Who will you be with when you die? The two of you will know for sure
what's on the other side. The universe continues, even when you don't,
and there are no holes in Omega.
Since its launch in
2006, I've always presented this project as a mind-expanding exercise,
an exploration of possibilities connected to science, spirituality,
Eastern mysticism, consciousness, altered states, and so on. I had
something that helps open people up to orthogonal thinking, an important
part of the creative process. Allowing people to visualize ten
dimensions using the three-steps-at-a-time process inherent in the
point-line-plane postulate (the accepted methodology for visualizing any
number of spatial dimensions) is the goal. And I hear regularly from
people who have become scientists and teachers who thank me for
awakening their intellectual curiosity when they were younger. It's good
training for the brain to think orthogonally.
.
Still, I
do occasionally come across people who feel that my "new way of
thinking about time and space" is being presented as "this is a
scientific theory" rather than "this is a mind-expanding exercise". Back
in 2006 all I could say was "this is not the explanation for string
theory, but it does have interesting connections to many other schools
of thought". You can lay these ten dimensions on Kaballah or Sacred
Geometry or the psychedelic experience or Maxwell's infinitely scalable
field equations, it all makes sense within those different frames of
reference because it's all spatial dimensions, that's my declared
starting point (insert the usual arrow sound effect here). This project
did get a credibility boost in 2014 when my approach to visualizing the
fourth and fifth dimension was the one shown in Nolan's Interstellar,
since that film had Nobel laureate Kip Thorne as science advisor.
Thorne's proposal that the rest of the dimensions can be lumped together
into an "everything" which he calls The Bulk also can be aligned with
my approach, as I've talked about in other blogs and videos. Still, like
I've said many times, I am not a physicist and I'm not pretending to be
one. This project is a creative exploration of ideas, and I'm grateful
for the millions of people who have enjoyed this journey of discovery.
Which
brings me to Komandor Cliff, and a conversation I had with him on
YouTube over the last few days. A friendly warning, there is a lot of
foul language in the following, if you are uncomfortable with that then
you should consider yourself warned before you continue reading. But he
represents a voice that needs to be heard and I thank him for his input.
I will continue to follow Thorne's imagery since it aligns with my
own. Thank you Komandor.
This video is quite literally a load of bullshit past the third dimension and is nothing more than somebody's dumb headcanon of how dimensions work1. you don't mix time and spatial dimensions as those are different things2. universes aren't a dimension!3. that's not what multiple dimensions of time actually do: two dimensions of time means time isn't a line but a plane but that doesn't mean its a plane stacked with isolated timelines, you would not have timelines anymore, you'd have a timeplane, you would have normal time and sideways time, you would measure time as a coordinate like x4+y6 seconds to an event, accelerations and motion would use 2 time variables, and assuming arrow of time would still be a thing it would now be a gradient of time and you could move in time either forward or diagonally, but not exactly sidewayscasual relationships would get weird and a cause would create a forward ripple or spread of effects instead of a single effect, and moving more to the left or the right would represent a slightly different state of things, but unlike different timelines things would come and go based on the time direction you throw them in and would exist as a small continuum along sideways time instead of as individual objects, imagine a ball about to hit another ball thrown forward in space, but it was thrown a little sideways in time so it wont affect the ball exactly forward in time but a little to the left in time and so it will hit the leftmost timeside of the ball and push those parts of ball continuum forward, transferring less energy the farther from its leftmost side the continuum of the ball is until the ball directly forward in time doesn't visibly move, essentially hitting the ball continuum forward and rotating it a bit like a ball would a stickpeople would have two dimensional memories that could be arranged on a plane of 'happened in the past' + 'happened sideways', kids would learn to remember left and right in space and different left and right in time, a default zeroth sideways time axis would need to be agreed upon just like the prime meridian, clocks would be more like compasses but for time directions not just simple counters, and people upon repeated differing interactions from other people and events on their leftmost and rightmost time sides would find them further and further apart in causality that at some point they would diverge and split into two functionally different people, and people would argue 'where is the point we are different continuums?' for ages and someone will create a 'clock of theseus' problem that asks if we are still the same continuum after so many splits and interactions throughout the duration and span of our lives while carl sagan the XII+VI will say we are all made of the star stuff continuum anyway, and that every square of time deserves to be loved, all the while people will argue being married on both sides of time to different people is fine but christian nutjobs will say its evil and quote their ancient+ancient book on itbasically its similar to a 4th spatial dimension if you manage to finally understand it (and understanding 4th helps a lot with imagining the time dimensions as its a good reference), that is to say its quite mundane and not so different but at the same time makes everything WAY more complex and unintuitive which makes it hard to imagine
Please read Nobel laureate Kip Thorne’s 2014 book The Science of Interstellar. He shows the same interpretation of the fourth and fifth dimension as I’ve been explaining with this project since it started in 2006. He says that an observer in the fifth dimension would see the different 4D world lines (he refers to them as “world tubes”) of Everett’s Many Worlds bending and stretching around them in the warped geometries of the tesseract. Also, the 2017 laboratory demonstrations of time crystals, which are static 4D shapes which cycle from state to state without using energy, is confirmation that this “spatial” way of thinking about the fourth and fifth dimension as incorporating the past and future as a “spectrum of possibilities” (as Hawking described it) is the true nature of our reality.
