80

Samtaler: Part One

Samtaler: Part One, debuterer. Dette er den første av seks samtaler "på quantum plass teori (QST). I denne episoden, oversikter Thad Roberts quantum plass teori, viser oss hvordan å visualisere elleve dimensjoner. Ingen annen teori (superstring teori, M-teori, supergravity, etc.) har vært i stand til å tilby menneskeheten et slikt levende vindu inn i komplett tredimensjonal struktur av Nature. Dette intuitiv tilnærming bringer en ny bredde til menneskelig fantasi og tilbyr en fascinerende ny intellektuell visjon som har potensial til å forandre verden ved å endre måten vi ser det. Evnen til å forstå og intuitivt forstå elleve dimensjoner setter scenen for å svare på de største mysteriene i fysikken.

Kommentarer (80)

Trackback URL | Kommentarer RSS-feed

  1. Nunya Bizness sier:

    Ingen av det du sier er sant. Jeg vil ikke ta deg tid til å imøtegå all denne videoen, men la meg si dette:

    Generell relativitets er ikke "feil", i den forstand at du hevder. Det er galt i den forstand at en mer nøyaktig teori vil en dag komme sammen. Men det er uten tvil den mest nøyaktige gravitasjonsteori som noensinne har blitt lagt frem.

    Jeg vil forklare for deg hvordan det fungerer, fordi du åpenbart ikke forstår.

    Generelt Relativity (GR) plukker opp der spesielle relativitetslater seg; nemlig: ideen om at tid og rom er en uatskillelig enhet kalt rom og tid. Et nærliggende spørsmål er, "hva er geometrien i rom og tid?" Du kan anta at rom og tid er Euklids. Du ville være galt.

    De grunnleggende matematiske fundamentet for GR er differensialgeometri, som er anvendelsen av flerdimensjonale kalkulus til geometriske objekter. Via differensialgeometri, kan alle konsepter av et mellomrom geometri kan ikke utledes fra en matematisk gjenstand, kjent som metrisk. Metrikk er en tensor som kan brukes til å beregne avstanden mellom to punkter i rommet. Slik det metriske fullstendig karakteriserer geometrien av et mellomrom. Euklids metriske for n-plass er en nxn matrise hvis adganger er alle null, med unntak av diagonal, hvor oppføringene er alle 1. Hvis du bruker denne til å generere avstanden mellom to punkter i rommet, vil du bli returnert den kjente pytagoreiske teoremet: a ^ 2 + b ^ 2 = c ^ 2 (merk at dette er to-dimensjonal versjon av teoremet, det kan generaliseres i opplagte måten å enhver dimensjon av euklidsk plass).

    Romtid er, til en meget god tilnærming, euklidske. Men for å være mer nøyaktig, er det ikke. Dette blir spesielt tydelig på svært store avstander, til meget store hastigheter, eller i svært høye gravitasjonsfelt. Metrisk for rom og tid er identisk med den euklidske metriske, med unntak av at den diagonale oppføringen i kolonnen for tiden har motsatt fortegn fra resten av de diagonale oppføringer.

    Hva er effekten av denne? Vel, et kjent teorem fra Euklidsk geometri er at den korteste avstanden mellom to punkter er en rett linje. I romtid, dette er ikke så. På grunn av grunnleggende resultater fra spesielle relativitets at jeg ikke vil utlede her (les alle undergrad spesielle relativitets lærebok), er hvor mye tid måles med en observatør avhengig av veien han reiser gjennom rom og tid. Dette kalles riktig tid. På grunn av den ikke-euklidske karakter av rom og tid, er den korteste avstand mellom to punkter faktisk det som minimaliserer det riktige tidspunkt. Med andre ord, suse utenfor kanten av galaksen på lysets hastighet og deretter retur vil kreve mindre tid for deg i ditt romskip enn det ville for meg å vente mens du går på reisen. Dette er den berømte tvillingparadokset.

    Uansett, er resultatet av dette at, ved variasjonsprinsippet (som bør være kjent for deg hvis du har vært utsatt for Lagrangesk mekanikere, som jeg mistenker du ikke har ...), objekter i rom og tid har en tendens til å reise med banen som minimerer sin rette tid. Som nevnt tidligere, er riktig tid forkortes ved å reise ved høy hastighet, eller være i et gravitasjonsfelt.

