Review of Einstein’s Intuition

Here is a book that actually builds on the millennium’s old questions
“what is nature” and even “what is at the border of physical and spiritual”.
In a very accessible way, Thad shows us how to think of the universe on a level that blows away what we learn in school. Herein lies the very line of questioning that is needed to push beyond the next layer of understanding, that which claims to be the impossible “catch all” conundrum. Best of all, you don’t have to throw out your faith to own these concepts — they simply exemplify the magnificence of everything we know.

Comments (85)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. D R Stofel says:

    I would love to have this publication.

  2. Paul says:

    I really love this book. I gives me answers to all my questions. I’m only at page 124. Thanks for your effort. Kind regards Paul

  3. Stephen Bliss says:

    I would sure enjoy getting a copy of this publication

    Best Regards,


  4. Tommy Wa says:

    I too would surely enjoy a copy of this publication, if you would be so kind, Mr. Roberts.

  5. Marc Geddes says:

    I skimmed the free stuff on your website Thad, you sound like a really smart, interesting guy!

    I would say that the idea of spacetime as a superfluid is a definite possibility, but its still only speculation at the moment.

    The idea that spacetime is quantized (i.e. that there are minimum units of space and time) is *not* actually implied by quantum mechanics as it stands at the moment – it is only speculation. So current science, does *not* in fact say that there are minimum units of space and time. That’s only speculation. I would like to know what evidence you think there is to support the notion.

    You say you’re looking for a geometrical basis for physics, and I totally agree with you there – like you, I think physics is geometry, which seems like the key Einsteinian insight!

    Trouble is, the quantized space and time idea seems to undermine geometry. Geometry is based on a continuum, and if you want to say that there are minimum units of space and time, you are in effect, ‘breaking geometry’, because there’s no longer a continuum, and spacetime could only then be an emergent property arising from some other more fundamental entities – so how could geometry still be basis for physics? I think you should be very cautious of the quantized space and time idea !

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I list some of the standard arguments that lead many scientists to suggest that spacetime is quantized in Chapter 4. You’ve made a wonderful insight here. Let me guide it slightly. If we go along with your assertion that geometry is based on a continuum, then positing minimum units of space and time “break geometry” only if you attribute fundamental geometry to spacetime. If spacetime is an emergent property, just as we are claiming for quantum mechanics, then the fundamental geometry we are searching for should describe the level of reality from which it emerges. That is, the geometrical basis for physics (Einstein’s sought after goal) might be a description that applies to a resolution of reality that goes deeper than spacetime itself, deeper than quantum mechanics or general relativity. If it does, then quantum mechanics, general relativity, and spacetime itself are emergent consequences of that deeper geometry.

  6. Tomasz says:


    I’ve seen Your TEDx Talk and the idae seems interesting. Is there any way I could read Your book?

    Thanks in advance and have a great day!

  7. Jonathan says:

    My question is simply…why are eleven dimensions necessary? Could we not just say that there is an equivalence between 4 dimensional curvature and three dimensional density? I would love a copy of the book to dive further into this. If we were to set up a 3 dimensional geometry of space with density and then allow light to travel through would it not behave the same as a 4 dimensional curvature with time dilation and redshifts?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Good question. First off, assuming I understood you correctly, I want to point out that what general relativity does is introduce a tensor on top of four-dimensional spacetime, changing our expression of its geometry in relation to that tensor. This works perfectly, at least mathematically, but it sacrifices a bit of ontological clarity. So a short answer to your question is that if your aim is to reproduce the effects of gravity, but you don’t care so much about really understanding what is going on, then a tensor method like this is more than adequate for the job. You run into troubles, however, when you try to use that same method to explain quantum mechanical effects. I cannot tell you that eleven dimensions are necessary, nor can I (as a scientist) claim that this model is absolutely correct. What I can say is that the geometry of eleven dimensions that is required by the quantization of the vacuum paints a clear and accurate picture, detailing the effects of general relativity and quantum mechanics simultaneously. I explore this issue throughout the book. I’d love to get your feedback on it. Sending you the book now.

  8. Jonatanson says:

    I have also seen your TED presentation what brought me here.
    I would gladly read about this theory in your book.


