80

Samtaler: Del

Samtaler: Part One, debut. Dette er den første af seks samtaler 'på kvante plads teori (QST). I denne episode, Thad Roberts oversigter kvante plads teori, viser os, hvordan man visualisere elleve dimensioner. Ingen anden teori (superstrengteori, M-teori, supergravitation, etc.) har været i stand til at tilbyde menneskeheden sådan et levende vindue ind i den komplette dimensionelle struktur af naturen. Denne intuitive tilgang bringer en ny bredde for menneskers fantasi og tilbyder en fascinerende ny intellektuel vision, der har potentiale til at ændre verden ved at ændre den måde, vi ser det. Evnen til at forstå og intuitivt forstå elleve dimensioner sætter scenen for at besvare de største mysterier i fysik.

Kommentarer (80)

Trackback URL | Kommentarer RSS Feed

  1. Nunya Bizness siger:

    Ingen af ​​hvad du siger, er sandt. Jeg vil ikke tage sig tid til at tilbagevise alle denne video, men lad mig sige dette:

    Almen relativitet er ikke "forkert", i den forstand, at du påstår. Det er forkert i den forstand, at en mere præcis teori en dag vil komme sammen. Men det er langt den mest præcise teori om tyngdekraften, der nogensinde er blevet fremsat.

    Jeg vil forklare for dig, hvordan det virker, fordi du tydeligvis ikke forstår.

    Generelle relativitetsteori (GR) opfanger hvor specielle relativitetsteori blade off; nemlig: tanken om, at tid og rum er en uadskillelig enhed kaldet rumtid. Et oplagt spørgsmål er, "hvad er geometri rumtiden?« Man kan antage, at rumtiden er euklidisk. Du ville være forkert.

    De grundlæggende matematiske fundament for GR er differential geometri, som er anvendelsen af ​​flerdimensionale calculus til geometriske objekter. Via differential geometri, kan alle begreberne et rum geometri udledes fra en matematisk objekt, kendt som det metriske. Metrikken er en tensor, der kan anvendes til at beregne afstanden mellem to punkter i rummet. Så det metriske helt karakteriserer geometrien af ​​et rum. Den euklidiske metrik for n-rum er en nxn matrix, hvis indgange er alle nul, undtagen for diagonalen, hvor posterne er alle 1. Hvis du bruger dette til at generere afstanden mellem to punkter i rummet, vil du blive returneret den velkendte Pythagoræiske sætning: a ^ 2 + b ^ 2 = c ^ 2 (bemærk, at dette er den 2-dimensional version af sætningen, og det kan generaliseres på indlysende måde at enhver dimension af euklidisk rum).

    Rumtid er, at en meget god tilnærmelse, euklidisk. Men for at være mere præcis, er det ikke. Dette bliver især tydeligt ved meget store afstande, ved meget store hastigheder, eller i meget høje tyngdefelter. Metrikken for rumtiden er identisk med den euklidiske metrik, med den undtagelse, at den diagonale post i kolonnen for tiden har modsat fortegn fra resten af ​​de diagonale poster.

    Hvad er effekten af ​​denne? Tja, en velkendt sætning fra euklidisk geometri, er, at den korteste afstand mellem to punkter er en lige linje. I rumtiden, ikke det er sådan. På grund af de grundlæggende resultater fra specielle relativitetsteori at jeg ikke vil udlede her (læser eller bachelorstuderendes speciel relativitet lærebog), mængden af ​​tid målt af en observatør er afhængig af den vej, han rejser gennem rumtiden. Dette kaldes det rigtige tidspunkt. På grund af den ikke-euklidiske karakter rumtiden, den korteste afstand mellem to punkter er faktisk det, som minimerer det rigtige tidspunkt. Med andre ord, zipping ud over kanten af ​​galaksen ved lysets hastighed, og derefter returnere vil kræve mindre tid for dig i dit rumskib, end det ville for mig at vente, mens du går på din rejse. Dette er den berømte tvillingeparadokset.

    Anyway, resultatet af dette er, at ved den variational princip (som bør være bekendt for dig, hvis du har været udsat for Lagrange mekanik, som jeg formoder du ikke ...), objekter i rumtiden har tendens til at rejse med den sti, som minimerer deres rette tid. Som tidligere nævnt, er rette tid afkortes ved rejser ved høj hastighed, eller er i et gravitationsfelt.

    Tag nu, som et eksempel, et æble på et træ. Æblet vil forsøge at minimere dens rette tid. Det vil gøre dette ved at bevæge sig i retning et gravitationsfelt - nemlig Jorden. Dette resulterer i en tiltrækningskraft mellem æble og planeten. Med andre ord, fremtiden for Apples worldlike peger mod Jordens centrum.

    Det er sådan tyngdekraften virker, i en nøddeskal. Det faktum, at du ikke kender dette undgår din inkompetence til at være at forsøge at arbejde på dette område. Men det er din egen tid at spilde, jeg gætte ...

    • Geo siger:

      Så lad mig få dette lige ... Æblet vil forsøge at minimere sin rette tid ved at flytte mod en tyngdefelt, og det er, hvad tyngdekraften er (i en stærk ontologisk forstand). Hvorfor æblet forsøger at minimere sin rette tid? Hvad er en tyngdefelt? Hvad er tyngdekraft? Din kommentar er ikke rigtig besvaret nogen af ​​disse spørgsmål, eller endda hjalp afklare dem. Alt du har gjort, er fastsætte en magisk felt, der tiltrækker æbler.

      • Chandan Srivastava siger:

        korteste distence kan være foranstaltning calculus variationer.

        • Thad Roberts siger:

          Du er korrekt at sige, at korteste afstand kan måles ved hjælp af en calculus variation, så længe det metriske taler vi om der er glat og forbundet. I en kvantiseret metrik spørgsmålet kan få lidt mere kompliceret.

          • "I en kvantiseret metrik spørgsmålet kan få lidt mere kompliceret." - Thad Roberts.

            Derfor er en yderligere komplikation gælder for kvante granularitet som det gælder for alle objekter. Alle objekter er perceptioner, herunder begreber. Alle eksistentiel virkelighed (bevidsthed) er fænomenologisk eller fortælling. Fejlen er ikke bare konceptualisering af det overnaturlige. Det er endnu mere akut perceptualization af supernarrative. Med andre ord, antydning af mystiske guder, og påkaldelse af animere personer som diskrete viljesbestemte objekter står i gensidig konstruktion.

            Med hensyn til differentialregning. Det også begynder ikke at komme ind på spørgsmålet om eksistens. Det er, men en anden morsom fortælling rynke.

      • Peter Martin siger:

        "Hvad er tyngdekraft?" "Hvad er et tyngdefelt?" Det er pseudo "ER" spørgsmål, som efter deres natur kan aldrig blive besvaret.

        Du kan nyde at læse om Society for Ganeral semantik ledet af Alfred Korzybski, der undgået udsagn og spørgsmål, hvis vigtigste (eller kun) verbum er en form for "at være".

    • Jon siger:

      Til Nunya: alt, hvad du sagde, er alt sammen meget godt, men du ikke forklare én ting: hvad er en tyngdefelt? Generel relativitetsteori forklarer effekten af ​​tyngdekraften, men det stadig ikke rigtig forklare, hvad tyngdekraften er. Ligesom han siger i videoen, vi har haft til at antage, at tyngdekraften er en kraft. Men hvis det er, hvorfor er det så utroligt svagt i forhold til de andre kræfter? Relativitetsteorien er en stor teori for store ting, men det forklarer ikke noget på det subatomare skala. Mindst denne teori giver de samme regler for hele universet i enhver skala. Og det giver en stor forklaring på, hvad tid er.

  2. Nunya Bizness siger:

    Det er den inerti princip: en genstand vil rejse i en lige linje, medmindre påvirkes af en kraft. Definitionen på en "lige linje" er den vej, der minimerer afstanden.

    Det centrale i GR er, at rummet ikke er flad, og at tyngdekraften er en manifestation af skæv plads tid. At vridning forårsager lige linjer (dem der minimerer ordentlig tid) til at bue mod stykker af masse - med andre ord, tiltrække objekter hinanden.

    General Relativity er en meget kompleks teori. Hvad jeg har skrevet er et latterligt kort crash-introduktion til det. I stedet for bare at være skeptisk over for alt og afskedige den ud af hånden, hvorfor så ikke rent faktisk læst en lærebog om relativitetsteori? Det er svært at påstå, at du har modbevist relativitetsteori uden selv at forstå det først ...

    • Geo siger:

      Først og fremmest, jeg (og jeg er ikke Thad, så jeg ikke taler for ham) er ikke skeptisk over for GR. Det har vist sig som meget som nogen teori kan. Faktisk tror jeg, ved siden af ​​antikke græske atomare teori, det er det vigtigste teoretiske (fysik) gennembrud menneskeheden nogensinde har gjort. Når det er sagt, tror jeg ikke, det er komplet, heller ikke Einstein selv. Hvad jeg tror ikke, du forstår, er, at QST er en udvidelse til Gr. Det er på mange måder, kvantiseringen af ​​GR (fra en kontinuerlig til en diskret system). Du synes at mene, at vi smide GR. Vi er ikke. Thad ikke navn sin bog "Einsteins Intuition" ud af trods, men snarere af respekt. Hvis du havde gidet at lytte til, hvad der blev sagt i den video, du ville have vundet, at selv.

      For det andet QST postulerer den selvsamme idé, at tyngdekraften er en manifestation af skæv rumtid. Men QST giver en konkret mekanisme til at vridning. Tyngdekraften er bogstaveligt, en ændring i densiteten af ​​rummet (en densitetsgradient). Jeg tror ikke, dette kaster GR ud af vinduet. Tværtimod, det står på de store skuldre både Einstein og hans teorier.

      Hvis du gerne vil have en kritisk, produktiv dialog om dette, Thad og jeg er mere end villig til at gøre det. Din antagonisme og misfortolkninger af QST, men er ikke af interesse for os.

      Cheers,

      Jeff (site Admin)

      • Nunya Bizness siger:

        Min pointe er ikke, at du er hamrende GR. Det er, at du er misforstået det, og dermed de konklusioner, du tegner er forkerte.

        For eksempel, siger Thad i videoen, at det almindeligt set "trampolin" diagram over GR er forkert, fordi det forsømmer en akse af plads, og at vi på en måde har brug for flere dimensioner af plads til at "strække sig ind" for GR til at arbejde. Det er selvfølgelig diagram er forkert - det er bare en metafor. Det er kun til at indføre begrebet til lægmænd, der forståeligt nok har svært ved kæmper med en 4-dimensionel pseudo-Riemannsk manifold. At tro, at den simple model indkapsler teorien er en fejl. Rummet kan slå sig uden vridning ind i en anden dimension.

        Der er utallige andre spørgsmål, der ikke torv med etablerede matematik og fysik, såsom tanken om, at pi repræsenterer en mængde krumning (og at dette er den mindste mængde krumning). Pi er et forhold; krumning måles ved retningsbestemt partielle afledede.

        Jeg er ikke fortæller dig at stoppe, hvad du laver. Jeg siger dig, som en, der er uddannet i matematik og fysik, at hvis du er interesseret i disse ting, er du på det forkerte spor, og det kommer ikke til at tage dig overalt meningsfuld. Jeg beklager, hvis det er barske, men forskellen mellem sandt og falsk er meget skarp. Hvilket er grunden til jeg bønfalder dig og Thad at studere etablerede fysik ligesom Relativity i dybden (dvs. matematisk), før du forsøger at forbedre dem.

