Thad Meets TED



I am delighted to announce that TEDxBoulder has invited me to talk about “Visualizing Eleven Dimensions” at the upcoming TEDxBoulder con­fer­ence (Boulder, CO, August 7th, 2010). I con­sider this invi­ta­tion quite an honor and am looking for­ward to sharing my eleven-dimensional vision with the TED audi­ence. I would like to extend an invi­ta­tion to all quantum space theory sup­porters and sci­ence enthu­si­asts to attend this con­fer­ence. Details can be found here.

TED talks are known for being packed with insightful people who get together with the inten­tion of exposing them­selves to a wide gamut of ideas worth spreading. TED has pushed the fron­tiers in the areas of design, sus­tain­ability, tech­nology, and extremes. As one of those people that values the expan­sion of our intel­lec­tual horizon, TEDxBoulder and I invite you to join us in Boulder for a fes­tival of imagination.

– Thad Roberts

Comments (30)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Thad,

    When will your book be coming out? I look for­ward to chat­ting with you on the live pod­cast, will you be taking all the calls that come in? I really think I have some good ques­tions.
    -Frank Whitman

    • Thad Roberts says:

      My lit­erary agent is han­dling the details of book pub­li­ca­tion and which pub­lishing house we are going with etc., but I expect that the pub­li­ca­tion date will be some time next year. In the mean time, I can for­ward you addi­tional pdf chap­ters if you desire to dis­cuss them with me. I’ll look for­ward to talking about eleven dimen­sions with you on the live pod­cast. The inter­viewer will be han­dling the switch­boards, so I cannot say that I have any con­trol over which calls will be taken, but if your ques­tions are not addressed please send them to me via this site.
      – Thad

  2. I just heard you are going to be avail­able to talk via the web, I have really enjoyed your web site and hope to meet you some day. Exactly what day will you be doing the live show again? Thank You for your time. -Den

    • Thad Roberts says:

      If you would like to travel to Boulder, CO for the August 7th TEDxBoulder con­fer­ence we would enjoy having you. Otherwise, I plan most pre­sen­ta­tions at the request of groups. Are you in Salt Lake City? If so, I’m sure we could make some plans. Let’s talk about your interest in quantum space theory, and see if we can put together another group of enthu­si­asts for a group dis­cus­sion or another intro­duc­tory lec­ture.
      – Thad

  3. Persa Minor says:

    Mr. Roberts,

    Will you ever be coming to Seattle Washington? I am a stu­dent and would like to know more about your theory’s.

    I heard about you being on the Neverhood show and will be tuning in.

    -Persa Minor

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I would con­sider set­ting up a quantum space theory con­fer­ence in Seattle Washington. Perhaps, after the radio show and the TEDxBoulder con­fer­ence, you can orga­nize a group of people that have ques­tions about dimen­sions, space­time, and the mys­teries of quantum mechanics and gen­eral rel­a­tivity, and we can arrange a spe­cial group ses­sion. Would this be some­thing of interest to you and your com­mu­nity?
      – Thad

  4. Andrew Hass says:

    I’m there Thad! While I don’t claim to under­stand every­thing you have to offer, I feel like without the infor­ma­tion I am lost. (From a sci­ence point of view) I’m looking for­ward to calling in to the the radio show to ask my ques­tions. -Andrew Hass

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I’ll look for­ward to your ques­tions and your input. Are there any par­tic­ular parts of quantum space theory that you find specif­i­cally dif­fi­cult to under­stand? I know the entire book is not online or avail­able to the public yet, but if you are inter­ested in more details or infor­ma­tion please let me know. We can start a dis­cus­sion based on your ques­tions and I will do my best to make it as clear as pos­sible.
      – Thad

  5. Thad, you rocked the pre­sen­ta­tion. Your visuals were stun­ning and your pre­sen­ta­tion was ter­rific. Thanks again for being part of TEDxBoulder, we loved having you here.

    I hope it was fun for you as well!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Thank you very much. The feed­back has been great. Many people found the new per­spec­tive inspiring, and many others have expressed an increased moti­va­tion to study the out­standing mys­teries in our world. To me, that means it was a success :-).

  6. M.j. says:


    I missed the October lec­ture by a week, and now I’ve missed the Boulder one by three!! Is QST still in print??

