# Vacuum Superfluidity

Thad Roberts and Marcus Tofanelli explore the assump­tion that the vacuum is a super­fluid. They reveal that vacuum super­flu­idity imports a mech­a­nism for mass gen­er­a­tion, explains wave-particle duality, inscribes the con­stants of nature, and carves out room for geo­metric author­ship of the four forces.

1. Srdjan Petrovic says:

ok, I have one ques­tion:
If the number of Pi is obtained by expressing the ratio of the number of quanta of the circle and diam­eter, we can con­clude that the number Pi has a finite number of dec­imal places …. prob­ably when their number reaches the area of ​​the Planck scale. “Circle” in Planck size then would not really was a circle but a polygon hence the ratio of the cir­cum­fer­ence and diam­eter of was an integer. If you transfer that to the macro scale, we have a deal with the polygon a very close to the circle but still a polygon. As in the example with the gold, if we reduce the cir­cum­fer­ence of a circle more and more, at some point we will realize that it is not a circle … So, the number Pi has a finite number of dec­imal places (or not), but in any case it is not tran­scen­dental number .
I apol­o­gize to my English which is not satisfactory.

Good insight. To make things as clear as pos­sible I should say that pi, as a the­o­ret­ical tran­scen­dental number, embedded within the Euclidean pro­jec­tion, does exist. But, as you have noticed, if the vacuum is quan­tized then pi is only approx­i­mated in Nature. The the­o­ret­ical value of pi depends upon Euclidean form, and since Nature only approx­i­mates the Euclidean form macro­scop­i­cally, the value of pi is also only be approx­i­mated in Nature.

• Jason says:

Curious to read more on this topic. Can I get a copy of that PDF?

Jason,
The book is now out (hard­cover, soft­cover and iBook – the audio­book will be out soon). If you’re on a budget I rec­om­mend the iBook, how­ever, as always, if that is a problem for any reason just let me know and I’ll send you a promo code or a pre-published ver­sion of the pdf.

2. Bruce Penney says:

I am pleased to see someone is thinking along the same lines as myself about the nature of space and gravity.
I believe there is just quantum space, all else evolves from that. My web­site should be inter­esting to you. The math is simple but you may be sur­prised by my insights. I have been working on this idea since 2006.
I do not under­stand why the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity has not deduced that space must be quan­ti­sized, and that this makes the basis for rel­a­tivity and quantum physics so simple to derive.
Please take a look at my web­site. Don’t be put off by the long list of pos­tu­lates and impli­ca­tions at the begin­ning, please.
Thanks
BW Penney

I just what request a copy of Einsteins Intuition,
I am only an under­grad stu­dent, so I imagine most of it might go over my head. Though I am very inter­ested in any­thing that would keep me ques­tioning other teach­ings, so as to keep my mind from becoming a stag­nant vessel of ancient teachings.

4. Brian Dubbert says:

Hi I would also like to request a copy of Einstein’s Intuition.

I am only a high school stu­dent but I am very inter­ested in this sort of sub­ject matter and the idea of vacuum super-fluidity gels with me a lot more than many other things I’ve read

Thanks a lot!

Hi Brian,
If you’re already reading about such things in high school then I very much look for­ward to the insights you’ll make throughout your life. I’m sending the book to your email. Please send your feedback.

5. Tim James says:

Please send me the PDF copy of Einstein’s Intuition.

Done ;-). Enjoy.

6. Bobby Viera says:

Hi Thad, great work–it really makes an under­standing of how things really work much more acces­sible in a non-grueling way (thanks for that). I would love a pdf copy of Einstein’s Intuition, and please post some more of the Conversations videos soon if pos­sible. Love the site!

Hi Bobby,
Thank you. There is still much work to be done and you are right, at min­imum this approach does offer appealing onto­log­ical access. So far its leading us to some very inter­esting insights. Those of us working on it are quite excited about its poten­tial. I’m sending you the book via email. I plan to make more videos, but I’ve just come off of a two year around the world adven­ture, including CERN, a Physics and Philosophy of Time con­fer­ence in the Black Forest, sailing across two oceans in a 55′ sloop (including through a trop­ical storm) and a total of 57 boarder cross­ings, and am now working as a the­o­ret­ical physi­cist for a think tank. Life is a whirl­wind! 😉

• Bobby Viera says:

Wow, that sounds like quite an adven­ture indeed! If you ever decided to ven­ture into Hemingway-style fiction-writing, I’m sure you would have a ton of expe­ri­en­tial knowl­edge to draw upon. Haha, on a sim­ilar note, I dabble in sci-fi/fantasy writing, and I can’t tell you how expo­nen­tially much more inter­esting my story out­line has become after just a few days of pon­dering some of fic­tional appli­ca­tions of the insights your work brings to the table.

I’m happy to hear that. And yes, I’m plan­ning on doing some other kind of writing even­tu­ally. At the moment one of my projects is writing a book about the crazy expe­ri­ence of prison. I’m up to 40,000 words. Let me know where your newly inspired thoughts go. 😉

7. Does Thad’s theory of super­flu­idity com­ple­ment the math­e­matics of super­string theory?

Hi Betsy,
Your ques­tion is a bit dif­fi­cult to answer, as the math­e­matics of string theory to date is so com­pli­cated that no one even knows what the exact equa­tions are. Instead physi­cists work with approx­i­ma­tions to these equa­tions. These approx­i­ma­tions are so com­pli­cated that they have only been par­tially solved. But if your con­cern is about whether or not qst com­ple­ments the claims of super­string theory, then we should com­pare them based on their onto­log­ical claims. Superstring theory posits that there are fun­da­mental strings that make up every­thing. The dif­ferent vibra­tional modes of these strings account for the fur­ni­ture of the world. Qst posits that the vacuum is made up of fun­da­mental quanta (think of little elastic spheres com­posing a medium, like atoms in a gas) and the dif­ferent waves sup­ported by that medium (sonons) account for the fur­ni­ture of the world. For example, quan­tized plane wave phonons in the vacuum behave as pho­tons (light), and non­linear sonons (like smoke rings) behave as fun­da­mental matter par­ti­cles. The “forces” of Nature are then simple deriv­a­tives of the fluid prop­er­ties of the medium: spin­ning vor­tices are drawn together or drawn apart by fluid dynamic inter­ac­tions, radial den­sity gra­di­ents become the cur­va­ture fields of gen­eral rel­a­tivity, and so on. How much these two approaches com­pli­ment each other is debat­able I sup­pose, but I would put the basic goal of each on par with each other as they are post attempting to pro­vide an onto­log­i­cally sound expla­na­tion of the world we see.

