PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING!!!! First, off.... Wow, I did not expect this to "take off" like this. My hope was to get a few hundred or so views and some feedback, I made this mostly to share with some people via word of mouth. Thanks so much to so many of you for your encouragement. Second, boy have I gotten feedback. Although, most of it is the little mistakes I made, or things I could have communicated better. I will do a follow-up corrections and clarification video, but in the meantime, here is a short list: Typos and Oopsies: - Special Relativity was released in 1905, I bundled it with General Relativity. - Sabine should be pronounced "Zah-bee-nah" (very sorry, Sabine) - "Seperate" in Concept 2 should be "Separate" - The plural of Phenomenon is Phenomena (Really? I think that one could have slid) - I say "astrological" when I meant "astronomical" (OK, that's a little embarrassing) - Spacial should be Spatial (Although some dictionaries do accept that as an alternative spelling) - We misspelled "dimensional" as "dimentional" on THE G.D. CHAPTER SLIDE! I swore we fixed that, must have gotten an old version pulled in when we compiled it. - When talking about how my theory can how we approach black holes, I said now they can be "quantized" when I mean "quantified" - Apparently the "🤪" emoji means you're making fun of someone? I thought it was "being silly." So... sorry to all offended commentors. - Wait, I looked it up. 🤪DOES mean being silly! It's called "Zany Face." WTF y'all?? Concept 7 This is my worst communicated concept. First, I am aware we don't literally break apart an atom. The point is that mass is lost in the process which is where all the energy comes from. We are releasing energy previously contained in the dimensions of an atom. To be honest, I'm not intimately familiar with the mechanics of a nuclear bomb, just the principle... which is the point. Y'all are scary. Second, some people are confused about the energy "spread evenly across all dimensions" - I will do a new example in the follow up video The Tesseract There is NO agreed upon way to animate/show tesseract. If you browse UA-cam, you can find at least half-a-dozen variations. Yes, I agree mine is the laziest. The point is they are all using 3D logic for a 4D shape and none of them make sense. Grid Lines The grids in our animations are NOT representative of geodesics, even under this interpretation. They were simply meant to visualize a "displacement" effect opposite to the traditional "curved space" vortex. For people unfamiliar with geodesics, an "accurate" visualization is usually confusing without lots of explanation. Is this idea testable or falsifiable? Yes, if this is correct, gravity will have an observable cumulative effect at very large scales. Instead of each massive body having it's own discrete gravitational pull, the displacement of 4D space on a large scale would have noticeable influence, beyond overlapping fields. It may explain the orbit of bodies at the edge of our galaxy for which we have previously postulated dark matter. Testing this idea, however, is beyond my resources. Finally, for all of you encouraging me to submit this as a paper (again, thank you). I want to be clear that this was an intro to my theory, not the theory itself. I have a lot more videos to make. No one would accept this as a paper at this stage (some for good reasons), and most of what I am presenting is not new, just a novel approach. I just wanted to see how it "clicked" at this stage, because if it didn't I had to rethink things moving forward. Thanks again, and this has certainly added to my motivation to keep working on it. This is something I have to do in my spare time, and I wouldn't have even been able to do this without the help of my daughter who has sacrificed her own time and mental energy. We will get better as we go, but this isn't PBS NOVA, as best we try they will always be a little rough around the edges.
I have always been puzzled by the fact that, we, conscious beings, can't make work together a well established theory that define the infinitely vast and an as well established other theory that define the infinitely small. Then I have been puzzled to see that our brains can make sense of the theory results that describe "what we are inside of", or part of... But can't make sense of the theory results that describe "what's inside of us", or what we are "above" of. And that the shift of paradigm happens exactly when we are not able to perceive the world with our senses anymore... In other words, Relativity describe something we are part of, and Quantum theory describe something we are not part of. My terminology is not so good, nor my English, but at a point, your dimensional approach has given me a hint at a subconscious level of what could be the problem... I will watch your vid again. It's always interesting to discover new angles and new ways of thinking... Yours is promising so far. I hope you'll get some visibility, and keep up the good work.
I don't know nearly enough to know if there are contradictions to your proposal in the literature, but I do know that this is a very well put together video that displays both effort and skill. I think you make a great communicator.
That's the point. Theoretical physics has been turned into bullshit so glittery, that you can't tell that it's pure sophistry. All you can do is go Ooh! Ahh! But no real technological progress occurs.
It is not new what he says. He describes the old way we did geometry. The problem is it makes it more complicated and doesn't reflect our experience. We are in space time, we are not outside observers.
@@wulphstein I don't know about that. If you're talking about the billions poured into massive endeavours like CERN, LIGO, JWST I agree that there hasn't been any direct technological progress due to revelations from using these tools, but the act of constructing and running them has led to many technological advances in order to overcome the engineering challenges. Also the theory from a century ago covers a large swath of our experiences so we shouldn't expect large technological changes from advances in the theory, but rather from rapid experimental research. What do you think?
Only a communicator... Nuclear bombs dont break hidrogen atoms and dimensions (time included) have zero energy by definition... I believe he isn't a physicist. In GR we cannot say that the Earth is accelerating towards the free falling (inertial) guy as he proclaimed using a cartoon. The Earth is accelerating towards people already in the surface. He doesn't understand GR. I also believe his beard is a fake. LoL Brasil
This is exactly how I've been thinking about "gravity". I didn't think my ideas were worth much, I assumed professionals would have thought of it a long time ago. You explained it exceptionally well 👏🏻
Same! The ball on felt explanation of gravity didn't quite cut it with me because "spacetime" isn't a flat sheet. I too have thought about a ball in water (not jelo). I have some ideas on time too and how it relates to our movement through space. Love the video!
This was fantastic. Ever since college I have been upset by many of the concepts you addressed. (Especially space time and the constant speed of light) In those days I thought my struggle with the concepts were proof of my lack of intelligence as compared to my peers. As I got older it clarified to be more a nagging feeling that they were flawed or overly lacking. I have continually returned my musings over the years, and for the first time feel there is a path forward. I will be pondering your proposal quite intently for the near future. I thank you for your courage to share your ideas on a subject that is often wrapped in contention and egotism.
Same here! Boy, why couldn't we find the right words to express ourselves at the time, and still. Yeah, it keeps nagging. But maybe our thoughts (= insights) ARE heard by the antenna's tuned to our broadcasts :-) Thank you for your comment btw.
@thewanderer797actually, all light moves slower than C by a couple miles a second and there seems to be a slight difference between photons of different frequency, but that's probably artifact from coupling with ambient electrons. Also, some physicists are starting to question if C is variant according to the properties of the localized space, as was mentioned in this video.
Setting expectations: "I intend to bridge the gap between General Relativity and Quantum theory", thus acquiring the holy grail of physics and picking up a Nobel plus every other prize science has to offer while I am at it. Having pointed that out, the video is excellent and it approaches a difficult subject succinctly and as simply as possible given the topic.
I watched this with my nine year old son who watches allot of the content creators you reference, he loves every Hossenfelder video on youtube, and talks about them all the time (he even dreams physics). While this video had him excitedly jumping up and down in sheer joy and utter exhilaration - pleading to watch it again as soon as it was over - ... it made my head hurt the first time.
@@drbeanut Kids should not be on the internet at all. There is nothing on there for them. Corporations have enslaved the online experience so that 12 year olds can enter credit card details.
I'm not finished yet the video but I have to tell you. Your humor, edition, meme's, and everything you put into making this is awesome. It's the right balance between science accuracy and communication. I hope your channel explode on subscriptors and a nice debates between divulgators can grow of it. Cheers from Argentina!
I was thinking about this a few months back. I love the way you walked all the way through it. The way subatomic particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum has always reminded me of 4d objects passing through 3d. I'm sure your theory of 4d space is very close to the answer to 'quantum gravity' and other unifications. Keep at it!
I like where your headed with that, id like to add to your idea and the totality of this theorem. I feel that an expression of 'gravity' from a particle existing in another dimension as explained in this video could explain the strong nuclear force that inexplicably keeps atoms together despite the insane desire of protons similar charges to fly apart, the time and energy it takes to leave eachother is closer to the C than the energy of the polar seperation.
@@ChrisTheBrain I will explain the differences in Dimensions here right now... its easy to understand because its simply a pattern... 0 is true nothing you can fit a infinite amount of 0 dimensional existence into anysize 1D existence. 1D is length no width therefore you can fit a infinite amount of 1D existence into any 2D existence. 2D is length and width but no depth so you can fit a infinite amount of 2D existence into anysize 3D existence. 3D is length width and depth only therefore we can follow the logical established pattern and conclude we can fit a infinite amount of 3D existence into anySIZE 4D existence! Follow logical progression for rest of answers about higher dimensions...
@@ChrisTheBrain the problem with taking dimensions and throwing labels on them is that dimensions are spaceial as i previously stated... i came up with this simplistic explanation of higher dimensions... we can understand all dimensions up to 11.
@@ChrisTheBrain the bowling ball on a trampoline is representing more of a 2d slice... ive communicated with sabine and have given her some information over the years... i will now slowly give you information aswell. Lesson number one and the most important thing to keep in mind all reality is based out of your head it is subjective all existence is part of the singularity AKA God even math itself is an observer it is a section of God AKA The Big Bang. Singularity AKA The Big Bang was completely alone and could not handle the fact that it was all-encompassing and completely alone... busted for thin created all existence where can I hide forget the fact that it's completely alone... we are all one and completely alone. In order to have objective reality you need an observer that exists from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and even if such hypothetical Observer exists the end of time has not came yet so therefore objective reality doesn't exist... everything all existence is subjective... even mathematics... if we had objective reality we would have no uncertainty principle... You should watch my playlist about accelerating expansion illusion... its hard to get strong enough brains... i think you will understand... after you watch check out newer video i posted about baryonic matter interacting with non baryonic matter... i propose a testable experiment that can validate my proposed information... anyways i subscribed and hit all notifications. You might consider same to me. Keep in mind i make all sorts of videos to get views but all of it is to spread useful important information...
@@ChrisTheBrain I want to give you one more useful piece of information there is no gravity there was only convergence and Divergence of opposite spinning vortices. Magnetic fields are opposite spinning vortices. There is a channel you should check out the guy is arrogant and kind of hard to listen to but he has good information its something like theoria aprophasia... he has some interesting experiments that he has created to prove magnetic vortices. One includes using a camera recording a tv and running a magnet on the tv you can see the vortex twist effect... ruins the old school tv but it is interesting experiment. I Have It All Metals isolating magnet design that will increase the mining and recycling efficiencies of this planet. Its open source under my playlist inventions for earth.
Only 533 subs? WTF! I’m sharing you everywhere I can. Thank you for being so concise and for making your lecture enjoyable without dumbing down the subject matter. Keep on working on your channel. You’re going to go far!
This is some wild synchronicity. I've been toying with similar concepts in mind, and discussing them with a friend for the last few days and here you are - explaining your take on it in detail. Can't wait for the continuation - thank you!
I absolutely love what you're doing here. Gravity has never been directly detected, only observed as an effect. Metaphorically speaking, we see its function but cannot see its "form", therefore, it's appropriate to say our current models of how we perceive gravity is not absolutely true. You've redesigned its form, all while preserving its function. This entirely new method of seeing gravity, as its own dimension, opens up a whole new realm of possibilies for how we can understand physics! I'm excited for next video, thank you so much for this!!
LIGO has directly observed gravitational waves from events like neutron star mergers. I couldn't say if that qualifies as 'directly observing gravity' or not. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Hello Chris, firstly I'd like to say that I enjoyed this video. As a physicist, I appreciate finding new and novel viewpoints on subjects that I'm deeply passionate about. Depending on your goals with this idea, and your background, there are a few things I'd like to point out. I think this has strong merit as a change in perspective when introducing people to the core concepts of relativity; however, I think there is a lot of dirty work left before this could be expanded to a scientific hypothesis. Physicists have a tendency to be gatekeepers, but I think there is truth to the idea that one should be well versed in a field before tackling the big questions, lest one fall to misconceptions in analogy. I am unsure if you have a background in formal physics, but there were a few points in this video where it was unclear to me whether your explanation in analogy fell to this on the front or back end. I would highly recommend diving deep into differential geometry and basic tensor calculus, as this is the precise language that describes general relativity. You touch on these a few times while explaining the Einstein field equations, geodesics, and the space-time interval; but I think there are places where diving into the maths may reveal contradictions in your explanations. I would highly recommend the "Tensors for Beginners", "Tensor Calculus", and "Relativity by Eigenchris" video playlists by eigenchris here on UA-cam. Supplemented by textbook problems, I recommend "General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists by M.P. Hobson, G. Efstathiou, and A.N. Lasenby", this would allow you to fully formulate your theory mathematically. This would be a lot of work, with weeks of self-study, but if you truly want to explore your ideas fully, this is a necessary step. Physics is hard, changing the world is harder. When I took my first GR class there were a few core concepts we built up to. Finding the motion of particles through a covariant formulation of Newton's 2nd law and relating these to geodesics and particle world-lines; using the matching principle to describe what the metric tensor is telling us and ensuring our derivations are consistent in the appropriate regimes with classical mechanics; and probably most importantly: deriving the field equations from the principle of least action. I think if you could do those three things consistently with your hypothesis, then you would have a solid scientific hypothesis. I'm sure there are physicists out there who would also be interested in going through those steps, but it would still be on you to formulate your theory more mathematically first in order for that to be possible. I also suspect that you may end up with something a lot closer to Kaluza-Klein theory than you'd think. In summary, I really do appreciate the time and passion you've poured into your ideas, and I think your way of thinking is unique and valuable. Please don't take this comment as discouraging or patronizing; but rather, an attempt to let you know what your next steps may need to be, if you didn't yet know. I don't consider myself an expert in general relativity, but I have put in the time and sweat equity to understand parts of it formally. Feel free to ask questions and I can attempt to go in depth on some of my points. I hope someone out there can really put in the time to collaborate with you, should you desire.
I appreciate the grace of your admonition. I originally created this video to serve as a baseline for discussion with some physics connections of mine, and possibly get a few hundred views with some feedback from enthusiasts. The production and work that went into this was my way of enticing people to sit through an hour-long video on the subject (and we had fun). But some of issues like typos and some careless language was a result of thinking that, after feedback, we would polish it up and then reupload. Then I wake up to 10K views and more subs than I ever thought possible, and now I am scrambling to figure out what to do with it. Who knew so many people would sit through an hour-long video on theoretical physics? (To be clear, not complaining, it's exciting) All this is to say, I don't mean to be careless. I know the work that needs done to make this feasible. However, I need to get through more on the conceptual side before I dive into "showing my work" in procedural math. At least, that's my process. The Principle of Least Action is a problem indeed, but I believe it is equally an issue for the mainstream view. Keeping 3D of space was ultimately a way to avoid the problem, IMO. Thanks for taking the time, feedback like yours does help me know where to focus as I communicate my ideas.
