My only problem with this theory is that we do calculate gravity getting weaker as a square of its distance just as light gets dimmer. This would make gravity to work inn the same dimensions as light, just weaker.
I can't help but dismiss the idea of us living in a 3 dimensional universe though since number systems can only form in 1, 2, 3, or 8 dimension systems. I think our universe is either 4 or 8 dimensional. I like 8 myself. The phase space idea is interesting.
@Wavanova You JUST contradicted yourself there...you said "It doesn't follow the scientific method" BUT "(has some) very solid scientific backing behind it" Maybe what created the universe not some quantum field theory, rather an eternal un caused cause, that exists outside all known dimensions. And this eternal uncaused cause is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, so as to make itself known that we don't even have to do science to discover that.
The FTL neutrino speed measurements are a bit of a surprise. Seems there isn't much of a GR effect available to explain it as a shortcut past curved space, light doesn't bend very much on Earth, not sure if it's even a measurable effect.
Probably way off here, but for me neutrino mass oscillation is oddly suggestive of imaginary mass for the reason that complex roots of unity on the imaginary axis of the complex plane of exponentials are associated with an oscillation response.
Guess I should be clear that I used the idea of gravity being "off the brane" differently than it's typically used, where it's the reason for gravity's relative weakness compared to other forces. To me, gravity is off EM's brane in a time/distance sense, which I guess could have something to do with nonlocalism and uncertainty through the EM brane, but these aspects in EM might have more to do with complementary charges spinning, maybe gravitational charges, maybe just electrostatic charges.
I left out the six compactified non-spacelike, non-timelike dimensions - CY manifolds, supposedly. That's the theory of the M. Oh so liquid, locally smooth and uniform and supposedly quantizable, making the grains of reality and simple to wrap one's head about, no doubt. I may have been around the idea in print too much, saw something done in some papers and books, just been around long enough thinking about it to know it matters little to me, as it's not saying much about gravity, it's just GR.
If I understand it correctly, space-time is defined by light and called a brane. I think it's supposed by some to be a 5-dimensional brane or "5-brane" because such space-time is described as curved.
Supposing gravitons are the basis of gravity and don't curve means they are "off" said brane, but it could also mean space-time is only 4-dimensional. One can't see a graviton because gravitons are so weak in effect, accordingly some get the impression it's off in an unseen "extra" dimension.
I've never understood why if quark and electrons are both open-loop strings weak and strong interaction have different intensities compared to electromagnetism at the same distance? And It is possible to explain two entangled particles like the two end-point of the same string (or a combination of them) so the "istantaneous information transmission" seems instantaneous only in our 4-dimensional space?
@RvNYC That is one explanation for why gravity seems so weak compared to the rest of the known forces. If the extra dimensions are small, then on a small scale, gravity may behave in an other than inverse-square manner; but on scales where we can measure the strength of gravity, there are only the three spatial dimensions we recognize, and the inverse-square behavior is accurate.
If I were to move from the third dimension to the fourth dimension, and look at a cube would i recognise the the cube as four dimensional, or would I be unfamiliar with the shape?
@dooshtoomun You would be unfamiliar with the shape but just like in any other dimensions, the shade that cube(tesseract) would make would you find familiar since it would be just like an averege cube.
gravity needs to be taken into account when unifying the forces. Thus string theory is highly probable and thus quantum gravity exists thus gravitons exist. There's no other explanation of this. Also, the forces in nature had to have come from somewhere. I don't believe in magic. Sorry! I believe the forces came from an 11 dimensional multi-verse littered with different branes and thus parallel universes.
I still doubt the need to apply quantum fields to gravity mainly because einstiens model though it cannot be proven still hasn't been disproven. Just because quantum mechanics has established these fields with the other forces doesn't equate a need for it in this force.
I get what your saying about the spheres. The higher and higher dimensional spheres get dimmer and dimmer because a higher dimension has a higher set of frequencies than the lower dimensions. The higher dimensional spheres seem to fade because of the shorter wavelength.
@cassiopeiaproject what is the chance of a single theory that bridges relativity and quantum mechanics arrising in our lifetime or do you think it is impossible for the human mind to fully understand
The one dimensional line was created by moving a point sideways. The two dimensional plane was created by moving a line sideways. The three dimensional cube was created by moving a plane up. So why isn't the fourth dimension created by moving the cube sideways as well? That is what happens. The third dimension is stacked side by side like frames in the fourth dimension, and we jump from one 3D frame to another as me move through "time", the fourth dimension.
we* That's why they're called parallel universes. The universe is not a "universe" at all, it is divided infinitely into planck-frames. We will never reach the stars, we must reach for the higher dimensions! They aren't microscopic and "tiny", they are huge and as all-encompassing as space-time. They only appear to be tiny from our own view. We only see 3D cross-sections of 4D and 5D objects. And humans ourselves are 5D objects.
Other dimensions leaking? maybe gravity is simply WEAKER because its not something specific like magnetic field or nuclear force its just the general attraction of matter to other matter?
