How Many Dimensions Can You See?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июн 2024
- Flatland and how many dimensions you can see (HINT: it's not 3!)
Hi! I'm Jade. I make physics videos that will make you smarter while making you smile :)
**SUBSCRIBE**
/ upandatom
**Let's be friends**
TWITTER: upndatom?lang=en
**RELATED VIDEOS YOU WILL LOVE**
The Double Slit Experiment: Light as a Wave • The Double Slit Experi...
MAXWELL'S DEMON - Why You Can't Get Something For Nothing • Maxwell's Demon | Ther...
Wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_p...
MUSIC: www.bensound.com
Thanks for watching!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we see the world in 2D or 3D? Seems obvious doesn't it? Not so fast. To begin to understand we need to take a trip to a lower dimensional land.
Lineland is a one dimensional world where only lines exist. There is only left and right. Up, down, back and forth do not exist. Now what would an interaction between two citizens of line land look like? To each other, one dimensional lines LOOK like zero dimensional points. This is because, from their perspective, they can only see the front of each other. Even if they had see-through vision it would just look like a series of overlapping points. So in a 1 dimensional world, the citizens see in zero dimensions. Now let's move up one dimension.
Flatland is a two dimensional world which is perfectly flat. There is left, right, back, and forth, but no up and down. If we take a look at an interaction between some citizens of flatland, we see that to each other they all look like lines. So in a two dimensional world, the citizens see in one dimension.
So in a 1D world, they have 0D vision, in a 2D world, they have 1D vision. Can you spot the pattern? nD world means (n-1)D vision. It then follows that we (3D citizens) see in 2D. If you imagine yourself in our 3D world staring at a cube, notice you will only see a 2D square, the face of the cube. You can see length and width, but not depth. So why do you get the "feeling" that you can see depth?
Your brain has developed a plethora of techniques and "tricks" to help you perceive this 2D image as 3D. Watch the video to find out more! 
Наука
Schrodinger: You need to open the box to see if its dead or alive
4D beings: *laughs*
Thor to Schrödinger: But Physiks forbidds this.
[Did you get the reference?]
So 4D folks can easily do what men of culture always dreamed of 🤔😂
@@That_One_Guy... 🤯🤣
Schrodinger is always wrong.
Now I feel like I’m dimensionally handicapped.
Lucky that the linelanders were facing each other.
🤢
@@thanhn2001 i didnt get it
You are assuming that only one end has a sensor (eye)
It's amazing how far she's progressed in her video quality since these early videos LOL. I don't mean this as a dig but as a props for how far she's come! Love your content Jade!
ikr and the jokes are so funny this is my first time watching her but omg i love her she keeps me engaged
Hi. Looking Glass Universe posted this on Twitter, so I thought I'd check it out. Not bad!
Thinking about flatland weirds me out. As a 3D being, I should be able to reach in and touch the insides of a 2D being... which makes me think about a 4D being reaching into me and touching my insides. WEIRD!!! (things of nightmares)
+The Science Asylum Hey! I know you! I remember watching your videos during my undergrad. Great stuff! Very entertaining and easy to understand :) I love your channel!
haha I know what you mean. Hopefully there aren't any 4D beings out there (except I kinda wish there were 'cause it would be awesome). How long have you been YouTubing? You've got quite the subscriber base!
miss physics I LOVE TO HEAR THAT TEACHERS USE MY STUFF!!! I've been doing this 3.5 years now. It took a super long time to pass 10,000 subs. The nice thing is that I enjoy making videos and sharing my knowledge, so the last 3.5 years have been fun even if it hasn't become my job yet :-)
As for 4D beings, I hope they would be respectful enough to ask permission first ;-)
+The Science Asylum are you planning on making RUclips your job? Me too! Wow 3.5 years is a lot of time. But I guess educational channels aren't as popular as comedy and gaming etc. But that's great you're having fun. I guess that's what keeps us going :)
miss physics Well, I would like it to be my job, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. There's a lot of luck involved... plus I'm not exactly doing something that people would call "mainstream" educational content. It's possible I might only ever have a niche audience and I need to be okay with that or I'll go crazy (oh wait, too late haha). For now, it's a hobby.
***** What makes you think it's luck? Obviously you're a lot more experienced than I am, I've only been doing this a few months, but from all the tutorials I've watched about how to grow your channel it makes it sound like it's consistent work, like anything. Well I think what you're doing is great :) What do you do apart from this then?
