Does the Universe have Higher Dimensions? Part 1

where is B. Heim ?

What if space has LESS dimensions? How do we know for sure that space isn't 2.5 dimensional?

Yess 11 dimensions guys, all rolled up and smoked

Dr. Hossenfelder is a beautiful scientist! 💖

This whole dimensional existance got me thinking ...
What if light lies on the boundary of 2 and 3 dimensional space and blackholes lie on the boundary of 3 and 4th dimensional space ... I'm sure this idea has come up before but I can't find anything on it...
The spinning of the hypercube also seemed strange ... according to the explanation i got ...it's posible to spin it two ways but I realised that wouldn't actually be spinning... therefore it would have to go through both ways at once or one following the other in order to call it spinning.
Reminds me of atomic spin.
And when things speed up they appear flattened in the direction they move ... it goes to reason at the speed of light or just after... it would be extremely flat but not for the person in that ship.
For us it's in 2d.
And at black hole you should be able to compress 3d matter with at least 6 times the strongest gravity in normal space and then fold it a further 6 times spacially.

Great Courses Plus, who guarantees that those curses are in fact great, but you Frau Doktor!

My German mother, would say: “Die hat ‘nen Riß in der Membrane”.

Nobody knows any of the scientists you are citing, but Einstein: “Yes that guy again”.

Do that pseudoscientific stupidities you are jabbering, have any beneficial effect to the 1 million children, who die of malaria each year in Africa?

Who guarantees that those scribbles of a 2D cube are really a projection of a 4D cube,

Who wrote the script you are eager to pretend you aren’t reading, Frau Doktor?

Nobody knows, but you Frau Doktor PhD in EveryThingology know, right? You are a “modern” genius.

A short course in hyper-physics 101: Photons and matter particles (hadrons and leptons) are attached to the Higgs field, which has the shape of the surface of a 4-sphere. The surface of a 4-sphere is 3D, so photons and matter particles are restricted to 3 degrees of dimensional freedom of movement by their attachment to the Higgs field. Every point in the surface of the 4-sphere (the Higgs field) is next to 4D space, but photons and matter particles can't travel into 4D space because they are attached to the Higgs field (the surface of the 4-sphere). Quarks are not firmly attached to the Higgs field, but stay close to it to form the hadrons and leptons. The up quark has 2 degrees of dimensional freedom of movement, the down quark has 3, the strange quark has 4, the charm quark has 5, the bottom quark has 6, and the top quark has 7. The higher dimensional space next to the Higgs field is not just 4D space, it is n-space, so a charm quark for instance, which is made of 5D matter, intersects the Higgs field, but is mostly in the n-space on either side of the Higgs field. The Higgs field, which is 3D, has zero thickness in the fourth and higher dimensional directions, so can be intersected by higher dimensional quark matter anywhere. The old idea that higher dimensional space might exist for 3D matter is wrong. Higher dimensional space only exists for higher dimensional matter (quark matter).

Good show Sabine 👏

Does the Universe have extra dimensions? Hmm! .... Let me see .... 1+3 ÷4.639 ×2 = Umm. ...... No!!
Sabine Sabine Sabine! 👻🚀

I have also noticed that 11 is the amount of players each team brings to the field in a football match. Coincidence? God doesn’t play with dice

what if the number of dimensions increased as we went smaller? having arbitrary figures like "11" just doesn't make sense and is probably wrong

Yes, the universe comes in 010 (T.E.N.) dimensions!!

What if a theory is dead wrong, but it parallels what's really going on, so its predictions are always correct?
That would be a hoot.

You often only have the minimum required amount of a given thing.
You only need the three plus time.
Does her all.

How can an infinite dimension of space be "rolled up" to a radius? I hope somebody explains this one day

Edgar Cayce said that we are not alone in the universe. The other beings operate in a different dimension.
What about UFO's? We can see them flying around but then they disappear. They literally disappear from our radar. Do they go into another dimension?
Some people can talk to the dead. Aren't the dead in another dimension that we can not see?
Could other dimensions be like wavelengths of light - only some of which can be seen?

Hello Sabine, have you already worked out the second part? And a question: No one knows, why our universe has three dimensions of space, not more or less. Could the answer be an anthropical one? In the way, that in two dimensions objects are too simple to live, and in four dimensions processes are too complex and chaotic for life? So these alternatives would have no observer?

Why stop there? For good reason. It's not so much because you can draw three dimensions but not four... even your "three-dimensional" drawing of the x,y,z coordinate system is depicted in two dimensions, of course... We stop there because all of space, as we experience it, can have any point within it uniquely defined by three coordinates, even if the coordinate system itself is a mere abstraction superimposed on the space. The three coordinates are necessary and sufficient to do so, and mathematically to any precision there is presumably a one-to-one correspondence between any three arbitrary coordinates, and exactly one position within the space.

