80

对话:第一部分

对话:第一部分,首次亮相。 这是第一个对空间量子理论(QST)6'交谈'。 在这一集里,萨德·罗伯茨概述量子空间理论,向我们展示了如何可视化11的尺寸。 没有任何其他理论(超弦理论,M-理论,超引力等)已经能够提供人类这样一个生动的窗口,进入大自然的完整的三维结构。 这种直观的方式带来了新的广度,人类的想象力,并提供了引人入胜的新知识分子的视野,有改变,我们看到它的方式改变世界的潜力。 理解和直观地掌握11尺寸的能力,设置了舞台回答在物理学中最大的谜团。

评论(80)

引用网址 | 评论RSS饲料

  1. Nunya Bizness 说:

    没有你说的话是真的。 我不会花时间去反驳所有这些视频,但让我这样说:

    广义相对论是不是“错误”,因为你声称的感觉。 这是错误的,即更准确的理论总有一天会到来。 但它是通过重力迄今最精确的理论,即曾经被提出。

    我会为你解释它是如何工作的,因为你显然不明白。

    广义相对论(GR)拿起其中狭义相对论叶脱落; 即:思想,空间和时间是一个叫做时空分不开的实体。 一个明显的问题是,“什么是时空的几何?”你可能会认为时空是欧几里德。 你就错了。

    GR的基本数学基础是微分几何,这是多维积分的几何对象的应用程序。 经由微分几何的空间的几何形状的所有的概念可以从一个数学对象被推断,称为度量。 该度量是一个可以被用于计算在空间中的两个点之间的距离的张量。 因此,指标完全表征的空间几何形状。 欧几里德度量n维空间是一个n阶矩阵,它的元素都为零,除了对角线,其中有些项目已全部1.如果您使用此生成空间两点间的距离,将返回熟悉的毕达哥拉斯定理:一个^ 2 + B ^ 2 = C ^ 2(注意,这是定理的2维版本;它可以在明显的方式被推广到欧氏空间中的任何尺寸)。

    时空是一个很好的近似,欧几里德。 但更准确,事实并非如此。 这将成为在非常大的距离尤其明显,在非常大的速度,还是在非常高的引力场。 的度量时空是相同的欧几里德度量,所不同的是在该列用于时间对角项具有从所述对角项的其余符号相反。

    这样做有什么影响呢? 井,一个熟悉的定理从欧几里得几何在于两点之间的最短距离为一条直线。 在时空,事实并非如此。 由于从狭义相对论的基本结果,我不会在这里得到(读取任何本科生狭义相对论教材),时间由观察者测量的量取决于他穿过时空的路径时。 这就是所谓的适当的时间。 由于时空的非欧几里德性质,两点之间的最短距离实际上是最大限度地减少了适当的时间。 换言之,压缩和解离银河系的边缘以光速,然后返回将需要为你更少的时间在你的飞船比它会为我等待你去上你的旅程。 这就是著名的双生子佯谬。

    无论如何,这样做的结果是,由变分原理(这应该是你熟悉的,如果你已经接触到拉格朗日力学,我怀疑你有没有......),在时空对象往往由路径旅行,最大限度地减少其适当的时间。 如前所述,适当的时间,由行程以高速缩短,或在重力场之中。

    就拿现在,作为一个例子,在树上的苹果。 苹果会尽量减低其适当的时间。 即地球 - 这将迈向一个引力场做到这一点。 这导致吸引力的苹果和地球之间的力量。 换句话说,苹果的worldlike点朝向地球的中心的未来。

    这是怎么工作的重心,概括地说。 你不知道这个事实避免你的无能将试图在这一领域的工作。 但是,这是你自己的时间浪费,我猜...

    • 地缘 说:

      因此,让我得到这个直......苹果将尝试走向一个引力场尽量减少其适当的时间和重力是(在强烈的本体论意义上的)。 为什么苹果要尽量减少它适当的时候? 什么是引力场? 重力是什么? 您的评论并没有真正回答任何这些问题,甚至帮助澄清了他们。 所有你所做的就是规定一个神奇的领域,吸引了苹果。

      • CHANDAN斯里瓦斯塔瓦 说:

