TEDxBoulder - Thad Roberts - Visualizing Eleven Dimensions

[@kingOfTheStreets100]

Does anybody really realize how monumental this information is? I mean it is almost unbelievable how he was able to figure this out, and then explain it so beautifully.

[@nabieladrian]

And as everyone says, we wish he had more time (and space)

[@brocq18]

I mean that's relative. A highly intelligent person could say he dumbed it down.

[@RichardHarlos]

@@brocq18 wrote, _"I mean that's relative. A highly intelligent person could say he dumbed it down."_ Actually, a highly intelligent person wouldn't say such a thing. Here's why: It's generally agreed that 3 heuristics for effective communication are: 1. Know your content; 2. Know your audience; 3. Tailor the content (i.e., 'encode the message') for maximal comprehension by the intended audience. From this we understand that presenting quantum physics at a TEDx talk is 'tailored to the audience' of practical necessity. Were he to present this at a conference for quantum physicists, it would be tailored (encoded) appropriately. Highly intelligent people understand this practical necessity of encoding for the intended audience -- they likely wouldn't find any value in referring to such encoding considerations in a disparaging manner ('dumbing it down'). Such language is less about being 'highly intelligent' than it is about one's ego posturing superiority. Our word choices matter much more than we may imagine. They also may reveal things to others that we ourselves may not be consciously aware of yet that happen to be true, e.g., egoic posturing. And, when invited to consider such subtlety, even the tendency to minimize its importance may suggest egoic self-protection mechanisms, and this may be regardless whether such mechanisms are conscious or subconscious.

[@brocq18]

@@RichardHarlos did you actually think about your response..

[@jennzenn971]

​@@brocq18 😂

[@FF-qc8kw]

My dude had to explain quantum physics and dimensions in ONLY 15 min, no wonder he looked like he was struggling a bit, i wish he had more time (and space :D)

[@anoncanada2341]

yeah that was absurd .................15 minutes what a joke -_-

[@daniel_dumile]

He knew how much time he had. poor planning

[@carsonjones6752]

I am impressed that he explained so much in such a limited time. He did great for only having 15 minutes to do the entire presentation.

[@MrBlue-km8qv]

He did a good job.

[@InsanitysApex]

@@daniel_dumile He could have spent more time "planning" to impress you or he could have spent it working on quantum physics. Difficult choice.

[@natelatka6370]

This demonstrates how important it is to have the right framework when making any kind of observation. Without the proper mental tools to interpret information we will be limited to ‘flatlander’ explanations that dont always make sense

[@VoteForLennox]

It seems I've found this amazing video a little late. But I believe that doesn't change the importance of this man. A man who isn't afraid to take on what so many have deemed as The Way of things. We need more people who take the fundamentals of our science and math and challenge them. We are a species who like to put in answers to where answers might not be correct. I do say, his challenge to just because it's worked so far, does it mean it will work for all - is an excellent and dangerous stand. I hope this man does not grow weary and that his video is an influence unto the others that see it. If you are reading this, stand steady my friend. Because you are what this world needs!

[@iwabuchik2010]

5:24 Let's consider an analogy 5:53 If space is quantized... 6:32 3 distinct types of volume 6:38 Distance between any 2 points in space 6:47 The volume inside each quantum is inter-spatial 6:50 The volume which the quanta move about in is super-spatial 7:26 Then, we have time 7:32 Supertime 7:53 Curved spacetime 12:18 Dark matter 13:59 Dark energy

[@josephfield6969]

Legend

[@kathleenlovett1958]

THANK YOU 🙏❣️

[@Kalepherion]

Rethinking reality, I love it. Concepts that challenge normal perception are what raise the questions that change humanity.

[@PianoJester]

This is the first understandable explanation I've encountered to allow a basic understanding of how there can be more than 4 dimensions (x, y, z, time). What a great crash course in extra dimensions!

[@Chris.Davies]

Time and space are not interchangeable the way energy and matter are. Time is not a spatial dimension. Time is simply that which permits movement. Because movement means velocity, and because velocity is calculated as distance over time, time is required for matter to exist. There is no past "time" and no "future" time - those are not "places" you can visit. There is only ever now, forever.

[@LuisCurrupaki]

After a couple of years looking for some explanation for the higher dimensions, this is for sure the best one I've ever found. Thank you, sir, for clarifying in such an elegant and simple presentation, I'm sure I have a better picture of space-time itself in my mind after watching this, one that seems to make even more sense in physics, chemistry and any other natural science.

[@SharperthanA]

Unfortunately it's more just mathematics than that. Ex. A*b*c*d=0 is an equation with four parameters or, four dimensions.

[@knightmare1047]

This last one is short and similar to this Ted talks introduction

[@awaishssn]

5 years after your comment (10 years since the talk) and this is still the best presentation on the topic.

[@jimbrown8313]

Remembering that his is an unconventional visualization of the dimensions. There are almost countless configurations of the multispace that meet the requirements. Ore weirdness. That's why I like his. Its not weird. But I still want to know the basis of his statement that pressure affects speed

[@jer3366469]

@@SharperthanA but dimensions are not fundamental, but rather emergent from consciousness.

[@GingerHarrisShepherd]

the first time I saw the 11th dimensional clip in this talk it annoyed me greatly, upon second time it started appearing clearer, the third time I can start to see the music. Thank you so much for keeping me grounded during this dimension shift! cheers!

[@longsin9993]

Wow, I think this is the first time I’ve got a fundamental understanding of these extra dimensions without being left at the end thinking this is all way too exotic for my mind. Thanks for the great explanation!

[@BingtheLizard]

Despite him running out of time, I wish he could have kept going.

[@jun1orbaitor44]

+MrGrevy Physics transcends Race, for the laymen

[@jun1orbaitor44]

+MrGrevy Affirmative action in physics has NOTHING to do with whether or not a black person can "visualize " or interpret "this stuff" you ignorant bigot. What exactly am i "unaware " of?? Please enlighten me

[@treyforest2466]

+MrGrevy He's not an affirmative action anything, he's a brilliant scientist who earned his degrees and his respect in the field. He's smarter than me and the vast majority of my (white) friends.

[@treyforest2466]

***** He's already earned his degrees (and several awards.) What he chooses to do with his career is his choice.

[@treyforest2466]

***** Fair enough. I don't see how that makes him 'affirmative action' though, there are plenty of white scientists with a very similar career and level of fame. Bill Nye is a prime example. To be honest, I'm not sure I know where anybody is trying to go with this conversation, actually.

[@wardippy226]

When you realize this talk was flagged by TED because it's his theory and not a peer-reviewed theory. Excuse me WHAT? Give this man a medal

[@bobobonobo759]

Peer review is a measure of how much other scientists see the work reflecting well on their own work. It has less to do with accuracy than political approval. Ted sucks.

[@kuylerray3295]

From what I understand. Hes basically saying. That the strange inconsistencies we see in our 3 dimensional plain can be better described as the result of different dimensions with different dimensional properties interacting with our own. However he really needed more time for the level of complexity he wished to convey on the subject.