    • Geo says:

      The book, “Einstein’s Intuition” is awaiting pub­li­ca­tion. We are in the process of set­ting up another lec­ture. I sus­pect it will be some­time in October or November. Stay tuned for an announce­ment. If you’d like to read the whole book, please send an email to the link at the bottom of these pages and we’ll get you a pre-release PDF version.

  7. robert somerville says:

    very inter­ested in your pre­sen­ta­tion. Could you give us some back­ground on your research and where you are doing it ?? Thanks

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Thank you for your interest. Did you get a chance to watch the TED talk?

      Right now most of the work on quantum space theory is being done in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Quantum Space Theory Institute, which is made up of a sev­eral tal­ented the­o­ret­ical physi­cists, math­e­mati­cians, philoso­phers, and com­puter graphics spe­cial­ists that vol­un­teer their time and effort due to their interest in the poten­tial of this idea. One of the main projects the group is cur­rently focusing on is solving for the spe­cific space­time dynamics equa­tion – the exact set that encodes the char­ac­ter­istic cur­va­ture of say a black hole, even within the Schwarzchild radius, in such a way that we can derive the exact value of zhe (the geo­metric expres­sion of the max­imum state of cur­va­ture in the field of space­time). Theoretical exact­ness for this number will enable us to pre­dict some of the con­stants of Nature much more accu­rately than they are cur­rently known. Several other topics are being researched in con­junc­tion with qst, including: Bohmian Mechanics, super­sym­metry, con­straints on degrees of freedom, and many more.

      I am in Salt Lake City, but sev­eral of the QSTI mem­bers par­tic­i­pate from dif­ferent states.

  8. Fred Goode says:

    Hi Thad. I’ve been hearing sto­ries about you for years. You know my son Justin from Florence. He speaks very highly of you and learned much from your teach­ings. I thank you for that.
    Your QST is fas­ci­nating. I’m strug­gling to visu­alize it com­pletely, but based on Justin’s sto­ries about your time together, I’m not at all sur­prised.
    I wish you all the best. If you are ever in Sacramento, CA, I would love to meet you and hang out with you and Justin for a bit. First round is on me :)

  9. Robert Harrigan says:

    Thank you so much for the infor­ma­tion on your con­ver­sa­tions and other pre­sen­ta­tions. I have come to many of the same con­clu­sions that you have, even though I have no edu­ca­tion in any form of physics except from what I have gotten from Scientific American and many books.

    I await for the pub­li­ca­tion of your book.

    I also like the fact that you do work with other people from the com­ments you have left.
    I too, like others, have some ideas on the con­cept of Quantum Space and I would like to keep in con­tact with you and bounce some ideas off of you. I am starting on writing up my ideas, and from your pre­sen­ta­tion, I know I am on the right track.
    When I am ready, I will let you review my work if you are so inclined and have the time.

    Thanks Again

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I would be happy to com­mu­ni­cate and dis­cuss ideas with you. I can also send you a pdf preprint of my book. I’ll send a link to the email you listed on your post. I look for­ward to hearing your ideas.

  10. Danny says:

    Doesn’t this theory imply a vio­la­tion of Lorentz Invariance???

    • Thad Roberts says:


      If the back­ground vacuum is a super­fluid then, as you appear to picked up on, Lorentz sym­metry becomes an approx­i­mate descrip­tion valid only for small fluc­tu­a­tions instead of an exact sym­metry of Nature. An observer inside this super­fluid vacuum could create or mea­sure these small fluc­tu­a­tions, but they would observe them as rel­a­tivistic objects – unless the energy and momentum of those fluc­tu­a­tions were suf­fi­ciently high to make the Lorentz-breaking cor­rec­tions detectable. So long as the ener­gies and momenta stay below the exci­ta­tion threshold the super­fluid back­ground behaves like the ideal fluid. This means that Michelson-Morley-type exper­i­ments would observe no drag force from such the superfluid.

      To push things fur­ther we could also note that in this theory Galilean sym­metry (per­ti­nent to our macro­scopic non-relativistic world) also arises as the approx­i­mate one – applying to par­ti­cles with veloc­i­ties that are small com­pared to speed of light in the vacuum. The main advan­tage here is that this pic­ture pro­vides us with a more fun­da­mental, and onto­log­i­cally valu­able, expla­na­tion. In this theory we do not need to go through Lorentz sym­metry to obtain the Galilean one – the dis­per­sion rela­tions of most non-relativistic super­fluids are known to obey the non-relativistic behavior at large momenta. In short, the fluc­tu­a­tions of the vacuum super­fluid auto­mat­i­cally behave like rel­a­tivistic objects at “small” momenta (within the “phononic” limit) and like non-relativistic ones at large momenta.

