+Jessica Wang They're both asked to explain the same topic, the explanations are bound to overlap if you think about it. The clips are just edited that way
Sixty Symbols is my no. 1 favorite science channel on UA-cam. Who says you need animations to make science shows? Just the excitement on the faces of the professors keep me hooked.
"It puts aside the whole stereotypical image of the scientist that doesn't have much of an imagination; how big an imagination you've got to have to be able to start thinking about the universe which involves things which you can't yet see?" - Ed Copeland This is one of the best quotes I've ever seen or heard on the subject. This applies perfectly to ALL fields of science. You can't be a scientist without imagination. This is one to inspire all children about science.
I love people passionate in their work. When people tell me physics or any other field of science is boring I usually suspect that the problem lies with their teacher. Reality is so unbelievable, in my eyes it's impossible to be boring
I always enjoy the Flatland explanation for conceptualising further spatial dimensions. I remember watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos then going and reading the book. What a massively, wonderful trip.
I always loved the idea of 4 dimensions, and how you can conceive how it works by thinking on a 2D scale and how somebody on a 3D scale sees the 2D space, it's very intriguing.
BlueCosmology That's true, but I don't think I've ever seen a physicist who wasn't enthusiastic about physics. I'm sure there are a few though. Some guy somewhere is saying "Teleporting atoms using entanglement? BORING!"
Good question and great replies mean it's not needed but... Extra dimensions are often used as a place to hide the parallel world (I picture 2 sheets of 4d clingfilm which are parallel so never touch, they are separated by being at different "heights" in the extra dimension). But I'm sure writers can find other methods to separate them and extra dimensions certainly don't mean parallel worlds. So they don't have to come together even though the phrases have become mixed up. Neil -bloke on bench
Matter doesn't require time to move, it only requires energy in a certain direction in order to move it. Time only makes describing things easier in a physics context(and keeps your on schedule for appointments, etc). If time was a dimension, all directions would be forwards and then all the other axes would be illogical unless the dimensions are all measured from the same location and have a fixed ending.
I dont understand why people can dislike this video, if they dont like hpysics then why watch it in the first place. Anyway i love it keep making more haha
The reason we refer to parallel worlds as other dimensions is because "dimension" is shorthand for "a world which is accessible only by traveling through a normally inaccessible dimension." They are literally parallel, existing at a constant distance and never (or seldom) intersecting.
In relativity there is "space-time". If two events occur separated by space (distance) and time then observers travelling at hugely different velocities might do tests to find the separation of the two events. What happens is that although they all agree on a "space-time" interval, they get a range of answers for "space" and "time", where they appear to be trading between the two i.e. close in time, far in space versus far in time, close in space. This completely intertwines time and space.
Thanks a lot. This video help greatly in explaining my questions when I was read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. Now I really understands what a string theory is and what a p-brane is.
I thought the 4th dimension was time and the 5th dimension was a music group popularizing the hits "Up, Up and Away", "Wedding Bell Blues", "Stoned Soul Picnic", "One Less Bell to Answer", "(Last Night) I Didn't Get to Sleep at All", and "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In", as well as the eponymous 5th Dimension and The Magic Garden LP recordings. The five original members were Billy Davis, Jr., Florence LaRue, Marilyn McCoo, Lamonte McLemore, and Ron Townson.
Another interesting fact about R^7 space is that it is the only R^n space other than R^3 in which vector cross products work. Perhaps someone with an understanding of tensor calculus, differential geometry, and topology might enlighten us as to the significance of this in a physical context, as it is beyond me.
My theory on extra dimensions is inward and outward. When someone asks you to point in you may point at yourself. When you do this this, the direction you are pointing is actually past you through to the other side of you. Because of this i think that the fourth dimension is intensity. Dark matter exists outside of this dimension due to the fact that it is not intense enough to interact effectively through forces we are familiar with. It can interact through gravity though, because gravity is a very weak force and therefore does not require a huge intensity to be generated. Please reply with comments and feedback on this idea.
Nervous_Elk :D no, that is not how it works :DI would like you to read an up to date book on mathematics or physics to learn what a spacial dimension is and I would like you to learn what intensity is, how the weak force interacts and why that has nothing to do with any intensity and why intensity does not generate any fundamental forces.
I'm still skeptical about dark matter/energy. They could just not exist at all, but rather be a result of extra dimensions affecting the 4 we experience or suppressing gravity. We know that each galaxy is missing like 80% of the mass to be able to function like they do, but I don't think that has to mean that there's an invisible mass there. I think it might have something to do with the 2 twin particles that randomly appear and disappear all over the place, the ones responsible for hawking radiation. They come out of nowhere, push apart, and collide back together and disappear. Maybe they sometimes get stuck in space, which could explain why everything is pushing apart, and maybe have something to do with the missing 80% of mass. Also gravity might be getting stuck in those extra dimensions, and that missing mass could be the extra gravity we don't experience. Not sure if a force can translate into mass but anything is possible
Matt RocKy Yes, through modifications of gravity, you can explain away a tiny fraction of the observed dark matter. However, you then become completely unable to hande things like colliding galaxies, where we find the dark matter sometimes ending up in very different places than the visible matter, and you loose the ability to explain the early universe etc. I don't think you need a nobel prize for that (otherwise: I want one, now!), this stuff has been around for as long as we have observed rotational curves of galaxies. Rather than that a simple literature review helps ;)
@wwwleo1 the point is, is that u cant see more than one dimension of the string unless u look closely. obviously if u look at string now u already know it has one than more dimension because u have examined one before, but if its far away u cant see more than one, even tho u know others are there
@JaksProductions: Seeing you asked so politely! :) I use a Sony Z7. As a second camera I also sometimes borrow a Z1. Also if I need something from a few extra angles, I recently got a Sony HandyCamHDR-XR105 for holidays, so I use that too... and my brother-in-law gave me his little Oregon Scientific camera to use when I need one that may be "expendable". I edit on Avid Media Composer. The same applies to all my other channels (sixtysymbols, nottinghamsceince, bibledex, etc)
The Kaiser There was a red-head physics student at university where I studied. I already associated him being a leprechaun. But once when I was doing some measurements in the physics lab, I saw him there carrying a box full of coins, I had to resist the idea of grabbing him and demanding him a pot of gold.