There's something i don't follow... if gravity forces decreace as r^2 (square of the distance, as classical physics says, and relativy at small velocities and small masses), what makes you think there are more than 3 spatial dimensions?
@kernel83 Since the extra dimensions may be tiny, in order to see the variance from an inverse square law, we would have to accurately measure the strength of gravity on millimeter (or smaller) scales. This is something we are currently unable to do.
@cassiopeiaproject i dont quite understand your gravity/milimeter counter point, but it is currently impossible to determine which dimension gravity would come from, and thus the weakness of gravity in our universe only dictates how far the origin of gravity is away from us. plus he said spatial dimensions. there are only 3 in the 10th dimension theory possibly 4 if you count the 11th dimension theory
@cassiopeiaproject I've always been a bit unclear on this, as well. Are you saying that this is similar to what we see with dipoles? The approximate equation you get for the change in field strength with distance changes (between inverse 2nd and 3rd order) depending upon the distance? If we measure the field strength of gravity on very small scales, we might get an inverse 9th or 10th power law. But at larger distances it appears inverse square?
@sbergman27 Yes. At macro-scale distances, there are only 3 spatial dimensions, so the strength of gravity IS an inverse square relationship. At micro-scale distances, if there are more than 3 spatial dimensions the strength of gravity could fall off at a higher order inverse relationship.
@cassiopeiaproject Makes sense... actually, may be those extra dimensions aren't that tiny; but gravity is so weak that we are unable to measure it on that scale... right? Thanx again...
STRING THEORY IS COOL BUT PHYSICS IS A EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECT SOO IN THT WAY STRING THEORISTS WILL BE HAPPY COZZ IN THT WAY THEY CAN'T BE PROVED WRONG COZZ NO 1 WILL EVER ABLE TO DETECT IF THERE STRING EXITS OR NOT>........................
Gravity is weak force because the other 3 fundamental forces have force carriers, gravity is just warp of space time so too bad string theory will fall after they dont find gravitons.
Information on Dr. Michio Kaku's string theory can be found all over the internet. There is another gentleman who explains all 10 dimensions very well also and his videos can be found here on you tube. He does so geometrically. I'll link the video for you. Also, I have collected a lot of information (the 5th dimension if you will lol) under my favorite videos, be sure to check them out if you are looking for answers. Here is the link. (in the next comment)
If I travel at light speed I can go throw space in no time at all, If I exceed the speed of light I'll go from one point to another point on space and I'll arrive to the 3 point on space earlier than I left. but: can I go back to the same point in space that I first left and arrive at the same time I left on the first place ??? What speed should I take ? Slower than light?? So then, my relative time will match the relative time of the space I first left......Is it correct ??
huh? 1st U sed u didnt agree, then u agreed. U sound like a politician. If the theory is completely wrong then of course u wud hav 2 start all ovr. ifs its ALL wrong then Ur way of thinkng only hindrs progress. Wat if GR is all wrong, wat thn? I think there is more to gravity then what einstien proposes. More than just then bending of space/time.
"a new theory shall explain the things missing in the previous thoery but also everything in the old theory along with why the previous theory worked where it did".
This is exactly what I meant by starting from the ground up, however when we start to add gravitons and other hypothetical arguments the information becomes deluded and theres a need to start over to see where exactly we went wrong.
I apologize if my statement shows signs of ignorance I should have worded the comment better, however youtube does not allow enough space for me to make my case in the matter.
they say dark matter cannot be detected, seen or anything, and as they also say we cannot see in the dimension above us, so could it be possible that dark matter is the building blocks of higher dimensions
Adding Gravitons and strings and extra dimensions just makes things much harder. If one is to understand the nature of gravity we must stop making theories based on other theories and start from the ground up. Second of all adding particles to explain forces is very misleading, you might as well have said God did it. The Universe is like a problem, Guess and Check does not yield any results only by showing all of the work can one find the solution, and truly take credit.
i don't like the string theory.. it sounds so metaphysical.. there's got to be something more 'natural' of an explanation for the distinction of gravity.. what other theories are there as an alternative?
There are many other candidates for a quantum theory of gravity... including Loop Quantum Gravity, and various forms of SuperGravity. A search on "quantum theory of gravity" should yield many more.
thanx for your reply.. i traveled through wikipedia.. everything gets weirder and weirder.. one can get a notion of how much there is, that is so unknown.. i like the loop theory more but i know also, that wouldn't mean, that it make it therefor true..
Since there has been NO EVIDENCE to support string theory from the time of its conception, I find it quite amazing that it is being touted as a scientific theory at all; it is more like a scientific religion and should not be getting the kind of hype you and others like Dr. Greene keep giving it. We do not need any more Intellectual morons. Keep your head in reality an not up your math if you want to advance science. Science is not determined by VOTE nor by advertisement hype.