    Ta nå, som et eksempel, et eple på et tre. Apple vil prøve å minimere sin rette tid. Det vil gjøre dette ved å flytte mot et gravitasjonsfelt - nemlig Jorden. Dette resulterer i en tiltrekningskraft mellom eple og planeten. Med andre ord, fremtiden for Apples worldlike peker mot midten av jorden.

    Det er hvordan tyngdekraften fungerer, i et nøtteskall. Det faktum at du ikke vet dette overflødig din inkompetanse som skal forsøke å arbeide på dette feltet. Men det er din egen tid å miste, antar jeg ...

    • Geo sier:

      Så la meg få dette rett ... Apple vil prøve å minimere sin rette tid ved å bevege seg mot et gravitasjonsfelt og det er hva gravitasjon er (i en sterk ontologisk forstand). Hvorfor eplet prøve å minimere sin rette tid? Hva er et gravitasjonsfelt? Hva er gravitasjon? Din kommentar har egentlig ikke besvart noen av disse spørsmålene, eller til og med hjulpet avklare dem. Alt du har gjort er fastsette en magisk felt som tiltrekker seg epler.

      • chandan Srivastava sier:

        kortest distence kan være tiltak ved beregning av variasjon.

        • Thad Roberts sier:

          Du er riktig å si at korteste avstanden kan måles ved hjelp av en matematisk analyse av variasjoner, så lenge det metriske vi snakker om er glatt og tilkoblet. I en kvantisert metriske problemet kan bli litt mer komplisert.

          • "I en kvantisert metriske problemet kan bli litt mer komplisert." - Thad Roberts.

            Det er derfor en ytterligere komplikasjon gjelder quantum detaljnivå som det gjelder for alle objekter. Alle objekter er persepter, inkludert konsepter. Alle av eksistensiell virkelighet (bevissthet) er fenomenologisk eller fortelling. Feilen er ikke bare konseptualisering av det overnaturlige. Det er enda mer akutt perceptualization av supernarrative. Med andre ord, levendegjøring av mystiske guder, og påkallelse av animere personer som diskrete vilje gjenstander stå i gjensidig konstruere.

            Som for differensialregning. Det også begynner ikke å broach spørsmål om eksistens. Det er bare en annen morsom fortelling rynke.

      • Peter Martin sier:

        "Hva er gravitasjon?" "Hva er et gravitasjonsfelt?» Dette er pseudo "ER" spørsmål som etter sin art kan aldri bli besvart.

        Du kan nyte å lese om Society for Ganeral Semantics ledet av Alfred Korzybski, som unngikk påstander og spørsmål som viktigste (eller bare) verb er en form for "å være".

    • Jon sier:

      Til Nunya: alt du sier er vel og bra, men du ikke forklare en ting: hva er en gravitasjonsfelt? Generelle relativitets forklarer effekten av tyngdekraften, men det er fortsatt ikke helt forklare hva gravitasjon er. Som han sier i videoen, har vi måtte anta at tyngdekraften er en styrke. Men hvis det er, hvorfor er det så utrolig svak i forhold til de andre kreftene? Relativity er en stor teori for store ting, men det forklarer ingenting på subatomær skala. Minst denne teorien gir de samme regler for hele universet på hver skala. Og det gir en god forklaring på hva klokka er.

  2. Nunya Bizness sier:

    Det er treghet prinsipp: et objekt vil reise i en rett linje med mindre påvirket av en kraft. Definisjonen av en "rett linje" er banen som minimerer avstanden.

    Crux av GR er at plassen ikke er flat, og at tyngdekraften er manifestasjonen av skjev plass tid. Det fordreining forårsaker rette linjer (de som minimerer riktig tid) å bue mot deler av massen - med andre ord, gjenstander tiltrekker hverandre.

    Generell relativitets er en svært komplisert teori. Det jeg har skrevet er en latterlig kort krasj-introduksjon til det. I stedet for bare å være skeptisk til alt og forkaster den ut av hånden, hvorfor ikke faktisk lese en lærebok i Relativity? Det er vanskelig å hevde at du har tilbakevist Relativity uten selv å forstå det første ...

