hypercube explanation

EDIT - There are 8 cubes in a hypercube, not 6 like this video suggests.
Admittedly I'm only basing this on my limited understanding of the hypothetical concept of another spatial dimension, so be gentle if it's inaccurate in some way!
just thought I could make the concept slightly easier to interpret.
The music used is one of my early remixes of an old favourite, Flaming June by BT.

[@pAWNproductionsDE]

this helped a little, but it would be more understandable if you kept the red lines there as it moved

[@jmardesich7361]

+pAWNproductionsDE I wanted that so badly.

[@Adeptus77]

+pAWNproductionsDE there is an stepwise explanations with different line colors, hope that will help you understanding the moves... www.kastellorizo.org/puzzles/4Ds/

[@antoineyoussef4573]

I agree

[@jl1155]

pAWNproductionsDE if you look for the vortex model of the solar system, it makes a little more sense, as the movement and procession of the form. or if you looked at a model of the earth within the magnetosphere with its leading and trailing geometry. actually this gives a clearer picture of the so called x points astronomers had found.

[@dustinketelhut6046]

brain error

[@nidrackiller]

first video of a hypercube that really make me understand something of the 4d world, amazing

[@LisaSimpsonRules]

Many other videos which try to explain the 4th dimension jump to the conclusion that time is the fourth dimension, and that in the fourth dimension past present and future can be seen all at once. I've never understood how we change from three physical measures to time, because after all, there is a process called time in our third-dimension reality as well. I think I understand and I deem it much more plausible this way, when we restrain the explanation of 4D only to physical features and keep time and time processes out of the equation.

[@pachamaridamofasat7803]

Lisa Simpson Rules yeah, the room-time is the forth dimension in physics not in math

[@LisaSimpsonRules]

But some people mix those concepts all the time, and mix everything together. I think that they are all informed guesses, because after all nobody has really gone to live to a four-dimension world, but that thing of the time being the fourth dimension has always confused me.

[@metagrossJK2]

Sincerely, I think that the "time being the 4 dimension" is not possible. I will explain it: Read it all, the first part is just to explain it easier: Imagine that we have a point, 0 dimensions. Then you move it to the right, so, through the 1st dimension. The point has been moved through a dimension that doesn't corresponds to it. But the point hasn't changed, it's the same point as before, isn't it? Imagine that now we have a line, 1 dimension. Then you move it upwards, so, through the 2nd dimension. As well as the point, the line moved in a dimension that doesn't corresponds to it. But the line hasn't changed, it has the same lenght. It behaves the same way as the point moving through the 1st dimension. Now we have a square, 2 dimensions. And now, you move it forwards, so, through the 3rd dimension. As well as the point and the line, the square moved in another dimension apart of the 2 it belongs to. And the square is still the same one, as well as the point and the line did. So, basically, an object moving through a dimension that doesn't belongs to it doesn't change it's shape. The time makes changes every day, hour, minute, second. The space changes every infinitesimal part of a second. If time is the 4th dimension, then a space moving towards the 4th dimension changes it shape during the process, and that doesn't match the behavior mentioned above. The fact is that, as we have 3 dimensions to play with, we can see that the connection that a dimension has with the next one is the same for each one, and of course, the 4th dimension cannot be the exception. Sincerely, I think Albert Einstein was a great scientist. And I'm not a scientist. But I don't believe his "4th dimension being time" theory. That theory is not only believing in destiny. "4th dimension being time" means that every spatial "moment" is written. Every little distance a car moves, every thought we make, our own minds, every electrical signal that we call "memento", every single decision that define us as "human", every time a scientist finds out something more about the world and the universe... those things are just an illusion of a predefined hyperspace that has all calculated. And the worst thing is that a SCIENTIST told us about that. I don't understand him. How can a SCIENTIST believe in that?

