And this one has a cliffhanger.

Confirmed !!

And without the gobbledygook!

@@beachbum77979 The whole idea of dimensionS of emptiness sounds pretty much like gobbeldygook to me.

Unknown "dark"particles is of course another and more plausible question. At least. And there is no way of cheating out of special relativity and the continuous variable motion of all that exists *in* space. :)

It's so funny, she's speaking English in her own pace and then, out of nowhere, she just starts speaking crazily fast hahahahhaha it made me realize I wasn't paying enough attention

I have not noticed any difference in speed :o Im German tho

her german isnt really faster than her english

I count 6 seconds for the German version and 7 for the English 😁 Depending on how I round off since this app's timestamp only showing to the nearest second. I think the German was faster! lol

Yes, she is a gifted teacher and a beautiful mind.

It's the lowest you can find in the physics department. Loads of bullshit.

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 what do you mean?

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 You have to CLEARLY AND fully understand what E=mc2 means and represents ON BALANCE. We want to understand the dimensions in a seamless (or balanced) fashion in relation to gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy (including what is E=mc2). Consider one AND three dimensional SPACE ON BALANCE. Consider what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE. NOW, consider all of the following. Consider what is E=mc2. CLEARLY, you have to understand what is a TWO dimensional surface OR SPACE ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents BALANCED acceleration in conjunction WITH what is NECESSARILY a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Carefully consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is gravity AND E=mc2 ON BALANCE. By Frank DiMeglio

gott dammit

I wonder whether Kaluza's surname is relevant. He was a Gernan scientist eho came from Silesia and had a Polish surname neaning "puddle". Do you see a connection?

@@arctic_haze - clean as a puddle?

That's how you know the ones running the simulation are just ducking with us.

can you explain that statement to a non-german speaker

Yes me naither, i wish that in elementary school we actualy hawe someone able to show us how anmazing physics is. I would definitely choose different path in my life.

@@Yolo_Swagins But then you would inevitably have to study some "boring math" and may choose a different path yet another time.

lol, same.

The Prince must roll up the katamari to grow bigger.... Na na na na na na na na na Na na na na na na.....

Wouldnt be surprised

Very sneaky operator. Like your sense of hummer. Nasal breathing and humming produces NO, I just found out..

I imagine our 3D life's float in a subatomic 5D soup.. With time being a abstract 'Window pane for entities above us'' we basically amoeba from the perspective of the entities. the same way the strange subatomic quantum world is to us.. is what we are to the higher entities.. very possibly in scale / size / and importance. we are but long hyper dimensional time worms burrowing through the space they inhabit, fresh born baby's at one end, and a dusty corpse at the other... branching through time like a tree of sex and maternal instinct.. the mother.

​@@sa.8208interesting way to think about it! Thanks for sharing.

That guy again!

Sound like 0D understanding

At leats you are here, That is 0 dimension.

All while multi-tasking playing 6D chess!!!

You use the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. Guess what? 1+2+3+4 = 10 and this is a 10-dimensional universe. I think of time as something different and special, since it does not describe space. Our universe is really 10+1 dimensions, not 11 dimensions.

Right. Just like Ramanujan. We had some great minds that come out of the ordinary. Think of Pierre de Fermat who was a judge and did mathematics has a hobby. Our currently used public / private key algorithm RSA is based on the results of fermat's little theorem. At the time of it's discovery no one could think of any practical application. That's what a lot of people forget: Science is not done by individuals. Science always builds upon previous ideas and knowledge. Some claim that Einstein was a fraud because a lot of the equations he used in his theory of relativity were discovered by others before him. But that's completely pointless. Again, science build on top of pervious knowledge. Sometimes it just takes a great mind to connect the dots that were there for a long time. That doesn't make such an achievement any less great. The invention of the car is a result of the invention of the steam engine and the invention of the wheel. That doesn't make that invention any less amazing. Just the right input at the right time may lead to the next ground breaking discovery or insight. Many inventions and discoveries in the past were pure luck and by accident. Like penicillin, radioactivity, x-rays, vaseline, gunpowder, microwave oven and many other things.

How many Einstein's were lost from abortion?

@Greg Jacques I would imagine it's hard to stop being at work when you do what she does!

@Greg Jacques mmmmm..... So much mmmmmmmmm!!

@Greg Jacques 😂🤣👍

@Goth Vaush - Jedi Master Engineer No because it supports the rest of it!

If we assume that the future is not set, that would mean there must be infinite number of branching time lines. We just sit on one of them in each particular moment. Some of those time lines may even intersect. That would mean, the past is not set either. Different versions of the past could equally fit to our current state. Indeed, we cannot reconstruct our past from our present to any possible precision. Some events are irrevocably lost. That is, there may be different interpretations of the past. So, our current time line is branching in the past too. But all those time lines together must live in a certain space. That would be a multi-dimentional time space, because you need not only to identify the position on a particular time line (i.e. our current 'present'), but also which time line it is (among lots of others). How many dimensions would be needed for that is unclear. Such a space would be quite complex thing. But it must definitely exist, at least theoretically.

Rolled up, of course

Your profile pic matches the emoji perfectly, lol.

@@slonslonimsky2013 Many Worlds Interpretation? String Theory?

