81

Percakapan: Bagian Satu

Percakapan: Bagian Satu, debut. Ini adalah yang pertama dari enam 'percakapan' pada teori kuantum ruang (QST). Dalam episode ini, Thad Roberts ikhtisar teori kuantum ruang, menunjukkan kepada kita bagaimana untuk memvisualisasikan dimensi sebelas. Tidak ada teori lain (teori superstring, M-teori, supergravitasi, dll) telah mampu menawarkan kemanusiaan seperti jendela hidup ke dalam struktur dimensi lengkap Nature. Pendekatan intuitif ini membawa luasnya baru untuk imajinasi manusia dan menawarkan visi intelektual baru yang menarik yang memiliki potensi untuk mengubah dunia dengan mengubah cara kita melihatnya. Kemampuan untuk memahami dan intuitif memahami dimensi sebelas set panggung untuk menjawab misteri terbesar dalam fisika.

Komentar (81)

Trackback URL | Komentar RSS Feed

  1. Nunya Bizness mengatakan:

    Tak satu pun dari apa yang Anda katakan adalah benar. Saya tidak akan mengambil waktu untuk membantah semua video ini, tapi biarkan aku mengatakan ini:

    Relativitas Umum tidak "salah", dalam arti bahwa Anda klaim. Ini adalah salah dalam arti bahwa teori yang lebih akurat akan satu hari datang. Tapi itu adalah jauh teori yang paling akurat gravitasi yang pernah diajukan.

    Saya akan menjelaskan untuk Anda cara kerjanya, karena Anda jelas tidak mengerti.

    Relativitas Umum (GR) mengambil tempat Relativitas Khusus daun off; yaitu: gagasan bahwa ruang dan waktu adalah satu kesatuan yang tidak terpisahkan disebut ruang-waktu. Sebuah pertanyaan yang jelas adalah, "apa geometri ruang-waktu?" Anda mungkin menganggap ruang-waktu yang Euclidean. Anda akan salah.

    Dasar-dasar matematika dasar GR adalah geometri diferensial, yang merupakan aplikasi dari kalkulus multidimensi untuk objek geometris. Via geometri diferensial, semua konsep geometri ruang yang dapat disimpulkan dari satu objek matematika, dikenal sebagai metrik. Metrik adalah tensor yang dapat digunakan untuk menghitung jarak antara dua titik dalam ruang. Jadi metrik sepenuhnya ciri geometri ruang. Euclidean metrik untuk n-space adalah matriks nxn yang entri semua nol, kecuali untuk diagonal, di mana entri adalah semua 1. Jika Anda menggunakan ini untuk menghasilkan jarak antara dua titik dalam ruang, Anda akan kembali akrab Pythagoras Teorema: a ^ 2 + b ^ 2 = c ^ 2 (dicatat bahwa ini adalah versi 2-dimensi dari teorema, bisa digeneralisasi dalam cara yang jelas untuk setiap dimensi ruang Euclidean).

    Ruang-waktu, untuk pendekatan yang sangat baik, Euclidean. Tetapi untuk menjadi lebih akurat, tidak. Hal ini menjadi sangat jelas pada jarak yang sangat besar, dengan kecepatan yang sangat besar, atau di medan gravitasi yang sangat tinggi. Metrik untuk ruang-waktu identik dengan metrik Euclidean, dengan pengecualian bahwa entri diagonal dalam kolom untuk waktu memiliki tanda berlawanan dari sisa entri diagonal.

    Apa efek dari ini? Nah, teorema akrab dari Euclidean geometri adalah bahwa jarak terpendek antara dua titik adalah garis lurus. Dalam ruang-waktu, ini tidak begitu. Karena hasil dasar dari Relativitas Khusus bahwa saya tidak akan mendapatkan di sini (membaca undergrad khusus relativitas buku teks), jumlah waktu yang diukur oleh pengamat tergantung pada jalan ia melakukan perjalanan melalui ruang-waktu. Ini disebut Waktu yang tepat. Karena sifat non-Euclidean dari ruang-waktu, jarak terpendek antara dua titik sebenarnya bahwa yang meminimalkan waktu yang tepat. Dengan kata lain, zipping dari tepi galaksi dengan kecepatan cahaya dan kemudian kembali akan memerlukan sedikit waktu untuk Anda di kapal ruang Anda daripada itu akan bagi saya untuk menunggu sementara Anda melakukan perjalanan Anda. Ini adalah paradoks kembar terkenal.

    Pokoknya, hasil ini adalah bahwa, dengan prinsip variasi (yang harus akrab bagi Anda jika Anda telah terkena mekanik Lagrangian, yang saya menduga Anda belum ...), benda-benda di ruang-waktu cenderung untuk bepergian dengan jalan yang meminimalkan waktu yang tepat. Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, waktu yang tepat dipersingkat oleh perjalanan dengan kecepatan tinggi, atau berada di medan gravitasi.

    Ambillah, sebagai contoh, sebuah apel di pohon. Apel akan mencoba untuk meminimalkan waktu yang tepat. Ini akan melakukan ini dengan bergerak menuju medan gravitasi - yaitu, bumi. Hal ini menghasilkan gaya tarik antara apel dan planet. Dengan kata lain, masa depan poin worldlike apel terhadap pusat bumi.

