Blackout
The hypercube or the Tesseract is the natural successor to the 3d cube, which in turn successes the 2d square and the
1d line.

Since we are assumed to be 3-dimensional entities, we perceive our surroundings in 2d.
"All we really see with our eyes is as seen on a tv-screen, hence only height and width."

When we perceive depth it is merely objects getting bigger/smaller.
If we were 4-dimensional entities we would perceive the world in 3d.
One would be able to look at a wall and see its front AND its back simultaneously.
To see the "3d" we perceive requires motion.
You must turn the dice to see its backside.
In 4d, would things be transparent or is it totally different?
In my mind its hard to imagine how I could warp the picture to give me all the sides without
"folding out" the non-transparent dice.
Still I don't believe transparency is key to solving this problem.
Quite a thinkbomb there. (atleast for me it is)

I play with the thought that Quantum Mechanics has an answer to this.
This leads me to believe there actually is 4 or more spatial dimensions.

Logical to me is that for one to be able to see true 3d, one has to be two observers.
This is where the QM comes in.
QM suggests that a particle can exist in all possible places at once, and its location actually
is everywhere until one observe it.
Then it will probably be where it was most likely to be. (Huh?)

In the "famous" Double slit experiment, one electron goes through both slits at the same time.

If I see myself as that electron, I could be at both sides of the dice simultaneously, and see its entirety.
Would I, as a 4d entity, be observed as two identical entities by a 3d observer?
Sounds a little like cheating to me, but what if it was the other way around?

What if the QM electron/observer is in the centerpoint and the dice surrounds it?
Maybe that is just "folding out" the dice.

I find it hard to get my head around this.

-Blackout
QUOTE (Blackout+Jun 3 2012, 09:57 PM)
Since we are assumed to be 3-dimensional entities, we perceive our surroundings in 2d.
"All we really see with our eyes is as seen on a tv-screen, hence only height and width."

We actually see in 3D;- not only 2D images on our retinas, but images that are in composition temporally displaced according to relative distance.

i.e;- hold out a flower to occupy the same visual frame of the moon. The image will contain over a seconds worth of information. Do the same with a backdrop of stars and this figure becomes 10's,100's of years.

I much prefer to hold a buttercup in front of a James Webb Space Telescope, and have a view encompassing an impressive 10+ billion years.

Albers
BLACKOUT, read Andy Rucker's The Fourth Dimension. I know a brilliant man who is way, way out working on just you are poking at.
Blackout
Thanks man! Just what I was looking for! BTW, do you have an opinion on this?
Albers
Rucker is a crackup, eh? I laughed when he said, now draw an octagon. You could go tear out a STOP sign, or... Dude, I have been slogging thru Penrose and also group theory books. Maybe one fine day soon I'll come out into the sunlight.
Albers
I wonder if 'SOLIDSPIN' lurks. He is your man, if he is willing to speak !
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.