/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3466322]

ITT, you try to explain to me how a 4th-dimensions universe can exist.
And yes, I read both "Flatland" and "The 4th Dimension".
Still can't get it.
And yes, my hD's plenty of "tesseract" .gifs
Still can't get it

[Anonymous No.3466342]

I can't get why do people here still make threads with pics of whores to get attention

[Anonymous No.3466343]

It's a mental exercise, there's no evidence of an extended 4th spatial dimension. So we can talk about what these higher-dimensional geometries are LIKE, but don't assume they apply very well to reality.

[Anonymous No.3466347]

Just saying "I don't get it" tells me that you're really kinda hopeless to talk to. Come back when you have a question.

[Anonymous No.3466357]

It's not that difficult, it just has more space than the third dimension.

In the same area you place a cube in 3D you can place five more of equivalent volume in literally the exact same space, because there is 'more room'.

[Anonymous No.3466360]

>>3466357
wat?

[Anonymous No.3466361]

three dimensions to make them
three dimensions to wake them up
three dimensions to watch them all
and in the fourth dimension, take them

[Anonymous No.3466364]

>>3466357

Yeah, go stand next to OP in the "I don't know what the fuck is going on" room.

[Anonymous No.3466367]

>>3466360

>TROLL READINGS: 9001

Move along, gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.3466372]

>>3466357

You can do that in the 3rd dimension, it's called increasing density (:

[Anonymous No.3466377]

>>3466364

He's right.

[Anonymous No.3466402]

Not only can it exist, but it does exist, since spacetime is 4-dimensional. You need four coordinates, x,y,z,t, to locate an event. Objects extend in length, width, depth, and duration. A 3D snapshot of an object is a just a cross section of its 4 dimensional existence in time.

[Anonymous No.3466407]

>>3466402
Go to bed kiddo. We're trying to do an adult conversation here, among people who know 4th dimension is not time but a 4th SPATIAL dimension.
Go to bed.

[Anonymous No.3466414]

3 dimensions means that we can draw 3 lines, and have them all meet at right angles to each other (the corner of a cube is a perfect example).
We can then travel in 2 directions along these 3 lines: up and down, left and right, forward and backwards.

In 4D, we simply have another 2 directions that we can travel in, that are perpendicular to the other 3 pairs: ana and kata.

[Anonymous No.3466413]

>>3466407

[Anonymous No.3466417]

>>3466414
HI dECKER

[Anonymous No.3466419]

>>3466407
>implying time is not a spatial dimension

lrn2specialrelativity

[Anonymous No.3466424]

Bla bla can't into geometry. Here's my question: What the fuck?

>In general, it is not clear how physical law could function if T [the number of time dimensions] differed from 1. If T > 1, subatomic particles which decay after a fixed period would not behave predictably, because time-like geodesics would not be necessarily maximal. N [the number of spatial dimensions] = 1 and T = 3 has the peculiar property that the speed of light in a vacuum is a lower bound on the velocity of matter; all matter consists of tachyons.

[Anonymous No.3466440]

Also, we can draw analogies:
The 0th dimension is a point.
The 1st dimension is a line (2 points, some distance from each other in the first dimension/in one direction, that are connected).
The 2nd dimension is a space (if we take 2 lines, some distance away from each other in the second dimension/in a seperate direction, and connect them, we get a square).
The 3rd dimension is a cell (if we take 2 squares, some distance away from each other in the 3rd dimension/in a seperate direction, and connect them, we get a cube).
The 4th dimension is a "hypercell" [I hate that word] (if we take 2 cubes, some distance away from each other in the 4th dimension/in a seperate direction, and connect them, we get a tesseract).

[Anonymous No.3466447]

>>3466419
no u. It is NOT a spatial dimension. The time dimension does not have the same symmetry as the spatial dimensions.

[Anonymous No.3466458]

>>3466417
Who?

[Anonymous No.3466477]

>>3466342
Usually it's a sign that more whores will be within said thread. I was sadly disappointed this time, however.

[Anonymous No.3466493]

You shouldn't be able to get it. It's a fundamentally impossible notion for the human mind to grasp all but semantically in the majority of cases.

