问题与解答：
我想这个页面献给问题，任何人都在那里可能就公理，租户，结论或量子空间理论的见解。 请给我你的问题，我会尽我所能通过视频回应。 我的希望是，本次论坛将是那些有关于量子空间理论没有答案的问题的有用资源。
问题1：从弗雷德·古德
我感兴趣的是更好地理解QST的11个维度。
我明白，一个维度是一个轴沿东西可以移动，而无需在另一个轴或维度任何运动。
的x，y，和z是（3）的尺寸明显的例子。
我想说的时间是4，你可以通过移动时间不动，在X，Y或Z。
我看时间作为一个维度，因为没有方向。
过去  现在  未来。
我也明白了普朗克的小规模。
这真是非常小。
你描述的一个对话，这是我们可以把空间分成最小。
像Au（金）原子，如果再次把它，它不再AU。
但是，对于一个普朗克长度，我不明白这一点。
有没有这样的东西作为一个1/2的普朗克？
我看普朗克作为一个规模像一把尺子。
A君是12“长，上有12个单寸段，每英寸被分成英寸一些分数。
它是由制造商以他想要的东西分数量显示。
1“，1/2”，1/4“，1/8”，也很常见，1/16“，甚至1/64英寸。
为什么我们从来没有看到统治者用1/128英寸的增量？
因为它太小了“眼球”。
这并不意味着尺寸小于1/64小“是不存在的。
我们衡量他们与其他工具。
只是没有用尺子。
如何为普朗克尺度从我描述不同？
好了，问题的一部分2.如果普朗克是一个规模，这个规模内量子存在，你似乎在说，因为它是子普朗克的大小，它不能再坚持的x，y，z方向要找准它的物理位置。
我觉得对我的问题是，我还没有得到如何的距离（1普朗克长度）不能被进一步划分。
我明白这一点与非盟原子，但它不是苹果和苹果。
至少我还没有看到它。
其他的东西属于地方对我很好，只要我接受这个几何体的事实。
我看到一个黑洞，时间如何减慢接近黑洞，为什么红移发生，暗物质是什么，为什么量子隧道时，为什么鸡过马路，以及其他一切。
我只需要在对“你不能把一个普朗克长度为1/2普朗克”的区域描述此给其他人提供帮助。
为什么不呢？？！！？？！！
谢谢你的时间
弗雷德·古德
请点击下面的视频来查看我的回答问题1：
萨德，于波动力学方面对模型总结我的沉思昨天。 你有什么感想？
空间可能登记到我们仅作为站在三维量子位波形结构始终只是作为一个普朗克长度只有上面的空间表示一定的阈值振幅单量子，且单独振动作为时空最小粒度的尖端并统称为我们所感知的空间和时间振动。 有一个超空间以更高的分辨率，其中这些站在中心的全supervolume走动，并通过相互的（但碰撞发生在该超级时空尺度在一个低得多的频率比各球形驻波振动的频率）。 每个球，这本身就是一个宇宙中恰好有相对于它的分辨率相同的特性我们，只有在下次的分形分辨率可达。 同样对我们的宇宙，绝对方向进入熵可能是一个简单的崩溃，并通过零（如果看作是正弦波）。 另一个宇宙可以移动通过我们和螺钉的一切行动，但它发生远远频率低于100十亿多年，它可能需要陷入完整的熵。
您好萨德 
首先，请允许我说感谢给我你的书。 看你的TEDx博尔德的谈话后，我就迫不及待地深入研究你的理论，我并不失望。
我正式的科学的研究开始和我高中物理课于1971年结束了，我从来没有制定感受数学超越欧氏几何。 不过，我一直在努力，教育（或至少是熟悉）自己在各种主题，从量子力学到宇宙相对论。 你的书走了很长的路来帮助我了解从博尔德谈的概念，但我仍然有一些问题，你可能会澄清。
1）请您谈一下时间由量子共振被定义。 难道宇宙万物产生共鸣，如果没有，为什么量子共振？ 这到底是什么意思有共鸣广达？ 为此共振时的量子改变大小或形状？
2）由于空间量子走动在超空间，不用它们保持相同的X，Y，Z的关系对其他量子（尽管不是相同的距离）？ 或者，他们的X，Y，Z轴位置只定义在一个平均值或宏观尺度？
3）可能与和由2回答）以上，如果每个量子识别（或由标识）一个唯一的X，Y，Z的坐标，和物质的即使是最小的位的数量级比单个量子较大，如何许多数量是物质的指定位置？ 我是正确，即使是单个电子将占用数十亿空间量子的？
一个概念，一直困扰着我，并且你在书中解决，是通过连续的时空运动是逻辑上是不可能的想法。 为了从A点到B点，你必须要离开A点到达B点之前，你必须要到一个地步1/2的方式。 但是去了1/2的点位，你必须要到一个地步1/2的方式出现，或者到B点。对于每一个点的方式1/4你必须去，你倒是总是要到一个地步1/2的方式到这一点，你从来没有到B点量化SPCE解决这个小问题。
感谢您事先的任何见解，你可以给我这个，我期待着看到插图爱因斯坦的直觉。
 乔填写
印第安纳波利斯，印第安纳
乔，
我最近完成经历了整本书另一轮的修改，提高了流量不少，纠正了一些错误，并增加了许多人物。 如果你有兴趣在更新的版本，给我发电子邮件，我会跳过它。
至于你的问题：
1  这种模式在宇宙中所有的东西都看作是正在上涨空间量子的，但不是所有的空间量子自由共鸣。 量子粘在一起，触摸，是根据定义，不能够自由地产生共鸣，直到它们被再次分离。 而其他人可能把它在相当长的时间有些量子只有在这种情况下很短的时间（时间在这里引用的自由辞职的平均数，在空的平均背景量子经历，而这些量子粘在一起）。 此外，在该模型中，每个量子是，到第一次近似，弹性球。 其弹性特性，加入到它们四处移动而相互碰撞的事实，是它们共鸣的缘故。 共振是指弹性球体的几何扭曲。 如果宇宙是接近绝对零度，如果每个量子的平均superspatial速度是下一个零，则预期将是广达将自由振动问自己，用越来越少的幅度，直到他们跑出来的能量（也就是共振的所有能量（几何扭曲）内部转移）。 这将慢慢改变时间的签名在宇宙中。
2  作为量子走动的超空间，它们混合的X，Y，Z网格。 所以，不  它们不保持相同的x，y和z的关系的其他量子。 然而，由于所有的量子是相同的，从这个混合大多数的效果洗出当我们接近宏观尺度。 确切的x，y，z轴位置被定义仅用于精确时刻  在该点的整个网格的快照。 因为量子被混合约，具体点闪烁围绕在从X，Y，Z的角度位置。 这种闪烁，然而，甚至洗出（但一般只限于相对较小的区域），因为我们缩小。
3  有两个可能的回答这个问题。 在第一种可能性中，最根本的质量的粒子可能很简单，如被两个（或三个或四个等）量子粘在一起（为任何持续时间）。 这对这种可能性有趣的是，尽管量子粘在一起，他们充当的X相同的独特的地理位置，Y，Z指标。 他们不再代表了不同的位置，所以他们实际上采取的是一个位置的特点。 不过，广达等与他们的互动会以不同的方式反弹，那么他们会与量子未粘在一起，所以周围的地图扭曲  平均几何连通性扭曲。 在这种情况下，这个问题粒子的位置将在参照所有周围的其他量子的集合来指定  正如它将如果它是一个单一量子。 在第二个可能性，此事可参考几何漩涡。 如果空间的度量是一个完美的超流多种形式的极其稳定的漩涡是允许的。 这些漩涡甚至可能是无限稳定，只要它们不被中断。 如果在度量基准质量的粒子，这些纷飞的漩涡，那么质量的粒子只有在更多的意识模糊的位置  在更大的尺度获得解决。 尽管如此，人们可以设想以稳定的涡流有一个中心，以及该中心位置可填写作为颗粒的位置的含义。
这些壮观的问题，乔。 正如你所知道的，我还在工作了最后一个问题的后果。 高兴地看到哪里需要我们。
乔填写，再。 Q＆A（3）以上，无论是量子的团块或交替漩涡在超流体。 杰弗里Haselhurst的模型包含在无限中站在三维点波澜，与物质作为稳定的三维晶格结构。HTTP：// WWW。空间和Mo化的.com /
三维驻波的维护需要的是完全从各个方向调整不断的投入。 在超流的涡流，但是，维持因为非rotationality超流的自身  其以形成量化的涡流倾向。 在什么杰弗里和我正朝着一种方式是相似的，但稳定的驻波的想法需要非常大的巧合每个粒子。 这就导致了一个问题，试图解释所有的电子显示方式一致时。 相反，如果这些晶格结构被作为超流真空量化涡流所解释的，这个问题是自然占。
嗨萨德，
我刚刚发现你的TED演讲昨天晚上，它吹我的脑海里！ 它拼凑到一起（我的脑海里，那是）后，我决定看看你的网站。 最后我花几个小时通过网站阅读（包括您的博客），并观看了影片。 挺不错！ 有几个问题都闪入我的脑海里，但我想很多人在你的书很可能回答。 其实，读你的书的大纲后，我知道答案，我的很多问题都没有解决。
我想获得的工作更好地处理这已经被问任何问题之前完成。 你还在通过电子邮件发送您的书的副本？ 如果是的话，我很乐意阅读它。 我不知道你是多么接近打印（它已经因为你的最后的博客帖子一段时间），但如果这本书已经出来了，我会高兴地购买复印件
无论如何，感谢分享QST。 我遇到了一把脚趾多年来，和他们都没有成功能解释和说明都存在于标准模型中的怪异的  更不用说提供一个直观的框架。 我认为，所有的物理理论，其数学表达式分开，应该借给自己这样简单的描述是，在爱因斯坦的话来说，“连小学生都能理解他们。”
问候，
亚伦
亚伦
我已经通过电子邮件发送你一个链接到PDF。 许多进展最近已经取得，鼓舞人心的章节1921一些修改，提高了整体的清晰度。 当到达第21章我建议重新下载的PDF格式，以确保您有最新的版本。 如果你觉得在书中任何东西可以更清晰请让我知道:)。 我期待着您的反馈。
萨德
再一次问好，
感谢您的链接。 我下载PDF和刚刚完成第4章我真的在这，你就躺在一切就序印象深刻。 你已经投入到这个艰苦的工作显然是显而易见的。 到目前为止，我已经能够轻松跟踪一切，我有每个您已经讨论过（除了准晶的，我做了一个小的互联网研究）的概念的先验知识。
只是为了记录在案，我不是一个训练有素的科学家，在任何地方，和我的宇宙学，天体物理，量子力学等方面的知识来自我看过，我已经读了几本书和纪录片。 我最终理解的概念，历史和数学的水平上等于在该领域的研究人员希望，但我有一个很长的路要走。 话虽这么说，但事实上，我能理解你的书中明确了这一点给我鼓励，我正在做这个目标的进展情况。
如果我有任何编辑相关的建议，我会通过电子邮件，提到它们。
再次感谢。 这太棒了！
亚伦
嗨萨德，
我一直一直对我们神秘的宇宙。 我喜欢阅读乌尔网站，看UR视频。 但是，我没有注意到，美前面提到的字符串或M理论。 什么是乌拉圭回合的看法呢？ 一切由振动这是11维的弦吗？ 怎么样1个空间量子是1木板长度（1.6×10 35米的功率），它是由1个单串？ 根据一些科学家，一个字符串的大小可介于10至34或35的功率。 所以，也许一条绳子一样作为一个空间量子？
感谢ü乌拉圭回合的帮助
和...这将是惊人的，如果ü可以寄给我乌尔书也。
欢呼声中，
拉兹
拉兹，
谢谢你的问题:)。 我会向您发送电子邮件的链接的书今天的副本。 在回答你的问题，我喜欢由弦理论的开发商进入本体论量子力学的奥秘背后的因果故事的努力。 但是，我不认为这样的故事已经成功地通过了理论取得的呢。 不过，弦理论，现在扩展到超弦理论和M理论，并具有由假设真空是一个超流体（量化）强调了一些有趣的和显着的相似之处。 其中的一些中提到的“爱因斯坦的直觉。” 我期待着您的反馈，当你阅读。
太感谢了萨德，我真的很感激乌尔答复，并在伟大的书！
我会让你知道，如果事情是不明确的，我肯定
一切顺利，
拉兹
嗨萨德，
我只是在你的TED演讲视频来了一天。 我只是一个业余当谈到物理学和宇宙学，但我喜欢听这些新的，鼓舞人心的想法。 我很深刻的印象，你的理论有多少能解释（特别是物理常数依赖于空间本身，这是我曾经推测几何...虽然“幻想”将可能是一个更好的选择的话）。 反正，我只是写说：谢谢！ 和：继续努力吧！
此外，我的脑海里刚刚发生在这样一个问题：是超空间也量子性质的，或者你认为这是无限光滑？
克里斯，
谢谢你的问题。 在回答你的问题，我们正在与该模型假设一个完美的分形结构，所以是它假定超空间是量化的，而那些量子小得多子量子复合实体，等等。 如果你有兴趣，我可以在这个送你的书。 第11章专门介绍这个问题。