An interpretation of dimensions made for a movie doesn't represent reality, we still didn't crack quantum gravity while the movie had to have it, therefore an interpretation was born, it doesn't represent reality the way interstellar's black hole does, that one was based on real data after alltime crystals are not 4d the hell? its just a 3d crystal forced into a weird quantum state of matter nr.27 or whatever (because there's a lot of weird quantum states of matter) and oscillates in time instead of space, this really isn't that impressive as quantum world plays fast and loose with time already, the truth is we aren't sure time is even a fundamental thing or some emergent phenomenon, or in other words, if its real or not4d shapes interact with light and gravity in very weird ways and require a 4th spatial macro dimension to exist, the implications of said dimension existing would have PROFOUND effect on our physics, for one if we didn't have 4d thickness our insides would fall out sideways at the angle we can't see, and if we had such thickness we would be so much heavier, things would also be knocked into the 4th dimension constantly, i suggest 4d toys game and videos as that game actually simulates a simple 4d space with physics, of course there's also the fact that in reality 4th spatial macro dimension would mean either all fundamental forces or just gravity would essentially come undone so..oh wait, you meant 4th dimension as time? well, 4th dimension isn't time, its used as a coordinate t in mathematics and physics because its convenient, but that does NOT mean its the 4th dimension, its the 1st time dimension, NOT the 4th dimension, spatial and time dimensions are distinct, you cannot build a shape where matter exists in four perpendicular directions of which one is time, because time isn't a spatial dimension, and while time crystal does incorporate the dimension of time, so does everything else!it also proves absolutely nothing of a fifth dimension, it has nothing to do with any fifth dimension, the idea of a sea of possible futures and multiple timelines also don't imply any fifth dimension, it implies additional physics, and last time i checked fundamental forces or molecular physics don't imply dimension of their own either! to freely interpret works and thoughts of other people specifically upon your personal model doesn't prove your personal model, its bias, where's your peer reviewed hypothesis article containing hard math proofs of your personal model of ten dimensional reality even being possible anyway?the thought that we are really 3d slices in a 4d volume that for some reason are going through the slices forward in time is naive and doesn't work for a couple of reasons1. there still has to be TIME, a reason for the 3d slices to cycle through them forward, to obey causality, to follow the arrow of time, to even form in the first place as static 4d slice worms that begin and end abruptly as a distinct object, this isn't a workable dimension of time, its more like a spatial interpretation of the timeline if you took all the past and future matter arrangements and then made them exist all at once and stacked them for some reason2. it would have profound implications of physics like stated above since its still a fourth axis that exists and is macroscopic, most likely it would actually have even MORE implications than a simple addition of a fourth axis since it now would have rules3. occam's razor, the exact same state of time can be explained simpler mathematically as a separate dimension of time which is just a single axis that defines this variable called time and allows objects to change in state in a continuous manner based upon additional non-spatial movement upon this axisand finally moving onto time dimensions, my blurb about two time dimensions was based upon me trying to interpret the fact two time dimensions would mean that time became a coordinate and all equations involving time variable would now have to involve two of them, since i can find nothing on the internet on how it could be like, i also know that 2d planes aren't divided into isolated 1d lines for some reason so i knew two dimensions of time don't imply time travel or many timelines, fortunately i had my experience trying to imagine the 4th spatial dimension intuitively, so i banged my head into the wall until i produced something workable based on simple math, just like imagining (or simulating) 4th spatial dimension is done on similarly simple math, that is to say nothing more than an additional coordinateit may be wrong, it probably even is, but that's what i got from parsing the implications of two time coordinates in my mind, i also assumed arrow of time (gradient of time in 2d time) still exists and causes everything to move forward, take it or leave it i guess, at least its unique and mind bending in a way i haven't found looking for other 2d time interpretations on the internet, and believe me i did looki will still take it anytime over your interpretation, the fact that your video contributed greatly to people thinking time is the 4th dimension pisses me off as well as many other 4th spatial dimension enthusiasts as people tend to butt in with minimal knowledge and go 'BuT 4tH DiMEnSiOn Is TiME!11!!!1!one!one1'i also find your interpretation to be on the level of time cubes to be honest, since all you did was take 3 spatial dimensions, then duplicated them two times, first putting all the timelines in their own 3d volume and calling it 6th dimension then doing the same with universal sets and calling THAT 9th dimension, topping it with a null = all as the tenth dim (why does THAT even NEED to be a dimension?! a totality of all 9 dimensional volumes doesn't imply a tenth to contain, you don't need higher dimensional manifolds to contain lower ones!), but all you need for all of this is just 3 distinct spaces in a hierarchy, not 9 dimensions, it seems to be based on limited imagination, basic pattern repetition and a misunderstanding of what the word 'dimension' means, its also actually quite limiting, because its structure is rigid and doesn't allow high level weirdness, i'd rate it 4/10 if it was a fictional meta-cosmology made for a story for example, but since its intended for a real world it needs to be scrutinized very heavilyfinally when it comes to its spiritual and philosophical value... meh, i've seen better
Kip Thorne is one of the world’s most respected physicists. When he signed on as executive producer and science advisor for Nolan’s Interstellar, he made it his mission to present modern scientific thinking in that movie. In his book about those ideas, The Science of Interstellar, he describes some of the times that Nolan wanted to introduce plot points which strayed outside of those constraints and how they were able to adjust them to keep them within the bounds of scientific credibility.
I love that you are quoting the same tired criticisms trolls have used to suppress these ideas since this project started. “You don’t even know what a dimension is” being my favourite. Einstein agreed a century ago that our reality is resolved at the fifth dimension, where his equations for general relativity and Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism can be integrated. Stephen Hawking describes the fifth dimension as “imaginary time, at right angles to spacetime” because Everett’s Universal Wavefunction incorporates the realm of imaginary numbers. And as Sean Carroll says, “there is not a separate wave function for each particle. There is only one wavefunction: the wave function of the universe”.
I did not originate the idea that all of the extra dimensions are spatial, or space-like. I did not originate the point line plane postulate, which has been taught in schools from long before I was born (and I’m 65). It can be used to visualize any number of spatial dimensions, by taking them three at a time, resetting your frame of reference, and continuing to add dimensions for as many as you care to imagine.
