This feels like a matter of semantics, or maybe philosophy. It’s like saying there are no cardinal directions, because north and south are merely relative to earth’s poles.
that's the point of the video, he's literally just saying there's no order to the dimensions. It's not like the 3rd dimension is "height" whatever. All the dimensions began existing simultaenously, and we know we at least live in a 4 dimensional space, but we're investigating if there's dimensions we cannot sense. What he's saying is there's no "1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th" etc... they're all there and they're interchangeable
@@neosmagus Having rewatched the video, I see what you're saying. I was misconstruing the argument he was making when I left my comment. It is still absolutely a semantic argument, but I suppose that's the point.
I mean, for what it's worth, you can only see a third dimensional object two dimensions at a time. Unless you were surrounded by mirrors or had x-ray vision or something.
The reason we say first second and third. Is because we simply add from a point. We have a point. Then a line which would be the first. Then two lines then three. And time is a line that doesn't really work the same way as the others. So it is just opposite to all of it. it's just an easy representation.
@@OWnIshiiTrolling vectors are geometric objects on their own. We *can* project them along the axis of our *chosen* coordinate system which gives us the vector elements on that coordinate system.
The dimension is a maximum number of linear independent vectors you can have in space. With our space, that number is 3. Any additional vector can be described of some summ of the first three ones.
Multiversal time travel. If you wanna see whats its like. Theres a version of chess you play that has it. (Yeah 5th dimensional chess exists, because of course it does)
Just like when we have many space dimensions, we would need to dictate 2 different times to be at the right place. Ex: 3D 2T Be at 3x 2y 10z, at 3:00T, 9:18U Three space dimensions (x, y, z, 2 time dimensions (T, U)
I have thought about this too. In fact, I asked my father about this one a while back and he told me of an interesting analogy for what multiple dimensions of time may be like. Suppose you are watching a movie. The progress through the movie represents the coordinate of time in this temporal dimension. Now suppose that you have a book out in front of you. The progress through the events of the book represents your coordinate in a second, perpendicular time dimension. My usage of the word 'perpendicular' here is important because it indicates that the progress you make in the book has no net effect on the progression of time in the movie. Of course, this is just an analogy, but it is my favorite way to think about the possibility of multiple temporal dimensions. Edit: Another interesting thought experiment, because we are incapable of controlling our motion through time, always moving in the positive direction, it is possible that there already are multiple temporal dimensions in the real world but that we are simply moving with uniform motion through these dimensions, preventing us from being able to tell. Had we gained control over motion through time, its possible that our perception of it would shift to be more similar to that of space since there is no fundamental difference separating the spatial dimensions and temporal dimensions apart from our perception of them. You could also argue that if we suddenly lost control of our motion in a spatial dimension that it is possible that our perception would shift to view it as another temporal dimension and the world would appear 2D. Of course, this is all speculative, so take the ideas presented here with a grain of salt, and please suggest your ideas as well, especially if they differ from mine. I'd love to hear new ideas!
what the heck are you talking about thermal or electrical dimensions??? those are not hte kind of dimension were talking about here, if they even exist.
@@AstroEli133The same way you can imagine spacial dimensions along with a temporal one, you can assign another dimension based on literally any parameter. Ever seen a graph of temperature vs time? That's two spacial dimensions in the graph, but a temperature and temporal dimension in the simulation.
@@totallynotpaul6211 yes but as i said, we are talking about spatial and time dimensions which are part of the fabric of the universe. we are not talking about dimensions representing concepts, jwe are talking about actual dimensions.
@@AstroEli133 The only difference between "conceptual dimensions" and "actual dimensions" is entirely subjective due to its dependence on the human experience. There is no reason to differentiate space and time from other parametric phenomena in the universe outside of our reliance on the human perception of the world, which in it of itself is inherently subjective. To say that electrical potential is less "real" than a location along a dimension in space is to let yourself be biased by the limitations of human perception rather than to embrace that they are mathematically identical and should be treated as such in physical analysis.
There has always been something about the idea of extradimensional physics that has bothered me, and this short cleared it up for me. The dimensions aren't numbered. There is just the dimensions we perceive, and how many of them there are.
Yeah we just dumbed it down so its easier to understand and talk about. But its not like thats a bad thing. They are just numberered by going off a point. Technically speaking the fourth dimension is actually first. Because to represent the ithers takes time
Bro Your overthinking it, definition of the dimensions is the edition of axis the more complication axis is to higher the dimension so the x axis (a straight line) is the first dimension the crossing of those so when there are two lines (x and y) there are two dimensions and when there is a third line that goes up and down (z) you got 3 dimensions
@@FireyDeath4 is it actually a common misconception? just because the typical meaning of 'third' implies ordinality doesn't mean 'third dimension' means that. if almost every use of the phrase is in some context where it's pretty clear dimensions are not ordinal, then no one will think it means that or intend for it to mean that, and therefore it doesn't mean that. every time i've heard the phrase, it's just an emphasis on the fact that there are 3 dimensions, not that they're in any order. "in the third dimension" is just another way of saying "in three dimensions."
@@FireyDeath4 if someone is asking "where is the 4th dimesion" they are presupposing a relative point for the origin of the three axles of space and asking where the perpendicular axis in the fourth dimension could be drawn relative to these. There's no misconception it's just relativity which is a fact of the universe without which you can't ask any reality based questions.
This plays into Einstein’s theory of special relativity that objects inherently do not have absolute values of speed or existence. The speed and position of said objects are only relative and only be measured to other objects. This video is saying the same thing about the orientation of dimensional axis.
