3d representation of a 4d world?

darfur

Member
Sep 27, 2004
48
0
0
Something I just wondered about, if you take a photograph, you get a 2d representation of our 3d world.

If a 4d creature were to take a picture of their world, would they get a 3d representation? Could they give it to us for us to see?
 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: NightFalcon
4d = 3d + time... It wouldn't be a picture, but a 3d movie :)

Um, you can have more than 3 spatial dimensions. It just gets hard to draw. :) Some physics theories even postulate that our own universe consists of more than 3 dimensions, but we can't see or interact with the others in normal ways.

You can create 3-dimensional 'immersions' of 4-dimensional objects (such as a Klein Bottle, or a model of a hypercube). Essentially, you're projecting the 'shadow' of a 4-dimensional object down to a 3-dimensional cross section (much like taking a photograph of a 3-dimensional object). The math for computing the projections is the same; there's just an extra variable on the end. :)
 

NightFalcon

Senior member
May 22, 2004
218
0
0
So if we take the 2d to be length, width, and height, then what would the 4th be? Not arguing with you, just haven't thought of 4d as anything but 3d plus time.
 
Oct 6, 2004
53
0
0
I would imagine that our definition of 'time' would need to be the same as the 4d creature's... that's the only way the representation of the 'picture' would be the same for both of us.
 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: NightFalcon
So if we take the 2d to be length, width, and height, then what would the 4th be? Not arguing with you, just haven't thought of 4d as anything but 3d plus time.

Does it really matter what you call it? :p

I might recommend 'Flatland' and the much more recent semi-sequel 'Flatterland' for a fairly nontechnical introduction to some concepts of space, time, and dimensionality.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Originally posted by: NightFalcon
So if we take the 2d to be length, width, and height, then what would the 4th be? Not arguing with you, just haven't thought of 4d as anything but 3d plus time.

well, if you were a 2d creature you'd only have height and width. what would you call the 3rd dimension?
 

darfur

Member
Sep 27, 2004
48
0
0
Originally posted by: Matthias99
Originally posted by: NightFalcon
4d = 3d + time... It wouldn't be a picture, but a 3d movie :)

Um, you can have more than 3 spatial dimensions. It just gets hard to draw. :) Some physics theories even postulate that our own universe consists of more than 3 dimensions, but we can't see or interact with the others in normal ways.

You can create 3-dimensional 'immersions' of 4-dimensional objects (such as a Klein Bottle, or a model of a hypercube). Essentially, you're projecting the 'shadow' of a 4-dimensional object down to a 3-dimensional cross section (much like taking a photograph of a 3-dimensional object). The math for computing the projections is the same; there's just an extra variable on the end. :)

Good answer :) I will have to google these things.
 

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
Originally posted by: jhu
Originally posted by: NightFalcon
So if we take the 2d to be length, width, and height, then what would the 4th be? Not arguing with you, just haven't thought of 4d as anything but 3d plus time.

well, if you were a 2d creature you'd only have height and width. what would you call the 3rd dimension?

depth
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: NightFalcon
4d = 3d + time... It wouldn't be a picture, but a 3d movie :)

Agreed.

It obviously wouldn't be exact though in just the same way that a 2D picture of a 3D object isn't exact.

 

eigen

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2003
4,000
1
0

3-dimension simply refers to the number of components necessary to identify a unique point in your space, in our case 3-space) i.e for a given orgin we can identify a point simply by giving three numbers. A vector space of higher dimension is the same thing just with more dimensions. Mathematically very easy while impossible to visualize.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Not too impossible to visualize. Things that work for me: Squashing things down one dimension using either change over time, 2D to represent 3D while 3D represents time, adding color scales to a black and white 3D image. Someone mentioned Klein bottles and hypercubes earlier. Hypercubes have never sat well with me but Klein bottles come pretty easy.

 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
6D "objects" are quite common in classical physics since phase-space is 6D.
Phase space is a concept from classical thermodynamics and is simply x,y,z +px,py, pz (coordinates+the x,y and z component of the momentum vector).
Note that this is a complettely classical concept (19yh century physics) and their is nothing "strange" about it, but it is a nice demonstraion of how powerfull multi-dimensional geometry can be.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: jhu
Originally posted by: NightFalcon
So if we take the 2d to be length, width, and height, then what would the 4th be? Not arguing with you, just haven't thought of 4d as anything but 3d plus time.

well, if you were a 2d creature you'd only have height and width. what would you call the 3rd dimension?

depth

but you'd have no concept of depth as a 2d creature. you would call the 3rd dimension "time" and wonder what the hell 3d space would be like.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
First: I recommend you read the book Flatlanders. You can probably find it online.
Here's one place
edit: I didn't notice above that Matthias99 also recommended it. That's 2 of us now, plus probably anyone else who's read it will recommend it to you, since you asked this question. /end edit

I did my senior thesis in college on modelling the 4th dimension by looking at 3 dimensional shadows and intersections. Some will argue that the 4th dimension is time, but go beyond time for a moment.