@@ChrisTheBrain I think this shows just how much people Want to understand the concept of a fourth or fifth dimension and the failure of education to teach it in a way that makes sense, if that is your goal i think you are succeeding! I did not get the feeling from your presentation that you wanted to drastically change the math behind the concepts in fact I think you clearly stated the equation you presented was just to represent the somewhat unapproachable real equation. Implications for matter displacing fourth dimensional space are certainly a secondary issue
Thank you for taking the time to engage with this. Have you written anything else I could read? This comment alone was refreshingly clear, well intentioned, and obviously comes from a deep understanding of the subject matter. Despite having absolutely no business doing so, I'm now inspired to explore differential geometry myself. I look forward to inevitably discovering I'm adrift in the attempt. Thanks again.
@@beartankoperator7950 As someone who has no problem accepting that there are additional dimensions we do not consciously experience, but who has never really been able to visualize them because i've never cared to acquire the esoteric maths needed to break into their proofs, the presentation of a "gravity dimension" existing at right angles to our visible spatial dimensions and addressable via adding another term to the Pythagorean Theorem instantly made sense, even knowing that it's a simplified starting point.
Intuitively speaking, this concept is brilliant; it uses a fourth dimension in space with vector quantities like weight and motion, which is definitely interesting as well as being a creative choice.
I am a lawyer and a gardener... But he kept my attention for the entire duration of the video :) I think he has a good point, it actually moved my neuron networks a LOT and I can feel how they are creating new synapses to understand more and more about the universe. Thank you Chris! As an average human I think I know much more about all different kinds of stuff than an average scientist maybe 100 years ago... And I think this is great! We would not have wars if education was interesting enough to make people enjoy knowledge deeply enough to develop a connection with all our surroundings. Not many people are underlining this, but the understanding of quantum fields actually really proves that we are all connected. As it was said thousands of years ago already. And it applies to life force and life energy just as well. I love these science videos :) and I really really like and appreciate this particular work of yours. Stuffed with some fun too :) Absolutely keep up the work! I think you actually bent the minds of many of us in the right direction. I liked only maybe 5 or 10 youtube videos in 20 years or so. But did push the like button for this one :)
Hello there Tomas, thank you for your comment because it reflects entirely how I feel about my experience with this video and my appreciation of it. I could not express it any better. And of course, THANK YOU CHRIS AND YOUR DAUGHTER! for the effort, the time, and specially for sharing your noble way of looking at Gravity!! I'm sure this will be the beginning of a revolutionary way of thinking and doing Physics in the not far future! HOW EXCITING!!! And hopefully you'll get the well deserved credits for your contribution to it! 1,000 thanks from my part!! And good luck to you! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾 🙂
First time viewer. Was this really an hour? felt like 15 minutes. You have very good skills at explaining everything that you talk about. from the moment the introduction was over, i was already hooked. Your editor has mad skills as well. Great team.
Absolutely brilliant 🥇❕Just had to express my enthrallment from listening and watching your presentation; it's so rare to find somebody who is capable of articulating the most difficult subject matter with such precision and clarity! I also admire what seems to be genuine sincerity and an absence of arrogance, which is so uncommon to see among Theoretical Physicists today; I do look forward to your watching your future videos. 🤠
Beautiful vid, man. Entertaining, humorous, enlightening. I'm glad some one is out there doing the maths. I haven't had this much fun with theoretical physics, in a while.
very well spoken, I love the editing and humor in the video, we need to bring thinking to a bigger audience of youth. Thank you, this video should definitely be more well known. I cant wait to see more!
This is a really well put-together video. The use of humour throughout is tasteful, and the explanations are accurate but (mostly) understandable. I look forward to the following chapters
I felt the same. It feels the right amount of simple yet with the right amount of complex results! That is the part I hope pans out more as an explanation for quantum entanglement!
Not just entanglement; he mentioned that explicitly but very similarly it would also explain the quantum double slit experiment without the need for alternate universes interacting with one another. Even a single photon, as well as the material and the slit itself, are ultimately four dimensional in nature, of which we see only "our" three dimensions; so the rest of the photons and thus interference pattern must form in "our" three dimensions, because otherwise whatever laws govern these objects would fall apart.
Incredible. The idea, at least in concept, explains so many mind boggling things. I have no idea about the math or anything but I am excitedly staying tuned for the next installment. Even if you're wrong (not saying you are, I just have no idea because I'm a layman) it's still a fascinating and thought provoking theory with massive potential explanatory power. I was glued to the screen for the full hour straight (I have to pee really badly now =/). Also the video had many visual examples that were the best I've seen. This must have taken a ton of effort and skill. Thank you for making this :).
It’s going to take an unorthodox approach to unify physics. This is at least a step in that direction. Chris, you and your daughter did a wonderful job on the video. Thank you!
I must say sir, that you are a genius, and in your interpretation has blown the lid off the conceptual abyss that our understanding is bound by. I was never comfortable combining space and time either, in my understanding. Constructs can be used to illustrate ideas but often lock us into a way of thinking. It's like once you see it, you cannot un-see it. Gravity is almost always illustrated as the "gravitational well" example, and it simply glosses over the mental flexibility required to understand these ideas, above the 3rd dimension for most people who are interested in these ideas.
Great video. I'm no physicist but these ideas really seem to make sense. Science only progresses with new ideas and people like you are exactly what we need to further our understanding. Excited for the future content.
Amazing work. First video in a long time that really got me thinking. I watch all of the others you mentioned, and they do great at informing and educating, but this tickled a whole other spot in my brain.
I've often wondered why we haven't considered mass as it's own dimension. Glad to see someone else with a deeper understanding has thought of that too. I wonder if it's already been considered and dismissed because of more rigorous analysis, or maybe just not well publicized. I like how you delve into applying the concept to actual math and physics. Now it just needs to be published and peer reviewed and generally get more weight behind it (pun intended).
I was just thinking about this the other day. I was intrigued by the notion that movement through a dimension changes movement within and and perception of the others (e.g. contraction) that I began to wonder whether another dimension might be some of the things we can't measure with a ruler, (I mean... you measure time with a clock...) so maybe mass and inertia (and, yes, gravity,) might be considered "dimensions." It could even be that gravity is an effect of inertia and masses interacting? Gravity, not as an attractive force, but a repulsive force, from every direction, but blocked by mass, and therefore, we feel pushed, rather than being pulled, toward a massive object. Some dimensions might be directional, in that other dimensions may only "move" through them in one direction - we can only go through time one-way, after all. (i.e., Some dimensions may not allow for negative numbers) Or a dimension may not be able to evince its own attribute; so an inertial dimension could allow an object in another dimension to move in a direction, but it would remain at that "location," (or energy level, or whatever it is, from an outside perspective) without moving unless under some kind of acceleration. Perhaps dimensions are stacked, and all of these are interacting in odd and complex ways. It would explain a lot. These are the things a truck driver ponders on a lonely rural highway at 2 in the morning. At least, this one does.
In quantum mechanics everything is field including mass. Mathematically a field is just an extra dimension. So in essence mass is just an extra dimension. But I think what he is proposing is an extra spatial dimension which behaves like extra space not jus another independent variable in the equation. The equation he is proposing on the other hand the w is halfway between timelike and spacelike.
Not mass, but momentum, is a 3-dimensional (per particle) vector in phase space. Since momentum is proportional to mass, that is probably what you are looking for. Look up Hamiltonian mechanics.
So I took your suggestion when I came upon part 5 and dropped back and watched this first. Your notion of how we go about looking at things is spot on. I now feel I have a much improved grasp of the concepts you covered simply because of the excellent job you did of explaining them. Thank you. I am now going to take my swollen spinning head back to part 5 and hope it doesn't explode. Again thank you for helping me understand
After the first watch… i am honored & lucky to come across this. Thank you so much for making this. I can’t wait to watch it again. Thank you for everything that has helped all the way up to this point. For adding all those references from movies, small animations and the well thought out discussion on a subject that is well… new. My words might not matter to anyone at the moment maybe even if ever. I cannot express how grateful i am for it even if it’s not for or directed towards me, this. This is really nice. Ty. With ❤, from possibly the biggest monster no one should know about. O
I’m just an undergraduate, so i have very limited knowledge to contradict any of what you said; but i do have to say, you presented it very well and it makes intuitive senes to me, so that is a start. Thank you for the effort you invested into this video!
Why isn't this everywhere? I haven't been able to stop thinking about this theory/explanation in the last week. Good job my man you got me thinking hard about your explanation.
I have been thinking on, and studying the very concept you have discussed here in your video. When I was in high school we were asked to explain inertia and momentum in a paragraph; I wrote a 4 page long essay explaining my ideas about relativistic motion and the increased distance through a higher dimension. It feels very gratifying to see someone speak so thoroughly on this topic. Something I find interesting in light of this video -- in relation to other concepts not directly addressed (yet?) -- is Bohr's droplet theory Bohr's droplet theory is not in scientific use today because the math could not back it up, even though I think his ideas were very compelling from an analogistic perspective. Because the maths could not support the theory in an effective way, the thinking and perspective has been lost as well. When I was first exploring this higher dimensional concept, I was dismissive of the gatekeeping nature of applied physicists; I thought it was more important to present a concept that was understandable rather than so hardline mathematical. But I now see the importance of the maths in light of what happened to Bohr; I don't want what happened to his theory to happen to the theory discussed in your video... But with all that said I REALLY look forward to seeing you discuss this topic more and relate it to more concepts in both an analogous, understandable way, and in the more mathematical way. Thank you, and regards :)
Very eye opening video! This was easily worth the 7 months of work, at least from my perspective. I'd love to see more. You know that feeling when you finish a book/movie/game and are kind of in denial that there's no more stuff? That's what I'm feeling now. A youtube video has never done that to me before. Great job!
I am a theoretical physicist student. In differential geometry (aka. the theory of curved spaces) there are two equally valid ways of describing a curved surface. The intrinsic view, which in the case of general relativity describes the curvature of 4-dimensional spacetime within that space (without taking reference to a higher dimensional embedding space). The extrinsic view describes a curved surface by embedding it into a higher dimensional space. For example, the surface of the earth/sphere is 2 dimensional, the intrinsic view is like ants (2-dimensinal beings) that are bound to the surface and the extrinsic view is to embed the sphere into 3 dimensions, looking at the 2-dimensional surface as a god (3-dimensnal beings). Both views are equal through the embedding theorem of Whitney. I have only learned GR in the intrinsic way, therefore i am interested in your view of describing GR in the extrinsic way. The philosophy of the intrinsic view is that we don't want to embed all of the universe into a higher physical space, because the existance of such a higher physical space may only be mathematically sound not physically. I think the key are the embedding theorems of Whitney because the math and predictions of GR are not what you are arguing against, it is there interpretation. Loved the video!
Thanks, you hit the nail on the head. My goal here is to make higher dimensions make sense physically, not just mathematically. However, I do intend on offering more and more evidence as I go, as more mathematical equations can be deduced and tested with a little "leap" of physical reasoning.
I don't want to presume your technical know-how or anything, but a "view of describing GR in the extrinsic way" sounds like something already covered by Gauss-Codazzi theory; in fact, IIRC, the original KK theory already employed it, with the so-called 'cylindrical conditions'. Not sure if this is helpful. I've just posted a comment on it, but I'm fishing for criticism on this idea I've put down on a paper called "Gravidynamics of an Affine Connection on a Minkowski Background" in the viXra server, which advocates a post-Riemannian interpretation of the connection. If you're a physics student currently enrolled at some university (undergrad- or grad-level, I'd guess), you're probably aware of viXra's reputation (I mean, TBF, there _is_ a lot of cringey stuff there) - but since you seem open-minded about nonmainstream ideas, I figure it wouldn't harm ask.
I watch tons of this kind of content. I keep hoping that it will deepen my understanding of this topic. This is the first time in a while I feel I have had a bit of breakthrough. I don't know enough to know how influential the theoretical portions of this were but they sure were helpful to me. This definitely helped me wrap my mind the concept of another dimension without breaking it like I usually do.
Amazing video, solid theory! I am an advanced physics student and I have never been happy with the conceptual/intuitive explanations given about 4D "spacetime". I really think you are on the right path here. Please continue with your theory, I would be happy to hear you talk about further dimensions! Geometry is the key
You make light work of a heavy topic easy to understand! Splendid theory synthesis in real time is truly exciting and inspiring to watch! 5D as G is revolutionary idea and powerful to imagine. But I’m just a verbal tipper with no money to burn for your insight and efforts. As a wise-man once said, “… if it don’t make cents, it won’t make dollars.” Hoping this gets many millions of views and you get $20k/mo so you could afford to make it real on this slave-planet! 🤞🏼🌎✌🏼
Amazing video. I only recently started learning physics. I wish I would have studied it. It makes so much sense. As do your concepts. There are basics you outlined, as I only started learning physics about a year ago, that experts gloss over but always left me with questions. For instance gravity being a force never clicked in my mind. It was because of how you defined it as an effect where I knew you were going somewhere exciting. Great job. Love your editing as well. It was thoroughly enjoyable. Congratulations on gaining positive reviews. I look forward to seeing what the future holds in store for you and the field.
This makes soo much sense , but I'm not an expert in physics yet so we can wait till it's disproved. But this actually clears most of the problems I personally have with the idea of gravity and time . Amazing job man all the support.