Yes in terms of real life pragmatism. But no in terms of pure math. We kno exactly what the second dimension looks like because if you take away any of the 3 special dimensions you are always left with a flat plane. And with extra dimensions we can actually perfectly map what they look like, and even understand the symmatries of them. The easiest way to think of this is add a right angle to the sides of the previous dimension and you get the new dimension. So a line plus a right angle gives you a square 1D -> 2D. Then the math becomes possible sinse we already understand angles
@@doozyprivate10only if you have access to the second time dimension. There are 2 time dimensions and 9 space dimensions in the M-Theory but that doesn't mean you can just travel through time you have to have access to the time dimensions but we, as complex biological species don't have access to these dimensions
@@Sonau_fan That is indeed correct, I am merely saying that traveling through 1 (and only one) dimension of time, when there are 2, wouldn't break causality. By this I am not trying to imply that it would definitely be possible, since I do not know whether there would/are other laws of the universe that would make this impossible
1 time dimension could work the way one space dimension works, its a point. Ie, I would say we exist in one time dimension. The here and now. Two time dimensions could be like time travel, forwards and backwards for all points something would exist. A time line. A third time dimension then would be a time plane, more than one instance of time alone a line, kinda like multiple timelines happening all at once.
@@CurtisCanbythe thing about time tho. The here and now is actually realtive to everything. Because of how space time functions. Your time can slow when you move faster but everything else can remain the same. So he present isn't really a thing either everything has a separate present based on its speed. Its purely perspective based.
@@CurtisCanbywith spatial dimensions 1 dimension isn’t a point it’s a line, the 0th dimension is a singular point, why would 1 dimension of time result in a singular point. Just because we only witness a singular point of time doesn’t mean that the other points on the line don’t exist. This would make 2 dimensional time a plane not 3 dimensional time
To put it more simply: every dimension is a dimension. The fourth dimension is the same kind of thing as the other three. It's not time, nor "the spirit world", it's another spatial dimension, unless otherwise specified. We live in a world with 3 spatial dimensions, and 1 time dimension. And "higher dimensional" stuff is just regular stuff but there's one more perpendicular direction to extend in
@@fluxuous6907 unfortunately, spacetime is also an illusion. Unpopular opinion, but spacetime is only even a concept because of spacetime curvature (without curvature, it would be a regular coordinate system like any other). And spacetime curvature itself is merely a model, not actually how the universe operates. The reason I say this, is that spacetime curvature as a physical reality is completely incompatible with quantum mechanics, so spacetime curvature must be a mere model, not reality.
Time isnt an illusion per say. Its just a "direction" that moves opposite to space. The faster in space you move the slower in time. its something we dont quite understand. This is why the speed of light cant be beaten unless you bend space itself. Its not that light is that fast. Thats just how fast ANYTHING can go, a literal speed limit. Because at that point theres no time to draw on. Like a rope You can move a certain amount one way but always get caught until you go back and have slack in any way.
@@_aWiseMan Actually, it's not that weird at all. Wave mechanics explain all of it. Dialekt recreated all the weirdness of time dilation and speed limits in a universe with just sound waves. The speed of sound is unbreakable from the perspective of sound waves. Likewise for us, we are made of quantum waves, and so we cannot break the speed of quantum waves (light is also a quantum wave, fyi). Time dilation in the world of sound is a result of sound waves traveling larger distances between points of reference for objects that are moving. It's an illusion breakable by using faster signalling technology. Likewise, if we had something faster than light, we could also break the illusion of time dilation in our own universe. The twins paradox is just as unresolvable in the sound universe as the real universe because any comparison of twins requires one of either the twins or their signals to go in both directions, which undoes any asymmetries. Which also means, if you could go around the universe to come back to where you started without ever turning around, the asymmetries would be detectable, and you could discover your exact velocity relative to the fabric of the universe, which is weird, but doesn't apply to our universe that we know of. So everything in relativity is ultimately a result of wave mechanics.
That's what I said in my group chat! No matter what dimensions are, even if it's 678th, 679th and 680th - you can still divide it by dimension of 677 and get your 3 back, they will still make sense. That happens to all groups of dimensions, so if there were directions in dimensions, another triplet of dimensions would make colossal harm with changes. Plus, the time dimension should be separated, since an object can't travel back and forth in time like in spatial dimensions. There are probably much more types of dimensions people are not known to.
@@pasator it's just a measurement system we made to organize easier. We also associate many processes or constant forces as being caused by time when in reality they just are continuous. I am sure you know how clocks work obviously isn't via measuring a flow of time to then read to you.
@@sablesalt clocks are just a way to measure time we made using units we made up. You have to be measuring something and the consensus is that this something is another dimension. Saying that time doesn't exist is dumb because clearly things change over time. So there is something. Of course, dimensions are also made up. And so is the concept of time that we have. But there is still clearly something in the universe as a whole which makes things not be stationary. And we call that time.
How do we know a time dimension isnt just a regular spacial dimension that we experience differently? Why is it the dimension behaving differently and not our human perception?
“So to answer your question officer, no, I did NOT know that she wasn’t in legal age because I was pretending that the fourth dimension doesn’t exist and therefore I was looking at her like it’s her in the future.”
except it doesn't work that way, whether you can tell them apart or not does not mean that mean they are same, you won't even be able to tell apart gravity, you can only experience it, same goes with magnetism, you can't tell apart electronic signals, but our phones can, what you can or can't tell apart doesn't define reality
No. What he means is that numbering the dimensions (at least with dimensions that act the same) is only a question of orientation. There is no particular spatial dimension which is "1st," because there really isn't a difference between choosing any particular direction as the positive direction on the "first dimension." It's a question of pure notation. Dimensions don't have order.
No you cannot because the dimensions arent numbered by themselves. South-North West-East Up-Down are all essentially interchangeable. They dont have anything resembling a order as one of their innate properties Heck, without having something to anchor own while relative to another thing, all the directions in a empty space would be completely interchangeable with each other
@@panem1901 Yes we can. South and north are not interchangeable, because they are clearly defined by us. That‘s all OP said. You‘re not wrong about manmade concepts being just that and not universal truths, but nobody asked.