    Itu adalah bagaimana gravitasi bekerja, singkatnya. Kenyataan bahwa Anda tidak tahu ini menyingkirkan ketidakmampuan Anda untuk mencoba untuk bekerja di bidang ini. Tapi itu waktu Anda sendiri untuk limbah, saya kira ...

    • Geo mengatakan:

      Jadi, biarkan aku mendapatkan ini lurus ... apel akan mencoba meminimalkan waktu yang tepat dengan bergerak menuju medan gravitasi dan itulah yang gravitasi (dalam arti ontologis yang kuat). Mengapa apel mencoba untuk meminimalkan waktu yang tepat? Apa medan gravitasi? Apa gravitasi? Komentar anda telah benar-benar menjawab setiap pertanyaan-pertanyaan atau bahkan membantu memperjelas mereka. Semua yang telah Anda lakukan adalah menetapkan bidang sulap yang menarik apel.

      • chandan srivastava mengatakan:

        distence terpendek dapat diukur dengan kalkulus variasi.

        • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

          Anda benar untuk mengatakan bahwa jarak terpendek dapat diukur dengan menggunakan kalkulus variasi, selama metrik kita berbicara tentang yang halus dan terhubung. Dalam metrik terkuantisasi masalah bisa mendapatkan sedikit lebih rumit.

          • Pierre Rousseau mengatakan:

            "Dalam metrik terkuantisasi masalah bisa mendapatkan sedikit lebih rumit." - Thad Roberts.

            Itu sebabnya komplikasi lebih lanjut berlaku untuk granularity kuantum yang berlaku untuk semua objek. Semua benda yang persepsi, termasuk konsep. Semua realitas eksistensial (kesadaran) adalah fenomenologis atau narasi. Kesalahan bukan hanya konseptualisasi supranatural. Hal ini bahkan lebih akut perceptualization dari supernarrative tersebut. Dengan kata lain, kebangkitan dari dewa mistis, dan doa dari orang bernyawa sebagai objek kehendak diskrit berdiri di reksa membangun.

            Adapun kalkulus diferensial. Juga tidak mulai untuk membicarakan soal keberadaan. Itu tapi narasi kerut lucu lain.

      • Peter Martin mengatakan:

        "Apa IS gravitasi?" "Apa IS medan gravitasi?" Ini adalah semu "IS" pertanyaan yang, menurut sifatnya tidak dapat dijawab.

        Anda dapat menikmati membaca tentang Masyarakat untuk ganeral Semantik dipimpin oleh Alfred Korzybski, yang dihindari pernyataan dan pertanyaan yang (atau hanya) kata kerja utama adalah bentuk "menjadi".

    • Jon mengatakan:

      Untuk Nunya: semua yang Anda katakan adalah semua baik dan bagus, tetapi Anda tidak menjelaskan satu hal: apa adalah medan gravitasi? Relativitas umum menjelaskan efek gravitasi, tetapi masih tidak benar-benar menjelaskan apa gravitasi. Seperti katanya dalam video, kami harus menganggap bahwa gravitasi adalah sebuah gaya. Tetapi jika itu adalah, mengapa begitu sangat lemah dibandingkan dengan kekuatan lain? Relativitas adalah teori yang besar untuk hal-hal besar, tetapi menjelaskan apa-apa pada skala subatomik. Setidaknya teori ini memberikan aturan yang sama untuk seluruh alam semesta di setiap skala. Dan memberikan penjelasan besar apa waktu.

  2. Nunya Bizness mengatakan:

    Ini prinsip inersia: sebuah objek akan melakukan perjalanan dalam garis lurus kecuali ditindaklanjuti oleh kekuatan. Definisi "garis lurus" adalah jalan yang meminimalkan jarak.

    Inti dari GR adalah bahwa ruang tidak datar, dan gravitasi yang merupakan manifestasi dari melengkung ruang waktu. Warping yang menyebabkan garis-garis lurus (orang-orang yang meminimalkan waktu yang tepat) untuk busur ke arah buah massa - dengan kata lain, obyek menarik satu sama lain.

    Relativitas Umum adalah teori yang sangat kompleks. Apa yang saya tulis adalah ridiculously singkat kecelakaan-pengantar itu. Alih-alih hanya menjadi skeptis tentang segala sesuatu dan menolak keluar dari tangan, mengapa tidak benar-benar membaca buku teks Relativitas? Sulit untuk mengklaim bahwa Anda telah membantah Relativitas tanpa memahami terlebih dahulu ...

