The Metaphysics underneath Physics

What: Philosophy, Physics and Eleven Dimensions, a free lecture by Thad Roberts.

When: April 19th, (Monday) from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm (question and answer section may extend to 9:00 pm).

Where: University of Utah, Carolyn Tanner Irish Humanities Building, Room 109. Click here for a map.

On Monday, April 19th, 2010, the Quantum Space Theory Institute will be sponsoring a lecture by Thad Roberts to be held in the University of Utah’s Philosophy building (CTIHB) room 109. This lecture will be appreciated by attendees with all levels of expertise – physics does not need to be your strong point. Mr. Roberts will begin by reviewing the philosophical assumptions that have created the somewhat paradoxical paradigm of modern physics. He will then explore many of the questions that have gone unanswered within the field of physics and explain why this lack of answers may be due to a strict adherence to the foundational assumptions of that paradigm. Then Mr. Roberts will introduce the audience to an alternative set of assumptions about the geometry of Nature and show how to simultaneously visualize and comprehend eleven dimensions. (If you’ve ever found yourself curious about other dimensions, then the lecture will be one you won’t want to miss.) To conclude Mr. Roberts will demonstrate how the eleven-dimensional framework he describes automatically inscribes the effects that are found to be mysterious from the traditional paradigm. He will teach the audience how to see in eleven dimensions and how by doing so we become able to dictate the effects of dark energy, particle/wave duality, gravity, and so on. This new picture gives us access to what the insides of black holes look like, what caused the Big Bang, and why the constants of Nature are what they are. Regardless, whether or not this new geometry is an accurate map of Nature will be for you to decide. At the very least it will start a new conversation about the underlying structure of Nature and the metaphysical assumptions of those searching for that structure.

We invite you to join us for this revolution in thought.

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mcoates says:

    It was an interesting lecture even though I am not a Physics Whiz. It really got me thinking, especially the fallacy of taking current knowledge on a subject as absolute truth and an exploration of new ideas as almost blasphemous. Loved that idea! I mean, how did Einstein, who is so revered, get to where he was if it wasn’t for challenging the current beliefs. It’s funny, because a lot of Physicists knock religious belief and then set up almost their own religion by saying – “These truths can’t be challenged. To do so is heresy.”
    And I liked how Thad demonstrated the concept of explaining phenomena based on current knowledge and showed past beliefs based on what they knew and why that made perfect sense for them at the time. Then, instead of knocking the audience over the head with the comparison to modern day beliefs, just led us down a path where we made that connection ourselves.
    By the time I left the lecture, I felt that his theories were plausible and that there remain many
    “mysteries” that can be explained if we don’t hold to constraining beliefs.

  2. Thad Roberts says:

    A few people have asked me about the poem that was in one of the slides that started the lecture off. I wrote that poem and thought it would make a perfect dedication for my upcoming book ‘Einstein’s Intuition’. I’ll repost the poem here.

    To the first kiss.

    To standing on the precipice of the vast unknown;
    Where the sands of time dance in the winds of confusion,
    And the comforts of ignorance are left behind.

    To transcending the first of all illusions, trembling as you leap.

    To falling into the most feared chasm with a racing heart.

    To discovering your wings.

    To the way everything changes from a new perspective.

    – Thad Roberts

  3. N. says:

    Did anyone with a functioning critical mind go to this?

    • Geo says:

      Well, yes. I did and last time I checked, I had a functioning critical mind. Let me check again. Yup, my critical mind is still in there.

      • N. says:

        Somehow, I would like to hear from someone other than the creator of the web site. From the lack of responses, I’m guessing no one bothered to critically question the ideas proposed. Oh well! At least blindly following one charismatic character is in the tradition of Utah!

        Oh, I cannot wait for the blockbuster movie based on Thad’s escapades to hit theaters! I have not visited the movies in four years, and am saving up my next visit for something epic.

        • Geo says:

          OK. If you want to talk about the theory, let’s do so. You speak as though you have “issues” with the theory. What might those issues be? I’m more than happy to address your concerns or questions. While it is a tendency of those in Utah to follow a charismatic leader as you rightly point out, I’m more interested in some sort of constructive dialogue about QST and not Thad’s charisma–that will take care of itself.