Imagine you live in a two dimensional world. Time would be your 3rd dimension. You would be incapable of understanding 3-dimensional concepts such as volume. Now, imagine a 3-dimensional object passes through your 2 dimensional world. Let's say it's a sphere. You would only see the intersection of that 3 dimensional object on your "2 dimensional universe" (although, some of the physicists in your universe may have postulated that there are more than 2 dimensions, more than 3 in fact, if you're considering time to be the 3rd dimension.) The intersection of that sphere as it passes through your universe would be a circle of changing radius, and perhaps moving (depending on the angle at which the sphere struck your universe, from a 3-d perspective) You would see that 3-dimensional object as a moving 2 dimensional object. So, if you think of the 3rd dimension as time, you're all set. The object is a moving circle with changing radius. Except, remember the premise: this is a 3 dimensional object - a sphere. So, all those moments in time where you're observing particular circles -- well, all those circles exist simultaneously as one object.

Shapes such as a cube passing through 2nd dimensional space could appear as squares OR, they could appear as a number of other shapes, depending on the orientation of the cube (take a cube and slice it in some direction not normal (perpendicular) to any of the surfaces - you get triangles, and IIRC, you can even get a hexagon.

Ready for a headache?

Take a straw. Tilt it at 45 degrees and look at its intersection with a piece of paper. Oval in shape. Now, imagine a straw that's kind of oblong, such that when tipped 45 degrees, its intersection forms a circle on the paper. Imagine the straw moving vertically (not along its own axis) toward the piece of paper. It would trace out a sequence of circles moving on the paper. So, if you lived in a 2 dimensional world, what you'd observe is a circle moving in your world. BUT, we know that it's really a 3 dimensional shape and all those circles exist at the same time as separate planes through the straw.
pic to help

Now... since most of us on this forum can comprehend 3-D in our minds, this is no problem.

Think about this long enough, and you WILL have headaches
(some of my thesis was related to this)
Picture a basketball rolling down the street.
How do you know it's not a 4-dimensional object, all of those individual moments in time that you observe actually all exist at the same time some place on that 4 dimensional object - and you're simply looking at a 3 dimensional intersection with what we perceive as a 3-d universe?

The challenge of the thesis to me, was writing the software that would take a 3 dimensional cross section of a 4 dimensional object, and represent it. Are you looking at your computer screen right now? That's right... what you would be observing is a 2 dimensional snapshot of a 3 dimensional object created by the intersection of 3 dimensional space with a 4th dimensional object. Look at a picture of a cube - your mind can perceive the 3 dimensional object that its a 2 dimensional image of. NOW, train your mind, if you can, to look at a 3 dimensional image (a sculpture of something - it'd have to be 3-D) that's really a 4 dimensional object. Close one eye (to simplify my next statement) What you're perceiving as 3 dimensions is really just 2 dimensions plus time constructed together in your brain to form a 3-dimensional idea. With one eye, there's no depth perception, but with a minimal amount of motion (time), your mind deduces the distance to objects and thus the 3rd dimension.

I need some tylenol now.
 

darfur

Member
Sep 27, 2004
48
0
0
Originally posted by: jhu

but you'd have no concept of depth as a 2d creature. you would call the 3rd dimension "time" and wonder what the hell 3d space would be like.

Then would a 10 dimensional creature have an 11th dimension they call time, or would time be one of the 10 dimensions?
 

darfur

Member
Sep 27, 2004
48
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza

Think about this long enough, and you WILL have headaches
(some of my thesis was related to this)
Picture a basketball rolling down the street.
How do you know it's not a 4-dimensional object, all of those individual moments in time that you observe actually all exist at the same time some place on that 4 dimensional object - and you're simply looking at a 3 dimensional intersection with what we perceive as a 3-d universe?


Not so difficult to comprehend, a bit more difficult to think about what this 4d object may look like :)

Oh, and thanks for the link!
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: darfur
Originally posted by: DrPizza

Think about this long enough, and you WILL have headaches
(some of my thesis was related to this)
Picture a basketball rolling down the street.
How do you know it's not a 4-dimensional object, all of those individual moments in time that you observe actually all exist at the same time some place on that 4 dimensional object - and you're simply looking at a 3 dimensional intersection with what we perceive as a 3-d universe?


Not so difficult to comprehend, a bit more difficult to think about what this 4d object may look like :)

Oh, and thanks for the link!

Yeah, the bolded part was basically the point of my thesis.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
would not the existance of your described 4th dimention...violate the concept of the pauli exclusion principal and all its relevent extensions?
 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123
would not the existance of your described 4th dimention...violate the concept of the pauli exclusion principal and all its relevent extensions?

The Pauli Exclusion Principle, IIRC, says that something (usually electron spin) cannot be in two states at the same time. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not our universe is embedded in a higher-dimensional geometric space than we can normally perceive. "Time" is separate from these kind of multiple spatial dimensions (although in certain theories, "time" is an illusion created by our interaction with a more-than-3D universe, but that's just crazy talk if you ask me :p).
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
No, because state-space is not limited to spatial dimensions.

The Pauli principle tells us that two fermions can not be in the same state, but htat has nothing to do with the number of dimensions. The Pauli principle has been tested in both 1D and 2D systems since such systems can be made in the laboratory.