It should also not be written off just yet, as it does have mathematical support. Certainly, there is no experimental evidence as yet, and it may be that there will never be any. However; I agree that too much faith is put into such theories at this time, but that does not mean that we should not devise the experiments to test them.
what makes this guy think gravity needs to be any stronger? its like saying. why is the earth so big compared to a germ. yet the earth is tiny if you compare it to a galaxy. gravity is only weak compared to other forces such as magnetism. maybe these forces are just really really strong. this is just far fetched bullshit based on fantasy
To provide a simple answer, it has been the pursuit of physics to unite all 4 forces of nature; Strong force, Weak Force, Electromagnetic Force and Gravity. It is believe that shortly after or perhaps during the big bang these four forces were united. Now to your question. Gravity's weakness is a major stumbling block when we try to unite the four forces under the aegis of Quantum Mechanics. This is merely an idea associated with String Theory and M-theory. There is no need for such language.
watch the video "the Electric Universe" 1-4. it argues that electric forces shape the galaxies not gravity. quantum scientists, also, i believe are getting way too ahead of themselves and too unscientific, they need to go back few steps and actually prove einsteins hypothosis (of speacial relativity) before accepting them as fact. einstein himself did not find his hypothosis satisfying as he had no way to tie them to reality.
eg. the hypothosis that time is a dimension (space time)
Excuse me but im sure that gravitational singularities (black holes) are at the centre of the galaxies. These singularities have a strong gravitational pull shaping the galaxy, into a swirling pattern. They aren't unscientific they are merely presenting theories, which, I might add, make sense. No Einstein couldn't unify the 4 forces, there was nothing connecting them, but now we have come up with string theory and M-theory, this provides us with much insight. Time is A DIMENSION its been proved
your excused lol. no your right, the fact that gravity is too weak means its gravity that is wrong not the fallable humans, therefore there must be a magical realm outside our own plane of existance and it is stealing all our gravity.....yeah thats real scientific.
Hmmm so your saying that the entire population of theoretical physiscists in the world are chasing some random fantasy? Please look at the equations study the theory and think about what you are saying. Gravity isn't actually weak if it was in combination with the three forces at the beginning of the universe, we are merely providing an idea that supports current M-theory (which has been validated). And no its not a magical realm its a higher dimensional space.
But please if you know why gravity is so weak please save us the trouble. Also if you can explain to us all the phenomenon in this universe logicaly and with mathematical equations without anomalies please save us the grief. But if you can't you can either accept the work of greater minds or just continue on believing in your fantasy.
why does gravity have to be strong? why does the physical universe need to mold itself to fit your perception of the universe? im pretty sure the universe is not obligated to satisfy your beliefs. if you can only ever imagine something it isnt science. science deals with reality. you fantasy is a magical realm (you say potato...), what is my fantasy you say i believe in again?
I have already answered that question. The universe isn't molding around our perception, theoretical physicists are perceiving the universe as it should be and if at some point something is contradictory then they revise their theory, its all science my friend. They dont imagine they estimate, prove and discover. Im sorry that was inconsiderate of me you haven't specified your fantasy, you just called the scientific work of the worlds brightest minds over centuries bullshit. Thats unacceptable.
If we ever achieve a Grand Unified Theory then at some energy scale all four forces are the same. So we need an explanation for why these forces are so different. Today, gravity is extremely different from the other forces in terms of strength. Thus, we seek an explanation for the weakness of gravity.
1st they need to figure out what gravity actually is. putting down to a 4th dimension which can not be percieved in anyway is just as much of a cop-out as saying god did it
What gravity actually is? Gravity is a force one of the 4 forces that shape our universe. A particle of gravity is reffered to as a graviton. All Einsteins field equations point require its existance. I know its hard to visualise 4 dimensions however listen to this: pretend we are 2d being walking around a sphere. We perceive everything in 2d yet we wonder how we returned to our original location. Its possible we exist in a similar way, this is called the 'curvature of space', the 4th dimension.
all we know is gravity exists because we can observe its effect on matter. merely saying it is a force explains nothing, the real question is what causes gravity? Newton put it down to the will of god. i can imagine a 4th dimension but i can also imagine dragons and unicorns. you can't just make a hypothosis and accept it as scientific theory without experimental evidence. if you want to have blind faith you may as well join the church. they have many hypothosis as to how the universe works
time is not a dimension, it is a measurement humans invented to measure rates of change. things just change and we merely remember what things were like beore the change occured. the universe only ever exists in an infinite present moment without beginning or end.
Because of Einstein, we often call time the fourth dimension. Special relativity shows that time behaves surprisingly like the three spatial dimensions. The Lorenz equations show this. Length contracts as speed increases. Time expands as speed increases. :P
So this is talking about multidemnsional theory, still pertaining to our own universe. Where does this theory stand in a multiverse complex? Basically, does this deal with the theoretical walls (some call them branes...but I won't use that terminology here) that encompass the "outside" of ours and other universes, which consequently, deal with (among others) the Cyclical theory of the origin of our universe?
