Possible to visualize anything other than the 3 spatial dimensions?

AI Thread Summary
Visualizing dimensions beyond the three spatial dimensions is fundamentally impossible, as true appreciation requires experience in those dimensions. While mathematical projections can represent higher-dimensional objects in lower dimensions, they do not convey the full essence of those objects. The discussion also touches on the concept of time dimensions, suggesting that different clocks could represent varying time experiences, but ultimately, they all measure a single time dimension. The ability of beings in one dimension to visualize those in lower dimensions is acknowledged, highlighting the limitations of perception across dimensions. Overall, the consensus is that without direct experience, visualization of higher dimensions remains unattainable.
Universe_Man
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Is it not possible to visualize anything other than the 3 spatial dimensions? why not?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I assume you're asking whether it's possible to visualize "objects" whose dimensionality is GREATER than 3. The short answer is "no."

Even ignoring the question of how physics would work in four dimensions (requisite for addressing the question of visualization) the best you can do is to mathematically project the object onto a three or two dimensional subspace.

Of course, you can't have a true appreciation of what an elephant looks like by merely observing its shadows. You can get a better appreciation using photographs but you're using your 3D experience to accomplish that. We have no such experience in 4, 5 or higher dimensions.
 
Universe_Man said:
Is it not possible to visualize anything other than the 3 spatial dimensions? why not?

We can visualize in 3 spatial dimensions and a number of time dimensions. What if we say that each clock that runs differently has a different time dimension? Just as things can be larger or smaller on the three axes of space, things cover either a larger or smaller time dimension than something else. how about it?
 
kmarinas86 said:
We can visualize in 3 spatial dimensions and a number of time dimensions. What if we say that each clock that runs differently has a different time dimension? Just as things can be larger or smaller on the three axes of space, things cover either a larger or smaller time dimension than something else. how about it?

Things that have existed for a long time take up more space in the time dimension than things that have only been around since recently. Clocks running at different rates don't require separate time dimensions, because they all do one thing: measure the single existing time dimension. That's like saying a ruler marked in inches takes up different dimensions than one marked in centimeters.
 
Would you say that "inhabitants" of a dimension can only "visualize" ,even if only in theory, the dimensions prior to it? Third dimensional beings can visualize second dimensional beings because they understand the concepts of the governing laws of that dimension.

Or should I go back to lurking? :|
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Back
Top