80

Rozmowy: Part One

Rozmowy: Część pierwsza, debiuty. Jest to pierwszy z sześciu "rozmów" na kwantowej teorii przestrzeni (QST). W tym odcinku, Thad Roberts przeglądy kwantowej teorii przestrzeni, pokazując nam, jak wizualizować jedenaście wymiarów. Żadna inna teoria (teoria superstrun, M-teoria, supergrawitacja, itd.) Nie był w stanie zaoferować ludzkości taki żywy okno do pełnej struktury przestrzennej Natury. To intuicyjne podejście przynosi nową szerokość do ludzkiej wyobraźni i oferuje fascynujące nowej wizji intelektualnej, który ma potencjał, by zmienić świat, zmieniając sposób, w jaki go zobaczyć. Zdolność do zrozumienia i intuicyjnie uchwycić jedenaście wymiarów ustawia scenę, aby odebrać największe tajemnice fizyki.

Komentarze (80)

Trackback URL | Komentarze RSS

  1. Nunya Bizness mówi:

    Nic z tego, co mówisz, jest prawdą. Nie będzie czasu, aby obalić cały ten film, ale chciałbym powiedzieć, że:

    Ogólna teoria względności nie jest "nie tak", w tym sensie, że roszczenia. To jest złe w tym sensie, że bardziej dokładne teoria pewnego dnia przyjść. Ale jest to zdecydowanie najbardziej dokładne teorii grawitacji, które kiedykolwiek zostały podniesione.

    Wyjaśnię dla Ciebie, jak to działa, bo oczywiście nie rozumiem.

    Ogólna teoria względności (GR) podnosi gdzie szczególnej teorii względności pozostawia się; a mianowicie: pomysł, że przestrzeń i czas są jedną niepodzielną jednostką o nazwie czasoprzestrzeń. Oczywistym pytaniem jest: "co to jest geometria czasoprzestrzeni?" Można założyć, że czasoprzestrzeń jest euklidesowa. Tak nie będzie.

    Podstawowe Podbudow matematyczne GR jest geometria różnica, która jest stosowanie wielowymiarowej rachunku do obiektów geometrycznych. Poprzez geometrii różniczkowej, wszystkie pojęcia geometrii przestrzeń można wywnioskować z jednego matematycznego obiektu, znany jako metryka. Metryka jest napinacz, który może zostać użyty do obliczenia odległości między dwoma punktami w przestrzeni. Tak metryka całkowicie charakteryzuje geometrii przestrzeni. Metryka euklidesowa dla n-przestrzeni jest macierz nxn których wpisy są wszystkie zera, za wyjątkiem przekątnej, gdzie wpisy są 1. Jeśli używasz tego do generowania odległość między dwoma punktami w przestrzeni, będzie zwrócone znajomy Pitagorasa Twierdzenie: a ^ 2 + b ^ 2 = c ^ 2 (należy zwrócić uwagę, że jest to 2-wymiarowej wersji twierdzenia, można to uogólnić w oczywisty sposób do każdego wymiaru przestrzeni euklidesowej).

    Czasoprzestrzeń jest na bardzo dobrym przybliżeniem, euklidesowej. Jednak, aby być bardziej dokładne, tak nie jest. Staje się to szczególnie widoczne przy bardzo dużych odległościach, przy bardzo dużych prędkościach lub w wysokich polach grawitacyjnych. Metryka dla czasoprzestrzeni jest identyczny z metryki euklidesowa, z wyjątkiem tego, że po przekątnej w kolumnie na czas ma przeciwny znak niż reszta ukośnych pozycji.

    Jaki jest tego efekt? Cóż, zna twierdzenia z geometrii euklidesowej jest to, że najmniejsza odległość między dwoma punktami jest linia prosta. W czasoprzestrzeni, tak nie jest. W związku z podstawowymi wynikami szczególnej teorii względności, że nie będę czerpać tutaj (czytać undergrad specjalny podręcznik względności), to czas mierzony przez obserwatora zależy od ścieżki Podróżuje przez czasoprzestrzeni. Nazywa się to we właściwym czasie. Ze względu na nieeuklidesowa charakter czasoprzestrzeni, najmniejsza odległość między dwoma punktami jest rzeczywiście to, co minimalizuje odpowiedni czas. Innymi słowy, skompresowanie poza krawędź galaktyki z prędkością światła, a następnie powrót wymaga mniej czasu dla Ciebie w statek kosmiczny niż miałoby to dla mnie czekać, podczas gdy jesteś w podróży. Jest to słynny paradoks bliźniąt.

    W każdym razie, wynikiem tego jest to, że przez zasady wariacyjne (który powinien być wam znane, jeśli już wystawione na działanie mechaniki Lagrange'a, które podejrzewają, że nie mają ...), obiekty w czasoprzestrzeni mają tendencję do podróży przez drogi, które minimalizuje ich właściwego czasu. Jak wspomniano powyżej, właściwe jest skrócony po podróży z dużą prędkością, albo jest w polu grawitacyjnym.

