Adventure Game Studio

http://www.filelibrary.com:8080/cgi-bin/freedownload/Multi-Platform/n/105/4dviewer.zip

This f***ing blows my mind. This is apparently a four-dimensional viewer, adding a "W" axis. I just can't get my head wrapped around the fourth dimension of matter. It loads hypercube.4d by default, and it's just...crazy.

Does anybody understand four-dimensional space? If so, explain! :P

I can't tell exactly what this program does, it doesn't fit my idea of the four-dimensional space, but it's very interesting how the cube gets rotated around the ZW axis.

Trying to do a 2D proyection of a 4D object can be rather difficult and ends up very non-intuitive, as this program is. Every time I imagine a 4D cube in my mind it works in another way, I can't explain it, but maybe this is correct and it's how it would look if it was in a plane, I don't know.

I'm too tired to think about it right now but maybe have a deeper look at it tomorrow. It's quite nice stuff, though.

EDIT: Oh, my! I've just noticed it has a "stereo" checkbox that displays another drawing in red. Could it possibly be for red/blue 3D glasses? Seeing that must be excellent, a 4D projection into a 3D space is probably easier to understand.

I can't even understand how the axis example works, I don't get around what the rotation is being done in the ZW rotation.

Yeah, that's not 4 dimensional, that's just one cube inside another with a neat little animation.  In order for it to have 4 spatial dimensions, there would have to be 4 intersecting, perpendicular lines.  It's impossible to draw or even imagine because we live in a universe with 3 spacial dimensions.  If you saw something with 4 you'd probably either go insane or simply not even notice the 4th.

Mobius51882: A regular cube has a mass of 1 kg at every point in its 3D space
Mobius51882: right?
Mobius51882: now take a hypercube, a 4D cube, and rotate it a bit on its W axis
LilGryphMaster: Right
Mobius51882: At the wireframe level some points don't connect to each other with lines
Mobius51882: They appear to us to be the "outside" edges of the cube, but they really aren't the outside in 4D space
Mobius51882: Add polygons to the display and some would appear to intersect each other
LilGryphMaster: Crazy
Mobius51882: Basically, with a W-axis rotated hypercube, some points in its 4D space there would be twice the matter occupying that space
Mobius51882: Or so it would appear to us
Mobius51882: Since we can't visualize the fourth dimension, our minds would compress it into 3 dimensions
Mobius51882: And our eyes would take it as a shifting image
Mobius51882: I wonder what we'd feel if we touched a rotated hypercube
Mobius51882: This is crazy


I think I get it...

Quote from: Unilin on Sat 03/04/2004 06:29:41
Yeah, that's not 4 dimensional, that's just one cube inside another with a neat little animation.  In order for it to have 4 spatial dimensions, there would have to be 4 intersecting, perpendicular lines.  It's impossible to draw or even imagine because we live in a universe with 3 spacial dimensions.  If you saw something with 4 you'd probably either go insane or simply not even notice the 4th.

Exactly. They just call it 4D to look cool

Download the program and check out the other features of the viewer. I doubt it's just a "neat effect."

I don't really care if it's the forth dimension or not, but after reading Kairus' post I noticed I had some 3d glasses next to my computer, if you get the chance, try it.

It gives you more idea what the ZW rotation is doing with the perspective.

It does look pretty cool

Awesome. :) Can't wait to try it out.


Either way, my point was trying to understand the real four-dimensional space. Taking the program as an example, does anyone else understand what I was saying, or was I just blabbering? :P

butbutbutbut....I thought space only HAD 3 dimensions. The 4th is supposed to be time or something. I downloaded the viewer, but it really does just look like animation of 1 cube inside another. On the other hand I dont have 3d glasses, so I would not know about that

Am I the only motherfucker here who's read Stephen Hawkin's books?

A graphical representation of the fourth demention would be pretty goddamnd impressive.



C.

Quote from: c.leksutin on Sat 03/04/2004 09:11:28
Am I the only mother*naughtyword* here who's read Stephen Hawkin's books?

You and me both. We are on a higher plane of understanding.

*dies from over-expansion of ego*


EDIT: I am lacking 3d glasses. Someone share the experience through type....

But it's still not 4d...

Quote from: Peter Thomas on Sat 03/04/2004 09:14:16


You and me both. We are on a higher plane of understanding.

hehe, no real ego on my part, I just dont get layed much...


...or at all....


....shaddap, what are you looking at?!


C

QuoteI just dont get layed much...

So you ARE on a higher level... :D

Anyway, a long-winded explanation ensues, so unless you're up for it, look away.

The best insight into a spatial fourth dimension is to read the delightful classic little book, "Flatland". Almost any library or bookstore should have it. It works on the analogy of a groovy little dude who lives in a two dimensional world - his name is "A. Square" - who learns about three dimensions.


Four dimensions would have two directions that are perpendicular to our three dimensional world. They have been given the names "ana" for four dimensional "up" and "kata" for four dimensional "down" with respect to our space.

So if a four dimensional sphere were to start anawards of our world and move through it in the kata direction, what we would see, as it intersected our world woild be first a tiny three dimensional sphere (cross section of the four dimensional sphere near its kata pole) which grows in size to a maximum (the "equator" passing through), and then decreases gradually again to its mini size before vanishing, having passed commpletely through our world and out the other side.


This 4d cube has the right PRINCIPLE involved (one can plainly see the cube katacate and anacate) but it lacks one fundamental:

Here is a diagram. The X's are points that have separation between them. To travel from A to B, it would look like

oooXoooXoooAoooXoooX
oXoooXoooKoooXoooXoo
oooXoooXoooKoooXoooX
oXoooXoooXoooKoooXoo
oooXoooXoooKoooXoooX
oXoooXoooBoooXoooXoo

In the macro world, you would only see travel directly from A to B, but a photon or electron really has to zig zag through an arrangement of strings.

