Overview of qst

quantum space theory: the short version

The axiomatic frame­work of quantum space theory stems directly from the assump­tion that space has a fractal struc­ture; that space is geo­met­ri­cally con­structed from quanta that are in turn con­structed from sub­quanta, and so on ad infinitum. This geo­metric starting point realigns our expec­ta­tions of what we should observe in Nature. In as much as those expec­ta­tions line up with the mys­teries of physics they give us intu­itive access to them. The ques­tion is, how pre­cisely does this new model line up with those mys­te­rious effects?

To answer that ques­tion Thad Roberts, and a team of others, are cur­rently pur­suing the full math­e­mat­ical for­mu­la­tion of this geom­etry. They have rec­og­nized that whether or not this new model turns out to be cor­rect, it has sci­en­tific value. We have known for some time now that Nature is not Euclidean in form, but Euclidean geom­etry con­tinues to be extremely valu­able to the sci­ences. In this sense qst, at min­imum, has value in that it offers us a new per­spec­tive. The theory paints a multi-dimensional realm, with more tex­ture than we pre­vi­ously assumed, which is con­trolled by the laws of cause and effect. It reveals a Universe that is, on every level, a deter­min­istic system.

Thad believes that this return to deter­minism has the ability to heighten our humanity by putting us in better touch with reality, by helping us see the infi­nite cas­cade of our actions, and by giving us clarity of our ‘mag­nif­i­cent insignificance.’ He invites us to explore this new per­spec­tive and encour­ages us all to par­tic­i­pate in the adven­ture of dis­cov­ering Nature’s truths for ourselves.

Thad knows full well that this new theory might not turn out to accu­rately map Nature. So far sev­eral testable pre­dic­tions fall out of quantum space theory. Any one of them could dis­prove the theory. Still, when it comes to com­pleting Einstein’s task, he believes that it is the duty of sci­en­tists to explore all rea­son­able pos­si­bil­i­ties until they have been proven wrong.

Contact us if you are inter­ested in joining the effort.

Axioms

Quantum space theory posits itself as a pos­sible coherent axiomatic expla­na­tion for the mys­te­rious effects described in quantum mechanics and gen­eral rel­a­tivity. This a new pic­ture of space­time comes from new pos­tu­lates, a new set of axioms about the struc­ture of spacetime’s fabric (defining it to be a geo­metric fractal). The theory depends upon those axioms in a deductive-nomological fashion. So far, the theory appears to be sug­gesting that, although effects like curved space­time, black holes, quantum tun­neling, wave/particle duality, dark energy, dark matter, non­lo­cality, Heisenberg uncer­tainty, etc., are log­i­cally unin­tel­li­gible when they are fil­tered through Euclidean assump­tions (that space is infi­nitely smooth, con­tin­uous, and made up of only three dimen­sions), an intu­itive under­standing of those effects can be achieved if we start with the assump­tion that space­time has the axiomatic struc­ture of a fractal.

The axioms of qst are:

1. The fabric of space con­forms to a per­fect fractal: the familiar medium of x, y, z space is com­posed of a large number of “space atoms” called quanta that inter­ac­tively mix about; those quanta are com­posed of a large number of sub-quanta and so on, ad infinitum.
2. Time is uniquely defined at each loca­tion in space (for each quantum) as the number of whole res­onations each quantum undergoes.
3. Energy (total geo­metric dis­tor­tion) is con­served, and geo­metric dis­tor­tions are inter­change­able from one kind to another, including the trans­fer­ence from the quantum level to the sub-quantum level.

