Exploring 4-Dimensional Fields: A Mind-Bending Concept

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of dimensions and how they relate to different objects. It is suggested that there is a 4th "spatial" dimension that can contain infinite volume, just like the 3rd dimension can contain infinite area. The conversation also touches on the idea that time may be a spatial dimension as well. The concept of a hypercube is also mentioned, where it is possible to fit infinitely many 3-dimensional objects inside.
  • #36
Well I don't know very much but I've seen a table where there was temporal dimensions on an axis and spatial dimensions on the other. I prefer to think it is better to separate time and space into different kind of dimensions and assume that most things are studied in 3rd spatial dimension and 1st temporal dimension.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Thank you :)
I've just found a site that is dedicated to a 4th spatial dimension.
I will post some there and see what I get back.
- I have always seen a cube used to explain it. Will ask if a sphere would be easier to explain it.

I'm having a hard time seeing the universe as anything other than 3 dimensional.
- time slowing at fast speeds and this new spatial dimension site keep me going.
-- although spatial #4 may be non existent and time slowing may be an effect of what's going on in 3D.
- ofcourse, if I had the answer, I'd be onto something else that's half proven. :)
 
  • #38
Wow, glad I did some reading here:
http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/

I now understand. :)
ok, so there are infinite 2D planes that make up a 3D object.
- I now see it as an irrelevant # of 2D planes.
-- 2D, to 3D, is more of a concept that can't exist alone.
There are also infinite 1D lines that make up a 2D object.
- again, irrelevant amount of.
So # of 3D planes in 4D must also be irrelevantly large and
- it also could not exist without the 4th Dimension.

Although,
taking a 4ftx4ft(a constraint) 2D picture and putting it in a 2ftx2ftx2ft(a constraint) 3D box,
one would have to cut and stack the 2D picture.
As it has no depth, there would be no filling whatsoever of the 3D box,
the picture would also loose all meaning, because
the line segments of each of the 4 2ftx2ft 2D cut-ups would overlap.
- seemingly impossible to extract and decipher.
We could keep stacking even after all area of the 2ftx2ft 2D plane was 'represented' by a line segment.
- but if the stacking is kept in mind, then if x number of 2D planes are full,
and the x+1 plane is empty, the first 2ftx2ft cut-up into the x+1 plane is kept intact when viewed from somewhere within that one 2ftx2ft cut-up.

Has me thinking of black holes.

oh,
anyone know of this formula?
n D S = 2pi * C(n-2), C = S / (n)
i've heard it is the general formula for what I came up with.
 
  • #39
after thought.
are computer hard drives storing information in 2D or 3D?

i know it is using 3D, but... you know?

is one point in 3D the intersection of only 3 planes?
(thinking of point Zero on orthogonal axis)
if only 3 we'd need only the x, y, and z at Zero
or
the intesection of all those with angles about the x-y plus
those around the x-z plus
those around the y-z?

I understand getting from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1) would require one step in the z axis,
yet that is only direction and distance, not the make-up of (0,0,1)

Ok, I missed a few axis'.
After realizing that: about the x-y axis is the same as about the z axis,
I can now state that there are as many axis' through (0,0,0)
about which there are infinite 2D planes
as there are points on an infinitely large half sphere
centered on one axis, and resting on the 2 others.
- I understand many points would be in the same plane.
Formula for that? oh, many many many, ok. lol
 
Last edited:
  • #40
I think we have to start with this question in order to classify the dimensions;

Does time exists if there is no movement, meaning that everything is stationnary relatively to everything?
 
  • #41
I think I know what you mean. I started on this whole path due to gyroscopes.
After looking at the pictures in the 4th dim. 'explanations',
and having seen a precessing gyro, imagined it forced to break-neck speeds of precession, and then moving in/through spacetime,
things pointed me towards quantum physics.

My original question, after some time with gyro's, was:
ok, can they cause propulsion, but
now it is:
ok, what are gyro's best suited for?
Better to have a plane than a bathing suit at 10 000 feet, and vice versa at sea level.
:)
 
  • #42
Werg22 said:
Does time exists if there is no movement, meaning that everything is stationnary relatively to everything?
If that is true, how does one quantify "stationary" ? This was actually a lively debate during the creation of general relativity.
Note that the ascription of labels to coordinates is an application of mathematics to this particular physical universe, and has no deeper mathematical meaning. Saying that "the" fourth dimension is time is irrelevant to mathematics, which treats dimensions in far more general language.
 
