Can't believe we are still watching? This is some of the most exciting science I've seen in quite some time. And the editing is on point too lol. Keep the videos coming.
Not really science until it’s peer reviewed It makes predictions that can falsify it and it holds up in testing. However, it is a very interesting idea. I just wish he would give us an actual formula and actual predictions that we should be seeing if this is true. I understand he doesn’t feel like doing a paper. While that’s annoying, he really should just provide a modified formula for his hypothesis
@@davidweiss3365 I don't think he's actually a physicist, so don't expect any papers. I would appreciate though if a fully fledged physicist could take the time to verify his assertions (at least in principle), so they could either be encouraged/amended or dismissed as unfeasible. Saving all of us time if this alll turns out to be speculative wishful thinking :) I usually watch more "reliable" sources (like PBS Spacetime) so I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to grabbing knowledge from other lay people like myself...
You should not be nervous. I was telling my husband that for the first time in my life I felt like I understood concepts of dimensions and gravity in a very tangible way. I often fall asleep to videos on quantum realm and gravity and space travel, etc. I fell asleep to yours 4-5 times but made sure I finished it damn it because I liked it so much and truly wanted to listen to it lol.
I've been waiting for this followup vid, thanks Chris..feels like I'm following along with cutting edge physics that could transform our understanding of physics.
Thank you. Your first video is fabulous as is. The high speed pharmaceutical commercial disclaimer in this one is pure genius. Your flexible approach affects the 'identity' dimensions in some humans. The shock waves they experienced internally have a high probability amplitude of being projected caustically outward, rather than traced joyfully inward. Your gifts are noble and your 'crew' perfect. Please tell her, thanks.
The editing on the first vid wasn't that bad, honestly. It was definitely made by someone that doesn't do a ton of editing but it was still done in a way that was very fun and fitting to the video. It added a lot to it, i think.
I would say the success with the last video had to do with it not being polished. It made it more real to me to see you as just "some guy"(please don't take that as bad). And your honesty and modesty go a long way. I'm here for that. Keep it up and I'll keep watching.
I studied physics and I agree with the view that the interpretation of what the equations really mean is very interesting and important. For me thinking about different interpretation is fun, and it is a good way to train your brain :) I am looking forward to your next video
I am learning more about physics from you than I have from any academics online and I have absorbed a _lot_ of content. My model predicts that this community will grow and any errors in your theory will be quickly identified which will only make it stronger.
Dude, do not focus on the tiny errors in the past video. You are truly on the right path. I have been mulling the topics covered in your video for over 40 years. It recent times, I have viewed nearly all of the videos that you recommended before I found your video. I have known that a new kind of math is going to be created for us to build a TARDIS. The next 90 degrees off 4D is the multiverse. Keep making content. You are doing a great job.
Appreciate it. I know most people can see past the small stuff, and I ultimately won't get too hung up on it. But, I am continually improving the production process as I go. For some they are a genuine hang up, or excuse to dismiss the rest. I want my videos to be as accessible as possible, even to the anal retentive. 😉
Congrats on the sudden massive attention... hope the stress isn't too much. I'm just a "lay person" who has been quite interested in the concepts of additional / higher dimensions. Your earlier video was actually quite good for what it was. At least for me, for grasping the concept of gravity being a result of a 5th dimension. So I'm just hear to glean more of this theory. It _is_ quite interesting.
Some people are saying you don't need to correct or explain so much, but if it's within reason this is just part of being educational. Especially since your first video was about being conceptual and accessible to as many people as possible, this is good to do. I understood everything you were trying to say and didn't really need anything you covered in this video, but it's still educational to hear the comments and your response. So, definitely just keep up a conscious choice to address what's most relevant for what you're trying to do here. Looking forward to your next video!