  9. Doug says:

    I found your theory fascinating, may I also receive a copy.

  10. Giray says:

    Hi, i am very interested in your book, and have some quick questions without having a through view of your website, what about the big bang? And also about the future of the universe? Thanks!

  11. phillip says:

    would love your book. thanks.

  12. Richard says:

    Just watch your TED presentation. It makes so much sense, and really resounds with me. I’d appreciate your sending me the link to your book to read more. I’m particularly interested in your version of the Big Bang which M theory suggests was just 2 branes colliding.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Richard,
      Much has progressed since the TED talk and there is much more to come ;-). I’m sending you the book now. Chapter 27 covers the Big Bang, but you may need to read the chapters prior to that to get everything out of it, as the model that explanation relies on is developed in detail throughout. If you have any suggestions for how the book might be improved as you read, please send them to me.

  13. Gerard Zonus says:

    Hi Thad
    Great Ted’s talk, simple and powerful ideas which resonate.
    Just a question, why 3 dimension for the space quantum, why not just 1 which will give 5 dimensions total. That reminds of Kaluza Klein theory which puzzled Einstein for many years.
    Please send me your book, I’ll read it with great interest.
    Yhank you

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Gerard,
      I’ve sent the book to your email. You’ll find a much more in depth response to your question in the book, but to initiate a reply I will say… the number of dimensions is set by the quantization of space, and that quantization cannot lead to any absurdities like zero sized points. Quantizing the vacuum one time, means resolving it into a fluid composed of quanta, and then dynamically describing the behavior and properties of that fluid. Doing this gives us metaphysical access to what was previously mysterious: the gravitational field maps to density gradients in the fluid, the electric field maps to divergence in the fluid flow, and the magnetic field maps to curl in the fluid. Twisting sonons, like smoke rings manifest properties that map to what we call fundamental mass particles, and the gaps between the quanta inscribe what maps to a weak charge throughout the medium. It also encodes the constants of Nature, setting them geometrically. This is a simple and beautiful picture of Nature, but at this level it is also inherently incapable of incorporating a few parameters, like the dynamics that led to the big bang. To resolve those dynamics we must increase our resolution, or expansion of our description. Both directions are options, as they turn out to be reflective. For example, increasing resolution we find that the quanta of space are ultimately composed of subquanta, and the rules that govern the inner workings of the quanta are symmetric to the rules that govern the collective of quanta we call the vacuum. At this level we are framing a 30-dimensional representation. To capture the inner structure of those subquanta we can increase our resolution again, moving to an 85-dimensional representation. In short, the answer to your question is that if we only included one new dimension, we would mathematically have a five-dimensional construction, but we wouldn’t have an intuitive model of those 5 dimensions. Also, Kaluza-Klein theory does not extend well to explain the constants of Nature, or give us ontological purchase on the nature of reality. It is an interesting theory, with significant value, but it doesn’t offer us a full picture or explanation of what we are trying to understand. Hope that helps. I suspect that the answer you are after will be clear by the end of Chapter 11. Please send your feedback.

  14. Snehan Kekre says:

    I love that you, Sir, are infused with the spirit of adventure. You seem to enjoy life and beauty, as well as make sense of it at the fundamental level. I’m a first year undergraduate student(BSc in Physics and Math) wanting to understand the idea of quantized space. I had written to Prof.Julian Barbour two years ago about his amazing theory of the Universe being a string of snapshots following a linear time dependency. He replied and hoped that many more would work along those lines. I’m really inspired by your work.
    Year before last, in 12th grade, I re-created the oil-drop experiment at home using baby oil, a styrofoam plate, my loud speaker and a tone generator. Using my camera and a bit of Java programming, I plotted the drop’s motion over time and concluded that the trajectory could be plotted as a statistical density fuction. With this in mind, I sent my findings to MIT as my application essay also adding that I had conducted the interference experiment and that this was proof enough that the system behaved quantum mechanically. Sadly, my grades did not reflect my keen passion and yearning to understand the beauty of Nature. I was rejected. Notwithstanding, I’ve spent this year learning the fundamentals from various books(mostly pdfs) and free journals such arXiv.
    Most days I revel in awe when I try to comprehend my own existence and my part in the Cosmic drama. To be honest, I cry at times because I fail to grasp this elusive but all pervasive thing that transcends comprehension. I sincerely hope that you will be able to guide me on my journey as a student of Physics and Life.
    I would be excited if you could email a copy of your book to my ID. Thank you,kindly.
    Your virtual student,
    Snehan. (@ssnehan)

