4th dimension theory

[Starlord]

A New Perspective on the 4th Dimension

We often hear that a “point” is the 0th dimension, but is it really a dimension at all? A single point has no length, width, or depth—it’s just a position. However, an infinite number of points arranged in a line creates a 1-dimensional space. Stack infinite 1D lines together, and you get 2D (like a sheet of paper). Stack infinite 2D planes, and you get 3D space—our familiar reality.

Here’s where things get interesting: What happens when you stack infinite 3D spaces? That should logically create the 4th dimension, yet this is where most explanations fall apart. Many say time is the 4th dimension, but I believe this is incorrect.

Time Exists in All Dimensions

If time were exclusive to the 4th dimension, how could anything in 1D, 2D, or 3D change or even exist? Imagine marking a dot on a 1D line—when would that dot appear? Time is necessary for all dimensions, but it is not a dimension itself.

So, if time isn’t the 4th dimension, then what is?

Stacking 3D Spaces: My Overlapping Universe Theory

Since each dimension is an infinite (or near-infinite) stack of lower dimensions, the 4th dimension should be an infinite stack of 3D spaces. But how do 3D spaces overlap?

Quantum mechanics may hold the answer. The double-slit experiment and the concept of wave function collapse suggest that reality is shaped by conscious observation. Each conscious being experiences its own unique 3D space, meaning countless realities are being “rendered” simultaneously across the universe. If these individual 3D perspectives overlap and interact, they could collectively form the 4th dimension.

In other words, the 4th dimension may not be a singular, physical extension of space but rather the combined effect of all conscious beings shaping reality through perception.

What do you think? Could this explain the nature of higher dimensions?

 

[exchemist]

A New Perspective on the 4th Dimension

We often hear that a “point” is the 0th dimension, but is it really a dimension at all? A single point has no length, width, or depth—it’s just a position. However, an infinite number of points arranged in a line creates a 1-dimensional space. Stack infinite 1D lines together, and you get 2D (like a sheet of paper). Stack infinite 2D planes, and you get 3D space—our familiar reality.

Here’s where things get interesting: What happens when you stack infinite 3D spaces? That should logically create the 4th dimension, yet this is where most explanations fall apart. Many say time is the 4th dimension, but I believe this is incorrect.

Time Exists in All Dimensions

If time were exclusive to the 4th dimension, how could anything in 1D, 2D, or 3D change or even exist? Imagine marking a dot on a 1D line—when would that dot appear? Time is necessary for all dimensions, but it is not a dimension itself.

So, if time isn’t the 4th dimension, then what is?

Stacking 3D Spaces: My Overlapping Universe Theory

Since each dimension is an infinite (or near-infinite) stack of lower dimensions, the 4th dimension should be an infinite stack of 3D spaces. But how do 3D spaces overlap?

Quantum mechanics may hold the answer. The double-slit experiment and the concept of wave function collapse suggest that reality is shaped by conscious observation. Each conscious being experiences its own unique 3D space, meaning countless realities are being “rendered” simultaneously across the universe. If these individual 3D perspectives overlap and interact, they could collectively form the 4th dimension.

In other words, the 4th dimension may not be a singular, physical extension of space but rather the combined effect of all conscious beings shaping reality through perception.

What do you think? Could this explain the nature of higher dimensions?

No. This a common misconception. Wave function collapse is the result of interaction of the quantum system with some other entity. The interaction may be part a detector used by an observer, but it equally well may not.

Does anyone really think the reading on a dial changes when the experimenter goes away to get a coffee? What if it is “observed” by the laboratory cat? Or a passing wasp? It’s ridiculous.

 

[parmalee]

No. This a common misconception. Wave function collapse is the result of interaction of the quantum system with some other entity. The interaction may be part a detector used by an observer, but it equally well may not.

Does anyone really think the reading on a dial changes when the experimenter goes away to get a coffee? What if it is “observed” by the laboratory cat? Or a passing wasp? It’s ridiculous.

Gotta admit, I find misconceptions about observer effect and the like fascinating. Something I'm always harping about is the issue that arises when popularizing matters in science almost necessitates stating something slightly inaccurately, in order to make it accessible to a non-expert audience. That and the inevitable and unavoidable anthropocentric aspects of doing science, understanding science, and communicating science--yeah, that's a tangent and not necessarily a related matter, but if you get "creative"...