        最短distence可衡量变分法。

        • 萨德· 罗伯茨

          你是正确的说法是最短的距离可以用变化的演算来衡量,只要指标,我们正在谈论的是平滑连接。 在量化指标的问题可能会变得有些复杂。

          • “在量化指标的问题可能会变得有些复杂。” - 萨德·罗伯茨。

            这就是为什么一个更复杂的应用到量子粒度,因为它适用于所有对象。 所有的对象都是知觉,包括概念。 所有存在的现实(意识)是现象学或叙述。 该错误不只是概念化的神通。 这是更强烈的perceptualization的supernarrative的。 换句话说,神秘的神的召唤,和动画人作为独立意志对象的调用站在共同构建。

            至于微积分。 它也没有开始戳破存在的问题。 这是但另一个有趣的叙事皱纹。

      • 彼得· 马丁

        “重力是什么?”“什么是引力场?”这些都是伪“IS”的,根据其性质永远不能回答的问题。

        你可能喜欢阅读有关协会Ganeral语义由Alfred Korzybski,谁避开了发言和提问,其主要(或唯一)的动词是“是”的一种形式负责。

    • 乔恩 说:

      要Nunya:你说的一切都很好,但你没有说明一件事:什么是引力场? 广义相对论解释了重力的影响,但它仍然没有真正解释重力是什么。 就像他说,在视频中,我们不得不假设,引力是一种力。 但如果是,为什么它如此令人难以置信的薄弱相较于其他势力? 相对论是大事情一个伟大的理论,但它没有说明在亚原子尺度。 至少这一理论给出了在每一个刻度整个宇宙相同的规则。 它给什么时候是一个很好的解释。

  2. Nunya Bizness 说:

    它的惯性原理:对象将在直线传播除非作用于其的力。 一个“直线”的定义是,最小距离的路径。

    GR的关键是,空间不平整,而且重力的扭曲时空的体现。 翘曲引起直线(那些最小化适当时间)至电弧朝向件质量 - 换句话说,对象彼此吸引。

    广义相对论是一个非常复杂的理论。 我已经写了一个可笑的简单碰撞介绍吧。 而不是仅仅是怀疑一切,贬不可收拾,为什么不实际读取的相对论教科书? 很难说你已经反驳了相对论,甚至没有理解它第一次...

    • 地缘 说:

      首先,我(和我不是萨德,所以我不会说他)我不怀疑GR的。 它已经证明了自己不亚于任何理论可以。 事实上,我认为,下一个古希腊原子论,这是最重要的理论(物理)突破人类已经做过。 话虽如此,我不认为它是完整的,也没有爱因斯坦本人。 我想你不明白的是,QST是GR的延伸。 它在许多方面,GR的量化(从连续到离散系统)。 你似乎认为我们正在捣毁GR。 我们不是。 萨德没有出尽管命名他的著作“爱因斯坦的直觉”,而是出于尊重。 如果你已经不屑于听什么在视频中说你会已经赢得了自己。

      其次,QST假定了同样的想法,那就是重力扭曲时空的体现。 但QST给出了一个具体机制的扭曲。 重力是,从字面上看,在空间密度的变化(密度梯度)。 我不认为这将引发GR窗外。 相反,它矗立在双方爱因斯坦和他的理论的伟大的肩膀上。

      如果您想对此有一个关键的,富有成效的对话,萨德,我更愿意这样做。 你的对立和QST的误传,但都是我们感兴趣的不是。

      欢呼声中,

      杰夫(网站管理员)

      • Nunya Bizness 说:

        我的意思是不是说你扑GR。 这是你误解了,并因此您得出的结论不正确。

        例如,萨德说,视频中的遗传资源的共同看到的“蹦床”图不正确,因为它忽略了空间轴,我们需要以某种方式对空间的维度“伸入”关于GR工作。 当然,这图是错误的 - 它只是一个比喻。 它只是用来引入概念外行谁,可以理解,也很难用一个4维伪黎曼流形拼杀。 想想看,这么简单的模型封装的理论是错误的。 空间不变形翘曲到另一个层面。

        有不与建立数学和物理方无数其他问题,如圆周率表示曲率量(并认为这是最小曲率量)的想法。 Pi为一个比率; 曲率由定向偏导数进行测量。

        我不会告诉你停止你正在做什么。 我告诉你,谁的人被训练在数学和物理学,如果你有兴趣在这些事情,你是在错误的轨道,它是不会带你去任何地方有意义的。 我道歉,如果这是严酷的,但真假的区别是非常尖锐的。 这就是为什么我恳求你,萨德研究建立物理像相对论在深度(即数学)尝试来改善它们。

