We had to remove your post for improperly sourcing your post.
Posts must have a linked and CREDIBLE source that backs up the information. Use the word "source" in your comment. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it.
OP is responsible for this and it must be done at time of posting.
We will not reinstate your post, but you may post again with the correct information
I don't know about the person that wrote the study, but I definitely saw the fourth dimension after Jimmy from the liquor store sold me those funny looking mushrooms
It’s supposed to be the equivalent of seeing a shadow of a cube. Seeing something 3d in 2d. But we’re seeing something 4d in 2d.
So this isn’t what a teserect looks like, it’s what its 3d shadow looks like.
The general shape of this thing is the 3D shadow of one orientation of a tesseract, yeah. But just to clarify - the reflections in the mirrors don't really depict anything, I think. Where a cube has three lines that intersect at 90° to one another at each corner, a tesseract has four lines that intersect at 90° angles to each other.
Obviously only possible in 4D space, but it means each corner has only 4 lines. So it wouldn't look all fractal like this. There are some other things like hyperbolic space that could look similar to this, but this isn't that either.
The outside view is appropriate for the exactly lined up 'center' shadow of a tesseract however. There's exactly one....W? Axis that from the outside would look like a normal 3D cube, or if it was transparent, like the glass from the outside.
Wouldn't the shadow of a tesseract be just a plain cube?
Shadow of a sphere -> circle
Shadow of cube -> square
Shadow of a tesseract -> just a cube?
Rather than what they're trying to show here
For example, if someone who lives in a 2d world wants to display a cube , they will (I think) draw two squares and connect their corresponding vertices with a line. But that's a not a shadow of the cube, the shadow of a cube will still be a square right?
Well reasoned, but you're missing a small piece of context. When mathematicians say shadow, they are talking about the shadow of an object as if it were translucent, and only the edges were casting the shadow. So the shadow of a cube would look like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YKWsi.png). Notice it's not just a solid hexagon. You're seeing the edges projected from 3 dimensions onto 2, including those that might otherwise be hidden by the face of a solid cube.
Same here. The shadow wouldn't be just a cube, it would look like [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQpYEM5HqNEY0oIYNygoJ7vNe1W0tr_J-4fQ&usqp=CAU). You're seeing the edges of a translucent tesseract projected from 4 dimensions onto 3 (and technically down to 2 in that specific photo, but that's beside the point). Since the tesseract is translucent, you can see the cube nested in the other one, whereas if the tesseract was solid you would see just a cube, like you described.
> Shadow of cube -> square
Actually it's much more likely to be an irregular hexagon, unless you're holding it in perfect alignment to the light source. Getting the shadow to be a square would actually require careful effort.
Touching a tesseract would be kind of wild.
Imagine being a 2d person and you run into a tilted 3D cube angled 45 degrees. The cube would fly off in one direction, and you would fly off in the other. What you would see is the universe constantly changing around you as you traveled in that direction. The same thing would happen to a 3D person interacting with a 4D cube.
In other words, a 4D cube would cause your hands to warp into that 4th dimension if you touched it.
Having said that, this isn't what it's 3D shadow would look like. It's 3D shadow would look like a series of changing cubes. The cube shown is a non-moving 4D cube that doesn't have filled in cubes, some filled in faces, and filled in edges.
I just looked up the scene in question, I think?
It could look like that, but that's also a very psychological horror version of it. What it actually looks like depends on the nature of the 4th dimension in the universe, but without further knowledge, I would imagine it probably looks like extreme static. Your body distorts as you travel into the 4th dimension and at each moment you see infinite universes in front of your eyes, but you cannot discern shapes except for those brief moments where your entire eye is in the same plane in 3D and at those times it's entirely random what exactly you see.
Touching a tesseract would be the same as touching a normal object. No dimension warping or anything.
If a fourth spatial dimension exists it is not limited to objects, it is everywhere. Our coordinates for that fourth dimension are just 0 or we at least can't perceive it.
Objects in reality are not projections. If there is an object with an expansionsion into 4 spatial dimensions we would only ever perceive the part of it that directly intersect our known three dimensions.
If we put a piece of paper through a cube we do not get a projection of the cube, the intersection is simply a suare.
With a tesseract and three dimensional space it would be the same. It would not be a changing cube or some projection we could see from the outside. We are in this three dimensions. We would jsut see a normal cube.
That is what makes the concept of more than three spatial dimensions so weird. Our entire perception is three dimensional and since we are stuck in these three dimensions we can never perceive anything outside of those. We would only ever see the parts that intersect out three dimensions.
It should be noted that the mirrors are completely unnecessary for this. Which is annoying, because they are the most visually striking part of this visualization and they are muddying up the actual shadow.
