# Things I Can't Prove, But Believe

**okage**#62

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Tiribulus wrote:

Kakarat wrote:

And i believe no ones understands the subtle awesomeness of Dr. Matts default picture lolAlready saved it =]

Thanks, it is a rotating tesseract, which a fourth dimensional cubic analog, basically what a cube would look like if it were expanded from three dimensional space into fourth dimensional space. I am working on constructing a rotating diagram of a 7th dimensional cubic analog, and when I finish that will be my new main picture.

Before any of this was stated... I was on the previouse page staring blankly and mesmerized by the 4th dimensional creature I had found on the interweb.

I hope one day to find a 7th dimensional critter as well I will name it "akiba"

**okage**#63

Sloth wrote:

I believe murder and robbery is evil, but I can't prove it.

I believe evil is incomprehensible to anyone who does not know the lord or believe in life after death.

**groo**#64

okage wrote:

Sloth wrote:

I believe murder and robbery is evil, but I can't prove it.I believe evil is incomprehensible to anyone who does not know the lord or believe in life after death.

**LIFTICVSMAXIMVS**#65

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

I believe that the next student who has a research paper with "wikipedia" on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.I am seriously grading papers for my Intro to Quantum Mechanics class (a senior undergrad class) and out of 23 students, 14 of them have wikipedia as a source.

There are only three people on earth who understand quantum mechanics. I am not sure who the other two people are.

I realize intro to quantum is a pointless class for most non phd candidates but do you have to reinforce how useless it is by assigning work that requires research?

**pat**#66

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Tiribulus wrote:

Kakarat wrote:

And i believe no ones understands the subtle awesomeness of Dr. Matts default picture lolAlready saved it =]

Thanks, it is a rotating tesseract, which a fourth dimensional cubic analog, basically what a cube would look like if it were expanded from three dimensional space into fourth dimensional space. I am working on constructing a rotating diagram of a 7th dimensional cubic analog, and when I finish that will be my new main picture.

Yeah that is a pretty cool looking picture... Can you build one?

**pat**#67

Cortes wrote:

Well this should be fun.Not for the reason the OP is thinking, though...

You know where this is headed and so do I.... Again.

**ZEB**#69

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

I believe that the next student who has a research paper with "wikipedia" on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.I am seriously grading papers for my Intro to Quantum Mechanics class (a senior undergrad class) and out of 23 students, 14 of them have wikipedia as a source.

There are only three people on earth who understand quantum mechanics. I am not sure who the other two people are.

I realize intro to quantum is a pointless class for most non phd candidates but do you have to reinforce how useless it is by assigning work that requires research?

LOL

**orion**#70

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

I believe that the next student who has a research paper with "wikipedia" on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.I am seriously grading papers for my Intro to Quantum Mechanics class (a senior undergrad class) and out of 23 students, 14 of them have wikipedia as a source.

Crush them like the worthless insects that they are.

Dead serious.

**squating_bear**#71

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Tiribulus wrote:

Kakarat wrote:

And i believe no ones understands the subtle awesomeness of Dr. Matts default picture lolAlready saved it =]

Thanks, it is a rotating tesseract, which a fourth dimensional cubic analog, basically what a cube would look like if it were expanded from three dimensional space into fourth dimensional space. I am working on constructing a rotating diagram of a 7th dimensional cubic analog, and when I finish that will be my new main picture.

Is it moving because you can't really show us more than three dimensions without using time?

When I look at it, my mind automatically goes "uuhhhh... shapes don't move (by themselves anyways)"

My main question - are you yourself capable of mentally visualizing it in four dimensional space? Do you know if anyone is?

I get that a line is in 1 dimension and has 2 points

A square is in 2 dimensions and has 4 points

A cube is in 3 dimensions and has 8 points

A tesseract is in 4 dimensions and so it has 16 points

As I understand, it's supposed to be pretty much two cubes connected / shifted by a fourth dimension. When I looked up pictures, it pretty much shows a cube within a cube - but they should be the same size... which I guess explains why your moving picture has them looking like they are growing and shrinking. Optical illusion because we are stuck in 3-d?

**okage**#72

groo wrote:

okage wrote:

Sloth wrote:

I believe murder and robbery is evil, but I can't prove it.I believe evil is incomprehensible to anyone who does not know the lord or believe in life after death.