[@Nico-pg7qr]

Yeah the xyz of our spacial 3d world, the xyz of cuantom scale space (because rules are different from one scale of space to the cuantom one), and in the quantum world within each particle themself the xyz of the volume within the particle (because rules again are different inside than outside of the particle and in cuantum space). At least that i think he said xD

[@badash1738]

One caveat to this....it depends on reliable observation! This is theoretical! If we observe events, we identify patterns! If we can not observe them,...then they are singularities! We can not fully observe the universe so it is a singularity as far as we can prove, which means there is not pattern or formula that repeats! It is like studying the whole body! We are at the phalanges in knowledge predicting the whole system which is a body based off of very limited information! When it comes to this topic we are really playing with probability...and I am curious about what he observed?

[@VitalyClarX]

I didn't understood that... I think he just said space can be thinked as a "thing" (for lack of a better word) and if you do so, you can project it with more than three dimensions... but those are not worlds like in rick and morty, those are only directions available in space, that's why he talks about geometry so much and nothing out of this world or different properties as you said, he actually talked about the same phenomenons we can see like density, temperature and elasticity, which is weird... That's what i got, hopefully it helps you, everything is probably wrong tho xd And don't forget the foot note of the video, this talk is not proven or accepted as far as I know. (tho i really liked it :3)

[@highestsettings]

Imagine pockets of 3 dimensional space interacting with each other as atoms do. From within the pocket of space (as we are), it seems as though there is a consistent measurement, a metre is always a metre. However, outside of the pockets, these lengths can be different, because although the pockets of space feel connected to us, there is actually space between them. Which is especially interesting when you think of how a solid object you can hold in your hand is actually a bunch of atoms influencing each other, a bunch of pool balls bouncing around at each other. Which is probably why the guy used a pool table for the initial example.

[@americansoil8260]

Your right, say 3 marbles each has 3 dimensions and they individually move in concert or individually

[@lloydf8653]

This blew my mind. My jaw was literally open for straight one minute when he was talking about quantum tunnelling in the context of quantization of space.

[@brocq18]

Exactly. Thought the same thing.

[@ethrboy]

same, that was quite jarring to realize

[@EkaridonGaming]

Woah...Linking gravity to the local density of space itself is just... amazingly clean. And the fact that it further explains dark matter and dark energy is just a monumental discovery!!

[@michelec4042]

One of the best talks I have ever heard on space/time/dimensions! Remarkably easy to follow in spite of the complexity of the subject. Great job, can't wait to see more!

[@isambo400]

I think he is hiding other dimensions in his cargo shorts

[@reesesmith6104]

+isambo400 Oh my gosh I'm dying! :'D

[@muralin239]

+isambo400 Thad Roberts is a physicist who first came into the public spotlight for his role in the theft of 100 grams (3.5 oz) of lunar samples from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas while being a co-op at the facility. Roberts was sentenced to 100 months in federal prison for the crime. Roberts used this time to explore the mysteries of modern physics, taking a particular interest in the philosophical postures of Bohmian mechanics, and Superfluid Vacuum Theory. Today he works as a theoretical physicist for a private think tank which is financing the research into his candidate Grand Unified Theory: quantum space theory (qst).[2] He is a public speaker for the American Program Bureau

[@muralin239]

Jon Starace you wasted your comment..I can't understand sarcasm.

[@KoldkilleR99]

Murali Krishna Nepalli that's cool Info!! This guy and his theory have intrigued me!

[@romarainpc7659]

@Murali Krishna Nepalli : LoL, same. I think just autists can understand metaphysical questions with the rigor of science. Others just think their better in science and giving lessons.

[@Andrewlohbihler]

The suggestion of this model is that the vacuum of space as we know it is a quantum super-fluid or a two-phase fluid where the dispersed medium (black spheres of Planck diameter) and a continuous medium of nothing. It seems that motion of matter is described as movement through the black spheres, and quantum superposition through the nothing. Gravity is an increase in density of black spheres, dark matter is a solid phase of black spheres, and dark energy is the collision energy of black spheres. This is a simple and intuitive theory of everything.

[@NikolaosSkordilis]

So he modified String Theory?

[@Andrewlohbihler]

Nikolaos Skordilis No, its a new theory altogether. Instead of strings and membranes, its a super fluid. I'm not sure what the super fluid spheres are made up of yet. Your guess is as good as mine.

[@the_mastermage]

it's magic i mean the spheres

[@vladmarcu3536]

So why am I trying to understand this?

[@preyfan]

I don't think so. I am very certain that everything is made out of vibrating particles and vibrating strings.

[@siddhantabhijit3740]

Wow I love this guy. He's so easy to understand, and humble too.

[@ChocolateBrocoli]

Quite a few comments complain about how it's not about 11 dimensions, however that won't nearly possible in a video. Theoretical physics is complicated af, so instead of explaining each dimension, he explained how arbitrary values and events in our universe can be explained by geometric dimensions. Instead of thinking of time, temperature, ampere etc. you can explain them by dimensions, geometric 'structures' which hold a value (coordinate). The reason he didn't explain all of them is because some of these values are only really recognised by physics, such as the spin of particles, flavours etc. which probably won't mean anything to most people. He still did a decent job in explaining how these values stack up as dimensions, and this can simply be continued for other fundamental states. Plz pardon physics mistakes, i'm not a physicist :P

[@johnschut164]

Most important TED talk ever in my opinion. This deserves millions of views!

[@Dieterdesigns702]

right?!?

[@mikip3242]

As a physicist let me tell you that this is puré esotheric giberish. He's distegarding almost every relevant discovery of the matter to give his magic.

[@paulolima1442]

agree totally !

[@AMAingrid]

More of this please! And I would not mind chopped into different shows. Too much in too little time. So fascinating. Thank you!

[@portaadonai]

I held on for about halfway through, then I got flung off into the abyss of ignorance

[@SpaceCadetLaC]

Come back its very interesting.

[@ryugo7713]

’e-ḇen the comment section😂😂🤣🤣

[@glennslater56]

Yep, nearly did the same but there were a couple of light bulb moments after.

[@primetimedurkheim2717]

Just close your eyes while you listen and mentally envision his words. It's just imagination and mathematics.

[@portaadonai]

@@primetimedurkheim2717 zzzzz.... oops i fell asleep!

[@Briantreeu123]

What a great presentation. This is the first time I come away with a better understanding of dimensions rather than scratching my head. Thank you for this. I too wish he had more time.

[@ernestdesoto1906]

I’m a flatlander and this popped up on my YT feed. I have a headache now so I’m going to Facebook to look at photos of my friends’ dinner.

[@downcross1010]

Over years I have learned to trust a sense I have ,It tell's me when the information I am being exposed to is important , likely to be true or very useful, it's the core of my work and that sense is ringing like a bell.

[@siquod]

You are not alone. It's called the Dunning-Kruger-sense. Look it up.

[@divenursok]

@@siquod you delight in doing things like this. I’m quite sure I’ve seen your posts in other places.

[@mauriziobocchetta9689]

Great presentation. There is a basic conundrum though. Are multiple dimensions just a way to render nature more "human brain friendly" or do they really exists? I have the intuition that adding dimensions simplify some explanations and make nature more discernible. But do they really exist, or are they just "understanding prostheses"?

