問答：
我想這個頁面獻給問題，任何人都在那裡可能就公理，租戶，結論或量子空間理論的見解。 請給我你的問題，我會盡我所能通過視頻回應。 我的希望是，本次論壇將是那些有關於量子空間理論沒有答案的問題的有用資源。
問題1：從弗雷德·古德
我感興趣的是更好地理解QST的11個維度。
我明白，一個維度是一個軸沿東西可以移動，而無需在另一個軸或維度任何運動。
的x，y，和z是（3）的尺寸明顯的例子。
我想說的時間是4，你可以通過移動時間不動，在X，Y或Z。
我看時間作為一個維度，因為沒有方向。
過去  現在  未來。
我也明白了普朗克的小規模。
這真是非常小。
你描述的一個對話，這是我們可以把空間分成最小。
像Au（金）原子，如果再次把它，它不再AU。
但是，對於一個普朗克長度，我不明白這一點。
有沒有這樣的東西作為一個1/2的普朗克？
我看普朗克作為一個規模像一把尺子。
A君是12“長，上有12個單寸段，每英寸被分成英寸一些分數。
它是由製造商以他想要的東西分數量顯示。
1“，1/2”，1/4“，1/8”，也很常見，1/16“，甚至1/64英寸。
為什麼我們從來沒有看到統治者用1/128英寸的增量？
因為它太小了“眼球”。
這並不意味著尺寸小於1/64小“是不存在的。
我們衡量他們與其他工具。
只是沒有用尺子。
如何為普朗克尺度從我描述不同？
好了，問題的一部分2.如果普朗克是一個規模，這個規模內量子存在，你似乎在說，因為它是子普朗克的大小，它不能再堅持的x，y，z方向要找准它的物理位置。
我覺得對我的問題是，我還沒有得到如何的距離（1普朗克長度）不能被進一步劃分。
我明白這一點與非盟原子，但它不是蘋果和蘋果。
至少我還沒有看到它。
其他的東西屬於地方對我很好，只要我接受這個幾何體的事實。
我看到一個黑洞，時間如何減慢接近黑洞，為什麼紅移發生，暗物質是什麼，為什麼量子隧道時，為什麼雞過馬路，以及其他一切。
我只需要在對“你不能把一個普朗克長度為1/2普朗克”的區域描述此給其他人提供幫助。
WHY NOT？!! ?? !!
感謝您的時間
弗雷德·古德
請點擊下面的視頻來查看我的回答問題1：
薩德，於波動力學方面對模型總結我的沉思昨天。 你怎麼看？
空間可能登記到我們僅作為站在三維量子位波形結構始終只是作為一個普朗克長度只有上面的空間表示一定的閾值振幅單量子，且單獨振動作為時空最小粒度的尖端並統稱為我們所感知的空間和時間振動。 有一個超空間以更高的分辨率，其中這些站在中心的全supervolume走動，並通過相互的（但碰撞發生在該超級時空尺度在一個低得多的頻率比各球形駐波振動的頻率）。 每個球，這本身就是一個宇宙中恰好有相對於它的分辨率相同的特性我們，只有在下次的分形分辨率可達。 同樣對我們的宇宙，絕對方向進入熵可能是一個簡單的崩潰，並通過零（如果看作是正弦波）。 另一個宇宙可以移動通過我們和螺釘的一切行動，但它發生遠遠頻率低於100十億多年，它可能需要陷入完整的熵。
您好薩德 
首先，請允許我說感謝給我你的書。 看你的TEDx博爾德的談話後，我就迫不及待地深入研究你的理論，我並不失望。
我正式的科學的研究開始和我高中物理課於1971年結束了，我從來沒有制定感受數學超越歐氏幾何。 不過，我一直在努力，教育（或至少是熟悉）自己在各種主題，從量子力學到宇宙相對論。 你的書走了很長的路來幫助我了解從博爾德談的概念，但我仍然有一些問題，你可能會澄清。
