71

Küsimused ja vastused:

Sooviksin pühendada see leht küsimused, et keegi seal võib olla seoses aksioomidest, üürnikud, järeldused või arusaamade quantum ruumi teooria. Palun saatke mulle oma küsimused ja ma annan endast parima, et vastata via video. Ma loodan, et see foorum on kindlasti kasulik neile, kes on vastamata küsimusi quantum ruumi teooria.

Küsimus 1: Fred Goode

Olen huvitatud parem mõistmine 11 mõõtmed QST.

Ma saan aru, et mõõde on telg, mida mööda midagi saab liigutada ei eelda liikumist teise telje või dimensiooni.
x, y ja z on ilmsed näited (3) mõõtmed. Ütleksin aeg on 4. kui saate liikuda läbi aja ilma liigub x, y või z. Ma näen ajal on mõõde, sest seal on suund. Past - praegune - tulevik.
Ma ka aru väike suurus Planck. See on tõesti väga väike. Sa kirjeldada Vestlused Üks, et see on väikseim saame jagada kosmoses. Nagu AU (kuld) aatomi, kui jagate seda uuesti, see on enam AU. Aga jaoks Plancki pikkus, ma ei saa seda.
Kas sellist asja nagu 1/2 on Plancki? Ma vaatan Plancki kui skaala nagu joonlauaga. Joonlaud on 12 "pikk ja on 12 ühe tolline segmentide see, kus iga tollise on jagatud mõni osa tolli. See on kuni tootja, millised fraktsioneerival summa ta tahab näidata. 1 ", 1/2", 1/4 ", 1/8" ja väga sageli, 1/16 "või isegi 1 / 64th tolline. Miks me ei näe joonlauad 1 / 128.-tollise sammuga? Sest see on liiga väike, et "silma ball". See ei tähenda, mõõtmed väiksemad 1/64 "ei ole olemas. Me mõõdame neid teiste vahenditega. Lihtsalt ei joonlauaga. Kuidas on Plancki skaala erineb sellest, mida ma kirjeldada?
Ok, küsimus 2. osa Kui Plancki on skaala ja Quanta eksisteerib sellel skaalal, siis tundub olevat selge, et kuna see on sub-Plancki suurust, seda ei saa enam kinni x, y, z mõõtmed täpselt see füüsilist asukohta . Ma arvan, et probleem minu jaoks on see, et ma ei ole veel saada, kuidas kaugust (1 Plancki pikkus), ei saa edasi jagada. Mõistan seda koos AU aatomi, kuid see ei ole õunad ja õunad. Vähemalt ma ei ole veel näha.
Kõik muu jääb paika mulle trahvi nii kaua kui ma sellega nõustuda geomeetria fakti. Ma näen, mida must auk on, kuidas aeg aeglustub läheneb musta auku, miks punanihe toimub, mida tumeaine tähendab, miks quantum tunnelite toimub, miks kana tee ületanud, ja kõike muud. Ma lihtsalt vajan abi, mis kirjeldab seda, et teised inimesed ala "sa ei saa jagada Plancki pikkus arvesse 1/2 Plancki". MIKS MITTE??!!??!! :)
Täname oma aega
Fred Goode

Vajuta video, et näha minu vastus küsimusele 1:

Kommentaarid (71)

Trackback URL | Kommentaarid RSS Feed

  1. Pierre Rousseau ütleb:

    Thad, kokkuvõte minu mõtisklused eile oma mudeli poolest lainedünaamika. Mida sa arvad?

    Space võib registreerida meile ainult tippude seisab kolmemõõtmeline quantum-bit laine struktuuride alati ainult ühe quantum ühe Plancki pikkus ainult üle teatava piiri amplituudi esindatus ruumi ja eraldi vibreeriv kui väikseim detailsus aegruumi ja ühiselt vibreeriv kui see, mida me tajume kui aja ja ruumi. On SUPERSPACE kõrgema resolutsiooniga, kus kogu supervolume neist seisab keskused liikuda ja üksteisest läbi (kuid kokkupõrkeid juhtuda, et super aegruumi skaala palju harvemini kui sageduse vibratsiooni iga sfäärilise alalise laine). Kõik need valdkonnad on omaette universum täpselt samad omadused võrreldes aasta resolutsioonis nagu meie, ainult järgmisel fraktaali resolutsioon üles. Samamoodi, mis puudutab meie universum on absoluutne suunas entroopia võib olla lihtsalt kollaps ja nullini (kui vaadelda siinuselise laine). Teine universum võiks liikuda meie kaudu ja keerake kõik üles, kuid see juhtub palju harvemini kui 100 miljardit paaritu aastat, mis võiks kuluda jagunevad täielik entroopia.

  2. Joe Täida ütleb:

    Tere Thad -

    Kohe alguses, lubage mul öelda tänu saates mulle oma raamatu. Pärast vaadates oma TEDx Boulder rääkida, ma ei oota, et kaevuma sügavamale oma teooria, ja ma ei pidanud pettuma.

    Minu ametlik teaduslikud uuringud algas ja lõppes minu keskkooli füüsika klassi aastal 1971, ja ma pole kunagi töötanud tunne matemaatikat kaugemale Euclidian geomeetria. Kuid ma olen püüdnud õpetada (või vähemalt tutvuma) ennast erinevatel teemadel, alates kvantmehaanika kosmoloogia, et relatiivsusteooria. Teie raamat läks pikk tee aitab mul mõista mõistete alates Boulder rääkida, aga ikka on mõned küsimused, mida võib selgitada.

    1) Te räägite ajal on määratletud resonantsi Quanta. Kas kõike universumis mõjuvad, ning kui mitte, siis miks QUANTA mõjuvad? Mis täpselt see tähendab, et on resonantsiga Quanta? Kas Quanta muutus suurus või kuju sel resonation?

    2) Nagu space kvandid- liikumiseks SUPERSPACE, nad säilitavad sama X, Y, Z suhet teistesse kvandid- (kuigi mitte sama kaugel)? Või on nende X, Y, Z seisukohti ainult määratletud keskmine või makrotasandil?

    3) mis on tõenäoliselt seotud ja vastas 2) üle, kui iga Quanta tuvastab (või on tuvastatav) unikaalne X, Y, Z koordineerida, ja isegi väikseim natuke asi on palju suurusjärku suurem kui ühe Quanta, kuidas on tähtis asukoht määratud? Kas ma olen korrigeerida, et isegi ühe elektroni oleks hõivata miljardeid kvandid- ruumi?

    Üks idee, et alati häiris mind, ja mis sa tegeleda oma raamatus, on idee, et liikumine läbi pideva aegruumi loogiliselt võimatu. Selleks, et minna punktist A punkti B, pead sa lahkuma punktist A, ja enne saabumist punkti B, on teil saada kuni punktini, 1/2 teed. Aga saada 1/2 viis punkti, pead sa saad punkti, 1/2 tee seal, 1/4 viis punkti B. Iga punkti soovid on saada, siis hakkan alati saada kuni punktini, 1/2 viis, et punkti ja sa kunagi punkti B. kvanditud spce lahendab see väike probleem.

    Tänan juba ette mingit aimu saab anda mulle selle, ja ma ootan illustratsioonid Einsteini Intuitsioon.

    - Joe Täitke
    Indianapolis, IN

    • Thad Roberts ütleb:

      Joe,

      Ma hiljuti lõpetanud läheb kogu teose teise vooru muudatusi, parandada voolu üsna vähe, parandatakse mõned vead, ja lisades paljude arvud. Kui olete huvitatud uuendatud versioon saatke mulle email ja ma edastada see mööda.

      Nagu oma küsimustele:

      1 - Selles mudelis kõik asjad universumis on mõelnud kui koosnedes ruumi Quanta, kuid mitte kõik ruumi Quanta vabalt mõjuvad. Quanta, mis on kokku kleepunud, puudutades, on definitsiooni järgi ei saa vabalt mõjuvad kuni nad eraldati uuesti. Mõned Quanta on ainult selles olukorras lühikest aega, samas kui teised võivad võtta seda pikka kestust (kestus siin viitab keskmiselt tasuta tagasiastumist, et keskmine tausta Quanta on tühi ruum läbi, samas need Quanta on kokku kleepunud). Ka selle mudeli iga Quanta on, et esimeses lähenduses, elastne kera. Nende elastsed hoones, sellele lisandub asjaolu, et nad liiguvad ringi ja keemise üksteiseks, on põhjus, et nad on resonantsiga. Resonation tähendab geomeetriline contortion elastse sfääri. Kui universum oli lähedal absoluutne null, kui keskmine superspatial kiirus iga Quanta oli nullilähedased, siis ootus oleks, et Quanta oleks vabalt vibreerida enestele, kellel vähem amplituud, kuni nad otsa energiat (st kogu energia (geomeetriline contortion) ning resonation üle sisemiselt). See aeglaselt muuta allkiri aega universumis.