      Great insight!


  11. Lamba Alexandru says:

    Hi Thad,
    It seems to me that you are talking about two totally dif­ferent sets of dimen­sions in the begin­ning of this video and in the end. First, you make the analogy of how a 2D intel­li­gent being would per­ceive and try to under­stand 3D object cross-passing through it’s world, which it believes to be all there is. So, not knowing about the 3 existing dimen­sions, the 2D crea­tures observe the cir­cles that are the sec­tions of the balls as they tra­verse their world, and try to explain the phe­nom­enon in XY (2D) only. They cannot, because the balls do not belong to XY (2D) world, but to the XYZ (3D) world, and what the 2D crea­tures can per­ceive are the mere sec­tions of the more com­plex objects. (let me know if I got it wrong so far).
    OK, now, when you go fur­ther, into our 3D world analysis and state that we cannot explain sev­eral phe­nom­e­nons hap­pening in here because we do not have real pic­ture of what’s going on, but mere 3D XYZ reflec­tions (or pro­jec­tions) of more com­plex things, and therefor we need to extend the dimen­sions our geom­etry cur­rently uses, the other dimen­sions you intro­duce are not of the same kind. I mean you remain with XYZ as “number of quanta” and intro­duce the notions of “space within space” and “space between space” but here is the catch: BOTH OF THESE notions are in fact also 3 dimen­sional, just like out own XYZ!
    So, what I mean is: in case of 2D (XY) space being insuf­fi­cient, we add a third dimen­sion (Z) per­pen­dic­ular on the other two, and we get a 3D XYZ space, with all dimen­sions per­pen­dic­ular on one another.
    On the other hand, when we have our 3D space and it’s being incom­plete, the other dimen­sions you intro­duce here are NOT per­pen­dic­ular on the other already existing 3. For me, it would have been more intu­itive to simply intro­duce just one more dimen­sion (W) for instance) and have a 4D system of XYZW, with all 4 axis per­pen­dic­ular on one another. (And so on and so forth into many other dimen­sions if you like, but still having per­pen­dic­u­larity between each 2 axis.
    If you would say: “we can’t have 4 lines per­pen­dic­ular on one another” I would simply say: “not in 3D but in 4D”, just like we would say to a 2D sci­en­tist calming that there can’t be 3 per­pen­dic­ular axis, and he would be right in plain, but not in space geom­etry.
    If we would have had that, we could have explained just as easy the space curve, the gravity, and so on, just by jog­gling with these other dimen­sions that are simply unpre­ventable for us, as 3D crea­tures.
    Thank you, let me know if I make any sense to you, and sorry for the long boring mes­sage.
    – Alex Lamba

    • Thad Roberts says:


      Thank you for the insightful ques­tion. First let me state that you appear to under­stand the Flatland analogy per­fectly. Second, you are right… the kind of dimen­sions ARE dif­ferent. That’s kind of the whole point. In the past our alle­giance with Euclidean struc­ture has held us back from making progress. Let me see if I can make this a bit more clear. The Euclidean notion of space assumes cer­tain prop­er­ties that we used to think applied to the real world. It had three orthog­onal spa­tial dimen­sions, and each of these was infi­nitely extend­able and infi­nitely divis­ible. These prop­er­ties neces­si­tate a space that is exactly the same on all pos­sible scales. The problem is that we now have reason to believe that the metric of x, y, z space is not the same on all scales. First, the progress of quantum mechanics sug­gests that the familiar x, y, and z dimen­sions are not infi­nitely divis­ible. It appears that we cannot sub­di­vide those mea­sures infi­nitely and still have a self-similiar pic­ture. Things dra­mat­i­cally change when we approach the Planck scale. Second, orthog­o­nality does not nec­es­sarily sim­plify to “per­pen­dic­ular” on the micro­scopic scales (even when there is no cur­va­ture present). Third, cur­va­ture entirely messes with this picture.