    Weź teraz, jako przykład, jabłko na drzewie. Jabłko będzie starał się zminimalizować jego odpowiedni czas. Będzie to zrobić w kierunku pola grawitacyjnego - a mianowicie, na Ziemi. Powoduje to siły przyciągania pomiędzy jabłkiem i planety. Innymi słowy, przyszłość Apple punktów worldlike w kierunku środka Ziemi.

    To jest jak grawitacja działa w pigułce. Fakt, że nie wiesz, zapobiegają twoja niekompetencja być przystąpieniem do pracy w tej dziedzinie. Ale to twoja własna czasu do stracenia, myślę, że ...

    • Geo mówi:

      Więc, niech mi to wprost ... Jabłko będzie próbował zminimalizować jego prawidłowego czas zmierza w kierunku pola grawitacyjnego i to jest grawitacja (w silnym sensie ontologicznym). Dlaczego jabłko spróbować zminimalizować jego odpowiedni czas? Czym jest pole grawitacyjne? Czym jest grawitacja? Twój komentarz nie naprawdę na żadne z tych pytań, a nawet pomógł wyjaśnić je. Wszystko co zrobiłem to określają magiczne pole, które przyciąga jabłka.

      • chandan Srivastava mówi:

        Najkrótsza distence może być miarą przez rachunku zmienności.

        • Thad Roberts mówi:

          Jesteś prawdą, że najmniejsza odległość może być mierzona za pomocą rachunku zmienności, tak długo, jak metryka mówimy jest gładka i podłączone. W quantized metryki sprawa jest trochę bardziej skomplikowana.

          • "W quantized metryki sprawa jest trochę bardziej skomplikowana." - Thad Roberts.

            Dlatego dalsza komplikacja dotyczy ziarnistości kwantowej, ponieważ odnosi się do wszystkich obiektów. Wszystkie obiekty są percepts, w tym koncepcji. Wszystkie rzeczywistości egzystencjalnej (świadomości) jest fenomenologiczna lub narracji. Błąd nie tylko konceptualizacji nadprzyrodzone. Jest to tym bardziej dotkliwie perceptualization z supernarrative. Innymi słowy, przywołaniem mistycznych bogów i wzywanie osób dyskretnych wolicjonalnych ożywione jak stoją we wzajemnej obiektów konstrukcji.

            Co do rachunku różniczkowego. To też nie zaczyna poruszyć kwestię istnienia. Jest jednak inny zabawny zmarszczki narracji.

      • Peter Martin mówi:

        "Czym jest grawitacja?", "Co to jest pole grawitacyjne?" Są to pseudo "IS" pytania, które ze swej natury nie można odpowiedzieć.

        Możesz poczytać o Towarzystwie Ganeral Semantyka czele Alfred Korzybski, który unikał wypowiedzi i pytania, których głównym (lub tylko) czasownik jest formą "być".

    • Jon mówi:

      Aby nunya: wszystko, co powiedział, jest wszystko dobrze, ale nie wyjaśnić jedną rzecz: to, co jest pole grawitacyjne? Ogólna teoria względności wyjaśnia działanie grawitacji, ale jeszcze nie naprawdę wyjaśnić, co jest grawitacja. Jak mówi w filmie, musieliśmy założyć, że grawitacja jest siłą. Ale jeśli tak, to dlaczego jest tak bardzo słaby w porównaniu do innych sił? Względność jest wielka teoria wielkich rzeczy, ale to nic nie wyjaśnia na subatomowych skali. Przynajmniej ta teoria daje takie same zasady dla całego wszechświata w każdej skali. I to daje wielką wyjaśnienie czym jest czas.

  2. Nunya Bizness mówi:

    Jest to zasada bezwładności: obiekt uda się w linii prostej, że działa na niego siła. Definicja "linii prostej" jest ścieżką, która minimalizuje odległość.

    Sedno GR jest, że przestrzeń nie jest płaska i że grawitacja jest przejawem wypaczony czasoprzestrzeni. To wypaczenie powoduje proste linie (te, które minimalizują odpowiedni czas) do łuku w kierunku kawałków masy - innymi słowy, obiekty przyciągają się nawzajem.

    Ogólna teoria względności jest bardzo skomplikowana teoria. Co napisałem jest śmiesznie krótka crash wprowadzenie do niego. Zamiast po prostu sceptycznie o wszystkim i odwołania go z ręki, to dlaczego nie rzeczywiście przeczytać podręcznik na temat względności? Trudno twierdzić, że już obalone nawet bez zrozumienia względności go najpierw ...

    • Geo mówi:

      Przede wszystkim, ja (i nie jestem Thad, więc nie mówię dla niego) nie jestem sceptyczny GR. Okazało sam jak każdy może teorii. W rzeczywistości, myślę, obok starożytnej greckiej teorii atomowej, to jest najważniejsze teoretyczne (fizyka) przełom ludzkość kiedykolwiek powstał. Powiedział, że nie sądzę, że jest kompletna, ani też samego Einsteina. Co nie sądzę, że rozumiesz, że QST jest rozszerzeniem gr. Pod wieloma względami kwantyzacji GR (z ciągłym do układu dyskretnej). Wydaje się, że jesteśmy trashing GR. My nie jesteśmy. Thad nie wymienić swoją książkę "Einsteina Intuition" na złość, ale raczej z szacunku. Jeśli nie zadał sobie trudu, aby słuchać tego, co zostało powiedziane w filmie byś otrzymał, że siebie.