Almost perfect. But the oil-water analogy fails because Minkowski spacetime has also no distinguished time direction, but space and time also depend on your point of view.
Time doesn't exist objectively to begin with. Now, it is based on atomic clocks, but that's it. There's not like a timeline, which is some sort of entity that, if you run enough fast in one direction, you'll have a blue background or something, and when you slow down you end up in the jurassic, like you see flash doing it.
My physics teacher in high school did a really good job at explaining this to us. He drew a square in a piece of paper and asked how many dimensions it had, we said 2. He asked which 2, we said length and width. He asked how tall t was and we said it didn’t have a height. He then held the paper up against the wall and asked again how tall it was. An object can have a specific number of dimensions but what determines the dimensions that it has is how it’s oriented.
It goes so far that saying that nothing "is" and nothing doesn't exist And doesn't exist doesn't exist etc Its not wrong anything and everything you could ever think or not think isn't because its all in reference to exactly that You think if you don't define what "is" then nothing is But doesn't that make reality itself subjective? Or im going crazy
Another thing he’s incomprehensibly incorrect about is the fact that his argument is basically arguing that those extra spatial dimensions don’t exist. The problem is they do it’s just either have to build it yourself or you have to be born in that spatial dimension which then allows you to inherit it. The problem with spatial dimensions and higher dimensions of themselves is very hard to observe from a lower dimension. It is possible it’s just not easy. It’s essentially having multiple different layers of multiple different fluids that are all different. It’s just after a certain point like the third fluid we cannot see the first fluid technically exists, but it’s con. It’s more of an existence that just fills up the entire picture with several different things if you were to, go back to the base of the picture or maybe it’s only when all of the universes back to one spatial dimension essentially creating a singularity that theoretically existed at the big bang because the Big Bang was not normal physics. It was known as a spatial singularity, an argument to be made that technically unions have now it’s either that there are higher dimensional spaces above us or in the same space as us we can’t see them or, you have to build those to use those
This reminds me how 3D geometry has a "first octant" which is analogous to 2D geometry's first, second, third, and fourth quadrants. However, the other seven octants don't have a numbering convention, only the first one.
However, there is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
I find it really cool that the math for our spacetime comes out to 3 dimensions with positive signatures and time with a negative signature where the math works out where length in the timelike or negative dimension is at it's simplest actually negative and a good example of this is the book Dicronauts where the universe signature is (-,-,+,+) instead of (-,+,+,+)
Defining things is often for sake of convenience and convention but can lead to misunderstanding. So the point here is to know what is possible to understand before defining anything. People usually do the reverse. There are things we think we understand just because we know the word.
The term "fourth dimension" is used to indicate that a fourth dimension would be in addition to those we are familiar with, which would make it different. Time as a part of spacetime really is distinguishable because it is patterned and directional.
I’ve always considered that, if we _did_ adopt the convention of enumerating the dimensions, then time would be the zeroth dimension rather than what’s popularly called the fourth; since time must operate in every other so-called ‘higher’ dimension.
Þat's why it pisses me off when someone talks about being þree dimensional or wondering how þe fourþ dimension looks like and some random smart ass goes UmM aCtUaLlY, wE aLrEaDy HaVe A fOuRþ DiMeNsIoN, iT's TiMe
With calculus we can totally break down where the 3 cups of volume are. Sure those boundary lines are arbitrary but we can cut them. We do it all the time with measuring cups.
Which also makes it clear why we can say the fourth dimension, because sure when the 4th dimension is added you cannot seperate it form the 3 other spacial dimensions, but before it has a unique property, it isn't added yet. Sure we can't tell if the X and Y dimonsiions stay the same when going up a dimension, but we do add a Z when going from 2D to 3D and that Z might be the old X or Y, but it is there-
It still makes sense to talk about a 4th dimension, the distinction is that we can't see it. Like you could talk about a hypothetical 4th cup of water, it's the 4th cup because its not yet in the jar.
If you'd taken liner algebra, you know that n non-collinear vectors can form a base (every vector is a linear combination of v1, v2 ... vn). Orthogonal bases only make calculations easier and this is why we use them.
In college math, you learn something similar in linear algebra. If you have a minimal set of vectors whose combinations can reach every point in a space (we call a set with these properties a basis), then the size of that set is the dimension of the space. And it can be proven that any other "basis" you come up with will have that same size. So to say the world we live in is 3D (ignoring general relativity), we just need to be able to come up with ANY basis. Any 3 directions that are perpendicular to each other will do. But there are many choices, and they don't even have to be perpendicular.
I had to make a 3D puzzle cube. I couldn't figure out how to get it all to work because I couldn't see all the sides, I just couldn't tell if a piece was going to collide with another piece. This is because I was thinking in 3 spacial dimensions, however, somehow, in order to make the cube, I though of it in 4 spacial dimensions.
yes the number we give to dimensions is arbitrary. but all sorts of things we measure and standardize are ultimately arbitrary. doesn't stop them from existing though...
I like how the time dimension is basically the same as an imaginary spatial dimension. Or, alternatively, the spatial dimensions are the same as imaginary time dimensions.
This actually makes so much more sense then the people who said time is the defacto 4th dimension. I always thought that its possible for there to be a 4th dimension that wasnt time but we wouldnt know it. Time is a dimension we can experience but it isnt necessarily the 4th, because the names are just arbitrary we couldve easily called them XYZ or red Green Blue or Cassandra, Rick, Dale. Time just excists in the same pitcher we do but doesnt necessarily opperate in the same ways as the other dimensions just like thay pitcher doesnt necessarily hold the same substances, there could be 50 dimensions we dont know and would have no way of observing the unobservable... if im understanding correctly.
