With the help of reflection, I now have a different take on what I perceived at the time to be an idea.

I tried to explain it as some of you will be aware & even show it's existence.

I have described some things really bad, I didn't have the words or knowledge.

My current view is this, I didn't have any sort of idea at all. I haven't discovered anything.

I wonder if I've merely 'seen' something/s physics already has a theory or theories for & it is just extremely strange.

I don't mean everything in the physics world, just an angstrom snippet if you will.

For back up, I refer to my very first post in another thread: https://scienceforums.net/topic/134685-1-sub-quantum-echo-particlessqeps-sub-quantum-echo-particle-kinetic-resonance-flux/

On 9/24/2024 at 7:05 PM, Imagine Everything said:

In it's very basic form, I see an edge of one item meeting the edge of another item and inbetween these 2 edges is a resonation flux formed from SQEP kinetic energy.

I see SQEP's as the very very smallest anything can be before it tries to become 'nothing'.

On 9/24/2024 at 7:05 PM, Imagine Everything said:

I see these SQEPKRF's in the same way people shed their skin. Always happening, all the time items are next to each other.

The space between to 2 edges is now phased or merged with each others SQEP's at all times while these 2 items are next to each other.

As soon as one is moved, the SQEPKPRF would change to fit the new 'double' or 'pairing' of whatever they then ended up next to edge to edge.

Disregarding completely the particle I tried to see, at the very least, could my bad description not be thought of as having loosely described

Boundary Conditions, States, Systems, Quantum Tunneling, Zero Point Energy & maybe at a stretch something loosely similar to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

There are 2 ways of perceiving what I'm saying I guess

.

I ended up referring to something in that thread, that I thought of as everything, everywhere, always has been, always will be.

Then I found about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

The Zero Point Energy Field

Have you, the experts here, encountered other people who have seen scientific theories, explained in their own odd way of describing it.

Descriptions that were close enough for you to see a little substance in them.

Have you, yourselves had an insight into something in your own lives that was a little surreal?

Edited November 22Nov 22 by Imagine Everything

29 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Have you, yourselves had an insight into something in your own lives that was a little surreal?

My first cricket match. Watching the batman strike the ball on TV gave rise to a delay or so I thought. I thought it was an artifact of the camera like diffraction spikes.

When I watched my first live match the delay was still there. How to explain it?

At some point I was taught about light and the speed of light and also the speed of sound.

On 11/22/2025 at 1:38 PM, pinball1970 said:

My first cricket match. Watching the batman strike the ball on TV gave rise to a delay or so I thought. I thought it was an artifact of the camera like diffraction spikes.

When I watched my first live match the delay was still there. How to explain it?

At some point I was taught about light and the speed of light and also the speed of sound.

It is seemingly quite odd, where do these ideas, thoughts come from?

What is it that inspires this sort of ability to see things.

It would seem that I may have also described something quite similar in the above thread to an article I just read.

Idk how credible this article is, it's a mail story so hmm... it's still very odd that I was able to see this almost the same way as her.

Here is what I wrote in the other thread

"Personal Gravity Field

We all have our own gravity field.

 Our perosnal gravity fields are unique to each of us due to our overall physical vibration which is in turn made up of all the diffferent organs, cells, molecules, food, drink, damage etc.

 We merge quantumly with other gravity fields (other people, items, gases, liquids on a quantum level.

 When our vibration/gravity field meets a similar/harmonic vibration/gravity field, we are attracted to it.

Could this be why we find people attractive.

 The opposite would also seem to be true."

Here is a link to the article. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15325395/theory-consciousness-near-death-experience.html

And the lady herself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Str%C3%B8mme

Edited November 26Nov 26 by Imagine Everything

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

It is seemingly quite odd, where do these ideas, thoughts come from?

My example must be a common one, a firework display and watching bombs go off on news bulletins also.did not make sense.

Very smart kids worked it out possibly? Sound travels much slower than light does, so you see an event before you hear it

One of those beautiful awakening moments as a kid, when it finally makes sense.

The other phenomenon that plagued me as a kid was watching a plane take off or F1 on TV during a summer event.

