On 1/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, studiot said:

 

On 1/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, studiot said:

There lots of useful graphics, but can you spot the difficulty (clumsiness really) they get into using XYZ ?

Should   A_x      be where      A_y       is and vice versa?

Is this wrong because it's positioning seems to be indicating the vector A and the sub vector _x

hmm

My other thought is perhaps the A_y vector/sub vector should be above the x axis label. I wonder this because the _y sub vector appears to represent the left of the right angle. adjacent is that right? I'm not up to speed on sohcahtoa yet.

Bit tired now, maths is draining lol,  I'm erring more toward the second answer.

Hello world,

Hope you're all well.

So for the last week or so I have had a possible candidate for my NNP.

It fits well within the boundaries of my idea.

I suppose I should say that it is probably just one of perhaps (without knowing more) many candidates. Time always tells I suppose.

I won't mention it in this post but I am rewriting chapter 1 again and will post in more detail, hopefully with a tiny bit of backing from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the Pauli exclusion and at least one other if I understand them correctly or as far I can anyway. Might be more, I don't know.

I also have a more fitting name for it too now, though I won't divulge it yet.

I also don't know how long it will take to write.

I will though and if anyone is still interested then it might at the very least, be an interesting story to help bore you to sleep one night in the future  😴😴😴

 

And @studiot I think I might actually be able to draw it and possibly able to describe it in a n^th vector. I think I have learnt enough to give you at least a very basic vector anyway.

 

 

It needs a lot of work though so I'm off to do precisely that.

Stay safe

On 2/25/2025 at 6:26 PM, Imagine Everything said:

And @studiot I think I might actually be able to draw it and possibly able to describe it in a n^th vector. I think I have learnt enough to give you at least a very basic vector anyway.

OK let's try vectors

Vectors are little arrows.

 

Before I add the little arrows please confirm that you understand the digrams of a bow and arrow, firstly with the arrow notched but the string slack ie not drawn back.

Then secondly with the bow bent and the string pulled back.

 

This is an ideal introduction to the sort of vectors we will be interested in. There are other sorts but don't worry about them.

 

On 3/7/2025 at 7:56 PM, studiot said:

OK let's try vectors

Vectors are little arrows.

 

Before I add the little arrows please confirm that you understand the digrams of a bow and arrow, firstly with the arrow notched but the string slack ie not drawn back.

Then secondly with the bow bent and the string pulled back.

 

This is an ideal introduction to the sort of vectors we will be interested in. There are other sorts but don't worry about them.

 

If it is just the images as you say at the moment then yes.

The arrows both have a direction.

The second arrow has a (possible) velocity? (at some point it will be moving if let go)

 

quick question because sometimes I dont fully understand what I see, read or hear.

Ontic

This means something that is alive or being?

Ontological

This means being aware that you are alive / being?

Thanks as always to anyone who replies to this if anyone does.

I was browsing DM and saw this. It kind of almost yelled at me to post it.

Not to tell you about it, you folks have so much knowledge, it's still quite staggering to me, it's more to do with this thread, it's perhaps a visual or what I will post in the future when I finish rewriting my original 'pre-forum posting' idea AISOO v2 (iirc).

https://scitechdaily.com/the-large-hadron-collider-is-breaking-new-ground-in-the-search-for-dark-matter/

And also

https://astronomyexplained.com/dark-matter-vs-antimatter-what-is-the-difference/

My initial post here, was eventually leading up to DM but I wrote so much last year before posting on the scienceforum, it would have been a deluge of nonsence as it stood.

Maybe it still will be lol. Time will tell I suppose.

Yes @Mordred No more SQEP's matey :)

Hopefully the idea I had (which has evolved a bit now) will continue to seemingly (to me at least) fit into the things I have learnt and continue to read about or discuss.

For now, just thought the images were important and ofcourse also the background articles that accompanied them on the websites.

September 24, 2024 @swansont

The bottom line for physics is being able to predict or explain behavior of some phenomenon, usually with a calculation, as applied to some experiment. What observed phenomenon does this apply to? 

Hopefully DM and possibly DE but not sure about the DE side at the moment.

I know how that might sound every time I write it but I can't hide from what I think this idea is.

I actually look forward to and anticipate already, someone telling me it isn't viable so that I can put this to rest in a strange & idea closing, way.

It will settle my mind (I hope) :)

Edited May 17May 17 by Imagine Everything

Hmm, really didn't think I'd come back if I'm honest.

When I get annoyed with someone, that's it for me, no going back. I hate that about myself but I just don't feel I can be around certain people.

It might be explained as me feeling like that person is anti matter.

However, it would seem science & my idea have not let go of me and neither have you or your forum.

You're like an EH that won't leave my grumpy galaxy alone.

No need to click the links, they're there for my future self so I don't forget.

