The Mystery of Hyperdimensional Discus: Why a 4D Discus Won't Fly

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hornbein
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a four-dimensional discus and its flight characteristics. Participants explore the implications of additional spatial dimensions on the stability and aerodynamics of a discus-like object, comparing it to familiar three-dimensional objects and their behaviors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that a 4D discus would be unstable due to the inability to control tilt in two dimensions, leading to loss of lift.
  • Others describe the physical characteristics of a traditional Frisbee, noting its design features that may contribute to stability in flight.
  • A participant suggests that what is perceived as a sphere in three dimensions could be viewed as a disc in four dimensions, raising questions about the nature of dimensionality and surface area.
  • Some participants propose that an object with fewer large dimensions in 4D would lack sufficient surface area to achieve flight, while others challenge this assumption.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of rotation in four dimensions, with one participant mentioning that solid objects can have two perpendicular planes of rotation, which complicates the understanding of stability.
  • One participant claims to have invented a disc that flies farther by modifying its weight distribution, while another contests this claim by suggesting an alternative design.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the stability and flight characteristics of a 4D discus. There is no consensus on the implications of additional dimensions or the effectiveness of various disc designs.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various assumptions about dimensionality, stability, and aerodynamics without resolving these complexities. The discussion includes speculative reasoning about how objects behave differently in higher dimensions.

Hornbein
Gold Member
Messages
3,834
Reaction score
3,087
If you have four spatial dimensions then a discus won't fly very well. A 4D discus or Frisbee has three large horizontal dimensions and one smaller vertical one. Spinning such a disc stabilizes only two horizontal dimensions. The disc is unstable in the other two dimensions so there is a tilt that can't be controlled. The disc will roll over and lose lift.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lren Zvsm
Physics news on Phys.org
Hornbein said:
If you have four spatial dimensions then a discus won't fly very well. A 4D discus or Frisbee has three large horizontal dimensions and one smaller vertical one. Spinning such a disc stabilizes only two horizontal dimensions. The disc is unstable in the other two dimensions so there is a tilt that can't be controlled. The disc will roll over and lose lift.
I threw my Wham-O Pro Classic Frisbee with my granddaughter this morning trying to visualize the 4th spatial dimension stability problem without notable success. We did notice the 3D fractal dimensions of the disc design between the bulging rim and the horizontal flat central section.

The Pro Frisbee includes 16 annular rings/grooves mounting from the curved rim to a single wider shallow groove where the flat interior top begins. We suppose these grooves provide some aerodynamic stability during (vertical?) flight in addition to the gyroscopic (horizontal) stability of the rotating disc. Note that the flexible disc deforms when thrown then flattens in flight, adding to the fractal nature of the disc geometry.

20230326_133940.jpg
 
Klystron said:
I threw my Wham-O Pro Classic Frisbee with my granddaughter this morning trying to visualize the 4th spatial dimension stability problem without notable success. We did notice the 3D fractal dimensions of the disc design between the bulging rim and the horizontal flat central section.

The Pro Frisbee includes 16 annular rings/grooves mounting from the curved rim to a single wider shallow groove where the flat interior top begins. We suppose these grooves provide some aerodynamic stability during (vertical?) flight in addition to the gyroscopic (horizontal) stability of the rotating disc. Note that the flexible disc deforms when thrown then flattens in flight, adding to the fractal nature of the disc geometry.

View attachment 324094
My first disc was embossed with

Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lren Zvsm
Hornbein said:
My first disc was embossed with

Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment!
Cool. I threw my first Wham-O Frisbee the Summer of 1958, made in California. The story goes that Southern Californians threw for distance, us Bay Area kids tried for maximum lift and hover time.

I have 'frisbeed' (verb) just about any object with a flat surface that I could throw and spin including aluminum pie plates, plastic dinner plates, playing cards, wooden boomerangs, knives and hatchets, even pieces of drywall. I store the disc in the above picture under the seat of my truck just in case.

When young and strong I would fling a disc at an angle from Santa Cruz beach out over the Pacific Ocean until it nearly disappeared then catch it when it boomeranged back to shore. Aerodynamic.
 