Consider this. With 1 dimension you get a line. Stick an infinite amount of parallel lines next to each other, you get a plane - now you have 2 dimensions. Stick an infinite amount of parallel planes next to each other, you get a space - now you have 3 dimensions. But now if you stick an infinite amount of parallel spaces next to each other - think of them as completely distinct spaces, they share no points but are ordered - you get 4 dimensions now. And that 4th dimension is time, because each infinitely small unit of time contains a single 3 dimensional space. It just that we can move freely along the x y z axes, but move at a constant* speed along the t axis. * I know the speed isn't actually constant but nevermind that now.
It gets even more wild when you start considering non dimensional vector structures disregarding time as a dimension entirely. It makes spatial dimensions an emergent perceptional property. Thing is to describe the unnecessarity of dimensions you still kind of need dimensions both in math and in illustration.
The 4th cup of liquid in the jug is oil. Ergo, the 4th dimension is time. Additionally, the cup of water you haven't put in yet is the 4th cup of water until you pour it in. As such, the spatial dimension we don't have yet is the 4th spatial dimension.
This misunderstands nearly everything about math and physics and how we talk about higher dimensional space. This didn't clear up any misconception. It created new ones.
We have a third dimensionality ehich means three unordered dimensions. The phrase three dimensions is just shorthand by using an ordinal phrase in a cardinal way.
This suddenly inspired a new question for me: can a meaningful physics be constructed with more than one _time_ dimension? What would that even mean? Time is weird.
We can make them all relative, as in first dimension is following the spin of Earth, second is perpendicular to that to the poles, third is away from the Earth's core, and so on and so forth.
Now add a second cup of oil.
Now you've done it, you broke the freaking multiverse, who's gonna fix this now?
Read Dichronauts by Greg egan, it imagines a universe with 2 space and 2 time dimensions
@@kokoloko672the M-Theory got 9 space and 2 time dimensions
Now oil u-
No, add hydrophobic powder
You mean I can't build a tesseract and have unlimited space
You can build a Tesseract but only inside a black hole
Interstellar joke @@Aelfraed26
@@bsaednnmgointuvtjstairhvrqujnb yes
@@Aelfraed26 the fact you say "only inside a black hole" implies that i CAN'T survive inside a black hole.
No also a tesseract is still finite
There is no Easter Bunny. There is no tooth fairy. And there is no fourth dimension.
what do you mean no easter bunny or tooth fairy ☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️
@@1000-THRAND THERE IS NO QUEEN OF ENGLAND
Powerscalers gonna have a hissy fit
Is THAT why I always feel I have no time?
@@Jcakedafurry theres not????? ☹☹☹☹☹☹
Him: "I gonna clear up a misconception"
Me: the opposite happened
People who make clickbait videos about foundational science topics deserve a special place in hell...
clear up a misconception?
he done messed up my clearconception!
@@vlc-cosplayer he is right. You'll just need to listen to this video for 100 trillion seconds until you understand
I think he's wrong. A 16 years old guy explained the 4th dimension better.
@@gemeosnosgames Elaborate.
This feels like a matter of semantics, or maybe philosophy. It’s like saying there are no cardinal directions, because north and south are merely relative to earth’s poles.
Yep, it's arbitrary but as soon as you pick one to orient from you resolve the others.
that's the point of the video, he's literally just saying there's no order to the dimensions. It's not like the 3rd dimension is "height" whatever. All the dimensions began existing simultaenously, and we know we at least live in a 4 dimensional space, but we're investigating if there's dimensions we cannot sense.
What he's saying is there's no "1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th" etc... they're all there and they're interchangeable
also the cardinal directions are a poor counter-example because they have been very strictly defined. We know what is North, South, East and West.
Yep, dude is trying too hard to act smart and "understanding" something more than others
@@neosmagus Having rewatched the video, I see what you're saying. I was misconstruing the argument he was making when I left my comment. It is still absolutely a semantic argument, but I suppose that's the point.
"Man, I love having a normal understanding of spacetime. Just one more short before bed."
*The short in question:*
You do see where you went wrong, correct? You assumed anything about SpaceTime was "normal.". 😂
To be clear I'm just busting your chops.
If you want it to get worse, think abaut how time doesn't actually exist
Based off entropy, yes? @@eksprolek2924
Nah its just preudo scientific gaslighting, guysaid nothing new or interesting, but acting like he did
You're everywhere again lol
"As a matter of fact, there is no third dimension"
*looks at my flat hands* oh my god, he's right!
I mean, for what it's worth, you can only see a third dimensional object two dimensions at a time. Unless you were surrounded by mirrors or had x-ray vision or something.
@@leonevermore4819 depth perception
@@CooperKanaloanah 1 eye and depth perception
@@leonevermore4819echo location
@@CooperKanaloathat's just seeing two 2-dimensional images at the same time
i disliked when he said "there is no 4th dimension" but liked when he said "there is no 3rd dimension" (I am a 4th dimension simp)
Simping for an abstract thing… smh
@@retrohowlmonsterfrickers rlly be into anything nowadays
@@lilyofluck371sorry whowhatters?
@@Jcakedafurry I totally didn't read your name as Jacked a Furry 🙂
@@nargacugalover my fursona is named JohnnyCake lol
The reason we say first second and third. Is because we simply add from a point. We have a point. Then a line which would be the first. Then two lines then three. And time is a line that doesn't really work the same way as the others. So it is just opposite to all of it. it's just an easy representation.
Also, any vector will have a first, second, third and fourth element in 4D space. The order absolutely matters.
@@OWnIshiiTrolling vectors can exist without any coordinate system
@@mbrusyda9437 Vectors consist of elements, and the order of these elements matters, whether you choose to display them graphically or not.
@@OWnIshiiTrolling isn’t the order just a matter of convention?
@@OWnIshiiTrolling vectors are geometric objects on their own.
We *can* project them along the axis of our *chosen* coordinate system which gives us the vector elements on that coordinate system.
When you’re trying to sound smart but actually have nothing to say
Just what I was about to say.
