The Constants of Nature

Are the constants of Nature geometrically determined by the superfluid vacuum?

Comments (94)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Leslie Wu says:

    Just found your website and watched all the videos.

    Would love to read the book also.

    Keep up the good work. It is genius.

  2. JL Santos says:

    I’m from Portugal but I’m living in Brasil.
    I’m no Scientist nor a Physics expert. I’ve some background in electronics engineering, a few decades ago. In general I’m an ordinary guy.
    But I love watching youtube videos about Quantum and Relativistic Physics. It was there that I found your TED video and this website.
    I am impress about your QST work. My feeling always have been that reality, space and time was discrete and not continuous. C = Planck Lenght / Plack Time was my first intuition. There’s no shortest time to go faster,
    But how can we relate the sucessfull continuous math and algebra with that discrete fundamental nature of reality?
    All the best.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I believe you’ll find the answer to that question, and many more, in my book. I’m emailing you the link to it now.

    • D. Manu says:

      But, isn’t this just going around in circles? Because “Plank Time” is defined as the unit of time light takes, to travel a plank distance in free space. So naturally that has to be the case.

      • Jeff Chapple says:

        This is true if one simply views the equations without causation, but simply equalities. But how and why do these equalities arise in nature? Is it simply coincidence? The point being made is that the Planck constants are the causatives that define the speed of light, etc. Of course these constants must be measured experimentally and measuring the speed of light is how one determines what the Planck constants’ values are, but the Planck constants cause the speed of light to be what it is.

  3. Jeff says:

    really intrigued by your work on the fundamental constants, and trying to learn about the superfluid vacuum by watching your videos. Would love to get your book. :-)

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I’ve sent you a pdf of the book. I look forward to your questions and comments.

  4. PJ Cabrera says:

    I’m not a math or physics expert, but I’ve always been very interested in astronomy and cosmology, since I was a child. I watched your TEDx video last night, and I am very intrigued by your work. The videos and interviews on this website are very informative! When is the book coming out?


    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi PJ,
      Thanks for your interest. In my opinion, the world needs more people that ask fundamental questions, people that have the courage to seek with curiosity and honesty until they find a complete and coherent explanation of the phenomena that exist in Nature. Even if such an end never comes. Do not shy away from your explorations becuase you think of yourself as not an expert. Being an expert is an illusion heavily guarded by those afraid to admit that they too do not understand. Once something is understood it is easily shared and shoud be. To that end I’ve sent you the book via email. I look forward to your feedback as you read.

  5. JI Olasz says:

    First I’ve found the TED video; alas, I cannot follow a speech in english (I’ve learn to read from books by myself). Would you mind to send me the book, too?
    I hope i can understand all the eleven dimensions :)
    I like the old things in new light.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Please excuse the delay in my reply, I have been traveling for several months. I have just emailed you a copy of the book. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as you read. 😉

  6. Martin says:

    I’ve watched a few of your videos tonight, and I’d love to read your book.

  7. Don says:

    If I could also get a copy of the book that would be great. Very interesting.

  8. David Rosenberg says:

    Dear Ted,
    I hope you are doing great.
    I’m David from Paris. Working in the art field, but focus on physics and conscience.
    First, I discover your video at TED about flatland. And watch it again. I agree, we’re flatlanders ! And we can expend ourselves as well as our universe !
    I would very happy to receive your book and also knowing if we can start a dialogue about time. I’m preparing something special on this topic.
    I wish you a beautiful and inspired day.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi David,
      I’m sending the book to your email address. And yes, I’d be happy to start a dialogue with you about time. Chapter 7 of my book is on time. When you read it, send me your thoughts and let’s see where that goes.

  9. David Rosenberg says:

    Dear Thad (TED is the media…)
    Apologizes. I just woke up.

  10. Talarus Luan says:

    Greetings, Thad.

