Experiments show the effects of a fourth spatial dimension - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53036905]What's the chance that those close personal experiences involves some sort of psychedelics [/QUOTE] I'd be lying to you'll if it didn't. I'm trying not to come as crazy, but there is a lot of things I believe that I didn't used to after psychedelics, the idea of a 4th dimension being one of them. I feel we are so close, yet its still far out. I also believe that time is relative too now. The worst part is I can't describe it to someone who hasn't experienced it. Its truly ineffable. it's like describing colors to a blind person. Edit: I should also add that I was not trying to come off as pretentious or uninformed so I'm sorry if it is

[QUOTE=Exploders;53036238]Imagine we forcefully break into the 4th dimension as 3-dimensional beings.[/QUOTE] real, true 4th dimensional beings would be wild beyond imagination tbh. I think it's the last thing we should do. even being trapped in the dark dimension in doctor strange or HL2's Xen on acid wouldn't compare Our eyes wouldn't even be able to understand simple shapes and things relative to them

[QUOTE=sourcegamer101;53037313]I'd be lying to you'll if it didn't. I'm trying not to come as crazy, but there is a lot of things I believe that I didn't used to after psychedelics, 4th dimension being one of them. We are so close to comprehending it, yet its still so far out. I also believe that time is relative too now. The worst part is [B]I can't describe it to someone who hasn't experienced it. Its truly ineffable. it's like describing colors to a blind person.[/B][/QUOTE] That last part is especially important, it's like that to an extent with all drugs but especially psychedelics. What you're experiencing when you take drugs are the effects the drugs have on your system, and it's all chemical there's nothing else to it. If you seriously believe that you've experienced things like a fourth dimension that indicates that there's a disconnect between what you understand about dimensions and your own biology, it's all because of the strange experience and the way psychedelics mess with sensations of realization and novelty.

It seems like a lot of people in this thread have sort of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the fourth dimension is as far as we currently understand it

[QUOTE=Exploders;53036238]Imagine we forcefully break into the 4th dimension as 3-dimensional beings.[/QUOTE] I'd imagine some god-like being would freak the fuck out

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;53037424]That last part is especially important, it's like that to an extent with all drugs but especially psychedelics. What you're experiencing when you take drugs are the effects the drugs have on your system, and it's all chemical there's nothing else to it. If you seriously believe that you've experienced things like a fourth dimension that indicates that there's a disconnect between what you understand about dimensions and your own biology, it's all because of the strange experience and the way psychedelics mess with sensations of realization and novelty.[/QUOTE] Oh believe me I know, and you are right. The one thing that you've gotta realize is a lot of people, not just me, have experienced shit like i have on psychedelics. Does that mean what they or what I am saying is fact or that it is real? Definitely not. The chemical acts in your brain, binds to serotonin receptors and replaces serotonin, which causes psychedelia. How exactly this happens is unknown though, which is why there seems to be such a pseudoscience/uneducated grey area in psychedelic culture. What i can say is what I experienced was pretty powerful, and personally leads me to believe that theres many things the mind can and cant comprehend based on it. Sure, i may not understand a lot of things related to the 4th dimension and i may havent exactly saw.it, but that doesn't mean what I experienced wasnt any less profound or not related to it at all. They can definitely be relatable

If this world of ours had 4 spatial dimensions we would certainly notice it. Calculations for mass, volume and pretty much everything would require you to count in the 4th to be accurate.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;53037510]If this world of ours had 4 spatial dimensions we would certainly notice it. Calculations for mass, volume and pretty much everything would require you to count in the 4th to be accurate.[/QUOTE] not strictly correct, at least not by my preferred theory, but explaining why is going to be complicated. by 3 dimensional rules, 2 dimensional objects would be infinitely light on account of being infinitely small on what would be the third axis, but seeing as we cant have true 2 dimensional objects (witb the one little nitpick that says just because they're infinitely small doesn't mean they aren't also infinitely large, which sorta just means anything with regular sides can be considered 2 dimensional if you want to be a jackass about it) thats just not the case in our universe. essentially we cant perceive the lack of a third dimension, even though we can very easily comprehend it. similarly, a 4 dimensional being would perceive us as being flat on one axis. we already have a theory on how a 2 dimensional being would perceive us, just as an infinitely flat cross section of whatever part of us is intersecting with their dimension. a horror for sure, but not quite in the realm of instantly maddening forbidden knowledge. it stands to reason that we'd perceive a 4 dimensional object in a similar way, just a regular 3 dimensional object that changes as the fourth axis passes through our dimension. sound familiar? we call the concept space time if it hasn't clicked yet. at least by the theory i subscribe to, the issue isn't so much viewing the fourth dimension but viewing the whole thing at once. that's when we get into instantly maddening forbidden knowledge territory.

[QUOTE=sourcegamer101;53037440]Oh believe me I know, and you are right. The one thing that you've gotta realize is a lot of people, not just me, have experienced shit like i have on psychedelics. Does that mean what they or what I am saying is fact or that it is real? Definitely not. The chemical acts in your brain, binds to serotonin receptors and replaces serotonin, which causes psychedelia. How exactly this happens is unknown though, which is why there seems to be such a pseudoscience/uneducated grey area in psychedelic culture. What i can say is what I experienced was pretty powerful, and personally leads me to believe that theres many things the mind can and cant comprehend based on it. Sure, i may not understand a lot of things related to the 4th dimension and i may havent exactly saw.it, but that doesn't mean what I experienced wasnt any less profound or not related to it at all. They can definitely be relatable[/QUOTE] As you clearly admit, you had some powerful hallucinations yet you're trying to add some sort of greater attribute to them. I'm not trying to downplay the insanity and profoundness of the experience, I've had those experiences myself, trust me I know. As you say, a lot of people have experienced shit like you have on psychedelics, I have myself, and that's because - even though psychedelics haven't been studied as much as they should have been because of social taboo and legal issues - psychedelic drugs like any other have predictable effects with slight variations depending on the physical and psychological identity of the individual. It's only related to the fourth dimension as far as how you think about it, there's no actual relation between an actual physical fourth dimension and the physical substances or their effects.