The "large dimensions" thing can be said for the curvature of space-time. It is curved (or saddle-like) but only on a very very large scale. Then again, that's related to general relativity, which uses a completely different mathematical model.
@SkullXII You're right, Einstein proposed 11 dimensions of reality, 10 spatial and 1 temporal. I believe that they either have made a mistake, or are not considering the 0th dimension. Techically, with us living in a 3 dimensional world, we are actually privy to 4 spatial dimensions: the point, the line, the plane, and the solid. So in the highest spatial dimension in string theory, the 9th dimension, there are actually 10 spatial dimensions being referred to. Numbering is the real issue here.
That was horribly interesting. I especially loved the explanation of how weak gravity is by using the bench as mean of escape from it. My non-scientist mind giggled at the fact that I hadn't realized that.
That idea is entirely different from having extra dimensions. Whether or not the universe is ultimately 'curved' (i.e. closed) on a large scale is a question of the characteristics of the dimensions we can observe; it does not imply that we are embedded in a higher dimensional space. In other words, it does not necessarily mean there is another orthogonal direction for you to point your thumb in. Thinking of it as an embedding is merely an artifact of our limited visualization powers.
Do we describe these extra dimensions using the same Cartesian coordinate system we're used to? Or is it some other orthogonal curvilinear system? Or something entirely different? From the diagrams I've seen of these extra dimensions, it doesn't look like a Cartesian system at all.
Quite right, viewing it in 3d is old fashioned. As you pointed out it's dynamic which means it changes in time. Within physics we now treat time as another dimension. As for further dimensions, they don't matter for the lives of most people, they are not even needed for many physics topics, so I think 3d (+ time) is here to stay. As to "What makes something we can see, there?" I'll leave for philosophers but if I see a cricket ball heading for my head, I'll duck! Neil Butcher (bloke on bench).
@munke2 Dimensions allow more than 1 thing to exist at the same time, because they can be separated by distance in the 4 dimensions. Time is a dimension in the same way, because we can separare objects by time, such as by having 2 different object in the exact same place, but at 2 different times, or we can have 2 objects at the same time in 2 different places. Maybe the rest of the dimensions are more like we see time, than how we see position (first 3 dimensions)?
When you refer to something as a two dimensional object, it means that either its length, width or depth in inconceivable, making it look like it only has two spacial dimensions.
It's more a side effect of the linguistic split during the colonial period happening prior to any real standardization in pronunciation, just as the spelling differences between British and American English are. Both pronunciations were in usage during much/most of the colonial period, with "zee" admittedly being the newer of the two. There are, of course, plenty of other diversions that postdate the split.
quantum entanglement occurs naturaly in large objects. Some particles of those objects very few,do become entangled for a fraction of a microsecond.Then those connections break apart, but new connections are made again and again.The closer and the heavier two objects are, the more likely to increace the statictic phenomenon of entanglement we call gravity. Under a neuron star, pressure and big mass, creates huge amounts of entangled groups. In a black hole the phenomenon is greater (singularity)
One idea that I've had about multiple dimensions is sort of backed up by the theory explained here about our perception. The thing is, even though we have depth perception, human beings are 3D objects that see 2D images; that is to say, that everything in the 3D world you can see with your eyes can be transferred to a 2D image. Perhaps we can't see extra dimensions because we simply don't exist on those planes, and we can only see the particles that interact in ours.
@Hedning1390 Supposedly, the branes move, or vibrate, and sometimes they may collide, which may be how big bang happened, as evergy spilled over to our brane in a collision. (This should worry us, because it means it could happen again at any time!)
That's a pretty good point ^_^ Like how we have two eyes so we perceive the third dimension, but it's really just a good interpretation based on two 2D images.
Don't try to think of it as 0 speed as the default and light going faster than things that don't move. c, the speed of light, is the default speed for all things. But when you add mass, then it's slowed down. Does that make sense? The thing with the solar sail is just the normal force, the light bounces off of the sail and goes in the opposite direction, the force going forward travels from the light to the sail, the force going backwards travels from the sail to the light. Does that make sense?
another possibility that i've thought on for a while, is that 3-d things are just the portions of n-D things that we can sense. i've oft wondered if that's why dark matter isn't detectable, outside of its affects on gravity. hopefully the discovery of gravitational waves will open new doors for approaching this problem.
after the charger analogy I was wondering, if going around the cables circumference is separate dimension, why don't we say we live in 7 dimensional spacetime? b because we can spin while pointing in any one of the directions so 3 linear dimensions 3 "spin" dimensions and 1 time dimension
@jag9998 actually there is already 4 dimensions we can see counting time so the amount of "hidden" dimensions as he esxplained with the analogy of the cable, so it would be 7 extra dimensions that we cant see or cant interact with, 3+time+7=11 dimensions
"String theory" isn't really a single theory, but a group of theories with varying numbers of dimensions anywhere from around 10 to as many as 26. The most popular, Superstring theory, does include 10 dimensions. M-theory is built off the 10-dimensional string theories (all 5 of them) and adds one more, making 11.
@markakroll Temperature is characterized by speed, which is not another dimension. Compression is characterized by distance between molecules or atoms or other particles. Magnetism, gravity etc. are forces, and not dimensions. Its not that simple.