    I came across your TedxBoulder talk from 2010 this evening, and came here from the website link. I am a bit of an armchair cosmologist, sometimes delving into the “established” theories, such as string theory, supersymmetry, M theory, and various categories of quantum mechanics. I also like to investigate non-mainstream theories which seem to have some basic internal consistency, like Garrett Lisi’s work with the E8 Lie group.

    Like Lisi’s work, what you are proposing sounds intriguing on its face. Unfortunately, I don’t think I have enough information yet on the concepts of the superfluid vacuum and the connection to higher dimensions to be able to get a grasp what you are proposing (not that I think I truly grasp a great deal of the other theories, either, but it is all a matter of exposure and immersion in the details — where the devil is, of course!). However, I am interested in investigating it further.

    I also find the notion of quantized space very interesting in light of the holographic principle, which depends on spacetime being quantized at some level.

    I tend to believe that a lot of the problems encountered in GUTs and cosmology are likely related to our perceptive limitations — that we may treat what are otherwise emergent structures as fundamental due to those limitations, and that we have to transcend them to be able to properly isolate, qualtify, and qualify the actual fundamental components of our universe. I think the trouble with unifying gravity is an example of this kind of problem.

    Anyway, I look forward to exploring more of your work.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Talarus,
      I’m sending the book to your email. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. You can also wiki Superfluid Vacuum Theory to explore the more general concept. I personally share your haunch, and think you’ll be delighted to see how the qst model pushes that boundary. Of course, more work needs to be done, so please send your questions and insights – as that is often what pushes progress forward 😉

  11. Gary says:

    Why pi? Is there any room for e somewhere? and what about e^ipi=-1?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      The natural logarithm (e) is not excluded within the representation as euclidean forms become reproduced in an asymptotic fashion on macroscopic scales. e can be defined for any positive real number (n) as the area under the curve y=1/x from 2 to n. So this relation is automatically captured within any theory that maps a space that such an equation applies to. Pi is included in reference to zhe. They are both geometric parameters that define opposing limits of curvature. So pi by itself is somewhat arbitrary as an ultimate descriptor. But in reference to zhe it is fundamental. Nevertheless, the same argument I laid out for e can be applied to pi in the general geometric sense. Pi is necessarily incorporated as a geometric descriptor in euclidean metrics. The same applies for Euler’s equation.

  12. Nick says:

    This is incredible stuff. Really gets you thinking. I think I’d love your book if you’d be so kind.

  13. Ebbo says:

    Hi Thad,

    Kudo’s for free thinking and trying to make sense of things. I found your ideas very intriguing and would love to recieve your book. But a question remains: you talk of the density of quanta as variable. Where density influences distance (density being mass over volume, wherein volume is a product of x,y and z-lenght), wouldn’t a higher density mean that planck-lenght (as a constante) could be lower than 1? Which in turn would seem impossible? It may turn out to be a stupid question, because i am no expert whatsoever, but the thought came up nevertheless…

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Ebbo,
      I’m emailing you the book now. Your question should be cleared up through part 2 of the book, especially in Chapters 5, 6, 9 and 11. I agree with your comment that we wouldn’t gain anything by assuming that the Planck length is an absolute minimum limit for the size of space and then turn around and also assume that it is variable. Changes in the density of space modeled by qst reveals the property of curvature. That density is defined within a volume of superspace, which means it is a higher-dimensional quantity that is not a product of x, y, z. The amount of x, y, z quanta of space in a volume of superspace varies as the density of space changes. When you read the book, please let me know if it leaves any of your questions unsatisfied.