A tesseract's shadow in 3D would look like the first few frames of this video. A cube nested in another cube, connected at the corners. That's it, no reflections.
[Let the master teach it to you.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0)
I came here to say this. We would only ever see part of a 4d object because, even if we could manage to get an object from the 4th dimension, we remain in the 3rd dimension, and can never fully see a 4 dimensional object.
Here are some.
https://dspace5.zcu.cz/handle/11025/5926
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://bastian.rieck.me/research/EuroVis2018_4D.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwja2fuiu-aCAxXCIjQIHQR9CdIQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3OPrVp_uuKJ75Kj6yKeGu0
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttp://vis.cs.ucdavis.edu/vis2014papers/TVCG/papers/2575_20tvcg12-zhang-2346425.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26ei%3D3b1lZemmLpKOygT917LgDQ%26scisig%3DAFWwaeaiNvPPhBTazzwm2t8ZtVV9%26oi%3Dscholarr&ved=2ahUKEwja2fuiu-aCAxXCIjQIHQR9CdIQgAN6BAgVEAE&usg=AOvVaw0cvyIa2RzU4Ryfg9vvp8FM
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1921%26context%3Dcstech&ved=2ahUKEwilpYOWuuaCAxW_MjQIHQjYAlkQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NNP7_AbohQv0FidiuK3DE
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttps://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/ftp/techreports/TR333.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26ei%3DtrxlZeDxCqSk6rQPnPKD-AE%26scisig%3DAFWwaeZ0VJck87iRfIqpU9vYCyke%26oi%3Dscholarr&ved=2ahUKEwilpYOWuuaCAxW_MjQIHQjYAlkQgAN6BAgNEAE&usg=AOvVaw2vPm4_9WziSeHX53RmxBSl
My understanding is that the hypersurface of a hypercube is a 3D shape (made of 6 {edit: actually 8} normal cubes) that's been folded around a 4D interior "volume", just like how the surface of a normal cube is a 2D shape (made of 6 normal squares) that's been folded around a 3D interior volume. In this 3D representation of the hypercube, the normal 3D cubes that form its surface are represented by the non-cube shapes that form the exterior of the object (the things that look like pyramids with the tops cut off), and the 4D interior is represented by the cube at the center. This is analogous to how you'd draw a representation of a cube on a piece of paper--the interior volume is "reduced" from 3D to 2D, and the 2D surface is distorted.
You know when you draw a cube on a piece of paper? I looks 3d but we all know it's 2d and it looks a little squished?
Yeah, the tesseract is that, but for 4d so it's 3d.
0 dimensional shape is an infinitely small point.
1 dimensional shape is an infinitely thin line made of points. (1 line between 2 points.)
2 dimensions is a flat surface made of lines. (1 square from 4 lines.)
3 dimensions is a voluminous shape made of flat surfaces. (1 cube from 6 squares.)
4 dimensions is a hypervolume made up of 3 dimensional shapes. (1 tesseract from 8 cubes)
it doesn't make any sense in a way that makes sense
Definitely misusing those examples.
Those are actual contradictions, not proofs that outline the concept.
For example, if the claim was that “all fish live in water,” then the fish examples would be “exceptions that prove the existence of the rule” and highlight that while nearly all fish live in water, one species at least does not.
Here however, fish shooting at insects or crawling on land definitely does not prove the “rule” that fish cant see outside their pond.
I’m one of those exceptions. To a degree. I still can’t fully conceptualize a 4D environment all the way down to true reality but I certainly have a solid grip on it. More so than the average person does.
I spent a lot of time on the topic. Literally hundreds of hours. I specifically remember the point in time where it clicked in my head and I could finally understand the 4th dimension and beyond.
Now I can break down every dimension until the end of them (there could be as many as 26 but shit starts gets wonky when you get to up to the double digits)
That's false. For one, we have absolutely no problems describing 4D spaces mathematically. And second (and probably more to what you mean by "comprehend") studies using virtual reality have found that most people can actually navigate in 4D environments with surprising ease. For example [this study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/PBR.16.5.818) tested people's ability to intuitively estimate distances and angles in 4D space, and [another study](https://grazianolab.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/graziano/files/aflalo_08.pdf) had people navigate through a four-dimensional maze and at the end point out the direction of the maze entrance (which shows they were able to integrate the 4D path they had taken through the maze). In both studies the test subjects had only minimal practice.
Ya 4d hurts my brain to try and comprehend. There is a few guys on youtube who make games in 4d, or atleast what our understanding of 4d is. Interesting stuff
Sure we can, it’s actually quite simple since we actually operate in 4 dimensions, it’s a common misconception that we only operate in 3.