On a final "small" note (since I don't think it will be relevant to your theory), I introduce myself as the 4th Minor Lieutenant Marshall of the Keepers of Truth of the Council of the Sacred Tesseract and must say that your response to tesseracts makes me unsure where the misunderstanding is: the commenters you're replying to, you, or between you two. If you understand this, you don't need to ask for anyone to show you anything - we have roughly a century of accepted math and geometry and you could have said in this video what the definitive answer / take-away is. There is no doubt or guessing or inconsistency. We can't intuitively perceive a 4D shape as humans but we definitely know and understand its nature fully geometrically - even if more spatial dimensions turn out to not be real! We can code this, make animations, build 4D games, build Rubik's tesseracts, etc. Any shape has infinite depictions when projected to a smaller set of dimensions. As long as it's constructed properly, it doesn't mean the shape is wrong or in any way different. As you showed, a square seen from the "side" in 1D is still a square, even if it LOOKS like a line. Similarly, a tesseract seen from a lower dimension "side" will just look like a 3D cube. The variety of depictions are simply different projections / perspectives, and you can see many of them on the Wikipedia articles for the cube and tesseract. IMO, you just needed to educate your viewers on this and if desired, explain which projection you used and what it shows (ie., "the 'inner' cube is not inside, but actually just farther into the 4th dimension). Regarding preferences, as you showed with the square-in-a-square projection of the cube, I'm not a fan of the Schlegel diagram for introductory purposes. Unfortunately it's the pop-culture-favorite tesseract depiction probably because it admittedly looks really cool as a cube within a cube, but orthographic or perspective projections are better. With colors, what's shown on Wikipedia as a B4 Coxeter plane projection is my favorite because it can show all the cubes in it with (probably) least distortion or most consistent distortion. However, when drawing it in a single color, I prefer to stretch it into something like a Cavalier projection (similar to step 4 in the Construction section) because it shows 2 familiar cubes, and then I can point out how all the other connected lines create prisms, which are just how that perspective depicts those cubes. Again, hopefully you've said enough and don't need to speak about this in your videos anymore, but if you do happen to feel like you haven't quite wrapped your head around this and are curious about it, feel free to reach out. Could try a little call or something. I'm no geometer but I've studied and thought extensively to understand this conceptually (got a playlist of others' vids on my channel), even having a small flash of intuitive understanding after continuously staring at tesseract folding in true 3D, and seem to have gotten good at teaching this to people.
Yeah we love longer videos. I know that once I find a RU-vidr I like, I only want to watch them for a while and the longer the video the less I have to search around for other things I don't like as much 😅
Well, this video almost killed me. So I might need to break it up a bit next round. Nevertheless, I appreciate hearing that people have the patience and interest for long form content.
I'm loving this! I am extremely interested in all this conceptual math, and will probably going into the field in college (only like a year or two!). I await your next installment with bated breath!
Love your videos! RU-vid can be pretty ruthless sometimes from what I’ve seen, and people can be quick to jump on just about anything. Don’t worry about all the crazy backlash over the really minuscule things if you can help it! All of us who love your content wish you to be a stress free as possible. Can’t wait for whatever comes next!
I love the time being a facet of dimension. It will explain a hell of a lot. I’m so engaged by the intuition that our reality is relative and a and an artefact of our forearm length universe
I think you are on the right track. I think more people are starting to accept that ER = EPR, which is directly related to higher dimensional spatial geometry. Keep up the good work! Edit: It may also help to start thinking about dimensionality as a spectrum. Might time be a fractional dimension? Just spitballing here :)
@@ChrisTheBrainI’m currently watching this video, so keep that in mind if you might have mentioned this-but have you considered Stephen Wolfram’s approach to finding the fundamental laws of physics? He’s a long, long way away, but he imagines the laws as computable, with cellular autonoma or binary sets of relations, and the radical nature of the approach is refreshing to me. That being said, as a research scientist who works in computer science and cybersecurity in a quantum computing lab, I also find your ideas refreshing…not bad for a marketing guy! Not at all!!!
For a non physicist to do this level of work and care about a new thinking and to look for ways to make it work, very admirable! This is the cornerstone of physics and you should be proud.
Your theory sits perfectly with me since i intuitively always thought of gravity as a side effect or a consequence rather than a fundamental force, im just not educated nowhere near the point of a scientific explanation, and i loved how your video explains the how's and why's with actual science
“1 FU” was that a sly dig at the haters?? 🤣 You did and are doing a great job. Some people like to make drama wherever they go. Keep it up and I’m looking forward to the next video.
oh my god thank you i watched your other video and it really stuck with me, but when i went back to rewatch i completely forgot the name of the video and could not find it in my history for the life of me, and this just popped up in my recommended. I personally believe all the ways we look at physics aren’t necessarily “right” but there are certain ways that make it much more intuitive and makes it make sense.
Mate, thanks so much for this. It's one thing to be smart enough to understand all of this and keep all the concepts in your head, but it's another level to be able to think about that and also have an empathetic understanding of how that works in the mind of a "normal" person and THEN think of ways you can improve the understanding and capability of that normal person. BUT it's even more important than that. Even the geniuses among us have limited ability to process a mental model of something we can't see. If today those geniuses are spending 99% of their mental attention on keeping the model "cached" in their head and 1% on developing the model, imagine what happens if you reduce the overhead of that cache by even 1%. You are attempting to do just that and at the same time entertaining and inspiring both normal people, and most likely future geniuses also. Mate your future is a shining star and if you keep this up you are going to have amazing resources at your disposal to further your goals and I'm super excited just to watch.