  14. kevin says:

    Hi Thad
    I like your ideas. I have contemplated a lot of this material and I think you are on the right track. I just have one idea that I think might be important. You talk about the flatlander. Is our concept of pie distorted as a result of our limited dimension observation and is the constant pie possibly an indicator of space that we observe as straight to actually be curved in upper dimensions?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Kevin,
      The concept of pi is a consequence of Euclidean assumptions about space. So as any region of space becomes closer and closer to mimicking an Euclidean form the measurable value of pi in that region becomes closer and closer to the theoretical value (the number we all learned for its value). We don’t live in Euclidean space, nevertheless our place is space is very very close to being Euclidean. To experience serious deviations from Euclidean expectations we need to explore regions with much stronger curvature (like near a black hole) or we need to explore scales that approach the Planck scale. So yes, pi can be used to measure the geometry of space that you are currently in. That measure depends on the scale and the amount of spatial curvature in the region. Pi is a theoretical limit – the limit that defines flat spaces (zero changes in density – zero curvature). The other theoretical limit is represented by zhe in this model. Both numbers play a role in setting the constants of Nature.

      • BB says:

        Lightbulb moment: “pi” is used as a reference meaning low curvation as in a local part of the universe from which we currently observe vs “zhe” as in near a black hole. Thank you for the further explanation.
        I’ll look for your book through my local library, but in the meantime could you share a PDF or link?

  15. Jeremy says:

    I too am fascinated by your interpretation of the universe. Have seen your Youtube vids, and would love to read your book as well.

    Thank you for revealing a new look on this topic.

  16. Forrest says:

    Hey Thad,

    Just watched the TED talk. Went by faster than I could keep up. Pretty interested in the subject, so if you have any extra PDFs of your book handy, I’ll totally take one.


  17. Hi Thad,
    Watched your TED and got really interested in your intuitive description of the universe and especially dark matter and dark energy. I would love to get your book to dwell on this further. I hope you are on to something big because it just seems right for the brain to understand it like you say it does.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I just sent you the book. Please refer to Chapter 23 for an explanation of how the model accounts for the effects of dark matter and Chapter 28 for dark energy.

  18. CouchPhilosopher says:

    Fascinating,Simple and Elegant.

    Have you tried using Tau as opposed to Pi in your equations? It may provide a way of seeing relationships that are not obvious with the split view of Pi.
    For example,Eulers Identity is typically identified as
    e^iπ+1=0 or e^iπ=-1 using Pi.
    However with Tau one would obtain,
    e^iτ=1+0 or e^iτ= 1
    A simple switch that doesn’t change the theory,just the perspective on the mathematics at work.

    Since we’re talking geometry,the golden ratio Phi could provide another avenue of finding other relationships in the geometries this theory entails.

    Here’s a question about the theory itself though,is there a way for space quanta to be generated? It seems there is no genesis mechanism to the theory other than random fluctuations of physics or that it always there.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Your suggestion is quite interesting, especially when translated through a lens of the Moiré pattern. Putting the value of zhe instead of pi produces a quantized pattern, like a dense collection of eddies. I shall be investigating this further. As for your question, a simple modeling of the theory may assert that the structure is always there, but a richer modeling can define the quanta as eddies in the superspace medium. This removes the hard edges to their shape, and gives them an asymptotic structure, but it also allows for a generation mechanism, just as quantum eddies in the vacuum itself generate fundamental particle of matter. The math of this level has not yet been attempted, but my gut tells me that it is a good direction to go. I hope that answers your question.

  19. Karl Lehman says:

    Hi Thad,
    Thank you and congratulations on your brilliant contribution to improving my and many others ability to conceptualize and discuss the real natural word! I have not read your book yet, so I would love a pdf copy. I like to think a Torus like the one associated with the human aura can be used to visualize the shape of the plank units volume. The mathematics is far beyond my ability. But I like eddy force graphics I have seen occurring perpendicular/ orthogonal to magnetic fields and magnetic fields look like superfluids to me. The reference that the other dimensions exist orthogonal or orthonormal to each other always reminds me of visualizations of eddy forces.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Sending the book now. I’ll also forward a paper I’m drafting that explores how the electric and magnetic fields are explained in terms of divergence and curl in the superfluid vacuum. :-)

  20. Harvey Stein says:

    Digital space-time is an intriguing theory. I would like to find out more about how you derived the other physical constants from space, time, mass, charge and temperature. Could you please send me the book?

  21. Morten Holck says:

    Excellent and really important new insights, that could lead to something BIG !!

