Just how many dimensions are there?

Just how many dimensions are there?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0t4aKJuKP0Q
youtu.be/vN9T8CHrGo8
youtu.be/z_KnvGGwpAo
youtu.be/HsecXtfd_xs
youtu.be/1-oj34hmO1Q
youtu.be/w3-TqPXKlVk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I don't know but two dimensions are enough

You're correct, and 3 is too many.

you know, the characters still live in a 3d world even if it's made in 2d drawings

Three spatial, one temporal. Although you can define "dimension" more loosely as any attribute you feel like and then there's no limit to how many dimensions the idea you're dealing with can be modeled in terms of e.g. you might make a customer segmentation model for work with 100 dimensions and you could use a generalized version of how distance is calculated in 3 dimensional space to come up with "distance" in the sense of attribute similarity for your 100 dimension situation.

what? how does this even work? Dimensions after the 4th are all based on concepts other than space and time
what would a 4th spacial dimension even look like? you can't measure more than 3 categories of distance from one point to another

here's how.
consider a robot arm with one pivot, and anchored in one end, so that it has two degrees of freedom. let the position of the pivot be (x,y,z) and the position of the free end be (a,b,c). you can describe the state of the robot arm as a point in (a particular manifold in) 6 "spacial" dimensions (x,y,z,a,b,c)

so it only works in a manifold? does that apply to most hypothetical extra dimensions?

what do you mean "only" in a manifold? that's more general than thinking about vector spaces, which one usually does. "minkowski space" is a usual way to see space as a 4 dimensional manifold for example

that's what "extra dimensions" usually mean, yes

>Dimensions after the 4th are all based on concepts other than space and time
Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't treat an arbitrarily larger number of dimensions as though they were spatial. Euclidean distance can be generalized to Minkowski distance.
>how does this even work?
Euclidean distance between points is the square root of the squares of the differences of those points. Minkowski distance just uses any arbitrarily large exponent and root in place of the value of 2 used for exponent and root in the Euclidean distance.
>you can't measure more than 3 categories of distance from one point to another
Yes you can. If you want to write a program that recommends products similar customers have shown an affinity for based on 50 different attributes your customers possess (e.g. credit score, time left in contract term, geographic region, number of calls into your call center, etc.) you would in fact make use of a distance metric to identify the customers most similar to each given customer your recommending tool would generate answers for.

And if you think that's weird, I'll also point out you can literally have a distance metric for an infinite number of dimensions (Chebyshev distance).

7
argb picture + x + y + time

oh, yeah I understand more dimensions between points of computer data, I was trying to imagine how a 4th spacial dimension would look in euclidean space

It's supposed to represent 4 dimensions, but it's really just 3 with some asinine horseshit added. To visualize 4 spatial dimensions you'd have to figure out how to add a 4th line to a 3D graph that 1) goes through the origin, and 2) is perpendicular to all of the other lines. As far as I know, the human brain isn't equipped to do that.

You have no concept of dimensions do you.

>spoiler alert: we don't know how many spatial and temporal dimensions there are. Nor do we know how our brains could perceive them

hell we could just be stuck in a 4 dimensional submanifold of a larger dimension universe, how fun.

>As far as I know, the human brain isn't equipped to do that.
You can use change in color to represent the extra dimension without needing to have four lines that aren't really perpendicular to each other.
That's what Charles Howard Hinton did to teach himself how to imagine four dimensional space.

Some anons here will probably complain that you can't ever genuinely imagine more than three spatial dimensions, but I'd argue there's no such thing as "genuinely" doing anything related to perception because it's all pretty provisional and built up around all sorts of hacky workarounds even when pointed at our ordinary real life surroundings.
And from that argument I'd say looking at a visualization or game that was programmed using four dimensional values is as good a case of seeing what that sort of space looks like as an equivalent visualization or game using three dimensional values displayed on a flat screen is for depicting non-flat, three dimensional space.
youtube.com/watch?v=0t4aKJuKP0Q

that's hardly a 'real' extra dimension

>he hasn't even seen flatland
lol noob
just move parallel to yourself in the 4th dimension

What makes it not "real?" Color's as good an attribute as any other. It's not like there's anything magical about lines drawn on a piece of paper that make that way of depicting dimensionality more legitimate than a color based approach.

but could you imagine a situation in euclidean space where more than 3 measurements of distance are actually necessary, not just for kicks?

