an extension of the shadow perspective would be that 'someone' in the 4th dimension would see us like we see shadows on the wall, but we'd see a 4th dimensional like a '3 dimensional apparition or ghost'
Seeing even professional mathematicians, who work with 4d and higher, lament that they can't visualize higher dimensions made me realize it's probably a human limitation.
It is entirely that. We don't see infrared or ultraviolet light because we never evolved a need. Similar premise, we've never evolved to experience fourth dimensional space, the difference being fourth dimensional space doesn't exist around us like ultraviolet or infrared light.
That's the point of a lot of math and science. To put on paper what we cannot experience in reality, yet it exists anyway. In practice, the W-axis for our universe is time, we can see, to a limited degree, that axis but only in one direction, the past. But the other direction, the future, is invisible to us. Likewise, we can travel through that W-axis in one direction only, the future, but the past is forever locked away. The only theoretical exception being space-time bending phenomena like black holes and wormholes, 4D objects that manifest at the absolute extremes of our understanding of physics and the universe at large.
The best guess is time. As in (in theory)... Nothingness (Absolute and Non Absolute) Dot (Singularity and Non Singularity) Line (Parallel Connection or Isolated) 2d Plane (Perpendicular Connection or Isolated) 3d Plane (Hyper Directional Connection or Isolated) 4d Omniscient Time (Greater Singularity or Hyper Infinite Directional Connection) 5th Dimensional Alternate Time (Axiom Directional Connection or Axiom Isolated) 6th Dimensional Origin Points (Infinite Origin Alpha(s) and Omega(s) Directional Connection or Isolated) 7th Dimensional Conceptual Directional (Major Singularity or Axiom Alpha Omega Connection) 8th Dimension (True Singularity or Alpha Omni Reality) 9th Dimension (Absolute Omni Singularity or Omni Directional Connection) In other words, this is... Null Universe Universe Universe+ Universe Infinite Universe Axiom Universe Omni Then, fold that reality again on repeat. Until you form the Matrix. But it doesn't stop there. Fold the Matrix into itself to form the Matrix Sequences. You'll hit an Omni Level where Add Infinitus Axiom becomes Extra Dimensional and stops becoming a Core Dimension.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 That is interesting but completely wrong. Time is its own thing separate from Space like a numerator and a denominator. "higher dimensions" are likely just mathematical artifacts like irrational numbers. Useful for math things, but not actually real.
I did as instructed and pointed in the fourth dimension direction. My finger broke into several pieces. and the sky was torn asunder. Then a Creature appeared, from the fourth dimension insisting i need to pay my fine for destroying time and space across the past. whilst slapping me with a goldfish. before vanishing back into its ear. My finger is still broken. Help
Trying to look at a four dimensional object represented by a three dimensional model on a two dimensional screen fed by a one dimensional string of 1's and 0's.
I wonder if I could use VR to better have an intuitive understanding of a 3d projection of a 4d object. Much like we can project 3d on to 2d screens and understand them.
I think my favorite way I've heard someone explain that the classic cube-inside-cube "Tesseract", is that it is the equivalent of lining up three rhombuses together into a hexagon and calling that a "Cube". The lines from the rhombuses make it appear similar to one perspective of a cube, but it is not a cube, it's still 2D shapes, the 3 rhombuses are still only making a hexagon. with the cubes, the 3D model as a whole looks like you're viewing one perspective of a Tesseract, but it is still not a Tesseract, it's still only 2 cubes with the corners connected. turning the 3D model around and looking at it from different angles never changes what perspective you're seeing the "Tesseract" from, in the same way rotating the combined rhombuses around together doesn't change what perspective you can see the "Cube" from. We can't visualize or comprehend a 4D space or object, and the only way to understand or explain it is by comparing it down a step to a 2D perspective of a 3D object, since that we CAN visualize and understand in full; It's how our eyes work.
Actually, the cube-inside-cube would be the analog of a square inside a square with the nearest pairs of diagonals connected. (Think about a cube that was just a wireframe along the edges, this is what it would look like if your eye was just above the top, looking down.) The rhombi-inside-hexagon would correspond to one of the other common Hypercube projections, the two offset cubes connected at the diagonals. In this model, the two "normal" cubes are the same size, just offset from each other in some direction, usually along a diagonal.
One more thing worth noting is that these animation aren't even 3d representations… because they're flat. They are representations of 4d in 2d. Our brains fill in the missing dimension.
We don't even see in true 3D to begin with, we cross reference two 2D images taken by our eyes and simulate the depth inside our brains. We are 3D creatures, in a 3D world, that can only see in 2D. Our ability to see in 3D being an illusion. This applies to EVERY sense, animals have two nostrils and two ears for the exact same reason as having 2 eyes, it allows them to determine the direction of sensory information in three dimensional space, and even determine the shapes of objects with certain species. A 4D being would likely be the same, their senses and perception would perceive the world in 3D, and cross reference sensory information from multiple angles to determine four dimensional depth.
@@Cri_Jackal Perceiving a world in actual 3D is such a wild concept to comprehend. We are limited by a 2D plane of a object in our eyes, thus it has hidden sides. But to a 4D creature, there is no such thing.
Great vid, thanks! the "folding" of the 8 cubes helped a lot! Think of this: -if you look at a line from the right perspective (end on), you see a dot with the rest of the line projecting away from you at 90 deg to your field of view distance "x". -If you look at a square from the right perspective (edge on), you see a line, length "x", with the rest of the square projecting away from you at 90 deg to your field of view distance "y". -If you look at a cube from the right perspective (face on), you see a square, dimensions "x" and "y", with the rest of the line projecting away from you at 90 deg to your field of view distance "z". -If you look at a tesseract from the right perspective (the point in the exact center) you see a cube with dimensions "x", "y", and "z", with the rest of the object projecting away from you at 90 deg to your field of view distance "w". So, pointing 90 deg would be pointing radially outward in all directions at once.
Tbh, he's got the dark beard and the little vertical line thru his right eyebrow, those are more Aquaman vibes. Thor doesn't mess with his eyebrows lol
3:20 I have successfully pointed in the W-axis and inverted my entire body. My insurance says they don't cover transdimensional corporeal inversions, just the regular corporeal inversions. What an achehead.
Honestly, if this means we should start calling so-called hypercubes/tesseracts (the 3d shadows people have been mistaking for the real thing) hypercube shadows/tesseract shadows, I'm all for that, makes them sound even cooler :P
@@HyperCubist The actual shadows are the images of the car that your eyeballs capture. Your brain derives the information of the car from the shadows of the car that it received from your eyeballs. So no, the car is still the car.
@@fluffrier There really are no shadows, just 2D projections. But as you point out, that's all we see - the 2D projections our brain uses to get an idea of a 3D object. But we don't see in 3D, otherwise we'd be able to look at all sides at once, and see the interior of a solid object. Similarly, the tesseract model is a single 3D projection of an ideal 4D object. In turn, we see that projection via 2D projections. That means we can see 2D projections of 3D objects OR 4D objects. You can't argue that we can only see "shadows" of 4D objects, but we can see actual 3D objects. Either way, we see 2D projections of the object.
Yeah, but it's a poor image. Do you imagine a cube as a square hiding behind a line segment? Doesn't make sense. A hollow hypercube is comprised of 8 (3D) cubes folded across a theoretical 4th spatial (hyper-spatial?) dimension, not just a cube and a square in any way.
@joesterling4299 when you are aligned to the side of the cube you see a square and the 4 segments of the 4 lateral faces which you are seeing by the side. What the guy said (can't remember the name rn) was that the representation we see of a tesseract on google, when rightly aligned (I suppose on all 4 axis), looks like a cube. Otherwise it looks like that mess in 3 dimensions just like a misaligned cube would look in 2 dimensions.
It's usually only when Joe has a guest that's even MORE of a conspiracy theorist that he has to draw a line, like, "Okay, I'm a nutcase too and even I think that's bananas."
I didn't realize people who ever bothered thinking about the tesseract animation didn't know it was a 2D embedding of a 3D embedding of a W axis rotation.
Same. I guess it doesn't surprise me that at some point some scientific miscommunication might have happened, but all the discussion I've ever seen regarding higher dimensional space has been careful to acknowledge human limitations.
Same, cuz if you dig yourself into a hole of sci-comm then it’s not that difficult to come across explanations that match with the lower dimensions. But then I realised I’d heard worse, putting possible worlds into the mix, I can see how people are not already familiar with all the concepts can get confused by a single gif with no explanation
@@leoelliondeux So basically you have up-down, left-right, forward-backward, aka the x, y and z axis, but we don’t really have the label for the 4 orthogonal axis because we simply cannot perceive it even if it physically exists, so we gave it the name w axis
Dude the shadow thing just blew my mind. So could that mean that if four dimensional beings exist we could see their shadows in our dimension as three dimensional objects?
Short answer, yes. It would only be visible if their shadow happened to land on our 3D plane of existence. If 4D space exists then that means that infinite 3D planes must also exist, in other words, infinite parallel universes.
@@anthonyward8853 > infinite parallel universes not really. it would be one _single_ universe, which we (potentially) just live on a flat slice of. notably, we would be affected by e.g. 4d gravity, unless this universe is like, on a sheet of paper flat on the ground.
@@anthonyward8853 > It would only be visible if their shadow happened to land on our 3D plane of existence note that the shadow would need to land on something for us to be able to see it, otherwise it would pass _though_ our plane. so you'd still need like a fog for the shadow to land on
If the 4th dimensional being/object happens to intersect our "flat" 3D space. Imagine a 2D being living on a piece of paper and there is a 3D pen going through it. At first the being won't see anything because the pen is not touching the paper. Then the pen starts penetrating the paper and the being sees the line of surface of the pen that is in contact with the paper. As the pen keeps going through the paper, the contact area changes and the shape that the being sees also changes. Then the pen is all the way through and no longer intersects the paper. 3D beings can still see the pen, however to the 2D being the intersection appeared out of nowhere, changed shapes for some time, and then disappeared again. If a 2D being looks at a drawing of a building, it will only see the lines that are not occluded. The being can't see what's inside and behind the house. But a 3D creature would be able to see what's inside and behind the house. That means that a 4D creature theoretically can see the insides of a living human being and any machinery that we manufacture without the need of xray or CT scanning.
It was a joke. A house shaped like an unfolded tesseract that folds across the 4th dimension into a real one, because, iirc, an earthquake? Heinlein probably laughed his ass off writing that one.
This lesson really brings to mind Plato's "The Man in the Cave". If all of reality is but a shadow to what actually exists fed to us by the limitations of our Simian brains, then one has to wonder what the world looks like in the sun and what kind of evolution has to occur to escape the cave we live in
Apparently I’m so late to the party that I didn’t get to see the utter face plant of crediting the cave to Aristotle! 🤦 That was the first lesson in the first lecture of my first class in college 1990. Then I went home and drank beer. Good times, good times…
@@JustDan_777 Time is 4th dimension. It is used as such so that the field equations work. Otherwise the equations won't work. So by this definition we are talking about 4 physical dimension plus one temporal dimension in this video.
From my understanding, the fourth spatial dimension is experienced as time by us. And looking at it as a cube within a cube isn't correct. That's like saying a cube is a square connected to a square. The lines connecting them are part of the shape. Those volumes that are like a pyramid with the top cut off are all sides of the depiction of the tesseract, and they are all cube-shaped despite not appearing so in the model. We're looking at eight cubes the same way a cube would look like six squares to us. That's why animations often depicted as being pulled within itself. It gives a better but not perfect understanding of it rotating.
@@kamikeserpentail3778 No, we just can't experience 4th physical, spatial dimension at all. Time is taken as 4th dimension because it is a (separate dimension but still a)dimension and is taking the 4th place but not actual 4th spatial, physical dimension. To better understand this, we are talking about 5 total dimension(including time) here.
The real problem is that people try to define dimensions as physically visual concepts- when in reality physical volume is only represented by the first 3 dimensions: 1. line, 2. area, 3. volume. The fourth dimension is, simply, physical volume over time, which means a volume can move its position in space, change its shape, interact with other objects. Space is no longer static with still objects in an infinitely static scene. The 4th dimension is what enables motion -and it's real representation from a physics pov is: energy. Energy is motion, and you can't have motion without time. In other words, the 3rd dimension is space, the 4th is spacetime (space extended through the dimension of time).
The wildest thing about 4D shapes is that my brain always feels like it’s JUST MICRONS AWAY from getting there. Like understanding is juuuuuust barely out of reach. It’s an insane feeling
Try to visualize 2D. Atoms and particles are 3d, light is 3d It has (picking 2) height and width, but no depth. What does it look like? Nothing What is it? Nothing Even empty space is 3d Light cannot reflect off 2d, it cannot be made of anything we've observed, in fact cannot exist in any way we know of. What does that look like? Visualize it. One needs to disregard reality to believe they've seen anything in 2d. Now, hold on to reality and attempt to perceive 4d... you can't do both.
You've just described exactly how I feel about this subject. I keep coming back to videos about 4D space because I think I'll have finally cracked the code somehow. Unfortunately, what ends up happening is I get a headache instead 😂 It's quite a leap too, because I, like everyone else, can't even see in 3D! If I could, I'd probably be a 4D being trying to conceptualize 5D while not being able to see in 4D.
