40

Conversations: Part Two

Conversations: Part Two, debuts. The second of six ‘conversations’ on quantum space theory (qst). In this episode, Thad Roberts delves into qst’s intuitive explanation for gravity, dark matter and dark energy. Runtime 30 minutes.

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jim says:

    My, My Thad.
    You have created quite the theory!

    I’m not an degree holding physicist, but I spend most of my free time (when I’m not working in electronics & audio engineering) reading material on these issues and trying to create a new model of space-time.
    If there’s a way that I could possibly show you the model I came up with, please let me know. I’d like to know your thoughts on it and I’m curious to know where I’m falling short in my understanding. I think you may find some of my ideas fit very well with yours and opens a few more possibilities into the fabric of space-time that may not be addressed yet.

    in addition, PLEASE post more content!
    this is the most promising theory I’ve ever heard of and I’m excited to see more.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Jim,

      Thank you. I’d love to discuss what you’ve come up with so far. We need many more people doing exactly what you are doing. The only way we are going to make great progress is if many people start having the courage to think outside the framework that is keeping them trenched into the same old same old. Respond here or send me an email to start our discussion. I can also send you a pre-print of the book, which goes into much greater detail about the implications of the geometry as it stands now.

      Thad

      • John says:

        Hi Thad and Jim,
        Well Well Well
        This is quite an interesting turn of events as I am just about to finish an MEng degree in Electronics and Electrical Engineering with plans to do a second degree in Audio engineering and music technology but the nature of reality and the reality of nature has always puzzled me and I have only just got the courage to begin opening my mind to start asking questions that seem to lead to that deeper understanding of the fabric of our universe. I would admit, although I have been aware of the theory of the existence of 11 dimensions in the universe for a while, I have never understood it. Being able to visualize it in the manner you have explained was sort of transcendental for me because It was like a relief to know I am not going crazy to think of nature a bit deeper than we have been told. After watching this, I was able to make firm connections with a lot of the hypothetical theories that I came up with about the reality of nature and the universe and my shock is that, my picture is very similar to the picture you painted with your model which I have to state is the most engrossing, most interesting, theory I have delved into and I would like to see what direction it heads to. To be honest given the opportunity I would like to help in moving it in that direction. Thanks a lot for helping me in my own personal spiritual enlightenment. Keep up the work people!

  2. Ryan says:

    Thad,

    This is an extraordinary theory. I’d like to see, or develop, some mathematical support for these phenomena as well.
    A few things that jumped out at me, if the universe is in fact cooling down, meaning less pressure, then over time, are we not experiencing less time?
    An analogy for this theory, similar to your Big Bang one, is a crystal ball. As the ball sits upon it’s pedestal one could claim the ball to be inanimate, and if nothing else changed (our space time) this ball would go on forever without ever changing. But as soon as someone tips over the pedestal the ball comes crashing down. If we slow down our perspective of time on the ball as it shatters, initially the bits and pieces would jump apart from one another. Then they would fly apart in all different directions until they hit the floor, at which point they would slow down and come to a stop, once again experiencing no more time.
    So what then, happens when our universe finishes cooling down…or undergoes a phase change?
    This theory has changed my perspective yet again. The simplicity of it is what captivates me the most. If one can imagine a rock to made up of billions of tiny molecules, why not do the same for the very fabric of space.

    Ryan

  3. bob sage says:

    Fascinating theory and I may be missing something but: What accounts for the higher density of quanta that under this theory surround a ball of matter? I understand the Earth, for example, being composed of aglomorated quanta, might be denser that other areas of space. But as soon as you exit the Earth’s atmostphere, there appears to be no reason why the surrounding space should be any denser than any other part of space. Yet the theory requires that the space surrounding matter is denser.

    The only thing I can think of that would account for this is an attraction between quanta. If quanta attracted each other, they might create volumes of higher density.

