Alright, I see the comments. I’ll make a deal with you all. 20k likes on this video, and I’ll do the 6th dimension! How does that sound? - Thank you so much for almost 100k likes!! Go to my 'Waves And Theories' playlist for the 6th dimension video!
Our eyes don't actually see in 2D,they are curved,your brain just enhances the information you get from your eyes so that we can comprehend the information more precisely,you can focus on lookin at an object which is straight from the corner of your eye to see the curve of your eyeballs@@sokerok320
the easiest example when i talk about dimensions are libraries. a letter is 1 dimensional. a word is made of letters so is 2 dimensional, a page is a collection of words, which makes it 3 dimensional. a book is a collection of pages, a shelf is a collection of books, and a whole bookshelf is a collection of shelfs (containing books), and so on. a line of bookshelfves, a square or cube of bookshelf, a library, etc. each one adds up a dimension. thats even easier if you think about it in a programming context, cause multi dimensional vectors, are simply vectors that contain other vectors as values. every external dimension you add, adds a vector-container
So it basically ads a “factor” to the number of possible points? If there was a 4 dimensional grid, it would have n^4 possible locations for a point. That makes sense in a mathematical sense, but not in a visual sense, although maybe no one can comprehend the visuals.
@@nicezombie8054it’s 5D: Length Width Height (the horse jumps over pieces, so even though the board appears 2D it is really 3D) The time dimension And the multiverse dimension
@@ghost2130Main yeah .. but when you draw a cube on a paper we call the cube 3d but the drawing 2d .. like we say 3d model although it's a 2d picture on a screen ..
Technically we can only comprehend the 3rd dimension fully, we accidentally picture depth when drawing a square on paper because the paper technically has depth and the line (1st dimension) will always have width when we draw it, making it 2d, and like I said before, a 2d shape can only be comprehended with a bit of third dimensional depth
@@Sebby_Does_Stuff_YT Yes, we can comprehend the 3rd dimension but we cannot see it. We see everything in two dimensions and even though we have eyes and we have two of them we can only perceive depth, and it is used only to approximate our distance from the object we are looking at. If we were able to see in 3 dimensions, we would be able to see everything, our insides, everything inside buildings etc.
@@hybriddeath5133this would be if you can see in 4d, as we live in a 3d world, we can see and understand 3d, but the next step would be as you explained but would be 4d. I’ve seen some videos on the subject that defend this point
Yessssss I love this way of thinking about it! I usually explain it using the cross section rather than a plane. This is why people say “4D is time”, because the idea would be if you moved the cube from one place to another, 4D is the cube in all of those positions simultaneously, and that cross section is just one frame of time.
@@MarcianoRibeiro-e8u if we define ourselves (3D) as "1D" then the (2nd dimension) becomes "-1D". Just a naming convention but if you are asking does "-1D" actually exists, no, how can one take direction away from something that has no direction in the first place? that's not possible. if anything it could be that you need to add direction to this point multiple times in order to get it to 1D. like adding direction to a point once takes it from 0d to 1d, so maybe I need to add direction to a point twice for it to get to 1d, in that case I could name such a condition as -1d. that still leaves us with the question "Does there exist a thing which doesn't attain direction after you give it direction once?"
@@nicolasedgarbarrerapinilla2774 We already have conceptualized tesseracts, that is as far as we go, a 4D shape can exist but it's 3D shadow cannot be perceived unless it shines under a 4D light that is directed towards our plane of existence, no? Perhaps you're right.
There are other ways to get to 5D with pure math. Group Theory is plotting out all the different ways an object can be symmetrical. With Group Theory you can pretty easily plot any dimensional object and understand a lot about it (how you can turn it, flip it, etc). Group theory may become the key to understanding quantum physics if string theory is proven true (unlikely but possible)
2d has 2 dimensions: x and y 3d has 3 dimensions: x, y and z 4d has 4 dimensions: x, y, z and a (or whatever you want to call it). This is the principle of dimensions. It’s hard to comprehend a 4th one, but I can try to explain how it would feel. 2d has 2 dimensions. Theoretically speaking if we take a 2d person, on paper he won’t be able to reach the 3rd dimension (z). *BUT* if you take that paper, and rotate that around, he could hypothetically reach every corner of the 3rd dimension by rotating the 2d paper in the z axis. Same can be said for 4d. We live in a 3d world (image a cube), so hypothetically speaking, if you rotate this cube around the 4th dimension (let’s say it’s considered a), then it’s possible to traverse the 4th dimension. As humans we will never get to see the whole 4th dimension with our own eyes, but it just may be possible to explore one. A great video explaining this (with visuals), is a video called “I made 4d Minecraft”. I really recommend watching it as it’s super interesting and you get to see how it feels as a 3d character to walk in a 4d world. (Edit: I forgot this video is about 5d, but it’s the same principle as the last ones, like 4d with another dimension: x, y, z, a and b (again, made up dimension but you get the idea)
That would be like humans trying to understand objects in the 7th dimension from the perspective of our 3 dimension level of understanding, without knowing the strategy in this short.
But seeing how: 2 dots form a line 4 lines form a square 6 squares form a cube Wouldn't logic be that 8 cubes form whatever is next? That 4d shape does not look like it's made up of 8 cubes, please prove me wrong if you can it's just a theory that popped into my head.
Here's how i understand 4D and 5D. If we cut different slices of a random 3D object, we get different 2D shapes. Likewise, if we cut different sections of a 4D object, we'll get different 3D objects. Or in other words, 4D object can present itself as a morphing 3D object, depending on which slice you cut. Or you can imagine a hologram box with a slider such that as you move the slider, the 3D object continuously changes its form. A 5D object would be a morphing 4D object (depending on which slice you cut), which is an even crazier morphing object observed in 3D.
You can't understand and imagine 5d cause it will contain infinite versions of the 4th dimension and the fourth dimension will contain infinite number of 3d version
this is the only video that has actually helped me understand the 4th dimension shape thing so as far as I can grasp, it’s like making a 3 dimensional cube be made out of 3 dimensional cubes basically 3 dimensional 3D shape
This makes a lot of sense now. The internet would show me pictures of what a 4D cube would look like from a 3D perspective, but it never explained why. Thank you.
