So, A 4-dimensional being would be viewing their universe as an infinite number of 3-dimensional "projections". (this is not a 100% correct statement, but I hope you understand what I mean.) The same way a 2D being would observe their universe as an infinite number of "lines" of the first dimension. In essence, we are viewing an infinite number of 2D planes. We, as "3-dimensional" beings, comprehend the world and our universe as infinite 2D "projections" so to speak. Now, some argue that the 4th dimension is "time" but that does not quite represent the entire picture. In short, 1D has one axis, 2D has two and 3D has three. (so to speak)Ī 2D object has two dimensions, "forward", "backward" and "side-to-side".Ī 3D object has the dimensions of a 2D object with an added "up" and "down", DimensionsĪ 1D object simply has one dimension, "forward" and "backward" along a line.
Just like we are incapable of imagining viewing something from the 4th dimension, quite similarly how we cannot imagine a color outside our spectrum simply because it's outside of our perceived reality. The 4th dimension is by humans incomprehensible, the same way that the 3rd dimension is incomprehensible for a 2D entity and the 2nd dimension is incomprehensible for a 1D entity.Ī 2D entity simply can't view its existence from a 3D perspective. Gyroscopes would produce torque in that direction, electromagnetic effects would have more right angles to reach out to.ĭisclaimer, none of this should be regarded as proof since it's all theory. That is the general thing you see with cross products. Effects can operate at right angles to the participants.
The physics is not "closed" over the domain of the dimensions of the current arrangement of particles. You don't have to stand beside something at w=5 inches for example to push in the −w direction. See my answer to interactions with higher dimensions for details. Just like sheets of paper (or even ink on a sheet of paper) in our 3d world is not really 2 dimensional but meerly extremely thin in the 3rd dimension, you can postulate that the 3d objects, in order to exist at all in the 4d realm, are actually paper thin in the 4th dimension rather than having zero extent. You might also consider how 3d matter exists in the 4d world. You still need an infinite amount, though. You can apply the same idea to filling a 4th dimension with a 3d ribbon. Suppose it can be pushed by 3D forces: will it start draining immediately? How fast would it drain?īasically, I'm writing a story about a 4th spatial dimension interfering with everyday life, and trying to make it as logically coherent as I can. Assume that the surround universe is not immediately destroyed.Ĭan the water be pushed into the 4th dimension via say natural movement of the oceans? Why I'm asking this is because an object in 2D space cannot be pushed into 3D space by forces in the 2D space itself. suppose, a unit cube of such a space submerged in the oceans opens up into a 4th space dimension. Is this reasoning sound?Ĭonsider these hypothetical scenarios: suppose a unit cube of space, relative to Earth so that it 'moves along' with the planet.
Similar reasoning can be applied to argue that 3D matter cannot fill up 4D space, regardless of whether it is infinite or not. Essentially, one can't talk about the volume of a 2D object. Imagine that you need to fill-up a 4D unit hypercube with 3D unit cubes of water.Īt first, I thought you'd need an infinite amount, arguing that it would take an infinite number of stacked 2D squares to fill up a 3D cube.īut then, I realized that given that each square had zero height, an infinite number stacked on top of each other should still have zero volume.
0 kommentar(er)