        • Geo siger:

          Jeg sætter pris på, hvad du siger. Jeg er ikke en matematiker eller fysiker, men snarere en interesseret (og sandsynligvis over-uddannede) lå person. Men der er flere matematikere og teoretiske fysikere arbejder på formaliseringen af ​​QST lige nu med Thad. De synes at mene, at der er noget til det. Disse mennesker er bekendt med de teorier og matematik du taler om i dine kommentarer. De har gjort mere end at læse de indledende tekster, du antyder. Ikke at være en ekspert må jeg bøje sig for dem. Når det er sagt, ingen af ​​dem har kastet deres hænder op og gik væk efter mange måneders arbejde, snarere de er blevet mere overbevist. De føler stadig der er noget at hente videnskabeligt af deres indsats.

          Fra en lægmand synspunkt QST tilbud (for mig mindst) en forklaring på et væld af forskelligartede fænomener (både makroskopisk og mikroskopisk), der modstår forklaring til denne dag. Et af Thad pointer er, at en teori, der ikke giver en forklaring, er ikke meget af en teori (det ville være en jab på standard fortolkning af kvantemekanikken, som det rigt fortjener). Jeg forstår, at før en fuldstændig formalisering er færdig meste af det videnskabelige samfund vil ikke give QST tidspunktet på dagen (og mange vil ikke engang når at formalisering er færdig). Men på dette punkt, at teorien er stadig testes i laboratoriet af logik. Finde en fejl med sin logik, sine lokaler, sine konklusioner. Det er, hvor vi er nu. Hidtil mig bekendt, har ingen modbevist nogen af ​​disse teoretiske resumeer af QST.

          Der er naturligvis stadig meget arbejde at gøre, men jeg tror (ja, det er en tro), at et solidt fundament allerede er bygget. Som de siger, djævelen er i detaljerne, og de detaljer er ved at blive udarbejdet. Papirerne vil blive skrevet. De jævnaldrende vil gennemgå.

          Jeg ville invitere dig til at læse hele bogen (som vi kan sende via PDF, hvis du ønsker).

        • Jon siger:

          Nunya, hvor har du været mand? Alle de banebrydende nye fysik bliver gjort forudsætter, at der er ekstra rumlige dimensioner. Hvis du er så sikker på, at GR er den være alt ende alt, så forklare kvante tunneling. Forklar usikkerhed princip. Han kan ikke røre det. Einstein selv troede ikke, der virkelig eksisterede sorte huller. Vi har nu bevis for, at der er millioner overalt. GR fuldstændig nedbryder i centrum af et sort hul. Vi kan ikke gå videre, hvis vi ikke er villige til at underholde muligheden for yderligere dimensioner. Få med programmet.

        • G-bolt siger:

          Du beskrev matematiske forklaringer af kræfter. Du forklarede, hvordan de opfører sig, uden nogen anelse om, hvorfor.

          Den skæv plads model er en lægmands model, kan du kaste det som du accepterer den antagelse, at rummet kan være krumme på en måde, vi ikke kan opfatte.

          Problemet er, at ved definitionen for noget at kurve (eller for at ændre egenskaber, er der ingen forskel) på en måde, som er usynlige for os det skal bevæge sig i en anden dimension. Ændring enhver ejendom er at ændre en "dimension".

          Imagining disse dimensioner i fysiske termer bare gør deres samspil nemmere at forstå eller i det mindste giver et nyt perspektiv.

  3. Johannes siger:

    Jeg tror (Nunya Bizness) har fuldstændig missede budskabet her. Du er velkommen til din mening, men efter at have læst over dine kommentarer det forekommer mig, at du har forvekslet krav fra kvante plads teori. Jeg ved formuleringen er endnu ikke afsluttet, men de grundlæggende principper har sammenhæng.

    Jeg er interesseret i din påstand, at "rum kan slå sig uden vridning ind i en anden dimension."

    Jeg finder ingen vægtige grunde til denne påstand. Lad mig forklare. At sige, at rummet kan slå sig uden vridning ind i andre dimensioner vil sige, at du har en mekanisme, en forklaring, for hvordan rummet kan warp - ikke blot en beskrivelse af, hvordan rummet er bøjet rundt om massive objekter. Mens Det kan vise sig at være tilfældet, at der er andre måder for plads til at slå sig (bortset vridning ind i andre dimensioner), kan en sådan påstand ikke underbygget, før en slags eksempel lagt frem. Du kan ikke bare sige, se, rummet er skæv, fordi vi har givet plads en metrik, der giver det at kvaliteten af ​​at blive fordrejet. Opfinde en repræsentation af en kvalitet er helt forskellig fra forklarer, at kvaliteten. Som det ser ud lige nu (i moderne lærebøger) selve meningen med "skæv plads" er utilgængelige. Selvfølgelig kan du bruge matematik til at repræsentere det, efterligner det, kopiere det, eller hvad, men det matematik betyder ikke nødvendigvis, at du har en forklaring på dens oprindelse. Præcis hvordan gør rumtiden warp uden vridning ind i en anden dimension (er)? Det er det centrale spørgsmål ved hånden. Quantum plads teori siger, at det ikke kan, men det gør ikke skubbe skæv rumtid ud af billedet, i stedet det tydeliggør, hvordan warp kommer omkring - forsvarede Einstein på en måde, ville meget behage ham.

    Jeg har læst en hel del mere end de lærebøger, du taler om. Jeg har taget klasserne (både i matematik og fysik) og derefter gået videre. Hvis du har gjort det samme, så er jeg sikker på du er enig, at i de bøger, de simpelthen få folk til at sluge "indvolde, fjer, og alle" tanken om, at vi kan opfinde et felt ud af ingenting, så længe dette område udbytter resultater, der matcher observation. Tyngdefeltet antages at give plads nogle yderligere kendetegn, som er konfigurerbare af en tensor. Problemet er, og har altid været, at den simple opfindelse af dette felt ikke giver os en forklaring på, hvordan dette område indvikler med rumtid, hvad der forårsager den til at komme i eksistens, eller hvad det egentlig er. Det er netop taget som brute at det eksisterer i forbindelse med masse, uden nogen nødvendig grund. Logikken her behov for lidt af forbedring. Det skal også lidt mere ærlighed. Einstein var godt klar over dette (at finde denne forklaring var det projekt, der besatte hans sidste 30 år). Selv om det er rigtigt, at hvis du bare sluge eksistensen af ​​dette felt vil du enig i, at lige stier bliver stierne i baner, men kvante plads teori ikke bestride dette - det forsøger at forklare det. Teorien er blot at spørge en anden, mere grundlæggende spørgsmål, end du giver det kredit for. Det spørger, hvorfor og hvordan dette warp sker?

    Forskerne bør ikke blot være på udkig efter en forening, burde vi være på udkig efter en årsagssammenhæng, en forklaring. Der er en ganske signifikant forskel mellem foreninger og forklaring, ganske signifikant forskel mellem at have en matematisk repræsentation af et system og en komplet metafysiske forklaring på dette system. Det er derfor jeg, og et stigende antal forskere, er interesseret i dette, og, i hvert fald i mit tilfælde, afsætter lidt tid hver uge på at udvikle det.

    • Nunya Bizness siger:

      "Jeg ved formuleringen er endnu ikke afsluttet, men de grundlæggende principper har sammenhæng."

      Det gør de ikke. For eksempel: det billede, Thad bruger i ovenstående video, med de "bobler" hoppende om, er ikke 11 dimensionelle overhovedet. Det er tredimensional. De "bobler" bevæger sig i tre dimensioner, og Thad hævder, at der er tre dimensioner inde i boblen. Der er ikke noget der adskiller indersiden og ydersiden af ​​andre end boblen væg boble, så der er ingen grund til at betragte dem som separate riger.

      Alle dimensioner af et givet rum er vinkelret på hinanden (dette er et meget velkendt resultat af lineær algebra). Hvis du ønsker at forestille sig 11-dimensionelle rum, er du nødt til at forestille sig, 11 linjer, der alle er vinkelrette på hinanden. Du kan ikke. Hverken kan I. Det er umuligt, og vores manglende evne til at forestille det har absolut intet at gøre med fysik.

      "Jeg er interesseret i din påstand, at" rum kan slå sig uden vridning ind i en anden dimension. "
      Jeg finder ingen vægtige grunde til denne påstand. "

      Dette er ikke et krav. Det er en matematisk sandhed, der er ekstremt indlysende, selv i det virkelige liv. Tag for eksempel en elastik. Forestil du bor på overfladen af ​​dette bånd. Hvis jeg strække det, vil du opleve den plads omkring dig vridning. Afstanden mellem dig og nærliggende objekter vil stige. Dette svarer til, hvad der sker i rumtiden. Dimensioner strække i deres egen retning.

      "Lad mig forklare. At sige, at rummet kan slå sig uden vridning ind i andre dimensioner vil sige, at du har en mekanisme, en forklaring, for hvordan rummet kan warp -. Ikke blot en beskrivelse af, hvordan rummet er bøjet rundt om massive objekter "

      Nej. Det følger ikke logisk. At sige, at rummet kan slå sig uden at behøve andre dimensioner er en erklæring, der står på sine egne. Det er en geometrisk erklæring. Essensen af ​​denne erklæring, matematisk, er, at dimensionerne er lineært uafhængige. Den siger ikke noget om en "mekanisme".

      I hvert fald, er GR postulere en "mekanisme". Nemlig sagen mellemlinerne rumtiden. Periode. Kig på Einstein Field ligning. Bogstaveligt, stress-energi = rumtid krumning. Måske er der en dybere forklaring. Og det vil være et objekt for undersøgelse af den næste teori om tyngdekraften. Men den simple kendsgerning er, GR giver mening, det har været ekstremt (!) Bagvasket af eksperimentet, og det giver en oplysende billede af tyngdekraften (vridning af rumtid).

      "Selve meningen med" skæv plads "er utilgængelig"

      Et problem, som QST fortalere synes at have, er, at de tror, ​​at alle fysik skal være reduceres til simple "billeder", at enhver lægmand kan forstå. Det ville være rart hvis det var muligt, men det er ikke. Fysik (især på det niveau QST forsøger at fungere) er yderst komplekst, og der er ingen måde at komme rundt på det. Det er derfor, folk som Einstein betragtes som genier; ikke bare en idiot kan forstå det. Så for at hjælpe flere mennesker forstår, forskerne ofte forenkle og omstøde deres teorier i meget grundlæggende ideer og metaforer (ligesom trampolin model relativitetsteori). Problemet er, vil mange mennesker forveksle denne metafor for selve teorien. De vil opdage, at modellen er behæftet med fejl, og pludselig tror de, de har lavet opdagelsen af ​​århundredet. Men modellen er designet til at være behæftet med fejl; Disse fejl tillader modellen at være enkel nok til at forstå.

      "Præcis hvordan gør rumtiden warp uden vridning ind i en anden dimension (er)? Det er det centrale spørgsmål ved hånden. Quantum plads teori siger, at det ikke kan, men det gør ikke skubbe skæv rumtid ud af billedet, i stedet det tydeliggør, hvordan warp kommer omkring -. Forsvarede Einstein på en måde, vil meget behage ham "

      Først og fremmest kan du ikke tale for Einstein; Han er lang død. For det andet, hvis QST hævder, at rumtiden kræver yderligere dimensioner for at blive fordrejet, så QST pauser relativitetsteori. Slutningen af ​​historien. Relativity afhænger fundamentalt på, at rumtiden kan gøre dette. Og GR er for det meste korrekt. Så hvis nogen teori overtræder denne idé (eller enhver anden, der afkræfter GR helt), at teorien skal være falsk. Der er ikke to måder om det.

      "Du er enig, at i de bøger, de simpelthen få folk til at sluge" indvolde, fjer, og alle "tanken om, at vi kan opfinde et felt ud af ingenting, så længe dette område giver resultater, der matcher observation."

