Extra Dimensions Could Change Everything We Know About Physics | Dan Hooper [Ep. 459]

[@DrBrianKeating]

Is string theory the best hope for a Theory of Everything?

[@josephjohnson3738]

@@DrBrianKeating String theory is thus far, a failed hypothesis. Get over it.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Would it be better to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law? Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". Each point on the wave front represents a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of this interaction. Light waves radiate out spherically 4πr² with their interior forming the characteristic of three-dimensional space with the spherical surface forming a probabilistic wave front. Each point ∆E=hf on the curvature of the wave front forms the potential for a new spherical wave, a photon of energy, a new oscillation or vibration that forms our future. This is logical, because we have continuously photon electron interactions, with potential energy transforming into the kinetic energy Eₖ=½mv² of matter, in the form of electrons.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

4:06 I would completely disagree with this because if we are living in a 3 + 1 system of space-time then we should expect a relative even distribution of matter in a spherical manner and this is not what is observed for is a fourth spatial dimension exists then it would make it so infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality must stack into any size four dimensional existence... This means because the fact that we observe the relative state or shape of our universe as flat that we do have observations of higher spatial dimensions... Obviously we cannot physically see these but we have the mathematical proofs in the observations of our universe... We are three dimensional beings and obviously cannot see higher dimensions if you've ever watched Carl Sagan's flat world presentation you would know this...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

This guy is a total Phawking moron and does not understand the term dimension and is completely misusing it just like other people in string theory talking about compactified dimensions... It's BS.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I really draw major qualms with anyone misusing the fundamental term of dimensions... I even draw problems when people call time and dimension... There's a reason why we call it 3 + 1 and not a 4 system... Time is only applicable to our three-dimensional reality and in the higher dimensions that is the higher dimension because all time exists at once in the higher dimensions.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Dan comes across as an astute scientist, quite on top of his game. Quite correctly this starts with Kaluza-Klein who were quite correct in their quest to look for geometry of fields, as per curled-up dimensions at each point in spacetime. It is amazing we discontinued that correct thought, as indeed the energymass grid, emanates from each point in spacetime if the local field is excited. As such, we shouldn't think of ' elementary particles' as loose biljart balls. We need to acknowledge elementary particles are mere placeholders for all excitations of the local spacetime, defined by the orthogonal modes of distortion that define attributes like mass, charge electrospin etc. So Kaluza Klein were correct, it is just that they didn't realize that in the alternative setting of their curled up loops, 3D energy is the grid and mass the clock. That is the reason why we can't see them, since our perception is time based (time is inverse to mass as per Penrose substituting E=hf into E=MC2). Once we realise that duality, all becomes clear. Speed in spacetime [m/s] thus has its alter ego in compositing imaginary Kaluza Klein speed of [-J/kg] as per compensation. So it is not a 'particles' energy that is important; it is its specific energy (-J/kg). And here is the kicker; we think we might not be able to see things moving in Kaluza Klein world at each point of spacetime, but actually we do feel it. Because -J/kg translates back into ST terms as [-J/kg=-Nm/kg= -m2/s2). So we feel it as imaginary acceleration alias the FORCE aspect of gravity. We know already form ST that speed contract frontal spacetime in a static way (slower clock, and seeming length contract). That aspect of speed is the' real' aspect. So combined we have a dual effect of speed; a 'real' static effect as per SR and a compensating 'imaginary' acceleration effect as per local Kaluza Klein if you whish....This dual grid setting of physics is all we need to accept..gravity is the natural result of speed. Exactly as the greatest physicist of all times, Sir Isaac Newton, already sensed and assumed but couldn't make more concrete. The knowledge wasn't his. But now we have derived why this is correct..Gravity is both a real and very imaginary force gentlemen..Duality..tss...

[@khuebner]

Fantastic guest and wonderful discussion of Kaluza Klein and extra dimensions. Thank you, Brian!

[@DrBrianKeating]

@@khuebner Thanks very much

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I disagree I think he's rather moronic...

[@jjjccc728]

**Kaluza-Klein Theory** * **Clarity:** Explained the concept of Kaluza-Klein theory more simply, focusing on the idea of extra dimensions and their compactification. * **Focus:** Removed unnecessary technical details about the theory's historical context. * **Argument:** Introduced the idea of Kaluza-Klein states and their implications for particle masses. **Gravitons and Extra Dimensions** * **Clarity:** Defined gravitons and their role in gravity. * **Argument:** Explained how gravitons moving in extra dimensions can appear to have mass. * **Problem:** Introduced the question of how to prevent other particles, like photons, from acquiring mass in this scenario. **Constraints on Extra Dimensions** * **Clarity:** Summarized the various constraints on extra dimensions from observations and experiments. * **Focus:** Removed unnecessary details about specific experiments. **Implications for the Early Universe** * **Argument:** Explained how extra dimensions could potentially affect the early universe and its evolution. * **Problem:** Introduced the challenge of reconciling extra dimensions with the standard model of cosmology. **Gravitinos and Superymmetry** * **Argument:** Presented the idea of gravitinos as predicted by superymmetry. * **Problem:** Introduced the question of whether gravitinos might exist and their potential implications. **G-2 Anomaly and New Forces** * **Clarity:** Explained the G-2 anomaly and its potential implications for new forces. * **Focus:** Removed unnecessary details about the historical context of G-2 measurements. * **Problem:** Introduced the current uncertainty surrounding the G-2 anomaly. **Neutrino Mass and Dark Energy** * **Argument:** Discussed the implications of recent neutrino mass measurements and the possibility of a non-constant dark energy. * **Problem:** Introduced the challenges of reconciling these findings with current cosmological models. **Highlighted Arguments and Problems:** * **Arguments:** * Extra dimensions can explain the mass of particles. * Gravitons moving in extra dimensions can decay into standard model particles. * Superymmetry predicts the existence of gravitinos. * A new force could explain the G-2 anomaly. * Neutrino mass measurements and dark energy observations could challenge the standard cosmological model. * **Problems:** * How to prevent other particles from acquiring mass in extra dimensions. * Reconciling extra dimensions with the standard model of cosmology. * Determining the existence of gravitinos. * Understanding the G-2 anomaly and its implications. * Reconciling recent neutrino mass and dark energy measurements with current cosmological models.