  15. Joao Moreira says:

    Thad, still not convinced why to stop in 11 dimensions. But sure would like to read your book.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I think it is healthy to retain your skepticism. The goal isn’t to be convinced, the goal is to find insightful models that give us ontological access to Nature’s quirks. That said, the model we are working on here doesn’t “stop” at 11 dimensions. The next step in resolution resolves 11 dimensions, but the next after that resolves 30, then 85, then 248 and so on. This is due to the fractal structure we are assuming, and it is explained in detail in Chapter 11 in the book, which I’m emailing to you now.

  16. Joao Moreira says:

    Hi Thad,
    I’m still not convinced on the sistem of the eleventh dimensions but sure would like to read your book.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Don’t let anyone ever convince you. Stay skeptical and keep exploring. Even if you’re current set of beliefs were to be correct (an extremely unlikely proposal) you stand to gain a lot by always challenging them and exploring new possibilities. I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else. I’m simply facilitating a discussion about an approach worth exploring. The book is available in several formats. In a couple of weeks it will be available in black and white (for a much smaller printing fee).

  17. David Bayer says:

    I also enjoyed the Boulder Tedx talk. Please fionward a copy of the ebook if possible

    How are your eleven dimensions different from string theory? I assume there are differences as I did not hear much about that.

    The notion of spooky action at a distance seems to be included in your approach. Interesting

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I’m sending you the book now.
      There are several differences between this theory and string theory, but the most significant is that this model is completely ontologically accessible. It proposes a fractal structure to the geometry of space, explaining the effects of general relativity and quantum mechanics in terms of superfluid vacuum dynamics. This, removes all “spooky actions as a distance.” In other words, there are no spooky actions at a distances in this model – no forces. All force phenomena are geometrically explained. See Chapter 19 and 20. Also, quantum mechanics is deterministically modeled – as it is in Bohmian mechanics.

  18. Syed Majid says:

    Watched your ted talk good point to come out of 3d perceptional rut to get to new level and new dimension of understanding where deeper state of consciousness can be experienced. Would love to go through your book.

  19. Paul Harmon says:

    I’d like to get a copy of your book.

  20. Matt H says:

    Hey Thad, I just watched the TED clip and am very interested in reading your book. Thanks!

  21. Ben hulsbosch says:

    Just finished watching conversation one and would love to read the book! Absolutely amazing.
    Cheers, ben

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Ben,
      Thank you. There has been a lot of progress since those conversations were recorded. I think you’ll enjoy the book. Sending it via email.

  22. nicola stilo says:

    Hi Thad,

    I’m a musician but I have a particular deep interest in cosmology .
    I saw you at Ted’s Talk and your presentation was pure fascination to me!
    It is possible to have a copy of your book?

    all the best


  23. Keith Burchell says:

    Hi Thad. Your TED presentation was captivating and having an interest in your perspective I would appreciate a copy of the e-book if possible. If not I’ll just have to wait for the print run!

    Thanks for the clarity on complexity.


    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Keith,
      Thank you. I’ll have the figures and final edits done by publication in April. Until then, you can read the pre-print. Emailing you the link now.

  24. Don Myrick says:

    I’m not a trained scientist nor a mathematician, but I’m fascinated by your Ted Talk discussion on the mapping of higher dimensions. I’m greatly interested in the nature and origins of consciousness and wonder if might understand enough of your discussions that I might glean new insights from them. I would welcome the opportunity to read your work.

  25. Nick says:

    Hi Thad, I am interested in finding out more about this book if I may.


