81

Perbualan: Bahagian Satu

Perbualan: Bahagian Satu, penampilan pertama. Ini adalah yang pertama daripada enam 'perbualan' pada teori ruang kuantum (QST). Dalam episod ini, Thad Roberts ringkasan keseluruhan teori ruang kuantum, menunjukkan kepada kita bagaimana untuk menggambarkan dimensi sebelas. Tiada teori lain (teori Superstring, M-teori, supergravity, dll) telah dapat menawarkan kemanusiaan seperti tingkap terang ke dalam struktur dimensi lengkap Alam. Pendekatan intuitif membawa keluasan baru untuk imaginasi manusia dan menawarkan wawasan menarik intelek baru yang mempunyai potensi untuk mengubah dunia dengan mengubah cara kita melihatnya. Keupayaan untuk memahami dan intuitif memahami dimensi sebelas set pentas untuk menjawab misteri terbesar dalam fizik.

Ulasan (81)

URL Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Nunya Bizness berkata:

    Tiada seorang pun daripada apa yang anda katakan adalah benar. Saya tidak akan mengambil masa untuk menyangkal semua video ini, tetapi biarlah saya katakan ini:

    Relatif tidak "salah", dalam erti kata bahawa anda membuat tuntutan. Adalah salah dalam erti kata bahawa teori yang lebih tepat satu hari nanti akan datang bersama-sama. Tetapi setakat ini ia adalah teori yang paling tepat graviti yang pernah dikemukakan.

    Saya akan terangkan untuk anda bagaimana ia berfungsi, kerana anda jelas tidak faham.

    Relatif (GR) memungut mana Relativiti Khas meninggalkan off; iaitu: idea bahawa ruang dan masa adalah satu entiti yang tidak boleh dipisahkan dipanggil ruang-masa. Soalan yang jelas adalah, "apa yang geometri ruang-masa?" Anda mungkin menganggap ruang-masa yang Euclid. Anda akan salah.

    Yang asas asas matematik GR ialah geometri kebezaan, yang merupakan aplikasi kalkulus multidimensi dengan objek geometri. Via geometri pembezaan, semua konsep geometri ruang yang boleh disimpulkan daripada satu objek matematik yang dikenali sebagai metrik. Metrik adalah tensor yang boleh digunakan untuk mengira jarak di antara dua titik di ruang angkasa. Jadi metrik sepenuhnya menyifatkan geometri ruang. Euclid metrik n-ruang adalah matriks nxn yang penyertaan semua sifar, kecuali pepenjuru, di mana penyertaan semua 1. Jika anda menggunakan ini untuk menjana jarak di antara dua titik di ruang angkasa, anda akan dikembalikan Pythagoras biasa teorem: a ^ 2 + b ^ 2 = c ^ 2 (ambil perhatian bahawa ini adalah versi 2-dimensi teorem, ia boleh umum dengan cara yang jelas kepada mana-mana dimensi ruang Euclid).

    Ruang-masa, untuk anggaran yang sangat baik, Euclid. Tetapi untuk menjadi lebih tepat, ia tidak. Ini menjadi amat ketara pada jarak yang sangat besar, pada kelajuan yang sangat besar, atau dalam bidang graviti yang tinggi. Metrik untuk ruang-masa adalah sama dengan metrik Euclid, kecuali bahawa kemasukan pepenjuru dalam ruang masa mempunyai tanda yang bertentangan dari yang lain daripada entri pepenjuru.

    Apakah kesan daripada ini? Nah, teorem biasa dari geometri Euclid adalah jarak yang terdekat antara dua titik adalah garis lurus. Dalam ruang-masa, ini tidak begitu. Oleh kerana keputusan asas dari Relativiti Khas bahawa saya tidak akan mendapat di sini (membaca mana-mana buku teks undergrad relativiti khas), jumlah masa yang diukur oleh pemerhati adalah bergantung kepada jalan yang dia bergerak melalui ruang-masa. Ini dipanggil masa yang sesuai. Oleh kerana sifat bukan Euclid ruang masa, jarak yang terdekat antara dua mata sebenarnya yang mengurangkan masa yang sesuai. Dengan kata lain, zipping di luar pinggir galaksi pada kelajuan cahaya dan kemudian kembali akan memerlukan masa yang kurang untuk anda dalam kapal angkasa anda daripada ia akan bagi saya untuk tunggu sementara anda pergi dalam perjalanan anda. Ini adalah paradoks kembar yang terkenal.

    Bagaimanapun, hasil daripada ini adalah bahawa, oleh prinsip variational (yang sepatutnya menjadi biasa kepada anda jika anda telah terdedah kepada mekanik Lagrange, yang saya mengesyaki anda tidak mempunyai ...), objek di dalam ruang-masa cenderung untuk perjalanan dengan jalan yang mengurangkan masa yang tepat. Seperti yang dinyatakan sebelum ini, masa yang tetap dipendekkan oleh perjalanan pada kelajuan tinggi, atau berada dalam medan graviti.

    Ambillah, sebagai contoh, epal di atas pokok. Epal akan cuba untuk mengurangkan masa yang betul. Ia akan melakukan ini dengan bergerak ke arah medan graviti - iaitu, Bumi. Ini menyebabkan daya tarikan antara epal dan planet ini. Dalam erti kata lain, masa depan mata worldlike epal ke arah pusat bumi.

    Itulah bagaimana graviti berfungsi, secara ringkas. Hakikat bahawa anda tidak tahu ini obviates ketidakcekapan anda yang akan cuba untuk bekerja dalam bidang ini. Tetapi ia adalah masa anda sendiri untuk buang, saya rasa ...