    • Geo sier:

      Først av alt, jeg (og jeg er ikke Thad, så jeg snakker ikke for ham) er ikke skeptisk til GR. Det har vist seg så mye som noen teori kan. Faktisk tror jeg, ved siden av gamle greske atomteorien, er det det viktigste teoretiske (fysikk) gjennombrudd menneskeheten noen gang har gjort. Når det er sagt, jeg tror ikke det er ferdig, heller ikke Einstein selv. Hva jeg tror ikke du forstår er at QST er en utvidelse av gr. Det er på mange måter, kvantisering av GR (fra en kontinuerlig til et diskret system). Du synes å mene at vi kaste GR. Vi er ikke. Thad ikke navnet hans bok "Einsteins Intuition" ut av trass, men heller ut av respekt. Hvis du hadde giddet å lytte til hva som ble sagt i videoen du ville ha fått det selv.

      Dernest tar for gitt QST den samme ideen, at tyngdekraften er manifestasjonen av vindskjev rom og tid. Men QST gir en konkret mekanisme for at fordreining. Tyngdekraften er bokstavelig talt en forandring i tettheten av plass (en densitet gradient). Jeg tror ikke dette kaster GR ut av vinduet. Snarere, står det på de store skuldrene til både Einstein og hans teorier.

      Hvis du ønsker å ha en kritisk, produktiv dialog om dette, Thad og jeg er mer enn villig til å gjøre det. Din antagonisme og fremstillinger av QST, men er ikke av interesse for oss.

      Cheers,

      Jeff (Site Admin)

      • Nunya Bizness sier:

        Mitt poeng er ikke at du er bashing GR. Det er som du er misforståelser det, og dermed konklusjonene du trekker er feil.

        For eksempel sier Thad i videoen at den ofte-sett "trampoline" diagram av GR er feil fordi det forsømmer en akse av plass, og at vi en eller annen måte trenger flere dimensjoner av plass til å "strekke til" for GR til å fungere. Selvfølgelig at diagrammet er feil - det er bare en metafor. Det er kun brukt til å introdusere begrepet til legfolk som, forståelig nok, har en hard tid grappling med en 4-dimensjonal pseudo-Riemannsk manifold. Å tro at det enkle modellen omslutter teorien er feil. Space kan deformere uten fordreining inn i en annen dimensjon.

        Det finnes utallige andre problemer som ikke firkantet med etablerte matematikk og fysikk, for eksempel ideen om at pi representerer en mengde krumning (og at dette er det minimum av krumning). Pi er et forhold; krumning måles ved hjelp av retningspartielle deriverte.

        Jeg er ikke fortelle deg å stoppe hva du gjør. Jeg sier deg, som en som er opplært i matte og fysikk, at hvis du er interessert i disse tingene, er du på feil spor, og det er ikke til å ta deg hvor som helst meningsfull. Jeg beklager hvis det er harde, men forskjellen mellom sant og usant er veldig skarp. Det er derfor jeg ber deg og Thad å studere etablerte fysikk som Relativity i dybden (dvs. matematisk) før du prøver å forbedre dem.

        • Geo sier:

          Jeg setter pris på det du sier. Jeg er ikke en matematiker eller fysiker, men snarere en interessert (og trolig over-utdannet) lå person. Men det er flere matematikere og teoretiske fysikere arbeider på formalisering av QST akkurat nå med Thad. De synes å tro at det er noe til det. Disse menneskene er kjent med teorier og matematikk du snakker om i dine kommentarer. De har gjort mer enn å lese de innledende tekster du foreslår. Ikke å være en ekspert jeg må utsette til dem. Når det er sagt, ingen av dem har kastet hendene opp og gikk bort etter mange måneder med arbeid, i stedet har de blitt mer overbevist. De fortsatt føler at det er noe å hente på vitenskapelig av deres innsats.

          Fra en lay synspunkt, QST tilbud (for meg minst) en forklaring på en rekke uensartede fenomener (både makroskopisk og mikroskopisk) som står imot forklaring til denne dag. En av Thad poeng er at en teori som ikke gir en forklaring, er ikke mye av en teori (som ville være en jab på standard tolkning av kvantemekanikken som det rikt fortjener). Jeg forstår at før en fullstendig formalisering er fullført mesteparten av det vitenskapelige samfunn vil ikke gi QST tid på dagen (og mange vil ikke engang når det formalisering er fullført). Men på dette tidspunkt, er teorien fortsatt testbare i laboratoriet av logikk. Finn en feil med sin logikk, sine lokaler, sine konklusjoner. Det er der vi er nå. Så langt, så vidt jeg vet, ingen har motbevist noen av disse teoretiske sammendrag av QST.