• David Heggli says:

I think you’re really onto sth big here! So far with every other theory: the most simple expla­na­tion pos­sible (answering all ques­tions), is the right one.

=> QST vs String theory: 1 : 0 :-))

I’ve got two ques­tions for you:

1. What do you think of Garrett Lisi’s E8 Geometric Theory of every­thing? Could it be, that your theory pro­vides actu­ally the missing link he needs to finish it? On the first look, it seems to be much more com­pat­ible with your approach than the string theory…

2. Would it be save to assume, that you wouldn’t have come up with this great theory without having served some time in a very con­fined space?
BTW: I can totally feel with you on what hap­pened there and where you were coming from. Being in love isn’t acci­den­tally described as being very sim­ilar to a state of mental ill­ness 😉
And luckily my father was a judge for ado­les­cents – I think only thanks to his huge expe­ri­ence with strong willed kids I didn’t end up in prison myself ;-D

Hi David,
I think that Garrett Lisi’s E8 approach, like all insights that shed light on gauge invari­ance, are very useful and inter­esting. I cannot answer your ques­tion about how con­nected the two the­o­ries are, but I am actively devel­oping the for­malism of gauge invari­ance cap­tured by qst. I leave the com­par­ison to you after I post the report. As for the notion that my time in con­fined space, yes, I think it is safe to say that the intense and focused period of intro­spec­tion and intel­lec­tual explo­ration def­i­nitely had a marked impact. I’ll send you a copy of the book now. The prison book is almost half done, but it will be another 6 months at least.

8. Chris Poapst says:

I don’t have any sci­en­tific back­ground, although i do have a very strong pas­sion for learning about the uni­verse. I would really appre­ciate a PDF copy of Einstein’s Intuition.

Thank you!

Hi Chris,
Of course, I’ll send it to you now. Enjoy.

9. Marc Geddes says:

The idea of space-time as a super­fluid is very intriguing! What got me inter­ested was an article in Wired describing strong analo­gies between fluid mechanics and quantum mechanics – this article has been get­ting a lot of atten­tion this year, I highly rec­om­mend you read it if you haven’t already done so. I would be inter­ested in hearing your opinion on this:

“The exper­i­ments began a decade ago, when Yves Couder and col­leagues at Paris Diderot University dis­cov­ered that vibrating a sil­icon oil bath up and down at a par­tic­ular fre­quency can induce a droplet to bounce along the sur­face. The droplet’s path, they found, was guided by the slanted con­tours of the liquid’s sur­face gen­er­ated from the droplet’s own bounces — a mutual particle-wave inter­ac­tion anal­o­gous to de Broglie’s pilot-wave concept.”

and

“If space and time behave like a super­fluid, or a fluid that expe­ri­ences no dis­si­pa­tion at all, then path memory could con­ceiv­ably give rise to the strange quantum phe­nom­enon of entan­gle­ment — what Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a dis­tance.” When two par­ti­cles become entan­gled, a mea­sure­ment of the state of one instantly affects that of the other. The entan­gle­ment holds even if the two par­ti­cles are light-years apart.”

I agree the Bohm inter­pre­ta­tion of QM seems to follow nat­u­rally from the idea of space-time as a fluid.

10. Eric says:

I am also an under­grad­uate stu­dent studying engi­neering with inter­ests in the­o­ret­ical physics. I would like to read a copy of your work, Einstein’s Intuition.

Thank you!

I’m sending it to you now. I look for­ward to your feedback.

11. Rodrigo Esteves says:

Hi Thad, onto­log­i­cally it’s really make at first sight a sound and clear expla­na­tion of our per­ceiv­able and mea­sur­able reality – great insights! I’m a mechan­ical engi­neer, very pas­sionate about physics (mainly quantum mechanics, QFTs and cos­mology) and I would really appre­ciate a PDF copy of Einstein’s Intuition.
Thanks,
Rodrigo

Hi Rodrigo,
As this is part of your pas­sion, I look for­ward to hearing what you think of it.

12. Maurizio says:

I just saw the TED video. I’m a the­o­ret­ical physi­cist, but after my PhD I stopped work on String theory and its evo­lu­tion mainly because I didn’t “believe” in the theory any­more. With my fel­lows we dis­cussed of why physics was going in a dark tunnel, without admit any error and start to try another way. In the end, more than 30 years of String theory suc­ceed in just one actual result: the black hole entropy derived by Bekenstein and Hawking!
I would appre­ciate a pdf copy of Einstein’s Intuition.
Thank you

Yes of course. I sus­pect we are going to have some delightful con­ver­sa­tions. I’m looking for­ward to it. 😉

13. Jonatanson says:

I have seen your TED pre­sen­ta­tion what brought me here.

Thanks,
Jonatanson

14. David says:

I came here to your site after viewing your short intro­duc­tion on TED. I found your inter­pre­ta­tion com­pelling. I am inter­ested in your PDF doc­u­ment. I most curious to play with the cal­cu­la­tions of the con­stants of nature. I am also inter­ested in your max­imum cur­va­ture. Have you con­sid­ered how you might go about proving your hypoth­esis with exper­i­men­ta­tion? Do you have any thoughts on how to fal­sify it? Thank you for sharing and please con­tinue to innovate.

Hi David,
Sending you the book now. Chapter 16 covers the con­stants. And yes, I have con­sid­ered a few ways to test this. First off, it implies a spe­cific cut off for the infinity gravity well for black holes, which has the­o­ret­ical impli­ca­tions and direct phys­ical impli­ca­tions. This cut off also implies that quantum tun­neling rates will vary as space­time cur­va­ture varies. Near super mas­sive objects, where the cur­va­ture is high, the rates of tun­neling should decrease. To turn this into a full pre­dic­tion we need to cal­cu­late the exact expec­ta­tion for that change, and then test against it. If, while reading the book, you come up with more ways to test this limit of max­imum cur­va­ture, an inde­pen­dent way of deriving its value, or any addi­tional fal­si­fi­able tests for the model, we wel­come them.