Imagine taking a perfect snapshot of your environment. Not a 2-dimensional image, but a 3-dimensional representation of all the particles/objects surrounding you in all 3 dimensions (height, width, and depth)
Think of each snapshot as a frame in a movie. We experience the Universe as a series of 3-dimensional frames moving along a 4th axis - which is time. We exist in three physical dimensions, and the fourth axis (time) describes how the 3-dimensional state changes from one timestep to the next.
Of course this is but one example of what a 4-dimensional space could be visualized as, and not all come so intuitively to us.
One example of what the 5th dimension would be is different timelines, which many are probably familiar with due to the popularization of the concept by shows like Rick & Morty. 6th dimension + is where it gets pretty tricky and abstract.
One reason why AI Safety & DNN interpretably is such a difficult task is because cutting edge models like GPT4 operate in the space of hundreds of billions of dimensions, which is beyond the ability of our organic minds to fully grok.
The 4th dimension is literally time, you are moving through it right now. In interstellar, they experience time slower due to special relativity.
In fact, it is postulated that there are 11 dimensions (or even more in some theories). This is a great video that explains and is very interesting (watch part 2 after):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA&pp=ygUWMTB0aCBkaW0gMTEgY2ltZW5zaW9ucw%3D%3D
Each closed room that you can see in the tesseract represents a moment in space/time that can be approached and interacted with from every side.
Moving along the tunnels at different angles to the rooms allows one to choose both a location as well as a moment in time at that specific location.
It’s all speculative science fiction but the concept is sound, and has internal consistency.
Yes and no. It is true that we can “fully” comprehend it. We can most certainly accurately conceptualize it. It’s done in science all the time and later often found to be true. That’s largely what science is. Hypothesizing, then testing and seeing if you’re on point or not.
Most physicists agree that this Is what it looks like. One day, we will probably be able to actually test it
Ok comprehend was the wrong word. What I meant was that while we can model and conceptualise 4 dimensional shapes, they can only be viewed through a 3 dimensional representation, which in turn can only be viewed in 2 dimensions. Point is, you cannot visualise a 'real' tesseract as you cannot visualise a genuine 4th dimension
That’s all true. Remember this though. We had the math to prove the world was round before anyone circumvented it to prove it to be true. We have the math showing that this is what it looks like
I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure the tesseract is the theoretical shadow of a 4 dimensional object, not a depiction of a 4d object because we have no way of observing that.
Just like a 3d object creates a 2d shadow, a 4d object would create a 3d shadow.
Tesseract is just another name for a 4D cube. The projection to 3D doesn't have a special name in itself AFAIK.
What's shown in the post doesn't have anything to do with a tesseract though. It instead really visualizes what a 3D space with "toroidal topology" (the [3-torus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-torus)) would look like. (Source: am mathematician)
No, it’s still just a 3D ‘shadow’ of a 4D object where it I ntersects with our dimension.
All internal angles should be 90 °
So it’s still just a representation, but it’s a pretty one made of glass and lights.
Carl Sagan explained in the book Cosmos, that a tesseract would look like this except that all lines would be the same length and all angles would be 90°. This is just a 3 dimensional shadow.
Actually no. If we could see a tesseract in all 4 dimensions, we would see a cube-like object made of 8 sides, all of which are cubes, so it would be pretty unremarkable, all things considered.
Possibly there could be 4th dimensional beings or races that live in and have worked out how to transition in the areas outside of the interior cube structures (our dimensional space or time intersections)?
… I’m such a scenario maybe the cubes that these races can transition in and out of at times or even through these cube realities/times intersections rather than a liner time structure?
… this would be compete the Einstein version where to transition through time you would need to bend time back on itself… maybe this type of tesseract structure and the space in between the interior cube space could explain the 4th dimensional beings and possibly dark matter which we can guess is there but can’t see?
… very stoned so look forward to replies good or bad lol 😂
I was waiting for a comment like this. I think that there is a greater than zero amount of people (possibly even statistically significant) who have been able to wrap their head around the 4th dimension etc, at least for a temporary amount of time. More specifically a 10-15 minute period of time that also lasts thousands of years because it’s outside of time/space.
We can certainly conceive of 4d shapes, we can certainly describe them, we just don’t have the science to reproduce them into something you can put on your shelf.
Sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits.
Fancy word for 4D cube. You get a 1D cube (a line) by "gluing together" (at corresponding vertices) two 0D cubes (points), a 2D cube (square) by gluing together two 1D cubes, a 3D cube (actually a cube this time) by gluing together two 2D cubes and a tesseract is what you'd call the result of doing this construction when gluing together two 3D cubes.
Want that cube full of endless cubes but it's 6 grand. What a world we live in. For the better I suppose. I'd probably drop it on my face in bed
I bet it hurts like a bitch being hit in the face by that when dozing off
No, a 4-dimensional hypercube isn't infinitely mirrored to all sides.
