Quarks suspected of having a non-elementary composition ('preons' are postulated "point-like" particles, conceived to be subcomponents of quarks and leptons) leading to 'infinite divisibility' returning back into the arena of potential, casts observational experimental (non-theoretical) physics even further away from the realms of evidential proof.
No wonder metaphysics/platonic forms and a philosophical outlook in regards to analytical science is all the rage again:-)
Planck time defined as the time it takes a photon of light to 'travel' (in a vacuum) 1 Planck length seems more awkward to truly accept than even dimensionless points (or zero thickness lines). 'Travelling' ANY distance surely entails at least 3 points (a, b and c) - so why can't we subdivide and theoretically 'halve' yet again I would then ask?
(though I guess this is where the ''spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure'' argument comes into effect)
@10thdim We actually only see two dimensions, depth perception occurs in the brain and is an illusion that we have evolved. So visualizing a three-dimensional object is kind of impossible without time, you would have to "see" it from every possible angle, as well as see everything within it. The only way we know to do this is to mentally rotate the object, or move it through time. So in a way, is time the third dimension for the second dimension? And could our "time" be the fourth dimension?
We actually only see two dimensions, depth perception occurs in the brain and is an illusion that we have evolved. So visualizing a three-dimensional object is kind of impossible without time, you would have to "see" it from every possible angle, as well as see everything within it. The only way we know to do this is to mentally rotate the object, or move it through time. So in a way, is time the third dimension for the second dimension? And could our "time" be the fourth dimension?
@10thdim basically, for example if we lived in a 2d world then if you think about it all we would see from our eyes is the 1st dimension because there is no 'depth' 2d, it would be just a line; also what we would see if we were 1d, it would be just a dot/ coz in 1d you can only go left or right. app it's the same with living in 3d - we basically see in 2nd - wierd i know. You may think we know all the limited directions, for example,a 2d creature would not even know what up or down is, you see?
Point noting space and time measurement. redshift measure disproven by quasar acting on star when suppose to be 40 billion light years away from that star.
i like how you made it so that the dimensions that are strange (1st, 2nd) were understandable. But the dimensionality we all know the best (3rd), suddenly turned very strange.
@selvmordspilot Exactly! We take the third dimension for granted, don't realize how limited it really is, and that's where some of the misunderstanding about the "extra degree of freedom" introduced by each additional dimension begins.
Another way of thinking of a 2 dimensional observer would be to imagine how a copy machine or scanner works. It moves along the paper only scanning one line, the length of its perception, at a time. In order to scan the whole paper to perceive it the fullest, it must move the length of that paper. To a 2 dimensional observer, it can only see things that block its line of sight and perhaps the distance to that object.
Stupid question: if quantum entanglement is a possibility, then wouldn't all light reach our eyes instantaneously, regardless of it's distance from us?
Awesome videos btw, glad to see some positivity bought to youtube. Keep up the good work.
Hey Rob, I've been watching the videos on and off for a long time now, you have helped spark a genuine interest in physics in myself and I'm sure many others feel the same. Thank you for making these, you really do an amazing job.
Imagine a square, the top of the square can be seen by us 3D beings, but from the perspective of a being/square in the 2nd dimension they could not possibly see the top of the square hence could this follow that there is a top of us 3D beings that we cannot see?
NEWS:”OCCUPY PROTEST”.LUKE 19:13 JESUS SAID “OCCUPY TILL I COME.”COINCIDENCE?DAMASCUS SYRIA–OLDEST CITY,NEVER BEEN DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1)ISRAEL DIVIDED(JOEL 4:1-4)JESUS SAID,HIS 2ND COMING,IF U SEE DMASCUS DSTROYED & SRAEL DVIDED.IF U THINK QUAKES R COMMON THINK OF THESE PROPHECIES,THESE R N THE NEWS NOW.JOHN 12:25-26 ANYONE LOVES THEIR LIFE WILL LOSE IT,WHLE ANYONE WHO HATES THEIR LIFE N THIS WORLD WILL KEEP IT FOR ETRNAL LIFE.26 MY FATHER WILL HONOR THE ONE WHO SERVES ME.HELL IS REAL.REPENT!
I'm 13 and I am confused on how you would be looking at a star 10 years ago in real time.Heres where I got confused, if we are talking about light what does that have to do with object itself ? Unless I missed something or the point you would be seeing the light of the star from 10 years ago but even that doesn't make sense because how cud you see the light from the star 10 years ago but the star your seeing is in present time? It doesn't make sense to me. Someone help me understand please?
how is that? if were talkin about the light of the star what does that have to do with the star itself? like with your example u said it would take the light 10 years to reach you but what about the actual star.
@mskitty12311 A light year is a distance. It's the distance light travels in one year. So if something happened one light year away from us today, we wouldn't be able to see it happen until one year from now.
@melis256 perfect.like, when i look into the sky and see alpha centari, im saying light from it from when i was watching my first episode of doctor who...
NEWS:”OCCUPY PROTEST”.LUKE 19:13 JESUS SAID “OCCUPY TILL I COME.”COINCIDENCE?DAMASCUS SYRIA–OLDEST CITY,NEVER BEEN DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1)ISRAEL DIVIDED(JOEL 4:1-4)JESUS SAID,HIS 2ND COMING,IF U SEE DMASCUS DSTROYED & SRAEL DVIDED.IF U THINK QUAKES R COMMON THINK OF THESE PROPHECIES,THESE R N THE NEWS NOW.JOHN 12:25-26 ANYONE LOVES THEIR LIFE WILL LOSE IT,WHLE ANYONE WHO HATES THEIR LIFE N THIS WORLD WILL KEEP IT FOR ETRNAL LIFE.26 MY FATHER WILL HONOR THE ONE WHO SERVES ME.HELL IS REAL.REPENT!
Is this the reason that these people like Stephen Hawking do not believe in free will? The frames of different universes are there and we are moving through them. I have seen other examples of how time exists with space and they seem more reasonable. I'm not sure I believe in this frame example. And I do believe in free will, I just have no choice but to believe it.