    • Geo berkata:

      Jadi, biarlah saya mendapatkan ini lurus ... epal akan cuba mengurangkan masa yang betul dengan menggerakkan ke arah medan graviti dan itulah yang graviti (dalam erti ontologi yang kuat). Mengapa epal cuba untuk mengurangkan masa yang betul? Apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan medan graviti? Apakah graviti? Komen anda tidak benar-benar menjawab mana-mana soalan atau juga membantu menjelaskan mereka. Apa yang anda lakukan adalah menetapkan satu bidang ilmu yang menarik epal.

      • Chandan Srivastava berkata:

        distence singkat boleh menjadi ukuran oleh kalkulus ubahan.

        • Thad Roberts berkata:

          Anda di tepat untuk mengatakan jarak yang singkat boleh diukur dengan menggunakan kalkulus perubahan, selagi metrik kita bercakap tentang adalah lancar dan yang berkaitan. Dalam metrik terkuantum isu itu boleh mendapatkan sedikit lebih rumit.

          • Pierre Rousseau berkata:

            "Dalam metrik terkuantum isu itu boleh mendapatkan sedikit lebih rumit." - Thad Roberts.

            Itulah sebabnya komplikasi lanjut boleh digunakan untuk butiran kuantum seperti ia terpakai bagi semua objek. Semua objek percepts, termasuk konsep. Semua realiti kewujudan (kesedaran) adalah fenomenologi atau naratif. Kesilapan ini bukan sahaja konsep ghaib. Ia adalah lebih akut perceptualization daripada supernarrative itu. Dalam erti kata lain, penimbulan dewa mistik, dan doa orang yang bernyawa sebagai objek kemahuan diskret berdiri dalam membina bersama.

            Bagi kalkulus pembezaan. Ia juga tidak bermula untuk memulakan pembicaraan hal kewujudan. Itu hanyalah satu lagi cerita kedut lucu.

      • Peter Martin berkata:

        "Apa yang graviti?" "Apa IS medan graviti?" Ini adalah pseudo "IS" soalan yang, dengan sifat mereka tidak akan dapat dijawab.

        Anda boleh menikmati membaca tentang Persatuan Ganeral Semantik diketuai oleh Alfred Korzybski yang eschewed kenyataan dan soalan yang utama (atau sahaja) kata kerja adalah satu bentuk "menjadi".

    • Jon berkata:

      Untuk Nunya: semua yang anda katakan adalah semua baik dan baik, tetapi anda tidak menjelaskan satu perkara: apa yang medan graviti? Kerelatifan am menerangkan kesan graviti, tetapi ia masih tidak benar-benar menjelaskan apa graviti. Seperti dia berkata di dalam video itu, kami telah terpaksa menganggap graviti iaitu daya. Tetapi jika ia adalah, mengapa ia begitu amat lemah berbanding dengan kuasa-kuasa lain? Relativiti adalah satu teori yang hebat untuk perkara-perkara besar, tetapi ia menjelaskan apa-apa pada skala subatom. Sekurang-kurangnya teori ini memberikan peraturan yang sama untuk seluruh alam semesta pada setiap skala. Dan ia memberi penjelasan yang baik daripada apa masa.

  2. Nunya Bizness berkata:

    Ia adalah prinsip inersia: objek akan bergerak dalam garis lurus melainkan jika diambil tindakan oleh daya. Takrif "garis lurus" adalah jalan yang mengurangkan jarak.

    Pokok GR ialah ruang tidak rata, dan graviti yang merupakan manifestasi ruang masa meleding. Ledingan yang menyebabkan garis lurus (yang mengurangkan masa yang tetap) kepada arka ke arah keping massa - dalam erti kata lain, objek menarik satu sama lain.

    Relatif adalah teori yang sangat kompleks. Apa yang saya tulis adalah mustahil ringkas crash-pengenalan kepadanya. Bukan hanya menjadi ragu-ragu mengenai segala-galanya dan menolak ia keluar dari tangan, mengapa tidak benar-benar membaca buku teks pada Relativiti? Adalah sukar untuk mengatakan bahawa anda telah menafikan Relativiti tanpa memahami terlebih dahulu ...

    • Geo berkata:

      Pertama sekali, saya (dan saya tidak Thad, jadi saya tidak bercakap untuk beliau) tidak ragu-ragu am GR. Ia telah membuktikan dirinya sebanyak mana-mana teori boleh. Malah, saya rasa, bersebelahan dengan teori atom purba Yunani, ia adalah teori (fizik) manusia yang paling penting kejayaan yang pernah dibuat. Yang berkata, saya tidak fikir ia selesai, tidak juga Einstein sendiri. Apa yang saya tidak fikir anda memahami bahawa QST adalah lanjutan kepada gr. Ia adalah dalam pelbagai cara, pengkuantuman GR (dari berterusan kepada sistem diskret). Anda seolah-olah berfikir bahawa kita trashing GR. Kita tidak. Thad tidak menamakan bukunya "Einstein Gerak hati" daripada walaupun, tetapi kerana menghormati. Jika anda mengambil peduli untuk mendengar apa yang dikatakan dalam video yang anda akan mendapat bahawa diri anda.