      Po drugie, QST zakłada tę samą ideę, że grawitacja jest przejawem wypaczony czasoprzestrzeni. Ale QST daje konkretny mechanizm tego wypaczenia. Grawitacja jest, dosłownie, zmiana gęstości przestrzeni (gradient gęstości). Nie sądzę, że to rzuca GR przez okno. Przeciwnie, to stoi na wielkich barkach zarówno Einsteina i jego teorii.

      Jeśli chcesz mieć krytyczny, produktywnego dialogu na ten temat, Thad i ja jesteśmy bardziej niż chętny, aby to zrobić. Twój antagonizm i przeinaczeń z QST, jednak nie są interesujące dla nas.

      Pozdrawiam,

      Jeff (Site Admin)

      • Nunya Bizness mówi:

        Chodzi mi o to, że nie są walnąć GR. To, że są to nieporozumienie, aw konsekwencji wnioski Narysowane są nieprawidłowe.

        Na przykład, Thad mówi w filmie, że powszechnie postrzegane "trampolina" schemat GR jest błędne, ponieważ zaniedbuje oś przestrzeni, i że w jakiś sposób trzeba więcej wymiarów przestrzeni, aby "rozciągnąć się" dla GR do pracy. Oczywiście, że schemat jest nie tak - to tylko metafora. Jest używany tylko wprowadzenie pojęcia do świeckich, którzy, co zrozumiałe, mają trudny czas zmagają się z 4-wymiarowej pseudo-Riemanna kolektora. I pomyśleć, że ten prosty model oddaje teoria jest błędem. Przestrzeń może osnowy bez wypaczenia w inny wymiar.

        Istnieją niezliczone inne kwestie, które nie plac z ustalonymi matematyki i fizyki, takie jak pomysł, że pi reprezentuje ilość krzywizny (i że jest to minimalna wielkość krzywizny). Pi jest stosunkiem; Krzywizna jest mierzona kierunkowych pochodnych cząstkowych.

        Nie powiem wam, aby zatrzymać to, co robisz. Mówię wam, jak ktoś, kto jest przeszkolony w zakresie matematyki i fizyki, że jeśli jesteś zainteresowany tych rzeczy, jesteś na złej drodze, a to nie będzie cię w dowolne znaczenie. Przepraszam, czy to jest trudne, ale różnica między prawdą i fałszem jest bardzo ostry. To dlatego błagam ciebie i Thad studiować fizykę jak Względności ustalonych głębokości (czyli matematycznie) przed przystąpieniem do poprawy na nich.

        • Geo mówi:

          Doceniam to, co mówisz. Nie jestem matematykiem lub fizykiem, ale raczej zainteresowany (a prawdopodobnie ponad wykształconych) osoba świecka. Jednakże, istnieje kilka matematycy i fizycy pracujący na sformalizowanie QST teraz z Thad. Wydaje się, że coś jest z nim. Ci ludzie są zaznajomieni z teorii i matematyki mówisz, w swoich komentarzach. Zrobili więcej niż przeczytać teksty wprowadzające sugerujesz. Nie będąc ekspertem muszę odłożyć do nich. Powiedział, że żaden z nich rzucić swoje ręce i odszedł po wielu miesiącach pracy, a oni stają się coraz bardziej przekonany. Wciąż czuję, że jest coś do zyskania naukowo przez ich wysiłki.

          Od świeckiego punktu widzenia, QST oferty (przynajmniej dla mnie) wyjaśnienie wielu różnorodnym zjawisk (zarówno mikro- i makroskopowo), że opór wytłumaczenie do dziś. Jednym z punktów Thad jest to, że teoria, która nie zawiera wyjaśnienia, nie jest wiele teorii (byłoby to ukłucie w standardowej interpretacji mechaniki kwantowej, która jest bogato zasługuje). Rozumiem, że do czasu pełnego formalizacja jest kompletna większość społeczności naukowej nie da QST czas dnia (i wiele nie będzie, nawet jeśli, że formalizacja jest kompletna). Ale w tym momencie, teoria jest nadal testować w laboratorium logiki. Znajdź winy z jego logiką, jego terenie, w swoich wnioskach. To jest, gdzie jesteśmy teraz. Do tej pory, o ile mi wiadomo, nikt nie obalona żadnej z tych teoretycznych streszczeń QST.

          Oczywiście jest jeszcze wiele do zrobienia, ale wierzę, że (tak to przekonanie), że solidny fundament został już zbudowany. Jak to mówią, diabeł tkwi w szczegółach, a te szczegóły są dopracowywane. Referaty zostaną zapisane. Rówieśnicy zweryfikuje.