          Tydeligvis er det fortsatt mye arbeid å gjøre, men jeg tror (ja det er en tro) som et solid fundament har allerede blitt bygget. Som de sier, er djevelen i detaljene, og disse detaljene er under utarbeidelse. Papirene vil bli skrevet. Jevnaldrende vil gjennomgå.

          Jeg vil invitere deg til å lese hele boken (som vi kan sende via PDF hvis du vil).

        • Jon sier:

          Nunya, hvor har du vært mann? Alle de banebrytende ny fysikk som blir gjort forutsetter at det er ekstra romlige dimensjoner. Hvis du er så sikker på at GR er det være alt slutt alle, deretter forklare quantum tunneling. Forklar usikkerhet prinsippet. Han kan ikke røre den. Einstein selv trodde ikke at sorte hull virkelig eksisterte. Vi har nå bevis på at det finnes millioner overalt. GR helt bryter ned i sentrum av et sort hull. Vi kan ikke gå videre hvis vi ikke er villige til å underholde muligheten for flere dimensjoner. Få med programmet.

        • G-bolt sier:

          Du beskrev matematiske forklaringer av krefter. Du forklarte hvordan de oppfører seg uten noen anelse om hvorfor.

          Den vridd plass modellen er en lekmann modell, kan du kaste det som du godtar antakelsen om at plassen kan bli buet på en måte som vi ikke kan oppfatte.

          Problemet er at ved definisjonen for noe til kurven (eller for å endre egenskapene, er det ingen forskjell) på en måte som er umerkelig for oss den må bevege seg i en annen dimensjon. Endre enhver eiendom er å endre en "dimensjon".

          Forestill disse dimensjonene i fysiske termer bare gjør sitt samspill lettere å forstå eller i det minste gir et friskt perspektiv.

  3. John sier:

    Jeg tror (Nunya Bizness) har helt savnet meldingen her. Du er velkommen til din mening, men etter å ha lest i løpet av dine kommentarer virker det for meg at du har forvekslet påstander om quantum plass teori. Jeg vet at formuleringen er ennå ikke ferdig, men de grunnleggende prinsippene har sammenheng.

    Jeg er interessert i din påstand om at "space kan deformere uten fordreining inn i en annen dimensjon."

    Jeg finner ingen gode grunner til denne påstanden. La meg forklare. Å si at plassen kan deformere uten fordreining inn i andre dimensjoner er å si at du har en mekanisme, en forklaring, for hvordan plass kan deformere - ikke bare en beskrivelse for hvordan plassen er vridd rundt massive objekter. Mens det kan vise seg å være tilfelle at det finnes andre måter for plass til å deformere (annet enn fordreining inn i andre dimensjoner), kan et slikt krav ikke kunne dokumenteres før noen form for eksempel er satt fram. Du kan ikke bare si, se, plassen er skjev fordi vi har gitt plass en beregning som gir den kvaliteten blir vridd. Oppfinne en representasjon av en kvalitet er helt forskjellig fra å forklare at kvaliteten. Som det står akkurat nå (i moderne lærebøker) selve betydningen av "vridd space" er utilgjengelige. Selvfølgelig kan du bruke matematikk til å representere den, etterligne den, kopiere den, eller hva, men det matte betyr ikke nødvendigvis at du har en forklaring på sin opprinnelse. Nøyaktig hvordan gjør romtid renning uten fordreining inn i en annen dimensjon (er)? Det er det sentrale spørsmålet for hånden. Quantum plass teori sier at det ikke kan det, men det gjør ikke presse vridd romtid ute av bildet, i stedet klargjør det hvordan renn kommer om - vindicating Einstein på en måte som vil veldig mye glede ham.

    Jeg har lest ganske mye mer enn lærebøkene du snakke om. 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. Perioden. Look at the Einstein Field Equation. Literally, stress-energy = spacetime curvature. Perhaps there is a deeper explanation. And that will be an object of study of the next theory of gravity. But the simple fact is, GR makes sense, it has been extremely(!) vilified by experiment, and it provides an enlightening view of gravity (the warping of spacetime).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Geo sier:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        We could not agree more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Curvature is a characteristic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Jim says:

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

        • Thad Roberts sier:

          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.

    En quantum på noe er det minste mulige enhet av den tingen. Et kvantum av plass er en "boble" utover hvilken det ikke er noen definisjon av plass. Likevel, det er plass inne i boblene, liksom.

