HOME | DD
Mihaio — tesseract
Published: 2009-03-19 18:54:59 +0000 UTC; Views: 7081; Favourites: 77; Downloads: 155
Redirect to original
Description
A cube in 4 dimensions it's called a tesseract, but it is also know as a hypercube.made in eye pencil and inverted
Related content
Comments: 38
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A very good work.
TesseracT is also an impressing Progressive-Djent-Metal-Group.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dunno. There's just something very nice about this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
it is an interesting object, the tesseract.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In geometry, the tesseract, also called an 8-cell or regular octachoron or cubic prism, is the four-dimensional analog of the cube; the tesseract is to the cube as the cube is to the square.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have been studying the fourth dimension for 2 years now. I know so much about it but now i must find a way to visualise a 3D Cube from a 4D perspective. Many have tried and failed, some say it's impossible for the human mind to visualise but I believe it can be done.
Charles Howard Hinton tried this and was succsessful but his mind could not take it and he went mad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The tesseract is to the cube what the cube is to the square.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes, that's true. Thanks for the fav!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
[link]
You may enjoy this working simulation folded from paper rectangles - no glue
"Origami Tesseract"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nice
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is 3D, not 4D.
This object is what you would get in the 4th dimension (not including time) if you were to shine a light onto it, so this is actually a 'shadow' of the 4D object.
Imagine shining a light on the frame of cube, the shadow you would get would be 2D, like as drawn on paper. but in the 4th dimension, paper is in 4 dimensions, so you can draw in 3 dimensions.
Yes, it's a little hard to wrap your brain around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is the representation of a 4D cube in perspective from a certain spatial point of view: this 4D perspective view of a cube is analogous to a FRONTAL perspective view of a 3D cube(when you see only one face of the 3D cube) but because our cube is transparent in this case, you can see the back face(which in 4D is the small cube in the center, while the big cube is the frontal face, the closest face to you). Syntetizing: You see a perfect square in 3D, thus you see a perfect cube in 4D(for each face of the tesseract. When you try to rotate it(so you can see more faces at a time) it would not look like a cube anymore, but an object made by 8 distorted cubes.
In 4D you can see a 3D object from all views(exterior and interior) AT THE SAME TIME! Due to this you actually see a 3D axonometrical projection from all 3D sides of it for each face of the tesseract. So for the frontal face(analogous to a perfect square of wich you can see its entire surface) you see a perfect axonometrical cube from all the sides(and because of this, actually I should have represented it, the big cube and the small cube inside, in axonometry with all the sides equal).
There are 8 3D cubes(perfectly uniform) that bound a 4D cube.
The eight cubes are only the faces of the tesseract. When you are inside of it, you as a 3D living form can exist in ONLY one 3D cube at a time among an infinite number of 3D cubes that extend from one side to the other of the tesseract, or in this case, from the big exterior cube to the small cube in the center.
The shadow of a 4D object does look like a 3D object but that is why I represented it in transparency to suggest that is not a simple 3D cube.
Drawing in 3 dimensions in real space it's a cool thing. Think about drawing with light/lasers etc.
Moving in 4 dimensions is even cooler...and to move takes time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's so delightfully maddening to think that in reality all 8 of the cubes that make up this tesseract are in fact perfectly uniform cubes...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the eight cubes are only the faces of the tesseract. When you are inside of it, you as a 3D living form can exist only in one 3D cube at a time among an infinite number of 3D cubes that extend from one side to the other of the tesseract, or in this case, from the big exterior cube to the small cube in the center.
Yes, it is an amazing thing
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But the question is, could a human solve a Rubik's Tesseract?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YES, he can:
[link]
or 7*5:
[link]
or 120 cell:
[link]
or d number of dimensions(up to ten-hipotetically):
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That first one is the exact one that I found when I searched for this right after posting that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well I learned the explanation of it being the 3D shaddow of a 4D cube too ^^ I like those things cause they seem to me like a shaddow from a bigger world beyond *_*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice drawing! I like the way you inverted the colours too... gives it a very surreal feel! Which is rather appropriate!
From what I understand a tesseract is the unfolded 3D 'net' of a hypercube... like the net of a cube is 6 squares, the net of a hypercube is 6 cubes...
My physics lecturer said that the shape you have there is rather the 3D shadow of a hypercube...
I'm taking his word on it here! But he is a theoretical physicist not a mathematician...
I think with our brains existing in, and perceiving, a universe with only 3 observable dimensions, it will be a long time until we can fully comprehend such an object... if we ever can!
Faved! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
when you see a 3D cube from the front you see only the front square face and if the cube is transparent you can see the back square. Between them two there are infinitely amount of squares that literally form the cube. The same when you see a tesseract from the front you see a 3D cube entirely which is most close to you. The small cube from the center is the far face of the tesseract seen from the front. Things get complicated when the tesseract rotate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yea, I've seen some animations of one that rotates; with the inner cube expanding out then the outer cube contracting back to a point
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
is it just me or is the concept of 4 dimensions not easily understandable even with visual representations?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Its not just you! 4D spacetime and all its bizarre implications are pretty difficult to comprehend... probably because we exist in 3D space...
I don't really think visual representations necessarily help anyway!
Having a graph with 4 axes that are all at right angles to each other is something beyond our comprehension as far as I'm concerned! (MPhys Physics student)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
guess this is a snap for someone like God to see, afterall who else would know 4d better than the being who exists on all 11 dimensions.
4d is a marvel i'd love to come close to solving for myself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol, I'd love to solve it too!
For now I'll stick with the 'block universe'... with space as a 2D plane and time as the third axis
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
why cant I see that either? XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
it took me a long time to fully understand it.
think that the big cube is the equivalent of the front face of a 3D cube in PERSPECTIVE seen from the front (a square) and the small cube in the center is the equivalent of the back face of a 3D cube in perspective(so that's why it is smaller). If the hypercube is opaque you don't see the central cube.
All the other six interior spaces beside from the central cube, are also perfect cubes but seen from an angle just like the side faces(which are perfect squares) of a 3D cube seen from the front (in one point perspective).
It does seems a little bit harder when you look at it from an angle.
here are some good links:
[link]
[link]
[link]
the first one is the best
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree, think we'll ever fully grasp this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0