    Of course, then one would eventually need to explain what this attraction consisted of. If it’s like gravity then perhaps one would need to posit another level of quanta that cause gravity in the quanta of this theory. And on and on ad infinitum.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Bob,

      Thanks for the great ques­tion. Within this con­struc­tion, the reason that den­sity gra­di­ents are set up in regions of mass, and sur­rounding them, is that these regions of mass are stable eddies in the super­fluid metric. More for­mally we might call them small-amplitude col­lec­tive exci­ta­tions of the super­fluid metric. Because it is a super­fluid those eddies do not dis­si­pate, and the geo­metric dis­tor­tion they rep­re­sent is main­tained. This con­cept is not unique to qst. A larger amal­ga­ma­tion of the­o­ries, which can all be referred to as super­fluid vacuum theory, are con­sis­tent with this claim. If you’d like to see the math­e­mat­ical sound­ness of this pro­jec­tion, or read up on the gen­eral idea, the fol­lowing sites should give you a great start:

      General Introduction
      http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​u​p​e​r​f​l​u​i​d​_​v​a​c​uum

      More math inten­sive overview with the math
      http://​rel​a​tivity​.liv​in​gre​views​.org/​A​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​l​r​r​-​2​0​0​5​-​1​2​/​d​o​w​n​l​o​a​d​/​l​r​r​-​2​0​0​5​-​1​2​C​o​l​o​r​.​pdf

      The infi­nite regress you were wor­ried about is suf­fi­ciently avoided in these models. Nevertheless, the ques­tion remains – are any of the super­fluid vacuum models (including qst) cor­rect? Does Nature actu­ally man­i­fest the char­acter they attribute to it? Perhaps time will tell.
      Thanks for your insightful query.

      Thad

    • Marcel says:

      I think if you get the concept of the flat space time diagrams of old, you might understand the 3 dimensional display of Thad’s “aether / quanta”. We lie in a galaxy, that is a huge well of densitised space. Our little solar system is a well within a well within an even deeper well, so to speak.
      To locate a piece of “ultimately” flat space, you would have to move to a point that is a “finitely large” distance away from all the super clusters of galaxies.
      It may be that there is no longer a piece of flat space time, just ‘relatively’ flat ones.

      It’s so awesome to consider, confusing and grasp defying. BUT I love to try. Relativity means that even whilst we are flying through the universe at some immense speed, at a local point, we can still measure things like we are in a flat space-time.

      Outside of the planets immediate “gravity well” is the larger solar system gravity well, and outside that and outside that and outside that ad-infinitum.

      To the first part of the question:What accounts for the higher den­sity of quanta that under this theory sur­round a ball of matter? The matter lies in the space quanta, not the other way around. Space Time / Quanta is the “substance” in which all matter and energy is allowed to exist and has a chance to play. The STQ is inside every atom. If you had a single Hydrogen atom in completely empty space, {all pretend of course} then the STQ would be denser at the centre, inside the proton sack than it would be out where the electron “spun”. The distances between the nucleus and electron are so vast that the number of STQuanta that would fit in it is likely to be astronomical because STQ would be the size of Planck Length objects {10power-42} versus 10power-16 that is the atom realm.

  4. Thiago says:

    Hi Thad,

    This is a quite interesting theory, but I have some questions. First we know from (CMB) that the variation in temperature in the universe is in the order of 10^-5 k, which is quite homogeneous in Mpc scale. However, we know that places, where the temperature is slightly higher, are the same where we have the dark matter’s halos. How would you explain that? And in which temperature we have the space-time phase change?
    Another question is about how to prove if we really live in a quantized space-time (which I would love, if so)? Is that possible to measure (in lab) the space-time phase change with temperature? It leads me to think…temperature is connected with the distribution function (DF) of particles’ energy, for instance, in a gas. If in a quatized space-time the mechanism is the same, ie, the temperature is connected with those quantum space DF. I’m wondering what gives energy to it? By photons it would go against the nature of dark matter, which do not interact with electromagnetic waves. So, when I’m giving energy to a particle I’m also giving energy to the own space-time??