The fact that the human mind cannot COMPREHEND this movement (especially in 4d) makes it impossible to re-create it in a program.

I bellieve that the 4d viewer graphically shows what the human brain would comprehend if it encountered a 4D hypercube. Of course, it can't be entirely accurate, that would be impossible, but I think it's a wireframe representation of what a 4D object would look like to the human brain, which compresses the image into three-dimensional space.

Also, translate the hypercube along the W axis, and it will demonstrate precisely what you said regarding katacating and anacating.

Yes, I think you definitely need the 3d glasses, since I heard it was impossible to represent a 4d shape in anything but 3 dimentions, just like you can draw a 3d cube on 2 dimentions but not with only 1.

What we see in the program is exactly a projection of the cube or whatever shape you're thinking of into a plane. That of course will lose many of the properties the original 4D hypercube had. It's not what we would see if a hypercube passed accross our 3D world, but I think that viewing it with the 3D glasses can give you more the feeling of a cube when it's drawn on a plane. I wish I had 3D glasses. :( Maybe if I had seen Minispies 3D... :P

Has anyone tried to edit the .4D files? You can create your own set of dots and lines in the shape you wish.

You do realise that the 4th Dimension is time... don't you? ;)

1st - A straight line...

2nd - A flat object...

3rd - Um, can't remember the world for it... but we all know 3D so... blargh!

and 4th - Time...

This 4D thing is entertaining, but not much more.
Well, entertainment is good. Hm... where did I hear the fact that modern physics support already theories for 11 dimensions, despite we can only sense one?

Quote from: Os àšltimo Quão Queijo ^_^ on Sun 04/04/2004 00:43:30
You do realise that the 4th Dimension is time... don't you? ;)

1st - A straight line...

2nd - A flat object...

3rd - Um, can't remember the world for it... but we all know 3D so... blargh!

and 4th - Time...

Yes, in a world with three spatial dimensions, time can be considered the fourth.  That's not what this thread is about, this is about a fourth spatial dimension, which is not something the human mind can visualize.

Quote from: InCreator on Sun 04/04/2004 03:32:09
This 4D thing is entertaining, but not much more.
Well, entertainment is good. Hm... where did I hear the fact that modern physics support already theories for 11 dimensions, despite we can only sense one?

I'm not sure what definition of "dimension" you're using when you say we can only sense one, because we live in a three-dimensional world.  Are you talking about parallel universes or something?

According to Einstein's relativity, time can be considered as a spacial dimension, but besides that, there's a scientific theory that says you need ten or eleven dimensions to explain the universe as it works currently. I don't remember if the superstrings theory said something like that, too. Some of those dimensions, though, are not like the spacial ones we're used to but are folded around the atom nucleus. I don't remember quite well how it worked but it was something like that... pretty hard to understand for us simple humans.

QuoteI'm not sure what definition of "dimension" you're using when you say we can only sense one, because we live in a three-dimensional world. Are you talking about parallel universes or something?

My grammar/typing mistake - I didn't mean a single "dimension" but a "set of only three dimensions" or an "environment consisting only three dimensions"... actually, I don't find my vocabulary enough to put these words properly... but Remixor, I think you got the idea anyway.

Quotethere's a scientific theory that says you need ten or eleven dimensions to explain the universe as it works currently

Correct. The String Theory relays 10 dimensions.

QuoteYou do realise that the 4th Dimension is time... don't you?

Time is the 4th dimension in OTHER forms of argumentation. Incidentally, it wasn't truly einstein who gave it the spatial definition, because it is known as the Minkowski 3 space, 1 time geometry of relativity. Einstein just CONTINUED to use it because everybody else had already understood it this way.

So, for this conversation, time is NOT the fourth dimension.

The way that I understand it, there must be 10 (or 11?) spatial dimensions for the Universe to work properly (you know what I mean). What I was talking about was a fourth spatial dimension. True, it woudl be technically impossiible to accurately depict a 4D object on a 2D surface, but the closest we can come with today's technology is a 2D surface, and adding a 3rd virtual dimensional with 3D glasses.

My argument is that the program is not just something the author pulled out of his ass, it is based upon what a 4D object MIGHT look like to us, in wireframe mode. Maybe if there were a program which took it a step further and used polygons, we'd see them intersect each other strangely. If you're just looking at the hypercube when it loads, you don't get the full effect. Try playing around with the W axis, especially Z-W rotation.

Stop the petty bickering and use your imagination, my friends! WAHEY!!!

Yes. I agree that this is probably the most accurate assumption of what 4d would look like.

The string theory recognises 10 (and I emphasise 10) spatial dimentions. The confusion with the 11 comes from an often misplaced dimension from the BISONIC string theory (which, in total, has 26 spacetime dimensions.)

Quote from: Peter Thomas on Sun 04/04/2004 08:20:33Yes. I agree that this is probably the most accurate assumption of what 4d would look like.

Excellent! That's all I'm saying. :D

QuoteThe string theory recognises 10 (and I emphasise 10) spatial dimentions. The confusion with the 11 comes from an often misplaced dimension from the BISONIC string theory (which, in total, has 26 spacetime dimensions.)

Right. I wish I knew more about superstrings than what little (or none) I do now. Perhaps I'll start learning about extradimensional space someday. For now, school, work, and creating games.

You want to keep as far away from the string theory as possible.  ;D

Once you sign the eternal petition to swap your soul for an understanding of the 26 spacetime dimensions, you'll realise what a fool you were.

Homework never looked so appealing...