There is nothing like a good science book to get my imagination churning. I have only just started reading Michio Kaku’s book “Hyperspace” and already my mind is hardly able to return to the real world once I have to put the book down.
The fourth dimension today is commonly accepted as the dimension of time. This was first established by the works of Einstein but had been mentioned earlier in science fiction stories such as The Time Machine by H.G. Wells , where Wells’ main character states that there are actually four dimensions, “Length, Breadth, Thickness, and-Duration.” Today, the next spatial dimension is referred to as the fifth dimension; though for the longest time it was known as the fourth dimension. In the book so far, references to the fourth dimension are concerning the fourth spatial dimension.
There were many ideas about what the fourth dimension really was. Many saw it as the plane that spirits occupied and some thought it was where Heaven was, since neither Heaven nor Hell could actually be physically located in three-dimensional space. Some suggested that God Himself occupied a universe if infinite dimensions, thus allowing Him to see everything and be everywhere at once.
If a four dimensional being were to visit us, he would surely seem like a magician, being able to walk through walls, disappear and reappear, and even perform surgery on people without cutting them open. Another neat trick a 4D being could do is flip things around. We 3D beings could lift a person from a two-dimensional plane, flip him over and drop him back, leaving him with his heart on the right side, and his appendix (if he still had it) on his left. So a 4D being could lift us out of 3D Land, flip us over and return us with our hearts on the right side. A 4D being would also be able to connect two solid rings without breaking them and turn a sea shell with the spiral to the left into a sea shell with a spiral to the right. In a story by H.G. Wells, a man actually disappears from our world and comes back with everything flipped around. He was right handed but now finds himself left landed. His heart is on the right side.
Imagining the fourth dimension or four-dimensional objects is impossible for our 3D brains. We are not 4D beings and thus have not evolved to see things in four-dimensional space. To help us understand how the fourth dimension might appear to us, it is much easier to illustrate it by comparing how two-dimensional beings would see three-dimensional objects interacting with their world.
The first to popularize the idea was Edwin Abbot. He published a book in 1884 called “Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions.” Many of his ideas had already been used by fourth dimension supporters like Carl Friedrich Gauss, still known today as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, and his prodigy, Georg Bernhard Rienmann, the founder of fourth dimensional mathematics. In “Flatland,” all the characters live on a two-dimensional plane and are geometric shapes. The more sides one has the higher rank he has. For Flatlanders there is no up or down, only right, left, back, and forth. If the plane of Flatland were to be folded or crumpled, Flatlanders would not know their world had been distorted, though they might find “strange forces” were forcing them to move left or right as they moved over the folds and creases.
One day, the main character, a Mr. Square is confronted by a Mr. Sphere from the third dimension. Mr. Square can only see Mr. Sphere as a circle, but as Mr. Sphere moves up and down through Flatland that circle gets bigger and smaller. How odd to see a circle that can change its size. Mr. Sphere takes Mr. Square on a journey into the third dimension where Mr. Square sees all kinds of mysterious and amazing things. Unfortunately, Mr. Square can’t see them as three-dimensional objects. He can only see circles and other shapes that continuously change size and shape as he floats past them. Imagine that you can see a human being through only a microscopically thin slit. From the bottom up you would see the rubber rings of his shoes, the cloth circles of his pants, which would join to form one large circle at the hips. You would also notice the many small flesh circles of his fingers, which would join to make the two flesh and cloth circles of his arms. The arm circles would connect with the torso, which would then become the thin flesh circle of the neck. The face would be a changing series of shapes and colours, and then there would be the hair at the top before the person would disappear all together.
For us 3D types then to see a 4D visitor would be similar. We would see blobs changing shape, appearing and disappearing as they moved in and out of our 3D universe. One science fiction writer based a story on this idea. In “The Monster from Nowhere,” author Nelson Bond writes about a famous game hunter who travels to the mountains of Peru to capture exotic animals alive for zoos. During the excursion, strange blobs appear from nowhere. Changing shape and size, they pursue the team of hunters and one by one the men are picked up into the air and vanish. The main character remembers reading Abbot’s Flatland story and surmises that this mysterious creature may actually be from the fourth dimension. So how does a 3D being capture a 4D monster? In Flatland, a 3D being cannot be surrounded or lassoed because it will simply remove the ensnared part from the two dimensional universe. However, if a 2D being were to drive a nail into a 3D being, he would secure that body part in the two dimensional world. The hunter studies the monster for some time and learns to recognize what he thinks is a foot. He then drives a spike into the foot and is able to bring the moving, changing, vanishing, and reappearing blobs back to civilization.
