Home » ”Einstein’s Intuition” » The Book is Ready
“Einstein’s Intuition” is fully revised. Illustration work begins. The book is coming along nicely. It is now ready for a publisher! (This is one of the illustrations from the book a so-called rubber sheet diagram.)
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more great content just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
I find your book interesting and would like to buy an early version, if the illustrated version is not quite ready.
It seems to me there are two types of physicists,…
1/ those who will only deal and trust in math equations, and
2/ those who want to intuitively visualize, but still, if begrudgingly, acknowledge the value in the math solutions.
Einstein was a of type (2), but his colleges seemed type (1) [reference from Walter Isaacson’s biography on Einstein]
I never did find that old membrane bending diagram totally satisfying, but I plan to resume my studies that I last looked at high school and shortly after.
I am emailing you a pre-print copy now. If you desire to contribute to this research, either with your time or money, your contribution is very welcome. Every researcher has the potential to see things from a different perspective. If you want to make a financial contribution to this work, there is a donate button on the right side of the main page. A new video series is underway. If you have suggestions for that series please send them to us.
I watched your TED presentation and am excited to read your book – but as it seems it´s not ready yet. Would you be willing to send me a pre-print copy, too?
I´d be happy to give you feedback and see, how I could further help.
I have sent it to you vie email ;-). We are looking forward to your feedback.
Keep up the great work! You have a tremendous potential to inspire the younger generations (and even the old cogs like myself). I would have been far more nervous that you but I have confidence that over time you will be able to breath and talk at the same time with practice . The brain is amazingly plastic and can adapt to even the most daunting of things beyond advanced quantum string theory like delving into a Ted talk before in millions of supporters and critics ! I have caught on the the trend of fishing for an electron encoded copy of your book so her be my hand digitally outstretched – The topic interests me as I feel I may have experienced my own taste (mental or otherwise – I may never know in this life) of the reverberations through part of the mystery of those eleven dimensions that we mortal call spirituality – shortly after the sudden passing of our dear baby daughter some 18 years ago nearly to the day – seems like just yesterday, or during a hike through the grand canyon – or during many a summer night gazing up at the quiet majesty below a local spiral arm of our mother universe! Life is so full of wonder and people like you encourage the mind to believe it is so! Thank you for a wonderful TED talk.
Hi, I stocked on a TED video in Youtube where you present the 11th Dim presentation. I watched it several times (even downloaded it). I also remembered on a Holland Physicist, named Erik Verlinde and his entropic Gravity theory.So I added yours and his to a single picture of the nature and it simply match, although “normal” physicists deny to accept obvious facts and the simplicity of nature, described by simple tools. Could I have also a copy of the book. Please, use my mail to contact me. Best Regards.
Actually there are many theories now using 11 dimensions. One of the most promising unification theories, the M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#M-theory), uses 11 dimension for space time lattice.
I dunno if Thad’s theory is sound (I’m not a physic, just an amateur) but it makes sense for sure. I really would like some academic big head would take time to analyze it more in detail.
This is a wonderfull breakthrough. I came across relativity, quantum physics and string theory in 1990 and have been trying to make sense of it all since that time. Thanks Thad. I have a question. Leonard Susskind gives details of scalar field inflation of the very early universe in his lecture “cosmology 8” on you tube. The “known” part of the energy curve for this field looks like a plateau followed by a cliff falling down. As superfluids are inherently fractal, could this plateau and cliff represent the passage from one level of the fractal to another? The amount of inflation is known to be at least 10^59 but could be more. How much inflation would you expect from one fractal level to another. My own intuition would lead me to suggest something like 10^250.
Thanks for any reply. I’m a complete amateur in this field but dig it to bits (or quanta).
The assumption that the vacuum is composed of interacting quanta, which are in turn composed of interacting subquanta and so leads us to a unique claim about the inflationary period. When two universes/quanta collide their internal parts are geometrically rearranged, compressing them together. This cuts off the time signature inside each respectively. During rebound (the period internally referred to as inflation) the system goes from recognizing one unique location (independently and separately evolving quanta of space) to many. So, as you hinted, the fractal structure of space does play a role in the magnitude of inflation, at least in as much as it characterized the difference between the scale of the quanta and the subquanta. Nevertheless, in my work I haven’t discovered a precise way to determine that exact scale difference, so the question of how many subquanta make up a quanta, or identically how many quanta make up a universe, has not been answered yet. Given the known size of the visible universe the ratio has a minimum value of 10^183 (the number of quanta that fit into a volume whose radius is equal to 13.7 billion light years). I’ll email you the book and you can read that section and then tell me if you can think of ways to further restrict its projection.