    Imagine that questions that have baffled humanity for centuries, could have understandable explanations, that is so pure and beautiful.

    I´d REALLY would like to read the book too !

    Best greetings from Denmark

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Morten,
      Publishing is coming up in a couple months, so let us know if you think anything in the book can be made more clear. Emailing it to you now.

  22. Marc says:


    I am a young physicist (and I’m sure I’ll sound like it) from Alberta working in non-relativistic bound states of quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics. Whilst I am reasonably familiar with quantum field theory (since my research is just a NR effective field theory approach to it), and have a descent understanding of general relativity (not to research level though), I am looking for my next dose of exploration for personal interest. As such I am looking into things like string theory, loop quantum gravity, and “an especially simple theory of everything” based on the exceptional lie group E8 (which is also interesting but far from complete). I was wondering if I could have a look over your book for interest’s sake as well.

    Also, I would just like to point out that the fine structure constant (or $e^2 / q_{planck}^2$ I think in your video), is not constant at all. I’m only going off your video which says it is and so it might be in your formalism, which my apologies if it is. But if not, in the current formalism anyways, its value is based on energy-momentum (or inverse length) through the renormalisation group. I also did not hear anything about the unification of QCD with QED or the mention of the strong coupling constant ($g_s$) at all( which is interesting in its own right because it gives rise to asymptotic freedom and confinement and therefore to hadronic jets and so forth). And how about the effect on weak mixing angles?

    Another question of interest: Does the existence (or perhaps just apparent existence) of virtual particles get explained in this theory. The Tedx almost implies that the density of off-shell particles will be dependent on space-time geometry in some way, but not enough detail was there for me to get a sense of it.


    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Marc,

      Thanks for introducing yourself. You are correct, the fine structure constant is not a constant; instead what we usually call the fine structure constant represents a minimum limit for its allowed range. In renormalization group theory, the value of the fine-structure constant grows logarithmically as the energy scale is increased. The lower bound for this energy scale is associated with the energy scale of the electron mass; because it is the lightest charged object whose quantum loops can contribute to the running. Therefore the number I refer to when speaking about the fine structure constant is the value at zero energy. As the energy scale increases, the strength of the electromagnetic interaction approaches that of the other two fundamental interactions. Coming at this another way we might note that in the electroweak theory, which unifies the weak interaction with electromagnetism, the fine structure constant is absorbed into two other coupling constants associated with the electroweak gauge fields. In this, the electromagnetic interaction is treated as a mixture of interactions associated with the electroweak fields and its strength varies with the strength of the energy field. In my work, the fine structure constant has geometric meaning, tied to the allowed vorticity of the superfluid vacuum. The smallest quantized vortex corresponds to the greatest departure from Euclidean projections, and is characterized by this number. The exact relationship is still being worked out, and has not received the necessary attention yet.

      Yes virtual particles are explained in the book, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how they are treated. The TED talk was very rushed, the book goes much more into detail.

      I will send you the book via email (it will be published in about 3 months, so if you have any suggestions for how it might be improved please let me know while I can still edit it). It has been targeted for a general scientific audience.

      You may also be interested in reading about a model called “Causal Fermion System.” Here’s a link.


      • Marc says:

        “The lower bound for this energy scale is asso­ci­ated with the energy scale of the elec­tron mass; because it is the lightest charged object whose quantum loops can con­tribute to the run­ning”

        Sorry but I think you’ve confused two concepts, i.e. on-shell renormalization with the running. Loops arise from using a causal propagator in your perturbative expansion, which then requires the propagation of off shell particles. They are simply a property of the type of perturbative technique. The lower bound is decided purely by the propagator pole which comes from the fundamental equations of motion. Otherwise the Landau pole would never be an issue to begin with. The bound is independent of whether you want to talk about loops or perturbations at all, it really could just be restated as Coulombs law is true at low energies. Running only becomes necassary because of the need to resum large logarithms that appear as the energy scale is increased. Yes heavier off shell particles start to contribute in loop calculations, but in the end it is just a matter of definition whether you resum them into a coupling constant or into fundamental interaction terms (or effectively how you group the counter terms). For instance, you can describe all of the high energy effects on a non-relativistic system based on their contribution to a simple quantum mechanical formalism by integrating them into the wilson coefficients without ever changing the renormalisation scale of your coupling.