      A dimen­sion is a dimen­sion if it pro­vides an inde­pen­dent kind of motion, or describes posi­tions that cannot be described by the other dimen­sions. If we assume the Euclidean grid then orthog­onal appears to be a syn­onym to per­pen­dic­ular. But in the real world this sim­pli­fi­ca­tion can get us into trouble. Nature, it seems, is not Euclidean. What its exact geom­etry is – is up for debate. I offer up a geom­etry that gives us onto­log­ical access to why the quirks of quantum mechanics exist in the first place, but there may be other pos­sible expla­na­tions that arise in the future. At any rate, the goal is not to con­vince you or anyone else that Nature assumes the model I’m elab­o­rating. Rather the goal is to express a new idea, mine its merits, and hope­fully inspire other new ideas in the process. To fully accom­plish this task we need to work out the details of com­mu­ni­cating the rich­ness of that idea, follow its assump­tions to new pos­tu­lates, and con­clu­sions, cri­tique the idea within the con­straints of its own log­ical struc­ture, and com­pare its merits to other inter­pre­ta­tions (by making sure it agrees with exper­i­ment and checking to see if it pro­vides us with any extra ability to answer the out­standing questions).

      Back to your com­ment… Yes the dimen­sions I intro­duce come in groups that have their own internal 3D orthog­o­nality (just like we used to assume for x, y, z). (Note: this isn’t the whole pic­ture. Technically the dimen­sional struc­ture in this model is based on a fractal, so none of the addi­tional dimen­sions are actu­ally infi­nitely divis­ible.) And yes super­spa­tial dimen­sions and intraspa­tial dimen­sions are dif­ferent than familiar spa­tial dimen­sions (x, y, z) because in this model the fact that the familiar spa­tial dimen­sions are not infi­nitely divis­ible is made explicit at the onset.

      You say that for you it would have been more intu­itive to simply intro­duce one more dimen­sion with all four axis being per­pen­dic­ular to one another. I’d like to see an intu­itive model of this. Can you imagine a way to have four spa­tial dimen­sions that are all orthog­onal? Can you draw an intu­itive pic­ture of it? If so, please share. As I am cur­rently unable to imagine such a feat, I find it very intu­itive to have access to a richer geom­etry (albeit 11 dimen­sional) that does allow me to intuit what another orthog­onal dimen­sion might be. Without quan­tizing x, y, and z I’m not sure this is pos­sible – but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

      Sincerely yours,


      • Lamba Alexandru says:

        Hello Thad,

        Thank you, first of all for the kind detailed answer and for your time. I’m now more enlight­ened. Let me just state that I am not chal­lenging your model at all, I just think it can be fur­ther devel­oped. I do under­stand the point you are trying to make, and I do not dis­agree at all with the notion of quan­ti­fied space and time, for it was some­thing that was also on my mind for quite a while, (I was just calling that con­cept “the fre­quency and gran­u­larity of exis­tence”) it’s just that the quan­tifi­ca­tion should not exclude the exis­tence of more euclidean dimen­sions, and let me briefly explain why, in my own view: Because in this case, where we only have XYZ as mate­rial dimen­sions (and another 6 dimen­sions of “space within space” and “space between space”), two or more dif­ferent mate­rial enti­ties CANNOT coexist in a point char­ac­ter­ized by the same X, Y, and Z coor­di­nates. If we intro­duce a 4th dimen­sion per­pen­dic­ular on the other 3, we could have this, by placing one entity at point X, Y, Z, W and another at point X, Y, Z, Q, just like in your example of moving the ball on only one of the 3 dimen­sions, while the other 2 remain unchanged. In your theory move­ment in “space within space” and “space between space” can happen, but not mate­rial coex­is­tence. This is what I believe is the short-come of this model right now, but it can be just as easily be over­came by intro­ducing the 4th (5th, etc) mate­rial dimen­sions that does respect the per­pen­dic­u­larity to the other 3, but is not nec­es­sarily infi­nitely divis­ible. Just think about this: if a 2D sci­en­tist would have elab­o­rated this model just like you did, he would have came up with 8 dimen­sions (XY, 2 of “space within space” and 2 “space between space”, + the time and vibra­tion) instead of your 11, am I right?
        Anyway, I actu­ally DO have a very intu­itive and simple, but sus­tained by solid math­e­mat­ical argu­men­ta­tion model that I designed myself for extending the euclidean geom­etry into 4D and beyond, and I even do have rep­re­sen­ta­tions of 4D fig­ures I bet you would under­stand and accept once I explain. (fur­ther than 4D it really gets messy and even doe my cal­cu­la­tions can go there, the view cannot follow).
        So, just let me know if you are inter­ested, and I’ll share some exam­ples and equa­tions of with you, oth­er­wise I would not want to waste your time.

