83

Conversations: Part One

Conversations: Part One, debuts. This is the first of six ‘con­ver­sa­tions’ on quantum space theory (qst). In this episode, Thad Roberts overviews quantum space theory, showing us how to visu­alize eleven dimen­sions. No other theory (super­string theory, M-theory, super­gravity, etc.) has been able to offer humanity such a vivid window into the com­plete dimen­sional struc­ture of Nature. This intu­itive approach brings a new breadth to human imag­i­na­tion and offers a fas­ci­nating new intel­lec­tual vision that has the poten­tial to change the world by changing the way we see it. The ability to com­pre­hend and intu­itively grasp eleven dimen­sions sets the stage to answer the greatest mys­teries in physics.

Comments (83)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Nunya Bizness says:

    None of what you are saying is true. I will not take the time to refute all of this video, but let me say this:

    General Relativity is not “wrong”, in the sense that you claim. It is wrong in the sense that a more accu­rate theory will one day come along. But it is by far the most accu­rate theory of gravity that has ever been put forward.

    I will explain for you how it works, because you obvi­ously do not understand.

    General Relativity (GR) picks up where Special Relativity leaves off; namely: the idea that space and time are one insep­a­rable entity called space­time. An obvious ques­tion is, “what is the geom­etry of space­time?” You might assume that space­time is Euclidean. You would be wrong.

    The basic math­e­mat­ical under­pin­nings of GR is dif­fer­en­tial geom­etry, which is the appli­ca­tion of mul­ti­di­men­sional cal­culus to geo­met­rical objects. Via dif­fer­en­tial geom­etry, all con­cepts of a space’s geom­etry can be deduced from one math­e­mat­ical object, known as the metric. The metric is a tensor that can be used to com­pute the dis­tance between two points in space. So the metric entirely char­ac­ter­izes the geom­etry of a space. The Euclidean metric for n-space is an nxn matrix whose entries are all zero, except for the diag­onal, where the entries are all 1. If you use this to gen­erate the dis­tance between two points in space, you will be returned the familiar Pythagorean the­orem: a^2 + b^2 = c^2 (note that this is the 2-dimensional ver­sion of the the­orem; it can be gen­er­al­ized in the obvious way to any dimen­sion of Euclidean space).

    Spacetime is, to a very good approx­i­ma­tion, Euclidean. But to be more accu­rate, it is not. This becomes espe­cially apparent at very large dis­tances, at very large speeds, or in very high grav­i­ta­tional fields. The metric for space­time is iden­tical to the Euclidean metric, with the excep­tion that the diag­onal entry in the column for time has the oppo­site sign from the rest of the diag­onal entries.

    What is the effect of this? Well, a familiar the­orem from Euclidean geom­etry is that the shortest dis­tance between two points is a straight line. In space­time, this is not so. Due to basic results from Special Relativity that I won’t derive here (read any under­grad spe­cial rel­a­tivity text­book), the amount of time mea­sured by an observer is depen­dent upon the path he travels through space­time. This is called the Proper Time. Due to the non-Euclidean nature of space­time, the shortest dis­tance between two points is actu­ally that which min­i­mizes the proper time. In other words, zip­ping off the edge of the galaxy at light speed and then returning will require less time for you in your space ship than it would for me to wait while you go on your journey. This is the famous twin paradox.

    Anyway, the result of this is that, by the vari­a­tional prin­ciple (which should be familiar to you if you’ve been exposed to Lagrangian mechanics, which I sus­pect you haven’t…), objects in space­time tend to travel by the path which min­i­mizes their proper time. As men­tioned ear­lier, proper time is short­ened by travel at high speed, or being in a grav­i­ta­tional field.

    Take now, as an example, an apple on a tree. The apple will try to min­i­mize its proper time. It will do this by moving towards a grav­i­ta­tional field – namely, the Earth. This results in a force of attrac­tion between the apple and the planet. In other words, the future of the apple’s world­like points toward the center of the Earth.

    That is how gravity works, in a nut­shell. The fact that you don’t know this obvi­ates your incom­pe­tence to be attempting to work in this field. But it’s your own time to waste, I guess…

    • Geo says:

      So, let me get this straight… The apple will try min­i­mize its proper time by moving toward a grav­i­ta­tional field and that’s what gravity is (in a strong onto­log­ical sense). Why does the apple try to min­i­mize its proper time? What is a grav­i­ta­tional field? What is gravity? Your com­ment hasn’t really answered any of those ques­tions or even helped clarify them. All you have done is stip­u­late a magic field that attracts apples.