      2 - Kuna Quanta liikuda SUPERSPACE nad segada x, y, z võrku. Niisiis, no - nad ei säilitada sama x, y, z suhe teise kvandid-. Kuid kuna kõik Quanta on identsed, kõige mõju selle segamine pesta, kui me läheneme makroskoopilise kaalud. Täpne x, y, z positsioonid on määratletud ainult täpset hetked - pilte kogu võrku sel hetkel. Kuna Quanta segunevad kohta, konkreetsete punktide virvendama ümber asendi x, y, z perspektiivi. See võbelev, kuid isegi peseb välja (see piirdub harilikult suhteliselt väike piirkond), kui me välja suumida.

      3 - On kaks võimalikku vastust sellele küsimusele. Esimeses võimalust, kõige põhilisem mass osakesed võivad olla nii lihtne kui on kaks (või kolm või neli ja nii edasi) Quanta kokku kleepunud (iga kestus). See huvitav asi see võimalus on, et samal ajal kui kvandid- on kokku kleepunud need toimivad sama unikaalne asukoht x, y, z meetrika. Nad ei ole enam ainulaadsed kohad, et nad tegelikult võtta omadused on ühes kohas. Ikka teised Quanta nendega suhtlemisel tagasilöögi teistmoodi siis nad Quanta, mis ei ole kokku kleepunud, et kaarti ümber lõimed - keskmine geomeetriline ühenduvus on paindes. Sel juhul asukohast selles küsimuses osakese oleks täpsustatud viitega kogumist kõik teised kvandid- ümber - lihtsalt nagu juhul kui see oleks ühe kvandid-. Teises võimalus, asi võib viidata geomeetriline keerised. Kui mõõdik ruumi on ideaalne superfluid palju vorme väga stabiilne keerised on lubatud. Need keerised olla isegi lõpmata stabiilsed nii kaua kui neid ei katkeks. Kui need loksutades keeriseid mõõdik tuletatud mass osakesed, siis mass osakesed ainult positsioone rohkem fuzzy tunne - kogub resolutsiooni suurem kaalud. Siiski võib ette kujutada, et stabiilne Eddy on keskus ja selle keskmises asendis võiks täita nii tähenduses asukoha osakese.

      Need on tähelepanuväärne küsimused Joe. Nagu võite öelda, ma olen ikka trenni mõjusid viimane küsimus. Põnevil, et näha, kui see viib meid. :-)

    • Pierre Rousseau ütleb:

      Joe Täitke uuesti. Q & A (3) eespool, ükskõik kui tükke Quanta või teise keeriseid super vedelikku. Geoffrey Haselhurst mudel koosneb seisab 3D punkti lained lõpmatu keskmise ja asi nagu stabiilne 3D võre struktuure. Http: // www .space ja mo mine .com /

      • Thad Roberts ütleb:

        Hooldus 3D seisulained nõuab pidevat sisendid suurepäraselt häälestatud igast suunast. Pööris on superfluid, aga jääb ise, sest mitte-rotationality on superfluid - tema kalduvus moodustada kvanditud keerised. Mõnes mõttes on see, mida Geoffrey ja ma liiguvad on sarnane, kuid stabiilsust idee alaline laine nõuab väga suur kokkusattumus iga osakese. See toob kaasa probleeme, kui nad püüavad selgitada, kuidas kõik elektronid tunduvad identsed. Kui aga need võre struktuurid seletada kvanditud keeriseid superfluid vaakum, see küsimus on loomulikult arvestada.

  3. Aaron ütleb:

    Hi Thad,

    Avastasin just oma TED talk eile õhtul ja see puhus minu meelest! Pärast lõikuva see tagasi kokku (minu meelest, et on), ma otsustasin, et kontrollida oma kodulehel. Ma lõpetasin veeta mitu tundi lugedes koha (sh blogid) ja vaadates videoid. Põnev värk! Mõned küsimused on hüppasid minu meelest, aga ma arvan, et paljud neist on ilmselt vastata oma raamatu. Tegelikult pärast lugemist lühikokkuvõtte oma raamatu, ma tean, et vastused paljudele minu küsimused on adresseeritud seal.

    Sooviksin saada paremini lahendada töös, mis on juba varem tehtud küsimusi esitamata. Kas sa ikka postitada koopiad oma raamatu? Kui jah, ma armastan see läbi lugeda. Ma ei tea, kui lähedal te printida (see on olnud mõnda aega, kuna teie viimane blogi postitus), kuid kui raamat on juba välja, ma õnnelikult osta koopia :)

    Igatahes, aitäh jagamine QST. Olen kohanud käputäis varbad aastate jooksul, ja ükski neist edukalt suutnud selgitada ja arvestada kõiki veidrusi, mis eksisteerivad standardmudeli - rääkimata pakkuda intuitiivne raames. Olen nõus, et kõik füüsilised teooriad, nende matemaatilised avaldised peale, peaks võimalda nii lihtne kirjeldus, et sõnu Einstein, "isegi laps saaks aru."

    Regards,
    Aaron

    • Thad Roberts ütleb:

      Aaron,
      Olen saadetakse Teile link pdf. Palju edu on hiljuti inspireerib mõned parandused peatükid 19-21 ja parandada üldist selgust. Kui jõuad peatükk 21 salli ümber laadides pdf veendumaks, et on kõige uuema versiooni. Kui tunned midagi raamatus saaks teha rohkem selge, siis palun andke mulle teada :-). Ootan teie tagasisidet.
      Thad

      • Aaron ütleb:

        Tere jälle,

        Täname link. Ma alla pdf ja just lõpetanud peatükis 4. Ma tõesti muljet jada, kus olete ette kõik ära. Raske töö, et olete pannakse see lihtsalt ilmne. Siiani olen suutnud jälgida kõike lihtsalt, ja mul on eelteadmisi iga mõisted, et olete arutanud (välja arvatud quasicrystals, mis ma tegin natuke internetis uurimist).

        Just rekord, ma ei ole koolitatud teadlane igal alal, ja minu teada kosmoloogia, astrofüüsika, kvantmehaanika jms pärineb mõned raamatud, mida ma olen lugenud ja dokumentaalfilme, et ma olen jälginud. Mul on lootused lõpuks mõista mõistete, ajalugu ja matemaatika sellisel tasemel, mis on võrdne teadlane valdkonnas, kuid mul on väga pikk tee minna. Nagu öeldud, et ma ei saa aru oma raamatus selgelt kuni see punkt annab mulle julgustust, et ma teen edusamme selle eesmärgi.

        Kui mul on toimetamine seotud ettepanekuid, ma mainida neid e-posti teel.

        Aitäh veel kord. See on lahe!

        Aaron

  4. Laz ütleb:

    Hi Thad,

    Olen olnud alati huvitatud meie salapärane Universe. Naudin lugemist ur veebilehel, vaadates ur videod. Kuid ma ei märganud, et u mainitud string või M teooria enne. Mis on ur arvates on? Kõik koosneb vibreeriv strings, mis on 11 mõõtmeline? Aga 1 tükk ruumi Quanta, mis on 1 plank pikkus (1,6 × 10 astmes -35 m), on ta koosneb 1 ühe string? Vastavalt mõned teadlased, suurus string võib olla kusagil 10 astmes -34 või -35. Ehk nööriga kui sama ruumi Quanta?

    Täname u ur abi :)
    ja ... Oleks üllatav, kui u võiks saata mulle ur raamat samuti.

    Cheers,
    Laz

    • Thad Roberts ütleb:

      Laz,
      Täname küsimused :-). Ma meilis link koopia teose täna. Vastuseks teie küsimusele, ma naudin jõupingutusi arendajad stringiteooria on ontoloogiliselt juurde põhjuslik Lugu saladused kvantmehaanika. Kuid ma ei usu, et selline lugu on edukalt ja veel selle teooria. Siiski stringiteooria, nüüd pikendata superstring teooria ja M-teooria, temal on mõningaid huvitavaid ja tähelepanuväärne paralleele, mis on esile tõstetud eeldusel, et vaakum on superfluid (kvanditud). Mõned neist on mainitud "Einsteini Intuitsioon". Ootan teie tagasisidet, kui lugeda.

  5. Laz ütleb:

    Tänu miljonit Thad, ma tõesti hindan ur vastuse ja suurepärane raamat !!!

    Ma lasen u tea, kui midagi ei ole selge, minu jaoks kindlasti :)

    Kõike head,
    Laz

  6. Chris ütleb:

    Hi Thad,
    Ma leidsin oma TED talk video teisel päeval. Ma olen lihtsalt amatöör, kui tegemist on füüsika ja kosmoloogia, aga ma armastan kuulata kõiki neid uusi, inspireeriv mõtteid. Ma olen väga üllatunud, kui palju oma teooria oli võimalik selgitada (eriti füüsikaliste konstantide sõltub geomeetria ruum ise, mida ma kunagi spekuleerinud ... kuigi "fantaasiates" oleks ilmselt parem valik sõnad). Igatahes, ma lihtsalt kirjutan öelda: Aitäh! ja: Jätkake samas vaimus! :)

    Ka minu arvates lihtsalt juhtus pärast seda küsimust: on SUPERSPACE ka quantum looduses, või sa eeldada, et see on lõpmata sile?