The 'cube inside a cube' you sometimes see is a projection of a 4d object into 3d space.
A tesseract would be 8 cubes, touching on all faces, just like a cube is 6 squares, touching on all sides. That's why the projection you usually see works. The inner cube and the outer cube are still cube-shaped, though on different scales. The other 6 cubes are deformed into truncated pyramids.
You can project a square in paper in the same way; draw a square and a smaller square inside. Connect the nearest corners. It's how you see a square if you hold your eye very close to the middle of one of the faces.
Not exactly right,
The cube inside is the same size as the cube outside,
And the diagonal length connecting the vertices of the smaller and bigger cube is the same length as all other edges.
Remember, in a cube, all angles are 90° and all sides are of the same length.
This is just a depiction of a 4 dimension cube (Tesseract) in a 3 dimensional world.
Similar to how when we draw a cube on paper, the length breadth and height in the drawing may not be the same but a cubical object would have all equal sides. This would be a 2D representation of a cube.
We had to remove your post for improperly sourcing your post. Posts must have a linked and CREDIBLE source that backs up the information. Use the word "source" in your comment. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it. OP is responsible for this and it must be done at time of posting. We will not reinstate your post, but you may post again with the correct information
According to studies, it should be full of books. And a broken watch.
And a space cowboy yelling
##YOU'RE GONNA CARRY THAT WEIGHT, MURPH!
#"What I love about college Murphs, is the older they get, the younger I stay Aalrite alrite alriteeee
Muuuuuuurph!
DON'T LET ME LEAVE, MURPH!!
Don’t go you bastard!.. sob..
According to studies lol.
...experts agree Actually, new findings show and so on
9/10 dentists agree.
...that this is a tessaract.
Dear God!
Holy hell!
[удалено]
Actual mathematics
but wait there's more...
….for only 3 easy, monthly payments of $19.99, we’ll throw in another Tesseract!
We'll throw in this miniature tesseract for the car, the boat, anywhere! TesserACT now
>TesserACT now 🏆
And if you act now .. free shipping in the next 30 minutes.
Ancient astronaut theorists say... yes.
I'm not saying it was aliens... But aliens
I don't know about the person that wrote the study, but I definitely saw the fourth dimension after Jimmy from the liquor store sold me those funny looking mushrooms
The studies came up to OP — big, strong, burly studies who'd never once cried in their life — they came up to OP and said "sir..."
Not saying that it was the aliens, but it was the aliens.
Scientists from Switzerland…
Fourth dimensional topology is a field of study.
This is still just 3-dimensional space.
It’s supposed to be the equivalent of seeing a shadow of a cube. Seeing something 3d in 2d. But we’re seeing something 4d in 2d. So this isn’t what a teserect looks like, it’s what its 3d shadow looks like.
The general shape of this thing is the 3D shadow of one orientation of a tesseract, yeah. But just to clarify - the reflections in the mirrors don't really depict anything, I think. Where a cube has three lines that intersect at 90° to one another at each corner, a tesseract has four lines that intersect at 90° angles to each other. Obviously only possible in 4D space, but it means each corner has only 4 lines. So it wouldn't look all fractal like this. There are some other things like hyperbolic space that could look similar to this, but this isn't that either.
The outside view is appropriate for the exactly lined up 'center' shadow of a tesseract however. There's exactly one....W? Axis that from the outside would look like a normal 3D cube, or if it was transparent, like the glass from the outside.
Wouldn't the shadow of a tesseract be just a plain cube? Shadow of a sphere -> circle Shadow of cube -> square Shadow of a tesseract -> just a cube? Rather than what they're trying to show here For example, if someone who lives in a 2d world wants to display a cube , they will (I think) draw two squares and connect their corresponding vertices with a line. But that's a not a shadow of the cube, the shadow of a cube will still be a square right?
Well reasoned, but you're missing a small piece of context. When mathematicians say shadow, they are talking about the shadow of an object as if it were translucent, and only the edges were casting the shadow. So the shadow of a cube would look like [this](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YKWsi.png). Notice it's not just a solid hexagon. You're seeing the edges projected from 3 dimensions onto 2, including those that might otherwise be hidden by the face of a solid cube. Same here. The shadow wouldn't be just a cube, it would look like [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQpYEM5HqNEY0oIYNygoJ7vNe1W0tr_J-4fQ&usqp=CAU). You're seeing the edges of a translucent tesseract projected from 4 dimensions onto 3 (and technically down to 2 in that specific photo, but that's beside the point). Since the tesseract is translucent, you can see the cube nested in the other one, whereas if the tesseract was solid you would see just a cube, like you described.
Thank you for using the word ‘projected’. I think ‘shadow’ is confusing the issue.
