By the way, I’m a technical publications writer/editor by trade, and I’ve often been told that I’m an excellent presenter (in my corporate training days). While reading your book (which I’ve really enjoyed) and watching your presentations, I’ve often thought that some editing could really help you tighten some things up and get your message across better. Given my interest in your work, I’d be willing to look at future publications or presentation scripts and give some input.

Email me if you’re interested. Best of luck in all you do!

]]>http://einsteinsintuition.com/what-is-qst/overview/

And to see the modern modeling of electrons see:

]]>I’ve heard some people saying that electrons are infinitely small points. Does that mean that they are one “space pixel” big?

Also, are matter and energy properties of every quantum point, or the manifestation of entirely different phases?

Bonus question: what are we calling these discrete points in space-time? Quantum dots?

]]>In response to your first question, I would say that Feynman is absolutely correct. The idea that space consists of a lattice of points arrayed in a cubic alignment cannot be correct, whether you take those lattice points to be rigidly fixed (which would correspond to a vacuum incapable of supporting any kind of distortions–from simple pulse phonons to vortices), or take it to mean that the lattice points are able to move about, as if they were connected by springs, but maintained their relative arrangements (which would correspond to a vacuum capable of supporting phonons, but incapable of supporting nonlinear distortions like vortices–matter particles). Either way, the universe we live in quite obviously is neither. Qst is a pilot wave theory that assumes fundamental fluid dynamics, having a base “lattice” that mixes in complex ways, much as the molecules of air do. This allows waves in the medium that represent both pulse phonons (bosons) and vortices (fermions).

In response to your second question, I don’t have a full answer here. To test a model we can check against the claims that are consequences of its construction. The more disconnected the observations are that can be explained by the model the more we gain confidence in its assumptions, but we cannot use the model itself to explain those assumptions, only to improve our confidence that those assumptions map reality well. All I can say at this point about why the universe should be made up of discrete pixels, is that it allows for self-similarity, that is, it allows the universe’s construction to be fractal based (each quantum is actually made up of sub-quanta, and so on, giving us a repeating pattern in construction to infinite resolution). This is the only kind of construction that doesn’t have a brute foundation that is safely outside of scientific questioning. As for your intuition about this pixilation and simulations, I can’t say there’s anything that bothers me about what you’re insinuating here, but I’ll reserve making any specific claim. 😉

In response to your third question, let me give you a Feynman quote (since you mentioned him).

“There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won’t recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the “hand of God” wrote that number, and “we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.” We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!”

― Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

I’m coming out with an essay on pilot wave theory in general soon, keep an eye out for it, I think you’ll like it. Meanwhile, I’ll email you the book now. I look forward to further feedback. Thanks for the clarity of your questions.

]]>1) In a video lecture by Feynman, he mentions the idea of QST (specifically, the idea that space consists of a lattice of points arrayed in cubic alignment) and asserts that it can be dismissed fairly easily. What would you say to Feynman to get him to take your theory seriously?

2) As always, increased understanding leads to more questions. Assuming QST is the most accurate model for understanding spacetime, do you have any intuitions about “why” the universe should be made up of discrete ‘space-pixels’ (for lack of a better expression)? I’m hoping you mention the possibility of the ‘universe as simulation’ in your answer.

3) I think I understand the idea of zhe and “maximum curvature,” but I’m not able to find any sources outside this website that concur with your value for this constant. Can you point me in the direction of any independent corroboration?

And like all the others here, I would love a free pdf of your book if you have the inclination.

Thanks, and keep up the fascinating work!

]]>Like many of the others here I saw the TEDxBoulder video and ended up here very curious. I’m also an amateur when it comes to this stuff but it is striking how well your conception fits in my mind with what I [think I] understand of both particle physics and Bohmian mechanics.

I would love an opportunity to read your book.

Best,

Dan

]]>