Tesseracts should contain 8 Cubes, while a Pentaract should contain 10 Tesseracts. It follows, the pattern. 2 dots make a line 4 lines make a square 6 squares make a cube. The pattern should keep going. Edit: Holy smokes I did not expect my comment to get over 100 likes.
You can actually find 8 cubes in a (3d model of a) tesseract, being: - Top - Bottom - Front - Back - Left - Right - "Inner" - "Outer" Anyone please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, I can only try my best.
Two points define a line *segment*'s length. However, a line has an infinite number of points. They cannot be connect with each other from their independent points of view. To create a line, a point must be extruded through 1d space. A square is defined by a line segment extruded through 2d space. There's an infinite number of lines that can be drawn arbitrarily along the new line segment "connecting" the endpoints of the 1d lines, but a 1d observer would not comprehend that an arbitrarily infinite number of 1d objects align along a plane they can't percieve. A cube is the same story. A square extruded through 3d space gives a cube, and an arbitrarily infinite number of squares are superimposed and "connected", even though the squares themselves have no thickness. A cube extruded through 4d space creates a tesseract. We can't perceive this 4th dimension, but according to the pattern, there must be an arbitrarily infinite number of cubes that "connect"/superimpose to make a 4d shape. A cross section of a tesseract would give you a cube.
are you sure 2 dots make a line bro? unless the dots connected by a line, which is formed by many dots as we perceive by eyes. so my point is that a line consist of in fact up to infinite dots, but for plane it takes only 4 line, and for cube 6 plane which you've already pointed out.
I think the key point is about drawing edges that extend their limits over the vertices of the current figure that we are trying to represent in an additional dimension.
A issue people have is labeling dimensions. We cant agree on the order of the first 3 dimensions, or if the 4th dimension is time. Each dimension is just a measurement independent of the rest.
Whether we agree on what the 4th dimension is, is irrelevant here. This video is talking about 4th spacial dimension, not time. There's a reason some prefer to call our universe 3 + 1 Dimension (3 space and one of time). A hypothetical 2 and 4th dimensional creature could also experience time. - 2 + 1 Dimensions - 4 + 1 Dimensions Basically, there's nothing to stop us from imaging any number of dimensions that also experience time. There's no issue with labelling dimensions, as long as it's clear what you're talking about. Never been an issue before
@@Scion141 Then why are you listing it as 3+1, 4+1, etc? A being that is experiencing a singular flow in a dimension may call it time, but to the scholarly outside observer able to see the rewind of that time just as easily there is no reason. We are labelling independent measurements and there is no reason to make the distinction from the other spacial dimensions.
This is incredible! I was always unable to understand the fourth dimension, even after watching long form videos. I was confused by the concept of thinking how a 4d object would pass through a 3d plane but now I understand it!
Ok guys, I have a good way of visualizing it, just as a point in space is 0d, and a line in space is 1d, and also that a square is a 2d object. imagine a 3d object as a single “0d” point. Now string together a bunch of 3d points in a line, being able to move on this line would let you travel through 4d space, now for 5d, turn that 4d “line” into a 5d “square”. And this easily tiles into a 6d “cube” of 5d “squares”, this actually points out the semi validity of 4d potentially being time, seeing as how we made a “line” out of 3d, we could call it a “timeline” I hope this makes sense somewhat
This sounds like nonsense.. "timeline" is just a name.. For.. Literally a line That represents time. Shrinking a 3d object to a point and making a line out of 2 of them is still 3d..
@@MCAbdo dude, it was a way of visualizing it, I know it’s still 3d, but it’s an easier way of seeing it due to our perceptional limits, this is honestly just rude and feels like you only read it to poke at it
@@CookieMage27No it’s not just rude. I am going to be though because of how stupid you sound. You can’t just come up with a way to visualize the next dimension especially if you’re not an expert on this sort of subject. You can’t just come up with something stupid that doesn’t make sense and expect everyone to just agree with your nonsense.
Wait! What if our 3D world is a 4D object moving through four dimensional timespace? When you check 4D hypersphere moving through 3D space is just a 3D sphere appearing from one point, growing to its size, then shrinking and finally disappearing out of our 3D vision. Does it remind you of something? Maybe stars? Or planets? Or us, humans? Growing from single point (single cell) until our most mature form, until we kind of „shrink” (getting old) just to disappear from our 3D world? Looks kind like a 4D object moving through 3D space on a line which is time ;) anyone ever thought about it like that? Try to look on somebody’s life as a whole, at one time, from birth to death, may look like a 4D object moving through 3D spacetime ;)
@@tunowy well, that’s a lovely theory, but there are actually two types of dimensions, spatial dimensions, think of direction, and temporal dimensions, think of time. While thinking of growing mass as moving it through the fourth spatial dimension, you must consider that relative to the person, if they were being moved, it would look like the world is moving through in the opposite direction, imagine when you jump, you move up relative to earth, but, if you use your own inertial frame of reference, everything looks like it is moving down, and physically, it behaves that way too. Moving through the 4th spatial dimension would Imply that your worldview would be constantly changing, and you would still somewhat be able to see your full self, which doesn’t really happen, from what we know, it is the cell duplication that grows humans, using nutrients, and the stars only grow because of fusion, turning hydrogen to helium, when the helium becomes the majority, it stops holding itself together.
I think your 5D cube isn’t represented correctly, the vertices from the previous cubes should connect because it is a matter of attaching all endpoints from the previous dimensions to each other. In this case, the vertices of the 3rd dimensional cube should attach to the vertices of the 5th dimensional cube.
Is like a black hole Imagine looking at a black hole The bending Light bending thing It only works a bit Not everywhere because our eyes can only see 2d
I’m actually not sure about this. Spatial dimensions realistically are based on our perception, so I imagine only natural numbers would be used to define them.
