It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

conceptualizing the 4th dimension

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Hey guys, I'm new here but I've been lurking for ahwhile. Anyway, I was in my Economics class today and my professor made a really great analogy that I was hoping yall could elaborate on.

Basically, when you graph a line, the line (1 dimension) is being expressed in a 2 dimensions of space (x and y axes).

When you graph a plane, a 2 dimensional figure, you have to express it in a 3 dimensions of space (x,y,z axes)

So then he made the comment that really got my mind going....Using the same logic, a three dimensional object exists in 4 dimensions of space.

Chew on that, put that in your pipe and smoke it, etc etc.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I thought the 4th dimension was "Time"



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
4?

There are most likely 10 physical dimensions and 1 time. This is based on 11 dimentional M-theory (Unified string theory)

Also, you can read Flat World which deals with the idea too.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Just read some Astrophysics books on extra-dimensional theory. If you think 4 dimensions is hard to grasp; many theories currently out support a 10 or 26 dimensional universe theory. Check out the Superstring Theory, etc. and 4 dimensions will seem like child's play! If you want a nice "lay" reader guide to 4-D theory and visualization check out The Fourth Dimension by Rudy Rucker.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam7288
Hey guys, I'm new here but I've been lurking for ahwhile. Anyway, I was in my Economics class today and my professor made a really great analogy that I was hoping yall could elaborate on.

Basically, when you graph a line, the line (1 dimension) is being expressed in a 2 dimensions of space (x and y axes).

When you graph a plane, a 2 dimensional figure, you have to express it in a 3 dimensions of space (x,y,z axes)

So then he made the comment that really got my mind going....Using the same logic, a three dimensional object exists in 4 dimensions of space.

Chew on that, put that in your pipe and smoke it, etc etc.



not really, you can express a line in 1 dimension. y=0. you can do the same thing with a plane. just don't have a z component and, viola, you have a plane expressed in 2 dimensions. if you really want to imagine a 4th dimension, picture the entire x,y,z graph moving horizontally. each different position of the origin corrisponds to a different point in the 4th dimension (t). this is where the cylindrical model of the unviverse comes from. if the universe is expanding evenly from one point it would be a sphere. the sphere is in an x,y,z coordinate system, move this sphere along horizontally and it becomes a cylinder, actually it would be a cone, but it's called the cylindrical model.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a line is 1 axis or dimension- length
a plane is 2 - length x width
solids are 3 - length x width x height

A point is one dimension, a line is a series of connected points which inherently have 1 dimension.

A plane is a series of lines which extend in 2 directions.

A solid is adding a measure in the 3rd dimension.

As humans, we can't presently perceive what a 4th dimension could even possibly be. Imagine a 2d world or a flatworld, full of flat people and cities. They could only see in 2 dimensions, so a 3rd wouldn't even register to them. The same principal applies to us, it's all about perception.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:43 AM
link   
.
I have always been slightly frightened that if you could actually concieve the 4th physical dimension (setting aside time) that it might cause your brain to bleed off into the 4th dimension. It could be that we have something more than gyroscopic balance that keeps us in the 3 physical dimensions [scaling down a dimension for an analogy, like two sheets of plastic either side of a plane would keep a flatlander in his/her plane], If that were the case it might not be [such] a problem.

If you want to see a 3D image of a 4th dimensional object you can create a hypercube. A big cube with a small nested cube inside and wires that connect the two at their vertexes (creating all of the 8 cubes, the big one, small one and 6 bent in perspective). Also you could create two wireframe cubes the same size interlocked at a corner, then connect them for another angle on a hypercube.

For a tetrahedron analogous object , you create a wireframe tetrahedron then connect on it's interior four wires to a central point. That gives you the 5 tetrahedrons that create the analogous 4D object. [4 on the interior and the originating outer one.

To visualize an over sphere intersecting and moving through our 3D space [there are some graphics of this on the web for downloading] it starts with a point sized sphere that grows rapidly at first, then more slowly till it reaches max sphere diameter then shrinks slowly then faster and faster to a point and then disappears.
.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 04:14 AM
link   
You want pictures of a 4th dimension + more...

images.google.com.au...://mission.base.com/tamiko/theory/cm_txts/4d-x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mission.base.com/tamiko/theory/ cm_txts/di-ch2.html&h=300&w=470&sz=38&tbnid=dZkPfKrUllQJ:&tbnh=79&tbnw=123&start=14&prev=/images%3Fq%3D4th%2Bdimension%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8% 26sa%3DN

Visit there and lok at the pictures.... They are all 3d objects still....just arranged.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The 4th dimension is probably time, at least that's my opinion. Why? Well what good would be the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimension without time? They would just be still and unable to move at all. There might be more dimensions but as mentioned before, we can't see them due to our prespective.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Maybe it is perception, but i think time is fundamentally different than the 3 physical dimensions. The 3 physical dimensions are in effect interchangeable. Time in my opinion is not.