Another way for us to imagine a 4D object is through unravelling. Imagine a cube. To a Flatlander, that cube appears only as a square. To show a Flatlander a cube we have to fold down the sides until we have six squares joined together like a cross. Once we fold up the sides they disappear from the 2D universe and only a square will remain. For us, a hypercube (a 4D cube) can be unravelled and represented as eight cubes combined to form a cross of cubes with arms to the front and back as well as the sides (called a tesseract). Though we cannot imagine the cube in 4D, a four-dimensional being could fold up the cube to make a hypercube. To us, the cubes would appear to vanish until only one cube remained. If we take a glass cube and shine a light through it, to the inhabitants of Flatland looking at the shadow the cube looks like a square inside a square. Yet as we turn that cube, the shadows in Flatland would appear to move in impossible ways. A hypercube to us 3D beings then would look like a cube within a cube if a four dimensional being were to shine a light through it, and if it were turned we would see the cubes appear to be moving in impossible ways.
One more thought: a two dimensional being can escape from a 2D prison only by moving up or down, which is impossible for a 2D being to do. To imprison a 2D being you only have to draw a circle or a box around him and he can’t go anywhere. But if he could move up and over the barrier then he could escape. To other people it would appear that he simply disappeared from the prison and reappeared outside of it. Similarly, a four dimensional being could not be caged by a three dimensional cell. If you could move in the fourth dimension you wouldn’t ever have to worry about locking your keys in the car again. You could simply disappear from the mundane 3D universe and reappear inside your car. But how would the 3D universe appear to you? If we 3D types can view the whole front or the whole back of 2D types from a single perspective, then how would 4D types see us? For an idea, check out Picasso’s work where he attempts to capture multiple views of the same person. How strange our world would appear to us with 4D vision!
The page you were looking for no longer exists
hotaka posted on Aug 03, 2006
| views: 3283
Comments
-
dreamtime said on Aug 04, 2006....
hmm.... Interesting... I am trying to picture this 4D vision... But, another thought has jumped into my head... you have spoken about the fourth spatial dimension... Consider this alternative possibility: a being that can apprehend time in all of its states.... as human beings we only experience and apprehend the present. our experience of the past is only as a memory and our experience of the future is only as an expectation. But, what if a sentient being can apprehend all of time.... for instance... a toy car was at point A at 11am. it was at point B at 11.01am. it was at point C at 11.02am.... But, the being that can apprehend all of time would see the toy car at all three locations... in fact that being would see the toy car in a continuum.... stretching from point A to B.... Imagine seeing the entire universe from beginning to end... what a chaotic sight... just a thought. :-) -
aeschylus said on Aug 05, 2006....
I think that considering the 4th Dimension as linear is a bit off-base. Perceiving it that way won't bring you closer to seeing it. Imagine the 4th Dimension (aka time) as non-linear. Then close your eyes and allow it to settle around you, disposing of any 3D assumptions. The universe is time AND space; consider that neither are linear, that the existence of anything linear is a constraint for human sensory benefit. It's not hard to see the universe from beginning to end; it's there ... And it's not chaotic. Isn't that amazing! Wonder how "they" did that. Guess they got rid of the linear concept. -
hotaka said on Aug 05, 2006....
dreamtime, Thanks for the comment. The idea of being able to see all positions of things in time was also discussed and a referrence was made to a painting entitled Nude Descending a Staircase (sorry I can't recall the artist). In that painting we can see a series of blurred figures that are meant to be the nude descending the staircase as viewed at all points in time. I think it would take a special brain to be able to make sense of that. You can do the same with time lapse photography as well. -
hotaka said on Aug 05, 2006....