    Well, sorry for so many questions (and I still have more). I really like this theory but I see some problems to fit it with observations. Maybe I miss understand something. I agree that we live in a Dark age..it is good to have some light!!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Thiago,
      Thank you for your questions. When we look over the CMB map in the different wavelengths we do find, as you point out, extreme homogeneity on the large scale. The small scale, however, does have some slightly warmer clumps and these regions happen to be lined up with regions that contain baryonic matter. Dark matter haloes happen to surround such regions. If the quantized assumption is correct, then this is what we expect to find because the phase change in spacetime structure should lie at the transition between the warmer regions and the cold background temperature of space. To see a possible calculation for what specific temperature the phase change should occur see Chapter 21 in my book (send a request for it with your email if you don’t already have it).
      When it comes to proving things, well I’m going to take the hard line on this and say that in science we NEVER prove anything to be true. At best we give ourselves many reasons to believe in one model over another as it lines up with observation and makes predictions. As my friend Marcus Tofenalli says, “Science isn’t about being right, its about being less wrong.” That said, there are many ways for us to bolster our confidence in the claim that spacetime is quantized. I detail these reasons all throughout my book. But if you’d like to see an independent source for this, I recently came across Fay Dowker’s research, which is very much in line with mine.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VhHE86d-Th8#t=3556s
      In the end dispersion relations might prove to be the easiest way to support this claim experimentally. Dark energy predictions might help too (in the recent future). Also, the fact that we can derive Schrödinger’s equation from first principles in this work (see Chapter 21) can also be taken as a serious reason to believe that we are onto something. In the end, however, let’s try to stay open to the possibility that this idea, like any other, could be wrong, and let’s keep asking questions.
      I fear that I might not be understanding your last question completely. Nevertheless, I will answer what I take to be the question. The total kinetic energy of the quanta of space in our universe is a remnant from the big bang. That total has dropped significantly over time (a full explanation of the mechanics of this is in my Genesis Chapter). Particles, which are best understood as stable eddies in the superfluid vacuum (superfluids can maintain these quantized vortices indefinitely or until sufficient interactions are experienced), can be given more “energy” which is to say that a quantized vortex in a superfluid can become larger. So when you give energy to a particle (when you shoot a ripple through the metric at it and that ripple is absorbed by the eddie) you are trading the kind of metric distortion that the energy participates in. You never invent energy – only trade kinds of energy (metric distortions).
      Please let me know if I misunderstood any of your questions or could help further clear up the claims of this model.
      Yours,
      Thad

  5. Mohammed says:

    really simple and beautiful i might say ,but until any of this is proven , don’t pretend you solved all science problems

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Nothing is ever proven in science. Things are accepted, but science cannot prove, only disprove. We are only suggesting a new perspective, and have never suggested that all of science’s problems have been solved. Even if this model becomes mainstream, it will be important to encourage everyone to continue to be skeptical and to actively try new foundational assumptions, to seek alternative answers, and to continue to keep science creative.

  6. Demitri says:

    The video jumps from just after 5:06 to the end. Nothing I do seems to enable the video to show more than the first 5 min. This sucks because I have many questions and would like to see if they have been addressed before I ask; that’s just courtesy. Here’s hoping it gets fixed soon.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Demitri,
      Were you able to resolve the issue? The video works from my end. Perhaps you’d be interested in reading the book and can ask your questions from there? I’ve sent it to your email.

  7. Olivia Gentol says:

    Brilliant! Thank you for sharing. I have questions! So many questions!
    What are your thoughts on a multiverse? Would the ‘other universes’ exist in superspace?
    If there was no superspace between the quanta at the big bang then did it not exist or was it just outside of the quanta as a place for the quanta to exist?
    Is superspace then a medium for the quanta?
    I will start there. But other ideas weigh heavy on my mind. Exciting!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Dear Olivia,
      I’m glad you are excited about these ideas :-). According to this model, in the moment of the big bang there was no superspace between the quanta because all of the quanta were pushed together. At this point all the quanta of space in the universe were incapable of freely resonating or evolving independently, which means they effectively behaved as one unique location instead of many many unique locations. Superspace still existed in this moment, just not between the quanta. To explore what this model has to say about multiverses, please take a look at chapter 11, and then 17 in ‘Einstein’s Intuition.’ I’ve just emailed you the updated version. :-) I look forward to your upcoming thoughts. Particularly, I’m interested in how you would answer your last question after reading the book.
      Thad

  8. Jason Hildreth says:

    Thad, what an amazing step this can be for us all, and what amazing simplicity we can attain through restructuring our view! It also gives wonderful new clarity to previously “magical” occurances, and a new perspective to consider. I may have to re-read A Brief History of Time with this model in mind, but like everyone else, I’m left with some new and exciting questions!

    My most captivating question at the moment is about time travel. Since we have now defined time in terms of a quanta’s own resonance, does this confine us to a view where the number of osscilations that a quanta experiences can only go up, and therefore “forward” in time, or could there conceptually be an “inverse oscillation” which would decrease the number of total osscilations, and thereby go “backwards in time”? And on a larger scale, an overall averaging effect of the total quanta we consider nullify the possibility of whole persons bent sent “back in time”, but rather only certain individual quanta, leaving the person on a whole none the wiser that some of their quanta have now experienced fewer oscillations than the rest.