        Anyways, onwards and upwards. Where have you published the mathematical formalism, I can’t find it on Arxiv? I would like to read a bit of the book…ground myself in your ideas…and then take a look at the math, and work through it in successive steps like that.

        • Thad Roberts says:

          The formalism is included in the later chapters of the book – mostly in Chapter 21, 22 & 24. Because the book has been designed for a general scientific audience, you may want to skip through the introductory sections in each chapter and get straight to the meat. The book has been divided into 3 parts. Part 1 is designed to review the mysteries of physics. Part 2 introduces the superfluid vacuum model. Part 3 uses that model to address the mysteries of Part 1. It would be interesting to hear your feedback.

  23. IzikT says:

    Hi Thad,
    Your work is indeed different from any other i have seen. We need more people who are bold enough to question Nature and find explanations to its mysteries. Your TedEx presentation was great. Would also like to request a copy of your book.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I agree. As scientists we should actively encourage people to explore many creative options for explaining Nature’s mysteries, and we should be enthusiastically be testing those hypothesis. More than happy to share the book. I’ll email it to you. Please send your feedback. The book will be published formally in about 3 months, so if you have any suggestions for how it could be improved please let me know.

  24. Jeff Ring says:

    I first saw you on ted talks a couple years ago and was quite thrilled with what I saw, it just made sense, unlike trying to wrap my head around quantum mechanics in general. I keep coming back to your website here and re watching and re reading everything I can, but would like to actually read the book you have put together. When it comes out, I think I will get a hard copy of it, but until then, is it possible to get a copy of the PDF?.. I don’t know if you are right or not, but it surly (to me ) sounds much more intuitive then some of the more popular theories I have looked into. love your work and how you manage to make the concepts understandable. Keep on digging, and good luck !


    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Jeff,
      Yes of course. I don’t know if this model is right or not either, but it sure does offer some valuable ontological clarity ;-). Sending you the book via email.

  25. Nate says:

    i am with hope and faith that you are not early disambiguation seems to be your only contrast

  26. Luc Ménard says:

    I’m interested by your research, but so far no one convinced me that there are more dimensions needed than 3. I would be happy to learn more about it.


    Luc Ménard

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I’m emailing you the link now. Please know that the aim of this book is not to convince you that there are more than three dimensions of space. It offers an intuitive model with additional dimensions, which simplifies the phenomena of quantum mechanics and general relativity, but as the author I feel it worthwhile to point out that the goal is never to be convinced of some “truth”, but instead to understand the logical arguments that lead to each view.

  27. Art K says:


    Saw your TED talk and followed the link to here.

    I once was able to visualize four Euclidian spacial dimensions so was intrigued as to how to visualize eleven. I was also intrigued by the expression of the physical constants but the equations went by too fast and were too hard to read even when stopped. Many years ago I had the idea to rewrite the MKS system in terms of the basic (at the time), entities of nature – charge, time, mass, etc. (Hmm, it’s been so long it is hard to remember exactly what I was trying to do!) It would be interesting to be able to examine your equations in detail and to try and recreate my earlier thoughts.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Art,
      Yes of course. You will find the most relevant discussion in Chapter 16. I am emailing you the link now. I look forward to your feedback.

  28. Ray Novokowsky says:

    Enjoyed the video. Have been armchair researching topology in discrete physics for over 8 years with an interest to derive fundamental constants from first principles. Ultimate interest is to apply acquired knowledge in water purification. Would love to explore the book!
    Thank you in advance.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Water purification is a noble thing to be working on. :-)
      Enjoy the book. Let me know where it takes you.

