@archaismic You actually aren't thinking about it correctly, There are dimensions of both space and time, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time, technically we already live in four dimensions, hence the term space time. God, I feel like a fucking genius.
@aaajohn2 You are thinking about physics and string theory. Not the same thing. In mathematics there are indeed infinite dimensions, as well as partial dimensions, like 2.5, 1.3, etc.
you can mesh a 2d plane together to make a 3d plane but if you try to mesh a 3d plane together youll just get fragments and warped space = doesn't exist
La materia se mueve y vibra en seis dimensiones x, y, z, el tiempo (t), la energía (e), y el espín(s). Geométricamente Un cubo dentro de una esfera, tres dimensiones lineales y tres dimensiones esféricas.
I would love to model these myself. I realize that our vision is 2D (thank you for pointing that out, energysage), but when can we get a similar video as a hologram? It can be done with today's knowledge and tech.
It should be remembered that our vision is, for mathematical purposes, two dimensional. That is, we can only perceive the depth of an object though our understanding of lighting/shading, rotation, transparency, etc.. If we had 3 dimensional vision we would be able to see the internal structure of objects, and the (accurate) outer boundaries of 4d objects. So in these simulations, we're reducing them by one more dimension than we usually assume :)
@Racki123 Well, you could make the assumption that light and normal matter can't pass through/exist in these dimensions, and that is why we can't percieve them properly. Maybe the particles that give matter their mass reside in one or more of these dimensions. Things like gravity could potentially be fully explained (that is, if they exist at all :p).
Why do the higher dimensional objects sometimes briefly look like normal cubes? Is there no perspective possible with higher dimensions? (The cube never turns into a square.)
@TaiFerret a cube looks like a square when looked at dead on, meaning you can only see one side of the cube. Similarly, hypercubes (well their projected shadows) can also be rotated in such a way that they appear as a cube, their most simplistic representation, but like a cube can be simplified to a square, a 5d cube can only be simplified to a 4d cube
@Psychofear When you look at a transparent cube dead on you can see both the front and back squares. The back square appears smaller due to perspective. All these hypercubes are supposed to be transparent, right? But all of them 4D to 6D appear as a cube for a while.
I would imagine when you look at a tesseract (4D) dead on you'd see a bigger cube and a smaller cube. And something similar should happen in the higher dimensions, I think. But at 0:31 the 5D-cube just looks like a cube.
can a one dimensional object actually exist? even if its just a line, it still has height or width with it. ex. your "1D" picture is actually 2D because something can not be seen with just height or width alone. that line has width, but it also has a small amount of height. correct me if i'm wrong.
@pikanew95 when we draw a line, it has a small height, but that is because the particles we use to draw it are 3-dimensional. A mathematically PERFECT line would be 1-Dimesional, but you wouldn't be able to see it. same with a 0-d point. on paper it has both width and height, but that's just how we represent it so we can visualize it.
@pikanew95 It can exist, but not in a manner that can be readily perceived or conceptualized by us. Think about it this way. To us, who are used to living in a 3d world, 0, 1, and 2 dimensional objects don't make sense. They have zero volume, and thus can't exist. To a four-dimensional being, however, 3-dimensional objects are similarly illogical, with zero hypervolume. It's all a matter of perspective. All images that we use are just approximations.
@pikanew95 its only for example purposes. dimension 4 and up aren't what they really look like either, only what they appear to look like to us in our dimension.
@pikanew95 According to string theory, 1D strings are the consituents of matter/energy. However, they move through higher dimensional space, like our 3D space. String theory also accounts for such "branes" of any number of dimensions, though in the case of strings, they are confined within higher branes, so matter as we know it can't float off into the 4th spatial dimension. Also, our 4-dimensional spacetime universe is a holographic representation of an 11 dimensional reality.
@LordVysh i would say its impossible to understand beyond the fact that they have more dimensions. You cant visualize a new dimension of space that you've never experienced, and its impossible to build a model in greater detail beyond the video. If you can, I claim witch. >.<
the 5th dimension represents everything that could happen under one set of physical laws. so the 5d cube has the ability to be anything depending on how it is perceived. the 6th dimension represents everything that can happen in any set of physical laws. so the 6d cube can be anything based on how its perceivthe 5th dimension represents everything that could happen under one set of physical laws. (the comment was to long so I am going to reply to myself with the rest of this little speech)
@SamyAdel9 so the 5d cube has the ability to be anything depending on how it is perceived. the 6th dimension represents everything that can happen in any set of physical laws. so the 6d cube can be anything based on how its perceived and how perception is perceived. the problem is that this video is displaying these cubes in 2 dimensions, (it happened again so I am going to reply to this reply)
@SamyAdel9 so you cant see everything. for example: the 2d cube moves in 2d space making a computer screen perfect to display this but the 3d cube has to be rotated to prove that it is 3d and so as you get to higher dimensions the space/camera has to function the same way.
Mathmatically one can calculate the volume of a hypercube by integrating. start with y=nothing, then 1, then x, then x^2(being a 2d square), then (x^3)/3(volume), then (x^4)/12(being volume of a 4d-square). in otherwards a dot, then line, then 2d square, then cube, then hypercube.