    MIND = BLOWN !!!

    This is some of the most exciting territory I’ve seen science explore, and am extremely interested in seeing where a new model of our universe can change our perception of everything we THOUGHT we knew!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Jason,

      I just sent you a copy of the book. I think you’ll particularly love chapter 7, as it covers this topic in depth. Please send my your thoughts as you read 😉

      Thad

  9. John says:

    Hi Thad. I have a lot of questions to ask following my recent comment but would like to first request if possible to send a copy of your book to my email please and thank you :). I am very excited to delve deep into this as it is shedding some new light on a lot of my own personal mysterious theories on the universe.

  10. Dane says:

    Hello. Very elegant model. Love the quantum tunneling explanation. My question is do we have to make an assumption that time is the resonance of space quantum or is there an explanation that I missed. Thank you.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Dane,
      This model has been set up with that assumption yes, but it is always a good idea to attempt to build models from many different assumptions about the world and see where they take you. The set of assumptions I have followed in this case give us very clear ontological access to the world, and so far they seem to elegantly reproduce what we consider mysteries from other sets of assumptions, but it should always be encouraged to search for other sets that can do the same. I’m emailing you the book. Please read it while considering how you would build your model under a different set of assumptions. Should you find a promising set I’d be delighted to hear about it. Should you find any part of my book difficult to follow please let me know. I aim to make it as clear as possible (not the easiest task given the wide range of the audience). Of course, it is not necessary that you agree with the model presented in that book. The main goal of the book, which I believe should be a main goal for every real scientist, is to encourage a proliferation of ideas in others that could lead to many more useful models and ideas for science. We have become stuck in a political trap in science, always asking if the scientific community supports the idea before giving it a fair shake – a process that results in unilateral banning of any real consideration of any new idea (unless it comes from a very small pool of those already considered the elite in science). But the truth is that the really valuable insights are most likely to come from those that think about the problems in a completely new way, and the elite in every field are the least likely to accomplish that task. Science needs new angles, new inputs, new creativity. I hope my book inspires exactly that. Enjoy.

  11. Frank says:

    Hey, Thad. Would you mind sending me a copy of the book? I’m currently stuck on a couple questions. Are Supertime and Superspace What you might call “true Space and time” that behave just like what we observed as children before we were taught about relativity? Are they then absolute, and immune to relativity as we know it? This leaves them still quite mysterious as they are so basic they cannot be defined by anything other than: “they behave like time and space,” but at least they are intuitive. Also, as I understand your theory so far, spacetime quanta move around and collide with each other in superspace, and these collisions transfer energy. These transfers of energy are actually what makes up quarks, which make up protons and neutrons. So in other words, as a subatomic particle moves, it is visible as a collective transfer of energy between many STQuanta. The STQuanta are then a medium in which waves (the most energetic of which are known as matter) may propagate. Or have I interpreted it all wrong? This theory is interesting to me as I don’t find dark energy a very satisfying explanation.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Frank,
      Of course I’ll send you a copy of the book to your email right now. ;-). The answers to your questions are mostly in Chapter 11, and Chapter 20. I’m working to finish all the figures in the next few months. If you have any questions or feedback for how I might improve the book, please let me know. In short, your characterizing of how energy moves through space in this model is correct. Energy is a term that applies to any geometric distortion in the spacetime medium (the vacuum), but there are several distinguishable kinds of geometric distortions. For example, plane wave phonons relate to photons. They remain localized via Anderson localization, but must propagate to be sustained. By contrast, quantum eddies relate to fundamental particles of mass. They are made up of swirling parts, but the eddies themselves do not need to be moving to be sustained. In a superfluid these eddies persist because the fluid has no viscosity. Also note that this fluid picture contains two unique descriptors of flow (for divergence and curl) and these descriptors map perfectly to the electric field and the magnetic field (so perfectly that they explain their gauge invariance and why magnetic monopoles do not exist). Let me know what you think of the book. I’m reworking Chapter 20, so if you want the new version of that chapter when I”m done, ask me in a couple of weeks for the newest version ;-).
      Thad

  12. Morten Holck says:

    Hi Thad

    Thank you so much for stirring up our frozen picture of the world, and offering a whole new set of tools to disect and understand our world, solving ancient problems :-)

    When I listen to you and your idears, I feel a bit like we have been somewhat like the “cavemen” in Plato´s Analogy of the Cave.
    But you have helped us change our perspective.
    Now we know, that we only see a portion of the “truth”, and your work is literally helping us out of the “cave”.