aeschylus, Yes, I realize that we are stuck in our linear universe because of our brains. We really don't need to see beyond 3D space. Nevertheless, the fact that there are scientists trying to make sense of higher dimensions gives SF writers something interesting to work with. Since we can't see beyond our limited perceptions we can only play with numbers and imagine what we find and try our best to imagine what the universe really looks like. Yes, like the book pointed out, once you do the math with higher dimensions you see the universe is elegantly simple. And as the book suggested, if "they" refers to God, then He obviously lives in dimensions that are above the linear concept that we struggle to make sense of. I just thought the ideas were interesting. Last night I was reading about the idea that as objects travel faster they shrink in space and run slower in time. Special relativity. I am sure you are well versed in that. Up to there I have read about it many times. But a spinning disk, such as a carousel platform cannot shrink at the faster turning edges in linear space. Therefore, it must contract and curve in a higher dimension. That's why we would feel ourselves drawn to the edge as we tried to walk on the spinning carousel. The force - gravity - is actually also the curving of space. Yes, I have read most of this before, but the part about the carousel platform curving in a higher dimension that we can't see gave me a very clear picture in my mind, especially since special relativity had me thinking about wheels before. That's all I wanted to share: the images of higher dimensional space. I think it's fun and interesting. -
aeschylus said on Aug 05, 2006....
hotaka: You opine seeing 4D, but you still reference 3D terms: inside/outside, up/down, higher/lower. 4D is no higher/lower than any other dimension (or another other relative term); it is just another dimension. And there are more than the limited few imagined within this limited 3D perception. You reference it is because of our brains. Actually, it's because of our perceptions and our limited use of our own brains. It has been theorized that even damage to the so-called "normal" brain can result in the person tapping portions of the brain that give glimpses to those alternative spaces. I believe such things because of my own experiences. Even I was contacted years ago by a medical research group attempting to recreate near death experiences. To do so, they claimed they took volunteers to the "edge of death." They contacted me because they wanted to know specifics of my experience. I showed my own bias about the entire matter (attaching the 'spiritual' connotation) and scolded them for going to forbidden spaces without the permission of the powers that rule such things. It might or might not be nice to have access to the other dimentions. I think what limits us is our own evolution within the dimension we are in, not the capability to move beyond it, or even see it. I tend to "bump" into the other dimensions often; I suspect everyone does, but very few recognize exactly WHAT they are bumping into at all, or even IF they had bumped into something. The majority of the human race remains unconscious, although at least we seem to have evolved beyond subconsciousness. IMHO -
hotaka said on Aug 05, 2006....
Excellent points. That reminded me of something Ian Gillan said that has been echoed in many science fiction books. Perhaps once our minds can leave this flesh we will be able to move to other dimensions. I refer to them as higher because that is how they are referred to in the book, not because I am attempting to rank them in any order. I think the book simply uses the term because 3 is a higher number than 2, and 4 is a higher number than 3. My 3D vocabulary is all I have to speak of other dimensions, though there was a scientist who made up words for direction in the fourth dimension. Since I am not out to make up words I have to use what I know. A Flatlander would not know "up" or "down." But you could hardly blame him. Yes, I remember reading a comment you made about near-death experiences on HBC's blog. It was that blog of his that got me to start reading the book, which was sitting on my stack of books to read. I think that what I am reading about now is looking at the fourth spatial dimension from a scientific point of view and being able to plot points in the fourth spatial dimension using numbers. My impression from your comment is that we can experience other dimensions but not exactly through science or our 3D bound bodies. My apologies if I am incorrect. If you write a blog about your experiences I would like to know. -
aeschylus said on Aug 05, 2006....
Oh heavens, hotaka, you are Not! incorrect! It's so refreshing to see these things discussed. I enjoy the challenge to my own thoughts and thinking. Only way we can see our paths is thru the mirrors of others. You're right to read about the science part of it. Read everything: scientific, spiritual, just plain nuts about it. Let your mind absorb what it can't understand. That's the interesting part of the journey. As always, I comment IMHO. -
dreamtime said on Aug 07, 2006....