  12. Hi Thad,

    First of all I would like to thank you for sharing with us this beau­tiful theory. I think I have under­stand your point of view, but I have a couple of ques­tion that I can answer myself, using your model.

    1. I can see how you explain matter in this video but I cannot under­stand the con­cept of energy. I am inter­ested how can you describe the energy and how a par­ticle is moving from one bubble of space to another bubble of space. And here comes the third misery for me: It is pos­sible to apply Einstine’s equa­tion e=mc2 or it is pos­sible to trans­form energy to matter in your model?

    2. You have explained gravity as a dense cluster of space bub­bles. As far as I know, a black hole is expanding while ‘eating’ matter. This means that the cluster of space bub­bles is expanding to, that means that space bub­bles are attracted (somehow) in the cluster. So my under­standing is that there is a force of attrac­tion between these space bub­bles deter­mined by matter. Am I right? Also the move­ment of planets are changing these clus­ters because the planets are moving trough space, so the clus­ters are per­ma­nently changing.

    In fact,there should be a force keeping this bubble in order, oth­er­wise the uni­verse will be only chaos.

    3. In your model, there is antimatter?

    4. Can we get a article or a book con­taining more details about your theory (me and Alex Lamba who also wrote to you, we are very inter­ested in your theory), maybe this will answer all our questions.

    5. I would also like to make a sug­ges­tion. Have you con­sider com­bining your theory with the String theory? I can see many sim­i­lar­i­ties between these two the­o­ries. Lets start from your theory:
    (a) In my view, each bobble of space from your video can have mul­tiple states (I am a pro­grammer so this is why I view it like this): empty or filled with some kind of matter.
    (b) But in string theory a string can have a dif­ferent fre­quency, deter­mining the type of matter.

    From (a) and (b) I assume that your bubble of space is in fact a string or a string is in fact a bubble of space which vibrates on a cer­tain fre­quency. If the bubble/string does not vibrate, this means that the space is empty, if a bubble/string vibrates, this means that the space is filled with some type of fun­da­mental par­ti­cles. Starting from this, I think that the uni­verse is actu­ally com­posed from space bubble/strings with dif­ferent states or frequency’s.

    Thank you again.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      1. My expla­na­tion of matter was a bit over­sim­pli­fied in that short video. Here is the dis­tinc­tion between matter and energy. In gen­eral the terms are inter­change­able as they both rep­re­sent metric dis­tor­tions which man­i­fests in how the quanta are dis­persed. The prop­erty that matter has that light doesn’t is that it is local­iz­able. It is a metric dis­tor­tion that can be main­tained without prop­a­gating across the medium. Since I make the assump­tion from the get go that the vacuum is a super­fluid, the sep­a­ra­tion between light and matter becomes like the dif­fer­ence between waves and whirlpools (phonons or sound waves versus quantum eddies). Einstein’s con­ver­sion equa­tion per­fectly applies.

      2. In this model all forces are trans­formed into geo­metric prop­er­ties. When a black hole grows via adding mate­rial, the dis­torts are com­bined. Therefore, the dis­tor­tion we label black hole becomes more dis­tinct. But no mag­ical force is needed to make this happen. Superfluids carry eddies that do not dis­si­pate and they can be com­bined. Just think of com­bining whirlpools into one large whirlpool. This is explained quite well in my book. See the forces chapter.

      3. Yes. Antimatter is expected in this model, though each uni­verse should be mostly one or the other – as a con­se­quence of the­dy­namics of its last big bang.

      4. I will email you a link to the cur­rent PDF tonight. In the mean time check out the for­malism page through this website.

      5. I agree, there is some notable overlap between this theory and string theory. There are some dif­fer­ences also. This model makes spe­cific testable claims that string theory does not. It’s posits Lorentz sym­metry as an approx­i­ma­tion to a deeper truth and there­fore devi­ates from the tra­di­tional expec­ta­tions. This gives it testablility and it also does some­thing that string theory cannot do – it opens the door to onto­log­ical clarity.

      I’m inter­ested in hearing how your thoughts change as you read the rest of the book. I’m leaving from Cartegena, Columbia tomorrow to sail all the way to France on a small boat. I might be dif­fi­cult to reach for about 6-7 weeks. Maybe by then you and Alex will have incised the book.