是的。谢谢！ 我非常想了解更多关于这一主题。 我已经观看了视频对话在过去的几天里，但有些事情仍然不完全，直观清晰，我（责怪我的大脑）。 这是，如果我先学习更多关于它唯一公平的，在我采取任何更多的时间。 有一件事我想问一下未来，虽然是空间的能量传递如何广达，如果他们不实际接触？ 他们这样做在我们的三维空间（其中他们大概永远接触），只要他们没有接触到超空间？ （对不起，如果我是混合起来的东西）。
其实，我也有一些其他意见/事情的问题，我想我理解的更好一点：
1，引力透镜是由暗物质解释。 您可以通过太空相变引起温度的空间差异来解释它。 请问透镜效应始终是一个圆圈的形式？ 即使是在星系团，像 here?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Gravitationelllins4.jpg
好吧，我真的不知道它是在该图片一个完美的圆，但无论如何，我想到的是，如果这一切都归结于温度的差异，那么整个集群的透镜效应应该是可能更多...扭曲，不规则的？ （话说回来，这只是我的直觉，我学会了不信任完全😉）。
2.您解释说，星系“光红移是由于一种空间量子的内摩擦所造成的能量损失（希望我说对了）......反正它输给了空间本身。 您也谈到了从宇宙大爆炸时宇宙到现在。 但不是红色的大爆炸奇点从（或接近它）和通货膨胀摆在首位转变是我们唯一的暗示？ 如果光子的能量在太空中“丢失”的话，也许就没有通货膨胀可言，而宇宙的大小基本上是静态的。 只有存在于空间（或它的某些部分）的“摩擦”的越来越多，到目前为止，我们错误地解释数据，加速的通货膨胀？
这将是所有的，就目前而言。
再次感谢，萨德！
克里斯，
谢谢你的问题。 首先，在这个模型中量子不碰。 这些弹性在superspatial维度交互，碰撞，反弹对方。 我会尽力最终得到的这一个视频，使之更加清晰。 其次，作为你对引力透镜的问题，有没有这种理论使预测和有关暗物质的传统主张之间的形状差异。 暗物质晕，或相变的地区，甚至周围的雪茄形的星系是球形的。 因此，我们期望的透镜效应为圆形。 可存在从该圆形投影图像的异常。 例如，如果有源和观察者进一步扭曲图像之间的其他对象。 球形在自然界中发现未完全暗物质的传统解释解释。 但是，如果它是一个阶段的机会，然后我们期望，因为如何热力学性质向外从源头传达这种球形。 你是对怀疑最终有原则上可以是一个非球面形状，但这仅发生作为其他球形的分组。 所以，你可能会发现一些近似于3D米老鼠在那里，但这需要非常具体的星系非常特殊的位置，都在适当的温度和大小和间距。 一般来说，我们只是希望球三围为卤素区。 你的第二个问题是顺便说一句真棒。 事实证明，红移是不是我们唯一的暗示，宇宙有一个“第一”的时刻。 I use first here only in reference to an internally traceable chain of cause and effect – not a claim that it was an ultimate cut off on cause and effect. The most solid way to get to the claim that the universe must have had a beginning (in the sense we are taking about – a Big Bang) is to secure the second law of thermodynamics and to recognize that all of physics is timereverse symmetric (some might suggest that the wave function collapse might escape this, but it can be shown that this claim is unnecessary – see Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics). With these two conditions on board we fully expect that whenever there appears some measure of order in the universe it is extremely likely that both before and after the emergence of that order it was less. Imaging a pool table with no friction and no pockets. The balls have been moving around colliding for a long time before you looked at it. Note that you can take snapshots of the positions of the balls, but most of these pictures will show you just random orientations. This system has maximum entropy – minimum order. However, eventually all the balls will happen to collide all at once, packed into one corner. Clearly if we took a snapshot of that moment it would be obvious that the system had some order. Now the expectation. If we had access to pictures from before and after that point of order, what would we expect to see? We would expect to see the order decay in both directions in time. This is what it means to say that Nature is timereverse symmetric. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that Nature behaves this way. The timereverse symmetry encoded in our physics equations also supports this. But when we look into the world we also see many occurrences that seem to have time directionality to them. Events unfold one way far more than they do in the other way. 为什么呢？ Well if the second law of thermodynamics holds, if timereverse symmetry accurately describes the physics (these two claims are synonymous by the way) then there is only one conclusion. Our universe has not yet reached a maximum state of entropy. This means that the universe had a beginning. It was charged with extremely low entropy at some point, and that low entropy has not fully decayed yet.
I explain this in detail in my book. If you'd like to read it just send me your email and request it. I'll forward you a pdf. I also explain inflation in that chapter, and the accelerated recent phase of redshift. All of these effects are natural expectations of this model. That, of course, does not automatically make the model right, but it does make it interesting. The value here is that we may now have a model that explains our observations wholly, and in a way that is intuitively accessible.
嗨，
Great work indeed!!!
I have been watching most of your videos during last two days and I really like the simplicity and elegance of your approach. It will take some more time and reading for me to arrive in deeper understanding but there is one problem allready that I am not able to solve by my self and it is this:
In your theory there is no need for gravitational force. Direct line is defined so that there is same amount of quanta passing by in all sides of a moving object. This leeds to a curved path (euclidean sence) when ther is more quanta (object with mass) in on side of an moving object. Now we run to a problem (it is most propably my monkey mind missing some simple thing because of late hours because in this scenario the path that the object takes does not depend on its velocity. So if we douple the velocity, we should still have the same path which we no is not true.
So please show me what I am missing so that I can move on!!!
Thanks for bringing the common sense back to the basic science!!!
Iiro,