I think it could work, however you would need a different definition of dimensions. Fractal dimensions are such a different dimensions. A fractal being 2.5 dimensional does not mean that you need 2.5 numbers to accurately define a point on it. Actually a 2.5 dimensional fractal would need at least 3 spatial dimensions to exist. However fractal dimensions are defined through scaling. So for example a line gets 2 times longer when you double its length (obviously). A square gets 4 times as big (area wise) if you double its side length and a cube 8 times as big. Now a 2.5D fractal would become 2^2.5 times bigger. Extend that into negative dimensions and you could derive that a -2 dimensional object would actually become 4 times smaller if you double the "side length". What properties such an object would have (besides its scaling behavior) and how it would look like, is of course an open question.
So that means a 6 dimensional queue would be made of five dimensional cubes made up of 4th dimensional cues made up of third dimensional cubes made up of 2 dimensional squares made up of one-dimensional lines made up of zero-dimensional dots.... THAT MEANS WE CAN GO INFINITY AND BEYOND AND PROBABLY EVEN PASS 100D
You can comprehend it. Just throw the idea that you cannot out of the window and expose yourself to 4D stuff for a while. With 5D comprehending it is just as simple. Its just another dimension. However actually imagining 5D is much much harder than 4D in my opinion.
I like the theory that says that us humans understand the 4D dimension as time, because we see "each moment at a time" meaning that, as 2D beings would see the parts of a 3D object one moment at a time without being aware of the 3rd dimension, a 3rd dimensional being could only see the 4 dimension each moment at time, meaning that time is the only way we can experiment the 4th dimension, if we were 4th dimensional beings, that would mean we could see (and understand) every moment every time, move a cross time as we do with space
That's a separate idea from this. Time is the 4th dimension in reality. Talking about 4th dimensional space is more of a mathematical idea. The difference between Euclidean space and Minkowski space.
@@jaredf6205 reality ❌ general relativity ✅ it's only a model, there is nothing that says that the different states of the universe can actually be aligned on an axis where the past and the future both exist. And yes, saying "the 4th dimension is time" is restricted to those theories and not to mathematical dimensions as a whole.
I can't remember what video i watched that explained the 4th dimension really well by working up through the dimensions; it was like imagine what a 3D object (e.g. an apple) would look like going through a 2D world: the creatures would just see a 2D cross section of the apple and it would looking like it was growing and shrinking in size as it moved through their plane of existence. Now, for 3D creatures, a 4D object would have 3D cross sections moving through our plane. This gets difficult to imagine when you consider objects we have with complex geometries like a car or utility vehicle or a statue or a tree-- seeing that complex shape that is only a cross section of a complete object that is seemingly shifting and changing shape as it rotates
Here, I’ll help you understand 5 dimensions. You make a list of your friends and write down their age, height, weight, income and rent. You then find the average of each and find the friend closest to that average (add difference of all fields). Congrats you just used 5 dimensions. No need to conceptualize it in space. Just realize there are 5 numerical pieces of data per point and you can do normal algebra with it. You’re welcome.
it's just like 4D but one more axis imagine a person named A and another person named B there is a cubical wall between them. A can't see B through this wall because he needs to be looking in a fifth dimension. not only that 5th dimensional being can also see inside 4D structure all entirety of the hypervolume without overlapping each similar to seeing each 3 dimensional slices
Seeing 5D instantly made my DND brain say: You mean 5e? Edit: For those of you that don't play DND but watched this video (surprisingly) 5e stands for the fifth edition of dungeons and dragons
In a mechanical sense, this can be explained more simply. All higher-order dimensions become signs of points, such as the moment of bending and the moment of rotation
Man's making the incomprehensible comprehendible which is commendable considering how logical his explanation for the seemingly impossible to rationale unimaginable higher dimensional shapes are assembled through methodical analogical illustrations to convey incredible conceptual geometrical structures beyond the typical numerical spatial directional variety to the people seeing this hypothetical to tackle this topic like a professional.
This doesn’t explain how it works to US though. Just the concept of how it may work in a theoretical sense. By this logic, I could explain 68 dimensions, 113 dimensions - however many I want- but still have no idea how they work.
"Dimensions" is a concept used to describe the world, which exists. There can't be less than 3, because 0 volume is impossible and there can't be more than 3 because X, Y and Z are ALL the possible descriptors of a body. Time MAY be used as a dimension JUST AND ONLY to VISUALLY REPRESENT IT, because time is not a place, but the continuosly burning and advancing present because/as Entropy.
I think the best way I've been able to comprehend it is like a video game where you walk through a door and it takes you someplace entirely new you can walk around freely that only exists "between" where you came from
What you said was too limiting because it would mean that I’m more than just a human based on what I can comprehend, as for what I can experience I’m certain there’s more but as for how to experience it I am learning how through my own conducted research and experimentation. The higher dimensions we go the more we begin to understand why things, people and places are shaped differently and why they respond to their respective settings the way they do. That goes for everything from atomic make up to outer space and beyond that which is where I am trying to find a way back to simplicity to make actual friends who aren’t just curious but actually care about more than just themselves and surface level topics.
For me, this does not make sense since the example given seems to be repeating the 3rd dimension onto the 5th dimension. Going from 3rd to 4th is understood as the tesseract is an exclamation of infinite and interlocked ‘cubes’. However going to the 4th to 5th only appears to mimick the previous example and does not elaborate the possibilities, or laws opened in the 4th dimension itself. This is where my confusion stems.
either your 5d or 4d cube equevelent is missing some detials as a to raise by a d you take a replicate of the shape and connected each corresponding point which you haven't done for your 5d
First dimension is the ray of time. The seconds through forth are already known. The fifth is hinted at by electromagnetism. I think gravity hints at higher dimensions as well. Just a thought and my opinion on how the dimensions should be considered. In my model you can still consider a point as a 0th dimension point which is essentially a coordinate point in most circumstances. I would think that hyperbolic geometry should be considered since gravity is a thing and our reality is, in fact, clumpy.
A given being will always dominate a number of dimensions and be a passenger of the next one. we dominate the 3 dimensions of space, but are passengers of time. A being that travels through time will be a passenger of the paradox avoidance tree, etc.