String Theory and its stepchild Brane Theory try to be the Theory of Everything. And to quantize gravity and join it to the Standard Model requires 11 dimensions. A modern view of the origin of our "universe" has it erupting from a pre-existing quantum foam, and has our "bubble" one of an infinity of other bubble-universes. Some of the others might have our physical laws and 11 dimensions, but most would not.
Thanks. I don't follow this as much as I should, considering my interest in the subject is quite high. Most of the time, I understand what's being discussed, every now and then I need some clearification though. Oh, btw, great vids. You should definitely be featured, or promote these. They'd be a great educational tool for the basics.
They smash high energy protons into a nickel target and create many different kinds of particles from the energy of the incoming protons. For every million protons that hit the target, about 20 antiprotons are harvested.
GGGGRAVITY
robthaglacier 4 weeks ago
string theory for idiots.
77mrniceguy 1 month ago
My only problem with this theory is that we do calculate gravity getting weaker as a square of its distance just as light gets dimmer. This would make gravity to work inn the same dimensions as light, just weaker.
I can't help but dismiss the idea of us living in a 3 dimensional universe though since number systems can only form in 1, 2, 3, or 8 dimension systems. I think our universe is either 4 or 8 dimensional. I like 8 myself. The phase space idea is interesting.
Silentsam7532 2 months ago
Maybe's, probably's, could-be's, perhaps because this is not observable nor testable nor repeatable then it shouldn't even be considered science!!
Woreyel 3 months ago
@Woreyel It doesn't follow the scientific method, sure, but it's a mathematical curiosity with some very solid scientific backing behind it.
Wavanova 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wavanova You JUST contradicted yourself there...you said "It doesn't follow the scientific method" BUT "(has some) very solid scientific backing behind it" Maybe what created the universe not some quantum field theory, rather an eternal un caused cause, that exists outside all known dimensions. And this eternal uncaused cause is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, so as to make itself known that we don't even have to do science to discover that.
Woreyel 2 months ago
we should thank god for these "other dimensions", if gravity was as powerful as it should be life could not exist all matter would squash like a bug.
Zurround100 4 months ago
The FTL neutrino speed measurements are a bit of a surprise. Seems there isn't much of a GR effect available to explain it as a shortcut past curved space, light doesn't bend very much on Earth, not sure if it's even a measurable effect.
Probably way off here, but for me neutrino mass oscillation is oddly suggestive of imaginary mass for the reason that complex roots of unity on the imaginary axis of the complex plane of exponentials are associated with an oscillation response.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
Guess I should be clear that I used the idea of gravity being "off the brane" differently than it's typically used, where it's the reason for gravity's relative weakness compared to other forces. To me, gravity is off EM's brane in a time/distance sense, which I guess could have something to do with nonlocalism and uncertainty through the EM brane, but these aspects in EM might have more to do with complementary charges spinning, maybe gravitational charges, maybe just electrostatic charges.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
I left out the six compactified non-spacelike, non-timelike dimensions - CY manifolds, supposedly. That's the theory of the M. Oh so liquid, locally smooth and uniform and supposedly quantizable, making the grains of reality and simple to wrap one's head about, no doubt. I may have been around the idea in print too much, saw something done in some papers and books, just been around long enough thinking about it to know it matters little to me, as it's not saying much about gravity, it's just GR.
CACBCCCU 6 months ago
If I understand it correctly, space-time is defined by light and called a brane. I think it's supposed by some to be a 5-dimensional brane or "5-brane" because such space-time is described as curved.
Supposing gravitons are the basis of gravity and don't curve means they are "off" said brane, but it could also mean space-time is only 4-dimensional. One can't see a graviton because gravitons are so weak in effect, accordingly some get the impression it's off in an unseen "extra" dimension.
CACBCCCU 6 months ago
Thanks for the video. I never understood why gravity I've never understood why gravity can leak from the first 3 dimentions. Now I get it ;D
TerenceHorsman 8 months ago
my brain hurts :{
sanamagan123 8 months ago
Could you imagine if gravity wasn't weak.If gravity were to say become just as strong as the other forces.What would be the result?
Dogmaf2008 8 months ago
so literally nothing is really touching each other!!!11
dragonzith 8 months ago
thump up is you got totally lost after the 3rd dimention O.O
klakiti02 9 months ago
I've never understood why if quark and electrons are both open-loop strings weak and strong interaction have different intensities compared to electromagnetism at the same distance? And It is possible to explain two entangled particles like the two end-point of the same string (or a combination of them) so the "istantaneous information transmission" seems instantaneous only in our 4-dimensional space?
DarioTheRadioStar 10 months ago
Is Gravity expected to propagate throught the entire set of dimensions. That is seen to dim at a factor of nine as stated here?