    • Geo mengatakan:

      Pertama-tama, saya (dan saya tidak Thad, jadi aku tidak berbicara untuk dia) saya tidak skeptis GR. Ini telah membuktikan dirinya sebanyak apapun teori bisa. Bahkan, saya pikir, di samping kuno teori atom Yunani, itu adalah teoritis (fisika) terobosan manusia yang paling penting yang pernah dibuat. Yang mengatakan, saya tidak berpikir itu selesai, juga tidak Einstein sendiri. Apa yang saya tidak berpikir Anda mengerti adalah bahwa QST adalah perluasan untuk gr. Hal ini dalam banyak hal, kuantisasi dari GR (dari terus menerus untuk sistem diskrit). Anda tampaknya berpikir bahwa kita mencemari GR. Kita tidak. Thad tidak menyebutkan nama bukunya "Einstein Intuisi" karena dendam, melainkan menghormati. Jika Anda telah terganggu untuk MENDENGARKAN apa yang dikatakan dalam video Anda akan mengumpulkan bahwa diri Anda.

      Kedua, QST berpendapat ide yang sama, bahwa gravitasi adalah manifestasi dari ruang-waktu melengkung. Tapi QST memberikan mekanisme konkret untuk warping itu. Gravitasi, secara harfiah, perubahan kepadatan ruang (gradien densitas). Saya tidak berpikir ini melempar GR keluar jendela. Sebaliknya, ia berdiri di atas bahu besar dari kedua Einstein dan teori-teorinya.

      Jika Anda ingin memiliki, dialog yang produktif kritis tentang hal ini, Thad dan aku lebih dari bersedia untuk melakukannya. Antagonisme dan kekeliruan dari QST, namun tidak menarik bagi kami.

      Ceria,

      Jeff (Site Admin)

      • Nunya Bizness mengatakan:

        Maksud saya adalah bahwa Anda tidak bashing GR. Ini bahwa Anda salah paham itu, dan akibatnya kesimpulan Anda menggambar tidak benar.

        Misalnya, Thad mengatakan dalam video bahwa sering dilihat "trampolin" diagram GR tidak benar karena mengabaikan sumbu ruang, dan bahwa kita entah bagaimana membutuhkan dimensi lebih ruang untuk "meregangkan ke" untuk GR untuk bekerja. Tentu saja diagram yang salah - itu hanya metafora. Ini hanya digunakan untuk memperkenalkan konsep untuk orang awam yang, dimengerti, memiliki waktu yang sulit bergulat dengan 4 dimensi pseudo-Riemannian berjenis. Untuk berpikir bahwa model sederhana merangkum teori adalah sebuah kesalahan. Ruang dapat warp tanpa warping ke dimensi lain.

        Ada tak terhitung isu-isu lain yang tidak persegi dengan matematika dan fisika didirikan, seperti gagasan bahwa pi merupakan kuantitas kelengkungan (dan bahwa ini adalah jumlah minimal kelengkungan). Pi adalah rasio; kelengkungan diukur dengan turunan parsial directional.

        Saya tidak mengatakan Anda untuk berhenti apa yang Anda lakukan. Aku bilang, sebagai seseorang yang terlatih dalam matematika dan fisika, bahwa jika Anda tertarik dalam hal ini, Anda berada di jalur yang salah, dan itu tidak akan membawa Anda ke manapun bermakna. Saya minta maaf jika itu keras, tapi perbedaan antara benar dan salah sangat tajam. Itulah sebabnya aku mohon Anda dan Thad untuk belajar fisika mapan seperti Relativitas secara mendalam (yaitu, secara matematis) sebelum Anda mencoba untuk memperbaiki mereka.

        • Geo mengatakan:

          Saya menghargai apa yang Anda katakan. Saya bukan ahli matematika atau fisika, melainkan tertarik (dan mungkin lebih berpendidikan) orang awam. Namun, ada beberapa matematikawan dan fisikawan teoritis bekerja pada formalisasi QST sekarang dengan Thad. Mereka tampaknya berpikir bahwa ada sesuatu untuk itu. Orang-orang ini yang akrab dengan teori-teori dan matematika Anda berbicara tentang dalam komentar Anda. Mereka telah melakukan lebih dari membaca teks pengantar Anda sarankan. Tidak menjadi seorang ahli saya harus tunduk kepada mereka. Yang mengatakan, tidak satupun dari mereka telah dilemparkan tangan mereka dan berjalan pergi setelah berbulan-bulan bekerja, bukan mereka telah menjadi lebih yakin. Mereka masih merasa ada sesuatu yang bisa diperoleh secara ilmiah oleh usaha mereka.

          Dari sudut pandang awam pandang, penawaran QST (untuk saya setidaknya) penjelasan untuk sejumlah fenomena yang berbeda (baik secara makroskopis dan mikroskopis) yang menolak penjelasan untuk hari ini. 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 mengatakan:

          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. Yohanes mengatakan:

    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. Mari saya jelaskan. 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. Anda tidak bisa. 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. Periode. Look at the Einstein Field Equation. Literally, stress-energy = spacetime curvature. Perhaps there is a deeper explanation. And that will be an object of study of the next theory of gravity. But the simple fact is, GR makes sense, it has been extremely(!) vilified 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. Akhir dari cerita. 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. Anda tidak bisa. 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? Tidak ada. Exactly nothing. We are stretching in exact proportion with the rest of the universe so everything appears to be identical at all points to us whether or not you stretch it. The only way out of this conclusion is to imagine that you, as the observer, somehow live outside of the space that is stretching instead of being within it. At any rate, you haven't addressed the concern.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        First of all, you cannot speak for Einstein; he is long dead. Second, if QST claims that spacetime requires additional dimensions in order to be warped, then QST breaks Relativity. Akhir dari cerita. 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.