15. Al Rees says:

I find your infor­ma­tion very inter­esting and see that you are a person of insight.
I am just a humble con­struc­tion worker who does research when I have time.I have to re read items to get the real under­standing from time to time but your illus­tra­tions have really helped.Could you kindly send me a PDF of “Einstein’s Intuition”
Thank you
AL

Hi Al,
Yes of course. I’m sending it now. Please let me know if you have any sug­ges­tion for how it can be improved.

16. 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.
Snehan. (@ssnehan)

Hi Snehan,
That’s quite impres­sive. I didn’t repro­duce Millikan’s oil drop exper­i­ment until col­lege. Your curiosity is going to take you very far in life. There are so many things to dis­cover, and so many unsolved mys­teries waiting for your con­tri­bu­tion. Don’t get dis­cour­aged by the immen­sity of all there is to learn, for it is what pro­vides us with the great adven­ture. If my book can assist you on your journey I’m happy to share. I have made a great effort to make all of the ideas in my book very acces­sible and clear. Should you encounter any­thing that is unclear to you, please let me know. I’m sending you the book now. I look for­ward to your feedback.

Hi Snehan,
That’s quite impres­sive. I didn’t repro­duce Millikan’s oil drop exper­i­ment until col­lege. Your curiosity is going to take you very far in life. There are so many things to dis­cover, and so many unsolved mys­teries waiting for your con­tri­bu­tion. Don’t get dis­cour­aged by the immen­sity of all there is to learn, for it is what pro­vides us with the great adven­ture. If my book can assist you on your journey I’m happy to share. I have made a great effort to make all of the ideas in my book very acces­sible and clear. Should you encounter any­thing that is unclear to you, please let me know. I’m sending you the book now. I look for­ward to your feedback.

17. Snehan Kekre says:

The oil-drop exper­i­ment that I men­tioned was the Yves Couder sil­icon drop experiment.

18. Andy H. says:

Hi,
I’ve been thinking along sim­ilar (though less refined) lines with regard to the fact(?) that photos and elec­trons behave as a dis­tor­tion of the space­time super­fluid (I didn’t sur­mise the super­fluid part). Anyway, I hate the double slit exper­i­ment. It’s like a trick you play to get the result you want. So…it occurred to me just now that if you take any number of “double slits” and enclose the region where the photon or elec­tron “fly” the dis­tor­tion wave should prop­a­gate through all of these slits (pic­ture a box with slits on all sides but the opening through which the quantum par­ticle goes). This would be very sim­ilar to a shock wave prop­a­gating off of an object moving above Mach 1. Has this exper­i­ment ever been done?
Best Regards,
Andy

I haven’t heard of that exper­i­ment being per­formed. Let me know how it goes. I’m curious what your take might be on my treat­ment of the double slit exper­i­ment, and its philo­soph­ical impli­ca­tions, in my book. Sending it to you now. The most rel­e­vant sec­tions are Chapters 12 and 13.

19. Allen Azar says:

I like it. It’s intuitive.

Questions:
1. If there’s den­sity in space quanta, there is poten­tially empti­ness between the quanta. What are you calling that, does it have any prop­er­ties, pre­dic­tions, etc.

2. How do you prove this out experimentally?

3. Does qst have its own force inter­ac­tions? Can we push/pull qs?

4. Is evenly dis­trib­uted qs the end game entropy.

5. How might pair pro­duc­tion (energy to matter) func­tion in qst, if youre cre­ating matter from pho­tons which would require posi­tion in space. How would the qs be called for newly cre­ated matter?

6. does qs have align­ment thru the uni­verse , do they spin?

7. how might this help explain elec­tron orbital transitions.

8. does qst pre­dict a graviton or a dif­ferent force mediator.

9. How much smaller is a qs than say an electron?

10. Might qs be a par­ticle that imbues 3 dimensions?

Hi Allen,

These are great ques­tions. I’ll respond here and send you the book, which should answer these ques­tions more richly.

1. The dimen­sions that sep­a­rate the quanta of space are called super­spa­tial dimen­sions, and they allow us to model the states of space (how the quanta are arranged rel­a­tive to each other) and define how that state evolves.

2. There are sev­eral ways to prove the model wrong, but as with all sci­en­tific the­o­ries it cannot be proven cor­rect. It makes pre­dic­tions for super­sym­metric dimen­sional sets (11, 30, 85, 248 dimen­sions and so on). If any super­sym­metric dimen­sional sets are found out­side of that series, it will count as an obser­va­tion against the model. Also, there are sev­eral pre­dic­tions made in the realm of astro­physics. For example, the model pre­dicts that quantum tun­neling will be less likely in regions of higher cur­va­ture, and less likely when the tem­per­a­ture of space was higher. There are fal­si­fi­able mea­sure­ments to be made in that vein. It also pre­dicts a cor­re­la­tion between the average radius of dark matter haloes around host galaxies, and their tem­per­a­ture – positing that colder galactic cores will have smaller dark matter haloes. We are also trying to model the sonons allowed by the wave equa­tion of this super­fluid, and to match those sonons with the fun­da­mental par­ti­cles of matter. This process might end up making spe­cific pre­dic­tions for par­ti­cles unobserved.

3. The four forces (gravity, elec­tro­mag­netism, the weak and strong nuclear forces) are all trans­lated as geo­metric defor­ma­tions in the super­fluid vacuum. Gravity is a den­sity gra­dient in that vacuum, the elec­tric field ref­er­ences diver­gent flow, the mag­netic field ref­er­ences curl, the weak force ref­er­ences the quan­ti­za­tion (versus a smoothly con­nected) of the fluid, and the strong force ref­er­ences the for­ma­tion and sta­bi­liza­tion of sonons (smoke rings), or vor­tices, in the fluid. All of these geo­metric dis­tor­tions ref­er­ence ways that the vacuum differ from an Euclidean expec­ta­tion. Therefore, there are no forces, or fields in the vacuum, but you could con­sider a force descrip­tion in the elastic col­li­sions of the quanta them­selves – as least until you resolve the higher order perspective.

