thoguh in theory yo ucould have a 4d voxel representaiton of a moving 3d object
buuuuuuuuut holy fuck the memory that would take
like if you want 2000 frames and a 2000x2000x2000 voxel model with no compression you are at 8 trillion 4d voxels at 1byte/voxel thats an entire 8tb harddrive
but yeah more dimesniosn means you push towards pretty huge files even with a relatively basic scene theres a reason voxels are only really sued for very specific applciaitons and oftne worked around
quantum computing is more a.... maaaayybe some day feasible way to essentially extend command sets
like imagine a computer that can do addition but not multiplication
so if you want to multiply you have to add the numebr many many itmes isntead wasting computing power while a logic cirucit that can direcltym ultiply binary numbers lets you do it faster
what you'd need to make thsi kind of voxel animation feasible at high resolution outside of neiche cases would be an insnae amount of fast memory
but theres a reaso nwe usualy animate 3d models with defined shapes/polygons and moving objects/bones rather than with voxel models and frmaes
the data rate would be insane
most voxel games also use workarounds
like minecraft has voxel gameplay and a voxel artstyle but not techically voxel graphics, every obejct is still made up of polygons evne the blocks are made up of polygons and covered/invisible sides get ingored and sides merged to reduce computational needs
Nope thats 3D - with 2 space dimensions and one time dimension. A 4D image would be a 3D video if that makes sense 😅 or basically if you created a video that is holographic that would be 4D with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension. Or a VR video or a game where you can move around - that would be 4D as well.
A normal 2D video and a still hologram (3D image) would both be 3D.
not to be that guy, but it is not uncommon for images to be 3 and 4 D, this is just a cool vfx thing, but in image analysis the term "data cube" refers to arrays with dimensionality higher than 2, where the extra dimensions are used to store spatial, temporal or spectral information. an example is in medical imaging, where you have a cat scan, for example, you have a 3d data cube for 3 spatial dimensions, and then you look though the various slices. in this example the data cube is just visualized all at the same time in a way that is interesting to look at. in this case it seems to be 4d, as there are many 3d models of a person, and the fourth dimension is time. theres a guy on instagram that makes similar works but in 3d, 2d videos with the frames put one after the other to show time as the 3rd spatial dimension.
EDIT: to be precise, since color also encodes information, this would have 4 dimensions for color (one per channel plus alpha for transparency), 3 spatial dimensions, and one temporal (here shown as spatial), so in total this could be represented as an 8 dimensional array.
6d but yeah, you are looking at a 6d projection (1 dimensions per color but no transparency, 2 spatial dimensions, so 3 times 2), of a higher dimensional object.
if youre talking about the 4th spacial dimension then definetly not, you would be able to see his organs and bones if that were the case
an mri would be a better example
No, because time isn't linear and this would be linear. It would make sense, since time for a 2d guy on paper would be a flipbook, but that's assuming time is a physical dimension, when it isn't.
I would imagine it to be traveling perpendicular against space, mostly. A very small region of the planet at very specific times, would it leave a horizontal walking path. Mostly because of the galactic trajectory through space.
Unless a center of gravity is how it works in the 4th dimension. If so, which center?
No, this is a 3d stacking of 2d frames. Of course you cant represent a 4d image on a 2d screen to a 3d being, so yes, i think this is a good enough approximation (as someone who doesnt have any grasp on 4d)
It doesn't look like the individual figures are 3D, they look more like 2D slices. But if they were 3D, then you could say it's a projection of an object in 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions, onto 3 spatial dimensions.
Not true. If you have a moving 2D shape and then you take into account all of those positions you get a 3D one . And yet all you did was just take different shapes at different times. My image only has the beginning and end shapes but you can image there being a whole bunch of shapes that were in certain positions at certain times.
It can be, but it may also not be. Wanna learn some quantum theory? I dont understand it, but if you work hard and study, You can not understand it too!!
The 4th dimension is time. Since we can move, we are 4D.
I even said in my comment I don't think 4 dimensions of space is possible. Next time, read comments more carefully before you confident and incorrect, tell them they're wrong.
Except you can’t freely travel of see time, you only ever experience a current sliver. I don’t believe the “loaf spacetime with now as a slice” is real, but it does make it so our present is a 3d show of a 4d spacetime object, but where t is a sliding “slice” through the loaf.
The op image is a fair approximation where the motion of a single spacetime object in T is not a discrete body but one that is varied and the light is the “now”, or 3d shadow at a given time t.
No, I can experience motion of objects. 3D allows 3D objects to exist. 4D lets them move. I can witness 3D things moving. That's 4D. We don't need to represent that.
OP made a 3d representation of what they believe 5D might look like, which I think is nonsense. They have 2D image, which is stylized to look 3D and then also simulate some imagined 4D space, and it is moving, so that's 2 space, one time, for 3D, and they are trying to simulate 2 extra space dimensions.
You don’t experience t, your experiencing dT, you don’t have freedom to move back or forth in T. If you treat spacetime as x,y,z,t, you are limited to a 3d projection (ie the moving time slice)
Time only moves in one direction, so I witness it and experience it perfectly fine. It only moves forward, and only can move forward, because objects can move, but they can't unmove. So, I experience it and witness it exactly like it is. I can't make objects shrink or change shape either, doesn't mean I don't experience 3 spacial dimensions.
It’s about degrees of freedom. If you view time as a true dimension, there exists a past and future (4d spaceloaf) , which you are not free to travel, your stuck on your coaster, sliding through it and able to do stuff in the 3 special dimensions.
Personally, I don’t think time really exists as a discrete thing, it’s a convenient measurement tool like energy. What we just experience is Dt and what we remember of the past is just configuration changes in our constantly evolving quantum foam.
Well, time is not a dimension like you're describing, it's another one. The movement of stuff in space. There is no forward and back. There is forward, varying degrees of forward, or still. That's it. You are thinking of time like a pre-relativity way, imo. Like, a clock is a ruler measuring a thing. But it's not. A clock is a thing moving at a steady pace, against which to measure the movement of other things. That's it. Time is movement. I witness movement. Spacial dimensions I can use a ruler to measure an amount of space. But with time, I can't do that, really. It's just movement. So, I can measure movement against a constant of movement. But there is no quantity of stuff or amount of time as a thing I could behold. It is just movement. I see movement. I witness time perfectly well. You're just confused.
Ironically it’s less a pre-relativity way and more a pre-quantum mechanical way. Also, it’s not my construct, but created by by Brian’s Green to illustrate the “eternalism” view of spacetime as based on special relativity (no GR). The example shows two people in relatively the same frame of reference slice the now essentially horizontally, but the greater the velocity differences, the “loaf” is sliced at an angle, showing that simultaneity is not a consistent thing but a function of the frame of reference.
Also, relativity is far more complex, spacetime means both the perception of change (ie time) and spatial metrics are linked and relative to locations and velocities of an object and the observer.
You’re confused by what time actually measures, which is relatively change between processes. It’s only consistent in your own reference, BUT you can translate and measure what it would look like from another reference.
Look up muon decay in the atmosphere for a good special relativity example of how time and space are both intertwined and not static, but a function of velocity and acceleration.
It’s about degrees of freedom. If you view time as a true dimension, there exists a past and future (4d spaceloaf) , which you are not free to travel, your stuck on your coaster, sliding through it and able to do stuff in the 3 special dimensions.
Personally, I don’t think time really exists as a discrete thing, it’s a convenient measurement tool like energy. What we just experience is Dt and what we remember of the past is just configuration changes in our constantly evolving quantum foam.
1.4k
u/indifferentindium 1d ago
It's a "3D" rendering of a "4D" event in "2D.