RvNYC 11 months ago
@RvNYC That is one explanation for why gravity seems so weak compared to the rest of the known forces. If the extra dimensions are small, then on a small scale, gravity may behave in an other than inverse-square manner; but on scales where we can measure the strength of gravity, there are only the three spatial dimensions we recognize, and the inverse-square behavior is accurate.
cassiopeiaproject 11 months ago 2
If I were to move from the third dimension to the fourth dimension, and look at a cube would i recognise the the cube as four dimensional, or would I be unfamiliar with the shape?
dooshtoomun 11 months ago
@dooshtoomun thank you for your valuable input.
1059232 11 months ago
@1059232 ...sooo...can you tell me the answer?
dooshtoomun 11 months ago
@dooshtoomun You would be unfamiliar with the shape but just like in any other dimensions, the shade that cube(tesseract) would make would you find familiar since it would be just like an averege cube.
TheSteady0 10 months ago
gravity needs to be taken into account when unifying the forces. Thus string theory is highly probable and thus quantum gravity exists thus gravitons exist. There's no other explanation of this. Also, the forces in nature had to have come from somewhere. I don't believe in magic. Sorry! I believe the forces came from an 11 dimensional multi-verse littered with different branes and thus parallel universes.
FallofDarkness55 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 year ago
I still doubt the need to apply quantum fields to gravity mainly because einstiens model though it cannot be proven still hasn't been disproven. Just because quantum mechanics has established these fields with the other forces doesn't equate a need for it in this force.
dsdougharty 1 year ago
I get what your saying about the spheres. The higher and higher dimensional spheres get dimmer and dimmer because a higher dimension has a higher set of frequencies than the lower dimensions. The higher dimensional spheres seem to fade because of the shorter wavelength.
q7spiz 1 year ago
Can you please make a video describing the 11-dimensional "M-Theory", with p-branes and all of that stuff?
bacamd 1 year ago
Einstein's view of spacetime, if true, would disprove the existence of gravitons, right?
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo ravitons are certainly unnecessary in Einstein's view.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject what is the chance of a single theory that bridges relativity and quantum mechanics arrising in our lifetime or do you think it is impossible for the human mind to fully understand
marksmanepsilon 9 months ago
@magichristo u stole my idea xp
uut0 1 year ago
The one dimensional line was created by moving a point sideways. The two dimensional plane was created by moving a line sideways. The three dimensional cube was created by moving a plane up. So why isn't the fourth dimension created by moving the cube sideways as well? That is what happens. The third dimension is stacked side by side like frames in the fourth dimension, and we jump from one 3D frame to another as me move through "time", the fourth dimension.
Kasu1917 1 year ago
we* That's why they're called parallel universes. The universe is not a "universe" at all, it is divided infinitely into planck-frames. We will never reach the stars, we must reach for the higher dimensions! They aren't microscopic and "tiny", they are huge and as all-encompassing as space-time. They only appear to be tiny from our own view. We only see 3D cross-sections of 4D and 5D objects. And humans ourselves are 5D objects.
Kasu1917 1 year ago
this guys monotone voice is killing me.
beatfreakn 1 year ago
@beatfreakn He does not have monotone voice..
nafativedec 1 year ago
Other dimensions leaking? maybe gravity is simply WEAKER because its not something specific like magnetic field or nuclear force its just the general attraction of matter to other matter?
Zurround100 1 year ago
what are those lines on the grind in the example of higher dimensions? I don't get that part. That illustration really confuses me.
njguitarnewbjk 1 year ago
There's something i don't follow... if gravity forces decreace as r^2 (square of the distance, as classical physics says, and relativy at small velocities and small masses), what makes you think there are more than 3 spatial dimensions?
kernel83 1 year ago
@kernel83 To understand my question, take a look to "surface area of an n-sphere" at wikipedia.
kernel83 1 year ago
@kernel83 Since the extra dimensions may be tiny, in order to see the variance from an inverse square law, we would have to accurately measure the strength of gravity on millimeter (or smaller) scales. This is something we are currently unable to do.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago 2
@cassiopeiaproject i dont quite understand your gravity/milimeter counter point, but it is currently impossible to determine which dimension gravity would come from, and thus the weakness of gravity in our universe only dictates how far the origin of gravity is away from us. plus he said spatial dimensions. there are only 3 in the 10th dimension theory possibly 4 if you count the 11th dimension theory
HalfGermanAllHammer 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject I've always been a bit unclear on this, as well. Are you saying that this is similar to what we see with dipoles? The approximate equation you get for the change in field strength with distance changes (between inverse 2nd and 3rd order) depending upon the distance? If we measure the field strength of gravity on very small scales, we might get an inverse 9th or 10th power law. But at larger distances it appears inverse square?
sbergman27 1 year ago
@sbergman27 Yes. At macro-scale distances, there are only 3 spatial dimensions, so the strength of gravity IS an inverse square relationship. At micro-scale distances, if there are more than 3 spatial dimensions the strength of gravity could fall off at a higher order inverse relationship.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject That makes sense! Nice! Thanx.
kernel83 8 months ago
@cassiopeiaproject Makes sense... actually, may be those extra dimensions aren't that tiny; but gravity is so weak that we are unable to measure it on that scale... right? Thanx again...
kernel83 8 months ago
STRING THEORY IS COOL BUT PHYSICS IS A EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECT SOO IN THT WAY STRING THEORISTS WILL BE HAPPY COZZ IN THT WAY THEY CAN'T BE PROVED WRONG COZZ NO 1 WILL EVER ABLE TO DETECT IF THERE STRING EXITS OR NOT>........................