Great question! You may be pleased to discover that this model does say that the path an object will follow depends on its velocity. With a density gradient of space in place, the straight path, the path an object will take, depends on its velocity. To see why, imagine an object that moves through flat space at a slow rate – let's say 20 quanta per unit of time. When that object moves into a region with a density gradient it will take the path in which both sides still experience the same amount of space per unit of time. Let's say that the gradient makes a difference in density such that a superspatial straight path would lead to 20 more quanta on one side than the other. This object will then follow a highly curved path (from the Euclidean perspective). However, if the same object entered the region moving at 1000 quanta per unit of time, then the 1020 vs. 1000 side to side would not create a path with strong curvature. I hope this addresses your question. Please elaborate if you have further questions :).
此致
Thad
Hi Thad, I've got a couple of questions:
1. Can you help me envisage why a mass (like an apple) falls toward the Earth? In the absence of a force called gravity I'm guessing this must be happening because the apple has velocity (that of the Earth through space) in a density gradient… But I can't quite picture it.
2. What is it that is within a planck bubble that has coordinates described by the intraspatial x,y,z?
3. Subatomic particles are huge compared to the planck length so how do you picture a quark occupying space? Does it 'occupy' billions of planck bubbles? What does that 'look' like?
4. What is the mechanism by which mass affects the density of planck bubbles? How does mass cause them to coalesce? I think what I'm trying to get at here is that, having done away with gravity, with what do I replace my conception of matter clumping together (to make planets etc…)
5. I think you said a black hole had a size of 1 planck. Surely if you make planck bubbles coalesce as in a black hole, its 'size' is however many planck bubbles it has inside it. From your explanation, I imagine them densely packed (and not 'resonating')… and if more matter is sucked in, with more planck bubbles, I imagine the event horizon expands to accomodate more planck bubbles at some sort of maximum density.
6. I never came across your explanation of how QST explains wave particle duality. I'd love to hear it.
I'm enjoying how you convey the concept of QST as something I can actually imagine. 谢谢。
1. Of course. ☺ First let me say that the difficulty would be to explain how a force called gravity causes an apple to fall toward the Earth. Forces are used in lieu of explanations. Therefore, when we rely on “forces” our understanding of the world is empty. When it came to gravity, Einstein overcame this stumbling block by reducing the effects of gravity to consequences of a geometric property (that nobody had previously imagined). According to Einstein, the metric of spacetime curves in conjunction with the presence of mass. As a result, objects like the Moon orbit the Earth because this orbit is the straight path through spacetime (despite our naïve Euclidean expectations). Once we comprehend spacetime in its full geometric splendor the mystery of forces dissolve. Since the Moon is going straight, there is no deep mystery.
We can use our qst model to fully understand the geometric property of spacetime curvature. In our model, curvature is represented by the radial density gradients that extend from massive objects. Once we have these radial density gradients our solution falls into place by considering what it means to call a path “straight” in space. An object that is moving straight experiences equal amounts of space. In other words, its left side moves through the same amount of space as its right side (and all other sides). Imagine extending your hands as you drift in space. If your left hand transverses the same amount of space as your right hand during some interval of time, then you are moving straight. Now imaging an object entering a region of space that supports radial density gradient. In order for the object to continue going straight it must continue to follow the path that has it interacting with the same amount of space on its left side and its right side. The radial density gradient perturbs this path from Euclidean projections. Can you imagine it now?
2. If we assume that space (the x, y, z we are familiar with) is actually a superfluid made up of many quanta of space, then the individual quanta of space become the smallest contributions to the metric that portrays the relative arrangements of those quanta. The quanta themselves are made up of a volume, but that volume cannot coherently participate or contribute to the metric of x, y, z. Therefore, their metric is uniquely separate. As an analogy, let's imagine that you were asking what is within the molecules of water in a lake. A collection of these molecules defines water, and they can allow waves to propagate through the medium, but inside the molecules themselves the notion of “water” is nowhere to be found. The reference has entirely changed, even though the molecules of H2O make up water. Does that help?