  13. SeanMauer says:

    Great Lecture! I always thought that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was a con­spiracy to pre­vent people from dis­cov­ering extra-dimensional realities.

  14. Hi Thad,
    Saw your Ted talk. Never heard gran­ular space, eleven dimen­sions (and their con­se­quences) explained so clearly.
    But when you talked about red-shift you lost me. I get the analogy with the tunnel and change in pres­sure. I did this exper­i­ment with a bell ringing in a jar where we depres­surised the jar. Before the sound goes it changes pitch, so that’s clear to me.
    But if I try to shift that to 11-d space, to explain red-shift other than with speed and the doppler-effect, wouldn’t that mean that there was a con­sis­tent drop in den­sity of space par­ti­cles? (Sorry if I don’t use the right words, I don’t have the right training)
    But red shift meant expan­sion, because it was true in all direc­tions. In your model, wouldn’t it mean, we were at the highest pressure-point? So why isn’t earth a black hole then?
    You said some­thing way at the end about small amount of inelas­ticity to make red shift a log­ical con­siquence. I don’t get that. And in which of the 11 dimen­sions did you mean they were inelastic and in what way? And how would this account for the los of energy (sort of like fric­tion?) Then were does the energy go?

    You have prob­ably described this some­where and it seems worth exploring. Could you point me in the right direc­tion, please?
    If it forms a log­ical whole, it would raise some serious ques­tions about the big bang, but it would also explain a lot about the reported behav­iour of par­ti­cles (although being in two places at once still seems a stretch).
    (Sorry about the ‘reported’, but I’ve per­son­ally never been near a bubble chamber or any­thing and I’m a sceptic at heart and some­what of an expert at how we fool our­selves).
    It would also explain some of the particle/wave ques­tion of pho­tons. It could be both par­ticle and wave at the same time, couldn’t it?

    About your analogy of the tunnel and the tuning-fork, it struck me, that it could also be both. Actually some­body could be going fur­ther from you at great speed and the per­ceived pitch could still be raised, because of the increasing pres­sure.
    We expe­ri­enced the same uncer­tainty with the bell-in-a-jar-experiment. Would the sound waves trav­el­ling slower be thwarted by the drop in air-friction the bell expe­ri­ences, causing it to vibrate with more con­served energy and thus quicker?
    This was a theory of mine, which turned out to be false, I lost the bet.. but the same uncer­tainty should be present in your sit­u­a­tion.
    Couldn’t it be both at the same time?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Hjalmar,