  29. オニイトマキエイ says:

    dear thad,

    our intuition seems to be entangled :) we have independently reached the same conclusion of a superfluid universe. how’s zhe going? if you’d like, i may be of some help. lmk


    • Thad Roberts says:

      Our research program welcomes anyone that wants to participate. What specifically did you have in mind?

  30. Hi Thad.
    My interest in Quantum Field Theory led me to your web page. Your intuition seem to work in much the same way as my own. Popular explanations of experimental observations often show a lack of understanding of the philosophical implications of them.
    I agree with Jeff Chappel (comment 27, 2014) that some of your conclusions show signs of circular reasoning, but I can’t find any flaws in the general idea. The view you provide is a simple and powerful tool for understanding the cosmos better, much like Feynman’s diagrams. It make’s the world of the Planck scale accessible to our imagination.
    You’re a good guy on a good path, so I’m sure you’ll make progress as long as you are driven by curiosity.
    Don’t hesitate to reply if you feel like it.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Hi Andreas,
      Thank you. I believe Jeff Chapple was making the opposite point, that a causal arrow was being asserted, making the circular reasoning claim unwarranted, but that is a small point. Thank you for your support. A lot of work has gone into this so far, and much more is required ;-).

  31. Sahil says:

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

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Einstein’s Intuition: Visualizing Nature in Eleven Dimensions was just pub­lished, avail­able through Lulu​.com in hard­cover full color inte­rior. The soft­cover full color ver­sion will be avail­able soon through Amazon, and the iBook and audio­book will follow.

  32. Markus says:

    Hello Thad,

    I myself am a student of meteorology but am (still) pretty interested in topics like quantum mechanics and relativity theory since I studied physics before. I even remember that I already heard about your theory during my physics study and I found it pretty interesting. Unfortunately I forgot about it, but luckily I recently stumbled upon your website after watching your TEDx talk on youtube. Is there a way to get a pdf version of your book?


  33. Alfred says:

    Hi Thad,

    I’d appreciate if you could e-mail me the link to your book.

  34. Amin says:

    Hello Thad,

    I have to say that I’m really intrigued and impressed by your theories and work. I am no expert in physics at all but since I was a child I have been fascinated by the physics and cosmology.I would appreciate if I can have a copy of your book and I’m sure I can learn a lot since its written for general scientific audience.

    The other day I was watching a series of videos asserting that all the experiments so far has failed and even contradicted the Einsteins theory of relativity and as far as I understand your theory gets its intuition from general relativity. So what do you say about those guys? Has all the experiments to scientifically prove the Einstein’s theory of relativity failed ? can you explain a bit please

    Another point of mine is that , how are you going to scientifically prove your theory? I mean do you have an idea of an experiment that can prove some parts of your theory?
    ( I know for instance that particle accelerators have proved some part of quantum mechanics and etc.)

    Thank you in advance

    • Thad Roberts says:

      So far there have been no experiments that have contradicted general relativity (at least in the macroscopic realm). All of quantum mechanics (which is meant to capture the dynamics of the microscopic realm) contradicts the expectations of general relativity just as general relativity contradicts the expectations of quantum mechanics. They are completely incompatible and incommensurable theories. Nevertheless, general relativity is still king of its domain. The goal here is to get to something beneath both general relativity and quantum mechanics so that we have one theory that works in both domains – a full theory that has no conflicting parts. There are many possible ways to test qst – see the predictions tab on this site. Some of those ways are being attempted right now. Its going to be an exciting decade ;-).

  35. I’ve been discussing higher dimensional geometries with my 16 year old son (we’re both just trying to wrap our heads around some of the concepts) and I came upon your TEDx talk. Just plain awesome description. So much more clear and intuitive, and yet the implications to wide-reaching investigation opens up completely.

