Fourth Dimension. Any takers?

[Wolfie]

Well I got bored. I don't understand the first dimension, but the simplest two dimensional polygon is made of 3 lines; a triangle. The simplest third dimensional polyhedron is a tetragon. Four polygonal sides . Therefore the simplest fourth dimensional poly(give me a term here) must have 5 tetrahedrons put together is some odd way. Is there some sort of nether(please forgive my terminology. I'm freshman in highschool) area where you can place third dimensional spaces? This would obviously mean "parallel universes" if you want, but i don't like that. This would mean that our third dimensional world has no fourth dimensional value. Therefore it doesn't take up any fourth dimensional room, even though for the fourth dimensional space to exist it must be made up of third dimensional spaces right? I suppose if that is the best i can come up with though you older mathematicians can do better. Please help me.

[Rei]

Hum...
I don't try to visualize it in the way you do.
It's more of an idea/numbers sort of thing that's sort of breaking down and rebuilding all the time.

In any case. I see it as more of a thing that exists among us that we simply cannot see/process even if we saw it. Like minuscule bacteria, which can encounter things that are pretty much only 2D (like a surface) because it is so small. Perhaps something outside of our universe see things as 4D?

[logan235711]

first, the definition/use of dimension varies depending on which area you are studying during the 1960s and under. within the last 50 years or so we have made great strides to sort of combine most uses into a general umbrella. so all those older books where dimensions meant 'time' or maybe 'parallel universes' whatever aren't used for the most part today. the only use moderately given in in applied mathematical physics where x,y,z is for the first three dimensions, and t is usually a fourth variable used depending on which problem you are doing--as t often represents a time variable in a time function. but in any case, it's pretty rare and most people learn to stop that even today.

seeing things in higher dimensions isn't as hard as people might think. it's quite easy to sit and look at higher dimension objections and be able to visualize them with ease as you gain more experience--people do this all the time. for example people who specialize in equations of different dimension-orders soon use the visual representation for insights as well. since either of you do not seem to know advanced mathematics that deal with these dimension-orders the best way would be to draw them out, various objects of a certain dimension, and do it enough until you can see it fairly easy. anyone with higher mathematical experience can understand it easier by also have the ideas prebuilt to build on when looking at the objects--you have just one to work with (visual) so it will take a bit longer. however, once you get beyond say dimension 10 or so, there are so many lines you will have to draw that trying to learn it just visually would take way too much time--so you still have to start learning the mathematics at some point or it will become impossible soon enough.

[Wolfie]

Thanks, but what would you call a fourth dimensional polygon? not that it matters... I like knowing the details

[logan235711]

there's not a universal name for it. 4-polytope, polyhedroid, polychoron etc.

[qwerty]

The Book - Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions maybe what you're looking for. Project Gutenberg (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) link (illustrated version).

Otherwise let Dr Quantum (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) explain the concepts :).

[rwyatt365]

In any case. *I see it as more of a thing that exists among us that we simply cannot see/process even if we saw it. *Like minuscule bacteria, which can encounter things that are pretty much only 2D (like a surface) because it is so small. *Perhaps something outside of our universe see things as 4D?
I agree, I think that higher dimensional objects are simply beyond our ability to perceive. I don't think, however, that they are outside of our universe it's just that we have no mechanism for interacting with those objects except as they intersect out 3D environment. The fourth dimensaion - and higher - is part of this universe.

Now, consider this; if a three dimensional object intersects a two dimensional space it will manifest itself as a two dimensional object. Will a four dimensional object intersecting our three dimensional space manifest itself as a three dimensional object? As we (and everything that we experience) simply a fourth (or higher) dimension object intersecting third dimension space?

[ShaiGar]

I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was Time. The Time it takes to exist.

[rwyatt365]

I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was Time. The Time it takes to exist.
I've heard that said as well. For me, that seemed to be a cop-out, for the fourth dimension to be something as mundane as "time"! I wanted something more exotic.

[cielo market]

I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was Time. The Time it takes to exist.
I've heard that said as well. For me, that seemed to be a cop-out, for the fourth dimension to be something as mundane as "time"! I wanted something more exotic.

All right then, the fourth dimension is a realm of ideas that only exists in the mind. Happy? *;)

[rwyatt365]

I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was Time. The Time it takes to exist.
I've heard that said as well. For me, that seemed to be a cop-out, for the fourth dimension to be something as mundane as "time"! I wanted something more exotic.