The runway, track appears as a mirror or water, again I thought it was an artifact of the TV until I experienced it.

This one is a bit harder to explain, it is to with hot layers of air and the associated refractive index, I think. Einstein said if you can't explain it simply to a child then you don't understand it, I don't think I remember it, probably because I don't understand it! It is harder to remember and recall half understood concepts. Actually that may have been Feynman who said that.

@swansont may be able to explain it.

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

The other phenomenon that plagued me as a kid was watching a plane take off or F1 on TV during a summer event.

The runway, track appears as a mirror or water, again I thought it was an artifact of the TV until I experienced it.

This one is a bit harder to explain, it is to with hot layers of air and the associated refractive index, I think. Einstein said if you can't explain it simply to a child then you don't understand it, I don't think I remember it, probably because I don't understand it! It is harder to remember and recall half understood concepts. Actually that may have been Feynman who said that.

@swansont may be able to explain it.

Living in a location with hot summer days, I often see mirages while driving along a road. Mirages are an example of total internal reflection. When light passes from a medium of low refractive index to a medium of high refractive index, the angle of refraction is less than the angle of incidence. But when light passes from a medium of high refractive index to a medium of low refractive index, the situation is reversed, and the angle of refraction is greater than the angle of incidence. That means there are angles of incidence less than 90° such that the angle of refraction would be greater than 90°, and at such high angles of incidents, the light is reflected instead. This is known as total internal reflection. When the surface of the ground is heated by the summer sun, the refractive index of the hot air just above the ground is less than the refractive index of the cooler air higher up, forming the right conditions for total internal reflection to occur.

Edited November 26Nov 26 by KJW

4 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

This one is a bit harder to explain, it is to with hot layers of air and the associated refractive index, I think. Einstein said if you can't explain it simply to a child then you don't understand it, I don't think I remember it, probably because I don't understand it! It is harder to remember and recall half understood concepts. Actually that may have been Feynman who said that.

It’s a mirage from the hot air right above the track refracting the light because it’s at a lower density than the air away from the track. The air is also turbulent, so the refraction is varying in time, blurring the image

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

Scroll down to “heat haze”

Thanks! @KJW and @swansont

17 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

It is seemingly quite odd,

Just phenomena that did not make sense with the understanding that we had at the the time.

One last one which is similar to the F1 track. Sticking my fishing rod in the water, it bent at an angle.

On 11/27/2025 at 8:02 AM, pinball1970 said:

Just phenomena that did not make sense with the understanding that we had at the the time.

One last one which is similar to the F1 track. Sticking my fishing rod in the water, it bent at an angle.

A sentence that describes so much.

That would make a good signature I think.

Maybe a week & a half ago I was reading another thread someone mentioned The Big Crunch in the same conversation as pre bb iirc.

So I looked it up & found that The Big Freeze & The Big Bounce also exist as hypothetical scenarios for the universe.

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

I was led to write something very similar to this over a year ago. I had not heard of this until someone spoke of the big crunch a week or so ago.

You won't see that part of my so called idea anywhere, I only posted the initial part of it which led me on to (amongst other things) something very similar to The Big Bounce.

What good is this? Not a lot I guess, I can't write the math & what I do write doesn't make sense sometimes or comes across badly.

So maybe I should look for things & ask questions instead & see where that leads.

So question then please.

When a particle is measured, is the measurement precisely the same when measured nth times?

7 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Maybe a week & a half ago I was reading another thread someone mentioned The Big Crunch in the same conversation as pre bb iirc.

So I looked it up & found that The Big Freeze & The Big Bounce also exist as hypothetical scenarios for the universe.

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

I was led to write something very similar to this over a year ago. I had not heard of this until someone spoke of the big crunch a week or so ago.

You won't see that part of my so called idea anywhere, I only posted the initial part of it which led me on to (amongst other things) something very similar to The Big Bounce.

What good is this? Not a lot I guess, I can't write the math & what I do write doesn't make sense sometimes or comes across badly.

So maybe I should look for things & ask questions instead & see where that leads.

So question then please.

When a particle is measured, is the measurement precisely the same when measured nth times?