@Jade, I'm sure you know that depth cues aren't the only way we perceive the third dimension. We have two eyes, and while each captures a 2 D image of our environment, the optic nerve from each divides into two branches, each of which goes to the left and right hemispheres of the brain, crossing over each other at the optic chiasma, and finally ending up in the visual cortex, most of which is in the occipital lobe. The brain then stitches these two 2 D images together, inverts them and provides us with the impression of depth that we see using the angular parallax between the two points of view. Now, if the circular entity in your example of flatland had a similar mechanism, she would be able to perceive the second dimension in much the same way, assuming that two-dimensional entities can have a complex enough brain to do that!
oh..i see😮
I love these sort of things that make you sit and think about what you've always taken for granted, very well done!
Amazing. Best explained ever, thanks you!
Jade is terrific and the subject matter is hyper-interesting. I subscribed.
This is one of the best videos on RUclips. Well done!
Ohmygoshhh, you're adorable. And informative! lol. I'm happy to subscribe.
Right? lol ... perfectly explained. short but sweet.
Salty Mermaid I agree...
Poincaré had an interesting discussion on why we perceive space to be 3D. The main point was that our ability to move plays a big role in how we think of space. For example, when you turned the rubik's cube, its shape on the screen became a hexagon. The reason we don't think of it as being fundamentally different is that we know from experience that we can move in such a way as to reconstruct our initial perspective (the square) without deforming the cube. In other words, how we perceive space depends not only on what we see but also on how we can change (or in the language of mathematics, transform) what we can see by moving around. An interesting consequence is that if you made a robot with just a camera but no way to move itself (or touch anything), it would likely consider itself to be in a 2D world.
I've put a lengthy post in therizing basically the same thing, man from an entire year ago. If you think of time as the fourth dimension then you can use the fourth dimension to gain a more thorough perspective on the 3D world. If you're a 3D creature locked in place for eternity, you can only see in 2D. But if you can move around thanks to time being a factor, you can use your perspective to construct a more accurate perception in your mind.
If the objects in the word around the robot are moving then it should be able to infer that its not a 2D word (Relative movement is the key)
That reminds me of how we were able to come up with the heliocentric model, despite not having space ships to move around. But now the question becomes: Would the robot be shunned by other robots unless it presented the theory of 3D world as purely a convenient mathematical model?
@@poposterous236 It doesn't stop there though. Once you can visualize 3D spatial relationships, you can construct true mental images of 4D spaces and with practice become just as familiar with how 4D objects move as you are with regular cubes and spheres. Once you learn to use your mind's eye to its fullest potential, as opposed to relying so heavily on naive visual perception, there will be nothing in existence hidden from your sight.
@@poposterous236 Thank you
Hi Jade, I'm a long time projection artist. What I find intensely interesting is the area between what we call 2D and 3D. The amount of permutations it exhibits is mind-boggling. You vid was way cool! Thanks for sharing that information. You made me think.
The best quote I've heard in years is that our "brains live in darkness and silence".
you said it all ! Thanks a lot for making us understand the concepts more easily and in better way.
Great video, really educational. Truly appreciate it!
Reminds me a lot of a segment of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series where he shows similar interactions between citizens of different dimensions. So, so cool to imagine things like that. You're adorable, thanks for the knowledge! :)
Very interesting video.I have seen different videos of the same topic but yours for some reason have more meaning.
I love your videos! And was just thinking you may love maurice merleau-ponty, phenomenology of perception. The first chapters can feed many videos and even a review or a second part for this one. Thanks for your videos!
You are amazing I love your channel!
This is wonderful editing!
What software did u use to make the pictures and stuff? Are they all digital or something?
Fantastic videos - keep up the great work~!
6:08 Vsauce! Jade here
Lmao
*background music plays
(TENG!!!... TONG!!!...)
😆 LoL dude ...
pfft, I see in HD :)
Jokes aside, I've seen a couple of other videos on "flatlanders" but this actually showed it from another perspective, thanks again :)
You should have Billions of subscribers by now, I can watch you all day talking you about anything 😉.
Very nice. Your videos are great. This explains why Dr Who’s TARDIS is bigger on the inside, because it exists in more dimensions but on the outside we can only perceive it in our 3 D world. I also liked the infinity paradox. I had never considered that before.