TheIndrajit007 1 year ago
General relativity says you don't need 'gravity'. Mass bends space. No gravitons.
Thetruthishere11 1 year ago
Gravity is weak force because the other 3 fundamental forces have force carriers, gravity is just warp of space time so too bad string theory will fall after they dont find gravitons.
DaneLostMKD 1 year ago
mind = blown
bembjer29 1 year ago
i hate this guy's voice
gymgymgymgym 2 years ago
If I knew maths I think I would go into physics. Thanks for uploading!
xSilverPhinx 2 years ago
Information on Dr. Michio Kaku's string theory can be found all over the internet. There is another gentleman who explains all 10 dimensions very well also and his videos can be found here on you tube. He does so geometrically. I'll link the video for you. Also, I have collected a lot of information (the 5th dimension if you will lol) under my favorite videos, be sure to check them out if you are looking for answers. Here is the link. (in the next comment)
MrJoelpan 2 years ago 2
@MrJoelpan Dr. Michio Kaku is a great man.
a Very intelligent individual.
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
why do we discuss in here you think to create what a wave of sound well one can graps that meaning. the big book of worlds.
AI2flesh 2 years ago
allways 2 in all damn annoying when you start to c it in many thing then you get the chain of keys.
AI2flesh 2 years ago
what are strings made of? why would the universe have just 3, 4 , 10 dimensions. why not 10.000?
apasaci 2 years ago
@apasaci
1) stings aren't made of anything
2) how many dimensions are there? well you could say as many as it takes to make the theory work
Gmister2 2 years ago
Im going to have to agree witht he comment below..NICE!
jsmythib 2 years ago
Nice!
MunchVids 2 years ago
nothing more nothing less, their just words open to interpretation, just like reality.
Awhiffofsuspicion 2 years ago
nothing more, nothing less-
Ralph Waldo Emerson... Transcendentalism.
doceigen 2 years ago
exactly..
Awhiffofsuspicion 2 years ago
mm, the price of everything and the value of nothing springs to mind limerence.
Awhiffofsuspicion 2 years ago
To Awhiffofsuspicion:
If you dont mind my asking, what did you mean by that comment.
- limerence18
limerence18 2 years ago
If I travel at light speed I can go throw space in no time at all, If I exceed the speed of light I'll go from one point to another point on space and I'll arrive to the 3 point on space earlier than I left. but: can I go back to the same point in space that I first left and arrive at the same time I left on the first place ??? What speed should I take ? Slower than light?? So then, my relative time will match the relative time of the space I first left......Is it correct ??
thanks
miri0671 2 years ago
I commend this video on its logical brilliance. It makes absolute sense and is and excellent theory.
kanwan4 2 years ago
LOLZ.......he said Highdth ?!?!
amphitrike 2 years ago
huh? 1st U sed u didnt agree, then u agreed. U sound like a politician. If the theory is completely wrong then of course u wud hav 2 start all ovr. ifs its ALL wrong then Ur way of thinkng only hindrs progress. Wat if GR is all wrong, wat thn? I think there is more to gravity then what einstien proposes. More than just then bending of space/time.
john2010nyc 2 years ago
To zelos88:
"a new theory shall explain the things missing in the previous thoery but also everything in the old theory along with why the previous theory worked where it did".
This is exactly what I meant by starting from the ground up, however when we start to add gravitons and other hypothetical arguments the information becomes deluded and theres a need to start over to see where exactly we went wrong.
Sorry for the misconception!
- limerence18
limerence18 2 years ago
To zelos88:
Please explain your statement
I apologize if my statement shows signs of ignorance I should have worded the comment better, however youtube does not allow enough space for me to make my case in the matter.
In case you reply: Thank You
- limerence18
limerence18 2 years ago
i think dark matter has something to do with other dimensions.
beenzo 2 years ago
they say dark matter cannot be detected, seen or anything, and as they also say we cannot see in the dimension above us, so could it be possible that dark matter is the building blocks of higher dimensions
ImTheHaloGod 2 years ago
i think its sparticles or machos
keggerous 2 years ago
Adding Gravitons and strings and extra dimensions just makes things much harder. If one is to understand the nature of gravity we must stop making theories based on other theories and start from the ground up. Second of all adding particles to explain forces is very misleading, you might as well have said God did it. The Universe is like a problem, Guess and Check does not yield any results only by showing all of the work can one find the solution, and truly take credit.