        Anda benar. 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 mengatakan:

          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. Saya mengatakan:

    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.

    Sebuah kuantum sesuatu adalah mungkin unit terkecil dari hal itu. Sebuah kuantum ruang adalah "gelembung" di luar yang tidak ada definisi ruang. Namun, ada ruang di dalam gelembung, entah bagaimana.

    Gravitasi direpresentasikan sebagai gradien kepadatan ruang quanta. Tapi gravitasi disebabkan oleh materi. Materi tidak ruang. Bagaimana hal ini bahkan masuk akal?

    Waktu adalah resonansi ruang quanta. Mengapa? Bagaimana? Apa alasan mengarah pada kesimpulan ini?

    Jika ada 11 dimensi, mengapa kita tidak bisa melihat mereka? String Theory mengatakan yang ekstra meringkuk sangat kecil. QST tampaknya memiliki dimensi ekstra hanya semacam ... mengambang di luar sana ...

    • Geo mengatakan:

      Mari saya menjawab pertanyaan ini sebaik mungkin satu per satu:

      "Pi merupakan jumlah terkecil kelengkungan ruang-waktu mungkin dalam. (Karakter Rusia) merupakan jumlah terbesar. "

      [Karakter Rusia adalah "Zhe"]

      Dalam relativitas umum rasio lingkar diameter pergi ke nol setiap kali lubang hitam berada di wilayah yang kelengkungan sedang dijelaskan (karena penyebut, diameter lingkaran berpusat pada lubang hitam, pergi ke infinity jika ruang-waktu adalah lubang terus menerus dan hitam adalah nol ukuran). Mekanika kuantum memiliki masalah dengan itu infinity di penyebut. Hal itu bertentangan dengan relativitas umum dalam hal ini dan memotong infinity ini dengan klaimnya bahwa jarak terkecil di ruang adalah panjang Planck. Qst setuju dengan klaim ini dan geometri yang menawarkan kita cara untuk kuantitatif menentukan ekspresi untuk kelengkungan maksimum yang ditetapkan oleh yang memotong. Mengapa ini menarik? Hal ini menarik karena, jika hal itu benar, maka itu berarti bahwa ada dua nomor berdimensi melekat dalam peta geometris ruang-waktu, dikombinasikan dengan lima nilai Planck yang dihasilkan dari kuantisasi tersebut. Ini membawa kita ke sesuatu yang bahkan lebih menarik ... Apapun angka ini geometris lainnya adalah, nilainya harus antara nol dan pi. Menyempit ke bawah lebih ada harapan yang kuat bahwa itu adalah antara 0 dan 0,7. Jadi klaim model geometris ini adalah bahwa ada beberapa angka antara 0 dan 0,7 itu, dapat dikombinasikan dengan 5 parameter Planck, dan pi, untuk nonarbitrarily memproduksi atau "encode" efek geometris yang melekat dalam ruang-waktu - konstanta alam. Ternyata ada nomor seperti itu, dan itu terjadi jatuh dalam kisaran itu. (Lihat konstanta halaman Nature di situs ini.) Ini cukup signifikan untuk menjamin upaya saat ini untuk secara teoritis memperoleh nilai yang tepat dari nomor ini dari pertimbangan geometris.

      "QST adalah 11 dimensi meskipun ruang nyata adalah 3 dimensi, bagian dalam" gelembung "adalah 3 dimensi, dan ruang" gelembung "bergerak melalui 3 dimensi adalah, dan tidak ada yang memisahkan wilayah-wilayah dari satu sama lain.

      Sebuah kuantum sesuatu adalah mungkin unit terkecil dari hal itu. Sebuah kuantum ruang adalah "gelembung" di luar yang tidak ada definisi ruang. Namun, ada ruang di dalam gelembung, entah bagaimana. "

      Saya tidak yakin saya mengerti pertanyaan ini (benar), tapi aku akan mengambil menusuk itu. Paragraf pertama adalah semacam apa QST yang mendalilkan, dengan beberapa peringatan penting. Pertama, ruang antara kuanta sehari-hari kami ruang tidak ruang per se, kita menyebutnya sebagai Superspace, dan juga ruang dalam kuanta ruang disebut sebagai intraspace. Jika ruang dikuantisasi ruang-ruang lainnya (super dan intra) manifest (jika Anda mengizinkan bahwa kuantum ruang adalah volume daripada titik). Jika kuanta ruang dalam volume Bahkan, dua set lain dari "ruang" yang diperlukan dan berbeda dari ruang normal. Analogi bar emas datang ke pikiran. Jika Anda membagi bar emas turun ke komponen terkecil, komponen yang masih bisa dianggap emas, Anda akan mencapai titik di mana Anda bisa terus membagi konstituen (atom dalam kasus ini) lebih lanjut, tapi apa hasil dari pemisahan ini lebih lanjut dapat tidak lagi dianggap emas. Dalam analogi ini, Anda telah melampaui makna "emas" dengan memisahkan atom emas tetapi, seperti yang kita ketahui, ada banyak lagi membelah yang dapat dilakukan. Anda tidak bisa mengandalkan unit emas dengan menghitung neutron, misalnya. Pertanyaan yang bagus sekalipun. Bergulat dengan masalah ini merupakan inti dari memahami apa artinya untuk mengatakan bahwa kain x, y, z ruang adalah terkuantisasi. Sisa gambar tidak akan masuk akal sampai ini intuitif diserap. Apakah ini mendapatkan apa yang Anda minta?