Just jumping in, but if you watch Rob's video on understanding the 10th dimension, which gets into infinite futures, I think you will find no one is saying free will doesn't exist. It expresses the opposite.
I don't know about Hawking's views on free will or how he derives a conclusion free will doesn't exist, but the new quantum physics seems to be expressing free will exists.
Let me see if I'm getting this. We cannot perceive of a 3rd dimension without a fourth dimension because the fourth dimension is duration and perception is within that dimension. In other words, all our "verbs" are time-based, therefore, we can't "do" anything, including imagining, without giving it some dimension of time or duration. The concept of "seeing" makes no sense without duration, a fourth dimension to go through.
@qtzlctl2012 So, to a flatlander, would he "see" with the third dimension? Or, since the 3rd dimension is spatial and he needs a temporal dimension to see, would he skip the 3rd entirely and "see" the 2nd dimension through the fourth?
I don't know about flatlanders, but i thought your expressing that perception is within the 4D sounded pretty profound. I would not have caught that myself.
While watching the video for the umpteenth time, my feeling is that the first and second dimension don't actually exist. I might say, though, that the first dimension (the dot) might correlate with the 'first cause' or the Big Bang. But I don't see how a 2D exists anywhere in the universe.
I thought this video would be discussing dimension number 3. ie depth.
It seems this video has mixed up the concept of depth, with the concept of perceiving all dimensions 1 2 and 3, at once.
Viewing dimensions 1 and 2 still requires time. Looking at a flat movie screen still requires time for the light to get to our eye.
I was hoping the concept of viewing 3D would get into visual 3D tricks or those magic eye images, where our 2 eyes enable our brain to perceive the 3rd dimension.
True the 1 eyed man can only see 2 dimensions, and requires the use of time and an altering image to enable him to see the 3rd dimension, and is what a flat movie screen does, or where this video moves the 12 straight lines around the flat screen to make us perceive a cube.
I do not see time as a feature of perceiving the 3rd dimension, it is a feature of our brain that we require time to perceive anything with ANY number of dimensions.
I often think time should have been set as dimension 1.
Not that I know what I'm talking about, but time being set in dimension 1 sounds about right to me also. If we are talking about the Big Bang. But as someone pointed out, each dimension encompasses the dimension 'beneath'.
The ancient philosophers grappled with these ideas all the time. Seems to me the modern day confusion enters in with not understanding the building blocks of scientific theory to explain the Universe. In the beginning, humans didn't exist, nor computers.
So, in other words, in constructing the Universe, it use to be understood that humans live in a 3D universe, with time, sound, and light (earth-centric point of view), because this is what humans experience.
However, Science posited the 3D cube to represent that universe. But how to prove time exists at all? or where does time exist, where does it come from?
By looking back in time at the light from the stars, and so we enter the 4D universe (that encompasses the 3D universe).
Reading all the comments below, just to recap, for my own peace of mind -- light, sound, and time (since each involve energy or change) -- all exist in the 4D.
Might be ready for the 5th -- but i'm getting nervous :)
Wait a second. Isn't space part of the idea of a cube to begin with?
So is it just time where we find the 4D? But it said in the video that it's the 4D where we find 'space without time' (but it's called 'space-time'). ok i'm confused again.
The cube = 3D which just describes length, width, depth only.
Humans mistakenly assign time to a 3D universe bec. this is what they experience -- time passing. But it's in the 4D that time is scientifically observed to exist via looking at the stars back in time. So technically, we should be saying we live in a 4D universe (not a 3D one, as this idea is now proven to be outmoded).
@melis256 I can understand about 2 of the fundamental physical constants - light and gravity. I presume gravity has been mathematically calculated somehow. Is the ℓ_P derived from a simple arithmetic calculation of multiplying the two constants (or something)? If so, I'm not sure I understand how he figured out that the result would represent one incredibly minute instant of a frozen frame (of a smallest known frame of time). Is it something in the calculation that assures it's true?
When you look up the Planck length on Wikipedia, you will see the formula where by it's calculated.
2 of the constants you told that you know, though the last one is the reduced Planck constant (ħ) and the formulas for that is on the page about Planck's constant.
Planck's constant was discovered by Max Planck when researching blackbody radiation.
This is an entire study unto itself. So looking at wiki I see there are Planck length, Planck scale, and Planck units - and Planck constant. The higher math, I'm afraid, is little use to me. But this helps explain a little from wiki (in the next post), from which I gather the Planck length etc. is part of theoretical physics. I gather the length is 'one of the Planck units', the 5 units being Speed of light in a vacuum, c; Gravitational constant, G; Reduced Planck constant, ħ;
Coulomb constant; and Boltmann constant. Which one, btw, is the Planck length? The units are the 5 units, the constants are as noted, so is it the speed of light that is the Planck length?
Wiki notes: "The physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research. Because the Planck length is so many orders of magnitudes smaller than any currently possible measurement, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical."
"The Planck length is the length at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the `quantum of length`, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning."
So, basically, this is theoretical physics. Fascinating, really, because without theories, how else can the Universe be known?
highest possible speed [speed of light 299,792,458 m / s] AND smallest distance [ℓ_P - correct?] = rapidest change which can happen -- called the 'time quanta' -- and these equations are derived from frequency aka light.
You might say that all of those constants are quantized.. fx gravitons for gravity.
Same as there is no such thing as a "perfect circle", it will always, however small you go, be a polygon (that is also why π is an infinite fraction).
Thanks. I didn't realize that there's no such thing as a perfect circle, but will always be a polygon. Makes sense -- in Nature there would be no perfect circle found anywhere.
oh sine waves. wiki: 'The sine wave is important in physics because it retains its waveshape when added to another sine wave of the same frequency and arbitrary phase' which shows an example of a suspended spring that has a weight attached to the end of it, causing the spring to move up and down. Reminded me a bit of the Slinky toy. Light, water, sound - ok.
Hate to bother you with inane questions, but what does fx waves mean? f(x) or the function of x, or abbreviation of fixate?
Well...looking at the moving graphs at wiki, both longitudinal and transverse waves remind me of how the waves of a tsunami occur. But i would say the transverse wave looks more like how a tsunami wave is generated. And a longitudinal wave seems more akin to throwing a rock into a body of water.