[QUOTE=dingusnin;53036204]A fun thing to think about is there are 6 ways to rotate a 4D object.[/QUOTE] You've got my attention.

[QUOTE=Sims_doc;53037635]You've got my attention.[/QUOTE] In general, there are n(n-1)/2 ways to rotate an n-dimensional object. 1 way to rotate a 2-dimensional object, 3 ways for 3 dimensions, 6 ways for 4 dimensions. 5 dimensions would have 10 ways to rotate, etc.

Fools, the answer is simple. [t]https://i.imgur.com/fDh4ZS3.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53036905]This is a really good video. Actually, 3Blue1Brown's probably the best math channel on youtube.[/QUOTE] Thanks a lot. Between this post and DrogenViech's link I ended up blowing about an hour and a half on this channel. :v:

[QUOTE=butre;53037556]not strictly correct, at least not by my preferred theory, but explaining why is going to be complicated. by 3 dimensional rules, 2 dimensional objects would be infinitely light on account of being infinitely small on what would be the third axis, but seeing as we cant have true 2 dimensional objects (witb the one little nitpick that says just because they're infinitely small doesn't mean they aren't also infinitely large, which sorta just means anything with regular sides can be considered 2 dimensional if you want to be a jackass about it) thats just not the case in our universe. essentially we cant perceive the lack of a third dimension, even though we can very easily comprehend it. similarly, a 4 dimensional being would perceive us as being flat on one axis. we already have a theory on how a 2 dimensional being would perceive us, just as an infinitely flat cross section of whatever part of us is intersecting with their dimension. a horror for sure, but not quite in the realm of instantly maddening forbidden knowledge. it stands to reason that we'd perceive a 4 dimensional object in a similar way, just a regular 3 dimensional object that changes as the fourth axis passes through our dimension. sound familiar? we call the concept space time if it hasn't clicked yet. at least by the theory i subscribe to, the issue isn't so much viewing the fourth dimension but viewing the whole thing at once. that's when we get into instantly maddening forbidden knowledge territory.[/QUOTE] I know how theorethical objects limited to X number of dimensions work. What I'm saying is that our laws of physics don't support 2-dimensional objects nor 4D ones. Even if true 1D and 2D objects or creatures could exist, nothing would stop them from interacting or observing the 3rd spatial dimension because just like us they exist in this same 3-dimensional space.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;53038129]I know how theorethical objects limited to X number of dimensions work. What I'm saying is that our laws of physics don't support 2-dimensional objects nor 4D ones. Even if true 1D and 2D objects or creatures could exist, nothing would stop them from interacting or observing the 3rd spatial dimension because just like us they exist in this same 3-dimensional space.[/QUOTE] Possibly true about 2D, not true about 4D. The laws of physics are plenty consistent with extra spatial dimensions. Curl them up real small and you can get consequences that are only observable at high energy as well.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53038149]Possibly true about 2D, not true about 4D. The laws of physics are plenty consistent with extra spatial dimensions. Curl them up real small and you can get consequences that are only observable at high energy as well.[/QUOTE] I always wondered: how can a dimension be "small?"

[QUOTE=Mingebox;53038230]Sometimes I always wondered: how can a dimension be "small?"[/QUOTE] An infinitely long cylinder has two dimensions: one infinite non-compact dimension along its length, and another compact dimension around the cylinder. The surface of a sphere is similarly two dimensional, but obviously a ping-pong ball is not particularly large (compared to us, anyway). The sphere is in some sense more complicated though, since the cylinder is just a product of two one dimensional objects, a line and a circle. A 2-sphere does not break up so simply.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53038281]An infinite cylinder has two dimensions: one infinite non-compact dimension along its length, and another compact dimension around the cylinder.[/QUOTE] Infinite cylinder doesn't sound small

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53038284]Infinite cylinder doesn't sound small[/QUOTE] If it's an inch around, it's small in one dimension.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53038286]If it's an inch around, it's small in one dimension.[/QUOTE] But to exist as a physical thing, wouldn't it have to have dinner kind of width to it's walls?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53038289]But to exist as a physical thing, wouldn't it have to have dinner kind of width to it's walls?[/QUOTE] Why would it? Should we expect four-dimensional spacetime to need to have some width in the fifth dimension to be physical? [editline]9th January 2018[/editline] Regardless, we're talking about dimensions of space here, and I was giving a low-dimensional example to illustrate properties. this isn't about physical objects.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53038296]Why would it? Should we expect four-dimensional spacetime to need to have some width in the fifth dimension to be physical?[/QUOTE] So this wouldn't exist in the world as we know it?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53038303]So this wouldn't exist in the world as we know it?[/QUOTE] See my edit above.

Ohhhh, i see

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53038281]An infinitely long cylinder has two dimensions: one infinite non-compact dimension along its length, and another compact dimension around the cylinder. The surface of a sphere is similarly two dimensional, but obviously a ping-pong ball is not particularly large (compared to us, anyway). The sphere is in some sense more complicated though, since the cylinder is just a product of two one dimensional objects, a line and a circle. A 2-sphere does not break up so simply.[/QUOTE] So is it the dimension that's small, or is it just small in that dimension?

[QUOTE=Mingebox;53039119]So is it the dimension that's small, or is it just small in that dimension?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you'd consider the distinction between those two things to be.