[@Drchef4ever]

+Maurizio Bocchetta Adding more dimensions to our model of the universe is actually the opposite of "human brain friendly". They are not intuitive for brains that think in 3 spatial dimensions, and that is why physicists came to these conclusions through understanding phenomena conceptually through math. Although visualizations of higher dimensions can be useful, it is actually impossible for us to 'see' the many higher dimensions in a meaningful way. As far as I understand more dimensions make sense mathematically and provide predictions as to how the universe should work that have passed many experiments. The details of the geometry for the dimensions/how many exist is more debated than the existence of many dimensions.

[@mauriziobocchetta9689]

I agree with you 100%, that is not debatable. Still, math is a product of the human brain. It appears that a theory has appeal for its elegance, simplicity, etc. Still, it sounds like a human interpretation. Please forgive me, but I still need to recover for my teenage infatuation with Immanuel Kant...

[@stonefacedcreep208]

+Luis Valenzuela Maybe it's just relatively "brain friendly". After all String Theory is admired for it's mathematical constancy. Not because it's been observed.

[@knotfkingaround90]

+Maurizio Bocchetta-Absolutely anything above three or four is fairly uselees, meaningless. As is stated upper, it would make the most sense to say there for being more "friendly". However, if the theory/hypothesis proves correcto, it'd make Quantum Mechanics drastically easier(if not in the very least substantially)..

[@vvmakovv2689]

That is a good point. It could be a subconscious way for are brain to make sense of otherwise complex information. The brain is always subconsciously noticing patterns, so when there is no pattern, it gets confused.

[@ParagPandit]

This is so well explained! Always believed the most complex ideas can be understood in the simplest layman terms if one really wants.

[@seanjhardy]

just so everyone does not take this talk as gospel, this is the author's personal theory of quantum physics and is not based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence or research, source: description

[@brutalvocalcovers]

Sean Hardy Thank you.

[@OjashShrestha95]

This was probably the shortest 15 mins TEDx Talk Video. Watching this in 2019 and seriously pissed at Google's Recommendation Algorithm to never had showcased me this before unless questions popped into my mind to have this effort to deep search like a Viking probably. Yet So, Extremely grateful to the speak and today's technology, I get to witness this and clear my previous doubts and queries. Problem is now I have twice the question before I had watched this video. Hope to meet you in person some day Robert!

[@buddhabuddh5040]

So this guy Thad finally wrote a book explaining his theory to attempt to address the challenges of multi-dimensional space. I read through a good deal of it; Pretty cool stuff really and very exciting since we will soon have the ability to read the universe via gravity waves, which should be able to give us the ability to thoroughly test these ideas. I'll have to see if I can find it.

[@buddhabuddh5040]

+Jeff Gilbert Here it is: Einstein's Intuition. www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Intuition-Visualizing-Nature-Dimensions/dp/0996394249/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455421359&sr=8-1&keywords=einstein%27s+intuition

[@DavidHeggli]

...for a theory of everything! :-))

[@DavidHeggli]

Well - they don't agree yet. But after interacting with a bunch of 'em, for no good reason. It took Einstein 30yrs to establish his general relativity. Without an ego problem and not much time and energy wasted on string- & m-theory and the standard model, (after intense study for almost 2yrs) I've come to the conclusion that QST is with 95-99% probability the real deal and Thad Roberts the next Einstein. It is even an extended ToE (Theory of everything) at that with huge implications on physics, astro-physics, philosophy and even religion... Occam's razor is in favor of QST about 9:1 against any other theory out there and none of them comes even close to explain so many mysteries so intuitively. - only two axioms required (space is quantized at the planck length and the vacuum behaves like a superfluid) - no dark matter required - no dark energy required - explains beautifully what is time?! - explains beautifully what is gravity?! - solution of the wave-particle "duality" (spoiler alert: it's ALWAYS a particle. Bohmian mechanics will replace quantum mechanics) - Heisenberg uncertainty principle explained - and eliminated with the higher resolution perspective of 11 dimensions - SIMPLE formula for ALL constants of nature based ONLY on the 5 Planck basic units, Pi and Zhe (Je) (new constant, pi measured over maximum curved space. Zhe = 0.08424543...) - provides an INTUITIVE way to think in 11 dimensions, even for lay persons! - removes the need for the esoteric and arbitrarily invented probability vector of qm which nobody can explain how and why it should collapse - I myself found a hypothesis, how QST could explain super conductivity - and finally: QST is so simple and intuitive, it will be falsified in no time, IF WRONG!

[@DavidHeggli]

ahh - you know me so well to have an opinion about me MrGrevy. Study the book first before you call other people you don't know uninformed... And for the unproven: qm, string-, m-, holographic- and all the other theories are PROVEN - right? They are maybe more ESTABLISHED than QST right now, but that's gonna change... Watch it. No need to be rude. Time will tell who was right and who was - well, whatever you are...

[@natel3250]

-

[@CYON4D]

I really liked the theory and the presentation. Thanks for sharing this with us.

[@webjunkienl]

*hypothesis

[@siquod]

The theory is most likely rubbish, but I can't be sure because the presentation is so bad that it's basically just slinging around weird concepts from actual physics together with words like "superspacial" and "interspacial" without defining them or how they fit together. He tells us virtually nothing about his theory except that it can explain everything, but don't ask how, just be awed.

[@CYON4D]

@@siquod I agree that it was really rushed but he didn't have enough time. Would have loved to hear more on how quantum tunneling, garvity, dark matter/energy and universal constants can be derived from the model but he barely had the time to cover all the topics so I don't blame him.

[@Metalbirne]

Ampere can actually be broken down into Coloumb and Time. I still don't understand why they made Ampere the base unit it seems so random to me. Q/s would make much more sense...

[@dennisr.levesque2320]

Yeah. Both amps and temperature should be combined into a common unit of energy. Energy can change forms, just like mass can.

[@noyourtheman]

Volume, turn it up or down. intensity. amps = Volume - turn it up or down. Temperature - ice, water, steam, or super cooled liquid - perhaps oxygen or hydrogen. Each composed of quanta, except - amps or volume - intensity. Amps describes the intensity of the function.

[@noyourtheman]

@@dennisr.levesque2320 amps = Volume - turn it up or down. Temperature - ice, water, steam, or super cooled liquid - perhaps oxygen or hydrogen. Each composed of quanta, except - amps or volume - intensity. Amps describes the intensity of the function.

[@jorgeestevez948]

This is amazing. I cannot believe he said SOOOOOO much in only 15 minutes. My mind was just massaged with a new vision!

[@rackattackgamer7928]

AETHER! Welcome back. We missed you. So gravity is, drag (density), for things moving? Ok, explains it for stuff moving, but what about stationary? Pressure and density? The results would be opposite. Instead of "sinking" we should be floating, no? "We all float down here!"

[@jabloko992]

I didn't get it

[@spooks160]

lol brainlet.

[@magnetospin]

You probably shouldn't. This guy claims to be a physicist but does not have a degree in physicists. He was in prison when real physicists would be working on their PhD.