34:30 "sorry, two more balls" haha Loved the way you presented this, makes a lot of sense, bowling ball in jelly (I'm in UK 😊😉) rather than trampoline etc. I'm no physicist and I've done no extra scooling for these subjects, but I understand it, and your theory seems very plausible to me. Keep up the good work! Looking forward to watching more on this theory and seeing how it all pans out 😊
I know you aren't claiming to have a fully-developed idea that upends all of physics, but this still seems like a case of a layman only having a very general and not-totally accurate explanation understanding of physics and thinking he has come up with a way to solve all the problems that doesn't actually work when you have a fuller understanding. For example, you said at one point in the video that a fourth dimension could explain quantum entanglement because, if the two particles are part of the same object in 4D, then it makes sense that something that affects one would affect the other. But the problem with entanglement isn't just that something that happens to one object affects another (this is a completely normal thing, and wouldn't be a problem) - the problem is that it happens faster than light. Saying that the two particles are part of the same object does nothing to solve this, since causal influence still has to follow the speed-of-light limit when something that happens to one part of an object affects another. For example, if I had a lightyear-long stick, and I pushed one end of the stick forward, it would still take at least a year before the other end of the stick moved - your theory of quantum entanglement would only work if the other end of the stick moves instantaneously. Also, it is contradicted by the fact that entangled particles can move and behave completely independently of one another - the only connection is a correlation between measurements of the entangled property - so they are clearly not connected by some object in the fourth dimension. Most of the video is trying to use the idea of a fourth dimension to explain general relativity, but this is unmotivated. General relativity also explains perfectly well how gravity works - trying to say that gravity is really about moving through a fourth dimension rather than the curvature of space would do nothing to improve this explanation, even if it was consistent with the evidence. The only thing about gravity that is left unexplained by general relativity is why gravity even exists at all and why it has the strength that it does. Your explanation doesn't give any extra power with regards to the first question (on GR, we don't have an explanation for why the distribution of energy affects the geometry of spacetime, and on your explanation, we still don't have an explanation of why mass would affect how much 4D space you have to move through to get to a different location in 3D). You tried to give an explanation for the last part, involving the fact that an object would only need to be extended a very tiny bit into the fourth dimension, as if it was an atom-thick, nearly 3D sheet, but, if this were the case, the same thing would apply to other forces, since they also depend on how much of the thing producing the force there is (e.g., the electrostatic force depends on how much charge there is in exactly the same way that gravity depends on how much mass there is). Also, the explanation you are presenting doesn't really make much sense. It is unclear what "displacing four-dimensional space" is even supposed to mean. It sounds like you're trying to say that it takes space from the fourth dimension and somehow puts it in the paths of moving objects, but this contradicts how gravity works in real life. Things are slowed down without any extra space being put between them, and they can also reverse directions and go back where they came from, which wouldn't make sense if they were just slowed down by having extra space put between them. This is why we need the effects of gravity on time in order to fully explain its effects. Also, if there was a fourth spatial dimension, you wouldn't just be able to remove space from it and put in the third dimension, at least not in any continuous way. On top of all that, this would still require curvature of space anyway, since you would be modifying the geometry of space to change distances, so it doesn't do anything to simplify GR. Another reason that it doesn't actually make sense is that, although mass is technically a dimension, it is only a dimension in the sense that anything that you can put a number to is a dimension (e.g. charge, energy, magnetic field strength, the components of velocity). It certainly isn't a dimension of space, as objects don't have a "location in mass", nor do they "take up mass" or "travel through mass". None of those phrases are even coherent because mass isn't the same thing as space - this shows that treating it like space is committing a category error, and trying to put it into the equations of relativity as if it is just another dimension of space is a case of just messing with the syntax of the equations to write something that looks coherent, while ignoring what the equations actually mean. If mass really treated like a dimension of space, we would expect changing an object's mass to be just as easy as changing its position, and objects would be able to pass through each other as long as they had different masses, since they wouldn't be in the same location. Not only that, but negative masses would be easily possible, just as negative positions are, and changing the masses of all objects in a given situation by the same amount would cause no change to the physics (just as translating the locations causes no change). We also wouldn't be able to combine two objects of smaller mass to get an object of larger mass - instead, composite objects should have a mass that is a weighted average of their parts, just as the position of a composite object is best described by a weighted average of the positions of its components, rather than the sum of their positions, which is meaningless. Anyway, I'm sorry for being so critical of the video, and I hope you don't take anything in this comment as an insult or a personal attack. I am just trying to explain the problems with the idea you are presenting and why it can't actually replace our current theory of gravity or unify physics. I also don't want to discourage you from looking into physics more or trying to come up with new ideas, since coming up with new ideas, even ones that don't work, is part of the scientific enterprise, and it seems like your purpose in this video was just to seek the truth, not to pass of your ideas as real science, given that your were careful to distinguish between accepted scientific fact and your conjectures. Also, as a whole, this video was very well-produced, and I think you did a great job presenting the content, even if I don't agree with most of it.
You're the perfect audience. I am honored you spent so much time and thought on it. I don't have time to respond to all this now, but please stick around and see if I clear some of this up as I go.
This is the most digestible video I've seen on a topic of this nature! I hope you're on the right track and that this can eventually open the door for more minds to tackle even bigger questions about the world around us. Your ability to explain complex topics to the not-so-initiated reminded me of Roger Penrose a bit, someone whos talks are quite captivating in their own right :)
This video is amazing and very thought provoking. I’ve only taken up to physics 2 and calc 3, but I found your theory to be very interesting! I would love more videos from you. You’re entertaining, engaging, and it’s clear that you love and understand what you’re talking about. Thank you for making this video and sharing it with the world ❤
THANK YOU! my goodness, I've been trying to explain gravity like this to my family and wife most especially my wife for a few years now. I finally have a video that is way clearer at explaining this than I can.
I don't usually comment on videos and I don't think I have much to contribute. But this video was so good. And even if it's just one unimportant comment more, I think you deserve receiving them. The thought and work you've put into this really shows and I have been hooked and had to watch it to the end. I'm not an expert in these matters bit I really like your theory and to me it makes a lot of sense. I wish you all the best!
I think what would really help 'visualize' how 3D objects can displace 4D space, you should make an analogy to 2D space. i.e. use your theory to describe how a 2D object can displace 3D space, and then we can extrapolate
Great comment! This fourth dimension is where the magic happens, so anyway he can help us understand what it is will be useful. I also think the displacement in the jello which gives us a good idea of what gravitational lensing could be… this analogy seems to contradict what we normally think of as the effect of gravity. Why would an apple falling toward the earth go faster and faster if the 4D space is more concentration and goopy and slow?
Whether your theory is right or not, the world needs more people like you that are willing to question our fundamental assumptions about science. Keep thinking, brain!
Hi Chris! This is exactly how I’ve been conceptualizing gravity - compression of space around objects of mass. Inertia itself is the wavelike (time-delayed) propagation of that displacement similar to what’s observed in queuing cars at a traffic light. The whole queue doesn’t change its movement all at once at any place in the queue. The change is propagated in a wave pattern.
My compliments to you on this novel approach to interpreting GR and QT in a coherent yet fresh perspective. I like your idea of explaining the relative weakness of gravity when compared to the electromagnetic, the strong and weak forces. I look forward to further development of this train of thought.
I really can’t believe all that you said in this, because it meshes so well with what I’ve thought for a long time, but lacked the maths to be able to explain it beyond a SCI-FI sort of device. And when at the end you said “time as a spatial dimension” I almost fell over. I’ve never understood why others didn’t see it as one. It could be that a dimension is a dimension is a dimension and what we attribute to each of them is simply our perspective or point of view. This all came to me intuitively, busy as I said with enough maths when I realized that as one changes velocity that means the amount of any one dimension we must traverse has changed. And there is no reason I can fathom that this would not be true across all dimensions. It gave me chills to hear you put the maths behind the thoughts. You definitely are on to a better way of looking at and eventually experiencing the reality of the universe. I hope you keep going even if my quirky thoughts end up being totally off base. Just this one point of intersecting thought with another person is enough for me to know that I had some kind of insight into a small part of the workings of a greater part of reality. I almost wish you were done with your work so I could see it all before my time is up. FYI, I love the idea of turning the tables on explaining QM by way of GR rather that how we’ve been trying to force GR to fit QM. In the end I think you’ll show their relationship accurately. I hope some of the big guys will step up and take an interest. It might even re-invigorate the interest in science at the education and thus professional level. Best wishes and I’m sorry for gushing, but I’ve waited a long time to hear someone else say some of the things I’d said and that you can put the Maths to them beings them into the realm of real possible acceptance. Whereas I was always going to be seen as just a SCIFI junky who took one hit too many. Thanks, JTI
5+1+1... While in college taking calculus 40 years ago... I was inspired by a triple integral to calculate a centroid using the 4th dimension as density, that gave me an idea... so I was suggesting this, almost similar idea to yours to a physics instructor in 1982 and was laughed out of his office and if he saw me walking down the corridor he'd close his door. Another mathematics professor asked me a key question: if the 4th dimension was density then how does stacking more objects inside give it weight? What I was proposing 5+1+1? so the dimensions [0], 1-5 are inside the objects, the 4th dim = density, 5th dim = Potential Energy stacked up inside the object, then you need to express time, so a 6th dimension of time, it pops and relates objects to each other as events...so Time/Energy/Mass/Volume. and lastly you need one other dimension, the 7th dimension is the other "+1" is a binder to hold the dimensions it is the top of the stack... the 7th dim, otherwise stacking would continue, but this is where it wraps around... the universe inside of itself, inside of everything, and everything entangled in itself.. I.e. The overall universal 7th dimension bears resemblance, dare I say is equivalent to, the 0th dimension which is the ground state of the dimensional stack, it's a bit recursive... The dimensions stack being what I thought of them as a dimensional chaining of attributes and each dimension expressing a property. The ground state of the dimension supports the dimension above it. So what I also envisioned is the question about "empty" space? Well, first of all, it's agnostic to the dimensional object placed inside of it, but it's not empty... it's the Jell-o idea you proposed... it could even be resurrected as the hypothesized Aether but not quite the same... The Michealson-Morley experiment blew that notional out of the water, but I don't think they knew what they were looking for, and isn't it funny how the very sensitive interferometer: LIGO (Gravity Wave Detector) measured a disturbance in the force... LOL. Anyway, Keep going I like where this is headed!
@@ChrisTheBrain You're welcome, I wasn't a physics major in college and didn't have the strong math chops needed so I was easily dismissed and told that the construct was a "conceptual manifold" as were many theories, like string, which wasn't on anybody's radar at that time. But I actually felt it was more based in reality and would make such things simpler, as you're able to show... I know, this leads down an interesting path! BTW: Is your background Physics or Marketing? or both? Mine in Computer Science, I have a MSCS, presently working in industry (30+ years) and taught 10 years at Cal State University.
@@raymitchell9736 I come from a family of polymaths. For example, my Dad's degree was in music theory, but now he is a metallurgist. That kind of culture changes the way you look at college. I don't have any formal education, mostly because I couldn't pick a single topic. Marketing is where I make a living. Physics has always been a hobby, and I really wouldn't be doing this if I didn't feel so strongly that I was on to something. Kind of a compulsory thing.
@@ChrisTheBrain Wow, Exactly, I know what you mean... I felt this information was being downloaded and felt very compulsory to share it... it was received like a lead balloon. I tried to develop this on my own, and journaled... but at some point I just gave up on it because, I felt overwhelmed by the business of Physics and clearly I didn't have the correct mental models and understandings, and then I began to doubt this idea... but when I hear you talk about this, you reignited my interest again... I like to see what you are coming up with, I want to see you take this further... and your reach will be further with Social Media... Something that wasn't around in the 1980's, I am just fascinated by this!!!
Just as plenty of other people have said in the comments, this is a really interesting concept! And I'm no physicist either but I already know that, this theory either proven or disproven deserves something for the out of the box thinking! I can't wait until I see the follow up and how QM would work with this new dimension, especially entanglement Edit: Could it be the case that a qubit is in a superposition because it's "rotated" facing the 4th spatial dimension, so when we measure it, it needs to rotate back into the regular 3 dimensions?
Imagine you live inside a cube, but the cube itself is moving only forward, thus leaving a time line. You can move up, down, sideways & diagonally within your cube so, you experience movement based upon 3d space plus duration one (time relative to you). One day you may experience functional dimensional forces (electromagnetism) not mentioned in this video & then you move into a parallel cube (tesseract) leaving another time line (duration two). Now you have 4d spatial reality plus access to two time lines where you can now travel backward, foreward & sideways in time (duration one & two) at will or even a timeslip by accident.
Very interesting concept; I've always done something similar in my own head to make gravity more intuitive. I like that you discuss this as not necessarily a replacement for current theories, but rather a novel interpretation. If the math does work out, I imagine it would be isomorphic to GR. I'm a math major and this has definitely sparked some ideas that I'm keen to work out!
Thank you! The math already works, I just didn't get too deep into it. Basically, GR quantifies gravity as "Gravitational Potential." Which means the less gravitational effect, the greater the value (more potential). This is why it is always visualized as curving down. You just need to invert the values to quantify by gravitational effect and you get a hill/bump instead. Like how I inverted the values in Minkowski Spacetime, you get the same outcome.
100% agree, I made a similar model in my mind where the fifth dimension was just the time (mass bending the time dimension, causing gravity). Though also magnetic field, and other force fields being similar dimensions.
@@ChrisTheBrain This is interesting. I tried expanding the "space curving down" idea by drawing it in a 3D grid instead of a 2D plane and it made no sense (to me, not a math savvy person) unless I inverted the curving.
Oh my god thank you! I've been trying to explain this to people for years. Gravity is an effect we observe due to the compression/displacement of spacetime. What we perceive as "solid matter" is actually mostly empty "space"... atoms are mostly empty. They are displacing spacetime.
I friggin LOVE when I learn new perspectives that i can apply to abstract concepts to help me understand them better. Your analogies were phenomenal and I could almost feel my neurons making new connections as the video progressed. I’m just a geeky physics hobbyist, not a physicist or mathematician
It's quite ab achievement that you went ahead and put this video together. My friends group talks about stuff like this, but we don't solidify it the you have done. Well done. And your partner deserves a sainthood ;)
I love everything about this video. Whether or not this is accurate, the way you describe it and explain it while minimizing subjectivity is awesome. Great editing too. u bout to blow up.
And it makes quantum mechanics make sense as there are many ways a 4d (or higher) object can be embedded in 3d with invariant energy hence why things are 'fuzzy' in that regime.
Seriously wish I could like this multiple times! Super interested in your other interpretations and any thoughts on how to quantify additional dimensions.
We look for models to describe what we experience. The new perspective presented here is quite good. I don't see any clear problems with this - and - I look forward to additional thoughts from Chris.
This is by far one of the most enjoyable and informative physics videos. Also loved the jello box description of space, as is something one of my thought experiments came across though differently. I was playing with the idea of temporally accelerated "stuff" from the initial "singularity" big bang but with the idea that this temporally accelerated stuff is still bisecting 3D space from then, anyway the result seemed to be that such stuff would create empty (fluid like) space through causing pressure (potentially also creating virtual particles, which are maybe, more often within gravity wells and less so in wider expanse of interstellar space where they won't be slowed as often from their potential infinity and so less collisions with themselves). Still I can say only that I'm an arm chair physics nerd with no math background and love finding well informed information like this even if its just to nerd out on imagining the cosmos. Thanks for this and I hope you do more videos.
A philosophical conundrum on the idea of an absolute nothing, could it create a behaviour of motion caused by binary error of escaping it not-self? I'd thought of it as a frictionless hyper-surface. Sorry a rather stupid question as that is technically something, but the actual surface is the result of pseudo-absence caused by phasal interactions between dimensions :) Still the initial question is just whether an absolute nothing might create a behaviour which is ultimately obligated to be in motion. Probably something that can't be answered from anywhere :/
Thanks so much for the input and encouragement. As to your question, if I understand it correctly, I believe I will help answer that with my next video on Time. I will be directly addressing the root of motion. Sorry to tease.