Managed to find the painting that you were talking about. Its at this link: ||{1}|| -
dreamtime said on Aug 07, 2006....
just read through the discussion between the two of you over attempting to describe that which we have not experienced. Very true. Living within our 3D world, we attempt to conjecture the 4D world. We may be wrong in the way we picture it because of the limitations within which our perceptions operate. There is, I believe, a further problem. Assuming one of you... let's say aeshylus... let's say that you have experienced a dimension or had cognition of some mystical knowledge, you would find it frustratingly impossible to give an accurate description to the rest of us as to what is it that you have experienced. The experience would be beyond the scope of any description that would make sense to us. In the end, you would resort to analogy to help us get a sense of it. Until we do ourselves experience it, we may not truly understand. Reminds me of what the Tao te-Ching says..... The Tao that can be expressed is not the true Tao. -
hotaka said on Aug 07, 2006....
aechylus, thanks for your last comment. I was starting to wonder if we were not talking about two different things with the same name and then I realized we were talking about the same thing from different perspectives and that what you were saying was an invitation to me to explore ideas from your perspective. What you wrote also gave me an idea for a short story. I hope I write it. Anyway, I appreciate your words. I too like to hear different opinions about things to challenge and expand my own thinking. I am glad we had this chat. dreamtime, thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I should have mentioned that I capture the movement of objects through time everytime I do a long exposure of flowing water, waving grass, star trails, or blowing clouds. Overall, I think it is really hard to describe another dimension since the senses we use for everyday survival are not evolved to see beyong the 3D world, as aeschylus said. I am not up to date. What is IMHO? In my heart only? There are others too I don't know. Something like IMX or IMV. -
aeschylus said on Aug 07, 2006....
You guys are great! Love the discussions. Dreamtime, thank you so much! for explaining that in words I've never been able to find. Such a wise way to put it. I'll add an interesting website I found challenging a lot of my own thinking some years ago. I learned a lot from this "fellow explorer" as well. ||{1}|| -
dreamtime said on Aug 08, 2006....
Hey thanks... Just visited the skyhero website... great stuff... by the way, did you watch "What the bleep do we know"... great movie... mind expanding in some ways -
hotaka said on Aug 09, 2006....
dreamtime, I finally got a computer that is not giving headaches (left the sluggish office computers and went to an Internet Cafe) and I was able to see that painting. It's different from what I imagined. It looks more like C-3PO descending a staircase. But thanks for looking it up. I posted this blog because I was fascinated by some ideas I had read about in a science book. But now I feel left behind because you and aeschylus, both deeper and further advanced intellectually than I, have run with it and found some additional input. Phew! I have to work hard to keep up with you too. But I really am glad to hear your comments. At least two people found this worth getting into. Cheers, you guys! -
hotaka said on Aug 09, 2006....
aeschylus, I am starting to look over that skyhero page. I can see I'll be occupied for a while. You know what some of this discussion remnded me about was The Matrix. If we can see beyond the world which we imagine we inhabit we might see a real universe beyond. Hopefully it won't be as scary as the Matrix! -
aeschylus said on Aug 09, 2006....
hotaka ... "deeper and further advanced intellectually" ??? ROFL ROFL I don't' know about dreamtime, but I'm sure not !!! I just found certain information and had certain experiences before you did. And if you look at it reverse, you have experiences and information to share that I have absolutely no clue about. Two things I want to comment on. First, I can't for the life of me convince myself that time and space are linear in any way. For me that perception may be based on my personal experiences and knowledge I happened to stumble across through the years. Everyone has their own path; that was just mine. Second (and this is probably an idea that you will find a lot of people are not receptive to) is that there are no leaders or followers. There are "teachers" and "learners" but those roles intermingle as we learn from each other. There's always a trade. An analogy to describe the lack of heirarchy is probably best explained here by something I noticed recently on Soulcast. I read the Naked Professor regularly. Happened to get distracted the other day and noticed his self description: "IQ recently tested at 127." That's a pretty good IQ test score. Mine's a bit higher, which is probably why I noticed he commented on it. LOL. But my first thought when I saw that was: "Well, he's a guy, that gives him an added 5 points; and he picked a better nick here than I did, so more creative, give him another 5 points on that IQ score. Finally, he has the chutzpah to write exactly what he thinks and people follow his thinking, so give him a bunch more there." What I'm saying is there is no heirarchy, especially if you set aside the perception that time and space are linear or heirarchal. Could be upsetting, huh? Because suddenly, we are really responsible for everything that happens in our awareness. That God and other dimensions and anything we can imagine are actually right in front of us. Go for it hotaka; you are not left behind at all. -
hotaka said on Aug 09, 2006....