3. Great question. Particles of mass in this model turn out to be little vortices in the superfluid vacuum. In this sense they are stable metric distortions that possess the ability to be locally defined (at least on scales larger than the vortex in question).
4. Mass/energy exists any time there is a metric distortion. This means that whenever the quanta are not perfectly arranged into an evenly spaced lattice, matter/energy is present. On the quantum scales this is always the case, but as you zoom out the average density evens out (so long are there is not a radial density gradient present), giving rise to the appearance of emptiness (leaving only zero point energy, the spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles in pairs, which are described on the smallest scales only). What you appear to be getting would be best elucidated by a rich understanding of superfluids. In superfluids stable quantum vortices can form and remain without dissipation. This formation is the creation of 'matter particles' and the metric swirls that extend from them give rise to the effects of the electric force etc. I expand on this in my book, in the Forces chapter.
5. When we are talking about x, y, z size, yes all black holes have an effective size of one Planck length. That is because they represent only one unique location in the x, y, z metric. However, superspatially black holes are much more than this. A black hole's superspatial size is a function of how many quanta make it up. The rest of what you said sounds accurate to me.
6. Please go to http://www.EinsteinsIntuition.com and select the pull down menu titled 'What is qst?' and select the formalism page. This should give you a great overview of how wave/particle duality is required by the assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid. Also, chapters 12 and 13 in my book introduce these concepts with less math.
I don't think you answered Martin's #1 question fully. In the apple, the left and right 'hands' will 'experiences equal amounts of space.' I came to Q&A looking for an explanation of the apple falling from the tree, not orbiting the earth! As to how the (familiar) potential energy changes to kinetic energy (the moment the stem breaks) , I guess we'd consider the density gradient fronttoback but i can't think of what makes the apple want to fall…
马特，
Please excuse the delay in reply, I've been exploring Central America. I believe my response to your reworded question below addresses your question. If it does not please let me know.
Thad
After some reckoning I simplified the question thus: What causes acceleration in an orbiting object? Because an apple breaking from a tree is the same as a satellite at the apex of a flatelliptical path.
Objects in an elliptical orbit experience a reversal of acceleration when its path is perpendicular to a radial line of the density gradient. All other moments it will experience (de/a)cceleration because of the gradient from 'front' to 'back'. Is this because the 'front' experiences less time resonations than the 'back' which pushes it forward?
Does that mean (familiar) inertia is an illusion?
Is the inertia in superspace an illusion better explained by goingson in supersuperspace?
Thanks for the clarification Matt. In response let me begin by pointing out that an orbiting body is only “accelerating” from an Euclidean perspective. For any perspective that reveals the curvature of spacetime there is no acceleration involved at any time (no force either). In short, by switching to a frame that includes spacetime curvature we dissolve the “force” of gravity. So yes, in part, familiar inertia is an illusion. Because it is a function of mass and velocity, an Euclidean painting of velocity introduces the illusory part. From a perspective that includes spacetime curvature the inertia of an orbiting body does not change. It remains traveling straight through spacetime. This illusion, along with the illusions of the other “forces” is elucidated best, to my knowledge, by the “goingson in superspace”. Chapter 20 in my book covers this topic in greater detail. If you would like a pdf copy let me know.
I have a similar question as other people on this forum, I searched a bit and couldn't find the answer so here goes.
If the moon were (hypothetically) stopped in it's orbital path, why would it fall towards the Earth?
尼克，
Great question. I assume that it makes sense to you why an orbit follows from a density gradient in space – why the moon orbits instead of flying right by. To tie the rest of the picture together we need to remember that elementary particles in this model are quantum vortices in the superfluid vacuum. Particles combine to form atoms and larger groups via the rules of combining quantum vortices. So we can imagine the Moon as a large collection of these swirling vortices. When it is in the presence of a density gradient (like the one that surrounds the Earth) the straight path for each vortex depends on that gradient. And, since the vortices are held in combination, by balancing fluid dynamic interactions, the fate of the collection is for the most part shared. Therefore, if the moon were stopped in its orbital path it would follow the only straight path available. Each vortex that makes it up would swirl about such that the distortion parts of its swirling action (the phonons that make it up) share identical experiences of space. The combined effect of this exposure to the Earth's spatial density gradient (spacetime curvature), and the stabilization between the vortices making up the matter of the Moon, brings the whole thing straight towards the earth.
Please let me know if I can attempt to make this more clear.
Thad
that explains the apple falling (not that i fully understand)… I would appreciate a link to your book.
I've sent you the link. Please let me know if you have any problems opening it. I look forward to your feedback.
Thad,
I've been waiting for the apple to fall! Thanks for that response. May I get a copy of your book also?
I had wondered if the reason the apple would fall is because of the time differences in the gradient. It seems that molecules vibrating “up and down” in the gradient would move slightly slower relative to the molecules directly above them, tending to pull the ones above them down. But the time gradient probably isn't steep enough to produce the effect that we think of as weight. And I haven't heard of super cold materials having less weight than the same material at room temperature. So your answer is very satisfying. Would the molecular vibration in the time gradient have any effect at all on the motion of the apple, even very slightly?
Great videos, great site. Can't wait to read the book.
Ron, I just sent you the updated book. I look forward to your feedback.
Hi Thad!
I watched your talk on TEDx – Boulder and I was very inspired. I would like to get a copy of your book in order to dig deeper in to the idea. I have a few questions concerning the 11dimensions you talk about.
1. Is 11 dimension a simplified picture? Have I understood it correctly if you believe that we live in an infinitely dimensional world? Does more dimensions pop up as we look closer?
2. Is the super space including super time a E^4 space, and if so, what reason do we have to believe that?
3. What forces are changing the path and shape of the space quanta, or is that just a geometric effect of even deeper lying dimensions?
提前致谢！
Viktor,
1. Yes, the 11dimensional picture is a simplified picture. The complete picture relies on spatial structure that mimics a perfect fractal, each level resolving more internal parts that interact with the same set of rules.
2. Superspace is only approximately an E^4 space in this model. This is a selfconsistent necessity within the model because of the difference in size of the sub quanta to the quanta. The scale difference forces the expectation of a near E^4 structure.
3. In this model there are no “forces” because all effects come with a complete causal story, negating any need to pull in a magical entity responsible for strange occurrences. I just emailed you a link to the book. To get a more complete answer to this question, read the superfluid chapter.
i'm almost through the book; i'll email it back to you with corrections (typos, formatting, few comments)
I was disappointed at the way you have the qst recursively overlapping — subspace in frame B is superspace in frame C…
did you even try to make it overlap so that familiar space in frame B is superspace in frame C?
maybe I just like to imagine receiving jounce from a higher dimension.
马特，
Technically the structure of the map is reflexive, meaning the order is mirrored. Look through Chapter 11 again, and if this isn't clear please let me know.
hi thad i have a question about red shift,im wondering the system or star that they say is accelerating does it automaticly mean the hole universe is accelerating or perhaps just that portion .How many observances of this phenomena have they observed . Is it possible there is an enormous mass in front of this system that is pulling it faster,maybe a black hole .are the distant systems that are heading towards us ??? curious .
