16

Mensa Lecture 2010

This is a rough video of a lecture given to the Salt Lake City Mensa group in 2010 at the main branch of the Salt Lake County Library. It outlines visualizing 11 dimensions and discusses some of the mysteries that are solved when space is quantized. The video quality is not as good as we had hoped, but the content and audience Q&A are instructive. We chose to publish it for that reason alone. The beginning and end of the video were unretrievable and there is a 5 minute gap 2/3rds of the way through. Runtime is approximately 41 minutes.

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Greg Yount says:

    I am not in MENSA, maybe could be. Regardless, i have had the experience late in age (58) to understanding little by little, but increasingly more and more about the very things Thad is discussing here. This and other recent revelations in science (physics) have brought me to the point where I am desperate to get involved in the discussion at any level because I am not in a profession or any relationship where my questions and insights are even understood.
    I would be sincerely and eternally(?) grateful for any communication or guidance by replys with email and/or phone contact or info. for finding such.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      You are more than welcome to be a part of the discussion. I sent a copy of the book to your email. I look forward to your questions and thoughts.
      – Thad

      • Jeffrey A. Leitz, FSA, CERA says:

        Thanks, I understand your explanation for quantized space and 11 dimensions (9 spatial+2 temporal). Would also like a copy of your book if possible, Thad, as I find it similar to my quantized financial equity immunization theory for eliminating market risk.

        Someone had a question regarding the xyz coordinate of a particular space quantum. If its xyz position is (3,3,3) will it always be so, or is that quantum going to relocate to a different xyz coordinate? if so is that random brownian or by what method?

        Thanks,
        Jeff

        • Thad Roberts says:

          Hi Jeff,
          If a quantum’s position can be labelled (3,3,3) compared to some chosen origin, this technically only holds for a single moment. The state of space changes and evolves from moment to moment, which means the quanta of the vacuum move about and mix, just like the molecules of air do. On macroscopic scales the averaged properties of that state may be smooth and appear continuous, but on microscopic scales it becomes more apparent. From a four-dimensional perspective the mixing of the quanta will appear related to brownian motion, but not exactly because four-dimensional perspectives are blind to the spacing of the quanta, they only reveal the relative arrangements. From an eleven-dimensional perspective the motions are deterministic, in the Bohmian trajectory sense.
          Sending you the book via email.

  2. Sidney Cox says:

    Mensa member with an interest in hyperdimention physics and the perversion of Maxwell’s mathematical equations by Heaviside and the experiments of DePalma (spinning ball).

  3. Lukasz Filipek says:

    I am not in MENSA either; however, these these topics are riveting and I would love to be able to see the mathematics behind it. Would it be possible to get a copy of the publication? The more I read… the more I get a feeling that I am in the wrong profession.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Yes of course. I’m also currently writing up an addition, deriving electromagnetism directly from the assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid. I intend to edit Chapter 20 to include this when I finish (in a couple of weeks). If you are interested in this please be in touch. I look forward to your future comments.

  4. Linus Lager says:

    Hello!
    I just watched your Ted talk and I find these ideas very interesting, and would also want to see some more math and theory. Would it be possible to get a copy of the book, it would be very apprieciated!

    /linus

  5. Marcus says:

    I recently stumbled upon your TEDx talk and I thought it was very interesting. I have been intrigued by questions like these since my first lecture in basic mechanics. When i read the comments to this video I saw that people asked for your book. Is it still possible to ask for it? Could I get a copy? I would love to read it.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Yes of course. It will come out in hard copy in just a few months, so if you have any comments or suggestions for improving it please let me know soon ;-). I’ll email it to you.

  6. Andrew Cutter says:

    Thad,

    Can you explain the correlation between string theory and consciousness? There seems to be an infinite pool of information that I interact with on occasion. Most of the time the extracted information is very innovative and foreign in the fact that I haven’t done research in the field it originated from. I know the typical response would be that the subconscious mind is at work, but I can’t stress enough that I have no prior exposure to the information to begin with.

    I also believe that this pool explains how various inventions and ideas are released to the world at similar times by people who had no interaction with each other during development.

    I can’t seem to understand at which dimension this information is obtained and think string theory could be the only capable tool to derive an answer. Do you think the shared information pool could be explained by quantum mechanics? If so, the transportation of information would need to jump from a higher dimension correct, maybe the 5th or higher? Either way, the ability to extract this information in this manner could be the answer to man’s ability to harness singularity with precision.

    Any material you have would be appreciated as string theory seems to be the explanation of everything. I just hope consciousness does not fall outside of the realm of everything. That would be truly mind blowing.

    Thanks,

    Andrew

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Like you, I don’t think consciousness is outside of the reach of explanation, but when seeking a true explanation for current mysteries we must also be willing to accept the truth when we find it. Consciousness may turn out to be something completely different than we “want” or hope it is. And the mysteries we pile in its corner may turn out to have no real connection. To address your first question, there is a lot of misinformation popularly dancing around in the public mind about string theory and consciousness. In short, string theory or M-theory doesn’t really say anything about consciousness. I think were that rumor is coming from is a pervasive misunderstanding of the available interpretations of quantum mechanics. People have come to believe that “quantum mechanics says” (and just in case anyone tries to quote me here, note that I am not agreeing with the popular claim) “that consciousness is responsible for state reduction or wave collapse in quantum mechanical measurements.” This is certainly not the case. There is no responsibility explained in quantum mechanics, nor is there any causal explanation for state reduction. The mystery of quantum mechanics is centrally what causes state vector reduction, how does it occur, and why? The topic of consciousness is not needed at all in that discussion. See the de Broglie Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics to explore this further. As for your projection that the fact that several people come up with similar ideas/inventions at the same time throughout the world, well this simply suggests that the cross pollination of ideas, where new ideas are born (or at least appear to be new ideas because of new combinations of old ideas) is something that is globally persuaded. If only we had something that shared a network of ideas around the world we would be able to guess what was responsible for that. ;-). I’m not trying to put out the flame of your excitement about exploring the mysteries around us, just trying to point out that those particular routes are heavily misguided by popular misunderstanding. To explore seriously fascinating mysteries, try falling down some wiki-holes about quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiment, dark energy, dark matter, etc. Consciousness is another huge one, if not the largest. But its a matter centered on complexity and hierarchical arrangements and so on. So first let’s try to work out the mysteries that are easier to define, then let’s take what we learn to untangle the questions of consciousness, to separate the real questions from the ones misguided from centuries of wishful thinking and projections of self importance.