Dear Mr. The Brain, I am so glad that you are continuing to make videos. I really enjoyed not only the content, but I think your demeanor and style make the content easy to digest. Please do keep up the good work. I will continue to be a fan. Thank you. That's all. Carry on. - the only addison
Chris, think it's important to reiterate some of the other comments below. Stop apologising, you are allowed the same leeway as all other scientists. Keep going man. Your delivery is wonderful. Your style is hugely watchable. STOP justifying yourself just pick up and move forward one step at a time. 👍👍👍👍
I prefer your visualizations and explanations as to how an extension to an extra dimension slows down time/movement over to the other channels I subscribe to. I love their videos too but your previous video made it waaaaay easier to understand. Maybe there'd be a chance you could partner with some of them like Science Asylum, Veritasium, and such and create more content! Looking forward to see more from your, good sir!
thanks for clearing a few things up regarding time dilation and the "illusions" of an observer watching something travelling at really high speeds. ( I have watched your subsequent episodes)
man your doing a fantastic job and straight up are an inspiration. "i didnt think people would wanna watch a weird guy talk for an hour about physics" chris said and Nathan says "man watching some weird guy who actually has the courage and knowledge to make videos spreading the love of learning is what i live3 for chris. keep up the great work n keep em coming big dog" :) :) :) thanks
Great video. Chapter 7 expression of energy. When i get angry and try to repress it it explods in action. If i act upon it is expressed in action too. But if i surrender to the fact that i feel angry and yet just observ it, then anger transmute into space. You have more stillness and presence.
I 100% want to watch some random weird guy talk about theoretical physics for an hour. Your presentation is excellent, and the polish will come later. Keep them coming, we will keep watching!
Any true scientist would look forward to your insightful perspective with an open and curious mind. It is clear that you are passionate and your plot is certainly compelling. I am excited to see further contributions from you, honestly you are quite inspirational. Particularly because I am also a scientist, one who is trying to get the courage/time to upload YT videos as well. Excited to see whatever comes next!
Okay ChatGPT, please explain the principles of modified newtonian dynamics as a series of funny Haiku poems. Dark matter? Not here! Modified rules at play, Newton must give way. In the cosmic scene, Gravity changes its tune, Spooky unseen glean. Less mass, stronger pull, Newton, are you feeling dull? MOND has the hull. Galaxies, they spin, MOND says, "Let the fun begin!" Newton’s law wears thin. Newton, time to rest, With MOND we’re not second best, Solving the cosmos quest. Forgo dark matter, With MOND it's a fun chatter, Physics in a clatter!
The more I hear the more I like it. I agree that this could be just all the same science but with a different way of visualising it, mostly, so that it (finally) gets us to insights which give us new science. I expect this could tie in with the inherently confusing quantum mechanics concepts. We really need that.
Reminds me of the Quanta Magazine website article "Mathematicians find an infinity of possible black hole shapes" where they state if the universe has more than three spatial dimensions we'd be able to test it by examining black hole geometry.
If one of the mistakes you're most worried about is saying Sabine's name "wrong", then we're all set for a good theory for the future of physics, I assume. ;) Brilliant again, Chris. Ty. I can only hope to work one day with individuals as passionate and curious about the universe as you are. Keep that energy, it's priceless. :)
I am not even in the same science library (nevermind page) to contribute to this but I love that you are exploring other interpretations. Intuitively that seems right to me, our modern science gets so much right that we must be looking at it slightly off to not get the rest of it. Your approach and others will get us there I'm sure. When you cover gravity and energy and GR, I've often wondered why the EM field doesn't create gravity (if all energy is effectively mass through E=MC2). As we can only measure energy differences and not absolute energy values, then the EM field in a galaxy could be enormous?). Anyway, I wish I had your 'Brain' and free time to explore this, but I love that you do. Keep it up.
I really really really like where you're going with this. This also kind of speaks to my understanding of the whole multiverse concept. It's not necessarily A multiverse as much as it's just a smeared universe where only interacting probabilities can possibly collapse the wave. You can use Force vectors summation and Pythagoras to better illustrate dividing a force among multiple higher dimensions. The sum of all the component vectors is still your original vector, but the magnitude of any one individual vector is significantly smaller. If you want to be technical, you can approximate it with a self dot product or the outer product which will give you a matrix or in my preferred case a tensor. I really like the video, and the discussion, but I can barely see your whiteboard. Honestly if I wasn't already somewhat familiar with the subject, I would probably be lost by now.