There was an episode of Dr. Who called "Boneless" (correction: the creatures were called the boneless by The Doctor. The Episode was Flatline. Thank you @damienasmodeus928) that involved 2d creatures trying to comprehend our 3d existence. Similar vein just one dimensional lower.
Yep -and a way to take it further is to think what time enables. It enables static 3 dimensional objects to move, morph, and interact. It allows for motion. And what is motion? Energy. So the 4th dimension is literally the dimension of energy. And this also in a sense explains why a tesseract is traditionally defined as a dimensional source of energy (like in the Avengers movie). Because energy is literally what the 4th dimension is.
my guy you already failed when you said "STATIC 3 dimensional objects to MOVE" also time is the 4th dimension of losers, clearly we are taking about the 4th SPATIAL dimension
@Real_MisterSir You’re somewhat mistaken. In special relativity (the theory at hand here), there are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimensions. Note that 3 space dimensions and a time dimensions _is not the same as 4 space dimensions!_ (It is possible to tell them apart, but the reason is a bit technical. I’ve explained it at the end of this comment.) We call this “3+1D” spacetime “Minkowski space”, and objects are described by _curved paths through the space, moving forwards in time._ These objects have a momentum to them, equal to their (rest) mass times their velocity. Now, however, the velocity vector has 3 space components and 1 new time component. It turns out that _the time component of the momentum spacetime vector is equal to E/c._ So _energy is momentum through time_ or equivalently _momentum is energy through space._ However, momentum isn’t the only vector that gets a spacetime “upgrade”. For example, current density J - which is crucial to maxwell’s law(s) - can also be given a time component, equal to ρ · c - a form of charge density. So charge density is current flowing through time. Thus while energy is indeed related through momentum to time, calling time the “energy dimension” is inaccurate. Time does far more as a dimension than allow energy to exist. - - - What makes 3+1D different from 4D? In 3D, we find distances using the 3D Pythagorean theorem. If a point is at (x, y, z) the distance R from the origin (0, 0, 0) is given by this: R^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 In 4D, we just add a new coordinate, w. So a point at (x, y, z, w) is a distance R away from (0, 0, 0, 0) given by this: R^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 It turns out, however, that this isn’t how spacetime works. If we have a point in spacetime (ct, x, y, z) - we use ct so time and space have the same units - is a “spacetime distance” S away from (0, 0, 0, 0) given by: S^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 Because there is now a sign difference between time ct and space (x, y, z), it is always possible to tell time and space apart. Furthermore, it turns out trying to define rotations in spacetime (which must keep S constant, bc rotations don’t change distances) leads to all the “weirdness” of SR like time dilation and length contraction!!
@@Real_MisterSir pure BS yapping. The tesseract has nothing to do with the dimension of time. There are no higher spacial dimensions, there are only 3 spacial dimensions
The way I kinda wrapped my brain around it, a 4D creature could see 4D by overlaying 2 3D images of the same space, but seeing from slightly different 4D angles
@@PositiveOnly-dm3rx There are issues with time supposedly being a forth spatial dimension. The main one, in my opinion, being that there are two directions in each the three agreed-to spatial dimensions. Time only has one direction.
One part that I think is super cool and mind melting is that we can't even see the net of the 4d cube properly. Someone who can perceive 4d objects would be able to see all of the cubes which make the net up all at the same time. When we view it there is always a cube that we can't see (the one in the 'center' of the 'cross' section), plus multiple are often partially obstructed. Someone who can view a 4d object would be able to see all of the cubes, completely all at once. The same way when we look at the net of a 3d object then we can see all of the surface area, all at once.
Cool video bro, but as for your promotion of surf shark, have you not seen the new internal exploit which allows a threat actor to to funnel all your traffic, unencrypted through a device of their choice. It also forwards your request and completes it, meaning if this is happening or not, you would never know. Every vpn currently available now; is not secure. You can hide your locality, you can bypass checks with your isp. But its still not secure. Someone internal to the company has a way to view your data without alerting either you, or the company they work for to suspicious activity.
@@jasonrodwell5316No kidding, a proxy can see the traffic it forwards? Guys, this is a very serious problem, we might have to shut down the Internet...
Yeah, same as if you could only percieve two dimensions you wouldn't be able to see the middle square in the unfolded cube, it would be behind the ones to the sides
@aysnov nope, not the company but there is an undetectable way to funnel you 'encrypted' and 'private' data through a pipeline so that a malicious person can see all that private encrypted data unencrypted. So yes, this is a very big problem. It's undetectable by you or the company hosting the network. They complete the transaction so your none the wiser, but ALL of your traffic pushed through a vpn can be seen by someone with malicious intent and its undetectable. Look up the exploit. So your saying that's not a problem? Tell that to a company pushing private company data through a vpn that now is running straight through someone's device unencrypted with full access to EVERYTHING. And I will reiterate, not for legitimate use. This is an exploit, why would a company run an exploit on their own network? they can see your data to encrypt it. I mean, someone who should not have access to your data can see it. So yes, very big problem! These vpns are being marketed as an extra layer of security when in actual fact any and all vpns now, thanks to this exploit, are an easy target for someone trying to gain unlawful access to your data.
That last thing you said about us only perceiving the world in 2D is key. It's difficult enough to create a 2D projection map of a 3D Earth. There's no way to flatten it without distorting it in some way. If you flatten a tesseract you end up with a distorted cube. Just like map projections, the center area has the least amount of distortion. In that classic tesseract rotation animation you showed, if you're okay with the outer "cube surfaces" being warped simply to show which other "cube surfaces" they meet up with at the edges, then I think it does do a fairly good job of giving us a 3d projection of a 4d cube. And you can even see that in that specific animation it is rotating along the W-axis.
Imagine a circle falling through 1D land on it's side. The inhabitants of 1D land "see" a dot that grows to a longer and longer line that then recedes to a dot then disappears. Now, magine a sphere falling through 2D land. The inhabitants of 2D land "see" a dot that grows to a larger and larger circle that then recedes to a dot then disappears. Finally, you can't imagine a hypersphere falling through our 3D world. However, we of 3D land "see" a dot that grows to a larger and large sphere that then shrinks back to a dot then disappears.
@@krekolos421 dot is 1D, circle is 2D, ball is 3D, ball presented in the fabric of time, including future, is 4D... Object that casts a shadow shaped as a ball... 5D! And yes, that would be 5D and not 4D opposing to what Kyle said. And anything beyond 4D can't cast a shadow higher than 3D.
In one dimension you wouldn't 'see' anything because there would be no there dimensions to look to and from (i.e. left to right.) You're somewhat taking what Carl Sagan famously said using Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott as an example, but you're overthinking the explanation. A two dimensional creature watching a three dimensional object pass in front of it would indeed see a dot expand to a line and reduce again to a dot. If we were to see a four dimensional object pass through our world, we would only see a three dimensional segment of that object (I.e. a sphere, if we use a four-dimensional 'spheroid' as in your example.)
It depends what you mean with “see”, I suppose! We can describe 3D space with 3D vectors, which we call the space R^3. What our eyes do is project that space down onto a 2D surface with respect to a focal point. The resulting image can be described using _projective geometry_ - in this case the space RP^2, which is only 2D. The thing is, a 4D being would describe their universe with R^4, but could only see it by projecting it down onto their 3D retina, resulting in images living the space RP^3 - a 3D space. So personally I’d say “a 3D being sees 3D using a 2D image, a 4D being sees 4D using a 3D image”. There is a slight complication here though. So far, we’ve only described a single eye. In reality, we have 2 eyes in slightly different spots, which means IRL we can actually gain proper depth information. Whether or not this counts as “seeing 3D” is up to definition. Of course, a 4D being would use two 4D eyes at different 4D locations to get 4D depth information in their 3D image! Projective geometry is super neat in general btw, with things like “points at infinity” making sense (also called vanishing points, if you’re an artist). It should be possible for someone to lay out a scene in 4D on a computer, then use a 4D camera to take a 3D image of it, and then use something like a 3D printer to model it in 3D space. I think seeing that model is as close as we can get to “imagining” 4D space.
A cool way to think of that tesseract figure is that it appears mishapen because it's 3D cubical faces (as opposed to 2d square faces of a cube) are angled in the fourth dimension. Just like a 2d representation of an angled cube has its faces look like diamons or rhombi.
The angles in the 3d projection actually result from perspective. The inner cube is smaller in the model because it’s further away in the 4th dimension. In the 4D hypercube, every edge is the same length, every face is a square and all the angles are right angles.
True! But even if they appear distorted, they are still just as much cubes as our usual visual understanding. If we want to consider four dimensions, we simply have to update our visual rules for what cubes look like.
The best representation of the 4th dimension I've seen is "4D Golf". A minigolf game that takes place in genuine 4D space (3 horizontal axes and 1 vertical/gravity axis), made by the youtuber Code Parade, the same guy who made Hyperbolica. He's done an incredible job with the projection visualization and by providing multiple different projection variants. I think has done the best job at helping me intuit 4D space of anything I've ever seen. Hyperbolica did the same for hyperbolic and spherical geometry.
There is no such thing as 4 dimensions there are 3 please for the love of god stop this insane bs. There are three very very discernible axis and there will never be room for a 4th.
@@BrandonDenny-we1rw Mathematically, you can describe a space with however many dimensions you want. There's nothing inherently incorrect about even talking about a space with 43 dimensions. Or 12. Or 538. Or 1.
@@BrandonDenny-we1rw Physically, you might be right. But we can play "but what if?" and do the math of what a fourth dimension might be like. Which is possible, the math can do it. 4D Golf does the math and projects it down to 3D/2D. Much like Kyle's shadow is a 2D projection of his 3D self, the game projects what an imaginary 4D space might be like down to a 3D space, then our graphics cards project it down for our 2D screens. I'm not saying it actually exists - but we can still pretend.
You should've done the sphere through 2D "Flatland" analogy with the shadow wall to really drive home the point, and that the Tessaract is merely a 3D shadow of a 4D "cube" passing through our world. Just as we can look at the 2D world and see inside everything because their world allows us to (or our perspective allows us to). The 4D world would allow them to see inside everything in the 3D world (ours) for the same reason. That would have helped explain the shadow of the tessaract and how we see the shadow of it. As it turns around, it turns inside out as it rotates, then right side in and so on. Solid video nonetheless.
That's a cross-section rather than a shadow, but without specialised equipment that can pierce objects, we don't see 3D in 2D cross sections either; we see 3D as 2D shadows, which is a decent part of why I prefer visualising 4D as shadows rather than cross-sections, or worse shadows _of_ cross sections (because that's ultimately what things like 4D Toys use).
I was honestly wondering why Flatland never got brought up. It’s a fascinating metaphor to try to comprehend the concept of 4D, even knowing you can’t see it.
Carl Sagan used the Flatland example when talking about the 3rd and 4th dimensions, and it made it so much easier to understand the concept (which Kyle also alluded to when showing the snipped of Cosmos that had the bit I'm talking about). I tend to tell people to watch Cosmos and that episode (episode 10 if anyone was wondering) in particular.
If one face of a 3d wireframe cube is directly facing you, the 2d projection, accounting for perspective, does in fact appear as a square within a square. The inner square is smaller because it’s further away. In the classic 3d tesseract model, the inner cube is smaller because it’s further away in the 4th dimension. The animation of it rolling around like a strange donut IS nonsense worthy of a facepalm, though.
Sorry but this is wrong. It's **literally** the 3D shadow a 4D being would see in their 4D world of their 4D object. Think of shining a light onto a 3D cube and looking at the 2D shadow on the wall behind it. That shadow is the shape you would show a 2D being and tell them its from a cube in the third dimension. The 2D being would see the same exact shadow we see. And as you rotate the 3D cube in the light, the shadow on the wall changes shape. This is why the 3D tesseract we see changes shape as the actual 4D object is rotated, but it's exactly the same shadow a 4D being sees
11:18 I'm extremely confident that we've barely scratched the surface of what there is to know about this reality. Some Greek or Roman scholar once proclaimed that "We have discovered all there is to discover!", or something to that effect. Dude, we're just getting started.
Carl Sagan said that tesseract model is what a shadow of a 4D tesseract would look like. He said this a loooooong time ago. Trying to draw an analogy to what a cube on paper(a 2d plane) and What a tesseract may look like as a shadow projected into our 3D reality
Way I see it, if there are 3 spacial dimensions then there must be 3 dimensions or more of a higher power. Time is that dimension trio. There is the linear passage of time. There is the individual perception of time, and there is the collective quality of time. Linear passage is the common units which we measure time with. Days, months, years etc. The individual perception of time is how a single individual sees the times that they are in. The collective quality is the generally agreed upon sentiment of people as to what the times are about.
The Little Saints can show the way… if it’s the right set and setting. But each person’s tryp is their own, no matter how much the Experienced want to show the uninitiated. Very sad indeed that the Food of the Gods for one person can be a vomit-fest, or darkened hellscape for another. 4th dimensional vision quest? That is certainly within the myriad of realms one could visit… But, when people return from such a place, they almost invariably 1)forget their pen and 2)shit their bed again trying to explain what is was they just saw.