      Kedua, QST menegaskan idea yang sama, bahawa graviti adalah manifestasi daripada ruang-masa meleding. Tetapi QST memberikan mekanisme konkrit untuk meleding itu. Graviti adalah, secara literal, perubahan dalam ketumpatan ruang (kecerunan ketumpatan). Saya tidak fikir ini melemparkan GR luar tingkap. Sebaliknya, ia berdiri atas bahu yang besar bagi kedua-dua Einstein dan teori-teorinya.

      Jika anda ingin mempunyai yang kritikal, dialog yang produktif tentang perkara ini, Thad dan saya adalah lebih daripada bersedia untuk berbuat demikian. Permusuhan dan gambaran yang salah daripada QST anda, tetapi tidak menarik kepada kami.

      Cheers,

      Jeff (laman Admin)

      • Nunya Bizness berkata:

        Maksud saya tidak adalah bahawa anda menghentam GR. Ia adalah bahawa anda salah faham, dan akibatnya kesimpulan anda menarik adalah tidak betul.

        Sebagai contoh, Thad berkata dalam video yang yang biasa dilihat-"trampolin" gambarajah GR adalah tidak betul kerana ia abai paksi ruang, dan bahawa kita entah bagaimana memerlukan lebih banyak dimensi ruang untuk "menghulurkan ke dalam" untuk GR untuk bekerja. Sudah tentu gambar rajah yang salah - ia hanya metafora. Ia hanya digunakan untuk memperkenalkan konsep ini kepada orang biasa yang, difahami, mempunyai masa yang sukar bergelut dengan pseudo-Riemann manifold 4 dimensi. Untuk berfikir bahawa model mudah merangkumi teori adalah satu kesilapan. Ruang boleh meledingkan tanpa ledingan ke dalam dimensi lain.

        Terdapat begitu banyak isu-isu lain yang tidak persegi dengan matematik ditubuhkan dan fizik, seperti idea bahawa pi mewakili kuantiti kelengkungan (dan ini adalah jumlah minimum kelengkungan). Pi adalah nisbah yang; kelengkungan diukur dengan terbitan separa arah.

        Saya tidak memberitahu anda untuk menghentikan apa yang anda lakukan. Saya memberitahu anda, sebagai seorang yang terlatih dalam matematik dan fizik, bahawa jika anda berminat untuk perkara-perkara ini, anda berada di landasan yang salah, dan ia tidak akan membawa anda di mana-mana yang bermakna. Saya memohon maaf jika itu keras, tetapi perbezaan antara benar dan palsu adalah sangat tajam. Oleh sebab itulah saya memohon anda dan Thad untuk belajar fizik terkemuka seperti Relativiti secara mendalam (iaitu, secara matematik) sebelum anda cuba untuk memperbaiki mereka.

        • Geo berkata:

          Saya menghargai apa yang anda katakan. Saya bukan seorang ahli matematik atau fizik, tetapi lebih kepada yang berminat (dan mungkin lebih berpendidikan) meletakkan orang. Walau bagaimanapun, terdapat beberapa ahli matematik dan ahli fizik teori bekerja pada perasmian QST sekarang dengan Thad. Mereka seolah-olah berfikir bahawa ada sesuatu kepadanya. Orang-orang ini sudah biasa dengan teori-teori dan matematik anda bercakap tentang dalam komen anda. Mereka telah dilakukan lebih daripada membaca teks pengenalan yang anda cadangkan. Yang bukan pakar saya mesti menangguhkan kepada mereka. Yang berkata, tiada seorang pun daripada mereka telah dibuang tangan mereka dan berjalan selepas beberapa bulan bekerja, sebaliknya mereka telah menjadi lebih yakin. Mereka masih berasa ada sesuatu yang akan diperolehi secara saintifik oleh usaha mereka.

          Dari sudut pandangan orang biasa, tawaran QST (kepada saya sekurang-kurangnya) penjelasan untuk pelbagai fenomena berbeza (kedua-dua makroskopik dan mikroskopik) yang menentang penjelasan sehingga hari ini. Salah satu mata Thad adalah bahawa teori yang tidak memberikan penjelasan, tidak banyak teori (yang akan menjadi suntikan pada tafsiran standard mekanik kuantum yang ia kaya layak). Saya difahamkan sehingga perasmian penuh selesai sebahagian besar komuniti saintifik tidak akan memberikan QST masa hari (dan banyak tidak akan walaupun perasmian yang lengkap). Tetapi pada ketika ini, teori itu masih boleh diuji di makmal logik. Mencari kesalahan dengan logik, premisnya, kesimpulan. Itu adalah di mana kita berada sekarang. Setakat ini, untuk pengetahuan saya, tiada siapa yang patahkan mana-mana abstrak teori QST.

          Jelas sekali masih banyak kerja yang perlu dilakukan, tetapi saya percaya (ya ia adalah kepercayaan) yang asas yang kukuh telah dibina. Sebagaimana yang mereka katakan, syaitan ada dalam butiran, dan butir-butir yang sedang diusahakan. Kertas kerja akan ditulis. Rakan-rakan yang akan mengkaji semula.

          Saya menjemput anda untuk membaca keseluruhan buku (yang kami boleh menghantar melalui PDF jika anda mahu).

        • Jon berkata:

          Nunya, di mana kamu manusia? Semua fizik baru pecah tanah yang dilakukan menganggap bahawa terdapat dimensi ruang tambahan. Jika anda begitu yakin bahawa GR adalah menjadi semua akhir semua, kemudian menjelaskan terowong kuantum. Terangkan prinsip ketidakpastian. HE tidak boleh disentuh. Einstein sendiri tidak percaya bahawa lubang hitam benar-benar wujud. Kami kini mempunyai bukti bahawa ada berjuta-juta di mana-mana. GR sama sekali rosak di tengah-tengah lubang hitam. Kita tidak boleh pergi ke hadapan jika kita tidak sanggup melayan kemungkinan dimensi tambahan. Dapatkan dengan program ini.

