BuddhasDragon23

Yes, ignorant me wouldn’t have a clue how to devise a new form of math that can redefine infinity and singularities, not as break in the theories of physics, but as a real tangible quantities. Can’t even comprehend formulating how to handle calculations of infinite fluctuations at infinite points at the same time to illustrate how a uniform singularity would evolve into the universe described by current scientific understanding. I guess my intuition is only based ion 1+1 is 2 then.

Just want to see if people think if a platform where everyone, (and yes I do mean everyone, even if at signing up, verifying individual’s identities and providing a safe workable voting system is practically impossible) could be represented as a Global Citizen would be a good thing? As a democratic platform, all votes would only be on policies that would be umbrella policies that affect all of humanity. So a first ever vote would be ‘Do you want to live in a peaceful world or not’, or ‘Do you want protect the global natural environment’. I am not asking for opinions of whether it could be achieved, as atm it can’t, but rather would such a system if it could be, be advantageous. The reason I ask is there is no organisation that has the legitimacy to stop nation states like Russia invading Ukraine, no global body to say no to nations allowing corporation to mine resources, pollute ecosystems and take advantage of poor populations for cheep labour. There is nowhere to go as a global citizen to have a democratic say on such matters. Yes there are pressure groups but even the UN can’t hold nations to account. Is there a need for a platform for the people, by the people and of the people to control what nations and organisations do in our names that are actually detrimental to us? lastly yes i am not sure the global population is ready for this, but hope with better education and information being available people will be able to make informed choices well

Yes, and I have accepted this already, I have only been replying to questions put forwards since. No need to repeat that message again, thx Still TBH it won’t change that I trust my intuition on this, my delusional rabbit hole is still pulling me in, but I fall with open eyes and won’t be broken when I learn how wrong I am. Feel bad for scientists that spend their lives chasing their errors until one day a single observation proves them wrong :(

Lol, did you like the way I did include your opinion as an option out of my 3. Errr, why would you be satisfied with my imaginative guess? satisfied? You should never be satisfied until you can answer everything, let alone my rantings. Maybe taking a leap of fantasy is worth it. Maybe coz you being of greater knowledge might see something in the words of fools. If I had a problem, and no-one else in my field could help, then maybe I would be happy to listen to every crazy fool that had an idea how to help. I would also be prepared to reevaluate my current knowledge in case of errors and maybe see a possible new path based on the fantasy that might prove to be a real solution. maybe i would even go through one of these ideas and discus showing 1, i understood what they were trying to say, 2 say where they could be right as well as wrong 3 say where there is no way of knowing, 4 define if anything had potential even if of no help at the current time etc etc. I have not forced to to accept nor will I. As for Thano clicking his fingers, come on, Thanos was born after the big bang so that just wont work will it now, unless he used the time stone to travel back to before, clicked everything into existence and Thanos is god :o

Sorry, i know you didn’t, that was mistake as I keep getting signed out so sorry for that. In reply to you I was only trying to answer your post about a singularity being a point in time. I just don’t see time exists at tjis point so it cant be a point in time, nor a point, but a singular field, force, energy. What do you call the state of the universe before the big bang? ‘…. points have no extension, so you can't have anything be "uniform throughout" a singularity.’ ….to be fair would this not say that the state from which all things are formed inherently need to have a force that forces a change. Saying that such a singularity cannot exist within the forces dictated by observed science, but we are talking about a sigularity from which these forces emerge and the singularity is not bound by them. Studiot, I respect your help. I didn't respect your tone but you did say sorry. I have not told you that you are wrong, where you have to me, nor have I said I am ignoring your advice. I just haven’t acted upon it yet. So yes respect my imagination and I will carry on respecting your knowledge. Hi Phi, oh, i thought he was saying that all tests and observation so far, nor our current understanding could answer what happens when a star collapses into a black whole, or we rewind the universe to a singularity. Neither, probably due to my ignorance, do I see how my idea goes against any of the science already proven/observed. I think therefore the entire reason I posted here was my intuition feels I might have a helpful way to see things from a different angle (maybe as I am free of the constraints of scientific knowledge). As pointed out, it is because the math ends up in infinities that don’t work that science knows it has not found the answer. I am, be it backwards, trying to find what we know/observe (the science)can emerge from the infinity that I see as the start of everything. I thought the place to discuss this was here as I am trying to, and believe my idea does agree with what we/you observe. My observation seems to be blind to many things that would say NO that can't happen, so until I learn them, i will keep an open mind. Question for everyone, what infinite do you believe in? Something has always existed even before the 13 billion years since the universe is said to have begun, or the infinite nothing, or do you ignore it as science cant do anything about it yet?