I think that higher dimensions are easier to understand from a mathematical perspective. Mathematically, dimensions are defined as the number of things a basis of a vector space (think of a vector space as like 1-dimensional space, 2-dimensional space, etc. It’s not completely accurate but it’ll do for now without having to go deep into the math). A basis is a set of things that can be used to represent anything in a vector space as the things scaled by some scalar added together. For example, two-dimensional coordinates (x,y) can be represented as (x, y) = x[1 0] + y[0 1] if my basis is {[0 1], [1 0]}. Points in spaces such as 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional spaces are represented by coordinates. These coordinates are the coefficients when you represent your vector using the basis as previously described. So for a vector v in 2 dimensional space, for which v = x[1 0] + y[0 1], its coordinates would be (x, y). We can represent points in higher dimensional space this way too. 4- and 5-dimensional points can be represented as vectors which have coordinates that are given as the coefficients of w[1 0 0 0] + x[0 1 0 0] + y[0 0 1 0] + z[0 0 0 1] or v[1 0 0 0 0] w[0 1 0 0 0] + x[0 0 1 0 0] + y[0 0 0 1 0] + z[0 0 0 0 1] respectively.
We can comprehend upwards of 10 dimensions. We can only perceive the lowest 3. The fact that we are capable of discussing higher dimensions and showing them with diagrams shows we are perfectly capable of convincing and conceptualizing them.
the x2 rule: take something from the Nth dimension, then connect all the corresponding edges (ex. front top left to front top left) to get something from the N+1th dimension
We cannot understand the 4th dimension! But we can relate some statements about 4th dimension to 3rd like 3rd to 2nd. Why do. Also, in my opinion, 4th dimension parameter is can be easily described as a time. Watch more videos if you're interested. Time frames shows intersections 4d cube with 3d space at any w (4th) axis.
Alright, I see the comments. I’ll make a deal with you all. 20k likes on this video, and I’ll do the 6th dimension! How does that sound?
- Thank you so much for almost 100k likes!! Go to my 'Waves And Theories' playlist for the 6th dimension video!
sure thing bud
Ye
You’re halfway already! Keep going!
13k already. Now let's get this viral. Pandemic style
That didn't take long
The fact hes explaining it on a 2d surface makes it way more cool
infort of my 1d brain no less
No less*
our eyes see at 2d
Our eyes don't actually see in 2D,they are curved,your brain just enhances the information you get from your eyes so that we can comprehend the information more precisely,you can focus on lookin at an object which is straight from the corner of your eye to see the curve of your eyeballs@@sokerok320
@@prinlerdsri405😂
the easiest example when i talk about dimensions are libraries.
a letter is 1 dimensional. a word is made of letters so is 2 dimensional, a page is a collection of words, which makes it 3 dimensional. a book is a collection of pages, a shelf is a collection of books, and a whole bookshelf is a collection of shelfs (containing books), and so on. a line of bookshelfves, a square or cube of bookshelf, a library, etc. each one adds up a dimension.
thats even easier if you think about it in a programming context, cause multi dimensional vectors, are simply vectors that contain other vectors as values. every external dimension you add, adds a vector-container
So it basically ads a “factor” to the number of possible points? If there was a 4 dimensional grid, it would have n^4 possible locations for a point. That makes sense in a mathematical sense, but not in a visual sense, although maybe no one can comprehend the visuals.
I haven't even unlocked the 4 level yet bruh this game is so hard 😭
Okay let me basically it look like a 3D cube getting bigger and bigger until it stops and gets smaller and smaller
@@vittorio2184 Cubic bipyramid?
You're a cubic bi-pyramid@@FireyDeath4
Thats a cubic pyramid in 4d. A cube would just appear, stay a while, then disappear.
I mean, R^4 is literally just 4-tuples of real numbers. Yeah, it's hard to visualize, but that's just superficial, vestigial stuff.
Imagining a 4th or even 5th dimensional shapes feels like trying to imagine a new color
This is what happens when you snort a cube instead of a line.
Underrated comment right here!
@@isentient666for real 😭😭😭🙏🙏🙏
😅
I can only imagine how painful that would be.
Snorting a tesseract? a HYPERCUBE?
Instructions unclear. I now have a black hole in my living room
Is this an Adventure Time reference?
4d golf has trained me in the 4th dimension
now instead of being completely lost im only semi lost
Play it more and it will train you for the 5th dimension too.
Now play 5d chess
@@crivus
That is the one with time travel, right?
4D Golf sounds sick
@@geschnitztekiste4111 its a pretty fun game once you wrap your head around 3d volumes being flat surfaces
Explaination of a 5D object in 4G internate with 3D reality on 2D phone and my 1D brain is the hardest thing to digest ever.
the 5th dimension is easier to understand if you've played 5d chess with multiverse time travel
Sadly 5d chess with interdimensional time travel is actually 4d
I think we're talking about spacial dimensions, and excluding temporal. A Hypercube is a 4D structure within physical space with no time variable
@@nicezombie8054it’s 5D:
Length
Width
Height (the horse jumps over pieces, so even though the board appears 2D it is really 3D)
The time dimension
And the multiverse dimension
Chess X
Chess Y
Timeline X2
Multi-timeline travel Y2
I think it's only 4D Chess tbh
@@uiron5755 it's only really 4d because the pieces aren't 3d
the fact that all of that is still 3d 😂
they all are 2d
@@ghost2130Main
yeah .. but when you draw a cube on a paper we call the cube 3d but the drawing 2d .. like we say 3d model although it's a 2d picture on a screen ..
And the
1d
0d
Are 2d because they have length and width
"Humans can only comprehend 3 dimensions"
Wrong, my brain can only comprehend 1
Technically we can only comprehend the 3rd dimension fully, we accidentally picture depth when drawing a square on paper because the paper technically has depth and the line (1st dimension) will always have width when we draw it, making it 2d, and like I said before, a 2d shape can only be comprehended with a bit of third dimensional depth
not funny ngl
@@Sebby_Does_Stuff_YT Yes, we can comprehend the 3rd dimension but we cannot see it. We see everything in two dimensions and even though we have eyes and we have two of them we can only perceive depth, and it is used only to approximate our distance from the object we are looking at. If we were able to see in 3 dimensions, we would be able to see everything, our insides, everything inside buildings etc.