        • 地缘 说:

          我很欣赏你说的话。 我不是数学家或者物理学家,而是一种兴趣(也可能是过度教育)打下人。 不过,也有一些数学家和理论物理学家工作QST的正规化,现在与萨德。 他们似乎认为有什么东西。 这些人所熟悉的,你说的你的意见,理论和数学。 他们做的比读你的建议的介绍性文字。 不是一个专家,我必须服从他们。 这就是说,他们都没有抛出自己的手,走了很多工作个月后,而他们更加相信。 他们仍然觉得有东西可以通过自己的努力获得的科学。

          从一个外行来看,QST优惠(至少对我来说),为许多不同的现象(包括宏观和微观),其抵抗解释到今天的解释。 其中一个萨德的点是一个理论,并没有提供一个解释,是没有太大的理论(这将是一个刺拳在量子力学的标准解释,它活该)。 据我所知,直到一个完整的形式化完成大部分的科学界不会给QST一天的时间(很多甚至不用时正式完成)。 但在这一点,该理论仍然是可测试逻辑的实验室。 找到它的逻辑,它的前提,其结论的​​错误。 这就是我们现在的情况。 到目前为止,据我所知,没有人证伪任何QST这些理论摘要。

          显然还有许多工作要做,但我相信(是的,它是一种信仰),一个坚实的基础已经建立。 正如他们所说,魔鬼在细节,而这些细节正在制定。 这些文件将被写入。 至此,双方将审查。

          我想请您阅读整本书(我们可以通过PDF格式发送,如果你想)。

        • 乔恩 说:

          Nunya,你到哪里去了的人吗? 所有突破性的新物理所做的假设有额外的空间维度。 如果你这么肯定GR是全部结束一切,然后解释量子隧道。 解释不确定性原理。 他不能触摸它。 爱因斯坦本人并不相信黑洞确实存在。 我们现在有证据证明有几百万随处可见。 GR完全打破了在黑洞的中心。 我们不能前进,如果我们不是愿意接受额外维度的可能性。 得到的程序。

        • G-栓 说:

          你描述的力量的数学解释。 你解释他们的行为没有任何端倪,为什么。

          扭曲的空间模型是一个外行的模型,您可以摆脱它,你接受的假设空间可以在我们无法感知的方式弯曲。

          的问题是,根据定义的东西,以曲线(或改变性质,没有区别)的方式是不为我们它必须朝着另一个方面。 更改任何属性更改“维度”。

          想象在物理方面这些方面只是让他们的互动更容易理解,或者至少授予一个全新的视角。

  3. 约翰

    我认为(Nunya Bizness)已经完全在这里错过了消息。 欢迎您你的意见,但阅读过您的意见后,在我看来,你误以为量子空间理论的诉讼请求。 我知道的制定尚未完成,但基本原则是有连贯性。

    我对你们的人士称,“空间不变形翘曲到另一个层面。”

    我觉得没有充分的理由对这一索赔。 让我解释。 要说空间扭曲不变形到其他方面是说,你有一个机制,一个解释,如何空间可能扭曲 - 不仅是对空间如何围绕大质量物体扭曲的描述。 虽然它可能变成是,还有其他方法以使空间弯曲(不是弯曲成其他维度等)的情况下,这样的主张不能成立,直到某种例如被提出。 你不能简单地说,看,空间是扭曲的,因为我们已经给空间一个度量,赋予其被扭曲的质量。 发明一种质量的表示是从解释质量完全不同。 由于它代表现在(现代教科书)“的扭曲空间”的非常意义是不可访问。 当然你也可以用数学来表示它,模仿,复制,或什么的,但数学并不一定意味着你有关于它的起源的解释。 究竟如何呢时空扭曲不变形为另一种尺寸(S)? 这是眼下的中心问题。 航天量子理论认为它不能,但它不压弯曲的时空出来的画面,而是阐述了各经线来约 - 在这会很高兴他的方式平反爱因斯坦。

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

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

    • Nunya Bizness says:

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

      他们不。 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. 你不能。 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. 期。 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. 故事结局。 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.

      • 地缘 说:

        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.”

        他们不。 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. 你不能。 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? 什么也没有。 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. 期。 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. 故事结局。 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. 就那么简单。 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.

        你说得对。 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.

        没错。 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?

        • 萨德· 罗伯茨

          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. 说:

    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.