      Der er en filosofisk problem her. Du er korrekt at sige, at der er en forskel mellem at forudsige et fænomen og faktisk forklare det. En god teori skal gøre begge dele. Men du må forstå to ting: 1) videnskab er en proces. Den oprindelige teori for gravitation (Newtons) tilbudt nogen forklaring overhovedet. Men det var fremragende til at forudsige. Relativity forbedret forudsigelse, og tilbød en forklaring (buet geometri). Du kan klage, at forklaringen ikke går langt nok, men det betyder ikke, det ikke er en forklaring. Den næste teori om tyngdekraften vil helt sikkert holde mere indsigt. Og 2), de forklaringer, en teori er ikke altid nemt. Einstein * gjorde * forklare tyngdekraften, i det mindste i et omfang. Men den forklaring (når det gives i fuld) kræver brug af 4 dimensioner - noget vi ikke vant til. Den eneste måde at gøre det synes enkle er at fratage væk nogle af kompleksiteten, og taler metaforisk om en bowlingkugle på en trampolin.

      "Tyngdefeltet antages at give plads nogle yderligere kendetegn, som er konfigurerbare af en tensor. Problemet er, og har altid været, at den simple opfindelse af dette felt ikke giver os en forklaring på, hvordan dette område indvikler med rumtid, hvad der forårsager den til at komme i eksistens, eller hvad det egentlig er. "

      Det meste af dette ikke engang mening. Gravity ikke entangle med rumtiden; Det giver ikke rumtid nogle underlige egenskab. Tyngdekraften er krumning af rummet, ikke mere, ikke mindre. Det kan betragtes som et felt, som Newton gjorde; men Relativity siger, det er geometri, og det er meget mere præcis. Relativitetsteorien siger, at denne krumning er forårsaget af massen. Hvis der er noget dybere foregår her (hvor der måske ikke er!), Vil nogle af de kommende teori afdække det.

      Jo større problem her er meningen med tilværelsen. Den måde videnskab fungerer, er ved at postulere en teori om et fænomen; en forklaring. Denne forklaring skal være god nok til at give en forudsigelse (i moderne tid det betyder matematik). Den givne forklaring kan postulere eksistensen af ​​ting ud over, hvad der i øjeblikket er observeret (eller er muligt at observere). Hvis teorien er sammenhængende, giver præcise forudsigelser, og er så enkle som muligt (Ockhams ragekniv), kan det blive betragtet på et vist niveau som værende sandt.

      For eksemplet med tyngdefeltet, Relativity: tyngdekraften er krumning af rumtiden. Dette beregnes med Ricci tensor, og meget præcise forudsigelser er lavet. Stort set alle forudsigelse af GR er blevet verificeret til eksperimentel grænse - og dette inkluderer, vigtigst af alt, den direkte måling af rumtidskrumning!

      On the other hand, QST: self-contradictory and incoherent explanation of various phenomena. No mathematical predictions at all. (Pi is not a measurement of curvature!) No experimental predictions, no experimental tests. It fails on every count. There is nothing here.

      • Geo says:

        I'll respond to each section individually (if I'm missing something, John, please comment yourself):

        “I know the formultion is not yet complete, but the foundational principles do have coherence.”

        They do not. For example: the picture that Thad uses in the above video, with the “bubbles” bouncing about is not 11 dimensional at all. It is three dimensional. The “bubbles” are moving in three dimensions, and Thad claims that there are three dimensions inside the bubble. There is nothing separating the inside and the outside of the bubble other than the bubble's wall, so there is no reason to regard them as separate realms.

        If you take the original axiom seriously then this picture does represent 9 dimensions of space. Quantization institutes the very restriction that you are ignoring, so your complaint begs the question.

        All the dimensions of a given space are perpendicular to one another (this is a very well-known result of linear algebra). If you want to imagine 11-dimensional space, you have to imagine 11 lines that are all perpendicular to one another. You can't. Neither can I. It's impossible, and our failure to picture it has absolutely nothing to do with physics.

        Technically, “perpendicular” is an oversimplification used in elementary geometry. The correct term is orthogonal. Two elements of an inner product space fit the definition of orthogonal if their inner product is zero. Two subspaces can be called independent dimensions if they are orthogonal, and they are orthogonal if every element of one is orthogonal to every element of the other. To put it simply, if motion in one does not entail motion in the other then they are orthogonal subspaces. Your assertion that it is impossible to imagine more than 3 space dimensions is something that we definitely disagree on. You are entitled to remain with your current opinion. (Thanks to my mathematician friend for help here…)

        “I am interested in your claim that “space can warp without warping into another dimension.” I find no substantial grounds for this claim.”

        This is not a claim. It's a mathematical truth that is extremely obvious, even in real life. Take, for example, a rubber band. Imagine you live on the surface of that band. If I stretch it, you will witness the space around you warping. The distance between you and nearby objects will increase. This is similar to what happens in spacetime. Dimensions stretch in their own direction.

        Ok, let's take your example seriously. Imagine that we all live on the surface of a that band, except for you of course because you are stretching it. As you stretch it and we observe the rest of the universe that we are aware of, which is also contained by the band, what will we see? Ingenting. Exactly nothing. We are stretching in exact proportion with the rest of the universe so everything appears to be identical at all points to us whether or not you stretch it. The only way out of this conclusion is to imagine that you, as the observer, somehow live outside of the space that is stretching instead of being within it. At any rate, you haven't addressed the concern.

        “Let me explain. To say that space can warp without warping into other dimensions is to say that you have a mechanism, an explanation, for how space might warp – not merely a description for how space is warped around massive objects.”

        No. This does not follow logically. To say that space can warp without needing other dimensions is a statement that stands on its own. It is a geometrical statement. The essence of that statement, mathematically, is that dimensions are linearly independent. It says nothing about a “mechanism.”

        Linearly independent makes no play here. All dimensions, by definition, are orthogonal whether or not curvature is a part of the description. You say that “it can warp without needing other dimensions” then simply explain how. You are asserting that it is possible, that there is some way for this to occur, that it is at least feasible, so provide something to validates this.

        At any rate, GR does posit a “mechanism.” Namely, matter warps spacetime. Periode. Look at the Einstein Field Equation. Literally, stress-energy = spacetime curvature. Perhaps there is a deeper explanation. And that will be an object of study of the next theory of gravity. But the simple fact is, GR makes sense, it has been extremely(!) vilified [sic] by experiment, and it provides an enlightening view of gravity (the warping of spacetime).

        This is a study of the next theory of gravity. What do you think we've been talking about all of this time? Of course general relativity makes sense! It's almost correct too. Of course it has been extremely verified by experiment. Nowhere have we ever contested this. In fact, our interest in general relativity and developing a way to make it account for the effects of quantum mechanics has been the motivation all along. I don't know how you got the idea that QST is pitted against general relativity. It simply isn't the case. We are on the quest to vindicate general relativity the rest of the way, to find its fundamental ontological explanation and to show how the geometry that gives rise to the beautiful effects of general relativity can also be linked to the effects of quantum mechanics.

        “the very meaning of “warped space” is inaccessible”

        A problem that QST advocates seem to have is that they think all of physics should be reducible to simple “pictures” that any layman can understand. It would be nice if that were possible, but it's not. Physics (especially at the level QST tries to function) is extremely complex, and there's no way of getting around that. That's why people like Einstein are regarded as geniuses; not just any schmuck can understand it. So, in order to help more people understand, scientists frequently simplify and quash their theories into very basic ideas and metaphors (like the trampoline model of relativity). The problem is, many people will mistake this metaphor for the actual theory. They'll notice that the model is flawed, and suddenly they think they've made the discovery of the century. But the model is designed to be flawed; those flaws allow the model to be simple enough to understand.

        You will have to allow all of us QST advocates to firmly disagree with you here. We continue to support Einstein on this one.

        “It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid.” – Albert Einstein

        “Exactly how does space time warp without warping into another dimension(s)? That's the central question at hand. Quantum space theory says that it can't, but it doesn't push warped space time out of the picture, instead it clarifies how the warp comes about – vindicating Einstein in a way that would very much please him.”

        First of all, you cannot speak for Einstein; he is long dead. Second, if QST claims that spacetime requires additional dimensions in order to be warped, then QST breaks Relativity. Slutningen af ​​historien. Relativity depends fundamentally on the fact that spacetime can do this. And GR is mostly correct. So if any theory violates this idea (or any other that invalidates GR entirely) that theory must be false. There's no two ways about it.

        Of course QST breaks with relativity, but only on the microscopic scale, where every future theory of gravity must break with it if it has any hope of being right. General relativity IS mostly correct. Why are you still trying to comment on this as if we disagree? Any complete theory of gravity must disagree with general relativity on the small scales and agree with is on the large scales. Simple as that. Einstein knew this, no way around it, so I'm not sure how your complaint is supposed to be directed.

        “you'll agree that in those books they simply get people to swallow “guts, feathers, and all” the idea that we can invent a field out of nowhere as long as that field yields results that match observation.”

        There is a philosophical issue here. You are correct to say that there is a difference between predicting a phenomenon and actually explaining it. A good theory must do both. But you must understand two things: 1) science is a process. The original theory of gravity (Newton's) offered no explanation at all. But it was excellent at predicting. Relativity improved the prediction, and offered an explanation (curved geometry).

        We could not agree more.

        You may complain that the explanation does not go far enough, but that does not mean it is not an explanation. The next theory of gravity will surely hold more insight.

        And exactly what do you think we are doing here. This is our point. This is why we are working on this.

        And 2), the explanations given by a theory are not always simple.

        Du har ret. They are only simple when they are complete and correct.

        Einstein *did* explain gravity, at least to an extent. But that explanation (when given in full) requires the use of 4 dimensions – something we're not used to. The only way to make it seem simple is to strip away some of the complexity, and speak metaphorically about a bowling ball on a trampoline.

        Seeing it for what it is instead of only partially explaining it can make it simple too. Of course the trampoline is only intended as a metaphor. Of course Einstein would have gone with something better if he had succeeded in finding it. Are you trying to argue that because Einstein is dead no one should continue pushing for a more complete explanation?

        “The gravitational field is assumed to give space some additional characteristic which is mappable by a tensor. The problem is, and always has been, that the simple invention of this field does not give us an explanation for how that field entangles with spacetime, what causes it to come into existence, or what it really is.”

        Most of this doesn't even make sense. Gravity doesn't entangle with spacetime; it does not give spacetime some weird characteristic.

        Curvature is a characteristic.

        Gravity is the curvature of space, no more, no less. It can be regarded as a field, which Newton did; but Relativity says it is geometry, and it is much more accurate. Relativity says that this curvature is caused by mass. If there is anything deeper going on here (which there may not be!), some future theory will uncover it.

        The larger issue here is the meaning of existence. The way science works is by postulating a theory of a phenomenon; an explanation. That explanation must be good enough to give a prediction (in modern times this means math). The given explanation may postulate the existence of things beyond what is presently observed (or is possible to observe). If the theory is coherent, gives accurate predictions, and is as simple as possible (Occam's Razor), it may be regarded on some level as being true.

        Præcis. Feel free to direct yourself to the general predictions that stem from this geometry. If your attack is that there are no “exact” predictions yet, due to the fact that we haven't finished the full mathematical formulation of the geometry, then you hardly have any business telling us to stop working on the math of the theory.

        For the example of the gravitational field, Relativity: gravity is curvature of spacetime. This is calculated with the Ricci tensor, and highly accurate predictions are made. Virtually every prediction of GR has been verified to experimental limit – and this includes, most importantly, the direct measurement of spacetime curvature!

        Of course it has. It is abundantly clear that you are entirely confused about the claims and goals of this new theory. You are determined to pit it against general relativity instead of seeing it as an ontological validation and supporter of general relativity.

        On the other hand, QST: self-contradictory and incoherent explanation of various phenomena. No mathematical predictions at all. (Pi is not a measurement of curvature!) No experimental predictions, no experimental tests. It fails on every count. There is nothing here.

        Yes, pi can easily be used as a measurement of curvature. Go back and check your math. The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter will change when you put it in a space with the Ricci tensor. Uninformed assertions are not questions. If you have questions feel free to ask. If your agenda is simply to push your conviction that a theory that you won't hear out must be wrong, because you've already decided before reading it that it conflicts with general relativity in a way that it shouldn't, then this is really not the place for those kinds of rants.