    I’d love to get a copy of your book to really step through it in more detail. Keep up the great work.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Great to hear. The book will greatly enhance the clarity of the subject ;-). You can order the hardcover from Lulu.com, the softcover from Amazon, or the iBook. Links are on my website. If you cannot afford any of these options let me know and I’ll send you a promo code for a free iBook (I don’t believe that new ideas should only be explored by those with money.) After you read the book please write a review and send me your questions/thoughts.

  36. rob says:

    Came across your name from the TED video. Hopefully you can look back on that heist with the same sense of hilarity I got while reading about it. But this is pure genius. Would love to read the book.

  37. EP says:

    What exists between each individual quanta? Is it possible that instead of a sphere, a quanta be represented as a line segment of 1 Planck length? We could then conceptualize these segments into any shape, such as an X–Y–Z pattern to occupy the 3 dimensions of space and the motion, or resonance of said object to represent the dimension of time; for time verily serves to represent a measurement of the transformation of space. If my logic holds true, you could never have a dimension less than 1 Planck length, but you could have a resonant separation that is. Perhaps these fundamental segments are the biproduct of this fundamental resonance, or excitement of pure energy.

    This is just my interpretation in pursuit of wholly conceptualizing the fundamentals of your theory.

    Please feel free to point out my ignorance. I’m always eager to learn.

    • Thad Roberts says:

      That’s an interesting proposal. I think you have something with the idea that time can be thought of as a measure of space transformations. I think you should develop this further and get back to me when you flesh it out ;-). In the superfluid vacuum proposal the quanta of space (the vacuum quanta) are separated by superspatial dimensions. This separation is what allows the state of space in each region to transform and evolve. Have you read the book? I think it might help you expand your proposal and further explore it. The primary goal of the book is to give the reader the tools they need to join the discussion and to start exploring unique avenues towards richer yet more elegant solutions.

  38. DG says:

    Hi Thad,
    Amazing theory! I watched your videos and would love to read your book. Could you please send me the eBook? I’m currently unable to pay for it but very eager to learn more. All the best

    • Thad Roberts says:

      I can send you a pdf for now. The eBook/ePub/Kindle versions will be out soon.
      I’m emailing you a copy.

  39. Morten says:

    Hi Thad

    You mention a list of constants, related to the natural constants by She….
    Can you give me a link to this list, I do not seem to be able to find it here.

    Excellent work of a great mind/man….thank you, it really did it for me :-)

    Best regards

  40. Morten says:

    Hi Thad

    OK….I found them, in your excellent book :-)

    Keep it up

    Best regards

  41. Brian says:

    Very intersting theory that seems to be promising but I don’t quite understand how things work out. For example if you count the number of quantized lehgths on the circumfrence of a circle and divide by the quantized lengths of the diameter you should get some integer over another integer since you can’t have part of a qunta which can never be pi since pi is irratiional. Can anyone explain this? Does this go to say that there is no such thing as a truly closed figure?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      You’re exactly right. If the vacuum is quantized, then the curvature of any region in that vacuum only approximates zero on large scales (on microscopic scales it deviates far more). But even on large scales the actual value never perfectly matches the theoretical value of pi, because the transcendental value of pi is a theoretical reflection of a continuum assumption.

  42. Dan says:

    Hi Thad,

    Like many of the others here I saw the TEDxBoulder video and ended up here very curious. I’m also an amateur when it comes to this stuff but it is striking how well your conception fits in my mind with what I [think I] understand of both particle physics and Bohmian mechanics.

    I would love an opportunity to read your book.



  43. Chris Embry says:

    Fascinating stuff — I have a few questions:

    1) In a video lecture by Feynman, he mentions the idea of QST (specifically, the idea that space consists of a lattice of points arrayed in cubic alignment) and asserts that it can be dismissed fairly easily. What would you say to Feynman to get him to take your theory seriously?

    2) As always, increased understanding leads to more questions. Assuming QST is the most accurate model for understanding spacetime, do you have any intuitions about “why” the universe should be made up of discrete ‘space-pixels’ (for lack of a better expression)? I’m hoping you mention the possibility of the ‘universe as simulation’ in your answer.