        • G-bolt berkata:

          Anda digambarkan penjelasan matematik daya. Anda menjelaskan bagaimana mereka berkelakuan tanpa firasat tentang mengapa.

          Model ruang sesat adalah model orang biasa itu, anda boleh menumpahkan sebagai anda menerima andaian ruang yang boleh melengkung dengan cara kita tidak dapat menerima.

          Masalahnya ialah bahawa mengikut definisi sesuatu kepada lengkung (atau mengubah ciri, tidak ada perbezaan) dengan cara yang tidak dapat dilihat kepada kami ia perlu bergerak dalam dimensi lain. Menukar sebarang harta adalah menukar 'dimensi'.

          Membayangkan mereka dimensi dari segi fizikal hanya membuat interaksi mereka lebih mudah untuk memahami atau sekurang-kurangnya memberikan perspektif yang segar.

  3. John berkata:

    Saya rasa (Nunya Bizness) telah benar-benar terlepas mesej di sini. Anda dialu-alukan untuk pendapat anda, tetapi selepas membaca atas komen anda, ia seolah-olah saya bahawa anda telah tersilap tuntutan teori ruang kuantum. Saya tahu penggubalan tidak lagi lengkap, tetapi prinsip-prinsip asas tidak mempunyai kepaduan.

    Saya berminat dalam tuntutan anda bahawa "ruang boleh meledingkan tanpa ledingan ke dalam dimensi lain."

    Aku tidak mendapati alasan yang besar untuk tuntutan ini. Biar saya jelaskan. Untuk mengatakan ruang yang boleh meledingkan tanpa ledingan ke dalam dimensi lain adalah untuk mengatakan bahawa anda mempunyai mekanisme, penjelasan, untuk berapa ruang mungkin meledingkan - bukan sekadar penerangan untuk bagaimana ruang meleding sekitar objek besar-besaran. Walaupun Ia mungkin berubah menjadi kes bahawa ada cara lain untuk ruang untuk meledingkan (selain daripada ledingan ke dalam dimensi lain), apa-apa tuntutan tidak boleh dibuktikan sehingga beberapa jenis contoh yang dikemukakan. Anda tidak boleh hanya berkata, lihat, ruang adalah sesat kerana kita telah diberi ruang metrik yang memberikan kualiti yang meleding. Mencipta perwakilan kualiti yang berlainan sama sekali dari menjelaskan bahawa kualiti. Seperti yang ada sekarang (dalam buku teks moden) erti yang sangat "ruang sesat" adalah tidak boleh diakses. Sudah tentu anda boleh menggunakan matematik untuk mewakilinya, meniru itu, salinan, atau apa sahaja, tetapi matematik yang tidak bermakna bahawa anda mempunyai penjelasan bagi asal-usulnya. Tepat bagaimana ruang-masa meledingkan tanpa ledingan ke dalam dimensi lain (s)? Itulah persoalan utama di tangan. Teori ruang kuantum mengatakan bahawa ia tidak boleh, tetapi ia tidak menolak ruang-masa sesat daripada gambar, sebaliknya ia menjelaskan bagaimana meledingkan datang kira-kira - vindicating Einstein dengan cara yang sangat banyak akan-Nya.

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

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

    • Nunya Bizness says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      At any rate, GR does posit a “mechanism.” Namely, matter warps spacetime. Tempoh. 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 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 berkata:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Ok, let's take your example seriously. Imagine that we all live on the surface of a that band, except for you of course because you are stretching it. As you stretch it and we observe the rest of the universe that we are aware of, which is also contained by the band, what will we see? Apa-apa. 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. Tempoh. 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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

        Curvature is a characteristic.

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

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

        Tepat sekali. 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 berkata:

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

  4. Me says:

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

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

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

    A kuantum sesuatu adalah unit yang paling kecil perkara itu. A kuantum ruang adalah "gelembung" di luar yang tidak ada definisi ruang. Namun, terdapat ruang di dalam gelembung, entah bagaimana.

    Gravity diwakili sebagai kecerunan ketumpatan ruang quanta. Tetapi graviti adalah disebabkan oleh perkara. Perkara bukan ruang. Bagaimana ini masuk akal?

    Masa adalah resonation ruang quanta. Mengapa? Bagaimana? Fikiran yang membawa kepada kesimpulan ini?

    Jika terdapat 11 dimensi, kenapa kita tidak boleh melihat mereka? Teori String kata orang-orang tambahan bergulung sehingga amat kecil. QST seolah-olah mempunyai dimensi tambahan hanya semacam ... terapung di luar sana ...