Yes, our window into the extra dimensions is limited by the 3D membrane our atoms and molecules are embedded within, so our one-Planck-frame-after-another window into the extra dimensions makes them appear “curled up at the Planck length”. But to complain that this approach is somehow limited in scope ignores what happens each time you add a spatial dimension. Think about the exponential growth in possibilities added as we go from a 1D line to a 2D plane to a 3D space! Each new dimension adds a set of states that were inaccessible from the previous dimensions. Each new dimension enfolds and includes the previous ones, that is the nature of spatial or space-like dimensions. And just because we can’t physically experience Einstein’s vision of the fourth dimension, where the distinction between past present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, doesn’t make that idea invalid.
Finally, this video says time is a direction, not a dimension. “Time”, as a way of describing change from state to state, can be applied to any dimension, not just the fourth. Thinking about the fourth spatial dimension in abstract terms is fun, the topologies and transformations of a fourth dimensional object passing through 3D space are fascinating, but our world is not filled with dots that become spheres and shrink back to nothing (as a simple example). There’s no question, as physical beings our access to the extra dimensions is different from what an omnipresent observer placed “outside” of our dimensions would see. But if we’re talking about reality and not abstract ideas, then Kip Thorne says the same thing I do: a hypothetical observer in the fifth dimension would see all the potential fourth dimensional causal chains of Everett’s Many Worlds attached to a moment, bending and stretching in the geometries of the tesseract.
You actually didn't respond to any of my points, you're just repeating your own in greater detail, nice
i especially like how you say that 'you don't know what a dimension is' is somehow trolling, but at the same time say time is a direction while ALSO saying its the 4th dimension, and a spatial one according to this 'timeworm composed of 3d slices' concept, i mean arrow of time isn't even a function of a dimension, its a function of entropy and thermodynamics!! since you don't know even that then not knowing what a dimension is is a valid criticism, and there is a reason it gets repeated so many times against you, if you really do mean that dimensions are like you say then give equations or else cease and desist instead of accusing everyone of trolling
Kip Thorne based the fifth dimension used in interstellar on string theory, and its idea for branes, said fifth dimension is a fifth spatial macro-dimension that exists outside of the universe and is essentially outside of time (because time is a component of the universe, which would be contained in said fifth dimension) which explains the time shenanigans
"Einstein agreed a century ago that our reality is resolved at the fifth dimension, where his equations for general relativity and Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism can be integrated." you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory because this theory is a direct precursor to the superstring theory and its variants, and without modifications its essentially obsolete today
"Stephen Hawking describes the fifth dimension as “imaginary time, at right angles to spacetime” because Everett’s Universal Wavefunction incorporates the realm of imaginary numbers. And as Sean Carroll says, “there is not a separate wave function for each particle. There is only one wavefunction: the wave function of the universe”." imaginary numbers introduce a coordinate system into the number line, turning it into a number plane, so imaginary time essentially imply two dimensions of time, a 2d time, more specifically a second time dimension that presumably exists on the quantum level or outside of the universe or whatever because i'm pretty sure i didn't measure my year in 356+356 days so its not a macro-dimension, which is basically time dimension analogue to what string theory does to the additional spatial dimensions in the space of our universe, that is folds them
it would also not be described as the fifth dimension, but as the second time dimension in addition to our 3 spatial ones, because spatial dimensions =/= time dimensions!
at this point i'm pretty sure that what you're doing is repeating an appeal to authority while also wildly misunderstanding what said authority actually means, because all those people are essentially talking about the string theory, which is wildly incompatible with your 10 dimensional model! and that's obvious if you just look at the number of dimensions, which isn't 10 in any variant!
"I did not originate the idea that all of the extra dimensions are spatial, or space-like. I did not originate the point line plane postulate" obviously
"It can be used to visualize any number of spatial dimensions, by taking them three at a time, resetting your frame of reference, and continuing to add dimensions for as many as you care to imagine." that creates a series of hierarchical 3d volumes, NOT actual additional dimensions, as any additional new dimension adds complexity that is IMPOSSIBLE to easily explain using the previous dimension, its also NOT what this video is doing, as it DOES NOT explain additional dimensions above the third but creates a new TYPE of dimensions that follow the same 3 coordinates but in different things than space, which is my main gripe with the video actually, as it does NOT explain 10 dimensions, it explains 3 spatial dimensions, 3 timeline (not time) dimensions and 3 phase-space dimensions, as well as additional 1 dimension that is basically null=all and represents no dimension, but that could have its own video as a concept
"Yes, our window into the extra dimensions is limited by the 3D membrane our atoms and molecules are embedded within" yes, that's exactly what string theory says... "so our one-Planck-frame-after-another window into the extra dimensions makes them appear “curled up at the Planck length”." this, on the other hand, is absolutely NOT what string theory says!