This subject fascinates me. I am a physical therapist, but the concepts in your TED talk has a lot of information in it that could also be applied to the human body. I liken Dark Matter to the myofascia of the human body. If you removed the myofasical matter of a human, it would look like a hologram of a human. Basically it is the thing that allows for the fluid motion of the body.
I would like to delve a little more into your science and see if I can come up with some interesting theories of my own and apply it to my profession. I am sure there will be plenty of things that will go over my head, but at the same time, it will get my brain working in a way that it has not done before. Thank you for your work, and sharing it.
Can’t say I know anything about that field, but I’m happy to share. Let me know what ideas it inspires 😉 Sending to your email.
Holy crap! I have a bachelor’s degree in math, and just came across the Ted talk tonight completely by accident, a very welcome accident.
I, personally, think this theory is a lot simpler than string theory. I haven’t delved into much of it, but as a concept string theory is way too complex. It seems one has to be a grad student to understand string theory. This theory not so much. It seems a lot simpler than most theories out there. I would love to delve into this more and see where this theory takes mankind.
Love your enthusiasm ;-). Science needs to be rejuvenated with this kind of courage and philosophical passion, so welcome to the journey! Honest questions should guide the scientific endeavor, and questions always have philosophical roots (metaphysical, ontological, and/or epistemological). I invite anyone that has ever had a science teacher respond to one of their questions with scorn or intimidation (because they didn’t have the answer), or has ever watched a scientist hide behind fancy jargon to avoid the honest “I don’t know”, to return to that honest exploration, to read my book, and to leverage it as a springboard in their own journey. I don’t know, nor could I ever be completely convinced, that the model I’m working on is correct. What I do know is that it offers direct and clear answers to the questions that are posed by quantum mechanics and general relativity – it offers us ontological purchase into the structure of reality.
Modern philosophy-bashers (Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc.) may superficially claim that “philosophy is dead”, and then continue to do philosophy (usually poorly), but the truth is that if philosophy dies, so does science. Each of these scientists has a philosophy (usually an ill-digested mixture of Popper and Kuhn), but they apparently haven’t explored the roots of their assumptions enough to discover that the philosophy they cling to has notable limitations.
This lack of philosophical understanding is complicated by a false undertow that has led people to believe that “the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only option”. In the classroom today, physicists are taught the “standard” interpretation of quantum mechanics and are never exposed to the other options. If they start asking philosophical questions about how quantum mechanics works, or why things are that way, they are told to “shut up and calculate”. This response is appalling. Questions are not a sideline of science, they are the science. We make experiments to test theories, and theories explicitly prod our questions about the world.
The standard interpretation holds as a fundamental tenant that the world cannot be understood (that the state vector is a fundamental descriptor and no deeper-level description is beneath it). Teaching physicists to embrace this interpretation (which should technically be called a non-interpretation since it forbids making any interpretation of what is going on), is teaching them that their philosophical questions are forbidden. It is sending the message that philosophy is dead. The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is flat-out an ontological monstrosity. It is anti-philosophy and anti-science.
Sure the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics makes predictions that are phenomenally accurate in the statistical sense, but it also actively purports that those predictions forbid asking why. We would never stand for this in any other case. For example, if I were to say that the odds of rolling a dice and getting a three is one in six. You might agree that this is an accurate probabilistic claim and agree with the math I show you, but you could also ask why. If I were to come back and say to you, “no, there is no why, the dice is just an object that is in a probabilistic state of equally spread out possibilities until I roll it, and there is no explanation for how or why this probability collapses to one of the options when I roll it, and you must accept this as the case and no longer ask why,” well you might think this crazy, especially because there is a better way of explaining this. This is the sort of claim being made by the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Teaching this interpretation is one thing, but systematically failing to mention that there are better explanations for the exact same math (Bohm’s interpretation for example) is dishonest.
I think it is time to return to our honest questions – to explore a simpler explanation.
“If the ‘road to reality’ eventually reaches its goal, then in my view there would have to be a profoundly deep underlying simplicity about that end point.” – Roger Penrose
“All physical theories, their mathematical expressions notwithstanding, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them.” – Albert Einstein
I’m sending you the book via email. I’m publishing it in approximately 2 months, so if you have any feedback please let me know.
Email (required) (will not be published)
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.
Please input symbols from picture
Subscribe Via Email
Privacy guaranteed. We will not share your information.
This feature has not been activated yet.
iBook (with animations):
Black & White, Soft Back:
Full Color, Soft Back:
Full Color, Hard Back:
(Narrated by Jonathan Farkasofsky)