          Chciałbym zaprosić Państwa do zapoznania się z całą książkę (który możemy wysłać za pośrednictwem pliku PDF, jeśli chcesz).

        • Jon mówi:

          Nunya, gdzie byłeś człowiekiem? Wszystkie przełomowych fizyki są wykonywane zakłada, że ​​istnieją dodatkowe wymiary przestrzenne. Jeśli jesteś taki pewny, że GR jest się wszystko skończy wszystko, a następnie wyjaśnić tunelowania kwantowego. Wyjaśnić zasadę nieoznaczoności. On nie może go dotknąć. Einstein nie wierzył, że czarne dziury naprawdę istniał. Teraz mamy dowód, że istnieją miliony wszędzie. GR całkowicie rozkłada się w centrum czarnej dziury. Nie możemy iść do przodu, jeśli nie jesteśmy gotowi do rozpoznania możliwości dodatkowych wymiarów. Pobierz z programem.

        • Śruba G mówi:

          Opisałeś matematycznych wyjaśnienia sił. Możesz wyjaśnić, w jaki sposób zachowują się bez pojęcia, dlaczego.

          Warped modelu przestrzeń modelu laika, można rzucić go, jak przyjąć założenie, że przestrzeń może być zakrzywiona w sposób nie możemy postrzegać.

          Problemem jest to, że poprzez zdefiniowanie czegoś do krzywej (lub zmiany właściwości, nie ma różnicy) w sposób, który jest niezauważalny nas musi się poruszać w inny wymiar. Zmiana żadnego majątku jest zmiana "wymiar".

          Wyobrażając sobie te wymiary w sensie fizycznym po prostu sprawia, że ​​ich interakcje łatwiej zrozumieć, a przynajmniej daje świeże spojrzenie.

  3. Jan mówi:

    Myślę, że (nunya Bizness) całkowicie brakowało wiadomość. Zapraszamy do swojej opinii, ale po przeczytaniu ponad komentarze to wydaje mi się, że pomylił roszczeń kwantowej teorii przestrzeni. Wiem, że preparat nie jest jeszcze kompletna, ale fundamentalne zasady mają spójności.

    Jestem zainteresowany twierdzenia, że ​​"przestrzeń może osnowy bez wypaczenia w inny wymiar."

    Nie znajduję podstaw do tego znaczne roszczenia. Pozwól mi wyjaśnić. Powiedzieć, że przestrzeń może osnowy bez wypaczenia w innych wymiarach to znaczy, że masz mechanizm, wyjaśnienie, na jak przestrzeń może wypaczać - nie tylko opis, jak przestrzeń jest wypaczony wokół masywnych obiektów. Chociaż może się okazać, że są sprawy istnieją inne sposoby na przestrzeń do osnowy (inne niż wypaczenia do innych wymiarów), takie roszczenie nie może być uzasadnione, aż jakiś przykład jest wysunięte. Nie można po prostu powiedzieć, wygląd, przestrzeń jest wypaczone, ponieważ mamy danej przestrzeni metrykę, który daje jej jakość jest wypaczony. Wymyślanie reprezentacji jakość jest zupełnie inny od wyjaśnienia, że ​​jakość. W obecnej chwili (w nowoczesnych podręczników) sam sens "wypaczony przestrzeni" jest niedostępny. Oczywiście można użyć matematyki do jej reprezentowania, naśladować go, skopiuj go, czy cokolwiek, ale matematyka nie musi oznaczać, że masz wyjaśnienie jego pochodzenia. Dokładnie tak, jak robi czasoprzestrzeni osnowy bez wypaczenia w inny wymiar (y)? To jest kluczowe pytanie pod ręką. Kwantowa teoria przestrzeni mówi, że nie może, ale nie naciskać wypaczony czasoprzestrzeń się w kadrze, a nie wyjaśnia, w jaki sposób urzeczywistnia się osnowy - dochodzeniu Einstein w sposób, który bardzo mu się podoba.

    Czytałem trochę więcej niż podręcznikach mówisz,. Brałem klasy (zarówno w dziedzinie matematyki i fizyki), a potem poszedł dalej. 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. Okres. 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 mówi:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        We could not agree more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Curvature is a characteristic.

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

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

        Dokładnie. 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 mówi:

          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.

    Milowy coś jest najmniejsza możliwa jednostka tej rzeczy. Milowy przestrzeni jest "bańka", poza którym nie ma definicji przestrzeni. Jednak, nie ma miejsca wewnątrz pęcherzyków, w jakiś sposób.

    Grawitacja jest reprezentowany jako gradient gęstości przestrzeni kwantów. Ale grawitacja jest spowodowane materii. Materia nie ma miejsca. Jak to się ma jeszcze sens?

    Czas jest rezonowanie przestrzeni kwantów. Czemu? W jaki sposób? Jakie rozumowanie prowadzi do tego wniosku?