No, because measurement involves interaction with the particle, which affects its state, changing the outcome of subsequent measurements. This inability (usually) to measure without affecting the thing being measured is known as the "observer effect". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Thanks @exchemist for the wiki link, that was useful.

So no matter what, interaction always causes the measurement to be slightly different.

If I measured a proton 100 times & they each correctly measured the proton within +/-

How many of those correctly measured within +/- are the same as each other?

And how many times does that occur within those 100 measurements?

If I were to label each measurement of that proton from 1-100 & then group up the measurements that were exactly the same within that 100, could I expect to see something like the following?

1, 3, 96, 98

23, 45, 75, 89

13, 21, 37, 79

11, 17, 19, 24

...

Hope that makes sense.

The numbers/symbols are random, I could have chosen any four to illustrate or even letters.

It's the grouping/patterns that I'm curious about.

Edited December 13Dec 13 by Imagine Everything

17 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Thanks @exchemist for the wiki link, that was useful.

So no matter what, interaction always causes the measurement to be slightly different.

If I measured a proton 100 times & they each correctly measured the proton within +/-

How many of those correctly measured within +/- are the same as each other?

And how many times does that occur within those 100 measurements?

If I were to label each measurement of that proton from 1-100 & then group up the measurements that were exactly the same within that 100, could I expect to see something like the following?

1, 3, 96, 98

23, 45, 75, 89

13, 21, 37, 79

11, 17, 19, 24

...

Hope that makes sense.

The numbers/symbols are random, I could have chosen any four to illustrate or even letters.

It's the grouping that I'm interested in.

A lot of measurements have a normal, or Gaussian distribution, aka a “bell curve” that represent the random errors/uncertainties

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

The errors and error bars that are expressed are often the standard deviation of the measurement (but not always; this depends on the specific field), and not all errors follow this distribution (there are also systematic errors)

Thanks @swansont It seems that eventually a lot of normal distribution comes down to radioactive decay. Fascinating.

So radioactive decay seen as both systematic & random errors, is that right?.

Is all known matter radioactive, does everything lose heat & what does heat become?.

In saying that, would this mean that any measurement of radioactive matter, will always have an random error due to random radioactive decay among possible other things?.

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

So radioactive decay seen as both systematic & random errors, is that right?.

Is all known matter radioactive, does everything lose heat & what does heat become?.

In saying that, would this mean that any measurement of radioactive matter, will always have an random error due to random radioactive decay among possible other things?.

your getting things all mixed up, entropy and radiation, both always happen but both for different reason's; for instance a microwave, at nearly 5 inches long isn''t very micro...

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Thanks @swansont It seems that eventually a lot of normal distribution comes down to radioactive decay. Fascinating.

Random processes exhibit these distributions, not just decay

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

So radioactive decay seen as both systematic & random errors, is that right?.

The measurement would, or could, show systematic errors. I don’t think the process itself would

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Is all known matter radioactive, does everything lose heat & what does heat become?.

Radioactivity involves nuclear processes; the nucleus spontaneously goes to a lower energy state and closer to stability, usually by releasing a particle or particles (the exception is electron capture, where it absorbs an atomic electron)

Heat is energy transferred by an object owing to a temperature difference. It can be electromagnetic radiation but there’s also conduction and convection.

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

In saying that, would this mean that any measurement of radioactive matter, will always have an random error due to random radioactive decay among possible other things?.

Yes. Even though the trend of number of decays per unit time follows an exponential, the actual data will show deviations from that curve.

On 12/13/2025 at 2:41 PM, dimreepr said:

your getting things all mixed up, entropy and radiation, both always happen but both for different reason's; for instance a microwave, at nearly 5 inches long isn''t very micro...

Is random radiation decay not entropic then? Do you know the pattern that it decays at & knowing so can add that into your equations?

I don't mean to sound hung up on radiation decay. I'm interested in the results you get from your measurements. Their accuracy & tolerance I think.

Does that mean that most or all errors are accounted for & considered in any equation science makes?.

On 12/13/2025 at 5:03 PM, swansont said:

Yes. Even though the trend of number of decays per unit time follows an exponential, the actual data will show deviations from that curve.