I gather sine waves has to do more with signal processing & electrical engineering.
Actually, longitudinal and transverse waves are more about how the wave propagate and how you imagine the wave to be than being distinct types of waves.
And that about electrical engineering etc. ; yes, more than you and I can imagine.
But if all it takes for a 3-d object to be able to exist is duration, which is 1 dimension above, it can still exist. But can a 2-d object exist with either duration, or just 1 dimension above, being a 3-d environment?
Of course Rob can answer for himself, but i think it's only due to habit that we talk about living in the 3D. As the video points out, we included space and time in the definition of a 3D world. It was only within a few past decades, really, that physicists and mathematicians began theorizing and seeing things on a sub-atomic level. I was thinking myself we should begin thinking and saying we live in a 4D universe instead.
Let me get this: if there is a place where time doesn't exists, nothing would be observable there, since nothing has duration for us to see it? I'm guessing that if time doesn't flows light doesn't travels. What are those quantum frames anyway?
Just going out on a limb, & Roy can certainly correct me. The ancients use to discuss these things too.
What I understood is that the definition of the 3rd dimension is length, width, & depth - ONLY -- the CUBE.
Humans overlay 2 elements that exist only in the 4th dimension: space & time because this is what we experience. But according to geometry in describing the Universe, construction of dot, line, cube, whatever follows cube etc., space & time does not yet enter in.
In other words, the 3D merely describes a cube with a dot inside it. No more, no less.
The elements of both space and time enter in with whatever the next geometric shape is that follows Cube, and that shape now describes the 4th dimension. So I certainly await Roy's next video on Imaging the 4th.
But how Maxwell Planck ever discovered that smallest length that would describe a 3D universe (the quantum frames) that does not have the, as yet, space & time, is beyond me.
I was wondering what you would discuss that would be 'secret' about the 3rd demension considering we live in it. I was throughly blown away by that idea of splitting our reality into a blend of the 3rd and 4th demensions. I've never thought to peice together our reality into the existance of frames without time. Extremely facinating! +1
Perhaps our human bodies have , throughout the millennium of existence, been biologically constructed & attuned to third dimensional space compatibility, while the frequency of our souls (the conscious observer) has allowed for a prospective into 4D space-time. Only now it seems that our bodies are being hardware upgraded to suit our super sleek operating systems!
Hey Rob what about a Photon of light? Photons do not experience decay and therefore are always the same, kinda like these snapshots you are talking about.
@Nerfherder3 Have you watched "Light Has No Speed"? watch?v=ksTngIWRnWs
You're absolutely right that that a photon, by virtue of traveling at the speed of light is in its own "frame", but I would say that it's not in a frame of 3D space as per the quantum concepts Julian Barbour is talking about. Instead, the photon is in a "frame" of 4D space-time. That's one of the ideas we'll be covering in Imagining the Fourth Dimension.
That's a pretty heavy video with Einstein and all. And maybe I am going to just get myself all bollixed up, but you said 'the birth and death of a photon'. I don't know about a photon decaying, but it sounds like a photon can come into being and go out of being?
@10thdim Yep been a sub for a year now. I don't think I'm buying your answer. Light by virtue of its momentum experiences zero entropy, but its wave/particle duality suggests that it does have a particle resolution. This resolution comes from the first and only Plank frame that it experiences the one that gives it is characteristics. A photon is a 3D construct that experiences zero entropy (4D resolution), so a photon truly is an only 3D object, because it has no existence in time (4D)
This has profound implications to the less scientifically-literate person, as it shows that we perceive the world in the fourth dimension as opposed to the third as we are so commonly taught to believe.
@Snow3103 Yes, since both the "near" and "far" objects are coming from the same screen, there's no difference between the time it takes for the light to reach your eye from one or the other. But it's still the same issue: you can't see the screen unless the screen has duration within the fourth dimension, and seeing those "near" and "far" objects on the screen is you looking a tiny amount of time into the past because of the time it takes those photons to travel from the screen to your eye.
In simulations the virtual "camera" can exist outside of the "time" which is simulated.
The "speed of light", or rather; the time it takes to update your screen relative to the time it takes to change the simulation, in most 3D software programs is infinite.
This means that the simulation can be timeless (paused) or animated by placing one change (logical or illogical) in front of (or behind) the other.
@mskitty12311 Simply put, entanglement means one entangled particle can instantaneously affect another, at any distance. How can this "spooky action at a distance" (as Einstein referred to it) occur instantaneously at any distance? Because it occurs within a 3D "frame", outside of time.
Entanglement is also the basis of some forms of quantum computing. And there are also metaphysical implications to all this, but not everyone is comfortable with considering those possibilities.
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself trying to visual entanglement. The concept of time is confusing: one minute it's 'space without time', then it's 'space-time', and both concepts seem to be the same thing? I understand 'space-time', ie. how astronomers can know the age of a star via the speed of light that tells how old a star is and/or how close a star is to us? With 'space without time', do they mean the individual frames?
I wonder how Planck ever thought up ℓ_P as a frozen frame
I have a specific question: does this mean things like "Light" or "sound" only exist in the 4th dimension, because they are dependent on "time"?
For instance, now understanding what I just watched, "sound" (or anything that travels, for that matter) can't exist in the 3rd dimension simply because there is no duration."Light" might be different than sound because we can take photographs, but how would you have a snapshot of "sound", captured in a 3rd dimension?
@CKMoAznboy The way i look at it is just like light and sound, everything else even an immovable rock has duration. It ages, in a way, even if no significant change appears to it. Every passing moment it has been here in this dimension longer than a specific time before. But that doesn't mean it cant exist in the third dimension. Like the guy said, we are not watching the third dimension we are looking at a 4D space time at all times but it's much simpler for us to think that time and 3D are one
@CKMoAznboy Yes, that's what we're saying here, that anything that involves energy or change requires us to string those 3D "frames" together, one frame after another, in the fourth dimension. So the old slogan "in space no one can hear you scream" takes on a whole new meaning! :)
As far as taking a "snapshot" of sound, that is of course how digital audio works: a CD creates sound by playing us 44,100 "snapshots" (samples) of sound per second.