        Thanks for you questions. We shall continue our calculations and work (despite your suggestion that an already complete mathematical formulation is the only kind anyone should work on).

      • Jim siger:

        If dimensions stretch in their own direction, how would one know they stretched?

        • Thad Roberts says:

          I'm not sure it means much to say that a dimension stretches in its own direction. To define “stretching” in a meaningful way we need to reference a property that changes in reference to another dimension. If you are pointing out that if the universe of x, y, z space has been stretching/expanding, in the way often visually modeled on a balloon to explain the redshift we measure and connect to dark energy, then you are right to point out that this popular model actually doesn't provide a coherent explanation of stretching. If, on the other hand, one region of space “stretched” more or less than another, it would leave geometric distortions (curvature) that could be detected.

  4. Me says:

    Rather than writing a lengthy response, allow me to just point out a number of falsehoods I have seen involved with QST, and ask how they are to be resolved.

    Pi represents the smallest amount of curvature possible in spacetime. (Russian character) represents the greatest amount.

    QST is 11 dimensions even though real space is 3 dimensions, the inside of the “bubbles” is 3 dimensions, and the space the “bubbles” move through is 3 dimensions, and there is nothing separating those regions from one another.

    En kvante af noget er den mindst mulige enhed af den ting. En kvante plads er en "boble" over hvilket der er ingen definition af rummet. Men der er plads inde i boblerne, på en måde.

    Gravity er repræsenteret som tæthedsgradienten af ​​plads kvanter. Men tyngdekraften er forårsaget af sagen. Sagen ikke plads. Hvordan fungerer dette engang mening?

    Tiden er resonation af plads kvanter. Hvorfor? Hvordan? Hvad ræsonnement fører til denne konklusion?

    Hvis der er 11 dimensioner, hvorfor kan vi ikke se dem? String Theory siger ekstra dem er krøllet op meget lille. QST synes at have ekstra dimensioner lige slags ... flyder derude ...

    • Geo siger:

      Lad mig tage fat på disse spørgsmål så godt jeg kan én efter én:

      "Pi repræsenterer den mindste mængde af krumning mulig i rumtiden. (Russisk tegn) repræsenterer den største mængde. "

      [Den russiske karakter er "Zhe"]

      Generelt relativitet forholdet mellem omkreds og diameter går til nul, når sorte huller er i det område, hvis krumning bliver beskrevet (fordi nævneren, diameteren af ​​den cirkel centreret på et sort hul, går mod uendelig, hvis rumtiden er kontinuerlig og sorte huller er nul størrelse). Kvantemekanik har et problem med det uendeligt i nævneren. Det er i modstrid med almen relativitet på dette punkt, og afskærer denne uendelighed med sin påstand om, at den mindste afstand i rummet er Planck længden. QST er enig i denne påstand og dens geometri giver os en måde at kvantitativt bestemme et udtryk for den maksimale krumning, der er nedsat ved det afskåret. Hvorfor er det interessant? Det er interessant, for hvis det er rigtigt, så betyder det, at der er to dimensionsløse tal, der ligger i den geometriske kort over rumtid, kombineret med de fem Planck værdier, der følger af kvantisering. Dette bringer os til noget endnu mere interessant ... Uanset hvad dette andet geometriske tal er, dens værdi skal være mellem nul og pi. Indsnævre den ned mere er der forventes generelt, at det er mellem 0 og 0,7. Så påstanden af ​​denne geometriske model er, at der er en vis tal mellem 0 og 0,7, som kan kombineres til de 5 Planck parametre og pi, at nonarbitrarily producere eller "koder" de geometriske effekter, der er indbygget i rumtiden - konstanter Naturen. Da det viser sig der er sådan et nummer, og det sker for at falde i dette område. (Se naturens konstanter side på dette websted.) Dette er væsentlig nok til at berettige den nuværende indsats for at teoretisk udlede den nøjagtige værdi af dette nummer fra geometriske betragtninger.

      "QST er 11 dimensioner, selvom virkelige rum er 3 dimensioner, den indvendige side af" bobler "er 3 dimensioner, og den plads på" bobler "bevæge sig gennem er 3 dimensioner, og der er intet der adskiller disse regioner fra hinanden.

      En kvante af noget er den mindst mulige enhed af den ting. En kvante plads er en "boble" over hvilket der er ingen definition af rummet. Men der er plads inde i boblerne, på en måde. "

      Jeg er ikke sikker på jeg forstår dette spørgsmål (korrekt), men jeg vil tage et stik på det. Det første afsnit er en slags hvad QST er postulere, med flere vigtige forbehold. For det første, rummet mellem vores daglige kvanter af rum er ikke plads i sig selv, henviser vi til det som Superspace, og ligeledes rummet inden i kvanter af plads omtales som intraspace. Hvis pladsen er kvantiseret disse andre rum (super og intra) manifest (hvis du tillader, at en kvante af rummet er et volumen snarere end et punkt). Hvis kvanter af rummet er i virkeligheden mængder, de to andre sæt af "rum" er nødvendige og adskiller sig fra den normale plads. Analogien af ​​guldbarre kommer til at tænke. Hvis du opdele en guldbarre ned til dens mindste bestanddele, komponenter, der stadig kan betragtes guld, vil du nå et punkt, hvor man kunne fortsætte med at opdele bestanddele (atomerne i dette tilfælde) videre, men hvad skyldes dette yderligere opdeling kan ikke længere betragtes guld. I denne analogi, har du transcenderet betydningen af ​​"guld" ved at opdele guld atom, men som vi nu ved, der er en hel masse mere opdeling, der kan gøres. Du kan ikke tælle enheder af guld ved at tælle neutroner, for eksempel. Godt spørgsmål selv. Wrestling med dette spørgsmål er kernen i at forstå, hvad det betyder at sige, at stoffet af x, y, z rummet er kvantiseret. Resten af ​​billedet vil ikke give mening indtil dette er intuitivt absorberes. Er det at komme på, hvad du spørger?

      "Gravity er repræsenteret som tæthedsgradienten af ​​plads kvanter. Men tyngdekraften er forårsaget af sagen. Sagen ikke plads. Hvordan fungerer dette engang mening? "

      Først og fremmest, ja, absolut, tyngdekraften er repræsenteret som tæthedsgradienten af ​​plads kvanter. Det spørgsmål, du kan forsøge at få ram på er, hvad der forårsager disse densitetsgradienter at danne? Når Quanta stick sammen densitetsgradienter bygget op omkring disse konglomerater. Alle former for energi, der manifesterer i x, y, z, t er simpelthen geometriske forvrængninger i rumtiden. Density bølger kunne krusning gennem mediet - det er en måde at støtte en geometrisk forvrængning. (Noget som dette ville siges at have energi, der svarer til en vis mængde af resten masse, men det kan ikke eksistere i hvile sig.) En anden måde er at have en stabil geometrisk forvrængning er at have kvanter, der hænger sammen. Når en gruppe af kvanter hænger sammen, de enkelte kvanter omkring det, der bevæger sig rundt og, for det meste, ellastically interagere, vil danne en densitetsgradient grund af momentum bevaring. En enkelt kvanter støde ind i to vil forlade to bevægelige meget langsommere end den oprindelige. Langsommere bevægelser koncentrere omkring klump, og langsommere bevægelser skabe større tætheder. Så Permanent, eller i det mindste stabil geometriske forvrængninger, ligesom kvanter klæber sammen, er masse i denne model.

      "Tiden er resonation af plads kvanter. Hvorfor? Hvordan? Hvad ræsonnement fører til denne konklusion? "

      This is a great question and it could use some more investigation. As it stands now, we might say that the fact that the familiar dimension we call time can progress at different rates suggests that time is associated with one special motion, instead of all motions. What is that motion? According to qst that motion is the resonations of the space quanta. This gives us a way to have ontological clarity on what it even means to say that less time has passed in one region than another. Such a claim is rather incoherent without something for comparison. In other words, without this sort of explanation we still run into the problem that everywhere in the universe time passes at a rate of one second per second. That's a great source of confusion unless your comparison is not self-reflective. Here we become able to understand the progression of time, at all locations in space, as something that can be defined in relation to supertime. This needs much more elaboration, but it is definitely a valuable start.

      “If there are 11 dimensions, why can't we see them? String Theory says the extra ones are curled up extremely small. QST seems to have extra dimensions just sort of… floating out there…”

      First of all, it should be noted that string theory's reason for why we can't see these extra dimensions is exactly the same in QST. In fact, we can see effects that the existence of these dimensions dictate. Put the other way around we see effects that are baffling to us (quantum mechanics in general and a few others) and they find no solution or cause unless we intuit extra dimensions. This question does not separate qst from string theory. These other dimensions would be plainly visible if we could look at things at the planck length. But we can't (yet?). So we don't see them.

      I hope this at least clarified things a bit. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted your questions.

      • Jon says:

        I have a couple of questions. If I understand this right, this theory would predict that the legendary graviton will never be found, correct? Because if gravity is not a force, then there will be no force particle, right? Also, how does the Higgs field enter into all this? I don't really see room for it in this model, but then again I am not a physicist. Can you clarify?

        • Thad Roberts says:

          Jon,
          Yes you are correct, this does predict that the graviton does not exist. As for your other question, I've posted a response to Peter in the “Questions and Answers” section that should clarify the issue with the Higgs field for you. :-) If you still have questions after reading that please let me know.

  5. Phyn says:

    First thing I have to say is that I think it's awesome that Thad thought up this theory and is putting it forward. This kind of forward thinking is needed in the physics field these days, and I myself hope to do the same in the future.

    It is definitely an interesting theory, but I do have a few issues with this video, at least (some may arise from my ignorance):

    1. Thad claims that the general interpretation of the 4th spatial dimension is just as a mathematical trick to account for gravity. But that's a false claim. Most physicists do work that is not affected by whether gravity is a force or another dimension. So they may use a false interpretation, but because it would just complicate things for them without doing anything for them. The physicists that do work with space-time, astrophysicists and cosmologists, do need to know exactly what gravity is and they do define gravity as the 4th spatial dimension, not a force.

    2. Mass warps the 4th spatial dimension. So using the metaphor of weight warping a trampoline is perfectly valid.

    3. Thad claims that the Planck length bubbles move around. Hvorfor? Shouldn't space be a rigid structure, a grid? If the quanta of space move around like air particles, they would obey something similar to statistical mechanics. That means there is a non-negligible chance of having large clumps of quanta and large sections that lack any space at all. And with Thad's definition of time those sections would also move faster or slower through time. Note that these sections would arise for no reason at all besides the probabilistic nature of quanta of space-time moving around and bumping into each other. This is most certainly not seen in the universe.

    4. Thad's argument for extra dimensions has an inconsistency. If the Planck length is the smallest distance that can be measured or defined, it makes no sense to define new dimensions to explain position on smaller than the Planck scale. They mean nothing on both a human, mathematical level and on the level of the physics of the universe.

    5. I understand that there's much more to this theory, but Thad fails to explain how or why matter and energy as we see it now affect the quanta of space. I'm assuming this is explained further into the theory. Also, how does light fit into this theory? Light always travels at c, although with this theory that would suggest that light is somehow separate from this 11 dimensional space. (Personally, I have no issue with that idea and have had the same thought myself. But it does need to be accounted for.)

    6. If the Planck length scale is so much smaller than any particles, how is it possible for quantum tunneling to occur? It seems very unlikely for an electron to move through super-space without hitting another quanta of space for a distance over 10 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length. Sure, it may happen every now and then, but the probability would be much smaller than what is seen now.

  6. Thad Roberts says:

    Phyn,

    Thank you for your comments and questions. Let me try to address some of your comments as best as I can.