4. Yes. At that point the entire uni­verse would have no matter, no energy or light, or any­thing. There would be com­plete sym­metry in space.

5.Energy, like light, is a plane wave phonon in the vacuum. If phonons of the right energy inter­sect the right way they can create a sonon (think smoke ring). In super­fluids these sonons are stable and do not dis­si­pate. This trans­for­ma­tion results in the third polar­iza­tion state – granting the dis­tor­tion the prop­er­ties of a matter particle.

6. No they are not all aligned. They move and twist about in response to their collisions.

7. Electron orbits are quan­tized because the elec­trons them­selves are quan­tized solu­tions to the wave equa­tion, rep­re­senting very dis­crete amounts of energy in the vacuum in a wave form. Cotangling waves means cap­turing those inter­ac­tions wholly – leading to quantum jumps.

8. No. It specif­i­cally dis­solves par­ticle force medi­a­tors. Instead it reveals “forces” as expres­sions of the ways in which the vacuum’s geom­etry dif­fers from Euclidean geom­etry. Someone might want to claim that the quanta them­selves could be thought of as force medi­a­tors, but given that the dis­tor­tions that ref­er­ence forces are flow descrip­tors, or gen­eral geom­etry descrip­tors, a geom­etry that refers to the vacuum geom­etry, not the geom­etry of its quanta, I feel the most accu­rate answer to your ques­tion is that there are no force medi­ating particles.

9. Just a few orders of mag­ni­tude. See this paper for some details:
http://​arxiv​.org/​p​d​f​/​1​3​0​1​.​7​3​5​1​v​1​.​pdf

10. The quanta of space do col­lec­tively give rise the the familiar three dimensions.

Sending you the book via email.

20. Tony says:

Please send me the PDF copy of Einstein’s Intuition.

21. Ed Slattery says:

I enjoyed the inter­esting video, and requested the PDF on Einstein’s intu­itions last night.

I did have a ques­tion related to the gen­er­a­tion of repul­sive gravity by the con­cen­tra­tion of the space quanta through the rota­tion of adja­cent vor­tices. My physics is very lim­ited, but I had the impres­sion that the shifting of fluids (air, water, etc.) by mete­o­ro­log­ical sys­tems results much less from their con­cen­tra­tion through hor­i­zontal flows than from pre­cip­i­ta­tion or evap­o­ra­tion through ver­tical flows. In your cos­mo­log­ical view, do the other 9 dimen­sions serve that function?

Because I’m trying to get through Bojowald’s pop­u­lar­iza­tion (the book called “Once Before Time”) of Loop Quantum Cosmology, I’d also like to know whether you feel your views on cos­mology to be sim­ilar to LQC.

Thank you for your atten­tion to this long-winded note.

There are some sim­i­lar­i­ties, for example both models offer mech­a­nisms for the Big Bang, inter­preting it in terms of a quantum bounce, but they do so if slightly dif­ferent ways. Also both models resolve black hole sin­gu­lar­i­ties, but again in dif­ferent ways.
As for your fluid dynamic ques­tion / addi­tional dimen­sion ques­tion, the other 9 dimen­sions pri­marily serve the func­tion of resolving the quan­tized nature of the vacuum. In doing this, they also resolve degrees of freedom that allow us to talk about the vacuum in terms of flow, diver­gence, curl, and changes in den­sity. Basically this opens the door to hydro­dy­nam­i­cally framing the uni­verse, or hydro­dy­nam­i­cally explaining the four forces.

22. Micah Buckley says:

I would like to request a copy of Einstein’s Intuition, if I may. Your work looks amazing! Keep it up!

Of course. I’m emailing it to you now.

I saw your TEDx talk and I was pleasently sur­prised how you were able to dis­cover the speed of light by using simple quantum con­stants. My intu­ition tells me that you are on the right track and are asking great ques­tions. I come from a com­puter engi­neering back­ground so I wonder what changes can come from this from a prac­tical quantum space theory perspective.

Looking for­ward to diving deeper with a copy of your PDF wen you get a chance.

Hi Miguel,
Instead of explaining how I see the quantum space theory per­spec­tive impacting your world, I’ll send you the book and then look for­ward to seeing how you answer that ques­tion. 😉 Emailing it to you now.

24. Tamaat says:

I had come to the same basic real­iza­tion of quan­tized space when I hap­pened to stumble upon your Ted Talk. I was delighted to see the idea refined as ele­gantly as you have done. To make the cir­cum­stances even better you had cal­cu­lated and defined the mys­tery number whose neces­sity I have only recently real­ized. Zhe was the final key to under­standing the uni­verse and dimen­sion­ality. I’m writing to request Einstein’s Intuition, but more impor­tantly I’m writing to cor­rect a mis­take. There are not 11 dimen­sions in your dia­gram there are 12. If you would like to dis­cuss this 12th dimen­sion with me I would be delighted to get an email from you. Thank you for your work. With love, Conor “Tamaat” Sullivan.

Hi Tamaat,
The total number of dimen­sions depends on res­o­lu­tion. In Chapter 11 I explain the dimen­sional hier­ar­chical equa­tion, which states that the number of dimen­sions in the map is equal to 3^n + n, where n is the order of per­spec­tive. From a first order per­spec­tive there are (3+1) dimen­sions, from a second order per­spec­tive there are (9+2) dimen­sions and so on. Most of the book focuses on a second order per­spec­tive, which resolves 9 spa­tial dimen­sions and two tem­poral dimen­sions. You may be thinking that since there are 3 kinds of volume resolved, there should also be three kinds of time resolved, but that would be an over­step as there are no evo­lu­tions tracked in a second order per­spec­tive that do not map to time or super­time. I look for­ward to hearing what you have to say after reading through the book. Sending it to you now.

25. vijay says:

I would really appre­ciate a PDF copy of Einstein’s Intuition. I would like to add the impor­tance of con­scious­ness n sleeps.

I’m emailing it to you now.