What I found really useful for (kind of) understanding some of this intuitively was the example of a 2D world with no z dimension. If you can imagine living in a 2D (x,y) world, then it becomes clearer how a third dimension could not be seen (and it would be a weird concept), but at the same time it becomes clear that 'objects' occupying a 3rd dimension could interact with the 2D world. Of course, I could also be completely wrong with this analogy!
Imagine a cube surrounding an elementary particle. At every corner of the cube, there is a small ring. Each ring is a dimension, and the particle is free to move along it without changing any of it's properties. That's how I imagine extra dimensions :)
If the extra dimensions were macroscopic, matter would move as easily through them as it does through the familiar three. Instead, matter travels a tiny distance before looping back on itself, far too small to break molecular bonds or for gravity to bleed off significantly.
@Shockszzbyyous....,the smaller and more dimensional we get in comparison whit the object we are observing. The bottom-line is this: if we observe a very very distant planet so that we see it in 2-dimensions. We can actually only conclude by logical thinking that the object is not really 2-dimensional. for example we see that the outer-circle is more distant(in 2d perspective) from a smaller circle to the middel. Becuase we see the object from our 3-dimensional perspective we can see the surface
@SkullXII Not sure what Vamp is telling you. All 5 string theories operate with 9 spatial 1 time, M theory, under which all 5 can make sense, utilises 10 spatial and 1 time. You probably heard a lecture on M theory.
Which would explain why gravity can only be felt relatively, as opposed to something like light which can be detected through the particles they are composed of alone.
There is now universal law in physics that says the universe has to have a certain amount of dimensions. If string theory at some point can explain the universe better (or can unite quantum mechanics and relativity) and can make accurate predictions then most physicist would accept it. We used to think that it is impossible for a single particle to be in different places at the same time but the fact that it can is one of the counter intuitive things about reality we have to accept.
Yes, I know that, but it means that the object does not represent a third dimension, of course everything we see really has three dimensions. That's why when you draw what you'd call a two dimensional square, you would only be concerned with it's width and length, not its depth.
No, it's a single dimension of time, the past, present and future or the distant future, or the distant past, etc. are all difference points on the same dimension. It's the same like behind me, in front of me and the position I occupy are all different points in the same spatial dimension. Not a scientist here, but just giving my two cents :)
Ed Witten has unified string theory and shown with masterful mathematics that there are 11 dimensions. There is no empirical evidence for this but the math is beautiful.
@Lemau even if we had one eye we could easily percieve 3 dimensions (actualy 4 if you count time). we move our head in 3 dimensions. the reason we cant percieve other dimensions is because we don't interact with them.
@Hedning1390 Well, I'm assuming that space can be empty just as any other space can. On your second question, I have no idea, but it probably takes a lot of energy to move it from our brane to another one. Good question, really hard to answer or think about. I'm no expert.
In classical string theory there are 9 spatial dimensions, but another branch of string theory called M theory suggests that the calculations which lead to 9 spatial dimensions were only approximate, and that thus there should be 10 spatial dimensions, as far as I know....
No no, I get that. I understand there are different sizes of infinity. What I'm having trouble understanding is what exactly is the "size" of a dimension? If a dimension is simply a coordinate, how can it have a size? Or is the size of a dimension merely the range of values its coordinates can possibly have?
@Tossphate I'm not confusing them. I'm saying that even IF we could prove them mathematically, we can't prove their existance. Also, by my logic, a spider should be able to perceive -9- dimensions using 8 eyes, although from a logical point of view (i.e. a 3-dimensional one, ^_~) every eye SHOULD be on a different dimensional axis, which in case of the spider, isn't true. Thanks for the clarification on the tesseract though. That makes sense to me. ^__^
But there is one strange thing about string theory. Mass from parallel universes (branes) can interact through gravity with our universe (through the space-time bending). If you now got a extremely heavy black hole in a parallel universe it would also influence our universe through the gravitational force. But that would mean, that if you fly through space, there is a possibility that you suddenly disappear and also that some black holes which we observe, have actually no mass in it.
lets say that our universe with the 4 dimensions we percive(1 time + 3 space) are like a ball floating around in a fifth dimension... in that fifth dimension there can exist another ball(universe) which are separated from us in the 5th dimension(and thus are uneffected by what happens inside our 4 dimension). Just like two soccer balls floating in a pool, in a sense they are parallel to each other, since they share the common existance in that pool(which in this metaphor is the 5th dimension)
That's very astute. Consider time as another dimension. In the scheme of things, the time that human beings are able to see is miniscule. 60 years versus billions of years in universe's time. That dimension is just so huge - we can barely see anything move (in cosmic terms).
Can you explain why time slows down under gravity? Which affects precise atomic clocks? Not saying what you are saying is not true.. and I can kind of put it together in my head with what you're stating. I just wondered if you actually knew.
Not being a native English speaker it just dawns on me that the word dimension has two separate meanings in English. Dimension may mean either size of an object in meters or an "axle of existence". It makes better sense when you have two separate words for two separate things. By the way if an object's length, width or depth is inconceivable that simply means that YOU can't conceive it. I am pretty sure that an example of 2D object cannot be given. Even the ink on the paper has SOME thickness.
No matter how small the extra dimensions are, there has to be space in them for at least one fundamental particle, right? If there were space for two, wouldn't it be possible to 'align' a macroscopic object so that all its particles shared exactly the same theta coordinate, say, and have it move entirely independent of another such aligned object? Normal things would partially interact with both, but the two aligned objects would pass through each other.
