1 hour ago, studiot said:

The various terms associated with 'eigen' come from the German and are attributed to Hilbert.

They are mathematical terms concerning linear mathematics so we have eigenspace, eigenfunction, eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenstate.

The german word eigen means 'proper' and can be used for several puroposes in linear mathematics depending upon what they are applied to.

These words have pure mathematics meanings realted to the solution of equations, but also have specific physical meanings when applied to physical systems.

The physical systems may be 'classical' or 'quantum' mechanics or even statistical.

The first two replies here give some examples from classical and quantum physics.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/26662/eigenvalues-and-eigenvectors-in-physics

In pasing I note a sprinkling of downvotes, which I see no reason for and only serve to discourage someone who is 'doing their best'.

Thanks, that helps. I think. You will know if it does as it will be used in this idea. I can see it fitting in but still need to understand it more.

Can I think then of eigenspace, eigenfunction, eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenstate being used to describe pretty much anything, ever with maths being the universal language?

Does it have any Mathematics so far?

On 7/25/2025 at 11:04 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

Does it have any Mathematics so far?

It has my very very crude understanding of maths and only in what I see as a 'SP' vector right now however I need to learn more before I could have faith that what I put forward would make enough sense to me & also to anyone that reads this.

Still an awful lot to put together.

And it describes something that might actually be beyond DM, DE or more 'angstrom²' like? n^{th tiny.}

Anyway, I came here today to write something I didn't see coming, at all if I'm honest.

I'm not forced to eat my words but I have seen a few replies recently from @Sohan Lalwani and they have come across as seemingly quite mature & polite. So I should acknowledge that in the scheme of things perhaps.

I won't give you +1 but it's nice to see, well done. Most people here that reply to you are usually only ever trying to help you.

The rest of this reply is intentionally 'blank' but to me anyway, it gives a tldr'ish very simple overview of my idea atm.

End of 'blank' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have a good weekend

Edited August 1Aug 1 by Imagine Everything

Out of curiosity I must ask why was I mentioned here 🤔

@Sohan Lalwani Scroll up a little.

Regarding the idea. I should have said the above 'blank' is analogous to how I think this SN-NNP behaves & where the SN-NNP is infused / created & decayed.

I will recommend to write a post summing up whatever your current theory has.

22 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

End of 'blank'

Moderator Note

Please follow through with this, I don't EVER want to see you do this again. Man, that's annoying as hell. Why would you make people who read your posts work that hard?!

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

Please follow through with this, I don't EVER want to see you do this again. Man, that's annoying as hell. Why would you make people who read your posts work that hard?!

@Phi for All

Please don't take that blank analogy the wrong way, It wasn't meant to be annoying. Not even slightly.

Aside from 1 post, have you ever known me to post something annoying?

I don't think anyway, though I will admit I have probably frustrated a few of you with my lack of knowledge / understanding.

Maybe a better thing to have done is asked me what I'm going on about. I didn't think it would draw your ire. Or anyone's.

Maybe a better idea would have also been for me to explain more too I suppose. Hmm. Ok I see your point.

But for what it's worth, I was waiting to see if anyone asked about it.

I will happily explain if I may.

The analogy is that is it indeed 'blank' as I put it (not 'nothing', just blank), before anything is drawn onto the page, it could be anything, super positioned until written/observed.

And it can be absolutely anything you can think of text or symbol wise before observation.

I'm trying to put across the way I see this SN-NNP I have spoken about. The idea (which I haven't gone into fully) seems to point beyond DM, DE, as odd and OTT as I'm sure that must sound.

In the idea, I see it as being the very thing that allows, create, decays, infuses with everything else. It is 'something' and 'nothing', both dead and alive as it were.

It seems to work in a similar way to memory storage. Maybe super positional memory storage.

In the idea, not real life. But I need to learn more about the eigen's still.

Apologies for making you or indeed, anyone else frustrated, I was waiting to see if anyone asked. I know not who looks at this.

And the who I do not know, I didn't think were many.

My questions sometimes go un-answered so I wonder if I have asked something stupid or something that has pushed you folks away.

Thanks for reading this anyway Phi, nice to know you do. Though, maybe you won't now.

And thanks to anyone else who has or does look at this.

The idea still requires a lot of work but at some point in the future I should hopefully be able to muster up a tidy explanation of it.

Please tell me if I have mis understood super position by the way.

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Imagine Everything

I went back and reviewed the earlier part of your post, and I think I have a better grasp of how you view the behavior of the SN NNP and its process of being created and decayed.

