/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7593285]

This is an insanely hard question I know... But I've been searching the internet all week researching and I want to know.

What is the best way to visualize and explain each dimension?
I'm interested in all theories.

[Anonymous No.7593286]

So say you have the three dimensions as coordinates x,y,z.
If you went from 000 to 100 you can visualise this as moving 1 unit to the right because the x axis corelates to the left right axis.
For 4 dimensions you have 4 coordinates wxyz. So if you went from 0000 to 1000 what direction have you moved? Cant visualise it? Thats because you are 3 dimensional

[Anonymous No.7593288]

>>7593285
each dimension is at a 90 degree angle at each other so good luck with that

[Anonymous No.7593294]

>>7593288
Anyone know anything about the 11 dimensions?

[Anonymous No.7593337]

>>7593294
Did you even read the replies? Each dimension is 90 degrees to each other. 11 dimensions just means 11 intersecting lines at 90 degrees to each other. You cannot visualise it it is literally impossible as you are 3 dimensional

[Anonymous No.7593357]

Popsci fags please leave

[Anonymous No.7593361]

>>7593288
Why would anyone eat that disgusting paste bar shit...?

[Anonymous No.7593372]

>>7593285
>visualize

Don't even try, its impossible. Your brain works in 3d, and ONLY in 3d. Try and imagine a 2d space, "Flatland" as it's sometimes called. Notice that you are imagining a flat area INSIDE a 3d one, like a tabletop or something, and not an actual 2d space. The same applies to 4d and up, your brain simply doesn't work that way. Just trust the math, and don't try to visualise, because your intuitions will lead you astray but math never lies.

[Anonymous No.7593373]

>>7593361
Bulking.

Don't let it offend your delicate sensitivities.

[Anonymous No.7593431]

>>7593373
just eat ice cream with cottage cheese or something

or get a gf who's a great cook

jesus christ

[Anonymous No.7593436]

>>7593431
/sci/ and /fit/ don't mix well do they

[Anonymous No.7593508]

Take a 2d image and rotate it. You now have a 3D object. Now rotate that third dimensional object to the point where it looks like a solid mass of all it's possible rotational states. You now have a fourth dimensional object, or a 3D object's rotational states in a specific direction. Above that, you have all rotational states of an object in all directions. Once you can perceive that, you've seen a fifth dimensional object.

[Anonymous No.7593627]

>>7593285
I think you can do something near closing and living a day or more, with one eye only. I think it could be 2.5 dimensions because you were born in a 3d dimension space and you learned very well what that means, so you know that there is a space, but you cannot really perceive it, because of vision that works with differences between the image that every eye has. The brain do calculate distances in a intuitive way everytime. But with only an eye..just near that

[Anonymous No.7593643]

Volume is the power at which volume increases.

Example: You have some length a that parametrises a geometric shape. You compute the dimension of that geometric shape as the exponent which gives you the volume depending on the basic length a.

I.e if your geometric shape is just a line given by the length a then the "volume" is simply a, thus the dimension is 1.
If your shape is a square your volume is a^2 and thus your dimension is 2.
If your sahpe is a cube your volume is a^3, thus dimension is 3.

Now for the funky stuff, you can define shapes with dimensions that are not intergers or even rationals, i.e. if you pick the shape of a sierpinski triangle.

Just to give a non algebraic notion of dimension.

[Anonymous No.7593648]

>>7593627
Closing one eye doesn't remove parallax. You can still resolve depth by moving laterally.

[Anonymous No.7593720]

Traditionally, spacetime is modeled on a 3+1 dimensional,(3 spacial 1 temporal), pseudo-riemannian manifold. In string theory, at each point on the usual 3+1 spacetime manifold we put compactified 6 dimensional calabi-yau manifolds. These extra 6 spacial dimensions are very tiny and not observable in standard conditions.

[Anonymous No.7593819]

How would you visualize and explain Dimension Hatröss?

[Anonymous No.7593948]

>>7593285
For the three spacial dimensions that all humans have an intuitive understanding of: you could define a dimension as any axis of "movement" which can be traveled independently of other dimensions. So if you travel on an x-axis only, the values of the y and z axes do not change. X, Y, and Z coordinates can be used to describe any location on the human scale.