All right then, the fourth dimension is a realm of ideas that only exists in the mind. Happy? *;)

Nope. I need complicated equations and barely understandable theorems with long, incomprehensible words.

[thegnat]

I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was Time. The Time it takes to exist.

same here

and rwyatt365:
just look at string theory. there you can get into long complex equations and multi-dimensions ;)

[ShaiGar]

The problem is that we're so used to time, as something we dictate, that we've never studied it.

thus it appears uncomplicated.

[INTJohn]

[QUOTE=Wolfie;366]Well I got bored. I don't understand the first dimension, /QUOTE]

I think you should first figure out & understand the first dimension before you try taking on the fourth, fifth or whatever.............

[chocky]

Now, consider this; if a three dimensional object intersects a two dimensional space it will manifest itself as a two dimensional object. Will a four dimensional object intersecting our three dimensional space manifest itself as a three dimensional object? As we (and everything that we experience) simply a fourth (or higher) dimension object intersecting third dimension space?

Yeah! We're all just tiny tips of higher-dimensional icebergs. I'm certain the major part of me exists congruent to the flesh I see and feel, but 'hidden' around some corner that 'I' can't turn.

Several years ago I saw a documentary about a team of mathematicians who had proved the existence of 11 dimensions. I was so moved I actually cried.

[Paul V]

I'm still part of the old school that believes Time is the Fourth Dimension. Sorry. :(

[Duncan Cade]

I also believe time is the fourth dimension. The more I think about it, the more i believe it. It just makes sense.
I could bore you with alot of text right now, but all I'll do is make clear my vote.

Time Team FTW!

Yeah! We're all just tiny tips of higher-dimensional icebergs. I'm certain the major part of me exists congruent to the flesh I see and feel, but 'hidden' around some corner that 'I' can't turn.

Several years ago I saw a documentary about a team of mathematicians who had proved the existence of 11 dimensions. I was so moved I actually cried.

Very interesting. Do you happen to remember the name or makers or anything else from that documentary? I'd like to give it a view.

[Meyer]

I also believe time is the fourth dimension. The more I think about it, the more i believe it. It just makes sense.
I could bore you with alot of text right now, but all I'll do is make clear my vote.

Time Team FTW!



Very interesting. Do you happen to remember the name or makers or anything else from that documentary? I'd like to give it a view.

The documentary I remember that went into the eleven dimensions was on string theory. I don't remember where exactly but I also just read/watched an interesting explanation of time as the fourth dimension. It went something along the lines of time plus the other three dimensions make up one entity. This entity due to outside forces such as gravity etc.. bends. Any straight line that is infinite but is pressured to bend eventually forms a sphere. According to this theory we won't be able to understand time as the fourth dimension until this concept is accepted. Much like the awareness that was created when the earth was understood the be round. Of course thes are not my ideas and I only have a rudimentary understanding of the concepts they are trying to convey.

[Meyer]

Strike that last comment. I think string theory evolved into m-theory which includes the eleven dimensions. It is hoping to be the unifying theory of the universe if memory serves me correctly.

[Nomad]

Was the documentary "The Elegant Universe"?

-Nomad

[ScottH]

Wow. Fascinating stuff.

I suggest thinking of dimensions as a mathematic and/or mental model only. Wording like "what is THE fourth dimension" don't really make any concrete sense.

As an arbitrary example, say I wish to measure sound waves striking the infinitesimally small tip of a pin. I wish to measure pressure (P) as it changes with time (T). I have created a 2 dimensional construct, and when I plot it I am drawing the 2 dimensional thing.

Mathematically, time does often take on a dimension of its own, and it meets all the required criteria. Its axis is mutually perpendicular to any chosen space dimensions, etc. Using that model, can you envision yourself as a four dimension construct experiencing yourself one 3D slice at a time? Can you imagine what an expanding balloon looks like in 4D?

Often, a prefix "hyper-" is added to any 3D shape to describe it's n dimensional form. So, "4D Hypercube" is made up of 8 3D sides, etc. A 4D hyper-tetrahedron would be the form you originally described.

Oh, and you asserted that the simplest 2d shape was a triangle. I would argue that this depends upon your description of simple. If you mean "fewest vertices or sides," then you are correct. However, the geometrically simplest form is that with the fewest sides or vertices in which the sides are parallel to some axis. That would be the line segment, square, cube, hypercube...

Oh, and someone mentioned Flatland. I highly recommend it :-)

[Hdier]

Everyones confusing me- there is about three or four different ways I think that you could be using the word dimension right now- which one is it?!?!?!?!?