Hi Jade! I'm a huge fan of the channel!
One key factor that is ignored in this account is that we rarely look at anything from just one perspective. Because we have two eyes which are separated by a small distance, we see everything from two slightly separated perspectives. Using the 2-D world example given at [1:52], the square and the triangle looking at the circle would see a line of the same length with both eyes, from which they would recognize it as a circle. In contrast, the circle would see both the square and the triangle as being longer with one eye than with the other. For the square, one eye would see the square as having the same length as the triangle, while the other eye would see the square as longer (as it could see along one side), whereas for the triangle one eye would see the triangle as having the same length as the square while the other eye see it as shorter (due to seeing it at a more acute angle). This allows the shapes in a 2-D world to see directly something of the shape of other objects within that world, though full recognition of a shape may not be immediately possible.
Our eyes do the same thing in the 3-D world, and you can directly experience this by looking at a stereoscope (as I have). When looking at ordinary photos we see them as flat; but when looking at two photos of the same scene taken slightly apart from each other in a stereoscope, you do not see two photos, but one image with depth of field which is clearly lacking in normal photos. A similar difference can be experienced in 3-D movies, which are popular because they do not look flat in the way that ordinary movies do.
I don't know whether the best way to describe our vision is as 3-D, but easily confused (as it clearly is by optical illusions); or to introduce fractional dimensions for description of our type of vision - but what we see is more than two dimensional.
You are taking a feature us humans have and applying it to the 2D shapes. That is not an accurate test. You are assuming the shapes have two eyes?
@@kyleleon85, I am assuming the shapes have two eyes (for an easier analogy to humans), but I do not need to. Provided flatlanders could determine distance, they could still determine differences between shapes by changes in apparent line length with their motion. Specifically, if they maintain a constant distance from another object while moving laterally, and its apparent line length remains unaltered, they could determine it was a circle.
I will note further that Up and Atom build's their argument from a simple progression which starts with the assumption that one dimensional points can be seen, and can have colour. The first is impossible, as is the second in a truly one dimensional world (which prevents the existence of light, which consists of three dimensional waves packets).
@@tom_curtis I disagree. A circle would still look like a straight line to a 2D creature.
Take a playing card or something flat and hold it with a corner pointing directly at you as close to eye level as possible. You’ll notice that it looks like a straight line. You can’t tell what shape it actually is.
@@kyleleon85, you are not understanding what I said. Take you playing card example. A flat land observer of a playing card (rectangle with rounded corners) could look at the card and see a line. If they shuffle to either the left or the right, however, the length of the line they see would either increase, or decrease, depending on the orientation of the card. In contrast, if they were looking at a circle, no amount of sideways movement by them would change the length of the line they see (provided that sideways movement maintained a constant distance). If the flatland observer had two eyes, they could obtain the same information without moving. In either case, by sight they are obtaining more information than exists in one dimension. At least in principle, the conscious awareness of their vision could be a 2-d representation as a result.
If we could only see in 2D, then what is the purpose of eyeglasses and corrective contact lenses? I see things perfectly (20/20), when they are at a distance. Reading this, however, I need to use reading glasses because my old eyes can't focus so well up close. Eyeballs have to focus on what they are looking at, and if you have an ocular defect, then you need to wear eyeglasses to fix the focal (depth perception) problem with your eyeballs seeing across the 3rd dimension.
Eyeglasses exist, ipso facto we see in 3D -- and carrying that down, 2D beings see in 2D (they can see circles and such, not just lines).
Amazingly interesting video. Thank you!
One of the best explainations I've heard.
in a 2D world some level of depth could be viewed(assuming light reflects similarly to the way it does from our view) which means, that a circle/round object would be differentiable because it has an even reflectance rate(like a sphere) while pointed objects would be very hard to distiguish. a square without the 4th point would appear as a triangle, a triangle without a 3rd point would appear as just a line. when you hit 5+ points, you get to the point where youd have at least 3 verteces(for perfect shapes). bit of a tangent, this vid was posted in 2016, what am i complaining about
love your videos, there are very easy to understand. That's the 5th one i watch in a row. Could you, please explain the dirac notation in QM, and it is used to simplfiy the calculations?
Hi Just find your channel, love it! thanks to physics girl , gran canal estoy fascinado , ademas de ligeramente intrigado por la 4 y quinta dimension
Great videos! U r a good teacher!