I want say smth like "alr dumbass"
@@hybriddeath5133this would be if you can see in 4d, as we live in a 3d world, we can see and understand 3d, but the next step would be as you explained but would be 4d. I’ve seen some videos on the subject that defend this point
Yessssss I love this way of thinking about it!
I usually explain it using the cross section rather than a plane.
This is why people say “4D is time”, because the idea would be if you moved the cube from one place to another, 4D is the cube in all of those positions simultaneously, and that cross section is just one frame of time.
We can't understand 4d because we are trapped in 3d. So just get on with it.
One question...is there -1D?
@@MarcianoRibeiro-e8u if we define ourselves (3D) as "1D" then the (2nd dimension) becomes "-1D". Just a naming convention but if you are asking does "-1D" actually exists, no, how can one take direction away from something that has no direction in the first place? that's not possible.
if anything it could be that you need to add direction to this point multiple times in order to get it to 1D.
like adding direction to a point once takes it from 0d to 1d, so maybe I need to add direction to a point twice for it to get to 1d, in that case I could name such a condition as -1d. that still leaves us with the question "Does there exist a thing which doesn't attain direction after you give it direction once?"
0d = one point
1d = 2 0d points
2d = 4 1d lines
3d = 6 2d squares
4d = 8 3d cubes
5d = 10 4d tesseracts (hyper-cubes)
6d = 12 5d pentaracts
7d = 14 6d hexaracts
8d = 16 7d heptaracts
9d = 18 8d octaracts
10d = 20 9d nonnaracts
11d = 22 10d decaracts
Is that correct? Ask me in the replies.
The thing is, after the 3 dimension, we fail to visualize how to place the shapes since we never saw a 4D shape so all we try to do is theorize
@@ajdndbdjbdj Good point.
@@ajdndbdjbdj yeah, we need to be 4D creatures to see in 4D, 5D for 5D and so on.
but if 4d shapes existed we would see a a 3d Fraction of it
@@nicolasedgarbarrerapinilla2774 We already have conceptualized tesseracts, that is as far as we go, a 4D shape can exist but it's 3D shadow cannot be perceived unless it shines under a 4D light that is directed towards our plane of existence, no?
Perhaps you're right.
There are other ways to get to 5D with pure math. Group Theory is plotting out all the different ways an object can be symmetrical. With Group Theory you can pretty easily plot any dimensional object and understand a lot about it (how you can turn it, flip it, etc). Group theory may become the key to understanding quantum physics if string theory is proven true (unlikely but possible)
“Geometries we can actually comprehend...”
Proceeds to draw Mirrored Check mark.
Ikr 😭😭😭
FR😂
2d has 2 dimensions: x and y
3d has 3 dimensions: x, y and z
4d has 4 dimensions: x, y, z and a (or whatever you want to call it).
This is the principle of dimensions. It’s hard to comprehend a 4th one, but I can try to explain how it would feel.
2d has 2 dimensions. Theoretically speaking if we take a 2d person, on paper he won’t be able to reach the 3rd dimension (z). *BUT* if you take that paper, and rotate that around, he could hypothetically reach every corner of the 3rd dimension by rotating the 2d paper in the z axis.
Same can be said for 4d. We live in a 3d world (image a cube), so hypothetically speaking, if you rotate this cube around the 4th dimension (let’s say it’s considered a), then it’s possible to traverse the 4th dimension.
As humans we will never get to see the whole 4th dimension with our own eyes, but it just may be possible to explore one.
A great video explaining this (with visuals), is a video called “I made 4d Minecraft”. I really recommend watching it as it’s super interesting and you get to see how it feels as a 3d character to walk in a 4d world.
(Edit: I forgot this video is about 5d, but it’s the same principle as the last ones, like 4d with another dimension: x, y, z, a and b (again, made up dimension but you get the idea)
Now imagine what people in the 2D trying to firgure what the 3D looks like
Look up the movie Flatland if you want an answer to that question, the animation is a bit dated but I highly recommend it
Bill Cipher tried to show Eculidya that, they all burned to death by his hands
That would be like humans trying to understand objects in the 7th dimension from the perspective of our 3 dimension level of understanding, without knowing the strategy in this short.
That's still 3D anyway. @@LETMEHAVETHEAXOLOTL
They think of a cube like three 2D squares probably
But seeing how:
2 dots form a line
4 lines form a square
6 squares form a cube
Wouldn't logic be that
8 cubes form whatever is next? That 4d shape does not look like it's made up of 8 cubes, please prove me wrong if you can it's just a theory that popped into my head.
Here's how i understand 4D and 5D.
If we cut different slices of a random 3D object, we get different 2D shapes.
Likewise, if we cut different sections of a 4D object, we'll get different 3D objects. Or in other words, 4D object can present itself as a morphing 3D object, depending on which slice you cut. Or you can imagine a hologram box with a slider such that as you move the slider, the 3D object continuously changes its form.
A 5D object would be a morphing 4D object (depending on which slice you cut), which is an even crazier morphing object observed in 3D.
You can't understand and imagine 5d cause it will contain infinite versions of the 4th dimension and the fourth dimension will contain infinite number of 3d version
No 😂
@@Galaxyskyys Good point dumdum
this is the only video that has actually helped me understand the 4th dimension shape thing
so as far as I can grasp, it’s like making a 3 dimensional cube be made out of 3 dimensional cubes
basically 3 dimensional 3D shape
Do the 6D Cube Please
Same thing just with 12 penteracts as its sides.
@@iizvullok """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""penteracts"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This makes a lot of sense now. The internet would show me pictures of what a 4D cube would look like from a 3D perspective, but it never explained why. Thank you.
I've watched hours of videos trying to illustrate other dimensions and this short is the best explanation.
Tesseracts should contain 8 Cubes, while a Pentaract should contain 10 Tesseracts. It follows, the pattern.
2 dots make a line
4 lines make a square
6 squares make a cube.
The pattern should keep going.
Edit: Holy smokes I did not expect my comment to get over 100 likes.