These are good questions. For a more in depth answer than I will be providing here, please see my Chapter on Dark Energy in Einstein's Intuition. If you do not have the book send me a request by email. The short answers are… When we observe redshift there are many possible (valid) explanations for this effect. The most popular explanation, is called the Doppler effect, which characterizes a change in observed wavelength due to motion of the emitting object. If from within the reference frame of the emitting object it is putting out a yellow light, but is moving away from you very rapidly, then from your reference frame you will see a color that is shifted towards the red end of the light spectrum. The amount of shifting depends on the speed. If it is moving towards you then the light will be blueshifted. This effect is undoubtedly real. When we look at systems far away that are spinning rapidly, the edge moving towards us exhibits blue shift, while the edge of the system moving away from us exhibits red shift. The question is, does the general red shift we observe for all distant systems imply recession velocities? The answer is that it does not necessarily imply this. There are other options. I explore one particularly beautiful and simple option in that chapter if you'd like to understand another option. How many observations of red shift are there? Many. In fact, at large distance every system is redshifted. I suppose technically it is possible that they all have enormous masses behind them pulling them faster away from us, causing the doppler effect, but the odds of this would be extremely low for two reasons. The first reason is that all of those objects would have to be strategically placed such that they were exactly opposite of the object from our location, which doesn't seem to have any motivation or explanation, seems contrived and statistically completely unexpected, and the second is that there is no reason to expect that all distant objects would be paired in this way.
Only a newcomer to this theory, having only seen the “visualizing 11 dimension” ted talk and reading some of the content on the site. What intrigues me the most is an extrapolation from the acceptance that spacetime is a superfluid; the idea of vortices appearing on a quantized level (ie rather than all the water in the bucket spinning around a central axis, quantised vortices appearing within the superfluid). Could the quanta themselves be defined as vortices in 11 dimensions, and could this further imply that it is the motion of the superfluid spacetime as a whole that causes these vortices to occur? Just as in the superfluid in the bucket, within which the system as a whole is moving causing these quantised vortices to appear. That is to say, that the spacetime that makes up the entire universe has some fundamental motion as a whole which in turn gives rise to these vortices which we experience as particels and charge.
Miles,
This is a beautiful insight. Yes, this model leads to the expectation that the quantized vortices internal to the system are manifestations of some external motion (left over from the big bang). But the vortices are not the quanta themselves, instead the vortices are made of of the superfluid that the quanta construct. The quantized vortices instead become, as you suggest in your last sentence, the fundamental particles of mass. If you'd like to read more on this, I recommend my Chapter 21 – Superfluidity and Chapter 22 – Quantized Vortices.
You mention that mass generation can be described as a symmetry breaking event, but the primary literature is pretty dense. Is there an easier way to conceptualize “mass” in qst, and from that, better understand how mass might alter the density of 'spacebubbles' and hence, gravity? The popularized notion of gravity as a “charge” of mass–which results from particle interaction with the higgs field–doesn't seem to mesh well with qst. 帮帮我！
Dear Peter,
Yes, this model does offer an easier way to conceptualize “mass.” Here's an excerpt that should help make the connection (if you'd like to see this discussion with its references, figures, and equations, send me a request for the book via email):
The word mass references the presence of a geometric distortion in the metric – specifically the presence of a localized distortion in the vacuum of increased density. Distortions that are not localized, distortions that require transverse propagation in order to be sustained, are referred to as light, or more generally as energy. Distortions with a decrease in density are referred to as negative energy.
在流体度量，每个失真的总几何大小将根据速度而变化。 当一团粒子（局部真空失真）是不动的，即失真的幅度chacterizes粒子的静止质量，也被称为其内在质量。 当颗粒移动时，波前积聚在它前面，增加了真空的几何图形的总失真。 它移动的失真越大更快。 附加失真特征的粒子的动能质量。 随着接近介质的传播速度，总的度量失真趋近无穷大值。 这就是为什么需要能量的无限量以加速具有非零静止质量的粒子，以光速。
￼
￼￼￼￼Once我们假设真空被量化（如空气），相对论质量，其值的概念依赖于速度，自动跟随。 一旦我们有静止质量的粒子，它是微不足道的（给定的真空量化）来解释动力学质量（也被称为相对论质量）。 但是，我们如何解释静止质量的出现？ 如何增加密度形式的局部区域？ 为什么他们只来在特定的大小  特别规定，我们发现在自然的基本粒子？ 是什么让大众对这些数量如此特别？
在谈到这些问题时，弗兰克·维尔切克，物理学诺贝尔奖获得者，指出，威廉·汤姆逊（也称为开尔文勋爵）假定的最美丽的'失败'的思想在科学的历史上，当他提出，原子可能处于旋涡以太网弥漫空间。 相信在乙醚，一种无形的媒介时空中的持续的电磁波，汤姆逊变得由赫尔曼亥姆霍兹，是谁证明了“旋涡对彼此的力量，而这些力量采取让人联想到磁力线携带电之间的一种形式的工作很感兴趣电流。“正如他探讨过这个方面，他认为，涡的关键是获得一个模型，可以解释一些类型的原子，每一个存在非常大的数字完全相同的副本，怎么会出现自然。
为了得到他的涡原子掉在地上的理论，汤姆森认为以太被赋予以支持稳定的涡流的能力。 以下亥姆霍兹'定理，他接着指出，不同的类型，或“物种”，旋涡将仍然存在的介质中，并且这些基本涡流可以聚合成各种准稳定的“分子”。
汤姆森的想法是非常有吸引力的  的想法，稳定的量子涡旋，其拓扑不同的形式和尺寸的介质本身的自然属性和可重复创作，是物质世界的基石。 可悲的是这个想法已经褪色成默默无闻，cloddishly驳回，拒绝了，因为乙醚，这些涡度被认为是批判性的背景流体依靠，已被放弃。 科学家们认为，如果以太出来了，然后开尔文的量化涡度也出来。 他们错误地扔婴儿连同洗澡水。
天意，汤姆逊量化涡度的优雅当我们换乙醚的假设，有在支持电磁波，对在假设真空本身是一个超流体介质用度量是由宏观描真空的介质复活波函数。 假设该真空是一种超流，也称为量子流体，本能地建立涡流稳定。 这也导致该材料世界的结构被写入到真空本身的基板，但预期如量化涡流在真空形成，超对称性被打破，亚原子粒子的出现具有非常特定的属性。
我们刚刚开始探索一些量子流体提供的有前途的新的可能性。 目前的研究集中在，除其他事项外，理论上理解量子旋涡的玻色  爱因斯坦凝聚的形成（和它们是如何结合以形成稳定的联合），这些量子旋涡链接到物质的起源的一个概念，以及使用BEC的模拟黑孔和在实验室中的相关现象。
如果在真空涡流对应的粒子则“空的空间集中的能量可以转化虚粒子转化为现实。”如果这到底是怎么回事，然后这一转变（希格斯机制）背后的机制需要加以解释。 我们需要探索如何无质量颗粒具有两个物理极化获得的第三稳定偏振在纵向方向上。 我们需要弄清楚如何大规模的财产（本地维护的几何失真，或量化旋涡）春成立。