Quête vaine que d'essayer de représenter d'autres dimensions au delà de la 3ème avec des moyens graphiques qui sont nécessairement limités eux memes a 2 ou 3 dimensions . C'est une vue de l'esprit mais pas du tout une fidèle représentation . Cela est juste impossible . D'ailleurs la 4ème dimension est le facteur Temps et rien d'autre
Since we live in a 3d world we can never make a 4d object... or higher.. BUT we can't at the same time see lower dimensions since we also live in a 3d world... we can only imagine how a 0 1 or 2 dimension looks like but still not understand it
@znobberful i personally think the existence of a COMPLETELY 2 dimensional world is impossible (or at least unimaginable). matter with zero height is no matter.unless of course you consider the possibility of a subtle higher dimension surrounding the lower ones.
The problem is that we're trying to look at 4th, 5th, and 6th dimensional objects IN 3d IN 2d. If we were able to see tesseracts and such in 3d rather than 2d, we would be able to perceive it only slightly better. But it would make perfect sense to us if our bodies perceived more than 3 dimensions.
@soccerchris25 we can see depth because we have 2 eyes but if you look at something flat then it's only 2 dimensions that where the term depth perception comes from
@steeveseven We can have 3 points equidistant and draw and draw the outside of an equilateral triangle. We can have a forth pt equidistant - put a fourth pt in the middle of the triangle and move it strait out into 3D a ways.A tetrahedronal arrangement. We cannot have 5 pts equidistant. Put 1 in the center of the tetrahedron & there's no next dimension to move it a little ways into. 4D people can have a clear line of sight to everywhere in a 3D object. They have 3D retinas.
@soccerchris25 our bodies are built to perceive three dimensions. You're looking at it the wrong way - your eyes do not "see". Light hits the back of the retina, electrochemical impulses travel down nerve fibers to the back of the brain, where your brain constructs the data into what you perceive as an image and tells you that's what's out there. It's incredibly difficult to grasp.
@soccerchris25 The 2D aspect is as 3D creatures among 3D objects we can make one to one connections between our 2D surfacing hides and the 2D coverings of the "sides" of objects "facing" us. We view things in plane sight and understand them. Facing what is in front of us, we see the writing on the wall. So we can make an orthogonal view of a scene. We can have a lens and make a flat photograph. Our 2 retinas are curved not flat. We immediately start processing for meaning and 3D.
Nice BUT... Can you please re-image it for use with standard 2-color glasses (red + turqoise) so we can at least SEE it in 3D? In this way a 4D hypercube can be perceived. Also please please please slow it down.
@scanditube You can't perceive it, not properly. Google Tesseract; while plenty of the 3d models are correct, none of the correct ones are more correct, despite differences. Its like a cube drawn on paper; two technically correct cubes can look widely different based on point of view.
Someone said that a cube can't appear a line segment like a square can. A tesseract can't appear as a square; and a 5D cube can't appear as a cube. To the higher realm critters or to us. Isn't that right? When the 5D progection appears as cube-ish is this somehow wrong? Fifth D imension might be best. One could look at multiple 3D timesequences simultaneously -- the whole time sequence (such as all of a music video or a play) ...and more than one. Anought directions enuf space, let's go.
@LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA Mite say cube looks like a square inside a larger one. Look at line segment and say, What does a square look like? Mite say - Looks like another smaller line segment inside the 1st. That's fair as far as it goes. Saying that a Cube should be represented as yet another line seg. 5D people should take a time trail of a 3D ice skater doing a spin off the shelf, look at it forward and backwards in time, and then set it back down next to the dancing bears.
this is the best representation so far. others only presented a cube within cube like the one by Justinms66 ===>>. if you orient the 4d view the right way, you'll see the cube within a cube thing. i know because i made one myself.
@rubbertrashful as Carl Sagan put it, the tesseract is to the third dimension as a three dimensional cube is to its shadow on a two dimensional surface. A real tesseract is not observable as in a real hypercube all the vertex's are 90 degrees. A human cannot observe a real tesseract.
@mjoraid that's the funny part. It was still a cube, we just don't possess the spatial understanding to comprehend a higher-dimensional shape... It's like a person living in a 2-dimensional world not being able to understand a 3-dimensional cube. You can only see the dimension below you (For us, 2-D, for 4-D things, 3-D and so on...) and cross-sections of the dimension above you.
Like I said a 4d object in a 3d world would have the abilty to shapeshift as well as have xray vision and phase through 3d objects and a 5d object in a 3d world would have all that as well as be able to open itself up if a bullet was flyin at it as this video showed
this stops in 3d, as its known , or at least it should be, we canot experience anything above 3rd dimension so there is no way of knowing what tould be like tomething in 4d or 5d
when u look at 4 or more dimensional objects with our 3 dimension eyes,the object will change when u look at it from different angles,since our eyes aren't
able to understand it,how many dimensions are there? 0.o infinite?
@ExquisiteCombos in theory, according to mathmatics the pattern never ends. but in string theory, there is only like 10 or 11 dimensions. i believe in mathmatics
@ZombieBlobs in math u have infinite dimensions while the string theory states that the universe has 11 PHYSICAL (not mathematical) dimensions. The number of dimensions in real world is defined by physics not math. If the laws of physics didn't exist, the universe would have an infinite number of dimensions just like math states.