Ah! What a coicidence; I just started reading hyperspace by michio kaku. Lol that creature bit really painted a picture.
This channel should have more subscibers !
You're wonderful, but that's not all. You are incredibly helpful in understanding important scientific concepts and phenomena. You do a lot of good. You do it in a way that is superficial and understandable. You're needed. Thank you for your wonderful work and congratulations.
Just got linked to your channel. You earned a new subscriber! Keep on track.
Thank you C Cuellar! I'm glad to have you here :)
Now I finally get it! coming from a not so brilliant but curious human. Thanks young lady.
personally i thought this idea and searched yt....
but then i didnt got any vids...
but now somehow i got a video which is very much parallel to my idea.
ig the world still got some educational youtubers left lol
back to this dimensions i always wanted to classify each life a specific number of dimensional sense.
nice video tho :)
in line land they could see distance as a change in shade, darker shades being further away, than with see-through vision they would see in 1D
Purple would see white, getting darker, than blue, getting darker, than gray going to black
(a line changing in colours and shade to display information)
In flat land they would also be able to identify distance, like we do. This would allow the square to see that the circle is a circle.
Although the triangle, from the front looks like a line, if it did a spin, the other shapes would see it's a triangle
This is 2D vision as they could see width and depth.
We see depth the same way. We may not use the position of the light, but we do use other information to identify the depth
But we still see in 3D
These 'tricks' like the bats echo location do allow us to see in 3D.
How does light travel in Lineland? And where would it come from?
Your argument about shading holds for flatland but I think it falls apart for lineland. The reason that light attenuates with distance in 2+ dimensions, creating shading, is because it has multiple directions to disperse into. In one-dimensional space there would be nowhere for the light to spread out to, so it wouldn't attenuate, so you couldn't use shading to tell distance.
@ewqxy Is depth vision the deciding factor for being able to see 3d?
Seeing depth is just the result of using 2 eyes. So people with 1 eye see a dimension less?
You understand how rediculous this is.
You don't see in 3d, you just have two 2d visions to look somewhat around things creating that depth vision.
@ewqxy oh yeah you're right, my bad. You don't completely lose depth perception with 1 eye.
Though having two eyes does greatly improve depth perception.
3d movies make use of this fact.
@Bartosz Wdowiak No that doesn't prove it. Your perception of depth is just another representation of the same 2d view it's not the 3rd dimension.
If you had 3d vision you'd be able to see around corners. We can look up/down and left/right, but we can't look forwards and backwards. Your depth perception isn't you seeing actual depth, it's about the ability to differentiate what's close by and what's further away. It helps you understand that you're in a 3d space.
You see because of photons that land on the surface of your eye, and as you know a surface is in 2D. It's like splattering paint on a canvas, the painting is your view and the paint is light itself.
It takes the 4th dimension of time to be able to perceive 3 dimensions.
Also, sight is not the only sense we use to explore this 3 dimensional space along the 4th dimension of time. As mentioned in the video, we can hear spatial differentiation, and we can also feel it.
3:57 😭😭😭😭😭 Thank you for the kind words
Whenever I watch one of your videos, it reminds me of growing up watching the Curiosity Show.
Hi... Your videos are super cool.... I learned a lot from them and most of all, I get to enjoy it... :) Btw.. I couldn't find missphysicsfix on fb... Did u change it or something???
3:58 - aw, thank you for noticing. I remember hearing about flatland from Carl Sagan, but never thought about only seeing 2D in 3D space.
Thank you so much i was going crazy with this idea
Great video, most complete explanation I have seen. So, would you say we hear in 2D or 3D?
I don't think humans hear in 2D or 3D, but animals that use echo location can sense the size of an object and how far away it is, so I guess that's like hearing in 3D.
Audrey and Remington, I disagree and actually think we have a certain level of 3D hearing. I can tell if sound has originated above me, below me, etc.. why wouldn’t this be 3D. What would you describe it as, 1D?
Fun thoughts. In all my perusing the topic I had not heard this approach to explain it.
binocular vision gives space 3D. It is used by robotics to know distance. We can in fact tell (with limits) how far away an object is. Not only that, but vision is not our only sense ... so we also hear different distances and how those things interact. We see a flash of lightening, 1 second later we hear the crack of thunder. We know that sound travels about 1100 ft./sec. and know how far away the strike occurred. If we see the light, and hear the sound almost what to us as simultaneous events, we know the strike was very close
I have a very interesting observation on this exact subject your talking about ,
I can do this
As three-D beings, we can only move our visual field in two dimensions: up-down and left-right. You can't move your visual field backward or forward without moving your entire head.