    Jeśli istnieje 11 wymiary, dlaczego nie możemy ich zobaczyć? String Theory mówi dodatkowe te są zwinięte się bardzo małe. QST wydaje się mieć dodatkowe wymiary właśnie rodzaj ... pływające tam ...

    • Geo mówi:

      Pozwól mi rozwiązać te pytania najlepiej jak jeden po drugim, że:

      "Pi reprezentuje najmniejszą ilość krzywizny czasoprzestrzeni w możliwych. (Znak rosyjski) reprezentuje największą ilość. "

      [Postać rosyjski jest "Zhe"]

      Na ogół wzgl stosunek obwodu średnicy dąży do zera, gdy czarnym otwory w regionie, którego krzywizna jest opisane (gdyż mianownik średnica okręgu ze środkiem w czarną dziurę, dąży do nieskończoności, gdy spacetime jest ciągły i czarnych dziur są zerowe wielkości). Mechanika kwantowa ma problem z tym nieskończoności w mianowniku. Jest ono sprzeczne z ogólnej teorii względności w tej kwestii i odcina tej nieskończoności z jego twierdzeniem, że najmniejsza odległość w przestrzeni jest długością Plancka. QST zgadza się z tym roszczenia, a jego geometria oferuje nam drogę do ilościowego określenia wyrażenie dla maksymalnej krzywizny, który jest ustanowiony przez to odcięty. Dlaczego jest to ciekawe? Jest to interesujące, ponieważ, jeśli jest to prawda, oznacza to, że istnieją dwa bezwymiarowe liczby związanego z mapy geometrycznej czasoprzestrzeni połączone z pięciu wartości Plancka, które wynikają z kwantyzacji. To prowadzi nas do czegoś jeszcze bardziej interesujące ... Cokolwiek to jest inny numer geometryczne, jego wartość musi być od zera do pi. Zawężenie go więcej nie ma silne oczekiwanie, że jest między 0 a 0,7. Więc twierdzenie tego modelu geometrycznego jest to, że istnieje pewna liczba z zakresu od 0 do 0,7, które mogą być łączone z 5 parametrów Plancka i pi, do nonarbitrarily produkować lub "kodowanie" efektów geometrycznych, które są nieodłączne w czasoprzestrzeni - Stałe Natura. Jak się okazuje, nie ma takiego numeru, a zdarza się, spadać w tym zakresie. (Zobacz stałe od strony przyrody na tej stronie.) Jest to na tyle istotne, aby uzasadnić obecne wysiłki, aby teoretycznie wyliczyć dokładną wartość tej liczby od rozważań geometrycznych.

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

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

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

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

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

      “Time is the resonation of space quanta. Czemu? W jaki sposób? What reasoning leads to this conclusion?”

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

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

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

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

      • Jon says:

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

        • Thad Roberts mówi:

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

  5. Phyn says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Thad Roberts mówi:

    Phyn,

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

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

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

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

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

    4. Przepraszam jeśli misspoke lub spowodował zamieszanie w tej kwestii. W naszym systemie długość Plancka jest definiowany jako najmniejsza jednostka kwantowej x, y, z. Tak jak atom złota jest drobnica jednostka szansę na złoto, kwant przestrzeni jest najmniejszą jednostką każdego x, y, z tomu. To ma sens, aby porozmawiać o mniej niż jednego atomu złota, lub wizualizacji dzieląc atom złota, ale nie ma sens kontynuowania nazywając to, co w końcu z ułamek atomu złota. Po przejść złoty mniejsze niż jeden atom masz przekroczone definicję złota. Nie ma żadnej więcej złota w jakimkolwiek sensie. W tym momencie jesteś zmuszony uznać, że to, co jest czymś zupełnie innym od złota. To samo odnosi się do naszego układu geometrycznego. Ponieważ stworzyliśmy przestrzeń aksjomatów, który definiuje medium x, y, z, jak jest złożona z kwantów, składającą się z jednostek podstawowych, nie możemy mówić o mniejszych jednostek i nadal mówić o czymkolwiek w X, Y, Z krainy. To jednak nie hamuje nas przed mówić o czymś mniejszym. To po prostu wymaga, że ​​kiedy my wiemy, że mówimy o czymś innym. O ile mówimy o wymiarach przestrzennych, pozycje w ramach jednego kwantu zajmują różne pozycje superspatial, ale te różne pozycje nie odzwierciedlają na x, y, z metrycznym. Geometria jest bardzo interesujące matematycznie, ponieważ jest całkowicie odwracalna map. Innymi słowy, jest to idealne wstęga geometryczne. Jak się okazuje, ten system wydaje się również pochodzi z kilku właściwości (jak charakterze statystycznym wspomniałeś wcześniej), które są bardzo sugestywne kwantowych efektów mechanicznych.