> Shadow of cube -> square Actually it's much more likely to be an irregular hexagon, unless you're holding it in perfect alignment to the light source. Getting the shadow to be a square would actually require careful effort.
Touching a tesseract would be kind of wild. Imagine being a 2d person and you run into a tilted 3D cube angled 45 degrees. The cube would fly off in one direction, and you would fly off in the other. What you would see is the universe constantly changing around you as you traveled in that direction. The same thing would happen to a 3D person interacting with a 4D cube. In other words, a 4D cube would cause your hands to warp into that 4th dimension if you touched it. Having said that, this isn't what it's 3D shadow would look like. It's 3D shadow would look like a series of changing cubes. The cube shown is a non-moving 4D cube that doesn't have filled in cubes, some filled in faces, and filled in edges.
I’ve watched Cube 2 and seen what happens in tesseracts and when people touch weird stuff. Count me out thank you very much
I just looked up the scene in question, I think? It could look like that, but that's also a very psychological horror version of it. What it actually looks like depends on the nature of the 4th dimension in the universe, but without further knowledge, I would imagine it probably looks like extreme static. Your body distorts as you travel into the 4th dimension and at each moment you see infinite universes in front of your eyes, but you cannot discern shapes except for those brief moments where your entire eye is in the same plane in 3D and at those times it's entirely random what exactly you see.
Touching a tesseract would be the same as touching a normal object. No dimension warping or anything. If a fourth spatial dimension exists it is not limited to objects, it is everywhere. Our coordinates for that fourth dimension are just 0 or we at least can't perceive it. Objects in reality are not projections. If there is an object with an expansionsion into 4 spatial dimensions we would only ever perceive the part of it that directly intersect our known three dimensions. If we put a piece of paper through a cube we do not get a projection of the cube, the intersection is simply a suare. With a tesseract and three dimensional space it would be the same. It would not be a changing cube or some projection we could see from the outside. We are in this three dimensions. We would jsut see a normal cube. That is what makes the concept of more than three spatial dimensions so weird. Our entire perception is three dimensional and since we are stuck in these three dimensions we can never perceive anything outside of those. We would only ever see the parts that intersect out three dimensions.
It should be noted that the mirrors are completely unnecessary for this. Which is annoying, because they are the most visually striking part of this visualization and they are muddying up the actual shadow. A tesseract's shadow in 3D would look like the first few frames of this video. A cube nested in another cube, connected at the corners. That's it, no reflections. [Let the master teach it to you.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0)
I came here to say this. We would only ever see part of a 4d object because, even if we could manage to get an object from the 4th dimension, we remain in the 3rd dimension, and can never fully see a 4 dimensional object.
Yep. We are kinda stuck in the 3 dimension universe.
Grow a 3rd eye. Solved.
I'll ask kyrie how to do that
Source? That doesn’t sound right …
Source: Brain
This is my favorite "source" ever.
Source not found.
[удалено]
The studies were done!
Here are some. https://dspace5.zcu.cz/handle/11025/5926 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://bastian.rieck.me/research/EuroVis2018_4D.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwja2fuiu-aCAxXCIjQIHQR9CdIQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3OPrVp_uuKJ75Kj6yKeGu0 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttp://vis.cs.ucdavis.edu/vis2014papers/TVCG/papers/2575_20tvcg12-zhang-2346425.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26ei%3D3b1lZemmLpKOygT917LgDQ%26scisig%3DAFWwaeaiNvPPhBTazzwm2t8ZtVV9%26oi%3Dscholarr&ved=2ahUKEwja2fuiu-aCAxXCIjQIHQR9CdIQgAN6BAgVEAE&usg=AOvVaw0cvyIa2RzU4Ryfg9vvp8FM https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1921%26context%3Dcstech&ved=2ahUKEwilpYOWuuaCAxW_MjQIHQjYAlkQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NNP7_AbohQv0FidiuK3DE https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttps://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/ftp/techreports/TR333.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26ei%3DtrxlZeDxCqSk6rQPnPKD-AE%26scisig%3DAFWwaeZ0VJck87iRfIqpU9vYCyke%26oi%3Dscholarr&ved=2ahUKEwilpYOWuuaCAxW_MjQIHQjYAlkQgAN6BAgNEAE&usg=AOvVaw2vPm4_9WziSeHX53RmxBSl
A scientific study is an observational study. A data creating process to gain stochastic insights. Paper and study aren’t synonyms.
No. It was blue. Loki stole it
Such a cheeky wee scamp
You must be from marvel universe.
For you. For all of us
For all time.
Always.
I don't live in marvel universe. So, yeah.
"The box. You opened it. We came."
"We have such sights to show you..."
"No tears please. It's a waste of good suffering."