    Gravity er representert som densitetsgradienten plass kvanter. Men tyngdekraften er forårsaket av materie. Saken er ikke plass. Hvordan virker dette selv fornuftig?

    Tid er den resonation plass kvanter. Hvorfor? Hvordan? Hva resonnement fører til denne konklusjonen?

    Hvis det er 11 dimensjoner, hvorfor kan vi ikke se dem? String Theory sier de ekstra de er krøllet opp ekstremt liten. QST synes å ha ekstra dimensjoner bare liksom ... flyter der ute ...

    • Geo sier:

      La meg ta disse spørsmålene så godt jeg kan en etter en:

      "Pi representerer den minste mengden av kurvatur mulig i rom og tid. (Russiske karakter) representerer den største mengden. "

      [Den russiske karakter er "Zhe"]

      Generelt relativitet forholdet mellom omkrets og diameter går til null når sort hull er i det området hvis krumning er beskrevet (fordi nevneren, diameteren av den sirkel sentrert på et sort hull, går mot uendelig hvis rom og tid er kontinuerlig og svarte hull er null størrelse). Kvantemekanikken har et problem med det uendelig i nevneren. Det er i konflikt med den generelle relativitetsteorien på dette punktet, og kutter av denne uendelig med sin påstand om at den minste avstanden i verdensrommet er Planck lengden. Qst enig med denne påstanden og dens geometri gir oss en måte å kvantitativt bestemme et uttrykk for maksimal kurvatur som er innstiftet av at avskåret. Hvorfor er dette interessant? Det er interessant fordi, hvis det er riktig, så betyr det at det er to dimensjons tall som ligger i den geometriske kartet over rom og tid, kombinert med de fem Planck verdier som følge av kvantisering. Dette tar oss til noe enda mer interessant ... Uansett hva dette andre geometriske tallet er, dens verdi må være mellom null og pi. Begrense det ned mer er det sterk forventning om at det er mellom 0 og 0,7. Slik at kravet om dette geometrisk modell er at det er noen tall mellom 0 og 0,7 som kan kombineres med de 5-Planck parametrene, og pi, til nonarbitrarily produsere eller "koder" de geometriske effekter som er iboende i rom-tid - konstantene av Nature. Som det viser seg at det er et slikt nummer, og det skjer for å falle i dette området. (Se konstantene naturens side på dette nettstedet.) Dette er viktig nok til å rettferdiggjøre dagens innsats til teoretisk utlede den eksakte verdien av dette nummeret fra geometriske betraktninger.

      "QST er 11 dimensjoner, selv om virkeområder som er 3 dimensjoner, på innsiden av" bobler "er 3 dimensjoner, og den plass den" bobler "bevege seg gjennom er 3 dimensjoner, og det er ingenting som skiller disse områder fra hverandre.

      En quantum på noe er det minste mulige enhet av den tingen. Et kvantum av plass er en "boble" utover hvilken det ikke er noen definisjon av plass. Likevel, det er plass inne i boblene, liksom. "

      Jeg er ikke sikker på om jeg forstår dette spørsmålet (riktig), men jeg skal ta en stikke på det. Første ledd er liksom hva QST er postulere, med flere viktige begrensninger. For det første er avstanden mellom vår hverdag kvanter plass ikke plass per se, henviser vi til det som superspace, og likeledes plass i kvanter plass er referert til som intraspace. Hvis plassen er kvantisert disse andre områder (super og intra) manifest (hvis du tillater at et kvantesprang plass er et volum snarere enn et punkt). Dersom kvanter av plass er faktisk volum, de to andre sett av "mellomrom" er nødvendig, og forskjellig fra normal plass. Analogien av baren på gull kommer til hjernen. Hvis du har delt en bar av gull ned til sine minste komponenter, komponenter som fortsatt kan anses gull, kommer du til et punkt hvor du kan fortsette å dele bestanddeler (atomer i dette tilfellet) videre, men hva skyldes dette videre splitting kan ikke lenger anses som gull. I denne analogien, har du overskredet betydningen av "gull" ved å dele gullet atom, men som vi nå vet, er det en hel masse mer splitting som kan gjøres. Du kan ikke telle enheter av gull ved å telle nøytroner, for eksempel. Godt spørsmål skjønt. Bryting med dette problemet er kjernen for å forstå hva det betyr å si at stoffet av x, y, z er plass kvantisert. Resten av bildet vil ikke være fornuftig før dette er intuitivt absorbert. Er dette å få på hva du spør?