    东西量子是那个东西可能的最小单位。 空间量子是一个“泡沫”超越其中有空间没有定义。 然而,存在的气泡内的空间,以某种方式。

    重力表示为空间量子的密度梯度。 但是重心由物质引起的。 重要的不是空间。 请问这个甚至有意义吗?

    时间就是空间量子的共振。 为什么呢? 怎么样? 导致这个结论的推理是什么?

    如果有11个维度,我们为什么不能看到他们? 弦理论说,额外的人都蜷缩非常小。 QST似乎也只是有点额外维度......漂浮在那里?

    • 地缘 说:

      让我解决这些问题,尽我所能一一:

      “丕表示曲率可能在时空的最小量。 (俄文字符)代表了最大的数额“。

      [俄罗斯字符是“浙”]

      广义相对论周长与直径之比变为0每当黑洞是在其曲率被描述(因为分母,集中于一个黑洞的圆的直径,趋于无穷如果时空是连续和黑洞的区域是零大小)。 量子力学方面与该无穷在分母中的问题。 它与广义相对论冲突在这一点上,并切断这一无限,其宣称在太空中的最小距离为普朗克长度。 QST同意这种说法和其几何形状为我们提供了一种方法来定量地确定被提起由切断最大曲率的表达式。 为什么这很有趣? 有趣的是,因为,如果它是正确的,那么就意味着有固有时空的几何图2量纲数,结合导致从量化五个普朗克值。 这需要我们的东西更有趣......无论这一等几何数字是,它的价值已经为零和PI之间。 缩小下来越是有强烈的期望,它是介于0和0.7。 所以这种几何模型的要求是,有介于0和0.7的是,可以结合到5普朗克参数,和PI一些数量,能够nonarbitrarily产生或“编码”的几何效果中固有时空 - 的常数自然。 事实证明有这样的数,和它正巧落在该范围内。 (见自然页的常数本网站)。这足以显著,以保证目前正在努力从理论上源于几何学上的考虑这个数字的精确值。

      “QST是11维即使真实空间3的尺寸,内部”气泡“,是3个维度,并且所述空间”气泡“移动通过为3的尺寸,并没有什么彼此分离那些区域。

      东西量子是那个东西可能的最小单位。 空间量子是一个“泡沫”超越其中有空间没有定义。 然而,有气泡内部空间,以某种方式“。

      我不知道我理解这个问题的(正确的),但我会采取刺伤它。 第一段是有点什么QST是postulating,有几个重要的注意事项。 首先,我们日常生活的空间量子之间的空间不是空间本身,我们称其为超空间,并且同样的空间量子内的空间被称为intraspace。 如果空间被量化这些空间(超级内)清单(如果你让空间量子是一个卷,而不是一个点)。 如果空间量子实际上卷,另外两组“空间”是必要的,正常的空间是不同的。 黄金条的比喻浮现在脑海。 如果拆分的金条到其最小的组成部分,这还是可以考虑黄金的组件,你会到达一个点,你可以继续分裂的成分(原子在这种情况下),进一步的,但是从这个进一步的分裂是什么结果不再被认为是黄金。 在这个比喻中,你已经通过拆分金原子超越“黄金”的意思,但是,我们现在知道,有很多更多分裂可以做。 通过计算中子,比如你不能指望黄金单位。 好问题,但。 这个问题摔跤是理解这意味着什么说x,y的面料,Z空间量化核心。 图片的其余部分将没有意义,直到这直观地吸收。 难道这让你在问什么?

      “重力表示为空间量子的密度梯度。 但是重心由物质引起的。 重要的不是空间。 请问这个甚至有意义吗?“

      首先,是的,绝对的,重力表示为空间量子的密度梯度。 你可能会想要知道的是问题,是什么原因导致这些密度梯度形成? 当量子粘在一起的密度梯度围绕这些大企业集团建立。 能源的各种形式的体现在X,Y,Z,T是时空简单的几何失真。 密度波可能波及整个中 - 这是支撑一个几何失真的一种方式。 (这样的事情会被人说有能量相当于静止质量的一些量,但它不能在休息本身存在。)另一种方法是有一个稳定的几何失真是具有量子粘在一起。 一旦一组量子的粘在一起,它周围的个体量子,走动和,在大多数情况下,ellastically相互作用,会形成由于动量守恒的密度梯度。 单个量子撞到两人将离开两个运动比原来的要慢得多。 慢运动集中围绕丛,和更慢的动作创造更大的密度。 所以您永久或至少稳定几何扭曲,像量子粘在一起,是质量在这一模式。