When I visualize the net of that tesseract being folded into a higher dimension as a 3D flat lander, I imagine each cube suddenly disappearing as it’s rotated about its edge on an axis which no known form of mass-energy can traverse. Probably the most accurate visualization of 4D objects I’ve ever seen was a depiction of one passing through our 3 dimensional plane. It would seem to suddenly appear, then constantly (appear to) morph as it continues to move along the W axis, showing different 3 dimensional cross sections of its 4D geometry before just as suddenly disappearing as the last 3D monolayer of the object passes through our plane.
Exactly. I came across a TikTok video recently that helped it all click for me. They challenged us to imagine what it might look like in a 2-D plane if you were to pass a sphere through it. All they can see is lines, so it would be a point that appears out of nowhere and starts extending into a line. The line gets increasingly long before it starts contracting again, ultimately disappearing as the sphere completes its trip through their plane. So yeah, it totally stands to reason that the same concept would apply with a 4-D object being passed through a 3-D plane
So if you imagine the 3rd dimension as simple volume, an outline of a shape. Imagine the 4th dimension as density, then keep putting empty boxes inside themselves, pushing, squeezing, "folding", until you have a 4th dimensional box that for all intents and purpose has the same external volume in 3 dimensions, despite actually containing multiple boxes within. Think about it, you can never truly look inside of something, you're just peeling back layers, but always on the outside. Like an onion, or any matter, what's the matter
@@momkatmax Just for this basic illustration I think it helps push people into the next step. I believe one day we'll just realize we've been looking at it all upsidedown. Easy as pi
@@XO7FOX True enough. I used to see the standard was "four dimensions, with the fourth as time". Then when the brane theory was postulated, it was 10 with one more kind of curled around those. Now 26. Perhaps there are unlimited dimensions or they top out at 42. Then I would smile.
I enjoy the fact that in a number of your videos you can admit that we don’t know or can’t do something. It leaves room for growth. So many presenters could learn from this.
look at the side of a line, you get a dot look at the side of a cube, get a square look at the side of a hypercube, you see the entire cube at once, from one receptor... we cant do that lol
Isn't seeing a dot or a line impossible? A dot is an infinitely small point and therefore invisible (and arguably actually inconceivable) and a line is simply a series of points but it has only length and no width (also invisible and inconceivable). A 2d object would be visible but without any depth it's also inconceivable beyond viewing it perpendicularly (and therefore from a 3rd angle, also even light has some depth). So we see in 2d but always perpendicular to that plane and move in 3d. But cannot see in any lower dimension nor move in a lower dimension.
I like how my math teacher described it: if we look at a 2 dimensional drawing, we can see the inner part of the shape. A being living in a 2d plane would see a line and the inner part is hidden to them. They see darker and lighter parts to give depth cues, but their vision is 1d so they cannot see the whole thing and the inner part is hidden. Similarly, if a 4d being looked at a cube drawing, their vision would be 3d, so they'd see the whole cube at same time including inside and back. When we look at a cube, we're only seeing a 2d projection of it, so the inside is hidden and the front blocks the back from view
Fun fact: in 4 dimensions there would be four possible doughnut shapes because instead of the one torus shape (doughnut shape) we have in three dimensions, there are four different tori shapes in 4 dimensions, in 5 dimensions you could have 11 doughnut shapes.
Except we live in a 4 dimensional universe and that's not true... time is a dimension. Don't belive me? Then try to catch a ball that was thrown 25 years ago. If you don't use all 4 dimensions then you can't do anything. Try meeting a friend without discussing the time...
@@PositiveOnly-dm3rxthere’s two types of dimensionality, temporal dimensions that you experience linearly, and spatial dimensions that can be moved through freely, we live in a 3 spatial 1 temporal dimensional universe, but what I in my comment and also Kyle in this video are referring to is a hypothetical 4 spatial 1 temporal dimensional universe.
@@thecalicodragon4103thank you for sparing me from having to write the same reply, a lot of people in the comments here seem to not understand this distinction.
There is a video called "4D Toys" that I think gives a pretty good idea of what 4D object will behave in 3D world, and show how bizarre it is. Also I honestly believe that if an individual could somehow "gain vision" to see and comprehend 4D space, he/she is very likely to go mad immediately.
4D Toys is actually an app made by someone who is now working on an actual 4D game called Miegakure, which is "coming soon" on Steam (and has been for like a decade lmao)
Whatever reason you think somebody would go mad after gaining that perception would probably be wrong unless it's about how they can now permanently see the insides and all surfaces of all 3d objects, including people and other living things, without a way to turn it off.
@@mr.theking2484 The sheer amount of raw spacial information in the 4th dimension as well and the fact that you keep seeing "ghosts" that no one else is seeing
The best depiction of 4D I’ve ever seen is 4D Golf by CodeParade. It’s a simulation of what a 2D camera would see if it could move freely in a 4D environment. You’re right, you can’t “visualize” 4D, but this game is the closest we can come to navigating in 4D space and having some kind of intuition for it.
The onionskinning was such a great aide in navigating 4d. By the time I finished 4D golf, I was thinking "hit it off the blue wall to bounce it orange" was as natural as "hit it off the north wall to bounce it south". It's still a replacement of the 4D "truth", but a very helpful one that really clicked with me
I like the visualisation in the video of 4d Minecraft where the world literally changes around you as you move through the plane, creatures exist that can only be seen in one orientation of the 4 dimensions etc
8:06 - "Did that help?" Actually, yeah it kind of did a little. What I'm picturing is seeing that weird shape-shifting illusion, but as this shape performs its rotations within actual 3D space right in front of me. The way the 3D cube's faces distort when being rotated on a 2D surface is the same type of distortion that'd manifest itself in 3 Dimensions if you were able to perceive a 4D cube rotating on a 3D surface. That also, I believe, could be one of the things that helps me visualize it - to think of the 3rd dimension not as a space, but rather as a surface. I love thinking about this sort of stuff, it feels like your mind is like just on the cusp of understanding it, but the understanding always manages to just escape you.
I picture 8 different-coloured cubes all existing in the same 3-dimensional space at once. But I'm also content with that just being one particular flavour of wrong.
What's most interesting to me about this topic is that as far as I know, no object or particle in our universe behaves like the shadow of a higher dimensional object. If it did, it would likely disobey one or all of the many laws of conservation that we believe to be true. I'm convinced that higher spatial dimensions (other than time) don't exist, and these hyper-gons are just useful mathematical constructs for describing things other than space.
Hmm I think that some things dont follow the laws of conservation of energy that we have, some things are also breaking of the various symmetries we've put in place over time so thats interesting as well
I'm a mathematician and that what me and a few other math folks thinks. N-space geometry is just a more helpful way to organize variables in order for the math to be easier and to find different solutions. I'm gonna hate to say it, but it like complex numbers. They again are an abstract concept meant to find different solutions to 2 variable problems in calculus and linear algebra that can be though in the math of geometry. Because geometry is some of the simplest math, and hard multivariable calculus could use it. Greens theorem anyone?
This is actually 1 of the theories to explain dark matter & dark energy. We can see the effects (extra gravity in the universe & the universe is expanding) but we can't detect the stuff causing it. Some scientists think it's because some matter exists in higher dimensions or in other universes & still affects 3D stuff in our universe.
@@Chad_Thundercock Usually we call that 4th dimension _time._ However, within those 4 dimensions, it's possible to construct an abstract 16-dimensional space, where linear, volumetric, and planar dimensions are treated separately. As it turns out, planar dimensions between two spatial directions behave suspiciously like "pure" quaternions.
It must have worked if you are able to come back to a time pre-brain explosion (since you are able to type) to tell us about it while still knowing that your brain did explode and that it simultaneously is just exploding.
Okay, so this is a niche nitpick BUT: there was a study conducted at Princeton in the 2000s (by someone named Graziano? Maybe? Its been a minute since I read the paper) that put forward the possibility that with sufficient practice interacting with 4d spaces human brains can actually be taught to reason natively in 4 dimensions (as opposed to just simulating or approximating it in 3 dimensions). If memory serves they did this with 4d puzzles or mazes on computers. It is far from conclusive evidence that that is possible, but it is a hint from a reputable source that it *might* be possible. And I just find that stupendously cool and tantalizing.
Seems logical that we could evolve to or learn to comprehend it with sufficient exposure to it, but the point remains that there is no way to get exposure to anything in 4D.
@@pieflies Videogames can simulate it. Those multithreaded cuda processors are designed to project 3D objects into 2D screens to interact and play with "3D" simulated objects. Put on a headset and they simulate 3D objects into a 3D visual for humans with 2 eyes. We can do this in fact. It would be insane though.
@@Aaron.Thomas You don't even need VR headsets. Everything we see is 2D. I've made tons of 4D models that you can rotate in 4D, shown on a screen. It doesn't take to much practice to learn to think four-dimensionally.
I would be interested to see if we could figure out/isolate what atypical brain activity in particular is responsible for the sometimes reported higher-dimensional perceptory experiences very specific psychedelics can cause and precisely induce it without psychotropic substances in a controlled setting to see if the ability to visualize higher dimensions can be temporarily activated. If it could from there it would follow that with proper care and methodology an intuition could likely be cultivated with repeated exposure. My curiosity stems from a 15 minute portion of a longer experience I had in my youth which left me 100% confident that our brains are fully capable of perfectly visualizing at very least 4d spaces given the proper circumstances, just that it is completely useless to survival and therefore not a default ability we develop. That said my guess is that it is only possible with either a restructuring of the brain or the brain misfiring/cross-talking/mixing signals like crazy (such as what is reductively happening on psychedelics) either of which are almost guaranteed have unpredictable additional cognitive effects.
@@Aaron.Thomasbut if we don’t really know what 4D looks like and can’t visualise it how would we create simulations of it that are accurate? Unless I’m just missing the point, your comment seems to be talking about VR displaying 3D objects, which is not the same as realistically simulating 4D objects.
3 games that have definitely helped me understand a bit more about 4 dimensions are: 4d maze, where you navigate a multidimensional maze (the cool part about this one is that it has a viewing mode that allows you to uncross/cross your eyes and put together 2 pictures to create a 3d projection, which is trippy when you are able to make it work), 4d miner, a mining/crafting voxel game where you play on a 3d slice of a 4d world and you can move your slice/viewpoint. It also has spiders, and the best way to build a house is to either dig into the ground, or you have to completely fill in the sides of your house (though my mind is wondering if rounding off the ends of the 4-dimensional sides of the house would be less resource-intensive). The last one is 4d golf, which is minigolf in 4 dimensions, and the cool thing is, is that you have two main viewing modes for golfing (with toggleable shadows of the hidden areas in higher dimensions)- your normal view, and the other is replacing your y-axis with the w-axis, having a more volumetric view. The last section, however, goes into 5 dimensions, and that's even more trippy, though each section has somewhat of a gimmick to each of them. In spite of this, it's an amazingly fun game, all of these are.
Taking the overall rotating shape at 04:25 into consideration; if you look closely at the tesseract, you can see that it is comprised of 6 cubes that rotate around the axis 90° perpendicular to it's own. (Ie. Top/bottom cubes rotate down/up(on x-axis), left/right cubes rotate right/left(on y-axis)) The front and rear cubes, on the other hand, do not rotate, they translate through the shape from back to front.. which I find very interesting if we are talking about a 4th dimensional object. Does that imply this tesseract is moving through the 4th dimension, not rotating? Does this also imply that a 4th dimensional object can not move unless it makes both a rotational and translational change? I wonder, if this is a tesseract moving, does a rotating one simply have it's neighbors orbitting it?
I believe this visual is more of a result of needing to fix one axis among x,y, or z to have the visual of w having a larger rotation through 4D space. It's similar to holding a cube in your hand, grabbing two parallel sides, and then spinning the cube between. The two sides you "fixed" upon rotate in place (ala a 2D rotation), but the other 4 sides sides are rotation through space. If we fix the w axis instead and rotate (rotating around that axis), you would instead have a visual of the object "growing" out of its center (or back into its center) repeatedly.
Um - everything you see in the world is a shadow. You can't see 3D, only 2D projections of 3D objects. We can just as easily see 2D projections of 4D objects. You can't say that we can ONLY see projections of 4D objects, but CAN see the "real" 3D objects. They're both projections, it's just a question of how many dimensions we're projecting down.
10:13 I have actually thought about this for a long time. I remember videos describing how a 2D creature would have 1D vision, and it made me wonder if the same applies to 3D creatures like us.
A hypothetical 4D being could have actual 3D vision, which means that by looking at you they would be able to see not only your front and back simultaneously but also every single part inside your body.
An entity limited to 3D space *can* have full 3D vision, but it will be limited. They simply have to be a spherical shell with their sight pointing inwards to an object inside themselves. Heck, doesn't even have to be spherical, you just need to have the vision sensing entirely enclose the viewed object.