Imagination can be a route to a viable idea even with a lack of knowledge. I think Einstein himself would say without his ability to imagine the physics based on his knowledge, he would have found it harder to then use his knowledge to formulate his theories. What are you trying to achieve with your posts. At least the others are criticising constructively. Hey, given the true way he said it and I have been accused of comparing myself to him, even with my limited knowledge, im gonna go out on a limb and say, my intuition says I am right and I won’t be surprised when it turns out after science can test it that I am right. Just it won’t be my theory it will be a scientist with the knowledge to see the same as I and knows how to test it.This does NOT mean I think I am right, just my intuition says I am.

Who is comparing me to Einstein? Not me. Read on please.

It seemed like a realistic list. Essential and Desirable though? Is relevant to discussions here to the scientific method. My understanding a field is basic as well as quantum, but I was under the impression that quantum fluctuations in the early universe when it was uniform gave rise to slight variations that became larger structures because of inflation and evident in the microwave background. I believe this is unproven theory with some possible evidence, or an observation of evidence with a hypothesis to explain it. In the context of your other points I guess in my ‘idea’ Looking at this I take from it, In science a field is a region of space… in my ‘idea’, the field is all of space so the difficulty and as i was saying, (and without some for of energy, like that causing the differences in the microwave background), there are no points, such points would not exist ‘yet’. so this part of it is beyond scientific enquiry, however akin to the quantum effects that are meant to cause the variations in the CMB, it is such a force inherent within the singularity that is the driving force for change. Now I guess a question to add is and to answer It seemed like a realistic list. Essential and Desirable though? Is relevant to discussions here to the scientific method. My understanding a field is basic as well as quantum, but I was under the impression that quantum fluctuations in the early universe when it was uniform gave rise to slight variations that became larger structures because of inflation and evident in the microwave background. I believe this is unproven theory with some possible evidence, or an observation of evidence with a hypothesis to explain it. In the context of your other points I guess in my ‘idea’ Looking at this I take from it, In science a field is a region of space… in my ‘idea’, the field is all of space so the difficulty and as i was saying, (and without some for of energy, like that causing the differences in the microwave background), there are no points, such points would not exist ‘yet’. so this part of it is beyond scientific enquiry, however akin to the quantum effects that are meant to cause the variations in the CMB, it is such a force inherent within the singularity that is the driving force for change. Now I guess a question to add is, and to answer at the same time If such a field existed, until any divergent force that caused any change, there would be no time and therefore it would be a point of infinite time and time become emergent from the relativity of the evolution from this point onwards. I will get more stick no doubt but I am a stubborn thick skinned primate, so I can easily look past calling my rantings sh**t in any form. And yes, i get your frustration, you probably deal with hundreds of us bedroom know-alls trying to tell you their crackpot ideas as if they are right. I however don't mind admitting I know sh*t atm, stress atm.