I clicked thinking that this was a parody, but I was suprised by the fact that you took this seriously.
Depristition117 1 week ago
after watching all your videos i have questioned everything i know
maggotsic3 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Why do we have to imagine the 3rd dimension when we're in right now?
difficultsyllables 2 weeks ago
@difficultsyllables Because, it will give us a better understanding of the 3rd dimension, it's like space without time.
vividMario52 2 weeks ago
Thats deep dude.
TheMrTadas 3 weeks ago
What programme did you use to make all these videos?
FearThisChannel 3 weeks ago
@FearThisChannel I use Final Cut running on a MacBook. Thanks for asking. :)
10thdim 3 weeks ago 2
(continuing)
Quarks suspected of having a non-elementary composition ('preons' are postulated "point-like" particles, conceived to be subcomponents of quarks and leptons) leading to 'infinite divisibility' returning back into the arena of potential, casts observational experimental (non-theoretical) physics even further away from the realms of evidential proof.
No wonder metaphysics/platonic forms and a philosophical outlook in regards to analytical science is all the rage again:-)
31428571J 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Planck time defined as the time it takes a photon of light to 'travel' (in a vacuum) 1 Planck length seems more awkward to truly accept than even dimensionless points (or zero thickness lines). 'Travelling' ANY distance surely entails at least 3 points (a, b and c) - so why can't we subdivide and theoretically 'halve' yet again I would then ask?
(though I guess this is where the ''spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure'' argument comes into effect)
31428571J 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
How do we know that the stars haven't already burnt out but it takes so long for the light to travel that we see them as still formed stars?
woody0900 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I really enjoy how your creating vids for each dimension! Thanks.
roflcopters1122 1 month ago
so observing the third dimension is not possible......
devilarko 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@10thdim We actually only see two dimensions, depth perception occurs in the brain and is an illusion that we have evolved. So visualizing a three-dimensional object is kind of impossible without time, you would have to "see" it from every possible angle, as well as see everything within it. The only way we know to do this is to mentally rotate the object, or move it through time. So in a way, is time the third dimension for the second dimension? And could our "time" be the fourth dimension?
AviRishiMovies 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
We actually only see two dimensions, depth perception occurs in the brain and is an illusion that we have evolved. So visualizing a three-dimensional object is kind of impossible without time, you would have to "see" it from every possible angle, as well as see everything within it. The only way we know to do this is to mentally rotate the object, or move it through time. So in a way, is time the third dimension for the second dimension? And could our "time" be the fourth dimension?
AviRishiMovies 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
so op is a phaggot?
lifeDotGov 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@10thdim basically, for example if we lived in a 2d world then if you think about it all we would see from our eyes is the 1st dimension because there is no 'depth' 2d, it would be just a line; also what we would see if we were 1d, it would be just a dot/ coz in 1d you can only go left or right. app it's the same with living in 3d - we basically see in 2nd - wierd i know. You may think we know all the limited directions, for example,a 2d creature would not even know what up or down is, you see?
Missydiva4 2 months ago
So, could I say that we live in the fourth dimension?
lucasrsbr 2 months ago
1) so we are living in the 3rd dimension, but is seeing (in/with the help of) the 4th dimension?
2) if we were able to travel to a star/planet that is 50 light years away in only 20 light years time, would we be traveling into the past?
AznPiano999 2 months ago
@AznPiano999 yes, but the reason why this is not possible is that no object in the universe can surpass the speed of light.
pichu2468 2 months ago
Amazing videos.. Clear explanation. I learn something new in each video.
Morr1992 2 months ago
So we live in the fourth dimension?
Vlademir222 3 months ago in playlist More videos from 10thdim
@Vlademir222 no. we live using the 4th dimension.
pichu2468 2 months ago
these in-depth explanations of each dimension individually is exactly what i've been looking for for months. especially the 3rd and 4th ones
pletonicsolids 3 months ago
Point noting space and time measurement. redshift measure disproven by quasar acting on star when suppose to be 40 billion light years away from that star.
RMBVP 3 months ago
i like how you made it so that the dimensions that are strange (1st, 2nd) were understandable. But the dimensionality we all know the best (3rd), suddenly turned very strange.
selvmordspilot 3 months ago 6
@selvmordspilot Exactly! We take the third dimension for granted, don't realize how limited it really is, and that's where some of the misunderstanding about the "extra degree of freedom" introduced by each additional dimension begins.
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 3 months ago 3
Another way of thinking of a 2 dimensional observer would be to imagine how a copy machine or scanner works. It moves along the paper only scanning one line, the length of its perception, at a time. In order to scan the whole paper to perceive it the fullest, it must move the length of that paper. To a 2 dimensional observer, it can only see things that block its line of sight and perhaps the distance to that object.
djfrackles 3 months ago
wow.. this is so crazy. its so fun to think about. science is awesome.
abcmaya 3 months ago
Stupid question: if quantum entanglement is a possibility, then wouldn't all light reach our eyes instantaneously, regardless of it's distance from us?
Awesome videos btw, glad to see some positivity bought to youtube. Keep up the good work.
psyphre 4 months ago
Hey Rob, I've been watching the videos on and off for a long time now, you have helped spark a genuine interest in physics in myself and I'm sure many others feel the same. Thank you for making these, you really do an amazing job.
toxicblu 4 months ago
all your videos are superb
szivalj 4 months ago
Imagine a square, the top of the square can be seen by us 3D beings, but from the perspective of a being/square in the 2nd dimension they could not possibly see the top of the square hence could this follow that there is a top of us 3D beings that we cannot see?
deanmullen10 4 months ago
I feel that this is the best video you have published, sir.
Leopoldo888 4 months ago
You clarified so much about time being a property of the fourth dimension that gives the lower ones their assumed aspects. Thank you Rob!