        • Greg says:

          N, you asked if anyone of a critical mind has attended the QST lectures; So I have an answer for you. Many very well educated, critically thinking, and even internationally recognised scientists have attended lectures on QST and taken part in analysing its credibility, myself, humbly among those scientists.
          You need to look again at the crowd next time you attend such a lecture or colloquium and look for critical thinkers without your own biases such as to think all such people would jump so quickly to conclusions as yourself such as to think no critical thinkers would attend such a talk. Often you can find the critical thinkers wherever you go if you wish to find them, they are the ones critically thinking and not the ones whom immediately take sides, discrediting or worshipping anyone or anything, or jesting if anyone of a critical mind is present.

    • Keith says:

      Yup, I have a critical mind as well.

      Perhaps you should list specifically the aspects of the QST model you disagree with so that we all may benefit from your critical thinking abilities.

      Unless of course, in the Utah tradition, you are merely arguing with an emotional response rooted in fear of an idea that doesn’t fit with your self defining labels.

      Also, perhaps the reason no one commented on this page is because they’ve all contacted Thad through personal email, or conversation.

  4. Joanne says:

    So, “N,” I am assuming that by “critical” you actually mean objective and dispassionate as opposed to setting out to maliciously shoot holes in a set of suggestions that attempt to answer questions for which we currently have no answers. I am a Filipino-American who was born in Hawaii, grew up in Southern California, and has claimed residence in both Boston and Washington, DC. It is safe to assume that I am not following Utah “tradition” in any way, shape, or form. Though not a physicist or a philosopher, I am a scientist, and I attended the lecture out of a curiosity born out of the awareness that there are some things that happen that simply cannot be explained by current scientific methods. I was interested in seeing how Thad would go about answering some of those questions using Einstien’s theories as a platform from which to take his leap of faith instead of the currently accepted Newtonian system of ideas. Though somewhat elongated, he did set a very nice foundation for challenging the present views and ways of explaining the basic forces in our universe by demonstrating how people’s concepts of the universe and science itself changed as new things were discovered. Some paradigms were shattered while others were formed from some of those shards to develop new ways of thinking that would be able to accommodate the new observable and mathematically provable phenomena. From there, the presenter offered the audience a sampling of questions that Newtonian theory seems to fail to explain adequately. I didn’t get them all (yes, I took notes!), but I believe some of them were “Why is the speed of light constant in all reference frames, why does Mercury have a perthelian precess, and how does gravity pull things together?” These questions should be answered by the Four Forces which ought to be derived by geometry but, in fact, aren’t – at least not in the linear Newtonian sense. Again, not a physicist or an astronomer past the point that I can identify a few constellations, but I found it fascinating that such things had not been answered yet! Then Thad introduced Einstein’s portrayal of the universe which essentially threw out the z-axis and replaced it with the idea of curvature within space. This idea seemed quite plausible to me simply due to the fact that one rarely finds straight lines in nature – there is usually a curve or a convergence point somewhere. But the concept of a curve within space does give the framework for a space and time “density.” So much for time being a universal invariant. This new geometry does give rise to new definitions of time and gravity, but it also gave Thad his basis for his supersymmetric dimensions. Honestly, I haven’t had the opportunity to fully process the notes taken from that lecture yet, and all I’ve written so far was pretty much from memory – sorry, Thad, if I completely butchered everything – but the fact that all of that stuff managed to wedge itself into a compartment of my brain that could recall it says something about the material, doesn’t it? This isn’t about fully explaining absolutely everything in the universe all in one fell swoop. This is more about getting people interested in a topic in which questions either aren’t being asked, or answers aren’t being sought. If you think this isn’t the answer, try scrapping both the Newtonian and Einstein models and come up with something new. Hey, if some guy in Cambridge could come up with a revolutionary mathematical language that could encompass and explain his theories (calculus) a hundred years ago, you can too! People would hate you (just ask anyone who’s taken calculus), but you would change the world. Overall, the lecture was well-planned, but just a tad too long. Perhaps cutting it down into a series of lectures would have helped.

    • 100 years ago? Cmon. Also, I don’t think people were hating Newton for giving a logical, proof driven way to mathematically predict a bunch of physical phenomena.

      • Geo says:

        Freddie, yes she got the date a little wrong… I think the people she speaks of are students of mathematics that are having to learn the calculus. Actually, Newton was reviled by some in his time, but mainly because he was not a very gentlemanly to his competitors.

        • My point being, he wasn’t hated for showing people how to solve physics problems correctly. Also, his competitors came to the same conclusions that he did, typically in a more accessible way, e.g. Leibnitz’s formulation is the typical method taught in high schools and colleges.