Klystron said:
Cool. I threw my first Wham-O Frisbee the Summer of 1958, made in California. The story goes that Southern Californians threw for distance, us Bay Area kids tried for maximum lift and hover time.

I have 'frisbeed' (verb) just about any object with a flat surface that I could throw and spin including aluminum pie plates, plastic dinner plates, playing cards, wooden boomerangs, knives and hatchets, even pieces of drywall. I store the disc in the above picture under the seat of my truck just in case.

When young and strong I would fling a disc at an angle from Santa Cruz beach out over the Pacific Ocean until it nearly disappeared then catch it when it boomeranged back to shore. Aerodynamic.
I invented the world's farthest flying disc. Take a 150gr golf disk and fill it with foam plastic. 20% more distance.
 
Hornbein said:
If you have four spatial dimensions then a discus won't fly very well. A 4D discus or Frisbee has three large horizontal dimensions and one smaller vertical one. Spinning such a disc stabilizes only two horizontal dimensions. The disc is unstable in the other two dimensions so there is a tilt that can't be controlled. The disc will roll over and lose lift.
What you are describing is a sphere, with a small extrusion into the fourth dimension. That doesn't fly any better in three dimensions then four. What if it only had two large dimensions and two small ones.
 
Algr said:
What you are describing is a sphere, with a small extrusion into the fourth dimension. That doesn't fly any better in three dimensions then four.

To us it is a sphere, to them it is a disc. It is a flat object capable of pushing air downward, so it can fly.

Algr said:
What if it only had two large dimensions and two small ones.

Then it wouldn't have enough surface area to fly. In 4D, surfaces are 3D. An approximately 2D object doesn't have enough 3D surface area. And it would still flip over into the extra sideways dimension.

Taking things a step further, what to us is a hollow sphere is to them a ring. That would be the shape of their chain links.

As you can see, it takes a bit of getting used to. 3D intuition doesn't work in 4D. If it did then 4D would be a ho hum world.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lren Zvsm
Hornbein said:
To us it is a sphere, to them it is a disc. It is a flat object capable of pushing air downward, so it can fly.
I don't think that the names change in higher dimensions. A sphere is still a sphere, but they can see inside it. a 4d sphere is a hypersphere.

Hornbein said:
Then it wouldn't have enough surface area to fly. In 4D, surfaces are 3D. An approximately 2D object doesn't have enough 3D surface area. And it would still flip over into the extra sideways dimension.
Javelins are pseudo-one-dimensional, but they work in three dimensions. In order to tumble, you need to exchange one dimension with another. A spinning frisbee has three stabilized dimensions, so it is not clear to me that the fourth dimension would be able to exchange with one of the other three. Which one would it exchange with?

Hornbein said:
Taking things a step further, what to us is a hollow sphere is to them a ring. That would be the shape of their chain links.
Again the names don't change. Eight cubes make a tesseract. A tesseract has eight volumes, 48 sides, and one of something that needs a new name. (Hypervolume?). A hollow sphere might be LIKE a ring, in that they could put stuff inside it and move through it. But it would have a volume, whereas a ring only has an area.
 
Last edited:
Hornbein said:
I invented the world's farthest flying disc. Take a 150gr golf disk and fill it with foam plastic. 20% more distance.
Nope. This one is farther:
 
  • #10
Algr said:
I don't think that the names change in higher dimensions. A sphere is still a sphere, but they can see inside it. a 4d sphere is a hypersphere.Javelins are pseudo-one-dimensional, but they work in three dimensions. In order to tumble, you need to exchange one dimension with another. A spinning frisbee has three stabilized dimensions, so it is not clear to me that the fourth dimension would be able to exchange with one of the other three. Which one would it exchange with?Again the names don't change. Eight cubes make a tesseract. A tesseract has eight volumes, 48 sides, and one of something that needs a new name. (Hypervolume?). A hollow sphere might be LIKE a ring, in that they could put stuff inside it and move through it. But it would have a volume, whereas a ring only has an area.
Volumes in 4D are 4D. Quartic centimeters of paint and so forth.

You are correct that rotations require exactly two dimensions. It is a little known fact (proved in 1890 or so by Clifford) that in 4D solid objects may have two perpendicular planes of rotation. Weird, eh?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Lren Zvsm

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K