    • Thad Roberts ütleb:

      Chris,
      Täname küsimus. Vastuseks teie küsimusele, mudeli töötame eeldab täiuslik fraktaali struktuuri, nii et jah, see eeldab, et SUPERSPACE on kvanditud, ja et need Quanta on komposiit üksuste palju väiksem sub-Quanta, ja nii edasi. Kui olete huvitatud võin saata teile raamatu selle kohta. 11. peatükk hõlmab konkreetselt selles küsimuses.

      • Chris ütleb:

        Jah aitäh! Ma väga tahaks lugeda rohkem sellel teemal. Ma olen jälginud Vestlused videod viimastel päevadel, kuid mõned asjad on veel mitte täielikult, intuitiivselt selge, et me (süüdistada mu aju). See on ainult õiglane, kui ma esimest korda rohkem teada, enne kui ma seda enam oma aega. Üks asi, mida ma tahaks küsida edasi küll on, kuidas kvandid- ruumi ülekande energia, kui nad ei ole tegelikult puudutamata? Kas nad teevad seda meie kolm ruumilist mõõdet (kus nad on arvatavasti alati kontaktis) nii kaua, kui nad ei puutu ka SUPERSPACE? (Sorry, kui ma sassi midagi).

        Tegelikult mul on ka mõnede teiste kommentaarid / küsimused, mida ma arvan, et ma aru natuke parem:
        1. gravitatsiooniline Lensing seletati tumeaine. Sa selgitatud seda faasimuutus ruumi erinevustest tingitud temperatuuri ruumis. Kas Lensing mõju alati vormis ringi? Isegi galaktikaparvede, nagu here?: http://​upload​.wiki​media​.org/​w​i​k​i​p​e​d​i​a​/​c​o​m​m​o​n​s​/​0​/​0​b​/​G​r​a​v​i​t​a​t​i​o​n​e​l​l​-​l​i​n​s​-​4​.​jpg

        Ok, ma ei ole päris kindel, et see on täiuslik ring, mis pildil, aga ikkagi, ma uskunud, et kui see kõik taandub erinevused temperatuuri, siis Lensing mõju kogu klastri peaks olema ilmselt palju rohkem ... moonutatud, ebaregulaarne? (Samas, see on lihtsalt minu intuitsioon, mida ma õppinud ei usalda täielikult 😉).

        2. Sa selgitas, et punanihe galaktikate 'tuli põhjustatud kaotus oma energia tõttu mingi sisemine hõõrdumine kosmoses Quanta (loodan, et ma sain selle õige) ... anyway see kaotatud ruumi ise. Sa rääkisid ka universumi ajal Big Bang siiani. Aga ei olnud punanihe meie ainus vihje on Big Bang alates erilisus (või midagi lähedal) ja inflatsiooni esimese koha? Kui energia footonite on "kadunud" ruumis, siis võibolla ei ole inflatsioon üldse, ja et universum on põhiliselt staatiline suurus. Ainult seal on rohkem ja rohkem, et "hõõrdumine" ruumi (või osa sellest) ja nii kaugele me valesti tõlgendada andmeid kiirenev inflatsioon?

        See oleks kõik, nüüd niikuinii.
        Tänan, Thad!

        • Thad Roberts ütleb:

          Chris,
          Täname küsimusi. Esiteks, selle mudeli Quanta ei puutu. Nad elastselt suhtlevad superspatial mõõtmed, põrgata ja kopsakas off üksteist. Ma püüan lõpuks saada video sellest, et muuta see selgemaks. Teiseks, kui oma küsimus gravitatsiooniline Lensing puudub kuju vahe prognoosid selle teooria teeb ja traditsioonilise väiteid tumeaine. Tumeaine ringid või piirkondades faasisiire, ümber isegi sigari kujuga galaktikad on kerakujuline. Seega, me ootame Lensing mõju olla ümmargune. Ei saa olla erandeid, et ümmarguse projitseeritud kujutises. Näiteks kui on muid objekte vahel allikas ja vaatleja edasi moonutab pilti. Sfäärilise kuju leiti Loodus ei ole täielikult selgitatud traditsiooniline selgitus tumeaine. Aga kui see on faas võimalus siis ootame seda kerakujulised, sest kuidas termodünaamiline omadused edastatakse väljapoole oma allikaid. Sul on õigus arvata, et lõpuks ei saa põhimõtteliselt olla mitte kerakujulised, kuid see toimub ainult rühmana teiste sfäärilise kujuga. Nii võite leida midagi ligilähedast 3D Mickey Mouse seal, kuid see nõuaks väga konkreetne paigutus väga spetsiifilised galaktikad, kõik on just õige temperatuuri ja suurused ja augud. Üldiselt me ​​lihtsalt oodata sfäärilise mõõtmiste halo piirkonnas. Sinu teine ​​küsimus on fantastiline, mida teed. Nagu selgub, punanihe ei ole meie ainus vihje, et universum oli "esimene" moment. Ma kasutan esimest siin ainult viitega sisemiselt jälgitav kett põhjuse ja tagajärje - ei ole väide, et see oli ülim cut off põhjuse ja tagajärje. Kõige tahke võimalus saada väitega, et universumi pidi olema alguses (selles mõttes, võtame kohta - Big Bang) on ​​tagada termodünaamika teine ​​seadus ja tunnistama, et kõik füüsika on aeg-reverse sümmeetriline (mõned võivad väita, et laine funktsioon kokkuvarisemine võib põgeneda, kuid see võib näidata, et see väide ei ole vajalik - vaata Bohm tõlgendus kvantmehaanika). Nende kahe tingimuse pardal me täielikult loota, et kui tundub, mingil määral ka selleks, et universum on äärmiselt tõenäoline, et nii enne kui ka pärast tekkimist, et selleks, et see oli vähem. Imaging piljardilaud, mis ei tekita ega taskud. Pallid on ringi liikudes põrgata kaua, enne kui vaatasin seda. Pange tähele, et võite pildistada seisukohti pallid, kuid enamik neist pilte näitan sulle lihtsalt juhuslik suunad. See süsteem on maksimaalne entroopia - minimaalse tellimuse. Kuid lõpuks kõik pallid juhtub põrkuvad korraga, pakitud ühte nurka. On selge, kui võtsime läbilõige, et hetkel oleks selge, et süsteem oli mingis järjekorras. Nüüd ootus. Kui meil oleks juurdepääs pilte enne ja pärast, et kodukorrale, milline oleks ootame? Loodame, et näha, et lagunemine mõlemas suunas ajas. See on see, mida see tähendab, et öelda, et loodus on aeg-reverse sümmeetriline. Teine seadus termodünaamika ütleb meile, et loodus käitub sel viisil. Kell-reverse sümmeetria kodeeritud meie füüsika võrrandid ka toetab seda. Aga kui me vaatame maailma näeme ka paljud asjaolud, mis tundub, et on aeg direktsionaali neile. Sündmused paljastama üks võimalus palju rohkem kui nad seda muul viisil. Miks? Noh, kui termodünaamika teine ​​seadus kehtib, kui aeg-reverse sümmeetria täpselt kirjeldab füüsika (need väited on sünonüümid muide), siis on ainult ühe järelduse. Meie universum ei ole veel jõudnud maksimaalselt riigi entroopia. See tähendab, et universum oli alguses. See süüdistus väga madal entroopia mingil hetkel, ja et väike entroopia ei ole täielikult lagunenud veel.
          Ma selgitan seda üksikasjalikult minu raamat. Kui soovite lugeda ainult saatke mulle oma e-posti ning taotlevad. Ma edastada Teile pdf. Ma ka seletada inflatsiooni sellesse gruppi, ja kiirendatud viimastel etapi punanihe. Kõik need mõjud on loomulik ootused selle mudeli. See muidugi ei tähenda automaatselt teha mudeli õige, kuid see ei oleks huvitav. Väärtus on selles, et me võime nüüd on mudel, mis selgitab meie tähelepanekud täielikult, ning viisil, mis on intuitiivselt kättesaadav. :-)

  7. Iiro ütleb:

    Hi,

    Hea töö tõesti !!!
    Olen jälginud kõige videoid viimase kahe päeva ja ma tõesti meeldib lihtsus ja elegants oma lähenemist. See võtab veidi rohkem aega ja lugemine minu jaoks jõuavad sügavam mõistmine aga on üks probleem allready et ma ei ole suutnud lahendada minu enese ja see on selline:

    Oma teooria puudub vajadus gravitatsioonijõud. Direct line on määratletud nii, et seal on sama koguse kvandid- mööduvaid kõikides pool liikuvat objekti. See Leeds kaardus tee (Eukleidese MEEL), kui seal on rohkem Quanta (objekti mass) on küljel kohta liikuvat objekti. Nüüd joosta probleem (see on kõige propably minu ahv meeles puudu mõned lihtne asi, sest hilistel õhtutundidel :-) sest see stsenaarium tee, et objekt võtab, ei sõltu tema kiirus. Nii et kui me douple kiirus, peaksime ikkagi sama teed, mida me ei ole tõsi.

