# spacial dimensions

Hi everybody, I’m new here. This is my first post. Seems like a pretty cool site.

I have heard before that a space can have more than three dimensions. Can anyone explain how this would work. Is it possible to visualize a space with more than three dimensions when it is something that we have been competely unexposed to in life?

Just a thought to ponder on a quite night.

the first dimension is a dot
The second is a connected dot forming a line
The third makes a 3dimensional shape which we can percieve
The fourth is Time
Now from here up only quantum phycicist understand. Ive seen 3d cubes and 4d cubes but they got like 5d cubes and 10d cubes. They are verry Hard to understand, thats why most people dont know about them beyond what they are told through media.

Damn the media. I find this so interesting but I don’t think I’d have time to study it. And I don’t think I’d have the time to consider this a serious occupation so I doubt I’ll ever learn enough of it to fully grasp any of it but… The superstring theory says there is 11 dimensions. 1-4 have been explained but I have no idea about the others. I saw a news article on it but it was stupid… stupid stupid stupid… I hate the news.

You should see a 4 dimensional cube and compare it to a 6 or even 5. It grows beyond your eyesight and turns into a puzzle for the mind to understand. They need to make one but there in lies the problem. We can make a dot, we can make a line, we can make a 3d cube and we can give you a clock but they cant take a 5d cube and make it in 3d

If you can perceive a 3d cube as a square, why couldn’t you perceive a 5d cube as a 3d one? After all, it all resumes to perception. They all are 10d.

Explain how it is all 10 d?

But The way i see it you can not perceive something by a lower or suboridnate version. Can you understand the working of a nuklear reactor by looking at a lawnmower? They are both engines and both power something they have fuel sources and such but one is Far more complex than the other. Besides if it was do-able wouldnt we had already seen a new rubix cube now in 5D.

That’s what a 4D cube looks like for anyone who’s interested.

I can hardly make sense of it, so I shudder to think how I’d go trying to envisage an 11D cube.

reminds me of a blackhole or a wormhole. the bigger box keeps going around and into itself. Sorta like that little squeeze toy where it is doughnut shapped but elongated. and its filled with water so it makes it real slippery and hard to hold on to, if you squeeze it the inside moves to the out and the out into the in.

hey, thanks to all who replied. JP, that is some pretty interesting stuff, mind blowing. do you have any more pictures of multi-dimensional objects higher than 4D, or is it even possible to visualize?

BluTGI, you said that the fourth dimension was time. how is it then that the object JP illustrated is 4D? how can time be represented in a picture? just wondering.

its the movement, watch it fold in upon itself. The movement makes it so, none of the others moved.

the 4th dimension is time, so really, that cube is in 5D, 4 spacialdimensions and time, just as a cube is 4D, 3 spacial dimensions and time. It’s just that we usually ignore time when describing stuff.

To BluTGI: I can’t explain how it is all 10d. But modern observations and calculus have shown that.

No, you can’t understand how a nuclear reactor works by looking at a lawnmower. I didn’t mean that. I meant something like … you can perceive a cube as a sqare (from the right perspective). Why couldn’t you perceive a 10d space in 3d, then?

you can but you wouldnt understand it. You would only percieve what you already understand.

you can but you wouldnt understand it. You would only percieve what you already understand.

right, so we can see the cube on paper constructed by squares because we have already visualy seen cubes.

i understood everything, till the fourth dimenstion came along.

time? so what exactly does this mean? how do we know this?

also, is the 4d (5d?) animation just a rotating 4d(5d?) cube or does it move in its very nature?

oh and:

so this means we could come accross ( or even in contact ? ) objects that are not of our own dimension? can anyone explain how this would work? lol , better yet could any one point me in the direction of some reading ?

Laws wrote:

I would say no and yes, we cannot come across or in contact with objects in higher dimensions, but higher dimensions can come across us.
Think of it this way; take a pen and paper and draw a square, then draw a person inside that square.
This person is in a 2-d world. He knows only what is in his dimension because he cannot leave the square , he cannot leave his dimension. Furthermore, he cannot know any higher dimensions again because he cannot leave his 2 dimensional world.
Now the only way this person would be able to experience any higher dimensions is if you came along and pulled him out of the square into our dimension. So now the person knows not only his dimension but ours as well.
My point is that, perhaps, higher dimension can interact with lower dimensions but not vice versa because higher dimensions are built on, and therefore able to encompass, lower dimensions.