Writing an equation with four coordinates is another mathematical abstraction, and the mere fact that you can do it with math does not mean it has any correspondence to the reality of space. The relationship stated above ceases to exist, and that is why we stop. If I write some math with thirteen dimensions, that would give zero theoretical support to the idea that I somehow magically made thirteen spatial dimensions appear by writing the math. There's still only three. The math describes the reality, it doesn't dictate it. Which explains why you can't grab a chunk of "spacetime" and "curve" or "warp" it, no matter how many hypothetical Einsteins and their equations might try to pretend such a thing actually exists in reality... it's a convenient mathematical abstraction and nothing more. It's one of many examples of the fallacy of thinking that the math defines the reality rather than just describing it.

As an example, we could just as well use a weird clunky radial cylindrical coordinate system based on a line drawn through the space, and then uniquely identify any point within that space, by using coordinates consisting of a distance from an origin on that line, plus a vector drawn outward from the line at that point. So our coordinates would still be three... a distance from some arbitrary origin along that line, plus an angular direction from that point as measured from an arbitrary "zero" angular direction serving as an origin, plus a distance along the resulting ray, from the line used as our coordinate system's basis. It would change the geometric shape of the coordinate system, but that doesn't mean it would change the shape of the space. The space doesn't care what math we use to describe it. We could switch back and forth between that and the conventional Cartesian system, but meanwhile the space would happily exist just as it is, without change, no matter what math we use.

4d cube, projected in 3d space, to my 2d screen in 1d time!

Thanks for the great vid

Well first of all the British mathematician inventor Artur Cayley with a number of multiple Dimensions and its true you know and famous Scientist Sabine Hossenfelder 💌💘

That's interesting. Dimensions r nothing but parameters to define an object and it's movement. But we only exist in 3D.

Consider that before non-locality occurs and so called proton entanglement suddenly happens faster than the speed of light; that the finite locality move to a higher dimension that is right here, right now; but un-seeable. Check out 12th century Nachmanides, aka Ramban's observations of 10 dimensions, 3 physical, time/space, the 5th which is loss of locality 10 ⁻³⁴ and 5 unknowable or unseeable that we may be co-existing with here and now.

Non-sequitur but totally right: You are an amazingly sexy woman with exquisite taste in clothes, a fabulous accent and you, speaking German, is sublime!

As Pauli already showed in his book on relativity, written in 1922 when he was 21 years old (to this day an excellent book!), ANY two generally covariant theories can be pasted together the way Kaluza did - there is no actual unification and no dynamical principle, and Klein's ansatz does not change that. Pauli himself had done work (his first serious research - he started in gravity) in what was known as "projective relativity", where you consider not the manifold of spacetime points, rather that of the geodesics of Riemannian geometry. He later showed that Kaluza's theory was just projective relativity in a particular coordinate system. Thus, it has no dynamical relevance. I always found it amazing that people either forgot this fact, or ignored it, because it was old news in 1922. (Nevertheless projective relativity is a fascinating subject. The main guys were Oswald Veblen and T. Y. Thomas, if you want to entertain yourself.)

Great. Thank you.

Sabine told about brainfood: A good possibility would be to research upon my precognitive dreams... (many other people have those)

Dark matter being 'normal' matter in a parallel dimension is not impossible.

“Wavelenght?”

Michio Kaku speaks on this as well.. I think there are dimensions too..

I often wonder if there is another very common, consistent, conflicting, but hard to confirm , prove or deny dimension or condition ......simply called self delusion lol!

I still like the idea that we are used to model space in three dimensions because of our biological bauplan. The anterioposterior polarization with the nervous system pointing to the front during locomotion creates the first axis, the bilateral symmetry is responsible for our left-right orientation, the second axis. Both these axes resolve the horizontal plane as apposed to gravity that determines our perception of an up/down axis. Would a plant be able to distinguish the two horizontal axes? Why would there be need to do so for any sessil organism that does not care about movement, but only about gravity as a directional agent? It is still intersting though that we can conceptualize more than three dimensions. If you want to chose evolution to be responsible for our orientation using three dimensions, then what lead to our ability to do these higher dimensional abstracions?

It's been said if you can make something complicated sound clear and simple, you have a true grasp of the subject.

Nice dress!

They call me limp dick

You want to know what the people in heaven think about me

5th particle dime Those atoms that are listening to you and then all being obeyed by you at this point in time and you levitate up 1st that was going straight then was going wavy then if you want back for in time now they're going up to make you understand that you're dreams will be your real real real reality now I am at work like I am the man who wrote science of the mind My name is Tatiana goochie The Harley's homeschool Ernest's homeschool Anyway

Fifth

She married me uncle, Merrill Leo beaver of Bavaria

What about lower dimensions?!

To pick a nit, I do miss a mention of "the celestial sphere" which would evidence that being curled up too small isn't in general the only way a spatial dimension can escape perception.