I’ll be very interested to hear any engagement from physics academics and scientists. (might be harsh, as they tend to be competitive) This video is outstanding in every way. Your theory FEELS natural and seems to add up. Your daughter deserves credit for her work too.
Enjoy the fun creative additions to this! Awesome job editing and adding to xtra fun to the mix of mathematical concepts. I’m sure I will be looking to explore more of your work. I sort of think of consciousness as a dimensional sort of thing in some way... time seems to pass at different speeds in my own experience than it does on a clock or by a standard of measurement. For example at work when I am busy and just seem to watch an hour fly by like it was a minute, or the opposite, when waiting for the last 5 minutes of the shift to end... perhaps the same thought could apply to dreams- in which an 8 hour sleep period can feel like days when I’m a deep lucid dream state. I find it interesting more than ever to seek knowledge at my age now, than ever in the past. I think more people need to be open minded as you seem to be, and entertain new thoughts on old ideas, rather than just accept the beliefs others have embedded in our educational system. I don’t want to leave you a book to read, but hope you have a wonderful time exploring new thoughts and takes to share with those interested. Peace and love 💕
I have been thinking about the 4th dimension for many years - I surmised that it could be related to DENSITY. I think at 38:00, where you're talking about the Tesseract and where you pull out the little wooden cube, to talk about the relationship to Weight, I would recommend comparing the wooden cube to a cube of the same size but with a different mass/weight - perhaps a cube made out of quartz - how do they differ in the 4th dimension? Overall, I think you want to elaborate more on how the 4th dimension is Weight (or is related to Weight?) and how it is not Mass and is not Density and is not Matter (if that is the case). Thanks.
Biggest thumbs up I have given ever. After watching an insane amount of videos and books on general relativity, this is the best theory o have ever run across I can not even communicate how amazing this presentation was for me.
I would like to add some more channels to the list of great UA-cam creators! 1) Dialect - They are very rigorous, they don't use too much mathematics, they challenge pretty much everything, an amazing channel to check out about Special and General Relativity. 2) Science Click - For me the absolute best science channel right now on UA-cam. A hidden gem. 3) Andrzej Dragan - Great channel with more math than the other channels. 4) eigenchris - The *BEST* channel on UA-cam about relativity (of any kind). This channel has ONLY math and nothing more. So brace yourself! :D
Dialect does the best job of breaking down GR's rather unwieldy components into their constituents--the various tensors for example--with as little math as one can get away with. He's also one of the slickest graphics-presenters, with the added bonus that there is no wasted pedagogical motion for the sake of choreography, even though the latter is exemplary. And when he does a deep-dive, he really delivers the goods.
The baseball animations got me. Excellent editing all around. Also your theory seems to hold more water then what has cooked up so far. I have my own theory as well regarding this matter but i lack the skills to put it in math.
@@ChrisTheBrain Btw, some the ideas are in line with some concepts of this book: The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy ( by Mark McCutcheon). If you didn't read this book, I would highly recommend it. I've read it twice, and it totally blew my mind, even though there are some many holes on the ideas projected on that book. I would have liked it if you've read it and maybe care to comment on it. It's a really fun read.
The tesseract picture is only the drawing of it's 3D shadow projected on a 2D Plane. Understanding that it is only a shadow and not the actual 4D object makes perfect sense of the picture.
Wow. since the pandemic started I've been watching UA-cam videos on everything from Quantum Mechanics to General Relativity and everything remotely related to them, and have spent hundreds of hours on UA-cam just trying to understand reality. You essentially tied hundreds of hours of UA-cam videos into ONE HOUR! AND you took it even further, by solving a TON of STUFF that I've been questioning, racking my brain to try and figure out for years! If there were ever a Nobel Prize category for UA-camrs, you ABSOLUTELY deserve to be the first recipient of that prize!! WOW!! Just in case you want some improvement on this video (which is VERY hard to find), I had trouble following the T0 and T1 in your example with the two rockets. I watched it several times and then realized that I was thinking about the T1 and T0 as points in Time, and it wasn't quite making sense to me. Then I started thinking of it actually as Time Gradients, not just points in Time. Then things made A LOT MORE sense to me. If I'm correct in that's what you meant by T1 and T0, then perhaps you could say "Time Gradients". Or maybe I'm just wrong, haha. But if you do look at it as a time gradient, things get really interesting with your proposed formula. And it may suggest that your idea of what is happening inside a black hole, might be wrong... SO, first, let's assume there is a 6th dimension to test your theory. Let's also call the ds^2 term the "Value of Reality". Also, let's keep the 6 dimension constant. In fact, all higher dimensions above the "First 5" dimensions are constant. So, if in a black hole, the X term, Y term and Z term all collapse to essentially 0, and even the T term collapses to 0, what keeps the "Value of Reality" moving forward? Does the "G Term" just continue to increase to infinity? It seems that ds^2 must continue progressing in a positive direction, otherwise reality just stops. And we know that the further away we go from a dense object the slower time moves, not the other way around. So if time stopped inside of a black hole, then it should be that we age slower closer to earth, then further away from it. And the more mass there is the more time slows down, until eventually it freezes. If time happened that way, the I might think that everything freezes inside a black hole. But what if EVERYTHING DOESN'T FREEZE? What if its a law of nature that Reality must continue forward?? What if, ds^2 MUST continue moving forward? Just play along with it. So, then to maintain a forward motion of Reality, the equation must allow time to flow backwards, or for space to become negative, right? At least that's what would need to happen if Reality were to freeze, right? As the Gravity term increases beyond the event horizon, perhaps it doesn't freeze reality, and instead it bends reality into another 6th dimension? Is that where all these other subatomic particles exist? Do other subatomic particles form mass that displaces the 6th dimension? Have you checked how your formula relates to work done by Stephen Hawkins on Black Holes? I'm not a math person, more of a science philosophy hobbyist. But it seems like there might be a connection there. Maybe it might open up some more findings of what is going on inside a Black Hole? Lastly, I love the explanation about mass being related to a 5th dimension. I've been really trying to understand why is it that everything in "spacetime", (correction, Space and Time, or the Space-Time Dimension (with a capital D)), is described by almost entirely by photons and electrons, when there are tons of other subatomic particles that exist. When you said that the mass is the next dimension and a 3 dimensional cube alone would weigh nothing, it suddenly all made sense! Perhaps these other dimensions consist of mass that is comprised by a differently charged lepton. That mass might flow right through our mass because the charges don't interact, so we pass through each other like nutrinos pass through us. But maybe those other charges, that we can't see because photons don't bounce off of it like they do with negatively charged electrons. But maybe this mass also bends space and has gravity, causing gravitational lensing greater than the physical mass, aka dark matter. How would you relate Dark Matter to this theory anyway??
I'm three hours past my bedtime because I've watched this twice now. I feel like this is an obvious answer to the phenomena we've all seen and haven't had a really good explanation for. I've been doing a lot of thinking over the last couple of months about time travel and have settled on an interpretation of time travel that makes time an actual dimension similar to what you're doing with breadth. I think some of the Ancients may have understood what you are describing, it wasn't uncommon in ancient writing to see the phrase "length, width, breadth, and height" and it’s always dismissed but I wonder if there wasn't an understanding of something in ancient maths about this and we've lost it. I'm looking forward to the rest of the series.
I clicked on this video thinking it was some sort of click bait with a half thought explanation but I was both genuinely intrigued by the amount of hard science going into this video as well as entertained by his method of explaining. 11/10, would recommend again
I really like that people outside of formal academia are coming up with their own original theories and have the confidence to assert them with as much authority. The internet is still relatively new and the majority of the world's population has not had access to all of the world's knowledge up until recently. Now anyone can go online and educate themselves in any subject which formerly required access to an elite education (usually limited to income and connections, not necessarily ability). Makes me very optimistic about the future.
Why are degrees and accreditation still coming from the usual suspects if the internet is the new secret college? It's because an awful lot of cutting-edge thinking is behind paywalls of one sort or another. u have to buy a computer and web access in most places. so this golden age u speak of is still far off in someone elses future.
Like others on here have said, I too always thought of gravity in an extra dimensional sense where some gloopy stuff we call 'space' is affected by the mass that sits in it. Your diagrams depicting this are really good. In particular, the donut moving through a plane showing the two points of intersection was exactly the image I had when I first heard about entanglement. In my opinion it was screaming out for 5 dimensions. I did a short course in general relativity many moons ago. It took me over a year studying vector and tensor analysis before I could just scratch the surface of the subject. It was heavy going. I'd wager that a 5D model would be a whole lot simpler. Incidentally, a dimension is actually nothing more than an independent variable. So 'where is it' is a nonsense question. Finally Chris, the work you are doing here is excellent. I'd love to see a bit more explanation with some examples of the 5D model being applied. Last part of the video you speeded up - shame, it was full of the best stuff!!
@@TheBrookeClevenger It would have been a 6 hour video if I really went into all that. No one wants to watch "Lord of the Rings: A weird dude talks about physics" - I'll keep doing more as I go. 😉
Wow - This was fantastic. I've watched the other content creators you've mentioned, and I have learned more from watching this than all of their videos on the same topic. I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe you don't dummy it down so much, or maybe they're focused more on graphics and monetization. Whatever the case is, this was excellent. Thank you for putting this together. I have learned so much. Please keep putting videos out..
Subscribed. Please make more. I’m a firm believer that high quality conversations don’t end with answers and summaries but instead with higher quality questions. This leaves me with much better questions.
Incredible man I have been into physics my whole life and the way this takes everything that wasnt relatable about modern physics and turns it into something easily visualized is just mind blowing. It feels obvious once you think about it and to me thats indicative of good science. Random popup in my feed and I couldnt stop watching
Great video! This really got me pondering and makes a lot of sense when thinking about Gravity as an effect caused by displacement of quantum fields in a 5th dimension (rather than ‘spacetime’). All the respect to Einstein but to me, the word Spacetime always just felt like a label given to something we’ve never really understood! But hey, I’m no physicist! I though the analogies you used were really good too. Especially keen to hear more about how this thinking could help unite GR and QM by helping explain what we see (or can’t see) in QM. Maybe spooky action at a distance isn’t so distance after all! 😅
@@ChrisTheBrain Love your presentation. Re spooky action at a distance...a 3d chair sitting on a 2d world would look like 4 connected points to a 2d person. I wonder what a 2d Nobel prize looks like?
I am a professional animator and would like to donate my time to help your daughter complete tasks in the post production process. Please reply here if this would interest you guys, and we’ll find a way to move forward. No task is too menial or small! I’m so impressed with this interpretation. It’s nice and elegant from a layman’s perspective, and has the potential for large-scale paradigmatic shift.
every time I get ready to stop using youtube, I find something like this. I've been interested in dimensions and all of this stuff from a very young age. 15 minutes in I can already tell you're building to something very creative and insightful
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](/img/n.gif)
PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING!!!!
First, off.... Wow, I did not expect this to "take off" like this. My hope was to get a few hundred or so views and some feedback, I made this mostly to share with some people via word of mouth. Thanks so much to so many of you for your encouragement.
Second, boy have I gotten feedback. Although, most of it is the little mistakes I made, or things I could have communicated better. I will do a follow-up corrections and clarification video, but in the meantime, here is a short list:
Typos and Oopsies:
- Special Relativity was released in 1905, I bundled it with General Relativity.
- Sabine should be pronounced "Zah-bee-nah" (very sorry, Sabine)
- "Seperate" in Concept 2 should be "Separate"
- The plural of Phenomenon is Phenomena (Really? I think that one could have slid)
- I say "astrological" when I meant "astronomical" (OK, that's a little embarrassing)
- Spacial should be Spatial (Although some dictionaries do accept that as an alternative spelling)
- We misspelled "dimensional" as "dimentional" on THE G.D. CHAPTER SLIDE! I swore we fixed that, must have gotten an old version pulled in when we compiled it.
- When talking about how my theory can how we approach black holes, I said now they can be "quantized" when I mean "quantified"
- Apparently the "🤪" emoji means you're making fun of someone? I thought it was "being silly." So... sorry to all offended commentors.
- Wait, I looked it up. 🤪DOES mean being silly! It's called "Zany Face." WTF y'all??
Concept 7
This is my worst communicated concept.
First, I am aware we don't literally break apart an atom. The point is that mass is lost in the process which is where all the energy comes from. We are releasing energy previously contained in the dimensions of an atom. To be honest, I'm not intimately familiar with the mechanics of a nuclear bomb, just the principle... which is the point. Y'all are scary.
Second, some people are confused about the energy "spread evenly across all dimensions" - I will do a new example in the follow up video
The Tesseract
There is NO agreed upon way to animate/show tesseract. If you browse UA-cam, you can find at least half-a-dozen variations. Yes, I agree mine is the laziest. The point is they are all using 3D logic for a 4D shape and none of them make sense.
Grid Lines
The grids in our animations are NOT representative of geodesics, even under this interpretation. They were simply meant to visualize a "displacement" effect opposite to the traditional "curved space" vortex. For people unfamiliar with geodesics, an "accurate" visualization is usually confusing without lots of explanation.
Is this idea testable or falsifiable?
Yes, if this is correct, gravity will have an observable cumulative effect at very large scales. Instead of each massive body having it's own discrete gravitational pull, the displacement of 4D space on a large scale would have noticeable influence, beyond overlapping fields. It may explain the orbit of bodies at the edge of our galaxy for which we have previously postulated dark matter. Testing this idea, however, is beyond my resources.
Finally, for all of you encouraging me to submit this as a paper (again, thank you). I want to be clear that this was an intro to my theory, not the theory itself. I have a lot more videos to make. No one would accept this as a paper at this stage (some for good reasons), and most of what I am presenting is not new, just a novel approach. I just wanted to see how it "clicked" at this stage, because if it didn't I had to rethink things moving forward.
Thanks again, and this has certainly added to my motivation to keep working on it. This is something I have to do in my spare time, and I wouldn't have even been able to do this without the help of my daughter who has sacrificed her own time and mental energy. We will get better as we go, but this isn't PBS NOVA, as best we try they will always be a little rough around the edges.