[@markhuebner7580]

Always interesting to hear about current physics. For me, the science behind the speculations, conclusions & experimental results, is the most valuable part of the discussions.

[@josephjohnson3738]

Much of the things we call discoveries, 2:25 like neutron stars, black holes, and gravity waves, are really nothing more than inferences.

[@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi]

They have data from telescopes that match. They have observed all do these now - not theoretical

[@josephjohnson3738]

Does anyone know if their data proving they detected them, has ever been released for others to examine?

[@josephjohnson3738]

@@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi Telescopes are not used to detect "so called" gravity waves. They use laser interferometers. I think it is just as likely that they are pretending to find data, in the noise. I think it is equally possible that they want to simply justify the expense of building their toy.

[@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi]

@@josephjohnson3738 call you local astrophysicist.

[@markcoren2842]

Yes there's huge amounts of downloadable primary source data available, which is mostly required by law due to how many of their grants are funded. LIGO days even has a bunch of tutorials to help the average science fan learn how to understand and work with the data for themselves.

[@blijebij]

I really loved this talk with Dan Hooper! It was so interesting, probably my favorite interview!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

[@ArtisanTony]

How do these extra dimensions obtain and maintain their shape? Our 3 dimensions just seem to exist without shape.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

Our three spatial dimensions must have some shape. We just don't know what. It is at least huge and almost flat or flat, that is the only thing we know. It may be curled up in some way or infinite.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

@@lubricustheslippery5028 I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects.

[@ArtisanTony]

@@lubricustheslippery5028 "must have a shape" there really is no need for a shape except that it extends to the extents of this universe which may exist in even a bigger space. Dimensions are still theoretical.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

@@ArtisanTony flat is also a shape and general relativity is differential geometry of space time... That the dimensions extends to the border of the universe is an possibility but that there is an border where they end is strange and ugly. So that they continue forever or loop back into themself is more probable. That the dimensions ends into an bigger space don't make any sense. That we can move in three spatial dimensions is very factual and hard to refute so as far as an theory as possible. Time is in some ways similar to an spatial dimension.

[@albin2232]

Whenever I can't decide what to have for lunch, I just invent another dimension.

[@williamblake7386]

Ideas like extra dimensions and extra universes and anything else extra, always confuses me for one simple reason. There is no reason except we must fix our math because otherwise it's not math but gibberish. Yeah, it's a funny topic but is it really science or just brain gymnastic?

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

4:06 completely wrong... We have logical observations of a 4th or higher spatial dimension just given the fact that our 3 + 1 system of space time does not have a even distribution of matter in all directions therefore the fact that it is not spherical means that we are not the highest fundamental dimension and we are having our three-dimensional universal potentiality stacked infinitely into any size four dimensional existence that exists... This means we are being stacked infinitely into a four-dimensional manifold... There are no such thing as compactified dimensions... Anyone talking in this matter does not understand the logical progression of the spatial dimensions...

[@friendlyskiespodcast]

Think about it this way, can we really explain how everything came about or how we all are held by these unknown fields aka gravity... The explanations are going to be beyond our current wiring in our brains to accept reality as is.

[@williamblake7386]

@@VladpIaya Yeah, welcome back to Aristotle times.

[@MKSense1]

@@friendlyskiespodcast Sure, and the more dimensions we have will explain it and move it even farther from reality.

[@markszlazak]

Add an extra dimension to explain an area of physics but avoid making a theory of everything. Do experiments and see how far you get.

[@rhcpmorley]

Dimensions are abstract frameworks that calibrate and index an underlying (physical) reality. Define the underlying reality... Whilst I'm on, define universe.

[@robertsouth6971]

You've begun by ruling out the possibility that dimensions are the underlying reality. Dimensions are varieties of difference comparisons, quantities. Without comparing things there can be nothing. Or you could say possibility is the underlying reality, but it has to be possibility of something. You have to start with comparison. Or you could start with a premise that reality is comprehensive, that everything exists without qualification. Then, in the broadest view, possibility doesn't need to be defined because it is subsumed in reality: everything possible is real. The only problem with that is that new possibilities would have to constantly come into existence. That would be differences, the old comprehensive reality and the next comprehensive reality including all permutations of the old one. So there would have to be dimensions. Talking about dimensions involves abstraction but saying that means they are only abstraction is introducing a fallacy. They are in fact fundamental. Universe is a term that gets used many ways, but mostly to refer to all that is (if you believe there's only one time space continuum) or to refer to what is better termed the a single time space continuum (if you believe in the multiverse). You can describe that without using the word universe: reality includes all possible continua, mostly more complex kinds. Also, specifying that the underlying reality has to be physical is starting from an assumption. It's just as valid to say that whatever it is can be called physical. Unless you want to insert a bunch of preconcieved baggage into it. The parenthetical might as well not be there, it's multiplication by 1.