[@hellsing3062]

You certainly aren't alone

[@chrisperkins3026]

if you did get it then you'd be wrong. that guy is a jackass

[@sichambers9011]

I totally got it and am actualising my life in 11D.

[@ididjaustralia]

if space is quantized, how can an object occupy the "space" between space?

[@billhutchinson6462]

An 'object' can't, because an object is something we recognize as three dimensional, which according to the description in the video is made up of quantized units of space. Another quanta of space could occupy the 'super-space' between spaces, because that is the nature of super-space.

[@allusiveatheist9760]

I'm just guessing but, the quata may act as media for information. As such the transmission of such information across a sea of quanta (one quanta or one pair of quanta at a time) would model the movement of elementary particles or waveforms through "space." It's hard to imagine anything being stationary, suspended continuously in/by the same quanta. This also raises some interesting questions about speed limits. I'm still having a lot of trouble understanding how our familiar concept of time works under this model.

[@eideticex]

Your thinking in 3 dimensions still. I'll try to explain it as Minecraft. The quantized unit in Minecraft is a cube. Everything including the 'air' is just a massive grid of cubes. You can't go between these cubes but you can move from one of the cubes to the one of it's neighbors or move the cubes to change their spatial relationship to one another. Except in this model's case there are forces affecting the spatial relationship of cubes instead of people and the effects (gravity, magnetism, etc) are results of those spatial relations.

[@parblisful]

the quantized space he is talking about is the fundamental building block of space. if it gets smaller than that quantized entity it does not poses the property of space.so there is no space in between the space. if you talk about space there is no dis-joint .....if there is a gap smaller than the space quanta...that will not be observable when you try to examine space ..but if you go to a lower scale than space quanta .. then you will see quanta of that entity not the space anymore.... If you see an wooden block you see a continuous piece ... but if you magnify further you see atom and their discrete nature ... then its atom ...its no more a wooden block ....its all depends on you scale of perception and scale of fundamental building block of the entity.

[@KaiEternal]

I kind of think of it like a separate "substance". Fish live in water and outside the water is the atmosphere. If two oceans are cut off you must travel outside it to get to the next. Outside the atmosphere is space and you must travel outside the atmosphere to get to other atmospheres. Atmospheres are contained within space and oceans are contained within atmospheres and space. To travel to another space outside of space you must traverse the "space" between spaces which space is contained within. An early conception of what space is was the air of the gods an air beyond air and to get to places outside of our air you must traverse this "upper sky". A fish may likely hold a similar view of our air. It is the water of the gods the "ocean" beyond the ocean. Sky, "ocean" beyond the ocean. Space, "sky" beyond the sky. Interspace, "space" beyond space. You could go further though we have no basis for that other than it seems to have gone further thus far.

[@bastelanofboria]

This is so so so good, never heard it explained in such a connected sense before! Well done 👏✔👍

[@bidyo1365]

💯

[@Saurabh_Tewari007]

After reading the note in the description I can understand why we still know just 5% about our universe no one likes to think out of the box

[@intothevortexwithdatorsapi4192]

INCREDIBLE for him to explain THE ENTIRE NATURE OF THE QUANTOM UNIVERSE in only FIFTEEN MINUTE'S!! This 15 minutes just explained all the basics to our Quantom Universe! IMPRESSIVE!! 🙏

[@samhauser4691]

I’ve learned everything and nothing at the same time

[@ffggddss]

10:35, et seq. The 5 base units. (Well, actually basic physical quantities) • length - yes • mass - yes • time - yes • ampere - that's a particular unit of the quantity, "electric current" • temperature - no. This is not fundamental; it is expressible in terms of 3 of the previous ones; namely, it is energy per particle. Energy is a certain combination of mass, length, and time; number of particles is a pure number, & thus, dimensionless. So the list should be: The 4 basic physical quantities • length • mass • time • electric current (although actually, electric charge is a better fit here; more analogous to mass)

[@tomszabo7350]

Wrong. Temperature is fundamental because it defines the limits at which quanta shift between states.

[@ffggddss]

Not wrong. That doesn't make it fundamental, when you can re-cast it in terms of the other quantities.

[@tomszabo7350]

I see. So can you please inform me as to how one can, say, use a voltmeter to "recast in terms of the other quantities" and determine how warm it is outside?

[@ffggddss]

Who said anything about a voltmeter, or volts, for that matter? No electromagnetic quantities are needed to do this. Absolute temperature, T, is, in physical dimension terms, energy per particle in a substance. Energy = mass * length²/time² "per particle" means per counting number; thus, dimensionless; a pure number. So in the end, T ~ ML²/t² And that's what I mean by "casting it in terms of other quantities." 1 Kelvin = (some mathematical constant)*kg·m²/s² And that, in turn, casts its unit in the standardly-accepted units of those other quantities.

[@tomszabo7350]

ffggddss I was being a bit facetious with that example, but there was a reason .... to wit, you can obviously restate Planck temperature in values of energy using unity at the Planck scale, but you still need the Boltzmann constant to convert at the boundary of states (e.g. where entropy calculations become relevant in describing a system).

[@erickamezcua8182]

Ted: Why would you ever flag this? This man has some great ideas, and just because they aren’t peer reviewed and he hasn’t navigated the politics of academia does not mean he should be silenced. Your motto is “Ideas worth spreading.”

[@austinhixson625]

Yeah I totally agree, I was super intrigued by the things this guy was saying and interested in doing a deeper dive on my own, but TED kind of threw a wet blanket on the whole thing by flagging it like that. He's not saying this is the new "theory of everything", instead its a visual framework to understand things that are damn near impossible to conceptualize in our minds. I mean, that's why he titled it Visualizing Eleven Dimensions!

[@gent8982]

TED pretends to be a stage for "ideas worth spreading" but conflates this ideal with "ideas we deem worth spreading according to our agenda". And that takes away the credibility of TED instead of the people it flags. Because this is not a first.

[@utopian1402]

I guess TED looks at it for a point of view of "hit-worthy" or "view-worthy" than "content-worthy" Used to be good but nowadays TED is just grown too much to appreciate content equitably

[@utopian1402]

@@gent8982 i agree ... not the first flagged content I have seen

[@maskonfilteroff3145]

TED has "silenced" him? Man, I could have sworn I just watched him give a talk. Must've been my imagination.

[@ParrotPentester]

This is the first Tedx talk I haven't skimmed through

[@anthonyelevendy]

This need to be adapted immediately. This is the best representation of the fundamentals of the universe. This is 100% infallable. We've needed to rewrite our 'caveman' calculations for a long time

[@patrickkilduff5272]

I enjoyed this video very much. I would like to hear how quantum entanglement is explained by this model.

[@MenteWester]

Patrick Kilduff Me too, that would be very interesting.

+Patrick Kilduff Probably involves Jebus.

[@iceflame101]

+Patrick Kilduff I would love to hear quantum entanglement explained by anything

[@Novasky2007]

+Richie Lane The whole point of quantum mechanics... is it doesn't require explanation and even if you could explain it you could never apply it to anything tangible.