I have always been puzzled by the fact that, we, conscious beings, can't make work together a well established theory that define the infinitely vast and an as well established other theory that define the infinitely small. Then I have been puzzled to see that our brains can make sense of the theory results that describe "what we are inside of", or part of... But can't make sense of the theory results that describe "what's inside of us", or what we are "above" of. And that the shift of paradigm happens exactly when we are not able to perceive the world with our senses anymore... In other words, Relativity describe something we are part of, and Quantum theory describe something we are not part of. My terminology is not so good, nor my English, but at a point, your dimensional approach has given me a hint at a subconscious level of what could be the problem... I will watch your vid again. It's always interesting to discover new angles and new ways of thinking... Yours is promising so far. I hope you'll get some visibility, and keep up the good work.
Thanks so much!
Chris, you need to pin your comment above (if you haven't already done so).
@@ddkapps strange, I swore I had. Somehow it got "unpinned." Thanks for the heads up.
@@odinata They're there, just keeeep scrolling.
I don't know nearly enough to know if there are contradictions to your proposal in the literature, but I do know that this is a very well put together video that displays both effort and skill. I think you make a great communicator.
Thank you!
That's the point. Theoretical physics has been turned into bullshit so glittery, that you can't tell that it's pure sophistry. All you can do is go Ooh! Ahh! But no real technological progress occurs.
It is not new what he says. He describes the old way we did geometry. The problem is it makes it more complicated and doesn't reflect our experience. We are in space time, we are not outside observers.
@@wulphstein I don't know about that. If you're talking about the billions poured into massive endeavours like CERN, LIGO, JWST I agree that there hasn't been any direct technological progress due to revelations from using these tools, but the act of constructing and running them has led to many technological advances in order to overcome the engineering challenges. Also the theory from a century ago covers a large swath of our experiences so we shouldn't expect large technological changes from advances in the theory, but rather from rapid experimental research. What do you think?
Only a communicator... Nuclear bombs dont break hidrogen atoms and dimensions (time included) have zero energy by definition... I believe he isn't a physicist. In GR we cannot say that the Earth is accelerating towards the free falling (inertial) guy as he proclaimed using a cartoon. The Earth is accelerating towards people already in the surface. He doesn't understand GR. I also believe his beard is a fake.
LoL
Brasil
This is exactly how I've been thinking about "gravity". I didn't think my ideas were worth much, I assumed professionals would have thought of it a long time ago. You explained it exceptionally well 👏🏻
Thank you!
@@ChrisTheBrain are you on Discord, the TOE server maybe? I have almost the same alias there, give me a poke if so 👉🏻
Same! The ball on felt explanation of gravity didn't quite cut it with me because "spacetime" isn't a flat sheet. I too have thought about a ball in water (not jelo). I have some ideas on time too and how it relates to our movement through space. Love the video!
This was fantastic. Ever since college I have been upset by many of the concepts you addressed. (Especially space time and the constant speed of light) In those days I thought my struggle with the concepts were proof of my lack of intelligence as compared to my peers. As I got older it clarified to be more a nagging feeling that they were flawed or overly lacking. I have continually returned my musings over the years, and for the first time feel there is a path forward. I will be pondering your proposal quite intently for the near future. I thank you for your courage to share your ideas on a subject that is often wrapped in contention and egotism.
Thank you for the encouragement!
I couldn't have said it better
Same here! Boy, why couldn't we find the right words to express ourselves at the time, and still. Yeah, it keeps nagging. But maybe our thoughts (= insights) ARE heard by the antenna's tuned to our broadcasts :-) Thank you for your comment btw.
@thewanderer797actually, all light moves slower than C by a couple miles a second and there seems to be a slight difference between photons of different frequency, but that's probably artifact from coupling with ambient electrons. Also, some physicists are starting to question if C is variant according to the properties of the localized space, as was mentioned in this video.
@@noneedtoknow5315The rate of causal change being variant would be REALLY interesting
Setting expectations: "I intend to bridge the gap between General Relativity and Quantum theory", thus acquiring the holy grail of physics and picking up a Nobel plus every other prize science has to offer while I am at it. Having pointed that out, the video is excellent and it approaches a difficult subject succinctly and as simply as possible given the topic.
Thank you!
I watched this with my nine year old son who watches allot of the content creators you reference, he loves every Hossenfelder video on youtube, and talks about them all the time (he even dreams physics). While this video had him excitedly jumping up and down in sheer joy and utter exhilaration - pleading to watch it again as soon as it was over - ... it made my head hurt the first time.
Wow, that hits me in the feels. Let me know if your son finds any problems with my theory!
No pain no gain!
Crazy how smart the kids be with the innernet and all that
When your kids fave youtuber is Sabine.. well a lot of things could go here but the most obvious is awesome.
@@drbeanut Kids should not be on the internet at all. There is nothing on there for them. Corporations have enslaved the online experience so that 12 year olds can enter credit card details.
Seeing an aspirant theoretical physicist coming up such a fascinating thing really give me hope and motivation for continuing studying physics....
Wow, that hit my heart. Thank you!
motivation comes like wind
discipline with goal never ends
you will be vexed by "scientific" community
you just need to laugh at it
@@ebrelus7687 you're cool 😎😎
Absolutely Brilliant! I'm now a huge fan of your theory and you've explained it simply and clearly!
Awesome, thank you!
Agreed
I'm not finished yet the video but I have to tell you. Your humor, edition, meme's, and everything you put into making this is awesome. It's the right balance between science accuracy and communication. I hope your channel explode on subscriptors and a nice debates between divulgators can grow of it. Cheers from Argentina!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Yeah its funny but its wrong. Mass causes gravity plain and simple
I was thinking about this a few months back. I love the way you walked all the way through it. The way subatomic particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum has always reminded me of 4d objects passing through 3d. I'm sure your theory of 4d space is very close to the answer to 'quantum gravity' and other unifications. Keep at it!
Thank you!
I like where your headed with that, id like to add to your idea and the totality of this theorem. I feel that an expression of 'gravity' from a particle existing in another dimension as explained in this video could explain the strong nuclear force that inexplicably keeps atoms together despite the insane desire of protons similar charges to fly apart, the time and energy it takes to leave eachother is closer to the C than the energy of the polar seperation.
passing through 3d - that's probably what it really is!
That's an intriguing idea about particles arising out of the quantum field being transient 4D objects - you may have hit on something there.
Just gotta say, the way you break down information in these videos is so easy to digest 🙏💯 thank you!
My pleasure!
@@ChrisTheBrain I will explain the differences in Dimensions here right now... its easy to understand because its simply a pattern... 0 is true nothing you can fit a infinite amount of 0 dimensional existence into anysize 1D existence. 1D is length no width therefore you can fit a infinite amount of 1D existence into any 2D existence. 2D is length and width but no depth so you can fit a infinite amount of 2D existence into anysize 3D existence. 3D is length width and depth only therefore we can follow the logical established pattern and conclude we can fit a infinite amount of 3D existence into anySIZE 4D existence! Follow logical progression for rest of answers about higher dimensions...
@@ChrisTheBrain the problem with taking dimensions and throwing labels on them is that dimensions are spaceial as i previously stated... i came up with this simplistic explanation of higher dimensions... we can understand all dimensions up to 11.
@@ChrisTheBrain the bowling ball on a trampoline is representing more of a 2d slice... ive communicated with sabine and have given her some information over the years... i will now slowly give you information aswell. Lesson number one and the most important thing to keep in mind all reality is based out of your head it is subjective all existence is part of the singularity AKA God even math itself is an observer it is a section of God AKA The Big Bang. Singularity AKA The Big Bang was completely alone and could not handle the fact that it was all-encompassing and completely alone... busted for thin created all existence where can I hide forget the fact that it's completely alone... we are all one and completely alone. In order to have objective reality you need an observer that exists from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and even if such hypothetical Observer exists the end of time has not came yet so therefore objective reality doesn't exist... everything all existence is subjective... even mathematics... if we had objective reality we would have no uncertainty principle... You should watch my playlist about accelerating expansion illusion... its hard to get strong enough brains... i think you will understand... after you watch check out newer video i posted about baryonic matter interacting with non baryonic matter... i propose a testable experiment that can validate my proposed information... anyways i subscribed and hit all notifications. You might consider same to me. Keep in mind i make all sorts of videos to get views but all of it is to spread useful important information...
@@ChrisTheBrain I want to give you one more useful piece of information there is no gravity there was only convergence and Divergence of opposite spinning vortices. Magnetic fields are opposite spinning vortices. There is a channel you should check out the guy is arrogant and kind of hard to listen to but he has good information its something like theoria aprophasia... he has some interesting experiments that he has created to prove magnetic vortices. One includes using a camera recording a tv and running a magnet on the tv you can see the vortex twist effect... ruins the old school tv but it is interesting experiment. I Have It All Metals isolating magnet design that will increase the mining and recycling efficiencies of this planet. Its open source under my playlist inventions for earth.
Only 533 subs? WTF! I’m sharing you everywhere I can. Thank you for being so concise and for making your lecture enjoyable without dumbing down the subject matter. Keep on working on your channel. You’re going to go far!
Thank you! Saw your other comment. I guess my other topics just didn't have enough search volume.
21 hrs later there are 752
Over 4.2K subs now : P
@@kaielx This is just the beginning. The formal academic-style papers aren't out yet
I really hope you'll keep on going down this route, it seems so promising! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Thank you, the next chapter is in production!
This is some wild synchronicity. I've been toying with similar concepts in mind, and discussing them with a friend for the last few days and here you are - explaining your take on it in detail.
Can't wait for the continuation - thank you!
Thanks for sharing!
That’s amazing when can we expect your paper man?
I absolutely love what you're doing here. Gravity has never been directly detected, only observed as an effect. Metaphorically speaking, we see its function but cannot see its "form", therefore, it's appropriate to say our current models of how we perceive gravity is not absolutely true. You've redesigned its form, all while preserving its function. This entirely new method of seeing gravity, as its own dimension, opens up a whole new realm of possibilies for how we can understand physics! I'm excited for next video, thank you so much for this!!
Thank you, excellent summary.
LIGO has directly observed gravitational waves from events like neutron star mergers. I couldn't say if that qualifies as 'directly observing gravity' or not.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Hello Chris, firstly I'd like to say that I enjoyed this video. As a physicist, I appreciate finding new and novel viewpoints on subjects that I'm deeply passionate about. Depending on your goals with this idea, and your background, there are a few things I'd like to point out. I think this has strong merit as a change in perspective when introducing people to the core concepts of relativity; however, I think there is a lot of dirty work left before this could be expanded to a scientific hypothesis.
Physicists have a tendency to be gatekeepers, but I think there is truth to the idea that one should be well versed in a field before tackling the big questions, lest one fall to misconceptions in analogy. I am unsure if you have a background in formal physics, but there were a few points in this video where it was unclear to me whether your explanation in analogy fell to this on the front or back end.
I would highly recommend diving deep into differential geometry and basic tensor calculus, as this is the precise language that describes general relativity. You touch on these a few times while explaining the Einstein field equations, geodesics, and the space-time interval; but I think there are places where diving into the maths may reveal contradictions in your explanations. I would highly recommend the "Tensors for Beginners", "Tensor Calculus", and "Relativity by Eigenchris" video playlists by eigenchris here on UA-cam. Supplemented by textbook problems, I recommend "General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists by M.P. Hobson, G. Efstathiou, and A.N. Lasenby", this would allow you to fully formulate your theory mathematically. This would be a lot of work, with weeks of self-study, but if you truly want to explore your ideas fully, this is a necessary step. Physics is hard, changing the world is harder.
When I took my first GR class there were a few core concepts we built up to. Finding the motion of particles through a covariant formulation of Newton's 2nd law and relating these to geodesics and particle world-lines; using the matching principle to describe what the metric tensor is telling us and ensuring our derivations are consistent in the appropriate regimes with classical mechanics; and probably most importantly: deriving the field equations from the principle of least action.
I think if you could do those three things consistently with your hypothesis, then you would have a solid scientific hypothesis. I'm sure there are physicists out there who would also be interested in going through those steps, but it would still be on you to formulate your theory more mathematically first in order for that to be possible. I also suspect that you may end up with something a lot closer to Kaluza-Klein theory than you'd think.
In summary, I really do appreciate the time and passion you've poured into your ideas, and I think your way of thinking is unique and valuable. Please don't take this comment as discouraging or patronizing; but rather, an attempt to let you know what your next steps may need to be, if you didn't yet know. I don't consider myself an expert in general relativity, but I have put in the time and sweat equity to understand parts of it formally. Feel free to ask questions and I can attempt to go in depth on some of my points. I hope someone out there can really put in the time to collaborate with you, should you desire.
I appreciate the grace of your admonition. I originally created this video to serve as a baseline for discussion with some physics connections of mine, and possibly get a few hundred views with some feedback from enthusiasts.
The production and work that went into this was my way of enticing people to sit through an hour-long video on the subject (and we had fun). But some of issues like typos and some careless language was a result of thinking that, after feedback, we would polish it up and then reupload.
Then I wake up to 10K views and more subs than I ever thought possible, and now I am scrambling to figure out what to do with it. Who knew so many people would sit through an hour-long video on theoretical physics? (To be clear, not complaining, it's exciting)
All this is to say, I don't mean to be careless. I know the work that needs done to make this feasible. However, I need to get through more on the conceptual side before I dive into "showing my work" in procedural math. At least, that's my process.
The Principle of Least Action is a problem indeed, but I believe it is equally an issue for the mainstream view. Keeping 3D of space was ultimately a way to avoid the problem, IMO.
Thanks for taking the time, feedback like yours does help me know where to focus as I communicate my ideas.
@@ChrisTheBrain I think this shows just how much people Want to understand the concept of a fourth or fifth dimension and the failure of education to teach it in a way that makes sense, if that is your goal i think you are succeeding!
I did not get the feeling from your presentation that you wanted to drastically change the math behind the concepts in fact I think you clearly stated the equation you presented was just to represent the somewhat unapproachable real equation.
Implications for matter displacing fourth dimensional space are certainly a secondary issue
@@beartankoperator7950 Thank you, much appreciated.
Thank you for taking the time to engage with this.
Have you written anything else I could read? This comment alone was refreshingly clear, well intentioned, and obviously comes from a deep understanding of the subject matter.
Despite having absolutely no business doing so, I'm now inspired to explore differential geometry myself. I look forward to inevitably discovering I'm adrift in the attempt.
Thanks again.
@@beartankoperator7950 As someone who has no problem accepting that there are additional dimensions we do not consciously experience, but who has never really been able to visualize them because i've never cared to acquire the esoteric maths needed to break into their proofs, the presentation of a "gravity dimension" existing at right angles to our visible spatial dimensions and addressable via adding another term to the Pythagorean Theorem instantly made sense, even knowing that it's a simplified starting point.
Intuitively speaking, this concept is brilliant; it uses a fourth dimension in space with vector quantities like weight and motion, which is definitely interesting as well as being a creative choice.