      “时间就是空间量子的共振。 为什么呢? 怎么样? 导致这个结论的推理是什么?“

      这是一个很大的问题,它可以使用一些更多的调查。 目前的情况是,我们可以说,一个事实,即我们所说的时间熟悉的维度可以以不同的速度进步表明,而不是所有运动都与一个特殊的运动相关联的时间。 那是什么运动? 据QST该议案是空间量子的resonations。 这给我们提供了一种具有本体论澄清它甚至意味着说,更少的时间已经过去了一个地区比另一个。 这种说法是没有东西作比较,而语无伦次。 换句话说,如果没有这种类型的解释,我们仍然遇到无处不在宇宙时间经过以每秒一个第二速率的问题。 这是混乱的一个重要来源,除非你比较不自我反省。 在这里,我们成为能够理解的时间的进展,在空间的所有位置,作为可相对于时代百超定义的东西。 这需要更多的阐述,但它绝对是一个宝贵的开始。

      “如果有11个维度,我们为什么不能看到他们? 弦理论说,额外的人都蜷缩非常小。 QST似乎也只是有点额外维度......漂浮在那里......“

      首先,应该指出的是,弦理论的理由,为什么我们不能看到这些额外的维度,正是在QST一样。 事实上,我们可以看到效果,这些尺寸的存在决定。 把周围的其他方法,我们看到被莫名其妙对我们的影响(一般量子力学和其他几个人),他们找不到解决办法或原因,除非我们直觉额外维度。 这个问题不从弦理论中分离QST。 这些其他方面也能清晰可见,如果我们能看的东西在普朗克长度。 但是,我们不能(没有?)。 所以,我们没有看到他们。

      我希望这至少澄清事情有点。 请让我知道,如果我误解你的问题。

      • 乔恩 说:

        我有几个问题。 如果我没有理解这个权利,这个理论预测是,传说中的引力将永远不会被找到,正确吗? 因为如果引力是不是一种力量,那么就没有力量粒子,对不对? 此外,如何希格斯场进入这一切? 我实在不明白的余地就在这个模型中,但话又说回来,我不是一个物理学家。 你能否澄清?

        • 萨德· 罗伯茨

          乔恩,
          是的,你是正确的,这并预测引力不存在。 至于你的其他问题,我已经张贴了“问题与解答”部分中对彼得的响应应该与希格斯场为您澄清这个问题。 :-) 如果你看完了,请让我知道以后还有问题。

  5. Phyn 说:

    首先我要说的是,我认为这是真棒的萨德想出这一理论,并把它向前发展。 这种前瞻性的思维,需要在物理领域,这些日子,我自己希望在将来这样做。

    这绝对是一个有趣的理论,但我确实有一些问题,这段视频中,至少有(部分可能源于我的无知):

    1.萨德称,第四空间维度的一般解释是仅仅作为一个数学技巧来解释重力。 但是,这是一个错误的说法。 大多数物理学家做不会受重力是否是一个力或另一个维度的工作。 因此,他们可能会使用虚假的解释,而是因为它只是复杂的事情他们没有做任何事情他们。 那些工作与时空,天体物理学家和宇宙学家,物理学家,就需要确切地知道什么重力和他们做定义重力作为第四届空间维度,而不是力量。

    2.大众扭曲第四空间维度。 因此,使用重量翘曲蹦床的隐喻是完全有效的。

    3.萨德称,普朗克长度气泡走动。 为什么呢? 不宜空间是一个刚性结构,网格? 如果空间量子走动就像空气中的颗粒,他们会听从类似的统计力学的东西。 这意味着有具有缺乏任何空间在所有量子和大截面大团块的一个不可忽略的机会。 随着时间萨德的定义,这些部分也将移动更快或更慢通过的时间。 请注意,这些部分会出现没有任何理由可言,除了时空移动和相互碰撞量子的概率性。 这是最肯定不会出现在宇宙中。

    4.萨德的说法额外维度有不一致的地方。 如果普朗克长度是可以被测量或确定的最小距离,它是没有意义的定义新的尺寸,以解释在除普朗克规模较小的位置。 他们意味着什么两个人,数学水平和对宇宙的物理学的水平。

