[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 11 KB, 270x173, boy-genius-2-270x173.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5395602 No.5395602 [Reply] [Original]

Sees in 4th dimension. When there is no 4th dimension.

How does that make you feel?

>> No.5395605

omg.
does this mean he's a psychic.
dayum son that makes me feel pretty indifferent.

>> No.5395609

>>5395605

I am positively sure he is a Math Genius

>> No.5395619

>>5395609
really!
that's quite fasntnig.
but first define "genius".
and "math".
and "he".
and "positively sure".

>> No.5395621

>>5395602
Stand between two mirrors and what you're viewing is an analog of level curves of 4-dimensional space. Seeing full 4-d is just as these curves are infinitely many and have infinitely small space between them (so a big blur, basically). That's the analogy I always use to describe it.

>> No.5395626

He doesn't "see in 4th dimension." No one does.
Maybe he is able to visualize a 4th spacial dimension.

>> No.5395631

>>5395621

so I have, and yet this guy >>5395626 says "no one is able to see it".

Hmmm wtf. I just looked at 2 mirrors for noting?

>> No.5395653

>>5395609
math geniuses" are generally savants who don't actually understand what they're doing in any functional way. They just rattle off numbers like a computer and never do much useful.

Or become engineers or programmers, witch are effectively useless most of the time.

Tell me when you find a kid who wrote up a complete version of string theory that can't be disproven, and I'll believe the "genius" thing.

>> No.5395655

>>5395631
You can visualize a representation of the 4th dimension but you cannot see in 4 dimensions. A tesseract is a 4 dimensional object projected into our 3 dimensional space.

>> No.5395660

>>5395653
sounds like youre just having a reeeeeeeally hard time dealing with the fact that there are people who are smarter than you

>> No.5395661 [DELETED] 

>>5395621
>>5395631

yes, I was able to kind of see the analogy of what you believe is "4th dimension"

Sadly:

Charles Hinton (1853 - 1907) coined the term "tesseract" in the Dublin University magazine in 1880. Hinton was a British mathematician who also wrote science fiction pieces.

So what's going on? "Most" so called "intellectuals" believe in a fictional proof of 4th dimension?

>> No.5395668

I've yet to see any evidence that he can visualize 4D
other tham him drawing a tessasect or whatever, which anyone with access to wikipedia can do.

>> No.5395691

4d was created by a fictional book

>> No.5395693

>>5395691
>>5395661
Am I on a science board? Go back to /b/.

>> No.5395694

>>5395653
> can't be disproven

sure is science in here

>> No.5395698

Please prove to me that there is no such thing as 4th dimension, while you're at it, why not disprove the string theory all together and win a noble prize?

>> No.5395703

>>5395698

You're yet to prove that it actually exists, and I will.

Saying it exists doesn't really give me much. And please don't back your theories by a fictional math.

>> No.5395706

>>5395698
Because there isn't a fourth spatial dimension.

>> No.5395717

>>5395703
I saying its there in theory. "Please go back to your theories by a fictional math ?" That right there tells why i shouldn't respond to you since your knowledge is so biased.

>>5395706
To my knowledge, time is considered to be the 4th dimension. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that this kid actually does see through it

>> No.5395723

>>5395717
The 4th dimension isn't time you fucking idiot. That's from a goddamn HG Welles novel. Jesus christ what happened to this board?

>> No.5395726

>>5395723
Time isn't a dimension ? well there newfag "whats happening to this board" cancer.
TIME IS A DIMENSION.

>> No.5395727

>>5395726
No it fucking ISN'T.

>> No.5395728

>>5395723
Seems to be infested with /x/ and the likes. I came here to lurk but I don't think I'm getting anywhere.

>> No.5395729

>>5395723
>
This board has always been a bunch of first and second year physics undergrads talking out their ass and proclaiming themselves to be brilliant because they think they understand things.

>> No.5395730

>>5395726
Scientists don't know what time is. All we know is it goes forward.

>> No.5395731

>>5395730
or has the illusion of going forward

>> No.5395733
File: 481 KB, 141x141, 1326387276393.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5395733

>>5395731
Yes indeed.