Okay- here’s why I think it could be possible to one day imagine the 4th dimension. So okay- people with aphantasia can’t imagine actual objects in their brains, can’t physically rotate them BUT they still can understand the concept of that object. They can understand the sides that make up that object and the properties of that object without seeing it in the conventional sense. So here’s where things get weird. If we can figure out a method to train our brains to perceive a 3D object- all sides to it, THEN we’ll start getting really close to imagining the 4th dimension. The easiest objects would be things like cubes and pyramids since we know what they look like inside out. BUT, we can begin the process by color coding each side and trying to comprehend each side at the same time- without unfolding it, or rotating the object. Understanding it more like a computer would. When a computer loads up a cube in blender, it’s not seeing it from one side- it loads in the whole thing and shows us that one angle we can currently understand. Once we figure out a method of doing this, then we can potentially start doing more complex objects and from there- we’d have mastered an understanding of the concept of the 3rd dimension. From there, again we’ll have figured out a few new pathways of understanding what the 4th dimension could look like- in not looking at an object literally like looking at a photo, but understanding how it works
Hey, I actually have some degree of aphantasia myself! (Not sure how severe because it's self-diagnosed and I only realized like a year ago.) And I agree, I can never "picture" anything in my mind but I can understand the concepts of things just fine. As a result, while it's obviously more difficult, it's possible for me to get the "feel" of stuff like a hypercube to a degree. It's easiest for me to conceptualize a vague "object" that as it moves in 4-D space changes what parts of it we can see in 3-D space, even if a specific example like a tessaract/hypercube is a bit too difficult for me. Probably because, while in college I understood multivariable calculus just fine, I really struggled with linear algebra (not knowing much about vector spaces and matrices before the class definitely made it hard lol).
@@gunnarschlichting9886my aphantasia causes near pitch nacl images. But my brain definitely understands the connections on andeeper level i cannot convey. N
I have aphantasia, and I’m pretty sure this is just what mathematician do. Sadly, therefore, I don’t think it really gets us closer than we already are. I can mentally comprehend that a cube has 6 square faces, and that a tesseract has 8 cubic “hyperfaces”. Professional mathematicians who work with 4D could maybe even know intuitively how a tesseract's shadow would look for some particular angle. even still, seeing a drawing of a cube immediately evokes the 3D object - not as an image, but as a thing I've understood from reality - but no such reaction occurs for the 3D shadows of a tesseract. I think the limit is down to our 3D experience day-to-day being incompatible with 4D. It's not just a visual barrier. I will say though, I think getting conceptually familiar with 4D is doable. Games like miegakure and 4D Golf are challenging on the mind, but can be navigated after some time to acclimatise. Just like it doesn't really matter that we can't see IR or UV bc we have ways to detect it and work with it when needed, I don't really mind not being able to "experience" 4D because we can work with it for all practical purposes!
@@jxmink Yes! It sent 7 year old me down a rabbit hole from "Ana" and "Kata", to Charles Howard Hinton and Tesseracts full speed into a fascination with spatial directions that dropped young me into the lap of (super)string theory, which I had to revisit when I was a little older lol. Books like that are a great foundation for scientific curiosity and will always have a special place in my heart. I'll be giving it to my kids too.
TH-cam deleted my comment for some reason, but 4D Golf exists Not only that, but the devlogs as well (i guess i can't put the developer here because TH-cam)
A guy created a 4D version of Minecraft... he did a video on it and it was really cool. You still can't see in 4D, but you get another axis control and you have to adjust it to see the rest of the 4D spectrum. You need to secure your bases from 4th dimensional attacks. It's pretty wild.
@@thingthingthingthingthingthing It's exactly that, you play on a 3D slice of the 4th dimension and you can effectively rotate your slice with several tools to access the rest of the 4th dimension. 4D golf is a similar concept but they also project "ghosts" of the 4th dimension into your 3D slice of objects that would be nearby if your turned your slice (best way I can describe it)
Way back when I was in school (graduated in 1984, that was fun) when we learned about the tesseract/hypercube, it was explained to us that the model of a cube in a cube with the corners connected was merely a representation of a 3 dimensional shadow of a 4 dimensional cube. I guess popular media hasn't bothered to explain that to anyone for a while, except for you. We had a lot of fun with the concept. Heck, playing D&D in the school library we even set up a dungeon where each face of the hypercube was a different room, and had them correctly connected to each other. (Or at least we did our best to work out the connections, and the computer model doing the math for us didn't spit out any errors, so we were pretty confident we got it right. We got the math formulas from the math teacher, he also taught at the local university, so I have no idea if the average math teacher would usually have that kind of info or not. Though I did drive him nuts for a week with the formula for a mobius strip without telling him what it was... :D When I told him he was so annoyed at himself for not realizing it earlier. ) Ah well, ancient history and the silly things we got up to in high school.
Time is a measure of the rate in which matter moves. There are only three directions. Please stop this 4th dimenions bs as there is ZERO ability for a 4th to exist.
@@BrandonDenny-we1rwSpecial and general relativity are literally built around the interpretation of time as a fourth dimension. It’s not that we can say that time definitively is or isn’t a fourth dimension, but when we treat it as one mathematically, it can give us a really useful model for how the universe works. And yes, a temporal dimension isn’t the same as a fourth spatial dimension, obviously.
@@november666 Time is not a spatial dimension in any theory. Time is a time dimension, ie a parameter of 3D space. This video is not about change over time, and the tesseract is not a cube mutating through time, its a static object frozen in time that we are "viewing" as it rotates along an axis w in the fourth spatial dimension. Spatial dimensions and time dimensions are not the same category of dimension. This video is exclusively about spatial dimensions only.
Here's something better for you to think about. A second time dimension. We measure our time dimension in 1 dimensions. forward and backward. (technically, we meaasure it as "now" and everything flowing away from now in one dimension, "the past", but we can extrapolate a "future" now that we have not yet reached... ugh , time as a dimension is weird, since we don't navigate it like spatial dimensions, it's just a stream) What if time had 2 dimensions instead of 1? What if there was time, forward and backward ie past and future, but also as a feature of regular life, 2 other directions in time, ie we weren't just in the now moving away from the past, we were also moving away from a different time direction?
What is as mind-blowing is that the line you made to represent 1D space is actually a 2D representation of a line, it has an actual width as well as length. It is virtually impossible to represent 1D space.
*Thanks for watching 3D human people!* Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code KYLE for an extra 4 months free at surfshark.deals/kyle
Best man!
Rocking the cave man beard!
Not hating but am curious as to what made you want to grow it out?
This video is hilarious bro great job
Kyle. Play 4D toys, if you have not. You would find it interesting at the least.
an extension of the shadow perspective would be that 'someone' in the 4th dimension would see us like we see shadows on the wall, but we'd see a 4th dimensional like a '3 dimensional apparition or ghost'
Seeing even professional mathematicians, who work with 4d and higher, lament that they can't visualize higher dimensions made me realize it's probably a human limitation.
It is entirely that. We don't see infrared or ultraviolet light because we never evolved a need. Similar premise, we've never evolved to experience fourth dimensional space, the difference being fourth dimensional space doesn't exist around us like ultraviolet or infrared light.
It's pretty easy, TBH. Just imagine a space with N dimensions and then set N equal to 4.
That's the point of a lot of math and science. To put on paper what we cannot experience in reality, yet it exists anyway. In practice, the W-axis for our universe is time, we can see, to a limited degree, that axis but only in one direction, the past. But the other direction, the future, is invisible to us. Likewise, we can travel through that W-axis in one direction only, the future, but the past is forever locked away. The only theoretical exception being space-time bending phenomena like black holes and wormholes, 4D objects that manifest at the absolute extremes of our understanding of physics and the universe at large.
We have the need to draw low resolution penis in 4 dimensions
@@cadekachelmeier7251 Cool, it works thanks!
As someone who’s stared at the 4D wiki page and felt lost every time, I feel grateful to hear someone say, “It’s fine no one can see it.”
The best guess is time. As in (in theory)...
Nothingness (Absolute and Non Absolute)
Dot (Singularity and Non Singularity)
Line (Parallel Connection or Isolated)
2d Plane (Perpendicular Connection or Isolated)
3d Plane (Hyper Directional Connection or Isolated)
4d Omniscient Time (Greater Singularity or Hyper Infinite Directional Connection)
5th Dimensional Alternate Time (Axiom Directional Connection or Axiom Isolated)
6th Dimensional Origin Points (Infinite Origin Alpha(s) and Omega(s) Directional Connection or Isolated)
7th Dimensional Conceptual Directional (Major Singularity or Axiom Alpha Omega Connection)
8th Dimension (True Singularity or Alpha Omni Reality)
9th Dimension (Absolute Omni Singularity or Omni Directional Connection)
In other words, this is...
Null Universe
Universe
Universe+
Universe Infinite
Universe Axiom
Universe Omni
Then, fold that reality again on repeat. Until you form the Matrix. But it doesn't stop there. Fold the Matrix into itself to form the Matrix Sequences. You'll hit an Omni Level where Add Infinitus Axiom becomes Extra Dimensional and stops becoming a Core Dimension.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 That is interesting but completely wrong. Time is its own thing separate from Space like a numerator and a denominator.
"higher dimensions" are likely just mathematical artifacts like irrational numbers. Useful for math things, but not actually real.
your feelings are irrational
@@obsidianjane4413 irrational numbers can be real
Im so glad I found this channel I felt,Im not the only one who felt dumb.
I did as instructed and pointed in the fourth dimension direction.
My finger broke into several pieces. and the sky was torn asunder.
Then a Creature appeared, from the fourth dimension insisting i need to pay my fine for destroying time and space across the past. whilst slapping me with a goldfish. before vanishing back into its ear.
My finger is still broken.
Help
Hasta la vista baby
hahaha this needs to be pinned lol
Seems like you wound up into the warp, don't worry I am calling the Inquisition. Remember the Emperor Protects.
yes, inquisitor. that one over there!
you need a four dimensional bandage
The animation at 4:19 while conceptualizing that it’s only rotating is the clearest thing I’ve seen on the subject so far
Me trying to look at a four dimensional object on a two dimensional screen. 😕
Damn, u beat me to it 😂
Trying to look at a four dimensional object represented by a three dimensional model on a two dimensional screen fed by a one dimensional string of 1's and 0's.
Me trying to look at a 3d representation of a 4d cube with my 2d eyes D:
Just do it!
I wonder if I could use VR to better have an intuitive understanding of a 3d projection of a 4d object. Much like we can project 3d on to 2d screens and understand them.
I think my favorite way I've heard someone explain that the classic cube-inside-cube "Tesseract", is that it is the equivalent of lining up three rhombuses together into a hexagon and calling that a "Cube". The lines from the rhombuses make it appear similar to one perspective of a cube, but it is not a cube, it's still 2D shapes, the 3 rhombuses are still only making a hexagon.
with the cubes, the 3D model as a whole looks like you're viewing one perspective of a Tesseract, but it is still not a Tesseract, it's still only 2 cubes with the corners connected. turning the 3D model around and looking at it from different angles never changes what perspective you're seeing the "Tesseract" from, in the same way rotating the combined rhombuses around together doesn't change what perspective you can see the "Cube" from.
We can't visualize or comprehend a 4D space or object, and the only way to understand or explain it is by comparing it down a step to a 2D perspective of a 3D object, since that we CAN visualize and understand in full; It's how our eyes work.
Actually, the cube-inside-cube would be the analog of a square inside a square with the nearest pairs of diagonals connected. (Think about a cube that was just a wireframe along the edges, this is what it would look like if your eye was just above the top, looking down.)
The rhombi-inside-hexagon would correspond to one of the other common Hypercube projections, the two offset cubes connected at the diagonals. In this model, the two "normal" cubes are the same size, just offset from each other in some direction, usually along a diagonal.
I think this helped me understand more what Kyle meant by the part at 4:20
Rhombi, goodbuses
One more thing worth noting is that these animation aren't even 3d representations… because they're flat. They are representations of 4d in 2d. Our brains fill in the missing dimension.
1 of them at least. Filling in both is significantly harder.
Yes, "Depth Perception" and Video Trickery!
I mean, that’s what he said in the video
We don't even see in true 3D to begin with, we cross reference two 2D images taken by our eyes and simulate the depth inside our brains.
We are 3D creatures, in a 3D world, that can only see in 2D. Our ability to see in 3D being an illusion.
This applies to EVERY sense, animals have two nostrils and two ears for the exact same reason as having 2 eyes, it allows them to determine the direction of sensory information in three dimensional space, and even determine the shapes of objects with certain species.
A 4D being would likely be the same, their senses and perception would perceive the world in 3D, and cross reference sensory information from multiple angles to determine four dimensional depth.
@@Cri_Jackal Perceiving a world in actual 3D is such a wild concept to comprehend. We are limited by a 2D plane of a object in our eyes, thus it has hidden sides. But to a 4D creature, there is no such thing.
Great vid, thanks! the "folding" of the 8 cubes helped a lot! Think of this:
-if you look at a line from the right perspective (end on), you see a dot with the rest of the line projecting away from you at 90 deg to your field of view distance "x".
-If you look at a square from the right perspective (edge on), you see a line, length "x", with the rest of the square projecting away from you at 90 deg to your field of view distance "y".
-If you look at a cube from the right perspective (face on), you see a square, dimensions "x" and "y", with the rest of the line projecting away from you at 90 deg to your field of view distance "z".