If you were a four-D being, you would be able to move your vision not only up-down and left-right, but forward and backward as well, without moving your head. I imagine it would be like changing the zoom or focus on a pair of binoculars.
Using time as the fourth dimension through which we travel, we can use it to simulate/perceive the third dimension from the first and second. So we do see in three dimensions - first, second and time. Using this perception, we can then infer a third dimension from the first two dimensions plus past experience - again using time.
As we can imagine a fifth dimension of varying possibility, it is possible to imagine/visualise a four dimensional process.
Thanks a lot!
What about the relative phase change of the light wave that reflect from those parts of the object that's further away and at a different angle?
Would that not be similar to echolocation, providing spatial info in a non-visual way? And then there's our binocular vision...
I believe some people view our situation as follows: We do in fact see three dimensions owing to the fact that we actually live in four dimensions, the fourth being time. It is the movement (of myself or the cube or both) in time that enables me to maintain an uninterrupted view of the cube perceiving third-dimension change in shape. If I did not already know, I could determine the difference between a mere two-dimensional image of the cube and the three-dimensional cube itself simply by walking around it. Time is both necessary, and in ordinary cases, sufficient for this perception of the third dimension of the cube.
now i understand the 3rd dimension i can sleep without worry. awesome explanation.
haha this made me smile :)
I finally get it!! Thank you!!
A ton of magic tricks and slight of hand take advantage of our inability to see in 3D. Flip a card horizontal and now it's just a line. Now clip it in between two fingers and it's gone!
The citizens of Flatland see only lines because they only have one eye. However, if you read further into the book, you learn that with training, members of their upper classes *can* see the difference between a square and a circle, because, due to fog, parts of a shape that are further away appear more dimly, and closer parts darker, and thus with practice they can tell the difference between different shapes. (Also: they don't see purple, because color is highly illegal, due to having been part of an insurrectionist plot some centuries ago. In general, you've glossed over or outright skipped most of the content of the book.)
In Spaceland we don't have fog; but we do have two eyes (and, yes, an elaborate visual cortex). We are thus able to perceive distance via parallax, up to a point. (Stars are much too far away for that, of course: out two eyes are, relative to that distance, at pretty much exactly the same place, and so there's no perceivable parallax.) We don't see through opaque objects, granted. But we see more than 2D.
Nice explanation.🤗
Ouspenski took the subject in 1912, in his book Tertium Organum, and he also commented it on his essay The Fourth Dimension. Very interesting thinker!
We have 2D vision with 4 variables- red green blue and depth(we do have a bit extra stuff than just RGB for stuff like lowlight and some other stuff, but generally those are the 4 most prominent)
3:58 and you are pretty incredible too!
Super intéressant!
Thank you :)
As a kid, I had this book called "The Planiverse" by Alexander Dewdney. I was fascinated by it, especially how the biology of the two-dimensional beings were worked out. Ooh! Video idea!
As per 5:05, a four-dimensional creature would also be able to see our internal organs, like we can see those of a two-dimensional being! Eek!
+Phrenomythic that sounds like a great video! Can't wait for it :) I know creepy to think about huh o.O
Good stuff.👍
While we may only SEE in 2D with our eyes and our brain does its thing to fill in the rest, we can visualise objects in our mind in 3D as well as change over time which is the fourth dimension.
While our physical body is limited to lesser perspectives, our mind is capable of higher perspectives, as it is not constrained by physical limitations. We can also (in our minds) visualise the past, present and future. So in fact our minds can see in both 3D and 4D.
Hi, I'd like to explain an opinion of my own.
1d being: no matter what they do, they will only see a dot.
2d being: no matter what they do, they will only see a line.
3d being: no matter what they do, they will only see a flat shape.
4d being: no matter what they do, they will only see a 3 dimensional shape.
You said that we see in two dimensions. But we are capable of shifting our own perception to see that a square might be a cube.
We cannot see the front and back of something simultaneously. But thru the use of other senses, such as touch, we can feel front and back at the same time.
You can close your eyes and touch a rough surface and feel the difference in texture.