[@rhcpmorley]

@@robertsouth6971 The underlying fundamental reality is mass, spatial position, energy (differential) and (relative) change (change includes the subset of change of spatial position i.e. motion). (And all change is caused by energy differential). I am not ruling out the possibility of dimensions being the underlying reality, I'm saying if you want to rule that in, you need to make a precise, unambiguous, empirically backed definition/description of a dimension. What's it made of??? The XYZ-axis is clearly just a 3 vectored (abstract) model for calibrating and indexing spatial position. Are you saying dimensions are abstract models? I am. And if the word Universe gets used in a number of ways, why don't people who use the word be very very specific about what their in-use definition is...else ambiguity follows. Its either a collective term for everything physical, or its not. Can't be both. If its not, then we're back to what is a universe??

[@rhcpmorley]

The underlying reality is mass, energy (differential) spatial position and change (including change of spatial position aka motion). Its not that I've "begun by ruling out the possibility that dimensions out the underlying reality" rather its your desire to rule them in which needs to be proved. Empirically, evidentially, precisely, and unambiguously, what do you mean by 'dimension'. What is it made or composed of?? The XYZ-axis is demonstrably a three vectored mental model by which we index and calibrate the underlying fundamental of (static) relative spatial position. Its an abstract model. Spatial position is the reality. Define / describe "dimension". Else you can't 'rule it in'. So, to the Universe...If universe is a term that gets used by different people in different ways, people need to define precisely and unambiguously what their in-use definition is... or else confusion. And universe either is a collective noun for the set of all physical things, or it isn't. Can't be both. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?? Cosmology/ physics can be astonishingly poor at precise word definition....hence its confusion.

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

7:40 In order to "Save the phenomenon" (Plato), it is not necessary to involve additional dimensions. And the principle of equivalence requires the equivalence of variably accelerated non-inertial reference frames and gravitational fields, because free fall is a variably accelerated motion: real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, however, GR did not cope with this*. ---------------- *) - Pauli, RT, “The objective is to establish a theory based on the principle of equivalence for the case of inhomogeneous gravitational fields: already Einstein and Abraham tried to characterize the total static gravitational field by the value of the speed of light “c” at each point in space-time, which would thus play the role of the gravitational potential, and they looked for differential equations that the speed “c” must satisfy. But even if we set aside the fact that these theories take into account only gravitational fields of a special kind, they had already led to difficulties. P.S.That is, with the possible representation of the gravitational potential through "c", Einstein's dream would be achieved: gravity/electromagnetism, since "c" is actually an electrodynamic constant, laid down in the basis of the principle of relativity SR by Einstein. ."It is absolutely necessary to insist that such a fundamental statement as the principle of covariance should be derived, if possible, from the simplest BASIC provisions. Einstein showed, and this is his great merit, that for this purpose it is enough to accept only the following electrodynamic position: the speed of light does not depend on the motion of the source. If the light source is a point, then in all cases the wave front is a sphere with a resting center. We will, as is customary, briefly call this provision the provision on the "constancy of the speed of light", although such a name may give rise to misunderstandings. The universal constancy of the speed of light in the void is out of the question already because the speed of light is constant only in Galilean reference frames. The independence of the speed of light from the motion of the source is preserved in the general theory of relativity." (Pauli, RT, paragraph 3, The postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, 1921). P.P.S.Then GR would have a complete correspondence between the principles of relativity and equivalence: of course, without side problems: singularities (both there and there), entropy /information, and in general, without other nonsense.

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

Please explain how Kalusa-Klein work with the Higgs Mechanism. I cannot see it.

[@bimmjim]

I have some unique objective observations which would help this guy leap forward. I like that this guy understands that the gravity spectrum exists outside of space-time. And he understands that this is new and important. .. My new objective observations are like Galileo saying, "Look into the telescope." I have visited different sets of dimensions, different space-times. These are accessed using consciousness. Consciousness is another spectrum. The Russians did an empirical, repeatable experiment that shows that consciousness is a spectrum. There are not just additional dimensions; there are additional sets of dimensions. Look at the evidence for dark matter. Now pick out the non-complying data. Look through that non-compling data for an integer. Now you will be on your way. There are about 7 space-times. Gravity is spread across these space-times. There is no "dark matter." There are a small number of nearby parallel universes. [BTW, there are additional universes where the dimensions are not arranged the same way as space-time. .. Leave this untill later.]

[@edcunion]

The quarks are trying to get out to blast everything to kingdom come, let's thank the gluons for keeping them together and not ticking them off, the protons, electrons and primordial neutrons were timely indeed, double entendre puns always well intended!