          • Geo says:

            I should have said contemporaries rather than competitors. Newton wasn’t a nice guy. He was not beyond burning down someone’s shop that he didn’t like. He also new virtually nothing of Leibniz’s efforts and probably would have sent off a hit-man if he had. He was a great man simply because of the intuitive leaps his simple observations of Nature allowed him. Great men are often not great people though. That was my point as far as that goes.


    • Geo says:

      Thank you for your thoughtful comments Joanne.

  5. Zaidi Ademeit says:

    Bonini’s Paradox says that models or simulations that explain the workings of complex systems are seemingly impossible to construct: As a model of a complex system becomes more complete, it becomes less understandable; for it to be more understandable it must be less complete and therefore less accurate. When the model becomes accurate, it is just as difficult to understand as the real-world processes it represents.

    • Geo says:

      That is a very interesting point. As I think about complex system modeling or simulation (which I do from time to time–I need to get out more), I like to think of the universe as the computer that runs the simulation that we call “reality”, that is to say, the only accurate model of a system is at least as complex as the thing being modeled. Similarly, weather models tend to kind of fall flat because they are not complex enough, as their accuracy approaches a theoretical perfection, they must become as intricate and intractable as the weather they are trying to model. I suppose the trick is to somehow get at the higher level behavior of a complex system, but again, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to distill systems down (or up) even though the underlying components may be quite simple… myriads of simple components can produce fantastically dynamic and incomprehensible behaviors. I will have to look into the paradox you mentioned as it seems to capture the things I have always thought about this sort of thing. Thanks for the comment.

  6. Roger says:

    Thad Roberts is a joke! Seriously, just because someone makes up a bunch of crap and publishes it does not make it true, or even reasonable in this case. The touts being a private pilot and a SCUBA diver as these “huge accomplishments”. Big deal, I fly planes and SCUBA dive too, and trust me…I’m no genius!!!! He’s little more than a common thief you got caught trying to sell stolen moon rocks on eBay! How “intelligent” could he be? Really?? He is little more than a guy who had the world in his grasp and just pissed it away because he is a moron. His Mormon family “dis-owned” him after his CRIMINAL acts. He obviously has no moral compass to determine right from wrong as his action have revealed. When he was in the Lake County jail in Florida awaiting federal prosecution, he befriended two guys who were both convicted of child molestation…( public record)…so is this what “out of the box thinkers” do? He can never be more than a private pilot because he’s a convict. So he hypes it up by saying he has a “high performance pilots license”. That just means he can fly a cesura with retractable landing gear and a adjustable propeller…certainly not “Rocket Science”…Charles Manson was an out of the box thinker too. Maybe he should give lectures on how gravity has kept him in prison! OMG! Thad discovered a Dinosaur tooth once! Wow, so did my 8 year old son…while he was kicking rocks atoned the desert. Thad Roberts is a phony and just trying to make his way in a scientific community that has rejected him.

    • Geo says:

      Wow… Let me ask you one question Roger. Have you actually looked into Thad’s theory at all? If so, what is your criticism of it? If not, and you just want to bash Thad, over and over and over and over again, I’d ask you to go someplace else to do so.

    • Geo says:

      All right, I wasn’t going to do this, but I changed my mind. Thad’s a big boy and can defend himself, but I feel I must address your personal attack on him. Let’s just look through your comment piece by piece:

      — Thad is a joke…

      Well put, well stated. You won’t be winning the Pulitzer any time soon.

      — …just because someone makes up a bunch of crap…does not make it true, or even reasonable in this case.

      How exactly is it unreasonable? Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, et al. just made up a bunch of unreasonable crap too.

      — The [sic] touts being a private pilot and a SCUBA diver as these [sic] “huge accomplishments”…

      Thad never said they are huge accomplishments, he said they are “things done”. Personally, I think they are huge accomplishments, though the fact that you have done both of them diminishes them forever in my mind. Furthermore, he holds the advanced PADI certificate, a NITROS certificate and a Rescue Diver certificate. Do you? Also I get that you are not a genius!!!! There is no need to state the obvious.

      — He’s little more than a common theif…

      Hmmm, he didn’t just knock over a liquor store. Without breaking NDAs, let’s just say there is more interest in his story than one would expect if his crime was common. He did not try to sell them on eBay, he tried to sell them to an international mineral and meteorite dealer. Get your facts straight.

      — He is little more than a guy who had the world in his grasp…

      If his heist had been successful, which it almost was, history (and you too probably) would have a very different take on things. Fate does not always favor the bold however.

      — His Mormon family “dis-owned” [sic] him…

      Good riddance to bad rubbish. That was their failure, not his. They rejected him long before he took the moon rocks, by the way.