    • Geo berkata:

      Biar saya menangani soalan-soalan ini sebaik mungkin satu per satu:

      "Pi merupakan jumlah yang paling kecil kelengkungan mungkin dalam ruang-masa. (Watak Russian) mewakili jumlah yang besar. "

      [Watak Rusia adalah "Zhe"]

      Dalam kerelatifan am nisbah lilitan kepada diameter pergi ke sifar apabila lubang hitam di rantau ini yang kelengkungan yang digambarkan (kerana penyebut, diameter bulatan berpusat pada lubang hitam, pergi ke infiniti jika ruang-masa adalah lubang yang berterusan dan hitam adalah sifar bersaiz). Quantum mechanics has a problem with that infinity in the denominator. It conflicts with general relativity on this point and cuts off this infinity with its claim that the smallest distance in space is the Planck length. Qst agrees with this claim and its geometry offers us a way to quantitatively determine an expression for the maximum curvature that is instituted by that cut off. Why is this interesting? It is interesting because, if it is right, then it means that there are two dimensionless numbers inherent in the geometric map of spacetime, combined with the five Planck values that result from the quantization. This takes us to something even more interesting… Whatever this other geometric number is, its value has to be between zero and pi. Narrowing it down more there is strong expectation that it is between 0 and 0.7. So the claim of this geometric model is that there is some number between 0 and 0.7 that, can be combined to the 5 Planck parameters, and pi, to nonarbitrarily produce or “encode” the geometric effects that are inherent in spacetime – the constants of Nature. As it turns out there is such a number, and it happens to fall in that range. (See the constants of Nature page on this site.) This is significant enough to warrant current efforts to theoretically derive the exact value of this number from geometric considerations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Jon says:

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

        • Thad Roberts berkata:

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

  5. Phyn says:

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

    Ia pasti satu teori yang menarik, tetapi saya mempunyai beberapa isu dengan video ini, sekurang-kurangnya (sesetengah mungkin timbul daripada kejahilan saya):

    1. Thad mendakwa bahawa tafsiran umum dimensi ruang-4 adalah sama helah matematik untuk mengambil kira graviti. Tetapi itu adalah satu tuntutan palsu. Kebanyakan ahli fizik melakukan kerja-kerja yang tidak dipengaruhi oleh sama ada graviti adalah satu kuasa atau dimensi lain. Jadi mereka boleh menggunakan tafsiran palsu, tetapi kerana ia hanya akan merumitkan perkara untuk mereka tanpa melakukan apa-apa untuk mereka. Ahli fizik yang melakukan kerja dengan ruang-masa, astrophysicists dan kosmologi, jangan perlu tahu apa yang graviti dan mereka menentukan graviti sebagai dimensi ruang-4, tidak daya.

    2. Mass warps dimensi ruang-4. Jadi menggunakan metafora berat ledingan trampolin adalah sah.

    3. Thad mendakwa bahawa Planck buih panjang bergerak. Mengapa? Tidak perlu ruang menjadi struktur tegar, grid? Jika quanta ruang bergerak seperti zarah udara, mereka akan taat sesuatu yang serupa dengan mekanik statistik. Ini bermakna ada kemungkinan bukan diabaikan mempunyai rumpun besar quanta dan besar bahagian-bahagian yang tidak mempunyai mana-mana ruang sama sekali. Dan dengan definisi Thad ini masa seksyen itu juga akan bergerak lebih cepat atau lebih lambat melalui masa. Perhatikan bahawa bahagian-bahagian ini akan timbul tanpa sebab sama sekali selain sifat berkebarangkalian quanta ruang-masa bergerak dan menghentam satu sama lain. Ini adalah yang paling pasti tidak dilihat dalam alam semesta.

    Hujah 4. Thad untuk dimensi tambahan mempunyai ketidakselarasan. Jika panjang Planck ialah jarak terkecil yang boleh diukur atau ditentukan, ia tidak masuk akal untuk menentukan dimensi baru untuk menjelaskan kedudukan pada lebih kecil daripada skala Planck. Mereka bermakna apa-apa pada kedua-dua manusia, tahap matematik dan kepada tahap fizik alam semesta.

    5. Saya difahamkan bahawa ada yang lebih lagi teori ini, tetapi Thad gagal untuk menjelaskan bagaimana atau mengapa perkara dan tenaga seperti yang kita lihat sekarang menjejaskan quanta ruang. Saya menganggap ini dijelaskan lagi pada teori. Juga, bagaimana cahaya masuk ke dalam teori ini? Light sentiasa bergerak pada c, walaupun dengan teori ini yang akan mencadangkan bahawa cahaya adalah entah bagaimana berasingan daripada ini ruang dimensi 11. (Secara peribadi, saya tidak mempunyai isu dengan idea itu dan mempunyai yang sama memikirkan diri saya. Tetapi ia perlu diambil kira.)

    6. Jika skala panjang Planck adalah jauh lebih kecil daripada apa-apa zarah, bagaimana mungkin untuk terowong kuantum berlaku? Ia seolah-olah sangat tidak mungkin untuk elektron bergerak melalui super-ruang tanpa memukul lain quanta ruang untuk jarak lebih 10 arahan magnitud yang lebih besar daripada panjang Planck. Pasti, ia boleh berlaku sekali-sekala, tetapi kebarangkalian akan menjadi jauh lebih kecil daripada apa yang dilihat sekarang.

  6. Thad Roberts berkata:

    Phyn,

    Terima kasih kerana komen dan soalan anda. Biar saya cuba untuk menangani beberapa komen anda sebaik yang saya boleh.