Infinite in scale or density, i guess and would be better. I see that if something is in such a state it is uniform throughout. So if you were inside the singularity no matter how much smaller you became relative to your original size (ie smaller than an electron in your fingernail), their would be no change is the singularity at that scale (that scale only being relative to yourself before shrinking as in this environment that could be the only that scale the singularity having none) and the same if you grew so your original self was not the size of an electron in your fingernail in you enlarged self. This process being infinite as no matter how large or small the singularity remains constant. is singularity the right term? Sorry i need to check my typing better…. ….only the scale, the singularity having none) …if you grew so your original self became the size of an electron in your fingernail in your larger self. This process being infinite as no matter how large or small one becomes the singularity remains constant. Tbh I was asking not telling. I have already admitted I am of that ignorant ilk. Nope i only referenced Buddhism as it was the closest way of describing what I meant, not using Buddhism as a validation or validating Buddhism in any way. I agree this is not a religious discussion. Nor one of aliens, higher dimensional beings, fractal quantum simulations of stacked universes or unicorns etc.

Thx again. I will hold my hands up and say I don't think this is the right place to ask. I thought this group was speculation, and that would not need rigorous scientific knowledge but was a fair place to express an idea that scientist might find useful when it seems to make sense me but am unsure because of my lack of knowledge. The person who said imagination being more important than knowledge was a guy called Albert Einstein. I have started reading and learning the math n theory, so one day I might be able to propose this idea more rigorously i fear the complexity could only be simulated on a quantum computer that doesn't exist yet. You have shut down the idea with only reference to my lack of know-how, and ‘you are simply making sh*t up’. Sad you express it that way. I only posted the idea, as I have said in the chance it may have some resonance with you scientists. I take it it is either, the way I have described this is not enough for you to put it into a scientific context or understand what I mean (my failure), it is enough but IS total sh**t (again my failure) or it is enough but you lack the imagination to take what I have described and realise it (as I do) and put it in a scientific way that I am unable to do. Out of those three I am guessing it is total Sh**t, but the the take away for me is I don’t know why as it sh**t as from what I do understand it fits very well into both my understanding of both classical physics and quantum mechanics. That said I probably have both of these wrong too. Please leave this in speculation as when I have the tools to come back and redefine it in a way that you can agree with I will either come back and say, sh**t you guys were right i was talking bolx back then, or prove myself right (which i doubt but would be nice) apart from that…. yes please….. ‘If you want to know some Science or are looking for a simple rundown on some part - simply you only have to.... ask.’ Please explain if a single quantum field could contain all of time and space, or be space time?

As a Buddhist I would not mind at all whatever religion you wished to discuss, but I am not Buddhist so I have no temple, and I am not sure this is YOUR temple either. Science is not a religion last time I heard it. My understanding might not be the standard you are used to, or maybe too used to and find it easy to dismiss, but surely if you are a scientist and understand the subject more than I. Are you unable to help those of us with less knowledge to understand if our imaginations might be somewhat correct. Not sure but someone said imagination is more important than knowledge, i guess as without it knowledge cannot evolve, so even my seemingly neolithic grasp of the subject might prove of value. It is the civilised thing to do.

Ahhh well yes, then there would be some confusion. By potential I am probably not using it in the scientific way as evident by how I have described it. Potential in this description would mean something similar to (oh this is a bit to “philisophical” for a scientific discourse) the buddhist way of thinking the closer to 0, or the less something is already, the greater potential it has to become a many number of things. The clay to make a cup, the rock to sculpt a statue. Therefore in this case the potential would be inherent in such a singularity to diversify and become i guess more complex. I think this is inherent in all things, and all things have the inherent potential to be likewise, but as the evolved universe had already evolved as it has, everything within it has such potential limited by not only the local environment but by the whole. Might need a little more clarification but I think that gives you an idea.

No I didn't think so, sorry if my eloquence is not up to par with you magnificence but I think what I am trying to say is clear. I am obviously talking about the singularity that led to the big bang. I think that fits, the state before all others we know of in the observable universe and the perspective this singularity might be very uniform, and very dense to the point it might be infinitely so. If something uniform of this nature were to change, due to quantum fluctuations and an inherent potential for change, could you explain how it would change and how you would describe that relative to the uniform state. To me it expands, stretches, inflates as well as collapses, shrink in every way until in this chaos more stable forms and energies emerge. i agree in a pure sense the only contradiction comes from expanding and collapsing at the same time is relative with the overall effect being a stretching, but even that seem contradictory as to stretch something infinitely dense would still equate to infinitely dense. So as i said it is a relative process driven by potential.