I am a lawyer and a gardener... But he kept my attention for the entire duration of the video :) I think he has a good point, it actually moved my neuron networks a LOT and I can feel how they are creating new synapses to understand more and more about the universe. Thank you Chris! As an average human I think I know much more about all different kinds of stuff than an average scientist maybe 100 years ago... And I think this is great! We would not have wars if education was interesting enough to make people enjoy knowledge deeply enough to develop a connection with all our surroundings. Not many people are underlining this, but the understanding of quantum fields actually really proves that we are all connected. As it was said thousands of years ago already. And it applies to life force and life energy just as well.
I love these science videos :) and I really really like and appreciate this particular work of yours. Stuffed with some fun too :) Absolutely keep up the work!
I think you actually bent the minds of many of us in the right direction.
I liked only maybe 5 or 10 youtube videos in 20 years or so.
But did push the like button for this one :)
What a touching complement, thank you!
Hello there Tomas, thank you for your comment because it reflects entirely how I feel about my experience with this video and my appreciation of it. I could not express it any better.
And of course, THANK YOU CHRIS AND YOUR DAUGHTER! for the effort, the time, and specially for sharing your noble way of looking at Gravity!! I'm sure this will be the beginning of a revolutionary way of thinking and doing Physics in the not far future! HOW EXCITING!!! And hopefully you'll get the well deserved credits for your contribution to it!
1,000 thanks from my part!! And good luck to you! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾 🙂
@@MrGerryo70 you're both making me blush
Sir… i think I’ve been looking for you. Without sounding any more strange than i already do. It’s definitely a pleasure seeing you.
This is going to help explain all the paradoxes in quantum mechanics, I think you just cracked the door open, keep it going
That's the plan!
First time viewer. Was this really an hour? felt like 15 minutes. You have very good skills at explaining everything that you talk about. from the moment the introduction was over, i was already hooked. Your editor has mad skills as well. Great team.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Absolutely brilliant 🥇❕Just had to express my enthrallment from listening and watching your presentation; it's so rare to find somebody who is capable of articulating the most difficult subject matter with such precision and clarity!
I also admire what seems to be genuine sincerity and an absence of arrogance, which is so uncommon to see among Theoretical Physicists today; I do look forward to your watching your future videos. 🤠
It's definitely a challenge. Thanks for the encouragement!
Beautiful vid, man. Entertaining, humorous, enlightening.
I'm glad some one is out there doing the maths. I haven't had this much fun with theoretical physics, in a while.
very well spoken, I love the editing and humor in the video, we need to bring thinking to a bigger audience of youth. Thank you, this video should definitely be more well known. I cant wait to see more!
Thank you so much!
This is a really well put-together video. The use of humour throughout is tasteful, and the explanations are accurate but (mostly) understandable. I look forward to the following chapters
Glad you enjoyed it!
Wow, first time I've heard that explanation for entanglement, so simple and it ties in as evidence for further dimensions, nice work.
Right? That bit alone sorta blew my mind…
I felt the same. It feels the right amount of simple yet with the right amount of complex results! That is the part I hope pans out more as an explanation for quantum entanglement!
Not just entanglement; he mentioned that explicitly but very similarly it would also explain the quantum double slit experiment without the need for alternate universes interacting with one another. Even a single photon, as well as the material and the slit itself, are ultimately four dimensional in nature, of which we see only "our" three dimensions; so the rest of the photons and thus interference pattern must form in "our" three dimensions, because otherwise whatever laws govern these objects would fall apart.
@@3dmaster205 😲
Wow I love this
Incredible. The idea, at least in concept, explains so many mind boggling things. I have no idea about the math or anything but I am excitedly staying tuned for the next installment. Even if you're wrong (not saying you are, I just have no idea because I'm a layman) it's still a fascinating and thought provoking theory with massive potential explanatory power. I was glued to the screen for the full hour straight (I have to pee really badly now =/).
Also the video had many visual examples that were the best I've seen. This must have taken a ton of effort and skill. Thank you for making this :).
It’s going to take an unorthodox approach to unify physics. This is at least a step in that direction. Chris, you and your daughter did a wonderful job on the video. Thank you!
Thank you so much!
I must say sir, that you are a genius, and in your interpretation has blown the lid off the conceptual abyss that our understanding is bound by. I was never comfortable combining space and time either, in my understanding. Constructs can be used to illustrate ideas but often lock us into a way of thinking. It's like once you see it, you cannot un-see it. Gravity is almost always illustrated as the "gravitational well" example, and it simply glosses over the mental flexibility required to understand these ideas, above the 3rd dimension for most people who are interested in these ideas.
Great video. I'm no physicist but these ideas really seem to make sense. Science only progresses with new ideas and people like you are exactly what we need to further our understanding. Excited for the future content.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Amazing work. First video in a long time that really got me thinking. I watch all of the others you mentioned, and they do great at informing and educating, but this tickled a whole other spot in my brain.
Thank you! Glad you found it valuable.
I've often wondered why we haven't considered mass as it's own dimension. Glad to see someone else with a deeper understanding has thought of that too. I wonder if it's already been considered and dismissed because of more rigorous analysis, or maybe just not well publicized. I like how you delve into applying the concept to actual math and physics. Now it just needs to be published and peer reviewed and generally get more weight behind it (pun intended).
Thank you!
Looking forward to your paper Joel!
I was just thinking about this the other day.
I was intrigued by the notion that movement through a dimension changes movement within and and perception of the others (e.g. contraction) that I began to wonder whether another dimension might be some of the things we can't measure with a ruler, (I mean... you measure time with a clock...) so maybe mass and inertia (and, yes, gravity,) might be considered "dimensions."
It could even be that gravity is an effect of inertia and masses interacting? Gravity, not as an attractive force, but a repulsive force, from every direction, but blocked by mass, and therefore, we feel pushed, rather than being pulled, toward a massive object.
Some dimensions might be directional, in that other dimensions may only "move" through them in one direction - we can only go through time one-way, after all. (i.e., Some dimensions may not allow for negative numbers)
Or a dimension may not be able to evince its own attribute; so an inertial dimension could allow an object in another dimension to move in a direction, but it would remain at that "location," (or energy level, or whatever it is, from an outside perspective) without moving unless under some kind of acceleration.
Perhaps dimensions are stacked, and all of these are interacting in odd and complex ways. It would explain a lot.
These are the things a truck driver ponders on a lonely rural highway at 2 in the morning. At least, this one does.
In quantum mechanics everything is field including mass. Mathematically a field is just an extra dimension. So in essence mass is just an extra dimension. But I think what he is proposing is an extra spatial dimension which behaves like extra space not jus another independent variable in the equation. The equation he is proposing on the other hand the w is halfway between timelike and spacelike.
Not mass, but momentum, is a 3-dimensional (per particle) vector in phase space. Since momentum is proportional to mass, that is probably what you are looking for. Look up Hamiltonian mechanics.
So I took your suggestion when I came upon part 5 and dropped back and watched this first. Your notion of how we go about looking at things is spot on. I now feel I have a much improved grasp of the concepts you covered simply because of the excellent job you did of explaining them. Thank you. I am now going to take my swollen spinning head back to part 5 and hope it doesn't explode. Again thank you for helping me understand
Great to hear, thank you!
After the first watch… i am honored & lucky to come across this. Thank you so much for making this. I can’t wait to watch it again. Thank you for everything that has helped all the way up to this point. For adding all those references from movies, small animations and the well thought out discussion on a subject that is well… new. My words might not matter to anyone at the moment maybe even if ever. I cannot express how grateful i am for it even if it’s not for or directed towards me, this. This is really nice. Ty.
With ❤, from possibly the biggest monster no one should know about. O
I am glad you enjoyed it, thanks!
I’m just an undergraduate, so i have very limited knowledge to contradict any of what you said; but i do have to say, you presented it very well and it makes intuitive senes to me, so that is a start.
Thank you for the effort you invested into this video!
Thank you!
Why isn't this everywhere? I haven't been able to stop thinking about this theory/explanation in the last week. Good job my man you got me thinking hard about your explanation.
Thank you!
I have been thinking on, and studying the very concept you have discussed here in your video. When I was in high school we were asked to explain inertia and momentum in a paragraph; I wrote a 4 page long essay explaining my ideas about relativistic motion and the increased distance through a higher dimension.
It feels very gratifying to see someone speak so thoroughly on this topic.
Something I find interesting in light of this video -- in relation to other concepts not directly addressed (yet?) -- is Bohr's droplet theory
Bohr's droplet theory is not in scientific use today because the math could not back it up, even though I think his ideas were very compelling from an analogistic perspective.
Because the maths could not support the theory in an effective way, the thinking and perspective has been lost as well.
When I was first exploring this higher dimensional concept, I was dismissive of the gatekeeping nature of applied physicists; I thought it was more important to present a concept that was understandable rather than so hardline mathematical. But I now see the importance of the maths in light of what happened to Bohr; I don't want what happened to his theory to happen to the theory discussed in your video...
But with all that said I REALLY look forward to seeing you discuss this topic more and relate it to more concepts in both an analogous, understandable way, and in the more mathematical way.
Thank you, and regards :)
Very eye opening video! This was easily worth the 7 months of work, at least from my perspective. I'd love to see more.
You know that feeling when you finish a book/movie/game and are kind of in denial that there's no more stuff? That's what I'm feeling now. A youtube video has never done that to me before. Great job!
Thank you! I will have more... eventually. Can't tell if the videos are going to be harder or easier moving forward.
I am a theoretical physicist student.
In differential geometry (aka. the theory of curved spaces) there are two equally valid ways of describing a curved surface. The intrinsic view, which in the case of general relativity describes the curvature of 4-dimensional spacetime within that space (without taking reference to a higher dimensional embedding space). The extrinsic view describes a curved surface by embedding it into a higher dimensional space. For example, the surface of the earth/sphere is 2 dimensional, the intrinsic view is like ants (2-dimensinal beings) that are bound to the surface and the extrinsic view is to embed the sphere into 3 dimensions, looking at the 2-dimensional surface as a god (3-dimensnal beings). Both views are equal through the embedding theorem of Whitney. I have only learned GR in the intrinsic way, therefore i am interested in your view of describing GR in the extrinsic way. The philosophy of the intrinsic view is that we don't want to embed all of the universe into a higher physical space, because the existance of such a higher physical space may only be mathematically sound not physically. I think the key are the embedding theorems of Whitney because the math and predictions of GR are not what you are arguing against, it is there interpretation. Loved the video!
Thanks, you hit the nail on the head. My goal here is to make higher dimensions make sense physically, not just mathematically. However, I do intend on offering more and more evidence as I go, as more mathematical equations can be deduced and tested with a little "leap" of physical reasoning.
I don't want to presume your technical know-how or anything, but a "view of describing GR in the extrinsic way" sounds like something already covered by Gauss-Codazzi theory; in fact, IIRC, the original KK theory already employed it, with the so-called 'cylindrical conditions'. Not sure if this is helpful.
I've just posted a comment on it, but I'm fishing for criticism on this idea I've put down on a paper called "Gravidynamics of an Affine Connection on a Minkowski Background" in the viXra server, which advocates a post-Riemannian interpretation of the connection. If you're a physics student currently enrolled at some university (undergrad- or grad-level, I'd guess), you're probably aware of viXra's reputation (I mean, TBF, there _is_ a lot of cringey stuff there) - but since you seem open-minded about nonmainstream ideas, I figure it wouldn't harm ask.
@@paolomiasma7364 ... There is no contradiction about looking for primary _and_ secondary causes - which, in fact, belong to different categories 🙄
I watch tons of this kind of content. I keep hoping that it will deepen my understanding of this topic. This is the first time in a while I feel I have had a bit of breakthrough. I don't know enough to know how influential the theoretical portions of this were but they sure were helpful to me. This definitely helped me wrap my mind the concept of another dimension without breaking it like I usually do.
I'm glad it was helpful, thanks!
Amazing video, solid theory!
I am an advanced physics student and I have never been happy with the conceptual/intuitive explanations given about 4D "spacetime".
I really think you are on the right path here. Please continue with your theory, I would be happy to hear you talk about further dimensions!
Geometry is the key
Thank you! Will get deeper into the geometry the farther I go.
You make light work of a heavy topic easy to understand! Splendid theory synthesis in real time is truly exciting and inspiring to watch! 5D as G is revolutionary idea and powerful to imagine. But I’m just a verbal tipper with no money to burn for your insight and efforts. As a wise-man once said, “… if it don’t make cents, it won’t make dollars.” Hoping this gets many millions of views and you get $20k/mo so you could afford to make it real on this slave-planet! 🤞🏼🌎✌🏼
Thanks so much!
Amazing video. I only recently started learning physics. I wish I would have studied it. It makes so much sense. As do your concepts. There are basics you outlined, as I only started learning physics about a year ago, that experts gloss over but always left me with questions. For instance gravity being a force never clicked in my mind. It was because of how you defined it as an effect where I knew you were going somewhere exciting. Great job. Love your editing as well. It was thoroughly enjoyable. Congratulations on gaining positive reviews. I look forward to seeing what the future holds in store for you and the field.
This makes soo much sense , but I'm not an expert in physics yet so we can wait till it's disproved. But this actually clears most of the problems I personally have with the idea of gravity and time . Amazing job man all the support.
Thank you!
“Gravity is not a force it’s an effect” greatest thing ever said by anyone
I always felt that gravity was a manifestation of space density. Really enjoyed the video
Thank you!
34:30 "sorry, two more balls" haha
Loved the way you presented this, makes a lot of sense, bowling ball in jelly (I'm in UK 😊😉) rather than trampoline etc. I'm no physicist and I've done no extra scooling for these subjects, but I understand it, and your theory seems very plausible to me. Keep up the good work! Looking forward to watching more on this theory and seeing how it all pans out 😊
Thank you so much!
The Tesseract is not a still image, it is supposed to be representation or projection of a 4d cube passing trough 3d space.
Glad someone said it.
I couldn't stop smiling watching this. It's like watching myself from the future. This is genuinely what I aspire to be.
I know you aren't claiming to have a fully-developed idea that upends all of physics, but this still seems like a case of a layman only having a very general and not-totally accurate explanation understanding of physics and thinking he has come up with a way to solve all the problems that doesn't actually work when you have a fuller understanding. For example, you said at one point in the video that a fourth dimension could explain quantum entanglement because, if the two particles are part of the same object in 4D, then it makes sense that something that affects one would affect the other. But the problem with entanglement isn't just that something that happens to one object affects another (this is a completely normal thing, and wouldn't be a problem) - the problem is that it happens faster than light. Saying that the two particles are part of the same object does nothing to solve this, since causal influence still has to follow the speed-of-light limit when something that happens to one part of an object affects another. For example, if I had a lightyear-long stick, and I pushed one end of the stick forward, it would still take at least a year before the other end of the stick moved - your theory of quantum entanglement would only work if the other end of the stick moves instantaneously. Also, it is contradicted by the fact that entangled particles can move and behave completely independently of one another - the only connection is a correlation between measurements of the entangled property - so they are clearly not connected by some object in the fourth dimension.