The dimension is a maximum number of linear independent vectors you can have in space. With our space, that number is 3. Any additional vector can be described of some summ of the first three ones.
Look at this dude. Can't even differentiate cups of water in a jar
I wonder about the possible implications of say 2 time dimensions…
read dichronauts, it's about a universe with 2 spatial and two time dimensions
Multiverse time travel
Multiversal time travel. If you wanna see whats its like. Theres a version of chess you play that has it. (Yeah 5th dimensional chess exists, because of course it does)
Just like when we have many space dimensions, we would need to dictate 2 different times to be at the right place.
Ex: 3D 2T
Be at 3x 2y 10z, at 3:00T, 9:18U
Three space dimensions (x, y, z, 2 time dimensions (T, U)
I have thought about this too. In fact, I asked my father about this one a while back and he told me of an interesting analogy for what multiple dimensions of time may be like. Suppose you are watching a movie. The progress through the movie represents the coordinate of time in this temporal dimension. Now suppose that you have a book out in front of you. The progress through the events of the book represents your coordinate in a second, perpendicular time dimension. My usage of the word 'perpendicular' here is important because it indicates that the progress you make in the book has no net effect on the progression of time in the movie. Of course, this is just an analogy, but it is my favorite way to think about the possibility of multiple temporal dimensions.
Edit: Another interesting thought experiment, because we are incapable of controlling our motion through time, always moving in the positive direction, it is possible that there already are multiple temporal dimensions in the real world but that we are simply moving with uniform motion through these dimensions, preventing us from being able to tell. Had we gained control over motion through time, its possible that our perception of it would shift to be more similar to that of space since there is no fundamental difference separating the spatial dimensions and temporal dimensions apart from our perception of them. You could also argue that if we suddenly lost control of our motion in a spatial dimension that it is possible that our perception would shift to view it as another temporal dimension and the world would appear 2D. Of course, this is all speculative, so take the ideas presented here with a grain of salt, and please suggest your ideas as well, especially if they differ from mine. I'd love to hear new ideas!
"String theory still isn't adding up. What do we do?!"
"Add more dimensions!"
"Just one more dimension, bro"
Good analogy. Introducing thermal or electrical dimensions really made me think about this years ago, and I think this would have helped young me
what the heck are you talking about thermal or electrical dimensions??? those are not hte kind of dimension were talking about here, if they even exist.
@@AstroEli133The same way you can imagine spacial dimensions along with a temporal one, you can assign another dimension based on literally any parameter. Ever seen a graph of temperature vs time? That's two spacial dimensions in the graph, but a temperature and temporal dimension in the simulation.
@@totallynotpaul6211 yes but as i said, we are talking about spatial and time dimensions which are part of the fabric of the universe. we are not talking about dimensions representing concepts, jwe are talking about actual dimensions.
@@AstroEli133 The only difference between "conceptual dimensions" and "actual dimensions" is entirely subjective due to its dependence on the human experience. There is no reason to differentiate space and time from other parametric phenomena in the universe outside of our reliance on the human perception of the world, which in it of itself is inherently subjective. To say that electrical potential is less "real" than a location along a dimension in space is to let yourself be biased by the limitations of human perception rather than to embrace that they are mathematically identical and should be treated as such in physical analysis.
@ electrical energy is not part of the field of spacetime, and we were talking about that kind of dimension
With that opening I was almost expecting him to squeeze “There is no Queen of England” into the mix somehow
This has the same vibe as "There is no sich thing as an edible food because edible is relative to the specie eating it".
or that all edible food is poisonous so they cant be edible
There has always been something about the idea of extradimensional physics that has bothered me, and this short cleared it up for me.
The dimensions aren't numbered. There is just the dimensions we perceive, and how many of them there are.
Common sense??? Did you think we had a grid with coordinates like in blender????
@@pirilon78😢cum
How does this break extradimensional physics?
They're numbered because we numbered them 😂
Yeah we just dumbed it down so its easier to understand and talk about. But its not like thats a bad thing. They are just numberered by going off a point. Technically speaking the fourth dimension is actually first. Because to represent the ithers takes time
Several physicists around me told me that time is an illusion and not a dimension.
So, if i say "Heigh, width and length" you wouldn't say length is the third one in that sentence.
That's called being pedantic if you ask me.
By “n dimensional space” we really just mean that “we can draw n lines with each intersecting at a common point at a 90 degree angle” lol
My brain going to a different dimension from trying to understand this😭🙏
Bro Your overthinking it, definition of the dimensions is the edition of axis the more complication axis is to higher the dimension so the x axis (a straight line) is the first dimension the crossing of those so when there are two lines (x and y) there are two dimensions and when there is a third line that goes up and down (z) you got 3 dimensions
He's denying the common misconception of dimensional ordinality - though I think it can still be correct if you think about them a certain way
@@FireyDeath4 is it actually a common misconception? just because the typical meaning of 'third' implies ordinality doesn't mean 'third dimension' means that. if almost every use of the phrase is in some context where it's pretty clear dimensions are not ordinal, then no one will think it means that or intend for it to mean that, and therefore it doesn't mean that.
every time i've heard the phrase, it's just an emphasis on the fact that there are 3 dimensions, not that they're in any order. "in the third dimension" is just another way of saying "in three dimensions."
@@FireyDeath4 if someone is asking "where is the 4th dimesion" they are presupposing a relative point for the origin of the three axles of space and asking where the perpendicular axis in the fourth dimension could be drawn relative to these. There's no misconception it's just relativity which is a fact of the universe without which you can't ask any reality based questions.
you're*
This plays into Einstein’s theory of special relativity that objects inherently do not have absolute values of speed or existence. The speed and position of said objects are only relative and only be measured to other objects.
This video is saying the same thing about the orientation of dimensional axis.