26. Garry J. Flynn says:

The the­o­ries pre­sented seem to be well cal­cu­lated indeed. In fact the model I was able to make in my head of this has rev­o­lu­tion­ized all thought of the phys­ical world. Frankly I have never quite seen any­thing of the sort pre­sented as a pos­si­bility. I would be most excited to own a copy of the book and if the depth of the argu­ments meet my curiosity with sound pre­dic­tion, I will be sure enough to present the knowl­edge to all open ears.

Hi Garry,
The book offi­cially comes out next month. In the mean time I’m sending you the cur­rent ver­sion via pdf. I look for­ward to your thoughts as you read.

27. László Csontos says:

Hi Thad! I met your very exciting approach on youtube, watching TEDx, and I want to learn more about it. I’m a biotech­nol­o­gist, but I’m inter­ested in physics too. Could you be so kind and send me a copy of your book? I would appre­ciate it!
Thank you very much, best wishes
Laca

Hi Laca,
Yes of course. I’m sending it to you know. Any an all feed­back is encour­aged.
😉

28. Alex Georgopoulos says:

Hi,
The uni­verse has always baf­fled me. I’ve always been inter­ested in the stars/space. Always looking up. Since i heard of the “cur­va­ture” of the uni­verse I became so intrigued that I often tried to visu­alize it myself, and the best approx­i­ma­tion I could pro­duce is that it is like a double cone-like struc­ture. These cones are opposed in direc­tion and we are located in the tip of both (approx­i­mately like an hour glass). How wide is the tip or junc­tion is a most dif­fi­cult ques­tion to answer. One opening of the cone-like points to above, or up, and the other opening points to below, or down, because infi­nite is at the end of any direc­tion (what you gain in terms of having less dis­tance to travel you loose in terms of bigger number of pos­si­bil­i­ties…)
So many things have been run­ning through my head that its dif­fi­cult to remember them all, but one that is a thorn for me is the dumbing of our intel­lec­tual capac­i­ties caused by Geometry. Specifically the Sphere, because the Sphere, since it is like a rep­re­sen­ta­tion of “all pos­sible direc­tions” is the Nemesis of the under­standing of more than three spa­cial dimen­sions.
Also, I see Time as more than one dimen­sion and I can’t explain why but I can give an example. Suppose Time is actu­ally two arrows. One is the chrono­log­ical time, the one mea­sured with pre­ci­sion, with machines etc. This one goes in a straight line from past to future. The other is the psy­cho­log­ical time. This one goes spi­raling around the chrono­log­ical time, also from past to future but with vari­able speed, meaning that it can make many laps around the linear time when things are “accel­er­ated” or less laps when things are “quiet”.
More recently the exis­tence of Transparency is what has been occu­pying my mind. Transparency is dif­fi­cult to accept (and on the other hand non-transparency is even more dif­fi­cult, since most of the uni­verse IS trans­parent – or invis­ible – to us like dark matter and dark energy…)
Most recently it came to my mind that our thoughts are like soft/intangible/transparent probes of the uni­verse, with which we can probe not only the existing things but also ideas that exist only in our or other minds. But again, in order to under­stand an object, for instance, our mind “sur­rounds” this object with trans­parency, insu­lating it from what­ever we are not con­cerned with at the moment…
Well, that’s a lot already. The point is that I’d like to receive a copy of your book, if it is still pos­sible, because I’m sure it will be great, as was your pre­sen­ta­tion.
alex.

Hi Alex,
I’m happy to share. Sending it to your email now.

29. David Faren says:

Hello,

someone just shared your tedx talk with me and I would love to read your book Einstein’s Intuition. Could I please have copy?

David

Yes of course. The offi­cial ver­sion is coming out at the end of this month, until then, I’ll email you the cur­rent version 😉

30. Joe Bliss says:

Your ideas on space being a fluid is some­thing I always thought had to be the case. The ‘Ether’ is what I believe it was referred to as. The state­ment I’ve heard, that light travels through a vacuum, just doesn’t set right with me, as well as the idea of a sin­gu­larity (though I sus­pect at a cer­tain den­sity there might be no dis­cernible dif­fer­ence), and I also have a sus­pi­cion about red-shifting of light over great dis­tances. As I’ve been reading more and more, I get a sense that time and space (or rather the den­sity of space, as it changes near a mas­sive object) are pro­por­tion­ately con­stant, though as space com­presses near a mas­sive object, time seems to slow for that object com­pared to space that is less com­pressed (inverse). And so trav­eling at high speeds, and increasing your mass, (and per­haps altering the den­sity of the trav­eling objects space?!?) alters time for the trav­eling object even though it’s in rel­a­tively low-density space. Just musing there, but I’ve read the lay­mans’ ver­sion of this and it just tells what hap­pens, not why. I’m an elec­tri­cian slowly putting some higher ed together for an engi­neering degree, and though my math is seri­ously lacking, the con­cepts seem easy to grasp. I’d love to read what you have, so please send me the pdf.
It does seem like con­tem­po­rary sci­ence is get­ting too narrow, but I’m hopeful. Also, when I’m thinking about your graphics, it occurs to me that the space between the spheres might be the solid mate­rial (where instead of dis­tance you would have energy, also inverse), and the sphere’s would be more like bub­bles, but with no defin­i­tive demar­ca­tion between the two, only a gradual change in energy. Exchanges of energy posi­tion in this sub­strate would relate to rota­tion, but not in the con­ven­tional sense. And in a system, say sub­atomic par­ti­cles, har­mo­nized rota­tion would be the def­i­n­i­tion of matter, where struc­tures are sta­bi­lized by the har­monic which would sta­bi­lize itself by prop­a­ga­tion if there is a max­imum amount of energy that can occupy the same space (hence the inverse pro­por­tion between dis­tance and energy); and a cross-sectional view would look like what I imagine String Theory as. More musing. Thoughts?
Good luck with your proofs, I have a good feeling about your model, as I under­stand it.
Joe Bliss
P.S. One more thought. The greater the com­pres­sion of space, the greater the sta­bility of the energy in a system. This sta­bility would inhibit energy transfer in a system, length­ening time as described as the speed of light. This, how­ever would require an even smaller medium to describe the energy, with larger num­bers of par­ti­cles in a given space and a con­stant for the time for inter­ac­tion between these par­ti­cles of energy to describe slower transfer at denser spaces. At max­imum den­sity, near sin­gu­larity. But it would not be infi­nite. Counter intu­itive, though. No play on words intended.