为了推动我们走向一个答案，我们注意到，如果我们分拆包含我们最终与旋涡阵列的超流体的烧杯中的流体散。 （导入涡流的数量是正比于H / M）。有趣的是，超流分解内的每个这些涡流的，而在其他地方的流体保持其超流表征，并保持静止（在宏观的意义上）。 因此，外旋的旋转能量变成包含在这些量化的涡流内。 响应于旋转的差异可以更精确地定量指出，量化涡流的切向速度具有模量随r减小：
（公式并没有完全复制  参见第22章  量子涡旋方程组和数字）
而刚性转子的切向速度具有模量随r增加：V =Ω×R。
这是什么让我们宣称的旋涡本地化。 这一点，加上该涡旋被定义为特定的几何失真自发破裂或隐藏底层较高对称状态下的真空的事实，使得它们成为了通过希格斯场继承其静止质量的粒子。 真空超流动性，因此，使牙齿希格斯场的假设。
希格斯场（也称为希格斯玻色子，或者上帝粒子）用于编纂神秘的事实，即颗粒具有静止质量。 据负责造成一定的几何失真的真空，从而自发地打破或隐藏时空的根本较高的对称状态。 怎么这个领域自发地打破了弱力相关联的对称性，使基本粒子它们的质量，如何降低宇宙的总能量状态，或者如何粘度引入到系统中，目前尚不清楚。
希格斯玻色子被引入到电弱理论作为一种特别的方式向弱玻色子赋予质量。 即使有这样的插入弱电理论无法解决质量问题的产生，因为它不解释在希格斯玻色子质量的起源。 取而代之的是，理论引入这个质量作为经由希格斯电位的自由参数，使得希格斯质量最终也只是在量子力学另一个自由参数的值。
事项由该事实，这希格斯参数的值只被间接地估计进一步复杂化。 许多不同的估计希格斯的价值已经被假定的标准模型（及其扩展）。 但是，即使理论家知道如何选择的值之间，即使希格斯玻色子的质量进行了理论固定的，也不会出现大规模的产生问题的根本解决。 希格斯公设唯一的重新表述质量产生的问题，推动问题回到“如何希格斯玻色子得到它的质量？
这就是真空超流就派上用场了。 真空超流自然假定一个基本机制质量的产生，但没有明确禁止的弱电希格斯粒子的存在。 总之，已经证明，基本粒子可以获取它们的质量由于与真空冷凝的相互作用  很像在超导体或超流体的间隙生成机制。 因此，如果希格斯粒子存在，然后真空超流通过提供能够产生其质量的机制解释了其质量的起源。 如果希格斯玻色子不存在，则弱玻色子通过与真空冷凝液直接互动获得它们的质量。 无论哪种方式弱玻色子的质量是真空超流，而不是它的原因编码的基本质量产生机制的一个副产品。
这种想法是不完全的小说，以一个超流体真空理论。 尽管如此，这种拓扑解释大众新一代提升这一理论建设至少是本体论看齐编织理论或圈量子引力。 假设该真空是一种超流使得可以描述对称破相对论标量场（它负责质量的产生）中的背景超流小的波动而言。 在某些条件下，这些波动来共同承担基本粒子的性质。
由于真空波动，共同创造稳定的指标“辫子”，加捻旋涡形成和稳定，他们成为能够承担大规模粒子特性  第三偏振状态和被本地化的属性。 （并非所有的波动会结合成稳定的旋涡。）这开辟了拓扑解释电荷为那些在编织的彩带个人携带曲折的可能性。 同样，色彩充电可拓扑解释为可用的扭曲模式。
All of this suggests that matter generation is explicitly related to quantum vortex formation in the superfluid vacuum (or the generation of dark solitons in onedimensional BEC's). Superfluid vortices are allowed for by the nonlinear ￼ term in the GrossPitaevskii equation.
These plaits of quantized angular momentum are most naturally represented by a wavefunction of the form ￼ , where ρ, z, and θ are representations of the cylindrical coordinate system and l is the angular number. In an axially symmetric (harmonic) confining potential this
is the form that is generally expected. To generalize this notion we determine ￼ by minimizing the energy of ￼ according to the constraint ￼ . In a uniform medium this becomes:
where: n2 is density far from the vortex, x = ρ / l ξ, and ξ is healing length of the condensate. For a singly charged vortex (l = 1) in the ground state, has an energy ￼ given by:
，
where b is the farthest distance from the vortex considered. (A welldefined energy necessitates this boundary b.)
For multiply charged vortices (l > 1) the energy is approximated by: .
￼￼￼￼
Such vortices tend to be unstable because they have greater energy than that of singly charged vortices. There may, however, be metastable states, that have relatively long lifetimes, and it may be possible for vortices to come together and create stabilized unions.
Dark solitons are topological features in onedimensional BEC's that possess a phase gradient across their nodal plane. This phase gradient stabilizes their shape even during propagation and interaction. Because these solitons carry no charge they are prone to decay. Nevertheless, “relatively longlived dark solitons have been produced and studied extensively.”
When it comes to the mass generation problem vacuum superfluidity has become a thriving contender among a swarm of competing theories. Because it explains mass and energy strictly in terms of geometry it has positioned itself as the contender with the most ontological potential.
– I hope that helps.
Thad
hello dear Thad
I am not sure this is the right place to post my comment,
so feel free to move it if you need too. TY
i hear you say all electrons look alike
would it help you to hypothesis that they are all the same one?
what i mean by this is: an electron is a place in space time
that phenomenon is the same one ,
we just observe it from different points of view
I'm not saying it is reality
it is just a tool
to nicely illustrate
how one can consider realty
an other example of that tool would be
the similarity between black/white whole and the big bag theory
though many different point of vue on what we are talking about
can lead people to disagree 😛
This is why i used the electron example
as it seemed simpler
(i hope my English convey my meaning
as i an French)
i hope to hear from you
照顾自己
Aurelien
Dear Carnoy,
The idea that there is only one electron in the Universe manifesting itself in many places (with many complex stories for how it gets to all of those places) has already been proposed. What people are trying to achieve in this proposal is an explanation for the uniformity between all electrons. Personally I find the simplest story to be most likely, and most explanations I've heard for how one electron manifests itself in multiple places in space and time have been very complex. The simplest explanation I know of so far is that there is a property in the vacuum itself that inscribes the properties of the elementary particles (including the electron). If the vacuum is a superfluid, then the quantum eddies that form due to superfluidity, which only come in very specific states (eddie 1, 2, 3… but no eddies with properties between those), are natural expectations. If those eddies are the elementary particles, than that would be the most simple explanation possible. This is not to say that I am discouraging the idea you are suggesting. All ideas have value in science, and science needs people that are willing to use their creative imaginations to come up with new ways of seeing things.
你好
i have listen to your tedx talk with a lot of interest.i have a few question that i cant realy grasp with this consept. if the space is made of `something` you still endup with something empty between those little space, what is empty made of? if all the space touch at some point and allow thing to move from a space to another space whitout having to pass into something that dont exist/empty it would ease my mind but dont allow for 3 dimention you talk about. at what level of the atom do the space interact to create gravity? how can we manipulate space from the atomic point of view to test that theory?
谢谢
埃里克
i forgot to ask how energy intereact with space?