      "Gravity direpresentasikan sebagai gradien kepadatan ruang quanta. Tapi gravitasi disebabkan oleh materi. Materi tidak ruang. Bagaimana hal ini bahkan masuk akal? "

      Pertama-tama, ya, benar-benar, gravitasi direpresentasikan sebagai gradien kepadatan ruang quanta. Pertanyaan Anda mungkin mencoba untuk mendapatkan di adalah, apa yang menyebabkan gradien kerapatan ini untuk membentuk? Ketika gradien kerapatan tongkat bersama-sama quanta membangun sekitar mereka konglomerat. Semua bentuk energi yang terwujud dalam x, y, z, t adalah distorsi hanya geometris dalam ruang-waktu. Gelombang kepadatan bisa riak melalui medium - itu salah satu cara untuk mendukung distorsi geometris. (Sesuatu seperti ini akan dikatakan memiliki energi yang setara dengan beberapa jumlah massa diam, tetapi tidak bisa ada saat istirahat itu sendiri.) Cara lain adalah dengan memiliki distorsi geometrik yang stabil adalah memiliki kuanta yang terjebak bersama-sama. Setelah sekelompok kuanta terjebak bersama-sama, kuanta individual sekitarnya, bergerak dan, untuk sebagian besar, ellastically berinteraksi, akan membentuk gradien kerapatan karena konservasi momentum. Sebuah kuanta tunggal menabrak dua akan meninggalkan dua bergerak jauh lebih lambat daripada yang asli. Gerakan lambat berkonsentrasi di sekitar rumpun, dan, gerakan lambat membuat kepadatan yang lebih besar. Jadi permanant, atau setidaknya stabil distorsi geometris, seperti kuanta saling menempel, adalah massa dalam model ini.

      "Waktu adalah resonansi ruang quanta. Mengapa? Bagaimana? Apa alasan mengarah pada kesimpulan ini? "

      Ini adalah pertanyaan besar dan itu bisa menggunakan beberapa penyelidikan lebih. Seperti berdiri sekarang, kita bisa mengatakan bahwa fakta bahwa dimensi familiar kita sebut waktu dapat berkembang pada tingkat yang berbeda menunjukkan waktu yang berhubungan dengan satu gerakan khusus, bukan semua gerakan. Apa gerak itu? Menurut QST gerak yang merupakan resonations dari kuanta ruang. Ini memberi kita cara untuk memiliki kejelasan ontologis tentang apa bahkan berarti untuk mengatakan bahwa sedikit waktu telah berlalu di satu wilayah daripada yang lain. Klaim seperti itu agak membingungkan tanpa sesuatu untuk perbandingan. Dengan kata lain, tanpa semacam ini penjelasan kita masih mengalami masalah yang di mana-mana dalam waktu alam semesta lewat pada tingkat satu detik per detik. Itu merupakan sumber kebingungan kecuali perbandingan Anda tidak refleksi diri. Di sini kita menjadi mampu memahami perkembangan waktu, di semua lokasi dalam ruang, sebagai sesuatu yang dapat didefinisikan dalam kaitannya dengan supertime. Ini membutuhkan lebih banyak elaborasi, tapi pasti mulai berharga.

      "Jika ada 11 dimensi, mengapa kita tidak bisa melihat mereka? String Theory mengatakan yang ekstra meringkuk sangat kecil. QST tampaknya memiliki dimensi ekstra hanya semacam ... mengambang di luar sana ... "

      Pertama-tama, perlu dicatat bahwa alasan teori string untuk mengapa kita tidak dapat melihat dimensi-dimensi tambahan persis sama di QST. Bahkan, kita dapat melihat efek bahwa keberadaan dimensi ini mendikte. Masukan sebaliknya kita melihat efek yang membingungkan bagi kita (mekanika kuantum secara umum dan beberapa orang lain) dan mereka tidak menemukan solusi atau penyebab kecuali kita intuisi dimensi ekstra. Pertanyaan ini tidak memisahkan QST dari teori string. Dimensi-dimensi lain akan jelas terlihat jika kita bisa melihat hal-hal di panjang Planck. Tapi kita tidak bisa (belum?). Jadi kita tidak melihat mereka.

      Saya berharap hal ini setidaknya menjelaskan hal-hal sedikit. Tolong beritahu saya jika saya sudah disalahartikan pertanyaan Anda.