You know, aeschylus, that whole teacher learner thing totally makes sense. I probably would have said the same thing myself except for that in this case I needed you to teach me that those thoughts were in my head. That is often the case I find. I have the information and evidence but just haven't found the impetus to solder the ideas into a solid concept. Listening to you is like finding things in the back of my mind that I never knew I had. You are one of the people who have lifted the sofa cushions of my brain and found the spare change and the remote. :D I myself love teaching people about things I know (hence this blog) but also enjoy learning new things (hence me reading SoulCast and Michio Kaku). With regards to your intellect, I felt you express yourself more eloquently than I can. I admire that quality. Yes, the NakedProfessor writes a lot of interesting things that get people responding. I don't know how he does it. I have read many blogs that are similar to those posted by the popular people but they get very little traffic. There is something about NP's boldness that gets people typing. When I saw his IQ score I thought, "So what." Mine was a bit higher but I was disappointed when I got my results. But as I said on his comments one time, "It's not the size of your IQ; it's how you use it." And he does use his most effectively on SoulCast, even if he sounds a bit arrogant sometimes. -
aeschylus said on Aug 09, 2006....
Well said, hotaka. Give yourself more credit for your writing. You get the message. LOL, the first thing the Professor did right to get readers was extremely simple: His Nick! -
hotaka said on Aug 10, 2006....
Maybe I should create a new name - Nipples4Sale -
dreamtime said on Aug 14, 2006....
I fell off blogosphere for a while.. and I'm back... aeshylus> I agree fully with your observation on hierarchy. Given the limitations under which we often labour, there is always something to be learned from our fellow travellers. My mother tongue is Tamil and there is a couplet in the language attributed to a classical poet from about the 5th century BC. It translates roughly as follows: That which we have learned is like the grains of sand within our palm; that which we have yet to learn is the size of this universe. I believe that we are constantly acquiring information and learning from each other, both intellectually and emotionally. The learning never ends and the teachers that we meet are endless... Every single person that I encounter is in some way a teacher (if only I would spare a moment for careful reflection). and hotaka> "deeper and further advanced intellectually"? Me? I think not. and those words have tickled another train of thought in me.... If from where you stand (i.e. Point A) I appear to be located in a place that is deeper and further than you (i.e. Point B), then Point A would similarly appear deeper and further to me when I view it from Point B. :-) -
aeschylus said on Aug 14, 2006....
So well said dreamtime. Welcome back to the blogosphere, which i can seem to visit too little myself. From aeschylus, who has too few grains of sand within her palm. -
hotaka said on Aug 18, 2006....
dreamtime, that is a quote worth a thousand grains of sand. Next time someone calls me stupid I am gonna tell them that from where I stand they look just as stupid. :D But seriously, excellent quote. It's almost like the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. See? My quote is just not as profound. Keep passing those grains of sand my way. I need some to pass on to others. -
kruuyai said on Mar 06, 2007....
I was thinking about "Flatland" as I was going to sleep the other night, and something occurred to me. If the characters are two dimensional, like paper cutouts on a flat table, then they can only see each other as lines, and they would have no way of knowing how many sides the other shapes had. And the sphere would also be seen as a line, because the 2 dimensional objects can't look up or down, only left, right, forward and backward. -
hotaka said on Mar 06, 2007....
You know, kruuyai, I was wondering the same thing. I think Flatlanders would have to have some kind of depth perception in order to see how far an object was from them. They would need binocular vision. Then they could at least tell if a small line was actually a long one far away or a short one nearby. They would also be able to recognize curves and corners. -
kruuyai said on Mar 07, 2007....
That's true...they could probably tell if lines were curving or slanting toward or away from them, but seeing a whole circle... I think that would be outside the realm of possibility. -
hotaka said on Mar 07, 2007....
Can you see a whole sphere? All sides at once? Can you see a whole cube? Maybe a fourth dimentional being could but for us it is outside the realm of possibility, unless the sphere or cube is transparent. -
kruuyai said on Mar 07, 2007....