谢谢
埃里克，
Thank you for your questions. The TED talk did not go into much depth. Let me provide a little more here. The full structure of this model assumes a fractal geometry, meaning that it assumes that the vacuum is made of parts, and that those parts (and the medium that separates them) are made of smaller parts, and so on. Due to this hierarchical structure, the exact model we are discussing depends upon the resolution we choose to focus on. If we stick to 11 dimensions, then the vacuum is made of quanta, each of which contain interspatial volume, the vacuum quanta are separated by superspatial volume, and the entire collection fills out the familiar spatial volume. Your first question asks what the superspatial volume is, or perhaps what it is made of. The model ultimately assumes that superspace is, in a selfsimiliar way, made of subquanta, and therefore has fluid properties of its own. The subquanta are not resolved in our 11 dimensional resolution, but if we want to resolve them we simply jump to the next level of resolution, which is a 30 dimensional map (27 spatial dimensions, and 3 temporal dimensions). Also, in the model the vacuum comprises all the “furniture of the world” or everything that manifests in space. Quantum vortices in the superfluid vacuum are the fundamental matter particles, and the density gradients that surround them are the gravity fields. All forms of energy are marked by metric distortions, differences in the distributions of the quanta that make up the vacuum. These distortions can be propagating waves, or phonons, like sound waves through air, or they can be quantum eddies, gaining what physicists call a third polarization – making it possible for the distortion to be maintained without necessarily having to move through the metric. The vacuum is more fundamental than atoms of matter. Many vacuum of quanta choreograph together to make quantum vortices, which form the fundamental particles, like quarks, which combine to make protons and neutrons, and eventually atoms. As for testing the theory, there are several ways to test this theory, as it makes clear departures from traditional projections in cosmology, general relativity, and quantum mechanics. First off, it posits that Lorentz symmetry is not an exact symmetry of Nature but instead a symmetry that manifests in the low momentum regime. The prediction, then, is that with enough energy and momentum we should be able to detect Lorentzbreaking corrections. To do this we need energies and momenta that extend beyond the excitation threshold of the superfluid vacuum. Also, it offers an explanation for redshifted light in cosmology, which, of course, leads to completely different claims about dark energy. Also, its quantum mechanical predictions insert a nonlinear term in its wave equation, whereas the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics sticks with the linear term only (which is why it remains restricted from wrestling with the phenomena of general relativity). If you'd like to look into this in greater depth, feel free to send me a request for a free copy of the book.
sure, thank you
You touched on it. But I really want an elaboration on how matter moves from one quantum of space to the next. You said quanta can touch superspatially, but do they have to be?
Matter particles are quantum vortices in this model, which means that even fundamental quarks are made up of many quanta of space. For matter particles to move through space the collection of vortices that make it up, or at minimum the vortex that makes it up, moves through the medium in a way very similar to how a whirlpool moves through water. To begin exploring the basics of this kind of motion I suggest looking up phonons, otherwise known as quasiparticles, which can be defined as collective excitations in the periodic, elastic arrangements of atoms or molecules of a medium (in this case the quanta of the superfluid vacuum). These phonons can take on different forms, but they all represent excited states in the medium. When these excited states become quantum vortices, they represent matter, instead of energy in the form of light, but the motion of these vortices is still determined by the parameters of the elastic medium.
Dear Mr. Roberts,
1. Are Quanta physically real, material objects (as in substantive components of a superfluid)? Or are they rather, like a Euclidian coordinate plane, a conceptual representation of space (with the additional property of representing the confluence of the five constants of nature within any given unit of space) to be superimposed upon it, for the purpose of standardizing a base unit of measure so that we can more clearly perceive it's properties and more completely & accurately analyze & explain it's behavior?
2. If so, do Quanta have mass?
3. Is the “space” between Quanta quantiz(ed/able)?
4. If quanta are indivisible, how then are they comprised of “subquanta and so on, ad infinitum”?
As RB Fuller once said, “All truths are omniinteroperable.” Please help me reconcile these seemingly noninteroperable assertions of truth on the part of your theoretical framework. I am a lay person with only the most rudimentary grasp of this material. But since you state that QST offers an intelligible view of these normally inscrutable concepts, I write to you in the spirit of understanding (or at least aspiring thereto!).
谢谢。
PS Your alternate explanation of redshift gave me the first glimmer of hope for the future of the cosmos since Edwin Hubble's entropic prophecy seemingly sealed it's doom. I still have some questions about that, but I'll leave those for later…

最好的问候，
Nathan Duke
首席设计师
Brandingo.biz
9494685688 cell
6195670000 office
6199163630 fax
nathan.duke@gmail.com
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for your questions. I'll attempt a concise set of answers here and point you towards my book for a richer explanation. (I've just emailed a pdf copy of it to you.)
You asked, “Are we to understand that Quanta are literally real material objects? Or, like a Euclidian coordinate plane, are they simply a conceptual representation of space (with the additional property of representing the confluence of the five constants of nature within any given unit of space) to be superimposed upon it for the purpose of standardizing a base unit of measure so that we can more clearly perceive it's properties and more completely and accurately explain it's behavior?”
I am aiming at the former of these options, as the superfluid vacuum model of quantum space theoy is meant to provide a complete ontology. However, I would not object to someone fleshing out an interpretation based on the latter, but I suspect it would not carry as much explanatory import.
In response to your other questions:
1. Do Quanta have mass?
No, quanta do not have mass. Mass is a distortion in the geometric arrangements of the quanta. It is a collective property and therefore cannot be attributed to a single element of the collection – just as one molecule of air cannot have pressure.
2. Is the space between Quanta quantiz(ed/able)?
Yes it is, but on a completely different scale – the same scale on which the quanta themselves are quantized. Chapter 11 should help with these concerns/questions. If it doesn't resolve them please let me know.
3. If quanta are indivisible, how then are they comprised of “subquanta and so on, ad infinitum”?
Quanta are not indivisible. They are merely the smallest units if space. The same applies to gold. It can be divided down to one atom if gold and still be gold. We cannot divide one atom of gold and still have gold, but this doesn't ultimately or logically stop us from dividing it. The division is possible, but it requires moving beyond the properties and definition of the medium (gold). The claim here is that the same applies to space as a medium.
I hope that helped. While you read the book please keep a list of your questions and comments and send me any unresolved questions or constructive comments. If you find any particular section unclear I would like to know. Your critical analysis is valuable to me as the aim of my book is to make these topics accessible to everyone with a sharp mind regardless of their level of training in physics.
谢谢。
Thad
PS Questions related to your postscript comment are covered in Chapter 28 of my book. 享受。
Thad,
Watched your TEDx Youtube video last night and was blown away. I spent this morning reading your web site and would now like to see the technical details of your QST book.
My background is BSc Physics, MM Mathematics. I spent my working life in computing and am now retired.
I left grad school (UMd, College Park ) in quantum physics because of a deep dissatisfaction with QM: I understood the math – but had grave doubts about the epistemology. I have tried to keep current over the past 50 years ( my God, has it been that long? ) reading as much as possible on current theories.
Your ideas – if I understand them correctly – are utterly wonderful. I have believed for some time that whatever reality is – it is emergent with infinite complexity derivable from simple recursive rules.
I spent some time a few decades ago exploring the world of fractals ( see https://www.flickr.com/photos/hortonheardawho/4482226023/ for a sample of my Mandelbrot set animations ) and am particularly excited that you recognize the deeper fractal nature of reality.
I also happen to have many of the same personal interest as you ( PADI Divemaster, Space enthusiast, Fossil hunter, amateur geologists. )
Looking forward to an exciting read and hope I can provide you with some useful feedback.
马文
Thad is abroad at the moment, so I'm not sure how long it will take him to respond.
Hi Marvin,
I apologize for taking this long to respond. I've been abroad for several months, traveling with a quantum physicist and then a philosopher of physics. It seems that you and I do have much in common, and I look forward to exploring that with you. Throughout the book my main goal remains to return us to an investigation that does not turn its back on epistemological concerns, so I would very much appreciate it if one of the lenses you evaluated my book through was the epistemological lens. Let me know if it holds up a satisfactory epistemological argument. Of course, there is no requirement that you end up believing that Nature perfectly conforms to the model, as keeping our doubt around in healthy doses is important, but it is important that whatever route we explore does not turn it back on ontology and epistemology. If you have any thoughts as you read, or think any particular parts could be improved, please let me know. I'm sending you a copy of the book to your email. I very much look forward to your feedback and starting a dialogue with you.