      • chandan srivastava says:

        shortest dis­tence can be mea­sure by cal­culus of variation .

        • Thad Roberts says:

          You are cor­rect to say that shortest dis­tance can be mea­sured by using a cal­culus of vari­a­tion, so long as the metric we are talking about is smooth and con­nected. In a quan­tized metric the issue can get a little more complicated.

          • “In a quan­tized metric the issue can get a little more complicated.”—Thad Roberts.

            That is why a fur­ther com­pli­ca­tion applies to quantum gran­u­larity as it applies to all objects. All objects are per­cepts, including con­cepts. All of exis­ten­tial reality (con­scious­ness) is phe­nom­e­no­log­ical or nar­ra­tive. The error is not just con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of the super­nat­ural. It is even more acutely per­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of the supernar­ra­tive. In other words, the evo­ca­tion of mys­tical gods, and the invo­ca­tion of ani­mate per­sons as dis­crete voli­tional objects stand in mutual construct.

            As for dif­fer­en­tial cal­culus. It too does not begin to broach the matter of exis­tence. It is but another amusing nar­ra­tive wrinkle.

      • Peter Martin says:

        “What IS gravity?” “What IS a grav­i­ta­tional field?” These are pseudo “IS” ques­tions which, by their nature can never be answered.

        You may enjoy reading about the Society for Ganeral Semantics headed by Alfred Korzybski, who eschewed state­ments and ques­tions whose main (or only) verb is a form of “to be”.

    • Jon says:

      To Nunya: every­thing you said is all well and good, but you didn’t explain one thing: what is a grav­i­ta­tional field? General rel­a­tivity explains the effects of gravity, but it still doesn’t truly explain what gravity is. Like he says in the video, we’ve had to assume that gravity is a force. But if it is, why is it so incred­ibly weak in com­par­ison to the other forces? Relativity is a great theory for big things, but it explains nothing at the sub­atomic scale. At least this theory gives the same rules for the entire uni­verse at every scale. And it gives a great expla­na­tion of what time is.

  2. Nunya Bizness says:

    It’s the inertia prin­ciple: an object will travel in a straight line unless acted upon by a force. The def­i­n­i­tion of a “straight line” is the path that min­i­mizes distance.

    The crux of GR is that space is not flat, and that gravity is the man­i­fes­ta­tion of warped space time. That warping causes straight lines (those that min­i­mize proper time) to arc toward pieces of mass – in other words, objects attract one another.

    General Relativity is a highly com­plex theory. What I have written is a ridicu­lously brief crash-introduction to it. Instead of just being skep­tical about every­thing and dis­missing it out of hand, why not actu­ally read a text­book on Relativity? It’s hard to claim that you’ve refuted Relativity without even under­standing it first…

    • Geo says:

      First of all, I (and I am not Thad, so I’m not speaking for him) am not skep­tical of GR. It has proven itself as much as any theory can. In fact, I think, next to ancient Greek atomic theory, it is the most impor­tant the­o­ret­ical (physics) break­through humankind has ever made. That said, I do not think it is com­plete, nor did Einstein him­self. What I don’t think you under­stand is that QST is an exten­sion to GR. It is in many ways, the quan­ti­za­tion of GR (from a con­tin­uous to a dis­crete system). You seem to think that we are trashing GR. We are not. Thad did not name his book “Einstein’s Intuition” out of spite, but rather out of respect. If you had both­ered to LISTEN to what was said in the video you would have gar­nered that yourself.

      Secondly, QST posits the very same idea, that gravity is the man­i­fes­ta­tion of warped space­time. But QST gives a con­crete mech­a­nism for that warping. Gravity is, lit­er­ally, a change in the den­sity of space (a den­sity gra­dient). I do not think this throws GR out the window. Rather, it stands upon the great shoul­ders of both Einstein and his theories.

      If you would like to have a crit­ical, pro­duc­tive dia­logue about this, Thad and I are more than willing to do so. Your antag­o­nism and mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions of QST, how­ever are not of interest to us.

      Cheers,

      Jeff (Site Admin)

      • Nunya Bizness says:

        My point is not that you are bashing GR. It’s that you are mis­un­der­standing it, and con­se­quently the con­clu­sions you draw are incorrect.