      • Jon mengatakan:

        Saya memiliki beberapa pertanyaan. Jika saya mengerti benar ini, teori ini akan memprediksi bahwa graviton legendaris tidak akan pernah ditemukan, yang benar? Karena jika gravitasi tidak berlaku, maka tidak akan ada kekuatan partikel, kan? Juga, bagaimana medan Higgs masuk ke dalam semua ini? Saya tidak benar-benar melihat ruang untuk itu dalam model ini, tetapi sekali lagi saya tidak ahli fisika. Dapatkah Anda menjelaskan?

        • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

          Jon,
          Ya Anda benar, hal ini memprediksi bahwa graviton tidak ada. Adapun pertanyaan Anda yang lain, saya kirimkan respon terhadap Peter dalam "Pertanyaan dan Jawaban" bagian yang harus menjelaskan masalah ini dengan medan Higgs untuk Anda. :-) Jika Anda masih memiliki pertanyaan setelah membaca bahwa tolong beritahu saya.

  5. Phyn mengatakan:

    Hal pertama yang saya katakan adalah bahwa saya pikir itu mengagumkan bahwa Thad terpikir teori ini dan memasukkannya ke depan. Pemikiran seperti ini ke depan dibutuhkan di bidang fisika hari ini, dan saya sendiri berharap untuk melakukan hal yang sama di masa depan.

    Hal ini jelas teori yang menarik, tapi aku punya beberapa masalah dengan video ini, setidaknya (beberapa mungkin timbul dari ketidaktahuan saya):

    1. Thad mengklaim bahwa penafsiran umum dimensi spasial 4 hanya sebagai trik matematika untuk menjelaskan gravitasi. Tapi itu klaim palsu. Kebanyakan fisikawan melakukan pekerjaan yang tidak terpengaruh oleh apakah gravitasi adalah kekuatan atau dimensi lain. Sehingga mereka dapat menggunakan interpretasi yang salah, tapi karena itu hanya akan memperumit hal untuk mereka tanpa melakukan apa-apa untuk mereka. Para fisikawan yang bekerja dengan ruang-waktu, astrofisikawan dan kosmolog, perlu tahu persis apa gravitasi dan mereka menentukan gravitasi sebagai dimensi ruang 4, bukan kekuatan.

    2. Massa warps dimensi spasial 4. Jadi menggunakan metafora berat warping trampolin benar-benar berlaku.

    3. Thad mengklaim bahwa Planck panjang gelembung bergerak. Mengapa? Tidak harus ruang menjadi struktur kaku, grid? Jika kuanta ruang bergerak seperti partikel udara, mereka akan mematuhi sesuatu yang mirip dengan mekanika statistik. Itu berarti ada kemungkinan non-diabaikan memiliki gumpalan besar quanta dan besar bagian yang kekurangan ruang sama sekali. Dan dengan definisi Thad waktu bagian tersebut juga akan bergerak lebih cepat atau lebih lambat melalui waktu. Perhatikan bahwa bagian ini akan muncul tanpa alasan sama sekali selain sifat probabilistik dari kuanta ruang-waktu bergerak di sekitar dan menabrak satu sama lain. Hal ini pasti tidak terlihat di alam semesta.

    Argumen 4. Thad untuk dimensi ekstra memiliki inkonsistensi. Jika panjang Planck adalah jarak terkecil yang dapat diukur atau ditentukan, tidak masuk akal untuk menentukan dimensi baru untuk menjelaskan posisi pada lebih kecil dari skala Planck. Mereka berarti apa-apa pada kedua manusia, tingkat matematika dan pada tingkat fisika alam semesta.

    5. Saya mengerti bahwa ada lebih banyak teori ini, tetapi Thad gagal untuk menjelaskan bagaimana atau mengapa materi dan energi seperti yang kita lihat sekarang mempengaruhi kuanta ruang. Aku menduga ini dijelaskan lebih lanjut ke teori. Juga, bagaimana cahaya masuk ke dalam teori ini? Cahaya selalu bergerak pada c, meskipun dengan teori ini yang akan menunjukkan bahwa cahaya entah bagaimana terpisah dari ruang dimensi 11 ini. (Secara pribadi, saya tidak punya masalah dengan ide itu dan telah memiliki yang sama berpikir sendiri. Tapi itu perlu diperhitungkan.)

    6. Jika skala panjang Planck jauh lebih kecil dari partikel apapun, bagaimana mungkin untuk terowongan kuantum terjadi? Tampaknya sangat tidak mungkin untuk elektron untuk bergerak melalui super-ruang tanpa memukul kuanta lain ruang untuk jarak lebih dari 10 kali lipat lebih besar dari panjang Planck. Tentu, hal itu mungkin terjadi setiap sekarang dan kemudian, tapi kemungkinan akan jauh lebih kecil dari apa yang dilihat sekarang.

  6. Thad Roberts mengatakan:

    Phyn,

    Terima kasih atas komentar dan pertanyaan. Biarkan saya mencoba untuk mengatasi beberapa komentar Anda sebaik yang saya bisa.