Time could be on some fundamental level identical to the 3 dimensions, but be the particular vector of change. I wouldn't find it suprising, though, if the same timeline could support multiple Universes, perhaps even a 4 physical dimensional Universe.
.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The thing I don't like about the whole 11 Dimensions thing, is that we only have math that says it's true. I could say there are 123 dimensions if I had enough info to back it up. What I'm sayin is, is that these scientists can say anything they want us to believe, because odds are the problem won't be solved until after our lifetime. I hope you get what I'm saying. I too thought that Tiome was one of the 4 dimensions. I never really have believed in the whole 11 dimensions... I think maybe 5 or 6.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
The thing I don't like about the whole 11 Dimensions thing, is that we only have math that says it's true. I could say there are 123 dimensions if I had enough info to back it up. What I'm sayin is, is that these scientists can say anything they want us to believe, because odds are the problem won't be solved until after our lifetime. I hope you get what I'm saying. I too thought that Tiome was one of the 4 dimensions. I never really have believed in the whole 11 dimensions... I think maybe 5 or 6.


How can you just say you dont believe in higher dimensional physics, but only 5 or 6 dimensional universes. Your logic is flawed there. For instance, we live in a 4 dimensional universe that more than likely has the extra 6 dimensions "rolled up" in a sort of Superstring Kaluza-Klein compactification at the Planck scale of 10^-33 cm that would be like a Calabi-Yau space. Different string theories such as 10 and 26 dimensional theories could also essentially be the same thing but just looked at differently according to the symmetry of T Duality. Having more dimensions also makes it possible for String theory to be more accurate to create a unified theory of gravity, electromagnetic, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Since string theory solves many of the problems present between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics on the smaller scale it can only be observed that the existance of many more dimensions is plausible.

Also, when physicists talk about extra dimensions they specifically refer to the number of independent coordinates that are needed to find a particular point in space. Thus, time does not exactly have to be another dimension, because it could be just another spacial dimension. In our universe it may take only 4 points to verify one's position, but in another higher dimensional universe it make take 10+ such coordinates to verify one's place.

Just don't close your mind to the possibilities out there, especially if you present no evidence other than "I never really have believed in the whole 11 dimensions... I think maybe 5 or 6."...

[edit on 10-9-2004 by Jazzerman]



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
The 4th dimension is hard to visualize when we live in a 3 dimensional world.

Time? Possible, considering time does have movement. I'd like to think of the possibility of teleportation.

Found a link that has graphics of different surfaces. I thought it was some pretty cool stuff.

www.coolphysics.com...

You're able to manipulate the images!



[edit on 11/9/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
The thing I don't like about the whole 11 Dimensions thing, is that we only have math that says it's true. I could say there are 123 dimensions if I had enough info to back it up. What I'm sayin is, is that these scientists can say anything they want us to believe, because odds are the problem won't be solved until after our lifetime. I hope you get what I'm saying. I too thought that Tiome was one of the 4 dimensions. I never really have believed in the whole 11 dimensions... I think maybe 5 or 6.


Thats about the most moronic thing i've ever read. Congrats, I'm risking my first ever warning to say that.

Thats like saying just because some guy used math to show the earth orbits the sun and the moon orbits the earth and the planets orbit the sun at different distances its "just cause what they want you to believe".

I hope you were drunk or stoned when you posted that. Something....anything.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
.
Somehow any number of dimensions above 1 seems sort of arbitrary. Therefore my thought is if you have two, why not an infinite number of dimensions? Where do you draw a line for any logical reason? The scale/perceptibility of any or the vast majority of those dimensions may not be accessible to us, but that does not mean that on some scale or angle of viewing they are not just as real as 'our' 3 dimensions and time.