    1. My comments about gravity that you are referring to were meant to be in reference to a visual model of gravity, not to the equations physicists use to represent it or to what they hold to be true about gravity. Because they have worked for so long under the restraints of Euclidean (or even non-Euclidean but continuous) metrics, physicists use a reduced dimensional representation. You are correct in pointing out that this does not mean that they do not attribute the existence of gravity to be the result of an interplay with another spatial dimension. What I am after is an intuitive and accurate model, a new representation, for the geometry of Nature that gives us full intuitive access to things we currently do not have intuitive access to. In other words, my point is that the 'rubber sheet' diagrams do not give us FULL intuitive access to what gravity is, why is has the properties it has, and so on. My goal is to come to a model that does give us that access.

    2. The notion of weight sadly plays off of our intuition that something with weight is pulled down by gravity. I'm perfectly fine with saying that the presence of mass warps the trampoline, but as soon as we say make our representation based on the concept that it is its weight that warps the trampoline, we have now used some notion of gravity (weight equals strength of gravity multiplied by the mass) in our answer for what is gravity. This reduces the utility of our answer. That was my point. I am not mocking the value of the trampoline in any way. I love that it is an attempt to be a model that we can access to at least partially gain an intuitive understanding of how gravity works. I'm just looking for a model that goes a bit further.

    3. Technically I'm not actually claiming anything (nor is anyone else working on qst). We are, however, hypothesizing about the geometry of spacetime and seeing where our hypothesis leads us. We are setting some axioms up for space and checking to see if those axioms set up a system that naturally contains that which we currently call mysterious. As scientists we understand that our current set of axioms might turn out to be incorrect, but so far they are leading us to something quite promising. In addition, we believe, as you appear to, that even if we end up proving that our set of axioms do not mimic the construction of the Nature's fabric, exploring new ideas is what science is all about. Right or wrong, there is a lot to learn from the process we are undertaking.

    You are correct in noting that our current assumptions about the structure of x, y, z space depicts the quanta moving around, which makes its representation something akin to statistical mechanics (hence the many quantum mechanical effects that we see in Nature). I'm curious as to why you think that the structure of spacetime should somehow be constrained to being a rigid grid. In the end you may be right about spacetime having this property, but at this point I see no reason to assume this as a brute contraint. Also, the point you made about having sections of space that will evolve at different rates through time is absolutely correct, however it only applies to very small scales (unless a macroscopic density gradient is present = curved spacetime). As we move to macroscopic scales (like 10^-25 meters, or 10^-34 seconds) these effects are washed out for the same statistical reasons you pointed out earlier.

    4. I apologize if I misspoke or caused a confusion on this point. In our system the Planck length is defined as the smallest quantum unit of x, y, z. Just as a gold atom is the smalls unit of a chance of gold, a quantum of space is the smallest unit of any x, y, z volume. It does makes sense to talk about less than one gold atom, or to visualize splitting a gold atom, but it does not makes sense to continue calling what you end up with a fraction of a gold atom. Once you go smaller than one gold atom you have transcended the definition of gold. You do not have gold any more in any sense. At this point you are forced to recognize that what you have is something completely different from gold. The same applies for our geometric system. Since we have set up an axiom space that defines the medium of x, y, z as being composed of quanta, comprised of base units, we cannot talk about smaller units and still be talking about anything in the x, y, z realm. This, however, does not inhibit us from talking about something smaller. It just requires that when we do we recognize that we are talking about something else. In as much as we are talking about spatial dimensions, positions within a single quanta occupy different superspatial positions, but those different positions do not reflect upon the x, y, z metric. The geometry is quite interesting mathematically because it is a wholly invertible map. In other words, it is a perfect geometric fractal. As it turns out, this system also appears to comes with a few properties (like the statistical character you mentioned before) that are quite suggestive of quantum mechanical effects.

    5. Store spørgsmål. As a short answer: matter is any stable (on whatever scale you choose to define as long enough to count as “stable”) distortions in the geometric arrangements of space quanta. For example, if two quanta stick together like bubbles for a long period of time before being separated by other collisions, then they represent a geometric kink for that period of time. This kind is mass. Energy can be thought of as distortions that are not stable without propagation. A density wave for example can travel from point A to point B and be thought of as stable during propagation, but it cannot retain itself without propagating through the medium.

    Light does always travel at c, in the x, y, z medium. Wave speeds of a particular medium change as the density, pressure, temperature of that medium change. So from the eleven dimensional perspective waves that travel through the medium will be resolved as having speeds that depend upon the density of that medium. However, compared to the medium itself this speed is non-variable. In other words, from the internal x, y, z perspective the speed of light is a constant. Perhaps I am missing the thrust of your point/question. Please elaborate if I have not addressed your concern.

    6. Technically the electron is defined as having a zero sized radius. Since quantum mechanics restricts the minimum size to the Planck length we might think that “zero” really means one Planck length. I'm not sure where I stand on this specifically. But I will say that the probability for electrons to sail through the medium without interacting much is quite large if it is even close to one Planck length.

    Thank you for your insights, thoughts and questions. I personally wish you luck as you pursue your own development of a TOE. If you keep asking questions like these I'm sure you'll make a big impact on the world.

    Thad

    • Phyn says:

      Thad,

      Thanks for the quick response and clearing up my comments/questions. I do have a few more about your reply. (I'll try to number them to match the previous numbers)

      3. This might just be from my lack of knowledge/experience, but isn't there a non-negligible probability (using statistical mechanics) that a region could form with a very high density of space quanta or a very low density? Looking back I realize now the probability of such a region forming on any detectable scale is highly unlikely, but there is some chance. So there could be a region or regions in the universe that act like a black hole (or the inverse of that) without any energy or mass having caused it. Or am I stretching how likely such an event would be?

      4. I think what I was trying to ask with this question is why the three dimensions that are defined within the quanta are necessary?

      5. My questions about light basically pertains to how light is different than matter in your theory. If light also travels through super-space and space quanta, why is it still seen as traveling at c at any velocity the observer is at? As I understand it, the reason light always travels at c is because special relativity has an asymptotic behavior. Time dilation and space contraction go to infinity as velocity goes to c. I can see that in your theory the behavior would be exponential, but it's not clear to me why it would also be asymptotic. Light would still pass from space quanta to super-space to space quanta, so wouldn't it still experience some time and space? Sorry if I'm not being clear.

      Also, I was wondering about how your theory fits with super-inflation theory. Can space quanta be created/destroyed? I assume not and if so does that mean the universe before super-inflation was in a sense a super black hole? In this theory was super-inflation just an expansion if these very dense region of space quanta? Or do you have some other explanation? Along similar lines, do space quanta have a speed limit? If they do, what is it? If it is c how would you account for the super-inflation event?

      Tak igen,
      Phyn

  7. Thad Roberts says:

    Phyn,

    Great questions. :-)

    3. Yes, due to vacuum energy there is some probability that matter, or for that matter even a macroscopic black hole, could form without any previous forms of matter leading to its formation. However, to say that it formed without any energy having caused it may be a bit of a stretch. If we restrict our definition of energy to specific forms, like light or baryonic matter, then we can say that. But such a restriction seems a bit artificial to me. The inherent energy of the quanta of space bouncing around and interacting with each other would be responsible.

    4. Within a quantized metric the three intra-spatial dimensions are necessary for defining position more accurately than x, y, z dimensions allow. On a more metaphysical level (the philosophical definition of metaphysical not the new age one) they also allow us to access the actual structure of the Universe and how that structure is responsible for how things are. If we ignored them then we would be missing part of the picture. And interpreting a system from a reduced construction can lead to confusion. Technically the eleven-dimensional construction is also only an approximation. The next level of increased accuracy is a axiomatic metric of 30 dimensions, then 85, then 248 and so on. The full picture unveils as a fractal, and that full structure gives us even richer access to questions that reach beyond the confines of our local system (the Universe = all the space connected by the last Big Bang).

    5. This question is rich and worth some time. Perhaps you would be interested in reading the preprint of my book? Chapter 8 – The Speed of Spacetime explains in detail why the speed of light is constant according to this geometry, and why Lorentz contraction and time dilation occur. Your question might be more fully addressed in there.

    If I am understanding your question correctly, then it might be worth pointing out that according to the definitions set up in our construction a quantum of space does not experience time expect in whole number increments of the Planck time. However, the quanta do still experience supertime as they move through superspace. This means that things can move from quanta to quanta as we the observers move through time, but since the passing from one quanta to another involves the elastic properties of the quanta (and so does the passage of time), the fastest something can move through x, y, z space is such that the number of quanta it has moved is equal to the number of chronons in time that the observer has aged. This thing/energy moves through x, y, z space but it does not move through time (because it does not experience any independent resonations). It changes position in space and the observer moves through time by an equivalent number of quantum values. So anything moving in this fashion does move through space, and then superspace, space, superspace, and so on, and all along through supertime, but it does NOT move through time. It does, however experience supertime. Is that what you were getting at?

    Also, as per your question about inflation… I believe that qst does not have expectations that space ban be created or destroyed. The Big Bang, in this model, occurs because another universe outside of the system of our universe collides with our universe. The structure of our universe (the arrangements of the quanta of space) is altered in response to this such that all of the quanta are pressed together. The complete system is a collection in which there are no independently acting quanta (hence it acts as though there were only one location in the entire Universe and of course no time). This is very close to the picture of a black hole, only a real black hole forms internally from a loss of energy, this forms from energy from outside the system so it is not a stable configuration. Then, when the two systems rebound off of each other their internal constituents begin to separate, causing there to be more than one uniquely acting location within each. So each universe goes from having effectively one unique location and no time to having many many uniquely behaving locations and some time in a very short burst (whether you measure it by time or supertime). Chapter 29 deals with this topic in much greater detail should you desire to read it.

    I hope that helps.

    Please remember, even if this theory eventually ends up jiving very well with what we know so far, and gives us more of an explanation that any other construction, it doesn't mean that it is right or that we shouldn't all keep asking questions and thinking up new ways of seeing things. Climbing beyond our current edge of understanding is what it is all about.

    • Phyn says:

      Thad,

      Thanks for the answers. I think that clears up the questions I have right now. I just requested a pre-print copy of the book and can't wait to delve deeper into this theory. And I completely agree that we always need to keep questioning.

      Phyn

  8. Stephen says:

    This question is for Thad, or for whomever can answer it. I'm really impressed with all of this. It's definitely very convincing and I'm really looking forward to seeing how this is either supported or refuted within the scientific community. The main question I have though, is how does QST play into the emergence of the forces during the first moments of the Big Bang? I know that theoretical physics holds that the fundamental forces emerged as a consequence of the Big Bang and were not immediately present at the inception of the universe. I'm just wondering if QST affords a comprehensive explanation for this. If there is would you mind sharing that with me? Also, if there isn't a comprehensive explanation, could you explain how they figure that the fundamental forces were not present at the genesis of the universe?

    Also, I've been searching the web and haven't really been able to find a lot on QST other than on your website. I'm just wondering why such an interesting idea hasn't taken hold in the scientific community and why no one has openly talked about this theory of yours. Do you know why this is the case? I'd love to hear more about this. I've been gobbling up your website watched both your conversation pieces and the TED talk, which will hopefully make these ideas more public, and I'm really excited by the prospects of QST and what it can mean for the breadth of human knowledge.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Dear Stephen,

      Thank you for your message.

      First off, let me apologize for the late response. I have been at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, exploring a land full of mysteries and beauty. It was an amazing experience.

      In response to your questions:

      We share your excitement and curiosity about this theory, and look forward to seeing how it with be either supported or refuted by science. We might, however, point out that this is different from being excited about refutation or support from the current scientific community. Because science is made up of a compilation of research programs, it is an active social entity – carrying several social pressures that can lead it astray in any given point in time. Nevertheless, because science is a self-correcting machine, over the long haul it will correct itself toward a more clear and accurate picture. That is to say that if the current climate in the scientific community was such that it immediately accepted qst, this would not in and of itself provide concrete support that qst is an accurate reflection of Nature. Neither would its immediate rejection (there are several historical examples of theories that we now accept that were rejected by the scientific community at large in the time (and social climate) that they were first proposed in). What really matters is – does qst accurately map the true structure of Nature? We are hopeful that we will secure a clear, non-biased answer to that question in time.