1）請您談一下時間由量子共振被定義。 難道宇宙萬物產生共鳴，如果沒有，為什麼量子共振？ 這到底是什麼意思有共鳴廣達？ 為此共振時的量子改變大小或形狀？
2）由於空間量子走動在超空間，不用它們保持相同的X，Y，Z的關係對其他量子（儘管不是相同的距離）？ 或者，他們的X，Y，Z軸位置只定義在一個平均值或宏觀尺度？
3）可能與和由2回答）以上，如果每個量子識別（或由標識）一個唯一的X，Y，Z的坐標，和物質的即使是最小的位的數量級比單個量子較大，如何許多數量是物質的指定位置？ 我是正確，即使是單個電子將佔用數十億空間量子的？
一個概念，一直困擾著我，並且你在書中解決，是通過連續的時空運動是邏輯上是不可能的想法。 為了從A點到B點，你必須要離開A點到達B點之前，你必須要到一個地步1/2的方式。 但是去了1/2的點位，你必須要到一個地步1/2的方式出現，或者到B點。對於每一個點的方式1/4你必須去，你倒是總是要到一個地步1/2的方式到這一點，你從來沒有到B點量化SPCE解決這個小問題。
感謝您事先的任何見解，你可以給我這個，我期待著看到插圖愛因斯坦的直覺。
 喬填寫
印第安納波利斯，印第安納
喬，
我最近完成經歷了整本書另一輪的修改，提高了流量不少，糾正了一些錯誤，並增加了許多人物。 如果你有興趣在更新的版本，給我發電子郵件，我會跳過它。
至於你的問題：
1  這種模式在宇宙中所有的東西都看作是正在上漲空間量子的，但不是所有的空間量子自由共鳴。 量子粘在一起，觸摸，是根據定義，不能夠自由地產生共鳴，直到它們被再次分離。 而其他人可能把它在相當長的時間有些量子只有在這種情況下很短的時間（時間在這裡引用的自由辭職的平均數，在空的平均背景量子經歷，而這些量子粘在一起）。 此外，在該模型中，每個量子是，到第一次近似，彈性球。 其彈性特性，加入到它們四處移動而相互碰撞的事實，是它們共鳴的緣故。 共振是指彈性球體的幾何扭曲。 如果宇宙是接近絕對零度，如果每個量子的平均superspatial速度是下一個零，則預期將是廣達將自由振動問自己，用越來越少的幅度，直到他們跑出來的能量（也就是共振的所有能量（幾何扭曲）內部轉移）。 這將慢慢改變時間的簽名在宇宙中。
2  作為量子走動的超空間，它們混合的X，Y，Z網格。 所以，不  它們不保持相同的x，y和z的關係的其他量子。 然而，由於所有的量子是相同的，從這個混合大多數的效果洗出當我們接近宏觀尺度。 確切的x，y，z軸位置被定義僅用於精確時刻  在該點的整個網格的快照。 因為量子被混合約，具體點閃爍圍繞在從X，Y，Z的角度位置。 這種閃爍，然而，甚至洗出（但一般只限於相對較小的區域），因為我們縮小。
3  有兩個可能的回答這個問題。 在第一種可能性中，最根本的質量的粒子可能很簡單，如被兩個（或三個或四個等）量子粘在一起（為任何持續時間）。 這對這種可能性有趣的是，儘管量子粘在一起，他們充當的X相同的獨特的地理位置，Y，Z指標。 他們不再代表了不同的位置，所以他們實際上採取的是一個位置的特點。 不過，廣達等與他們的互動會以不同的方式反彈，那麼他們會與量子未粘在一起，所以周圍的地圖扭曲  平均幾何連通性扭曲。 在這種情況下，這個問題粒子的位置將在參照所有周圍的其他量子的集合來指定  正如它將如果它是一個單一量子。 在第二個可能性，此事可參考幾何漩渦。 如果空間的度量是一個完美的超流多種形式的極其穩定的漩渦是允許的。 這些漩渦甚至可能是無限穩定，只要它們不被中斷。 如果在度量基準質量的粒子，這些紛飛的漩渦，那麼質量的粒子只有在更多的意識模糊的位置  在更大的尺度獲得解決。 儘管如此，人們可以設想以穩定的渦流有一個中心，以及該中心位置可填寫作為顆粒的位置的含義。