        For instance, Thad says in the video that the commonly-seen “tram­po­line” dia­gram of GR is incor­rect because it neglects an axis of space, and that we somehow need more dimen­sions of space to “stretch into” for GR to work. Of course that dia­gram is wrong – it’s just a metaphor. It’s only used to intro­duce the con­cept to laymen who, under­stand­ably, have a hard time grap­pling with a 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian man­i­fold. To think that that simple model encap­su­lates the theory is a mis­take. Space can warp without warping into another dimension.

        There are innu­mer­able other issues that do not square with estab­lished math­e­matics and physics, such as the idea that pi rep­re­sents a quan­tity of cur­va­ture (and that this is the min­imum amount of cur­va­ture). Pi is a ratio; cur­va­ture is mea­sured by direc­tional par­tial derivatives.

        I’m not telling you to stop what you’re doing. I’m telling you, as someone who is trained in math and physics, that if you’re inter­ested in these things, you’re on the wrong track, and it isn’t going to take you any­where mean­ingful. I apol­o­gize if that’s harsh, but the dif­fer­ence between true and false is very sharp. Which is why I implore you and Thad to study estab­lished physics like Relativity in depth (ie, math­e­mat­i­cally) before you attempt to improve upon them.

        • Geo says:

          I appre­ciate what you are saying. I am not a math­e­mati­cian or physi­cist, but rather an inter­ested (and prob­ably over-educated) lay person. However, there are sev­eral math­e­mati­cians and the­o­ret­ical physi­cists working on the for­mal­iza­tion of QST right now with Thad. They seem to think that there is some­thing to it. These people are familiar with the the­o­ries and math­e­matics you speak of in your com­ments. They have done more than read the intro­duc­tory texts you sug­gest. Not being an expert I must defer to them. That said, none of them have thrown their hands up and walked away after many months of work, rather they have become more con­vinced. They still feel there is some­thing to be gained sci­en­tif­i­cally by their efforts.

          From a lay point of view, QST offers (to me at least) an expla­na­tion for a host of dis­parate phe­nomena (both macro­scop­i­cally and micro­scop­i­cally) that resist expla­na­tion to this day. One of Thad’s points is that a theory that doesn’t pro­vide an expla­na­tion, isn’t much of a theory (that would be a jab at the stan­dard inter­pre­ta­tion of quantum mechanics which it richly deserves). I under­stand that until a full for­mal­iza­tion is com­plete most of the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity will not give QST the time of day (and many won’t even when that for­mal­iza­tion is com­plete). But at this point, the theory is still testable in the lab­o­ra­tory of logic. Find a fault with its logic, its premises, its con­clu­sions. That is where we are now. So far, to my knowl­edge, no one has dis­proven any of these the­o­ret­ical abstracts of QST.

          Obviously there is still much work to do, but I believe (yes it’s a belief) that a solid foun­da­tion has already been built. As they say, the devil is in the details, and those details are being worked out. The papers will be written. The peers will review.

          I’d invite you to read the whole book (which we can send via PDF if you’d like).

        • Jon says:

          Nunya, where have you been man? All of the ground­breaking new physics being done assumes that there are extra spa­tial dimen­sions. If you are so sure that GR is the be all end all, then explain quantum tun­neling. Explain uncer­tainty prin­ciple. HE can’t touch it. Einstein him­self didn’t believe that black holes really existed. We now have proof that there are mil­lions every­where. GR totally breaks down at the center of a black hole. We can’t go for­ward if we’re not willing to enter­tain the pos­si­bility of addi­tional dimen­sions. Get with the program.

        • G-bolt says:

          You described math­e­mat­ical expla­na­tions of forces. You explained how they behave without any inkling as to why.

          The warped space model is a layman’s model, you can shed it as you accept the assump­tion that space can be curved in a manner we cannot perceive.

          The problem is that by def­i­n­i­tion for some­thing to curve (or to change prop­er­ties, there is no dif­fer­ence) in a manner which is imper­cep­tible to us it has to be moving in another dimen­sion. Changing any prop­erty is changing a ‘dimension’.

          Imagining those dimen­sions in phys­ical terms just makes their inter­ac­tions easier to under­stand or at the least grants a fresh perspective.