>> No.5395737

>>5395726
Anything you want is a dimension. The statement is meaningless. What time isn't is a unique spatial dimension. Well, at least, in the sense that it is not different from the normal x, y, z spatial dimensions. General relativity tells us that we can think of space and time as one thing, using c as a conversion factor. It's the origin of time dilation and space contraction in special relativity.

>> No.5395739

>>5395730
>>5395723
>>5395726

Ok, i now realized i got my shit mixed up and it is true that time is not the fourth dimension, but there are still dimensions other than the 3 we know. It is not fully proven yet because ofc we live in the 3 only, but it will in the future.

>> No.5395754
File: 50 KB, 250x250, 1356678763947.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5395754

>>5395739
Please do the following, in order:

1. Leave
2. Open up a book
3. Read the book
4. Don't come back

>> No.5395758

>>5395739
Spacetime itself if generally used as acting in a 4-dimensional minkowski space. That's probably the closest thing to what you're thinking of. More generally, the number of dimensions is an arbitrary thing dependent on what you define the dimensions as. In quantum mechanics one often works in the n basis and thusly you work in an infinite dimension space with a different dimension for each energy level.

>> No.5395760

>>5395717
No, it's a separate. There only exist three spatial dimensions.

>> No.5395765

>>5395737
thaank you for saving me the time to type this out

>> No.5395769

>>5395758
Thanks for the clarification, and now just out of curiosity, what are these dimensions explained here are defined as ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

>> No.5395818

>>5395769

He's treating time as a 4th spatial dimension in the video, which as an idea isn't really physical. The idea of the bending he introduces when talking about 3 dimensional space is a reasonable analogy for how gravity acts on spacetime in relativity. Though if you push me on that point I won't be able to go much further, as I'm first a chemist and so my understanding of relativity is limited to what I learned in sophomore physics to get my minor, I'm better with quantum mechanics. However, I will say that from my understanding of physics most of the content of this video is simply wrong.

>> No.5395825

>>5395818
I see, i guess i should now research this topic further.

>> No.5395829

>>5395818
Okay, so going further in the video, when he gets to talking about quantum mechanics, he's increasingly just talking out his ass. He's presenting a hypothetical idea to illustrate moving in multiple dimensions, but he's making claims which are at best highly misleading and at worst complete bullshit. He's implicitly invoking the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics but representing it in a back-asswards manner.

>> No.5395835

>>5395653
>Can't be disproven
>Come up with a theory that is non-falsifiable

And here, ladies and gents, you will find the "Gender Studies" major of /sci/

>> No.5395841

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9sbdrPVfOQ

>> No.5395852

>>5395841
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJJhHknEDPY

>> No.5395863

>>5395829
Indeed, after looking into i came to the same conclusions.

>> No.5395881

>>5395717

>responds to "there isn't a fourth spatial dimension" with "time is considered to be the 4th dimension"

/SCI/ IN A FUCKING NUTSHELL

HOLY SHIT I'M GONNA HAVE A HEMORRHAGE

>> No.5395894

>>5395881

a spatial dimension isn't the same as a temporal dimension. they behave differently are are categorized based on such.

/sci/ in a nutshell alright.

>> No.5395896

>>5395894
>a spatial dimension isn't the same as a temporal dimension

this

>> No.5395929 [DELETED] 

so what's the proof for 4th dimension? (in your own words please)

>> No.5396058

http://pjkartist.hubpages.com/hub/Proof-That-Higher-Dimensions-Exist

FUKING JK LOL

>> No.5396072

>>5395602

who is this kid and why should I care? (I've been absent from this board for quite some time)

>> No.5396082

>>5396072

you shouldn't this thread isn't about him. and Google-math genius young age prodigy kid. or w/e hah

>> No.5396087

There are N dimensions, three of which are spatial.

>> No.5396151

How apt that I just reread Flatland.

There might very well be a fourth spatial dimension, but we have no way to conceive of it. We cannot perceive it, we cannot be convinced of it nor understand it through words. The best we have is analogy.