- limerence18
limerence18 2 years ago
so you know how the universe works?
beenzo 2 years ago
To beenzo:
Not to be arrogant, but yes
- limerence18
limerence18 2 years ago
well then we have much to talk about
beenzo 2 years ago
"not to be arrogant, but yes"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha!!!
No mate, that did not sound arrogant, it sounded downright embarrassingly foolish!
tommytalks77 2 years ago
like the science , but mmm mayby leave the drama and comidy to the profesionals
linkleisure 2 years ago
i don't like the string theory.. it sounds so metaphysical.. there's got to be something more 'natural' of an explanation for the distinction of gravity.. what other theories are there as an alternative?
carryall69 2 years ago
There are many other candidates for a quantum theory of gravity... including Loop Quantum Gravity, and various forms of SuperGravity. A search on "quantum theory of gravity" should yield many more.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
thanx for your reply.. i traveled through wikipedia.. everything gets weirder and weirder.. one can get a notion of how much there is, that is so unknown.. i like the loop theory more but i know also, that wouldn't mean, that it make it therefor true..
carryall69 2 years ago
@carryall69 I don't see anything unnatural about string theory.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
Since there has been NO EVIDENCE to support string theory from the time of its conception, I find it quite amazing that it is being touted as a scientific theory at all; it is more like a scientific religion and should not be getting the kind of hype you and others like Dr. Greene keep giving it. We do not need any more Intellectual morons. Keep your head in reality an not up your math if you want to advance science. Science is not determined by VOTE nor by advertisement hype.
DustyMay1944 2 years ago 2
It should also not be written off just yet, as it does have mathematical support. Certainly, there is no experimental evidence as yet, and it may be that there will never be any. However; I agree that too much faith is put into such theories at this time, but that does not mean that we should not devise the experiments to test them.
hackenbollox 2 years ago
many great discoveries and truths have been shunned in the past for the same reasons.
beenzo 2 years ago
what makes this guy think gravity needs to be any stronger? its like saying. why is the earth so big compared to a germ. yet the earth is tiny if you compare it to a galaxy. gravity is only weak compared to other forces such as magnetism. maybe these forces are just really really strong. this is just far fetched bullshit based on fantasy
robertwc82 2 years ago
To provide a simple answer, it has been the pursuit of physics to unite all 4 forces of nature; Strong force, Weak Force, Electromagnetic Force and Gravity. It is believe that shortly after or perhaps during the big bang these four forces were united. Now to your question. Gravity's weakness is a major stumbling block when we try to unite the four forces under the aegis of Quantum Mechanics. This is merely an idea associated with String Theory and M-theory. There is no need for such language.
243pie 2 years ago
watch the video "the Electric Universe" 1-4. it argues that electric forces shape the galaxies not gravity. quantum scientists, also, i believe are getting way too ahead of themselves and too unscientific, they need to go back few steps and actually prove einsteins hypothosis (of speacial relativity) before accepting them as fact. einstein himself did not find his hypothosis satisfying as he had no way to tie them to reality.
eg. the hypothosis that time is a dimension (space time)
robertwc82 2 years ago
Excuse me but im sure that gravitational singularities (black holes) are at the centre of the galaxies. These singularities have a strong gravitational pull shaping the galaxy, into a swirling pattern. They aren't unscientific they are merely presenting theories, which, I might add, make sense. No Einstein couldn't unify the 4 forces, there was nothing connecting them, but now we have come up with string theory and M-theory, this provides us with much insight. Time is A DIMENSION its been proved
243pie 2 years ago
your excused lol. no your right, the fact that gravity is too weak means its gravity that is wrong not the fallable humans, therefore there must be a magical realm outside our own plane of existance and it is stealing all our gravity.....yeah thats real scientific.
robertwc82 2 years ago
Hmmm so your saying that the entire population of theoretical physiscists in the world are chasing some random fantasy? Please look at the equations study the theory and think about what you are saying. Gravity isn't actually weak if it was in combination with the three forces at the beginning of the universe, we are merely providing an idea that supports current M-theory (which has been validated). And no its not a magical realm its a higher dimensional space.
243pie 2 years ago
But please if you know why gravity is so weak please save us the trouble. Also if you can explain to us all the phenomenon in this universe logicaly and with mathematical equations without anomalies please save us the grief. But if you can't you can either accept the work of greater minds or just continue on believing in your fantasy.
243pie 2 years ago
why does gravity have to be strong? why does the physical universe need to mold itself to fit your perception of the universe? im pretty sure the universe is not obligated to satisfy your beliefs. if you can only ever imagine something it isnt science. science deals with reality. you fantasy is a magical realm (you say potato...), what is my fantasy you say i believe in again?
robertwc82 2 years ago
I have already answered that question. The universe isn't molding around our perception, theoretical physicists are perceiving the universe as it should be and if at some point something is contradictory then they revise their theory, its all science my friend. They dont imagine they estimate, prove and discover. Im sorry that was inconsiderate of me you haven't specified your fantasy, you just called the scientific work of the worlds brightest minds over centuries bullshit. Thats unacceptable.