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Would it be better to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law? Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". Each point on the wave front represents a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of this interaction. Light waves radiate out spherically 4πr² with their interior forming the characteristic of three-dimensional space with the spherical surface forming a probabilistic wave front. Each point ∆E=hf on the curvature of the wave front forms the potential for a new spherical wave, a photon of energy, a new oscillation or vibration that forms our future. This is logical, because we have continuously photon electron interactions, with potential energy transforming into the kinetic energy Eₖ=½mv² of matter, in the form of electrons.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

He is 4:06 completely wrong... We have logical observations of a 4th or higher spatial dimension just given the fact that our 3 + 1 system of space time does not have a even distribution of matter in all directions therefore the fact that it is not spherical means that we are not the highest fundamental dimension and we are having our three-dimensional universal potentiality stacked infinitely into any size four dimensional existence that exists... This means we are being stacked infinitely into a four-dimensional manifold... There are no such thing as compactified dimensions... Anyone talking in this matter does not understand the logical progression of the spatial dimensions...

[@bnjm8868]

A force is the influence of kinetic energy that changes the motion or direction of energy or an object. So a force is an influence or interaction. However, gravity is curvature and motion of quantum fields, which exerts a force, called the force of gravity or the gravitational force.

[@syrupusurper3774]

There is equal evidence for the existence of extra dimensions, ghosts, gravitons, and fairies. I assume that the plus side of extra dimensions, is that it would give a place for gravitons, ghosts, and fairies to exist. In the extra dimension, the ghosts have mass and therefore they comprise all of the dark matter, and the fairies have little to do there, so they create new space with fairy magic, and that explains dark energy.

[@CheapHomeTech]

I love the look of Dan's office.

[@DrBrianKeating]

@@CheapHomeTech yes too bad he’s moved out by now to Madison

[@Synthematix]

Dan hooper is amazing

[@dustysoodak]

I only have an undergrad physics background. By extra dimensions do they mean the idea where each point in space is mapped to a tiny loop? If so, how does this compare/relate to the extra degrees of freedom of quantum particles?

[@VaBellaBeautz]

Great episode thank you both 🙏🏼

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

[@bnjm8868]

Gravity is the curvature and motion of fields of space. The force of gravity is the influence of gravity changing or assisting the motion of energy or an object. Gravity = curvature Gravitational force = the influence that gravity has to effect the change in motion For example; you have a hand but your hand can be used the exert it's force to push a door open or pull a door close. Also water exerts a force, but water itself is not the force it exerts. Gravity can push, pull, and the curvature also causes objects and energy to fall along that curvature Gravity is not one dimensional in its effect. Figuratively, gravity is like the curvature and motion of water in the ocean of space.

[@comment8767]

Lost in Space episode with June Lockheart, Lassie's mom, already covered this back in 1965. No new information in video.

[@randomchannel-px6ho]

Joel Scherk in 1979 said that supergravity predicted an additional graviscalar field that could in some cases "cancel" the gravitational interaction. Could such a "5th force" explain dark energy? Specifically that is the missing mass from gravitational waves that does not seem to the convserved elsewhere in the universe, that lightening being connected to cosmic inflation? Here's my bold idea- we need some sort of a superluminal ether. String theories dirty secret is the veneziano amplitude was born from anaylzing a tachyonic field. It's probably possible to perserve lorentz invariance somehow. I'm not going to get to excited at the moment about "new physics" honestly most of the cool "woah" ideas from string theory are 50 years old now. One of the exceptions to that is Witten's work on the langlands program, I beleive that's too profound to not be useful. But perhaps to realize that we need to go back to the drawing board and reanaylze the picture we're looking at. And thus I raise what to me is an elephant that it's meerly presumed that a final complete string theory wouldn't have a tachyonic field, but nevertheless it's mysterious what exactly happens to it in stable vacua and string theorist I'd say are too comfy pretending they don't need to address it. But what if it's like really important actually? The universes asymmetries being the result of some super higgs mechanism caused by a tachyonic instability makes so much sense the more I think about it

[@edcunion]

Can gravity waves as gravitational radiation rather be looked at as universal acceleration wave radiation that both pushes and pulls on things fermionic, makes them jiggle at constant light speed, that also speeds up and slows down their timekeeping, while also redshifting and blueshifting bosonic radiation, and do work like make electric currents flow in conductors while generating conductor related magnetic fields too? Nonsense or makes sense?

[@randomchannel-px6ho]

@@edcunion I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say but I sort of got this idea from Philip Anderson's final conjectures. The proposal is indeed that gravitational radiation is dark energy, I'm going further and proposing it is carried by a particle exchange like the one Scherk was fascinated by before his untimely death. There's some fringe interest in keeping the tachyon in string theory, Ashoke Sen proposed interpretting it as time itself! A question about theoretical superluminal particles is that there must be some observale quantum cherekov effect then, perhaps our gravitational waves with there anomalous missing mass are evidence of such a thing? Idk, Feinberg's 1967 proposal was that lorentz invariance could be preserved and thus relatitivty could have these superluminal or imaginary mass infinite momentum and zero enegy particles. Could gravity emerge from some sort of super higgs (like a goldstone field) acting on such a field giving us our universal speed limit and breaking strong - electroweak symmetry? Tachyons could be quantized with fermi stastistics, perhaps the elusive gravitino spin 3/2 superpartner of the gravitob and believed to be maybe a majorana particle and have strong cosmological significance?

