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 Monday at 11:54 PM2 days 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.