    And thank you very much for the book, which I look very much foreward to reading.

    If I understand you right, the “quantii”(bubbles) that make up “Space”, could be a superfluid floating around in the form of “quantii”-bubbles, one´s in a while bumping into each other and creating phenomena like e.g. black holes, and be responsible for what seems to be gravitational waves seen from our perspective.

    The freedom of movement of these “quantii”, is what “time” consists of (an expression of time).

    Therefore a cluster of “quantii”, can create a black hole, and since these “quantii” have no freedom of movement wthin the cluster…time stands still, right?

    My question is:
    If the space/universe is a superfluid, what does “superspace”, in which these “quantii” floats, consist off? (potential time? :-)

    And:

    What will be the maximal freedom of movement of a “quanti”, and what are the inplications of total freedom of movement of of a “quantii”, in relations to time, if that even makes sense to ask.

    Or said in another way, What is the expression in time, if the “quantii” were free to move, without restrictions.

    I hope I make myself understandable, just speaking in layman terms, I´m not a mathematician or physicist.

    Best regards
    Morten

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Great questions. If I understand you correctly, then you are mostly on track. Let’s try this. Read through the book, at least to the end of Chapter 11. Pay specific attention to Chapter 7 and 11 (based on your questions). Then send me your refined questions. Let’s see where that gets up ;-).

  13. Christopher D Smith says:

    Hi Thad:

    This is a great theory and visualization tool. You really have done some “out of the box” thinking here. I am very impressed!

    Please send me an advanced copy of your book if you would. I am eager to study it and see if it fits in with my own visualization of higher dimensional spaces.

    In the meantime, for those of us stuck in the traditional 4-dimensional space-time, I have a couple of questions as follows:

    (1) What does your theory say or imply about the total volume of the known universe? Is it unbounded and infinite, or ultimately curved in the next higher dimension (closed on itself) with finite volume but no physical boundary? (e.g. a sphere’s surface has no physical boundary but has finite surface area.)

    (2) What does your theory say or imply about the ultimate future of the observable known universe? Cold and dark? Re-born in another “big bang” expansion/quanta phase change as you have described?

    (3) What does your theory say or imply about the existence of multiple universes or realities?

    Thanks again,

    Chris

    (2)

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Chris,

      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.

      In response to your questions:

      (1) By “known” universe I’ll assume you mean “visible” universe. Well it says that the radius of the visible universe will continue to shrink as the light from its edges continue to be attenuated past the quantization cut off. This is a standard prediction as well. It also says that the universe (visible and beyond) is finite and bounded, but that from another scale of resolution it is a single quantized contribution to another larger universe. In short, the model paints a fractal geometry for space, holding an infinite number of resolutions, each holding a finite and bounded number of universes, made of finitely bounded pieces, which from the next resolution are to be treated as universes in a self-similar way.

      (2) This is described in detail in Chapter 28. In short, every collision between two or more space quanta reorders the internal parts of those quanta. In a self-similar way, collisions of our universe with another reorder the arrangements of the space quanta in our universe, resetting the low entropy and high energy. This causes another Big Bang.

      (3) Well it projects no ghostly link between different universes in order to explain wave function collapse (like the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics does). Instead, in a way very similar to Bohmian mechanics, it deterministically choreographs the evolution of the vacuum state, having no need for wave function collapse (state vector reduction). Each universe evolves independently between collisions. Chapter 24 covers Bohemian mechanics, and throughout the book state vector reduction is explained.

  14. Carlton l says:

    It’s quite interesting to see ,

  15. Carly I says:

    einstein institut rocks! My friend sent me a link

  16. Waldo says:

    Can I get a book . I find this subject to be quite mundane…

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Waldo,
      Mundane is usually taken to mean common, ordinary, banal, or unimaginative. Since you’re asking for the book I assume you didn’t mean that. The book is now published. You can go here to buy it. If you cannot afford the book or the iBook please let me know and I’ll send you a pre-print pdf version.

  17. Craig Rolston says:

    I purchased the Audible version of Einstein’s Intuition. Unfortunately, no PDF, with graphics, came with it. Does such exist? If so, I’d really appreciate any and all available visuals. I very much enjoyed your xTED presentation and conversations.