• Joe Bliss says:

I just watched the ‘Conversation’ video. I’m kinda stoked that I wasn’t very far off on most of the things you said, con­sid­ering my edu­ca­tion level. I also noticed you are already releasing your book. My loss. I still haven’t gotten to an expla­na­tion of super­po­si­tion, or the attrac­tion of matter to denser space. But I’m still a fan, and will keep an eye out for more devel­op­ments.
Thanks for sharing this. Joe Bliss.

Just sent it to you, sorry I was very behind on com­mu­ni­ca­tions, while wrap­ping up the book.

• Joe Bliss says:

I really appre­ciate it. Finished watching ‘Conversations’ I and II. Very cool. Keep up the work and good luck. Joe Bliss.

Whew, that was a lot. Sorry I’ve been busy. Just pub­lished the book. But since you requested before it came out I’ll send you the pdf and look for­ward to seeing how your thoughts evolve or strengthen from reading it.

31. Dawid Czaja says:

This theory looks so ele­gant…. I’m very impressed

Please send me the PDF copy of Einstein’s Intuition.

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.

http://​www​.ein​steinsin​tu​ition​.com

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.

32. Sidney Jones says:

This super­flu­idity is a very inter­esting idea. Please send a copy of Einstein’s Intuition. Thanks in advance. Sid

Hi Sidney,

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.

http://​www​.ein​steinsin​tu​ition​.com

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. Kyle Brooks says:

I am a Audio Engineer and have always been intrigued by space, matter and the sci­ence that works to under­stand it. I am an avid watcher of TED talks and hap­pened upon this site after watching your amazing talk at TEDxBoulder. If you are still giving out Einsteins Intuition in PDF I would love to have a copy.

Kyle Brooks

Hi Kyle,

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.

http://​www​.ein​steinsin​tu​ition​.com

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. Andrew says:

inter­esting claims that you made, and the fas­ci­nating about it that it’s based on sim­plicity.
I have been seeking in kinds of sim­plicity, so it was just a matter of time, btw in my capa­bility of imag­ining the highest term in the uni­verse – so there­fore curious about your thought about stasis of time in densest states of quants, to get to your per­cep­tions.
Unfortunately I couldn’t face sim­plicity in my first, not suc­ceeded col­lege studies of tech­nical physics.
I would like to know how you think about and how you link Einsteins & Plancks the­o­ries, hope­fully in your iBooks ver­sion for threat­ening our exis­tence students…

Hi Andrew,
I’m con­fi­dent that reading the iBook will give you a full take on my view of Einstein’s and Planck’s insights. They are both inte­gral to the super­fluid vacuum theory per­spec­tive. Keep track of your ques­tions as you read.

35. Lynn Nicholson says:

Congratulations on the pub­li­ca­tion of the book! I think I’ve got a long way to go before I think I’ll be able to draw new con­clu­sions about elec­tro­mag­netism using qst as the frame­work, or even be able to explain every phe­nom­enon in detail, but I’m looking for­ward. I was the epitome of the Why-child and for some­thing so impor­tant as elec­tricity, mag­netism, light, etc., I’ve always felt let down by the expla­na­tions avail­able even as an adult. “Here are some equa­tions that explain how it work.” Well, that just never has been enough.

I have a few ques­tions that I’d love your thoughts on:

(1) How do the sim­plest par­ti­cles of matter interact with the quanta? – I’m sort of lost in a sea of pos­si­bil­i­ties when I try to visu­alize what exactly is going on (or can go on) within a super­spa­tial volume and its con­stituent quanta. For example, can these quanta bounce around freely or do they inher­ently want to sit still and equalize the pres­sure within the super­spa­tial volume?

(2) Can there be the analog of wind – quanta flowing away from high pres­sure areas into lower pres­sure zones? This doesn’t seem to be the case – or if it is pos­sible, there’s a coun­ter­acting force that pre­vents densely-packed quanta from doing so when those quanta are the space occu­pied by a black hole or star, etc.

(3) I’ve also won­dered why the super­spa­tial volume should be a noth­ing­ness when noth­ing­ness is exactly what is done away with by having quanta (in other words, is super­space itself a Euclidian expanse, not really made of any­thing?) Perhaps there’s nothing addi­tional we’d be able to explain if super­spa­tial volume itself had an under­lying quan­tized fabric.

(4) Do you have any thoughts on what the boundary of a quanta “is” or why such a boundary is nec­es­sary other than to firmly define dimen­sional boundaries?

(5) I’ve been watching the videos and reading the com­ments avail­able on your site. One of your responses was about speed of light depending on den­sity (with more nuance than this of course).

I took some time just now to rethink things a bit. Initially, my question/interest cen­tered upon the den­sity of quanta within a volume of the vacuum of space (yes, our x, y, z space)…as if that con­cept made any sense (I think it actu­ally doesn’t because as far as our 3 dimen­sions of space are con­cerned, they’re made of quanta rather than con­tain them). What I was thinking fun­da­men­tally boils down to the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum, as we see it, would depend on the den­sity of the quanta within superspace.

I now believe that to be the wrong way of looking at things because a cubic meter of our x, y, z space, for example, must always con­sist of the same exact number of quanta – a meter’s worth of planck lengths cubed – because length is a mea­sure­ment of n quanta and there­fore, so is volume by extrap­o­la­tion. My key insight I think I had, which fixes the mis­un­der­standing I think I was under, is the den­sity of the quanta – how packed or loose they are within super­space – doesn’t affect our per­cep­tion of a cubic meter being a cubic meter.

Where I was going in my mind was the idea of using what we know from already-performed exper­i­ments regarding the speed of light in var­ious mate­rials to reverse-engineer some infor­ma­tion about the required den­sity of quanta in order to pro­duce those speeds. That idea still may be worth­while, but I now see that the den­sity of quanta has to look at super­spa­tial vol­umes to make any sense at all.

Am I in the ball­park here? Or am I still missing some­thing fun­da­mental with this?