這些壯觀的問題，喬。 正如你所知道的，我還在工作了最後一個問題的後果。 高興地看到哪裡需要我們。
喬填寫，再。 Q＆A（3）以上，無論是量子的團塊或交替漩渦在超流體。 杰弗裡Haselhurst的模型包含在無限中站在三維點波瀾，與物質作為穩定的三維晶格結構。HTTP：// WWW。空間和Mo化的.com /
三維駐波的維護需要的是完全從各個方向調整不斷的投入。 在超流的渦流，但是，維持因為非rotationality超流的自身  其以形成量化的渦流傾向。 在什麼杰弗裡和我正朝著一種方式是相似的，但穩定的駐波的想法需要非常大的巧合每個粒子。 這就導致了一個問題，試圖解釋所有的電子顯示方式一致時。 相反，如果這些晶格結構被作為超流真空量化渦流所解釋的，這個問題是自然佔。
嗨薩德，
我剛剛發現你的TED演講昨天晚上，它吹我的腦海裡！ 它拼湊到一起（我的腦海裡，那是）後，我決定看看你的網站。 最後我花幾個小時通過網站閱讀（包括您的博客），並觀看了影片。 挺不錯！ 有幾個問題都閃入我的腦海裡，但我想很多人在你的書很可能回答。 其實，讀你的書的大綱後，我知道答案，我的很多問題都沒有解決。
我想獲得的工作更好地處理這已經被問任何問題之前完成。 你還在通過電子郵件發送您的書的副本？ 如果是的話，我很樂意閱讀它。 我不知道你是多麼接近打印（它已經因為你的最後的博客帖子一段時間），但如果這本書已經出來了，我會高興地購買複印件
無論如何，感謝分享QST。 我遇到了一把腳趾多年來，和他們都沒有成功能解釋和說明都存在於標準模型中的怪異的  更不用說提供一個直觀的框架。 我認為，所有的物理理論，其數學表達式分開，應該借給自己這樣簡單的描述是，在愛因斯坦的話來說，“連小學生都能理解他們。”
問候，
亞倫
亞倫
我已經通過電子郵件發送你一個鏈接到PDF。 許多進展最近已經取得，鼓舞人心的章節1921一些修改，提高了整體的清晰度。 當到達第21章我建議重新下載的PDF格式，以確保您有最新的版本。 如果你覺得在書中任何東西可以更清晰請讓我知道:)。 我期待著您的反饋。
薩德
大家好，
感謝您的鏈接。 我下載PDF和剛剛完成第4章我真的在這，你就躺在一切就序印象深刻。 你已經投入到這個艱苦的工作顯然是顯而易見的。 到目前為止，我已經能夠輕鬆跟踪一切，我有每個您已經討論過（除了準晶的，我做了一個小的互聯網研究）的概念的先驗知識。
只是為了記錄在案，我不是一個訓練有素的科學家，在任何地方，和我的宇宙學，天體物理，量子力學等方面的知識來自我看過，我已經讀了幾本書和紀錄片。 我最終理解的概念，歷史和數學的水平上等於在該領域的研究人員希望，但我有一個很長的路要走。 話雖這麼說，但事實上，我能理解你的書中明確了這一點給我鼓勵，我正在做這個目標的進展情況。
如果我有任何編輯相關的建議，我會通過電子郵件，提到它們。
再次感謝。 這是真棒！
