36

Conversations: Part Two

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

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jim says:

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

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

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Jim,

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

      Thad

      • John says:

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

  2. Ryan says:

    Thad,

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

    Ryan

  3. bob sage says:

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

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

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Bob,

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

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

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

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

      Thad

    • Marcel says:

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

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

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

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

  4. Thiago says:

    Hi Thad,

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

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Thiago,
      Thank you for your ques­tions. When we look over the CMB map in the dif­ferent wave­lengths we do find, as you point out, extreme homo­geneity on the large scale. The small scale, how­ever, does have some slightly warmer clumps and these regions happen to be lined up with regions that con­tain bary­onic matter. Dark matter haloes happen to sur­round such regions. If the quan­tized assump­tion is cor­rect, then this is what we expect to find because the phase change in space­time struc­ture should lie at the tran­si­tion between the warmer regions and the cold back­ground tem­per­a­ture of space. To see a pos­sible cal­cu­la­tion for what spe­cific tem­per­a­ture the phase change should occur see Chapter 21 in my book (send a request for it with your email if you don’t already have it).
      When it comes to proving things, well I’m going to take the hard line on this and say that in sci­ence we NEVER prove any­thing to be true. At best we give our­selves many rea­sons to believe in one model over another as it lines up with obser­va­tion and makes pre­dic­tions. As my friend Marcus Tofenalli says, “Science isn’t about being right, its about being less wrong.” That said, there are many ways for us to bol­ster our con­fi­dence in the claim that space­time is quan­tized. I detail these rea­sons all throughout my book. But if you’d like to see an inde­pen­dent source for this, I recently came across Fay Dowker’s research, which is very much in line with mine.
      http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​f​e​a​t​u​r​e​=​p​l​a​y​e​r​_​d​e​t​a​i​l​p​a​g​e​&​a​m​p​;​v​=​V​h​H​E​8​6​d​-​T​h​8​#​t​=​3​5​56s
      In the end dis­per­sion rela­tions might prove to be the eas­iest way to sup­port this claim exper­i­men­tally. Dark energy pre­dic­tions might help too (in the recent future). Also, the fact that we can derive Schrödinger’s equa­tion from first prin­ci­ples in this work (see Chapter 21) can also be taken as a serious reason to believe that we are onto some­thing. In the end, how­ever, let’s try to stay open to the pos­si­bility that this idea, like any other, could be wrong, and let’s keep asking ques­tions.
      I fear that I might not be under­standing your last ques­tion com­pletely. Nevertheless, I will answer what I take to be the ques­tion. The total kinetic energy of the quanta of space in our uni­verse is a rem­nant from the big bang. That total has dropped sig­nif­i­cantly over time (a full expla­na­tion of the mechanics of this is in my Genesis Chapter). Particles, which are best under­stood as stable eddies in the super­fluid vacuum (super­fluids can main­tain these quan­tized vor­tices indef­i­nitely or until suf­fi­cient inter­ac­tions are expe­ri­enced), can be given more “energy” which is to say that a quan­tized vortex in a super­fluid can become larger. So when you give energy to a par­ticle (when you shoot a ripple through the metric at it and that ripple is absorbed by the eddie) you are trading the kind of metric dis­tor­tion that the energy par­tic­i­pates in. You never invent energy – only trade kinds of energy (metric dis­tor­tions).
      Please let me know if I mis­un­der­stood any of your ques­tions or could help fur­ther clear up the claims of this model.
      Yours,
      Thad

  5. Mohammed says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  6. Demitri says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  7. Olivia Gentol says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  8. Jason Hildreth says:

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

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

    MIND = BLOWN !!!

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Jason,

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

      Thad

  9. John says:

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

  10. Dane says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  11. Frank says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  12. Morten Holck says:

    Hi Thad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And:

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

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

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

    Best regards
    Morten

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  13. Christopher D Smith says:

    Hi Thad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks again,

    Chris

    (2)

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Chris,

      Einstein’s Intuition: Visualizing Nature in Eleven Dimensions was just pub­lished, avail­able through Lulu​.com in hard­cover full color inte­rior. The soft­cover full color ver­sion will be avail­able soon through Amazon, and the iBook and audio­book will follow.

      In response to your questions:

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

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

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

  14. Carlton l says:

    It’s quite inter­esting to see ,

  15. Carly I says:

    ein­stein institut rocks! My friend sent me a link

  16. Waldo says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  17. Craig Rolston says:

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

    Gratefully, Craig Rolston

  18. Drew Amend says:

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

    Cheers mate!

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

Leave a Reply




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