  26. Dan D says:

    I find your work fascinating and have followed it for some time waiting for a chance to read your book. I even attended a lecture at the U of U a couple years ago. I have many questions regarding the theory, but I’ll save most of those for another day after I get a chance to read your book. But what I am currently most interested in how your theory might relate to the rainbow gravity theory which seems to implicate that space and time does not exist below a certain increment, ie quantized.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Dan,
      I’m sending you the book now ;-). As I understand it rainbow gravity theory suggests to major departures from mainstream thought. 1 – that gravity affects difference wavelengths of light differently, and 2 – that there was no big bang. I haven’t thoroughly investigated rainbow gravity theory, but I can say this: as a quantized vacuum theory, qst does assert that some wavelengths of light are affected differently by gravity, but only as we approach scales in the metric that no longer allow clearly defined wavelengths to begin with. That is, this is only an effect that shows up as we approach the Planck energy. The theory also removes an ultimate first cause as an explanation of the universe (like rainbow gravity evidently does), but it does so in a unique way, explaining that the fractal structure of the vacuum encodes a natural self-similar pattern, with dynamics that explain the big bang, and the big bang before it and so on. It encodes an infinite regress, but an infinite regress that is directly inscribed by the geometry of space itself, and is therefore intuitively accessible at every level. I look forward to your feedback on the book. Let me know if anything in it is not clear.

  27. Michael Hawkins says:

    Hi Thad,
    Really enjoyed the TED talk and would love to read some more.

  28. Deyan Radulov says:

    This (TEDxBoulder) sounds really interesting! :) Would love to have a look at your book, if I may.
    Thank you!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Yes of course. Right at the deadline ;-). The book comes out next week. Emailing it to you now.

  29. Rob K says:

    Hi Thad,

    Stumbled onto your website and after reading the first chapter excerpt from your book, became interested in reading more (i.e. the entire book). If I may…could you please send me a copy to read.

    BTW, I agree with the Penrose quote regarding a subtle change in perspective to discover something which we have all missed. But I also believe a shift in perspective is what has gotten us to the current problem of needing a shift in perspective again. i.e. A return to an earlier, wholistic view of reality…that is, if I subscribed to time as inherently existing as something other than a measure of change.


  30. Lawrence Haddad says:

    Hi thad…finally a theory that actually makes sence and which ties in the spiritual world, whether you have deduced it or not ;). I would like to receive a copy of the book.

    Also, one question…everyone always says we would be destroyed by entering a black hole, and in a sence I can see how that would be true, but really all it is is our quantum units becoming part of the larger collective. I don’t see how that would effect conciousness- but instead introduce a greater state of conciousness. And if true, would mean that the “black hole” is actually concious of itself??? Interesting thought.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Einstein’s Intuition: Visualizing Nature in Eleven Dimensions was just pub­lished, avail­able through Lulu​.com in hard­cover full color interior. The softcover full color version will be avail­able soon through Amazon, and the iBook and audio­book will follow. I look forward to seeing how your thoughts maturate while reading about the rest of the model ;-).

  31. Lawrence Haddad says:

    Also, I’d like to know your thoughts on the Interstellar movie. Have you seen it?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I have seen it. The story line was entertaining and the script made an effort to explain some basic concepts of relativity, but it seriously represented much of the science. If it hadn’t been advertised as scientifically accurate I would have been able to suspend my disbelief more thoroughly and enjoy it more. What did you think of it?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I have seen it. Whenever hollywood deviates from real science I find myself a little disappointed. The standard reason they give is that they are using their creative license to make the story more entertaining, but this tells me that they know very little of science. The most interesting, wondrous human stories are all wrapped up in honest scientific investigations. Nature has so many wonders for us to explore, so many mysteries for us to resolve, and it has a character that is more intriguing than the magic of Harry Potter. This film made an effort to explore the basics of general relativity, but it could have gone much further. I look forward to seeing a film in the future that explores the eleven-dimensional character of the vacuum in a way that reveals the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity, and gives us intuitive access to those phenomena. ;-).

  32. Danny kim says:

    I would love to take a look at your book.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      The book is now available via Lulu.com (hardcover full color), Amazon.com (softcover full color), or through iTunes (iBook). You’ll find links to each here.


      If you’d like a signed copy please let me know. If you cannot afford the $14.99 at this time (for the iBook) send me another message and let me know.

  33. Daniel Backlas says:

    Brilliance with the abiilty to explain to any listener. Could shake our species. Please a copy!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Thanks Daniel! 😉

      The book is now available via Lulu.com (hardcover full color), Amazon.com (softcover full color), or through iTunes (iBook). You’ll find links to each here.