Most of the video is trying to use the idea of a fourth dimension to explain general relativity, but this is unmotivated. General relativity also explains perfectly well how gravity works - trying to say that gravity is really about moving through a fourth dimension rather than the curvature of space would do nothing to improve this explanation, even if it was consistent with the evidence. The only thing about gravity that is left unexplained by general relativity is why gravity even exists at all and why it has the strength that it does. Your explanation doesn't give any extra power with regards to the first question (on GR, we don't have an explanation for why the distribution of energy affects the geometry of spacetime, and on your explanation, we still don't have an explanation of why mass would affect how much 4D space you have to move through to get to a different location in 3D). You tried to give an explanation for the last part, involving the fact that an object would only need to be extended a very tiny bit into the fourth dimension, as if it was an atom-thick, nearly 3D sheet, but, if this were the case, the same thing would apply to other forces, since they also depend on how much of the thing producing the force there is (e.g., the electrostatic force depends on how much charge there is in exactly the same way that gravity depends on how much mass there is).
Also, the explanation you are presenting doesn't really make much sense. It is unclear what "displacing four-dimensional space" is even supposed to mean. It sounds like you're trying to say that it takes space from the fourth dimension and somehow puts it in the paths of moving objects, but this contradicts how gravity works in real life. Things are slowed down without any extra space being put between them, and they can also reverse directions and go back where they came from, which wouldn't make sense if they were just slowed down by having extra space put between them. This is why we need the effects of gravity on time in order to fully explain its effects. Also, if there was a fourth spatial dimension, you wouldn't just be able to remove space from it and put in the third dimension, at least not in any continuous way. On top of all that, this would still require curvature of space anyway, since you would be modifying the geometry of space to change distances, so it doesn't do anything to simplify GR.
Another reason that it doesn't actually make sense is that, although mass is technically a dimension, it is only a dimension in the sense that anything that you can put a number to is a dimension (e.g. charge, energy, magnetic field strength, the components of velocity). It certainly isn't a dimension of space, as objects don't have a "location in mass", nor do they "take up mass" or "travel through mass". None of those phrases are even coherent because mass isn't the same thing as space - this shows that treating it like space is committing a category error, and trying to put it into the equations of relativity as if it is just another dimension of space is a case of just messing with the syntax of the equations to write something that looks coherent, while ignoring what the equations actually mean.
If mass really treated like a dimension of space, we would expect changing an object's mass to be just as easy as changing its position, and objects would be able to pass through each other as long as they had different masses, since they wouldn't be in the same location. Not only that, but negative masses would be easily possible, just as negative positions are, and changing the masses of all objects in a given situation by the same amount would cause no change to the physics (just as translating the locations causes no change). We also wouldn't be able to combine two objects of smaller mass to get an object of larger mass - instead, composite objects should have a mass that is a weighted average of their parts, just as the position of a composite object is best described by a weighted average of the positions of its components, rather than the sum of their positions, which is meaningless.
Anyway, I'm sorry for being so critical of the video, and I hope you don't take anything in this comment as an insult or a personal attack. I am just trying to explain the problems with the idea you are presenting and why it can't actually replace our current theory of gravity or unify physics. I also don't want to discourage you from looking into physics more or trying to come up with new ideas, since coming up with new ideas, even ones that don't work, is part of the scientific enterprise, and it seems like your purpose in this video was just to seek the truth, not to pass of your ideas as real science, given that your were careful to distinguish between accepted scientific fact and your conjectures. Also, as a whole, this video was very well-produced, and I think you did a great job presenting the content, even if I don't agree with most of it.
You're the perfect audience. I am honored you spent so much time and thought on it. I don't have time to respond to all this now, but please stick around and see if I clear some of this up as I go.
Weird how much of what you are trying to say is actually not correlated with what Chris have said, it is like if you didn't see the video....
This is the most digestible video I've seen on a topic of this nature! I hope you're on the right track and that this can eventually open the door for more minds to tackle even bigger questions about the world around us. Your ability to explain complex topics to the not-so-initiated reminded me of Roger Penrose a bit, someone whos talks are quite captivating in their own right :)
Thank you!
This video is amazing and very thought provoking. I’ve only taken up to physics 2 and calc 3, but I found your theory to be very interesting! I would love more videos from you. You’re entertaining, engaging, and it’s clear that you love and understand what you’re talking about. Thank you for making this video and sharing it with the world ❤
Thanks so much for the encouragement
Geezus, there's a calculus 3? What a nightmare
THANK YOU! my goodness, I've been trying to explain gravity like this to my family and wife most especially my wife for a few years now. I finally have a video that is way clearer at explaining this than I can.
I don't usually comment on videos and I don't think I have much to contribute. But this video was so good. And even if it's just one unimportant comment more, I think you deserve receiving them. The thought and work you've put into this really shows and I have been hooked and had to watch it to the end. I'm not an expert in these matters bit I really like your theory and to me it makes a lot of sense. I wish you all the best!
Your explanation of this is very intuitive for a layman like me. I really hope your exploration of this goes well! Go Chris go!
Much appreciated!
I think what would really help 'visualize' how 3D objects can displace 4D space, you should make an analogy to 2D space. i.e. use your theory to describe how a 2D object can displace 3D space, and then we can extrapolate
Great comment! This fourth dimension is where the magic happens, so anyway he can help us understand what it is will be useful. I also think the displacement in the jello which gives us a good idea of what gravitational lensing could be… this analogy seems to contradict what we normally think of as the effect of gravity. Why would an apple falling toward the earth go faster and faster if the 4D space is more concentration and goopy and slow?
Whether your theory is right or not, the world needs more people like you that are willing to question our fundamental assumptions about science. Keep thinking, brain!
Thank you!
Hi Chris! This is exactly how I’ve been conceptualizing gravity - compression of space around objects of mass. Inertia itself is the wavelike (time-delayed) propagation of that displacement similar to what’s observed in queuing cars at a traffic light. The whole queue doesn’t change its movement all at once at any place in the queue. The change is propagated in a wave pattern.
The caution for this model is not to confuse the object's mass as being proportional to its volume.
My compliments to you on this novel approach to interpreting GR and QT in a coherent yet fresh perspective. I like your idea of explaining the relative weakness of gravity when compared to the electromagnetic, the strong and weak forces. I look forward to further development of this train of thought.
Thank you!
I really can’t believe all that you said in this, because it meshes so well with what I’ve thought for a long time, but lacked the maths to be able to explain it beyond a SCI-FI sort of device. And when at the end you said “time as a spatial dimension” I almost fell over. I’ve never understood why others didn’t see it as one. It could be that a dimension is a dimension is a dimension and what we attribute to each of them is simply our perspective or point of view.
This all came to me intuitively, busy as I said with enough maths when I realized that as one changes velocity that means the amount of any one dimension we must traverse has changed. And there is no reason I can fathom that this would not be true across all dimensions. It gave me chills to hear you put the maths behind the thoughts. You definitely are on to a better way of looking at and eventually experiencing the reality of the universe. I hope you keep going even if my quirky thoughts end up being totally off base. Just this one point of intersecting thought with another person is enough for me to know that I had some kind of insight into a small part of the workings of a greater part of reality. I almost wish you were done with your work so I could see it all before my time is up.
FYI, I love the idea of turning the tables on explaining QM by way of GR rather that how we’ve been trying to force GR to fit QM. In the end I think you’ll show their relationship accurately. I hope some of the big guys will step up and take an interest. It might even re-invigorate the interest in science at the education and thus professional level.
Best wishes and I’m sorry for gushing, but I’ve waited a long time to hear someone else say some of the things I’d said and that you can put the Maths to them beings them into the realm of real possible acceptance. Whereas I was always going to be seen as just a SCIFI junky who took one hit too many.
Thanks, JTI
Thanks so much!
5+1+1... While in college taking calculus 40 years ago... I was inspired by a triple integral to calculate a centroid using the 4th dimension as density, that gave me an idea... so I was suggesting this, almost similar idea to yours to a physics instructor in 1982 and was laughed out of his office and if he saw me walking down the corridor he'd close his door. Another mathematics professor asked me a key question: if the 4th dimension was density then how does stacking more objects inside give it weight? What I was proposing 5+1+1? so the dimensions [0], 1-5 are inside the objects, the 4th dim = density, 5th dim = Potential Energy stacked up inside the object, then you need to express time, so a 6th dimension of time, it pops and relates objects to each other as events...so Time/Energy/Mass/Volume. and lastly you need one other dimension, the 7th dimension is the other "+1" is a binder to hold the dimensions it is the top of the stack... the 7th dim, otherwise stacking would continue, but this is where it wraps around... the universe inside of itself, inside of everything, and everything entangled in itself.. I.e. The overall universal 7th dimension bears resemblance, dare I say is equivalent to, the 0th dimension which is the ground state of the dimensional stack, it's a bit recursive... The dimensions stack being what I thought of them as a dimensional chaining of attributes and each dimension expressing a property. The ground state of the dimension supports the dimension above it. So what I also envisioned is the question about "empty" space? Well, first of all, it's agnostic to the dimensional object placed inside of it, but it's not empty... it's the Jell-o idea you proposed... it could even be resurrected as the hypothesized Aether but not quite the same... The Michealson-Morley experiment blew that notional out of the water, but I don't think they knew what they were looking for, and isn't it funny how the very sensitive interferometer: LIGO (Gravity Wave Detector) measured a disturbance in the force... LOL. Anyway, Keep going I like where this is headed!
Thanks for sharing and the encouragement!
@@ChrisTheBrain You're welcome, I wasn't a physics major in college and didn't have the strong math chops needed so I was easily dismissed and told that the construct was a "conceptual manifold" as were many theories, like string, which wasn't on anybody's radar at that time. But I actually felt it was more based in reality and would make such things simpler, as you're able to show... I know, this leads down an interesting path! BTW: Is your background Physics or Marketing? or both? Mine in Computer Science, I have a MSCS, presently working in industry (30+ years) and taught 10 years at Cal State University.
@@raymitchell9736 I come from a family of polymaths. For example, my Dad's degree was in music theory, but now he is a metallurgist. That kind of culture changes the way you look at college. I don't have any formal education, mostly because I couldn't pick a single topic. Marketing is where I make a living. Physics has always been a hobby, and I really wouldn't be doing this if I didn't feel so strongly that I was on to something. Kind of a compulsory thing.
@@ChrisTheBrain Wow, Exactly, I know what you mean... I felt this information was being downloaded and felt very compulsory to share it... it was received like a lead balloon. I tried to develop this on my own, and journaled... but at some point I just gave up on it because, I felt overwhelmed by the business of Physics and clearly I didn't have the correct mental models and understandings, and then I began to doubt this idea... but when I hear you talk about this, you reignited my interest again... I like to see what you are coming up with, I want to see you take this further... and your reach will be further with Social Media... Something that wasn't around in the 1980's, I am just fascinated by this!!!
@@raymitchell9736 Thanks again, I really appreciate it
Just as plenty of other people have said in the comments, this is a really interesting concept! And I'm no physicist either but I already know that, this theory either proven or disproven deserves something for the out of the box thinking!
I can't wait until I see the follow up and how QM would work with this new dimension, especially entanglement
Edit: Could it be the case that a qubit is in a superposition because it's "rotated" facing the 4th spatial dimension, so when we measure it, it needs to rotate back into the regular 3 dimensions?
Thanks for the encouragement. I have a few more dimensions to go before I get to a qubit
Imagine you live inside a cube, but the cube itself is moving only forward, thus leaving a time line. You can move up, down, sideways & diagonally within your cube so, you experience movement based upon 3d space plus duration one (time relative to you). One day you may experience functional dimensional forces (electromagnetism) not mentioned in this video & then you move into a parallel cube (tesseract) leaving another time line (duration two). Now you have 4d spatial reality plus access to two time lines where you can now travel backward, foreward & sideways in time (duration one & two) at will or even a timeslip by accident.
@@michaeljones7465 I'm sorry but I don't see how that's relevant to my comment
Very interesting concept; I've always done something similar in my own head to make gravity more intuitive. I like that you discuss this as not necessarily a replacement for current theories, but rather a novel interpretation. If the math does work out, I imagine it would be isomorphic to GR. I'm a math major and this has definitely sparked some ideas that I'm keen to work out!
Thank you! The math already works, I just didn't get too deep into it. Basically, GR quantifies gravity as "Gravitational Potential." Which means the less gravitational effect, the greater the value (more potential). This is why it is always visualized as curving down. You just need to invert the values to quantify by gravitational effect and you get a hill/bump instead. Like how I inverted the values in Minkowski Spacetime, you get the same outcome.
100% agree, I made a similar model in my mind where the fifth dimension was just the time (mass bending the time dimension, causing gravity). Though also magnetic field, and other force fields being similar dimensions.
You didn't get the most important aspect discussed in the video. It's maths not math.
@@grantadamson3478 😂
@@ChrisTheBrain This is interesting. I tried expanding the "space curving down" idea by drawing it in a 3D grid instead of a 2D plane and it made no sense (to me, not a math savvy person) unless I inverted the curving.
Oh my god thank you! I've been trying to explain this to people for years. Gravity is an effect we observe due to the compression/displacement of spacetime. What we perceive as "solid matter" is actually mostly empty "space"... atoms are mostly empty. They are displacing spacetime.
Thanks!
I friggin LOVE when I learn new perspectives that i can apply to abstract concepts to help me understand them better. Your analogies were phenomenal and I could almost feel my neurons making new connections as the video progressed. I’m just a geeky physics hobbyist, not a physicist or mathematician
Thank you so much!
Ditto
It's quite ab achievement that you went ahead and put this video together. My friends group talks about stuff like this, but we don't solidify it the you have done. Well done. And your partner deserves a sainthood ;)
Thank you. Yes she does...
"Eureka!" He shouted, running across the lobby stark naked and in glee! For he had discovered displacement and the pressure it created... Universally.
Bro, you captivated me immediately when you used the Galaga ship in your gravity graphic.
Glad you liked it!
I love everything about this video. Whether or not this is accurate, the way you describe it and explain it while minimizing subjectivity is awesome. Great editing too. u bout to blow up.
Thank you!
59:35
"He talks... so much!"
ROTFLMAO🤣
The higher dementionality accounting for quantum entanglement was mind-blowing
Dimensionality*
Agreed.