    5,据我所知,还有更多这种理论,但萨德无法解释为什么物质和能量,因为我们现在看到了影响空间量子。 我假设这是进一步解释到理论。 此外,如何光适应这个理论? 光总是在旅行℃,虽然这一理论,将表明,光以某种方式从这个11维空间分开。 (就个人而言,我有这个想法没有问题,也有同样的思想自己。但它确实需要加以说明。)

    6.如果普朗克尺度是如此比任何颗粒更小,怎么可能为量子隧道发生? 这似乎不太可能为移动电子通过超空间,没有击中的另一个空间量子一段距离超过要比普朗克长度较大的10个数量。 当然,它现在可以再发生一次,但概率会比现在所看到的要小得多。

  6. 萨德· 罗伯茨

    Phyn,

    感谢您的意见和问题。 让我尝试解决一些您的意见是最好的,我可以。

    1.我的引力,你指的是意思是参照重力的可视化模型,而不是公式物理学家评论使用来表示它,或者在什么他们举行是真实的引力。 因为他们在欧几里得(甚至非欧几里得,但连续)指标的约束工作了这么长时间,物理学家使用减少的维表示。 您现在的位置指出,这并不意味着他们没有重力属性的存在与另一个空间维度的相互作用的结果是正确的。 我是后是一个直观和准确的模型,新表示,自然的几何形状,让我们充分直观地访问的事情,我们目前还没有直观的访问。 换句话说,我的观点是,“橡胶片”图不给我们全额直观地访问重心是什么,为什么有它的特性,等等。 我的目标是走到了一个模型,确实给我们的访问。

    2.权重的概念可悲的是发挥了我们的直觉的东西与重量拉下严重性。 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. I apologize if I misspoke or caused a confusion on this point. In our system the Planck length is defined as the smallest quantum unit of x, y, z. Just as a gold atom is the smalls unit of a chance of gold, a quantum of space is the smallest unit of any x, y, z volume. It does makes sense to talk about less than one gold atom, or to visualize splitting a gold atom, but it does not makes sense to continue calling what you end up with a fraction of a gold atom. Once you go smaller than one gold atom you have transcended the definition of gold. You do not have gold any more in any sense. At this point you are forced to recognize that what you have is something completely different from gold. The same applies for our geometric system. Since we have set up an axiom space that defines the medium of x, y, z as being composed of quanta, comprised of base units, we cannot talk about smaller units and still be talking about anything in the x, y, z realm. This, however, does not inhibit us from talking about something smaller. It just requires that when we do we recognize that we are talking about something else. In as much as we are talking about spatial dimensions, positions within a single quanta occupy different superspatial positions, but those different positions do not reflect upon the x, y, z metric. The geometry is quite interesting mathematically because it is a wholly invertible map. In other words, it is a perfect geometric fractal. As it turns out, this system also appears to comes with a few properties (like the statistical character you mentioned before) that are quite suggestive of quantum mechanical effects.

    5.大问题。 作为一个简短的回答:无论是任何稳定(在任何规模的选择定义为足够长的时间算作“稳定”)的空间量子的几何布置扭曲。 例如,如果两个量子粘在一起,就像泡的时间由其他碰撞分离之前很长一段,然后他们代表了那个时期的几何扭曲。 这种是质量。 能量可以被认为是失真是不稳定的,没有传播。 例如密度波可以从A点行驶到B点和传播过程中被认为是稳定的,但它不能保留自己没有通过介质传播。

    灯不总是在出行前C,在X,Y,Z中。 波速特定的介质变化的密度,压力,该媒体变革的温度。 因此,从通过所述介质行进的11维立体波将被解析为具有依靠此介质的密度速度。 然而,相对于所述介质本身这个速度是不可变的。 换言之,从内部的x,y和z透视光速是一个常数。 也许我很想念你点/质询的重点。 请详细说明一下,如果我没有解决你的问题。

    6.技术上的电子被定义为具有一个零尺寸的半径。 由于量子力学的限制最小尺寸普朗克长度,我们可能会认为,“零”确实是指一个普朗克长度。 我不知道,我站在这个具体。 不过,我会说,对于电子通过中航行时,相互作用多的概率是相当大的,如果它甚至接近一普朗克长度。

    感谢您的见解,想法和问题。 我个人祝你好运,你追求自己的一个TOE的发展。 如果你不断地问这样的问题,我相信你会做出对世界产生重大影响。

    萨德

    • Phyn 说:

      萨德,

      感谢您的快速反应和清理我的评论/问题。 我也有更多的关于您的回复数。 (我会尽量给它们编号,以匹配前面的数字)

      3. This might just be from my lack of knowledge/experience, but isn't there a non-negligible probability (using statistical mechanics) that a region could form with a very high density of space quanta or a very low density? Looking back I realize now the probability of such a region forming on any detectable scale is highly unlikely, but there is some chance. So there could be a region or regions in the universe that act like a black hole (or the inverse of that) without any energy or mass having caused it. Or am I stretching how likely such an event would be?