Just like a being who exists in one-dimensional space (Lineland) would know of East and West, but would consider anyone who spoke of North or South insane. And just like a being of Flatland would know of North, South, East, and West, but would have no conception of Up and Down. So we creatures of Spaceland have Up, Down, North, South, East, and West, but cannot conceive of any other direction. But we can continue through analogy.

A 0-D point traveling some distance and leaving a trail creates a line. This line has two points, and these two points define it's length.

A 1-D line traveling some distance so that all points on the line move perpendicular to the line creates a square (for simplicity's sake). This square has four points and four lines which define its perimeter.

A 2-D square traveling some distance such that all lines move perpendicular to the square creates a cube. This cube has eight points and six squares which define its volume.

1 point, 2 points, 4 points, 8 points.
0 sides, 2 points, 4 lines, 6 squares.

So while we cannot conceive of a 4-D figure, we can calculate it through simple progression: It would be some figure created by a cube traveling such that every plane within it would move perpendicular to the cube. It would have 16 points, and 8 cubes would define it's boundary.

1 point, 2 points, 4 points, 8 points, 16 points
0 boundary, 2 points, 4 lengths, 6 planes, 8 volumes

What would this look like? What would you call it? I have no idea, for I am not a 4-D creature. But since I can plainly see that 1-D is not the end-all be-all as Linelanders would think, nor 2-D as Flatlanders would think, it would be ludicrously arrogant to think that Spaceland is the absolute highest dimensional land.

>> No.5396155

and not a single math was given that day.

>> No.5396163

>>5396151

Yes yes, every dumbass has read that popsci trite.

>> No.5396167 [DELETED] 

>>5396151

thank you for the explanation. I will retreat, for I cannot explain yet why I know that 4th dimension.

>> No.5396169

>>5396163
And yet they - and from your post I am wont to include you - apparently didn't understand it or the satire it was actually talking about.

>> No.5396180

>>5396169

OP here, I understood it. It's just I don't want to visualize or perceive it. I just want to know that it exists so I can continue on with my daily life.

However, from my understanding 4th D is a complete bullshit. Was and is perceived by those who want to believe in existence of it.

I am sorry if I feel this way. I might as well be very stubborn and stupid.

>> No.5396192

>>5396180
You say you understand, but your post clearly shows you do not. We are literally incapable of knowing whether it exists or not. Even if something from 4th D interacted with us, it would only do so in 3 dimensional space. Trying to know anything about it is what is bullshit. Yet at the same time declaring that it doesn't exist is also bullshit. It is a perfect example of agnosticism. It's not that we DON'T know, it's that we CAN'T know.

Now go study up on how it was satire on society, and not a pop sci book.

>> No.5396191

>>5396180

2D and 1D don't exist isolated. There is completely linear motion in 3D space. We know it's 3D space because of math and observations. There's a video posted that explains one aspect of this. We know time exists as dimension, just a different kind of dimension than space.

There is no way to tell spatial dimension apart since they behave the same. Again, we know there are three of them, but they can't be assigned a direction. To understand it, think of a map. You can go up, down, left, and right, but where does one dimension begin and the other end? We assign directions like North to help out, but what is the actual difference physically? It's the same in spacetime. We can tell time from space but not space from space. Even if we add another spatial dimension, it makes no difference other than the behavior of physics. Up and Down are no more relevant than before.

>> No.5396197

>>5395668 >I've yet to see any evidence that he can visualize 4D

I think because he has an incredible memory (this part is fact) he can buffer/sort/hold variables and information in his head in a way we can't imagine enabling him to construct a 4D representation of things in his head where normal people often struggle assembling 3D information mentally.

>> No.5396216

>>5396192
>We are literally incapable of knowing whether it exists or not.
>It's not that we DON'T know, it's that we CAN'T know.

Yes you can. It's called thinking.

>> No.5396219
File: 2 KB, 126x92, 1324519162772s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5396219

>>5396151
>reading popsci about trivial geometry

>> No.5396233

>>5395602
The fourth dimension is time but their are estimated to be be up to 11 spatial dimensions in total. Not a big deal that this kid can imagine what the 4th spatial dimension.

>> No.5396263

>>5396233 >The fourth dimension is time but their are estimated to be be up to 11 spatial dimensions in total.