We experience the world in 3 dimensions. This would suggest that we are actually 4d beings.
This would also suggest that a true 3d creature has been completely overlooked.
Also, if a three-dimensional picture has been drawn, yes it can very easily fool our vision. but we are capable of walking up to the painting and realizing that the perspective has not changed as it would in reality. We could also walk up to the picture and touch it and confirm that it is only a painting. Lesser dimensional beings would have no way of confirming that.
Veritassium's video from 12/31/20 (31/12/20 if that's your preference) showcases this very well.
We do see is somewhat 3D because we have two eyes receiving photons from slightly different angles which perceives a Z axis.
True that the brain dose lots of filling in just like the 2D photo because using 1 eye still "looks 3D" when its obviously not.
Hence why VR or those 3D glasses work using two different images to each eye - creating a Z axis (its not "real" - they are two separate 2D images combined)
For stars this cannot work or any very distant objects due to lack of parallax - the photon angles are way too difficult to discern and brain cannot do it. However, with two eyes for closer objects, the angles are large enough for the brain to construct a parallax "measurement" for the Z axis.
....and we dont even need 3 or 4 eyes, just two eyes are enough for parallax and working out a Z axis.
Brain does the trigonometry or perhaps we even "see" the trigonometry automatically depending on the philosophy of mind (naïve realism or representational realism)
Representational realism:The brain "constructs" the image from the data gathered as electrical information (whole bunch of action potentials etc end up creating the "Qualia" we see)
Naïve realism: Direct perception of the 3D world using parallax and different angles
There are some arguments for the Naiive Realism but some specific cases when the brain blatantly makes stuff up - eg filling in background information for the blind spot - literally colours in the gaps like the brains version of paintshop pro.
4:18 It's actually not a 2D image and the screen is not 2D. It's made of 3D pixels (tiny tiny lightbulbs) emitting 3D light waves. Since 2D anything doesn't have thickness, we can't perceive or interact with it.
You blew my mind!!!!!!!!!
I read the book, Flatland, and it said that if the 2D beings can only see a line, then they have to be able to see some amount of height. Basically, without height, the Flatlanders couldn't see a line. We couldn't see a REAL line, but we can see REALLLYYYY long and skinny rectangles, that we call lines. So flatlanders must see a really small portion of the third dimension in order to be able to SEE the line.
I don't think this really holds up, because in Flatland the anatomy of eyes would obviously be different, and probably could see a real line, with zero height.
View of flatland same as blind.. i guess
A little Edwin Abbott Abbott and Rudy Rucker! Great books!!
Loved it. You may have slipped when you said all photons are the same - photons have different frequencies - that we may see as different colors, but i am sure that was not what you meant as you went further with this exposition
Very informative
Fineeeeeeee Ill subscribe
Jade, it's great how you always add something extra.
IMO we can see in 3D if we close our eyes, or (heaven forbid), go blind. Without visual perspective, we have to follow the road in order to perceive the road. How would we convince a blind person that the Earth isn't flat?
Stereopsis is how our brains interpret vision into 3D. Basically our eyes see the world from two slightly different perspectives. Our brains then put these images together to form one 3D image from two slightly different 2D images.
you can't make a 3D image out of 2 2D images the same way you can't make a 2D image out of 2 1D images.
I had some problems. To start, @5:50 photons, E = hf, so different energies for different frequencies. And that is followed by @5:58, light does carry information on distance, think Hubble measuring red shifts.
Great video
Mam you are super knowledgious. Respect from India...🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
"Up and at them " - Radioactive Man
I have to slightly disagree about how the flatlanders would perceive the circle. Assuming they have two eyes, they could tell that the edges of the 1D line are at a different distance and the circle is thus curved.
I agree. Also, I'd like to ask how does using sound to see depth make bats see in 3d, but using parallax does not mean we do. I believe it's still their brains processing the time difference and translating into a distance
Even if you have 1 eye or 2 or 3, 4. It doesn’t ignore the fact that 1eye see on 2D. It’s just bunch of different perspectives merging on each other. Seeing on 3D means that you see every bit of an object’s part(interior, exterior, slices) We can’t actually describe how a 4D would see because we cant see anything beyond our dimension.