亞倫
嗨薩德，
我一直一直對我們神秘的宇宙。 我喜歡閱讀烏爾網站，看UR視頻。 但是，我沒有注意到，美前面提到的字符串或M理論。 什麼是烏拉圭回合的看法呢？ 一切由振動這是11維的弦嗎？ 怎麼樣1個空間量子是1木板長度（1.6×10 35米的功率），它是由1個單串？ 根據一些科學家，一個字符串的大小可介於10至34或35的功率。 所以，也許一條繩子一樣作為一個空間量子？
感謝ü烏拉圭回合的幫助
和...這將是驚人的，如果ü可以寄給我烏爾書也。
歡呼聲中，
拉茲
拉茲，
謝謝你的問題:)。 我會向您發送電子郵件的鏈接的書今天的副本。 在回答你的問題，我喜歡由弦理論的開發商進入本體論量子力學的奧秘背後的因果故事的努力。 但是，我不認為這樣的故事已經成功地通過了理論取得的呢。 不過，弦理論，現在擴展到超弦理論和M理論，並具有由假設真空是一個超流體（量化）強調了一些有趣的和顯著的相似之處。 其中的一些中提到的“愛因斯坦的直覺。” 我期待著您的反饋，當你閱讀。
太感謝了薩德，我真的很感激烏爾答复，並在偉大的書！
我會讓你知道，如果事情是不明確的，我肯定
所有最優秀的，
拉茲
嗨薩德，
我只是在你的TED演講視頻來了一天。 我只是一個業餘當談到物理學和宇宙學，但我喜歡聽這些新的，鼓舞人心的想法。 我很深刻的印象，你的理論有多少能解釋（特別是物理常數依賴於空間本身，這是我曾經推測幾何...雖然“幻想”將可能是一個更好的選擇的話）。 反正，我只是寫說：謝謝！ 和：繼續努力吧！
此外，我的腦海裡剛剛發生在這樣一個問題：是超空間也量子性質的，或者你認為這是無限光滑？
克里斯，
謝謝你的問題。 在回答你的問題，我們正在與該模型假設一個完美的分形結構，所以是它假定超空間是量化的，而那些量子小得多子量子複合實體，等等。 如果你有興趣，我可以在這個送你的書。 第11章專門介紹這個問題。
是的，謝謝！ 我非常想了解更多關於這一主題。 我已經觀看了視頻對話在過去的幾天裡，但有些事情仍然不完全，直觀清晰，我（責怪我的大腦）。 這是，如果我先學習更多關於它唯一公平的，在我採取任何更多的時間。 有一件事我想問一下未來，雖然是空間的能量傳遞如何廣達，如果他們不實際接觸？ 他們這樣做在我們的三維空間（其中他們大概永遠接觸），只要他們沒有接觸到超空間？ （對不起，如果我是混合起來的東西）。
其實，我也有一些其他意見/事情的問題，我想我理解的更好一點：
1，引力透鏡是由暗物質解釋。 您可以通過太空相變引起溫度的空間差異來解釋它。 請問透鏡效應始終是一個圓圈的形式？ 即使是在星系團，像 here?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Gravitationelllins4.jpg
好吧，我真的不知道它是在該圖片一個完美的圓，但無論如何，我想到的是，如果這一切都歸結於溫度的差異，那麼整個集群的透鏡效應應該是可能更多...扭曲，不規則的？ （話說回來，這只是我的直覺，我學會了不信任完全😉）。
2.您解釋說，星系“光紅移是由於一種空間量子的內摩擦所造成的能量損失（希望我說對了）......反正它輸給了空間本身。 您也談到了從宇宙大爆炸時宇宙到現在。 但不是紅色的大爆炸奇點從（或接近它）和通貨膨脹擺在首位轉變是我們唯一的暗示？ 如果光子的能量在太空中“丟失”的話，也許就沒有通貨膨脹可言，而宇宙的大小基本上是靜態的。 只有存在於空間（或它的某些部分）的“摩擦”的越來越多，到目前為止，我們錯誤地解釋數據，加速的通貨膨脹？