It’s a pentaract
You can actually find 8 cubes in a (3d model of a) tesseract, being:
- Top
- Bottom
- Front
- Back
- Left
- Right
- "Inner"
- "Outer"
Anyone please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, I can only try my best.
@@Redjd2098Wat about the rain
Two points define a line *segment*'s length. However, a line has an infinite number of points. They cannot be connect with each other from their independent points of view. To create a line, a point must be extruded through 1d space. A square is defined by a line segment extruded through 2d space. There's an infinite number of lines that can be drawn arbitrarily along the new line segment "connecting" the endpoints of the 1d lines, but a 1d observer would not comprehend that an arbitrarily infinite number of 1d objects align along a plane they can't percieve. A cube is the same story. A square extruded through 3d space gives a cube, and an arbitrarily infinite number of squares are superimposed and "connected", even though the squares themselves have no thickness. A cube extruded through 4d space creates a tesseract. We can't perceive this 4th dimension, but according to the pattern, there must be an arbitrarily infinite number of cubes that "connect"/superimpose to make a 4d shape. A cross section of a tesseract would give you a cube.
are you sure 2 dots make a line bro? unless the dots connected by a line, which is formed by many dots as we perceive by eyes.
so my point is that a line consist of in fact up to infinite dots, but for plane it takes only 4 line, and for cube 6 plane which you've already pointed out.
I think the key point is about drawing edges that extend their limits over the vertices of the current figure that we are trying to represent in an additional dimension.
A issue people have is labeling dimensions. We cant agree on the order of the first 3 dimensions, or if the 4th dimension is time. Each dimension is just a measurement independent of the rest.
Whether we agree on what the 4th dimension is, is irrelevant here. This video is talking about 4th spacial dimension, not time.
There's a reason some prefer to call our universe 3 + 1 Dimension (3 space and one of time). A hypothetical 2 and 4th dimensional creature could also experience time.
- 2 + 1 Dimensions
- 4 + 1 Dimensions
Basically, there's nothing to stop us from imaging any number of dimensions that also experience time.
There's no issue with labelling dimensions, as long as it's clear what you're talking about.
Never been an issue before
@@Scion141 In mathematical terms there is no distinction between space and time.
@@UltraSilver2 3+1 is space-time. It doesn't mean they're separate.
It can also be a 4+1 space-time, or 5+1.
@@Scion141 Then why are you listing it as 3+1, 4+1, etc? A being that is experiencing a singular flow in a dimension may call it time, but to the scholarly outside observer able to see the rewind of that time just as easily there is no reason. We are labelling independent measurements and there is no reason to make the distinction from the other spacial dimensions.
@@UltraSilver2 cuz we aint the scholarly outside observer
This is incredible! I was always unable to understand the fourth dimension, even after watching long form videos. I was confused by the concept of thinking how a 4d object would pass through a 3d plane but now I understand it!
Ok guys, I have a good way of visualizing it, just as a point in space is 0d, and a line in space is 1d, and also that a square is a 2d object. imagine a 3d object as a single “0d” point. Now string together a bunch of 3d points in a line, being able to move on this line would let you travel through 4d space, now for 5d, turn that 4d “line” into a 5d “square”. And this easily tiles into a 6d “cube” of 5d “squares”, this actually points out the semi validity of 4d potentially being time, seeing as how we made a “line” out of 3d, we could call it a “timeline” I hope this makes sense somewhat
This sounds like nonsense.. "timeline" is just a name.. For.. Literally a line That represents time.
Shrinking a 3d object to a point and making a line out of 2 of them is still 3d..
@@MCAbdo dude, it was a way of visualizing it, I know it’s still 3d, but it’s an easier way of seeing it due to our perceptional limits, this is honestly just rude and feels like you only read it to poke at it
@@CookieMage27No it’s not just rude. I am going to be though because of how stupid you sound. You can’t just come up with a way to visualize the next dimension especially if you’re not an expert on this sort of subject. You can’t just come up with something stupid that doesn’t make sense and expect everyone to just agree with your nonsense.
This is the best 4d/5d explanation ive ever seen
Ooo, now show us the virtual 4d and 5d rubix cube.
A physical 3x3x3x3 already exists, but you have to take apart the pieces to move it 4 dimensionally.
Oh god no pls
I know "rubix" may be easier to type and all that but it's "Rubik's". Put some respect on my dude Erno's name
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""rubix""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Those already exist, infact, SIX AND SEVEN dimensional rubik's cube simulations already exist
Reduce it to 3d using contour plots
Also, for a 2 dimensional cube, movement of a 3d object would look like slices of the object, which suggests the idea of a 3 dimensional slice.
Wait! What if our 3D world is a 4D object moving through four dimensional timespace? When you check 4D hypersphere moving through 3D space is just a 3D sphere appearing from one point, growing to its size, then shrinking and finally disappearing out of our 3D vision. Does it remind you of something? Maybe stars? Or planets? Or us, humans? Growing from single point (single cell) until our most mature form, until we kind of „shrink” (getting old) just to disappear from our 3D world? Looks kind like a 4D object moving through 3D space on a line which is time ;) anyone ever thought about it like that? Try to look on somebody’s life as a whole, at one time, from birth to death, may look like a 4D object moving through 3D spacetime ;)
@@tunowy well, that’s a lovely theory, but there are actually two types of dimensions, spatial dimensions, think of direction, and temporal dimensions, think of time. While thinking of growing mass as moving it through the fourth spatial dimension, you must consider that relative to the person, if they were being moved, it would look like the world is moving through in the opposite direction, imagine when you jump, you move up relative to earth, but, if you use your own inertial frame of reference, everything looks like it is moving down, and physically, it behaves that way too. Moving through the 4th spatial dimension would Imply that your worldview would be constantly changing, and you would still somewhat be able to see your full self, which doesn’t really happen, from what we know, it is the cell duplication that grows humans, using nutrients, and the stars only grow because of fusion, turning hydrogen to helium, when the helium becomes the majority, it stops holding itself together.
Understanding: 0%
Trust: 100%
ثقة عمياء
I think your 5D cube isn’t represented correctly, the vertices from the previous cubes should connect because it is a matter of attaching all endpoints from the previous dimensions to each other. In this case, the vertices of the 3rd dimensional cube should attach to the vertices of the 5th dimensional cube.