20+

You're a shitty tripfag, you consistently post low standard shit.

Kindly fuck off.

>> No.5396268

>>5396216
That's how religion happened

>> No.5396272

>>5396216
You can roll a six sided die for all eternity but you will never have a seventh side be the result.

>>5396219
>thinking it was about geometry

>> No.5396284

>>5396268

It's not what I meant, I am sorry. I have to confess. My communication skills are very poor.

What I meant by it is, I wish to see the real evidence that such thing ( as 4th dimension exists-THEORETICALLY).

I want to see an actual theory that explains the phenomenon. (w/e you want to call it)

>> No.5396295

>>5396233
Not 'up to' -- Exactly 11 dimensions.
And not 'estimated' = theorized.

And since it is entirely impossible to experience, it would be a huge deal for anyone to be able to visualize the next spatial dimension.

That JB kid is not able to do anything special; he is a media creation. A small story from many months ago that is not promising anything, and was drastically overwritten then.

>> No.5396305

>>5396192
We can know it as well as we can know any other scientific fact.

Of course we can't technically "know" anything. And depending on how you define "exist" one could say we can't prove that, say, forces exist. They could very well be a useful mathematical abstraction that just happen to "work" and not actually exist. Some people say that since they do work so well, we have evidence that forces exist.

Now, if a 4-th spatial dimension did exist we could observe effects that are explained well with the mathematics of a 4 dimensions. As with forces, this could be considered to provide evidence for the existence of the 4-th dimension.

So, what I mean to say is that whether or not you can support the existence of the 4-th dimension with evidence depends on your definition of "exist". But the concept of the 4-th dimension isn't any different, in this manner, the any other invisible math concept used in physics, like forces. Thus, if you can accept the existence of forces, you should accept the existence of the 4th dimension, provided you have evidence.

>> No.5396310

Really, "spatial" is the wrong word to use. A fourth physical (as opposed to temporal) dimension would require a new word. Since 1 dimension is linear, 2 is planar, and 3 is spatial a 4th physical dimension should be called a new term. Calling this hypothesized 4th dimension spacial implies it can be bounded by space, which would mean it is still simply 3D.

>> No.5396321

>>5396310
>Really, "spatial" is the wrong word to use. A fourth physical (as opposed to temporal) dimension would require a new word. Since 1 dimension is linear, 2 is planar, and 3 is spatial

That's not what that word means.

>> No.5396339

>>5396305
>We can know it as well as we can know any other scientific fact.
No. A 4th dimension would be completely outside of our ability to observe. This isn't like a theory where there is a possibility of being disproven even if that possibility is basically zero. This is literally outside the bounds of our conception. The closest we can come is 3D approximations and analogy, which is what everyone here has been doing.

>So, what I mean to say is that whether or not you can support the existence of the 4-th dimension with evidence depends on your definition of "exist". But the concept of the 4-th dimension isn't any different, in this manner, the any other invisible math concept used in physics, like forces. Thus, if you can accept the existence of forces, you should accept the existence of the 4th dimension, provided you have evidence.

If you wish to deal purely with math, then there are an infinite number of dimensions. All you need to "observe" them is to define them. Forces are a nice example since they - as vectors - deal with dimensions. For example, I have a force F that is 10N in dimension A, 15N in dimension B, 5N in dimension C, -20N in dimension D, 100N in dimension E, and 0N in dimension F. The six dimensions are all perpendicular to each other. You could easily do all sorts of math on this force, but you would have no physical conception of it's direction in six dimensions.

>> No.5396357

>>5396151

I initially had a longer response, but writing it, I realized that the least confusing way for you understand this, and least time consuming way for me to direct you to relevant information is this: Google linear algebra or read an intro book on it (The first two chapters will clear everything you're making a slush out of).

>> No.5396353

>>5396321
And what do you think it means?

>> No.5396369

>>5396357
>I can't explain things, but I assure you I am right

Thank you very much for your complete lack of contribution.

>> No.5396378

>>5396353

Not the guy you quoted but while the 3 dimensional space is commonly referd to as space, which differentiates it from a plane and a line, no one really bothers with higher dimensions since it would be inconvenient as hell. A 4rth "space"-like dimensions would simply be called the 4-space I'd imagine, as with euclidean spaces.

