Science Forums

# Understanding 3+ spatial dmensions?

## Recommended Posts

Till now, some of us are used to describing more than two dimensions on paper (draw the third dimension in a curved manner). To an imaginary 2D organism, however, the tilted drawing of the third dimension will appear quite the same as a wierd and bented form of Its 2 dimensions.

My question is, can we possibly display 4 or more spatial dimensions in our own 3?(by our own I mean the ones we can see and comprehend) Please correct me if my understanding of these dimensions seem wrong but how can we possibly hope to understand such a representation.

##### Share on other sites

I know we can represent a change in another spacial dimension with the 3 spatial dimensions using math equations.

The universe is a number of dimensions functioning as one to give us the reality we have. Time is a dimension, and the spatial dimensions are in this dimension.

Things get strange when you travel near the speed of light according to theory..

I would at my best guess say, that you cant display more than 3 spatial dimensions with a 3 dimensional space/universe visually.

##### Share on other sites

Martin Gardner's ticktacktoe displays four dimensions on a sheet of paper.

##### Share on other sites

Of course. Representing more dimensions as separate diagrams and colour coding the dimensions. Doubtlessly a good idea. But showing more dimensions in such a manner will destroy all the continuity of space in the representation.

##### Share on other sites

Martin Gardner's ticktacktoe displays four dimensions on a sheet of paper.

What exactly do you mean? Can you elaborate on this?

Can you display four spacial dimensions in a 3 dimensional space? Let alone on a two dimensional drawing on paper.

##### Share on other sites

He uses a 4x4 grid for two dimensions, four of these grids give a two dimensional representation of a cube, four of these cubes give a two dimensional representation of a set of potential cubes. 4x4x4x4.

##### Share on other sites

Oh, right a representation. :) gotcha

##### Share on other sites

There is a problem in displaying the extra dimensions in this way. As the number of dimensions goes up, the whole description will become more and more complex and abstract. The concept will have less and less use.

What if we show the extra dimensions connected to the points on the 2D part a little bent, making no changes in lengths. Only adding about +15 degrees for dimension 4 and colouring in red and say... +30 degrees and colouring in blue for dimension 5 and so on...?

##### Share on other sites

until now there where no avatars in this thread.. just my 2c

A good book on this stuff is 'The forth dimension' by rudy rucker ;)

##### Share on other sites

Yeah um... so why is there a problem in seeing more than 3 dimentions the Martin Gardner's ticktacktoe way?:wave: :eek: :confused:

##### Share on other sites

Yeah um... so why is there a problem in seeing more than 3 dimentions the Martin Gardner's ticktacktoe way?

The Gardner Ticktacktoe is on a 3 Dimensional Peice of paper being seen in a 3D spatial reality by a 3D spatial lifeform.

It can represent more dimensions, but can not display more, and those two terms are very different, that is my opinion.

##### Share on other sites

It can represent more dimensions, but can not display more, and those two terms are very different, that is my opinion.

can u explain the difference?

##### Share on other sites

Not perfect, just dashed it off on Paint...

##### Share on other sites

Thats a good one dude.

##### Share on other sites

I hadn't thought yesterday of marking the 16 true vertices, to distinguish them more easily from line crossings due to the 4-D onto 2-D projection, so I replaced the attachment.

##### Share on other sites

There's a difference between Qfwfq's diagram and the ticktactoe game, in that all faces in the diagram take part in two cubes, whereas in the game the faces on the long diagonals take part in three cubes.

##### Share on other sites

:hihi: I'm not sure what you mean by "on the long diagonals" and by "taking part in". In what you say about my picture, "take part in" means that each square is the boundary between two cubes, which is correct. I can't see which the third cube would be in the discrete case.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.