(6) What kind of self-study syl­labus would rec­om­mend in order to become fluent in the fields of math and physics required to deeply under­stand qst – say for a person who has taken dif­fer­en­tial cal­culus and a year of under­grad physics? Like, right now I can Google, “what do I need to study in order to under­stand super­fluids?” But when you try to back­track through layers of depen­dent fields of knowl­edge you’ve never studied, back to a good point of entry it’s easy to get lost.

Thanks!

Lynn

Hi Lynn,

I’m delighted to hear that you were the epitome of the why-child, and more impor­tantly that you stayed in touch with this quality. The world needs far more people to carry their child­like curiosity into adult­hood. You are right to note that modern day “expla­na­tions” of elec­tricity, mag­netism, light, etc. are unsat­is­fac­tory. In fact, the modern treat­ment of these topics is in terms of fields, without any direct con­ver­sa­tion about what the fields them­selves are. We cannot claim under­standing until we bridge this gap. Forces, or fields, are just place­holders of our igno­rance. They may give us pow­erful math­e­mat­ical pre­dic­tions, but as long as they remain fun­da­men­tally mys­te­rious they cannot sat­isfy our philo­soph­ical hunger to sci­en­tif­i­cally know the universe.

(1) How do the sim­plest par­ti­cles of matter interact with the quanta – I’m sort of lost in a sea of pos­si­bil­i­ties when I try to visu­alize what exactly is going on (or can go on) within a super­spa­tial volume and its con­stituent quanta. For example, can these quanta bounce around freely or do they inher­ently want to sit still and equalize the pres­sure within the super­spa­tial volume?

– The key insight here is that the quanta make up the vacuum (space­time). Uniformly spaced quanta would define a vacuum without any inter­esting things in it (zero cur­va­ture, zero elec­tro­mag­netism, zero mass, zero worm­holes…). All of the things we think of as being in the vacuum are emer­gent prop­er­ties, col­lec­tive con­se­quences of many quanta inter­ac­tions. Vacuum cur­va­ture is a den­sity gra­dient in the quanta, going from more densely arranged in super­space to less densely arranged. Waves that prop­a­gate through the vacuum (we call them acoustic waves because they are made up of the metric of the medium itself and simply rep­re­sents undu­la­tions that move through it) make up light (elec­tric fields rep­re­sent diver­gence in vacuum flow, and mag­netic fields rep­re­sent curl, there­fore a passing packet or impulse wave intro­duces both fields). In order for these waves of energy to be con­verted into “mass” they must gain locality. That is, they must be able to stand still yet still be waving. This is accom­plished by forming a vortex (more accu­rately a sonon, which resem­bles a smoke ring). Now to your ques­tions. The sim­plest vor­tices, like the one that com­poses the elec­tron are made up of swirling col­lec­tions of quanta. The com­bined inter­ac­tions of the vacuum fluid (made up of the quanta) is con­trolled by Euler’s equa­tion for com­press­ible inviscid fluids. For more on this topic see (http://​arxiv​.org/​a​b​s​/​1​3​0​1​.​7​351 and http://​arxiv​.org/​a​b​s​/​1​3​0​1​.​7​540).

(2) Can there be the analog of wind – quanta flowing away from high pres­sure areas into lower pres­sure zones? This doesn’t seem to be the case – or if it is pos­sible, there’s a coun­ter­acting force that pre­vents densely-packed quanta from doing so when those quanta are the space occu­pied by a black hole or star, etc.

– Yes, absolutely. Euler’s fluid dynamics fully apply, but they apply as they would for an inviscid fluid (one without vis­cosity). So remember that vor­tices are what we call irro­ta­tional. Perhaps this will help. Imagine that near a black hole’s center all of the quanta are moving around in one big vortex. Now note that because the quanta are cir­cling around together they are not col­liding into each other in random direc­tions. The den­sity is higher here because the quanta are aligned in their motions. As you move away from the center the align­ment of motion of the quanta becomes less and less aligned until they are entirely random, and fol­lowing this change we go from denser (more curved) vacuum to less dense (zero cur­va­ture) space. Does that help?

(3) I’ve also won­dered why the super­spa­tial volume should be a noth­ing­ness when noth­ing­ness is exactly what is done away with by having quanta. Perhaps there’s nothing addi­tional we’d be able to explain if super­spa­tial volume itself had an under­lying quan­tized fabric.

– Great ques­tion. This is an over­sim­pli­fi­ca­tion. In a closer exam­i­na­tion this model actu­ally projects a fractal con­struc­tion of the vacuum. That is, it breaks up the vacuum into a medium of quanta sep­a­rated throughout super­space, but when we look closer it also makes the claim that the quanta them­selves are com­posed of smaller quan­tized ingre­di­ents sep­a­rated through another volume, and so on. Chapter 11 dis­cussed this in detail. If it doesn’t address all of your con­cerns please let me know.

(4) Do you have any thoughts on what the boundary of a quanta “is” or why such a boundary is nec­es­sary other than to firmly define dimen­sional boundaries?

– Excellent ques­tion again, and in good suc­ces­sion. Following the pre­vious answer, this model leads us to believe that the boundary of the quanta them­selves is actu­ally more detailed than a thin wall. In fact, it posits that the quanta are quantum vor­tices within the super­space. Therefore, the bound­aries have a faded edge just like a vortex does. For most of my book I don’t model the uni­verse in any­thing past 11D, which means I’m ignoring this level of detail, but the mod­eling of that com­plexity will mimic the mod­eling of vacuum vor­tices and how they interact.

(5) I’ve been watching the videos and reading the com­ments avail­able on your site. One of your responses was about speed of light depending on den­sity (with more nuance than this of course).

There was a ten minute gap between para­graphs here while I rethought things a bit. Initially, my question/interest cen­tered upon the den­sity of quanta within a volume of the vacuum of space (yes, our x, y, z space)…as if that con­cept made any sense (I think it actu­ally doesn’t thanks to the ten minute gap). What I was thinking fun­da­men­tally boils down to the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum, as we see it, would depend on the den­sity of the quanta within superspace.

I now believe that to be the wrong way of looking at things because a cubic meter of our x, y, z space, for example, must always con­tain the same exact number of quanta – because length is a mea­sure­ment of n quanta and there­fore, so is volume by extrap­o­la­tion. My key insight I think I had, which fixes the mis­un­der­standing I think I was under, is the den­sity of the quanta – how packed or loose they are within super­space – doesn’t affect our per­cep­tion of a cubic meter being a cubic meter.