The concept of SN NNP being infused or created and then decaying reminds me somewhat of virtual particles or quantum fluctuations, but it seems you are proposing something that operates at an even more fundamental level. It is fascinating to consider a kinetic resonance flux or a sub quantum dynamic as the underlying mechanism bridging scales from the smallest echoes to more familiar quantum phenomena.

Your openness about the idea still being a work in progress is quite good 👍

Scientific progress often begins with speculation and evolving models.

Could you share more about what you currently imagine the SN NNP to consist of? Do you see it as a discrete entity or more of a transient state or pattern? Also, I am curious about your reference to the SP vector. Is that related to established concepts like scalar potentials, or is it a new construct unique to your model?

On 8/1/2025 at 8:12 AM, Imagine Everything said:

I'm not forced to eat my words but I have seen a few replies recently from @Sohan Lalwani and they have come across as seemingly quite mature & polite. So I should acknowledge that in the scheme of things perhaps.

I won't give you +1 but it's nice to see, well done. Most people here that reply to you are usually only ever trying to help you.

🤝

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Sohan Lalwani

9 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

1.I went back and reviewed the earlier part of your post, and I think I have a better grasp of how you view the behavior of the SN NNP and its process of being created and decayed.

2. The concept of SN NNP being infused or created and then decaying reminds me somewhat of virtual particles or quantum fluctuations, but it seems you are proposing something that operates at an even more fundamental level. It is fascinating to consider a kinetic resonance flux or a sub quantum dynamic as the underlying mechanism bridging scales from the smallest echoes to more familiar quantum phenomena.

3. Your openness about the idea still being a work in progress is quite good 👍

4. Scientific progress often begins with speculation and evolving models.

5. Could you share more about what you currently imagine the SN NNP to consist of? Do you see it as a discrete entity or more of a transient state or pattern? Also, I am curious about your reference to the SP vector. Is that related to established concepts like scalar potentials, or is it a new construct unique to your model?

1. Thanks, I'm flattered.

2. Yes VP's are very interesting, they had me quite curious for a while, as did the Dark Photon, however the road this idea is taking me towards is something that allows the creation of fields & particles & has to be everywhere, all at the same time, all the time & always has or will be.

   I think I am proposing something at a very fundamental level, maybe even THE fundamental level .

   I think it would have to be for it to exist the way it seems to in this idea & I'll also throw in Ontic as a description for it.

   I understood this to mean simply 'being' & it describes this SP NNP/F quite well if it does.

   I can see it quite clearly but still learning how to put it across properly & I must stress that this all falls within the confines of this idea only.

   It would have to seemingly excite to some extent but mostly it would perhaps be observed as fluctuating if it is observational at all.

   Hope I remembered that the right way round, excite is direct measurement right?

3. Thanks, I try, it is just an idea

   Yes it does, even with newton & the apple.

   Within this idea, I see this SP-NNP & it's accompanying SP-NNP Field.

   I do have scientific names for the SP-NNP, SN-NNPF & the force that holds the SP-NNP together but I will withhold them for now.

   I should add, like all particles seemingly, the SP-NNP- also exists within this idea.

   The anti SP NNP or SN NNP-

   This nameless non particle is literally one step away from being absolute 'nothing'

   A discrete entity, interesting.

4. It's more like the shadow of a discrete entity. Or the shadow of the shadow of a discrete entity but also less than a shadow... if I understand your question correctly.

   Unique construct in my model.

5. Unique yes, I think it's uniqueness sets everything else in motion & then everything else keeps the SP NNPF going...

   Unique to my idea?, probably not.

   More likely I have got my wires crossed & it really will turn out to be nothing but a nice story.

   I think if it is real, science has known about it already for a while but for some reason has dismissed it or not taken it into account. That's a mighty big if btw. N^th big

   And that's very hard to believe, you folks seem to have gone n^th places with maths & science. Still find it astounding.

   It does have a pattern I guess, to me it's a seemingly ordered, randomness eventually leading towards an 'assembly' where they finally become one - Ontic if you will, possibly not for the first time.

   I do see a wavelength/vibration but that's another part of the idea.

   Anyway, I seem to have written a lot again. No need to reply, hope it answers you helpfully. I won't post any maths yet but hope to in the future, no matter how bad it might be.

Edited August 3Aug 3 by Imagine Everything

Just now, Imagine Everything said:

es VP's are very interesting, they had me quite curious for a while,

(A long way) backalong in this thread I'm sure I introduced you the the master principle that you can use to explain almost all process in physics.

The principle of minimum energy, otherwise known to engineers as the shakedown theorem.