Yes its very wrong actually. The penteract should have 32 vertices with 5 edges connected to each.
This is the best metaphor for higher dimensional geometry i've ever seen. I'm definetly subscribing
Is like a black hole
Imagine looking at a black hole
The bending
Light bending thing
It only works a bit
Not everywhere because our eyes can only see 2d
blackholes bending light is 3d bro? how does that apply to 5d gang
We can't express any higher dimension in 3dimensional space....
Which doesn't mean we can't explain it.
We just can't visualise it properly.
You explained this a lot better then anyone else ty
no he didn't, didn't explain a single thing, what did you understand??
5D space truly exceeds imagination😅🤯
What about negative dimensions like -3d shapes or -2d or even “i” dimensional shapes🤔
I’m actually not sure about this. Spatial dimensions realistically are based on our perception, so I imagine only natural numbers would be used to define them.
i dimensional shapes are in your head.
There's a 3blue1brown video about the rational dimensions, but not negative or complex ones.
check out fractal dimensions on 3b1b channel which is similar topic
I think it could work, however you would need a different definition of dimensions. Fractal dimensions are such a different dimensions. A fractal being 2.5 dimensional does not mean that you need 2.5 numbers to accurately define a point on it. Actually a 2.5 dimensional fractal would need at least 3 spatial dimensions to exist. However fractal dimensions are defined through scaling. So for example a line gets 2 times longer when you double its length (obviously). A square gets 4 times as big (area wise) if you double its side length and a cube 8 times as big. Now a 2.5D fractal would become 2^2.5 times bigger. Extend that into negative dimensions and you could derive that a -2 dimensional object would actually become 4 times smaller if you double the "side length". What properties such an object would have (besides its scaling behavior) and how it would look like, is of course an open question.
So that means a 6 dimensional queue would be made of five dimensional cubes made up of 4th dimensional cues made up of third dimensional cubes made up of 2 dimensional squares made up of one-dimensional lines made up of zero-dimensional dots.... THAT MEANS WE CAN GO INFINITY AND BEYOND AND PROBABLY EVEN PASS 100D
If u can’t comprehend a 4D figure in 3D space how would u explain me 5D on my 2D mobile
Yeah its not possible ,like come on its all hypothetical.its like skipping 5 grades and tryna understand the latter one
You can comprehend it. Just throw the idea that you cannot out of the window and expose yourself to 4D stuff for a while. With 5D comprehending it is just as simple. Its just another dimension. However actually imagining 5D is much much harder than 4D in my opinion.
its parallel timelines, parallel because they will never interact
"5th dementia" 😂😂😂
Can u show a R⁴ function graphic?
Wowie, I actually live in the 5th dimension so you could’ve just asks me about this, but good video anyway! 😜
Oh really? How are you reaching out to our reality then?
@@Ljossop I can see you, you just can’t see me.
@@its_puggy_pugster8469 wouldn't that mean 2d because only 4th and 5th, no 3rd, 2nd or 1st
I like the theory that says that us humans understand the 4D dimension as time, because we see "each moment at a time" meaning that, as 2D beings would see the parts of a 3D object one moment at a time without being aware of the 3rd dimension, a 3rd dimensional being could only see the 4 dimension each moment at time, meaning that time is the only way we can experiment the 4th dimension, if we were 4th dimensional beings, that would mean we could see (and understand) every moment every time, move a cross time as we do with space
That's a separate idea from this. Time is the 4th dimension in reality. Talking about 4th dimensional space is more of a mathematical idea. The difference between Euclidean space and Minkowski space.
@@jaredf6205 reality ❌ general relativity ✅ it's only a model, there is nothing that says that the different states of the universe can actually be aligned on an axis where the past and the future both exist. And yes, saying "the 4th dimension is time" is restricted to those theories and not to mathematical dimensions as a whole.
What about a 6D?
Mind blown
Now do the *6TH DIMENSION*
How would someone move on a 4d world? Do you have to float?
Could one of the dimensions be time, because we also move indo the future?
Trying to explain 5d dimension, which is almost same hard as explaining 4d dimension, to a 3d creature, on a 2d screen is difficult with my 1d brain
I can't remember what video i watched that explained the 4th dimension really well by working up through the dimensions; it was like imagine what a 3D object (e.g. an apple) would look like going through a 2D world: the creatures would just see a 2D cross section of the apple and it would looking like it was growing and shrinking in size as it moved through their plane of existence. Now, for 3D creatures, a 4D object would have 3D cross sections moving through our plane. This gets difficult to imagine when you consider objects we have with complex geometries like a car or utility vehicle or a statue or a tree-- seeing that complex shape that is only a cross section of a complete object that is seemingly shifting and changing shape as it rotates
Use power of 2 and multi, divide, add, minus math for >3D
Everyone - 5D
VS battles fans - Low Complex Multiversal
erm actually low complex multiversal is 6D
@oliver_editzz61 6D is Complex Multiversal without "Low"
Here, I’ll help you understand 5 dimensions. You make a list of your friends and write down their age, height, weight, income and rent. You then find the average of each and find the friend closest to that average (add difference of all fields). Congrats you just used 5 dimensions. No need to conceptualize it in space. Just realize there are 5 numerical pieces of data per point and you can do normal algebra with it. You’re welcome.
it's just like 4D but one more axis
imagine a person named A and another person named B
there is a cubical wall between them. A can't see B through this wall because he needs to be looking in a fifth dimension. not only that 5th dimensional being can also see inside 4D structure all entirety of the hypervolume without overlapping each similar to seeing each 3 dimensional slices
I'm watching a video about 5 Dimension, in an 3D world, with a 2D screen and with a 1D brain.
We are in the 4d the d of time...
And a (creture) 5d would be simular to the watcher from marvel i think they did a really good job with that.
Explain partial dimensions.
(3.5d, 2.1d, all that)
Seeing 5D instantly made my DND brain say: You mean 5e?