"But to complain that this approach is somehow limited in scope ignores what happens each time you add a spatial dimension." i DID NOT complain about the damn string theory, but about your particular model, WHICH ISN'T COMPATIBLE OR EVEN COMPARABLE WITH STRING THEORY ANYWAY "Think about the exponential growth in possibilities added as we go from a 1D line to a 2D plane to a 3D space! Each new dimension adds a set of states that were inaccessible from the previous dimensions. Each new dimension enfolds and includes the previous ones, that is the nature of spatial or space-like dimensions." Yes that's what new dimensions entail, you have a whole new perpendicular axis, you can have things like chain-links that look bound in 3d that aren't actually bound, things like a torus and a sphere in one, or that 4d tori called tiger which is awesome but has no analogue in 3d, or the sixth platonic solid in addition to 4d analogues of the 3d ones, but those aren't just spatial concepts, because a dimension is just a coordinate and NEEDS to be identified as a time or spatial one BECAUSE on its own there's nothing that says which one it is, its the universe that does this by differentiating what different coordinates do in physics at the fundamental level
i mean, a TEMPERATURE could be a dimension if it was fundamental like space and time, but we know its an emergent property of atoms which is why it isn't! 4 time dimensions would have time analogues of hyperspheres and who knows how that would work, but we don't have even 2 time dimensions in macro-space, we have just one
"And just because we can’t physically experience Einstein’s vision of the fourth dimension, where the distinction between past present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, doesn’t make that idea invalid." false, we can experience and we do, after all Einstein's vision of the fourth dimension is essentially Minkowski space time, which integrates 3 spatial and 1 temporal coordinates with special relativity and current physics and uses that as a coordinate system of our spacetime, the thing that it DOESN'T imply is that spacetime is actually structured like that as we have no evidence, its just a mathematical construct used in relativity for equations, its a representation, a model, or a universe where there are 3 spatial dimension, 1 temporal dimension and spacetime stretches with gravity like it does, not dissimilar to how vector spaces are used in game engines to create a usable coordinate system, its a functional mathematical representation, not a recreation of the universe, if it was then it wouldn't have so much problems with quantum physics as it has! "
“Time”, as a way of describing change from state to state, can be applied to any dimension, not just the fourth." yes, it can be applied and easily, you just need a single new coordinate used as a time variable, which is generally called a temporal or time dimension, which you add to your spatial system to have change in time, what it doesn't do is it won't allow you to extend your 4d hypercubes into the 5th dimension and make 5d hypercubes if you add a time dimension to your 4d volume because its NOT A SPATIAL AXIS! "Thinking about the fourth spatial dimension in abstract terms is fun, the topologies and transformations of a fourth dimensional object passing through 3D space are fascinating, but our world is not filled with dots that become spheres and shrink back to nothing (as a simple example)." yes, which is why nobody argues that there is a 4th macro-dimension of space in our universe!
"There’s no question, as physical beings our access to the extra dimensions is different from what an omnipresent observer placed “outside” of our dimensions would see. But if we’re talking about reality and not abstract ideas, then Kip Thorne says the same thing I do: a hypothetical observer in the fifth dimension would see all the potential fourth dimensional causal chains of Everett’s Many Worlds attached to a moment, bending and stretching in the geometries of the tesseract." which is the same way a 3d person would perceive a 2d dimension from outside as a series of slices in a 3d volume... except that a 3d observer actually would not perceive a 2d universe from outside in this way! he would perceive a jumble of possible states if he looks outside of the universe and therefore outside of time on our universe, and THAT would essentially be a phasespace, NOT a timeline jumble, but actual phasespace, it would require advanced instruments or exotic biological adaptations to actually perceive them in a way where a time dimension of a 2d universe would be represented as a 3d spatial universe, because a third spatial dimension is something the 2d universe doesn't have, and its 1d time dimension has no way to form 3d shapes in combination with 2d space dimension naturally!
in the same way, a 4d person would not perceive a 3d universe with 1d time naturally as a tesseract where the 4th axis is used to stack 3d slices going from past to the future, a representation would need to be constructed, because spatial and temporal dimensions do NOT share coordinates to produce a 4 coordinate volume, they produce a 3 coordinate volume with an additional 1 coordinate line, the usage of which depends on the universe in question and its fundamental physics this representation would be also a spectacular failure in the field of representing all information in a usable format in being completely unable to represent parallel timelines and possible futures, which is presumably why you even made the phasespace dimensions, and those are the one aspect of your video you can't even TRY and defend, because sure enough famous inteligent scientists are sometimes talking about the time dimensions and string theory and outside perspectives from a brane into a singular universe and so you can reinterpret and shove those quotes into your weird contradictory system with no equations for verification as defenses, but i didn't hear anybody talking about the 3 phasespace dimensions, other than you this video is still a pseudoscience based on a monumental misunderstanding of what scientists say about reality and what mathematicians say about dimensions and coordinates, and you have given me nothing else than quotes talking about superstring theory and falsely thinking that those pertain to your naive model somehow i'm going to wait until you address my previous points and provide math for your model
Okay we have firmly established that you believe Nobel laureate Kip Thorne is wrong when he says an observer in the fifth dimension would be able to see the many branching 4D “world tubes” as he calls them, representing the different possible pasts and futures of Everett’s Many Worlds. You want discussions of the fourth spatial dimension to ignore the third dimension of atoms and molecules that is our unique vantage point into these spatial dimensions, preferring to discuss only abstract four-dimensional topologies. You say it pisses you off when I say the fourth dimension as we experience it is made of two new directions, which we have traditionally called time and anti-time, even though those are just labels, and calling those new directions Ana/kata (for instance) would not change that we are talking about the dimension that is orthogonal to 3D space. Since my understanding of the fifth dimension aligns with Kip Thorne’s and not yours, would you also tell Kip Thorne that what he says is bullshit?