Slon has it correct. I like to imagine it like a book though.. imagine everything at this moment being a page of a book. Reading the book from beginning to end is the story of the universe. Change one page of the book and the story is different so it would be a different book. A book case would have every possible combination of books that told the possible stories of our universe with our laws of physics. Change our laws and you have a whole new universe of possibilities so it would have its own book case of possible books. The entire multiverse of universes would be an infinite library.

That was exactly my reaction!

extra dimensions and alt universe's make for great TV dont they? but sadly are NOT real,,,, so start the tears for the stupid theories ya thats the right thing to do

Surely with extra dimension, space wouldn't be the final frontier?

@@deth3021 space entails 2 frontiers. inner and outer

@@goartist not classically. It also doesn t apply to the star trek reference. The closest relevant thing might be the inner frontiers edge. Inner frontier is typically used for spiritual reference.

Im totally lost

“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson An added benefit: the teacher is mesmerizing!

Instead of allowing yourself the luxury of asserting a "vacant stare", allow yourself the enjoyment of thinking harder, listening again, follow up on the references. Otherwise it's a bit like someone who just watches sports and doesn't actually get any exercise simply because you don't think you will be a major league player.

Feldman: not gleefully celebrating ignorance. Stating that clearly I'm not one of her intended audience. A furrowed brow and attitude adjustment is not going to change what is into what should be.

Same. At least we're not under fluorescent light.

@@greggoog7559 Unless he is spending it on religion.

I wrote about this here: www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-standard-model-of-physics-now-broken/

Well, I *am* writing on a book and last week I was *also* writing about the muon g-2, alas the g-2 isn't in the book. But it was pretty close to reality!

@@SabineHossenfelder Lol, this guy is almost a prophet.

@@12jalbrandao Almost a prophet, by strict definition, is not a prophet. Old uk duffer here, enjoying the ride :)

@@tim40gabby25 What if the almost-prophet had a few extra dimensions? ;)

@@SabineHossenfelder Hallo Sabine, ich würde mich auch sehr über ein statement von dir freuen. Als interessierter Laie habe ich folgende Fragezeichen: Die Abweichung zwischen Vorhersage und Messung ist sehr gering. Kann es a) ein Fehler in der Vorhersage sein? b) ein systematischer Fehler sein? (das Experiment wurde in derselben Anlage im Fermilab durchgeführt. Diese ist im Vergleich zum CERN winzig. Wurden eventuell auftretende Zentrifugalkräfte und/oder das Verhalten der Myonen bei relativistischen Effekten (träge Masse) unzureichend berücksichtigt? Schließlich ging es um das "Wackeln" der Myonen durch die Wechselwirkung mit virtuellen Teilchen. Außerdem stört mich, dass immer sofort nach einer "neuen" oder "5." Kraft gerufen wird. Kleiner scheint es nicht zu gehen. Das klingt für mich immer als Schrei nach mehr Forschungsgeldern. Vielen Dank.

Not specifically, but I have one coming up on data anomalies in particle physics in general. It's tentatively planned for the last Saturday in April.

I wrote about it here though, in case you are interested: www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-standard-model-of-physics-now-broken/

@@SabineHossenfelder I am 13 years old and I am taking Quantum physics college level and please can u make a video about Graviton boson and Quantum Gravity,,,,,,please!?

@@SabineHossenfelder summary of this articles... Nothing find out yet...

He would not.

@@buddysnackit1758 why not ?

@@einsteindrieu Einstein didn't subscribe to quantum mechanics.

@@wishusknight3009 Yes I know. He didn't know where Time and small gravity comes from.

@@buddysnackit1758 So if you are smarter than all the physicists in the world, publish a paper and win the nobel prize.

👍Agree. I earned Toastmasters Gold Level, which took years of work. These days Sabine seems like she has Toastmasters Diamond Plus. Simply exceptional presentation skills. Would actually be interested in how she did it.

There are some problems with that. Firstly, a single dimension can't hold a plane. A plane is a space that requires more than one dimension. Secondly, if a particle vibrated in only one dimension, it means it would be static in all other dimensions. So if all generation 1 particles would only vary in the "x" dimension, but not the "y" or "z" dimensions, that means that all electrons would only be found on a single line in the "x" direction, which clearly isn't the case. Finally, the number "3" really isn't that special. So the fact that there are three spatial dimensions and also three generations of fermions, really is no reason to assume that it's anything more than coincidence.

We're all a bit less confused now, at least.

Relax. When you die, you get to see ALL the Truths.

@@chuckadams4400 Or nothing. Maybe that's the Truth? ;)

@Schlomo Baconberg No thanks, I don't think I'd have much fun there. At least I know I'll have fun as well as learn a bit more over here first. :)

@Schlomo Baconberg What do you mean?

Very good question! I wish I'd thought about this when I made the video. The short answer is that they're universal. The number of dimensions is not an observer dependent-statement.

Plz explain the question.

@@0MoTheG Think of it this way: time is not universal, it is relative to the observers, that's why two people can experience times differently depending on their frame of reference. If time is relative what about the other proposed dimensions? That's what heisag is cleverly asking 😉

@@SabineHossenfelder their size?

they're not particles mate, they are names given to things that are effecting other things. They only get names because we get stuck. And these 4 new particles are math theories, ie the math requires them as they create the alibi it requires. there is no such thing as a 'particle' there are no little balls racing around, it's all electrostatics and the fuzz created around the nucleus is charge potential only created by electrostatics itself.

I'm quite looking forward to that.

@Goth Vaush - Jedi Master Engineer If it's a trial by combat, strings aren't gonna cut it.