The 4th dimension is something that philosophers and physicists have pondered on for over 200 years. No dimensions is represented by a dot. One dimension represents a line. Two dimensions represents an area (like a square). Three dimensions represents a volume (like a cube). But four dimensions… where do we go from there?
In my experience, people generally tend to think that time is the 4th dimension. And in
A Tesseract is the extension of a cube in a similar way that a square is extended into a cube, by connecting the diagonals.
physics, this is generally true: they call it spacetime, and it is exactly as it sounds, the combination of space and time. However, mathematically that presents a problem, because spacetime is calculated using different values than what the regular three dimensions use (length, area, volume). Mathematically, one can do calculations in the 4th dimension just as with length, depth and breadth but it doesn’t really make logical sense to us, because (most) of us cannot visualise the 4th spatial dimension. There are a few high-level mathematicians who have claimed to have witnessed the 4th dimension! (Apparently the head of Maths at Adelaide University is one such person).
In reality, those who spend most of their time thinking about these sorts of things generally agree that there are actually even more than 4 spatial dimensions. For example, String Theory helps to overcome some of the problems of relativity discussed in my last article about physics, but demands 11 dimensions to work! The problem is, living in a 3D world, it is practically impossible for us to imagine something that extends that world into another space. Imagine trying to tell a cartoon character living in a 2D world that they’re missing out on 1/3rd of the universe!
They knew everything in the 90s, see if you can try to follow the video below with it’s incredibly stimulating music!
My personal hypothesis is that we can’t possibly see in the 4th dimension with only two eyes.
Another animation that represents the subset (or shadow) of a 4th dimensional shape, this time a 'hypersphere'.
With one eye, you can really only see in 2D, because you have no sense of depth (unless there is movement). With two eyes we can see in 3D because we are shown multiple images of the same object at the same depth. By similar extension, could three eyes at different depths give us a view into the 4th dimension? I couldn’t find anything about this on the internet, so either I’m a genius or just being ridiculous.
Interestingly, there is quite a lot hypothesised about the 4th dimension. For example, 4th dimensional objects have 3D shadows (shown in the two moving images). Something in the 4th dimension would be able to see all sides of a 3D object and inside simultaneously. Imagine! But again, when we try to visualise it in 3 or even 2 dimensions (as you are looking at the images and videos on this page), much of the information is lost.
Finally I have another video for you presented by a man with a voice that I could listen to for hours. This one explains well the conundrum that we have in trying to imagine the 4th dimension from the three dimensions that we know all too well.
We see in 2D, not 3D.
This is not related to the number of eyes that we have, but to the number of spatial dimensions that we experience.
Objects appear 3D to us because of the hues of light reflecting off them. This is why a marble appears to be a sphere instead of a circle. Take away the hues of light and we would perceive the marble to be a circle i.e. 2D.
Also, objects that move away from us seem to become smaller. This makes objects appear to be 3D, because it gives us depth perception. However, if an object were to increase in physical size at the exact same rate as it appeared to decrease in size as it moved away from us, then we would not perceive any change in the size of the object. In this case, we would lose our depth perception.
We experience three spatial dimension, and therefore we see in 2D. Similarly, a being that experiences two spatial dimensions would see in 1D, for the same reasons. For us to have true 3D vision, we would need to be able to experience four spatial dimensions (and time, although a dimension, is not a spatial one).
And you’ve proven that my hypothesis was ridiculous!
Your insight certainly adds more interesting information to the article, thank you for sharing it with us.
Do you have any ideas about how a sensing organ that could experience 4 dimensions might look or function?
Our eyes both individually see 2d and those 2 get merged together to get 3d right ..? Like a 3d camera (saw it on tv) so if i had an eye which was lagging by 1 second and the second eye was in present and my brain somehow found a way to merge it together ..then it might give 4d vision .
If i was moving around an object id be able to see 2 sides simultaneously ..and merged together owuld be something different
You can sort of see depth with one eye thanks to its ability to focus on close and far objects. But having three eyes would just extend the field and enhance depth judgement of our 3D vision I think. Still, imagining having 360 degrees wrap-around vision is pretty cool