    Nii et palun näita mulle, mida ma puudu, nii et ma ei saa liikuda !!!

    Täname tuues mõistus tagasi fundamentaalteaduslikele !!!

    • Thad Roberts ütleb:

      Iiro,
      Hea küsimus! Sul võib olla hea meel avastada, et see mudel ei ütle, et tee objekti jälgib sõltub selle kiirus. Mis tihedusgradiendi ruumi kohale, sirge tee, tee objekt võtab, sõltub selle kiirus. Et mõista, miks, kujutada objekti, mis liigub läbi kindla ruumi aeglaselt - oletame 20 Quanta ajaühikus. Kui see objekt liigub piirkonnast tihedusgradiendi kulub tee kus mõlemal pool veel kogeda sama palju ruumi ajaühikus. Oletame, et gradient muudab erinevus on sellise tihedusega, et superspatial sirge tee viiks veel 20 Quanta ühel pool kui teine. See objekt järgige väga kaardus tee (alates Eukleidese perspektiiv). Kui aga sama objekti sisestatud piirkonnas liigub kiirusega 1000 Quanta ajaühikus, siis 1020 vs 1000 küljelt küljele ei looks teed tugev kõverus. Ma loodan, et see on suunatud oma küsimus. Please elaborate if you have further questions :-).
      Lugupidamisega,
      Thad

  8. Martin says:

    Hi Thad, I've got a couple of questions:
    1. Can you help me envisage why a mass (like an apple) falls toward the Earth? In the absence of a force called gravity I'm guessing this must be happening because the apple has velocity (that of the Earth through space) in a density gradient… But I can't quite picture it.
    2. What is it that is within a planck bubble that has co-ordinates described by the intra-spatial x,y,z?
    3. Sub-atomic particles are huge compared to the planck length so how do you picture a quark occupying space? Does it 'occupy' billions of planck bubbles? What does that 'look' like?
    4. What is the mechanism by which mass affects the density of planck bubbles? How does mass cause them to coalesce? I think what I'm trying to get at here is that, having done away with gravity, with what do I replace my conception of matter clumping together (to make planets etc…)
    5. I think you said a black hole had a size of 1 planck. Surely if you make planck bubbles coalesce as in a black hole, its 'size' is however many planck bubbles it has inside it. From your explanation, I imagine them densely packed (and not 'resonating')… and if more matter is sucked in, with more planck bubbles, I imagine the event horizon expands to accomodate more planck bubbles at some sort of maximum density.
    6. I never came across your explanation of how QST explains wave particle duality. I'd love to hear it.
    I'm enjoying how you convey the concept of QST as something I can actually imagine. Tänu.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      1. Of course. ☺ First let me say that the difficulty would be to explain how a force called gravity causes an apple to fall toward the Earth. Forces are used in lieu of explanations. Therefore, when we rely on “forces” our understanding of the world is empty. When it came to gravity, Einstein overcame this stumbling block by reducing the effects of gravity to consequences of a geometric property (that nobody had previously imagined). According to Einstein, the metric of spacetime curves in conjunction with the presence of mass. As a result, objects like the Moon orbit the Earth because this orbit is the straight path through spacetime (despite our naïve Euclidean expectations). Once we comprehend spacetime in its full geometric splendor the mystery of forces dissolve. Since the Moon is going straight, there is no deep mystery.

      We can use our qst model to fully understand the geometric property of spacetime curvature. In our model, curvature is represented by the radial density gradients that extend from massive objects. Once we have these radial density gradients our solution falls into place by considering what it means to call a path “straight” in space. An object that is moving straight experiences equal amounts of space. In other words, its left side moves through the same amount of space as its right side (and all other sides). Imagine extending your hands as you drift in space. If your left hand transverses the same amount of space as your right hand during some interval of time, then you are moving straight. Now imaging an object entering a region of space that supports radial density gradient. In order for the object to continue going straight it must continue to follow the path that has it interacting with the same amount of space on its left side and its right side. The radial density gradient perturbs this path from Euclidean projections. Can you imagine it now?

      2. If we assume that space (the x, y, z we are familiar with) is actually a superfluid made up of many quanta of space, then the individual quanta of space become the smallest contributions to the metric that portrays the relative arrangements of those quanta. The quanta themselves are made up of a volume, but that volume cannot coherently participate or contribute to the metric of x, y, z. Therefore, their metric is uniquely separate. As an analogy, let's imagine that you were asking what is within the molecules of water in a lake. A collection of these molecules defines water, and they can allow waves to propagate through the medium, but inside the molecules themselves the notion of “water” is nowhere to be found. The reference has entirely changed, even though the molecules of H2O make up water. Does that help?

      3. Great question. Particles of mass in this model turn out to be little vortices in the superfluid vacuum. In this sense they are stable metric distortions that possess the ability to be locally defined (at least on scales larger than the vortex in question).

      4. Mass/energy exists any time there is a metric distortion. This means that whenever the quanta are not perfectly arranged into an evenly spaced lattice, matter/energy is present. On the quantum scales this is always the case, but as you zoom out the average density evens out (so long are there is not a radial density gradient present), giving rise to the appearance of emptiness (leaving only zero point energy, the spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles in pairs, which are described on the smallest scales only). What you appear to be getting would be best elucidated by a rich understanding of superfluids. In superfluids stable quantum vortices can form and remain without dissipation. This formation is the creation of 'matter particles' and the metric swirls that extend from them give rise to the effects of the electric force etc. I expand on this in my book, in the Forces chapter.

      5. When we are talking about x, y, z size, yes all black holes have an effective size of one Planck length. That is because they represent only one unique location in the x, y, z metric. However, superspatially black holes are much more than this. A black hole's superspatial size is a function of how many quanta make it up. The rest of what you said sounds accurate to me.

      6. Please go to http://​www​.EinsteinsIntuition​.com and select the pull down menu titled 'What is qst?' and select the formalism page. This should give you a great overview of how wave/particle duality is required by the assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid. Also, chapters 12 and 13 in my book introduce these concepts with less math.

      • matt says:

        I don't think you answered Martin's #1 question fully. In the apple, the left and right 'hands' will 'experiences equal amounts of space.' I came to Q&A looking for an explanation of the apple falling from the tree, not orbiting the earth! As to how the (familiar) potential energy changes to kinetic energy (the moment the stem breaks) , I guess we'd consider the density gradient front-to-back but i can't think of what makes the apple want to fall…

        • Thad Roberts says:

          Matt,

          Please excuse the delay in reply, I've been exploring Central America. I believe my response to your reworded question below addresses your question. If it does not please let me know.

          Thad

  9. matt says:

    After some reckoning I simplified the question thus: What causes acceleration in an orbiting object? Because an apple breaking from a tree is the same as a satellite at the apex of a flat-elliptical path.

    Objects in an elliptical orbit experience a reversal of acceleration when its path is perpendicular to a radial line of the density gradient. All other moments it will experience (de/a)cceleration because of the gradient from 'front' to 'back'. Is this because the 'front' experiences less time resonations than the 'back' which pushes it forward?

    Does that mean (familiar) inertia is an illusion?

    Is the inertia in superspace an illusion better explained by goings-on in supersuperspace?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Thanks for the clarification Matt. In response let me begin by pointing out that an orbiting body is only “accelerating” from an Euclidean perspective. For any perspective that reveals the curvature of spacetime there is no acceleration involved at any time (no force either). In short, by switching to a frame that includes spacetime curvature we dissolve the “force” of gravity. So yes, in part, familiar inertia is an illusion. Because it is a function of mass and velocity, an Euclidean painting of velocity introduces the illusory part. From a perspective that includes spacetime curvature the inertia of an orbiting body does not change. It remains traveling straight through spacetime. This illusion, along with the illusions of the other “forces” is elucidated best, to my knowledge, by the “goings-on in superspace”. Chapter 20 in my book covers this topic in greater detail. If you would like a pdf copy let me know.

  10. Nick Grover says:

    I have a similar question as other people on this forum, I searched a bit and couldn't find the answer so here goes.

    If the moon were (hypothetically) stopped in it's orbital path, why would it fall towards the Earth?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Nick,
      Great question. I assume that it makes sense to you why an orbit follows from a density gradient in space – why the moon orbits instead of flying right by. To tie the rest of the picture together we need to remember that elementary particles in this model are quantum vortices in the superfluid vacuum. Particles combine to form atoms and larger groups via the rules of combining quantum vortices. So we can imagine the Moon as a large collection of these swirling vortices. When it is in the presence of a density gradient (like the one that surrounds the Earth) the straight path for each vortex depends on that gradient. And, since the vortices are held in combination, by balancing fluid dynamic interactions, the fate of the collection is for the most part shared. Therefore, if the moon were stopped in its orbital path it would follow the only straight path available. Each vortex that makes it up would swirl about such that the distortion parts of its swirling action (the phonons that make it up) share identical experiences of space. The combined effect of this exposure to the Earth's spatial density gradient (spacetime curvature), and the stabilization between the vortices making up the matter of the Moon, brings the whole thing straight towards the earth.