If you think about it Metaphysically this can prove the 4th dimension as the spirit universe..or the universe our spirits resides in/go too because we dont age there we only exist as an energy...theres more dimesions tho higher than 4th thus more spirit worlds and parellel universes is actually a wide interesting phenomonon ive noticed
Great video. ^__^ Evolving in a completely 3D environment, and having control only of the 3D (and time to some extent). It's really very difficult to perceive, much more have control over, other dimensions. But we'll get there someday. ^_^
It is possible for space to have locally positive curvature without there being any "larger flat Euclidean space" with "extra dimensions" for it to "curve into"; your analogy with the Earth's surface falls flat because even if it *were* flat, we could still look up and down, but we can't notice any significant extent to any extra spatial dimensions that the Universe might have, so it's more likely that, analogously to the surface of a wire, any extra spatial dimensions have very limited extent.
The three dimensions are made up of three 'lines' or dimensions. The X axis is one dimension, Y is another, and Z is the third. So a line in Spatial Dimensions is a single dimension. In Spatial Dimensions, to have a point, you actually need two dimensions, X and Y, which creates a plane on which the point can be recorded.
Dimensions are a representation of numbers and those numbers which cannot divide gives the extra dimensions. So possibly the extra dimension exist and can be verified by divisions. Splitting something is not visible because you have to see the whole to see something. In our spectrum of visibility.
The reason we can't perceive more than three dimensions is more than likely because we have two eyes, as we wouldn't even be able to perceive depth (or z, if you will) with one. The reason we can't simulate it is because we've no idea how it should be simulated. That tesseract amused the hell out of me, as theoretically it's a nice representation of the 4th dimension, but in truth, it's still only 3. ^_^
OK smart Alec. If spatial dimensions can be big or small. If it means something to speak of them that way, how big, what is the 'measure' of our common everyday 3 spatial dimensions ?
@Shockszzbyyous This is a question many people ask here and the great thing is is that they are really true. We are 3-dimensional creatures... and by that they really mean we can only understand 3 dimensional objects. 'smaller' dimensions cant be seen becuase they are too small for us to detect, and by that we will see absolutly no length in that direction(like what they say in this video). But the opposite thing can be said too! the big space a lower dimension happens to be in(see next message)
Well so that would hold the possibility that dark matter isn't in fact any different from "normal" matter and it could be in fact just stuck in a dimension that is not reached by light, making it invisible, yet it still has gravitational effects as observable with gravitational lensing
Here's the thing. If we think mathematically, what would we use a fifth (4th being time) dimension for? I'd say, it's tthe possible future/past of one plank-second (did I even use that right?) later/earlier.
I wonder if some of these extra dimensions might help explain virtual particles, how an electron can be at two places at once, and some of the other QM mindbending out there...
VoidHugger I think we might actually, for real small things. I'm pretty sure quantum things like an electron don't care about our version of time (being in multiple places at once, spinning in all directions, etc). Or maybe they're just too small to interact with time, idk. Photons don't seem to respect time at all. If you think of every moment of time like a ripple in a pond, a photon that is born rides that wave and doesn't leave, always being in the same moment I guess. Also, time is a byproduct of spacial dimensions I believe. So if we have extra spacial dimensions, it's possible that they create another time dimension. A positron is believed to be an electron going backwards in time too, so maybe another timeline is going backwards, while we go forward. These are all guesses, i'm not positive.
VoidHugger Imagine a point, a moment in time, moving along time as a line (one-dimensional time). With two dimensional time, it would look like a circle moving outward on a plane. Essentially a living being could travel physically between events and other forms of the same universe at will.
Indeed there are. Which is likely part of their current issues, too many different, often divergent, ways of interpreting the same data. They're still more robust than they were 30 years ago, at least, and if M-Theory ever gets properly complete it may even prove out as the standard explanation for the underpinnings of the standard model.
Thanks for commenting, I suppose it has something to do with the Sun being nuclear in space as its point of origin. I believe the solar sail would heat up and be blown that way.
what would it look like if you could see it, if its separate from the three isn't it not technically around us in the three, we just exist within it like a fish in water never knowing what it is???? whats its purose, soley to absorb gravity and do we still consider gravity as originating in the three
I dont think we may be able to "see and test" these other dimensions. Analogy: we are on one side of the computer monitor interacting with youtube (or any website). We are bound to be on this side. Even tho we can assume what youtube is created in (what programming language), we can interact with it, test things on it, predict future events etc - there is no way to see the code behind it that makes it run. We are "stuck in the experiment" so to speak.
I like how they can continue each other's explanation without knowing what the other person is talking about
+Jessica Wang They're both asked to explain the same topic, the explanations are bound to overlap if you think about it. The clips are just edited that way
Carson Scott you must be fun at parties...
its like they are finishing each other's .......
Shikhanshu Agarwal ...meals?
Sixty Symbols is my no. 1 favorite science channel on UA-cam. Who says you need animations to make science shows? Just the excitement on the faces of the professors keep me hooked.
"It puts aside the whole stereotypical image of the scientist that doesn't have much of an imagination; how big an imagination you've got to have to be able to start thinking about the universe which involves things which you can't yet see?" - Ed Copeland
This is one of the best quotes I've ever seen or heard on the subject. This applies perfectly to ALL fields of science. You can't be a scientist without imagination. This is one to inspire all children about science.
I love people passionate in their work. When people tell me physics or any other field of science is boring I usually suspect that the problem lies with their teacher. Reality is so unbelievable, in my eyes it's impossible to be boring
I always enjoy the Flatland explanation for conceptualising further spatial dimensions. I remember watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos then going and reading the book. What a massively, wonderful trip.
I always loved the idea of 4 dimensions, and how you can conceive how it works by thinking on a 2D scale and how somebody on a 3D scale sees the 2D space, it's very intriguing.
I love those videos! I'm learning something while beeing home sick
Thank you and keep up the otherwise perfect work, this stuff is seriously great!
Why has this person only been in this one video? He seems very enthusiastic.