I didn't say Kip Thorne is wrong i said you are misinterpreting what he says, don't put words in my mouth or i'm going to start putting them in yours!many worlds interpretation is just an interpretation and isn't confirmed, and sure as hell there's no math or physics describing world tubes, you're basing your model of personal beliefs of a scientist then defending it by saying that he's a scientist, appeal to authority much?"you want discussions of the fourth spatial dimension to ignore the third dimension of atoms and molecules that is our unique vantage point into these spatial dimensions, preferring to discuss only abstract four-dimensional topologies" see here's your problem, you're assuming atoms and molecules are unique to 3 dimensions, i didn't say that and nobody said that, in a matter of fact atoms and molecules would still easily exist, but the electron orbitals would be different so all elements would have different properties besides, how does that assumption of "atoms+molecules being unique to the 3d" somehow imply "4D IS TIMELINES AND WORLD TUBES WOOO", just HOW? at this point you aren't even following any logical pattern you just take a random part of physics and say "THIS DIMENSION REPRESENT THIS RANDOM PART OF PHYSICS BECAUSE I SAY SO!"i also like how you speak of abstract four-dimensional topologies when1. you yourself were speaking of those but for some reason used them to construct a timeworm instead of a hypercube or a hyperdiamond2. this isn't topology but geometry anyway, unless you're talking about curved space or surfaces of klein bottles3. its about as abstract as three-dimensional 'topologies', but you're living in one of those so it isn't abstract to you, and its also abstract because you prefer bloody timeworms instead of math and will fanatical defend what is more of a personal belief than any actual scientific model, then present it to people as its ANYWHERE near scientificyou think i missed how you didn't answer ANY of my points and instead regurgitate the same stuff over and over while shielding yourself with authority figures? do you know who also does that? religious fanatics!also you still didn't explain why the fuck 6-9 universe dimensions would even be a thing, and i KNOW you can't justify THAT with a famous quote so here goes any evidence for it! "You say it pisses you off when I say the fourth dimension as we experience it is made of two new directions," i have NEVER said that, i said it pisses me off people commonly now talk about 4th dimension as time and butt in to other people talking about a spatial 4d, also the damnable VS battle wiki dimensional tiering crap is your bloody fault and i hate it"which we have traditionally called time and anti-time, even though those are just labels," never in my entire life i have heard of anti-time, and i never heard anybody that actually calls a 4th spatial axis time and anti-time, the hell? at this point you're making stuff up, ana and kata was specifically made to represent a SPATIAL 4th dimension, just like trength was, it was before einstein, and it was EINSTEIN that introduced 4th dimension as time in the first place, something scientists recognize was dumb in wording so they use 3+1 dimensions to describe the universe instead!the fact that you can measure all relativistic phenomena by using a 3d volume and a time dimension as a separate value means 4d volume where fourth axis is time quite literally doesn't abide Occam's razor"and calling those new directions Ana/kata (for instance) would not change that we are talking about the dimension that is orthogonal to 3D space." yes, and guess what time isn't? orthogonal to the 3d space!its a SEPARATE axis, for the love of actual 4th dimension stop mixing minkowski spacetime coordinate system with 4d space, integrating time as a 4d axis was a decision to make calculating and representing light cones and other special relativity stuff easily, but isn't a representative model of reality anymore than a mercator projection is of earth"Since my understanding of the fifth dimension aligns with Kip Thorne’s and not yours, would you also tell Kip Thorne that what he says is bullshit?" how about you tell Kip Thorne that you think string theory is bullshit considering your damn system is wholly incompatible? you can also throw in how you reinterpret his quotes as defense in your whack-job model and put in people's mouth they think he's talking crap if they don't agree with you without his permission, at this point i'm starting to think you think you know more about what Kip Thorne says than the man himself!i will repeat myself again, GIMME MATH OR SHUT IT!
I’m beginning to think you have not read The Science of Interstellar.
You have made it 100% clear that you disagree with the idea of fourth dimensional spacetime being as spatial as the first three dimensions. You dislike me quoting experts, so when Brian Greene says “just as we think of all of space as being out there, as really existing, we should think of all of spacetime as being out there, as really existing too” will you again say I don’t understand his meaning? In The Science of Interstellar, when we see Thorne’s hand-drawn diagrams of his 4D “world tubes” that must really bug you. And with more and more physicists jumping on the Many Worlds bandwagon, your old-fashioned defense of “that’s just an interpretation” should at least acknowledge that Kip Thorne, Sean Carroll, Brian Greene and many more respected physicists have given Everett’s Theory of the Universal Wavefunction their full support. David Deutsch says “calling Everett’s Many Worlds an ‘interpretation’ is like calling dinosaurs an ‘interpretation’ of the fossil record.” Sean Carroll says “ ‘Many Worlds’ has the simplest, smallest, most compact fundamental picture of reality. It’s just a wavefunction obeying an equation.”
When my ideas were presented at Oxford in 2010 a team of artists and scientists in their Quantum research division constructed the “fifth-dimensional camera project”, showing the same way of visualizing the fifth dimension that I portray. And that’s the meat of the matter here. If the fourth spatial dimension is orthogonal to the third then it includes the third dimension, and that’s where the unique configuration of matter and energy that makes our unique set of atoms and molecules is found. And if the fifth dimension is orthogonal to the fourth then of course it includes this 4D spacetime. You say I’m putting words in your mouth, but you disagree with my description of the fifth dimension as being where Everett’s Universal Wavefunction is calculated. I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Are you saying you disagree when I say this is the correct way to interpret the fifth dimension, but when Kip Thorne says these different potential pasts and futures are accessed via the fifth dimension you might agree?
You know, i'm going to wait till you actually respond to ANY of my points, not just regurgitate your appeals to authority and repeat points about 4th and 5th dimension THAT I ALREADY ADDRESSED MULTIPLE DAMN TIMES! are you actually ignoring me or what? because i'm tired of being cherry picked! you were to oxford and people listened while not having any math to support your crap? well here goes the reputation of oxford i guess i'm not even going to respond with actual points anymore if i see you keep ignoring them or i see that your next comment won't have any numbers in it other than those followed by D, because clearly you aren't interested in a discussion, you just want to browbeat people with how 'clever' and 'obviously true' your personal little model is while ignoring actual arguments
I never said I went to Oxford, I said my ideas were presented there. Dr. Richard Benjamin, Dr. Andrew Briggs, and Dr. John Rarity of Oxford’s QIP IRC (Quantum Information Processing Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration) were the main scientists involved in the project, which included a video featuring Dr. Benjamin talking about the branching possibilities of Everett’s Many Worlds in the fifth dimension, using graphics obviously based upon my graphics from my original 2006 Imagining the Tenth Dimension video. Shouldn’t you be asking physicists like Kip Thorne to show their math since they’re the ones who support the idea that our fourth spatial dimension is time/anti-time and the fifth spatial dimension is where Everett’s Universal Wavefunction is calculated? I’m sure Dr. Thorne would be interested to hear your many reasoned points as to why everything he says about what’s beyond the third dimension is bullshit.