      Please let me know if I can attempt to make this more clear.

      Thad

      • matt says:

        that explains the apple falling (not that i fully understand)… I would appreciate a link to your book.

        • Thad Roberts says:

          I've sent you the link. Please let me know if you have any problems opening it. Ootan teie tagasisidet.

  11. Ron says:

    Thad,

    I've been waiting for the apple to fall! Thanks for that response. May I get a copy of your book also?

    I had wondered if the reason the apple would fall is because of the time differences in the gradient. It seems that molecules vibrating “up and down” in the gradient would move slightly slower relative to the molecules directly above them, tending to pull the ones above them down. But the time gradient probably isn't steep enough to produce the effect that we think of as weight. And I haven't heard of super cold materials having less weight than the same material at room temperature. So your answer is very satisfying. Would the molecular vibration in the time gradient have any effect at all on the motion of the apple, even very slightly?

    Great videos, great site. Can't wait to read the book.

  12. Viktor says:

    Hi Thad!

    I watched your talk on TEDx – Boulder and I was very inspired. I would like to get a copy of your book in order to dig deeper in to the idea. I have a few questions concerning the 11-dimensions you talk about.

    1. Is 11 dimension a simplified picture? Have I understood it correctly if you believe that we live in an infinitely dimensional world? Does more dimensions pop up as we look closer?

    2. Is the super space including super time a E^4 space, and if so, what reason do we have to believe that?

    3. What forces are changing the path and shape of the space quanta, or is that just a geometric effect of even deeper lying dimensions?

    Thanks in advance!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Viktor,
      1. Yes, the 11-dimensional picture is a simplified picture. The complete picture relies on spatial structure that mimics a perfect fractal, each level resolving more internal parts that interact with the same set of rules.
      2. Superspace is only approximately an E^4 space in this model. This is a self-consistent necessity within the model because of the difference in size of the sub quanta to the quanta. The scale difference forces the expectation of a near E^4 structure.
      3. In this model there are no “forces” because all effects come with a complete causal story, negating any need to pull in a magical entity responsible for strange occurrences. I just emailed you a link to the book. To get a more complete answer to this question, read the superfluid chapter.

  13. matt says:

    i'm almost through the book; i'll email it back to you with corrections (typos, formatting, few comments)

    I was disappointed at the way you have the qst recursively overlapping — subspace in frame B is superspace in frame C…

    did you even try to make it overlap so that familiar space in frame B is superspace in frame C?

    maybe I just like to imagine receiving jounce from a higher dimension.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Matt,
      Technically the structure of the map is reflexive, meaning the order is mirrored. Look through Chapter 11 again, and if this isn't clear please let me know.

  14. trollthetrolls says:

    hi thad i have a question about red shift,im wondering the system or star that they say is accelerating does it automaticly mean the hole universe is accelerating or perhaps just that portion .How many observances of this phenomena have they observed . Is it possible there is an enormous mass in front of this system that is pulling it faster,maybe a black hole .are the distant systems that are heading towards us ??? curious .

    • Thad Roberts says:

      These are good questions. For a more in depth answer than I will be providing here, please see my Chapter on Dark Energy in Einstein's Intuition. If you do not have the book send me a request by email. The short answers are… When we observe redshift there are many possible (valid) explanations for this effect. The most popular explanation, is called the Doppler effect, which characterizes a change in observed wavelength due to motion of the emitting object. If from within the reference frame of the emitting object it is putting out a yellow light, but is moving away from you very rapidly, then from your reference frame you will see a color that is shifted towards the red end of the light spectrum. The amount of shifting depends on the speed. If it is moving towards you then the light will be blue-shifted. This effect is undoubtedly real. When we look at systems far away that are spinning rapidly, the edge moving towards us exhibits blue shift, while the edge of the system moving away from us exhibits red shift. The question is, does the general red shift we observe for all distant systems imply recession velocities? The answer is that it does not necessarily imply this. There are other options. I explore one particularly beautiful and simple option in that chapter if you'd like to understand another option. How many observations of red shift are there? Many. In fact, at large distance every system is redshifted. I suppose technically it is possible that they all have enormous masses behind them pulling them faster away from us, causing the doppler effect, but the odds of this would be extremely low for two reasons. The first reason is that all of those objects would have to be strategically placed such that they were exactly opposite of the object from our location, which doesn't seem to have any motivation or explanation, seems contrived and statistically completely unexpected, and the second is that there is no reason to expect that all distant objects would be paired in this way.

  15. miles says:

    Only a newcomer to this theory, having only seen the “visualizing 11 dimension” ted talk and reading some of the content on the site. What intrigues me the most is an extrapolation from the acceptance that spacetime is a superfluid; the idea of vortices appearing on a quantized level (ie rather than all the water in the bucket spinning around a central axis, quantised vortices appearing within the superfluid). Could the quanta themselves be defined as vortices in 11 dimensions, and could this further imply that it is the motion of the superfluid spacetime as a whole that causes these vortices to occur? Just as in the superfluid in the bucket, within which the system as a whole is moving causing these quantised vortices to appear. That is to say, that the spacetime that makes up the entire universe has some fundamental motion as a whole which in turn gives rise to these vortices which we experience as particels and charge.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Miles,
      This is a beautiful insight. Yes, this model leads to the expectation that the quantized vortices internal to the system are manifestations of some external motion (left over from the big bang). But the vortices are not the quanta themselves, instead the vortices are made of of the superfluid that the quanta construct. The quantized vortices instead become, as you suggest in your last sentence, the fundamental particles of mass. If you'd like to read more on this, I recommend my Chapter 21 – Superfluidity and Chapter 22 – Quantized Vortices.

  16. Peter says:

    You mention that mass generation can be described as a symmetry breaking event, but the primary literature is pretty dense. Is there an easier way to conceptualize “mass” in qst, and from that, better understand how mass might alter the density of 'space-bubbles' and hence, gravity? The popularized notion of gravity as a “charge” of mass–which results from particle interaction with the higgs field–doesn't seem to mesh well with qst. help!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Dear Peter,
      Yes, this model does offer an easier way to conceptualize “mass.” Here's an excerpt that should help make the connection (if you'd like to see this discussion with its references, figures, and equations, send me a request for the book via email):

      The word mass references the presence of a geometric distortion in the metric – specifically the presence of a localized distortion in the vacuum of increased density. Distortions that are not localized, distortions that require transverse propagation in order to be sustained, are referred to as light, or more generally as energy. Distortions with a decrease in density are referred to as negative energy.

      In a fluid metric, the total geometric magnitude of each distortion will vary depending upon speed. When a mass particle (a localized vacuum distortion) is not moving, the magnitude of that distortion chacterizes the particle's rest mass, also known as its intrinsic mass. When the particle moves, a wavefront builds up in front of it, adding to the total distortion of the vacuum's geometry. The faster it moves the greater the distortion. The additional distortion characterizes the particle's kinetic mass. As it approaches the propagation speed of the medium, the total metric distortion approaches an infinite value. This is why it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle with non-zero rest mass to the speed of light.

      Once we assume that the vacuum is quantized (like air), the notion of relativistic mass, whose value depends on velocity, automatically follows. Once we have particles with rest mass, it is trivial (given vacuum quantization) to explain kinetic mass (also known as relativistic mass). But how do we explain the emergence of rest mass? How do those localized regions of increased density form? Why do they only come in certain sizes – specifically prescribing the elementary particles we find in Nature? What makes these quantities of mass so special?

      In reference to these questions, Frank Wilczek, a physics Nobel Laureate, noted that William Thomson (also known as Lord Kelvin) postulated one of the most beautiful 'failed' ideas in the history of science when he suggested that atoms might be vortices in an aether that pervades space. Believing in aether, an invisible medium in spacetime that sustained electromagnetic waves, Thomson became intrigued by the work of Hermann Helmholtz, who demonstrated that “vortices exert forces on one another, and those forces take a form reminiscent of the magnetic forces between wires carrying electric currents.” As he explored this connection he recognized that vorticity was the key to obtaining a model that could explain how a few types of atoms, each existing in very large numbers of identical copies, could arise in Nature.

      To get his theory of vortex atoms off the ground, Thomson assumed that the aether was endowed with the ability to support stable vortices. Following Helmholtz' theorems, he then noted that distinct types, or “species,” of vortices would persist in the medium, and that these fundamental vortices could aggregate into a variety of quasi-stable “molecules.”
      Thomson's idea is quite appealing – the idea that stable quantum vortices, whose topologically distinct forms and sizes are naturally and reproducibly authored by the properties of the medium itself, are the building blocks of the material world. Sadly the idea has faded into obscurity, cloddishly dismissed and rejected, because the aether, the background fluid that these vorticities were thought to critically depend on, has been abandoned. Scientists assumed that if the aether is out, then Kelvin's quantized vorticities are also out. They mistakenly threw the baby out with the bath water.