I believe Malcom X and Dr Martin Luther King vs. Lame ass bill gates is a perfect example how walking with God is more Powerful than not... But then again I also mentioned believing in life after death like Buddhist and so on is also equal.

I believe Not knowing God is kinda like coming in Second place... Its just not as good as First and you wont know until you do. Sorry

**Dr_Matt581**#73

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I believe that the next student who has a research paper with "wikipedia" on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.There are only three people on earth who understand quantum mechanics. I am not sure who the other two people are.

I realize intro to quantum is a pointless class for most non phd candidates but do you have to reinforce how useless it is by assigning work that requires research?

The research is actually more important for my undergraduate quantum mechanics students then the actual course material. You are right that it is pointless for undergrad students to study quantum mechanics. Not only is it useless for students not planning on graduate education in physics or some engineering disciplines, but undergrad students do not really have the knowledge of advanced mathematics, Classical mechanics, E&M, and computational methods to get a much better understanding of quantum mechanics then what one can get from reading the "for Dummies" book or wikipedia article on the topic, which is to say they don't understand a damn thing about it. I would prefer to replace the sequence with advanced research techniques or a general intro to higher level physics (kind of like a more advanced version of a sophomore modern physics class). At least with my research papers they learn some valuable research techniques and practice writing technical papers.

**Dr_Matt581**#74

pat wrote:

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Tiribulus wrote:

And i believe no ones understands the subtle awesomeness of Dr. Matts default picture lolAlready saved it =]

Yeah that is a pretty cool looking picture... Can you build one?

The tesseract in my avi cannot exist because it is an example of a Euclidian 4th dimensional cubic analog, which has a metric tensor with a signature of (-,+,+,+), but in reality the 4th dimension is a Minkowski continuum in which a cubic analog has a metric tensor with a signature of (+,+,+,+).

As for actually building one, I theoretically could, but the optics of the human eye are not capable of "seeing" dimensions higher then the third so there is no reason to. Our brains are capable of interpreting other dimensions, though, but it takes a lot of knowledge to do so. I had spent almost a full decade of studying advanced mathematics and physics before I could actually understand and conceptualize other dimensions. The best I can do is using optical illusions to simulate roughly what a 4th and other dimensional object looks like. It is kind of like drawing a "cube" on a piece of paper. It is actually a 2 dimensional object that looks a lot like a 3 dimensional object, but is not quite correct and is not capable of the same kind of motion. To show how 4th dimensional objects move, we have to use computer simulations like in my avi.

**Dr_Matt581**#75

squating_bear wrote:

Is it moving because you can't really show us more than three dimensions without using time?

When I look at it, my mind automatically goes "uuhhhh... shapes don't move (by themselves anyways)"

My main question - are you yourself capable of mentally visualizing it in four dimensional space? Do you know if anyone is?

I get that a line is in 1 dimension and has 2 points

A square is in 2 dimensions and has 4 points

A cube is in 3 dimensions and has 8 points

A tesseract is in 4 dimensions and so it has 16 pointsAs I understand, it's supposed to be pretty much two cubes connected / shifted by a fourth dimension. When I looked up pictures, it pretty much shows a cube within a cube - but they should be the same size... which I guess explains why your moving picture has them looking like they are growing and shrinking. Optical illusion because we are stuck in 3-d?

I answered most of this in my response to Pat, but it is actually rotating in my avi, but not in the same way that a 3 dimensional object does. The optics of the human eye is not capable of deciphering the 4th dimension, so we have to rely on optical illusion (similar to drawing a cube on a piece of paper), but our brains are capable of understanding and conceptualizing other dimensions, it just takes a lot of advanced study in order to do so.

**Dr_Matt581**#76

orion wrote:

I believe that the next student who has a research paper with "wikipedia" on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.Crush them like the worthless insects that they are.

Dead serious.

Oh, they understand now that laziness in their research methods is not tolerated at the level they are at now. That paper was worth 30% of their final grade, and only two got above a C, and I do not grade on a curve and never will.