Yes in terms of real life pragmatism. But no in terms of pure math. We kno exactly what the second dimension looks like because if you take away any of the 3 special dimensions you are always left with a flat plane. And with extra dimensions we can actually perfectly map what they look like, and even understand the symmatries of them. The easiest way to think of this is add a right angle to the sides of the previous dimension and you get the new dimension. So a line plus a right angle gives you a square 1D -> 2D. Then the math becomes possible sinse we already understand angles
What if there was a second time dimension?
Then you could theoretically travel through one of them without breaking causality
@@doozyprivate10only if you have access to the second time dimension.
There are 2 time dimensions and 9 space dimensions in the M-Theory but that doesn't mean you can just travel through time you have to have access to the time dimensions but we, as complex biological species don't have access to these dimensions
@@Sonau_fan That is indeed correct, I am merely saying that traveling through 1 (and only one) dimension of time, when there are 2, wouldn't break causality. By this I am not trying to imply that it would definitely be possible, since I do not know whether there would/are other laws of the universe that would make this impossible
@@doozyprivate10 alright, thx for clarifying that
@@doozyprivate10So you would basically have a TARDIS? Cool.
This sounds like the equivalent of the Chewbacca defense but for physics.
There is no Easter bunny, there Is no tooth fairy, and there is no 3rd dimension
In other words the dimensions are sewn together.
That does beg the question; do we know anything of existing in multiple time dimensions?
there's a book called dichronauts that explores what would happen in a universe with two spatial and two time dimensions
1 time dimension could work the way one space dimension works, its a point. Ie, I would say we exist in one time dimension. The here and now.
Two time dimensions could be like time travel, forwards and backwards for all points something would exist. A time line.
A third time dimension then would be a time plane, more than one instance of time alone a line, kinda like multiple timelines happening all at once.
@@CurtisCanbythe thing about time tho. The here and now is actually realtive to everything. Because of how space time functions. Your time can slow when you move faster but everything else can remain the same. So he present isn't really a thing either everything has a separate present based on its speed. Its purely perspective based.
Me.
@@CurtisCanbywith spatial dimensions 1 dimension isn’t a point it’s a line, the 0th dimension is a singular point, why would 1 dimension of time result in a singular point. Just because we only witness a singular point of time doesn’t mean that the other points on the line don’t exist. This would make 2 dimensional time a plane not 3 dimensional time
You're little UA-cam short will be on my mind during my whole commute
To put it more simply: every dimension is a dimension. The fourth dimension is the same kind of thing as the other three. It's not time, nor "the spirit world", it's another spatial dimension, unless otherwise specified.
We live in a world with 3 spatial dimensions, and 1 time dimension. And "higher dimensional" stuff is just regular stuff but there's one more perpendicular direction to extend in
Ok, I have misinformed a shit ton of people on this.
But some things are still unified between them; isn't that the gist of special relativity? Total velocity in all four dimensions always equals C.
You just make us confused by saying theres not a 3rd demension but there is
Time is an illusion. We can't properly perceive the a 4th axis, so we just interpret it as time.
Given that gravity is how we perceive a bend in spacetime and time also dilates with extreme gravity, this is likely true.
@@fluxuous6907 unfortunately, spacetime is also an illusion. Unpopular opinion, but spacetime is only even a concept because of spacetime curvature (without curvature, it would be a regular coordinate system like any other). And spacetime curvature itself is merely a model, not actually how the universe operates. The reason I say this, is that spacetime curvature as a physical reality is completely incompatible with quantum mechanics, so spacetime curvature must be a mere model, not reality.
Time isnt an illusion per say. Its just a "direction" that moves opposite to space. The faster in space you move the slower in time. its something we dont quite understand. This is why the speed of light cant be beaten unless you bend space itself. Its not that light is that fast. Thats just how fast ANYTHING can go, a literal speed limit. Because at that point theres no time to draw on. Like a rope You can move a certain amount one way but always get caught until you go back and have slack in any way.
@@_aWiseMan Actually, it's not that weird at all. Wave mechanics explain all of it. Dialekt recreated all the weirdness of time dilation and speed limits in a universe with just sound waves.
The speed of sound is unbreakable from the perspective of sound waves. Likewise for us, we are made of quantum waves, and so we cannot break the speed of quantum waves (light is also a quantum wave, fyi).
Time dilation in the world of sound is a result of sound waves traveling larger distances between points of reference for objects that are moving. It's an illusion breakable by using faster signalling technology. Likewise, if we had something faster than light, we could also break the illusion of time dilation in our own universe.
The twins paradox is just as unresolvable in the sound universe as the real universe because any comparison of twins requires one of either the twins or their signals to go in both directions, which undoes any asymmetries. Which also means, if you could go around the universe to come back to where you started without ever turning around, the asymmetries would be detectable, and you could discover your exact velocity relative to the fabric of the universe, which is weird, but doesn't apply to our universe that we know of.
So everything in relativity is ultimately a result of wave mechanics.
That's what I said in my group chat! No matter what dimensions are, even if it's 678th, 679th and 680th - you can still divide it by dimension of 677 and get your 3 back, they will still make sense. That happens to all groups of dimensions, so if there were directions in dimensions, another triplet of dimensions would make colossal harm with changes. Plus, the time dimension should be separated, since an object can't travel back and forth in time like in spatial dimensions. There are probably much more types of dimensions people are not known to.
Now reverse it, one spacial dimension and 3 time dimensions
Time is not a dimension nor a thing that exists
@sablesalt see, you get it
@@sablesaltwhat is it then?
@@pasator it's just a measurement system we made to organize easier. We also associate many processes or constant forces as being caused by time when in reality they just are continuous.
I am sure you know how clocks work obviously isn't via measuring a flow of time to then read to you.
@@sablesalt clocks are just a way to measure time we made using units we made up. You have to be measuring something and the consensus is that this something is another dimension.
Saying that time doesn't exist is dumb because clearly things change over time. So there is something. Of course, dimensions are also made up. And so is the concept of time that we have. But there is still clearly something in the universe as a whole which makes things not be stationary. And we call that time.
