On 2/27/2026 at 2:05 PM, dimreepr said:

So what's your point?

If it's insight, then I'm a god, if it's coincidence, then I'm lucky???

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.

Edited April 6Apr 6 by Imagine Everything

8 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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.

I'd stay away from the word "vibrations" if I were you, though. It is far too redolent of woo, conjuring up visions of Deepak Chopra and sundry other charlatans.😁

A vibration requires something to be vibrating. It is meaningless to speak of a vibration unless you can say what is vibrating. It's a bit like the common mistake people make about energy. You can't have energy on its own: it has to be the energy of something. I think you are on better ground to think of waves as fundamental entities. A wave is something that oscillates with a frequency. Vibration of an object also has a frequency, so it is a bit similar, but a wave is different because it travels, whereas vibration is oscillating motion that occurs on the spot. But even waves have to be waves in something (in this context a field) that is doing the "waving". These are your excitations of the matter fields. At least, that is how physics currently models matter at a fundamental level.

Personally I think it is useful to keep in mind the idea of models of reality, as distinct from absolute claims about its true nature. Mathematical treatment of these matter fields and their excitations correctly predicts what we observe in experiments, so to that extent they seem to be real. But it has to be an open question to what extent they are real or are just a mathematical technique that works. In science, all "truth" is provisional, pending the arrival of a better model. (In chemistry it is common to have more than one model of the same thing. These are acknowledged to be only approximations and are chosen according to how suited they are to the problem at hand.)

On your point about information, there are physical properties that are conserved in the course of interactions, so these can I suppose be thought of as information that is carried over. But trying to see "vibration" as fundamental seems to me to be barking up the wrong tree: the only fruit of that tree is woo, I fear.🙂

14 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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...

It means you don't speak the language, so how do you know that you're not talking bulls...?

I love to imagine the universe and how it work's, but every time I have an epiphany, I post it on this site and the good folk's, who do speak the language, explain why I'm not quite the Einstein of my imagination.

It hurts but I got over it... ;)

On 4/7/2026 at 9:40 AM, exchemist said:

I'd stay away from the word "vibrations" if I were you, though. It is far too redolent of woo, conjuring up visions of Deepak Chopra and sundry other charlatans.😁

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.

On 4/7/2026 at 9:40 AM, exchemist said:

A vibration requires something to be vibrating. It is meaningless to speak of a vibration unless you can say what is vibrating.

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.

On 4/7/2026 at 9:40 AM, exchemist said:

I think you are on better ground to think of waves as fundamental entities. A wave is something that oscillates with a frequency. Vibration of an object also has a frequency, so it is a bit similar, but a wave is different because it travels, whereas vibration is oscillating motion that occurs on the spot. But even waves have to be waves in something (in this context a field) that is doing the "waving". These are your excitations of the matter fields. At least, that is how physics currently models matter at a fundamental level.

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?

On 4/7/2026 at 9:40 AM, exchemist said:

Personally I think it is useful to keep in mind the idea of models of reality, as distinct from absolute claims about its true nature. Mathematical treatment of these matter fields and their excitations correctly predicts what we observe in experiments, so to that extent they seem to be real. But it has to be an open question to what extent they are real or are just a mathematical technique that works. In science, all "truth" is provisional, pending the arrival of a better model. (In chemistry it is common to have more than one model of the same thing. These are acknowledged to be only approximations and are chosen according to how suited they are to the problem at hand.)

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?

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It means you don't speak the language, so how do you know that you're not talking bulls...?

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.

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I love to imagine the universe and how it work's, but every time I have an epiphany, I post it on this site and the good folk's, who do speak the language, explain why I'm not quite the Einstein of my imagination.

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...☹️

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It hurts but I got over it... ;)

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.

5 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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.

A wave is not energy. A wave has energy, among its various properties. Energy is just a property of a physical system, like momentum. A wave is created by a displacement of some medium from its equilibrium value, e.g. when you drop a stone into a pond and a wave spreads out. Water has been displaced, giving it extra energy and the displacement travels outward in the form of a wave.

A vibrating object can give rise to a wave if it is in contact with a medium which it is able to displace. That will absorb energy from the vibration and damp it. A vibrating tuning fork displaces the air it is in contact with, creating the sound waves that you hear. And this will damp out the vibration eventually.

23 hours ago, exchemist said:

A wave is not energy. A wave has energy, among its various properties. Energy is just a property of a physical system, like momentum. A wave is created by a displacement of some medium from its equilibrium value, e.g. when you drop a stone into a pond and a wave spreads out. Water has been displaced, giving it extra energy and the displacement travels outward in the form of a wave.

A vibrating object can give rise to a wave if it is in contact with a medium which it is able to displace. That will absorb energy from the vibration and damp it. A vibrating tuning fork displaces the air it is in contact with, creating the sound waves that you hear. And this will damp out the vibration eventually.

Thanks @exchemist

On 4/8/2026 at 1:16 PM, Imagine Everything said:

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

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.

6 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

A wave is not energy. A wave has energy, among its various properties. Energy is just a property of a physical system, like momentum

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?

Edited April 10Apr 10 by Imagine Everything

I have labeled the steps up to a point as I can go no further than that without your help please.

1. Observation

   The 'mysterious' connection between humans.

2. Hypothesis

   Quantum Information is being transferred & exchanged between each of us constantly.

3. 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

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

I have labeled the steps up to a point as I can go no further than that without your help please.

1. Observation

   The 'mysterious' connection between humans.

2. Hypothesis

   Quantum Information is being transferred & exchanged between each of us constantly.

3. 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

What do you mean by “quantum information”?

(I’ve an awful feeling you have been at the woo again😄)

35 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What do you mean by “quantum information”?