Precisely.... we are three dimensional creatures, and we can only see in two dimensions (although we trick our brains into thinking that we see in three dimensions). So, even though we can look in the direction of all three of the dimensions (up/down...left/right...forward/backward), we can only perceive two dimensions at a time. When we look at a sphere, we see a solid circle... with some shading or something that gives us the sense of depth to know that it's a sphere and not a flat circle. So... a two dimensional character, I think... would be able to look around itself in both dimensions (but not a third) and only perceive in one dimension (lines) with some shading (maybe) to give it a sense of distance. I'm not even too sure about that, though. You may actually need that other dimension to give you the sense of depth. One dimension is pretty limiting.
By the way, reading about the book Flatland reminded me of a movie... which isn't related at all, but did you ever see "Pleasantville" about the town inside the black and white TV set that has no color until two kids from the "real" world come calling?
-
hotaka said on Mar 07, 2007....
Yes, I saw Pleasantville. That was interesting though I felt they were trying to encourage immorality. It seemed the town was so dull and boring until partying was introduced. The good points were that people loosened up and found some sense of freedom and had some real fun but at the cost of respecting others. It led to some ugly feelings. I remember the girl confused the guy who liked her by trying to seduce him. Then he lost his nice boy image.
I hate to sound like a prude but with freedom comes responsibility towards others. Freedom does not mean selfishness is acceptable. The kids tried to make Pleasantville accept their view of how things should be. That's against the Prime Directive on Star Trek. But it's consistent with the historical way of thinking, that people believe their culture is best and try to make others adopt their ways. Pleasantville made a point of that.
I guess you can't have colour with out all shades, even the darker ones.
-
kruuyai said on Mar 07, 2007....
Really? I'll have to see that movie again. I didn't get all that out of it... or at least not that I remember. It's been a while since I saw it. I thought it was more of a statement about bigotry and resistance to change, but I can see where you're coming from, even if I can't remember the details. -
hotaka said on Mar 07, 2007....
Well, yes, those points too. It had some great messages. It's a rather deep movie now that I think about it. -
kruuyai said on Mar 08, 2007....
I really thought it was a fashion statement. lol -
truthsayer said on Apr 17, 2007....
I found this one hotaka. I am tagging it for later reading. Thanks!
truthsayer
-
hotaka said on Apr 18, 2007....
Hi truth! I am looking forward to your comments. -
truthsayer said on Apr 18, 2007....
I just want to let you know that I have read 22 comments in here so far! I will finish tomorrow...but tonight...tonight I have a little girl in jammies that wants my attention.
I like this flag thingy soulcast added.
See you later!
truth
-
Omniversent said on May 23, 2009....
If we aren't able to see non-linearly because of the way we have been conditioned, perhaps with an adjustment to that conditioning we might be able to peer into an extra dimension. According to mathematician's concept of a "block universe" we exist at all times, only our limited awareness (consciousness) is preventing us to access anything other than sequential progressions. The illusory concept of time means that we are beings whose consciousness exists beyond time (though we have not learned to break the shackles of linearity). However, before we're able to peer into the fourth dimension, we first have to learn to see in the third dimension. As was noted earlier, we are only able to see two dimensions even though we're three dimensional beings (actually four because we have duration). What we need then, is a much better interaction between, physics, mathematics, psychology, physiology, philosophy, and anything else which might enlarge our awareness. Yes, how about visual art? The knowledge artists bring to understanding color and color theory, perspective, projective geometry, etc., will be indispensable to the development of our consciousness. Thomas C
Comment on "Trying to See the Fourth Dimension"
Related Posts:
wombat
posted 2 days ago
| views: 58
|
I pulled a good one yesterday here at home and just thought I'd share for a laugh.I got home two hours early from working 12 hours shifts for a few days, so I crawled into bed and meditated myself into a deep sleep, planning on just a nap. ... read entire post
hottips4u
posted 4 days ago
| views: 64
|
Cast Iron, butter, some freshly crushed garlic, black pepper, a couple handfuls of mushrooms and, oh DEER !... read entire post
MsBradford07
posted on Nov 07, 2009
| views: 97
|
Tomorrow, I will be turning 26 years old. I don't want to say 26 flat out, but instead it is 25 plus 1. I thought it would sound catchy. If it doesn't let me know.... read entire post
starchini
posted on Nov 04, 2009
| views: 70
|
Its amazing how fast they learn and grow!... read entire post