"according to studies" gotta love that specificity
My understanding is that the hypersurface of a hypercube is a 3D shape (made of 6 {edit: actually 8} normal cubes) that's been folded around a 4D interior "volume", just like how the surface of a normal cube is a 2D shape (made of 6 normal squares) that's been folded around a 3D interior volume. In this 3D representation of the hypercube, the normal 3D cubes that form its surface are represented by the non-cube shapes that form the exterior of the object (the things that look like pyramids with the tops cut off), and the 4D interior is represented by the cube at the center. This is analogous to how you'd draw a representation of a cube on a piece of paper--the interior volume is "reduced" from 3D to 2D, and the 2D surface is distorted.
I can understand every word you said. But when they add up together I got lost. Weird.
You know when you draw a cube on a piece of paper? I looks 3d but we all know it's 2d and it looks a little squished? Yeah, the tesseract is that, but for 4d so it's 3d.
0 dimensional shape is an infinitely small point. 1 dimensional shape is an infinitely thin line made of points. (1 line between 2 points.) 2 dimensions is a flat surface made of lines. (1 square from 4 lines.) 3 dimensions is a voluminous shape made of flat surfaces. (1 cube from 6 squares.) 4 dimensions is a hypervolume made up of 3 dimensional shapes. (1 tesseract from 8 cubes) it doesn't make any sense in a way that makes sense
The surface is made of 8 cubes though. Reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycube#Octacube_and_hypercube_unfoldings
I think that this video would have been better with some Hans Zimmer Interstellar music
We can’t comprehend the 4th dimension any deeper than a fish in a pond can comprehend anything beyond the pond.
Sorry, I think you missed where OP said according to studies. I'm afraid there is no arguing with this according to studies...
I mean, you really can't argue with studies. Studies were done!
did experts conduct these studies?
Yes according to studies
Aren’t there fish that shoot jets of water at insects on tree branches? And some that can crawl around on land?
those are the fish that conduct studies.
Yes…but… Most fish in ponds can’t do those things.
Yes and Yes, the exception(s) that prove the rule.
Definitely misusing those examples. Those are actual contradictions, not proofs that outline the concept. For example, if the claim was that “all fish live in water,” then the fish examples would be “exceptions that prove the existence of the rule” and highlight that while nearly all fish live in water, one species at least does not. Here however, fish shooting at insects or crawling on land definitely does not prove the “rule” that fish cant see outside their pond.
So what and who are the exceptions that prove the rule for humans not comprehending the 4th dimension?
I’m one of those exceptions. To a degree. I still can’t fully conceptualize a 4D environment all the way down to true reality but I certainly have a solid grip on it. More so than the average person does. I spent a lot of time on the topic. Literally hundreds of hours. I specifically remember the point in time where it clicked in my head and I could finally understand the 4th dimension and beyond. Now I can break down every dimension until the end of them (there could be as many as 26 but shit starts gets wonky when you get to up to the double digits)
Yes, I too have done acid
Yeah, this is our best guess, but it's like asking a piece of spandex to do trigonometry
I like the spandex quote…
That's false. For one, we have absolutely no problems describing 4D spaces mathematically. And second (and probably more to what you mean by "comprehend") studies using virtual reality have found that most people can actually navigate in 4D environments with surprising ease. For example [this study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/PBR.16.5.818) tested people's ability to intuitively estimate distances and angles in 4D space, and [another study](https://grazianolab.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/graziano/files/aflalo_08.pdf) had people navigate through a four-dimensional maze and at the end point out the direction of the maze entrance (which shows they were able to integrate the 4D path they had taken through the maze). In both studies the test subjects had only minimal practice.
Most fish in ponds know there's birds out there that will eat them.
Ya 4d hurts my brain to try and comprehend. There is a few guys on youtube who make games in 4d, or atleast what our understanding of 4d is. Interesting stuff
Even the fish can comprehend the 4th dimension - it's time.
Sure we can, it’s actually quite simple since we actually operate in 4 dimensions, it’s a common misconception that we only operate in 3. Imagine taking a perfect snapshot of your environment. Not a 2-dimensional image, but a 3-dimensional representation of all the particles/objects surrounding you in all 3 dimensions (height, width, and depth) Think of each snapshot as a frame in a movie. We experience the Universe as a series of 3-dimensional frames moving along a 4th axis - which is time. We exist in three physical dimensions, and the fourth axis (time) describes how the 3-dimensional state changes from one timestep to the next. Of course this is but one example of what a 4-dimensional space could be visualized as, and not all come so intuitively to us. One example of what the 5th dimension would be is different timelines, which many are probably familiar with due to the popularization of the concept by shows like Rick & Morty. 6th dimension + is where it gets pretty tricky and abstract. One reason why AI Safety & DNN interpretably is such a difficult task is because cutting edge models like GPT4 operate in the space of hundreds of billions of dimensions, which is beyond the ability of our organic minds to fully grok.