[@edcunion]

@@randomchannel-px6ho Your depth of knowledge on these things is much deeper than mine, having only read some relatively recent theoretical and experimental particle physics and cosmology papers and reports for the past ten years or so. It's been interpreted by some, that bosons are timeless, and that time can form crystals, that may be timeless? Excuse this conundrum. Protons also do not appear to decay, and black holes are posited to persist for quite a while like protons depending on their size and mass. It's also been reported that the fermions formed, in the universal dark ages where phonons may have been in action, before the CMB began broadcasting its bosons back to us fermionic observerers with our measuring devices? It's also been reported that quantum particles can move both forward and backward in time? Are tachyons necessary in this universe, as bosons from their viewpoint, traverse it in no time, though to us fermionic observers they traverse it at c? We think that protons and electrons are timeless in effect, though they have an estimated age of ~ 13.8 g.a., and the protons in turn too, contain even older bosonic gluons? Are the gluon bosons also effectively timeless, but older than the protons they occupy? Giving Heisenberg's principle, will some speculation always exist, or do QED and QCD explain what is really happening? Us lay people may just not follow the math, though the Hamiltonian is pretty straightforward linear algebra with angles of rotation for 3D vectors? I don't doubt your posits, I may just not be able to follow and understand your deep well of knowledge and what all work's been done in the past. Enjoyed very much though reading your posts!

[@rohitkale6380]

How about a theory that is a bridge theory between string theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, a theory which can possibly reconcile GR with QM and the theory wherein Newtonian Gravity, GR , SR, QM, Inertia, MOND pop in effortlessly, i.e. can be derived from just a handful of assumptions... welcome to DGR- Dynamic General Relativity... the theory which can potentially give new directions to String theory and explain what its extra dimensions mean. Just one thing is needed for understanding it. Physicists should understand their psychology first. Still think String theory is the only hope? or String theory is wrong? The real answer could be somewhere in between. "String theory is partially wrong" and partially correct and DGR could provide the right direction for its growth.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

I did not see a Kaluza-Klein short in my future, well played. ^.^

[@nunomaroco583]

Incredible talk, very interesting gravitons if exist, can't wait to understand what they find at Fermilab...

[@DrBrianKeating]

@@nunomaroco583 Thank you,

[@joakimswahn9179]

Since Planck proved the quantization of space-time how does a photon move between Planck length scales? Could the Kaluza Klein manifold exist as a "medium", existing "between" Planck lengths, for photons and gravitons to travel through? And could this explain the slow speed of light?

[@edcunion]

Can the geometry of spacetime surrounding fermionic matter, that allows for EM waves to traverse through it translucently at the constant light speed c, be considered the ether as it contains those bosons that reflect off vibrating fermions? The bosons also follow the curves in that spacetime ether, follow the accelerations i.e. their fields? How interesting also, that the fermions contain a confined bosonic subset, the strong force spin 1 gluons and their tethered quarks? There be some strong magnetic field effects down near there too, as some Brookhaven researchers have recently communicated publically smashing gold atoms? What about spacetime curvature down there too, some European researchers have reported the near perfect sphericity of the protonic spheroids' charge radius, almost black hole like, that would hint at some serious if very springy and time persistent, spacetime curvature accelerations down there, that are also quite old if not near timeless, being a few hundred thousand years older that the CMB? It is almost like the constituents of "thee olde very young universe" is looking back on itself via also very old fermionic telescopes including the Lidar, and LHC perhaps too? Let's go back to the future with our fermionic measuring instruments, and viewing things at the constant speed c using EM and universal acceleration waves, being comprised of massless packets of transparent constant light speed acceleration particles! Perhaps hard to prove/disprove?

[@rongenise7006]

Let’s have 80 gazillion dimensions. That should do it.

[@francesbrezner2431]

Great discussion! I am intrigued by Prof Hooper's declaration that he would be disappointed if the standard model would be confirmed because he wants to discover new physics. Is the goal of science to describe the universe? If so, shouldn't we want to converge on the ultimate reality? At some point, when we uncover the basic facts of the universe there would no new ideas, just a confirmation of what we already know, Sad for Prof Hooper but I'd love for cosmologists to discover the "ultimate" truth.

[@mavrosyvannah]

I've been working in the 5th dimension for over 30 years, building mind machines doing work for all of us.

[@johnb8854]

*Try Looking for "The Processing System of LIFE", and its Permanent Libraries...*

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

What I scratch my head over is, we have three spacial dimension, and gravity is actually the curvature of those three dimensions in space. But doesn't a curvature of space imply that the curvature bends within another dimension? And since time is considered the fourth dimension, wouldn't that mean we should somehow define gravity as the fifth dimension?

[@johnb8854]

*Knowing the DIFFERENCE, between the human body, and "LIFE The Real Self" ( AWARENESS ) frees you from the nonsense humans believe in...*

[@MKSense1]

Not sure why we need the 5th dimension. In fact it should be ok to have 3 or 4 dimensions to explain the physical reality. Is the 5th dimension a mathematical requirement to explain the Physical reality or just an extrapolation . Will this 5th dimension allow to obey the physical conservation laws and local symmetry?