BlueCosmology That's true, but I don't think I've ever seen a physicist who wasn't enthusiastic about physics. I'm sure there are a few though. Some guy somewhere is saying "Teleporting atoms using entanglement? BORING!"
Hi I know a fair few that aren't. Infact most aren't enthusiastic about popsci at all.
Hi Many of the most intelligent people are actually depressed in the modern world. They are never enthusiastic about anything.
I have to say, the thumbnail for this video is spectacular.
Just want to say thank you for this series. Wonderful to hear working physicists talk on these subjects. Keep it up!
Great idea, and I hope they take you up on it. As a math major I'd be very interested to see what UN might offer.
Good question and great replies mean it's not needed but... Extra dimensions are often used as a place to hide the parallel world (I picture 2 sheets of 4d clingfilm which are parallel so never touch, they are separated by being at different "heights" in the extra dimension). But I'm sure writers can find other methods to separate them and extra dimensions certainly don't mean parallel worlds. So they don't have to come together even though the phrases have become mixed up.
Neil -bloke on bench
The excitement in the Seth Green lookalike is really contagious, now I can't sleep...
Matter doesn't require time to move, it only requires energy in a certain direction in order to move it. Time only makes describing things easier in a physics context(and keeps your on schedule for appointments, etc).
If time was a dimension, all directions would be forwards and then all the other axes would be illogical unless the dimensions are all measured from the same location and have a fixed ending.
I dont understand why people can dislike this video, if they dont like hpysics then why watch it in the first place. Anyway i love it keep making more haha
The reason we refer to parallel worlds as other dimensions is because "dimension" is shorthand for "a world which is accessible only by traveling through a normally inaccessible dimension." They are literally parallel, existing at a constant distance and never (or seldom) intersecting.
In relativity there is "space-time". If two events occur separated by space (distance) and time then observers travelling at hugely different velocities might do tests to find the separation of the two events.
What happens is that although they all agree on a "space-time" interval, they get a range of answers for "space" and "time", where they appear to be trading between the two i.e. close in time, far in space versus far in time, close in space. This completely intertwines time and space.
Thanks a lot. This video help greatly in explaining my questions when I was read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. Now I really understands what a string theory is and what a p-brane is.
this rocks my brain. i love it
i liked it, i think it may help explaining the concept,
I thought the 4th dimension was time and the 5th dimension was a music group popularizing the hits "Up, Up and Away", "Wedding Bell Blues", "Stoned Soul Picnic", "One Less Bell to Answer", "(Last Night) I Didn't Get to Sleep at All", and "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In", as well as the eponymous 5th Dimension and The Magic Garden LP recordings.
The five original members were Billy Davis, Jr., Florence LaRue, Marilyn McCoo, Lamonte McLemore, and Ron Townson.
Another interesting fact about R^7 space is that it is the only R^n space other than R^3 in which vector cross products work. Perhaps someone with an understanding of tensor calculus, differential geometry, and topology might enlighten us as to the significance of this in a physical context, as it is beyond me.
My theory on extra dimensions is inward and outward. When someone asks you to point in you may point at yourself. When you do this this, the direction you are pointing is actually past you through to the other side of you. Because of this i think that the fourth dimension is intensity. Dark matter exists outside of this dimension due to the fact that it is not intense enough to interact effectively through forces we are familiar with. It can interact through gravity though, because gravity is a very weak force and therefore does not require a huge intensity to be generated. Please reply with comments and feedback on this idea.
Good stuff.
Nervous_Elk :D no, that is not how it works :DI would like you to read an up to date book on mathematics or physics to learn what a spacial dimension is and I would like you to learn what intensity is, how the weak force interacts and why that has nothing to do with any intensity and why intensity does not generate any fundamental forces.
Gravity is actually much stronger than previously supposed, but I'm sure some guy with a Nobel prize can easily disprove this.
I'm still skeptical about dark matter/energy. They could just not exist at all, but rather be a result of extra dimensions affecting the 4 we experience or suppressing gravity. We know that each galaxy is missing like 80% of the mass to be able to function like they do, but I don't think that has to mean that there's an invisible mass there. I think it might have something to do with the 2 twin particles that randomly appear and disappear all over the place, the ones responsible for hawking radiation. They come out of nowhere, push apart, and collide back together and disappear. Maybe they sometimes get stuck in space, which could explain why everything is pushing apart, and maybe have something to do with the missing 80% of mass. Also gravity might be getting stuck in those extra dimensions, and that missing mass could be the extra gravity we don't experience. Not sure if a force can translate into mass but anything is possible
Matt RocKy Yes, through modifications of gravity, you can explain away a tiny fraction of the observed dark matter. However, you then become completely unable to hande things like colliding galaxies, where we find the dark matter sometimes ending up in very different places than the visible matter, and you loose the ability to explain the early universe etc.
I don't think you need a nobel prize for that (otherwise: I want one, now!), this stuff has been around for as long as we have observed rotational curves of galaxies. Rather than that a simple literature review helps ;)
@wwwleo1 the point is, is that u cant see more than one dimension of the string unless u look closely. obviously if u look at string now u already know it has one than more dimension because u have examined one before, but if its far away u cant see more than one, even tho u know others are there
Very informative, thanks!
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
~excellent vid !
thEY ARE BOTH SO VERY ENTHUSIASTIC IT MADE ME ALL PUMPED UP TOO. THIS VIDEO IS THE TYPE OF CONTENT I LIVE FOR
+Aisha M
Go look up Tom Scott on Computerphile. THAT is enthusiasm.
Ayyy thanks! Checking it out right as we speak
+Aisha M check out cliff stoll on numberphile for a enthusiasm overdose xD
@JaksProductions: Seeing you asked so politely! :)
I use a Sony Z7. As a second camera I also sometimes borrow a Z1. Also if I need something from a few extra angles, I recently got a Sony HandyCamHDR-XR105 for holidays, so I use that too... and my brother-in-law gave me his little Oregon Scientific camera to use when I need one that may be "expendable".