DJSchousen 4 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
NEWS:”OCCUPY PROTEST”.LUKE 19:13 JESUS SAID “OCCUPY TILL I COME.”COINCIDENCE?DAMASCUS SYRIA–OLDEST CITY,NEVER BEEN DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1)ISRAEL DIVIDED(JOEL 4:1-4)JESUS SAID,HIS 2ND COMING,IF U SEE DMASCUS DSTROYED & SRAEL DVIDED.IF U THINK QUAKES R COMMON THINK OF THESE PROPHECIES,THESE R N THE NEWS NOW.JOHN 12:25-26 ANYONE LOVES THEIR LIFE WILL LOSE IT,WHLE ANYONE WHO HATES THEIR LIFE N THIS WORLD WILL KEEP IT FOR ETRNAL LIFE.26 MY FATHER WILL HONOR THE ONE WHO SERVES ME.HELL IS REAL.REPENT!
ENTERRAPTURE20 4 months ago
Can GPS systems use entanglement so we don't need to turn back any clocks?
leerman22 4 months ago
mind fuck.
kylenhan4 4 months ago
I'm 13 and I am confused on how you would be looking at a star 10 years ago in real time.Heres where I got confused, if we are talking about light what does that have to do with object itself ? Unless I missed something or the point you would be seeing the light of the star from 10 years ago but even that doesn't make sense because how cud you see the light from the star 10 years ago but the star your seeing is in present time? It doesn't make sense to me. Someone help me understand please?
Thedmljd 4 months ago
@Thedmljd
But no, the star is not in your present.. since the star is so far away that is takes the light 10 years to reach you.
If the star vanished right "now" you would not notice it before in 10 years when the light would stop.
melis256 4 months ago 4
how is that? if were talkin about the light of the star what does that have to do with the star itself? like with your example u said it would take the light 10 years to reach you but what about the actual star.
Thedmljd 4 months ago
@Thedmljd
Well is there any other/faster way you would see/detect a star other than the light emitted from it?
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256 idk its not impossible
Thedmljd 4 months ago
@Thedmljd
Exactly, and because the star is 10 light-years away, you are watching it as it was 10 years ago.
e.i. you can't know what is happening that far away right "now".
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
Is a light-year the time it takes light to travel in 1 year?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311 A light year is a distance. It's the distance light travels in one year. So if something happened one light year away from us today, we wouldn't be able to see it happen until one year from now.
10thdim 4 months ago
@melis256 perfect.like, when i look into the sky and see alpha centari, im saying light from it from when i was watching my first episode of doctor who...
shoshanish 2 months ago
From wiki:
" [Lower case] lambda indicates the wavelength of any wave, especially in physics, electronics engineering, and mathematics."
Well, this is very heavy for me to comprehend, though profoundly interesting. So I guess I can read the equation
F [light] = c / λ
Frequency [or Light] = the constants divided by the wavelength
Can't say I really understand it, but it looks nice.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
This is all wrong.
thinkofwhy 4 months ago
Just to recap for sanity's sake (my own). Let's see:
'Quantize' - : to subdivide (as energy) into small but measurable increments
It begins with the Planck length ℓ_P which measures the smallest DISTANCE that can exist, derived from 3 of the 5 fundamental physical constants.
Next, F [light] = c / λ ; we got the highest possible speed and the smallest distance which can exist.
Equals Time, or the 'time quanta' -- the rapidest change which can happen.
Smallest distance (length)
mskitty12311 4 months ago
ooops discard that very last line 'Smallest distance (length)'. I forgot to take it out.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
On second thought, leave it in, as it explains Distance (which equals Length, which brings us back to ℓ_P.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEWS:”OCCUPY PROTEST”.LUKE 19:13 JESUS SAID “OCCUPY TILL I COME.”COINCIDENCE?DAMASCUS SYRIA–OLDEST CITY,NEVER BEEN DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1)ISRAEL DIVIDED(JOEL 4:1-4)JESUS SAID,HIS 2ND COMING,IF U SEE DMASCUS DSTROYED & SRAEL DVIDED.IF U THINK QUAKES R COMMON THINK OF THESE PROPHECIES,THESE R N THE NEWS NOW.JOHN 12:25-26 ANYONE LOVES THEIR LIFE WILL LOSE IT,WHLE ANYONE WHO HATES THEIR LIFE N THIS WORLD WILL KEEP IT FOR ETRNAL LIFE.26 MY FATHER WILL HONOR THE ONE WHO SERVES ME.HELL IS REAL.REPENT!
ENTERRAPTURE20 4 months ago
Great video, you made some great points.
sgtjakass 4 months ago
Must by the Synchronicity of the Universe at work. I just checked my email and found this one come in, which might be of interest:
Quantum Levitation
watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ws6AAhTw7RA
Video courtesy of the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC), representing the science center and museum field worldwide.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
Is this the reason that these people like Stephen Hawking do not believe in free will? The frames of different universes are there and we are moving through them. I have seen other examples of how time exists with space and they seem more reasonable. I'm not sure I believe in this frame example. And I do believe in free will, I just have no choice but to believe it.
mojomanhand 4 months ago
@mojomanhand
Just jumping in, but if you watch Rob's video on understanding the 10th dimension, which gets into infinite futures, I think you will find no one is saying free will doesn't exist. It expresses the opposite.
I don't know about Hawking's views on free will or how he derives a conclusion free will doesn't exist, but the new quantum physics seems to be expressing free will exists.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311 Thank you, I will watch that video right now.
mojomanhand 4 months ago
Let me see if I'm getting this. We cannot perceive of a 3rd dimension without a fourth dimension because the fourth dimension is duration and perception is within that dimension. In other words, all our "verbs" are time-based, therefore, we can't "do" anything, including imagining, without giving it some dimension of time or duration. The concept of "seeing" makes no sense without duration, a fourth dimension to go through.
qtzlctl2012 4 months ago
@qtzlctl2012 So, to a flatlander, would he "see" with the third dimension? Or, since the 3rd dimension is spatial and he needs a temporal dimension to see, would he skip the 3rd entirely and "see" the 2nd dimension through the fourth?
qtzlctl2012 4 months ago
@qtzlctl2012
I don't know about flatlanders, but i thought your expressing that perception is within the 4D sounded pretty profound. I would not have caught that myself.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
So are you implying that time only exists in the fourth dimension? And if so why can there not be time in any of the prior dimensions.