      Providentially, the elegance of Thomson's quantized vorticities is resurrected when we trade the aether assumption, that there is a medium in the vacuum that supports electromagnetic waves, for the assumption that the vacuum itself is a superfluid medium with a metric that is macroscopically describable by the wave function. The assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid, also called a quantum fluid, instinctively establishes vortex stability. It also leads to the expectation that the structure of the material world is written into the substrate of the vacuum itself, that as quantized vortices form in the vacuum, supersymmetry is broken and subatomic particles emerge with very specific properties.

      We are just beginning to explore some of the promising new possibilities offered by quantum fluids. Current research is focused on, among other things, theoretically understanding the formation of quantum vortices in Bose-Einstein condensates (and how they combine to form stable unions), linking those quantum vortices to a concept of matter origins, and using BEC's to model black holes and their related phenomena in the lab.

      If vortices in the vacuum correspond to particles then “concentrated energy in empty space can transform virtual particles into real ones.” If this is what is going on then the mechanism behind this transformation (the Higgs mechanism) needs to be explained. We need to explore how massless particles with two physical polarizations acquire a third stable polarization in the longitudinal direction. We need to figure out how the property of mass (locally maintained geometric distortions, or quantized vortices) spring into existence.

      To push us towards an answer, we note that if we spin a beaker containing a superfluid we end up with an array of vortices scattered about in that fluid. (The number of vortices introduced is proportional to ħ/m.) Interestingly, superfluidity breaks down within each of these vortices, while everywhere else the fluid retains its superfluid characterization, and remains still (in the macroscopic sense). Therefore, the rotational energy of the external rotation becomes contained within these quantized vortices. The differences in response to rotation can be more precisely quantified by noting that the tangential velocity of the quantized vortices has a modulus that decreases with r:
      (Equations did not fully copy – see Chapter 22 – Quantum Vortices for equations and figures.)

      whereas the tangential velocity of a rigid rotator has a modulus that increases with r: v = Ω × r.

      This is what allows us to claim that the vortices are localized. This, combined with the fact that vortices are defined as certain geometric distortions in the vacuum that spontaneously break or hide the underlying higher symmetric state, makes them perfect candidates for particles that inherit their rest mass via the Higgs field. Vacuum superfluidity, therefore, gives teeth to the Higgs field hypothesis.

      The Higgs field (also called the Higgs boson, or the God particle) is used to codify the mysterious fact that particles possess rest mass. It is held responsible for causing certain geometric distortions in the vacuum and thereby spontaneously breaking or hiding the underlying higher symmetric state of spacetime. How this field spontaneously breaks the symmetry associated with the weak force and gives elementary particles their mass, how it lowers the total energy state of the universe, or how viscosity is introduced into the system, is not yet clear.

      The Higgs boson was introduced into the electroweak theory as an ad hoc way of giving mass to the weak boson. Even with this insertion the electroweak theory fails to solve the mass generation problem because it does not explain the origin of mass in the Higgs boson. Instead, the theory introduces this mass as a free parameter via the Higgs potential, making the value of the Higgs mass ultimately just another free parameter in quantum mechanics.

      Matters are further complicated by the fact that the value of this Higgs parameter has only been indirectly estimated. Many different estimates for the value of the Higgs have been posited by the standard model (and its extensions). But even if theorists knew how to pick among these values, even if the mass of the Higgs boson were theoretically fixed, we would not have a fundamental solution of the mass generation problem. The Higgs postulation only reformulates the problem of mass generation, pushing the question back to 'How does the Higgs boson get its mass?'

      This is where vacuum superfluidity comes to the rescue. Vacuum superfluidity naturally postulates a fundamental mechanism for mass generation, without explicitly forbidding the existence of an electroweak Higgs particle. In short, it has been shown that elementary particles can acquire their mass due to an interaction with the vacuum condensate – much like the gap generation mechanism in superconductors or superfluids. Therefore, if the Higgs boson exists, then vacuum superfluidity explains the origin of its mass by providing a mechanism that can generate its mass. If the Higgs boson does not exist, then the weak bosons acquire their mass via direct interaction with the vacuum condensate. Either way the mass of the weak boson is a by- product of the fundamental mass generation mechanism encoded by vacuum superfluidity, not a cause of it.

      This idea is not entirely novel to a superfluid vacuum theory. Nevertheless, this topological explanation for mass generation elevates this theory to a construction that is at least ontologically on par with braid theory or loop quantum gravity. The assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid makes it possible to describe the symmetry-breaking relativistic scalar field (which is responsible for mass generation) in terms of small fluctuations in the background superfluid. Under certain conditions these fluctuations come together to take on the properties of elementary particles.

      As vacuum fluctuations come together to create stable metric 'braids,' as twisting vortices form and stabilize, they become capable of taking on mass particle characteristics – a third polarization state and the property of being localized. (Not all fluctuations will combine into stabilized vortices.) This opens up the possibility of topologically interpreting electric charge as twists that are carried on the individual ribbons of a braid. Likewise, color charge can be interpreted topologically as the available twisting modes.

      Kõik see viitab sellele, et asi põlvkond on selgelt seotud quantum keerise teket superfluid vaakumi (või toota dark solitons on ühemõõtmeline BEC on). Superfluid keerised on poolt lubatud mittelineaarne  perspektiivis Gross-Pitaevskii võrrand.
      Need põimikud quantized Pyörimismäärä on kõige loomulikul esindab wavefunction vormi , kus ρ, z ja θ on esindused silindrilise koordinaatide süsteemi ja l on nurk number. In telgsuunalist sümmeetriline (harmoonilised) sulgeda potentsiaali selle
      on vorm, mis on üldiselt oodata. Üldistada seda mõistet me kindlaks  minimeerides energia  vastavalt piirang . In ühtse keskmise see muutub:
      kus: n2 on tihedus kaugel pööris, x = ρ / l ξ ja ξ on tervendav pikkus kondensaat. Sest üksi laetud keeris (l = 1) maa riigi, on energia  antud:
      ,
      kus b on kaugeim vahemaa kaugusel keeris lugeda. (Hästi määratletud energia eeldab see piir b.)
      Mitmekordselt laetud keerised (l> 1) energia ligikaudselt:.
      
      Selline keerised kipuvad olema ebastabiilsed, sest neil on rohkem energiat kui üksikult laetud keerised. Seal võib siiski olla metastabiilses riigid, mis on suhteliselt pikk eluiga, ning see võib olla võimalik, keerised kokku tulla ja luua stabiliseerunud ametiühingud.

      Dark solitons on topoloogiline funktsioonid ühemõõtmeline BEC on, et neil faasi gradient üle oma sõlmpunkti lennuk. See faasi gradient stabiliseerib nende kuju isegi paljundamine ja suhtlemist. Kuna need solitons viia tasuta neil on kalduvus laguneda. Siiski, "suhteliselt pika elueaga tume solitons on toodetud ja põhjalikult uuritud."

      Kui tegemist on mass põlvkonna probleem vaakumi ülivoolavus on saanud edukas kandidaat hulgast sülem konkureeriva teooriad. Sest see selgitab mass ja energia rangelt poolest geomeetria see on paigutatud ise kui kandidaat kõige ontoloogilise potentsiaali.

      - Ma loodan, et aitab.

      Thad

  17. Carnoy Aurelien ütleb:

    hello dear Thad

    Ma ei ole kindel, et see on õige koht postitamiseks minu kommentaar,
    nii vabalt liigutada, kui teil on vaja ka. ty

    ma kuulen te ütlete kõik elektronid sarnase välimusega
    oleks see aitab teil hüpoteesi, et nad on kõik ühesugused üks?
    mida ma mõtlen on see: elektron on koht aegruumis
    et nähtus on seesama,
    me lihtsalt vaadeldes seda erinevatest vaatenurkadest

    Ma ei ütle, et see on reaalsus
    see on lihtsalt vahend
    kenasti illustreerima
    kuidas on võimalik kaaluda Realty

    mõne muu näiteks selle näitaja oleks
    sarnasus must / valge tervikuna ja suur kott teooria
    kuigi paljud teise nurga vue kohta, mida me räägime
    võib viia inimesi nõus 😛

    See on põhjus, miks ma kasutasin elektron näiteks
    sest tundus lihtsam
    (ma loodan, et minu inglise väljendada oma tähendus
    kui i Prantsuse)

    Loodan kuulda
    ole tubli
    Aurelien

    • Thad Roberts ütleb:

      Lugupeetud Carnoy,
      Mõte, et on ainult üks elektron Universumis avaldub paljudes kohtades (palju keerulisi lugusid, kuidas ta saab kõik need kohad) on juba tehtud ettepanek. Mida inimesed üritavad saavutada käesolevas ettepanekus on seletus ühetaolisuse vahel kõik elektronid. Isiklikult leian lihtsaim lugu suurema tõenäosusega, ja kõige selgitusi olen kuulnud, kuidas üks elektron avaldub mitmes kohas ruumis ja ajas on olnud väga keeruline. Kõige lihtsam seletus ma tean nii palju, et on vara vaakumi, et inscribes omadused elementaarosakeste (sh elektroni). Kui vaakum on superfluid, siis quantum keerised, mis moodustavad tõttu ülivoolavus, mis alles väga spetsiifilise Ühendriigid (Eddie 1, 2, 3 ... aga no keerised, mille omadused nende vahel), on loomulik ootustele. Kui need keerised on elementaarosakeste, kui see oleks kõige lihtsam seletus võimalik. See ei tähenda, et ma olen ära hoida idee te oletada. Kõik ideed on väärtus teaduse ja teaduse vajab inimesi, kes on valmis kasutama oma loomingulisi ettekujutused tulla uusi võimalusi näha asju.