My thought on why we live in/perceive 3 dimensions and time is because it is a dynamic or mechanistic [closed] system. It is probably a 'local' phenomenon. It could be natural or artificial. I suspect the smart money is on natural. Natural systems cost nothing to produce or maintain. I suppose a really well designed artificial system could be virtually maintainence free.

This is all pretty esoteric. I'm sure the Multiverse cares [NOT] about what we think. The reason we discuss it is for our own ability to comprehend and possibly utilize.

As to math being the best descriptor of multidimensional reality, I don't know, but math exists in a nether realm of thought yet has a certain order intrinsic to it. It implies that there is a certain structure to it. Structure in turn implies existence external to ourselves. That is why i don't find it inconceivable that math or something very closely related defines the under pinnings of this and possibly other Universes.
.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I typed up a long response and I copied it and went to a diff. site (unrelated) and I copied something else not even thinking of it. I don't feel like typing it all over again, but I'll just summerize.

First, I had to say, time isn't the '4th' dimension, or it dosn't have to be anyways. At least I don't see why it would. A dimension isn't a 'place' or anything I don't think. I don't know how to express it, but what I mean is, could the 3rd demension not be the 2nd or 1st? We just view it that way because to us, the 3rd demension is more complex than the 2nd, and the 2nd more complex than the 1st so we put them in that order. We think you need the 1st to make up the 2nd, the 2nd to make up the 3rd. Maybe you do, maybe not. I don't know.

I don't think we understand the 1st or 2nd demension at all. We can represent it in ours, because it is less complex (at least we view it that way). But what can exist in 2nd demension or a 1st demension? Nothing physical can be 2d, or 1d. You cannot have a physical object without having length, width and height. If you are missing one, then you cannot have the other. Or maybe that is if you are just in our demension? I don't know. Point is, we cannot understand the 1st and the 2nd just because we can draw them on a piece of paper.

What can exist in the 1st or the 2nd?

edit: well I guess I just re-wrore the whole thing basically lol, just in alot less words, gave me time to colaborate my thoughts and I explained it better I guess.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by SuperVincent]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I read somewhere that the fourth dimension is hyperspacial, meaning, that it would be lengthXwidthXdepthXhyperdepth=hypervolume. A hyperspatial cube can fit the same amount of stuff in it as a spatial cube of a larger size.
Explanation

[edit on 28-11-2004 by invader_chris]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Inside Dr Who's tardis is the 4th dimension.
How could internal volume be larger than the external dimensions would allow? Could a universe containing more solid matter than ours fit inside a single molecule? This is the fourth dimension. Hows that for a concept?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   
.
The easiest way to conceptualize the nature of a higher dimension is to imagine a flatlander, who lives in a two dimensional, planar world.

If you take the two dimension matter as being absolutely two dimensional it might be thought of as thick as the image on a movie screen.
If you take a 3 dimensional object, say a marble, and intersect it with flatland the flatlander will observe it as a solid circle. What they don't see or conceive is the two halves of the marble that are on either side of their plane. This is why a single 3rd dimensional object would have more mass/significance than their entire universe even if it is infinite. (zero times infinity is still zero)

If on the other hand you assume that a seemingly two dimensional universe has some extremely small thickness then the eccentricities with a 3 dimensional object are not as extreme. A next higher dimensional object still has a huge evaluation compared to its apparent intersection with a lower dimensional Universe, but not more than the entire Universe.

Thinking of a flatlander It makes me wonder how you would create a stable firm realm. I was thinking some kind of centripedal (centrifugal) force from spinning it would keep things placed on it. Maybe a spinning cylinder. For our 3 dimensional Universe I suppose there is some way of spinning an analogous 4dimensional cylinder that would keep us firmly attached/embeded in our 3d Universe. (This is pretty vauge since I can't, being 3 dimensional, imagine the 4th dimension)

edit: additional thoughts

To have the interior larger than the exterior you have to turn or move perpindicular to the N dimensional Universe you are living in. That could be a perpindicular structure to the Universe or short parallel spans beside your home Universe. I have ofter thought with advanced cities in space if for compactness they might opt to expande into the next higher dimension. A circle and sphere of the same radius have the same accessablility. for more space just add another dimension.

The trouble with something like the tardis is that it would be so massive at least by the home universe's standards, it would be hard to gather the energy to move it. It would almost certainly have to access 4th D physics and energies. It also could be very damaging to a Universe if not carefully designed and operated.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by slank]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:48 AM
link   

What can exist in the 1st or the 2nd?



The characters from south park?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join