      "Gravity er representert som densitetsgradienten plass kvanter. Men tyngdekraften er forårsaket av materie. Saken er ikke plass. Hvordan virker dette selv fornuftig? "

      Først av alt, ja helt, gravitasjon er representert ved densitetsgradient av plass kvanter. Spørsmålet du kanskje prøver å få på er, hva som forårsaker disse tetthetsgradienter å danne? Når kvanter stick sammen tetthetsgradienter bygge opp rundt disse konglomerater. Alle former for energi som manifesterer i x, y, z, t er rett og slett geometriske forvrengninger i rom og tid. Tetthet bølger kan skvulpe gjennom mediet - det er en måte å støtte en geometrisk forvrengning. (Noe som dette ville sies å ha energi som tilsvarer en mengde hvile masse, men det kan ikke eksistere i ro selv.) En annen måte er å ha en stabil geometrisk forvrengning er å ha kvanter som er klistret sammen. Når en gruppe av kvanter henger sammen, de individuelle kvanter rundt det, beveger seg rundt, og for det meste, ellastically samspill, vil danne en densitetsgradient grunn av momentum bevaring. En enkelt kvanter borti to vil forlate de to beveger seg mye saktere enn den opprinnelige. Tregere bevegelser konsentrere rundt klump, og tregere bevegelser skape større tettheter. Så permanent, eller i det minste stabil geometriske forvrengninger, som kvanter klistrer seg sammen, er masse i denne modellen.

      "Tid er det resonation plass kvanter. Hvorfor? Hvordan? Hva resonnement fører til denne konklusjonen? "

      Dette er et stort spørsmål, og det kan bruke litt mer etterforskning. 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 sier:

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

  5. Phyn says:

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

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

    1. Thad hevder at den generelle tolkningen av fjerde romlig dimensjon er akkurat som en matematisk triks for å gjøre rede for tyngdekraften. Men det er en falsk påstand. De fleste fysikere gjøre arbeid som ikke er påvirket av om tyngdekraften er en styrke eller en annen dimensjon. Så de kan bruke en falsk fortolkning, men fordi det ville bare komplisere ting for dem uten å gjøre noe for dem. Fysikerne som arbeider med rom-tid, astrofysikere og kosmologer, trenger ikke å vite nøyaktig hva gravitasjon er, og de gjør definere gravitasjon som den fjerde romlig dimensjon, ikke en kraft.

    2. Mass fordreier den fjerde romlig dimensjon. Så bruker metaforen om vekt fordreining en trampoline er helt gyldig.

    3. Thad hevder at Planck lengden bobler flytte rundt. Hvorfor? Bør ikke plass være en rigid struktur, nett? Hvis kvanter av plass til å flytte rundt som partikler i luften, ville de adlyde noe som ligner på statistisk mekanikk. Det betyr at det er en ikke-ubetydelig sjanse for å ha store klumper av Quanta og store deler som mangler noen plass i det hele tatt. Og med Thad definisjon av tid disse delene vil også bevege seg raskere eller saktere gjennom tiden. Legg merke til at disse delene ville oppstå uten grunn i det hele tatt foruten probabilistiske natur kvanter av rom-tid å bevege seg rundt og dulter borti hverandre. Dette er absolutt ikke sett i universet.

    4. Thad argument for ekstra dimensjoner har en inkonsekvens. Hvis Planck lengden er den minste avstanden som kan måles eller defineres, er det ingen mening å definere nye dimensjoner for å forklare posisjon på mindre enn Planck skala. De betyr ingenting på både et menneske, matematisk nivå og på nivået av fysikken i universet.

    5. Jeg forstår at det er mye mer til denne teorien, men Thad unnlater å forklare hvordan eller hvorfor materie og energi som vi ser det nå påvirker kvanter plass. Jeg antar at dette er forklart lenger inn i teorien. Også, hvordan passer lett inn i denne teorien? Lyset reiser alltid på c, men med denne teorien som skulle tilsi at lyset er liksom skille fra denne 11 dimensjonalt rom. (Personlig har jeg ingen problem med den ideen, og har hatt det samme tenkte meg selv. Men det trenger å gjøres rede for.)