-If you look at a tesseract from the right perspective (the point in the exact center) you see a cube with dimensions "x", "y", and "z", with the rest of the object projecting away from you at 90 deg to your field of view distance "w".
So, pointing 90 deg would be pointing radially outward in all directions at once.
It's why I've always maintained that the 4th dimensional axis that is perpendicular to the other three is the "in/out" axis.
@@djwarlock2873i also have the same idea
It's the most logical
I can now imagine a 4D Kyle Hill explaining why he can’t show the 5th dimension
A 2D Kyle Hill Explaining Why They Cant See The 3rd Dimension
@@YerroTheChicken A 1D Kyle is explaining what a dimension is.
A 0D Kyle Explaining To No One About Why He Doesn't Exist
Across dimensions, there's always a Kyle explaining why you cannot perceive a higher dimension; it's the Kyle Paradigm
@@YerroTheChickenA -1D Kyle Hill explaining to ??? why he *could* exist
It’s funny how this guy looks like Thor and he’s explaining what a teaseract is
Tbh, he's got the dark beard and the little vertical line thru his right eyebrow, those are more Aquaman vibes. Thor doesn't mess with his eyebrows lol
@@himynameisjeff the missing soulpatch tho...that is what throws me off. He rocks the long hair, then has bald spots in the beard. 🥺
Who better to explain it?
@@himynameisjeff Aquagardian!
Walmart version of Thor
3:20 I have successfully pointed in the W-axis and inverted my entire body. My insurance says they don't cover transdimensional corporeal inversions, just the regular corporeal inversions. What an achehead.
Imagine trying to explain a fourth dimensional headache to your doctor...🤔
@@CaptNMem imagine the medicine thats PRESCRIBED for that condition!
This made me literally lol. Bravo
Explains why flat earthers see the world 2 dimensional
"so open-minded his brain fell out"
That´s one of the best disses I´ve ever heard, will absolutely save for future use
There's a Tim Minchin skit called "If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out" which is where I first heard it.
Is old but good and first time heard from the mighty thorbun
Describes alot of liberals
It is a pretty sick burn. 🔥 😎
Bro it's like 2 decades years old.
Atheists in 2007 were saying this to eachother.
Honestly, if this means we should start calling so-called hypercubes/tesseracts (the 3d shadows people have been mistaking for the real thing) hypercube shadows/tesseract shadows, I'm all for that, makes them sound even cooler :P
Then by that logic, when you see your car you should refer to it as a car shadow. Because you can't see the actual 3D car.
@@HyperCubistYeah, we should start doing that
@@HyperCubist The actual shadows are the images of the car that your eyeballs capture. Your brain derives the information of the car from the shadows of the car that it received from your eyeballs.
So no, the car is still the car.
@@fluffrier There really are no shadows, just 2D projections. But as you point out, that's all we see - the 2D projections our brain uses to get an idea of a 3D object. But we don't see in 3D, otherwise we'd be able to look at all sides at once, and see the interior of a solid object. Similarly, the tesseract model is a single 3D projection of an ideal 4D object. In turn, we see that projection via 2D projections. That means we can see 2D projections of 3D objects OR 4D objects. You can't argue that we can only see "shadows" of 4D objects, but we can see actual 3D objects. Either way, we see 2D projections of the object.
“A cube hiding behind a square” blew my mind way more then I ever thought it could
Yeah, but it's a poor image. Do you imagine a cube as a square hiding behind a line segment? Doesn't make sense. A hollow hypercube is comprised of 8 (3D) cubes folded across a theoretical 4th spatial (hyper-spatial?) dimension, not just a cube and a square in any way.
@joesterling4299 when you are aligned to the side of the cube you see a square and the 4 segments of the 4 lateral faces which you are seeing by the side. What the guy said (can't remember the name rn) was that the representation we see of a tesseract on google, when rightly aligned (I suppose on all 4 axis), looks like a cube. Otherwise it looks like that mess in 3 dimensions just like a misaligned cube would look in 2 dimensions.
And it gets even weirder: if that square is far enough away, it will look like a line, and if you rotate that, it will look like a dot.
"No Aria, his mind is so open, his brain fell out a long time ago." LOL
It's usually only when Joe has a guest that's even MORE of a conspiracy theorist that he has to draw a line, like, "Okay, I'm a nutcase too and even I think that's bananas."
I didn't realize people who ever bothered thinking about the tesseract animation didn't know it was a 2D embedding of a 3D embedding of a W axis rotation.
Same. I guess it doesn't surprise me that at some point some scientific miscommunication might have happened, but all the discussion I've ever seen regarding higher dimensional space has been careful to acknowledge human limitations.
That's because there are a lot of people who think they're a lot smarter than they are after a combination of weed and TH-cam algorithmic autoplay.
Whats the w axis
Same, cuz if you dig yourself into a hole of sci-comm then it’s not that difficult to come across explanations that match with the lower dimensions. But then I realised I’d heard worse, putting possible worlds into the mix, I can see how people are not already familiar with all the concepts can get confused by a single gif with no explanation
@@leoelliondeux
So basically you have up-down, left-right, forward-backward, aka the x, y and z axis, but we don’t really have the label for the 4 orthogonal axis because we simply cannot perceive it even if it physically exists, so we gave it the name w axis
Dude the shadow thing just blew my mind. So could that mean that if four dimensional beings exist we could see their shadows in our dimension as three dimensional objects?
Short answer, yes.
It would only be visible if their shadow happened to land on our 3D plane of existence. If 4D space exists then that means that infinite 3D planes must also exist, in other words, infinite parallel universes.
@@anthonyward8853
> infinite parallel universes
not really. it would be one _single_ universe, which we (potentially) just live on a flat slice of. notably, we would be affected by e.g. 4d gravity, unless this universe is like, on a sheet of paper flat on the ground.
@@anthonyward8853
> It would only be visible if their shadow happened to land on our 3D plane of existence
note that the shadow would need to land on something for us to be able to see it, otherwise it would pass _though_ our plane. so you'd still need like a fog for the shadow to land on
That's what shadow people are.
If the 4th dimensional being/object happens to intersect our "flat" 3D space. Imagine a 2D being living on a piece of paper and there is a 3D pen going through it. At first the being won't see anything because the pen is not touching the paper. Then the pen starts penetrating the paper and the being sees the line of surface of the pen that is in contact with the paper. As the pen keeps going through the paper, the contact area changes and the shape that the being sees also changes. Then the pen is all the way through and no longer intersects the paper. 3D beings can still see the pen, however to the 2D being the intersection appeared out of nowhere, changed shapes for some time, and then disappeared again.
If a 2D being looks at a drawing of a building, it will only see the lines that are not occluded. The being can't see what's inside and behind the house. But a 3D creature would be able to see what's inside and behind the house. That means that a 4D creature theoretically can see the insides of a living human being and any machinery that we manufacture without the need of xray or CT scanning.
I have a new Chuck Norris joke: "Chuck Norris can point his finger on the W-axis direction."
I'ma head out....
Chuck Norris so bad ass he can kick in 4d😂
damn, this comment made me nostalgic
Classic
Chuck probably even doesn't believe the fourth dimension is real, if we're honest.
@@BrianLockett Then it is not, obviously
4D golf is a fantastic game that really gives you a more intuitive sense of 4D space, would recommend
The short story "and he built a crooked house" by Robert Heinlein does a pretty good job of taking you on a tour of the inside of a tesseract.
Today I should be getting the original magazine that this was in. To me, it’s synchronicity that this video came out and I just watched it.
It was a joke. A house shaped like an unfolded tesseract that folds across the 4th dimension into a real one, because, iirc, an earthquake? Heinlein probably laughed his ass off writing that one.
Oooooh, I'm gonna look that up. Thanks!
@@joesterling4299He likely was dealing with a real estate agent at the time!
Dammit! I was going to mention that story!😉
This lesson really brings to mind Plato's "The Man in the Cave". If all of reality is but a shadow to what actually exists fed to us by the limitations of our Simian brains, then one has to wonder what the world looks like in the sun and what kind of evolution has to occur to escape the cave we live in
That's exactly the story I use to try to explain to people the concept of multiple dimensions
plato came up with the allegory of the cave, not aristotle
@@millenniummouse, thanks! Fixed
@@caelumvaldovinos5318 no prob!
Apparently I’m so late to the party that I didn’t get to see the utter face plant of crediting the cave to Aristotle! 🤦
That was the first lesson in the first lecture of my first class in college 1990.
Then I went home and drank beer.
Good times, good times…
“He’s so open minded that his brain fell out a long time ago”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Shots been fired 🔥
More like made the same joke hes made in multiple other videos😂@TiagoEgas
@@jamalkjamison214
Pointed at Rogan or other people?
@@jamalkjamison214are you getting defensive over Joe Rogan!?
It's not a new joke. Why does that fact make you think anything about Rogan?@@aries4378
3:17 i found a way to point at it and saw unspeakable things why would you tell me to do this science Jesus
"Fourth Dimension? I cant picture that. Youre dumb!"
- Bender 'Bending' Rodriguez
4th dimension? Bah. I saw a documentary about a dude who physically traveled to the NINTH dimension!
There's one way to look at it. The smaller cube is not getting smaller. It's getting further away from you through 4th dimension.
Isn't there stuff saying how time is probably the 4th dimension? If so then that kinda checks out. I kinda saw it that way too
@@JustDan_777 Time is 4th dimension. It is used as such so that the field equations work. Otherwise the equations won't work. So by this definition we are talking about 4 physical dimension plus one temporal dimension in this video.
From my understanding, the fourth spatial dimension is experienced as time by us.
And looking at it as a cube within a cube isn't correct.
That's like saying a cube is a square connected to a square.
The lines connecting them are part of the shape.
Those volumes that are like a pyramid with the top cut off are all sides of the depiction of the tesseract, and they are all cube-shaped despite not appearing so in the model.
We're looking at eight cubes the same way a cube would look like six squares to us.
That's why animations often depicted as being pulled within itself.
It gives a better but not perfect understanding of it rotating.
@@kamikeserpentail3778 No, we just can't experience 4th physical, spatial dimension at all. Time is taken as 4th dimension because it is a (separate dimension but still a)dimension and is taking the 4th place but not actual 4th spatial, physical dimension. To better understand this, we are talking about 5 total dimension(including time) here.
The real problem is that people try to define dimensions as physically visual concepts- when in reality physical volume is only represented by the first 3 dimensions: 1. line, 2. area, 3. volume. The fourth dimension is, simply, physical volume over time, which means a volume can move its position in space, change its shape, interact with other objects. Space is no longer static with still objects in an infinitely static scene. The 4th dimension is what enables motion -and it's real representation from a physics pov is: energy. Energy is motion, and you can't have motion without time.
In other words, the 3rd dimension is space, the 4th is spacetime (space extended through the dimension of time).
I laughed so hard from "Thor if you tried to draw him from memory". My lord.
I kinda imagine that 4D beings would look like kaleidoscopes.
"We have Thor at Home" seemed to have a lot of fun with this one. Had a real tough day and it got a smile outta me so nice work
Same, bro. Though mine is basically just starting.😅
The wildest thing about 4D shapes is that my brain always feels like it’s JUST MICRONS AWAY from getting there. Like understanding is juuuuuust barely out of reach. It’s an insane feeling
Try to visualize 2D.
Atoms and particles are 3d, light is 3d
It has (picking 2) height and width, but no depth. What does it look like? Nothing
What is it? Nothing
Even empty space is 3d
Light cannot reflect off 2d, it cannot be made of anything we've observed, in fact cannot exist in any way we know of.
What does that look like? Visualize it.
One needs to disregard reality to believe they've seen anything in 2d.
Now, hold on to reality and attempt to perceive 4d... you can't do both.
so real
I experience literal brain strain, like my head muscles tense up and I start to get a headache. Lol
You've just described exactly how I feel about this subject. I keep coming back to videos about 4D space because I think I'll have finally cracked the code somehow. Unfortunately, what ends up happening is I get a headache instead 😂
It's quite a leap too, because I, like everyone else, can't even see in 3D! If I could, I'd probably be a 4D being trying to conceptualize 5D while not being able to see in 4D.
your feelings are irrational
There was an episode of Dr. Who called "Boneless" (correction: the creatures were called the boneless by The Doctor. The Episode was Flatline. Thank you @damienasmodeus928) that involved 2d creatures trying to comprehend our 3d existence. Similar vein just one dimensional lower.
name of the episode is flatline
@@damienasmodeus928 good catch. Thanks.
I was going to mention it too
I would be so afraid I would squish them. But they are "unsquishable"
@babomberman They actually got the idea from an old The Outer Limits episode.
I like how Doctor Who explains sometimes that the 4th dimension is time and they made younger me go “huh. Well that makes sense”
Yep -and a way to take it further is to think what time enables. It enables static 3 dimensional objects to move, morph, and interact. It allows for motion. And what is motion? Energy.
So the 4th dimension is literally the dimension of energy.
And this also in a sense explains why a tesseract is traditionally defined as a dimensional source of energy (like in the Avengers movie). Because energy is literally what the 4th dimension is.
my guy you already failed when you said "STATIC 3 dimensional objects to MOVE"
also time is the 4th dimension of losers, clearly we are taking about the 4th SPATIAL dimension
@@borb5353 fax my brother
spit your shit indeed
@Real_MisterSir
You’re somewhat mistaken. In special relativity (the theory at hand here), there are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimensions.