Azartusfar 4 months ago
@Azartusfar
While watching the video for the umpteenth time, my feeling is that the first and second dimension don't actually exist. I might say, though, that the first dimension (the dot) might correlate with the 'first cause' or the Big Bang. But I don't see how a 2D exists anywhere in the universe.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
Unless the 2D was distilled from the Big Bang of the 1D, and through the energy of the Big Bang, the 2D then went on to formation of things.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
But isn't Robs point in Imagining the second dimension to say that just because it's hard to imagine doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Azartusfar 4 months ago
Comment removed
ghandiesel 4 months ago
@Azartusfar Plato's Cave
ghandiesel 4 months ago
@ghandiesel
Good point. Plato's Cave as 2D makes sense.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
I thought this video would be discussing dimension number 3. ie depth.
It seems this video has mixed up the concept of depth, with the concept of perceiving all dimensions 1 2 and 3, at once.
Viewing dimensions 1 and 2 still requires time. Looking at a flat movie screen still requires time for the light to get to our eye.
I was hoping the concept of viewing 3D would get into visual 3D tricks or those magic eye images, where our 2 eyes enable our brain to perceive the 3rd dimension.
BryTee 4 months ago
True the 1 eyed man can only see 2 dimensions, and requires the use of time and an altering image to enable him to see the 3rd dimension, and is what a flat movie screen does, or where this video moves the 12 straight lines around the flat screen to make us perceive a cube.
I do not see time as a feature of perceiving the 3rd dimension, it is a feature of our brain that we require time to perceive anything with ANY number of dimensions.
I often think time should have been set as dimension 1.
BryTee 4 months ago
@BryTee
Not that I know what I'm talking about, but time being set in dimension 1 sounds about right to me also. If we are talking about the Big Bang. But as someone pointed out, each dimension encompasses the dimension 'beneath'.
The ancient philosophers grappled with these ideas all the time. Seems to me the modern day confusion enters in with not understanding the building blocks of scientific theory to explain the Universe. In the beginning, humans didn't exist, nor computers.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@BryTee
So, in other words, in constructing the Universe, it use to be understood that humans live in a 3D universe, with time, sound, and light (earth-centric point of view), because this is what humans experience.
However, Science posited the 3D cube to represent that universe. But how to prove time exists at all? or where does time exist, where does it come from?
By looking back in time at the light from the stars, and so we enter the 4D universe (that encompasses the 3D universe).
mskitty12311 4 months ago
Reading all the comments below, just to recap, for my own peace of mind -- light, sound, and time (since each involve energy or change) -- all exist in the 4D.
Might be ready for the 5th -- but i'm getting nervous :)
mskitty12311 4 months ago
Make that 'space with time' - 4D
mskitty12311 4 months ago
really great video rob, thank you very much
MrGOTAMA420 4 months ago
Rob you have great editing skills, makes it easy to understand.
tavo5150 4 months ago
Wait a second. Isn't space part of the idea of a cube to begin with?
So is it just time where we find the 4D? But it said in the video that it's the 4D where we find 'space without time' (but it's called 'space-time'). ok i'm confused again.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
4D includes the dimensions "beneath" it. So 4D = 3D * the dimension of time, space with time.
Only 3D does not have time so it is space without time, which we can't observe since it takes time to observe stuff.
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
ahhh ok. That's clearer! I can see that.
The cube = 3D which just describes length, width, depth only.
Humans mistakenly assign time to a 3D universe bec. this is what they experience -- time passing. But it's in the 4D that time is scientifically observed to exist via looking at the stars back in time. So technically, we should be saying we live in a 4D universe (not a 3D one, as this idea is now proven to be outmoded).
OK finally got it !
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@melis256
I can see it's very crucial to remember when speaking of the 3D to always describe it as 'space without time'.
And when speaking of the 4D to always describe it as 'space with time'.
Those two concepts always got me confused. But now I got it. Thanks.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
Correct, we live (animate) frame by frame in 4D while we exist in in every 3D frame, but never in the same place (earth moves too you know).
And as you saw in the video, the frames per second can be calculated to this: c / [Planck length] = 1.855×10^43 frames per second.
No wonder there is no lag, lol :P
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256 I can understand about 2 of the fundamental physical constants - light and gravity. I presume gravity has been mathematically calculated somehow. Is the ℓ_P derived from a simple arithmetic calculation of multiplying the two constants (or something)? If so, I'm not sure I understand how he figured out that the result would represent one incredibly minute instant of a frozen frame (of a smallest known frame of time). Is it something in the calculation that assures it's true?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
When you look up the Planck length on Wikipedia, you will see the formula where by it's calculated.
2 of the constants you told that you know, though the last one is the reduced Planck constant (ħ) and the formulas for that is on the page about Planck's constant.
Planck's constant was discovered by Max Planck when researching blackbody radiation.
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
What on earth is blackbody radiation or should I ask? Offhand sounds like the spaces between the stars and planets etc.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311 cont.
How we then determine that time must be quantized has to do with how easily frequency can be calculated.
F[light] = c / λ ; we got the highest possible speed and the smallest distance which can exist and thereby get the rapidest change which can happen.
This many times per second there is availability for change and thus we have the size of the time quanta.
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
This is an entire study unto itself. So looking at wiki I see there are Planck length, Planck scale, and Planck units - and Planck constant. The higher math, I'm afraid, is little use to me. But this helps explain a little from wiki (in the next post), from which I gather the Planck length etc. is part of theoretical physics. I gather the length is 'one of the Planck units', the 5 units being Speed of light in a vacuum, c; Gravitational constant, G; Reduced Planck constant, ħ;
mskitty12311 4 months ago
Coulomb constant; and Boltmann constant. Which one, btw, is the Planck length? The units are the 5 units, the constants are as noted, so is it the speed of light that is the Planck length?
[one more cont'd]
mskitty12311 4 months ago
Wiki notes: "The physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research. Because the Planck length is so many orders of magnitudes smaller than any currently possible measurement, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical."
