I just dont know what Is 4D space and i can’t imagine it…
In: 5
4D space isn’t something that we can intuitively imagine because it’s not a part of our sensory perception.
There are various ways to think about it though. For example, imagine you need to graph something in 4 dimensions. If you know what a 3D plot looks like, imagine you add color to the data being plotted. The color is the 4th dimension.
Another way to visualize it in your mind is by imagining a cube. The cube is 3D. Now imagine there are infinitely many more cubes to its left and right (like a number line, but made of cubes instead of numbers), that’s 4D space.
If the 4th dimension were time, you can imagine each 3D cube as one specific moment in time.
Well, 4D doesn’t work well with our minds unfortunately. The best way to imagine it is via its 3D representation.
Take a 3D cube. It’s got three dimensions. They’re height, depth and width. It’s easy to imagine what would happen if we changed any of those dimensions of the cube, so I won’t go into that.
Now let’s say we have a 4D cube. Just like the 3D cube it’s got width, depth and height. But it’s got one more, because we said it did. This could be anything though. 4D space doesn’t exist as far as we know, so there’s no reason to assume that our 4th dimension is a spatial dimension.
Time, for example, is a perfectly valid 4th dimension. Changing the cube’s time dimension might mean it looks pristine at t=0, and old and crumbly at t=10000. That’s one 4D cube.
Or the 4th dimension could be sphericalness, in which case varying the 4th dimension could change how spherical it seems.
Or the 4th dimension could be *volume*, independent of outer dimensions. A big 4th dimension would mean that somehow it’s huge on the inside.
I like to think of black holes as hypothetical examples of 4D space. Due to gravitational spacetime warping, it’s not unreasonable to expect a black hole to have a much greater volume inside of it than the outer 3 dimensions would allow.
4D space isn’t something that we can intuitively imagine because it’s not a part of our sensory perception.
There are various ways to think about it though. For example, imagine you need to graph something in 4 dimensions. If you know what a 3D plot looks like, imagine you add color to the data being plotted. The color is the 4th dimension.
Another way to visualize it in your mind is by imagining a cube. The cube is 3D. Now imagine there are infinitely many more cubes to its left and right (like a number line, but made of cubes instead of numbers), that’s 4D space.
If the 4th dimension were time, you can imagine each 3D cube as one specific moment in time.
4D space isn’t something that we can intuitively imagine because it’s not a part of our sensory perception.
There are various ways to think about it though. For example, imagine you need to graph something in 4 dimensions. If you know what a 3D plot looks like, imagine you add color to the data being plotted. The color is the 4th dimension.
Another way to visualize it in your mind is by imagining a cube. The cube is 3D. Now imagine there are infinitely many more cubes to its left and right (like a number line, but made of cubes instead of numbers), that’s 4D space.
If the 4th dimension were time, you can imagine each 3D cube as one specific moment in time.
Think how differently life would be in only 2 dimensions, and how easily you could see everything going on if you were a 3rd party observer.
Now bring that up one level and you can sort of imagine what it might be like, even though we can’t actually imagine or perceive it.
Personally I do feel like time might be a dimension, as 3D worlds moves through it (albeit only one way) – in fact I’ve always thought of time as the fourth dimension in my minds eye.
But time could be the 5th or 11th dimension too, and we can’t just perceive or visualize the ones in between.
Well, 4D doesn’t work well with our minds unfortunately. The best way to imagine it is via its 3D representation.
Take a 3D cube. It’s got three dimensions. They’re height, depth and width. It’s easy to imagine what would happen if we changed any of those dimensions of the cube, so I won’t go into that.
Now let’s say we have a 4D cube. Just like the 3D cube it’s got width, depth and height. But it’s got one more, because we said it did. This could be anything though. 4D space doesn’t exist as far as we know, so there’s no reason to assume that our 4th dimension is a spatial dimension.
Time, for example, is a perfectly valid 4th dimension. Changing the cube’s time dimension might mean it looks pristine at t=0, and old and crumbly at t=10000. That’s one 4D cube.
Or the 4th dimension could be sphericalness, in which case varying the 4th dimension could change how spherical it seems.
Or the 4th dimension could be *volume*, independent of outer dimensions. A big 4th dimension would mean that somehow it’s huge on the inside.
I like to think of black holes as hypothetical examples of 4D space. Due to gravitational spacetime warping, it’s not unreasonable to expect a black hole to have a much greater volume inside of it than the outer 3 dimensions would allow.
Think how differently life would be in only 2 dimensions, and how easily you could see everything going on if you were a 3rd party observer.
Now bring that up one level and you can sort of imagine what it might be like, even though we can’t actually imagine or perceive it.
Personally I do feel like time might be a dimension, as 3D worlds moves through it (albeit only one way) – in fact I’ve always thought of time as the fourth dimension in my minds eye.
But time could be the 5th or 11th dimension too, and we can’t just perceive or visualize the ones in between.
Think how differently life would be in only 2 dimensions, and how easily you could see everything going on if you were a 3rd party observer.
Now bring that up one level and you can sort of imagine what it might be like, even though we can’t actually imagine or perceive it.
Personally I do feel like time might be a dimension, as 3D worlds moves through it (albeit only one way) – in fact I’ve always thought of time as the fourth dimension in my minds eye.
But time could be the 5th or 11th dimension too, and we can’t just perceive or visualize the ones in between.
Well, 4D doesn’t work well with our minds unfortunately. The best way to imagine it is via its 3D representation.
Take a 3D cube. It’s got three dimensions. They’re height, depth and width. It’s easy to imagine what would happen if we changed any of those dimensions of the cube, so I won’t go into that.
Now let’s say we have a 4D cube. Just like the 3D cube it’s got width, depth and height. But it’s got one more, because we said it did. This could be anything though. 4D space doesn’t exist as far as we know, so there’s no reason to assume that our 4th dimension is a spatial dimension.
Time, for example, is a perfectly valid 4th dimension. Changing the cube’s time dimension might mean it looks pristine at t=0, and old and crumbly at t=10000. That’s one 4D cube.
Or the 4th dimension could be sphericalness, in which case varying the 4th dimension could change how spherical it seems.
Or the 4th dimension could be *volume*, independent of outer dimensions. A big 4th dimension would mean that somehow it’s huge on the inside.
I like to think of black holes as hypothetical examples of 4D space. Due to gravitational spacetime warping, it’s not unreasonable to expect a black hole to have a much greater volume inside of it than the outer 3 dimensions would allow.
In a 3D space, you need three values to identify any particular point in it: `(x, y, z)`, like `(1, 2, 3)`. In 2D space you only need `(x, y)` coordinates. In 4D space, you simply need one more value, like `(1, 2, 3, 4)`. You don’t necessarily need to visualize it as physical axes, that additional value could be anything. For example time. Or if you imagine any `(x, y, z)` point to be a cube itself (picture a warehouse of cubes), then the forth value could denote the side of the cube. Or you don’t imagine it like a “space” at all, and just take it as a filing system in a library: “1st floor, 2nd quadrant, 3rd shelf, 4th section”.
If you stop trying to picture *n*D coordinates as physical axes at all and just take it as “you need *n* values to identify any one location in this space”, it might make more sense.
Latest Answers