This defines the conditions for virtual particles from the Higgs, through electrons, nuclear reactions, chemical reactions, macroscopic mechanics and upwards.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

(A long way) backalong in this thread I'm sure I introduced you the the master principle that you can use to explain almost all process in physics.

The principle of minimum energy, otherwise known to engineers as the shakedown theorem.

This defines the conditions for virtual particles from the Higgs, through electrons, nuclear reactions, chemical reactions, macroscopic mechanics and upwards.

Thanks

Do they all follow the same rule, each decreasing into a minimal energy state?

Edited August 3Aug 3 by Imagine Everything

Hmm so if you hadn't noticed (regarding my question above), I can be as thick as I am clever sometimes. Another double I guess.

I think you @studiot mentioned Sean Carroll as thinking about a master field.

Thank you, this is actually how I'm seeing this idea.

If everything in the universe has it's own field then my ideas SP-NNP must also have one. As well it it's own force. And also it friend Time.

Its 23 days until the anniversary of my posting this idea & I am looking at posting the vastly improved (description at least) version of this idea.

For the record, I saw possible DM to start with, without understanding more about other things & I'm not sure it is directly pointing towards DM but more towards, something that created the DM to start with.

However now, it appears (to me for now) to not only offer a non & anti non particle but also it's own field & force.

This field is how I see the universe itself. Ignoring everything else, the universe exists everywhere, all at the same time, directly or indirectly.

It answers the infamous something from nothing question. Though the SP-NNP isn't totally nothing, it's as close as anything can be to being nothing.

I will explain more on the 24th all going well.

For now I will say this.

Within this idea I see the force holding the SN-NNP's together as being the Gravit.

A precursor to gravity itself.

I called the force the Gravit for want of a better word. Idk if it has been used already or not, I did search.

Edited September 1Sep 1 by Imagine Everything

12 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

I think you @studiot mentioned Sean Carroll as thinking about a master field.

Thank you, this is actually how I'm seeing this idea.

If everything in the universe has it's own field then my ideas SP-NNP must also have one. As well it it's own force. And also it friend Time.

Please just take note that Carroll's master quantum field is quite a different sort of field from the force field being discussed in the spacetime thread

Just now, studiot said:

Please just take note that Carroll's master quantum field is quite a different sort of field from the force field being discussed in the spacetime thread

Thanks studiot, that's ok actually, it was more the description of it that caught my eye. The master field.

I recall on the link further back to a Sean Carroll lecture that he said that science was now considering? a new bizarre concept that maybe everything is made by fields, not particles (think I got that right)

I still have @Mordred advice to drop the original sqep etc echoing in my brain & am trying to find ways to keep it short & sweet.

So the master field sounded spot on. All I can think of to call it is the SP-NNPF & that;s still a lot of letters. Even the scientific term I have for them (yet to be disclosed) makes it a 5 letter description.

Super Positioned Nameless Non Particle Field.

I am a lazy writer I'm afraid, it's easier to abbreviate after I give you the definition of the abbreviation.

And as for that thread, I kinda just browse mostly, its' interesting to see the facts that you folks come out with in your replies.

I don't always understand much of what I read but sometimes the fragments of science that I have studied a bit, are brought together from your replies & make more sense to me.

Question or 2 if I may

Do Neutron stars leak Hawkins radiation?

And how is it that you know a neutron star & BH are actually made of dense matter?

I know you have the maths, have you also measured somehow the matter that is inside a BH & defined different types, like metals, gas for instance?

Edited September 1Sep 1 by Imagine Everything

17 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Do Neutron stars leak Hawkins radiation?

And how is it that you know a neutron star & BH are actually made of dense matter?

I know you have the maths, have you also measured somehow the matter that is inside a BH & defined different types, like metals, gas for instance?

Like you I will wait for the cosmologists to answer.

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Do Neutron stars leak Hawkins radiation?
And how is it that you know a neutron star & BH are actually made of dense matter?
I know you have the maths, have you also measured somehow the matter that is inside a BH & defined different types, like metals, gas for instance?

Not a cosmologist, and I don't think you need be to offer an answer 🙂 .

Hawking radiation depends on a mechanism facilitated by the Event Horizon.
IOW, no Event Horizon >> no Hawking Radiation.

Neutron stars have no Event Horizon, have a temperature and so produce regular radiation, and also directed gamma rays, because of the rapid rotation/strong magnetic fields. They are composed mostly of extremely dense, degenerate neutrons, and this degenerate pressure ( Pauli exclusion ) keeps them from further collapse.