I still maintain that people like Alan Sokal, with all that "fashionable nonsense" stuff, were missing the point--not always, but often enough. The writers he critiques were often aware that they were, in fact, doing bad science, and it was nothing to do with using matters in science and maths as metaphors; rather, the "bad science" was itself the point. As far as digressions go.

 

[Starlord]

No. This a common misconception. Wave function collapse is the result of interaction of the quantum system with some other entity. The interaction may be part a detector used by an observer, but it equally well may not.

Does anyone really think the reading on a dial changes when the experimenter goes away to get a coffee? What if it is “observed” by the laboratory cat? Or a passing wasp? It’s ridiculous.

Gotta admit, I find misconceptions about observer effect and the like fascinating. Something I'm always harping about is the issue that arises when popularizing matters in science almost necessitates stating something slightly inaccurately, in order to make it accessible to a non-expert audience. That and the inevitable and unavoidable anthropocentric aspects of doing science, understanding science, and communicating science--yeah, that's a tangent and not necessarily a related matter, but if you get "creative"...

I still maintain that people like Alan Sokal, with all that "fashionable nonsense" stuff, were missing the point--not always, but often enough. The writers he critiques were often aware that they were, in fact, doing bad science, and it was nothing to do with using matters in science and maths as metaphors; rather, the "bad science" was itself the point. As far as digressions go.

I completely agree that popularizing science often requires simplifications, which can sometimes lead to misconceptions. The observer effect and wave function collapse are great examples—many explanations tend to blur the line between interaction and conscious observation, leading to all sorts of interesting (but often inaccurate) interpretations.

I also think the anthropocentric aspect of science is unavoidable to some degree. After all, we’re the ones constructing the frameworks, designing the experiments, and interpreting the results. Even when we try to be purely objective, our perspectives and biases inevitably shape how we conceptualize things.

As for Sokal and “fashionable nonsense,” I see both sides of that debate. On one hand, rigorous science should be defended from misrepresentation, but on the other, dismissing everything outside of strict empiricism can overlook the fact that language, metaphor, and even “bad science” can sometimes lead to new insights. Even when people misinterpret quantum mechanics, for example, it sparks interesting discussions that might push the conversation in unexpected directions.

 

[Starlord]

No. This a common misconception. Wave function collapse is the result of interaction of the quantum system with some other entity. The interaction may be part a detector used by an observer, but it equally well may not.

Does anyone really think the reading on a dial changes when the experimenter goes away to get a coffee? What if it is “observed” by the laboratory cat? Or a passing wasp? It’s ridiculous.

I appreciate your response! I understand that wave function collapse is typically framed as an interaction rather than something strictly tied to human consciousness. However, the question remains: what qualifies as an “observer”? If any physical interaction with a system (such as a detector) is sufficient to cause collapse, then the role of consciousness becomes less relevant.

That said, there are interpretations—such as Wigner’s Friend or more radical takes on the observer effect—that at least leave open the possibility that consciousness plays a role. While I’m not claiming that a human mind is required for wave function collapse, I do think there’s an interesting discussion to be had about whether reality is fundamentally objective or if it emerges from layers of interactions—including conscious perception.

 

[TheVat]

That said, there are interpretations—such as Wigner’s Friend or more radical takes on the observer effect—that at least leave open the possibility that consciousness plays a role

Wigner was making up a paradox. By the 80s, he had decided that consciousness does not cause a physical collapse of the wavefunction. He came to view his 1961 argument as a reductio ad absurdum, showing that the postulates of quantum mechanics need to be revised in order to get around the paradox.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, if time isn’t the 4th dimension, then what is?

There are three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. They do not have any intrinsic order; we order them arbitrarily.

By convention, we plot events in space time as (x,y,z,t).

If we wanted to plot time in 5-dimensional space time, we could do it as (w,x,y,z,t). It doesn't matter, as long as we're clear.

 

[C C]

[...] Many say time is the 4th dimension, but I believe this is incorrect [...].

Even in the eternalism and growing block universe options for time, the latter would merely be partaking in the fourth spatial dimension rather than literally being it. Just as a basketball is 3D, but is not the concept or reality of the whole third dimension itself.

[...] What happens when you stack infinite 3D spaces? That should logically create the 4th dimension, yet this is where most explanations fall apart. [...]

The inability of our visual and tactile experiences to accommodate higher dimensions (even in imagination) may simply mean that three are the limit for phenomenal representation (the private manifestations outputted by a brain that instantiate thoughts and the sensed outer environment).

In contrast, higher dimensions do not outrun the capacity of mathematics and computer computation to deal with them in an information context (symbol manipulation rules, data structures, formulaic operations).