      If you’d like a signed copy please let me know. If you cannot afford the $14.99 at this time (for the iBook) send me another message and let me know.

  34. Leo says:

    can you please send me the link as well?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Leo,

      The book is now available via Lulu.com (hardcover full color), Amazon.com (softcover full color), or through iTunes (iBook). You’ll find links to each here.


      If you’d like a signed copy please let me know. If you cannot afford the $14.99 at this time (for the iBook) send me another message and let me know.

  35. Forrest coughlin says:

    I just saw you Ted talk and was wondering if I could get somemore I formation on this theoretical model thanks

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Forrest,

      The book is now available via Lulu.com (hardcover full color), Amazon.com (softcover full color), or through iTunes (iBook). You’ll find links to each here.


      If you’d like a signed copy please let me know. If you cannot afford the $14.99 at this time (for the iBook) send me another message and let me know.

  36. Forrest coughlin says:

    I just saw your Ted talk and I like how elegant and intuitive your theory is. I would like to learn more about it if at all possible.Also i would like to know how you went about getting this idea and how some of these equations that currently describe our observations fall out of quantum space theory.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Forrest,

      My route to this idea grew mostly out of a dissatisfaction with orthodox quantum theory, which posits, as you probably know, an incoherent picture of the universe. This led me to Bohmian mechanics, which is a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics and has a lot going for it. Also, I have been metaphysically dissatisfied with our use of fields, superimposing them on top of our background space in order to account for forces, instead of following Einstein’s lead and restructuring the geometry of space itself such that it accounts for those effects naturally. Combining both efforts has been the main driving motivation of this idea. I’d love to hear what you think of it as you read the book.

  37. Lucus says:

    Hello Thad. I’ve watched a lot of your videos quite a while ago and didn’t realize that you had released your book earlier this year! I love how I can get insight on physics in a visual way with only my Bachelor’s level physics knowledge. The paperback is selling on Amazon for over $70. Is there a way I can get the book for $20-30 dollars?

  38. Andrej Rokavec says:

    I watched all of the videos and saw the great potential if theory turns out to be true. Bringing intuition back to physics could greatly accelerate progress. I was wondering did you already took a stab at explaining delayed choice quantum eraser ?

    My main interest is at faster than light communications so this is why I’m fixated on entanglement. I saw in the preview of book on amazon page 219 that piked my interest. Can I kindly ask you for pdf I much rather donate to you than deal with iTunes or wait 5-8 days for book to arrive.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      The iBook is much better than the pdf as it contains animations. If you cannot afford the iBook send me an email (ei at EinsteinsIntuition.com) and I’ll send you a promo code for a copy of the iBook. If you don’t have access to iBooks let me know and we will make something work.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Yes of course. To understand the quantum eraser experiment from the superfluid vacuum perspective read chapters 12 and 13. I recommend the iBook as you can download it immediately. If you cannot afford the iBook let me know and I’ll send you a promo code for a free copy. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as you read.

  39. David Nix says:

    Watched your TEDx talk 3 times now, and wanting more. Would you please shoot me a copy of the book?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi David,
      The book has been published. You can get the hard cover through Lulu, a soft cover through Amazon, or the iBook from the links on this page:


      If you cannot afford any of these versions let me know and I’ll send you a promo code for a free copy of the iBook. If you do not have access to iBooks let me know and we will work something out.

  40. Thad,
    Just noticed your last post. I have a PC, not a MAC, and so can’t read an iBook. Also, my budget is extremely limited. Would you be so kind as to send me a pdf of the book, as you had earlier, pre-publication, to other people?

  41. Peggy Gregory says:

    Hi Thad,
    I saw you on a TED Talk and would love to share your knowledge with my 2 sons…
    Would you please send me a copy of your book?
    Thank you!!
    Peggy :-)

    • Thad Roberts says:

      You can order the iBook, soft­cover or hard­cover through this site. If you cannot afford either of these options let me know and I can send you a promo code for a free iBook (which has very useful animations). If you cannot afford either option and are unable to use iBooks send me an email and I’ll get you a pdf copy.

Leave a Reply

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.