@VELOCITYangus i really see no reason why reality shoudnt follow mathmatics: it does with all parts of our known universe. nomatter where you go, 1+1=2. so why should the dimensions just stop at 11 when the pattern continues? Also, if these "strings" are the god particle, then everything is made up of them. if everything is made up of them, everything is vibrating in 11 dimensions. if so, then why can't we freely move across these dimensions?
@ZombieBlobs I'm not an expert on this because it is super complex but from what I know space in mathematics is not defined like space in physics. An example: By math, objects can pass through each other with no problem. In physics it is not true, since we have eletrostatic forces between the atoms. All the fundamental forces have particles that are "force carriers" (particle model of vector fields). These force carriers are called "bosons".The bosons we know: Photons,Zo, W+, W-,Gluons,Gravitons
@VELOCITYangus Each of these bosons are little "energy-wave packets" that are called strings. The graviton is the string that can pass freely by 11 dimensions. That would explain why gravitational force is so weak compared to all the rest. And you can define the universe has infinite dimensions but it would be senseless to physics since there is no need to represent the universe with more than 11 dimensions.
@VELOCITYangus well, by math, objects can not pass through eachother when forces are added into the equasion. So, what im saying, is that in reality, physics and math work togeather perfectly.
so, unless you can come up with a "force" that stops the dimensions from reaching to infinity, the number of dimensions is infanite.but, everything in physics i know supports mathmetic patterns (conservation of mass or energy, aka, 1=1) sooo why should this be any different?
Here's a mind boggler for you. While in a tesseract one cube is contained within another, all surfaces of both cubes are on the surface. That's why it is impossible to see a true tesseract in our 3d existence, in which we can only see a representation of such a shape. A new direction would have to be created, other than height width and depth. It's like trying to view a cube drawn on a piece of paper. It represents a three dimensional cube, but it is only two dimensional. Therefore we can view
@ThatsH0M0 Hi, your analysis about visual dimensions has long been my view . I always felt that one could (visually) represent 3Dimensions or less but not more.At the end of the day you are still dealing with height, width and depth. However, the fact that this hypercube is a moving, I feel is a step in the right derection. Have you ever thought about time being an added dimension?Just like visual, I think about moving foward and backward in time. Up and down or even parallel to it.
so if we lived in a world like 4-d 5-d or 6-d, at some angle we would still see a square, but if we move we see someting different, applying thi to simple physics would we be able to feel a cube when were holding it at one angle but not at another or would we just feel a cube or something that is too complex for 3-d humans to comprehend?
oh ya, and im 13 and i just talked like that. its not that hard t follow
@MetallicaToMozart no, this is a 3d representation of these objects. You can't really tell what they would look like and how they would react to movement in their own dimensional environments
@harshdeep4all We don´t want to comprehend that image.. of course that they are connected cubes.. but in that 4d hypercube you just can still go in 4 directions.. (up, down, right, left) cause we´re watching it in 3d(it´s really 2d, we see things in 2d) what we want to know is how is the next direction.. not up, not down... is that what we don´t understad.. not those pretty lines.. obviously the´re just connected cubes.. sorry for my bad english.. greetings from México : D
Just so people know, the second dimension isn't only width and length. It would be a separate dimension but length and height could also be 2D. If you want to know something that will blow your mind about the tesseract, message me!
The rotation is wrong in 5D and up. A cube of a certain dimension can only represent the dimension its in, and the dimension below. For example, our cube can be rotated until it appears to be a square. A square can be rotated to be a line. But a cube cannot be rotated to become a line. So theoretically, you cannot rotate a 5D cube to look like a 3D cube.
@sarspof88 I understand what you are trying to say, but how could you rotate a hypercube to look like a simple square. I can rotate it to look like a cube because a hypercube is two connected cubes, but when you try to rotate the cube to look like a square, you still have to deal with the parallell cube. So no matter which dimensional representation you use, you can't rotate it to do that.
@FreakingTacoMan97 This only applies to 3D and less, since anything bigger is not really a representation of the actual four or five or six dimensional shape, but just a convenient visual analogy. The only real way to represent 4D shapes is purely mathematically.
@FreakingTacoMan97 A square projected on a line IS a line, however its rotated. Also you can project 3d on 2d then 2d on 1d....not directly from 3d to 1d....so maybe that's what he was doing with 5d and 6d to get to 3d?
and just think... each one of those is in one extra dimension... what we call time
archaismic 2 days ago
@archaismic You actually aren't thinking about it correctly, There are dimensions of both space and time, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time, technically we already live in four dimensions, hence the term space time. God, I feel like a fucking genius.
OutoftheblueNinja 2 days ago
Mind. Blown.
aaajohn2 2 days ago
@vemvillhaenpinne they have only been able to prove 10 dimensions.
aaajohn2 2 days ago
@aaajohn2 You are thinking about physics and string theory. Not the same thing. In mathematics there are indeed infinite dimensions, as well as partial dimensions, like 2.5, 1.3, etc.
yeebeascurvydawg 18 hours ago
this is beautiful...everything is cubes.........
vemvillhaenpinne 6 days ago
So glad that I dont live in the 6th dimension...
RipTide003 1 week ago
cube in a cube....cubeception!
razvanoblu 1 week ago
you can mesh a 2d plane together to make a 3d plane but if you try to mesh a 3d plane together youll just get fragments and warped space = doesn't exist
aish021 1 week ago
this doesn't exist irl
so... fake
aish021 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
La materia se mueve y vibra en seis dimensiones x, y, z, el tiempo (t), la energía (e), y el espín(s). Geométricamente Un cubo dentro de una esfera, tres dimensiones lineales y tres dimensiones esféricas.