I edit on Avid Media Composer.
The same applies to all my other channels (sixtysymbols, nottinghamsceince, bibledex, etc)
Clearly extra dimensions are where the Leprechauns jump out of as at 0:10 .
The Kaiser There was a red-head physics student at university where I studied. I already associated him being a leprechaun. But once when I was doing some measurements in the physics lab, I saw him there carrying a box full of coins, I had to resist the idea of grabbing him and demanding him a pot of gold.
Wild Hunt Trumpeter xD
The "large dimensions" thing can be said for the curvature of space-time. It is curved (or saddle-like) but only on a very very large scale. Then again, that's related to general relativity, which uses a completely different mathematical model.
@SkullXII
You're right, Einstein proposed 11 dimensions of reality, 10 spatial and 1 temporal. I believe that they either have made a mistake, or are not considering the 0th dimension. Techically, with us living in a 3 dimensional world, we are actually privy to 4 spatial dimensions: the point, the line, the plane, and the solid. So in the highest spatial dimension in string theory, the 9th dimension, there are actually 10 spatial dimensions being referred to. Numbering is the real issue here.
That was horribly interesting. I especially loved the explanation of how weak gravity is by using the bench as mean of escape from it. My non-scientist mind giggled at the fact that I hadn't realized that.
@Rosbjerg: Well thanks for persevering and watching! I'll try to not use it again! :)
That idea is entirely different from having extra dimensions. Whether or not the universe is ultimately 'curved' (i.e. closed) on a large scale is a question of the characteristics of the dimensions we can observe; it does not imply that we are embedded in a higher dimensional space. In other words, it does not necessarily mean there is another orthogonal direction for you to point your thumb in. Thinking of it as an embedding is merely an artifact of our limited visualization powers.
Do we describe these extra dimensions using the same Cartesian coordinate system we're used to? Or is it some other orthogonal curvilinear system? Or something entirely different? From the diagrams I've seen of these extra dimensions, it doesn't look like a Cartesian system at all.
Quite right, viewing it in 3d is old fashioned. As you pointed out it's dynamic which means it changes in time. Within physics we now treat time as another dimension. As for further dimensions, they don't matter for the lives of most people, they are not even needed for many physics topics, so I think 3d (+ time) is here to stay. As to "What makes something we can see, there?" I'll leave for philosophers but if I see a cricket ball heading for my head, I'll duck!
Neil Butcher (bloke on bench).
@munke2 Dimensions allow more than 1 thing to exist at the same time, because they can be separated by distance in the 4 dimensions. Time is a dimension in the same way, because we can separare objects by time, such as by having 2 different object in the exact same place, but at 2 different times, or we can have 2 objects at the same time in 2 different places. Maybe the rest of the dimensions are more like we see time, than how we see position (first 3 dimensions)?
When you refer to something as a two dimensional object, it means that either its length, width or depth in inconceivable, making it look like it only has two spacial dimensions.
It's more a side effect of the linguistic split during the colonial period happening prior to any real standardization in pronunciation, just as the spelling differences between British and American English are. Both pronunciations were in usage during much/most of the colonial period, with "zee" admittedly being the newer of the two. There are, of course, plenty of other diversions that postdate the split.
quantum entanglement occurs naturaly in large objects. Some particles of those objects
very few,do become entangled for a fraction of a microsecond.Then those connections break apart, but new connections are made again and again.The closer and the heavier two objects are, the more likely to increace the statictic phenomenon of entanglement we call gravity. Under a neuron star, pressure and big mass, creates huge amounts of entangled groups. In a black hole the phenomenon is greater (singularity)
Watching this video put me into another dimension
Yes, and string theory adopted the concept of 11 dimensions. It revealed a lot of new things and fit in perfectly
One idea that I've had about multiple dimensions is sort of backed up by the theory explained here about our perception. The thing is, even though we have depth perception, human beings are 3D objects that see 2D images; that is to say, that everything in the 3D world you can see with your eyes can be transferred to a 2D image. Perhaps we can't see extra dimensions because we simply don't exist on those planes, and we can only see the particles that interact in ours.
@Hedning1390 Supposedly, the branes move, or vibrate, and sometimes they may collide, which may be how big bang happened, as evergy spilled over to our brane in a collision. (This should worry us, because it means it could happen again at any time!)
@isaidmrw: Cool... glad you liked it!
I love that those ideas get implemented in real models, the atomic orbitals for example.
That's a pretty good point ^_^ Like how we have two eyes so we perceive the third dimension, but it's really just a good interpretation based on two 2D images.
Don't try to think of it as 0 speed as the default and light going faster than things that don't move. c, the speed of light, is the default speed for all things. But when you add mass, then it's slowed down. Does that make sense?
The thing with the solar sail is just the normal force, the light bounces off of the sail and goes in the opposite direction, the force going forward travels from the light to the sail, the force going backwards travels from the sail to the light. Does that make sense?
another possibility that i've thought on for a while, is that 3-d things are just the portions of n-D things that we can sense. i've oft wondered if that's why dark matter isn't detectable, outside of its affects on gravity. hopefully the discovery of gravitational waves will open new doors for approaching this problem.
after the charger analogy I was wondering, if going around the cables circumference is separate dimension, why don't we say we live in 7 dimensional spacetime? b because we can spin while pointing in any one of the directions so 3 linear dimensions 3 "spin" dimensions and 1 time dimension
@jag9998 actually there is already 4 dimensions we can see counting time so the amount of "hidden" dimensions as he esxplained with the analogy of the cable, so it would be 7 extra dimensions that we cant see or cant interact with, 3+time+7=11 dimensions
"String theory" isn't really a single theory, but a group of theories with varying numbers of dimensions anywhere from around 10 to as many as 26. The most popular, Superstring theory, does include 10 dimensions. M-theory is built off the 10-dimensional string theories (all 5 of them) and adds one more, making 11.