    5. Wielkie pytania. W krótkiej odpowiedzi: sprawa jest każdy stabilny (na co skala zdecydujesz się zdefiniować jako wystarczająco długo, aby liczyć jako "stabilny") zakłóceń w układach geometrycznych przestrzeni kwantów. Na przykład, jeśli dwa kwanty sklejają się ze sobą, jak pęcherzyki przez długi okres czasu, zanim zostaną oddzielone od innych zderzeniach, to stanowią one geometryczne zagięcia w tym okresie czasu. Ten rodzaj jest masa. Energia może być traktowane jako zakłócenia, które nie są stabilne, bez rozmnażania. Fala gęstości, na przykład mogą przemieszczać się od punktu A do punktu B i jest uważany za trwały w czasie propagacji, ale nie może się zatrzymać bez propagacji medium.

    Światło nie zawsze podróżować w C, w x, y, z medium. Prędkość fal o określonej średniej zmiany jak gęstość, ciśnienia, temperatury tej zmianie medium. Tak więc od jedenastu wymiarowych perspektywicznych fal, które poruszają się przez medium zostaną rozwiązane za mające prędkości, które zależą od gęstości tego medium. Jednak w porównaniu do samego nośnika Prędkość ta nie jest zmienny. Innymi słowy, z wewnętrznych x, y, z perspektywy prędkość światła jest stała. Być może brakuje mi ciąg swojego punktu / pytanie. Proszę rozwinąć jeśli nie zajęły swoje obawy.

    6. technicznie elektron jest zdefiniowany jako o wielkości promienia zera. Od mechanika kwantowa ogranicza minimalną wielkość do długości Plancka możemy myśleć, że "zero" naprawdę oznacza jedną długość Plancka. Nie jestem pewien, gdzie stoję na tym specjalnie. Ale powiem, że prawdopodobieństwo elektrony płynąć przez medium, bez interakcji wiele jest dość duży, jeśli jest nawet blisko jednej długości Plancka.

    Dziękujemy za Twoje spostrzeżenia, myśli i pytań. Ja osobiście życzyć powodzenia, jak prowadzić własny rozwój TOE. Jeśli padają takie pytania, jak to jestem pewien, że będziesz mieć duży wpływ na świat.

    Thad

    • Phyn mówi:

      Thad,

      Dzięki za szybką odpowiedź i rozliczeń moje komentarze / pytania. Mam kilka więcej o odpowiedź. (Postaram się ponumerować je dopasować poprzednich numerów)

      3. Może to być po prostu z mojego braku wiedzy / doświadczenia, ale nie jest nie-znikome prawdopodobieństwo (używając mechaniki statystycznej), że region może stanowić o bardzo wysokiej gęstości przestrzeni kwantów lub bardzo niskiej gęstości? Patrząc wstecz, zdaję sobie sprawę, teraz prawdopodobieństwo takich region formowania się wykrywalnego skali jest bardzo mało prawdopodobne, ale jest jakaś szansa. Tak nie może być region lub regiony we wszechświecie, które działają jak czarna dziura (lub odwrotności, że) bez energii lub masy po spowodowanej go. Albo jestem rozciąganie, jak może takie zdarzenie będzie?

      4. Myślę, że to, co starałem się zwrócić z tym pytanie, dlaczego te trzy wymiary, które są zdefiniowane w kwantów są konieczne?

      5. Moje pytania o światła w zasadzie dotyczy, jak światło jest inny niż materii w swojej teorii. Jeśli światło podróżuje również poprzez super-przestrzeni i przestrzeni kwantów, dlaczego jest nadal postrzegane jako poruszający się w każdej prędkości c obserwator jest co? Jak rozumiem, światło powodem zawsze porusza się c dlatego szczególna teoria względności ma asymptotyczne zachowanie. Dylatacja czasu i przestrzeni kurczenie przejść do nieskończoności, jak prędkość idzie do c. Widzę, że w teorii zachowanie byłoby wykładniczy, ale to nie jest dla mnie jasne, dlaczego byłoby również asymptotycznej. Światło będzie nadal przechodzić z przestrzeni kwantów do super-przestrzeni do przestrzeni kwantów, więc nie będzie to jeszcze doświadczyć trochę czasu i przestrzeni? Niestety, jeśli nie jestem są jasne.

      Również zastanawiałem się, o tym, jak twoja teoria pasuje do teorii super inflacji. Kwanty mogą być tworzone miejsca / zniszczone? Nie zakładamy, a jeśli tak, to znaczy, wszechświat przed super inflacja była w pewnym sensie super czarna dziura? W tej teorii była super inflacji tylko ekspansji jeśli są bardzo gęste region przestrzeni kwantów? A może masz jakieś inne wytłumaczenie? W podobny sposób, nie ma miejsca na kwanty ograniczenie prędkości? Jeśli tak, co to jest? Jeśli jest to c jak można wytłumaczyć razie super inflacji?

      Dzięki jeszcze raz,
      Phyn

  7. Thad Roberts mówi:

    Phyn,

    Wielkie pytania. :-)

    3. Tak, ze względu na energii próżni istnieje pewne prawdopodobieństwo, że względu na to, czy o to chodzi nawet makroskopowe czarna dziura, może tworzyć bez żadnych wcześniejszych form materii prowadzące do jej powstania. Jednak, aby powiedzieć, że powstał bez energii, które spowodowało to może być trochę odcinku. Jeśli ograniczymy naszą definicję energii do określonych form, jak światło lub barionowej, to możemy powiedzieć, że. Ale takie ograniczenie wydaje się nieco sztuczny mnie. Nieodłącznym energia kwantów przestrzeni odbijając się i interakcji z siebie będzie odpowiedzialny.