CIENCIAYTECNOLOGI101 1 week ago
I wish i was stoned right now.
SubliminalHumor 1 week ago
there are actually 21 dimensions
ShadowParanoya 1 week ago
@ShadowParanoya in mathematics there are infinite dimensions
vemvillhaenpinne 6 days ago
My head hurts now........
beastMN3Mclan 1 week ago
Why am I watching these things when I already have a headache?
omgwtfpirates 1 week ago
I get it.....Whoa
immadinosaurlawz 2 weeks ago
1D - boring
2D - Yay! Drawing!
3D - Pretty sick!
4D - Um...
5D - WTF!
6D - Mindfuck!
SeanMartinisMyName 2 weeks ago 11
Incredible... jaw-droppingly beautiful.
I would love to model these myself. I realize that our vision is 2D (thank you for pointing that out, energysage), but when can we get a similar video as a hologram? It can be done with today's knowledge and tech.
BillColv 2 weeks ago
i had a seizure..
Ilikepiemonkeys97 2 weeks ago 2
It should be remembered that our vision is, for mathematical purposes, two dimensional. That is, we can only perceive the depth of an object though our understanding of lighting/shading, rotation, transparency, etc.. If we had 3 dimensional vision we would be able to see the internal structure of objects, and the (accurate) outer boundaries of 4d objects. So in these simulations, we're reducing them by one more dimension than we usually assume :)
energysage 3 weeks ago
How can one put this knowledge to use in science?
Racki123 3 weeks ago
@Racki123 Well, you could make the assumption that light and normal matter can't pass through/exist in these dimensions, and that is why we can't percieve them properly. Maybe the particles that give matter their mass reside in one or more of these dimensions. Things like gravity could potentially be fully explained (that is, if they exist at all :p).
RSwtfboom 3 weeks ago
Let me just put on my sixth dimensional glasses.....
slystrikegaming 3 weeks ago
Why do the higher dimensional objects sometimes briefly look like normal cubes? Is there no perspective possible with higher dimensions? (The cube never turns into a square.)
TaiFerret 3 weeks ago
@TaiFerret a cube looks like a square when looked at dead on, meaning you can only see one side of the cube. Similarly, hypercubes (well their projected shadows) can also be rotated in such a way that they appear as a cube, their most simplistic representation, but like a cube can be simplified to a square, a 5d cube can only be simplified to a 4d cube
Psychofear 3 weeks ago
@Psychofear When you look at a transparent cube dead on you can see both the front and back squares. The back square appears smaller due to perspective. All these hypercubes are supposed to be transparent, right? But all of them 4D to 6D appear as a cube for a while.
I would imagine when you look at a tesseract (4D) dead on you'd see a bigger cube and a smaller cube. And something similar should happen in the higher dimensions, I think. But at 0:31 the 5D-cube just looks like a cube.
TaiFerret 3 weeks ago
why "size" isn't a dimension?
alejandro0002 3 weeks ago
Earth needs to upgrade it's gpu
thepaperbag000 3 weeks ago 37
@thepaperbag000 we need a: Brain Graphics V.HD2100
- Supports Open-Brain 5.2
- 3D Level: 6.0
- 10240GB Memory
- 5.6GHZ Clock Speed
TommyDDoom 1 week ago 3
@TommyDDoom thats some good shit xD
TommyDDoom 1 week ago
can a one dimensional object actually exist? even if its just a line, it still has height or width with it. ex. your "1D" picture is actually 2D because something can not be seen with just height or width alone. that line has width, but it also has a small amount of height. correct me if i'm wrong.
pikanew95 3 weeks ago
@pikanew95 well, you may be right but when you round off the height and width always becomes zero,so it is not counted :-)
doraemonandchibi 3 weeks ago
@pikanew95 when we draw a line, it has a small height, but that is because the particles we use to draw it are 3-dimensional. A mathematically PERFECT line would be 1-Dimesional, but you wouldn't be able to see it. same with a 0-d point. on paper it has both width and height, but that's just how we represent it so we can visualize it.
IONATVS 3 weeks ago
@pikanew95 visually speaking, no, 1d can't exist. theoretically it can.
theAntilli 3 weeks ago
@pikanew95 It can exist, but not in a manner that can be readily perceived or conceptualized by us. Think about it this way. To us, who are used to living in a 3d world, 0, 1, and 2 dimensional objects don't make sense. They have zero volume, and thus can't exist. To a four-dimensional being, however, 3-dimensional objects are similarly illogical, with zero hypervolume. It's all a matter of perspective. All images that we use are just approximations.
0101181920 3 weeks ago
@pikanew95 its only for example purposes. dimension 4 and up aren't what they really look like either, only what they appear to look like to us in our dimension.
MrYougotshot 3 weeks ago
@pikanew95 According to string theory, 1D strings are the consituents of matter/energy. However, they move through higher dimensional space, like our 3D space. String theory also accounts for such "branes" of any number of dimensions, though in the case of strings, they are confined within higher branes, so matter as we know it can't float off into the 4th spatial dimension. Also, our 4-dimensional spacetime universe is a holographic representation of an 11 dimensional reality.
energysage 3 weeks ago
it would help if you made is slightly slower as you increase the number of dimensions.