Note that 3 space dimensions and a time dimensions _is not the same as 4 space dimensions!_ (It is possible to tell them apart, but the reason is a bit technical. I’ve explained it at the end of this comment.)
We call this “3+1D” spacetime “Minkowski space”, and objects are described by _curved paths through the space, moving forwards in time._
These objects have a momentum to them, equal to their (rest) mass times their velocity. Now, however, the velocity vector has 3 space components and 1 new time component.
It turns out that _the time component of the momentum spacetime vector is equal to E/c._ So _energy is momentum through time_ or equivalently _momentum is energy through space._
However, momentum isn’t the only vector that gets a spacetime “upgrade”. For example, current density J - which is crucial to maxwell’s law(s) - can also be given a time component, equal to ρ · c - a form of charge density. So charge density is current flowing through time.
Thus while energy is indeed related through momentum to time, calling time the “energy dimension” is inaccurate. Time does far more as a dimension than allow energy to exist.
- - -
What makes 3+1D different from 4D?
In 3D, we find distances using the 3D Pythagorean theorem. If a point is at (x, y, z) the distance R from the origin (0, 0, 0) is given by this:
R^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2
In 4D, we just add a new coordinate, w. So a point at (x, y, z, w) is a distance R away from (0, 0, 0, 0) given by this:
R^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2
It turns out, however, that this isn’t how spacetime works. If we have a point in spacetime (ct, x, y, z) - we use ct so time and space have the same units - is a “spacetime distance” S away from (0, 0, 0, 0) given by:
S^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2
Because there is now a sign difference between time ct and space (x, y, z), it is always possible to tell time and space apart.
Furthermore, it turns out trying to define rotations in spacetime (which must keep S constant, bc rotations don’t change distances) leads to all the “weirdness” of SR like time dilation and length contraction!!
@@Real_MisterSir pure BS yapping. The tesseract has nothing to do with the dimension of time. There are no higher spacial dimensions, there are only 3 spacial dimensions
The way I kinda wrapped my brain around it, a 4D creature could see 4D by overlaying 2 3D images of the same space, but seeing from slightly different 4D angles
We are 4d creatures... we move through 4 dimensions. Height, depth, width, and time...
Maybe they have 3 eyes
@@PositiveOnly-dm3rx in the context of the vid Time does not count as a spacial dimension.
@@Onewheelordeal Possibly, I wouldn't know
@@PositiveOnly-dm3rx There are issues with time supposedly being a forth spatial dimension. The main one, in my opinion, being that there are two directions in each the three agreed-to spatial dimensions. Time only has one direction.
One part that I think is super cool and mind melting is that we can't even see the net of the 4d cube properly. Someone who can perceive 4d objects would be able to see all of the cubes which make the net up all at the same time. When we view it there is always a cube that we can't see (the one in the 'center' of the 'cross' section), plus multiple are often partially obstructed. Someone who can view a 4d object would be able to see all of the cubes, completely all at once. The same way when we look at the net of a 3d object then we can see all of the surface area, all at once.
Cool video bro, but as for your promotion of surf shark, have you not seen the new internal exploit which allows a threat actor to to funnel all your traffic, unencrypted through a device of their choice. It also forwards your request and completes it, meaning if this is happening or not, you would never know. Every vpn currently available now; is not secure. You can hide your locality, you can bypass checks with your isp. But its still not secure. Someone internal to the company has a way to view your data without alerting either you, or the company they work for to suspicious activity.
@@jasonrodwell5316 why did you comment this on another comment?
@@jasonrodwell5316No kidding, a proxy can see the traffic it forwards? Guys, this is a very serious problem, we might have to shut down the Internet...
Yeah, same as if you could only percieve two dimensions you wouldn't be able to see the middle square in the unfolded cube, it would be behind the ones to the sides
@aysnov nope, not the company but there is an undetectable way to funnel you 'encrypted' and 'private' data through a pipeline so that a malicious person can see all that private encrypted data unencrypted. So yes, this is a very big problem. It's undetectable by you or the company hosting the network. They complete the transaction so your none the wiser, but ALL of your traffic pushed through a vpn can be seen by someone with malicious intent and its undetectable. Look up the exploit. So your saying that's not a problem? Tell that to a company pushing private company data through a vpn that now is running straight through someone's device unencrypted with full access to EVERYTHING. And I will reiterate, not for legitimate use. This is an exploit, why would a company run an exploit on their own network? they can see your data to encrypt it. I mean, someone who should not have access to your data can see it. So yes, very big problem! These vpns are being marketed as an extra layer of security when in actual fact any and all vpns now, thanks to this exploit, are an easy target for someone trying to gain unlawful access to your data.
That last thing you said about us only perceiving the world in 2D is key. It's difficult enough to create a 2D projection map of a 3D Earth. There's no way to flatten it without distorting it in some way. If you flatten a tesseract you end up with a distorted cube. Just like map projections, the center area has the least amount of distortion.
In that classic tesseract rotation animation you showed, if you're okay with the outer "cube surfaces" being warped simply to show which other "cube surfaces" they meet up with at the edges, then I think it does do a fairly good job of giving us a 3d projection of a 4d cube. And you can even see that in that specific animation it is rotating along the W-axis.
Imagine a circle falling through 1D land on it's side. The inhabitants of 1D land "see" a dot that grows to a longer and longer line that then recedes to a dot then disappears.
Now, magine a sphere falling through 2D land. The inhabitants of 2D land "see" a dot that grows to a larger and larger circle that then recedes to a dot then disappears.
Finally, you can't imagine a hypersphere falling through our 3D world. However, we of 3D land "see" a dot that grows to a larger and large sphere that then shrinks back to a dot then disappears.
wouldn't ball be better word, as dot is inly 2D?
@@krekolos421 dot is 1D, circle is 2D, ball is 3D, ball presented in the fabric of time, including future, is 4D... Object that casts a shadow shaped as a ball... 5D! And yes, that would be 5D and not 4D opposing to what Kyle said. And anything beyond 4D can't cast a shadow higher than 3D.
@@Qassu78 Oh yeah I probably misstyped. Nontheless, thank you for the correction and also the explanation
That's what was missing in the video. BTW that username rings a very old bell, Reviewing the Kanji forums haha, what a coincidence.
In one dimension you wouldn't 'see' anything because there would be no there dimensions to look to and from (i.e. left to right.) You're somewhat taking what Carl Sagan famously said using Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott as an example, but you're overthinking the explanation. A two dimensional creature watching a three dimensional object pass in front of it would indeed see a dot expand to a line and reduce again to a dot. If we were to see a four dimensional object pass through our world, we would only see a three dimensional segment of that object (I.e. a sphere, if we use a four-dimensional 'spheroid' as in your example.)
Me during the video: OK I can’t see in 4D but at least I can see in 3D.
Me by the end: damn, you’re gonna take that away from me too??
It depends what you mean with “see”, I suppose!
We can describe 3D space with 3D vectors, which we call the space R^3. What our eyes do is project that space down onto a 2D surface with respect to a focal point. The resulting image can be described using _projective geometry_ - in this case the space RP^2, which is only 2D.
The thing is, a 4D being would describe their universe with R^4, but could only see it by projecting it down onto their 3D retina, resulting in images living the space RP^3 - a 3D space.
So personally I’d say “a 3D being sees 3D using a 2D image, a 4D being sees 4D using a 3D image”.
There is a slight complication here though. So far, we’ve only described a single eye. In reality, we have 2 eyes in slightly different spots, which means IRL we can actually gain proper depth information. Whether or not this counts as “seeing 3D” is up to definition. Of course, a 4D being would use two 4D eyes at different 4D locations to get 4D depth information in their 3D image!
Projective geometry is super neat in general btw, with things like “points at infinity” making sense (also called vanishing points, if you’re an artist).
It should be possible for someone to lay out a scene in 4D on a computer, then use a 4D camera to take a 3D image of it, and then use something like a 3D printer to model it in 3D space. I think seeing that model is as close as we can get to “imagining” 4D space.
A cool way to think of that tesseract figure is that it appears mishapen because it's 3D cubical faces (as opposed to 2d square faces of a cube) are angled in the fourth dimension. Just like a 2d representation of an angled cube has its faces look like diamons or rhombi.
Underrated comment
@@MonoKyrios thank you!
The angles in the 3d projection actually result from perspective. The inner cube is smaller in the model because it’s further away in the 4th dimension. In the 4D hypercube, every edge is the same length, every face is a square and all the angles are right angles.
True! But even if they appear distorted, they are still just as much cubes as our usual visual understanding. If we want to consider four dimensions, we simply have to update our visual rules for what cubes look like.
I just finished making a 3d tesseract, the way I got it to look like the “shape” was projecting its shadow into 3d from a 4d light source.
You can visualize 4D when you do DMT but it doesn't last very long and then you can't comprehend it anymore after.
The best representation of the 4th dimension I've seen is "4D Golf". A minigolf game that takes place in genuine 4D space (3 horizontal axes and 1 vertical/gravity axis), made by the youtuber Code Parade, the same guy who made Hyperbolica.
He's done an incredible job with the projection visualization and by providing multiple different projection variants. I think has done the best job at helping me intuit 4D space of anything I've ever seen. Hyperbolica did the same for hyperbolic and spherical geometry.
There is no such thing as 4 dimensions there are 3 please for the love of god stop this insane bs.
There are three very very discernible axis and there will never be room for a 4th.
Yup, if you want to get a "feel for" four dimensional space, 4D golf is an incredible way to do that.
@@BrandonDenny-we1rw
Mathematically, you can describe a space with however many dimensions you want.
There's nothing inherently incorrect about even talking about a space with 43 dimensions. Or 12. Or 538. Or 1.
@@BrandonDenny-we1rw Physically, you might be right. But we can play "but what if?" and do the math of what a fourth dimension might be like. Which is possible, the math can do it. 4D Golf does the math and projects it down to 3D/2D. Much like Kyle's shadow is a 2D projection of his 3D self, the game projects what an imaginary 4D space might be like down to a 3D space, then our graphics cards project it down for our 2D screens. I'm not saying it actually exists - but we can still pretend.
@@clapanse Except physically there is.
Which is where I am. In reality.
You should've done the sphere through 2D "Flatland" analogy with the shadow wall to really drive home the point, and that the Tessaract is merely a 3D shadow of a 4D "cube" passing through our world. Just as we can look at the 2D world and see inside everything because their world allows us to (or our perspective allows us to). The 4D world would allow them to see inside everything in the 3D world (ours) for the same reason.
That would have helped explain the shadow of the tessaract and how we see the shadow of it. As it turns around, it turns inside out as it rotates, then right side in and so on. Solid video nonetheless.
Yeah, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has read Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott
That's a cross-section rather than a shadow, but without specialised equipment that can pierce objects, we don't see 3D in 2D cross sections either; we see 3D as 2D shadows, which is a decent part of why I prefer visualising 4D as shadows rather than cross-sections, or worse shadows _of_ cross sections (because that's ultimately what things like 4D Toys use).
I was honestly wondering why Flatland never got brought up. It’s a fascinating metaphor to try to comprehend the concept of 4D, even knowing you can’t see it.
Carl Sagan used the Flatland example when talking about the 3rd and 4th dimensions, and it made it so much easier to understand the concept (which Kyle also alluded to when showing the snipped of Cosmos that had the bit I'm talking about). I tend to tell people to watch Cosmos and that episode (episode 10 if anyone was wondering) in particular.
Don't confuse projection (shadow) with cross section.
4D beings are face palming at our tesseracts. It's like 2D beings showing a cube as a square within a square.
If one face of a 3d wireframe cube is directly facing you, the 2d projection, accounting for perspective, does in fact appear as a square within a square. The inner square is smaller because it’s further away. In the classic 3d tesseract model, the inner cube is smaller because it’s further away in the 4th dimension.
The animation of it rolling around like a strange donut IS nonsense worthy of a facepalm, though.
not even a square within a square, since they would see a 1d projection of 2d objects
Sorry but this is wrong. It's **literally** the 3D shadow a 4D being would see in their 4D world of their 4D object. Think of shining a light onto a 3D cube and looking at the 2D shadow on the wall behind it. That shadow is the shape you would show a 2D being and tell them its from a cube in the third dimension. The 2D being would see the same exact shadow we see. And as you rotate the 3D cube in the light, the shadow on the wall changes shape. This is why the 3D tesseract we see changes shape as the actual 4D object is rotated, but it's exactly the same shadow a 4D being sees
@@calabraisNow I’m trying to visualize the 4D light needed for a 3d shadow. The dreams are going to be strange tonight.
@@calabrais this is 100000% wrong as there is literally no such thing as a "4th" dimension.
None. Zero. Nada. It doesnt exist.
11:18 I'm extremely confident that we've barely scratched the surface of what there is to know about this reality. Some Greek or Roman scholar once proclaimed that "We have discovered all there is to discover!", or something to that effect. Dude, we're just getting started.
0:41 tesseract isn't a shape. It's a wonderful band 🤘
Altered state getting that couple seconds fame :p
No dude, its a cube that holds a glowing rock for purple people to use.