    Gratefully, Craig Rolston

  18. Drew Amend says:

    Thad, you seem like the kind of guy I’d like to have a beer with some day. I’ll read more on your theory, and see if I can get my head warped around it LOL. Seriously though, I have never read one book or explanation of Einsteins theory that actually made perfect sense. Either nobody that writes about it understands it well enough to actually explain it, or there is something wrong with the model. The idea of a bowling ball sitting on a trampoline, thus warping space-time, and how this explains the objects of mass orbiting larger objects of mass is seems flawed. I get so irritated with this explanation because it creates more questions than it proposes to explain. It seems like a very 2 dimensional explanation to a 3 dimensional problem. A couple of quick questions: 1. Why do you use temperature as the catalyst to your phase change theory? We have temperature fluctuation all throughout visible universe without much time space warping. Couldn’t the catalyst be a function of something else, like proximity to mass. 2. I’ve always had this idea that the universe is expanding at the rate of mass defect. That the universe is just in a process of unwinding the energy that was wound up in the form of matter, kind of like a clock spring releasing it’s potential energy. What happens at the end of that, I don’t know, but that’s what the beer is for.

    Cheers mate!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      You’re exactly right. The bowling ball model for curved space is a reduced-dimensional explanation and leaves much to be desired. I think you’ll love Chapter 9 in the book. It addresses this exact problem. Let me know what you think ;-). Your suggestion that proximity to mass could be the catalyst doesn’t really match our observations, but it is interesting. Phase changes that are triggered by temperature thresholds are not affected by fluctuations in temperature unless those fluctuations cross the threshold. It turns out that there is a rough correlation between proximity to mass and temperature in galactic haloes, but when comparing different galaxies there can be near identical masses with different temperatures (for example with different ages). Nevertheless, your notion that the universe is just in a process of unwinding the energy that is wound up in the form of matter – may be quite accurate. When you finish the book I’d like to hear how your thoughts on these matters have evolved.

  19. Hi Thad,
    Thank you for your amazing videos. As a musician it deeply fascinates me and inspires me a great deal in writing songs.
    I would love to read some more to wrap my head around in order to get a bigger understanding in QST. Unfortunately the book is not (yet) available on paper in the Netherlands. Are there any PDF’s or other copies available?
    Thank you in advance! I’m looking forward to see more videos!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Amazon Europe does distribute the book (soft cover, full color). Try looking for it again. If you can’t find it send me an email and I’ll send you a pre-print pdf. ;-). Alternatively, I’m going to be putting out a soft cover black and white interior version (which will significantly drop the print price) in 1-2 weeks. It will be available through Amazon (and Amazon Europe).

  20. Levi Sutton says:

    Hi Thad,
    I love your way to visualize space its a lot more intuitive and give you some nice tools to play around with in thought experiments.

    So after watching these I found this video on YouTube about vortex’s in superfluids and using them to describe atoms and magnetic attraction and the like. Its 37 min long so I don’t expect you to watch it but I do wonder if this has anything to do with your theory? I picture vortex’s in the superspace fluid interacting with the quanta of space giving us the random choppy picture we see in our space like electrons jumping shells and the like. https://youtu.be/cdxr3PpErjg

    Secondly I’m wondering if you have any way of describing things like quantum entanglement or if you have any ideas how it might fit into your model?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Levi,
      Interesting video, there are definitely some parallels there.
      Yes, of course. In an additional variable theory quantum entanglement becomes a deterministic consequence of a pre-programed evolution of subsystems. When two particles become entangled their combined state is known without addressing the additional variables, but their individual states cannot be ascertained without knowledge of the role of the additional variables. We use a state vector to represent an ensemble projection of all the possible exact states that each subsystem might have at any given moment. Lack of knowledge of the exact state is the only reason we use a state vector to represent it this way. Once we make a measurement we gain knowledge about the exact state of one of the subsystems, and therefore immediately gain clarity about both. We switch from using the state vector as a representation at this point because we no longer have the lack of knowledge that led us to use a state vector to represent the system. If you’d like to read more about how this model treats entanglement, see Einstein’s Intuition Chapter 12 (Sections: The State Vector, The Bell Theorem: Blurring Local Realism), Chapter 13 (Section: The State of Space), and Chapter 14 (Sections: Schrödinger’s Cat, Entanglement).

Leave a Reply




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