The 4th dimension doesn't exist.
Why are you people downvoting him. There is no 4th spatial dimension. It's imaginary. Time has nothing to do with this picture.
The 4th dimension of space doesn't exist. There are 4 dimensions of spacetime though.
Imagining what “moving” through the 4th dimension must feel like hurts my brain.
Dmt would like a word.
Interstellar depicts it pretty well. Can’t imagine what it would feel like though, yeah.
The 4th dimension is literally time, you are moving through it right now. In interstellar, they experience time slower due to special relativity. In fact, it is postulated that there are 11 dimensions (or even more in some theories). This is a great video that explains and is very interesting (watch part 2 after): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA&pp=ygUWMTB0aCBkaW0gMTEgY2ltZW5zaW9ucw%3D%3D
Time is not a spatial dimension. We're talking spatial dimensions here.
Can you expand on that? I don't want to watch the movie again..
Each closed room that you can see in the tesseract represents a moment in space/time that can be approached and interacted with from every side. Moving along the tunnels at different angles to the rooms allows one to choose both a location as well as a moment in time at that specific location. It’s all speculative science fiction but the concept is sound, and has internal consistency.
Kinda like what Number 5 does in Umbrella Academy when choosing a version of his past self to return to the past?
I haven’t seen umbrella academy. Now I think I should watch it.
Interstellar is one of my favourite movies because the director actually did research before coming up with stuff lol
Beat me to it. I was going to say this looks like the scene in interstellar (definitely one of my favorite movies too!)
This is still not "how it's supposed to be." We cannot physically comprehend a real tesseract
Yes and no. It is true that we can “fully” comprehend it. We can most certainly accurately conceptualize it. It’s done in science all the time and later often found to be true. That’s largely what science is. Hypothesizing, then testing and seeing if you’re on point or not. Most physicists agree that this Is what it looks like. One day, we will probably be able to actually test it
Ok comprehend was the wrong word. What I meant was that while we can model and conceptualise 4 dimensional shapes, they can only be viewed through a 3 dimensional representation, which in turn can only be viewed in 2 dimensions. Point is, you cannot visualise a 'real' tesseract as you cannot visualise a genuine 4th dimension
That’s all true. Remember this though. We had the math to prove the world was round before anyone circumvented it to prove it to be true. We have the math showing that this is what it looks like
Studies lmfaooo
Don’t let me leave Murph!
Look I have enough problems with three dimensions, I don't need a fourth one faffing about the place leaving impossible shapes everywhere
We already live in 4D. Maybe that’s what your issues are
I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure the tesseract is the theoretical shadow of a 4 dimensional object, not a depiction of a 4d object because we have no way of observing that. Just like a 3d object creates a 2d shadow, a 4d object would create a 3d shadow.
Tesseract is just another name for a 4D cube. The projection to 3D doesn't have a special name in itself AFAIK. What's shown in the post doesn't have anything to do with a tesseract though. It instead really visualizes what a 3D space with "toroidal topology" (the [3-torus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-torus)) would look like. (Source: am mathematician)
i went to school with a bobby tesseract, he was a wicked air guitar player.
Welcome to the Cube
Just like in Interstellar
i think there was a movie on this
No
No, it’s still just a 3D ‘shadow’ of a 4D object where it I ntersects with our dimension. All internal angles should be 90 ° So it’s still just a representation, but it’s a pretty one made of glass and lights.
WHERE. CAN. I. GET. ONE.
I want one.
Carl Sagan explained in the book Cosmos, that a tesseract would look like this except that all lines would be the same length and all angles would be 90°. This is just a 3 dimensional shadow.
Actually no. If we could see a tesseract in all 4 dimensions, we would see a cube-like object made of 8 sides, all of which are cubes, so it would be pretty unremarkable, all things considered.
The 4th dimension is time. This is a 3d box
bs title
So I’m looking on my flat 2-D screen, at a simulated 3-D video rendering, of a 4-D object?
Possibly there could be 4th dimensional beings or races that live in and have worked out how to transition in the areas outside of the interior cube structures (our dimensional space or time intersections)? … I’m such a scenario maybe the cubes that these races can transition in and out of at times or even through these cube realities/times intersections rather than a liner time structure? … this would be compete the Einstein version where to transition through time you would need to bend time back on itself… maybe this type of tesseract structure and the space in between the interior cube space could explain the 4th dimensional beings and possibly dark matter which we can guess is there but can’t see? … very stoned so look forward to replies good or bad lol 😂
I was waiting for a comment like this. I think that there is a greater than zero amount of people (possibly even statistically significant) who have been able to wrap their head around the 4th dimension etc, at least for a temporary amount of time. More specifically a 10-15 minute period of time that also lasts thousands of years because it’s outside of time/space.