Can you pinpoint every known, known error & then observe the 'true' measurement of things knowing that or does the +/- give you the cushion that caters for the known errors?

1 minute ago, Imagine Everything said:

Can you pinpoint every known, known error & then observe the 'true' measurement of things knowing that or does the +/- give you the cushion that caters for the known errors?

Even when you know the sources of error and quantify them, you don’t know if it’s + or -, so it can’t be subtracted out.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Even when you know the sources of error and quantify them, you don’t know if it’s + or -, so it can’t be subtracted out.

That sounds very very confusing. Thanks. It kind of helps.

17 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Does that mean that most or all errors are accounted for & considered in any equation science makes?.

It is important to distinguish between errors and variations.

Errors imply mistakes, variations do not.

For example a potter throws 20 pots for sale.

They will all be different but there may be no mistakes and they may all be saleable.

So no errors have been made but there have been 'natural' deviations.

Note swansont used the word deviations which has yet another meaning in this context.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

It is important to distinguish between errors and variations.

Errors imply mistakes, variations do not.

For example a potter throws 20 pots for sale.

They will all be different but there may be no mistakes and they may all be saleable.

So no errors have been made but there have been 'natural' deviations.

Note swansont used the word deviations which has yet another meaning in this context.

Thanks @studiot I think I understand what you mean.

Is random radioactive decay a variation?

Also, is there common variations & or deviations in all measurements?. Does/do one or more stand out often when calculating an equation?.

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Thanks @studiot I think I understand what you mean.

Is random radioactive decay a variation?

Also, is there common variations & or deviations in all measurements?. Does/do one or more stand out often when calculating an equation?.

Let's look at another example.

Imagine you went down to a pebble beach where you would find lots of rounded stones of similar sizes.

Obviously there is no correct or standard size for such pebbles - they are what they are.

So you collect a larger number of pebbles and measure their size (perhaps by the length of the maximum dimension).

If you record this length as a series of short intervals say 5mm - 6mm / 6mm - 7mm / 7mm - 8mm and so on and count the number of pebbles in your smaple that fall into each length interval you will find they plot out as swansont's bell curve.

This has a natural peak at the average size of the pebbles and tails off for smaller or larger sizes.

On British beaches the average size is likely to be around 50mm with most pebbles in the size range 30 - 70mm.

But remember that an average of 1mm and 99mm is also 50mm.

This variation is called natural variation and the difference between the size of a single pebble and this average is valled the deviation.

But no error has been made as this is an observation of a natural process with no design intent behind the average.

Now imagine a second experiment where you go to a brickworks producing standard 9 inch bricks.

If you take a load of these bricks and measure the actual length of each brick you will find exactly the same curve with (hopefully the average being 9 inches).

But many of the bricks will actually a few 32seconds (of an inch) longer or shorter than this and so 'in error'.

This clustering of results around an average is called 'central tendency' and much can be deduced from the way the curve actually presents itself.

On 12/15/2025 at 11:13 PM, studiot said:

So you collect a larger number of pebbles and measure their size (perhaps by the length of the maximum dimension).

If you record this length as a series of short intervals say 5mm - 6mm / 6mm - 7mm / 7mm - 8mm and so on and count the number of pebbles in your smaple that fall into each length interval you will find they plot out as swansont's bell curve.

This has a natural peak at the average size of the pebbles and tails off for smaller or larger sizes.

Thanks @studiot

Whats the maths equation for that please? It might be useful later on.

On 12/15/2025 at 11:13 PM, studiot said:

If you take a load of these bricks and measure the actual length of each brick you will find exactly the same curve with (hopefully the average being 9 inches).

But many of the bricks will actually a few 32seconds (of an inch) longer or shorter than this and so 'in error'.

This clustering of results around an average is called 'central tendency' and much can be deduced from the way the curve actually presents itself.

And the error could be or is decay/creation interaction?

Just a thought but this almost looks a bit like half a wavelength to me.

On 12/15/2025 at 11:13 PM, studiot said:

Is there an opposite bell curve too?