**LIFTICVSMAXIMVS**#77

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I believe that the next student who has a research paper with "wikipedia" on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.The research is actually more important for my undergraduate quantum mechanics students then the actual course material. You are right that it is pointless for undergrad students to study quantum mechanics. Not only is it useless for students not planning on graduate education in physics or some engineering disciplines, but undergrad students do not really have the knowledge of advanced mathematics, Classical mechanics, E&M, and computational methods to get a much better understanding of quantum mechanics then what one can get from reading the "for Dummies" book or wikipedia article on the topic, which is to say they don't understand a damn thing about it. I would prefer to replace the sequence with advanced research techniques or a general intro to higher level physics (kind of like a more advanced version of a sophomore modern physics class). At least with my research papers they learn some valuable research techniques and practice writing technical papers.

When I went through undergrad we were required to take 2 semesters of methods of experimental physics. Rather than theory it dealt with application in a laboratory environment including building signal devices. We wrote many technical papers and it all culminated in a final thesis that was required for graduation.

It was one of the best and most challenging classes in my undergrad studies and it served me well throughout the rest of my academic career.

**Dr_Matt581**#78

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

When I went through undergrad we were required to take 2 semesters of methods of experimental physics. Rather than theory it dealt with application in a laboratory environment including building signal devices. We wrote many technical papers and it all culminated in a final thesis that was required for graduation.

It was one of the best and most challenging classes in my undergrad studies and it served me well throughout the rest of my academic career.

Two semesters of experimental physics is the norm for undergrad, but I want there to be more. Undergrad students learn more from the experimental classes then lectures since they are still developing the mathematical and computational skills they need to cover advanced topics, and they are useful for those not going on to study physics at a graduate level. Plus, they are just plain fun for both professors and students. Unfortunately, physics professors these days tend to be more on the side of theoreticians and just half ass the lab stuff.

**LIFTICVSMAXIMVS**#79

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

When I went through undergrad we were required to take 2 semesters of methods of experimental physics. Rather than theory it dealt with application in a laboratory environment including building signal devices. We wrote many technical papers and it all culminated in a final thesis that was required for graduation.

It was one of the best and most challenging classes in my undergrad studies and it served me well throughout the rest of my academic career.

Two semesters of experimental physics is the norm for undergrad, but I want there to be more. Undergrad students learn more from the experimental classes then lectures since they are still developing the mathematical and computational skills they need to cover advanced topics, and they are useful for those not going on to study physics at a graduate level. Plus, they are just plain fun for both professors and students. Unfortunately, physics professors these days tend to be more on the side of theoreticians and just half ass the lab stuff.

I think that depends on the school. Where I went experimentalists outnumbered the theorists but miraculously it was always the theorists teaching the intro classes and the experimentalist teaching the higher level courses - which they were all horrible at.

As far as math we were expected to develop it along side the theory and in most cases were expected to take very high level mathematics to supplement it.

No lie, one semester a bunch of us were getting tutored on 2nd order partial differential equations by a 14 year old who was already in a gradate program.

**squating_bear**#80

Dr.Matt581 wrote:

squating_bear wrote:

Is it moving because you can't really show us more than three dimensions without using time?

When I look at it, my mind automatically goes "uuhhhh... shapes don't move (by themselves anyways)"

My main question - are you yourself capable of mentally visualizing it in four dimensional space? Do you know if anyone is?

I get that a line is in 1 dimension and has 2 points

A square is in 2 dimensions and has 4 points

A cube is in 3 dimensions and has 8 points

A tesseract is in 4 dimensions and so it has 16 pointsAs I understand, it's supposed to be pretty much two cubes connected / shifted by a fourth dimension. When I looked up pictures, it pretty much shows a cube within a cube - but they should be the same size... which I guess explains why your moving picture has them looking like they are growing and shrinking. Optical illusion because we are stuck in 3-d?

I answered most of this in my response to Pat, but it is actually rotating in my avi, but not in the same way that a 3 dimensional object does. The optics of the human eye is not capable of deciphering the 4th dimension, so we have to rely on optical illusion (similar to drawing a cube on a piece of paper), but our brains are capable of understanding and conceptualizing other dimensions, it just takes a lot of advanced study in order to do so.

Ok then, let me ask this - the two cubes only appear to be changing size because they are moving closer and farther from the observer?