  3. John says:

    I think (Nunya Bizness) has com­pletely missed the mes­sage here. You are wel­come to your opinion, but after reading over your com­ments it seems to me that you have mis­taken the claims of quantum space theory. I know the for­mu­la­tion is not yet com­plete, but the foun­da­tional prin­ci­ples do have coherence.

    I am inter­ested in your claim that “space can warp without warping into another dimension.”

    I find no sub­stan­tial grounds for this claim. Let me explain. To say that space can warp without warping into other dimen­sions is to say that you have a mech­a­nism, an expla­na­tion, for how space might warp – not merely a descrip­tion for how space is warped around mas­sive objects. While It might turn out be the case that there are other ways for space to warp (other than warping into other dimen­sions), such a claim can not be sub­stan­ti­ated until some sort of example is put forth. You can not simply say, look, space is warped because we’ve given space a metric that gives it the quality of being warped. Inventing a rep­re­sen­ta­tion of a quality is entirely dif­ferent from explaining that quality. As it stands right now (in modern text­books) the very meaning of “warped space” is inac­ces­sible. Of course you can use math to rep­re­sent it, mimic it, copy it, or what­ever, but that math does not nec­es­sarily mean that you have an expla­na­tion for its origin. Exactly how does space­time warp without warping into another dimension(s)? That’s the cen­tral ques­tion at hand. Quantum space theory says that it can’t, but it doesn’t push warped space­time out of the pic­ture, instead it clar­i­fies how the warp comes about – vin­di­cating Einstein in a way that would very much please him.

    I have read quite a bit more than the text­books you speak of. I have taken the classes (both in math and physics) and then gone fur­ther. If you have done the same then I’m sure you’ll agree that in those books they simply get people to swallow “guts, feathers, and all” the idea that we can invent a field out of nowhere as long as that field yields results that match obser­va­tion. The grav­i­ta­tional field is assumed to give space some addi­tional char­ac­ter­istic which is map­pable by a tensor. The problem is, and always has been, that the simple inven­tion of this field does not give us an expla­na­tion for how that field entan­gles with space­time, what causes it to come into exis­tence, or what it really is. It is just taken as brute that it exists in asso­ci­a­tion with mass, without any nec­es­sary reason. The logic here needs a bit of improve­ment. It also needs a little more hon­esty. Einstein was well aware of this (finding this expla­na­tion was the project that occu­pied his last 30 years). While it is true that if you just swallow the exis­tence of this field you will agree that straight paths becomes the paths of orbits, but quantum space theory is not con­testing this – it is attempting to explain it. The theory is simply asking a dif­ferent, more fun­da­mental ques­tion than you are giving it credit for. It is asking why and how this warp occurs?

    Scientists ought not to be looking merely for an asso­ci­a­tion, we ought to be looking for a causal con­nec­tion, an expla­na­tion. There is quite a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between asso­ci­a­tions and expla­na­tion, quite a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between having a math­e­mat­ical rep­re­sen­ta­tion of a system and a com­plete meta­phys­ical expla­na­tion for that system. That’s why I, and a growing number of sci­en­tists, are inter­ested in this and, at least in my case, are devoting a little time each week to devel­oping it.

    • Nunya Bizness says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      There is a philo­soph­ical issue here. You are cor­rect to say that there is a dif­fer­ence between pre­dicting a phe­nom­enon and actu­ally explaining it. A good theory must do both. But you must under­stand two things: 1) sci­ence is a process. The orig­inal theory of gravity (Newton’s) offered no expla­na­tion at all. But it was excel­lent at pre­dicting. Relativity improved the pre­dic­tion, and offered an expla­na­tion (curved geom­etry). You may com­plain that the expla­na­tion does not go far enough, but that does not mean it is not an expla­na­tion. The next theory of gravity will surely hold more insight. And 2), the expla­na­tions given by a theory are not always simple. Einstein *did* explain gravity, at least to an extent. But that expla­na­tion (when given in full) requires the use of 4 dimen­sions – some­thing we’re not used to. The only way to make it seem simple is to strip away some of the com­plexity, and speak metaphor­i­cally about a bowling ball on a trampoline.

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

      Most of this doesn’t even make sense. Gravity doesn’t entangle with space­time; it does not give space­time some weird char­ac­ter­istic. Gravity is the cur­va­ture of space, no more, no less. It can be regarded as a field, which Newton did; but Relativity says it is geom­etry, and it is much more accu­rate. Relativity says that this cur­va­ture is caused by mass. If there is any­thing deeper going on here (which there may not be!), some future theory will uncover it.