    6. Hvis Planck lengden skala er så mye mindre enn partikler, hvordan er det mulig for quantum tunneling å skje? Det virker veldig usannsynlig for et elektron å bevege seg gjennom super-plass uten å treffe en annen kvanter plass for en avstand over 10 størrelsesordener større enn Planck lengden. Jada, kan det skje nå og da, men sannsynligheten ville være mye mindre enn det som er sett nå.

  6. Thad Roberts sier:

    Phyn,

    Takk for dine kommentarer og spørsmål. La meg prøve å ta opp noen av kommentarene som best jeg kan.

    1. Mine kommentarer om tyngdekraften som du refererer til var ment å være i referanse til en visuell modell av tyngdekraften, for ikke å ligningene fysikere bruke til å representere den eller hva de holder til å være sant om gravitasjon. Fordi de har jobbet for så lenge under begrensningene av euklidsk (eller ikke-euklidsk men kontinuerlige) beregninger, fysikere bruke en redusert dimensjonal representasjon. Du har rett i å peke på at dette ikke betyr at de ikke tillegger eksistensen av tyngdekraften til å være et resultat av et samspill med en annen romlig dimensjon. Det jeg er ute etter er en intuitiv og nøyaktig modell, en ny representasjon, for geometrien i Nature som gir oss fullstendig intuitiv tilgang til ting vi i dag ikke har intuitiv tilgang til. Med andre ord, er mitt poeng at "gummi plate 'diagrammer ikke gir oss FULL intuitiv tilgang til hva gravitasjon er, hvorfor er har de egenskapene den har, og så videre. Mitt mål er å komme til en modell som gir oss at tilgangen.

    2. Begrepet vekten dessverre spiller av vår intuisjon om at noe med vekten trekkes ned av tyngdekraften. Jeg er helt greit med å si at tilstedeværelsen av masse fordreier trampoline, men så snart vi si gjøre vår representasjon basert på konseptet at det er vekten som fordreier trampoline, har vi nå brukt noen forestilling om gravitasjon (vekt lik styrken av tyngdekraften multiplisert med massen) i vår svar for det som er tyngdekraften. Dette reduserer nytten av vårt svar. Det var mitt poeng. Jeg er ikke tentamen verdien av trampoline på noen måte. Jeg elsker at det er et forsøk på å være en modell som vi kan få tilgang til i det minste delvis få en intuitiv forståelse av hvordan gravitasjon fungerer. Jeg er bare ute etter en modell som går litt lenger.

    3. Teknisk jeg ikke faktisk hevde noe (og heller ikke er noen andre som arbeider på qst). Vi er imidlertid hypoteser om geometri rom og tid og se hvor hypotesen vår leder oss. Vi setter noen aksiomer opp for plass og sjekke for å se om disse aksiomer sette opp et system som naturlig inneholder det som vi i dag kaller mystisk. Som forskere forstår vi at vår nåværende sett av aksiomer kan vise seg å være feil, men så langt har de fører oss til noe ganske lovende. I tillegg tror vi, som du synes å, at selv om vi ender opp med å bevise at vår sett aksiomer ikke etterligne byggingen av naturens stoff, utforske nye ideer er hva vitenskap handler om. Rett eller galt, det er mye å lære av prosessen vi gjennomfører.

    Du har rett i å merke seg at våre nåværende forutsetninger om strukturen av x, y, viser z plass i kvanter flytte rundt, som gjør sin representasjon noe beslektet med statistisk mekanikk (derav mange kvantemekaniske effekter som vi ser i naturen). Jeg er nysgjerrig på hvorfor du mener at strukturen i rom og tid skal liksom være begrenset til å være en rigid rutenett. Til slutt kan du være rett om rom og tid har denne egenskapen, men på dette punktet jeg ser ingen grunn til å anta dette som et brute contraint. Dessuten er det punktet du gjort om å ha deler av plass som vil utvikle seg på ulike priser gjennom tiden helt riktig, men det gjelder bare for svært små skjell (med mindre en makroskopisk densitetsgradient er tilstede = buet rom og tid). Ettersom vi flytter til makroskopiske skalaer (som 10 ^ -25 meter, eller 10 ^ -34 sekunder) disse effektene er vasket ut for de samme statistiske grunner du påpekt tidligere.