How do we know a time dimension isnt just a regular spacial dimension that we experience differently? Why is it the dimension behaving differently and not our human perception?
Now add an emulsifier
“So to answer your question officer, no, I did NOT know that she wasn’t in legal age because I was pretending that the fourth dimension doesn’t exist and therefore I was looking at her like it’s her in the future.”
"in fact, there is no such things as dimensions none of us are real wake up wake up wake up"
Wake up to reality.
There is no reality.
Clearing up a misconception that no one ever had or ever will.
My brain just quit its job
The aliens living in my closet that go back and forth through the forth dimension say you’re wrong.
except it doesn't work that way, whether you can tell them apart or not does not mean that mean they are same, you won't even be able to tell apart gravity, you can only experience it, same goes with magnetism, you can't tell apart electronic signals, but our phones can, what you can or can't tell apart doesn't define reality
No. What he means is that numbering the dimensions (at least with dimensions that act the same) is only a question of orientation. There is no particular spatial dimension which is "1st," because there really isn't a difference between choosing any particular direction as the positive direction on the "first dimension." It's a question of pure notation. Dimensions don't have order.
This was too much to think about waking up, I’m gonna go ahead and start my day now.
we can talk about a first, second and third dimension in relation to the earth. west-east, north-south, up-down
No you cannot because the dimensions arent numbered by themselves.
South-North West-East Up-Down are all essentially interchangeable.
They dont have anything resembling a order as one of their innate properties
Heck, without having something to anchor own while relative to another thing, all the directions in a empty space would be completely interchangeable with each other
@@panem1901 Yes we can. South and north are not interchangeable, because they are clearly defined by us. That‘s all OP said.
You‘re not wrong about manmade concepts being just that and not universal truths, but nobody asked.
You could but it does not matter. The orientation of the three dimensional axises is arbitrary (As long as all three are perpendicular to each other).
Almost perfect. But the oil-water analogy fails because Minkowski spacetime has also no distinguished time direction, but space and time also depend on your point of view.
This.
Time doesn't exist objectively to begin with. Now, it is based on atomic clocks, but that's it. There's not like a timeline, which is some sort of entity that, if you run enough fast in one direction, you'll have a blue background or something, and when you slow down you end up in the jurassic, like you see flash doing it.
My physics teacher in high school did a really good job at explaining this to us. He drew a square in a piece of paper and asked how many dimensions it had, we said 2. He asked which 2, we said length and width. He asked how tall t was and we said it didn’t have a height.
He then held the paper up against the wall and asked again how tall it was.
An object can have a specific number of dimensions but what determines the dimensions that it has is how it’s oriented.
Ah yes, the old "I cant see it, so it doesnt exist"
True tho. Overcomplicated simple things
THANK YOU, i love when people talk about something i know a lot of but they talk about it with property
It goes so far that saying that nothing "is" and nothing doesn't exist
And doesn't exist doesn't exist etc
Its not wrong
anything and everything you could ever think or not think isn't because its all in reference to exactly that
You think if you don't define what "is" then nothing is
But doesn't that make reality itself subjective?
Or im going crazy
Dont think about it much its not worth it
“Dude, are you real?”
“I… I think so?”
“You know that’s actually some pretty solid evidence”
“René Descartes?”
U are going crazy
I explained this to my friends
But they didnt understand it
Thanks for the example now i think they will understand
Another thing he’s incomprehensibly incorrect about is the fact that his argument is basically arguing that those extra spatial dimensions don’t exist. The problem is they do it’s just either have to build it yourself or you have to be born in that spatial dimension which then allows you to inherit it. The problem with spatial dimensions and higher dimensions of themselves is very hard to observe from a lower dimension. It is possible it’s just not easy. It’s essentially having multiple different layers of multiple different fluids that are all different. It’s just after a certain point like the third fluid we cannot see the first fluid technically exists, but it’s con. It’s more of an existence that just fills up the entire picture with several different things if you were to, go back to the base of the picture or maybe it’s only when all of the universes back to one spatial dimension essentially creating a singularity that theoretically existed at the big bang because the Big Bang was not normal physics. It was known as a spatial singularity, an argument to be made that technically unions have now it’s either that there are higher dimensional spaces above us or in the same space as us we can’t see them or, you have to build those to use those
This reminds me how 3D geometry has a "first octant" which is analogous to 2D geometry's first, second, third, and fourth quadrants. However, the other seven octants don't have a numbering convention, only the first one.
However, there is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man.
It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
*dramatic music queues
I find it really cool that the math for our spacetime comes out to 3 dimensions with positive signatures and time with a negative signature where the math works out where length in the timelike or negative dimension is at it's simplest actually negative and a good example of this is the book Dicronauts where the universe signature is (-,-,+,+) instead of (-,+,+,+)
You can just define it. Then there you have it.
Defining things is often for sake of convenience and convention but can lead to misunderstanding. So the point here is to know what is possible to understand before defining anything. People usually do the reverse. There are things we think we understand just because we know the word.
Go on then, do it. Which one is the first dimension?
@@lonestarr1490 🫵🏻
Mathematician spotted
The term "fourth dimension" is used to indicate that a fourth dimension would be in addition to those we are familiar with, which would make it different. Time as a part of spacetime really is distinguishable because it is patterned and directional.
Finally
Antimatter dimensions lore
I’ve always considered that, if we _did_ adopt the convention of enumerating the dimensions, then time would be the zeroth dimension rather than what’s popularly called the fourth; since time must operate in every other so-called ‘higher’ dimension.
Þat's why it pisses me off when someone talks about being þree dimensional or wondering how þe fourþ dimension looks like and some random smart ass goes UmM aCtUaLlY, wE aLrEaDy HaVe A fOuRþ DiMeNsIoN, iT's TiMe
I've never seen a thorn used in casual English writing, but I'm loving it.