這將是所有的，就目前而言。
再次感謝，薩德！
克里斯，
謝謝你的問題。 首先，在這個模型中量子不碰。 這些彈性在superspatial維度交互，碰撞，反彈對方。 我會盡力最終得到的這一個視頻，使之更加清晰。 其次，作為你對引力透鏡的問題，有沒有這種理論使預測和有關暗物質的傳統主張之間的形狀差異。 暗物質暈，或相變的地區，甚至周圍的雪茄形的星系是球形的。 因此，我們期望的透鏡效應為圓形。 可存在從該圓形投影圖像的異常。 例如，如果有源和觀察者進一步扭曲圖像之間的其他對象。 球形在自然界中發現未完全暗物質的傳統解釋解釋。 但是，如果它是一個階段的機會，然後我們期望，因為如何熱力學性質向外從源頭傳達這種球形。 你是對懷疑最終有原則上可以是一個非球面形狀，但這僅發生作為其他球形的分組。 所以，你可能會發現一些近似於3D米老鼠在那裡，但這需要非常具體的星系非常特殊的位置，都在適當的溫度和大小和間距。 一般來說，我們只是希望球三圍為鹵素區。 你的第二個問題是順便說一句真棒。 事實證明，紅移是不是我們唯一的暗示，宇宙有一個“第一”的時刻。 我第一次用在這裡只參照因果內部溯源鏈  而不是聲稱這是對因果關係的最終截止。 最可靠的方法去宇宙必須有一個開端（在我們正在採取有關意義  大爆炸）的索賠，以確保熱力學第二定律，並認識到，所有物理學的是時間的反向對稱（有些人可能會認為，波函數坍縮可能逃脫，但它可以證明這種說法是多餘的  看量子力學的玻姆的解釋）。 通過主板上這兩個條件，我們完全有理由相信，只要有出現的順序在宇宙中的一些措施，這是極有可能的前後順序的出現也較少。 成像台球桌，沒有摩擦，沒有口袋。 該球已走動碰撞很長一段時間，你看它之前。 需要注意的是，你可以把球的位置的快照，但大多數的這些圖片會告訴你只是隨機的取向。 該系統的最大熵  最小訂單。 然而，最終所有的球會發生碰撞一下子，打包成一個角落。 顯然，如果我們採取那一刻的快照這將是顯而易見的，該系統有一些順序。 現在的期望。 如果我們能夠獲得的圖片從之前的那點單後，你會我們希望看到？ 我們希望看到的順序衰減在時間兩個方向。 這是它的意思是說，大自然是有時間的反向對稱。 熱力學第二定律告訴我們，大自然的行為這種方式。 時間反轉對稱編碼在我們的物理方程也支持這一點。 但是，當我們看這個世界，我們也看到很多事件，似乎有方向性的時間給他們。 事件進展的一種方式遠遠超過他們做的另一種方式。 為什麼呢？ 那麼，如果熱力學第二定律認為，如果時間倒轉對稱性準確地描述了物理（這兩個說法是同義的方式），那麼只有一個結論。 我們的宇宙還沒有達到熵的最大狀態。 這意味著，宇宙有一個開端。 它擔負著非常低熵在某一點，而低熵還沒有完全腐爛呢。
我解釋這個細節在我的書。 如果你想讀它只是給我您的電子郵件，並要求它。 我會轉發你的PDF文件。 我也是在這一章，和紅移的加速近階段解釋通貨膨脹。 所有這些效應是該模型的自然期望。 這，當然，不會自動使正確的模型，但它確實使有趣。 這裡的值是，我們現在可以具有一種模式，完全解釋我們的觀察，並在某種程度上是直觀地訪問。
嗨，
偉大的工作確實!!!