    1. komen saya tentang graviti yang anda merujuk kepada bertujuan untuk menjadi merujuk kepada model visual graviti, tidak persamaan fizik digunakan untuk mewakili atau apa yang mereka pegang sebagai benar tentang graviti. Oleh kerana mereka telah bekerja sekian lama di bawah sekatan Euclid (atau bukan Euclid tetapi berterusan) metrik, ahli fizik menggunakan perwakilan dimensi dikurangkan. Anda adalah betul dalam menunjukkan bahawa ini tidak bermakna bahawa mereka tidak mengaitkan kewujudan graviti sebagai hasil daripada interaksi dengan satu lagi dimensi ruang. Apa yang saya selepas adalah satu model intuitif dan tepat, perwakilan baru, geometri Alam yang memberikan kami akses intuitif penuh kepada perkara-perkara ini kami tidak mempunyai akses intuitif untuk. Dengan kata lain, maksud saya adalah gambar rajah yang 'lembaran getah' tidak memberikan kita akses intuitif FULL apa graviti adalah, mengapa mempunyai sifat-sifat ia mempunyai, dan sebagainya. Matlamat saya adalah untuk datang ke model yang tidak memberikan kami akses itu.

    2. Tanggapan berat sedih memainkan kira gerak hati kita bahawa sesuatu dengan berat badan ditarik ke bawah oleh graviti. Saya betul-betul halus dengan mengatakan bahawa kehadiran massa warps trampolin, tetapi sebaik sahaja kita katakan membuat representasi kami berdasarkan konsep bahawa ia adalah berat yang warps trampolin, kami kini telah menggunakan beberapa tanggapan graviti (berat sama kekuatan graviti didarab dengan jisim) dalam jawapan kita untuk apa yang graviti. Ini mengurangkan utiliti jawapan kita. Itu adalah pandangan saya. Saya tidak mengejek nilai trampolin dengan cara apapun. Saya suka bahawa ia adalah satu percubaan untuk menjadi model yang boleh kita akses kepada sekurang-kurangnya sebahagiannya memperoleh pemahaman intuitif bagaimana graviti berfungsi. Saya hanya mencari model yang masuk sedikit lagi.

    3. Secara teknikal saya tidak benar-benar mendakwa apa-apa (tidak pula orang lain yang bekerja di QST). Kami, bagaimanapun, hypothesizing tentang geometri ruang-masa dan melihat di mana hipotesis kita membawa kita. Kami menetapkan beberapa aksiom untuk ruang dan memeriksa untuk melihat jika aksiom tersebut mewujudkan satu sistem yang secara semula jadi mengandungi apa yang kita kini memanggil misteri. Sebagai saintis kita faham bahawa set semasa kami aksiom mungkin berubah menjadi tidak betul, tetapi setakat ini mereka membawa kita kepada sesuatu yang cukup menjanjikan. Di samping itu, kami percaya, kerana anda kelihatan, bahawa walaupun kita akhirnya membuktikan bahawa set kami aksiom tidak meniru pembinaan fabrik Alam, meneroka idea-idea baru adalah apa yang sains adalah semua tentang. Betul atau salah, terdapat banyak untuk belajar daripada proses yang kita lakukan ini.

    Anda adalah betul dalam menyatakan bahawa andaian semasa kita tentang struktur x, y, z ruang menggambarkan quanta yang bergerak, yang menjadikan sesuatu perwakilannya serupa dengan mekanik statistik (itu banyak kesan mekanik kuantum yang kita lihat di Alam). Saya ingin tahu mengapa anda berfikir bahawa struktur ruang-masa perlu entah bagaimana dikekang untuk menjadi grid tegar. Akhirnya anda mungkin betul tentang ruang-masa mempunyai harta ini, tetapi pada ketika ini saya melihat tidak ada sebab untuk menganggap ini sebagai contraint kasar. Juga, titik yang anda buat tentang mempunyai bahagian ruang yang akan berkembang pada kadar yang berbeza melalui masa adalah benar-benar betul, bagaimanapun ia hanya terpakai kepada skala yang sangat kecil (kecuali kecerunan ketumpatan makroskopik hadir = ruang-masa melengkung). Seperti yang kita bergerak ke skala makroskopik (seperti 10 ^ -25 meter, atau 10 ^ -34 saat) kesan-kesan ini dibasuh keluar atas sebab yang sama statistik anda berkata sebelum ini.

    4. Saya memohon maaf jika saya misspoke atau menyebabkan kekeliruan mengenai hal ini. Dalam sistem kami panjang Planck ditakrifkan sebagai unit kuantum terkecil x, y, z. Sama seperti atom emas adalah unit smalls suatu peluang emas, kuantum ruang adalah unit terkecil mana-mana x, y, jumlah z. Ia tidak masuk akal untuk bercakap tentang kurang daripada satu atom emas, atau untuk menggambarkan membelah atom emas, tetapi ia tidak masuk akal untuk terus berdoa apa yang anda berakhir dengan sebahagian kecil daripada atom emas. Sebaik sahaja anda pergi lebih kecil daripada satu atom emas anda sudah melampaui definisi emas. Anda tidak mempunyai emas lagi dengan akal. Pada ketika ini anda terpaksa untuk mengakui bahawa apa yang anda ada adalah sesuatu yang sama sekali berbeza daripada emas. Begitu juga dengan sistem geometri kami. Oleh kerana kita telah menubuhkan satu ruang aksiom yang menentukan medium x, y, z seperti yang terdiri daripada quanta, terdiri daripada unit asas, kita tidak boleh bercakap tentang unit yang lebih kecil dan masih bercakap tentang apa-apa dalam x, y, alam z. Walau bagaimanapun, ini tidak menghalang kita dari bercakap tentang sesuatu yang lebih kecil. Ia hanya memerlukan bahawa apabila kita lakukan kita sedar bahawa kita bercakap tentang sesuatu yang lain. Dalam seperti yang kita bercakap tentang dimensi ruang, kedudukan dalam quanta tunggal menduduki jawatan superspatial berbeza, tetapi kedudukan itu berbeza tidak memikirkan x, y, z metrik. Geometri ini agak menarik matematik kerana ia adalah peta penuh disongsangkan. Dalam erti kata lain, ia adalah fraktal geometri yang sempurna. Ternyata, sistem ini juga kelihatan datang dengan ciri-ciri beberapa (seperti watak statistik anda dinyatakan sebelum ini) yang agak senonoh kesan mekanikal kuantum.

