The things you'll find in higher dimensions

What's special about 8 and 24.

One of the best videos I have seen youre awesome

What Iiiiiif...PBS shows were for geniuses?

Now if on a television show you break the 4th wall, can it suffice to say you're one step closer to becoming a Platohedron?

I'm fairly sure the forces of physics we identify as innate/fundamental to the universe are actually a rendering of higher dimensional information passing through the lower 3D dimensional space. It is extremely speculative, but would begin to respond with a mathematic framework as to why there is such a discrepancy between the force of say gravity and the strong nuclear force. Because the human mind has made itself adapt in its best logical way to a three dimensional world, where we perceive time as being unidirectional and hence leading to Einstein's postulation and later showcase of the idea of spacetime.

Now i know why i loose my remote sometimes

I want to punch myself in the stomach and yell `nerd` just for watching this.

Mobius strips! ;)

Pi dimension dropping when

What if our brain is 4d

This is amazing

i wonder what a 4d orange tastes like....

Why am I even trying to understand what’s happening here?

Why does everyone talking about this have a lithp? Or is it the same guy just ten years apart?

literally forty five seconds in to this and i just wanna know if you wanna get married lol

Some in comments: "People tell stories about weird things happening so we'll put ghosts and gods in the higher dimensions because even though there is no evidence they exist, we can use the 'Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist, it probably does' fallacy to further the narrative about absolute RUBBISH." Please let higher dimensions be without putting stuff you've seen in horror films, heard in a pub, or even things you THINK you've experienced yourself in them..... Each to their own...If humans were perfect it would be impossible for us ever to lose anything, for one.

You made up what percentage of this mate? 42?

QUANTUM PHYSICIST DISAGREE THAT WE LIVE IN A 3D WORLD.....ITS JUST AN ILLUSION THAT WE DO BECAUSE OF LIGHT CREATING SHADOWS THAT MAKE IT APPEAR THERES 3 DIMENSIONS

When the möbius paper and scotch tape came out, and that boyish grin came out, I knew we were having a good time.

My brain will detonate in 3, 2, 1...

Could quantum physics, or more specifically "quantum occurrences" be hints of a 4th dimension?

Zach, you mentioned that 57 and more was better at clumping. I just found a Scientific American article that said that 56 was the one better at clumping and 57 and more was in line or what they called “sausage.”

The first thing you'll notice is Jackie Wilson.

How would you know if you cant go there

Is a black hole a Klein bottle?

I’m I the only one who noticed that the 5 shapes are all the design of UAP or UFO?

What dimension would the after life be in?

The sphere packing sounds a lot like proton/neutron balancing in atoms, how certain arrangements are more stable than others.

How can this video have 6.7Mil views and i dont understand most of it 🙄

Sad that a 4 dimensional monster couldn’t tie its shoes..

Good video, but the math constitutes mental abuse

One of the most beautiful videos..glad that my friend recommended it...lots of love from a fellow physics student

Now I know how an ant feels when I am talking to it.

Are we making this stuff up..like is all this reality or is just based in some theoretical mathematicians mind????

Something about the 4D sphere simply arriving within our view and then appearing to decrease in size away from us makes me think of UFOs. Awesome video! I was entranced and i know nothing of math

More boredom?

SO fascinating! ♾

Nope. A physical object is limited to three dimensions and can only move in three dimensions.

The three dimensions are a mathematical reference system to find a point in space. Space is space and you cannot move in more than six directions which are along the x,y,z axes.

While I'm not interested in this field, it was a very interesting video to watch.

5 star
To the point , no bs, easy for a dumbo like me to understand. But mostly for saving the shill work for the end. I get it you have to make money but nothing takes me out of a good vid like hamming in a commercial at minute 2 when I specifically pay for premium. Bravo.

this man plays DnD?

My God it's like finding an Easter egg in a video game😮

I just wonder if a higher dimention cylinder looks like a 3d sphere in our normal time space. If you could see in higher dimentions you would see a black hole is perhaps closer to a cylinder than a sphere, its just out inability to see where that hole goes is what makes us think its a sphere. I imagine it like a bathtub. When something gets too heavy and spins too fast it creates a warping of space time not unlock the warping around your drain. You see things spinning around it but until it goes down the drain we don't see it, even though we can see paralel we don't see it

though that would suggest an ability to break through "to the other side" and theres no idea what that even is

Sorry for commenting on such an old video, but I just discovered it and have thoughts.

Many years ago, I played with higher-dimensional simplexes, where "simplex" is the polyhedron in a given dimension with the fewest faces possible. Additionally, for the purposes of this exercise, "face" is defined as a simplex of the next lower dimension.

So a 1-D simplex (a line segment) would be made of two 0-D simplexes (points) to define the vertices (endpoints of the line segment).

And a 2-D simplex (a triangle) comprises three 1-D simplexes (line segments).

And a 3-D simplex (a tetrahedron) comprises four 3-D simplexes (triangles).

I managed to draw a 4-D and 5-D simplex on paper (like drawing a hypercube, but with tetrahedrons instead of cubes) and discovered that:

A 4-D simplex comprises five tetrahedrons, and a 5-D simplex comprises six 4-D simplexes.

Because I was able to draw these, I could count the number of lower-dimensional simplexes in each simplex (e.g., the number of line segments in a 4-D simplex)

Doing this, I came up with the following table. The first number followed by a colon represents the dimension under consideration. And the following list of numbers is the number of simplexes of successively lower dimension contained in the simplex of the dimension under consideration. To wit:

0: 1 (A 0-D simplex--a point--contains one 0-D simplex. Yes, that's tautological.)
1: 1, 2 (A 1-D Simplex--a line segment--contains one line segment, and two points/vertices.)
2: 1, 3, 3 (A 2-D Simplex--a triangle--contains one triangle, three line segments, and three points/vertices.)
3: 1, 4, 6, 4 (A 3-D simplex--a tetrahedron--contains one tetrahedron, four triangles, six line segments, and four points/vertices.)
4: 1, 5, 10, 10, 5 (A 4-D simplex--a hypertetrahedron--contains one hypertetrahedron, five tetrahedrons, ten triangles, ten line segments, and five points.)
5: 1, 6, 15, 20, 15, 6 (A 5-D simplex contains one of itself, six hypertetrahedrons, 15 tetrahedrons, 20 triangles, 15 line segments, and six points.)

You've probably seen by now that this table is just Pascal's Triangle. I wasn't able to analyze anything beyond 5-D simplexes. I could certainly add another point to the drawing (each increase in dimension adds only one point to the simplex, which is one thing that makes simplexes fun to analyze in this fashion), connect every point to every other point, and count the line segments. But beyond that, I couldn't count simplexes of higher dimensions (triangle or above) than line segments.

Does this follow Pascal's Triangle forever? I'm certain that it does, though I don't know how to go about proving or disproving that. But it doesn't involve ratios like between volume and area (or hypervolume and hyperarea), so I'm confident that it does follow Pascal's Triangle to arbitrarily high dimensions.

My personal takeaway from this is that using this table, I can know how many simplexes of X-Dimension are contained in a simplex of Y-Dimension, for any dimensions X and Y where X <= Y, which I find somehow more comforting than the crazy and non-intuitive (but still brain-blowing and immensly fun) regular-polyhedra analysis presented here.

If someone knows how to prove or disprove my unproven assertion that applying Pascal's Triangle in this way will work for any arbitrarily high dimension, I'd be grateful to be enlightened.

“knot from hell” LMAOOOOO-