  18. Eric ütleb:

    tere
    Olen kuulata oma TEDx rääkida palju interest.i on paar küsimust, et ma ei saa tõesti aru, mis see CONSEPT. kui ruumi on valmistatud `something` sa ikka endup midagi tühi vahel vähe ruumi, mida on tühi tehtud? kui kogu ruumi touch mingil hetkel ja lasta asi liikuda ruumist teise ruumi whitout võttes arvesse lähevad midagi, ärge olemas / tühi see kergendaks minu meelest, kuid ei võimalda 3 dimention te räägite. millisel tasemel aatomi teha ruumi interakteeruvad luua gravitatsiooni? kuidas me saame manipuleerida ruumi aatomi seisukohalt katsetama, et teooria?
    aitäh
    Eric

    • Eric ütleb:

      ma unustasin küsida, kuidas energiat intereact ruumi?
      aitäh

    • Thad Roberts ütleb:

      Eric,
      Thank you for your questions. The TED talk did not go into much depth. Let me provide a little more here. The full structure of this model assumes a fractal geometry, meaning that it assumes that the vacuum is made of parts, and that those parts (and the medium that separates them) are made of smaller parts, and so on. Due to this hierarchical structure, the exact model we are discussing depends upon the resolution we choose to focus on. If we stick to 11 dimensions, then the vacuum is made of quanta, each of which contain interspatial volume, the vacuum quanta are separated by superspatial volume, and the entire collection fills out the familiar spatial volume. Your first question asks what the superspatial volume is, or perhaps what it is made of. The model ultimately assumes that superspace is, in a self-similiar way, made of sub-quanta, and therefore has fluid properties of its own. The sub-quanta are not resolved in our 11 dimensional resolution, but if we want to resolve them we simply jump to the next level of resolution, which is a 30 dimensional map (27 spatial dimensions, and 3 temporal dimensions). Also, in the model the vacuum comprises all the “furniture of the world” or everything that manifests in space. Quantum vortices in the superfluid vacuum are the fundamental matter particles, and the density gradients that surround them are the gravity fields. All forms of energy are marked by metric distortions, differences in the distributions of the quanta that make up the vacuum. These distortions can be propagating waves, or phonons, like sound waves through air, or they can be quantum eddies, gaining what physicists call a third polarization – making it possible for the distortion to be maintained without necessarily having to move through the metric. The vacuum is more fundamental than atoms of matter. Many vacuum of quanta choreograph together to make quantum vortices, which form the fundamental particles, like quarks, which combine to make protons and neutrons, and eventually atoms. As for testing the theory, there are several ways to test this theory, as it makes clear departures from traditional projections in cosmology, general relativity, and quantum mechanics. First off, it posits that Lorentz symmetry is not an exact symmetry of Nature but instead a symmetry that manifests in the low momentum regime. The prediction, then, is that with enough energy and momentum we should be able to detect Lorentz-breaking corrections. To do this we need energies and momenta that extend beyond the excitation threshold of the superfluid vacuum. Also, it offers an explanation for red-shifted light in cosmology, which, of course, leads to completely different claims about dark energy. Also, its quantum mechanical predictions insert a nonlinear term in its wave equation, whereas the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics sticks with the linear term only (which is why it remains restricted from wrestling with the phenomena of general relativity). If you'd like to look into this in greater depth, feel free to send me a request for a free copy of the book.

  19. eric says:

    sure, thank you

  20. Stolrael Dowell says:

    You touched on it. But I really want an elaboration on how matter moves from one quantum of space to the next. You said quanta can touch superspatially, but do they have to be?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Matter particles are quantum vortices in this model, which means that even fundamental quarks are made up of many quanta of space. For matter particles to move through space the collection of vortices that make it up, or at minimum the vortex that makes it up, moves through the medium in a way very similar to how a whirlpool moves through water. To begin exploring the basics of this kind of motion I suggest looking up phonons, otherwise known as quasiparticles, which can be defined as collective excitations in the periodic, elastic arrangements of atoms or molecules of a medium (in this case the quanta of the superfluid vacuum). These phonons can take on different forms, but they all represent excited states in the medium. When these excited states become quantum vortices, they represent matter, instead of energy in the form of light, but the motion of these vortices is still determined by the parameters of the elastic medium.

  21. Nathan Duke says:

    Dear Mr. Roberts,

    1. Are Quanta physically real, material objects (as in substantive components of a superfluid)? Or are they rather, like a Euclidian coordinate plane, a conceptual representation of space (with the additional property of representing the confluence of the five constants of nature within any given unit of space) to be superimposed upon it, for the purpose of standardizing a base unit of measure so that we can more clearly perceive it's properties and more completely & accurately analyze & explain it's behavior?

    2. If so, do Quanta have mass?
    3. Is the “space” between Quanta quantiz(ed/able)?
    4. If quanta are indivisible, how then are they comprised of “sub-quanta and so on, ad infinitum”?

    As RB Fuller once said, “All truths are omniinteroperable.” Please help me reconcile these seemingly non-interoperable assertions of truth on the part of your theoretical framework. I am a lay person with only the most rudimentary grasp of this material. But since you state that QST offers an intelligible view of these normally inscrutable concepts, I write to you in the spirit of understanding (or at least aspiring thereto!).

    Aitäh.

    PS Your alternate explanation of red-shift gave me the first glimmer of hope for the future of the cosmos since Edwin Hubble's entropic prophecy seemingly sealed it's doom. I still have some questions about that, but I'll leave those for later…

    Best regards,
    Nathan Duke
    Lead Designer
    Brandingo​.biz
    949-468-5688 cell
    619-567-0000 office
    619-916-3630 fax
    nathan.​duke@​gmail.​com

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Nathan,

      Thanks for your questions. I'll attempt a concise set of answers here and point you towards my book for a richer explanation. (I've just emailed a pdf copy of it to you.)

      You asked, “Are we to understand that Quanta are literally real material objects? Or, like a Euclidian coordinate plane, are they simply a conceptual representation of space (with the additional property of representing the confluence of the five constants of nature within any given unit of space) to be superimposed upon it for the purpose of standardizing a base unit of measure so that we can more clearly perceive it's properties and more completely and accurately explain it's behavior?”

      I am aiming at the former of these options, as the superfluid vacuum model of quantum space theoy is meant to provide a complete ontology. However, I would not object to someone fleshing out an interpretation based on the latter, but I suspect it would not carry as much explanatory import.

      In response to your other questions:

      1. Do Quanta have mass?

      No, quanta do not have mass. Mass is a distortion in the geometric arrangements of the quanta. It is a collective property and therefore cannot be attributed to a single element of the collection – just as one molecule of air cannot have pressure.

      2. Is the space between Quanta quantiz(ed/able)?

      Yes it is, but on a completely different scale – the same scale on which the quanta themselves are quantized. Chapter 11 should help with these concerns/questions. If it doesn't resolve them please let me know.

      3. If quanta are indivisible, how then are they comprised of “sub-quanta and so on, ad infinitum”?

      Quanta are not indivisible. They are merely the smallest units if space. The same applies to gold. It can be divided down to one atom if gold and still be gold. We cannot divide one atom of gold and still have gold, but this doesn't ultimately or logically stop us from dividing it. The division is possible, but it requires moving beyond the properties and definition of the medium (gold). The claim here is that the same applies to space as a medium.

      I hope that helped. While you read the book please keep a list of your questions and comments and send me any unresolved questions or constructive comments. If you find any particular section unclear I would like to know. Your critical analysis is valuable to me as the aim of my book is to make these topics accessible to everyone with a sharp mind regardless of their level of training in physics.

      Aitäh.

      Thad

      PS Questions related to your postscript comment are covered in Chapter 28 of my book. Naudi.

  22. Thad,

    Watched your TEDx Youtube video last night and was blown away. I spent this morning reading your web site and would now like to see the technical details of your QST book.

    My background is BSc Physics, MM Mathematics. I spent my working life in computing and am now retired.

    I left grad school (UMd, College Park ) in quantum physics because of a deep dissatisfaction with QM: I understood the math – but had grave doubts about the epistemology. I have tried to keep current over the past 50 years ( my God, has it been that long? ) reading as much as possible on current theories.

    Your ideas – if I understand them correctly – are utterly wonderful. I have believed for some time that whatever reality is – it is emergent with infinite complexity derivable from simple recursive rules.

    I spent some time a few decades ago exploring the world of fractals ( see https://​www​.flickr​.com/​p​h​o​t​o​s​/​h​o​r​t​o​n​h​e​a​r​d​a​w​h​o​/​4​4​8​2​2​2​6​0​23/ for a sample of my Mandelbrot set animations ) and am particularly excited that you recognize the deeper fractal nature of reality.