      Thank you for this ques­tion. Yes, the bell in your example will have a cer­tain res­o­nance fre­quency, vibrating at a spe­cific rate and pro­ducing a spe­cific note. And as you observed, when you decrease the pres­sure around the bell, as it is cre­ating its sound, the note received by the observer drops in pitch. From this you are cor­rect to note that the anal­o­gous system in space should see a red­shift if the “pres­sure” of space decreases. In short yes, this model is claiming that since the big bang the quanta of space that make up our uni­verse have gone from high “pres­sure” and high “tem­per­a­ture” to lower in both. In other words, they have been slowly losing energy as they col­lide. I am putting quotes around “pres­sure” and “tem­per­a­ture” here to sig­nify that these con­cepts are super­spa­tially defined (since we are taking about emer­gent prop­er­ties of the quanta and their inter­ac­tions). This slight inelas­ticity leads to the stretching of the phonons moving through space (like light), but it does so uni­formly. So no matter where you are observing from, light coming from very dis­tant sources will be red­shifted. The more dis­tant the light source the more it will be red­shifted. I should note that this does not con­tra­dict Doppler red­shifting. The Doppler effect is still a full expec­ta­tion from actual rel­a­tive motion in this model. As objects move towards us we expect a com­pres­sion of the waves they are emit­ting, and as they move away from us we expect a stretching of those waves. So if an object is orbiting another body, such that it reg­u­larly goes away from us and them back towards us (we are in the plane of its orbit) the Doppler effect is why the red­shift and blueshift is observed between objects with rel­a­tive motion between them. Redshift, how­ever, can also accom­plished when the pres­sure of the system drops, as we noted ear­lier with the bell. Consequently, the mys­tery of dark matter van­ishes when we assume that the vacuum is a quan­tized medium whose pres­sure and tem­per­a­ture have dropped over time. You asked what is respon­sible for this inelas­ticity. Very good ques­tion. I explain all of this in fur­ther detail in my book, but here’s a short ver­sion. (I’m emailing you a copy of the book. I’d love to know if it answers all of your ques­tions.) What causes this loss of energy? To answer that we must first make sure that it is clear what energy is – how it is rep­re­sented in the model. Sustained fluc­tu­a­tions or warps in the arrange­ments of the quanta are energy. If those geo­metric dis­tor­tions are locally coherent, like a sonon (think smoke ring) that does not dis­si­pate (a phe­nom­enon char­ac­ter­istic of super­fluids) then we can point to where they exist over a tem­poral dura­tion. These kind of dis­tor­tions are called matter. Other dis­tor­tions, like phonons, are prop­a­gating dis­tor­tions that move at a speed char­ac­ter­istic of the medium they are in (for the super­fluid vacuum the prop­a­ga­tion speed equals the speed of light), for example, light. If we imagine a phonon moving through the medium of the vacuum (a phonon is a col­lec­tive exci­ta­tion in the arrange­ments of a medium’s con­stituents – like a pres­sure wave) we note that its exis­tence is sup­ported by the way in which the col­li­sions occur between the substrate’s ingre­di­ents. For a given medium the prop­a­ga­tion speed of that phonon will always remain con­stant, but the total energy of that phononic dis­tor­tion will only remain fixed if the col­li­sions between the fun­da­mental quanta of the medium are per­fectly elastic. But in order for those col­li­sions, which involve a com­pres­sion and a rebound, to be per­fectly elastic they must be made up of infi­nitely divis­ible parts. In this model we are not making this assump­tion. In fact, we are making the oppo­site assump­tion – and assuming that the vacuum medium is made up of quanta, and that those quanta are ulti­mately made up of much finer parts called sub­quanta, and those sub­quanta are made up of even finer parts, sub-subquanta, and so on. So if the quanta are made up of parts, and two of them col­lide then the sub­quanta will be forced to take on dif­ferent arrange­ments – they will become com­pressed tightly together. From the res­o­lu­tion scale of the quanta them­selves, let alone from the scale that is nat­ural to our eyes, this amount is minus­cule, but it is not zero. The amount is also addi­tive, so as the number of col­li­sions involved in any such prop­a­ga­tion the amount of energy loss increases. The energy that goes into rear­ranging the internal parts of the quanta is the energy loss that occurs in every col­li­sion between quanta – leading to the draining of energy as light moves across long dis­tances of space, causing red­shifting, and accounting for the effect we cur­rently blame on “dark energy.”

  15. JD Green says:

    So its easier to visu­alize if we say

    A heli­copter – has 3 spa­tial dimen­sional move­ments here on earth
    #Though on the Earth, on which the heli­copter oper­ates, it has not changed its interspatial-position
    The 3 dimen­sional move­ment of the heli­copter takes place on earth, which itself is in move­ment, so intraspa­tial move­ment
    All of the move­ment of the Earth around the SUN takes place within a Solar System which is in move­ment, super­spa­tial move­ment
    And a Galaxy which is also in its own dimen­sional move­ment, – he didnt give this move­ment a name

    So the uni­verse and every­thing in it is a fractal of itself.

    The Universe is full of quanta much like Earth’s Oceans are full of quanta (H2O) but much less dense…He con­siders this dark matter. I wonder if it evap­o­rates into dark energy? or vice versa …

    I also wonder if the Universe were a giant fish­bowl with the Galaxies floating around in it and the Water we float in (Dark Matter/Energy) how would we know from our perspective?

    Universe Quanta (Dark Matter = Universal H20 (Ocean ref­er­ence) | Dark Engery evap­o­rating Dark Matter (Steam lol) causes drag, den­sity dif­fer­ences, gravity waves would be per­tur­ba­tions in the 3D matrices we are within…very interesting

    So like the Ocean has cur­rents, rivers, the uni­verse would as well…very interesting…

    So if we study the states of water – we should be able to describe Dark Matter and Dark Energy by macro­scop­i­cally thinking about the inter­ac­tions observered and predicted

    If any of this is cor­rect then Christaan Hyguens would be proven correct…Huygens has been called the leading European nat­ural philoso­pher between Descartes and Newton.[61] He adhered to the tenets of the mechan­ical phi­los­ophy of his time. In par­tic­ular he sought expla­na­tions of the force of gravity that avoided action at a distance.[62]

Leave a Reply

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