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

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

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

      • Geo says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        We could not agree more.

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

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

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

        You’re right. They are only simple when they are com­plete and correct.

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

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

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

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

        Curvature is a characteristic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Jim says:

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

        • Thad Roberts says:

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

  4. Me says:

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

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

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

    A quantum of some­thing is the smallest pos­sible unit of that thing. A quantum of space is a “bubble” beyond which there is no def­i­n­i­tion of space. Yet, there is space inside the bub­bles, somehow.

    Gravity is rep­re­sented as the den­sity gra­dient of space quanta. But gravity is caused by matter. Matter is not space. How does this even make sense?

    Time is the res­onation of space quanta. Why? How? What rea­soning leads to this conclusion?

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

    • Geo says:

      Let me address these ques­tions as best I can one by one:

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

      [The Russian char­acter is “Zhe”]

      In gen­eral rel­a­tivity the ratio of cir­cum­fer­ence to diam­eter goes to zero when­ever black holes are in the region whose cur­va­ture is being described (because the denom­i­nator, the diam­eter of the circle cen­tered on a black hole, goes to infinity if space­time is con­tin­uous and black holes are zero sized). Quantum mechanics has a problem with that infinity in the denom­i­nator. It con­flicts with gen­eral rel­a­tivity on this point and cuts off this infinity with its claim that the smallest dis­tance in space is the Planck length. Qst agrees with this claim and its geom­etry offers us a way to quan­ti­ta­tively deter­mine an expres­sion for the max­imum cur­va­ture that is insti­tuted by that cut off. Why is this inter­esting? It is inter­esting because, if it is right, then it means that there are two dimen­sion­less num­bers inherent in the geo­metric map of space­time, com­bined with the five Planck values that result from the quan­ti­za­tion. This takes us to some­thing even more inter­esting… Whatever this other geo­metric number is, its value has to be between zero and pi. Narrowing it down more there is strong expec­ta­tion that it is between 0 and 0.7. So the claim of this geo­metric model is that there is some number between 0 and 0.7 that, can be com­bined to the 5 Planck para­me­ters, and pi, to nonar­bi­trarily pro­duce or “encode” the geo­metric effects that are inherent in space­time – the con­stants of Nature. As it turns out there is such a number, and it hap­pens to fall in that range. (See the con­stants of Nature page on this site.) This is sig­nif­i­cant enough to war­rant cur­rent efforts to the­o­ret­i­cally derive the exact value of this number from geo­metric considerations.

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

      A quantum of some­thing is the smallest pos­sible unit of that thing. A quantum of space is a “bubble” beyond which there is no def­i­n­i­tion of space. Yet, there is space inside the bub­bles, somehow.”

      I’m not sure I under­stand this ques­tion (cor­rectly), but I’ll take a stab at it. The first para­graph is sort of what QST is pos­tu­lating, with sev­eral impor­tant caveats. Firstly, the space between our everyday quanta of space is not space per se, we refer to it as super­space, and like­wise the space within the quanta of space is referred to as intra­space. If space is quan­tized these other spaces (super and intra) man­i­fest (if you allow that a quantum of space is a volume rather than a point). If the quanta of space are in fact vol­umes, the two other sets of “spaces” are nec­es­sary and dis­tinct from normal space. The analogy of the bar of gold comes to mind. If you split a bar of gold down to its smallest com­po­nents, com­po­nents that can still be con­sid­ered gold, you will reach a point where you could con­tinue to split the con­stituents (atoms in this case) fur­ther, but what results from this fur­ther split­ting can no longer be con­sid­ered gold. In this analogy, you have tran­scended the meaning of “gold” by split­ting the gold atom but, as we now know, there is a whole lot more split­ting that can be done. You can’t count units of gold by counting neu­trons, for example. Good ques­tion though. Wrestling with this issue is at the core of under­standing what it means to say that the fabric of x, y, z space is quan­tized. The rest of the pic­ture won’t make sense until this is intu­itively absorbed. Is this get­ting at what you’re asking?

      “Gravity is rep­re­sented as the den­sity gra­dient of space quanta. But gravity is caused by matter. Matter is not space. How does this even make sense?”