Einstein was special in that he treated time as just another spatial dimension. Then he came up with the rules transforming time-space, which creates the 4-dimensional theory.

The only problem is all of this is just parameterization of time as an integral. Nothing groundbreaking except no one else would accept that it was possible.

[Anonymous No.3466495]

>>3466357
There's more to it than that.
One has to consider movement between these cells.

[Anonymous No.3466531]

>>3466447
>It is NOT a spatial dimension.

Sure it is. Distance and duration are interchangeable in relativity.

>The time dimension does not have the same symmetry as the spatial dimensions.

So?

[Anonymous No.3466590]

>>3466493
>fundamentally impossible notion for the human mind to grasp

Hardly. A 3D movie is a 4D object.

[Anonymous No.3466593]

>>3466531
>they're the same
>still acknowledge differences
what.

[Anonymous No.3466613]

>>3466593

I'm smarter than you, but we're both humans.

[Anonymous No.3466621]

>>3466613
And time is a dimension, but not a spatial dimension. Glad we agree, then.

[Josef !!nUf2NflSAyw No.3466648]

Special relativity has a much weirder space than standard Euclidean metric <span class="math">\mathbb R^4[/spoiler].

[Anonymous No.3466654]

Jap whore

[Anonymous No.3466678]

>>3466648
splain

[Anonymous No.3466683]

>>3466678
It's hyperbolic. E.g. x^2 + y^2 is invariant under rotations; t^2 - x^2 is invariant under boosts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

[Anonymous No.3466710]

>>3466654
she wants to up in the ass
(and you want to stick it in)

[Anonymous No.3466742]

>>3466322
isn't time 4th dimension?

[Anonymous No.3466744]

>>3466742

99% of all who frequent /sci/ are like this guy.

[Anonymous No.3466745]

>how it can exist

It can't, you idiot. It doesn't.

If looking at a tesseract doesn't do it, then you've got the spacial visualization of a dog. Science isn't your thing. Go somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.3466750]

>>3466590
>can't into parameterization

[Anonymous No.3466758]

>>3466710

[Anonymous No.3469371]

Do you think in words?
You will never understand if you think in words.

[Anonymous No.3469390]

For any one whos wondering....

A tesseract isnt an actual object in the 4th dimension, rather it is what the shadow of what one would look like

According to Sagan

[Anonymous No.3469418]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

watch this it explains different dimensions up to the 10th

[Anonymous No.3469430]

>>3469418
You dumb fuck. I actually like that video, but it has nothing to do with a 4th spatial dimension. It has 3 spatial, 3 temporal, 3 universal, and another super-duper universal. But still only 3 spatial.

[Anonymous No.3469439]

>>3469430
sorry i didnt really know what you guys were talking about, just thought it would help

[n3n7i No.3469450]

....This might work (poorly?)

Are you familiar with the structure of diamond?

That is 3D....

Now imagine you have a fifth bond Which goes two left and five up..... It might appear to be six long (in 3D) but its actually as close as the others(?) 1 - link / bond away =)
if you move across one from your first start point,
then take the fifth path, you can move back across one and be at the fifth path from the start...? [probably not 4D but uh well....]

[Anonymous No.3469564]

>>3469390
no, tesseract is another name for hypercube or 4-d cube. What Sagan meant was that the tesseract is a 4-d object so we can't visualise it. We can however see what its "shadow" looks like. That 3-d model he showed was actually the shadow of the tesseract.

[n3n7i No.3469591]

...Should it end up in usual space or some other plane?

from >>3466414

Is moving in direction - kata Equivalent to some amount of :: up / down, left / right, and forward / backwards ?? or not?.... possibly not?

[Anonymous No.3469615]

>>3466322
Unfortunately it would seem that you are one of those stupids.

[n3n7i No.3469616]

...If it doesn't end up in usual space does that rule out the other FTL theories.... (You get a whole extra dimension to explore / dont feel too bad ;)

[Anonymous No.3470771]

We are three-dimensional 'cross sections' of our fourth dimensional self. We only experience our life at one point in time, just like the flatlander experience his self in a lower dimension.