Stick to the drawing.

[@narveenaryaputri9759]

Brilliant video. Taking so much information and explaining it so simply to us is a skill set that is its own. Thank you. I have always been fascinating by dimensions and keep trying to figure it out, but the information available is very obscure. It's a huge advantage to have a blueprint, as you call it.

[@ears4D]

I'm glad that people are interested in dimensions. but let's get 4D before we jump up to 11D

[@TheMadManPlace]

We already know about the 4th dimension - and its out "flatland" - we know it as time. We cannot get above or below it, to the left or the right of it, we can't even go back on it, only forward. As 3rd dimensional entities, we cannot do a damn thing with or about it. And who knows where the 5th dimension is.... Maybe that is the "flatland" of whatever is in the 4th dimension.

[@soldierofscience2888]

We are already in 4D. You can't meet someone at a place, without there being a time. Time is that 4th dimension.

[@soldierofscience2888]

its possible we can't recognize it, but maybe it's the ghosts we see, or the orbs or other dimensions that cross our path.

[@DR-br5gb]

Time is not the fourth dimension

[@wylieryanjonlean3661]

ears4D smooth marketing.

[@tangentquo7996]

so cool. your demeanor let us know we'd have to hang on. your pace let us recap and pause. your voice is calm smooth and musical which gave us the sound of the information you have to give, not only the words. listening again, is a privilege. ty

[@kristianvitanyi5992]

This was realy interesting. Wonder if there are theories about other dimensions on large scales, like larger then the visible universe, and how those might affect us?

[@ericwarncke]

You lost me at "Quanta". I'll sleep on this video and try watching again in a couple days and see if I pick up on more the next time. This is pretty complex.

[@jeremias-serus]

Have you rewatched it yet?

[@DragonsFrogs]

Eric Warncke actually died in a tragic public masturbation accident soon after writing this comment. My heart goes out to his family...may his search history rest eternally undisturbed

[@americansoil8260]

Lol it’s just a bunch of marbles in 9 dimensions doing there own thing, kinda like the federal government

[@ericwarncke]

I'm still alive. Still don't get it.

[@Skynet_the_AI]

Hey I'm back, w t f? Ah.

[@SeanMauer]

Best lecture on KZbin!. To take the "leap" out of quantized space, think about Zeno's paradox in reverse, in order for an object to move at it's initial movement it must go from zero to something instantly. Space must be quantized. If you enjoyed this lecture see also "unTED Gravitational Red Shift Static Universe" and "unTED Visualizing Gravity, Questioning Expanding Universe"

[@WhySoitanly]

XLNT insight.... reverse Zeno's Paradox. Beautiful. Thanks!

[@MsLilichi]

Wow, this is one of the best video's I've seen in a while.. to bad he was under such time constraints to deliver such a great answer to such profound questions..

[@Flamingtaint]

@@samsam18200 Remember, theories are models which are supported by all the available evidence!

[@otomackena7610]

@@samsam18200 Everything we know so far was once theories. it perfectly explains a lot of things at once. At least its not "Fake news"

[@otomackena7610]

@@samsam18200 did you get what i meant ? I didnt pass it of as truth or answer .i said it perfectly fits there but they need to prove it thats what i implied when i said "Everything we know so far was once theories" means it later was proved.some people have hard time believing things when it get out of their perception of reality an eg is flat earther.

[@DragonsFrogs]

I wish he was more comfortable up there though, it was kind of a hard presentation to watch despite him being knowledgeable and the topic being fascinating, as someone who presents and trains people on a lot of complex scientific data I didn’t feel at all that he didn’t know the the topic, but rather that he was just very nervous and that made him a bit disorganized. Anyone know where to find more of his stuff I’m not finding much on YT

[@captainkiwi77]

JK google scholar maybe

[@vivalibertasergovivitelibe4111]

This was dumbed down enough for me to undesrstand but not dumbed down too much so ut still shows a lot of the beauty behind it. Brilliant!

[@gaia35]

"As a child it never made sense to me why counting basic shapes felt unknown, I was 25 when I found this out." This is a reoccurring trend, it seems as though nobody, including myself, was taught (basic shapes;) that the second dimension, "2" and the shape associated with 2 is a hexagon because unlike squares, that can make 3D boxes, the hexagon does not share this property they are truly 2 dimensional. Particles like atoms will stack in hexagonal formations, meaning the second dimension, our foundation, is literally hexagons; this is why bees and rocks base their existence on this shape. To normally see this being described as 2 dimensions, length and width and implying a square along with this flatlander idea is a detriment. It teaches a perspective of unknown and personally interpreting such things as basic shapes; in this case with a series of lights and a pool table as opposed to just the reminder it should be, a hexagon like with bees and rocks. Personally, I wish I was taught that 2 meant 6 when i was 2, or when I was 6 to be told that 6 means 2 because hexagons are 2D or even at 7 be told that 7 atoms are required to make a filled in hexagon.

[@babyspirit1517]

Where is this from!? This might have altered me

[@johnalden948]

happy new year Thad from 1/1/23. WONDERFUL TALK! The single most interesting I've ever seen on TED. Though it's unlikely you'll see this, I'd love to see your thoughts on the Fine Structure Constant.

[@mervethealice]

Check out “the mechanics of consciousness” by Itzhak Bentov. He explains it greatly. Stalking the wild pendulum is mind blowing from the same author as well

[@BMStroud1]

Somebody, please get this guy a cup of water.

[@drewski8138]

Yoooooo you hear his lips glap together?

[@Kingsalami317]

I scrolled down just to see someone say this 😂👊

[@ashleighcater714]

@@Kingsalami317 Same! Lol

[@BroccoliCult]

@@Kingsalami317 same hahaha poor fella.

[@everybird3530]

@@drewski8138 i didnt even notice :D

[@onepathmypath2935]

Wow, intellectual performance. Thank you for taking your valuable time to give to some of us a snippet of reality.

this is the best explanation of space i have ever came across... i wish you you could keep on explaining. please make a detailed video of all the notes u have made.

[@swekchhasingh285]

it is really among the most remarkable ideas that allows us to navigate deeper reality of universe from just the postulate of quantisation

[@ArnabAnimeshDas]

I want a book on the subject described in this video.

[@espalorp3286]

Why not an 11 dimensional book ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[@ArnabAnimeshDas]

Proteus I should at least be able to realize that there is a book. LOL

[@rajatverma8699]

The fourth dimension, towards the geometry of higher reality by rudy rucker

[@robbader3]

+Arnab Animesh Das He has a book written about this. You can find it somewhere on his website. I was going to buy it, but it was something like $60. I've been looking for a cheaper second hand one, because I'd love to fact check this. His ideas are great, but what do you expect someone who worked for NASA to do when spending years in prison? Unify quantum mechanics and relativity, obviously. But, he DOES have a really sketchy past, and he published this in an expensive book, instead of a peer review journal... I'm still interested, but I don't have enough faith in it to spend $60 to find out, hahaha.