[@mrbob806]

metagrossJK2, I'm gonna take this two ways, like you did: following patterns from lower dimensions upwards, and addressing philosophical stuff. Before we start, I'd like to state that I don't specifically think that time is the 4th dimension. it may be the 5th, or 6th, or 19th. the numbers don't actually indicate precedence, and I'm willing to believe there are more than 3, 4 or 5 dimensions. but, I do believe time definitely is A dimension, even though it's not an identical type of dimension as our 3 obvious spatial dimensions. (In a way, time may be even a different DIMENSION of dimension... haha, jk, well, half jk) You imply that things can't change as they move through the first 3 dimensions. If this is the assumption we make, the only shapes we ever get are rectangles and rectangular prisms. There are far more shapes than those. Imagine you move a line sideways through space, but as you move it, you increase its length at a linear rate. The 2D shape we get then is a trapezoid. If we keep the line the same length, but move it length-wise as we move it through the 2nd dimension, we get a parallelogram that isn't a rectangle. if you oscillate the line's position in the first dimension, you'd get a shape like a ribbon. If you take a square and increase its size linearly as you move it through the third dimension, you'd get a truncated square-base pyramid. of you take a circle and move its center on the path of a much larger circle, you'd get the shape of a spring. there are infinite shapes in any given number of dimensions, rather than just squares and such. for heaven's sake, they don't even have to be continuous shapes. you could take three points that lie in a line, two of which start overlapping. as you move them through a second dimension, orthogonal to the line that they were on initially, you gradually ("every infinitesimal part of a second") move one of the overlapping points so that it ends on the other point. now the 2D shape you have is a Z or N shape, depending on perspective. one end of a shape doesn't have to be exactly like the other. at 6:00 is was out eating dinner. as I moved through time, I gradually changed position so that at 7:00 I was home doing homework. Like the circle moving through its plane in addition to the third dimensional movement, I was moving through our 3D space in addition to the movement through time. if you were to think of me as a 4D shape for that time frame, I'd be the collection of every infinitesimal (3D) version of my self from dinner, through the walk home, and into the chair at my desk. Now for the philosophy. I also don't think we or any of the universe is pre-destined. I agree that we have choices. Supposing that our universe is only 4 dimensions, and "already" exists entirely in the 4th dimension, we would be pre-destined. we'd only have one path as our frame in time progressed orthogonal to 3D space. but what the flip does "already" mean in this context? that relies on time. let's simplify this a bit, and clump 3D space all into one dimension, for the sake of our visualization. imagine time is the x axis, and our 3 clumped space dimensions are on the y axis. in only 4 dimensions, for any given time, x, there is a specific space that would exist. only one space. perhaps, the version where I went home to do homework after dinner. we could imagine this to be the random case that y=1 at x=7. but what if I had made the choice to go to a friend's house for a study group after dinner? that'd be a different 3D space at 7:00. that could be that y=2 at x=7, not y=1. I'd like to suggest that there's a dimension even higher than time. different timelines. like z, in our visualization. for z=0 and x=7, we may get y=1, that i'm at home, but if i'd made a different decision, changing the timeline and changing z, we may have z=1 for the choice to go to a study group. so, in z=1, for x=7, y would be =2. so, we could think of our current 3D frame as a function of our choices and time. for any given set of choices (including those of other consciousnesses), and then a specific time, there'd only be one 3D frame. were you were or will be at that time if you and everyone makes those particular choices. so, I suppose you could say we live in an infinite-dimensional space, based on the infinite number of choices that every consciousness ever, past and future, ever has.

[@zephyrosity]

Were watching a 2 dimensional screen, that shows the three dimensional version of a 4 dimensional object. *head explodes*

[@LisaSimpsonRules]

In my opinion, when we draw a cube on a piece of paper what we're really doing is drawing a cultural construct which we've historically agreed to call "a cube"; but what we draw is not a cube, it's an abstract representation of a physically possibly existing cube.

[@LisaSimpsonRules]

@Expiration Date Reading your explanation is giving me a headache, LOL! I'm just saying that when we draw a cube in a piece of paper, that drawing is not the real thing. A photograph of Barak Obama is not Barak Obama himself in person, it's just a representation of him. I laughed when I saw your post, LOL!

[@LisaSimpsonRules]

@Expiration Date I would recommend the novel Flatland by Edwin Abbott to anybody who is interested in the concept you are mentioning. What you are describing it's explained with more detail and put in the context of a novel.