While abstract description and machine functioning lack the geometric intuition of humans (there are no internal presentations of themselves as anything), that loss is not an impediment to utilizing or ordering in and capturing the nature of higher dimensions "in the non-conscious dark" (so to speak).

So consequently space-like attributes -- or the ways that whatever primal units or elements can be relationally connected to each other -- are not native to phenomenal representation to begin with. The brain is just recruiting such for some of its experiences to conform to[1], and it is limited (for whatever reason) to three.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Even "distance and direction" can be inferred from the intensity and characteristics of sounds and odors, especially with respect to to the sensory and processing capacities of other animals (that exceed human detection and perception).
_

 

[exchemist]

I appreciate your response! I understand that wave function collapse is typically framed as an interaction rather than something strictly tied to human consciousness. However, the question remains: what qualifies as an “observer”? If any physical interaction with a system (such as a detector) is sufficient to cause collapse, then the role of consciousness becomes less relevant.

That said, there are interpretations—such as Wigner’s Friend or more radical takes on the observer effect—that at least leave open the possibility that consciousness plays a role. While I’m not claiming that a human mind is required for wave function collapse, I do think there’s an interesting discussion to be had about whether reality is fundamentally objective or if it emerges from layers of interactions—including conscious perception.

This is a big subject. I recently read Rovelli’s “Helgoland”, about Heisenberg’s approach to quantum mechanics and the “relational interpretation” of QM that Rovelli espouses. According to this, the properties of QM entities are only “real” during an interaction. In between interactions they are merely latent and arguably not real at all.

But still, at the moment of interaction, they are objectively real: different observers, in different places and using different methods, will agree on the observed values when the experimental setup is the same. That's about as objective as anything can be in the human world.

So I think that science must tacitly assume there is such a thing as objective reality, which our theories of the physical world seek to model.

 

[parmalee]

Even in the eternalism and growing block universe options for time, the latter would merely be partaking in the fourth spatial dimension rather than literally being it. Just as a basketball is 3D, but is not the concept or reality of the whole third dimension itself.

Yes, I played upon these different senses of 4D a couple weeks back, when making a lame joke about how Trump was playing 4D chess--only his version involved going back in time and re--writing history.

So consequently space-like attributes -- or the ways that whatever primal units or elements can be relationally connected to each other -- are not native to phenomenal representation to begin with. The brain is just recruiting such for some of its experiences to conform to[1], and it is limited (for whatever reason) to three.

- - - footnote - - -
[1] Even "distance and direction" can be inferred from the intensity and characteristics of sounds and odors, especially with respect to to the sensory and processing capacities of other animals (that exceed human detection and perception).
_

And there's the rub. Rupert Sheldrake would probably have something to say about this, if only he hadn't trashed his own reputation by not simply openly declaring that he was operating outside of the parameters of accepted scientific methodologies. Also way too many philosophers to even vite.

 

[Pinball1970]

This isn't general science this is musings.

Time is not a done deal

 

[Pinball1970]

A New Perspective on the 4th Dimension

We often hear that a “point” is the 0th dimension, but is it really a dimension at all? A single point has no length, width, or depth—it’s just a position. However, an infinite number of points arranged in a line creates a 1-dimensional space. Stack infinite 1D lines together, and you get 2D (like a sheet of paper). Stack infinite 2D planes, and you get 3D space—our familiar reality.

Here’s where things get interesting: What happens when you stack infinite 3D spaces? That should logically create the 4th dimension, yet this is where most explanations fall apart. Many say time is the 4th dimension, but I believe this is incorrect.

Time Exists in All Dimensions

If time were exclusive to the 4th dimension, how could anything in 1D, 2D, or 3D change or even exist? Imagine marking a dot on a 1D line—when would that dot appear? Time is necessary for all dimensions, but it is not a dimension itself.

So, if time isn’t the 4th dimension, then what is?

Stacking 3D Spaces: My Overlapping Universe Theory

Since each dimension is an infinite (or near-infinite) stack of lower dimensions, the 4th dimension should be an infinite stack of 3D spaces. But how do 3D spaces overlap?

Quantum mechanics may hold the answer. The double-slit experiment and the concept of wave function collapse suggest that reality is shaped by conscious observation. Each conscious being experiences its own unique 3D space, meaning countless realities are being “rendered” simultaneously across the universe. If these individual 3D perspectives overlap and interact, they could collectively form the 4th dimension.