[@robbader3]

I DO commend him on his criminal career though... If you're going to go to prison, pulling a lust-driven heist on NASA from the inside, breaking into a safe, stealing 2 million dollars worth of rocks from the moon, and selling them to someone who collects rare mineral rocks is about as bad ass as it gets. I'm not downing the guy, I'm just saying, he can sleep at night if his money comes from ripping people off, and that book's price tag, for me, was a big red flag.

[@stilettosandshades]

+Astrogirl1usa Just because someone "broke the law" does not make them a dishonest person as you imply. Okay, so he was wrong to take something that is important in learning about the cosmos. That does not mean he is a lesser person, that he doesn't deserve to be heard, that his knowledge on the subject is null and void. It is not okay for people (such as yourself) to judge him and to look down their nose at others for making a mistake. Just because the gov't criminalized him for his actions and he went to prison does not mean his theory is any less. Furthermore, just because the gov't says someone broke the law, does not mean they should be criminalized. Learn that. The gov't does not deserve to be our moral arbiters. Understand that. People need to stop thinking it's okay to criminalize others and to stop stigmatizing those who have served time.

[@tiye9335]

Yeah, don't judge him.

[@justinb2391]

It does mean that he is probably ( if even slightly) insane.

[@souljajackson699]

I agree with you stiletto, we all do dumb things when we are young. He was like 20 years old and did it for some hot intern he was having an affair with. Not like he was stealing the rocks for the Russians or Iran or something.

[@paulh.9526]

Also, he served his time, he's learnt a lesson, and he is LESS of a criminal now than before, not more

[@earthpet]

He didn't just "break the law", he stole moon rocks. This was an immoral act and absolutely needs to be stigmatized. It does mean he is a lesser person. It does mean it is okay for people to judge him. He is not stigmatized for "doing time". He is stigmatized for being a thief. Learn that.

[@ErikratKhandnalie]

Wait, but would all the math and everything on this work out? Like, using the proposed 11 dimensional geometry, could you write out quantum stuff and relativity stuff with the same kinds of equations? Because, if so, that would be a super huge deal.

[@DavidHeggli]

Yep - the math works out like a charm - and it even presents ALL constants of nature as simple formula based on pi, the 5 Planck natural units - and zhe - a new constant relatet to pi, but the boundary for maximum curved space. For more details, check out: einsteinsintuition.com/what-is-qst/constants-of-nature/ For the math: that already exists in the form of Bohmian mechanics - the deterministic version of quantum mechanics. You know - when you see the full picture, you don't need any "forces" or "probability-vectors" anymore! => read the book!! the cheapest version is the animatied one on iBooks: itunes.apple.com/ch/book/einsteins-intuition/id1025326478?mt=11 => much more media on: facebook.com/QuantumSpaceTheory

[@madeincda]

Let's say I believe it. And it's not "just" another theory. Why is it so slow to reach mainstream? I mean it makes sense to me, taking away the equations and presumed solutions to the equations. But have you tried to prove it wrong?

[@DavidHeggli]

Today's scientific community is afraid of taking risks (you could lose your reputation if you put your name behind sth that could potentially be wrong. And job and salary with it. So it is much safer to just repeat what is already established. Only evolutionary progress possible because of that :-( ) Generally it is a good thing to be very skeptical. But it shouldn't be an excuse to not or just superficially examine such a promising new theory seriously according the standards of the scientific method (really - most scientists just browsed through QST for 2min until they found sth that didn't correlate with their current opinion. Done. None of them cared to understand the full picture and the beauty of it. We have to educate new PhD's at the beginning of their career to get it moving. That's why it will take a long time - no doubt about that. Quantum Space Theory QST & pilot wave theory do suggest testable and falsifiable predictions. This work is now under way. If Occam's razor is worth anything, QST is far superior to any presently "established" (and contradictory) theory, as it explains everything with the least amount of axioms (2) and assumptions (0) or crutches like dark energy or dark matter (0) or ANY FORCES... . ...and then let's not forget: Einstein took 30yrs to establish his general relativity! Let's hope we move a little bit faster thanks to the internet this time... . ...and last but not least: it's a psychological problem. Physicists are humans like you and me. Nobody likes to change his believes he hold onto dearly for many years. It includes to admit that you were wrong. Plus you've spent a lot of time and effort to run in another direction. Nobody likes to drop that. And then there is a lot of ego. It wasn't YOU who found the new theory... That's my (frustrating) experience from 2yrs of introducing "established" scientists to QST. It's like leaning against a supertanker. You need a very long breath to get it moving, but once it starts moving... So - you're very welcome to join the club, leaning against the supertanker, spreading the word. A good start would be to like and share this page: facebook.com/QuantumSpaceTheory/

[@patrickdonohue530]

To paraphrase, "One death at a time..." Unless one actually has the math locked up, then venture forward and fear none.

[@jayeshghule1]

Best explanation of space time and extra dimensions so far...

[@richmaloon1060]

Am I taking away this correctly that Thad is suggesting that the reason why we see redshift and assume accelerating universe expansion is because perhaps the interstitial space "pressure" may be decreasing at a rate which more than offsets the observed wavelength increase of measured light from distance sources? If so, by what mechanism or cause? Dark matter? If so, how? Physicist answer needed here. Then universe could be actually expanding at some constant rate as originally thought before 1998?

[@Dadecorban]

Hold your breath. He has "top" men working on this at a nothing private think tank. He obviously isn't going to be the one describing these mechanisms mathematically...with his bachelor degree.

[@stevencp]

Maybe not mathematically, but he has less education, which Einstein said it better to come up with new ideas, since they have not been corrupted with old thinking

[@tomszabo7350]

No. He is stating there may be an alternate reason for red shift from distant light sources, which is that the quanta of space is slightly "inelastic" and therefore acts as a source of virtual friction.

[@Kalleosini]

''our version of flatland'' can we call it fatland?

[@MrBeiragua]

Ebon Hawk came here to say that xD

[@slamongo]

+Ebon Hawk The United Fatlands of Ameriker

[@chrisvanniekerk1692]

+slamongo i died xDD

[@KriAsb]

+Ebon Hawk The Fat of the Land

[@Brasker]

+slamongo The Land of the Fat and The Home of the Overweight

[@5dgisd528]

0:54 Flatlanders wouldn´t actually see anything, since two dimensions give no room for anything to appear - the example with the lights still would need height to be visible (which does not exist in 2D).

[@cecilialopes6627]

Assuming life in a two-spatial-dimension universe was possible (which it isn't), one could conceive a different kind of two-dimensional "eye" which can register the 2D equivalent of photons traveling through flat space. The simulation just shows the lights having height for didactic purposes, to help visualization.

[@noyourtheman]

And yet we can conceive the notion of other dimensions- Hmmm? What set's us apart? Why do we seek? Why do you question? What do you want to know? The answer? LOVE!

[@noyourtheman]

@@cecilialopes6627 And yet we can conceive the notion of other dimensions- Hmmm? What set's us apart? Why do we seek? Why do you question? What do we want to know? The answer- LOVE!