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Actually electromagnetism require 5 dimensions - Have look at the diagram of electromagnetic wave - The directional Vector is one dimension the vertical sinusoidal (Up and Down) of the directional vector is another two dimensions. The magnetic sinusoidal (in horizontal plane) Left and Right is another two dimensions. The strong Nuclear force operating in Six dimensions that's why it is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism. The hint for the Six-dimensional (Micro-dimensions) is the atomic structure where is Six Stable Electron Shells. If you are interested to learn more about this I will recommend the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Regards

[@JungleJargon]

We don’t need a graviton if the various frames of time and distance are all connected to each other.

[@carly09et]

AND the connect is extra dimension... extra dimension -> graviton It is 'chicken and egg' logic.

[@JungleJargon]

@@carly09et It’s the observed effect of general relativity.

[@99guspuppet8]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ I am looking for an orange Julius at the end of the universe.

[@DMK9923]

I'll be back when they show that the premise can be experimentally verified.

[@danielduarte5073]

Virtual particles could be the 5th dimension?

[@JungleJargon]

Dark energy is vacuum energy that is the result of black holes absorbing time and distance. It’s the opposite of inflation and expansion.

[@bkparque]

Makes sense

[@pilotnamealreadytaken6035]

When did Jeff goldbloom become a physist?

[@islandbuoy4]

file under: another human is born, another unique ego emerges, another theory is developed that will probably be buried alongside its author ... may both of ewe RIP rest in pieces

[@ericzeisel3522]

what does lattice qcd have to do with muons ??

[@robertsouth6971]

Ignorance is the mother of invention, so accordingly I have some speculation. 1. What about a second dimension of time? 2. If matter and energy are equivalent and particles and wave packets have duality, then where's all the energy in a wave to justify some particles having mass? It's certainly not in frequency and amplitude and stuff. In fact its a given a term in the wave equation. So when the particle is acting like a wave, where is all that matter? Apparently it's in Hilbert space. Other dimensions. So does this mean particles with masses are entangled with a bunch of other particles in other dimensions, and thus they have mass because the energy in those other particles counts? So that would mean more massive particles entangle with lots of other particles a long way into other dimensions and less massive particles entangle with few few other particles, or none at all in the case of photons. So maybe all this entanglement would bend probability fields, creating curvature that affects motion. 3. For that matter, since c is part of the fine structure constant it depends on vacuum permitivity. In other news, the speed of light doesn't seem to be affected by the posited quantum foam. But maybe that's because it's already figured in: it's the source of the vacuum permitivity.

[@alex79suited]

At least 1. So, 5 dimensions. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@ronmexico5908]

If as the U expands the fraction of DE increases then what really is energy is DE

[@Killer_Kovacs]

Could polar symmetry be considered a dimension

[@islandbuoy4]

5th dimension? ... that was a rock group that screwed up the timeline for the Age of Aquarius 5th dimension discussions are kinda irrelevant in a world where the most brillant theorists are still trying to figure out 3 dimensions and time 5 dimensions isn't even 1/2 of the theorized 10+ dimension string theory. M-theory adds another to make it 11. Is Dan Hooper's theory only half right?

[@carly09et]

The humour here is that Cosmology IS NOT science!

[@jjjccc728]

I was struck by the number of times assertions started with imagine that X or If X is true Then Y. It seems that there is an incredible amount of speculation going on in theoretical physics. Where is the beef?

[@robertsouth6971]

The standard model and general relativity work without fail. That's beef on your plate, in the technology we're posting through. They were created through speculation. The quote of Arthur Clarke near the end of the video points that out. Theoretical physicists theorize, thus producing theories. Ideally these are connected at one end to what is already established, but if they stay there they can't establish anything new, they reach out systematically into the unknown to see what's there by proposing what might be there.

[@jjjccc728]

@@robertsouth6971 I think the idea is discussed in this video we're way beyond those that form the standard model. I think most of them are unfalsifiable even in principle.

[@mangalover9000]

Adding new dimensions and particles creates new more problems

[@bnjm8868]

@@mangalover9000 More like clearer understanding. Getting closer to understanding how the universe works overall.

[@mangalover9000]

@@bnjm8868 it depends , we really don't know if its in the right path or not 'coz we can't find those things especially dimensions.

[@bnjm8868]

@@mangalover9000 Yeah, but neither do you know if it isn't the right path or not. Just wait till methods and technology improves, they will be found. Modern technology can only detect phenomena as small as elemental particles barely. Extra dimensions are smaller than known particles.

[@mangalover9000]

@@bnjm8868 yeah but it do ruins childs future by just claiming it is the way for theory of everything.

[@bnjm8868]

@@mangalover9000 That's your opinion. You don't know that, just as you said about what I said.

[@RichardGalante-t9f]

You explain everything in such a straightforward way!

the fourth dimension is suppose to be light. you get to the fourth dimension by dying. how do you get to dimension 5, 6, 7....i have heard there are over 30 dimensions.

[@HWM636]

Do we really not know what gravity actually is?

[@valentinmalinov8424]

We do not know what Gravity is. Unfortunately we do not know what Space is, Time; Energy; Force; Field; Electromagnetism; Polarity; Cause of Attraction; On top of this "Knowledge" we have to accept that the Universe come out "From Nothing" That all particles are "Massless" there is "Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy" There is never seen "Gluons" and "Gravitons" And the "Standard Model" is build on top of this "Knowledge" and they hiding the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" which explaining all these unknown things.