In other words, the 4th dimension may not be a singular, physical extension of space but rather the combined effect of all conscious beings shaping reality through perception.

What do you think? Could this explain the nature of higher dimensions?

In short no. Dimensions are understandable in terms of explaining the universe regarding mathematics and physics.
Time is not a done deal but useful in terms of physics and is nothing to do with consciousness.
That is the realm of philosophy.

 

[James R]

Starlord:

It is important to distinguish between the notion of "dimension" in mathematics and "dimension" as a description of the physical world.

Mathematically, the "dimension" of something is just an indicator of the number of different ways that a mathematical object can vary.

Physical dimensions are similar, because they are defined mathematically. But it is important to appreciate that, in general, a "dimension" need not have anything to do with space or time.

When people talk about "the 4th dimension", on the other hand, they are almost always thinking about one of two things: either a hypothetical "extra" spatial dimension, beyond the usual three dimensions of space that we all perceive; or the "dimension" of time.

A foundational idea, if we're thinking about spatial dimensions, is the question of "how many numbers are required to uniquely specify a location in the space?"

If all of space is just a single point, then no numbers are needed to specify the location. Everything is at the same place. This is an example of "zero dimensions".

If space is a plane (like a sheet of paper), then the location of any point on the sheet can be specified with two numbers - the (x,y) coordinates of the point relative to a specified fixed point on the plane.

Our familiar 3D space has three dimensions because the location of any point in space needs three coordinates to specify it uniquely - for example, (x,y,z) cartesian coordinates.

If space was 4 dimensional, then uniquely locating a point in space would require four numbers. A 4 dimensional space could contain, say, a tesseract (a 4D "hypercube"). To uniquely specify a point inside a tesseract requires 4 coordinates.

Thinking about the construct of spacetime in the theory of relativity, we are dealing with a 4 dimensional construct, with three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. The objects that the theory operates on are not spatial positions but instead are 4-dimensional events. To uniquely specify an event in spacetime requires four numbers - 3 numbers specify the spatial location of the event in 3D space and the fourth number specifies the time at which the event occurs. In this theory, then, time is, mathematically, "the fourth dimension".

 

[James R]

We often hear that a “point” is the 0th dimension, but is it really a dimension at all? A single point has no length, width, or depth—it’s just a position.

To specify where you are, if you're inside a point, no numbers are needed, precisely because the point has no length, width or depth. Either you're where the point is, or you're not.

However, an infinite number of points arranged in a line creates a 1-dimensional space.

Not really, when you think about it. But if you're asking how many points you'd need to line up next to one another to fill a line segment, the best answer is: an infinite number. Because points have no width, there will always be "empty space" on the line between any two points. You can try to fill that space by putting another point in the middle of the space, but that will just create two new spaces, because the new point doesn't take up any space, either.

Stack infinite 1D lines together, and you get 2D (like a sheet of paper). Stack infinite 2D planes, and you get 3D space—our familiar reality.

These ideas encounter the same problem as trying to build a line from points. It doesn't really work, but the closest you can come is to work with infinities.

Here’s where things get interesting: What happens when you stack infinite 3D spaces? That should logically create the 4th dimension, yet this is where most explanations fall apart.

Adding a 4th dimension beyond the 3rd doesn't introduce any new problems that aren't already there when we go from the 0th dimension to 1 dimension, or from 1 to 2, etc.

You'll have trouble visualising the 4th dimension, because stacking eight 3D cubes in the right way to make a 4D tesseract requires moving an "unfolded" 3D cube in a direction perpendicular to all three of its perpendicular faces (in a similar way that a 2D square must be moved in a direction perpendicular to all of its sides to make a 3D cube).

Many say time is the 4th dimension, but I believe this is incorrect.

It's fine, as long as you're talking about the specific context of spacetime.

Time Exists in All Dimensions

If time were exclusive to the 4th dimension, how could anything in 1D, 2D, or 3D change or even exist? Imagine marking a dot on a 1D line—when would that dot appear? Time is necessary for all dimensions, but it is not a dimension itself.

Time is not necessary for spatial dimensions. If you only want to specify points in space, three numbers will do the trick (e.g. x, y and z coordinates). It's only when you want to specify points in space and time that you need an extra dimension.

What you are saying is similar to saying "Height exists in all dimensions. If height were exclusive to the height dimension, how could width or depth change, or even exist?" See? It doesn't make much sense. The point is: all the dimensions are independent of one another. Changing one of them doesn't affect any of the others.