[@asdrake1327]

@@LisaSimpsonRules I kept seeing it fold and fold again with the smaller cube becoming the bigger one when you see it you cant un see it

[@XyzXyz-rf7wo]

Bro fun fact , your screen is also 3d ! Not even your screen only but drawing a square on a paper is also 3d ! You are just assuming it as 2d because you are neglecting the depth of atoms! 😂 So totally what you are making, drawing, watching are 3d ! You cant imagine 2d bro! 2d are those to whom you can see from front and back but totally invisible from side! And that's impossible to make in our 3d world and that's the limitation! You can't see 2d object in our 3d life ! You will have to transform your body in 2d to see the 2d objects! We cant incorporate us into 2d object! But god has this ability! God is believed to be live in 5th dimension! God dont have any shape ! They are just a energy which can move in 5 dimensions! They are a energy which is shapeless! And what you are seeing pictures of gods are their 3d forms! Means that as i said earlier, you cant see the any object out side of your dimensions, like u can't see 2d object from 3d world! Exactly same , you can't see 5d object from our 3d world! And so god transform their 5d posture to the 3d one and get a particular shape so that we can see them! And also those pictures of gods are based on this phenomenon!

[@Theblondegamer2012]

Holy shit, at first I didn't get it, and then at like three minutes, I started to see one of the sides as an individual cube and it all clicked and came to me at once, it was amazing.

[@luisvalencia7939]

thanks this helped

[@thedeepadventexpedition]

For just a moment...I think I saw a glimpse of what the fourth dimension looked like. It took hours of studying this concept before this, and a lot of visual practice and letting my brain wander just a little bit, but it was so...incredible. Like discovering a whole unseen space before. But, it is so hard to get myself to be able to do that.

[@VonJay]

now imagine a human being unfolding like that

[@dbutler9319]

I think did it too, or I just was able to comprehend this shape as best a being with the 3rd spacial dimension. It was unreal! I just want this tesseract and music on loop now lol, i could kinda get lost in it.

[@SCORP1ONF1RE]

take lsd. you'll visualize it easily.

[@whystareatmyhighhair]

Visually conceptualising is not for everyone

[@bettergaming2321]

I'm interested to see how you visualised 4d. One way I prefer to understand 4d is, imagine a glass sphere, and there is a light beam trapped inside the glass sphere. Now because the light beam is surrounded by the glass sphere, there is no way the light beam can travel to escape the sphere without passing through it. So, at which specific straight direction does the light beam have to travel so it doesn't break through the glass sphere but skips it entirely? The direction the light beam has to travel to do that is 4d. 🌄🏔⛰🗻

[@VascoCC95]

ERROR: Your current version of Brain could not read this file. Please update to a 4D compatible one.

[@darrenjohnson2912]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@NerdWithLaptop]

That is just like in Vihart’s song about a circle constant, when she’s talking about dimensions, and says “there’s one (visual line), two (visual circle), three, (sphere), then there’s four and even more (ERROR: can not display 4-d sphere. Please update your drivers.)

[@Henry._Jones]

This video made my brain revert to 2D. I'm in a real pickle now. A 2-D pickle, of course.

[@gavsmith1980]

it's my chillout remix of one of my favourite 90's trance tracks by BT - Flaming June.

[@bwjekhe]

I've spent a week trying to understand the hypercube, and this is undoubtedly the best explanatory video I've seen on the matter so far. I'm understanding it a little better now. It was actually really helpful that you left it rotating for a while at the end, closely watching it rotate was helpful in figuring out its workings. Cheers!!

[@IX_4]

ok boomer

[@4und4zich]

@@Scott-G11 kinda cringe replying to a 5 year old comment

[@SCORP1ONF1RE]

​@@IX_4 ok jr.

[@IX_4]

@@SCORP1ONF1RE ok kid

[@jcninety6]

This is the best explanation of the 4th dimension I have ever seen. Even a BBC documentary I watched wasn't as explanatory as this video. Outstanding. One of the points raised in the documentary was that the universe itself could be a 4D shape, and comparable to a 4D donut, meaning that when you reach the edge, you sort of "restart" at the opposite edge in 3D space. This is represented in this animation by the appearance of the hypercube almost "turning itself inside out" as it rotates.

[@PC_Simo]

It’s just 3D-Pac-Man.

[@megasupreme9985]

Error 404 brain.exe has stopped working

[@christrela1543]

Line)Really bro? Square)Boo, give it more detail Cube)There we go Tesseract)Exceptional error: brain.jar has performed an illegal function, and it will now be shot.

[@FINgaming1000]

Megasupream no ones brain can know what the object actually looks like we can just display it (or rather it's shadow) in theory

[@digitsstuff6521]

Amazing! I have been studying the 4th dimension for some time now but it's truly amazing how every video has a different insight and different ways of interpreting the tesseract!