243pie 2 years ago
If we ever achieve a Grand Unified Theory then at some energy scale all four forces are the same. So we need an explanation for why these forces are so different. Today, gravity is extremely different from the other forces in terms of strength. Thus, we seek an explanation for the weakness of gravity.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
1st they need to figure out what gravity actually is. putting down to a 4th dimension which can not be percieved in anyway is just as much of a cop-out as saying god did it
robertwc82 2 years ago
What gravity actually is? Gravity is a force one of the 4 forces that shape our universe. A particle of gravity is reffered to as a graviton. All Einsteins field equations point require its existance. I know its hard to visualise 4 dimensions however listen to this: pretend we are 2d being walking around a sphere. We perceive everything in 2d yet we wonder how we returned to our original location. Its possible we exist in a similar way, this is called the 'curvature of space', the 4th dimension.
243pie 2 years ago
all we know is gravity exists because we can observe its effect on matter. merely saying it is a force explains nothing, the real question is what causes gravity? Newton put it down to the will of god. i can imagine a 4th dimension but i can also imagine dragons and unicorns. you can't just make a hypothosis and accept it as scientific theory without experimental evidence. if you want to have blind faith you may as well join the church. they have many hypothosis as to how the universe works
robertwc82 2 years ago
Umm don't we experience 4 dimensions rather than 3? Correct me if im wrong but, isn't it 3 of space: up down, left right, forward back and 1 of time?
243pie 2 years ago
time is not a dimension, it is a measurement humans invented to measure rates of change. things just change and we merely remember what things were like beore the change occured. the universe only ever exists in an infinite present moment without beginning or end.
robertwc82 2 years ago
Because of Einstein, we often call time the fourth dimension. Special relativity shows that time behaves surprisingly like the three spatial dimensions. The Lorenz equations show this. Length contracts as speed increases. Time expands as speed increases. :P
243pie 2 years ago
Yes, you are correct. (As is the video -- it refers to three spatial dimensions.)
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
Thank you, I guess that was me just being really picky. Great bunch of videos you guys have, it explains things very well. =]
243pie 2 years ago 2
Hang on a sec ...
"Accelerators like the the LHC at CERN smash protons and anti-protons ..."
The LHC is proton - proton in contra-rotating beams, not proton - anti-proton.
salerio61 2 years ago
Thanks for catching our error. A fix is in the works.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
Oh cool, thanks :)
I'd like to also add that this is fantastic set of videos you guys have put together, I almost felt ashamed to point out a minor error
salerio61 2 years ago
Might branes be the conduits that facilitate 'spooky action' ?
ANewNormalcy 2 years ago
Yes.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
"its impossible to picture 4 dimensions"
hey, it's even impossibly to picture 3 spacial dimensions in a youtube video! ;)
i was expecting to see some tesseracts :D
sofiasmartis 2 years ago
so, gravitons are shared between all dimensions, in theory, and is a weak force due to its ubiquitous/transit nature.
moonchair761 2 years ago
So this is talking about multidemnsional theory, still pertaining to our own universe. Where does this theory stand in a multiverse complex? Basically, does this deal with the theoretical walls (some call them branes...but I won't use that terminology here) that encompass the "outside" of ours and other universes, which consequently, deal with (among others) the Cyclical theory of the origin of our universe?
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
String Theory and its stepchild Brane Theory try to be the Theory of Everything. And to quantize gravity and join it to the Standard Model requires 11 dimensions. A modern view of the origin of our "universe" has it erupting from a pre-existing quantum foam, and has our "bubble" one of an infinity of other bubble-universes. Some of the others might have our physical laws and 11 dimensions, but most would not.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
Thanks. I don't follow this as much as I should, considering my interest in the subject is quite high. Most of the time, I understand what's being discussed, every now and then I need some clearification though. Oh, btw, great vids. You should definitely be featured, or promote these. They'd be a great educational tool for the basics.
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
Have "gravitons" been experimentally verified to exist?
cdavaz 3 years ago
No they have not.
cassiopeiaproject 3 years ago
whoa!
coolchristian69 3 years ago
its 11d not 10
johnneedslove 3 years ago
The video is correct.
There is a difference between spatial dimensions and the extra dimension of time.
cube11235 3 years ago
This channel is exactly what I need for extension of my thinking and understanding. I thank you very much!
MaDrung 3 years ago 2
hows does cern acquire an antiproton?
mistermuffin420 3 years ago
They smash high energy protons into a nickel target and create many different kinds of particles from the energy of the incoming protons. For every million protons that hit the target, about 20 antiprotons are harvested.
cassiopeiaproject 3 years ago
dont we experince 4 dimensions? Time being the fourth?
bengunna 3 years ago
Yes.
cassiopeiaproject 3 years ago
he said 3 spatial dimensions
shaun252 3 years ago
Very good. Look forward to seeing many more videos like this.
Slinki999 3 years ago