    I also happen to have many of the same personal interest as you ( PADI Divemaster, Space enthusiast, Fossil hunter, amateur geologists. )

    Looking forward to an exciting read and hope I can provide you with some useful feedback.

    Marvin

    • Jeff Chapple says:

      Thad is abroad at the moment, so I'm not sure how long it will take him to respond.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Marvin,

      I apologize for taking this long to respond. I've been abroad for several months, traveling with a quantum physicist and then a philosopher of physics. It seems that you and I do have much in common, and I look forward to exploring that with you. Throughout the book my main goal remains to return us to an investigation that does not turn its back on epistemological concerns, so I would very much appreciate it if one of the lenses you evaluated my book through was the epistemological lens. Let me know if it holds up a satisfactory epistemological argument. Of course, there is no requirement that you end up believing that Nature perfectly conforms to the model, as keeping our doubt around in healthy doses is important, but it is important that whatever route we explore does not turn it back on ontology and epistemology. If you have any thoughts as you read, or think any particular parts could be improved, please let me know. I'm sending you a copy of the book to your email. I very much look forward to your feedback and starting a dialogue with you.

      Thad

  23. Dr. Morozov says:

    Hello Mr. Roberts,

    I have only one question without a good answer to which it would be impossible for me to accept that space is quantized.

    The problem is that any quantized structure automatically makes space anisotropical. In other words some directions in space become “favorable”.

    I suppose in the case of no distortion the “space” quantums you introduce would form a 3d grid, packed in nice rows along the 3 mains axis. As long as you move along an axis everthing is fine – the distance traveled is equal to the number of space “quantums” passsed.

    But suppose you were to go in a right angle triangle with its sides along the axises along the hypotenuse. If you are hoping over “quantums” you will have to do this in a stepped-like manner, gathering the same number of steps as the sum along the sides. Obviously according to the Pythagorean theorem this can not be true.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Dr. Morozov,

      As you might recall isotropy is defined macroscopically, like pressure. In this sense there is no inherent anisotropy inscribed by quantization. For example, if we have a container of gas, which we believe to be made of quantized parts (atoms or molecules) and we are in space with no measurable gravitational field, then the gas will display uniformity in all directions, having no preferred arrangement one way versus another and having equal density throughout. In other words, it will be isotropic. Isotropy could be introduced into this system of gas, however, if we put a cold sink in the middle. Then we would find that the gas was denser near the cold sink and radially less dense as distance from the cold sink increased. This would create anisotropy in the system. The same is an option for quantized space, and such anisotropic regions represent gravitational fields, or Einstein's curved space.

      To your second point, you are right to recognize that the Pythagorean theorem is challenged by quantization, at least in its theoretical limit. And as it turns out, it is already well established that the Pythagorean theorem does not ubiquitously hold in Nature. Wherever space is curved the Pythagorean theorem no longer holds, the greater the curvature the more it fails to represent the system. Also, on microscopic scales it may not hold unless we take time averages with significant spans.

      Your points are quite insightful. I address them to much greater lengths in my book. If you'd like a copy please let me know.

      Thad

  24. Ben says:

    Thank you so much for sharing your ideas. I would love a link to your book

  25. Vivek says:

    Hello Mr. Roberts,

    I recently watched your TED talk and am fascinated by the idea. The explanation of gravity was very elegant! However, I still have a few questions:

    1. I didn't quite understand the explanation of redshift. Could you please elaborate?

    2. Does the theory predict an expanding universe? The big bang?

    3. What is the fate of the universe if this theory is correct?

    4. Does it have any connection to string theory?

    5. Why 11 dimensions?

    Also, could you please email me a copy of your book?

    Thanks much.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Vivek,
      Ma saadan sulle raamatu. Let me provide short answers here and direct you to the sections of the book that answer your questions in more depth.
      1,2 – I agree, the TED talk was very rushed and short – there is much to elaborate on. Redshift in this model is accounted for in two ways. The doppler effect (a function of relative motion between source and observer) causes light to become red (or blue) shifted, as the relative motion lengthens or shortens the received wavelength. Redshift also occurs for waves in a medium if the pressure of that medium decreases as those waves travel through it. Therefore, if the vacuum is a fluid medium, then plane wave phonons (light) that travel long distances through it will become redshifted as the pressure of the vacuum looses pressure. This decrease in pressure is explained by the fractal structure of the vacuum. Because the vacuum is made up of quanta, which are in turn made up of sub-quanta, and so on. Collisions between two quanta rearrange the internal sub-quanta, and this geometric distortion draws some energy from the motion of the quanta. The difference in size between levels (between the quanta and the subquanta) is very large, so the amount of energy lost to the internal degrees of freedom is very small, but over many collisions the energy loss becomes noteworthy. The model predicts a Big Bang, and inflation, but because it accounts for redshift geometrically it does not follow that observations of redshift suggest that the universe is expanding. See Chapter 28.
      3 – The fate of the universe is to eventually suffer another external collision, causing the universe to reset in low entropy and high energy. The internal laws and constants of nature will remain the same, but the starting state may be different, directing its evolution until the next collision. See Chapter 27.
      4 – Yes there is some overlap with this theory and the ideas held by string theory, but its conceptual foundations differ significantly. Nevertheless, the branes of string theory might be considered to be what is modeled by the surface areas of the vacuum quanta. (See pages 33, 35-36, 53, 186-187, & 318-319.)
      5 – 11 dimensions is a geometric consequence of vacuum quantization. This is covered in Chapter 11.
      Please let me know if your questions are satisfied when you read the book, and if more questions come up, please share. The book has greatly improved in response to questions shared by others.

  26. Vivek says:

    I had a few more questions I forgot to ask:

    Does the theory have any probabilistic aspects at all?

    Does it get rid of quantum theory entirely?

    What does it say about virtual particles? quantum tunneling?

    What exactly do you mean when you talk about the fractal structure of the theory?

    Tänu.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      The theory reproduces quantum mechanics is a deterministic way (just as Bohmian mechanics does). Probability is captured as a reflection of our ignorance of the actual state of space at any given moment. Specifying a specific exact state leads to a deterministic evolution to another exact state at a different time, but in practice we cannot access the exact state of space, so probabilistic projections come from deterministic physics. (See pages: 32, 79, 113-116, 204-214, 226-229, 243-245, 289-299, 382-391.) Virtual particles is briefly mentioned on page 362, quantum tunneling is covered in Chapter 14, an the fractal structure of the theory is fully explained in Chapter 11.

  27. P.Dingen says:

    Dear Thad,

    Thank you for sharing your ideas with our world. Could you send me a link to your book, would love to read more about your theory. Thanks in advance!

  28. Cosmin says:

    Tere,

    I'm a Physics passionate and I'd very much like to know more about your model and it's consequences. Are there PDF copies of your book still available ?

    Aitäh.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I just published it yesterday, but since you asked before that, sending you a pdf now 😉

      • Cosmin says:

        Thank you, I'll come back with comments and questions.

        What I can say for now is that my next point of interest is to understand what consequences has the mobility of quanta, as opposed to a static grid arrangement, on the movement of matter/energy.

        If I understand correctly from what I've read so far on your site, the (super)fluidity allows for stable vortices that correspond to “material” particles. But what I try to understand is the impact said mobility of quanta has on the movement (as in translation) of those “particles”.

        Does the vortex move like a propagating wave (at each moment the vortex is made up of different quanta), or do the quanta actually translate with respect to the rest of the “sea” of other quanta. This is probably a simple question of (super)fluid dynamics, but nevertheless I try to understand what the consequences of this model are.

        Thanks again and keep up the good work. :)

        • Thad Roberts says:

          It sounds like you'll really enjoy the Superfluidity Chapter in my book.
          It was just published, available through Lulu​.com in hardcover full color interior.
          Softcover full color will be available soon through Amazon, and the iBook and audiobook will follow.

          In short, the vortices move like propagating waves, at each moment made up of different quanta. Nevertheless, even in regions of the vacuum that have no vortices, the vacuum itself has a dynamic equation. This is also very similar to Bohmian mechanics, so you may enjoy reading Chapter 24 in the book also.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I think that an investigation sounds reasonable. They aren't denying that Americans went to the moon, but they want some accountability as to what happened to the moon rocks. From personal experience I can say that the American government can take this quite seriously, so they might as well be consistent and be concerned about this accountability issue also.

  29. Dan D ütleb:

    There have been several articles recently about a working electromagnetic propulsion drive and how it shouldn't work based on the law of conservation of momentum. In my mind, I keep thinking of your theory of quantized space and am wondering whether space quanta is what is being propelled by the engine to gain velocity. Do you have any thoughts?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I've read these papers and don't think the effect can be teased apart from the noise yet. There is more work to be done, but I worry that the theoretical explanation at hand so far doesn't have much weight to it. It is important to keep an open mind, but part of this means reading the material ourselves instead of just following the public hype. The jury is still out.

Jäta vastus




Kui soovite pilti, et näidata oma kommentaari, mine saada Gravatar.