Look to the structure of mycelium, in relation to string theory. The possibilities are astounding.
@markakroll Temperature is characterized by speed, which is not another dimension. Compression is characterized by distance between molecules or atoms or other particles. Magnetism, gravity etc. are forces, and not dimensions. Its not that simple.
What I found really useful for (kind of) understanding some of this intuitively was the example of a 2D world with no z dimension. If you can imagine living in a 2D (x,y) world, then it becomes clearer how a third dimension could not be seen (and it would be a weird concept), but at the same time it becomes clear that 'objects' occupying a 3rd dimension could interact with the 2D world.
Of course, I could also be completely wrong with this analogy!
So can these extra dimensions pass through eachother (string theory) and does that make them what we now think of as paranormal spiritual dimensions?
Imagine a cube surrounding an elementary particle.
At every corner of the cube, there is a small ring.
Each ring is a dimension, and the particle is free to move along it without changing any of it's properties.
That's how I imagine extra dimensions :)
If the extra dimensions were macroscopic, matter would move as easily through them as it does through the familiar three. Instead, matter travels a tiny distance before looping back on itself, far too small to break molecular bonds or for gravity to bleed off significantly.
@ManyMoonsMal: Check out the main sixtysymbols website for some stuff about the name and project, etc.
Thanks for watching us!
@Shockszzbyyous....,the smaller and more dimensional we get in comparison whit the object we are observing. The bottom-line is this: if we observe a very very distant planet so that we see it in 2-dimensions. We can actually only conclude by logical thinking that the object is not really 2-dimensional. for example we see that the outer-circle is more distant(in 2d perspective) from a smaller circle to the middel. Becuase we see the object from our 3-dimensional perspective we can see the surface
@SkullXII Not sure what Vamp is telling you. All 5 string theories operate with 9 spatial 1 time, M theory, under which all 5 can make sense, utilises 10 spatial and 1 time. You probably heard a lecture on M theory.
Which would explain why gravity can only be felt relatively, as opposed to something like light which can be detected through the particles they are composed of alone.
There is now universal law in physics that says the universe has to have a certain amount of dimensions. If string theory at some point can explain the universe better (or can unite quantum mechanics and relativity) and can make accurate predictions then most physicist would accept it. We used to think that it is impossible for a single particle to be in different places at the same time but the fact that it can is one of the counter intuitive things about reality we have to accept.
Yes, I know that, but it means that the object does not represent a third dimension, of course everything we see really has three dimensions.
That's why when you draw what you'd call a two dimensional square, you would only be concerned with it's width and length, not its depth.
No, it's a single dimension of time, the past, present and future or the distant future, or the distant past, etc. are all difference points on the same dimension. It's the same like behind me, in front of me and the position I occupy are all different points in the same spatial dimension. Not a scientist here, but just giving my two cents :)
Ed Witten has unified string theory and shown with masterful mathematics that there are 11 dimensions. There is no empirical evidence for this but the math is beautiful.
@Lemau even if we had one eye we could easily percieve 3 dimensions (actualy 4 if you count time). we move our head in 3 dimensions. the reason we cant percieve other dimensions is because we don't interact with them.
@Hedning1390 Well, I'm assuming that space can be empty just as any other space can. On your second question, I have no idea, but it probably takes a lot of energy to move it from our brane to another one. Good question, really hard to answer or think about. I'm no expert.
In classical string theory there are 9 spatial dimensions, but another branch of string theory called M theory suggests that the calculations which lead to 9 spatial dimensions were only approximate, and that thus there should be 10 spatial dimensions, as far as I know....
No no, I get that. I understand there are different sizes of infinity. What I'm having trouble understanding is what exactly is the "size" of a dimension? If a dimension is simply a coordinate, how can it have a size? Or is the size of a dimension merely the range of values its coordinates can possibly have?
@Tossphate I'm not confusing them. I'm saying that even IF we could prove them mathematically, we can't prove their existance. Also, by my logic, a spider should be able to perceive -9- dimensions using 8 eyes, although from a logical point of view (i.e. a 3-dimensional one, ^_~) every eye SHOULD be on a different dimensional axis, which in case of the spider, isn't true. Thanks for the clarification on the tesseract though. That makes sense to me. ^__^
But there is one strange thing about string theory. Mass from parallel universes (branes) can interact through gravity with our universe (through the space-time bending). If you now got a extremely heavy black hole in a parallel universe it would also influence our universe through the gravitational force. But that would mean, that if you fly through space, there is a possibility that you suddenly disappear and also that some black holes which we observe, have actually no mass in it.
How do you pick up mass as speed up??
lets say that our universe with the 4 dimensions we percive(1 time + 3 space) are like a ball floating around in a fifth dimension... in that fifth dimension there can exist another ball(universe) which are separated from us in the 5th dimension(and thus are uneffected by what happens inside our 4 dimension).
Just like two soccer balls floating in a pool, in a sense they are parallel to each other, since they share the common existance in that pool(which in this metaphor is the 5th dimension)
That's very astute. Consider time as another dimension. In the scheme of things, the time that human beings are able to see is miniscule. 60 years versus billions of years in universe's time. That dimension is just so huge - we can barely see anything move (in cosmic terms).
Can you explain why time slows down under gravity? Which affects precise atomic clocks? Not saying what you are saying is not true.. and I can kind of put it together in my head with what you're stating. I just wondered if you actually knew.