Astrolutra 4 weeks ago
It's not impossible to understand. Just really, really, damn hard.
LordVysh 1 month ago
@LordVysh i would say its impossible to understand beyond the fact that they have more dimensions. You cant visualize a new dimension of space that you've never experienced, and its impossible to build a model in greater detail beyond the video. If you can, I claim witch. >.<
MrRichardKenni 3 weeks ago
I dare you to watch this high... i just vomited XD
Pointblankshotgun 1 month ago
@Pointblankshotgun haha lol ima do that bro
MrCracker21 3 weeks ago
the 5th dimension represents everything that could happen under one set of physical laws. so the 5d cube has the ability to be anything depending on how it is perceived. the 6th dimension represents everything that can happen in any set of physical laws. so the 6d cube can be anything based on how its perceivthe 5th dimension represents everything that could happen under one set of physical laws. (the comment was to long so I am going to reply to myself with the rest of this little speech)
SamyAdel9 1 month ago
@SamyAdel9 so the 5d cube has the ability to be anything depending on how it is perceived. the 6th dimension represents everything that can happen in any set of physical laws. so the 6d cube can be anything based on how its perceived and how perception is perceived. the problem is that this video is displaying these cubes in 2 dimensions, (it happened again so I am going to reply to this reply)
SamyAdel9 1 month ago
@SamyAdel9 so you cant see everything. for example: the 2d cube moves in 2d space making a computer screen perfect to display this but the 3d cube has to be rotated to prove that it is 3d and so as you get to higher dimensions the space/camera has to function the same way.
SamyAdel9 1 month ago
the music makes this even more awesome then before!
SamyAdel9 1 month ago
ММММДААААААА.....КРУТО !!!
aleksscout 1 month ago
MINDFUCK
Khliyh123 1 month ago
holy shit. i was so mezmerized i clicked replay untill everything i looked at was in the 6th dimension
neverlandneverfly 1 month ago
this is a single dimension representation, of a multidimensional object, but, i love the music in all 11 or more. Just great...
Enticer666 1 month ago
i cant even.....what?
MrEqnx 1 month ago
Mathmatically one can calculate the volume of a hypercube by integrating. start with y=nothing, then 1, then x, then x^2(being a 2d square), then (x^3)/3(volume), then (x^4)/12(being volume of a 4d-square). in otherwards a dot, then line, then 2d square, then cube, then hypercube.
DaSauceful 1 month ago
6D doesn't even look like a cube...
NameStilllLoading 1 month ago
nice video, though i hoped to see the 4d cobe longer, because its the one i can still understand.
btw, whats the music of this?
nightmareTomek 1 month ago
@nightmareTomek Godspeed You Black Emperor - Rockets Fall on Rockets
Sev0r 3 weeks ago
Quête vaine que d'essayer de représenter d'autres dimensions au delà de la 3ème avec des moyens graphiques qui sont nécessairement limités eux memes a 2 ou 3 dimensions . C'est une vue de l'esprit mais pas du tout une fidèle représentation . Cela est juste impossible . D'ailleurs la 4ème dimension est le facteur Temps et rien d'autre
NYLONoir 1 month ago
Since we live in a 3d world we can never make a 4d object... or higher.. BUT we can't at the same time see lower dimensions since we also live in a 3d world... we can only imagine how a 0 1 or 2 dimension looks like but still not understand it
znobberful 1 month ago
@znobberful i personally think the existence of a COMPLETELY 2 dimensional world is impossible (or at least unimaginable). matter with zero height is no matter.unless of course you consider the possibility of a subtle higher dimension surrounding the lower ones.
Glarium1 1 month ago
SEXteract
Also, you should label the cells and hypercells
PykohYT 1 month ago
omg noone understands this xD
drunkenM0nkee 1 month ago
Cubeception
lowfn 1 month ago
My brain hurts.
Levitikai 1 month ago
The problem is that we're trying to look at 4th, 5th, and 6th dimensional objects IN 3d IN 2d. If we were able to see tesseracts and such in 3d rather than 2d, we would be able to perceive it only slightly better. But it would make perfect sense to us if our bodies perceived more than 3 dimensions.
Sneak4000 1 month ago
whats the song name?
Biohazard1997X 1 month ago
wait, what?
i think my brain imploded
Enticer666 1 month ago
is that not just 6 cubes?
1y9b9b 1 month ago
Comment removed
1y9b9b 1 month ago
O_________________________O
rwcasals 1 month ago
can we only "see" things in 2 dimensions because we live in a "3D" world or can we see the actual "3D".
soccerchris25 1 month ago
@soccerchris25 we can see depth because we have 2 eyes but if you look at something flat then it's only 2 dimensions that where the term depth perception comes from
steeveseven 1 month ago
@steeveseven We can have 3 points equidistant and draw and draw the outside of an equilateral triangle. We can have a forth pt equidistant - put a fourth pt in the middle of the triangle and move it strait out into 3D a ways.A tetrahedronal arrangement. We cannot have 5 pts equidistant. Put 1 in the center of the tetrahedron & there's no next dimension to move it a little ways into. 4D people can have a clear line of sight to everywhere in a 3D object. They have 3D retinas.
LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA 1 month ago
@soccerchris25 our bodies are built to perceive three dimensions. You're looking at it the wrong way - your eyes do not "see". Light hits the back of the retina, electrochemical impulses travel down nerve fibers to the back of the brain, where your brain constructs the data into what you perceive as an image and tells you that's what's out there. It's incredibly difficult to grasp.
PhysxTV 1 month ago
@soccerchris25 The 2D aspect is as 3D creatures among 3D objects we can make one to one connections between our 2D surfacing hides and the 2D coverings of the "sides" of objects "facing" us. We view things in plane sight and understand them. Facing what is in front of us, we see the writing on the wall. So we can make an orthogonal view of a scene. We can have a lens and make a flat photograph. Our 2 retinas are curved not flat. We immediately start processing for meaning and 3D.
LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA 1 month ago
Nice BUT... Can you please re-image it for use with standard 2-color glasses (red + turqoise) so we can at least SEE it in 3D? In this way a 4D hypercube can be perceived. Also please please please slow it down.
scanditube 1 month ago
@scanditube You can't perceive it, not properly. Google Tesseract; while plenty of the 3d models are correct, none of the correct ones are more correct, despite differences. Its like a cube drawn on paper; two technically correct cubes can look widely different based on point of view.
keinve2 1 month ago
my brain supports 3d maximum
FlareonB 1 month ago 58
@FlareonB Mine supports Open GL
dragovic90srb 1 month ago
wizard music choice
maljamin 1 month ago
i wish i knew what i just saw
Craftman368 2 months ago
i used to use a 3DS but then i took an arrow to the knee
SuperCrazyfin 2 months ago
my brain cant understand these bananas
azebraiseeify 2 months ago
Someone said that a cube can't appear a line segment like a square can. A tesseract can't appear as a square; and a 5D cube can't appear as a cube. To the higher realm critters or to us. Isn't that right? When the 5D progection appears as cube-ish is this somehow wrong? Fifth D imension might be best. One could look at multiple 3D timesequences simultaneously -- the whole time sequence (such as all of a music video or a play) ...and more than one. Anought directions enuf space, let's go.
LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA 2 months ago
@LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA ... by Odin's left nipple, what the hell (or Hel, as the case may be) did you just say?
keinve2 1 month ago
@LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA Mite say cube looks like a square inside a larger one. Look at line segment and say, What does a square look like? Mite say - Looks like another smaller line segment inside the 1st. That's fair as far as it goes. Saying that a Cube should be represented as yet another line seg. 5D people should take a time trail of a 3D ice skater doing a spin off the shelf, look at it forward and backwards in time, and then set it back down next to the dancing bears.
LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA 1 month ago
needs moar dimensions
smkipus 2 months ago
This is faaar beyond my brains
MsnMarvin 2 months ago
mind fucked ^.^
DarkCloudGamerz 2 months ago
I clicked on this video expecting something thought provoking, but now I can't think of anything because my brain exploded.
XanthusPictures 2 months ago
so.... it's a cube inside a cube inside a cube inside a cube......... - explodes -
sethhero 2 months ago
@sethhero It's like a taco, inside a taco, within a Taco Bell, that's inside a KFC, within a mall, that INSIDE YOUR DREAM! WAAAH!! WAAAH!!
CarFox6 2 months ago
Don't drink the water, they put something in it.
TheMcDucky 2 months ago
this is the best representation so far. others only presented a cube within cube like the one by Justinms66 ===>>. if you orient the 4d view the right way, you'll see the cube within a cube thing. i know because i made one myself.
forinner 2 months ago
in other words, DMT.
supern00b 2 months ago
rockets fall on rocket falls y'all
itchyfiddle 2 months ago
Good. The only way we can prove 4d and 5d (etc). Is by comparing 2d and 3d.
so when you rotate 2d, you get no effect. It just reverts the out lining.
But when you rotate 3d, you get an effect which rotates the out lining in the depth which gives the object a form.
lofhy 2 months ago
If you aren't high, then you cannot watch it without losing your virginity.
PieMoe 2 months ago
My cat stopped watching by 4th dimension.
M00Nabove 2 months ago 27
wow i just got dizzy...
collasal45 2 months ago
You need acid to understand this shit...
iChokedASmurfOnce 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Freaking TacoMan97, Well in theory you could, though you would only be seeing a small fraction fraction of that object at a given moment in time.
chillincello 3 months ago
The only way that you can see a 4D shape is if you were on LSD!
Xzycko 4 months ago
This very simple to understand; all you have to do is to visualize the situation in arbitrary N-dimensional space and then set N=6
ElectroMagneticWeak 4 months ago
That's a 3 dimensional rotation of a higher dimensional object
rubbertrashful 4 months ago 30
@rubbertrashful Actualy no, he fixed it that problem the way it moves.
zContagium 2 months ago
@rubbertrashful actually, its 2 dimentional rotation
randomacountboy 2 months ago
@rubbertrashful to correct you it is only 2 dimensional with motion because you're screen is flat :P
steeveseven 1 month ago
@rubbertrashful as Carl Sagan put it, the tesseract is to the third dimension as a three dimensional cube is to its shadow on a two dimensional surface. A real tesseract is not observable as in a real hypercube all the vertex's are 90 degrees. A human cannot observe a real tesseract.
PhysxTV 1 month ago
@rubbertrashful basically that is 2D not 3D..
stjohn656 1 month ago
if only our brains had the the capacity...
sylar...