[@walter0bz]

fascinating ideas, and in many ways seems more reasonable than a set of equations that can yield singularities etc.. more like those equations are approximations to something else in certain ranges

[@JanBabiuchHall]

That's because that's what they are. All theories are just our best approximations of how things work. We've gotten many of them to a point where we can't find any observable discrepancy between a given theory's predictions and measurable reality - and I guess at that point we can say it's a law of nature, a perfect theory, unquestionable truth - but many theories need refining or even complete replacement to get to that point. Perhaps with something like these ideas, I don't know. What I know is that we have a long way to go, but we're getting there faster than ever. And that's awesome.

[@ktx49]

Jan Babiuch-Hall just look at the history of gravity. Newton's laws worked perfectly until Einstein came along....a theory can make accurate prediction's and still be an incorrect picture of reality. what makes this QST interesting to me, is that it provides a great framework to re-imagine many of our existing theories that currently "work".

[@nikolaytodorov9785]

Really impressed by Mr Roberts ( also , after a little background research, really impressed by his bio :) ) Apart from the fascinating topic, 11:10 the first time in my life to hear a non-native speaker of Slavic language pronounce "Ж" (jeh) as a native speaker! :)

[@TheBroccoliFox]

I'm so grateful for this Talk. In just under sixteen minutes, Mr. Roberts was able to answer some questions I had and clear up some confusions for me. Interestingly, I now have more questions lol. XD

[@Serephima]

This is so very interseting - but how am I supposed to understand any of this? HELP!

[@culturearoundtheworld3839]

research

[@wafflelama6625]

Lol

[@williamshakespeare4013]

A very well prepared and interesting talk. Many speakers show up minimally prepared and just ramble, making their 19 minutes a drag. This was by far the best and smoothest explanation of "extra" dimensions that I've seen so far on Ted.

[@TheReligiousAtheists]

The number of "Ah!" moments I had while watching this video...

[@thepaperstaggering]

more like "uh" moments. be honest.

[@Skynet_the_AI]

Oh

[@cayockO]

Beyond the Einstein's poetry. This is Brillant ... I do not anderstand why so many people in physics can not see it !

[@arlieferguson3990]

So if this is correct, the three dimensions that we recognize as belonging to three-dimensional space simply get multiplied by three when we add in super special and interspatial spaces. Basically we have three different types of space all with three dimensions, which gives you nine dimensions, the 10th being time. The reason we can talk about different kinds of space in the quantum world but not in the every day world of objects is because in the quantum world quanta make up space itself.

[@Fetrovsky]

This has nothing to do with eleven dimensions. It's all about three dimensions and multiple space domains (three).

[@thethiccestboi7648]

I know right? I'm dissapointed.

[@toulouseben8652]

what ? I think that he explained how the universe " works " in eleven dimensions.

[@Fetrovsky]

Toulouse Ben he has no idea what a dimension is.

[@toulouseben8652]

Maybe, i'm not a scientist so i won't say anything but, yeah idk he seems to know what he's talking about.

[@kjekelle96]

where can I read about this?

[@MikeWalls7829]

9:40 no, flatlanders would not even have a word for 'horizon', the concept of a horizon would not make sense. To them the 'horizon' is the whole world.

[@georgem.8827]

Our brains are able to perceive depth even with two dimensions. For example, when we look at a painting (2D) we can perceive which objects are closer or farther away.

[@MikeWalls7829]

@@georgem.8827 ok, I don't see any conflict with my comment. The fact that a 3 dimensional creature can expirience the illusion of 3 dimensions from a 2 dimentional depiction is fascinating however, a 2 dimentional creature would not be able to do this from 1 to 2. You would be asking them to create a 2d perspective from a 1d one, I'm not sure it works as a comparison when you get to 1 and 2 d. In the 1d arena it's difficult to describe anything other than a point. What do you think?

[@MikeWalls7829]

@John Belino only if you accept it

[@A1i1988]

I wish I can hear a documentary talked by this guy alone. He is standing out

[@DavidHeggli]

you actually can hear him talk and explain QST much more in detail here: facebook.com/QuantumSpaceTheory

[@boredguy1297]

A good way to imagine the fundamental unit of space and the "super positions" part at 7:00 is like a yo-yo. It can spin and flip around its own 2 rotational dimensions while being pulled up laterally into a 3rd dimension by the string. A 4th dimension above is simply pulling all 3 dimensions below that in a new direction. What the Yo-yo experiences as movement in a new direction from the pull of the string is what we experience as time when the "quanta of space" moves through a super position. In other words, the "g-force" influencing the yo-yo's spinning and flipping is like our Future-ward and Past-ward directions.

[@Ajz092]

We all know what the 1-3rd dimensions are, but for those still confused, the 4th dimension is time and duration. Imagine seeing yourself in a liner path from the time you were born until your death all at once. That's the 4th dimension. The 5th dimension is a split in the 4th dimension where the decisions and actions you take, along with the influences of other people, create a paralleled reality. EX: Say you saw yourself now in the 4th dimension 4 years older than you are currently. This older version of you is now a cashier, but you wanted to be a tennis player. This decision branch is the 5th dimension. The 6th dimension is tricky, though. Imagine you wanted to visit your child-self to invent something that makes you rich in the future. You could fold the 4th dimension into the 5th to do so to make sure your supposed invention gets done, but that's the long way. The shortcut is simply making a fold from the 5th dimension over to the 6th to your future self where you're already rich from the invention. Remember, the 5th dimension is determined by choice; a branch of possibilities in the 4th dimension. This is why the 6th dimension works the way it does. By now, you should realize the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimension correlates to the 4th, 5th, and 6th dimension, and same principal goes for the 7th, 8th, and 9th. Basically, to simplify every dimension follows this pattern. It goes like this: Point, line, split, fold. The 7th dimension is basically infinity. Everything that could of happened, has already happened within this timeline from the big bang to the end of the universe. The 8th dimension is ANOTHER alternate infinity joined and connected/branched with the 7th dimension infinity. The 9th dimension, like the 3rd and 6th dimension is a fold within the branch. Imagine a wormhole that takes you into another alternate reality dimension. That's the 9th. The 10th, and FINAL dimension is ALL possible timelines and events have happened, could happen, and will happen. There is no 11th Dimension because the 10th is literally everything that ever could, would, and will happen. It's the end all, be all. The alpha & omega.

[@thijsdebont]

Ah finally! Someone who agrees the 'expanding universe based on red-shift' is bogus! 1) The 'farther' we look, the more red-shift is measured 2) The 'farther' we look, the older the universe 1 + 2) This is a direct contradiction to the theory the universe is accelerating. Thad Roberts' theory is quite elegant.

[@drewharward818]

Thad you’re one amazing man! Thank you for your dedication and time. You are a huge blessing to this world.

[@LibertyTorch1]

"Visualizing Eleven Dimensions"?? I don't even know how my can opener works!

[@derickmartis220]

William Herschel 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@culturearoundtheworld3839]

This is the best comment here

[@meiko431]

😂😂😂😂

[@physically3027]

A can opener works by converting energy that you exert into cutting the lid.