    4. Jeg beklager hvis jeg misspoke eller forårsaket en forvirring på dette punktet. I vårt system Planck lengden er definert som den minste quantum enhet av x, y, z. Akkurat som en gull-atomet er den smalls enhet av en sjanse av gull, et kvantum av plass er den minste enhet av enhver x, y, z volum. Det gjør gir mening å snakke om mindre enn ett gull atom, eller for å visualisere splitte en gullatom, men det gjør ikke fornuftig å fortsette å kalle hva du ender opp med en brøkdel av en gull atom. Når du går mindre enn ett gull atom du har overskredet definisjonen av gull. Du trenger ikke gull noe mer i noen forstand. På dette punktet er du nødt til å erkjenne at det du har er noe helt annet enn gull. Det samme gjelder for vårt geometrisk system. Siden har vi satt opp et aksiom plass som definerer mediet for x, y, z som blir sammensatt av kvanter, bestående av grunnenheter, kan vi ikke snakke om mindre enheter og bli snakket fortsatt om noe i x, y, z riket. Dette er imidlertid ikke hemmer oss fra å snakke om noe mindre. Det krever bare at når vi gjør det vi erkjenner at vi snakker om noe annet. I så mye som det er snakk om romlige dimensjoner, innen et enkelt kvanter okkupere forskjellige superspatial posisjoner, men disse forskjellige posisjoner reflekterer ikke på x, y, z metrisk. Geometrien er ganske interessant matematisk fordi det er et helt inverterbar kart. Med andre ord, er det en perfekt geometrisk fraktal. Som det viser seg, synes dette systemet også kommer med noen egenskaper (som statistisk karakter du nevnte før) som er ganske tankevekkende kvantemekaniske effekter.

    5. Gode spørsmål. Som et kort svar: saken er noe stabilt (på uansett skala du velger å definere som lenge nok til å telle som "stabile") skjevheter i de geometriske arrangementer av plass kvanter. For eksempel, hvis to kvanta holde sammen som bobler i lang tid før den blir separert ved andre kollisjoner, da de representerer en geometrisk kink for denne periode. Denne type er masse. Energi kan betraktes som skjevheter som ikke er stabile uten forplantning. En tetthet bølge for eksempel kan reise fra punkt A til punkt B, og betraktes som stabil under forplantning, men det kan ikke beholde seg selv uten forplanter seg gjennom mediet.

    Lys kommer seg alltid ved c, i den 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?

      Takk igjen,
      Phyn

  7. Thad Roberts sier:

    Phyn,

    Store spørsmål. :-)

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

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

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

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

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

    I hope that helps.

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

    • Phyn says:

      Thad,

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

      Phyn

  8. Stephen says:

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

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

    • Thad Roberts sier:

      Dear Stephen,

      Thank you for your message.

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

      In response to your questions:

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

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

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

      Please let me know if that helped.

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

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

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

      Note that the first criteria requires long periods of time.

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

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

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

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

      Takk for din interesse.

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

      Vennlig hilsen
      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 sier:

          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 sier:

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

  10. Stefan palmer says:

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

  11. Ben says:

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

    bwc7​0​@​email.​vccs.​edu

    Cheers, Ben

  12. jake3_14 says:

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

    • Thad Roberts sier:

      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 sier:

    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 sier:

      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 sier:

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

  16. brett says:

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

  17. Daniel says:

    Kjære Thad,

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

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

    Best regards,

    Daniel

    • Thad Roberts sier:

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

  18. Shane Killeen says:

    Hei 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 sier:

      Hi Niklas,

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

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

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

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

  20. John says:

    Thad,

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

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

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

    • Thad Roberts sier:

      Hei 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 sier:

      Takk. Jeg sender deg boken nå.

      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 sier:

      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. Sender den til deg nå.

  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 sier:

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

  24. praroop joshi says:

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

    • Thad Roberts sier:

      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 sier:

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

  26. Jim says:

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

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

    • Thad Roberts sier:

      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:

    Hei,
    I'm a lay person but found your work very interesting. Can you please send a copy of your book?
    Takk
    Gururaj

  28. Sahil says:

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

  29. stewart says:

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

    Takk
    stewart

    • Thad Roberts sier:

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

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

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

  30. Gene says:

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

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

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

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

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

    • Thad Roberts sier:

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

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

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

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

      • Gene says:

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

        • Thad Roberts sier:

          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:

    Hei 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 :)
    Takk
    Ha det

    • Thad Roberts sier:

      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.

Legg igjen et svar




Hvis du ønsker et bilde som skal vises med kommentaren din, går du få en Gravatar.