    4. W ciągu quantized metryki trzy wymiary przestrzenne wewnątrzwspólnotowe są niezbędne do określenia pozycji dokładniej niż x, y, z wymiary pozwalają. Na bardziej metafizycznym poziomie (filozoficznej definicji metafizycznego nie nowego życia jednego) pozwalają również na dostęp rzeczywistą strukturę Wszechświata i jak, że struktura jest odpowiedzialny za, jak się sprawy mają. Jeśli je zignorował to bylibyśmy brakuje część obrazu. I interpretacji systemu z obniżonej budowy może prowadzić do nieporozumień. Technicznie budowa jedenaście-wymiarowej jest tylko przybliżeniem. Kolejny stopień zwiększenia dokładności jest aksjomat wymiarach metrycznych z 30, potem 85, potem 248 i tak dalej. Pełny obraz prezentuje jako fraktali, i że pełna struktura daje nam nawet bogatszy dostęp do pytania, które sięgają poza granice naszego lokalnego systemu (Wszechświata = wszystkie miejsca połączone ostatniego Wielkiego Wybuchu).

    5. To pytanie jest bogata i warto trochę czasu. Być może byłbyś zainteresowany przeczytaniu mojej książki preprint? Rozdział 8 - Prędkość czasoprzestrzeni szczegółowo wyjaśnia, dlaczego prędkość światła jest stała, zgodnie z tym geometrii i dlaczego skrócenie Lorentza i dylatacja czasu wystąpienia. Twoje pytanie może być w pełni uwzględnione w tam.

    Jeśli jestem zrozumienie Twoje pytanie poprawnie, to być może warto zwrócić uwagę, że zgodnie z definicjami zawartymi w naszej budowy kwant przestrzeni nie przeżyć razem spodziewać się całkowitej liczby odstępach czasu Plancka. Jednak nadal występują kwanty nie jak superczasu poruszania się SUPERSPACE. Oznacza to, że rzeczy mogą poruszać się z kwantów do kwantów, jak my, obserwatorzy przesunąć w czasie, ale ponieważ przechodząc z jednego kwantu do drugiego wiąże się sprężyste właściwości kwantów (tak jak i upływ czasu), najszybciej coś może poruszać się x, y, z przestrzeni jest taka, że ​​ilość kwantów ona przeniesiona jest równa liczbie chronons w czasie, gdy obserwator wieku. To coś porusza / energii przez x, y, zabudowy Z, ale nie przenieść się w czasie (bo nie doświadczyliśmy żadnych niezależnych rezonowaniem). To zmienia położenia w przestrzeni i obserwator porusza się w czasie równoważnym liczby wartości kwantowej. Więc wszystko zmierza w ten sposób nie porusza się w przestrzeni, a następnie SUPERSPACE, przestrzeń, SUPERSPACE, i tak dalej, i cały czas przez superczasu, ale nie przesuwa się w czasie. Ma ona jednak doświadczyć superczasu. Czy to, co pan zmierza?

    Ponadto, jak na swoje pytanie o inflacji ... Wierzę, że QST nie ma oczekiwania, że ​​przestrzeń Zakaz być tworzone lub zniszczone. Wielki Wybuch, w tym modelu występuje, ponieważ inny wszechświat poza systemem naszego wszechświata zderza się z naszym wszechświecie. Struktura naszego świata (ustalenia kwantów przestrzeni) zmienia się w odpowiedzi na to tak, że wszystkie kwantów są dociskane do siebie. Kompletny system to kolekcja, w której nie istnieją niezależnie działających kwantów (stąd działa tak, jakby było tylko jedno miejsce w całym Wszechświecie i oczywiście nie ma czasu). To jest bardzo blisko obraz czarnej dziury, tylko prawdziwy czarnych form otworów wewnętrznie z utratą energii, w tym energii z formy z zewnątrz systemu, więc nie jest stabilna konfiguracja. Następnie, gdy oba systemy odbić się od siebie ich składniki wewnętrzne zaczynają oddzielenie, przez co nie będzie więcej niż jeden wyjątkowo działający położenie w każdej z nich. Tak więc każdy wszechświat przechodzi z jednego skutecznie o wyjątkowej lokalizacji i nie ma czasu na o wiele, wiele wyjątkowo zachowujących lokalizacje i trochę czasu w bardzo krótkim błysku (czy to poprzez pomiar czasu lub superczasu). Rozdział 29 zajmuje się tym temacie znacznie bardziej szczegółowo należy pragnąć, aby ją przeczytać.

    Mam nadzieję, że pomaga.