Some of the the­o­rems that fall out of those axioms are:

1. The total number of space­time dimen­sions depends on the res­o­lu­tion we desire from our map. (Are we only quan­tizing the fabric of x, y, z? Or are we also keeping track of the sub­quanta that those quanta are com­posed of? and so on.) For any arbi­trary res­o­lu­tion, the number of dimen­sions is equal to 3ⁿ + n. A second order per­spec­tive (n = 2) quan­tizes the fabric of space one time, and a third order per­spec­tive quan­tizes the vol­umes of that fabric, and so on, ad infinitum.
2. Quantization restricts the range of space­time cur­va­ture: the min­imum state of cur­va­ture (zero cur­va­ture) can be rep­re­sented by the ratio of a circle’s cir­cum­fer­ence to its diam­eter in flat space (π), and the max­imum state of cur­va­ture can be rep­re­sented by the value of that ratio in max­i­mally curved space­time, a number that we will rep­re­sent with the letter ж (“zhe”).
3. The con­stants of Nature are deriv­a­tives of the geom­etry of space­time: they are simple com­pos­ites of π, ж, and the five Planck numbers.
4. When the quanta of space are stuck together they do not expe­ri­ence time because they cannot inde­pen­dently resonate.
5. Black holes are col­lec­tions of quanta that are stuck together — regions of max­imum spa­tial density.
6. When two objects occupy regions of dif­ferent quantum den­sity, the object in the region of greater den­sity will expe­ri­ence less time.
7. Because the quanta are ulti­mately com­posed of sub­quanta, all prop­a­ga­tions through space will transfer some energy from the quantum level (motion of the quanta) to the sub­quantum level (to the internal geo­metric arrange­ments and motions of the sub­quanta). Although this trans­fer­ence, or loss of energy, is very small (being approx­i­mately equal to the energy mul­ti­plied by the ratio of the sub­quantum scale to the quantum scale) it is addi­tive. Therefore, it can become sig­nif­i­cant over large scales — leading to what we now call red-shift.

Some of the testable hypotheses, or pre­dic­tions, of this theory are:

1. When we place a circle of any (macro­scopic) size in a region where the gra­dient of space­time cur­va­ture is at a min­imum (where there is zero change in cur­va­ture throughout the region) the ratio of its cir­cum­fer­ence to its diam­eter gives us a value of 3.1415926… (π). Qst pre­dicts that this ratio will decrease if the circle occu­pies a region with a nonzero gra­dient of space­time cur­va­ture. Furthermore, it pre­dicts that in regions where the gra­dient of space­time cur­va­ture is at a max­imum there will be a min­imum pos­sible value for this cir­cum­fer­ence to diam­eter ratio. More specif­i­cally, for all pos­sible cir­cles cen­tered around a black hole the min­imum cir­cum­fer­ence to diam­eter ratio will be equal to 0.30282212… (ж).Qst makes this pre­dic­tion because it dic­tates that, instead of being ran­domly ascribed, the con­stants of Nature are imme­diate con­se­quences of the geo­metric char­acter of space­time. Quantizing space­time means that we have a nat­ural min­imum unit of dis­tancethe Planck length) and a nat­ural min­imum unit of time (the Planck time). Maximum amounts of mass, charge, and tem­per­a­ture are also asso­ci­ated with those min­imum units of space and time (Planck mass, Planck charge, and Planck tem­per­a­ture). And min­imum and max­imum limits for the gra­dient of space­time cur­va­ture (π and ж) are also required of a quan­tized space­time map. According to qst, the con­stants of Nature are com­pos­ites of these seven num­bers. As it turns out, this claim holds when ж is equal to 0.30282212021(11).
2. Temperature depen­dent phase changes exist in space-regions where the average geo­metric con­nec­tivity of the quanta of space tran­si­tion from one state to another. Furthermore, because the back­ground tem­per­a­ture of the uni­verse is cooling (the average wave­length of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is decreasing), the frac­tion of space char­ac­ter­ized by  the denser geom­etry should become more preva­lent with time.
3. The average radii of dark matter haloes should decrease as the energy output of the host galaxy decreases; when com­paring con­tem­po­rary haloes the average radii of these haloes should, on average, be greater if the energy output of the host galaxy is greater; the fur­ther the back­ground tem­per­a­ture of space drops below the tem­per­a­ture of the crit­ical phase tran­si­tion the smaller the average radii of dark matter haloes should be; and the radii of local dark matter haloes should decrease in the future.
4. Quantum tun­neling should be less fre­quent in regions of greater cur­va­ture (regions with a greater den­sity of space quanta).
5. Supersymmetric geome­tries are avail­able only if the total number of dimen­sions in that axiomatic frame­work is equal to 3ⁿ + n, where n is an integer.
6. When the highest-energy gamma rays reach us from dis­tant super­nova, they should be less red-shifted in pro­por­tion to the dif­fer­ence in time between the arrival of the gamma rays and the remaining wave­lengths divided by the travel time of the longer wavelengths.