Thad
Hello Mr. Roberts,
I have only one question without a good answer to which it would be impossible for me to accept that space is quantized.
The problem is that any quantized structure automatically makes space anisotropical. In other words some directions in space become “favorable”.
I suppose in the case of no distortion the “space” quantums you introduce would form a 3d grid, packed in nice rows along the 3 mains axis. As long as you move along an axis everthing is fine – the distance traveled is equal to the number of space “quantums” passsed.
But suppose you were to go in a right angle triangle with its sides along the axises along the hypotenuse. If you are hoping over “quantums” you will have to do this in a steppedlike manner, gathering the same number of steps as the sum along the sides. Obviously according to the Pythagorean theorem this can not be true.
Dr. Morozov,
As you might recall isotropy is defined macroscopically, like pressure. In this sense there is no inherent anisotropy inscribed by quantization. For example, if we have a container of gas, which we believe to be made of quantized parts (atoms or molecules) and we are in space with no measurable gravitational field, then the gas will display uniformity in all directions, having no preferred arrangement one way versus another and having equal density throughout. In other words, it will be isotropic. Isotropy could be introduced into this system of gas, however, if we put a cold sink in the middle. Then we would find that the gas was denser near the cold sink and radially less dense as distance from the cold sink increased. This would create anisotropy in the system. The same is an option for quantized space, and such anisotropic regions represent gravitational fields, or Einstein's curved space.
To your second point, you are right to recognize that the Pythagorean theorem is challenged by quantization, at least in its theoretical limit. And as it turns out, it is already well established that the Pythagorean theorem does not ubiquitously hold in Nature. Wherever space is curved the Pythagorean theorem no longer holds, the greater the curvature the more it fails to represent the system. Also, on microscopic scales it may not hold unless we take time averages with significant spans.
Your points are quite insightful. I address them to much greater lengths in my book. If you'd like a copy please let me know.
Thad
Thank you so much for sharing your ideas. I would love a link to your book
当然。 Emailing it to you now.
Hello Mr. Roberts,
I recently watched your TED talk and am fascinated by the idea. The explanation of gravity was very elegant! However, I still have a few questions:
1. I didn't quite understand the explanation of redshift. Could you please elaborate?
2. Does the theory predict an expanding universe? The big bang?
3. What is the fate of the universe if this theory is correct?
4. Does it have any connection to string theory?
5. Why 11 dimensions?
Also, could you please email me a copy of your book?
谢谢了。
Hi Vivek,
I'm sending you the book. Let me provide short answers here and direct you to the sections of the book that answer your questions in more depth.
1,2 – I agree, the TED talk was very rushed and short – there is much to elaborate on. Redshift in this model is accounted for in two ways. The doppler effect (a function of relative motion between source and observer) causes light to become red (or blue) shifted, as the relative motion lengthens or shortens the received wavelength. Redshift also occurs for waves in a medium if the pressure of that medium decreases as those waves travel through it. Therefore, if the vacuum is a fluid medium, then plane wave phonons (light) that travel long distances through it will become redshifted as the pressure of the vacuum looses pressure. This decrease in pressure is explained by the fractal structure of the vacuum. Because the vacuum is made up of quanta, which are in turn made up of subquanta, and so on. Collisions between two quanta rearrange the internal subquanta, and this geometric distortion draws some energy from the motion of the quanta. The difference in size between levels (between the quanta and the subquanta) is very large, so the amount of energy lost to the internal degrees of freedom is very small, but over many collisions the energy loss becomes noteworthy. The model predicts a Big Bang, and inflation, but because it accounts for redshift geometrically it does not follow that observations of redshift suggest that the universe is expanding. See Chapter 28.
3 – The fate of the universe is to eventually suffer another external collision, causing the universe to reset in low entropy and high energy. The internal laws and constants of nature will remain the same, but the starting state may be different, directing its evolution until the next collision. See Chapter 27.
4 – Yes there is some overlap with this theory and the ideas held by string theory, but its conceptual foundations differ significantly. Nevertheless, the branes of string theory might be considered to be what is modeled by the surface areas of the vacuum quanta. (See pages 33, 3536, 53, 186187, & 318319.)
5 – 11 dimensions is a geometric consequence of vacuum quantization. This is covered in Chapter 11.
Please let me know if your questions are satisfied when you read the book, and if more questions come up, please share. The book has greatly improved in response to questions shared by others.
谢意
I had a few more questions I forgot to ask:
Does the theory have any probabilistic aspects at all?
Does it get rid of quantum theory entirely?
What does it say about virtual particles? quantum tunneling?
What exactly do you mean when you talk about the fractal structure of the theory?
谢谢。
The theory reproduces quantum mechanics is a deterministic way (just as Bohmian mechanics does). Probability is captured as a reflection of our ignorance of the actual state of space at any given moment. Specifying a specific exact state leads to a deterministic evolution to another exact state at a different time, but in practice we cannot access the exact state of space, so probabilistic projections come from deterministic physics. (See pages: 32, 79, 113116, 204214, 226229, 243245, 289299, 382391.) Virtual particles is briefly mentioned on page 362, quantum tunneling is covered in Chapter 14, an the fractal structure of the theory is fully explained in Chapter 11.
Dear Thad,
Thank you for sharing your ideas with our world. Could you send me a link to your book, would love to read more about your theory. 提前致谢！
当然。 Sending it now.
您好，
I'm a Physics passionate and I'd very much like to know more about your model and it's consequences. Are there PDF copies of your book still available ?
谢谢。
I just published it yesterday, but since you asked before that, sending you a pdf now 😉
Thank you, I'll come back with comments and questions.
What I can say for now is that my next point of interest is to understand what consequences has the mobility of quanta, as opposed to a static grid arrangement, on the movement of matter/energy.
If I understand correctly from what I've read so far on your site, the (super)fluidity allows for stable vortices that correspond to “material” particles. But what I try to understand is the impact said mobility of quanta has on the movement (as in translation) of those “particles”.
Does the vortex move like a propagating wave (at each moment the vortex is made up of different quanta), or do the quanta actually translate with respect to the rest of the “sea” of other quanta. This is probably a simple question of (super)fluid dynamics, but nevertheless I try to understand what the consequences of this model are.
Thanks again and keep up the good work.
It sounds like you'll really enjoy the Superfluidity Chapter in my book.
It was just published, available through Lulu.com in hardcover full color interior.
Softcover full color will be available soon through Amazon, and the iBook and audiobook will follow.
In short, the vortices move like propagating waves, at each moment made up of different quanta. Nevertheless, even in regions of the vacuum that have no vortices, the vacuum itself has a dynamic equation. This is also very similar to Bohmian mechanics, so you may enjoy reading Chapter 24 in the book also.
What do you think about the Russian investigation into the Apollo missions?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/russiacallsinvestigationintowhetherusmoonlandingshappened.html
I think that an investigation sounds reasonable. They aren't denying that Americans went to the moon, but they want some accountability as to what happened to the moon rocks. From personal experience I can say that the American government can take this quite seriously, so they might as well be consistent and be concerned about this accountability issue also.
There have been several articles recently about a working electromagnetic propulsion drive and how it shouldn't work based on the law of conservation of momentum. In my mind, I keep thinking of your theory of quantized space and am wondering whether space quanta is what is being propelled by the engine to gain velocity. Do you have any thoughts?
I've read these papers and don't think the effect can be teased apart from the noise yet. There is more work to be done, but I worry that the theoretical explanation at hand so far doesn't have much weight to it. It is important to keep an open mind, but part of this means reading the material ourselves instead of just following the public hype. The jury is still out.