Electron degeneracy pressure keeps white dwarf stars from further collapse, but more massive stars can overcome this pressure and collapse to neutron stars supported by neutron degeneracy. When a star is massive enough such that even neutron degeneracy pressure cannot prevail against gravity, we know of no other mechanism to prevent further collapse. At the mathematical radius where escape velocity becomes equal to c , an Event Horizon is established by nature, and no further information can reach us regarding to the interior composition.
The very equations that predict the gravitational collapse, become non-sensical and predict a singularity; an indication that those equations are no longer applicable in that domain.

So, while we can say a neutron star is made of dense matter, we can't really say anything about what is inside the Event Horizon of a Black Hole with any certainty. We know a singularity makes no sense, but we know of no mechanism which will prevent any matter from collapsing to one.

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not a cosmologist, and I don't think you need be to offer an answer 🙂 .

Hawking radiation depends on a mechanism facilitated by the Event Horizon.
IOW, no Event Horizon >> no Hawking Radiation.

Neutron stars have no Event Horizon, have a temperature and so produce regular radiation, and also directed gamma rays, because of the rapid rotation/strong magnetic fields. They are composed mostly of extremely dense, degenerate neutrons, and this degenerate pressure ( Pauli exclusion ) keeps them from further collapse.

Electron degeneracy pressure keeps white dwarf stars from further collapse, but more massive stars can overcome this pressure and collapse to neutron stars supported by neutron degeneracy. When a star is massive enough such that even neutron degeneracy pressure cannot prevail against gravity, we know of no other mechanism to prevent further collapse. At the mathematical radius where escape velocity becomes equal to c , an Event Horizon is established by nature, and no further information can reach us regarding to the interior composition.
The very equations that predict the gravitational collapse, become non-sensical and predict a singularity; an indication that those equations are no longer applicable in that domain.

So, while we can say a neutron star is made of dense matter, we can't really say anything about what is inside the Event Horizon of a Black Hole with any certainty. We know a singularity makes no sense, but we know of no mechanism which will prevent any matter from collapsing to one.

Thanks @MigL, fermions can be overcome by gravity. Interesting.

Gravity is one of the bosses of the universe it seems. Fundamental perhaps?

One last question please for someone/s.

If science can't say what the interior composition of a BH, How do you know how heavy a BH is?

Is this based on Neutron Star collapse & it's weight?

Edited September 1Sep 1 by Imagine Everything

4 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

If science can't say what the interior composition of a BH, How do you know how heavy a BH is?

It has gravity, so it’s much the same as how we can determine the mass of a normal star - it causes an acceleration of ~GM/r^2 and anything in orbit is subject to that.

Thanks @swansont

A 'classical' Black Hole conserves three parameters; mass, angular momentum and charge.
A semi-classical treatment ( with some QM considerations ) adds entropy ( see J Bekenstein ), and temperature.

These properties are 'encoded' in the size/shape of the Event Horizon ( no other features are evident ), but mass/energy-momentum means it will curve space-time and exhibit gravity just like any other massive energetic body. The extreme conditions go even further and it will actually 'drag' space-time, rotating it with its angular momentum.

Thanks @MigL

Have any of you known gravity to be caused by something other than mass?

40 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Thanks @MigL

Have any of you known gravity to be caused by something other than mass?

Not in Newtonian mechanics.

But in General Relativity yes massless fields which store energy can also gravitate by virtue of that energy.

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Have any of you known gravity to be caused by something other than mass?

In GR, gravity is actually sourced by stress-energy-momentum.
And as Studiot said, fields including the gravitational field itself, are a source.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Not in Newtonian mechanics.

But in General Relativity yes massless fields which store energy can also gravitate by virtue of that energy.

That is potentially awesome for my idea 🙂. Ahem, I mean, ty @studiot

And would this energy stored massless field follow The principle of minimum energy too?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

In GR, gravity is actually sourced by stress-energy-momentum.
And as Studiot said, fields including the gravitational field itself, are a source.

So the energy has to be stressed, hmm so going back to a BH, has it ever been considered that the inside of it could be a massless field of stressed energy.

And sorry 1 more, if it's massless fields being spoken about, would they not also have massless (non) particles? Perhaps positive & negative?

On 9/24/2024 at 7:24 PM, swansont said:

On 9/24/2024 at 9:27 PM, swansont said:

On 9/24/2024 at 7:39 PM, Imagine Everything said:

It made me wonder if actually a smaller  even more condensed core exists inside a black hole and has a neutron atmosphere.

You would have to explain how a neutron structure could exist under such a large attraction.

I think I can now & I also don't see the inside as neutron related at the moment.

Thank you, really, to all of you that have helped & put up with me, right or wrong as this idea will be, I appreciate it.

Edited September 3Sep 3 by Imagine Everything