    5. soalan Besar. 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 sekali lagi,
      Phyn

  7. Thad Roberts berkata:

    Phyn,

    Soalan yang besar. :-)

    3. Ya, kerana tenaga vakum terdapat beberapa kebarangkalian perkara itu, atau dalam hal ini walaupun lubang hitam makroskopik, boleh membentuk tanpa apa-apa borang sebelum perkara yang membawa kepada pembentukannya. Walau bagaimanapun, untuk mengatakan bahawa ia ditubuhkan tanpa sebarang tenaga telah menyebabkan ia boleh menjadi sedikit regangan. Jika kita menyekat definisi kita tenaga untuk borang-borang tertentu, seperti cahaya atau perkara baryonic, maka kita boleh mengatakan bahawa. Tetapi apa-apa sekatan yang seolah-olah satu tiruan sedikit kepada saya. Tenaga yang sedia ada pada quanta ruang melantun sekitar dan berinteraksi antara satu sama lain akan bertanggungjawab.

    4. Dalam masa metrik terkuantum tiga dimensi antara ruang yang perlu bagi menentukan kedudukan yang lebih tepat daripada x, y, z dimensi membenarkan. Pada tahap yang lebih metafizik (definisi falsafah metafizik tidak umur yang baru) mereka juga membolehkan kita untuk mengakses struktur sebenar alam semesta dan bagaimana struktur yang bertanggungjawab untuk bagaimana perkara ini. Jika kita mengabaikan mereka maka kita akan hilang sebahagian daripada gambar. Dan mentafsir sistem dari pembinaan yang dikurangkan boleh membawa kepada kekeliruan. Secara teknikal pembinaan sebelas dimensi juga hanyalah anggaran sahaja. Tahap seterusnya ketepatan meningkat adalah Metrik disangkal 30 dimensi, kemudian 85, kemudian 248 dan sebagainya. Gambar yang penuh memperkenalkan sebagai fraktal, dan bahawa struktur penuh memberikan kami akses lebih kaya kepada soalan-soalan yang mencapai di luar batasan sistem tempatan kita (Alam Semesta = semua ruang yang dihubungkan dengan yang terakhir Big Bang).

    5. Soalan ini kaya dan bernilai beberapa ketika. Mungkin anda akan berminat untuk membaca preprint buku saya? Bab 8 - Kelajuan Spacetime menjelaskan secara terperinci mengapa kelajuan cahaya adalah tetap mengikut geometri ini, dan mengapa Lorentz penguncupan dan masa pengembangan berlaku. Soalan anda mungkin ditangani dengan lebih terperinci di sana.

    Jika saya memahami soalan anda dengan betul, maka ia mungkin bernilai menunjukkan bahawa mengikut definisi ditubuhkan pada pembinaan kami kuantum ruang tidak mengalami masa menjangkakan dalam kenaikan jumlah keseluruhan masa Planck. Walau bagaimanapun, quanta yang lakukan masih mengalami supertime kerana mereka bergerak melalui superspace. Ini bermakna bahawa perkara yang boleh bergerak dari quanta untuk quanta seperti yang kita pemerhati bergerak melalui masa, tetapi kerana lulus dari satu quanta yang lain melibatkan sifat kenyal quanta (dan begitu juga peredaran masa), sesuatu yang paling cepat boleh bergerak melalui x, y, z ruang adalah bahawa jumlah quanta ia telah berpindah adalah sama dengan jumlah chronons dalam masa itu pemerhati telah berumur. Ini perkara bergerak / tenaga melalui x, y, z ruang tetapi ia tidak bergerak melalui masa (kerana ia tidak mengalami apa-apa resonations bebas). Ia mengubah kedudukan dalam ruang dan pemerhati bergerak melalui masa dengan bilangan yang sama nilai-nilai kuantum. Jadi apa-apa yang bergerak dengan cara ini tidak bergerak melalui ruang, dan kemudian superspace, ruang, superspace, dan sebagainya, dan semua bersama-sama melalui supertime, tetapi ia TIDAK bergerak melalui masa. Ia, bagaimanapun mengalami supertime. Adakah bahawa apa yang anda telah mendapat di?

    Juga, seperti soalan anda tentang inflasi ... Saya percaya bahawa QST tidak mempunyai harapan bahawa larangan ruang dicipta atau dimusnahkan. The Big Bang, dalam model ini, berlaku kerana alam semesta yang lain di luar sistem alam semesta kita bertembung dengan alam semesta kita. Struktur alam semesta kita (perkiraan daripada quanta ruang) diubah sebagai tindak balas kepada ini supaya semua quanta yang ditekan bersama-sama. Sistem yang lengkap adalah koleksi di mana terdapat tidak bebas bertindak quanta (oleh itu ia bertindak seolah-olah hanya terdapat satu lokasi di seluruh alam semesta dan sudah tentu ada masa). Ini adalah sangat dekat dengan gambar dalam lubang hitam, hanya sebenar bentuk lubang hitam secara dalaman daripada kehilangan tenaga, ini bentuk daripada tenaga dari luar sistem supaya ia tidak konfigurasi yang stabil. Kemudian, apabila kedua-dua sistem melantun off antara satu sama lain juzuk dalaman mereka mula untuk memisahkan, menyebabkan di sana untuk menjadi lebih daripada satu lokasi yang unik bertindak dalam setiap. Jadi setiap semesta pergi dari mempunyai berkesan satu lokasi yang unik dan tiada masa untuk mempunyai banyak banyak lokasi unik berkelakuan dan sedikit masa di pecah singkat (sama ada anda mengukurnya dengan masa atau supertime). Chapter 29 memperkatakan topik ini dalam banyak lebih terperinci yang perlu anda ingin membacanya.