      You asked how qst plays into the emergence of the forces during the first moments of the Big Bang… The answer is a beautiful example of how qst gives us incredible intuitive access to rather complex ideas. First, let me note that current thought suggests that as we run the clock back toward the Big Bang, there are symmetries that go from broken to unbroken. Translating this into English, this means that as we approach that first moment we go from having distinctly recognizable forces (four of them) to forces that merge in their descriptions. As we approach the first moment (after the Big Bang) all four forces gain complete symmetry with the background metric. They can no longer be teased apart in this state. This special axiomatic state of the Universe is responsible for the fact that the forces are no longer indistinguishable from the metric.

      In qst, this situation is made more clear. In this model it is suggested that in that first moment, all the quanta that make up our universe were compressed together (by an external collision by another universe). Because of this there were no uniquely acting quanta (locations) in the universe in this moment. The whole collection acted like a singularity, but instead of reaching this state by losing energy and maximizing entropy, it represented a highly energetic state with minimal entropy (because of its external cause). Because all the quanta acted in unison, there was in effect, only one unique x, y, z location at this point in time. The significant result of this geometric condition (as per our current discussion), is that it was not possible to have spatial density gradients in this moment, nor was it possible to have any waves propagating through the x, y, z medium, or little whirlpools of mixing, etc. The entire axiomatic set of quanta were rigidly locked together. This is why there were no distinguishable forces from the background metric. As the rebound occurred, and the quanta that make up the x, y, z volume of our universe began to separate, the number of independently acting locations in the universe exponentially multiplied, and the geometric distortions that we refer to as forces became geometrically possible.

      Please let me know if that helped.

      About your question about why qst has not taken hold in the scientific community yet… a little background might help here. Scientific progress is a messy thing. In part, this has to do with the demarcation problem (the task of being able to identify scientific endeavors from pseudoscientific endeavors). Karl Popper famously tried to help speed science along, and overcome this problem, with the suggestion that what makes something science is that it is falsifiable. This has been a popular criterion of science ever since. I am certainly drawn towards the claim that a theoretical construct should make claims that can be falsified before we put our full trust into it. However, as has been pointed out, Popper's criterion cannot actually distinguish scientific endeavors from pseudoscientific ones. There are fields that we all feel comfortable labeling pseudoscientific that make falsifiable claims. But more importantly, all fields considered scientific rest on axioms, assumptions, and non-falsifiable statements that play a fundamental role in their construction. If we are expected to abandon all theories that contain non-falsifiable statements, then there would be no identifiable sciences at all. In response to this some have grasped for the idea that there is some sort of art to picking the axioms beneath a theory – those that perform that art too loosely fall out of the range of science. This idea lead Thomas Kuhn to conjecture that what it meant to be scientific was to conform to the current scientific paradigm. In this view science becomes merely a social construct that shifts with the tides of time. Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos later wrestled with these issues and came to the conclusion that science is not an autonomous form of reasoning, but is inseparable from the larger body of human thought and inquiry. They determined that because science is a human endeavor questions of truth and falsity are not uniquely empirical.

      All of this has led to the general recognition that the demarcation problem is intractable. In response Paul Thagard has suggested that we alter our focus and deem a theory as non-scientific if it satisfies the following two conditions:

      1 – It is unpromising: The theory has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems: and
      2 – It doesn't adhere to the Scientific Method: The community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations.

      Note that the first criteria requires long periods of time.

      Certainly, in reference to this evaluation qst is in a scientific vein. However, according to this criteria a “long period of time” must pass before we can expect it to have secured a place for itself in scientific history.

      Cutting through all of this philosophy of science, I suspect that the answer to your question has a lot to do with the fact that the majority of practicing scientists are not fully aware of the intricacies of theory construction, or the full history of the demarcation problem. Many scientists have communicated with me about the value they see in this theory. Others have found this theory objectionable based on an emotional fear that it might disagree with currently popular agendas. For some reason these individuals try to undermine the credibility of qst by resting on Popper's falsifiability requirement, which I find strange since there are many many ways in which qst can be falsified.

      All in all, however, I believe that the biggest reason qst has not yet taken off to a mainstream platform is that it is new. We simply need to give it more time and keep spreading the word. It may also have a bit of a harder time taking off than we might expect because it was mostly developed during some intense years of research while I was in prison. Nevertheless, I am confident in the self-correcting method of science, and I believe that it will eventually fully evaluate the richness of this theory.

      Just before he passed away, I was in communication with Benoît Mandelbrot, the father of fractals. We discussed the fractal structure of qst and he granted it his blessing to the idea. Mandelbrot was a man that gave the world a new idea, and he gave it to them in a non-traditional way. After professional scientists outright rejected his idea, Mandelbrot continued to develop his insight and share his idea until its practical powers were undenyable. The world at large became familiar with fractals and began to use them in electronic designs, biological calculations, and more. Then and only then, did the research program of formal Mathematics accept the importance of Mandelbrot's ideas. The lesson I take from this is that, if an idea is useful and brings us closer to the truth, it will eventually be heard.

      Thanks for your interest.

      Also, if you want to read more, I'd be happy to email you pre-print pdf copy of the entire book.

      Med venlig hilsen
      Thad

      • Stephen says:

        Thanks Thad, this is immensely illuminating. I have to repeat that I'm really excited by the prospect of this theory. Murray Gell-Mann says that “there is a common experience in theoretical physics: that BEAUTY is often a very succesful criterion for choosing the right theory” and there is no doubt that qst provides an example of a very beautiful explanation of the construct of our universe. I'll definitely be watching to see where this theory takes us in the coming years. I'm sure that we'll hear a lot more from people once your book is published.

        Also, is there any illumination that qst can cast on young's double-slit experiment? If you can't tell already your new theory is making me so curious about so many persisting physics questions and how it might be able to help us understand them.

        • Thad Roberts says:

          Stephen,
          I've emailed you a pre-print pdf copy of the book. Please let me know if you didn't receive it (its a rather large file). Chapters 12 and 13 should adequately address your question about how qst makes sense of particle/wave duality. I think you'll be delighted to discover the solution it posits. I might add that Bohmian mechanics offers a rather interesting ontological perspective on the whole particle/wave topic. You might be interested in investigating that a bit also. The two perspectives have a lot in common.

          • Stephen says:

            Oh great. I'm excited to dig into it. I'll be sure to let you know if I have further questions

  9. Stefan palmer says:

    I am a student at weber state majoring in sales so needless to say i know nothing about quantum physics. In fact i hadnt even heard of it until i got home late one night and stumbled across you and this sweet website. I have always been fascinated by space and how this world goes round. But i have always assumed that all of that stuff was over my head, but you lay out information that is so complex so simply that a dumb ass sales major can follow what you are teaching. I am not being humble just realistic when i say i will never be able to make the discoveries you have, but i am so thankful you are willing to share your knowledge with me. If we all put our energy into helping each other a long we would be so much better off. Thx for doing just that, and i will keep my eyes open for any updates or discoveries you have made. The only complaint that i have is its 730 am And i have to get up at 9 but i cant get off this damn website to go to sleep because of how fascinating the discoveries that you have made are. Thx again

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Dear Stefan,
      Its great to hear about your excitement. I believe that everyone can be a part of the amazing quest to uncover the truth and peer behind the veil. We all have what it takes to ask questions and try to make sense of the big mysteries of our time. I see the end goal as desirable, but the journey as the real treasure. Thanks for joining the journey. I look forward to seeing where it takes us. If you are interested in reading a preprint of my book, please email me and I'll forward a pdf to you.
      Thad

  10. Stefan palmer says:

    Thankyou so much my email is stefan.​d.​palmer@​gmail.​com

  11. Ben says:

    Thad, I find qst theory amazingly elegant and would really like develop a deeper intuition of it. Could you perhaps send me one of those pdf copies?

    bwc7​0​@​email.​vccs.​edu

    Cheers, Ben

  12. jake3_14 says:

    As a language lover, I'm confused by the terms that have origins in x,y,z space applied to non-x,y,z space. How can quanta have inter-space is the notion of space itself is rooted in three dimensions? Similarly, how can quanta move in superspace, when the concept of movement is rooted in three dimensions? Even the concept of resonance is rooted in the 3-D concept of vibration. Doesn't QST (and perhaps, quantum mechanics) need distinct terminology, even when trying to simplify it for the lay public, so that the public doesn't try to apply three-dimensional concepts where they don't apply?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Jake, You are certainly correct, distinct terminology is needed here. Our language is well rooted in Euclidean assumptions, but this model is not Euclidean. Throughout the book I try to keep these issues clear, giving distinct names to different kinds of spaces (intraspatial, spatial, and superspatial).

  13. jake3_14 says:

    Typo in the above: ” How can quanta have inter-space *if* the notion of space itself is rooted in three dimensions?

  14. Gary says:

    One major confusion,

    In conversation one we hear how bodies do not exert a force of gravity between each other thereby causing orbits… we learn that this is a fudge of classical thinking.

    We instead learn the very intuitive ideas based on density and the redefinition of what it means to continue following the straight line. That is, that in QST those orbits are not the result of a phantom pulling force but rather the result of 'curved' space causing a straight path to describe a closed loop (or, rather, a closed loop to describe a straight line)

    PROBLEM

    In our universe, orbits decay and objects collide… yet in QST only two straight paths exist. The first would appear to offer an eternal orbit (eternal as no gravitational force is acting) The second would be a direct line towards the centre of density (Climbing the gradient) which, in the absence of a classical gravitational pull, should be as simple as leaving the centre of density (Descending the gradient)

    But, we know that firing a rocket straight up from the earths centre of mass is rather difficult as an 'apparent' pull is felt. Can QST account for this problem of descending the gradient?

    Alternatively, we know that left alone and undisturbed a rocket at apogee will submit to an apparent pulling force and ascend QST's gradient… but the motivating nature does not appear to be accounted for.

    And finally, as mentioned, orbits decay. If one imagines a perfectly circular gradient of density as might be described by a large mass… QST seems to dictate that, in the absence of mans bogus gravity, an orbiting object will orbit indefinitely as nothing is acting upon it to sway it from continuing in its perfectly straight (closed) line (loop)

    I worry (perhaps unfairly) that Thad's QST is fulfilling its aims, but only if the aims are to sell books. It is a legitimate worry with all of the snakeoil currently being peddled … and, whilst I hope this is not the case, it would cheer me up considerably if I didn't 'instinctively' feel so many inconsistencies. In some ways I would feel much better if the scientific community felt inclined to debunk QST – as at least then it would mean that it had possibly touched a nerve.

    I wonder if anyone can shed light on the above QST explanations for the observable effect we dub 'gravity'

    Many thanks,

    -Gary
    Humble Student, The Open University (UK)

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Dear Gary,
      It remains unclear as to why you presumed that only two straight paths exist. Perhaps this was an artifact of a brief description you encountered instead of the full one. I invite you to read the whole book, and encourage you to be critical of it. Should you find any internal inconsistencies, please point them out. In lieu of that interaction, it may help to note that in a density gradient of space, the straight path for a particular object also depends on the velocity of that object. Two objects approaching a radial density gradient (like the one belonging to the Earth) with identical directions, but different speeds, will follow different paths in response to that gradient. Each path is the straight path for each object. Both sides (and all parts) of each object must interact with the same amount of space. This, of course, is what we observe. Also, it is important to remember that all gradients present play a role. It would be a mistake to oversimplify our example if we mean it to apply to the real world. Of course, often times out of a desire to explain the model simplifications are used – like starting with a region that holds just the earth and another object. Starting with such a simplification does not imply that the model actually thinks the real universe only contains these two objects. For prediction purposes this model is matched perfectly with Einstein's description of spacetime curvature. The primary difference between models is the intuitive import that this one carries with it. That said, it is based on clear and well-defined assumptions, which anyone is free to agree with or disagree with. Disagreeing with the assumptions does not really attack the model, it just steps outside of it and ignores it altogether. To attack the model one must find internal inconsistencies. If you'd like to receive a free copy of the book (as I have offered all along) I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on it. Thank you for your skepticism.