[one more con'td I'm afraid]
mskitty12311 4 months ago
"The Planck length is the length at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the `quantum of length`, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning."
So, basically, this is theoretical physics. Fascinating, really, because without theories, how else can the Universe be known?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@melis256
Wow, I think I almost understood that one.
highest possible speed [speed of light 299,792,458 m / s] AND smallest distance [ℓ_P - correct?] = rapidest change which can happen -- called the 'time quanta' -- and these equations are derived from frequency aka light.
Is this correct? Did I follow you correctly?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
Forgot to add -- which determines that time can be quantized.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
You might say that all of those constants are quantized.. fx gravitons for gravity.
Same as there is no such thing as a "perfect circle", it will always, however small you go, be a polygon (that is also why π is an infinite fraction).
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
Thanks. I didn't realize that there's no such thing as a perfect circle, but will always be a polygon. Makes sense -- in Nature there would be no perfect circle found anywhere.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
Yes, you did. As you can see, it is simply a normal conversion from wavelength to frequency.
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
Oh. Wavelength and frequency. Is it like this: ~~~~~~ (wavelengths) and ))))))) (frequency)?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
No the primary frequency is essentially how many wavelengths pass by per second, which is determined by the group velocity of the wave.
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
OK. But I am still visualizing say 5 wavelengths ~~~~~ going at x amount of speed per seccond, then becoming say 1 frequency " ) "
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@melis256
Or rather -- becoming the primary frequency. It's all pretty bedazzling.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
Yes, there are 2 ways here to make the frequency go higher. Either increasing the speed which the wave is propagating, or shortening the wavelength.
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
What? .... you mean like in laser beams?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
You know, any wave has a speed, be it in water, sound or light.
If you fixate the wavelength, say 1 meter, the frequency will be much higher for light than fx waves in water.
That is the significance of the speed of the wave.
e.i. waves are not only light but essentially anything which oscillates.
Being easiest, we are here discussing sine waves, which are regular in motion.
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
oh sine waves. wiki: 'The sine wave is important in physics because it retains its waveshape when added to another sine wave of the same frequency and arbitrary phase' which shows an example of a suspended spring that has a weight attached to the end of it, causing the spring to move up and down. Reminded me a bit of the Slinky toy. Light, water, sound - ok.
Hate to bother you with inane questions, but what does fx waves mean? f(x) or the function of x, or abbreviation of fixate?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
No, lol, sorry.. I use "fx" as a short of "for example" ^_^
melis256 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
Also, have a look at "Longitudinal" and "Transverse" waves... omg 2 different forms of waves..! yes, physics are very intricate indeed :P
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
Well...looking at the moving graphs at wiki, both longitudinal and transverse waves remind me of how the waves of a tsunami occur. But i would say the transverse wave looks more like how a tsunami wave is generated. And a longitudinal wave seems more akin to throwing a rock into a body of water.
I gather sine waves has to do more with signal processing & electrical engineering.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311
Actually, longitudinal and transverse waves are more about how the wave propagate and how you imagine the wave to be than being distinct types of waves.
And that about electrical engineering etc. ; yes, more than you and I can imagine.
melis256 4 months ago
@melis256
And that conversion proves Time is quantized (can be measured)?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@melis256
Lastly, Light (frequeny) = c (the 4 constants noted below), divided by λ. What does lambda represent? Time? or maybe the smallest unit of Time?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
But if all it takes for a 3-d object to be able to exist is duration, which is 1 dimension above, it can still exist. But can a 2-d object exist with either duration, or just 1 dimension above, being a 3-d environment?
Man, Rob, this stuff is just confusing to me.
BearShaver 4 months ago
This new project you're doing rocks, Rob! Keep it up!
footlong24seven 4 months ago
@OyouCrazyJapanese
Of course Rob can answer for himself, but i think it's only due to habit that we talk about living in the 3D. As the video points out, we included space and time in the definition of a 3D world. It was only within a few past decades, really, that physicists and mathematicians began theorizing and seeing things on a sub-atomic level. I was thinking myself we should begin thinking and saying we live in a 4D universe instead.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
Shit's tight !!
WILDLEGHORN 4 months ago
I miss "we start with a point". :(
runjumpdie 4 months ago
Great video Rob, I hope there are more videos to come.
AngryGerman57 4 months ago
Let me get this: if there is a place where time doesn't exists, nothing would be observable there, since nothing has duration for us to see it? I'm guessing that if time doesn't flows light doesn't travels. What are those quantum frames anyway?
TheRockandroy 4 months ago
@TheRockandroy
Just going out on a limb, & Roy can certainly correct me. The ancients use to discuss these things too.
What I understood is that the definition of the 3rd dimension is length, width, & depth - ONLY -- the CUBE.
Humans overlay 2 elements that exist only in the 4th dimension: space & time because this is what we experience. But according to geometry in describing the Universe, construction of dot, line, cube, whatever follows cube etc., space & time does not yet enter in.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
In other words, the 3D merely describes a cube with a dot inside it. No more, no less.
The elements of both space and time enter in with whatever the next geometric shape is that follows Cube, and that shape now describes the 4th dimension. So I certainly await Roy's next video on Imaging the 4th.
But how Maxwell Planck ever discovered that smallest length that would describe a 3D universe (the quantum frames) that does not have the, as yet, space & time, is beyond me.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
And I might be wrong, but I expect the dot inside the cube is merely the Observer. In geometry, there is no dot inside the cube.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@TheRockandroy
Sorry about that. I mean Rob can certainly correct me -- the one who makes the videos.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
you're easily one of my favourites, rob bryanton
thank you so much for the work you do to share with us!!
galikazoid 4 months ago
Great, I totally love your vids Rob
baldricksnosehairs 4 months ago
Thanks for posting this.
2000everett4 4 months ago
great that you are revisiting and reshowcasing points of views in your past work.
davidjohn83 4 months ago
I was wondering what you would discuss that would be 'secret' about the 3rd demension considering we live in it. I was throughly blown away by that idea of splitting our reality into a blend of the 3rd and 4th demensions. I've never thought to peice together our reality into the existance of frames without time. Extremely facinating! +1
Lightstar805 4 months ago
Perhaps our human bodies have , throughout the millennium of existence, been biologically constructed & attuned to third dimensional space compatibility, while the frequency of our souls (the conscious observer) has allowed for a prospective into 4D space-time. Only now it seems that our bodies are being hardware upgraded to suit our super sleek operating systems!
