The fourth dimension
chris already started arguing against the idea of time as the 4th dimension (4thD) in response to my last post. The 4thD is very hard to argue/think about since the 4th D is not like the first 3Ds. You can't see it and affect it, like chris said. If humans are ever sure of what the 4thD is, then I think scientists should be able to explain it in away that you and I little people can really believe. That's my rationalization for trying to argue against it even though real scientists would probably scoff and spit upon me. But hey, they're still theorizing, right? Until it's agreed upon as a fact, it's a theory, and so I'm allowed to theorize. And I'm definitely allowed to explain why I doubt their theory.
Ok, well here's one thing I hate: looking at the 4th dimension geometrically. Supposedly, one dimension up from the cube is the tesseract. I think the easiest way to rationalize the tesseract is by using the point, line, square, cube...method that I outlined the dimensions with yesterday. A geometry reminder: each corner of a square, or any shape that has a corner, is called a vertex (vertices plural). So just imagine geometric shapes as being made up of points/vertices and lines that connect them. A line goes on to infinity in either direction, a line segment is discrete, meaning it has a definite start and finish (2 vertices, and one line that connects them). If I just say line here, I probably mean line segment.
0D: point: 1 vertex, has 0 lines that connect to 0 other vertices
1D: line: 2 vertices, each vertex has 1 line that connects to 1 other vertex
2D: square: 4 vertices, each vertex has 2 lines that connect to 2 other vertices
3D: cube: 8 vertices, each vertex has 3 lines that connect to 3 other vertices
4D: tesseract: 16 vertices, each vertex has 4 lines that connect to 4 other vertices
Are you serious? They apparently are. Am I pissed off? I am.
Ok...a mathemetician would probably rip me apart about how this 4th dimension isn't technically visible, but they draw it like it's visible. The shape that most makes sense to me is like this...
Imagine a cube, now imagine it has a clone that is in the exact same position as the first. One of these cubes grow, so now you have a cube inside of a bigger cube. Now just connect each of the corners of the inner cube to the nearest corner of the larger, outer cube. So now, there are 2 cubes, which each have 8 vertices each (16 total). And each vertex has 3 lines that attach it to its original cube, and 1 new line that attaches it to 1 vertex on the other cube.
THIS IS A 3 DIMENSIONAL OBJECT, you can't just add more sides and vertices and say that now this shape is 4D! Say you have a sphere, this is a 3D object, and however you change it or try to make it more complex, everything that you can still see is still just as 3D as a tree or a cloud.
Alright, that's enough about geometry, let's talk theory.
Time:
We move forward through time. We don't know if we can go backwards in time, although supposedly if you go faster than the speed of light, you might be able to go back in time, or at least view the past. You could also see the past if you can control the bending of light, but this is all very vague and unstudied by me and should just be a future topic.
Here is a reason why time being the 4thD might make sense. Imagine you are the square (read the last blog about Flatland if you don't remember) living in a 2D world. Your 2D plane (what you envision is the universe!) could be moving through 3D space. You have no feeling of experiencing 3Ds, except that you get clues, like a 3D object passing through your plane and briefly looking like a 2D object. (Here's a brief glimpse into future blogs...like a multidimensional God dipping his finger into our 3D world and briefly looking like a 3D Jesus...HHUUUUUUUUHHH???). So you, a 2D square, are living your normal life, but passing through 3D space...which you have no control over. This is similar to being a 3D human, living in 3D space, but passing through time...which you have no control over.
But I still don't believe it...we need to talk more about it. What do you think?
Ok, well here's one thing I hate: looking at the 4th dimension geometrically. Supposedly, one dimension up from the cube is the tesseract. I think the easiest way to rationalize the tesseract is by using the point, line, square, cube...method that I outlined the dimensions with yesterday. A geometry reminder: each corner of a square, or any shape that has a corner, is called a vertex (vertices plural). So just imagine geometric shapes as being made up of points/vertices and lines that connect them. A line goes on to infinity in either direction, a line segment is discrete, meaning it has a definite start and finish (2 vertices, and one line that connects them). If I just say line here, I probably mean line segment.
0D: point: 1 vertex, has 0 lines that connect to 0 other vertices
1D: line: 2 vertices, each vertex has 1 line that connects to 1 other vertex
2D: square: 4 vertices, each vertex has 2 lines that connect to 2 other vertices
3D: cube: 8 vertices, each vertex has 3 lines that connect to 3 other vertices
4D: tesseract: 16 vertices, each vertex has 4 lines that connect to 4 other vertices
Are you serious? They apparently are. Am I pissed off? I am.
Ok...a mathemetician would probably rip me apart about how this 4th dimension isn't technically visible, but they draw it like it's visible. The shape that most makes sense to me is like this...