  15. Armen says:

    How would qst explain our asymmetric visible universe in terms of matter and anti-matter?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Great question! The answer comes from a property of superfluids. When we rotate a superfluid volume, the bulk of that volume does not start spinning about like a regular fluid would. Instead, the rotational energy we put into the system is absorbed internally as quantum vortices inside the bulk. The direction we rotate that volume will determine the direction of those vortices. The model assumes that the vacuum is a superfluid, and that on a different resolution the entire universe is like a suspended superfluid drop in a higher system. The expectation is that collisions between drops will rarely be head on. Instead, they will impart at least a small amount of rotational energy into each rebounding drop/universe. But, since each is composed of a superfluid, that rotational energy will manifest internally as quantum vortices. As stable metric distortions, these vortices are the analog of fundamental matter particles. So in one universe they will have one direction, and in the other the reverse direction. Additional vortices can be created within the bulk, but they must be created in pairs (matter and antimatter equally). Since the vast majority of vortices are consequent from the last external collision, we have an overwhelmingly majority of vortices that correlate to matter and only a little that correlate with antimatter.
      Thad

  16. brett says:

    please send me a copy of your book. this is good work.

  17. Daniel says:

    Dear Thad,

    First of all: thank you for this enlightening new view on reality. Please send me a copy of your book.
    Deeply impressed with your work, I set out on a quest to find any comments on this by any credible scientific sources. Perhaps my searching skills are failing me, but I am having trouble finding any. At the moment, that is my biggest concern about your theory. The fact that it has been around for years now, and revolutionary as it seems to be, it has not caused a huge stir in the scientific community. Again, perhaps my searching skills have failed me, I hope they have, and if so, please enlighten me once more.

    Either way, I love what you're doing, please keep doing it!

    Med venlig hilsen,

    Daniel

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Try searching for the more general overarching name 'superfluid vacuum theory.' Of course, you'll find that despite the many publications that fall within superfluid vacuum theory, we are a far cry away from seeing a stir in the scientific community. A revolution in thinking requires first that people value thinking. The current situation in the physics community counters that value. Only one interpretation of quantum mechanics is taught in most universities, and it is the interpretation that most discourages thinking – in fact it attempts to actually forbid an interpretation, which is why some have called it “the Copenhagen non-interpretation.” It is even popular now to deny philosophy as a part of science, which reduces science to meaningless technician work. So the revolution we are pushing is less about a specific new interpretation or model of Nature, but one that brings science back to a nobel human endeavor. Your skepticism is more than welcome, it is encouraged. Scientists should not make ultimate claims to truth, but they cannot abandon the quest for truth and call themselves scientists either. Sending you the book now. Please examine it in full and send your critique.

  18. Shane Killeen says:

    Hi Thad

    I have only recently discovered your work when an acquaintance of mind, the writer AA Attanasio, suggested I check out your work and since then I have watched all I can and read through this comment thread with great interest. I have absolutely no scientific background but have pursued a theory for the last 15 years that explains all of these phenomena intuitively as one cogent whole. What I find staggering is how many conclusions are the same and how similar the grand picture is. I dare say that I believe I have something significant to contribute your theory but it would be jumping the gun without having studied your whole document. I tried to find it on Kindle with no luck. Is it possible that I could have a copy of your book as well? It would be deeply appreciated and an expansion on what is already a remarkable affirmation.

  19. Niklas says:

    So, I think I'm following all of this pretty well, except how the quanta create matter as we know it.
    My mind is all over the place, so I apologize if you get lost, haha.
    How do quanta stick together? Is it a stable geometry dependent on factors like temperature, distance, charge, etc? (There are 5 that we know of, right?) Does each quanta have a unique value for each of those? Or react TO those quantities in a field around it? And do these quanta eventually stick together so much that they form, say, a quark? And depending on the geometry they form different quarks? Then those quarks form different geometries into particles? What stops quanta from continuing to get stuck? Constants of nature? How are those defined?

    Second question, kinda:
    How would we explain tossing a ball straight up into the air? The ball travels through a very dense field of quanta, but what pulls it directly back down? The fact that the “bottom” of the ball is bouncing off of quanta more than the “top” of the ball?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Niklas,

      These are great questions. I will give short answers here, but I have written up much more detailed explanations on these very topics in my book. If you do not have it please send me an email requesting it and I'll pass it along.

      First let's recall that the quanta are constituents of a superfluid. Superfluids support quantum vortices, which do not dissipate because the superfluid has no internal friction. These stable quantum vortices are the fundamental particles. Quantum vortices only exist in quantized sizes. This gives us a method by which to match up the fundamental particles of mass in Nature. Remember, mass is a distortion in the fabric of space, the vacuum. So the notion of mass is no longer applicable on the scale of the quantum.

      The constants of Nature section in my book should answer all of your questions on this topic. If not, I'd love to hear your questions.

      As for your questions about the ball being tossed straight up. The thing to remember is that the “field” of curved space, or the density gradient of quanta, is not a static thing. In the macroscopic sense its average properties might seem static, but the underlying motions and actions that form it are not. All we have to do is remember that objects that are not under the influence of a “force” will tend to travel straight. The straight path is what we must consider, and the solution is always the path that allows all parts of an object to experience identical amounts of space. If an object is sitting in a density gradient of space, the little motions of the quanta that make up that gradient determine how much space the object experiences. Since there is a non-zero gradient, there is a macroscopically measurable different in the amount of quanta interacting with the “bottom” side versus the “top” side. Which ever side is interacting with space the most determines the direction the object will tend to go. Chapter 9 will describe this in greater detail.

  20. John says:

    Thad,

    As a futher device for our imagination would you mind stetching, with commentary about density gradients, the jounery of each of a single photon, neutrino and electron from say a super nova explosion till that particle interacts with something.

    It is also a test of the explainatory power of your theroy against current obsevations.

    I love your work and it seems to me as a trained logician that it would make sense to test a theory with minimal assumptions before inventing the current set of ad hoc assumptions for dark matter, dark energy, gravitational force gravitions, etc

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hej John,
      As a single photon travels through “empty” space from a super nova until it interacts with something, its path is determined by the vacuum state of the region it is passing through. That state evolves through time, but if we assume empty space, meaning zero curvature, then the largest effect we must be concerned with is the microscopic effects from the different possible arrangements of the quanta (the different allowed configuration states of the vacuum). For large wavelengths of light those differences will be washed completely out by the averaging-over process, but for sufficiently high energy photons (short wavelength) there will be noticeable effects. For example, the scales on which we would call the paths straight will decrease, and more importantly, photons that are extremely high energy will tunnel through the vacuum – meaning that they will go from location A in space to location B without interacting with all the space between those two locations. One testable prediction here is that these high energy photons will exhibit less red shift than lower energy photons from the same sources (or distances). The model specifically explains that red shift is a function of the inelastic collisions between quanta of space, so if the highest energy photons are skipping some of those collisions then they will be less red shifted. The practical difficultly with measuring this effect is that it is only really expected for photons with wavelengths that approach the Planck length (at least within an order of magnitude or a few orders). Nevertheless, the effect is waiting to be measured.

  21. Christian Grieco says:

    Thad,

    Your work is fascinating. It's simplicity is eloquent. Was hoping to learn a great deal more and am hoping to get a copy of your book.

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      Tak. I'm emailing you the book now.

      I have also recently just finished showing (including the math) that a superfluid vacuum automatically explains the electric field and magnetic field as divergence and curl in the flow of the vacuum. I'm starting to edit chapter 20 to include that information, so if you are interested then send me a request for an update before you reach Chapter 20. 😉

  22. Anderson says:

    I'm in love with this idea that reality is 11 dimensional. I would have to ask however that if 1 planck can be thought of as a bubble, what is the measure of the surface of the bubble? Is the circumference still Pi? It seems to me like it would have to be, but I'm concerned that that might be my predisposition to think in a Newtonian way. At such a small scale, are these “bubbles” even spherical? And although it might be impossible, as a thought experiment think of a creature that exists in superspace and is on the surface of a planck bubble, how would that creature experience time? Or would it only experience supertime?
    The more satisfying our answers become the more bizarre our new questions must be.
    Alas, I am only a layman.

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      We treat the bubble as spherical in a time-averaged sense. Nevertheless, the shape of their boundaries are not defined in x, y, z space at all. Instead, they are defined in superspace. And in superspace, yes, the ratio of their circumference to diameter would be π. The hypothetical creature you speak of would not experience time at all, because such a creature would not be made up of space. Instead she would be made up of superspace, and would experience supertime. Chapter 11 of the book goes into more detail on this. Sending it to you now.

  23. Frank says:

    Hi, thank you for this video. I appreciate how 11D can be visualized in the mind, but it was helpful seeing the drawings as well.
    What is left after the smallest unit of space is divided? If it's no longer space or a planck bit, what is it called?
    Would it no longer be located within the 11 dimensions?
    Are there infinite dimensions?
    May I have a copy of your book?

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      Selvfølgelig. I just emailed you a copy of the book. I think you'll find the figures in the book quite helpful. When we talk about less than a Planck length of space, we are not talking about space. Instead, we are referencing intraspatial information. The name is not as important as the properties. In this model, the vacuum is made up of quanta, the quanta are similarly made up of sub-quanta, and those are made up of sub-sub-quanta, and so on. The fractal structure of the model guarantees that the relationships between each of these levels of construction are self-similiar. It is this fact that gives us direct access to the complete picture. The total number of dimensions in the map depends upon your resolution level. The equation is # of dimensions = 3^n + n, where n is your oder of perspective. Treating the vacuum as a continuum is a first order perspective. Quantizing the vacuum is a second order perspective. Quantizing the quanta is a third order perspective and so on. So if you wish to map Nature with infinite resolution, then yes, according to this construction there are infinite dimensions. But a second order resolution can get you a full explanation of the dynamics observed in quantum mechanics and general relativity. The cause of the Big Bang, however, requires at least a third order perspective to resolve. Chapter 11 should make this more clear.

  24. praroop joshi says:

    hey thad…i am a student but i am really interested in these kind of theory , but i have a minute question
    can gravity travel in different dimension ?
    just like they say in BRANES of string theory.
    and is this the reason that the gravity is the weakest among all the fundamental forces?
    and one more thing if we were to live in different dimensions rather that X,Y,Z, what will it consist i mean can time be an spatial co-ordinate?
    wait for your reply.

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      Your question brings us to what is known as the hierarchy problem. Let me respond with an excerpt from Chapter 19 in my book that addresses this topic:

      Despite the fact that particle physicists have devoted decades of intense research to solving the hierarchy problem, the question of how the feebleness of gravity interlocks with the rest of the picture remains a mystery. The standard model of particle physics makes it easy to treat all forces as the result of an interchange of force particles. With regard to the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear forces, all of our experiments have shown an absolutely stunning alignment with this theoretical depiction. This alignment becomes the supporting foundation for an underlying symmetry in Nature because it links the strengths of these forces into a relatively tight range and unifies the source of their origination and the proposed mechanics responsible for them.

      All of this is aesthetically beautiful and pleasing, except for the fact that we have a rather serious upset when we attempt to compute the strength of gravity through the same model. Paradoxically, when we treat gravity like we treat the other forces—as a similar exchange of some kind of force particle—we find that the standard model clusters gravity's expected strength in range with the other known forces. It predicts that the symmetry underlying the other forces should also belong to gravity and it spits out a value for the strength of gravity that is astronomically different from what we observe it to be.