I was really excited to see a new video from you on the subject! And I look forward to the continuation of your hypothesis for extra dimensions. I do not carry the approval and accreditation of academia but in my days spent navel gazing I have pondered whether matter displaces space as well. When I visualize the distortion of space (in two dimensions) by a massive object I imagine a grid with squares getting smaller towards the center of the distortion while still representing the same amount of space in some unit of area.
I don’t have a degree in anything, but I enjoy your videos and am able to follow most of it without problems. Your 4+1 is very intriguing to say the least. And I love your humor. “Force Units” - good on ya. May not have been a direct “I’m #1” at the negative commenters, but I think it should have been. Please keep up the good work!! I look forward to the next video.
Thanks for giving us regular people permission to approach science and experience it for ourselves without an ordained scientist interceding on our behalf.
Thanks for your two videos. I enjoyed them. They were thought-provoking. One caution I always keep in mind, though, is the motion of the planets problem. Many proposals were made by the thinkers of the day, but it couldn't be solved until a major change was made to their view of the universe (earth centered to sun centered). Something that large or larger may be needed in this case. I hope to see more videos from you soon.
I'm glad I found your channel, quality content. Thoroughly enjoyed watching the two videos. These are some really intriguing ideas, and the way you've put them is just perfect. Thanks for putting in the effort, looking forward for more of these!
Awesome to see a follow up on this. Your comments regarding programmers who work on video games undersatanding this concept really struck a cord with me. I've dabbled in that field so I don't have that much experience, but in doing so I learned about using the quaternions. A few years ago I came across some really interesting relationships between the standard model of particle physics and the octonions, specifically work by Cohl Furey. I'm curious if you've seen their work, because it seems to me that their introduction of the octonions replicates your 4 dimensions + time. Additionally, if what I remember is correct, there were still many unaccounted for symmetries (?) that sound like they could account for the long tail if somehow quantified. I think there's something that relates the two ideas.
You'd tapped into communities of people eager for the knowledge you have. Now feed us with the clearly spoken, long form content we love that you do so well.😀
By the way, your 4+1 holds due to the compressing of everything when effected by your no. 4. & seems like it works in the absence of 4, too. Ty for having the courage to pick up the ball with Mond & doing the world a solid. Thanks Chris, you da' Brain. You da' Brain
Very interesting please please continue. I see you have a pretty smart following I see you, people that are watching..😉 No rush but I replied to your comment on the last video with a question if you can get to it haha. I feel like you're about to blow up man and I'm kind of worried for you, lil bit, you're saying a lot of stuff.., and things man. I do Appreciate new perspectives haha
Hi Chris "the Brain", It makes me queasy that some people reach for higher dimensions to explain things, but don't focus on the building blocks of spacetime. I still think that spacetime is made of gravitons that expand from a Planck scale point into a sphere of radius r = speed of light * time, such that these gravitons behave like wave functions, especially around charges. I think that these gravitons (expanding spheres) are the entanglement between entangled photons. By figuring out what spacetime is made of, the following warp drive idea is possible. If we assume that spacetime is made of gravitons and that gravitons are the entanglement between photons, ER = EPR (SUSKIND), then a warp drive might look like this. Start with a high powered laser and a crystal that splits the beam into two entangled beams p1 and p2. The photon frequencies of p1 and p2 are the same, f1 = f2. Since we're thinking in terms of an equation: h(f2 - f1) + Delta U = 0, where h is the Planck constant and U is gravitational potential energy, then a quantum entanglement with f1 = f2 results in zero gravitational potential energy between the two entangled photons. But what if you could centrifuge the entangled beams? What if you could blueshift p1 and redshift p2? How could you do that? Imagine a disk that is two meters in diameter, not so different from a spinning wheel on a playground, but without all the handlebars and kids. It would have to be lightweight and sturdy up to 3000 RPMs; and very thin. Maybe it's made of carbon fiber or sapphire. Next, you attach an optical fiber along the radius, from r1 = 1cm to r2 = 1 meter. You might have to attach 12 optical fibers, from 1 o'clock to 12 o'clock. The optical fiber might have to be thick so that it carries a lot of photons, perhaps even hundreds of watts of photons. You might also have to use materials that slow down the light from the speed of light, to something more manageable. You will need two of these sapphire spinning disks with optical fibers on them; one to spin at 6000 RPMs and one to be a non-rotating pathway that the photons can return to the "start" position on. For the p1 beam to be blueshifted, the start position will be r1 at 12 o'clock. The beam will travel down the optical fiber on the disk as it spins at 6000 RPMs for about a