      4. I think what I was trying to ask with this question is why the three dimensions that are defined within the quanta are necessary?

      5. My questions about light basically pertains to how light is different than matter in your theory. If light also travels through super-space and space quanta, why is it still seen as traveling at c at any velocity the observer is at? As I understand it, the reason light always travels at c is because special relativity has an asymptotic behavior. Time dilation and space contraction go to infinity as velocity goes to c. I can see that in your theory the behavior would be exponential, but it's not clear to me why it would also be asymptotic. Light would still pass from space quanta to super-space to space quanta, so wouldn't it still experience some time and space? Sorry if I'm not being clear.

      Also, I was wondering about how your theory fits with super-inflation theory. Can space quanta be created/destroyed? I assume not and if so does that mean the universe before super-inflation was in a sense a super black hole? In this theory was super-inflation just an expansion if these very dense region of space quanta? Or do you have some other explanation? Along similar lines, do space quanta have a speed limit? If they do, what is it? If it is c how would you account for the super-inflation event?

      再次感谢,
      Phyn

  7. 萨德· 罗伯茨

    Phyn,

    大的问题。 :-)

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

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

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

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

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

    我希望帮助。

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

    • Phyn says:

      萨德,

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

      Phyn

  8. Stephen says:

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

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

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      Dear Stephen,

      感谢你的信息。

      First off, let me apologize for the late response. I have been at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, exploring a land full of mysteries and beauty. 这是一个了不起的经验。

      In response to your questions:

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

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

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

      Please let me know if that helped.

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

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

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

      Note that the first criteria requires long periods of time.

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

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

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

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

      感谢您的关注。

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

      此致
      萨德

      • 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.

        • 萨德· 罗伯茨

          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

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      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.
      萨德

  10. Stefan palmer says:

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

  11. 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?

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      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. 加里

    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)

    问题

    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'

    非常感谢,

    -Gary
    Humble Student, The Open University (UK)

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      亲爱的盖瑞,
      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?

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      问得好! 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.
      萨德

  16. brett says:

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

  17. 丹尼尔 说:

    亲爱的萨德,

    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!

    最好的问候,

    丹尼尔

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      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. 现在送你的书。 Please examine it in full and send your critique.

  18. Shane Killeen says:

    萨德喜

    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?

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      Hi Niklas,

      这些都是很大的问题。 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. 约翰

    萨德,

    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

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      你好约翰,
      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:

    萨德,

    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.

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      谢谢。 现在我寄给您的书。

      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.

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      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. 现在它发送给你。

  23. 弗兰克 说:

    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?

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      当然。 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.

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      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.

      多年来,两个流行的方法试图使这个巨大的差异感。 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.

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      嗨伊丽莎白,
      谢谢你的支持。 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.

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      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:

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

  28. Sahil says:

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

  29. stewart says:

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

    谢意
    斯图尔特

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      这本书现在可以通过露露.COM(精装全彩),亚马逊.COM(简装全彩),或通过iTunes(iBook的)。 你会发现链接到每一个在这里。

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

      如果您想签署的副本,请让我知道。 If you cannot afford the $14.99 at this time (for the iBook) send me another message and let me know.

  30. 基因 说:

    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. 我有几个问题。

    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). 那是对的吗?

    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. 谢谢。

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      嗨基因,
      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). 你会发现链接到每一个在这里。

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

      如果您想签署的副本,请让我知道。 If you cannot afford the $14.99 at this time (for the iBook) send me another message and let me know.

      • Gene says:

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

        • 萨德· 罗伯茨

          是的,绝对。 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:

    您好萨德,
    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 :)
    谢谢
    再见

    • 萨德· 罗伯茨

      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.

发表评论




如果你想要的图片与您的评论显示,去获得的gravatar。