[@DragonsFrogs]

Constantin I think they meant how to operate it but points for clever response haha

[@natel3250]

Wow, mind blowing. The implications of this are huge. I'm glad there's an alternative to "dark (eye roll) matter" and "dark (double eye roll) energy." The leap he's taking to quantize the definition of space seems to make more intrinsic sense because it helps explain phenomena in both quantum mechanics and relativity. The coolest part of all this is that constants can be constructed from these Planck lengths combined with nothing more than a minimum (pi) and maximum (zhou). It is disheartening though that this talk was in 2010 but here we are in 2016 and I haven't heard much elaboration on this idea. QST doesn't seem to be gaining momentum. :(

[@paulolima1442]

Fantastic ! Why we are not explore more and more this approach?

[@dadjamnit]

It’s wonderful for TED to bring us such incredible ideas and theories. Cramming an entire theory of everything into 15 minutes still proves to be an impossibility, but that’s the Wonderful thing about this video, because you could take notes of all the things you don’t quite understand and have a list interesting things to KZbin educate yourself on for Years. Thank you, Mr. Roberts, for your research and for the Insane amount of energy it must have taken to compose this TEDx talk, and thank you, TED, for a Wealth of things to think about. ❤️

[@CzechRiot]

I still don't know how this information will help me get more girls.

[@claritzarodriguez5776]

+CzechRiot youll look smart

[@Billybohilly]

It won't. Do it for the love of knowledge

[@user-yn2ct2ie9m]

nerdy girls dude, nerdy girls

[@Dadecorban]

The trick is to practice sociopathic manipulation and choose your targets. If you are good you can spot broken hotties a mile away and before long they will be making excuses for your behavior because they need you.

[@user-yn2ct2ie9m]

Titus Veridius boo

[@ZenSkin]

While not a jailable offence (as opposed to stealing moon rocks) this talk is criminally ill-prepared. Perhaps he was too busy thinking about his lost love, Tiffany.

[@____KB]

I agree--I would like to hear a more expanded talk--but I believe he had time constraints which would have made any well-researched, well-planned presentation look ill-prepared.

[@justgivemethetruth954]

Yeah, I googled this guy and he is one who stole the moon rocks ... I would like to hear about that. What is this guy's problem to do such a silly thing ... why would he even want to?

[@the_astrokhan]

Justgivemethetruth He fell in love with a girl and wanted to make love to her on the moon. So he did the next best thing, stole a VAULT of moon rocks from NASA. He then had sex with his girl on a bed of moon-rocks. In case you think it's a joke, think again, he really did.

[@DrasticPurpleHippo]

Artur Kosim My hero. Also if any of you are questioning the credibility of his statements based on the assumption that he is batshit insane BECAUSE he stole moon rocks... I'd like to bring your attention to the Framing Effect. This also addresses his poor oratory skills.

[@L0j1k]

There it is! The comment I came looking for.

[@deebs8000]

WATCH THIS, FELLOW SCIENCE BUGS! I lack the brains or background to know how impressed I *ought* to be, but I know that the glimpses of a-ha moments I got during this presentation, and the occasional parallels I caught that he drew between known phenomena and his ideas, gave me the most satisfying and provocative intellectual experience I have *ever* gotten from a 15 minute mainly spoken presentation. The feeling that this obvious mega-genius is onto something at once elegant and profound ... I mean, wow. I have to see if he has a book, and actually read something, instead of skimming videos. Seriously: If you are a casual science bug of the don't-really-claim-to-get-it-but-it-fascinates-me sort, and cosmology, astrophysics, and developments in particle physics interest you despite your lack of formal education in these areas, it is my opinion this is WELL WORTH the 15 minute watch! And it just might be a video that years from now, you will remember as being the first time you heard of supra-quantum physics or whatever we will call this, after some future revolution in physics on the scale of the shift from Newtonian physics to Einstein's physics. OMG, seriously, it is that astounding.

[@eurethnic]

If the universe is not expanding then it has no beginning and has no end. Beautiful.

[@rsa78]

Great work Thad…

[@EllaSqueaks]

I think you meant Chad. 😎

[@c.i.a.932]

@@EllaSqueaks I think you lost your mother in a car accident yesterday, and you are simply coping with this event’s consequences.

[@Aotommo]

It's a clever, novel idea, but without anything even remotely resembling experimental confirmation I find it difficult to swallow. Scientific revolutions are a rare occurrence, so any physics theory whose explanation begins with "all contemporary physicists are wrong" requires loads of data to even begin to be convincing. I'm skeptical on this one, for now.

[@Eclipsed_Archon]

Well it sure doesn't happen every day that somebody compiles a reasonable theory, but it is still an unavoidable part of science. We used to think that the world was flat, but somebody theorized that it was round, and after quite some time, the theory was proven. Even Isaac Newton was thought to be crazy at first. The fact that the theory exists and is being considered gives the possibility for technological innovations that can be used to test and maybe prove the theory. In the end, the theories that it disagrees with are just as unproven. It proves that there is another way to explain red shift, etc.

[@b3at2]

Sometimes the answer the the craziest of things are simple...

[@AdiPrimandaGinting]

Sure, being skeptical is the way new science discoveries get proved :D

[@tezlashock]

Oh my god, I watched this and then realized my mouth was gaping wide open XD THIS IS REALLY AMAZING

[@vvmakovv2689]

Watch intersteller. It's based on this.

[@DavidHeggli]

+vv Mako vv Well - actually that is not true. But if you understood QST, you'll certainly understand "Interstellar" much better - and where they make mistakes. (no wormholes in QST, space is 9-dimensional with 2 temporal dimensions - not only 5 as in Interstellar). And the "gravity-waves through time" is esoteric and not compatible with QST. But they were correct about how time slows down near masses - THAT as well is beautifully explained in QST - next to gravity, uncertainty principle, super conductivity, wave-particle duality - and much more...

[@JoshYates]

Buy his book for more in depth.

[@jamesalbion6684]

He left me after he said Good Evening

[@robertoklimas5894]

Thank you for showing me that all my guesses and assuptions are right. Another thing that will blow our minds is the transformation sequence between energy and matter. This will explain the remaining part that is missing.

[@Trainwhrek]

Maybe I'm missing something. At about 7:00. If you're going with this theory wouldnt the number of dimensions just infinitely increase by the third power? Why assume it stops at 9?

[@youngspazzz2537]

This was in 2010, imagine how much further if an understanding we have now

[@thepaperstaggering]

not much. believe me.

[@TheMrbunGee]

"...Thad Roberts reveals a theory..." At this point it is called - hypothesis. While not a big deal this causes a lot of unnecessary confusion. Ideas are definitely interesting, I wonder how the maths work out for this.

[@unpolishedpearl3769]

It sounds a lot like string theory to me...

[@steveburton5825]

@@unpolishedpearl3769 Then you understand neither....

[@ChrisBrengel]

mind...blown... The constants of Nature come from the geometry of space. They are necessary consequences of the model.

[@andrewhinson4323]

Dude just implied that the speed of light isn't technically constant because light particles travel through the quantum "ocean" and you guys are all like "oh cool, didn't quite get it, but seems neet"?! XD Im an absolute layman and even I understood the incredible implications of what he just said!

[@meljusttalent1]

I always come back to this video. It introduced me to flat landers