      Comparing gravity's actual strength to the standard model's theoretical prediction of its strength, we end up with a discrepancy that spans sixteen orders of magnitude. This is a serious problem. Such an enormous misalignment suggests that the standard model of particle physics is still missing something big.

      Over the years, two popular approaches have attempted to make sense of this enormous discrepancy. The first approach assumes that gravity does in fact belong clustered with the other forces in symmetry and strength—that the true strength of gravity is as the standard model predicts. To account for the feebleness of gravity that is observed, this approach then makes the claim that gravity undergoes an enormous dilution by way of additional dimensions. In other words, gravity is attenuated, which means that its strength is primarily dispersed elsewhere. ( This is what you were suggesting. )

      In order to make this approach work, theorists have been forced to assume two critical conditions. First, in order to sufficiently dilute gravity the extra dimensions have to be very large, or very many. Second, gravity must be the only thing that is capable of being diluted throughout these extra dimensions. This assumption ensures that everything that doesn't involve gravity would look exactly the same as it would without extra dimensions, even if the extra dimensions were extremely large.

      The problem with this approach is that without a framework by which to uniquely select a specific number of extra dimensions, or to explain why gravity is the only thing that becomes diluted, these conditions introduce mysteries that are just as big as the one we set out to explain. These assumptions merely reword the hierarchy problem.

      Nevertheless, this idea posits an interesting prediction. It says that deviations from Newton's law of gravity should exist on distances that depend upon the size of those extra dimensions, which is correlated to the total number of extra dimensions that gravity is diluted through. If there were only one large extra dimension, it would have to be as large as the distance from the Earth to the Sun in order to dilute gravity enough. That's not allowed. If there were just two additional dimensions, they could be as small as a millimeter and still adequately dilute gravity. With more additional dimensions, it can be sufficiently diluted even if those extra dimensions are relatively small. For example, with six extra dimensions the size need only be about 10-13 centimeter, one ten thousandth of a billionth of a centimeter.

      To date, gravity's alignment with Newton's inverse square law has not been tested on a scale capable of ruling out, or supporting, this prediction. Because of this, supporters of this approach for solving the hierarchy problem hope that more accurate measurements will one day discover deviations on scales smaller than a millimeter and vindicate the idea. Any such evidence would be interesting, but wouldn't bring us the full ontological clarity we are after.

      The second popular approach for solving the hierarchy problem also assumes that the standard model's treatment of forces (being created by the interchange of force particles) applies identically to gravity, but it attempts to account for the feebleness of gravity by suggesting that the force particles responsible for gravity somehow have unique properties that must effectively weaken its strength. Because the particles that are imagined responsible for this, called gravitons, have thus far escaped all attempts to measure them, there has not been much progress made on this front.

      Both of these attempts are trying to treat gravity as though it were fundamentally the same as the other known forces, despite the fact that in the physical world gravity manifests itself as characteristically different. The motivation behind this comes from the desire to uncover deeper symmetries hidden in Nature and to use those symmetries to enhance our grasp of the natural realm. But what if there is a simpler way to unite the four forces? What if they are connected by a different kind of symmetry?

      The assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid could be the key to unification. If every force corresponds to a way in which the natural geometry differs from Euclidean geometry, then gravity can be understood to be unique among those differences because it is the only one that comes into focus macroscopically. That is, gravity is specifically offset from the other three forces because it arises as a small-amplitude collective excitation mode of the non-relativistic background condensate. In other words, it represents how the density of the vacuum slowly changes from one region to another, which necessitates a smooth representation that is only accurate in the low-energy, low-momentum regime.

      To understand why an accurate description of gravity is restricted to the low-energy, low- momentum regime, it is useful to be aware of the fact that fluid mechanics is an emergent consequent of molecular dynamics (within its low-energy, low-momentum limit). In other words, fluid mechanics is not a fundamental descriptor of any of the systems we apply it to. Those systems are actually driven by an underlying microphysics. Fluid mechanics exists only as an emergent approximation of the low-energy and low-momentum regime of the molecular dynamics that drive the system's evolution.

      Likewise, a velocity field (a vector field) and a derivative density field (a scalar field), which the Euler and continuity equations critically depend upon, do not exist on the microscopic level. They are emergent properties that are only resolved on scales larger than the mean free path and the mean free time.

      If the vacuum is a superfluid, whose metric is macroscopically describable by a state vector (a velocity vector field), then the density gradient of that fluid is an emergent approximation of the system instead of a fundamental descriptor. The cohesion of that approximation requires macroscopic scales, and molecular dynamics that are defined within the low-energy, low-momentum regime. Gravity becomes an expectation because, if the vacuum is a superfluid, if it can be modeled as an acoustic metric, then small fluctuations in that superfluid will obey Lorentz symmetry even though the superfluid itself is non- relativistic.

      The assumption of vacuum superfluidity fully reproduces expectations of compressibility (the ability for the metric to curve or warp), while projecting an internal velocity restriction. It also sets up an expectation of acoustic horizons, which turn out to be analogous to event horizons with the notable difference that they allow for certain physical effects to propagate back across the horizon, which might be analogous to, or responsible for, Hawking radiation. Therefore, if the vacuum is a superfluid, then gravity can be viewed as a macroscopic emergent expression, a collective property of the vacuum that supports long-range deformations in the density field. This small-amplitude characteristic is responsible for the feebleness of gravity.

      The strength of a force reflects the degree to which the geometric properties that author it contrast from Euclidean projections. Gravity is the weakest force because it only comes into focus on macroscopic scales, and therefore only slightly deviates from Euclidean expectations. The strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force, are much stronger because they are all authored by geometric characteristics that deviate from Euclidean projections on even microscopic scales.

      Another way to put this is to say that metric distortions that qualify as gravity fields are inherently incapable of directly accessing the degrees of freedom that belong to the underlying molecular dynamics that drive the system. The metric distortion that leads to gravitational phenomena is capable of existing statically—the density gradient it represents is blind to the molecular dynamics that give rise to it—while the strong force, electromagnetism, and the weak force, are strictly sustained dynamically—they explicitly reference the underlying molecular dynamics. The magnitude of gravity (the degree to which this geometric distortion differs from the static Euclidean space) is, therefore, comparatively diluted. This is a consequence of the average-over process that gives rise to its geometry.

      Therefore, in as much as we consider underlying molecular dynamics to be an explanation of fluid mechanics (on low-energy and low-momentum scales), the assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid comes with a natural explanation for why gravity is so feeble compared to the other forces.

      I'll send you the book via email and look forward to further questions/comments.

  25. Lib says:

    I am completely untrained in science and math however I have been reading layman articles and listening to talks for many years. I just want to say i felt great appreciation for Thad and Co for their labors. The field of human intelligence is, I think, one field to which we all contribute. It is outside of time, though the process of human thought appears linear. I am somewhere in the renaissance, I can understand that the world is not flat and that the earth goes around the sun , despite the evidence of my eyes, and as I grasp the complexities of science and the new physics at an incredibly basic level, groping in darkness, I feel such kindness from the mind in this site, and such gratitude to it. How patient with others ! Quite exemplary of the self-organizing, cooperative intelligence at work.(I see it as the evolutionary life-force, once thought of as a Being outside the system). Thanks for helping the field along.

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      Hi Elizabeth,
      Thank you for your support. We are trying to bring science back into the hands of those that have the courage to honestly ask questions, and to free it from the political pressures that have been strangling its potential. In science, it is never appropriate to justify a truth claim based on it being the claim of some “authority”. The logic should speak for itself. More importantly, we are individually responsible for our own participation in the quest for knowledge and wisdom. As you know, we can never be completely confident that the model we have of Nature is correct, what we can do is evaluate how honestly we have challenged every assumption, and rigorously test against all possible options. Our work is meant to be a guide in that process. It follows the thread of a particular model, one that offer immense ontological clarity, but its true aim is to empower each individual with the skills necessary to push our intellectual boundaries. It asks the questions that challenge our very foundations, and it offers insight into how we might rebuild that foundation. Anyone who reads this book will gain the ability to become a powerful part of the conversation.

  26. Jim siger:

    The flickering (or vibration) of particles of space and the averaging out on the large scale, feels kind of like the illusions of movie projectors – a consistent image appears to the eye, but if you inspect it more closely you realize there's far more to the story.

    The one thing that confused me about the model, was the idea of distance being the number of space particles. If that were so, it would seem that our three-dimensions are hoisted on top of the dimension of space-time, or, perhaps, are dependent on – an outgrowth of – space-time.

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      The idea is that the vacuum is itself a fluid, this measures of space measure amounts of that fluid between positions. I'm not sure what you meant by, “dependent on – an outgrowth of – spacetime.”

  27. Gururaj Bhat says:

    Hej,
    I'm a lay person but found your work very interesting. Can you please send a copy of your book?
    Tak
    Gururaj

  28. Sahil says:

    hey I am a student of physics and would love to read your book. Could you please send me a pdf copy

  29. stewart says:

    Thad, will you send me a copy of your book?

    Tak
    stewart

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      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.

  30. Gene says:

    Hi – thanks for your work. I am a mathematician, and have done some work in higher dimensional geometry, but have little training in physics, and am not a scientist. I have a few questions.

    It seems you are proposing that the quanta are arranged within 3-dimensional space, and that the other 6 dimensions are somehow “within” the three (what I think you call superspace). Is that correct?

    If quanta 1 and 2 are separated by one plankton, and quanta 2 and three are separated by one plankton in a different dimension perpendicular to the first, would the distance between quanta 1 and 3 also be one plankton? In Euclidean geometry it would be the square root of 2. Am I totally off here?

    I assume that your model rejects the theory that the extra 6 dimensions are “curled up” in tiny amounts of curved dimensions around each quanta?

    Forgive me if these questions do not make sense. I appreciate your work and am looking to understand more. Tak.

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      Hi Gene,
      That's partially correct. The quanta of space collectively form the x, y, z vacuum of space that we are familiar with. This means that the arrangements of all the quanta at one instant defines the state of space for that instant, but that connectivity is not static. It evolves according to the wave equation as the quanta mix about. In your specific example, if quanta A and B are separated by one Planck length, then that means that one quantum of space lies between them. If B and C are perpendicularly arranged from A and B, and were also one quantum apart then they also only have one quantum between them. This is not a static condition. At some instances the state of space might find A and B two quanta apart, while others might find them with now quanta of space between them. At any rate, the number of quanta (the amount of space) between A and C would be a whole number (0, 1, 2, 3…) at any particular instant, but would average out to have a value equal to the square root of 2. Does that make sense? So, yes, at any particular moment the spatial separation between A and C might be one quantum of space, and an no point in time would it be the square root of 2, yet the average separation would eventually become the square root of 2.

      If you're interested in getting the book, it 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.

      • Gene says:

        I have problems with the idea of quanta “mixing about” over time. It implies that each quanta is identifiable, and moves from location to location albeit in a “jumpy” fashion. But quanta are the definition of location, from what I understand. Does not “mixing about” imply another frame of reference to “locate” each quanta within 3D space?

        • Thad Roberts siger:

          Yes, absolutely. The quanta are positioned in configuration space, otherwise called superspace. The collection of these quanta fill out the dimensions of x, y, z or familiar space. When there are more than 3 spatial dimensions “location” become a more complex concept.

  31. Artax says:

    Hej Thad,
    I'm very happy because i discover you, i'd always thought “the problem is geometrical”, and so is the solution!
    I would be very grateful if you would send me your book,hopefully I will return the favor in the near future :)
    Tak
    Farvel

    • Thad Roberts siger:

      You can order the iBook, softcover or hardcover through this site. If you cannot afford either of these options let me know and I can send you a promo code for a free iBook.

Efterlad et Svar




Hvis du ønsker et billede at vise med din kommentar, gå få en Gravatar.