01270 747 008 (UK)

# Understanding 4 dimensional space

By Engineer Saviour – Blaze Labs

Recall ages ago, when most people believed that the earth was flat. Some thought that they would “fall off the edge” of the earth if they went out too far. Little did they know, that if they kept on going, they could possibly end up where they started, having experienced the entire trip as being in a straight line! No matter how far the subject travels (by boat, train, or plane), he will never come to a boundary: there is no “edge” to fall off from!! It is because the earth exists on the surface of a sphere that these properties hold true. Let us now take this a step further.

Launched from the earth is a rocket ship that is travelling out into space. Its mission is to continue outward in a straight line in its current direction until it reaches the “outer edge” of the universe. When will the rocket ship reach the outer edge of space? In the previous example we find a similar situation: the concern of “falling off the edge” of a flat earth – an earth that in reality has no “edge” to fall off from. Now, if our universe reality is not 3D we will find out that the ship will never encounter an outer edge. Not only that, but it could also possibly end up where it started, having experienced the entire trip as being in a straight line! No matter how far the rocket ship travels through space, it will come across no boundary of any kind. These properties would hold true if the universe existed on the surface of a hypersphere in the same way that the earth exists on the surface of a sphere.

The hypershpere is the 4D analogue to a circle in 2D or of a sphere in 3D. How would we picture a hypersphere? The key to approaching something of the fourth dimension is by means of the tool of analogy: we rely upon corresponding lower-dimensional structures we have studied as the means by which their 4-dimensional analogue is constructed. A solid circle is a 2-dimensional object. When cut into 1 dimensional slices, you will see a line, that varies in length between the size of a single dot to its full length. A solid sphere, as shown above in the flatland animation, is a 3-dimensional object. When cut into slices, we find that a solid sphere is in essence an array of solid circles that increase and then decrease in diameter. Having obtained the knowledge we have so far, we now possess the ability to bring these lower-dimensional structures “up a notch” through analogy to envision a 4D hypersphere.

We cannot directly visualize a hypersphere for the very reason that it is a 4-dimensional object and goes beyond our senses. What we can visualize, however, is a hypersphere in the form of 3-dimensional slices (as is displayed to the left). A hypersphere is in essence an array of 3 dimensional solid spheres that increase and then decrease in size. This would represent our basic conception of the hypersphere, and is shown in the animated picture here.

As I have said, in 4D space, our ‘time’ is integrated in a space dimension, and then action at a distance (gravity being the purest example), becomes much clearer to us. Just imagine, in the classic 2D example shown above, that the 2D person is somehow able to impart a force on the circle he sees on the plane. What would the consequences be? He would eventually move the whole sphere and would also change the position of the future circles in the plane. He would also move all points on the circle, as if all points are ‘entangled’, and the transmission of this force from the point of action to any other point on the circle does not depend on the time it takes for the sphere slice to pass through. So, to the question, is gravity a push, a pull or both, or does gravity act on a body, or is gravity generated by the mass of a body, there is no answer if the problem is analysed only in 3D space, as the interaction between two bodies is just an effect we see due to the interaction on a single body existing in a higher dimension. The interaction between the two different dimensions takes place in the ‘mirror plane’ where the time dimension does not exist, but is rather a perception of the observer. That also means that issues like ‘the finite speed of gravity’ clearly make no sense.

If you try to extend this to our existence and to the existence of all matter, you will find that all actions (including gravity) are at work at a higher dimension and we are here in 3D space observing the effects that are being played at this higher dimension. The 4D I am referring to, is quite different from Einstein’s 4D Space time, in that it is a 4D space and no time. The time coordinate comes in as a false perception of the 4th space dimension, which we are unable to imagine, analogous to the flatland man who cannot understand height and depth. In this figure, you can see what a 4D sphere looks like when differenciated in 3D space. When one differentiates this 4D dimension with respect to an infinitely small mirror thickness (Plancks length being the best candidate), then you get the universe we observe, with Plancks time being the time taken for each 3D slice to pass through the ‘thickness’ of the mirror, and such universe is equivalent to Einstein’s Space-time.