    Proszę pamiętać, nawet jeśli ta teoria w końcu kończy się jiving bardzo dobrze z tym, co wiemy do tej pory, i daje nam więcej wyjaśnienia, że ​​każda inna konstrukcja, to nie znaczy, że jest dobrze, czy to, że nie wszyscy powinni prosić Pytania i wymyślając nowe sposoby widzenia rzeczy. Wspinaczka poza naszym obecnym krawędzi zrozumienia jest to, co w tym wszystkim chodzi.

    • Phyn mówi:

      Thad,

      Dzięki za odpowiedzi. Myślę, że czyści się pytania, które mam teraz. Właśnie o kopię sprzed druku książki i nie mogę się doczekać, aby wniknąć głębiej w tej teorii. I całkowicie zgadzam się, że zawsze trzeba zachować przesłuchania.

      Phyn

  8. Stephen mówi:

    To pytanie jest dla Thad, lub dla każdego, kto może go odebrać. Jestem naprawdę pod wrażeniem tego wszystkiego. To na pewno bardzo przekonujące i nie mogę się doczekać, aby zobaczyć, jak to jest albo obsługiwany lub obalone w społeczności naukowej. Główne pytanie, mam jednak to, w jaki sposób QST grać do powstania sił w pierwszych chwilach po Wielkim Wybuchu? Wiem, że fizyka teoretyczna utrzymuje, że podstawowe siły pojawiły się w wyniku Wielkiego Wybuchu i nie były bezpośrednio obecny na początku wszechświata. Zastanawiam się tylko, czy QST zapewnia kompleksowe wyjaśnienie tego. Jeśli nie masz nic przeciwko to nie dzielenie, że się ze mną? Ponadto, jeśli nie jest to wyczerpujące wyjaśnienie, można wyjaśnić, w jaki sposób ustalić, że podstawowe siły nie były obecne na genezy wszechświata?

    Również Szukałem w internecie i nie bardzo byłem w stanie znaleźć wiele na QST innego niż na swojej stronie internetowej. Zastanawiam się tylko, dlaczego taki ciekawy pomysł, nie zakorzeniła się w środowisku naukowym i dlaczego nikt nie mówił o tym otwarcie teorii Ciebie. Czy wiesz, dlaczego tak jest? Chciałbym usłyszeć więcej na ten temat. Byłem wydziobujących swoją stronę obserwował oba kawałki rozmowy i porozmawiać Ted, który, miejmy nadzieję uczynić te idee bardziej publiczne, i jestem bardzo podekscytowany perspektywą QST i co to może oznaczać dla szerokości ludzkiej wiedzy.

    • Thad Roberts mówi:

      Szanowny Stephen,

      Dziękuję za Twoją wiadomość.

      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.

      Dziękuje za twoje zainteresowanie.

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

      Sincerely,
      Thad

      • Stephen says:

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

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

        • Thad Roberts mówi:

          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 mówi:

      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 mówi:

      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 mówi:

    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'

    Wielkie dzięki,

    -Gary
    Humble Student, The Open University (UK)

    • Thad Roberts mówi:

      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 mówi:

      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:

    Drogi 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 mówi:

      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. Wysyłając książkę teraz. Please examine it in full and send your critique.

  18. Shane Killeen says:

    Hi Thad

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

  19. Niklas says:

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

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

    • Thad Roberts mówi:

      Hi Niklas,

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

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

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

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

  20. John says:

    Thad,

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

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

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

    • Thad Roberts mówi:

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

  21. Christian Grieco says:

    Thad,

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

    • Thad Roberts mówi:

      Dziękuję. Jestem wysyłając Cię książkę teraz.

      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 mówi:

      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. Wysłanie go do ciebie.

  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 mówi:

      Oczywiście. 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 mówi:

      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 mówi:

      Hi Elizabeth,
      Dziękuję za Twoje wsparcie. 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 mówi:

      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:

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

  28. Sahil mówi:

    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?

    Dzięki
    stewart

    • Thad Roberts mówi:

      Książka jest już dostępna za pośrednictwem Lulu .com (twarda), w pełnym kolorze (miękka Amazon com pełnego koloru), lub za pośrednictwem iTunes (iBook). Znajdziesz tu linki do każdego.

      http: // www .ein steinsin TU Rozbiórka .com

      Jeśli chcesz podpisaną kopię proszę dać mi znać. Jeśli nie możesz sobie pozwolić na $ 14,99 w tym czasie (do iBook) wyślij mi kolejną wiadomość i daj mi znać.

  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. Dzięki.

    • Thad Roberts mówi:

      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). Znajdziesz tu linki do każdego.

      http: // www .ein steinsin TU Rozbiórka .com

      Jeśli chcesz podpisaną kopię proszę dać mi znać. Jeśli nie możesz sobie pozwolić na $ 14,99 w tym czasie (do iBook) wyślij mi kolejną wiadomość i daj mi znać.

      • 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 mówi:

          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:

    Witaj 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 :)
    Dziękuję
    Żegnaj

    • Thad Roberts mówi:

      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.

Zostaw odpowiedź




Jeśli chcesz pokazać zdjęcie z Twojego komentarza, przejdź się Gravatar.