meter. Then, using amazing optics and computers, the beam of photons will transition from r2 12 o'clock of the spinning disk to r2 12 o'clock of the bolted down (not spinning) disk. Then, it will travel back up to r1 12 o'clock on the not spinning disk. This is the first centrifuge cycle for the p1 beam that is to be blueshifted. You can't reuse the same pair of disks because there is no way to transition from 12 o'clock r1 on the non spinning disk to 1 o'clock on the spinning disk in a way that is repeatable around the "clock". Since the physics community is made of brilliant men like Chris "the Brain", someone could figure out a way to make this process repeatable. In the mean time, I think it will be necessary to interlayer about 1200 sapphire spinning disks with 1200 bolted down (not spinning) disks. For the p2 redshifted beam, the photons will travel the other way, from r2 to r1. If there was anyone brilliant enough to figure the timing of the process, then we would be lucky. Nevertheless, we might have to centrifuge the p1 and p2 beam as much as a million times. Once we had a p1 beam blueshifted a million times and a p2 beam redshifted a million time, then we would be able attempt an Alcubuirre warp drive without needing any negative matter or negative energy or exotic particles. Once the p1(1M-Blue shifted), p2(1M-Red shifted) beams are generated, then they are directed to the outer surface of a (what the hell) saucer shaped craft. There will be equal length-ed optical fiber that leads to optical lenses all over the top and bottom of the upper and lower surface of the saucer. If the idea works, then there should be a gravitational potential energy whose acceleration of a "mass" should travel from the redshifted p2 to the blueshifted p1. I might have that backwards. At this point, I don't know what happens. To make it lift, I think we emit from the bottom the p2 redshifted beams, and from the top, the p1 blueshifted beams. I think the beams that are not emitted should be
Glad you are sticking around! Still going to take me a while to get to the plank scale. FYI, a couple aliens (presumably) reached out to say I'm on the right track. I have no idea if they are pulling my leg, but the geometry checks out... What a milieu, this RU-vid.
@@ChrisTheBrain I don't know those aliens. But I do know how to make the warp drive idea easier to understand. Let me try. A capacitor stores capacitive electrical energy via a difference in voltage between the two capacitor pins. A dam stores hydroelectrical energy via it's water level difference. I'm trying to argue that two entangled photons are actually a graviton with two photons attached to them. A graviton stores gravitational energy in the same way that a capacitor stores electrical energy. A difference in the photon frequency in entangled photons is like a difference in voltage across a capacitor.
Thank you. By measuring the "extra bits" it's almost like determining the size of the "universal telomeres." We will know how many dimensions there are, in total. Unless there are more that can't be measured with that measurement technique, and then we'll have more to find! There's plenty of room at the bottom. :)
Cool, man. I reckon you are an actual teacher and I must say your students are lucky! I was raised my whole childhood around physics professors but never learned a thing from them because they quite literally believed that calculus and all the other types of math and jargon is a requirement to think about or talk about the nature of physics and reality. I am glad to learn more about mond because I really think the entire corpus of such characters as the big man himself, Newton, or Descartes, or anyone going all the way back to the time when the church domesticated science and mystery, and the mystery religions should be reassessed for their impact on epistemology and human civilization (and the Earth itself lets be real) as a whole. I posit this to you or anyone reading; the type of (wo)man that you would be directed to for conversing about the nature of reality, the realization of natural processes, or the infinite in any ancient and learned city would be the medicine man, the shaman, or the occultist. None of which would have time for Newton and his calculus - I THINK.
First, I'd like to congratulate you on the excellent production quality of this video. Especially relative to the previous one. That said, I still see a few unresolved issues: 29:00 What are we measuring speed relative to? The most logical answer would be relative to the gravity well whose gravity is in question, but that circles back to the first problem which is that we know an object, completely stationary relative to the Earth (rotation accounted for), above the surface still experiences gravity. 35:00 To me, this is a conceptual misunderstanding of pressure. Pressure, like most of classical physics, is a simply a handy way to describe the macroscopic effects of a collection of much smaller processes. No force is ever truly applied over an area, it's just a group of infinitesimal one dimensional interactions. The force of a theoretical homogenous bullet is no different than the force of a singular theoretical particle of a gas hitting the wall of a container. What makes pressure relevant is studying the propagation of those one dimensional forces through the mesh of atoms of the target, or the container.
1. V=C√(1-(1/ɣ)^2 ) follow the theory of relativity or use Newton's laws of physics to calculate velocity 2. You've seen how to set up a stress energy momentum Tensor in Einstein's formula (T(mu)(nu)? It's completely classical , not quantum. l