[@Im_No_Expert_72]

Are empty bookshelves the new Vogue ?😅

[@robertsouth6971]

As I understand it, professors who mostly do research (rather than teach) seldom use their offices for anything but interviews.

[@direpetto]

🤔 empty shelves

[@DrBrianKeating]

Moving to Madison

[@randyduane5370]

Just think, what if there were 24 or 48 dimensions or an I infinite number! We could pine away and endlessly fund the fascinating and beautiful math for eons.

[@williambranch4283]

Kaluza-Klein sad

[@ikeax4892]

[@Chris-op7yt]

please go ahead and show proof that we have three minesions of space now.

[@gokulgopisetti741]

Dan Hooper in this interview looks a little like the refined form of me (ha ha ha ha) but more like the Actor and hunk Ajit Kumar.

[@Xxxx-d4z]

IT’S ALL THEORY WITH GUYS WITH OVERACTIVE IMAGINATIONS.

[@philjameson292]

Ive just cooked roast chicken and my gravy is lumpy. Are these lumps Gravyions? 😊

[@rodmena3404]

Do we really know anything at all about physics

[@darrellblackmon50]

Is it just me, or does Dan Hooper look a lot like Brian Keating.... Maybe I'm in too deep in all this extra dimensional stuff but, time travel y'all. Jk thank you to both Ron and Dan for this episode. It's very informative

[@classicalmechanic8914]

Standard model and general relativity will both stand up to any scrutiny. Next breakthrough in physics will come out of incompleteness of special relativity.

[@kricketflyd111]

The missing math?

[@valentinmalinov8424]

It is a very soft description of "Incompleteness" of S.R. Actually it do not explain what Space is, Time; Energy; Force; Field; Electromagnetism; Polarity; Cause of Attraction; On top of this "Knowledge" we have to accept that the Universe come out "From Nothing" That all particles are "Massless" there is "Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy" There is never seen "Gluons" and "Gravitons" And the "Standard Model" is build on top of this "Knowledge" and they hiding the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" which explaining all these unknown things.

[@naveennaveennavi1871]

🙏

[@semontreal6907]

I can't believe this is actual science like for real do you guys just make stuff up

[@usiffputz6753]

They are always after Gods lucky Charms!

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

The zoo of exotic particles is real science and insane. So if someone is able to come up with how that can work it is probably quite out there

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Yes, they are free to make any staff, because out there is a load of people ready to believe any nonsense. They do not know what Space is, Time; Energy; Force; Field; Electromagnetism; Polarity; Cause of Attraction; On top of this "Knowledge" They ask us to accept that the Universe come out "From Nothing" That all particles are "Massless" there is "Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy" There is never seen "Gluons" and "Gravitons" And the "Standard Model" is build on top of this "Knowledge" They pumping out nonsense, but is hiding the existence of the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" which explaining all these unknown to them things.

[@rongenise7006]

Yes, they do.

[@MyrLin8]

Everything is based on primes. Get real. ;) It's the prime question.

[@edcunion]

Is it a fanciful idea, perhaps an oxymoron, to posit that the proposed boson the graviton would have mass, as they would have to be light speed also and have no rest mass? Would extra dimensions require extra-dimensional conscious observation and measurement to comply with the scientific method or dogma, require a ghost or ghosts in that extra-dimensional machinery? How would the uncertainty principle tie in or entangle itself amongst and betwixt a 5th or any number of n-dimensions? When the Ligo arms and earth oscillates their different scale geometries physically see or realize different slices of the spectrum of the constant light speed universal radiation effect? Ligo shows us that gravitational, i.e. universal acceleration radiation is light speed, and fermionic matter is transparent to its passage through it, though it oscillates or jostles the geometry of the fermionic stuff, does some work masslessly, as it traverses and permanently stretches out spacetime, leaving it's imprint as a kind of memory, i.e. some transparently weighty if illusory Information? Some researchers are thinking about gravitational memory effects, as our universe appears to be accelerating toward increasing its size so to speak, expanding? Is it true all of us observant experimentalists are fermionic and comprised of pre-CMB confined primordial gluons and quarks, that are all in sub-light speed universal free fall through space, being like some kind of conscious precipitate that observes other free falling fermionic particulate precipitates at the constant speed of light, and that also "feel" their massless packets of universal acceleration radiation at the same constant "c" too? Caffeine's quite the psychedelic molecule, if there are compactified invisible 5th dimensional rings of power that act like the Wizard of Oz, hiding behind a brane-like curtain, masslessly pushing & pulling on the geometric gears that are directing the experiences of our 4D reality!

[@anamariatiradogonzalez]

J5 turbe demasiadi cascako icuoado de protteger hijis tintis . U uyo mo te gi que iagar sts polvid

[@superscienceshow]

I cant trust a person that has empty bookshelves.

[@michellefranklin3182]

Hi guys. Can you say dark matter is inactivated matter?

[@paul.cookie]

paricle physics is dead

[@surendranmk5306]

Confused mind of an educated gentleman! Simply, he don't understand what is dimension.

[@kricketflyd111]

@@surendranmk5306Rudolph Steiner is good, he can help. Check out the quotes of Tesla describing what he can see in a crystal. It's the comprehension of dimensions a person can see that begins the journey for the alchemist. I'm learning just like you.

[@kricketflyd111]

@@surendranmk5306 I do not believe much of what Einstein says, I don't recall him discussing what you call reductionism.