In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is the problem of definite outcomes: quantum systems have superpositions but quantum measurements only give one definite result.^[1][2]

^{Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem}

https://quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/measurement-problem/

^{Thank you} @dimreepr for posting this.

https://scienceforums.net/topic/136084-could-a-quantum-computer-solve-the-measurement-problem/

I don't think my idea explains why you can't measure more than 1 result but it does ponder on the rest of the measurement.

What I see (for now at least) as the non measurement, measurement.

I asked once, when a particle is measured, and it falls within in given measurement tolerance, it there still a bit of left over in the tolerance.

 I have rewritten more now and this SQEP idea seems to be presenting itself to describe, DM, QH, DECAY, PRE BB, CREATIVE DESTRUCTION, SUPERPOSITION, among other things.

SuperPosition is the best friend to my idea. Such a wonderful and weird concept, yet it is a something, it would seem. And also not until it was measured.

I am not saying any of this is true, except for the already proven science I have added to support the idea.

And I take no credit for them either. I just have scientific names for things now. I hope.

They belong to you folks in the science world, you have literally been almost everywhere it would seem, measured so much, do you know how hard it is to come up with something new???

It is truly truly astounding. You are truly truly astounding.

Stop it! NOW! let MEEEEEE discover something please, be nice !! :)

Anyway it is an idea that now has some scientific names & hopefully science, supporting it.

I am only too aware that for it to work, it would have to be tested and tested and tested and nth...

And then there's the maths, definately not my strong point)

And how do I measure 'nothing' or indeed anyone else, directly.

How do I even test 'nothing'

And I am only one person out of nth (past or present)? This alone makes me doubt my idea immensely,

Yet, when it's ready, I will post a little more about it.

I feel compelled, otherwise why did I end up writing a thesis' for a week last year.

Feeling like something was talking through me, sending me a flood of information that I didn't have the words or knowledge for.

For me, it felt like having a new language dumped into my brain without understanding any of it.

If nothing else, I hope to present it better now. A lot better.

So I'll 'see' you on the SuperPositioned day of Probability in the future, Randomly, maybe...

'

Edited June 23Jun 23 by Imagine Everything

19 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Stop it! NOW! let MEEEEEE discover something please, be nice !! :)

Why do you need to be right?

Read on in my topic, I was wrong; if you want to discover something, try to understand why I don't care... 😉

On 6/24/2025 at 12:34 PM, dimreepr said:

Why do you need to be right?

Read on in my topic, I was wrong; if you want to discover something, try to understand why I don't care... 😉

It's not really about being right, well not much anyway. That was tongue in cheek. I doubt I am right.

But I am extremely curious why I had this vision in the first place and some of it seemed to be similar-ish to actual proven science.

So it would be cool if (with you folks help) if I could eventually find out whether this idea is worth it's ink or just a pointless thought experiment.

But that won't happen for a while, have a lot to write still and am not rushing.

I want to at least get my idea put across in a manner more befitting for the science community to look at. If I can achieve this, that would at least be a milestone for me personally.

I knew nothing about science a year so ago.

6 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

It's not really about being right, well not much anyway. That was tongue in cheek. I doubt I am right.

But I am extremely curious why I had this vision in the first place and some of it seemed to be similar-ish to actual proven science.

So it would be cool if (with you folks help) if I could eventually find out whether this idea is worth it's ink or just a pointless thought experiment.

But that won't happen for a while, have a lot to write still and am not rushing.

I want to at least get my idea put across in a manner more befitting for the science community to look at. If I can achieve this, that would at least be a milestone for me personally.

I knew nothing about science a year so ago.

The thing about science is, the more you learn, the less you understand and the more you like it.

Just try to enjoy the journey my friend... 😉

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The thing about science is, the more you learn, the less you understand and the more you like it.

Just try to enjoy the journey my friend... 😉

You are not wrong. Though liking the maths? hmm, not so much lol. Still only have a very basic grasp on it.

Thanks @dimreepr

This is for my future reference,

thanks joigus

Gravitons, provided they exist, should not have mass. Interaction carriers having mass would violate gauge symmetry.

Gravitons, provided they exist, should be sourced by anything having local energy density, not particularly hyper-dense sources.

Gravitons, provided they exist, should not undergo any appreciable clustering themselves.

Forenote, I couldn't seem to edit the word links to normal, I haven't placed links on purpose except for the wiki site directly.

It was copied and pasted from there.

May I ask, if the next bit is what you science guys calls measurement?

In various interpretations of quantum mechanics, wave function collapse, also called reduction of the state vector,^[1] occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world.

Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Can I also take from this that the eigenstate is the superpositioned non measurement (or pre measurement) and that the wavelength collapse is also known as measurement?

Interaction with the external world meaning, other fields? other particles?