impact

Whether or not this new map stands the test of time, it does gives us a com­pletely new and useful way to see the world. Up until now, our intu­ition about the world has been impris­oned by the con­fines of four dimen­sions (three dimen­sions of space plus one dimen­sion of time). Our inves­ti­ga­tions of the mys­teries effects we have observed in Nature have all started from this ref­er­ence. In order to hold onto these assump­tions we have tried to explain unex­pected effects (like the Moon orbiting the Earth instead of just going straight through space) by inventing “forces” that might be held respon­sible for those effects. But we have always been forced to super­im­pose the equa­tions of those forces on top of our pre­con­ceived axiomatic con­struc­tion. Einstein inter­rupted this process by con­structing a geom­etry that included the effects of gravity within his metric. A fully intu­itive map of his geom­etry was never accom­plished. Qst extends this approach by intro­ducing us to a new intu­itive geom­etry — an eleven-dimensional geom­etry (nine space dimen­sions and two time dimen­sions) in which (at least at this stage) all of Nature’s strange char­ac­ter­is­tics (the four forces) appear to be included within the char­acter of that axiomatic frame­work. (To deter­mine whether or not those geo­metric char­ac­ter­is­tics match the effects we have observed with per­fect pre­ci­sion a full math­e­mat­ical for­malism of the axiomatic struc­ture will have to be com­pleted — a project that is underway.)

It takes some prac­tice to switch from seeing through the lens of our habitual four-dimensional assump­tions to seeing Nature in its full eleven-dimensional form. The remark­able thing is that once the pic­ture is intu­itively absorbed the arcana of gen­eral rel­a­tivity and quantum mechanics appear to be nec­es­sary con­di­tions of Nature’s geo­metric struc­ture. Just how pre­cisely qst maps all of Nature’s char­ac­ter­is­tics is a matter of sci­en­tific inves­ti­ga­tion. Before that ques­tion is resolved we can be assured that, as a deduc­tive con­struc­tion, the model has sig­nif­i­cant sci­en­tific value. (Note that we have known for quite some time that Nature does not actu­ally map to Euclidean geom­etry, nev­er­the­less, the deduc­tive, axiomatic frame­work known as Euclidean geom­etry con­tinues to be a very useful and prac­tical tool).

The mere pos­si­bility that quantum space theory maps the entire spec­trum of Nature’s col­orful char­acter might makes it worthy of inves­ti­ga­tion. The fact that the model enables us to visu­alize eleven dimen­sions simul­ta­ne­ously — some­thing that has never been done before — speaks to its con­trib­u­tory value to sci­ence and the goal of expanding the reach of human intu­itions beyond our inbuilt senses.

To start grasping this higher-dimensional intu­itive pic­ture check out the book excerpts in the book excerpts sec­tion. If you are more ana­lyt­i­cally inclined you may desire to skip ahead to the con­stants of Nature sec­tion where you will dis­cover how 27 con­stants are pre­cisely deter­mined by the eleven-dimensional geom­etry of qst. Or visit the pre­dic­tions sec­tion where sev­eral of the con­se­quences of this new geom­etry are laid out. Examine the for­malism sec­tion where the foun­da­tional math­e­matics from which qst hopes to extend is explained.