Their math is publicly available, so where's yours? or is your model so incapable of standing on its own that you have to shield yourself with actual accomplished names to deflect this fact? i see you STILL didn't answer ANY of my points
By way of analogy: I publish a video saying the world is round, and I say a Nobel prize winning scientist has also said what I am saying. A commenter on YouTube posts passionately phrased responses saying the world is flat. I respond with other scientists saying the world is round. The commenter says you haven’t responded to my refutations, you’re just hiding behind what these scientists say. I say I still prefer the opinion of the Nobel prize winning scientist, it aligns with my own intuitive understanding of the world, so I will stick with that.
I have never once claimed this is a scientific model, I have said multiple times in multiple videos that I’m not a physicist and I’m not pretending to be one. A short bio is here; is.gd/aboutrob
The biggest claim I have made is that this is a “new way of thinking about time and space”, and many of the over 400 videos I’ve published since 2006 explore the connections between this approach and ancient mysticism (Schrodinger of course was an avid student of the Vedanta and said it helped him in formulating quantum theory), consciousness (Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrodinger all agreed consciousness is fundamental to quantum theory), and Everett’s Many Worlds, which I first started to intuitively visualize in 1962, so this project has been my passion for a lifetime. As someone who has never tried a psychedelic, one of the biggest surprises for me as this project has been embraced by fans around the world is the number of people saying my spatial approach to visualizing the dimensions helped them to understand their psychedelic experiences. David Jay Brown is a scientist and author, you may have seen his writing about modern psychedelics research in Scientific American. In his 2012 book The New Science of Psychedelics he wrote this paragraph: “Physicist Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension and Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension both seem to provide uncanny maps of the territory that one encounters after smoking salvia or DMT. Like the two-dimensional character in Edwin Abbott's book Flatland, we seem just as limited in our three-dimensional perspective.”
You ask why I keep focusing on the fourth and fifth dimensions in my responses. Clearly if you can’t accept that the fourth dimension is just as spatial as the third, even though our window into the fourth dimension is limited by our unique perspective as 3D observers, then you will disagree with everything else I say about the dimensions beyond that. In the visualization I have proposed the first five dimensions are how we get to the world we are observing, and the dimensions beyond that are how we get to what Max Tegmark calls The Ultimate Ensemble. In The Science of Interstellar, Kip Thorne says it’s fine for us to lump all of the rest of the dimensions beyond the fifth together and call them The Bulk. That works for me too.
Now you're comparing my reasoning with that of flatearthers, you just keep being more and more disingenuous are you? the more accurate analogy would be you saying the earth is flat and twisting the statements of scientists so they look as if they agree, while ignoring essentially all arguments saying otherwise then shifting the entire thing on me in a fit of logical dishonesty and hypocrisy rarely seen in public, all to deflect the fact that you're hopelessly unable to actually address any point yourself, because you know your model is indefensible and you desperately want it to be truei already wrote examples of how you keep twisting the meanings of statements of actual accomplished people, but its easier to ignore them then paint me as the troll and the 'flatearther' than is it to actually think isn't it?!i think i'm going to just copy paste my previous points by category and leave you with nothing else to respond to next time, so you will have to face them, just like anybody would if their opinion could stand under its own poweryour 'bio' is completely unrelated as is the tangent of psychedelics, why did you even feel the need to include it, are you a narcissist?"Clearly if you can’t accept that the fourth dimension is just as spatial as the third, even though our window into the fourth dimension is limited by our unique perspective as 3D observers" All this time i KEPT SAYING that the 4th dimension is JUST a spatial as the third! literally half my points are about the fact that 4D IS SPATIAL AND NOT TIMEwe have NO window into the fourth dimension BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST IN OUR UNIVERSE its quite obvious now you don't just ignore my points, you don't even read them, and you keep expecting me to read your bio? as if
Some day you will read The Science of Interstellar. i hope you enjoy Kip Thorne's description of four dimensional world tubes and the fifth dimensional space of Everett's Many Worlds.
Here is the way in which I think we agree. It's perfectly valid to think of our reality as coming from 3 dimensions of space a dimension of time and a dimension of imaginary time. That's how Stephen Hawking described Everett's multiverse. But in so doing you have to accept retrocauality into your picture, at which point the two directions of time create the full picture of our fourth dimension. What do you think Feynman was describing when he said antimatter can be thought of as matter moving backwards in time? When I talk about antimatter I show a Feynman diagram, as I'm sure you recognize. And what did Hawking mean when he said the past is as fluid as the future, meaning observations in the present can change the past? These are all spatial ways of thinking outside of our limited river of time into a truer picture of the fourth dimension.
"But in so doing you have to accept retrocauality into your picture, at which point the two directions of time create the full picture of our fourth dimension." No, it creates the full picture of a singular dimension of time, which isn't spatial at all, imaginary time would imply four directions of time instead!"What do you think Feynman was describing when he said antimatter can be thought of as matter moving backwards in time?" he was describing the chirality of atoms, the antimatter can also be described as a mirror image of matter, and you could turn one into the other by flipping it, it highlights the fact that the electric charge sign is essentially a topological property just like left or right-handedness of proteins is"And what did Hawking mean when he said the past is as fluid as the future, meaning observations in the present can change the past?" he meant that quantum mechanics play fast and loose with time, the arrow of time is just a suggestion there just like all of classical physicsnowhere do those statements even imply time is spatial in nature nor that is it the 4th dimension, all of them fit perfectly with a singular time dimension that deals ONLY with time and is merely adjacent to the 3 spatial dimensions, not integrated with them and making a 4d volume together
Since virtually everything in the universe obeys Maxwell's infinitely scalable field equations, simply imagining spheres within hyperspheres within hyperspheres is how the point line plane postulate allows you to visualize as many dimensions as you're interested in. Kip Thorne says you can forget about the dimensions beyond these five, the rest is not part of the information that becomes our reality. The fifth dimension is where the field equations for gravity and light are resolved. That idea is as true now as it was back then, this has nothing to do with if you happen to be a fan of string theory or not. Look at an animation of a quantum wavefunction. Our 3D reality is defined in two dimensions, creating waves across time and probability in the fourth and fifth dimension. What did you think of the fifth dimensional perspective scenes Kip Thorne oversaw for Interstellar? The many strands of causal chains connected to an event, bending and twisting with the familiar transformations of the rotating Tesseract.