Now the 11 dimensional theory, string theory namely, is where it gets tougher to conceptualize. Ultra-simply, string theory states that space is composed of fundamental elements or particles, referred to as "quanta." In string theory, there are said to be 3 spatial dimensions (as I mentioned), 3 "interspatial" dimensions, and 3 "superspatial" dimensions. Considering three dimensions as a way to accurately describe volume... it can be said that the 3 interspatial dimensions describe volumes between quanta, and the three superspatial dimensions describes the volume of the quanta themselves. This brings us to 9 spatial dimensions, and if I recall correctly, there are two time-dependent dimensions in the theory.

Of course, only the 3 spatial dimensions are well understood and agreed upon, but there ya go.

[Anonymous No.7593958]

>>7593285
that's like trying to visualize a new different colour

[Anonymous No.7594748]

you can visualize up to 4 dimension using a tesseract. but more than 4 dimensions are not possible to visualize for humans.

[Anonymous No.7594992]

>>7593508
>Now rotate that third dimensional object to the point where it looks like a solid mass of all it's possible rotational states. You now have a fourth dimensional object, or a 3D object's rotational states in a specific direction.

That would just be a 3-dimensional sphere, because you only rotated it in 3-dimensional space.

[Anonymous No.7595000]

>>7593720

Any explanation on why it's 6 extra dimensions for someone who's not an advanced mathematician?

[Anonymous No.7595005]

>>7593288
HAHAHAHAHAHAH! You don't even lift

[Anonymous No.7595011]

>>7593373
DYEL

[Anonymous No.7595018]

>>7593373
>bulking
>eating oatmeal and peanut butter 3 times a day

[Anonymous No.7595150]

>>7595018

building solid MASS bro

[Anonymous No.7595264]

>>7595150
>bulking
>actually just gaining fat

Woo were through the mirror now

[Anonymous No.7595337]

>>7593285
OP dimensions are not seperate places but rather different frequencies of energy starting at thought and ending somewhere around matter. When you have a thought you are literally converting matter to light.

[Anonymous No.7595345]

>>7595150
you've got to eat big to get big cmon

http://startingstrength.com/site/article/eating_through_the_sticking_points#.ViHCDyvHaUk

>In order to get from 175 to 250 pounds in one year I ate so many crazy things, it’s almost embarrassing to mention them. I did all the normal stuff: eating 6 meals a day, drinking a gallon of whole milk a day, drinking lots of protein shakes (actually I’ve drunk a gallon of milk a day for 8 of the past 11 years now). But I did a lot of unconventional stuff too. I’d eat a large beef pizza dipped in olive oil. I’d pour oil in my protein shakes. I’d eat double cheeseburgers and eggs and peanut butter and cans of cashews like I was a starving Somali child. I’d try to get thrown out of all-you-can-eat Chinese buffets 2-3 times per week. I’d eat until I felt sick. Then I’d eat Fruity Pebbles or other cereal because no matter how full I was, it always seemed I could get down a big bowl of cereal. As soon as I felt like I wasn’t going to be sick, I’d eat again.

[Anonymous No.7595354]

>>7593288
no they are orthogonal

[Anonymous No.7595367]

>>7593288
What the hell, when I'm clean bulking i only get 70-80g of good fats, and they're usually get used up pretty quickly. Who the hell would eat this piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.7595746]

>>7595150
Neet 16 yo skinny non lifter confirmed. Enjoy your shitty embarrassing body test girls laugh at.

[Anonymous No.7595748]

>>7593431

Yeah sure I'll just go down to the gf store and pick one that cooks all my meals.

[Anonymous No.7595757]

>>7595345
Try posting that on forum.bodybuilding.com and you'll get laughed off the fucking interest kid.

[Anonymous No.7595762]

>>7595367
You should up your fats more regardless, that's way too low.

[Anonymous No.7595783]

>>7595757

why should he post about powerlifting stuff on a bodybuilding board tho