So, what is the speed of light? The speed of light can now make more sense, it is the thickness of the mirror divided by the time it takes for the next slice. It is the maximum speed of differenciating the 4D reality from a 3D spatial point of view. In our context, the value would be equal to Planck’s length/Planck’s time which is equal to c, the speed of light. That’s why Einstein’s theory of relativity although correct, CAN NEVER give us all the answers to our questions, because it is NOT COMPLETE. As Rudolf Steiner stated: “Anything dead tends to remain within the three ordinary dimensions, while anything living constantly transcends them”. Applying the same rule to everything, we may modify this statement as “Anything stationary exists in the ordinary 3D, whilst anything moving is being constantly differentiated in each 3D plan,e and hence exists in the fourth dimension”. This statement is thus defining the 4D space as space in motion with respect to itself. Click here for an excellent site discussing Space in motion.

Next Page: What’s the evidence for the existence of higher dimensions?
Previous Page: Understanding 2 Dimensional Space

1. Actually this is somewhat of a misnomer as the amount of the brain being used will vary depending on what the individual is experiencing, and even their own specific brain structure. Also it is hard to define exactly what is being used or not. Brain scans such as fMRI scans just reveal tiny increases in blood flow to more highly active areas of the brain, but it does not mean the other areas are not in use.
It would also not be useful to have it all active at once, this would just lead to an overloaded state with mostly useless information.

Our brains are especially good at dealing with huge amounts of varying input, and filtering out what is not useful. We all develop unique brains as we age, and this gives us all slightly different perceptions of things. People growing up learning advanced physics may have a better understanding of other dimensions, and their brain will be especially structured for understanding it, but they would still not be able to perceive anything other than what their senses allow.

2. I read your explanation of 4-D and found it very educating. In one of your comments you have mentioned that our body (and specially brain) is designed such that we can observe only 3 dimensions but it is also a well known fact that we use only 2% of our brain’s potential.So hypothetically speaking suppose a person enhanced his/her brain’s potential to say 20 or 25% will it give him/her the ability to breach through higher dimensions?
Now if a human being capable of using brain’s potential to 100% – will he able to see all the dimensions?
won’t it give him the capability to breach through dimensions…won’t he have a godlike power?

i have another doubt…where those dark matter fits into this dimensional theory?

3. well, gota keep asking the questions lol

4. I’m not sure I can. There is no real universal agreement in these theories. You would need to talk to someone currently working in the field of theoretical physics and cosmology.

5. So i would conclude from that. that the expansion is not equal. and that the force of gravety does not simply hold particles together. it afects the expansion of space itself. which may again explain why it seems so weak.

of course if time is a spacial dimension then there is no expansion. just the appearance of it.

i realy need help on this point. lol

6. “does space warped around matter expand at the same rate as space between the island galaxys, if at all”
If is were, this would be undetectable.
What has been detected is that the galaxies are moving apart and accelerating.

7. ahhh but, space is expanding but particles stick together with gravity. does space warped around matter expand at the same rate as space between the island galaxys, if at all

if not then the expansion is unequell. and may explain even more why this expansion appears to be acelerating.

8. Time is relative. Time is ‘flowing’ differently in many places.

Yes if the space changes, the time may too, This would only be detectable if there were uneven change.

9. sorry can you give me your thoughts

is time a 4th spacial dimension, or is it reletive to the observer.

if its a spacial dimension then there IS NO UNIVERSAL EXPANSION just the illusion of it, like the illusion in a standing wave model of a particle the the wave is propigating out forever. this may help explain much as the illusion that the non existant expansion is accelerating, must be a biproduct of something else.

if however it is a dimension of time then the universe is expanding, as space streaches, so may time and people with big brains might be able to detect it.

