easy & won't hurt anyone or thing. 3.a Look at someone from behind & think for them to turn round & look at you. Do this 10 times or more, but at least 10 please. Experiment control group will be people you know. Control Group People you don't know. 3.b. Make a diary over 4 weeks & record each time you think of someone, only for that person to call. Or when someone told you they were just thinking of you when you call them. Allow 5 mins after thinking of them or after calling someone. Experiment control group when you think of someone before they call. Control Group When you are told by whoever you called that they were thinking of you before you called. Hope I understood the groups correctly. Results these will be your own direct observations. Thanks

When I do this, I'll only post one & I will keep it short. I already know I won't be able to answer the last option, would even try. I don't know about the rest but I will give a it a go, apologies already for the lack of equations. I'm trying to learn more about waves, ty khan academy, but I am little confused. s it right to assume the energy in the wave is kinetic & does that mean kinetic energy is massless? But doesn't energy come from matter? If ground states exist for everything energy wise, I don't understand how it can be nothing. Or is that wave/particle duality?

Thanks @exchemist

I found these, hope it helps. https://www.etsy.com/uk/market/ship_gimbal eBayGimbal Compass | eBayExplore a wide range of our Gimbal Compass selection. Find top brands, exclusive offers, and unbeatable prices on eBay. Shop now for fast shipping and easy returns!I used this to search for them Gimbal compass for Large Yacht Lamp 30cm using duckduckgo to search. or plastic ones https://www.marinecompasses.co.uk/Binnacle-Mount

I had to look up redolent. Made me laugh when I did, what a poetic way of putting it. Ty for teaching me a new word @exchemist I dare say I am a bit cranky/offbeat as it were but I don't think charlatan describes me. I am not pretending to know something or to be someone I'm not. This is the impression I got when I was researching, it led me to consider it as the chicken & egg question. I have no answer for this. Could you clarify please how a wave is created in a field, if a wave is energy? You say a wave travels so does that not mean it is created by energy which in turn means matter created the wave? Or have I misunderstood? Ok so I think I can put together a few different examples? of this '?' thing in SFN's scientific process chart https://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm No doubt it will be rough & badly described but I will try at some point soon, It won't be about how it's created, I do not know it would seem but it will show how I see this thing acting regarding certain behaviours or situations I hope. And it has more than one hyperthetical model (if I may be so bold as to call it a model). Perhaps it will serve to help you show me where my thinking has gone awry if it has. Or better explain it to me if it hasn't. Thank you for what you said was very useful. I'm a little confused though on one thing, does a vibration not cause a wave? I don't know that I'm not, it's that simple & also the reason I came to your forum. I need to know or I need to know more & you folks have the expertise. I don't have epiphanies a lot, in fact maybe only a few times in my life, one of them being the swipe & go invention I had in the mid to late 90's which became what everyone knows today as Chip n Pin. If anyone wants to know how I came up with that & why I missed out, I'd be happy to explain. This I am not bullsh...ing about. I should be rich...☹️ Hmm, it would hurt me too if I thought I had any credence regarding science, but for me it was the dismissive part of your reply that annoyed me if you would allow me to be direct. Being dismissive is unfortunately also classed as a form of bullying. And that's how I saw it. It doesn't mean I think negatively of you @dimreepr but having had too long an experience of being bullied throughout my youth, it hit home to me more than it might have with someone who hasn't been. That's what hurt if you will. As always I am grateful for all replies to what I write here, I learn a little more each time. Though I also forget a bit too sometimes I suppose.

Your response is both sarcastic & dismissive @dimreepr Had to think a lot of a suitable reply to this, my immediate thoughts when I read this were not pleasant. But I will answer you now. It is an insight, a vision or an epiphany, only I know that for a fact, granted, however maybe you should be slightly more open to things. Just because I don't know maths does not mean I am talking bulls...It doesn't mean I'm also not I suppose but hey ho. It is a big handicap for sure but still... The point of me coming here was to see if this epiphany was real or just bulls... that my imagination had created subconsiously. Since I posted a small part of this epiphany in sept 2024, I have seen a lot of things in theoretical science that were similar to what I had written about prior to posting my initial post in 2024. My badly described 2 items meeting & something happening between their edges with leakage of each item merging together in this gap. Turns out entropy, quantum tunneling & entropic radiation are a thing (Leakage) These are just a few examples I can prove to a point at this time. Good news my friend, you can identify as god if you so wish. We live in accepting times now so feel free. As for your sarcasm, it was unwarranted & perhaps only serves to portray your closed mind to others. Maybe people won't post so much if you respond this way. I think you @MigL helped a lot when you said it was wrong. Hindsight eh... If I am guilty of one thing for sure, I am guilty of having emotion & perhaps showing too much of it. Anyway, I'm still grateful to you all, I seem to have now found something that ticks a lot of boxes for the way I see this '?' perhaps panning out. For what it's worth, after spending more time researching particle decay, I started to think about the initial particle creation/s, it's/their wavelengths. I was wondering if a wavelength could transfer information from it's prior particle to the new lighter particle/s as it does with energy iirc. Or maybe that energy was the information exchange, sort of bosun ish if you will but not a force, instead it is some type of information. So a particle is an excitement in a field. The wavelength of the particle is dependent on the particle, no particle-no wavelength. So, hmm I thought & after much more hmming, I started wondering what the excitement itself is. So I looked it up & after a few different excitement, vibration, vibration fields, BB searches I was left with seemingly only one possible answer to what the smallest thing in the universe might be. I am happy to be wrong but it seems everything I have read points towards this. A vibration. (and yes vibrations oscillate around an equilibrium, vibrations don't have fields as I found out) Oddly, if DM is matter then DM has a vibration...so there's also that aspect that I have mentioned before albeit a loose connection. It doesn't mean I think I'm right about the things I have written but I do find it uncanny, almost eerily so. One of the aspects I have mentioned before about this '?' is the human aspect. When we seem to know someone close to us is about to call or when we avoid people for some 'unknown' reason. From my p.o.v. at the moment, a vibration seems that it would transfer information as a vibration & also iirc all particles are identical all protons the same, all electrons the same... Would that not imply that when a particle decays, it's vibration would oscillate to the next equilibrium in the lighter particle/s.