    3) I think I understand the idea of zhe and “maximum curvature,” but I’m not able to find any sources outside this website that concur with your value for this constant. Can you point me in the direction of any independent corroboration?

    And like all the others here, I would love a free pdf of your book if you have the inclination.

    Thanks, and keep up the fascinating work!

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Fantastic questions Chris!

      In response to your first question, I would say that Feynman is absolutely correct. The idea that space consists of a lattice of points arrayed in a cubic alignment cannot be correct, whether you take those lattice points to be rigidly fixed (which would correspond to a vacuum incapable of supporting any kind of distortions–from simple pulse phonons to vortices), or take it to mean that the lattice points are able to move about, as if they were connected by springs, but maintained their relative arrangements (which would correspond to a vacuum capable of supporting phonons, but incapable of supporting nonlinear distortions like vortices–matter particles). Either way, the universe we live in quite obviously is neither. Qst is a pilot wave theory that assumes fundamental fluid dynamics, having a base “lattice” that mixes in complex ways, much as the molecules of air do. This allows waves in the medium that represent both pulse phonons (bosons) and vortices (fermions).

      In response to your second question, I don’t have a full answer here. To test a model we can check against the claims that are consequences of its construction. The more disconnected the observations are that can be explained by the model the more we gain confidence in its assumptions, but we cannot use the model itself to explain those assumptions, only to improve our confidence that those assumptions map reality well. All I can say at this point about why the universe should be made up of discrete pixels, is that it allows for self-similarity, that is, it allows the universe’s construction to be fractal based (each quantum is actually made up of sub-quanta, and so on, giving us a repeating pattern in construction to infinite resolution). This is the only kind of construction that doesn’t have a brute foundation that is safely outside of scientific questioning. As for your intuition about this pixilation and simulations, I can’t say there’s anything that bothers me about what you’re insinuating here, but I’ll reserve making any specific claim. 😉

      In response to your third question, let me give you a Feynman quote (since you mentioned him).

      “There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won’t recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the “hand of God” wrote that number, and “we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.” We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!”

      ― Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

      I’m coming out with an essay on pilot wave theory in general soon, keep an eye out for it, I think you’ll like it. Meanwhile, I’ll email you the book now. I look forward to further feedback. Thanks for the clarity of your questions.

  44. Chris Embry says:

    I’m not sure where else to ask this, so I’ll put it here.

    I’ve heard some people saying that electrons are infinitely small points. Does that mean that they are one “space pixel” big?

    Also, are matter and energy properties of every quantum point, or the manifestation of entirely different phases?

    Bonus question: what are we calling these discrete points in space-time? Quantum dots?

    • Thad Roberts says:

      Well usually people that say that don’t believe in vacuum quantization, so they literally mean a zero-sized point, which is a bit absurd. How can a zero-sized anything have any properties? Modern vacuum quantization models now postulate that the electron is a self-reinforcing wave front in the shape of a sonon (think smoke ring). Therefore it is not zero-sized, or even the size of one quantum of space. In general, energy described the phonons (all the varieties) that move through the vacuum. Matter describes a special class of these waves, the ones that circle back on themselves and therefore possess the ability to be moving (their center’s at least) at speeds slower than the speed of light. The discrete points in space-time are called vacuum quanta (quantum is singular). For more, check out this introduction:


      And to see the modern modeling of electrons see:


      • Chris Embry says:

        Thanks for your replies once again.

        By the way, I’m a technical publications writer/editor by trade, and I’ve often been told that I’m an excellent presenter (in my corporate training days). While reading your book (which I’ve really enjoyed) and watching your presentations, I’ve often thought that some editing could really help you tighten some things up and get your message across better. Given my interest in your work, I’d be willing to look at future publications or presentation scripts and give some input.

        Email me if you’re interested. Best of luck in all you do!

        • Thad Roberts says:

          Cool. Thanks. Of course, anything that better focuses the content and makes it more accessible is most welcome. I’ll email you something I’m working on now.