@@lnmr11676 It confuses me more than anything, I’m not used to seeing it in writing so it’s just kind of mentally annoying to read when it does happen
@@CrustyFox87 i like it
With calculus we can totally break down where the 3 cups of volume are. Sure those boundary lines are arbitrary but we can cut them. We do it all the time with measuring cups.
I was always confused about time being 4th dimension because it can exist with any other dimension but this makes it make sense, thanks.
So, from a certain perspective, we might only be experiencing 2 dimensions, which means the Earth is in fact flat. (/j)
You got it 🏆
technically, we only perceive our surroundings with two dimensions, our brain adds depth, so yes, the earth is flat
Which also makes it clear why we can say the fourth dimension, because sure when the 4th dimension is added you cannot seperate it form the 3 other spacial dimensions, but before it has a unique property, it isn't added yet. Sure we can't tell if the X and Y dimonsiions stay the same when going up a dimension, but we do add a Z when going from 2D to 3D and that Z might be the old X or Y, but it is there-
So time travel is just a bunch of cups of oil in different spots
It still makes sense to talk about a 4th dimension, the distinction is that we can't see it. Like you could talk about a hypothetical 4th cup of water, it's the 4th cup because its not yet in the jar.
This has somehow left me confused and enlightened at the same time.
If you'd taken liner algebra, you know that n non-collinear vectors can form a base (every vector is a linear combination of v1, v2 ... vn). Orthogonal bases only make calculations easier and this is why we use them.
now what if we put syrup or something denser than water, what would it be?
everything new i learn about string theory makes it progressively more confusing
Strong theory isn't real science
It’s obviously the lowest cup because that’s the order it’s poured into! That’s just common sense!
It may be slightly arbitrary, but conceptually 1st is lenth, 2nd is height, 3rd is depth.
The theory of a multiverse like in the TV show sliders, is basically travelling in a 2nd time dimension.
there are some crazy spacetime geometries that describe more than 1 time dimensions, too!
In college math, you learn something similar in linear algebra. If you have a minimal set of vectors whose combinations can reach every point in a space (we call a set with these properties a basis), then the size of that set is the dimension of the space. And it can be proven that any other "basis" you come up with will have that same size.
So to say the world we live in is 3D (ignoring general relativity), we just need to be able to come up with ANY basis. Any 3 directions that are perpendicular to each other will do. But there are many choices, and they don't even have to be perpendicular.
I had to make a 3D puzzle cube. I couldn't figure out how to get it all to work because I couldn't see all the sides, I just couldn't tell if a piece was going to collide with another piece. This is because I was thinking in 3 spacial dimensions, however, somehow, in order to make the cube, I though of it in 4 spacial dimensions.
yes the number we give to dimensions is arbitrary. but all sorts of things we measure and standardize are ultimately arbitrary. doesn't stop them from existing though...
You should totally finish it, it looks amazing so far! BUT if you are feeling burnt out from it then its always ok to take a break when needed!
I like how the time dimension is basically the same as an imaginary spatial dimension. Or, alternatively, the spatial dimensions are the same as imaginary time dimensions.
I still understand what another dimension beyond our own would look like
What I want to know is, could a second time dimension exsist.
This actually makes so much more sense then the people who said time is the defacto 4th dimension. I always thought that its possible for there to be a 4th dimension that wasnt time but we wouldnt know it. Time is a dimension we can experience but it isnt necessarily the 4th, because the names are just arbitrary we couldve easily called them XYZ or red Green Blue or Cassandra, Rick, Dale. Time just excists in the same pitcher we do but doesnt necessarily opperate in the same ways as the other dimensions just like thay pitcher doesnt necessarily hold the same substances, there could be 50 dimensions we dont know and would have no way of observing the unobservable... if im understanding correctly.
any game dev that's had to pick which two axes represent the ground plane understands this
Consider this.
With 1 dimension you get a line.
Stick an infinite amount of parallel lines next to each other, you get a plane - now you have 2 dimensions.
Stick an infinite amount of parallel planes next to each other, you get a space - now you have 3 dimensions.
But now if you stick an infinite amount of parallel spaces next to each other - think of them as completely distinct spaces, they share no points but are ordered - you get 4 dimensions now. And that 4th dimension is time, because each infinitely small unit of time contains a single 3 dimensional space. It just that we can move freely along the x y z axes, but move at a constant* speed along the t axis.
* I know the speed isn't actually constant but nevermind that now.
It gets even more wild when you start considering non dimensional vector structures disregarding time as a dimension entirely. It makes spatial dimensions an emergent perceptional property. Thing is to describe the unnecessarity of dimensions you still kind of need dimensions both in math and in illustration.
0:31 that right there my friends is the absolute solver
The 4th cup of liquid in the jug is oil. Ergo, the 4th dimension is time.
Additionally, the cup of water you haven't put in yet is the 4th cup of water until you pour it in. As such, the spatial dimension we don't have yet is the 4th spatial dimension.
We label dimensions however we wish at the time. It doesn't matter which reference direction you choose.
This misunderstands nearly everything about math and physics and how we talk about higher dimensional space. This didn't clear up any misconception. It created new ones.
We have a third dimensionality ehich means three unordered dimensions. The phrase three dimensions is just shorthand by using an ordinal phrase in a cardinal way.
Those arrows remind me of a certain solver of a certain absolute fabric
This suddenly inspired a new question for me: can a meaningful physics be constructed with more than one _time_ dimension? What would that even mean? Time is weird.
so technacally u can make a tesseract by building a cube, then waiting for the cubes side length time then destroying it
We can make them all relative, as in first dimension is following the spin of Earth, second is perpendicular to that to the poles, third is away from the Earth's core, and so on and so forth.
Time is the same as space or at least so intertwined that it's indistinguishable.
I just finished my exams. Then this video broke my brain
Great, you’ve screwed with my brain