  • #43
True, this is a metaphysical subject so mathematical relationships are not to be built. Mathematics separate time and space, while this "theory" deals with their union. The fourth dimension could be called "spacetime". Also tell me if you agree, if we base ourselves on that theory, light would be solely dimension less.
 
  • #44
I've been warned. oops.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
meckano said:
Yup, that is how I understand it.
Once you reach the speed of light:
1) time stops for you. The beginning of your light speed journey is the end.
2) you must be energy to attain that speed, no living there.
obviously there is more to decode. :)

about my bringing maths into this:
1) oops, sorry
2) I'm not a wizz, I use math to find comparisons, visualize, and then theorize.
like:
I understand in 3D why I need:
64 1"dia. spheres to equal 1 4"dia. sphere when dealing with volume,
and only 8 2"dia. spheres
and only 2.370repeating 3"dia. spheres

So to visualize 4D I use:
256 1"dia. abc's to equal 1 4"dia. abc,
vs. only 16 2"dia. abc's
vs. only 3.16... 3"dia. abc's

and unlike cubes, the diameter is a friendly 'known' place to start.
sometimes i think cubes to visualize the ^2 ness or ^3 edness.

Addit:
oops, stationary question was not for me.
well, light and gamma rays and whatnot are pretty good at defying gravity and being imparted with circular motion about something.
so I again get more appreciation for something, black holes.
- seem! to suck light back towards the living, but spits out some of it as dead gamma rays and whatnot.

Addit 2:
I don't see math as splitting time and space.
It let's me calculate what we call spatial difference.
As I understand space, time, and spacetime, they too are people made words to try and understand what we see.
If time is tied to space, and we calculate the space, are we not calculating the time as well?
That to me is the real question about spacetime. But I'm new and unbound by higher education which invariably imposes thought constraints too.
- Not just words, I always fought the math teacher, he loved me. I did well.
-- In higher maths, there were too many unknowns for my questions to be answered in time to graduate. Now That made/makes no sense to me.
So here we all are, some great thinkers without math skills, and some great mathematicians with their thought process in 'the box'.
- I'm working my free mind towards higher education. Join me, free your mind.
oops, that's the Mars movie. :)

Well, I do not quite agree on your "Addit 2" for the moment. Mathematics let you calculate spatial information indeed, but if spacetime is a dimension, then mathematics cannot represent it. That's why this dimension is split into two information; themporal and spatial. How to express spacetime in terms of mathematics? Also is spacetime absolute?
 
  • #46
I've been warned. oops.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
I've been warned. oops.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
strid said:
Thougt of a thing, reading a topic about dimnesions...

if we think like this...

a point had 0 dimensions...
there are infinite many points in a line (which has 1 dimension)
there are infinite many lines in a square (which has 2 dimensions)
there are infinite many squares in a cube (which has 3 dimensions)

following this patterns, I see it reasonable to suggest:

that there are infinite many "cubes" (objects with 3 dimensions) in a 4 dimensional "object"...

so in an "field" (or what to call it) with 4 dimensions we can fit EVERYTHING that we can see.. like the sun... or maybe ven the whole univerese...

it might then be that our universe is 4 dimensional, an therefore has infinite "space" (3 dimensions)...

hope I wasnt confusing...

I just want you guys to know that this very old post isn't completely correct.

If the 3 dimensions in the 4D "box" are 5cmx5cmx5cm, you can not fit a 6cmx6cmx6cm cube in it. You can't fit a 10x10 paper (that is hard, "bendable" is not in this "theory") in a 5x5x5 cube. But if the volume of the 4D box was 5x5x5x5, then you can put 5 (quantity) of 5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm x 1cm (all shapes in our universe are 4D - and more) in there. If the box was 0 size in the fourth dimension, it wouldn't exist in our universe. but if it was, you can fit infinite 0s in 10 cm of the fourth dimension, yes.


Just in case anyone happens to open this from Google like me, looking for answers.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
849
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Back
Top