TesseracT to be exact
Carl Sagan said that tesseract model is what a shadow of a 4D tesseract would look like. He said this a loooooong time ago. Trying to draw an analogy to what a cube on paper(a 2d plane) and
What a tesseract may look like as a shadow projected into our 3D reality
The moving cube, did not expect the morphing to actually be just rotation
Way I see it, if there are 3 spacial dimensions then there must be 3 dimensions or more of a higher power. Time is that dimension trio. There is the linear passage of time. There is the individual perception of time, and there is the collective quality of time.
Linear passage is the common units which we measure time with. Days, months, years etc.
The individual perception of time is how a single individual sees the times that they are in.
The collective quality is the generally agreed upon sentiment of people as to what the times are about.
In 4D, every computer would probably have a 3d display.
Kyle, you wouldn't actually be able to perceive me pointing in the direction you ask unless you took the mushrooms with me.
The Little Saints can show the way… if it’s the right set and setting. But each person’s tryp is their own, no matter how much the Experienced want to show the uninitiated. Very sad indeed that the Food of the Gods for one person can be a vomit-fest, or darkened hellscape for another. 4th dimensional vision quest? That is certainly within the myriad of realms one could visit… But, when people return from such a place, they almost invariably 1)forget their pen and 2)shit their bed again trying to explain what is was they just saw.
If people wanted to verify if something is a tesseract, they should just get Red Skull to examine it. It's not that hard.
When I visualize the net of that tesseract being folded into a higher dimension as a 3D flat lander, I imagine each cube suddenly disappearing as it’s rotated about its edge on an axis which no known form of mass-energy can traverse. Probably the most accurate visualization of 4D objects I’ve ever seen was a depiction of one passing through our 3 dimensional plane. It would seem to suddenly appear, then constantly (appear to) morph as it continues to move along the W axis, showing different 3 dimensional cross sections of its 4D geometry before just as suddenly disappearing as the last 3D monolayer of the object passes through our plane.
Exactly. I came across a TikTok video recently that helped it all click for me. They challenged us to imagine what it might look like in a 2-D plane if you were to pass a sphere through it. All they can see is lines, so it would be a point that appears out of nowhere and starts extending into a line. The line gets increasingly long before it starts contracting again, ultimately disappearing as the sphere completes its trip through their plane. So yeah, it totally stands to reason that the same concept would apply with a 4-D object being passed through a 3-D plane
So if you imagine the 3rd dimension as simple volume, an outline of a shape. Imagine the 4th dimension as density, then keep putting empty boxes inside themselves, pushing, squeezing, "folding", until you have a 4th dimensional box that for all intents and purpose has the same external volume in 3 dimensions, despite actually containing multiple boxes within.
Think about it, you can never truly look inside of something, you're just peeling back layers, but always on the outside. Like an onion, or any matter, what's the matter
@@XO7FOXThen there are the 26 dimensions of the Bosonic string theory. Think I will take a nap.
@@momkatmax Just for this basic illustration I think it helps push people into the next step. I believe one day we'll just realize we've been looking at it all upsidedown. Easy as pi
@@XO7FOX True enough. I used to see the standard was "four dimensions, with the fourth as time". Then when the brane theory was postulated, it was 10 with one more kind of curled around those. Now 26. Perhaps there are unlimited dimensions or they top out at 42. Then I would smile.
4d miner is a project that visualizes it pretty well
I enjoy the fact that in a number of your videos you can admit that we don’t know or can’t do something. It leaves room for growth. So many presenters could learn from this.
look at the side of a line, you get a dot
look at the side of a cube, get a square
look at the side of a hypercube, you see the entire cube at once, from one receptor... we cant do that lol
Isn't seeing a dot or a line impossible? A dot is an infinitely small point and therefore invisible (and arguably actually inconceivable) and a line is simply a series of points but it has only length and no width (also invisible and inconceivable). A 2d object would be visible but without any depth it's also inconceivable beyond viewing it perpendicularly (and therefore from a 3rd angle, also even light has some depth). So we see in 2d but always perpendicular to that plane and move in 3d. But cannot see in any lower dimension nor move in a lower dimension.
I like how my math teacher described it: if we look at a 2 dimensional drawing, we can see the inner part of the shape. A being living in a 2d plane would see a line and the inner part is hidden to them. They see darker and lighter parts to give depth cues, but their vision is 1d so they cannot see the whole thing and the inner part is hidden. Similarly, if a 4d being looked at a cube drawing, their vision would be 3d, so they'd see the whole cube at same time including inside and back. When we look at a cube, we're only seeing a 2d projection of it, so the inside is hidden and the front blocks the back from view
it depends on the angle.
@@josecarlosmoreno9731 I mean, in 3D you can also tilt a square so that you can't see it, because it is still infinitely thin.
@@cameron7374 It's only invisible to the human eye, but all things that are visible have some physical depth to them, even light.
0:50 This is not what the 4th dimension actually looks like. No, this is just a tribute 🎸🤘
Just to think too... that's only a cube. Imagine triangles or hexagons and other shapes like that
Fun fact: in 4 dimensions there would be four possible doughnut shapes because instead of the one torus shape (doughnut shape) we have in three dimensions, there are four different tori shapes in 4 dimensions, in 5 dimensions you could have 11 doughnut shapes.
i wanna eat a 4D donut 🤤
Except we live in a 4 dimensional universe and that's not true... time is a dimension. Don't belive me? Then try to catch a ball that was thrown 25 years ago. If you don't use all 4 dimensions then you can't do anything. Try meeting a friend without discussing the time...
There is also 3 types of cylinders in 4D :>
@@PositiveOnly-dm3rxthere’s two types of dimensionality, temporal dimensions that you experience linearly, and spatial dimensions that can be moved through freely, we live in a 3 spatial 1 temporal dimensional universe, but what I in my comment and also Kyle in this video are referring to is a hypothetical 4 spatial 1 temporal dimensional universe.
@@thecalicodragon4103thank you for sparing me from having to write the same reply, a lot of people in the comments here seem to not understand this distinction.
There is a video called "4D Toys" that I think gives a pretty good idea of what 4D object will behave in 3D world, and show how bizarre it is.
Also I honestly believe that if an individual could somehow "gain vision" to see and comprehend 4D space, he/she is very likely to go mad immediately.
4D Golf
4D Toys is actually an app made by someone who is now working on an actual 4D game called Miegakure, which is "coming soon" on Steam (and has been for like a decade lmao)
Whatever reason you think somebody would go mad after gaining that perception would probably be wrong unless it's about how they can now permanently see the insides and all surfaces of all 3d objects, including people and other living things, without a way to turn it off.
oh and don't even get me started with 5D chess with multiverse and time travel.
@@mr.theking2484 The sheer amount of raw spacial information in the 4th dimension as well and the fact that you keep seeing "ghosts" that no one else is seeing
I get the feeling that if we actually saw what the 4D looked like that our brains would explode or something
0:38 that's me!
wow!
I love you.
we need more of Kyle's Carl Sagan impression.
The best depiction of 4D I’ve ever seen is 4D Golf by CodeParade. It’s a simulation of what a 2D camera would see if it could move freely in a 4D environment. You’re right, you can’t “visualize” 4D, but this game is the closest we can come to navigating in 4D space and having some kind of intuition for it.
Check out “4D Miner”. It’s basically 4D Minecraft.
The onionskinning was such a great aide in navigating 4d. By the time I finished 4D golf, I was thinking "hit it off the blue wall to bounce it orange" was as natural as "hit it off the north wall to bounce it south". It's still a replacement of the 4D "truth", but a very helpful one that really clicked with me
@@enoua5222Well the ending probably threw you back to your knees! 🤣
@@rockyblocky_guy1244 oh, absolutely!
I saw 4d Minecraft - it doesn't show 4d objects, but opens a possibility to explore 4d.
The Rogan diss at 5:19, absolutely fourth dimensional. Slapped my imaginary 5th limb on that one!
I like the visualisation in the video of 4d Minecraft where the world literally changes around you as you move through the plane, creatures exist that can only be seen in one orientation of the 4 dimensions etc
"he's so open minded his brain fell out a long time ago"... Well that's one asthma attack I'm willing to forgive!
I'm sad you didn't mention 4d golf, it's probably the best current analogy we have of 4d (and 5d)
SOMEONE ELSE KNOWS ABOUT THIS GAME!!!!!
I came here to make pretty much that exact statement.. CodeParade has done great work with 4D Golf
4d golf is unbelievably good
Absolutely! Also -parabolica dangit- Hyperbolica for intuitive understanding of non-euclidean 3d spaces.
This. 4D Golf is amazing!
8:06 - "Did that help?" Actually, yeah it kind of did a little. What I'm picturing is seeing that weird shape-shifting illusion, but as this shape performs its rotations within actual 3D space right in front of me. The way the 3D cube's faces distort when being rotated on a 2D surface is the same type of distortion that'd manifest itself in 3 Dimensions if you were able to perceive a 4D cube rotating on a 3D surface. That also, I believe, could be one of the things that helps me visualize it - to think of the 3rd dimension not as a space, but rather as a surface. I love thinking about this sort of stuff, it feels like your mind is like just on the cusp of understanding it, but the understanding always manages to just escape you.
I picture 8 different-coloured cubes all existing in the same 3-dimensional space at once.
But I'm also content with that just being one particular flavour of wrong.
"He's so open minded, his brain fell out a long time ago.." LMAO!!!!! 😂
What's most interesting to me about this topic is that as far as I know, no object or particle in our universe behaves like the shadow of a higher dimensional object. If it did, it would likely disobey one or all of the many laws of conservation that we believe to be true. I'm convinced that higher spatial dimensions (other than time) don't exist, and these hyper-gons are just useful mathematical constructs for describing things other than space.
Hmm I think that some things dont follow the laws of conservation of energy that we have, some things are also breaking of the various symmetries we've put in place over time so thats interesting as well
I'm a mathematician and that what me and a few other math folks thinks. N-space geometry is just a more helpful way to organize variables in order for the math to be easier and to find different solutions. I'm gonna hate to say it, but it like complex numbers. They again are an abstract concept meant to find different solutions to 2 variable problems in calculus and linear algebra that can be though in the math of geometry. Because geometry is some of the simplest math, and hard multivariable calculus could use it. Greens theorem anyone?
This is actually 1 of the theories to explain dark matter & dark energy. We can see the effects (extra gravity in the universe & the universe is expanding) but we can't detect the stuff causing it. Some scientists think it's because some matter exists in higher dimensions or in other universes & still affects 3D stuff in our universe.
Much of electricity and electronics theory require the existence of a 4th special dimension to explain observations.
We call them "imaginary numbers".
@@Chad_Thundercock Usually we call that 4th dimension _time._ However, within those 4 dimensions, it's possible to construct an abstract 16-dimensional space, where linear, volumetric, and planar dimensions are treated separately. As it turns out, planar dimensions between two spatial directions behave suspiciously like "pure" quaternions.
5:14 This was personal 😂
But it is true
Kyle: “You can’t…..but try”
My brain just exploded.
It must have worked if you are able to come back to a time pre-brain explosion (since you are able to type) to tell us about it while still knowing that your brain did explode and that it simultaneously is just exploding.
Now can you do one about people who try to say "the 4th dimension is actually time" or "experience/love/emotion/consciousness is the 4th dimension"?
Okay, so this is a niche nitpick BUT: there was a study conducted at Princeton in the 2000s (by someone named Graziano? Maybe? Its been a minute since I read the paper) that put forward the possibility that with sufficient practice interacting with 4d spaces human brains can actually be taught to reason natively in 4 dimensions (as opposed to just simulating or approximating it in 3 dimensions). If memory serves they did this with 4d puzzles or mazes on computers.
It is far from conclusive evidence that that is possible, but it is a hint from a reputable source that it *might* be possible. And I just find that stupendously cool and tantalizing.
Seems logical that we could evolve to or learn to comprehend it with sufficient exposure to it, but the point remains that there is no way to get exposure to anything in 4D.
@@pieflies Videogames can simulate it.
Those multithreaded cuda processors are designed to project 3D objects into 2D screens to interact and play with "3D" simulated objects. Put on a headset and they simulate 3D objects into a 3D visual for humans with 2 eyes.
We can do this in fact. It would be insane though.
@@Aaron.Thomas You don't even need VR headsets. Everything we see is 2D. I've made tons of 4D models that you can rotate in 4D, shown on a screen. It doesn't take to much practice to learn to think four-dimensionally.
I would be interested to see if we could figure out/isolate what atypical brain activity in particular is responsible for the sometimes reported higher-dimensional perceptory experiences very specific psychedelics can cause and precisely induce it without psychotropic substances in a controlled setting to see if the ability to visualize higher dimensions can be temporarily activated. If it could from there it would follow that with proper care and methodology an intuition could likely be cultivated with repeated exposure. My curiosity stems from a 15 minute portion of a longer experience I had in my youth which left me 100% confident that our brains are fully capable of perfectly visualizing at very least 4d spaces given the proper circumstances, just that it is completely useless to survival and therefore not a default ability we develop. That said my guess is that it is only possible with either a restructuring of the brain or the brain misfiring/cross-talking/mixing signals like crazy (such as what is reductively happening on psychedelics) either of which are almost guaranteed have unpredictable additional cognitive effects.