Enticer666 1 month ago
if only your brains had the the capacity...
it would be delicious...
woah, 2 much tv
Enticer666 1 month ago
Comment removed
Glarium1 1 month ago
that was no longer a cube
mjoraid 4 months ago
@mjoraid that's the funny part. It was still a cube, we just don't possess the spatial understanding to comprehend a higher-dimensional shape... It's like a person living in a 2-dimensional world not being able to understand a 3-dimensional cube. You can only see the dimension below you (For us, 2-D, for 4-D things, 3-D and so on...) and cross-sections of the dimension above you.
Miniman5011 4 months ago
@Miniman5011 hmmm interesting, but as i know, 2d is a square, 3d is a cube, 4d --> we must call it something else.
mjoraid 3 months ago
Like I said a 4d object in a 3d world would have the abilty to shapeshift as well as have xray vision and phase through 3d objects and a 5d object in a 3d world would have all that as well as be able to open itself up if a bullet was flyin at it as this video showed
legendaryNAVYSEAL 4 months ago
this stops in 3d, as its known , or at least it should be, we canot experience anything above 3rd dimension so there is no way of knowing what tould be like tomething in 4d or 5d
morieth1 4 months ago
@morieth1 yet
ZombieBlobs 4 months ago
when u look at 4 or more dimensional objects with our 3 dimension eyes,the object will change when u look at it from different angles,since our eyes aren't
able to understand it,how many dimensions are there? 0.o infinite?
ExquisiteCombos 4 months ago
@ExquisiteCombos in theory, according to mathmatics the pattern never ends. but in string theory, there is only like 10 or 11 dimensions. i believe in mathmatics
ZombieBlobs 4 months ago
@ZombieBlobs in math u have infinite dimensions while the string theory states that the universe has 11 PHYSICAL (not mathematical) dimensions. The number of dimensions in real world is defined by physics not math. If the laws of physics didn't exist, the universe would have an infinite number of dimensions just like math states.
VELOCITYangus 4 months ago
@VELOCITYangus i really see no reason why reality shoudnt follow mathmatics: it does with all parts of our known universe. nomatter where you go, 1+1=2. so why should the dimensions just stop at 11 when the pattern continues? Also, if these "strings" are the god particle, then everything is made up of them. if everything is made up of them, everything is vibrating in 11 dimensions. if so, then why can't we freely move across these dimensions?
ZombieBlobs 4 months ago
@ZombieBlobs I'm not an expert on this because it is super complex but from what I know space in mathematics is not defined like space in physics. An example: By math, objects can pass through each other with no problem. In physics it is not true, since we have eletrostatic forces between the atoms. All the fundamental forces have particles that are "force carriers" (particle model of vector fields). These force carriers are called "bosons".The bosons we know: Photons,Zo, W+, W-,Gluons,Gravitons
VELOCITYangus 4 months ago
@VELOCITYangus Each of these bosons are little "energy-wave packets" that are called strings. The graviton is the string that can pass freely by 11 dimensions. That would explain why gravitational force is so weak compared to all the rest. And you can define the universe has infinite dimensions but it would be senseless to physics since there is no need to represent the universe with more than 11 dimensions.
VELOCITYangus 4 months ago
@VELOCITYangus well, by math, objects can not pass through eachother when forces are added into the equasion. So, what im saying, is that in reality, physics and math work togeather perfectly.
so, unless you can come up with a "force" that stops the dimensions from reaching to infinity, the number of dimensions is infanite.but, everything in physics i know supports mathmetic patterns (conservation of mass or energy, aka, 1=1) sooo why should this be any different?
ZombieBlobs 4 months ago
I like the part where the cube rotated.
DanielJosephBattista 4 months ago
What did I just smoke?
wolflover8765 4 months ago
pause this at 0:00
new tab Emalkay - Fabrication (Full Version), click first link
Pause Emalkay - Fabrication (Full Version) at 0:43
unpause this and emalkay then watch >_>
Ph4ntomPro 4 months ago
@Ph4ntomPro awesome
Skiddla 4 months ago
is it strange if I actually know whats going on? XD
Deltalock121 4 months ago
@Deltalock121
Respect. ._.
BlockisticStudios 4 months ago
Watching a 6 dimentionsal object in 2d hahaha
TakanoyumeX 4 months ago
The 4th and 5th one were... to an extent, somewhat understandable. But the 6th? Oh my god, wtf is going on, lol.
BlockisticStudios 4 months ago
Comment removed
BlockisticStudios 4 months ago
my mind was blown.. time to go smoke a blunt and watch it again so I will understand.
ephguitar 4 months ago
@ephguitar
No, just... no.