>> No.5396379

>>5396369

I'm sorry, did you really want me to google for your lazy ass?

>> No.5396391

>>5396378
>A 4rth "space"-like dimensions would simply be called the 4-space I'd imagine, as with euclidean spaces.
Both of which would be done because as spatial creatures, we cannot conceive of what would be beyond space. Thus we simply extrapolate what we can conceive of and call it 4-space or superspace or hyperspace or "higher dimension" even though "higher" implies a direction already defined within 3 dimensions. If we could properly conceive this dimension, we would have a different word for it.

>> No.5396397

>>5396339
>No. A 4th dimension would be completely outside of our ability to observe. This isn't like a theory where there is a possibility of being disproven even if that possibility is basically zero. This is literally outside the bounds of our conception. The closest we can come is 3D approximations and analogy, which is what everyone here has been doing.

If a hyper cube moved through our dimension from a 4th dimension, we have sufficient mathematics to know what to expect. If the mathematics of the 4-th dimension predict exactly what occurs, this would be an example of us observing a 4-D phenomena.

>> No.5396399

>>5396391
No... It's because we can work with and understand an infinite amount of dimensions. You want to name every single one of those?

This is probably a troll thread, no one can be this stupid, to know you don't know fuck and assert that your regurgitated ego-facts are true.

Good day, I was a moron to not have known you were trolling right off the bat, well played.

>> No.5396400

Everyone sees in the 4th dimension, assholes.

>> No.5396401

>>5396397
>If a hyper cube moved through our dimension from a 4th dimension, we have sufficient mathematics to know what to expect. If the mathematics of the 4-th dimension predict exactly what occurs, this would be an example of us observing a 4-D phenomena.

>Even if something from 4th D interacted with us, it would only do so in 3 dimensional space.

Notice again we have no word to describe a 4th dimensional figure, so instead we extrapolate from the 3 dimensional ones we do have. We don't call it a hyperpoint; no it's a line. We don't call it a hyperline; no it's a square. We don't call it a hypersquare; no it's a cube. So why do we call it a hypercube?

Because we are 3 dimensional creatures using analogy to describe what we cannot conceive.

>> No.5396403

>>5396399
>You want to name every single one of those?
Why stop at three? Why not name four? Why not name two?

>> No.5396428

i dunno

i tried imagining an ordinary cube (3-cube) for a bit
and i'm not even sure if i properly visualized that or merely it's 2d projection

does my inner eye have stereoscopic vision?
if it has it's barely noticeable

if we work with projections anyway then there should not be that much difference between visualizing higher dimensional objects

if i could rotate a 4-cube in my imagination and "see" the correct corresponding 2d pictures i think it's fair to say i visualized it

i certainly can't do it
but i see no real reason why i should not be learnable

>> No.5396427 [DELETED] 

>>5396403

He can't. But claims as if he can.

>> No.5396437

>>5396399
>we can work with and understand an infinite amount of dimensions

Please cite.

>> No.5396441
File: 103 KB, 200x200, cube.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5396441

>>5396428
>if i could rotate a 4-cube in my imagination and "see" the correct corresponding 2d pictures i think it's fair to say i visualized it
A 4 dimensional figure wouldn't project 2D pictures. It would project 3D ones, which could then be further misshapen into 2D pictures, but would give that much more error in your understanding.

You can visualize what a 4D object might look like through the analogy of a moving spacial object in the same way you can create the illusion of a 3D object by moving a 2D one (pic related). But since we can't verify this by seeing the 4th dimension it is pure guesswork.

>> No.5396453

>>5396437
Mathematically this is true.
2D coordinates: (x,y)
3D: (x,y,z)
4D: (x,y,z,w)
nD: (x,y,z,w,...,n)

It just doesn't relate to anything outside the abstract or the arbitrary. For instance you could track a football's location in space, and make a 4th "dimension" be it's spin. It makes determining where a spot on the ball will be at any given time much easier, but it doesn't mean spin is actually a 4th dimension.

>> No.5396473

>>5395626
This, it's just that the local shitposting newspaper understood it wrong.