Not being a native English speaker it just dawns on me that the word dimension has two separate meanings in English. Dimension may mean either size of an object in meters or an "axle of existence". It makes better sense when you have two separate words for two separate things.
By the way if an object's length, width or depth is inconceivable that simply means that YOU can't conceive it. I am pretty sure that an example of 2D object cannot be given. Even the ink on the paper has SOME thickness.
No matter how small the extra dimensions are, there has to be space in them for at least one fundamental particle, right? If there were space for two, wouldn't it be possible to 'align' a macroscopic object so that all its particles shared exactly the same theta coordinate, say, and have it move entirely independent of another such aligned object? Normal things would partially interact with both, but the two aligned objects would pass through each other.
If you think about it Metaphysically this can prove the 4th dimension as the spirit universe..or the universe our spirits resides in/go too because we dont age there we only exist as an energy...theres more dimesions tho higher than 4th thus more spirit worlds and parellel universes is actually a wide interesting phenomonon ive noticed
what would an extra dimension look like? very cool videos, thank you :)
Great video. ^__^
Evolving in a completely 3D environment, and having control only of the 3D (and time to some extent). It's really very difficult to perceive, much more have control over, other dimensions. But we'll get there someday. ^_^
It is possible for space to have locally positive curvature without there being any "larger flat Euclidean space" with "extra dimensions" for it to "curve into"; your analogy with the Earth's surface falls flat because even if it *were* flat, we could still look up and down, but we can't notice any significant extent to any extra spatial dimensions that the Universe might have, so it's more likely that, analogously to the surface of a wire, any extra spatial dimensions have very limited extent.
The three dimensions are made up of three 'lines' or dimensions. The X axis is one dimension, Y is another, and Z is the third. So a line in Spatial Dimensions is a single dimension. In Spatial Dimensions, to have a point, you actually need two dimensions, X and Y, which creates a plane on which the point can be recorded.
Dimensions are a representation of numbers and those numbers which cannot divide gives the extra dimensions. So possibly the extra dimension exist and can be verified by divisions. Splitting something is not visible because you have to see the whole to see something. In our spectrum of visibility.
The ginger scientist guy is so awesome!
The reason we can't perceive more than three dimensions is more than likely because we have two eyes, as we wouldn't even be able to perceive depth (or z, if you will) with one. The reason we can't simulate it is because we've no idea how it should be simulated. That tesseract amused the hell out of me, as theoretically it's a nice representation of the 4th dimension, but in truth, it's still only 3. ^_^
OK smart Alec. If spatial dimensions can be big or small. If it means something to speak of them that way, how big, what is the 'measure' of our common everyday 3 spatial dimensions ?
best thumbnail ever
@Shockszzbyyous This is a question many people ask here and the great thing is is that they are really true. We are 3-dimensional creatures... and by that they really mean we can only understand 3 dimensional objects. 'smaller' dimensions cant be seen becuase they are too small for us to detect, and by that we will see absolutly no length in that direction(like what they say in this video). But the opposite thing can be said too! the big space a lower dimension happens to be in(see next message)
String theory accepts the 11th dimension, I remember one of the people working on it saying that the 11th dimension fills in some of their questions.
Well so that would hold the possibility that dark matter isn't in fact any different from "normal" matter and it could be in fact just stuck in a dimension that is not reached by light, making it invisible, yet it still has gravitational effects as observable with gravitational lensing
Here's the thing. If we think mathematically, what would we use a fifth (4th being time) dimension for?
I'd say, it's tthe possible future/past of one plank-second (did I even use that right?) later/earlier.
can it leak into extra dimensions because the graviton is so very much smaller than the other force carriers?
I wonder if some of these extra dimensions might help explain virtual particles, how an electron can be at two places at once, and some of the other QM mindbending out there...
what if we had a 2nd dimension of time o_O
VoidHugger I guess this could be parallel universes? A number of consecutive timelines.
VoidHugger I think we might actually, for real small things. I'm pretty sure quantum things like an electron don't care about our version of time (being in multiple places at once, spinning in all directions, etc). Or maybe they're just too small to interact with time, idk. Photons don't seem to respect time at all. If you think of every moment of time like a ripple in a pond, a photon that is born rides that wave and doesn't leave, always being in the same moment I guess. Also, time is a byproduct of spacial dimensions I believe. So if we have extra spacial dimensions, it's possible that they create another time dimension. A positron is believed to be an electron going backwards in time too, so maybe another timeline is going backwards, while we go forward. These are all guesses, i'm not positive.
VoidHugger Imagine a point, a moment in time, moving along time as a line (one-dimensional time). With two dimensional time, it would look like a circle moving outward on a plane. Essentially a living being could travel physically between events and other forms of the same universe at will.
+Hi i think you are confusşng a positron with a tachyon. wich is a hypothetical particle.
+VoidHugger it would run up vertically on a plain!
Indeed there are. Which is likely part of their current issues, too many different, often divergent, ways of interpreting the same data. They're still more robust than they were 30 years ago, at least, and if M-Theory ever gets properly complete it may even prove out as the standard explanation for the underpinnings of the standard model.
Thanks for commenting, I suppose it has something to do with the Sun being nuclear in space as its point of origin. I believe the solar sail would heat up and be blown that way.
what would it look like if you could see it, if its separate from the three isn't it not technically around us in the three, we just exist within it like a fish in water never knowing what it is???? whats its purose, soley to absorb gravity and do we still consider gravity as originating in the three
I dont think we may be able to "see and test" these other dimensions. Analogy: we are on one side of the computer monitor interacting with youtube (or any website). We are bound to be on this side. Even tho we can assume what youtube is created in (what programming language), we can interact with it, test things on it, predict future events etc - there is no way to see the code behind it that makes it run. We are "stuck in the experiment" so to speak.
Had fun editing this, didn't you?!