(I’ve an awful feeling you have been at the woo again😄)

@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.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by Imagine Everything

A particle's frequency corresponds to its energy, nothing more. To suggest anything more is to peddle woo.

An eigenstate is one of the possible states that result from an observation.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by KJW

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

@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.

Erm, that doesn't seem to mean very much, to be honest.

I really don't think it's a good idea to bandy around sciency words without thinking what they mean. If all protons are the same that means they do NOT have unique features, surely?

9 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

1. 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.

This doesn't provide clean data, as there are other factors not accounted for. E.g. extraneous behaviors, the tendency of people to fidget and just turn around from time to time, ordinary environmental cues, participant expectation bias, etc. Something like this experiment is one of Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" experiments, which has crashed on the rocky shores of poor methodology. You may want to look up Michael Shermer's analysis of the "Sense of being stared at," exp. methodology.

Edited April 12Apr 12 by TheVat

13 hours ago, exchemist said:

Erm, that doesn't seem to mean very much, to be honest.

I really don't think it's a good idea to bandy around sciency words without thinking what they mean. If all protons are the same that means they do NOT have unique features, surely?

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.

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

This doesn't provide clean data, as there are other factors not accounted for. E.g. extraneous behaviors, the tendency of people to fidget and just turn around from time to time, ordinary environmental cues, participant expectation bias, etc. Something like this experiment is one of Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" experiments, which has crashed on the rocky shores of poor methodology. You may want to look up Michael Shermer's analysis of the "Sense of being stared at," exp. methodology.

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.

Edited April 12Apr 12 by Imagine Everything

On 4/9/2026 at 8:01 PM, Imagine Everything said:

s it right to assume the energy in the wave is kinetic & does that mean kinetic energy is massless?

Energy is a property, as has already been mentioned. It doesn’t make sense to associate it with mass. It’s like asking if the color red is heavy.

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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.

The notion of particles being identical refers to their intrinsic properties - spin, mass, charge. All protons have the same values of each.

The energy (or frequency) it has is not an intrinsic property.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

Energy is a property, as has already been mentioned. It doesn’t make sense to associate it with mass. It’s like asking if the color red is heavy.

The notion of particles being identical refers to their intrinsic properties - spin, mass, charge. All protons have the same values of each.

The energy (or frequency) it has is not an intrinsic property.

Thanks @swansont That's both interesting & helpful.

On 4/12/2026 at 2:39 PM, swansont said:

The energy (or frequency) it has is not an intrinsic property.

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.

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Does this mean as far as you know, that the BB was created from energy alone?

Energy is a property of something, so there’s no situation where you have energy alone. It’s possible that the energy involved in the BB was zero (the energy we see that entities have being balanced by the negative gravitational potential energy)

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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.

No, not really. Not to me.

12 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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.

This seems to be a complete non sequitur. That energy is not an intrinsic property of an object is like pointing out that an object's velocity is not an intrinsic property. It is obvious that neither statement has any implications for the nature of the Big Bang, or (which is a different thing) the origin of the cosmos.

You seem to be using this as a pretext to insert into the thread, quite arbitrarily, some unrelated metaphysical idea. Why?

And please, please, do drop the crap about "frequency". It makes me suspect you are trying to work your way round to peddling quantum woo, Deepak Chopra - style. 🤪🤡🙃🫖

Edited April 24Apr 24 by exchemist

On 4/24/2026 at 12:21 AM, swansont said:

Energy is a property of something, so there’s no situation where you have energy alone. It’s possible that the energy involved in the BB was zero (the energy we see that entities have being balanced by the negative gravitational potential energy)

Thanks

On 4/24/2026 at 9:13 AM, exchemist said:

You seem to be using this as a pretext to insert into the thread, quite arbitrarily, some unrelated metaphysical idea. Why?

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.

On 4/24/2026 at 9:13 AM, exchemist said:

And please, please, do drop the crap about "frequency". It makes me suspect you are trying to work your way round to peddling quantum woo, Deepak Chopra - style. 🤪🤡🙃🫖

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.

On 4/25/2026 at 12:15 PM, Imagine Everything said:

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.

Why are you moving the goalposts?

If you want to learn then listen to the answers, or ask pertinent question's about the answer's; there is no short cut to smarter, however hard you try. 😉

On 4/25/2026 at 5:15 AM, Imagine Everything said:

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.

I'm having a hard time imagining looking for something it would be pointless trying to explain. Is this just a feeling you have?

On 4/26/2026 at 2:02 PM, dimreepr said:

Why are you moving the goalposts?

If you want to learn then listen to the answers, or ask pertinent question's about the answer's; there is no short cut to smarter, however hard you try. 😉

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 remnants

The 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?

Just now, Phi for All said:

I'm having a hard time imagining looking for something it would be pointless trying to explain. Is this just a feeling you have?

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.

18 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

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 remnants

The 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.

The fundamental problem that you and I have in trying to understand the physics of reality, is that we don't speak the language.

It doesn't matter how smart we are, we can't pass an IQ test in a different langauge...

I understand enough of physics that I can bamboozle my neighbour, but that's just pretend smart bc I don't really understand; it's like assuming that we're smarter than our grandparents bc we can use a smartphone and they only had a landline; my grandad was a telecom engineer that could rig up a phone from the scraps in his shed, could you build a smartphone?

On 4/27/2026 at 6:41 PM, Imagine Everything said:

However they do have a ‘release’ from the BH in the forms of Hawkin Radiation, Superradiance, Disks and jets.

All these things originate outside the event horizon.

On 4/27/2026 at 6:41 PM, Imagine Everything said:

The study shows that torsion generates a repulsive force that becomes important at extremely small scales

What they don’t mention is that adding torsion into our models of gravity has other consequences too - in particular, it modifies the Dirac equation, making it non-linear. We have not observed any of the associated effects that would arise from this.