      First of all, yes, absolutely, gravity is rep­re­sented as the den­sity gra­dient of space quanta. The ques­tion you might be trying to get at is, what causes these den­sity gra­di­ents to form? When the quanta stick together den­sity gra­di­ents build up around those con­glom­er­ates. All forms of energy that man­i­fest in x, y, z, t are simply geo­metric dis­tor­tions in space­time. Density waves could ripple through the medium – that’s one way of sup­porting a geo­metric dis­tor­tion. (Something like this would be said to have energy that is equiv­a­lent to some amount of rest mass, but it cannot exist at rest itself.) Another way is to have a stable geo­metric dis­tor­tion is to have quanta that are stuck together. Once a group of quanta are stuck together, the indi­vidual quanta around it, moving around and, for the most part, ellas­ti­cally inter­acting, will form a den­sity gra­dient because of momentum con­ser­va­tion. A single quanta bumping into two will leave the two moving much slower than the orig­inal one. Slower motions con­cen­trate around the clump, and, slower motions create greater den­si­ties. So per­manant, or at least stable geo­metric dis­tor­tions, like quanta sticking together, is mass in this model.

      “Time is the res­onation of space quanta. Why? How? What rea­soning leads to this conclusion?”

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

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

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

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

      • Jon says:

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

        • Thad Roberts says:

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

  5. Phyn says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Thad Roberts says:

    Phyn,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thad

    • Phyn says:

      Thad,

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

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

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

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

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

      Thanks again,
      Phyn

  7. Thad Roberts says:

    Phyn,

    Great ques­tions. :-)

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

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

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

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

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

    I hope that helps.

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

    • Phyn says:

      Thad,

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

      Phyn

  8. Stephen says:

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

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Dear Stephen,

      Thank you for your message.

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

      In response to your questions:

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

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

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

      Please let me know if that helped.

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

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

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

      Note that the first cri­teria requires long periods of time.

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

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

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

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

      Thanks for your interest.

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

      Sincerely,
      Thad

      • Stephen says:

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

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

        • Thad Roberts says:

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

          • Stephen says:

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

  9. Stefan palmer says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  10. Stefan palmer says:

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

  11. Ben says:

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

    bwc7​0​@​email.​vccs.​edu

    Cheers, Ben

  12. jake3_14 says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  13. jake3_14 says:

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

  14. Gary says:

    One major confusion,

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

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

    PROBLEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Many thanks,

    -Gary
    Humble Student, The Open University (UK)

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  15. Armen says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  16. brett says:

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

  17. Daniel says:

    Dear Thad,

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

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

    Best regards,

    Daniel

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  18. Shane Killeen says:

    Hi Thad

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

  19. Niklas says:

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

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Niklas,

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

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

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

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

  20. John says:

    Thad,

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

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

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  21. Christian Grieco says:

    Thad,

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Thank you. I’m emailing you the book now.

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

  22. Anderson says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  23. Frank says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  24. praroop joshi says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  25. Lib says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  26. Jim says:

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

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  27. Gururaj Bhat says:

    Hi,
    I’m a lay person but found your work very inter­esting. Can you please send a copy of your book?
    Thanks
    Gururaj

  28. Sahil says:

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

  29. stewart says:

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

    Thanks
    stewart

    • Thad Roberts says:

      The book is now avail­able via Lulu​.com (hard­cover full color), Amazon​.com (soft­cover full color), or through iTunes (iBook). You’ll find links to each here.

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

      If you’d like a signed copy please let me know. If you cannot afford the $14.99 at this time (for the iBook) send me another mes­sage and let me know.

  30. Gene says:

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

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

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

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

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

      If you’re inter­ested in get­ting the book, it is now avail­able via Lulu​.com (hard­cover full color), Amazon​.com (soft­cover full color), or through iTunes (iBook). You’ll find links to each here.

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

      If you’d like a signed copy please let me know. If you cannot afford the $14.99 at this time (for the iBook) send me another mes­sage and let me know.

      • Gene says:

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

        • Thad Roberts says:

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

  31. Artax says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

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

  32. Chris says:

    I would point out that your expla­na­tion of the “two dimen­sion” model is actu­ally three dimen­sions because you are still including time–as you did in your Ted talk with the lights.

  33. ez Rico says:

    Re: Nunya Bizness … You may be very smart but what comes across is that you are surely full of your­self!! Being crude and rude in your com­men­tary is so much like Donald T Rump. … Thad is too nice a person to call you on your poor com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills.

Leave a Reply




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