A 54 minute intro­duc­tion to this eleven dimen­sional geom­etry is avail­able via the “Conversations” video posted on this site. The full geo­metric expla­na­tion, laid out in the forth­coming book titled ‘Einstein’s Intuition’ by Thad Roberts, is also avail­able by spe­cial request.

Generally put, qst is a deduc­tive theory that the­o­ret­i­cally welds the effects of gen­eral rel­a­tivity and quantum mechanics together into one intu­itively acces­sible eleven-dimensional geom­etry. In his book, Thad Roberts lays out a intu­itive con­cep­tual bridge into the mys­teries of modern physics, and then he invites us all to use that bridge to become a part of the sci­en­tific inves­ti­ga­tion that Einstein ded­i­cated his life to. Some of the mys­teries this process allows us to pen­e­trate are: Heisenberg uncer­tainty, wave/particle duality, what the insides of black holes are like, the cause of the Big Bang, why the con­stants of Nature are what they are, dark matter, dark energy and so on.

The impact of all this might end up with the claim that big sci­ence is no longer only for the pro­fes­sional physi­cist. Whether or not the model of quantum space theory is shown to map Nature with pre­ci­sion, once we are equipped with the eleven-dimensional geom­etry that Thad describes in his book, all of the biggest ques­tions in physics become reducible to mat­ters that are ele­gant and simple for anyone to under­stand. Through this new geom­etry we all become capable of reaching beyond the limits of human senses and par­tic­i­pating in the mys­teries that extend beyond our his­tor­ical horizon.

why it is needed

As Thad states in chapter one of his book, Einstein’s Intuition, we need to return to a place akin to where the young Einstein found him­self, a place where the senses are allowed a deep con­nec­tion to Nature, facil­i­tating Einstein’s envi­sion­ment of the prop­er­ties of light and time. Thad goes on, “this … high­lights a fun­da­mental problem in the approach taken by modern physics. For the past sev­eral decades, the­o­rists and math­e­mati­cians have been working on con­structing a frame­work of Nature that is capable of math­e­mat­i­cally com­bining the descrip­tions of gen­eral rel­a­tivity and quantum mechanics under the same rubric. … But their efforts have been focused on orga­nizing Nature’s data into a self-consistent assembly — like the ones and zeros of a dig­ital pic­ture. The problem is that this induc­tive approach does not encourage, let alone require, the dis­covery of a con­cep­tual portal.”

“Even if physi­cists were one day to con­clude that their assembly was math­e­mat­i­cally cor­rect, it would not actu­ally increase our ability to truly com­pre­hend Nature unless it was trans­lated into some sort of pic­ture. Therefore, since it is really the pic­ture that we are after, maybe it is time for us to con­sider whether or not our efforts will bear more fruit under a dif­ferent approach. Specifically, to max­i­mize our chances of com­pleting our goal of intu­itively grasping Nature’s com­plete form, maybe we should follow the lead of young Einstein and return to a deduc­tive con­cep­tual approach. Perhaps it is time for us to place our focus on con­structing a richer map of phys­ical reality. If we don’t, then all of Nature’s elab­o­rate arrange­ments may very well remain for­ever hidden in obscure math­e­matics and impen­e­trable sequences of data.”

But, how do we actu­ally do this? We are told, over and over, by the pro­fes­sional physi­cist that it is impos­sible to visu­alize more than three spa­tial dimen­sions. Yet, today’s leading the­o­ries rou­tinely sug­gest, or even require, more than three spa­tial dimen­sions. Many people find the notion of addi­tional dimen­sions absurd. They sug­gest that when other dimen­sions pop up in our equa­tions they are just arti­facts of our intri­cate math­e­matics of the­o­ret­ical physics. They claim that those equa­tions should not be taken as an indi­ca­tion of the “actual” exis­tence of these extra dimen­sions. It is in response to this reac­tion that Thad comes in loud and clear.

fol­lowing an idea

qst pro­poses that these extra dimen­sions are real, as real as the x, y, z and t dimen­sions we expe­ri­ence every day. Qst fur­ther elab­o­rates a hier­ar­chical struc­ture to these extra dimen­sions that allows us to com­pre­hend, and even visu­alize, the super and intra dimensions.