我一直在看你的大部分影片在過去的兩天，我真的很喜歡你的方法的簡潔和優雅。 這將需要更多的時間和閱讀對我來說，在更深入的了解到達，但有一個問題，媒體鏈接，我不能夠通過我自己來解決，它是這樣的：
在你的理論是沒有必要的引力。 直線被定義，以便有量子的在一個移動體的所有側面經過相同的量。 這利茲曲線路徑（歐幾里得SENCE）當療法是在一個移動物體的身邊多量子（與大規模的對象）。 現在我們運行的一個問題（這是因為深夜時分最propably我的猴子心中缺少了一些簡單的事情 因為在這種情況下，該對象需要不依賴於它的速度的路徑。 因此，如果我們douple速度，我們應該還是有，我們沒有是不正確的同一路徑。
所以，請告訴我，我缺少的是什麼，這樣我可以繼續前進！
感謝您將常識回到基礎科學！
Iiro，
問得好！ 你可能會很高興地發現，這種模式並說，一個對象將遵循的路徑取決於它的速度。 隨著空間位置的密度梯度，直線路徑，對象將採取的路徑，取決於它的速度。 要知道為什麼，想像的對象移動通過以緩慢的速度平面空間  讓我們說每單位20量子時間。 當對象移動到的區域與濃度梯度將採取其中兩側仍然遇到的時間相同的空間量的每單位的路徑。 比方說，梯度使得密度差，使得superspatial直線路徑將導致20多量子上比另一側。 然後，該對象將遵循一個高度彎曲的路徑（從歐幾里德角度）。 然而，如果相同的對象進入該區域，在1000量子移動的時間單位，則該1020與1000一側到另一側將不會造成與強曲率的路徑。 我希望這個解決你的問題。 請詳細說明，如果您還有其他問題:)。
此致
薩德
嗨薩德，我有幾個問題：
1.你能不能幫我設想為什麼質量（如蘋果）落向地球？ 在沒有一個叫做地心引力的我猜這一定要發生的事情，因為蘋果有（通過空間的地球）的速度在密度梯度...但我不能完全描繪它。
2.它是什麼，是在一個普朗克氣泡具有由幀內空間的x，y和z所描述坐標？
相比普朗克長度那麼你如何想像一個夸克佔用空間3.亞原子粒子是巨大的？ 是否“佔據”了數十億普朗克泡沫？ 這是什麼'看'的呢？
4.什麼是由質量影響普朗克氣泡的密度的機制？ 如何質量使他們凝聚？ 我想我試圖讓在這裡要說的是，已經廢除了重力，有什麼我更換我的物質聚集的概念在一起（使行星等...）
5.我覺得你說的黑洞有1普朗克大小。 如果你讓普朗克氣泡合併為一個黑洞當然，它的'尺寸'然而，許多普朗克泡沫有其內部。 從你的解釋，我想他們密密麻麻的（而不是'共振'）......如果更多的物質被吸入，與更多的普朗克泡沫，我想像中的視界擴大，以容納更多的普朗克泡在某種密度最大。
6.我從來沒有碰到你如何QST解釋波粒二象性的解釋。 我很樂意聽到這種說法。
我很享受你如何傳達QST概念的東西其實我能想像。 謝謝。
1。當然。 ☺首先我要說的是，難度會說明一個叫做重力如何使一個蘋果落向地球。 部隊是用來代替解釋。 因此，當我們依靠“勢力”我們對世界的理解是空的。 當它來了重力作用，愛因斯坦通過減少一個幾何性質的後果重力的影響克服了這個攔路虎（沒有人以前想像的）。 根據愛因斯坦時空曲線與質量存在相結合的指標。 其結果是，像月亮物體繞地球因為這個軌道是直線路徑通過時空（儘管我們的幼稚歐幾里德期望值）。 一旦我們理解時空在其全部的幾何輝煌力量的神秘溶解。 由於月球是直行，沒有深刻的奧秘。
我們可以用我們的QST模型，以全面了解時空曲率的幾何性質。 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. 這是否幫助？
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.
我不認為你完全回答馬丁的＃1的問題。 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…
Matt,
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.
薩德
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?
Nick,
大的問題。 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.
薩德
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.
薩德，
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. 迫不及待地讀了這本書。
Ron, I just sent you the updated book. I look forward to your feedback.
嗨薩德！
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?
在此先感謝！
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.
馬特，
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. 還有其他的選擇。 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? 許多。 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. 幫助！
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.
In a fluid metric, the total geometric magnitude of each distortion will vary depending upon speed. When a mass particle (a localized vacuum distortion) is not moving, the magnitude of that distortion chacterizes the particle's rest mass, also known as its intrinsic mass. When the particle moves, a wavefront builds up in front of it, adding to the total distortion of the vacuum's geometry. The faster it moves the greater the distortion. The additional distortion characterizes the particle's kinetic mass. As it approaches the propagation speed of the medium, the total metric distortion approaches an infinite value. This is why it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle with nonzero rest mass to the speed of light.