Edited July 14Jul 14 by Imagine Everything

6 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Can I also take from this that the eigenstate is the superpositioned non measurement (or pre measurement)

No.

An eigenstate is a particular state of a system. A superposition is a linear combination of multiple eigenstates.

e.g. a two state system has eigenstates |1> and |2> (they could represent energy states, or spin states, etc.)

A superposition would be a|1> + b|2> where a and b are amplitudes such that a^2 + b^2 = 1 so that the probability of being in one of the two states is 1

On 7/14/2025 at 4:19 PM, swansont said:

An eigenstate is a particular state of a system. A superposition is a linear combination of multiple eigenstates.

Interesting. So does that mean there can only be nth eigenstates in a system that are required by that system?

On 7/14/2025 at 4:19 PM, swansont said:

e.g. a two state system has eigenstates |1> and |2> (they could represent energy states, or spin states, etc.)

It would have to be a minimum of 2 due to entanglement? Or am I remembering incorrectly.

If I'm way off, no need to explain. I appreciate what you have said. I can do some research. Thanks @swansont

Edited July 15Jul 15 by Imagine Everything

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Interesting. So does that mean there can only be nth eigenstates in a system that are required by that system?

Systems can have an infinite number of eigenstates. It depends on the system. The energy states of the hydrogen atom, for instance, has an infinite number of levels. But a simpler finite square well has a finite number.

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

It would have to be a minimum of 2 due to entanglement? Or am I remembering incorrectly.

No, to say “due to entanglement” gets cause and effect backwards. Entanglement is a two-particle situation. You can describe superposition in a single system.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Interesting. So does that mean there can only be nth eigenstates in a system that are required by that system?

Systems can have an infinite number of eigenstates. It depends on the system. The energy states of the hydrogen atom, for instance, has an infinite number of levels. But a simpler finite square well has a finite number.

Yeah I worded that badly, but that's what I was trying to find out. Thanks.

This idea has to be everywhere, all the time, all at the same time so these eigenstates are very interesting. As is entanglement but I guess I need to go re read up on that.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

It would have to be a minimum of 2 due to entanglement? Or am I remembering incorrectly.

No, to say “due to entanglement” gets cause and effect backwards. Entanglement is a two-particle situation. You can describe superposition in a single system.

Can that one system also be as big as it can be tiny, so to speak?

A system made of other systems, made of other systems... ?

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Can that one system also be as big as it can be tiny, so to speak?

I don’t know what that means.

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Can that one system also be as big as it can be tiny, so to speak?

I don’t know what that means.

I had a thought in my head but if what I wrote didn't make sense then I think I might have gone a bit awry in the way I understand a system.

I'll come back to this another time, I think it's important.

For what it's worth, I was wondering about a universe sized system. One that all other systems fall into, make up & mimic somehow.

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

For what it's worth, I was wondering about a universe sized system

It’s got to be a system where it makes sense to apply QM to it, i.e express a wave function and apply an operator.

Just now, Imagine Everything said:

For what it's worth, I was wondering about a universe sized system. One that all other systems fall into, make up & mimic somehow.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

For what it's worth, I was wondering about a universe sized system

It’s got to be a system where it makes sense to apply QM to it, i.e express a wave function and apply an operator.

Thanks

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Also thanks.

On 6/23/2025 at 8:57 PM, Imagine Everything said:

Stop it! NOW! let MEEEEEE discover something please, be nice !! :)

Who have stoped you?

The science develops with help of critiques.

If a theory doesnt get a critique then it means it’s too perfect or something anyone will not even talk about.

Your’s isn’t first case.

Taken from the net:

eigenstates /ī′gən-stāt″/

Plural form of eigenstate

noun

1. One of a set of quantum-mechanical descriptions of the possible state of a physical system, using the mathematics of eigenvectors and generally existing in a state of superposition until the moment of observation.

2. A dynamic quantum mechanical state whose wave function is an eigenvector that corresponds to a physical quantity.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

2. In the orange part I have highlighted, in lay mans terms, can I understand this as being a measurement becoming a particle becoming a part of other particles/atoms/fields?

And if it is say, a D quark, then the SuperPoisitioned quark would be an U quark.

Just now, Imagine Everything said:

Taken from the net:

eigenstates /ī′gən-stāt″/

Plural form of eigenstate

noun

1. One of a set of quantum-mechanical descriptions of the possible state of a physical system, using the mathematics of eigenvectors and generally existing in a state of superposition until the moment of observation.

2. A dynamic quantum mechanical state whose wave function is an eigenvector that corresponds to a physical quantity.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

2. In the orange part I have highlighted, in lay mans terms, can I understand this as being a measurement becoming a particle becoming a part of other particles/atoms/fields?

And if it is say, a D quark, then the SuperPoisitioned quark would be an U quark.

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'.