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "necessary?"

like you need more than just x, y and z to define a location

I don't know how to answer that except to say the obvious that you'd need four dimensions to define a location if the space you were working in had four dimensions and you wouldn't need them if it didn't have them.

ok I guess it was a dumb question, I just have trouble imagining 4 dimensional space

Hm... that's actually a pretty good idea. I'll have to think about that. Thanks.

There is always at least one more, the one that you did not described and holds in it all you did describe plus the insight you can only gain when you look at the others from a distance

11

Arbitrary amount

You mean how many AREN'T there

3+1, unless your're a string theory brainlet, then it's 3+1+7

A dimension is defined by the minimum amount of ordinates needed to specify any point within it.

Everything in this universe is shit so we only need one dimension to measure it.

>I was trying to imagine how a 4th spacial dimension would look in euclidean space
You're asking a flatlander what a sphere looks like. The closest thing you can get is visualizing how it would interact with our dimension. If I took your laptop and moved it in this extra spatial dimension perpendicular to the 3 lower dimensions you would see it shrink to a vanishing point before disappearing entirely. If you had cameras filming this happening from every angle, they would all see the same thing, it moving farther and farther away before reaching a vanishing point.
If I were to pull you in that same direction people would see you shrink and vanish, but once "outside" you would look and be able to see "inside" your previous space. I can only imagine the closest comparable experience would be Chuck Yeager smoking DMT and injecting adrenachrome directly into his brain while breaking the sound barrier.

More then countable many, else the universe would be boring.

The universe started with 10 but intelligent creatures fighting each other have systematically reduced them to 3 so far.

One (1)

Four space, two temporal. All stars are one star, we exist at the very edge of the fourth dimension. The pineal gland is the xyz coordinated of our thir eye, but our third eye is shifted roughly 20cm alon the fourth dimension, and can move along our time dimension, because the 2nd time dimension is sort of circular, but based on our commonly experienced

What sort of particles and objects could exist in other space/time dimension combinations that may not exist in ours?

>I just have trouble imagining 4 dimensional space
well that's precisely what homology groups, curvature and all this shit is for, to help us understand what we cannot imagine.

1: north/south
2: east/west
3: zenith/nadir
4: time
5: color
6: smell
7: feel
8: vibrations

idk buts theres always a fuckin dumb ass reason to add 1 to it
4d = 3d over time
5d = parallels of the same position in time
6d = 5d over time
Xd = x-1d over time

Most people stop at 10 because it gets fuckin stupid after that.

TLDR
Theres 4 practical dimensions.

as many as you want.

as little as you want

is this viscom nigger

Rotation in four-dimensional space.

youtu.be/vN9T8CHrGo8
The 5-cell is an analog of the tetrahedron.

youtu.be/z_KnvGGwpAo
Tesseract is a four-dimensional hypercube - an analog of a cube.

youtu.be/HsecXtfd_xs
The 16-cell is an analog of the octahedron.

youtu.be/1-oj34hmO1Q
The 24-cell is one of the regular polytope.

youtu.be/w3-TqPXKlVk
The hypersphere is an analog of the sphere.

Probably like 11 in string theory but we live in 3 space and 1 time which may or may not be curved through an additional space.

10 they say, but could be 11 or even 26.

As a physicist, as many as I need there to be.

At least 11

according to bosonic string theory, 26. but in reality probably 3

Dimensions don't exist therefore it is 0.

10 theoretically.

Eleven

>You can use change in color to represent the extra dimension without needing to have four lines that aren't really perpendicular to each other.

Like you mean how red shifting works.

>he is seriously interested in working with a fixed number of dimensions
State that you work in an N dimensional space at the start and let that be it.

There are various reasons to restrict to a specific dimension. 4-manifolds are "special" even outside of their application to physics.

Technically all women are 2D since we only see in 2 dimentions and cannot "see" any depth.
We understand how depth works and manipulate the world around us accordingly but we cannot "see" it

at least 200,000
t. simulationfag

I get what you're saying. I actually never thought about the utility of dimensions, aside from the 4th as a representation of time/change to a 3D being or object.

Well, which will you work in? Hilbert space or Banach space?