@@Aaron.Thomasbut if we don’t really know what 4D looks like and can’t visualise it how would we create simulations of it that are accurate?
Unless I’m just missing the point, your comment seems to be talking about VR displaying 3D objects, which is not the same as realistically simulating 4D objects.
3 games that have definitely helped me understand a bit more about 4 dimensions are: 4d maze, where you navigate a multidimensional maze (the cool part about this one is that it has a viewing mode that allows you to uncross/cross your eyes and put together 2 pictures to create a 3d projection, which is trippy when you are able to make it work), 4d miner, a mining/crafting voxel game where you play on a 3d slice of a 4d world and you can move your slice/viewpoint. It also has spiders, and the best way to build a house is to either dig into the ground, or you have to completely fill in the sides of your house (though my mind is wondering if rounding off the ends of the 4-dimensional sides of the house would be less resource-intensive). The last one is 4d golf, which is minigolf in 4 dimensions, and the cool thing is, is that you have two main viewing modes for golfing (with toggleable shadows of the hidden areas in higher dimensions)- your normal view, and the other is replacing your y-axis with the w-axis, having a more volumetric view. The last section, however, goes into 5 dimensions, and that's even more trippy, though each section has somewhat of a gimmick to each of them.
In spite of this, it's an amazingly fun game, all of these are.
Oooh I love 4D golf, I’ll have to check out 4D maze. It’s the first time I’m hearing of that one.
that 4d maze game was absolutely amazing and i can't recommend it enough to those wanting to learn what 4d is like
4d golf is a good way to get used to the fourth dimension
Probably the best one I've played so far. Then again, the pickings are pretty slim to begin with.
Taking the overall rotating shape at 04:25 into consideration; if you look closely at the tesseract, you can see that it is comprised of 6 cubes that rotate around the axis 90° perpendicular to it's own. (Ie. Top/bottom cubes rotate down/up(on x-axis), left/right cubes rotate right/left(on y-axis)) The front and rear cubes, on the other hand, do not rotate, they translate through the shape from back to front.. which I find very interesting if we are talking about a 4th dimensional object. Does that imply this tesseract is moving through the 4th dimension, not rotating?
Does this also imply that a 4th dimensional object can not move unless it makes both a rotational and translational change?
I wonder, if this is a tesseract moving, does a rotating one simply have it's neighbors orbitting it?
I believe this visual is more of a result of needing to fix one axis among x,y, or z to have the visual of w having a larger rotation through 4D space. It's similar to holding a cube in your hand, grabbing two parallel sides, and then spinning the cube between. The two sides you "fixed" upon rotate in place (ala a 2D rotation), but the other 4 sides sides are rotation through space.
If we fix the w axis instead and rotate (rotating around that axis), you would instead have a visual of the object "growing" out of its center (or back into its center) repeatedly.
So when is Kyle gonna play 4D Golf?
Sí all the way
did people actually think that the tesseract representation was actually 4d? I thought it was obvious that it was just a shadow
Yes! It merely gives us a framework to imagine the perspective required to actually experience 4D.
Yeah, it's just a visual representation of a data structure
Um - everything you see in the world is a shadow. You can't see 3D, only 2D projections of 3D objects. We can just as easily see 2D projections of 4D objects. You can't say that we can ONLY see projections of 4D objects, but CAN see the "real" 3D objects. They're both projections, it's just a question of how many dimensions we're projecting down.
@@HyperCubist I want what you're smoking.
The shadow comparison really solidified the idea in my mind, great analogy!
A good representation I've seen is 4D miner. It's a Minecraft clone about a 3D being in a 4D world. It's pretty interesting.
As someone who has been consuming 4D game devs and other contents for a while, I see this as a win win! More quality 4D Content!
Stay tuned on my channel. Lots of 4d content coming soon.
4D miner is an awesome game
@@damienasmodeus928 fr
@@HyperCubist nice, will check
Me, trying to understand 4D cubes, represented in 3D, on a 2D screen with a 1D brain
Through 1D light rays and 0D brain because 0D is infinitely small
2:01
when you go from an epic cutscene to a dance fight
Trying to visualize the fourth dimension makes me feel like I'm about to discover undiagnosed epilepsy.
Just play 4D golf, you may not see the whole course at once but you can scan through it and put it together in your head while playing
the 4d Golf engine is unironically the current cutting edge in 4d visualization
When I played it I never felt like I understood the space I was in, and yet I still managed to build enough intuition to finish the game.
10:13 I have actually thought about this for a long time. I remember videos describing how a 2D creature would have 1D vision, and it made me wonder if the same applies to 3D creatures like us.
A hypothetical 4D being could have actual 3D vision, which means that by looking at you they would be able to see not only your front and back simultaneously but also every single part inside your body.
Aren't we 4d beings, or does time not count?
@JannPoo Holy shit that would be so cool. But also, what about privacy??? I don't want people seeing my insides 😂
@@orchdork775 Can you see time? What does time look like?
An entity limited to 3D space *can* have full 3D vision, but it will be limited. They simply have to be a spherical shell with their sight pointing inwards to an object inside themselves. Heck, doesn't even have to be spherical, you just need to have the vision sensing entirely enclose the viewed object.
Sick Vsauce cut at 10:06
You won me over at 1:02 with the impersonation of the late great Carl Sagan.
Okay- here’s why I think it could be possible to one day imagine the 4th dimension.
So okay- people with aphantasia can’t imagine actual objects in their brains, can’t physically rotate them BUT they still can understand the concept of that object. They can understand the sides that make up that object and the properties of that object without seeing it in the conventional sense.
So here’s where things get weird. If we can figure out a method to train our brains to perceive a 3D object- all sides to it, THEN we’ll start getting really close to imagining the 4th dimension.
The easiest objects would be things like cubes and pyramids since we know what they look like inside out. BUT, we can begin the process by color coding each side and trying to comprehend each side at the same time- without unfolding it, or rotating the object.
Understanding it more like a computer would. When a computer loads up a cube in blender, it’s not seeing it from one side- it loads in the whole thing and shows us that one angle we can currently understand.
Once we figure out a method of doing this, then we can potentially start doing more complex objects and from there- we’d have mastered an understanding of the concept of the 3rd dimension.
From there, again we’ll have figured out a few new pathways of understanding what the 4th dimension could look like- in not looking at an object literally like looking at a photo, but understanding how it works
Hey, I actually have some degree of aphantasia myself! (Not sure how severe because it's self-diagnosed and I only realized like a year ago.) And I agree, I can never "picture" anything in my mind but I can understand the concepts of things just fine. As a result, while it's obviously more difficult, it's possible for me to get the "feel" of stuff like a hypercube to a degree.
It's easiest for me to conceptualize a vague "object" that as it moves in 4-D space changes what parts of it we can see in 3-D space, even if a specific example like a tessaract/hypercube is a bit too difficult for me. Probably because, while in college I understood multivariable calculus just fine, I really struggled with linear algebra (not knowing much about vector spaces and matrices before the class definitely made it hard lol).
@@gunnarschlichting9886my aphantasia causes near pitch nacl images. But my brain definitely understands the connections on andeeper level i cannot convey. N
I have aphantasia, and I’m pretty sure this is just what mathematician do. Sadly, therefore, I don’t think it really gets us closer than we already are.
I can mentally comprehend that a cube has 6 square faces, and that a tesseract has 8 cubic “hyperfaces”. Professional mathematicians who work with 4D could maybe even know intuitively how a tesseract's shadow would look for some particular angle. even still, seeing a drawing of a cube immediately evokes the 3D object - not as an image, but as a thing I've understood from reality - but no such reaction occurs for the 3D shadows of a tesseract.
I think the limit is down to our 3D experience day-to-day being incompatible with 4D. It's not just a visual barrier.
I will say though, I think getting conceptually familiar with 4D is doable. Games like miegakure and 4D Golf are challenging on the mind, but can be navigated after some time to acclimatise. Just like it doesn't really matter that we can't see IR or UV bc we have ways to detect it and work with it when needed, I don't really mind not being able to "experience" 4D because we can work with it for all practical purposes!
This is the earliest I’ve ever been to a K-Hill video
I legit read that first as "K-Hole video" 😅
@@thedoublek4816kinda applies with the weird dimension speak going on. Above my head but it’s still super interesting.
This takes me back to reading "The boy who reversed himself" as a child.
sounds hot lol
@@dusk2308 I suppose steamy talk about nth space, extra dimensions and their geometry can be a little sexy. Not to a 7 year old though lol.
@@dusk2308 😂
I loved that book so much I introduced it to my kids as soon as they were old enough to start wondering about higher dimensions.
@@jxmink Yes!
It sent 7 year old me down a rabbit hole from "Ana" and "Kata", to Charles Howard Hinton and Tesseracts full speed into a fascination with spatial directions that dropped young me into the lap of (super)string theory, which I had to revisit when I was a little older lol.
Books like that are a great foundation for scientific curiosity and will always have a special place in my heart. I'll be giving it to my kids too.
"I am award-winning science educator and Thor if you try to draw him from memory...Kyle Hill." 😆🤣🤣 That one gave me a good laugh!!
3:05 I tried this and my hand disappeared someone please help
TH-cam deleted my comment for some reason, but 4D Golf exists
Not only that, but the devlogs as well (i guess i can't put the developer here because TH-cam)
It's $20 on steam. The Steam Summer Sale is in 2 days.
A guy created a 4D version of Minecraft... he did a video on it and it was really cool. You still can't see in 4D, but you get another axis control and you have to adjust it to see the rest of the 4D spectrum. You need to secure your bases from 4th dimensional attacks. It's pretty wild.
Like looking at thin slices of 3D space?
@@thingthingthingthingthingthing It's exactly that, you play on a 3D slice of the 4th dimension and you can effectively rotate your slice with several tools to access the rest of the 4th dimension. 4D golf is a similar concept but they also project "ghosts" of the 4th dimension into your 3D slice of objects that would be nearby if your turned your slice (best way I can describe it)
don't left us hanging without telling us who is the guy.
a quick search shows a bunch of people made minecraft 4d videos.
@@thingthingthingthingthingthing Thats literally what it is.
Way back when I was in school (graduated in 1984, that was fun) when we learned about the tesseract/hypercube, it was explained to us that the model of a cube in a cube with the corners connected was merely a representation of a 3 dimensional shadow of a 4 dimensional cube. I guess popular media hasn't bothered to explain that to anyone for a while, except for you.
We had a lot of fun with the concept. Heck, playing D&D in the school library we even set up a dungeon where each face of the hypercube was a different room, and had them correctly connected to each other. (Or at least we did our best to work out the connections, and the computer model doing the math for us didn't spit out any errors, so we were pretty confident we got it right. We got the math formulas from the math teacher, he also taught at the local university, so I have no idea if the average math teacher would usually have that kind of info or not. Though I did drive him nuts for a week with the formula for a mobius strip without telling him what it was... :D When I told him he was so annoyed at himself for not realizing it earlier. )
Ah well, ancient history and the silly things we got up to in high school.
I love the theory that time is the Fourth dimension. It extends the definition of a dimension into a interesting and view changing way
Time is a measure of the rate in which matter moves. There are only three directions.
Please stop this 4th dimenions bs as there is ZERO ability for a 4th to exist.
@@BrandonDenny-we1rwSpecial and general relativity are literally built around the interpretation of time as a fourth dimension. It’s not that we can say that time definitively is or isn’t a fourth dimension, but when we treat it as one mathematically, it can give us a really useful model for how the universe works. And yes, a temporal dimension isn’t the same as a fourth spatial dimension, obviously.
@@november666 I didn't know the theory was that fundamental to our current understanding of the universe. Thanks for enlightening me.
@@november666 Time is not a spatial dimension in any theory.
Time is a time dimension, ie a parameter of 3D space.
This video is not about change over time, and the tesseract is not a cube mutating through time, its a static object frozen in time that we are "viewing" as it rotates along an axis w in the fourth spatial dimension.
Spatial dimensions and time dimensions are not the same category of dimension. This video is exclusively about spatial dimensions only.
Here's something better for you to think about. A second time dimension.
We measure our time dimension in 1 dimensions. forward and backward. (technically, we meaasure it as "now" and everything flowing away from now in one dimension, "the past", but we can extrapolate a "future" now that we have not yet reached... ugh , time as a dimension is weird, since we don't navigate it like spatial dimensions, it's just a stream)
What if time had 2 dimensions instead of 1? What if there was time, forward and backward ie past and future, but also as a feature of regular life, 2 other directions in time, ie we weren't just in the now moving away from the past, we were also moving away from a different time direction?
What is as mind-blowing is that the line you made to represent 1D space is actually a 2D representation of a line, it has an actual width as well as length. It is virtually impossible to represent 1D space.
It’s more about conceptualizing the concept, not replicating it. I see this flavor of pedanticism all over these comments and it’s missing the point
The map is not the territory.
I think the best expression of the tesseract shadow is on 4d rubix cubes. You have to do special movements to pull the middle colours to a face.
I think this is the time to plug "4D Golf" here. It's actively awesome for learning to visualize 4D