A rather sig­nif­i­cant and often over­looked (under-visualized) rem­nant of modern physics is that space appears to be quan­tized, that is, made of tiny, indi­vis­ible pieces (quanta). This flies in the face of our common-sense expe­ri­ence of Nature (of the con­tin­uous three dimen­sions of space that we usu­ally try to assign to Nature), but quantum mechanics clearly points to this fact (if it can be said to point to any­thing). In the act of embracing the quan­tized nature of space­time and cou­pling that real­iza­tion with the require­ment of extra dimen­sions, a simple, ele­gant pic­ture of reality emerges. Qst is that picture.

Put simply, qst pro­poses firstly, that space is lit­er­ally quan­tized into dis­crete pieces (quanta), and sec­ondly, that there are eleven dimen­sions, dimen­sions that are real and not simply math­e­mat­ical bridge prin­ci­ples or arti­facts. They are: three tra­di­tional spa­tial dimen­sions, one tra­di­tional tem­poral dimen­sion, three super­spa­tial dimen­sions, one supertem­poral dimen­sion, and three intraspa­tial dimen­sions — that’s eleven dimen­sions! The number eleven is far from arbi­trary – it is required by the geom­etry of quan­ti­za­tion. The same number of dimen­sions is also pro­posed by the most modern incar­na­tion of super­string theory, M-theory, super­sym­metry, and super­gravity theories.

prob­lems solved?

When we start from a quan­tized geom­etry of space­time we gain new insight into sev­eral prob­lems of modern physics. Most poignantly, the dis­joint between gen­eral rel­a­tivity and quantum mechanics evap­o­rates in eleven-dimensional pic­ture that falls out of that assump­tion. As a result, many other prob­lems gain straight­for­ward, deduc­tive, and intu­itive solu­tions. More impor­tantly, an expla­na­tion of why the phe­nomena occur in the first place is offered in this eleven-dimensional model. Some of the prob­lems or phe­nomena qst explains are:

• The origin of the con­stants of Nature
• Unification of the forces
• Heisenberg uncer­tainty
• Wave/particle duality
• The source of red-shift/dark energy
• The geo­metric ori­gins of dark matter
• and, what caused the Big Bang

Obviously this is a lot to claim, but it is inter­esting to note that this claim does not rest on a set of impen­e­trable dia­logue filled with com­plex and dis­tracting jargon. The solu­tions offered by quantum space theory are all intel­li­gible. Thad presents these solu­tions, and more, in great detail in the third part of his book. Once we view Nature through the lens of the intu­itive eleven-dimensional offered by qst the solu­tions to those mys­teries become nat­ural and obvious. This is what most excites the sup­porters of quantum space theory. By exam­ining this new geo­metric struc­ture for space­time they have gained intu­itive, simul­ta­neous access to more than four space­time dimen­sions and gazed upon details of Nature that had pre­vi­ously gone unimagined.

By steering sci­ence back towards the goal of acquiring intu­itive pic­tures, deduc­tive solu­tions and acces­sible expla­na­tions for Nature’s baf­fling effects, we can con­tinue the great human quest to under­stand the rid­dles of Nature. We invite you to par­tic­i­pate in this quest. We invite you to read the opening chap­ters of the upcoming book and to learn how to visu­alize eleven dimen­sions (or send a request for the entire book). We invite you to change your per­cep­tion of the Universe and to dis­cover how to escape the con­cep­tual lim­i­ta­tions of three dimen­sions of space and one dimen­sion of time.