The 4th dimension in our case is where the 3D structures including this very Universe combine and exist within changing time frames. 4D structures can’t exist within 3D ones but 3D structures can exist in a 4D just like your drawings exist within that flat paper as lines and points but couldn’t exist in our 3D world by itself. Extra dimensions work the same, like a Matryoshka doll that loses and or gains properties the further you go.
Image: 3D projection of a tesseract undergoing a simple rotation in four dimensional space.
In mathematical physics, Minkowski space or Minkowski spacetime (named after the mathematician Hermann Minkowski) is the mathematical space setting in which Einstein’s theory of special relativity is most conveniently formulated. In this setting the three ordinary dimensions of space are combined with a single dimension of time to form a four-dimensional manifold for representing a spacetime. [**]
In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. From a Euclidean space perspective, the universe has three dimensions of space and one of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels. [**]
But my favorite explanation of extra dimensions in general is Carl Sagan’s version. His version was based on Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions which is an 1884 satirical short story by Edwin Abbott Abbott:
The story is about a two-dimensional world referred to as Flatland which is occupied by geometric figures. Women are simple line-segments, while men are polygons with various numbers of sides. The narrator is a humble square, a member of the social caste of gentlemen and professionals in a society of geometric figures, who guides us through some of the implications of life in two dimensions. The Square has a dream about a visit to a one-dimensional world (Lineland) which is inhabited by “lustrous points”.
He attempts to convince the realm’s ignorant monarch of a second dimension but finds that it is essentially impossible to make him see outside of his eternally straight line.
He is then visited by a three-dimensional sphere, which he cannot comprehend until he sees Spaceland for himself. This Sphere (who remains nameless, like all characters in the novella) visits Flatland at the turn of each millennium to introduce a new apostle to the idea of a third dimension in the hopes of eventually educating the population of Flatland of the existence of Spaceland. From the safety of Spaceland, they are able to observe the leaders of Flatland secretly acknowledging the existence of the sphere and prescribing the silencing of anyone found preaching the truth of Spaceland and the third dimension. After this proclamation is made, many witnesses are massacred or imprisoned (according to caste).
After the Square’s mind is opened to new dimensions, he tries to convince the Sphere of the theoretical possibility of the existence of a fourth (and fifth, and sixth …) spatial dimension.
The depiction above is a 4 dimensional figure as represented by 3 dimensional cubes within cubes to visualize how 4th dimensions may work.
Related: Carl Sagan explains extra dimensions
Mind = Blown
The Tesseract is a 3D shadow of a 4D cube being rotated. Just as if you were to rotate a glass cube’s shadow onto a piece of paper. o_0
You go into it because there is something that, when you learn about that stuff, just gave you a little bit of a fever. And you wanna give that fever to somebody else.
How to make great radio – fantastic behind-the-sciences look at Radiolab, who have ushered in a new era of media at the intersection of science and storytelling.
Radiolab is free and supported by listeners, so help them keep making this magic happen with a donation.
Also see Ira Glass’s illustrated guide to great radio and Jad Abumrad on “gut churn” as the secret of creative success.
Great look at how it’s done. It’s like watching Da Vinci paint.
Support this fantastic show!
incase you were wondering where brilliance comes from. :)
Megan Mullally, Jenny Slate, Bill Hader, Max Greenfield, Ben Schwartz, Nick Offerman, Will Forte, Fred Armisen, Aziz Ansari, Wendy Schaal, Sarah Silverman, and Ken Jeong in Bob’s Burgers [FOX].
THIS GIF MOSAIC IS ACCURATE
(Source: robstv)
The blood vessels of a Bull’s heart, covered in fake gold.
— Dr. van Hagen’s Plastinarium
This is incredible.
Discovery, Animal Planet, and History Channel exposed for killing animals for profit
These channels are failing the spirit of conservationism and education. They are failing inspiring awe in young people. Failing much needed inspiration in a very confused and conflicted world.
These shows are failing their core values, their main purpose, which is leadership in environmentalism and cultural education. Far worse, they are failing millions of young people - millions - who look up to them.
Please join me in asking Discovery, Animal Planet, and the History Channels to stop, apologize, and correct.
That’s an important read up there, folks. These “reality” shows are feeding an outdated and unscientific view of predator species. These are channels founded on principles of education and conservation (TLC, of course, left the building years ago). Are they willing to sacrifice that for what appears to be gratuitous bloodsport?
Like any media, you can vote with your eyeballs. And if you support any kind of rights for wild animals and natural spaces, you can not support these programs. If the account above is true, shame on these networks.
It speaks to part of a larger issue with nature films. The amazing footage we see in shows like Africa, Planet Earth, and Frozen Planet is rarely the result of serendipity. It involves years of careful research and preparation to maximize the chances of capturing nature’s majesty on camera, and what is captured is highly edited to create story, drama and emotion. These are uniquely human interests, and nature doesn’t include them in her original script.
That’s not to say we are being fleeced all the time. People like Sir David Attenborough take these concerns very seriously, and constantly strive to find the balance between entertainment and true nature in every varying instance. What we watch is real. But is it REAL?
I wonder how many people realize that, for instance, the famous polar bear birth scene from Frozen Planet was filmed in a zoo? Disney’s adorable Chimpanzee movie was not a documentary, but rather spliced together to create an emotional tale of adoption. Jason Goldman put together a great collection of opinions on the matter.
How far can we take allowances to deliver good edutainment before we are delivering bad science? The “reality” shows surely fail the test. But the others? What do you think?
I think this is important.
Artist Eero Saarinen’s list of his wife’s good qualities, ca. 1954, from the Lists, to-dos and illustrated inventories of great artists.
We are awaiting only one more participant
(Source: obriens)
(Source: jimhalperting)