Edit: For those of you that don't play DND but watched this video (surprisingly) 5e stands for the fifth edition of dungeons and dragons
Imagine studying math in the 4d or 5d
In a mechanical sense, this can be explained more simply. All higher-order dimensions become signs of points, such as the moment of bending and the moment of rotation
Man's making the incomprehensible comprehendible which is commendable considering how logical his explanation for the seemingly impossible to rationale unimaginable higher dimensional shapes are assembled through methodical analogical illustrations to convey incredible conceptual geometrical structures beyond the typical numerical spatial directional variety to the people seeing this hypothetical to tackle this topic like a professional.
This doesn’t explain how it works to US though. Just the concept of how it may work in a theoretical sense. By this logic, I could explain 68 dimensions, 113 dimensions - however many I want- but still have no idea how they work.
Peoples when they heard more than 4000 dimensions used in neural network.☠️☠️
"Dimensions" is a concept used to describe the world, which exists.
There can't be less than 3, because 0 volume is impossible and there can't be more than 3 because X, Y and Z are ALL the possible descriptors of a body.
Time MAY be used as a dimension JUST AND ONLY to VISUALLY REPRESENT IT, because time is not a place, but the continuosly burning and advancing present because/as Entropy.
4th dimension makes perfect sense to me and I can see it but 5th dimension is where my brain just gets fried 😅
you can also do this with the simplexes
This is why linear algebra is awesome. You take a 3 fimensional concept and decide it will probably work the same in six dimensions too.
What is 1.5 dimension?? I have heard it somewhere in a youtube video would be happy if you explained 😁
No you havent heard of it anywhere, 1.5 isnt a dimension, if you heard it, you heard it wrong
I think the best way I've been able to comprehend it is like a video game where you walk through a door and it takes you someplace entirely new you can walk around freely that only exists "between" where you came from
2d and 3d together is a kind of 3d animation
What you said was too limiting because it would mean that I’m more than just a human based on what I can comprehend, as for
what I can experience I’m certain there’s more but as for how to experience it I am learning how through my own conducted research and experimentation. The higher dimensions we go the more we begin to understand why things, people and places are shaped differently and why they respond to their respective settings the way they do. That goes for everything from atomic make up to outer space and beyond that which is where I am trying to find a way back to simplicity to make actual friends who aren’t just curious but actually care about more than just themselves and surface level topics.
For me, this does not make sense since the example given seems to be repeating the 3rd dimension onto the 5th dimension. Going from 3rd to 4th is understood as the tesseract is an exclamation of infinite and interlocked ‘cubes’. However going to the 4th to 5th only appears to mimick the previous example and does not elaborate the possibilities, or laws opened in the 4th dimension itself. This is where my confusion stems.
either your 5d or 4d cube equevelent is missing some detials as a to raise by a d you take a replicate of the shape and connected each corresponding point which you haven't done for your 5d
Trying to understand 4d is like telling a character in a 2d game to look behind them
Pls 7th dimension explained!!
DAMN!!!! This is very informative, if I were a teacher, I would show this to my class. 11/5 teachers should show this!
Now, can you explain 6D?
First dimension is the ray of time. The seconds through forth are already known. The fifth is hinted at by electromagnetism. I think gravity hints at higher dimensions as well. Just a thought and my opinion on how the dimensions should be considered. In my model you can still consider a point as a 0th dimension point which is essentially a coordinate point in most circumstances. I would think that hyperbolic geometry should be considered since gravity is a thing and our reality is, in fact, clumpy.
Gonna use this for art, thanks
The 5th Dimension is where we play chess.
A given being will always dominate a number of dimensions and be a passenger of the next one.
we dominate the 3 dimensions of space, but are passengers of time. A being that travels through time will be a passenger of the paradox avoidance tree, etc.
Now do 6th dimension 😊😊
I think that higher dimensions are easier to understand from a mathematical perspective. Mathematically, dimensions are defined as the number of things a basis of a vector space (think of a vector space as like 1-dimensional space, 2-dimensional space, etc. It’s not completely accurate but it’ll do for now without having to go deep into the math). A basis is a set of things that can be used to represent anything in a vector space as the things scaled by some scalar added together. For example, two-dimensional coordinates (x,y) can be represented as (x, y) = x[1 0] + y[0 1] if my basis is {[0 1], [1 0]}.
Points in spaces such as 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional spaces are represented by coordinates. These coordinates are the coefficients when you represent your vector using the basis as previously described. So for a vector v in 2 dimensional space, for which v = x[1 0] + y[0 1], its coordinates would be (x, y).
We can represent points in higher dimensional space this way too. 4- and 5-dimensional points can be represented as vectors which have coordinates that are given as the coefficients of w[1 0 0 0] + x[0 1 0 0] + y[0 0 1 0] + z[0 0 0 1] or v[1 0 0 0 0] w[0 1 0 0 0] + x[0 0 1 0 0] + y[0 0 0 1 0] + z[0 0 0 0 1] respectively.
0D = 1 vertice
1D = 2 vertices
2D = 4 vertices
3D = 8 vertices
4D = 16 vertices
5D = 32 vertices
Vertices = 2^dimension
The number of vertices follows an exponential pattern 😮
Edit: got my maths wrong 😂
We can comprehend upwards of 10 dimensions. We can only perceive the lowest 3.
The fact that we are capable of discussing higher dimensions and showing them with diagrams shows we are perfectly capable of convincing and conceptualizing them.
And this is how I can draw it
Instant subscribe mannn!! ❤
Now do a 6 dimension cube!
THE 21ST DIMENSION PLZZZZ
The test isn’t that hard!
The test:
the x2 rule: take something from the Nth dimension, then connect all the corresponding edges (ex. front top left to front top left) to get something from the N+1th dimension
the only problem is that the axis arent 90° equidistant
We cannot understand the 4th dimension! But we can relate some statements about 4th dimension to 3rd like 3rd to 2nd. Why do. Also, in my opinion, 4th dimension parameter is can be easily described as a time. Watch more videos if you're interested. Time frames shows intersections 4d cube with 3d space at any w (4th) axis.
Is it weird that I can kind of comprehend 4D?
Bro is 3 dimensional man
Explaining 4 dimensional cube
With 2 dimensional surface