BlockisticStudios 4 months ago
Imagine if we lived in a 2 dimensional world and saw this animation of a cube! We would be so confused!
lazercrocdt 4 months ago
@lazercrocdt
Dude, I live in a three-dimensional world and I'm still confused
Nickhadfield1 4 months ago
@Nickhadfield1 LOL!!! It does look a bit confusing...
lazercrocdt 4 months ago
Here's a mind boggler for you. While in a tesseract one cube is contained within another, all surfaces of both cubes are on the surface. That's why it is impossible to see a true tesseract in our 3d existence, in which we can only see a representation of such a shape. A new direction would have to be created, other than height width and depth. It's like trying to view a cube drawn on a piece of paper. It represents a three dimensional cube, but it is only two dimensional. Therefore we can view
ThatsH0M0 4 months ago
@ThatsH0M0 Hi, your analysis about visual dimensions has long been my view . I always felt that one could (visually) represent 3Dimensions or less but not more.At the end of the day you are still dealing with height, width and depth. However, the fact that this hypercube is a moving, I feel is a step in the right derection. Have you ever thought about time being an added dimension?Just like visual, I think about moving foward and backward in time. Up and down or even parallel to it.
phoneke 4 months ago
@phoneke its called spacetime yes..
ephguitar 4 months ago
Just when I thought I understood 4+ dimensional physics >.>
4onen 5 months ago
so if we lived in a world like 4-d 5-d or 6-d, at some angle we would still see a square, but if we move we see someting different, applying thi to simple physics would we be able to feel a cube when were holding it at one angle but not at another or would we just feel a cube or something that is too complex for 3-d humans to comprehend?
oh ya, and im 13 and i just talked like that. its not that hard t follow
MetallicaToMozart 5 months ago
@MetallicaToMozart no, this is a 3d representation of these objects. You can't really tell what they would look like and how they would react to movement in their own dimensional environments
Parronite 5 months ago
@MetallicaToMozart
I'm 15 and I don't go around bragging about "following" this. You even got the thing all wrong, anyway.
Oh, and learn some sentence structure, kid.
TheKanonHara 4 months ago
@MetallicaToMozart
I am 13 too and what is this?
Roopfert 4 months ago
wow math is pretty cool if you get it
Blood11162 5 months ago
Godspeed You! Black Emperor...!
webber1991 5 months ago
You missed Square in your description .
Toxie207 5 months ago
blinded by math!
sporex2 5 months ago
1:16 i started getting really scared
lizardgizzard108 5 months ago
prity colors XD
MegaRoFLL 5 months ago
So far i get it up to the 5th dimention, I'll probably get the 6th if i think about it for a while. 1:29 in. Oh and I'm 15.
leinad580 5 months ago
You lost me at 4d dude.
0takuMetalheadGamer 5 months ago
0-D = 1 DOTS
1-D = 2 DOTS connected making a LINE
2-D = 2 LINES connected by 2 lines at the sides creating a SQUARES
3-D = 2 SQUARES connected creating a CUBE
4-D = 2 CUBES connected creating a 4 DIMENSIONAL SHAPE
This pattern continues.
If u understand the pattern u have reached the intelligence of a 13 year old.
Hope I helped.
harshdeep4all 5 months ago
@harshdeep4all We don´t want to comprehend that image.. of course that they are connected cubes.. but in that 4d hypercube you just can still go in 4 directions.. (up, down, right, left) cause we´re watching it in 3d(it´s really 2d, we see things in 2d) what we want to know is how is the next direction.. not up, not down... is that what we don´t understad.. not those pretty lines.. obviously the´re just connected cubes.. sorry for my bad english.. greetings from México : D
2dollarkevin 5 months ago
im going to smoke a joint and see if i get it then
dmanz007 5 months ago 49
@dmanz007 trying that rite now don't understand still at all fuck me
sonofdasea 3 months ago
just 5 4 dimensions to go
1995error 5 months ago
My brain is bleeding
BlitzKriegDelay 5 months ago in playlist Vidéos favorites de BlitzKriegDelay
I'm looking at a 2D image of a 2D image of a 6D image.
Wat
FLCommsWest 5 months ago
Squished hypercubes XD
bulinger96 6 months ago
Just so people know, the second dimension isn't only width and length. It would be a separate dimension but length and height could also be 2D. If you want to know something that will blow your mind about the tesseract, message me!
FreakingTacoMan97 6 months ago
The rotation is wrong in 5D and up. A cube of a certain dimension can only represent the dimension its in, and the dimension below. For example, our cube can be rotated until it appears to be a square. A square can be rotated to be a line. But a cube cannot be rotated to become a line. So theoretically, you cannot rotate a 5D cube to look like a 3D cube.
FreakingTacoMan97 6 months ago 56
@FreakingTacoMan97 damn I never thought of that...amazing insight :)
gxzeta 5 months ago
@FreakingTacoMan97 what if you rotate it so that only an edge shows? wouldn't that count as a line?
sarspof88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sarspof88 I understand what you are trying to say, but how could you rotate a hypercube to look like a simple square. I can rotate it to look like a cube because a hypercube is two connected cubes, but when you try to rotate the cube to look like a square, you still have to deal with the parallell cube. So no matter which dimensional representation you use, you can't rotate it to do that.
FreakingTacoMan97 3 months ago
@FreakingTacoMan97 This only applies to 3D and less, since anything bigger is not really a representation of the actual four or five or six dimensional shape, but just a convenient visual analogy. The only real way to represent 4D shapes is purely mathematically.
Youcansuckme69 4 months ago
@FreakingTacoMan97 A square projected on a line IS a line, however its rotated. Also you can project 3d on 2d then 2d on 1d....not directly from 3d to 1d....so maybe that's what he was doing with 5d and 6d to get to 3d?
mrkiky 4 months ago
@FreakingTacoMan97 by your logic, you can't see a 4d cube on the screen because the screen is 2d.....
mrkiky 4 months ago