>> No.5396476

>>5395602
>Sees in 4th dimension. When there is no 4th dimension.
>kids seeing things that aren't there

I'm not surprised, really.

>> No.5396485

>>5396473
Do you think a 4th physical dimension is less amazing? I would consider it more so. I would ask him to point out these 7th and 8th cardinal directions.

I don't think he can do this. I think he can visualize 3D objects as they transform through time, which is nifty but not as incredible as seeing a 4th dimension.

>> No.5396490

>>5396453
spin does not qualify as dimension
spin is an ordinary vector

the ball can't have multiple spins at the same time

>> No.5396491

lets all make a pact right now that if we see this kid we push him over

>> No.5396495

>>5396491

OP here and I wish him well.

Sorry, I had to post him. My old math teacher claimed he can calculate in 4rth dimension, but he couldn't teach me simple AlgebraII.

>> No.5396498

If we imply that the 4th dimension was time, and we took a 3D cube and spun it over in every possible direction, it would look like a ball in 4D. Ball=cube?

>> No.5396505

>>5396498
let's not do that

it would playing with toy blocks too difficult

>> No.5396517

>>5396490
Which is why I said spin wasn't a dimension. But mathematically you can assign it as a 4th coordinate which can make calculations easier.

>>5396498
Why imply the 4th dimension is time? Why not 4 physical dimensions - one we cannot perceive - and the 5th is time? Or if you insist the time be considered the 4th, then everything still applies but with the 5th dimension.

My main problem with saying time is the 4th dimension is that time happens in the second dimension as well, but no matter how much time you spend changing 2D shapes or moving about in (x,y) coordinates, this won't help a 2D creature conceive of the 3rd dimension.

Time is a wholly different category than the physical dimensions.

>> No.5396688

ITT: plebs don't know what a dimension is

>> No.5396787

>>5395602
>When there is no 4th dimension.

Man, just imagine you're in a world with n dimentions and let n be 4.

>> No.5396803

>mfw dimensions are mathematical constructs to simplify mathematics of certain problems
>mfw people actually think these dimensions exist in a physical sense

Oh wait, this is /sci/ - science fiction

>> No.5397012 [DELETED] 

>>5396787

You want me to believe what you want me to believe. I do not wish to see it, I wish to feel the existence of it-Theoretically.

P.S. Good thing this could explain everything.

>> No.5397014 [DELETED] 

>>5397012

err sorry. Good thing imagination can explain everything.

>> No.5397229

>>5396401
> using an analogy

Which is what all of the math that describes physics does. Vectors in are just an analogy. You can't say they _actually_ exist any more than you can say the 4th dimension exists.

>> No.5397243

>>5396803

>mfw dimensions are mathematical constructs to simplify mathematics of certain problems
>mfw people actually think these dimensions exist in a physical sense

sometimes they are pretty physical, like in string theory

>> No.5397241

>>5396498
If time is the 4th dimension, and we picture it as a vector perpendicular to the other 3, the way to create a 4d ball would be to take a ball, that is shrunk to a point, then make it grow to a certain size then shrink it back down to a point.

>> No.5397288

>>5396803
Well, the 4th dimension is a set of 3 dimensional spaces.

>> No.5397298

>>5397241
I visualize the same as you do.

>> No.5397469

>>5396401
We call a 4D cube a tesseract. A hypercube is a cube of any dimension; a square is a hypercube, as is a line and a regular 3D cube.

>> No.5397611

>>5395698

CERN is proving string theory wrong more and more every day

>> No.5397775
File: 30 KB, 1258x507, WTF.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5397775

>>5397611

Sarcasm? Real? Please specify.

and pic. what's going on? how do I get trough lol?

>> No.5397791

>>5395660


le tricked face xd

>> No.5397793
File: 11 KB, 460x269, 1311189414879.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5397793

>>5397775

Well, if they dont find them supersymmetric particles, then string theory could be in trouble. I dunno if proven wrong, but probably proven unfalsifiable by current technology.

>> No.5397805

>>5397775

Real.

>> No.5397820

>>5397793
No, no, that just means SUSY is broken at a higher scale and something else resolves the hierarchy problem.