    Saya harap dapat membantu.

    Sila ingat, walaupun teori ini akhirnya berakhir jiving dengan baik dengan apa yang kita tahu setakat ini, dan memberikan kita lebih penjelasan bahawa apa-apa pembinaan lain, ia tidak bermakna bahawa ia adalah hak, atau supaya kami semua harus terus bertanya soalan dan memikirkan cara-cara baru melihat sesuatu. Mendaki di luar pinggir semasa kami persefahaman adalah apa yang ia adalah semua tentang.

    • Phyn berkata:

      Thad,

      Terima kasih untuk jawapan. Saya rasa hilang dengan soalan-soalan yang saya ada sekarang. Saya hanya meminta salinan pra-cetak buku ini dan tidak sabar untuk mempelajari lebih dalam teori ini. Dan saya benar-benar bersetuju bahawa kita sentiasa perlu menyimpan disoal siasat.

      Phyn

  8. Stephen berkata:

    Soalan ini adalah untuk Thad, atau kepada sesiapa saja yang boleh menjawabnya. Saya benar-benar kagum dengan semua ini. Ia pasti sangat meyakinkan dan saya tidak sabar untuk melihat bagaimana ini sama ada menyokong atau menyangkal dalam komuniti saintifik. Persoalan utama Saya mempunyai walaupun, adalah bagaimana QST bermain ke kemunculan kuasa-kuasa semasa detik-detik pertama Big Bang? Saya tahu bahawa fizik teori berpendapat bahawa kuasa asas muncul sebagai hasil daripada Big Bang dan tidak segera hadir pada permulaan alam semesta. Saya hanya tertanya-tanya jika QST mampu penjelasan yang menyeluruh untuk ini. Jika ada anda akan keberatan berkongsi bahawa dengan saya? Juga, jika tidak ada penjelasan yang komprehensif, anda boleh menjelaskan bagaimana mereka memikirkan bahawa kuasa-kuasa asas tidak hadir pada asal-usul alam semesta?

    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 berkata:

      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. Ia adalah satu pengalaman yang menakjubkan.

      Sebagai tindak balas kepada soalan-soalan anda:

      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.

      Terima kasih kerana minat anda.

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

      Yang ikhlas,
      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 berkata:

          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 again

    • Thad Roberts berkata:

      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 berkata:

    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 berkata:

      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 berkata:

    One major confusion,

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

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

    PROBLEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Many thanks,

    -Gary
    Humble Student, The Open University (UK)

    • Thad Roberts berkata:

      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 berkata:

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

  16. brett says:

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

  17. Daniel says:

    Dear Thad,

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

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

    Selamat sejahtera,

    Daniel

    • Thad Roberts berkata:

      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. Menghantar anda buku sekarang. Please examine it in full and send your critique.

  18. Shane Killeen says:

    Hi Thad

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

  19. Niklas says:

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

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

    • Thad Roberts berkata:

      Hi Niklas,

      Ini adalah soalan yang besar. I will give short answers here, but I have written up much more detailed explanations on these very topics in my book. If you do not have it please send me an email requesting it and I'll pass it along.

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

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

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

  20. John berkata:

    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 berkata:

      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 berkata:

      Terima kasih. Saya menghantar e-mel anda buku sekarang.

      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 berkata:

      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. Menghantarnya kepada anda sekarang.

  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 berkata:

      Sudah tentu. 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 berkata:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  25. Lib says:

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

    • Thad Roberts berkata:

      Hi Elizabeth,
      Terima kasih atas sokongan 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 berkata:

      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 berkata:

    hey Saya seorang pelajar fizik dan akan suka membaca buku anda. Bolehkah anda menghantar saya satu salinan pdf

  29. stewart says:

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

    Terima kasih
    stewart

    • Thad Roberts berkata:

      Buku ini kini boleh didapati melalui Lulu .com (Paperback penuh warna), Amazon .com (warna softcover penuh), atau melalui iTunes (iBook). Anda akan menemui pautan antara satu sama di sini.

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

      Jika anda ingin salinan yang ditandatangani sila maklumkan kepada saya. Jika anda tidak mampu membayar $ 14,99 pada masa ini (untuk iBook) menghantar mesej kepada saya yang lain dan beritahu saya.

  30. Gene says:

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

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

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

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

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

    • Thad Roberts berkata:

      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). Anda akan menemui pautan antara satu sama di sini.

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

      Jika anda ingin salinan yang ditandatangani sila maklumkan kepada saya. Jika anda tidak mampu membayar $ 14,99 pada masa ini (untuk iBook) menghantar mesej kepada saya yang lain dan beritahu saya.

      • 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 berkata:

          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 berkata:

      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 pesanan




Jika anda mahu gambar untuk menunjukkan dengan komen anda, pergi mendapatkan Gravatar.