      — no moral compass…

      Perhaps, but, as the Christian mythology states, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (or something to that effect)…

      — he befriended two guys who were both convicted of child molestation…(public record)…

      Really? I’d love to see that public record please. There is no need to hold up the bogey man of the big, bad child molester.

      — he can never be more than a private pilot…

      That is just not true. Having a felony conviction does not preclude one from getting a commercial pilot’s license and actually making a living flying. You, as a fellow pilot, of course would know this.

      — So he hypes it up…

      There is no “hype” as you put it, he simply states his certificated level. Here, I’ll quote the “hype” for your convenience: “8. Earn High Performance Rating. – Out of Evanston WY, Exploring Flaming Gorge.” If that’s hype, then Thad definitely should not consider a job in advertising.

      — Charles Manson was an out of the box thinker too…

      Roger, you have a gift for hyperbole. I think it fair to say Charles Manson’s crimes and Thad’s crime were both different in kind and different in scale. You make a false analogy.

      — Maybe he should give lectures on how gravity has kept him in prison.

      Funny, really funny, I’ll have to remember that one.

      — Thad discovered a Dinosaur tooth once! Wow, so did my 8 year old son… while he was kicking rocks atoned [sic] the desert.

      I suspect you did not find that a big deal either. Was your son’s dinosaur tooth from a T-Rex? Probably not. Is your son’s tooth in the permanent collection of a museum? Probably not.

      — Thad Roberts is a phony and just trying to make his way in a scientific community that has rejected him….

      How is he a phony? I was unaware that the scientific community had rejected Thad. Actually, Thad is an active member of that very community and while everyone has not embraced his theory, the REAL criticisms have been both constructive and positive to the community as a whole which is much more than I can say for yours.

  7. David says:

    Well…I’m glad it was free! I agree with Roger. But Roger, get spell check would you?

    • Geo says:

      David, I’m guessing you and Roger are friends since you commented on Roger’s comment before it was even published… More precisely, 10 minutes after it was submitted and from the same IP address.

      If you have some sort of criticism of QST, please voice it. Both Thad and I would be more than happy to address your concerns.

    • Geo says:

      Might I suggest a grammar checker also?

  8. Mike says:

    After reviewing the available qst material, I’m rather nonplussed.

    The basic idea of “Thad’s” theory seems to be little different than existing theories of quantized spacetime and quantum geometry, that already have fairly well developed mathematical formalisms.

    So…I’m wondering what exactly Thad’s “theory of qst” is adding to the discussion and the science.

    My intent is not to attack, but the material presented on this website doesn’t yet have any mathematical rigor or framework supporting it, and seems to invoke ideas and concepts that seem “cool” for their own sake, rather than because they emerge from or motivated by a coherent mathematical framework (e.g., the fractal nature of spacetime).

    Most of the excerpted material provided on the book seem more metaphysics than physics–that is, it has more in common with, say, “The Dancing Wu Li Masters” than an actual text on physics theory.

    Don’t misunderstand, my point is not to be dismissive because you don’t present a mathematical formalism.

    My point is that these kinds of theories have already been proposed and developed, with mathematical formalisms (quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity, quantum geometry, string theory, etc….)–so, again, what does Thad’s theory add to the discussion?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      In short, I would say that what is being added is a focus on coming back to an intuitively accessible model of Nature. Quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity, quantum geometry, superstring theory etc., may give us mathematics to test things against, and in as much as they line up with our statistical measurements they allow us to have statistical predictability, but they do not give us any satisfactory answers to our metaphysical questions.

      You are correct to point out that qst has been mainly introduced from a metaphysical position. In my opinion, the philosophical questions that drive our science ought to be held above all else in our quest. This is metaphysics. Any discussion about the Nature of Nature is metaphysics. Since our goal is to end up with a map of reality, one that can convey to us why things are as they are, we necessarily do metaphysics.

      Of course, at this point, we do not have our full formalism, so we can not yet say whether or not the metaphysical answers that qst provides actually line up with how things are. Nevertheless, we are excited about the theory as it currently stands because it comes with a full set of metaphysical solutions.

      That being said, you are fully entitled to your critique. Thank you for your thoughts.

  9. PermReader says:

    I see the 2 different ways of quantum physics dewelopement: one – realistic and constructive – D Bohm`s trajectories,walking liquid drops with the quantum features,liquid aether models and so on.The quantum weirdness as the result of the complex systems interactions.The other way is the mathematical abstractions inventions like the string theories, the fruitless one.