￼
￼￼￼￼Once we assume that the vacuum is quantized (like air), the notion of relativistic mass, whose value depends on velocity, automatically follows. Once we have particles with rest mass, it is trivial (given vacuum quantization) to explain kinetic mass (also known as relativistic mass). But how do we explain the emergence of rest mass? How do those localized regions of increased density form? Why do they only come in certain sizes – specifically prescribing the elementary particles we find in Nature? What makes these quantities of mass so special?
在談到這些問題時，弗蘭克·維爾切克，物理學諾貝爾獎獲得者，指出，威廉·湯姆遜（也稱為開爾文勳爵）假定的最美麗的'失敗'的思想在科學的歷史上，當他提出，原子可能處於旋渦以太網瀰漫空間。 相信在乙醚，一種無形的媒介時空中的持續的電磁波，湯姆遜變得由赫爾曼亥姆霍茲，是誰證明了“旋渦對彼此的力量，而這些力量採取讓人聯想到磁力線攜帶電之間的一種形式的工作很感興趣電流。“正如他探討過這個方面，他認為，渦的關鍵是獲得一個模型，可以解釋一些類型的原子，每一個存在非常大的數字完全相同的副本，怎麼會出現自然。
為了得到他的渦原子掉在地上的理論，湯姆森認為以太被賦予以支持穩定的渦流的能力。 以下亥姆霍茲'定理，他接著指出，不同的類型，或“物種”，旋渦將仍然存在的介質中，並且這些基本渦流可以聚合成各種準穩定的“分子”。
湯姆森的想法是非常有吸引力的  的想法，穩定的量子渦旋，其拓撲不同的形式和尺寸的介質本身的自然屬性和可重複創作，是物質世界的基石。 可悲的是這個想法已經褪色成默默無聞，cloddishly駁回，拒絕了，因為乙醚，這些渦度被認為是批判性的背景流體依靠，已被放棄。 科學家們認為，如果以太出來了，然後開爾文的量化渦度也出來。 他們錯誤地扔嬰兒連同洗澡水。
天意，湯姆遜量化渦度的優雅當我們換乙醚的假設，有在支持電磁波，對在假設真空本身是一個超流體介質用度量是由宏觀描真空的介質復活波函數。 假設該真空是一種超流，也稱為量子流體，本能地建立渦流穩定。 這也導致該材料世界的結構被寫入到真空本身的基板，但預期如量化渦流在真空形成，超對稱性被打破，亞原子粒子的出現具有非常特定的屬性。
我們剛剛開始探索一些量子流體提供的有前途的新的可能性。 目前的研究集中在，除其他事項外，理論上理解量子旋渦的玻色  愛因斯坦凝聚的形成（和它們是如何結合以形成穩定的聯合），這些量子旋渦鏈接到物質的起源的一個概念，以及使用BEC的模擬黑孔和在實驗室中的相關現象。
如果在真空渦流對應的粒子則“空的空間集中的能量可以轉化虛粒子轉化為現實。”如果這到底是怎麼回事，然後這一轉變（希格斯機制）背後的機制需要加以解釋。 我們需要探索如何無質量顆粒具有兩個物理極化獲得的第三穩定偏振在縱向方向上。 我們需要弄清楚如何大規模的財產（本地維護的幾何失真，或量化旋渦）春成立。
To push us towards an answer, we note that if we spin a beaker containing a superfluid we end up with an array of vortices scattered about in that fluid. (The number of vortices introduced is proportional to ħ/m.) Interestingly, superfluidity breaks down within each of these vortices, while everywhere else the fluid retains its superfluid characterization, and remains still (in the macroscopic sense). Therefore, the rotational energy of the external rotation becomes contained within these quantized vortices. The differences in response to rotation can be more precisely quantified by noting that the tangential velocity of the quantized vortices has a modulus that decreases with r:
(Equations did not fully copy – see Chapter 22 – Quantum Vortices for equations and figures.)
whereas the tangential velocity of a rigid rotator has a modulus that increases with r: v = Ω × r.