[@kricketflyd111]

@@surendranmk5306 p.s. he already has. 🤑

[@theomnisthour6400]

Nothing has to "move" so difficulty as gravitons except in the small minds of materialists

[@jackrabbitism]

I don’t understand a word of this. Sorry.

[@Phatxual]

Questions starting with things like "If God told you.. ..?" are the reasons this channel isn't catching the wind it should be. It's a turn-off when trying to focus on the factual evidence🤢

[@UnknownSupporter-uo7ks]

Wow from an outside view of your world I think you should work for Disney because it just seems you lot make stuff up to fit your purpose and convince yourself that it’s right. String theory is the worse

[@lz43p15]

string theory, extra dimensions and the theory of everything, all bullshit.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

There is absolutely no need to look for extra dimensions if we are only prepared to consider the development of, and growth on, THE PLANTS that grow in our own backyards as deserving attention to design our theoretical model for sustenance of our own life. Consider the possibility that all the 17 particle types of The Standard model (hence, also all the 118 Elements of the Periodic Table) are trillions of times larger than the particles inside the core of the earth that THE PLANTS access through their roots and grow as leaves flowers and fruits after incorperating them into the particles we measure as those of Stanndard Model (hence, also of The Periodic Table). Then, obviously, what we measure as Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen,..., Proteins, CO2, etc. ~ are all, in fact, compounds that already contain trillions of those particles (let's call them Sensons, and trillions of times still larger Feelons, which are themselves trillions of times tinier than even a photon) so tiny that the motions we measure as the 4 forces are totally INSENSITIVE to changes in them. Then neither mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic nor nuclear changes would have any influence on the content of these Sensons or even the much larger Feelons. If the combination of unique number of these Senson particles at unique positions of Feelons, which only interactions among plants may induce, cause what we call QUALIA or CONSCIOUSNESS, then we'd require a completely different system of particles, THE DIGITS, that enable us to count in our minds (NOT the electrons in the BITs of the chips we manufacture ourselves), the interactions among which follow the natural LAWS OF MOTION that we call the 4 basic rules of arithmetic operations (+ - × ÷), for deriving the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth enable development of, and growth on, PLANTS and subsequently also for deriving the meanings of QUALIA, CONSCIOUSNESS and LIFE as interactions among these SENSONS and FEELONS. Thereby also specifying the difference between PLANTS and BEINGS (ANIMALS and HUMANS) as corresponding to possession in any entity (that we call body of a being) of threshold numbers of FEELONS as characterizing constituents of that entity. So, attempting to measure the particles that cause Qualia, Consciouness or Life using the instruments with which the particles of The Standard Model are measured, would be the same as attempting to measure atomic weights on commercial weighing machines in Kgs and Tons. The measurements of SENSONS and FEELONS demand a completely different theoretical model linking particle interactions inside the core of the earth to development of, and growth on, PLANTS, totally unrelated to the NONLIVING instruments used in TEOS (The Experimental and Observational Science). All measurements MUST be sense and need perceptions of beings linkable to development of, and growth on, PLANTS.

[@theomnisthour6400]

I'm waiting for this fool to talk about the logical conclusion that explains all human experience - the 12D string merkaba of physical, spiritual, and god level experience.

[@jackrabbitism]

Speaking of fools how does God have a level?

[@theomnisthour6400]

@@jackrabbitism the same way as any other soul does. Because good leaders eat their own dogfood. How do you think fine tuning of creation happens, idiot?

[@kricketflyd111]

It won't be in this life time. 😊

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

The common explanation for that we don't experience the extra dimensions is that they are to small. There is also theories with large extra dimensions, that is a little bit trickier to explain. Then we have to somehow explain why the particles an matter we are made of and interact with is constrained to the normal 3+1 dimensions.

[@theomnisthour6400]

@@lubricustheslippery5028 That's absurd. Some parallel universe space-times are nearly as extensive as the latest version of the physical universe. It's the scientism cult's version of the "how many angels fit on a pinhead argument". It worships minimalism as a virtue, a pretty narrow minded and anticreative subcult

[@usiffputz6753]

Stop trying to figure out God! Let it be!

[@HunterChristian-o7o]

@@usiffputz6753 God didn't invent man, rather, man invented God.

[@jackrabbitism]

Speaking of “fools”, how does “God” have a particular “level”?

[@usiffputz6753]

Because he’s God simple

[@jackrabbitism]

@@usiffputz6753 He certainly is simple (and rather silly) but if he’s on a particular level, any level, even if it’s the top level, it means he can’t be omnipresent or omnipotent. Those are contradictory concepts. That might not be simple to understand, but it is rather important. Good luck.

[@kricketflyd111]

God is the conscious of the universe and dark matter is the blood of Christ, that revelation is a dimensional comprehension called "The Holy Grail " 🔥👀

[@usiffputz6753]

Why do you waste time trying to figure out god? Could it be you want to become God?

[@MADDcartman]

Curiosity and greed are very different. If I also wanted to be flippant I could ask if you are trying to play god by utilizing your cell phone. I’ve noticed it’s very vogue to criticize the growing pains of science all the while using all of their achievements. Js

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

Without science we would still be in caves. And I don't get any connection with the video and some sort of god

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Hahahahaha... wastage of time

[@CoffeePHlover]

You don't have the keys