@Mordred Yes it was a stupid question from me, my mind is full of them sometimes.

That is a huge question & this would indeed seem like the inside of a golf ball if I understand things correctly so far. Very very complex. What wave effects etc? I do not know @swansont, I am simple compared to you folks. I'm surprised I understood what @KJW wrote. I think I did anyway. If you could step outside of our universe & measure its wavelength, then would it be right to say it's wavelength would be the universal tensor for every single wavelength within, regardless of how the wavelengths within interfered or diffracted or for any other reason/law came to be? & that this wavelength would be in constant change until the universe died, if it did/does. Thank you @KJW 🙂

Does the tensor product have a unique tensor wavelength? m1λ+m2λ = T3λ T3λ = m1λ+m2λ T being tensor. Hope I said & wrote that right. Because the universe is expanding rather than moving? Does expansion have a λ? , What do you mean by small? A gentle 'bump' with hardly any detectable 'motion' almost flat? Almost or perhaps only 1 slight crest trough over time?.

I'd forgotten that, thanks @swansont. That was actually quite an interesting point. Can I consider the universe as made entirely of particles? If so, can I then consider that if the universe is finite then it too will have it's own wavelength, observable only when the universe, meets it's finiteness?. (just curious on this one) It was one of the things I saw in this 'vision' thing I had. A universal wavelength. Thanks also @KJW

I would like to know more please, @studiot , if you have a link to a brief overview for now, that would be interesting, thanks. I've also been learning a little about wave particle duality. I only heard or read that the photon & electron were maybe the only 2 particles that behaved like this, however I watched a couple of lectures, the hosts were saying that everything is wave particle duality including us. Is this true of all particles as far as you know & understand? Does it matter if they are massless or not?

Questions... Questions, intentions, emotions & more, The old man sighed heavy, his skin tight & raw, Why am I here? To do what & what for? Why am I curious, always needing some more, I need to know stuff, know why I can see, How I make progress as age catches me, Some questions bring answers & they are his prize, Though some aren't so welcome, all open his eyes, Is wisdom the best? Would youth not avail?, The questions are endless, some left in the pale, Time takes him forward or back/both may..be? Does he exist both in pre & post BB?, Is it butterfly wings without any doubts? Does the universe care if he breathes or shouts. Probably not, he ponders & yearns, So many questions yet too much to learn.

Thanks @exchemist That diagram was really interesting & useful. +1

Thanks @Mordred, that was heavy & reminded me of how much out of my depth I am. Whilst I do not understand the maths still, perhaps over time I might understand a little more than I currently do. I appreciate the response. Forgive my terminology too please, I didn't mean to imply that you are poor or old, it was just a term of endearment. You didn't say anything but I second guess myself a lot & have pondered on that since I wrote it. One thing I do a lot is watch how people behave or react, I've had to for a long time, perhaps I might loosely call this my own observations. It helps me to possibly foresee what might proceed certain behaviours in people.

Hope this helps, taken from the linked site. Most space rocks smaller than a football field will break apart in Earth’s atmosphere. Traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour, the object disintegrates as pressure exceeds the strength of the object, resulting a bright flare. Less than 5% of the original object usually makes it down to the ground. NASA ScienceMeteors and Meteorites: Facts - NASA ScienceMeteoroids are space rocks that range in size from dust grains to small asteroids. This term only applies when these rocks while they are still in space.

Why oh why oh why oh why, Is the water so wet yet gin can be dry, Sand can be grainy, compact & quick, Playing guitar requires a pick, This poem is random, entropic perhaps, Maybe one day it will earn a few claps, My poems are humerous, hopefully good fun, That's it for now, have a good night everyone.

I'll take that as a reverse kind of compliment 😀Glad you didn't call me salt or pepper, I'd have taken that as a condiment 😁

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Please don't +1 me. Feel free to +1 each other :) You deserve it.