TheNewUniversal 4 months ago
great vid, and loving the new bass riff on the jingle.
fleminem1 4 months ago
@fleminem1 me too! sounds great.
TheRockandroy 4 months ago
Hey Rob what about a Photon of light? Photons do not experience decay and therefore are always the same, kinda like these snapshots you are talking about.
Nerfherder3 4 months ago
@Nerfherder3 Have you watched "Light Has No Speed"? watch?v=ksTngIWRnWs
You're absolutely right that that a photon, by virtue of traveling at the speed of light is in its own "frame", but I would say that it's not in a frame of 3D space as per the quantum concepts Julian Barbour is talking about. Instead, the photon is in a "frame" of 4D space-time. That's one of the ideas we'll be covering in Imagining the Fourth Dimension.
10thdim 4 months ago
@10thdim
That's a pretty heavy video with Einstein and all. And maybe I am going to just get myself all bollixed up, but you said 'the birth and death of a photon'. I don't know about a photon decaying, but it sounds like a photon can come into being and go out of being?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@10thdim hey rob im high where is my brain now?
crazycagada 4 months ago
@10thdim Yep been a sub for a year now. I don't think I'm buying your answer. Light by virtue of its momentum experiences zero entropy, but its wave/particle duality suggests that it does have a particle resolution. This resolution comes from the first and only Plank frame that it experiences the one that gives it is characteristics. A photon is a 3D construct that experiences zero entropy (4D resolution), so a photon truly is an only 3D object, because it has no existence in time (4D)
Nerfherder3 4 months ago
rob, is there a link where i can read more about your thoughts on the metaphysical implications of quantum entanglement?
satisfried 4 months ago
@satisfried Sure, try starting with this one: watch?v=zCJLRrFTX3Q
10thdim 4 months ago
This has profound implications to the less scientifically-literate person, as it shows that we perceive the world in the fourth dimension as opposed to the third as we are so commonly taught to believe.
Kirbynessness 4 months ago
@Snow3103 Yes, since both the "near" and "far" objects are coming from the same screen, there's no difference between the time it takes for the light to reach your eye from one or the other. But it's still the same issue: you can't see the screen unless the screen has duration within the fourth dimension, and seeing those "near" and "far" objects on the screen is you looking a tiny amount of time into the past because of the time it takes those photons to travel from the screen to your eye.
10thdim 4 months ago
Wow, I've been waiting and checking my subscriptions everyday for this, and I will do so for the next one too!
duffy123123 4 months ago 4
Cool. A video about the block universe! Thanks for the vid!
KT45 4 months ago
@Snow3103
In simulations the virtual "camera" can exist outside of the "time" which is simulated.
The "speed of light", or rather; the time it takes to update your screen relative to the time it takes to change the simulation, in most 3D software programs is infinite.
This means that the simulation can be timeless (paused) or animated by placing one change (logical or illogical) in front of (or behind) the other.
melis256 4 months ago
good point
dumbnetworks 4 months ago
Fantastic!
wptte 4 months ago
Brilliant idea to do this recap/review of the overall project dimension by dimension.
frazzzer8888 4 months ago
What are the implications of the potential for quantum entanglement? What would it mean if some sort of entanglement occurred in one of the frames?
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@mskitty12311 Simply put, entanglement means one entangled particle can instantaneously affect another, at any distance. How can this "spooky action at a distance" (as Einstein referred to it) occur instantaneously at any distance? Because it occurs within a 3D "frame", outside of time.
Entanglement is also the basis of some forms of quantum computing. And there are also metaphysical implications to all this, but not everyone is comfortable with considering those possibilities.
10thdim 4 months ago
@10thdim
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself trying to visual entanglement. The concept of time is confusing: one minute it's 'space without time', then it's 'space-time', and both concepts seem to be the same thing? I understand 'space-time', ie. how astronomers can know the age of a star via the speed of light that tells how old a star is and/or how close a star is to us? With 'space without time', do they mean the individual frames?
I wonder how Planck ever thought up ℓ_P as a frozen frame
mskitty12311 4 months ago
@10thdim
Oh wait. When observing stars, somehow measuring the speed of light, astronomers are seeing into the past. OK I think I got that. Maybe.
mskitty12311 4 months ago
I have a specific question: does this mean things like "Light" or "sound" only exist in the 4th dimension, because they are dependent on "time"?
For instance, now understanding what I just watched, "sound" (or anything that travels, for that matter) can't exist in the 3rd dimension simply because there is no duration."Light" might be different than sound because we can take photographs, but how would you have a snapshot of "sound", captured in a 3rd dimension?
CKMoAznboy 4 months ago
@CKMoAznboy The way i look at it is just like light and sound, everything else even an immovable rock has duration. It ages, in a way, even if no significant change appears to it. Every passing moment it has been here in this dimension longer than a specific time before. But that doesn't mean it cant exist in the third dimension. Like the guy said, we are not watching the third dimension we are looking at a 4D space time at all times but it's much simpler for us to think that time and 3D are one
ThePsycheoutFanClub 4 months ago
@CKMoAznboy Yes, that's what we're saying here, that anything that involves energy or change requires us to string those 3D "frames" together, one frame after another, in the fourth dimension. So the old slogan "in space no one can hear you scream" takes on a whole new meaning! :)
As far as taking a "snapshot" of sound, that is of course how digital audio works: a CD creates sound by playing us 44,100 "snapshots" (samples) of sound per second.
10thdim 4 months ago 8
this is mind boggling. i like it.
abcmaya 4 months ago
the snapshot view o the 3d, has long been how i percieved it. Nice to anothers take on it.
tristbjorn 4 months ago
wow man, great stuff to get us thinking. thanks
starwave1967 4 months ago
this one doesn't seem too difficult to be honest.
whosthisguythinkheis 4 months ago