Stacking 3D Spaces: My Overlapping Universe Theory

Since each dimension is an infinite (or near-infinite) stack of lower dimensions, the 4th dimension should be an infinite stack of 3D spaces.

That's what a 4th spatial dimension is, roughly (see my previous post).

One way to stack 3D cubes to make a tesseract is to move a 3D cube in a spatial direction that is at right angles to all three of the x, y and z directions.

Quantum mechanics may hold the answer. The double-slit experiment and the concept of wave function collapse suggest that reality is shaped by conscious observation. Each conscious being experiences its own unique 3D space, meaning countless realities are being “rendered” simultaneously across the universe. If these individual 3D perspectives overlap and interact, they could collectively form the 4th dimension.

No. Conscious beings all share the same 3D spatial universe and the same 1D time dimension. If they didn't, then two people could never interact with one another.

In other words, the 4th dimension may not be a singular, physical extension of space but rather the combined effect of all conscious beings shaping reality through perception.

That does not strike me as mathematically well-defined.

What do you think? Could this explain the nature of higher dimensions?

I think you haven't grasped what a dimension is.

Have my posts helped to clarify that for you?

 

[ольга]

To specify where you are, if you're inside a point, no numbers are needed, precisely because the point has no length, width or depth. Either you're where the point is, or you're not.

Not really, when you think about it. But if you're asking how many points you'd need to line up next to one another to fill a line segment, the best answer is: an infinite number. Because points have no width, there will always be "empty space" on the line between any two points. You can try to fill that space by putting another point in the middle of the space, but that will just create two new spaces, because the new point doesn't take up any space, either.

These ideas encounter the same problem as trying to build a line from points. It doesn't really work, but the closest you can come is to work with infinities.

Adding a 4th dimension beyond the 3rd doesn't introduce any new problems that aren't already there when we go from the 0th dimension to 1 dimension, or from 1 to 2, etc.

You'll have trouble visualising the 4th dimension, because stacking eight 3D cubes in the right way to make a 4D tesseract requires moving an "unfolded" 3D cube in a direction perpendicular to all three of its perpendicular faces (in a similar way that a 2D square must be moved in a direction perpendicular to all of its sides to make a 3D cube).


It's fine, as long as you're talking about the specific context of spacetime.

Time is not necessary for spatial dimensions. If you only want to specify points in space, three numbers will do the trick (e.g. x, y and z coordinates). It's only when you want to specify points in space and time that you need an extra dimension.

What you are saying is similar to saying "Height exists in all dimensions. If height were exclusive to the height dimension, how could width or depth change, or even exist?" See? It doesn't make much sense. The point is: all the dimensions are independent of one another. Changing one of them doesn't affect any of the others.


That's what a 4th spatial dimension is, roughly (see my previous post).

One way to stack 3D cubes to make a tesseract is to move a 3D cube in a spatial direction that is at right angles to all three of the x, y and z directions.

No. Conscious beings all share the same 3D spatial universe and the same 1D time dimension. If they didn't, then two people could never interact with one another.

That does not strike me as mathematically well-defined.

I think you haven't grasped what a dimension is.

Have my posts helped to clarify that for you?

Джеймс, пространство включает в себя комбинацию 01, т.е. присутствие и отсутствие точки одновременно. Это и произойдёт при абсолютной бесконечной скорости точки. Везде и нигде одновременно. Не знаю, насколько понятно я объясняю.

 

[DaveC426913]

James, space includes the combination of 01, i.e. the presence and absence of a point at the same time. This is what will happen at the absolute infinite speed of a point. Everywhere and nowhere at the same time. I don't know how clearly I explain it.

That is off-topic. Please confine your ideas about infinite speed to the existing thread.

 

[ольга]

That is off-topic. Please confine your ideas about infinite speed to the existing thread.

Ладно.

 

[DaveC426913]

Cold.

Policy.

 

[ольга]

Policy.

Дэйв, это некорректный перевод. Я написала: "ладно", что примерно соответствует вашему "о.к." Переводчик иногда выдаёт что то подобное.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, that's not a correct translation. I wrote "okay", which is roughly equivalent to your "ok". The translator sometimes produces something like that.

I see. It look like Chrome's translate is not perfect. It auto-detected your response as Macedonian and the word translates as 'Cold'. I did a manual translation from Russian and it translated to 'OK'.

Apologies for the miscommunication.

I'm glad we caught that! A translation error like that could have gone much worse!

Note to readers: not all translation services are equal. They make mistakes!