https://youtu.be/KKr91v7yLcM
Point line circle sphere hypersphere, all you need is spin across some or all of those and you've made yourself a universe out of waves in the fifth dimension. Each Planck frame is a solution to Everett's Universal Wavefunction, and there are not multiple wavefunctions for each particle. There is just the Wavefunction of the universe. Nothing strange about the idea that we're all observing the same wave, is there?"The fifth dimension is where the field equations for gravity and light are resolved" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory is a precursor to string theory, obsolete in its original form and the resulting fifth dimension is like in string theory curled up on a planck scale and therefore utterly incompatible with your model as its not a macro-dimensionyou could at least TRY to understand the statements you're quoting instead of blindly assuming they prove your ideas!the tesseract was an artificial time interface not a representation of how time looks like, and the interstellar is still a damn sci fi movie and kip thorne didn't direct the bloody thing only consulted, this isn't a documentary and the science of interstellar isn't a PhDis a sci fi movie your main source of time being the 4th spatial dimension or something?! do you think wild tesseracts hide within blackholes too?
You ask if these ideas I began working on in 1962 were inspired by Interstellar. No, sir, I am not a time traveler.
Posts
Haha, maybe if you stopped reading my words through clenched teeth you would see I'm not being snide at all. Here's the Wikipedia version of the Kaluza story, Greene and Kaku have told it similarly. "The five-dimensional theory developed in three steps. The original hypothesis came from Theodor Kaluza, who sent his results to Einstein in 1919,[2] and published them in 1921.[3] Kaluza presented a purely classical extension of general relativity to 5D, with a metric tensor of 15 components. 10 components are identified with the 4D spacetime metric, four components with the electromagnetic vector potential, and one component with an unidentified scalar field sometimes called the "radion" or the "dilaton". Correspondingly, the 5D Einstein equations yield the 4D Einstein field equations, the Maxwell equations for the electromagnetic field, and an equation for the scalar field." Has something changed about these equations to make you say Einstein is wrong?
Come now. You have shown me not one ounce of respect during this conversation, you started out saying this video is “literally a load of bullshit” and every time I have shown you supporting evidence from the experts you’ve dismissed it. Why is it so hard for you to understand that physically our window into the branching probabilistic outcomes of the fifth dimension is one Planck frame at a time, like a 3D flip-book animation? We don’t get to have the expansive view endorsed by Kip Thorne in Interstellar of what it means to say the fifth dimension is orthogonal to spacetime because we as observers are in a universe made not of Schrodinger’s waves, but of 3D atoms and point-like particles, that never changes. When Kaku and Greene (for instance) say that Einstein accepted that the math for general relativity reveals Maxwell’s equations when calculated in five dimensions, I believe them. Please help me to understand why you believe Einstein was wrong to endorse Kaluza’s discovery that the math for general relativity (gravity) and electromagnetism (light) is resolved in five dimensions.
I see that you disagree with Klein's addition from a few years later to Kaluza's original proposal. Why do you feel that means Kaluza's original idea, which Einstein agreed to and endorsed, is wrong? Why do say "your idea of the fifth dimension is about as far from what Maxwell's equations use as a star is from a planet" when Einstein agreed to this notion that Maxwell's equations appear out of general relativity when calculated in the fifth dimension? You accuse me of putting words in your mouth, but I am directly quoting your words. Einstein agreed to this, you say it's wrong, but I am jumping to conclusions when I ask you to explain why you disagree with Einstein? Nonsense.
Kip Thorne says our observed universe comes from Everett's Universal Wavefunction in the fifth dimension.
https://youtu.be/KKr91v7yLcM This animation shows the same idea: our quantum wavefunction is calculated using two orthogonal axes, which Hawking called time and imaginary time, and which Thorne calls the fourth and fifth dimension. Your desire for there to be a fourth spatial dimension that is purely abstract, that does not arise from or include the third dimensional space we are observing, has been well established, and you can go ahead and imagine that if you so desire. But Kip Thorne's 4D "world tubes" show exactly the same 4D "long undulating snake" concept I showed in my original 2006 animation and have talked about ever since. The fact that I have confirmation in 2014 from a Nobel prize laureate is certainly icing on the cake, but it doesn't change what I've been saying all along.
I am sorry to hear my little passion project has pissed you off so royally. Obviously it bugs you that somebody could arrive at an intuitive understanding of the dimensions which happens to align with modern scientific viewpoints being advanced by recognized experts like Sean Carroll and Kip Thorne. Do I understand the math the way these experts do? No, as I've already said here and as I have often said over the last 14 years I am not a physicist and I'm not pretending to be one. But after a decade and a half of showing these ideas I do hear regularly from people who are now scientists and teachers, who say my videos were their introduction to thinking about how there is more than just the 3D reality we see around us, and thanking me for awakening their intellectual curiosity. It is those kinds of messages that give me the drive to continue making new videos as I explore the many connections arising from this approach to cosmology, ancient mysticism, altered states of consciousness, sacred geometry, free will/determinism, and much much more.
Yes, I believe we have firmly established that as a non-scientist with a curious mind I am interested in topics well beyond your narrow definition of reality, and if that makes me a crackpot I am proud to wear that label, as I said in my 2006 book Imagining the Tenth Dimension.
I look forward to your takedown of Thorne’s The Science of Interstellar, where you convince him he is wrong about 4D world tubes and the 5th dimension of Everett’s Many Worlds.