    1. komentar saya tentang gravitasi yang Anda maksud itu dimaksudkan untuk menjadi dalam referensi untuk model visual gravitasi, tidak persamaan fisikawan gunakan untuk mewakili atau apa yang mereka anggap benar tentang gravitasi. Karena mereka telah bekerja begitu lama di bawah kekangan Euclidean (atau bahkan non-Euclidean tapi terus menerus) metrik, fisikawan menggunakan representasi dimensi berkurang. Anda benar dalam menunjukkan bahwa ini tidak berarti bahwa mereka tidak atribut keberadaan gravitasi sebagai hasil dari interaksi dengan dimensi ruang yang lain. Apa yang saya setelah adalah model intuitif dan akurat, representasi baru, untuk geometri Alam yang memberi kita akses intuitif penuh untuk hal-hal yang saat ini tidak memiliki akses intuitif untuk. Dengan kata lain, poin saya adalah bahwa diagram yang 'lembaran karet' tidak memberi kita akses intuitif LENGKAP apa gravitasi, mengapa memiliki sifat yang dimilikinya, dan sebagainya. Tujuan saya adalah untuk datang ke model itu memberi kita akses.

    2. Gagasan berat sayangnya memainkan off dari intuisi kita bahwa sesuatu dengan berat ditarik ke bawah oleh gravitasi. Aku baik-baik saja dengan mengatakan bahwa kehadiran massa warps trampolin, tapi segera setelah kami katakan membuat representasi kami berdasarkan konsep bahwa berat yang warps trampolin, kita sekarang menggunakan beberapa gagasan tentang gravitasi (berat sama kekuatan gravitasi dikalikan dengan massa) dalam jawaban kami untuk apa yang gravitasi. Hal ini akan mengurangi utilitas dari jawaban kami. Itulah poin saya. Saya tidak mengejek nilai trampolin dengan cara apapun. Saya suka bahwa itu adalah upaya untuk menjadi model yang bisa kita akses untuk setidaknya sebagian memperoleh pemahaman intuitif tentang bagaimana gravitasi bekerja. Aku hanya mencari model yang berjalan sedikit lebih jauh.

    3. Secara teknis saya tidak benar-benar mengklaim apa-apa (tidak pula orang lain yang bekerja di QST). Kami, bagaimanapun, hipotesa tentang geometri ruang-waktu dan melihat di mana hipotesis kami membawa kita. Kami sedang mengatur beberapa aksioma untuk ruang dan memeriksa untuk melihat apakah mereka aksioma membuat sebuah sistem yang secara alami mengandung apa yang saat ini kita sebut misterius. Sebagai ilmuwan kita memahami bahwa set kita saat aksioma mungkin berubah menjadi salah, tapi sejauh ini mereka memimpin kita untuk sesuatu yang cukup menjanjikan. Selain itu, kami percaya, karena Anda tampaknya, bahwa bahkan jika kita akhirnya membuktikan bahwa kita set aksioma tidak meniru pembangunan kain Alam, mengeksplorasi ide-ide baru adalah apa ilmu adalah semua tentang. Benar atau salah, ada banyak belajar dari proses kami lakukan.

    Anda benar dalam mencatat bahwa asumsi kita saat ini tentang struktur x, y, z ruang menggambarkan kuanta bergerak di sekitar, yang membuat representasi sesuatu yang mirip dengan mekanika statistik (maka banyak efek mekanika kuantum yang kita lihat di alam). Saya ingin tahu mengapa Anda berpikir bahwa struktur ruang-waktu harus entah bagaimana dibatasi menjadi grid kaku. Pada akhirnya Anda mungkin benar tentang ruang-waktu memiliki properti ini, tapi pada saat ini saya tidak melihat alasan untuk menganggap ini sebagai contraint kasar. Juga, titik Anda membuat tentang memiliki bagian ruang yang akan berkembang pada tingkat yang berbeda melalui waktu benar-benar benar, namun hanya berlaku untuk skala yang sangat kecil (kecuali kepadatan gradien makroskopik hadir = ruang-waktu melengkung). Ketika kita bergerak ke skala makroskopis (seperti 10 ^ -25 meter, atau 10 ^ -34 detik) efek ini dicuci untuk alasan statistik yang sama Anda tunjukkan sebelumnya.

    4. Saya minta maaf jika saya salah bicara atau menyebabkan kebingungan pada titik ini. Dalam sistem kami panjang Planck didefinisikan sebagai unit terkecil dari kuantum x, y, z. Sama seperti atom emas adalah unit smalls dari kesempatan emas, kuantum ruang adalah unit terkecil dari setiap x, y, z Volume. Itu tidak masuk akal untuk berbicara tentang kurang dari satu atom emas, atau untuk memvisualisasikan membelah atom emas, tetapi tidak masuk akal untuk terus memanggil apa yang Anda berakhir dengan sebagian kecil dari atom emas. Setelah Anda pergi lebih kecil dari satu atom emas Anda telah melampaui definisi emas. Anda tidak memiliki emas lagi di akal. Pada titik ini Anda dipaksa untuk mengakui bahwa apa yang Anda miliki adalah sesuatu yang sama sekali berbeda dari emas. Hal yang sama berlaku untuk sistem geometris kami. Karena kita telah menyiapkan ruang aksioma yang mendefinisikan media x, y, z sebagai terdiri dari kuanta, terdiri dari unit dasar, kita tidak bisa bicara tentang unit yang lebih kecil dan masih berbicara tentang apa pun di x, y, ranah z. Ini, bagaimanapun, tidak menghambat kita dari berbicara tentang sesuatu yang lebih kecil. Ini hanya memerlukan bahwa ketika kita melakukannya kita mengakui bahwa kita sedang berbicara tentang sesuatu yang lain. Sebanyak kita berbicara tentang dimensi spasial, posisi dalam kuanta tunggal menempati posisi superspatial yang berbeda, tetapi mereka posisi yang berbeda tidak merefleksikan x, y, z metrik. Geometri cukup menarik matematis karena merupakan peta sepenuhnya dibalik. Dengan kata lain, itu adalah fraktal geometris yang sempurna. Ternyata, sistem ini juga tampaknya datang dengan beberapa sifat (seperti karakter statistik Anda sebutkan sebelumnya) yang cukup sugestif dari efek mekanika kuantum.