10. thank you

l was going to propose something to you regarding this. but felt foolish

my theory was at the moment of the big something. (creation whatever) space came into being at roughly the same instance as energy. the energy as you postulated could not be contained and space warped around bits of the waves, becoming elementry particles. these anighalated eachother quite a bit and pushed the others away. … the only question it leaves me is why the universe didnt colapse into a singularity imediatly (some say the universe is a singuarity, but i mean a clasical one.) and how come space can hold a singularity. maybe it cant. maybe space itself has a wavelength and all particles eventualy decay into it. if a portion os space has to much energy it vibrates into a paticle, not enough and it absorbs a particle. which eplains that phenomina……

i could go on but i think u can see whare im going

11. I like to think that there are not really any particles at all. When I mention the word particle below, I’m basically referring to it as a sort of converted wave. An electron for example being some sort of standing wave. It does dissipate out infinitely in the form of its electric field. It may not be a standing wave as we ordinarily might observe, but it could be some sort of self reflecting wave that is trapped in its own bubble of space due to the waves high energy density.

The energy carried by a photon is larger when its wavelength is smaller (higher frequency). I imagine that at some point, the wavelength is so short that a critical energy density limit is reached and space can no longer sustain it as a ‘normal’ wave, this would then become the particle of lowest possible energy.
We see the reverse of this occurring in radioactive decay where particles will spontaneously break down into a combination of smaller particles and waves with very short wavelengths.

I’m just theorizing this myself, I have no idea how well that would stand up to some real mathematics. I would sure like to know though.

12. just followed your link. read up on standing wave theory. im wonering what your stand is on it. it really does seem to answer all the questions. i have one or 2 isses. why does the standing wave of an electron in a vacume not just disipate out etc. but it reallly seems to answer most things without having to relly on other dimensions. however it seems to view time as just….time not a 4th spacial dimension

13. While reading the constant attempt of science to pindown the theory of everything/string, and stating the frustation of a wave/particle obsarvation/disturbing it’s very existance not the proof that the dance of the observer/with his/hers observing tools proof of our constant ride of the infinite/finite dimension in the mirror of us space itself? and when we finally find ourselves writing that equation, is not our way of opening the door so all can be invited in sort of playing in the same space we all occupy?

14. Surely if there were more than three dimensions we’d see evidence of it.

If there was a 3D chair leg; Square at the bottom but lofted so that it has square base that tapers off to a fancy design with circular bits (just like old Victorian chair legs).

Now say a 2D man (on the XY plane) was holding this chair leg (which on the 3D Z plane is right at the bottom) he’d think he was holding a square.

Any movement of the chair leg on the Z plane over time would appear as the 2D mans square changing shape over time; sometime that I would have thought the 2D man would have freaked out about.

Progressing onto 4D space; any movement in the 4th dimension would to us appear as some 3D shape/object being deformed without any external force being applied. I’ve never seen that happen.

15. It’s hard to really answer questions on this topic as it just theory. Not all scientists agree that there ar such higher dimensions at all.
The way you describe the electron sounds like a mix of ‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle’ and ‘wave particle duality’. Google these terms for more info.

16. first i wanted to propose a stupid proposal dont kno if its or wrong watever, if we have rolled a metallic spher along a flat surface with a uniform speed (then stopped at a certain point) then this circle in the 4d point of view is a cylender with rounded edges , so wat if we imagined that this cylinder is confered upon by another dimention,then we can imagine it inthe 4d p.o.v as a cylender rolling over were it is in the 5d point of view is a 2d plane but having a thicknes (the other 3d’s).
then if this “3d planner” moved again to form a solid squar or watever then by this simple way could we imagine a body of 6dimensions (which would probably be in more than one place in the space at the same time )

when i first thought of this i said it’s total foolishnesswe imagining 6d but i thought more then ,and reached this:
we so far are not able to see an electron , we just see its cloud Y?
cuz we say itis si fast that it is found in more than one place at the same time…
so what if itis a 3d body moving in an accelerated motion (orbital motion) so going far into the 5 dimensionality whiich i hypothysis :is to be present in more than one place in a 2d plannar
at the same time while keeping ur 3d entity .
sorry for spreading such stupidity but just tell me wat u think