Imagine a cube, now imagine it has a clone that is in the exact same position as the first. One of these cubes grow, so now you have a cube inside of a bigger cube. Now just connect each of the corners of the inner cube to the nearest corner of the larger, outer cube. So now, there are 2 cubes, which each have 8 vertices each (16 total). And each vertex has 3 lines that attach it to its original cube, and 1 new line that attaches it to 1 vertex on the other cube.
THIS IS A 3 DIMENSIONAL OBJECT, you can't just add more sides and vertices and say that now this shape is 4D! Say you have a sphere, this is a 3D object, and however you change it or try to make it more complex, everything that you can still see is still just as 3D as a tree or a cloud.
Alright, that's enough about geometry, let's talk theory.
Time:
We move forward through time. We don't know if we can go backwards in time, although supposedly if you go faster than the speed of light, you might be able to go back in time, or at least view the past. You could also see the past if you can control the bending of light, but this is all very vague and unstudied by me and should just be a future topic.
Here is a reason why time being the 4thD might make sense. Imagine you are the square (read the last blog about Flatland if you don't remember) living in a 2D world. Your 2D plane (what you envision is the universe!) could be moving through 3D space. You have no feeling of experiencing 3Ds, except that you get clues, like a 3D object passing through your plane and briefly looking like a 2D object. (Here's a brief glimpse into future blogs...like a multidimensional God dipping his finger into our 3D world and briefly looking like a 3D Jesus...HHUUUUUUUUHHH???). So you, a 2D square, are living your normal life, but passing through 3D space...which you have no control over. This is similar to being a 3D human, living in 3D space, but passing through time...which you have no control over.
But I still don't believe it...we need to talk more about it. What do you think?
posted by shawn @ 8:51 AM
5 Comments:
At 11:45 AM,
Chris Trumble said…
I STAND BY MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT.
At 1:10 PM,
shawn said…
That's good.
Your ORIGINAL STATEMENT implied that it's the classification you didn't like.
Same here. Humans started explaining what we see as dimensions, and we see/experience things in 3D. I don't think that just because we find something that fits a possible description of the 4thD, we should say that's the 4thD. I was going to make a separate post about the 4thD and beyond. But for now I'll just keep it shorter and in here. I think that as unrestrained/infinite as God is, he likes patterns. Wheels within wheels, an ecosystem inside a cell, then an organ, then a body, then a community...and so on. The use of dimensions to explain things isn't stupid, and just because I don't think time is the 4th, it's still a brilliant progression. Back to the Flatland idea, I think that story is strong evidence of further dimensions. And just like when the square is pushed out of his world in some direction he can't comprehend, I think it's possible for us to be pushed out of our world in some direction we don't comprehend. So I think our idea of dimensions is a good idea, and one that we possibly could explain a lot of phenomena with. Beyond the 3D lay some spiritual dimensions.
For that square, his plane's gravity held his guts in, his inside was wide open to someone in the 3rd dimension. In the same way, I imagine we're completely wide open to a being that lives in 4D and on. And it can affect us inside, in places like our "spirit" that we don't think are accessible. And it can visit us, and we can see a 3D representation of it for now.
Just because you can imagine this 2D world, it doesn't mean that it could possibly exist. If something has 2Ds, it can't have a body, since even in the square's 2D world, he needs to have some type of 3D height so that he has eyes, etc. You can't technically see a 2D square at all unless it's colored in. And then you can only see it from the top or bottom, not if you're in the 2D plane. (Well actually, from above, you could see the outline if instead of lines making up the square, they were bars that had length and width, but then that's basically the same as partially coloring in the square.) But to see it, something has to be "colored" so there has to be a 3rdD. So to have material or even spiritual existence, you need at least 3Ds. So maybe that's just the majik number for human existence, and maybe the argument is kind of bunk. Really the 1st 2 dimensions are just imagined too. You can argue that you NEED those first 2 dimensions to make up our 3D world, but dimensions are just our geometrical way of understanding things.
Maybe the 3D world is just the way it is, no more, no less. Anything spiritual is completely separate And I should stop thinking about spirituality as having something to do with higher dimensions.
No, I shouldn't stop. Because geometry is a tool we use to help us undertand space, even though something basic as a line doesn't exist, its no more real than a shadow. So dimensions can be a tool to understand God. But it's trickier this way around. Because we have the 3D world, and we invented the tools to understand what we already see. But using a tool to understand what we can't see or prove on our own is tougher.
WELL anyway, even not-spiritual people are pretty sure there are more than 3Ds. So I still say there are more D's!
At 4:43 AM,
Anonymous said…
Letter D, Letter D!
Letter D, Letter D!
Whisper words of wisdom...
Letter D!
At 7:52 AM,
Jason Zito said…
interestingly enough, i remember, from my childhood, sesame street doing the same thing with the letter b. what a song...
At 7:52 AM,
Jason Zito said…
interestingly enough, i remember, from my childhood, sesame street doing the same thing with the letter b. what a song...
Post a Comment
<< Home