    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?

      Terima kasih lagi,
      Phyn

  7. Thad Roberts mengatakan:

    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.

    Saya berharap yang membantu.

    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 mengatakan:

      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.

      Hormat kami,
      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 mengatakan:

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

          • Stephen says:

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

  9. Stefan palmer says:

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

    • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

      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 mengatakan:

    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 mengatakan:

      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'

    Terimakasih banyak,

    -Gary
    Humble Student, The Open University (UK)

    • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

      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 mengatakan:

      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 mengatakan:

    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!

    Salam hormat,

    Daniel

    • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

      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

    Saya hanya baru-baru ditemukan pekerjaan Anda saat kenalan pikiran, penulis AA Attanasio, menyarankan aku memeriksa pekerjaan Anda dan sejak itu saya telah menyaksikan semua yang saya bisa dan membaca komentar ini benang dengan bunga yang besar. Aku benar-benar tidak latar belakang ilmiah tapi telah mengejar teori selama 15 tahun terakhir yang menjelaskan semua fenomena ini secara intuitif sebagai satu keseluruhan meyakinkan. Apa yang saya temukan mengejutkan adalah berapa banyak kesimpulan yang sama dan seberapa mirip grand gambar adalah. Saya berani mengatakan bahwa saya percaya saya memiliki sesuatu yang signifikan untuk berkontribusi teori Anda tetapi akan terburu-buru tanpa mempelajari seluruh dokumen Anda. Saya mencoba untuk menemukannya di Kindle tidak berhasil. Apakah mungkin bahwa aku bisa memiliki salinan buku Anda juga? Ini akan menjadi sangat dihargai dan perluasan pada apa yang sudah penegasan yang luar biasa.

  19. Niklas mengatakan:

    Jadi, saya pikir saya mengikuti semua ini cukup baik, kecuali bagaimana kuanta yang membuat masalah seperti yang kita kenal.
    Pikiran saya adalah seluruh tempat, jadi saya minta maaf jika Anda tersesat, haha.
    Bagaimana quanta tetap bersama-sama? Apakah geometri stabil tergantung pada faktor-faktor seperti suhu, jarak, biaya, dll? (Ada 5 yang kita tahu, kan?) Apakah setiap kuanta memiliki nilai yang unik untuk masing-masing? Atau bereaksi TO yang jumlah dalam bidang sekitarnya? Dan jangan quanta ini akhirnya tetap bersama-sama sehingga mereka membentuk, katakanlah, quark? Dan tergantung pada geometri mereka membentuk quark yang berbeda? Kemudian mereka quark membentuk geometri yang berbeda menjadi partikel? Apa berhenti kuanta dari terus terjebak? Konstanta alam? Bagaimana mereka didefinisikan?

    Pertanyaan kedua, agak:
    Bagaimana kita jelaskan melemparkan bola lurus ke udara? Bola bergerak melalui bidang yang sangat padat quanta, tetapi apa yang menarik langsung kembali turun? Fakta bahwa "bawah" dari bola memantul dari kuanta lebih dari "atas" bola?

    • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

      Hi Niklas,

      Ini adalah pertanyaan besar. Saya akan memberikan jawaban singkat di sini, tapi saya telah ditulis lebih rinci penjelasan tentang ini sangat topik dalam buku saya. Jika Anda tidak memiliki itu saya kirimkan email meminta itu dan saya akan lulus bersama.

      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. Yohanes mengatakan:

    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 mengatakan:

      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 mengatakan:

      Terima kasih. 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 mengatakan:

      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 mengatakan:

      Tentu saja. 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 mengatakan:

      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.

      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 mengatakan:

      Hi Elizabeth,
      Terima kasih atas dukungan Anda. 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 mengatakan:

      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?
    Terima kasih
    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?

    Terima kasih
    stewart

    • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

      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). Apakah itu benar?

    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. Terima kasih.

    • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

      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 mengatakan:

          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 :)
    Terima kasih
    Bye

    • Thad Roberts mengatakan:

      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. 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.

Tinggalkan balasan




Jika Anda ingin gambar untuk menunjukkan dengan komentar anda, pergi mendapatkan Gravatar.