17. Your explanation of 1D and 2D worlds was great and understandable. Here is my thoughts on a 3+n dimension world. all motion can be applied to one or more of the three dimensions. If you add a fourth dimension to explain a position or motion, that motion or position can also be explained in the 3D space. If you try to ball-up another dimension and place it in our 3D space, all motion and positions can be mapped into our 3D space. If you say that our 3D space is streched around a sphere (the sphere being a 4th dimension)you can still map all points amd motion in the fourth dimension based on the 3D space by “vectoring” from a reference point. As for time that is a unit used to categorize change in a objects properties and set limits on all units of change (meters/sec for speed) for nothing is instantaneous. The only way one can trtuly add another dimension is to place a limit on the range of this space and add another space.

18. The quantum particles refered to here are not specifically Tachyons, just fermions (matter) and bosons (force carriers) in genral.
I’ve not heard of actual physical evidence of a Tachyon. You are colse with your description. The theory is that a tachyon can’t slow down below the speed of light, so this makes any observations of one a little wiered from our perspective.
A Tachyon would generally not be visible because it travels faster than light. If one were to pass by you, you would see what appeard to be two particles moving in opposite directions.

19. Would a Tachyon(I’m not sure I spelled that right,lol)particle be one of these quantum particles you’re refering to?Up til about the late 80’s (I think) they were theoretical particles until they were observed on radar screens.From what I understand of them they move so quickly through time that they appear to be travelling backwards through time,is that right?

20. The article was kindly provided by Saviour from Blaze Labs Research, but I can hopefully answer your questions.

Yes, the ‘other dimensions’ are all around and within us, but we are unable to percieve them directly because of the physical makeup of our bodys. Our brains are built to percieve 3D, which is not nessecerily vision based. Sound and touch can also give you 3D information.
The brain can also percieve time in a sort of indirect way. Our memory allows us to understand that time is passing by, or that we are moving through it. We can in a way percieve some of the past, present and future simultaniously by combining memory, senses, and our own decisions for how we will alter the future. Just as our bodies take up a finite volume of 3D space, our mind occupies a range of times. If our mind was only aware of the immediate present, we would not really percive time as we would not know that anything around us was changing. This works just like the explanation Saviour gives of 2D beings in 3D space.

I’m not sure that there are an infinite number of these ‘higher’ dimensions. The currently accepted theory is that there is 11 (String Theory), but others say 13, where others also say there are an infinite number.

One of the possible explinations for the “barrier” you mention between the quantum world and the macroscopic world is that matter or energy is somehow shared between alternate realities. This starts to sound a little bit sci-fi now, but it is a reasonable theory. The quantum particles seem random and unpredictable, they tend to dissapear and reapear in a different random location. One idea is that they are somehow disapearing from our univese to visit other parralel universes and that all the matter is behaving in this way. There is actually an incredibly small probablility that whole objects could just randomly dissapear, only to reappear somewhere else (any where in any universe), before reappearing where it started from. Fourtunaltley this sort of thing tends to only happen to randomly distributeed quantum particles and not to an entire atom or a person!

Modern computers and software allow us to simulate the sub atomic world based on our current mathematical understanding, but this is about as close as we can get to really percieving higher dimensions.

21. So then,By your definition(if I understood your explanation right),the fourth dimension,can only be viewed by say traveling endlessly into or out of a singularity.In other words,if we could somehow shrink continously and reach far beyond the sub-atomic level of our universe or grow constantly until our known universe was absorbed into the person observing this singularity,that would then be the fourth dimension,so to speak.Theoretically,the fourth dimension(and any of the other higher dimensions)are all around us AND within us at the same time then,right?And if I understood your explanation correctly,it means that 1:We can’t see these compacted and expanded dimensions because of the limitations of our senses(namely sight)and 2:there are really an infinate number of these “higher dimensions”,since any point in our universe can be observed in this manner.The sub-atomic level is one of our “barriers” to the macro-verse since we can’t see anything smaller than that even with the help of technology.Through mathematics we can only vaguely percieve the existence of these “higher dimensions”,right?