JP,
I can’t stop staring at that cube of yours. It’s addictive, I have nothing to add to this thread but find myself in here staring at the cube atleast once every two weeks. Maybe it works as hypnosis, or maybe it can be used as a meditative device…yes I’m trying to grasp onto anything here…

Can you get any others?

lol… I had it as my desktop for a while… try concentrating with that behind every window…

The first 3 dimension have been explained.

(1D,2D,3D)
(x,y,z)

4D â€“ Time (This has to do with movement)

(1D,2D,3D,4D)
(x,y,z,t)

If two object have the same x,y,z then the t has to be different. Or put another way so long as at least one of the x,y,z,t is different between the two objects the (x,y,z,t)â€™s are valid.

Now it goes a little nuts! But this is the logical way to see it. Normal space starts to break down, and youâ€™re looking at the stuff the universe is always made of whether there is matter there or a perceived vacuum.

5D â€“ Energy levels / Wave lengths of Matter (as all matter or empty space is just energy. Also there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. There is always energy there, this is called Zero Point Energy. See the tread on this in this forum. What type of Matter is in a vacuum?)

PV

I know I’m going tangential here, but I had some loopy ideas about dimensions the other day. Basically I rejected everything (the little) I know about physics and suggested a Kajunist approach:

Is it possible that each of our three main dimensions could actually consist of several dimensions each? I was just pondering Locke’s division of the world into primary and secondary qualities, and it strikes me as fully possible that, rather than objects consisting of these things, objects could consist of several different sub-dimensions in each dimension. This could be a similar concept to that used in 3D modelling, where several bump maps are used on an object to achieve varying reflectiveness, shade, rubberyness, and so on.

Perhaps the same occurs in our universe. The dimension of X, for example, going from left to right, is actually xa, xb, xc. xa contains the ‘colour’ portion of substance (that is to say, the part of the object that light is split using) and the ‘sound’ portion. xb contains the other forms of reactivity hardness, malleability… and xc contains the ethereal essence of the object. Ad infinitum, so that we end up with 3x thousands of dimensions, and haven’t even touched the unseen dimensions.

I.e. each of our three dimensions consists of an ‘array’, and every ‘pixel’ of the X dimension has a number of attributes, that are then consulted whenever there is a change in the universe. Essentially, matrix theory again, meeting chaos theory along the way.

Basically, if you were to extract everything you know about a cube of wood, for example…and list the characteristics -alignment in all dimensions, type of every molecule - of that cube. You’d have a huge but finite (hopefully) list. Repeat for every object in the universe. And you’ve got a massive amount of data, but most of it slots into common fields/headings. But when you do this, you’re being analytic. What if the universe actually operated that way to begin with. And you’re just doing a lot of work creating a database which already exists. In the mind of an ant, no doubt.

And then if you (i.e. God) were to null one field, say the characteristic of being sexy. Or invert it! We’d all suddenly become attracted to Boris Becker!

The chemical composition of the object would be derived from the properties of the object. That is to say, chemistry would be observation based and chemical properties wouldn’t be the root of the secondary qualities, it’d be the other way round. Chemical properties would take second place.

Three main dimensions - spatial dimensions, yes. I’ll ignore the concept of four dimensions for now as conflicting with my disbelief in time.

Storage of the arrays of attributes: in whatever system of material existence you believe in. The idea is probably compatible with both materialism and idealism, and the in-betweens. From a solely materialist perspective, all the attributes must therefore be stored as material objects. Whether each attribute is represented by a subdivision of a quark, who knows, but it’d be down there somewhere.

From a dualist perspective, and so by extension, from The Matrix perspective, the arrays would be stored in an otherworldly existence, which are then ‘projected’ to create/simulate the real world. From idealism, the same is true, only that both the array and the real world are non-material, and therefore could be the same entity (as materialism but without material).

more