And it makes quantum mechanics make sense as there are many ways a 4d (or higher) object can be embedded in 3d with invariant energy hence why things are 'fuzzy' in that regime.
The Algorithm has decided that this is a great video. I have also decided that this is a great video. Well done Algorithm... well done!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Seriously wish I could like this multiple times! Super interested in your other interpretations and any thoughts on how to quantify additional dimensions.
Thank you!
We look for models to describe what we experience. The new perspective presented here is quite good. I don't see any clear problems with this - and - I look forward to additional thoughts from Chris.
Thank you!
This is by far one of the most enjoyable and informative physics videos.
Also loved the jello box description of space, as is something one of my thought experiments came across though differently.
I was playing with the idea of temporally accelerated "stuff" from the initial "singularity" big bang but with the idea that this temporally accelerated stuff is still bisecting 3D space from then, anyway the result seemed to be that such stuff would create empty (fluid like) space through causing pressure (potentially also creating virtual particles, which are maybe, more often within gravity wells and less so in wider expanse of interstellar space where they won't be slowed as often from their potential infinity and so less collisions with themselves).
Still I can say only that I'm an arm chair physics nerd with no math background and love finding well informed information like this even if its just to nerd out on imagining the cosmos. Thanks for this and I hope you do more videos.
A philosophical conundrum on the idea of an absolute nothing, could it create a behaviour of motion caused by binary error of escaping it not-self? I'd thought of it as a frictionless hyper-surface. Sorry a rather stupid question as that is technically something, but the actual surface is the result of pseudo-absence caused by phasal interactions between dimensions :)
Still the initial question is just whether an absolute nothing might create a behaviour which is ultimately obligated to be in motion. Probably something that can't be answered from anywhere :/
Thanks so much for the input and encouragement. As to your question, if I understand it correctly, I believe I will help answer that with my next video on Time. I will be directly addressing the root of motion. Sorry to tease.
@@ChrisTheBrain hahah thanks dude, your teasing is fine, my brain does it to me all the time so having another do it is just normality. :D
This is the best thing I have ever seen on youtube. I hope people at NASA are watching this and exploring the theory/checking the math.
I’ll be very interested to hear any engagement from physics academics and scientists. (might be harsh, as they tend to be competitive)
This video is outstanding in every way. Your theory FEELS natural and seems to add up. Your daughter deserves credit for her work too.
Thank you! "Competitive" seems like an understatement. I would put the tone as "indignant." 😉
Enjoy the fun creative additions to this! Awesome job editing and adding to xtra fun to the mix of mathematical concepts. I’m sure I will be looking to explore more of your work. I sort of think of consciousness as a dimensional sort of thing in some way... time seems to pass at different speeds in my own experience than it does on a clock or by a standard of measurement. For example at work when I am busy and just seem to watch an hour fly by like it was a minute, or the opposite, when waiting for the last 5 minutes of the shift to end... perhaps the same thought could apply to dreams- in which an 8 hour sleep period can feel like days when I’m a deep lucid dream state.
I find it interesting more than ever to seek knowledge at my age now, than ever in the past. I think more people need to be open minded as you seem to be, and entertain new thoughts on old ideas, rather than just accept the beliefs others have embedded in our educational system.
I don’t want to leave you a book to read, but hope you have a wonderful time exploring new thoughts and takes to share with those interested.
Peace and love 💕
Thanks for the feedback and encouragement!
I have been thinking about the 4th dimension for many years - I surmised that it could be related to DENSITY. I think at 38:00, where you're talking about the Tesseract and where you pull out the little wooden cube, to talk about the relationship to Weight, I would recommend comparing the wooden cube to a cube of the same size but with a different mass/weight - perhaps a cube made out of quartz - how do they differ in the 4th dimension? Overall, I think you want to elaborate more on how the 4th dimension is Weight (or is related to Weight?) and how it is not Mass and is not Density and is not Matter (if that is the case). Thanks.
Biggest thumbs up I have given ever.
After watching an insane amount of videos and books on general relativity, this is the best theory o have ever run across
I can not even communicate how amazing this presentation was for me.
Wow, thank you!
I would like to add some more channels to the list of great UA-cam creators!
1) Dialect - They are very rigorous, they don't use too much mathematics, they challenge pretty much everything, an amazing channel to check out about Special and General Relativity.
2) Science Click - For me the absolute best science channel right now on UA-cam. A hidden gem.
3) Andrzej Dragan - Great channel with more math than the other channels.
4) eigenchris - The *BEST* channel on UA-cam about relativity (of any kind). This channel has ONLY math and nothing more. So brace yourself!
:D
I am going to mention some of these in a later video. ScienceClic is one I was familiar with but overlooked for no good reason.
@@ChrisTheBrain Awesome! I can't wait for more videos!
Dialect does the best job of breaking down GR's rather unwieldy components into their constituents--the various tensors for example--with as little math as one can get away with. He's also one of the slickest graphics-presenters, with the added bonus that there is no wasted pedagogical motion for the sake of choreography, even though the latter is exemplary.
And when he does a deep-dive, he really delivers the goods.
The baseball animations got me. Excellent editing all around.
Also your theory seems to hold more water then what has cooked up so far.
I have my own theory as well regarding this matter but i lack the skills to put it in math.
Thank you! Can you code? That's what I do when all the Greek makes my head swim.
Seems this theory doesn't just hold water. It holds gravity 😎
@@Vindico11 😉
This is one of the most astonishing lectures of theoretical physics ever! Please keep them coming.
Thank you!
@@ChrisTheBrain Btw, some the ideas are in line with some concepts of this book: The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy ( by Mark McCutcheon). If you didn't read this book, I would highly recommend it. I've read it twice, and it totally blew my mind, even though there are some many holes on the ideas projected on that book. I would have liked it if you've read it and maybe care to comment on it. It's a really fun read.
@@GicaEric Thank you, I will check that out.
The tesseract picture is only the drawing of it's 3D shadow projected on a 2D Plane.
Understanding that it is only a shadow and not the actual 4D object makes perfect sense of the picture.
That was fun and highly informative. Thanks! ✨
Glad you enjoyed it!
Wow. since the pandemic started I've been watching UA-cam videos on everything from Quantum Mechanics to General Relativity and everything remotely related to them, and have spent hundreds of hours on UA-cam just trying to understand reality. You essentially tied hundreds of hours of UA-cam videos into ONE HOUR! AND you took it even further, by solving a TON of STUFF that I've been questioning, racking my brain to try and figure out for years!
If there were ever a Nobel Prize category for UA-camrs, you ABSOLUTELY deserve to be the first recipient of that prize!! WOW!!
Just in case you want some improvement on this video (which is VERY hard to find), I had trouble following the T0 and T1 in your example with the two rockets. I watched it several times and then realized that I was thinking about the T1 and T0 as points in Time, and it wasn't quite making sense to me. Then I started thinking of it actually as Time Gradients, not just points in Time. Then things made A LOT MORE sense to me. If I'm correct in that's what you meant by T1 and T0, then perhaps you could say "Time Gradients". Or maybe I'm just wrong, haha.
But if you do look at it as a time gradient, things get really interesting with your proposed formula. And it may suggest that your idea of what is happening inside a black hole, might be wrong... SO, first, let's assume there is a 6th dimension to test your theory. Let's also call the ds^2 term the "Value of Reality". Also, let's keep the 6 dimension constant. In fact, all higher dimensions above the "First 5" dimensions are constant. So, if in a black hole, the X term, Y term and Z term all collapse to essentially 0, and even the T term collapses to 0, what keeps the "Value of Reality" moving forward? Does the "G Term" just continue to increase to infinity?
It seems that ds^2 must continue progressing in a positive direction, otherwise reality just stops. And we know that the further away we go from a dense object the slower time moves, not the other way around. So if time stopped inside of a black hole, then it should be that we age slower closer to earth, then further away from it. And the more mass there is the more time slows down, until eventually it freezes. If time happened that way, the I might think that everything freezes inside a black hole. But what if EVERYTHING DOESN'T FREEZE? What if its a law of nature that Reality must continue forward?? What if, ds^2 MUST continue moving forward? Just play along with it. So, then to maintain a forward motion of Reality, the equation must allow time to flow backwards, or for space to become negative, right? At least that's what would need to happen if Reality were to freeze, right? As the Gravity term increases beyond the event horizon, perhaps it doesn't freeze reality, and instead it bends reality into another 6th dimension?
Is that where all these other subatomic particles exist? Do other subatomic particles form mass that displaces the 6th dimension?
Have you checked how your formula relates to work done by Stephen Hawkins on Black Holes? I'm not a math person, more of a science philosophy hobbyist. But it seems like there might be a connection there. Maybe it might open up some more findings of what is going on inside a Black Hole?
Lastly, I love the explanation about mass being related to a 5th dimension. I've been really trying to understand why is it that everything in "spacetime", (correction, Space and Time, or the Space-Time Dimension (with a capital D)), is described by almost entirely by photons and electrons, when there are tons of other subatomic particles that exist. When you said that the mass is the next dimension and a 3 dimensional cube alone would weigh nothing, it suddenly all made sense! Perhaps these other dimensions consist of mass that is comprised by a differently charged lepton. That mass might flow right through our mass because the charges don't interact, so we pass through each other like nutrinos pass through us. But maybe those other charges, that we can't see because photons don't bounce off of it like they do with negatively charged electrons. But maybe this mass also bends space and has gravity, causing gravitational lensing greater than the physical mass, aka dark matter. How would you relate Dark Matter to this theory anyway??
I'm three hours past my bedtime because I've watched this twice now. I feel like this is an obvious answer to the phenomena we've all seen and haven't had a really good explanation for. I've been doing a lot of thinking over the last couple of months about time travel and have settled on an interpretation of time travel that makes time an actual dimension similar to what you're doing with breadth. I think some of the Ancients may have understood what you are describing, it wasn't uncommon in ancient writing to see the phrase "length, width, breadth, and height" and it’s always dismissed but I wonder if there wasn't an understanding of something in ancient maths about this and we've lost it. I'm looking forward to the rest of the series.
Thanks for sharing! 5D is an old idea, but I hadn't thought of it as THAT old. 😊
I clicked on this video thinking it was some sort of click bait with a half thought explanation but I was both genuinely intrigued by the amount of hard science going into this video as well as entertained by his method of explaining.
11/10, would recommend again
Thank you! Hope you stick around for Chapter 5
Amazing work Chris. I'd love to see you go in depth on Entanglement!
Thank you! Time first, but will get to entanglement eventually.
"*cough*Entanglement!" 🤣
I really like that people outside of formal academia are coming up with their own original theories and have the confidence to assert them with as much authority. The internet is still relatively new and the majority of the world's population has not had access to all of the world's knowledge up until recently. Now anyone can go online and educate themselves in any subject which formerly required access to an elite education (usually limited to income and connections, not necessarily ability). Makes me very optimistic about the future.
Why are degrees and accreditation still coming from the usual suspects if the internet is the new secret college? It's because an awful lot of cutting-edge thinking is behind paywalls of one sort or another. u have to buy a computer and web access in most places. so this golden age u speak of is still far off in someone elses future.
confidence and what the populace calls 'self-research' is a bad mix.
Like others on here have said, I too always thought of gravity in an extra dimensional sense where some gloopy stuff we call 'space' is affected by the mass that sits in it. Your diagrams depicting this are really good. In particular, the donut moving through a plane showing the two points of intersection was exactly the image I had when I first heard about entanglement. In my opinion it was screaming out for 5 dimensions. I did a short course in general relativity many moons ago. It took me over a year studying vector and tensor analysis before I could just scratch the surface of the subject. It was heavy going. I'd wager that a 5D model would be a whole lot simpler. Incidentally, a dimension is actually nothing more than an independent variable. So 'where is it' is a nonsense question. Finally Chris, the work you are doing here is excellent. I'd love to see a bit more explanation with some examples of the 5D model being applied. Last part of the video you speeded up - shame, it was full of the best stuff!!
Thank you, I have more to come for sure!
I agree, I really wanted to hear all of the detail in the sped up version :)
@@TheBrookeClevenger It would have been a 6 hour video if I really went into all that. No one wants to watch "Lord of the Rings: A weird dude talks about physics" - I'll keep doing more as I go. 😉
@@ChrisTheBrain now I want to watch that movie! - you could film it at CERN 😂
You are validating all of my speculations from my entire lifetime.
It's good to feel validated
Wow - This was fantastic. I've watched the other content creators you've mentioned, and I have learned more from watching this than all of their videos on the same topic. I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe you don't dummy it down so much, or maybe they're focused more on graphics and monetization. Whatever the case is, this was excellent. Thank you for putting this together. I have learned so much. Please keep putting videos out..
Well, that's certainly the feedback I love to hear. Thank you and I am glad you got a lot of value out of it!
I very much appreciate and enjoyed this video, and hope for more soon!
Thank you!
Subscribed. Please make more.
I’m a firm believer that high quality conversations don’t end with answers and summaries but instead with higher quality questions.
This leaves me with much better questions.
"This leaves me with much better questions." - The highest of compliments, thank you!
Incredible man I have been into physics my whole life and the way this takes everything that wasnt relatable about modern physics and turns it into something easily visualized is just mind blowing. It feels obvious once you think about it and to me thats indicative of good science. Random popup in my feed and I couldnt stop watching
Thank you!
Great video! This really got me pondering and makes a lot of sense when thinking about Gravity as an effect caused by displacement of quantum fields in a 5th dimension (rather than ‘spacetime’). All the respect to Einstein but to me, the word Spacetime always just felt like a label given to something we’ve never really understood! But hey, I’m no physicist!
I though the analogies you used were really good too. Especially keen to hear more about how this thinking could help unite GR and QM by helping explain what we see (or can’t see) in QM. Maybe spooky action at a distance isn’t so distance after all! 😅
Thanks for the feedback, I am glad you enjoyed! I am definitely hoping to take the "spooky" out of entanglement.
@@ChrisTheBrain Love your presentation. Re spooky action at a distance...a 3d chair sitting on a 2d world would look like 4 connected points to a 2d person. I wonder what a 2d Nobel prize looks like?
I am a professional animator and would like to donate my time to help your daughter complete tasks in the post production process. Please reply here if this would interest you guys, and we’ll find a way to move forward. No task is too menial or small!
I’m so impressed with this interpretation. It’s nice and elegant from a layman’s perspective, and has the potential for large-scale paradigmatic shift.
This is super generous. Go contact the guy!
Agreed make it happen people need to see this
Just found your channel and I love it! Subscribed. Thank you for your brilliant content.
Thank you!
every time I get ready to stop using youtube, I find something like this. I've been interested in dimensions and all of this stuff from a very young age. 15 minutes in I can already tell you're building to something very creative and insightful
Thanks so much!