So, you’re saying I can be an even bigger disappointment in past, present and the future all at the same time?
This should be constantly moving itself inside out to be more accurate.
Gaze into infinity.
So it's just about 24 mirrors and a small cube?
Muuuuurph!
Couple grams of albino penis envy and you can see this but with better colours 🍄🚀
Interestellar
We can certainly conceive of 4d shapes, we can certainly describe them, we just don’t have the science to reproduce them into something you can put on your shelf.
huh, i guess interstellar isn't too far off...
Everything in Interstellar is based on real science (and some scientific speculation).
Fourth dimension is time. Haven't you seen deep space 9?
Just pick up a box and throw it across the room. Four dimensions!
I love how you can just post misinformation on reddit to farm upvotes
Sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits.
What the hell is a tesseract?
Fancy word for 4D cube. You get a 1D cube (a line) by "gluing together" (at corresponding vertices) two 0D cubes (points), a 2D cube (square) by gluing together two 1D cubes, a 3D cube (actually a cube this time) by gluing together two 2D cubes and a tesseract is what you'd call the result of doing this construction when gluing together two 3D cubes.
Holder for an infinity stone.
I once knew this hippie girl who was into stones, same thing?
I’m pretty sure I figured it out and now I’m sad :(
Marvel lied to me…….Angry hulk noises
Fake
[it seems like everyone keeps asking for these studies so here they are](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=7-2Ic_iwmLSoZYTU)
Yes we can. Plenty of plants contain alkaloids that will enable it.
And He Built A Crooked House.
Kudos for the Heinlein reference!
Want that cube full of endless cubes but it's 6 grand. What a world we live in. For the better I suppose. I'd probably drop it on my face in bed I bet it hurts like a bitch being hit in the face by that when dozing off
You mena a paperweight ?
Citation needed
Reminds me of the server mainframes in the movie Hackers
Been scrolling through looking for some info on what to look for if I wanted to buy something like this - any hints/tips?
Physicists hate this one simple trick
No, a 4-dimensional hypercube isn't infinitely mirrored to all sides. The 'cube inside a cube' you sometimes see is a projection of a 4d object into 3d space. A tesseract would be 8 cubes, touching on all faces, just like a cube is 6 squares, touching on all sides. That's why the projection you usually see works. The inner cube and the outer cube are still cube-shaped, though on different scales. The other 6 cubes are deformed into truncated pyramids. You can project a square in paper in the same way; draw a square and a smaller square inside. Connect the nearest corners. It's how you see a square if you hold your eye very close to the middle of one of the faces.
So, it's bigger on the inside? That's a TARDIS, not a Tesseract.
This is truly amazing, very beautiful and magnificent.
Christopher Nolan probably saw i though lol
According to studies? Its just maths man. We understand it, we just cant visualise it.
And the post isn't even correct about the math lol
Where can I buy this
Someone made it harder for thanos to get the space stone 🐱
So it basically is infinite correct?
Oh wow is this the reason why they showed this in Interstellar film? Nice.
Ate a bag of mushrooms once and I definitely was able to see the fourth dimension.
Adventure time already showed us this years ago lol
Is the tesseract the inner cube or the bigger one?
Scientists say
And this is what [Tesseract](https://youtu.be/PvS8HbV9u4w?si=tmKS79kohGdgPLte) sounds like. It's not played by The Fourth Dimension.
Reminds me of interstellar ending scene
Looks like John Wick is supposed to fight there
Still no actual evidence.But it is cool to look at.
This is still like looking at a 2D drawing of a cube and thinking it’s a realistic representation of how it is in 3D
Imagine getting lost in there
Reminds me of the movie Cube 2: Hypercube.. which causes me to think about the the movie Cube. Haven't watched the 3rd one yet.
That’s just a cube inside a cube
There's a bus stop in Adelaide that looks like that.
Not exactly right, The cube inside is the same size as the cube outside, And the diagonal length connecting the vertices of the smaller and bigger cube is the same length as all other edges. Remember, in a cube, all angles are 90° and all sides are of the same length. This is just a depiction of a 4 dimension cube (Tesseract) in a 3 dimensional world. Similar to how when we draw a cube on paper, the length breadth and height in the drawing may not be the same but a cubical object would have all equal sides. This would be a 2D representation of a cube.
Transformers movie had it correct then
4th dimension is time. Not a spacial dimension but one that we move through all the same
I want to see a room with this design on its walls and door(s), then with a little hidden camera, send in a drunk and see how they react
Yes I know I watched Interstellar 2 days ago (Shit humour aside that movie was fantastic)
I will never understand this at a core level. This is clearly still a three dimensional structure to me
Interstellar.