This is what allows us to claim that the vortices are localized. This, combined with the fact that vortices are defined as certain geometric distortions in the vacuum that spontaneously break or hide the underlying higher symmetric state, makes them perfect candidates for particles that inherit their rest mass via the Higgs field. Vacuum superfluidity, therefore, gives teeth to the Higgs field hypothesis.
The Higgs field (also called the Higgs boson, or the God particle) is used to codify the mysterious fact that particles possess rest mass. It is held responsible for causing certain geometric distortions in the vacuum and thereby spontaneously breaking or hiding the underlying higher symmetric state of spacetime. How this field spontaneously breaks the symmetry associated with the weak force and gives elementary particles their mass, how it lowers the total energy state of the universe, or how viscosity is introduced into the system, is not yet clear.
The Higgs boson was introduced into the electroweak theory as an ad hoc way of giving mass to the weak boson. Even with this insertion the electroweak theory fails to solve the mass generation problem because it does not explain the origin of mass in the Higgs boson. Instead, the theory introduces this mass as a free parameter via the Higgs potential, making the value of the Higgs mass ultimately just another free parameter in quantum mechanics.
Matters are further complicated by the fact that the value of this Higgs parameter has only been indirectly estimated. Many different estimates for the value of the Higgs have been posited by the standard model (and its extensions). But even if theorists knew how to pick among these values, even if the mass of the Higgs boson were theoretically fixed, we would not have a fundamental solution of the mass generation problem. The Higgs postulation only reformulates the problem of mass generation, pushing the question back to 'How does the Higgs boson get its mass?'
This is where vacuum superfluidity comes to the rescue. Vacuum superfluidity naturally postulates a fundamental mechanism for mass generation, without explicitly forbidding the existence of an electroweak Higgs particle. In short, it has been shown that elementary particles can acquire their mass due to an interaction with the vacuum condensate – much like the gap generation mechanism in superconductors or superfluids. Therefore, if the Higgs boson exists, then vacuum superfluidity explains the origin of its mass by providing a mechanism that can generate its mass. If the Higgs boson does not exist, then the weak bosons acquire their mass via direct interaction with the vacuum condensate. Either way the mass of the weak boson is a by product of the fundamental mass generation mechanism encoded by vacuum superfluidity, not a cause of it.
This idea is not entirely novel to a superfluid vacuum theory. Nevertheless, this topological explanation for mass generation elevates this theory to a construction that is at least ontologically on par with braid theory or loop quantum gravity. The assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid makes it possible to describe the symmetrybreaking relativistic scalar field (which is responsible for mass generation) in terms of small fluctuations in the background superfluid. Under certain conditions these fluctuations come together to take on the properties of elementary particles.
As vacuum fluctuations come together to create stable metric 'braids,' as twisting vortices form and stabilize, they become capable of taking on mass particle characteristics – a third polarization state and the property of being localized. (Not all fluctuations will combine into stabilized vortices.) This opens up the possibility of topologically interpreting electric charge as twists that are carried on the individual ribbons of a braid. Likewise, color charge can be interpreted topologically as the available twisting modes.
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.
薩德
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
照顧
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?
謝謝
埃里克
i forgot to ask how energy intereact with space?
謝謝
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!).
謝謝。
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…

最好的問候，
Nathan Duke
Lead Designer
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.
謝謝。
薩德
PS Questions related to your postscript comment are covered in Chapter 28 of my book. 享受。
薩德，
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.
馬文
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.
薩德
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.
薩德
Thank you so much for sharing your ideas. I would love a link to your book
當然。 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?
謝謝了。
Hi Vivek,
我送你的書。 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.
謝意
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?
謝謝。
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. 在此先感謝！
當然。 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 ?
謝謝。
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. 陪審團還在外面。