Haha, you are hilarious. Okay, we will ignore what the Nobel laureate says about 4D world tubes in tesseract shapes seen from the fifth dimension from here on in, as you wish.
The reason I think teaching people about orthogonal thinking beyond the first three dimensions is a positive thing to do, is because thinking in terms of "and what's at right angles to that?" is a great way to organize thinking processes. As a film composer I was always thinking in terms of parallel and orthogonal motion, and structures that repeat across time and space, which can also describe entrainment, entanglement, and even causality. Indeed, one physicist I've watched proposes that it's valid to think of molecules or chemical reactions as being like little songs, repeating structures in time and space, the same thing over and over just like Bing Crosby's White Christmas. Richard Dawkins talks about genes connected within a "river out of Eden": once again we have a scientist encouraging a timeless perspective, which I believe is easily superimposed on Simulation Theory, or on fluid dynamics, the precursor to quantum theory. That's why genes as turbulence within a timeless four-dimensional river, from the beginning to the end of life on the planet, is such a great image.
Brian Greene describes our universe and its locked-in constants as existing at a position within the landscape multiverse. That is not saying a universe is a dimension. That is saying our universe exists at a position within the information that becomes our reality. We are someplace within what Thorne calls The Bulk. What dimension is Greene's Landscape Multiverse? In this video I suggested the Landscape Multiverse would be the ninth dimension, as the highest dimension where change can take place within my approach, but conceptually I think whether you call it the Landscape Multiverse or The Bulk doesn't change what we are talking about. Some place within Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble our universe exists, and that is what we are observing, nothing strange about that.
Isn’t it strange how you keep bringing up Klein’s later addition to Kaluza’s original proposal? When did Einstein withdraw his public endorsement of Kaluza’s original idea, and why do you keep talking about your hatred of Kaluza Klein theory and string theory rather than what Einstein agreed to? Yes of course a world line and a world tube are the same idea. Both are about thinking about the fourth dimension spatially, where the distinction between past present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. In this video I call them worldlines, since it came out well before Kip Thorne introduced the world tube phrasing to me in The Science of Interstellar. I’ve also called them spimes, Bruce Sterling’s term used to describe the data set representing an object in the fourth dimension. And we still have Kip Thorne saying our reality comes from the fifth dimension of Everett’s Many Worlds, please stop pretending I am alone in my obsession with this idea. Imaginary time, at right angles to spacetime, is used in the calculation of our Universal Wavefunction. We have a Nobel laureate calling that the fifth dimension, and we have some guy on the internet saying that’s wrong.
You ridicule Kaluza Klein theory, string theory, and M-Theory, I apologize for suggesting that means you dislike them, maybe you love them, who knows. You want me to stop bringing up Kip Thorne’s description of the fifth dimension containing Everett’s Many Worlds? Show me where Thorne, one of the world’s most respected physicists, has recanted his position on this idea.
Quantum mechanics is often described as our most-confirmed theory of reality, will you agree? When Everett put forth his Theory of the Universal Wavefunction (now commonly referred to as the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) back in 1957 he did not talk about the fifth dimension. Instead he talked about the branching world lines of his “many worlds” occurring within a “subspace which is orthogonal to spacetime”. Extra dimensions were not in vogue at that time, but if we are talking about something orthogonal to spacetime that sure sounds like the fifth dimension to me, the same fifth dimension Thorne is endorsing now. In 2007 a team of scientists at Oxford under the direction of David Deutsch published a paper mathematically equating the probabilistic outcomes of quantum mechanics with the branching worldlines of Everett’s Many Worlds, and New Scientist magazine called the paper the most important science news story of the year. I have well-respected physicist Sean Carroll saying “Many Worlds has the simplest, smallest, most compact fundamental picture of reality. It’s just a wave function obeying an equation” and “There aren’t separate wave functions for each particle. There is only one wave function: the wave function of the universe.” I have KipThorne saying the simultaneous branching causal chains of Everett’s theory can be viewed from the fifth dimension. And I have a random guy on the internet telling me I am wrong to be spreading these ideas. Is there any chance at all I could get you to acknowledge that yours may not be the only viewpoint in the world?
As I'm sure you know, Everett insisted that all of the potential outcomes are equally real for the observers in each version of the universe, to the point where each observer would be convinced that theirs was the only possible reality and free will is an illusion. This would be one of those cases where serious scientists have a different viewpoint from yours, while others support your position, fair enough. Why are you asking the crackpot for the math when I'm only reporting what the experts say? Do you disagree with the math of quantum mechanics? Do you disagree with the Deutsch team's proof equating quantum mechanics with Everett's Many Worlds? I believe we've already established that you disagree with Kip Thorne's depiction of the different probabilistic fourth-dimensional world tubes that can be viewed simultaneously from the fifth dimension, the same idea I show in this video, but perhaps I am putting words in your mouth again?
Yes, as I said at the end of my very first video, “this ‘way of imagining’ is not the explanation for string theory“. The premise of my thought experiment is “all dimensions are spatial”. You say my depiction of the fourth and fifth dimension is different from Kip Thorne’s, having read The Science of Interstellar, I disagree. You say my approach of thinking about what it means to say each new dimension is orthogonal to the previous ones is bullshit past the third dimension, and yet I depict the fourth dimension as a world line, and the fifth dimension as where you can see there are the multiple worldlines of Everett’s Many Worlds connected to any event, same as Thorne. There’s nothing ambiguous about this, you either buy into Thorne’s fifth-dimensional depiction of Everett’s interpretation or you do not. I do.
I would be happy to discuss how that spatial logic might be continued past the fifth dimension if I thought it would do any more than trigger more name calling and expletive-laden tirades. No chance of that, obviously. But thanks for the conversation, you taught me some things.
May I have your permission to post this conversation on my blog?
(Of course this last question was offered only to be polite, I don't need permission to post something that's already public, I just thought we might have heard one final response, but after two weeks of silence it looks like this conversation is done.)