This is how I think I understand the universe. The universe started from a singularity that was uniform and arguably infinite in scale or density. I guess really as there was no scale or density when in this original state. The singularity to me seems to be a primeval quantum field with as above no defined character, however without any limiting factor this field was free to both expand and collapse in any way it could. The evolution of this quantum field giving rise to the universe where stable entities that emerged from this chaotic period began to propagate. At different frequencies within this field other entities could exist and interact, and at variable densities within each frequency of this evolving field such entities find a path of least resistance. (This would equate to light can travel through the field on a frequency that allows such light to do so, but where heavier particle such as matter fall or a constrained to frequencies that are in essence thicker, more sticky. This provides an ocean of a single expanding and probable in ways contracting quantum field, where all energies and particles are inherently entangled as a morpheus whole while still maintaining their local characteristics. Within this field everything is linked and relative as technically the field as a whole has no scale, any scale is defined by what is occurring through the field. Matter or at least the constituent parts being denser packets of energy where relatively the field has collapsed into stable forms. I think all energy within this field is governed by potential. This would mean gravity is an emergent property as the more matter collects it has more potential to interact and where the further away two masses are the greater their potential gravitation energy gets. Hugh Everetts theory of multi worlds I think in this universe only exists on the miro-scale any why we see quantum entanglement being more achievable at these scales, but we introduce more matter we limit the possible wave functions of the system (at relative scales) which i think is called decoherence. It this therefore this decoherence that provides for the more stable interaction of matter and energy to form the classical universe described by relativity. In other words the universe is not made from building blocks and forces, they are all emergent properties that have evolved from this singularity and where we see rules, we are only witnessing the reality of this process. Think thats enough for now, my head hurts writing all that :)

Im dyslexic, so it helps. Well at least that was from the hip. Thx, wont take up anyone else's time.

Hi, i was more or less just asking in my ignorance of those with greater understanding if i may have an idea worth perusing. I am not trying to validate my beliefs so if its total BS, i guess just say so, or if it worth a crumb of effort to say, yeah it has som e merit, but without scientific evidence and math to express it it amounts to not much sorry.

The Unified Quantum Universe Hypothesis This theory proposes that the universe, from its inception, is a single, unified quantum system. Instead of beginning from a classical singularity—a point of infinite density where our known laws of physics break down—the universe began as a universal wave function. This wave function is not a physical object but a mathematical expression that contains the potential for all possible states and realities. Emergence of Forces and Constants As this universal wave function evolves, it undergoes a series of phase transitions driven by cosmic expansion and cooling. This process, known as spontaneous symmetry breaking, causes a single, original, unified "superforce" to resolve into the distinct, stable forces we observe today (e.g., gravity, electromagnetism). The constants of nature (like the speed of light) are not arbitrary but are a direct consequence of this process, representing the most stable and statistically probable outcomes of the initial quantum state. The Role of Entanglement Every component of the universe—from subatomic particles to galaxies—remains an intrinsic part of this universal wave function and is fundamentally connected to all other parts through entanglement. The forces act as the long-range effects of this deep quantum connection, providing the stable, consistent rules for how everything interacts. The Mathematical Framework The goal of this theory is to find a mathematical framework—such as Loop Quantum Gravity or a specific formulation of String Theory—that can describe this entire process. This math must show how the order and predictability of our classical universe emerge from a single, unified, quantum system.

I have had a discussion with Gemini. I do hope that is not seen as a bad thing, as a bedroom philosopher or dreamer (you will probably call me crackpot) it is a little idea I have had for a while, and though AI has a very positive spin on whatever you ask it (ref south park series 27 episode 3) I would like the opinion of someone actually scientific to say if it has legs. https://g.co/gemini/share/a35adddef719 That is the link Gemini has given me and I think I am allowed to share it.