Am I in the ball­park here? Or am I still missing some­thing fun­da­mental with this?

– You are dead on with this insight! Congratulations ;-). The thing to keep in mind when exploring the model of the uni­verse we are employing is that it inter­jects a coherent pic­ture from an out­sider per­spec­tive. That is, it explains what observers “inside” the vacuum will observe, but only offers a fully locally deter­min­istic expla­na­tion of those effects from a per­spec­tive that is “out­side” of the vacuum. Inside of the vacuum the speed of light is always con­stant, because we cannot dis­tin­guish dif­ferent den­si­ties of space from within space, but out­side of the vacuum we can talk about dif­ferent den­si­ties and varying light speeds.

(6) What kind of self-study syl­labus would rec­om­mend in order to become fluent in the fields of math and physics required to deeply under­stand qst – say for a person who has taken dif­fer­en­tial cal­culus and a year of under­grad physics? Like, right now I can Google, “what do I need to study in order to under­stand super­fluids?” But when you try to back­track through layers of depen­dent fields of knowl­edge you’ve never studied, back to a good point of entry it’s easy to get lost.

– First I rec­om­mend fully absorbing my book (which I hear takes about 3 reads). This will allow you to have the full pic­ture in your head, and to under­stand exactly what qst is claiming. Once you have that full pic­ture, you can rein­force your math and physics knowl­edge in many ways. Here’s a short list of papers/publications to get you started. Reading these will def­i­nitely give you a sense of where to go next. If you feel intim­i­dated by any of these, that’s fine, don’t let it dis­courage you. Just read through and absorb the parts you can, and then keep a list of topics that you need a richer back­ground on. Then send me the topics and I’ll for­ward some books that will help.

Meanwhile, I’ll be working to even­tu­ally put out some videos with great graphics to make the super­fluid vacuum even more acces­sible to a wider range of people.

Thanks again for your ques­tions. I look for­ward to seeing your dis­covery process blossom ;-).

• Lynn Nicholson says:

Thanks for all the great infor­ma­tion in your answers. I read the pre-published ver­sion of Einstein’s Intuition you sent me all the way back in July, 2014 and am making my way through the first reading of the pub­lished edi­tion and things are def­i­nitely clearer for having read the ear­lier version.

You men­tioned sonons which trig­gered my rec­ol­lec­tion of some­thing recently in the news: http://​news​.sci​encemag​.org/​p​h​y​s​i​c​s​/​2​0​1​5​/​1​0​/​r​e​s​e​a​r​c​h​e​r​s​-​c​r​e​a​t​e​-​s​o​n​i​c​-​t​r​a​c​t​o​r​-​b​eam

If this can be done acousti­cally, I can only imagine what will be pos­sible when the acoustic metric of the vacuum super­fluid is put to full use.

On my ques­tion #3, I’m still not sure if we’re on the same page. Looking at the model, we have intraspa­tial vol­umes, spa­tial vol­umes (our x, y, z) and super­spa­tial vol­umes. Of these three types of volume, the first two are com­posed of sub­quanta and quanta respec­tively. Superspace, on the other hand appears to be a void of noth­ing­ness (the regions, at least, not occu­pied at any given time by quanta).

That seemed inter­esting to me because many people view the vacuum of space­time to be a void of noth­ing­ness while qst says it is actu­ally quan­tized and is made of this sub­strate of quanta. And yet, here we are with super­space – the space in between the quanta – which I cur­rently under­stand to be just like the noth­ing­ness I was taught ear­lier on in life to be the vacuum of outer space.

So it appears that the noth­ing­ness of the vacuum has been elim­i­nated but now shows up in the unoc­cu­pied volume of super­space. Any nuances I’m missing about superspace?

And a ques­tion about quantum vor­tices. Does a quantum vortex behave as a wave when it comes to have a wave can travel through vast quan­ti­ties (and dis­tances) of quanta without the quanta trav­eling all the way with them? In other words, in a moving quantum vortex does the set of quanta within the vortex main­tain the same mem­bers? Or do quantum vor­tices share a prop­erty of waves in that the wave can prop­a­gate across sig­nif­i­cant dis­tance without any of the quanta that were tem­porarily a part of it moving very far from where they were?

Thanks again for all your answers!

Lynn

Lynn,

Yes, there is more nuance to this struc­ture than the 11D res­o­lu­tion shows. From 11D the pic­ture you have in your head is accu­rate, but it incom­plete. It may help to think of the vacuum quanta as vor­tices in the back­ground sub­quanta fluid (super­space). If we only resolve 11 dimen­sions about the vacuum’s struc­ture, then we ignore the struc­ture of that super­space fluid and think of it much like you thought of empty space until now.

As for your ques­tion about quantum vor­tices, no the set of quanta within a vortex does not strictly main­tain the same mem­bers. These vor­tices rep­re­sent spe­cial wave­fronts in the medium known as sonons (think smoke rings) and can there­fore prop­a­gate without sig­nif­i­cantly dis­placing the con­nec­tivity of the under­lying medium.

36. Yan Zhiqiang says:

I am an astro­physics student.

I find your idea of dark matter and dark energy seems prospec­tive at the first glace. Hope to know more about it. So please send me a copy too.

Thank you!

Hi Yan,
Do you happen to have an iPad, or some­thing that can sup­port iBooks?

37. arthur says:

I have just been shown your tedx talk, and lis­tened to the vacuum super­flu­idity video on this site. Thank you very much for bringing me back into thinking of the­o­ret­ical physics.

I have just pur­chased your audio­book from Audible and will be get­ting right into it. The soft­cover is now \$75+ on amazon and hard­cover \$100 on lulu. Congratulations on mas­tering the 2D geom­etry of supply and demand!

I’d kindly request a copy of the pdf, as there is nothing avail­able in the kindle store and I have no ipad. I will be sorry to miss the color visuals, but…

Alternatively, I’d buy a \$100 hard­cover signed by you – just don’t tell the wife.

Thank you for your work and your atten­tion to the com­menters here.

My very best,

Arthur