@@no-one9299 Echolocation also gets weird data, it is not a perfect 3D vision. For example, imagine an echo locator in a corner in a room. In this room, there is a shelf somewhere in the middle, and someone behind the shelf looking at the back wall (i.e. their backs are turned to the echo locator). The echo locator emits a sound, it hits the back wall, the person behind the shelf, then the back wall again, and then gets back to the echo locator, assuming the angles are just right. Since they're using time delay here, they won't see the person as behind the wall facing away from them. They will see the person facing them at some point beyond the back wall, unless they have some other correcting mechanisms. It is basically their version of a mirror (you'd see the same if the back wall were to be a mirror, it is more or less the same issue).
Ah finally i understand it, my head was about to crush because i couldn’t understand why we see in 2D but could also “see” 3D…
Thanks!!
So, both purple and blue line have just found themselves in an inescapable conversation for the rest of eternity, "Hey Blue, mind if i get past?"
"Um, I can't..."
This is going to keep me up at night.
LOL
If a 4D spatial dimension exists, your 3D universe is just stuck in the same situation with other 3D spaces, unable to move in the 4 Dimension to pass one another and change universal neighborhoods.
Surprise! Purple and blue are NOT lines. They are line segments. Lines are infinite. If purple was a line, there would be no room fro blue.
@@louisvictor3473 thats not what he meant, 2 and 3 dimension creatures can move around each other, but 1 dimension creatures cant
@@waterpidez6732 You didn't understand what I actually said. There is a reason why I said "3D universes stuck"", and not "2D/3D creatures stuck". There is a universe sized difference there.
I can't figure out your Facebook link -- @missphysicsfix doesn't seem to do anything. Can you add an actual link you your page?
I really like the part on echolocation. The animals are borrowing a dimension from time axis to determine the distance in the distance in the z axis
+Jia Liang Low that's a really nice way of putting it :)
Do we count time as a dimension here - if so it adds +1 to all dimensions, that probly is what helps us 'see' (perceive/extrapolate?) in 3 spacial dimensions, if something is still/ doesn't change spacially .... we have a harder time noticing whether it's 2d or 3d. Not sure if that's 'right' - but it makes sense to me
Hi Jade.
Question:
Bats use sound as a tool to map and see in 3D, as you mentioned.
Similarly, will the analysis of shadows by the human brain count as our analysis tool to see in 3D?
I think so because that mapping scenario involves photons entering our eye as a receiver and the object's shadow as the transmitter.
What do you think.
Looking forward to your response. Thanks
Bats actually don't see in 3d. While yes, they can detect the distance of the where the sound hit, they cannot detect the depth of the object they hit. Humans can also detect distance since our brain uses two 2d images but that is different than seeing 3d.
Loved the video, just like I love all your videos, but two things actually;
1. About we being in 3D & seeing in 3D, can't we also think like this: since our brain works by analyzing memories ( of course, stored only as biases & wights of the neurons processing the info ) wouldn't it be nice to say we're living in a 4D ( 3D o' space + 1D time ) & hence perceive things in 3D, over time? Just saying actually - random analogy. :)
2. About the bats - I think it's not just sound actually - even with light that's possible actually, if the source of the signal analyzes it, then it'll result in the same effect ~ like that's how radar works kinda right .. :-) .... of course, with frequency shifting due to velocity, Doppler Effect & sending wave trains with different frequencies, such as a musical piece & then analyzing the reflected signal & measuring it's shift, we can get info on the objects too - even which objects due to the obvious phase difference. Right? .. :-D
Hey this one is a good explanation. I only just noticed it is an older video, but what about revisiting the idea with the spin of how many dimensions do we perceive? (HINT: it ain't 3 or even 4) ;) But, then again it does depend on what you consider a dimension, especially if you only count "solidness" as being able to considered in a dimension or not.
that's an interesting idea
Interacting with our font-size reference involves more than our sight. The other senses, with imagination (and the mind's eye) enable us to perceive three dimensions just fine.
1D beings see a point, 2D beings see a line, 3D beings see a square, 4D beings see a cube!
3:43 “This edge”
Cubers: *TRIGGERED* (we call it a corner)
You should made video on quantum field theory
The use of synchronicity in conscious perception, makes one aware ifvtyemwrlfcsd perspective, dnd also as thrcdingular center of their universe.
so we should should we perceive higher dimensions in terms of frequencies and vibrations
"Do we see in 2D or 3d?"
My immediate answer to that question was "Yes", jokingly and seriously, I knew most if not all of the information in the video but didn't piece all of it together on my own