[@jelledg99]

sigh my brain is too dumb to understand this

[@josephcoleman57]

lol I understand the feeling ..dont be hard on yourself no one truely understands it

[@LisaSimpsonRules]

Joseph Coleman I understand the feeling. I am more of a Humanities-brain myself, so for me, grasping these concepts is complicated. But the video is excellent and clear.

[@jorelldye4346]

The best any of us can do is understand it conceptually. It is impossible for us to understand it visually. Any representation in our minds will only be in 3D. To see in 4D you would be able to see everything in the 3d world at once, and no one can create such an environment in their minds.

[@jelledg99]

Well then let's evolve the a smarter, complexer version of the human that can understand 4 dimensional stuff. It will only take ~10 million years :)

[@jorelldye4346]

Let's start with ending arrogance and selfishness.

[@billyt8868]

this is the most intuitive explanation i've found so far.

[@epicpickles9077]

4D object in a 3D representation on a 2D screen in my 1D mind

[@lexnellis4869]

I finally understand 4D objects! This was by far the best explanation I have found. It took me a little while to wrap my head around it, but when I started thinking like a 2D being looking at a spinning 3D object it hit me how as a 3D being I need to look at a spinning 4D object.

[@gavsmith1980]

Thanks! I've learned that the video isn't entirely accurate on one or two fine points. The tune is my remix of BT - Flaming June.

[@scoonboon]

The text is moved on too quickly. How fast do you think people can read?

[@Coasterdude02149]

Pause it to read them

[@scoonboon]

I did. Shouldn't have to though.

[@Coasterdude02149]

I agree but given he was nice enough to compile all this and do a video (for free) to help us better understand a hypercube, I don't mind pausing. Hopeful the next one the copy will remain on screen just a little bit longer.

[@CASTCorp]

About as fast as I can😃

[@marcstergeorge7065]

I watched it instead of studying for finals; totally worth it and helped everything click! It also introduced me to Flaming June, and everytime I listen to it, I think of hypercubes and math finals. Thanks :D

[@ohno5779]

Yes! Flaming June is awesome!!!

[@REALdavidmiscarriage]

best video I've seen on the topic so far!

[@jaymthegenius]

It's also amazing how there's no name for some of the directions the cube is moving in since up, down, left, right, forward, and backward are relative to three dimensions.

[@angeloinferno6553]

I counted 8 cubes in the hypercube, when it was like one cube nestled inside of another, each face of the outer cube made one distorted cube with the corresponding face of the inner cube (6 total already since there are 6 sides) and then there's the inner and outer cubes themselves, so that would make 8 total. Of course, I've also heard that a true hypercube will never appear with one inside the other like that no matter how its rotated in the 4th dimension, since it would change the dimensions.

[@PickyMcCritical]

Extremely helpful video. I keep finding new videos which make different helpful points, and this one was refreshing, as well. What's hard to grasp now is that, while our cross-sectional perspective of the objects makes it LOOK like it's changing shape, the actual object is not changing, just moving.

[@Kuploosh]

The reason it looks like it's moving through itself, and oscillating so consistently is because the 4d cube is only rotating on one of its axes. (This makes it much easier to understand visually). Check out other videos of 4d hyper-cubes here on youtube, they are much harder to stay focused on.

[@Demon1579]

Best explanation I've seen of this so far, it actually kinda makes sense now! Thanks heaps for making this video. =D

[@funksoulpunk]

I've watched every other video on youtube relating to the 4th dimension and only this one has made sense! Well done Gav!

[@sarahamr7874]

Best 4D explanation I've come across!! Thank you!

[@CJWarlock]

Supecool video, I've sent it to someone who wanted to start to grasp 4D. And more important to me - thank you for the music! :) I've heard BT's music ca. 20 years ago on the radio and was searching for it ever since as I didn't have any title, label and clarity that the tune and instruments I remember are associated with BT. Here I've stumbled upon a long searched clarity in your video because of the music. BTW. Congrats on the remix, it's a really nice one. :)

[@ryanrivera5099]

I wanted to reverse the flow of the hyper cube so badly as the video concluded. It was quite magnificent.

[@djordjekojicic]

Man. I've been searching through a lot of explanations, and yet you're the only one managed to explain it so I can understand. And I am not dumb at all. Good job

[@koreanature]

My best friend, There's never a boring moment when watching your channel. Love how engaging everything is.

[@10thdim]

With Nobel laureate Kip Thorne saying from a fifth-dimensional perspective one would see the many branches of Everett’s Many Worlds stretching out around an event in the geometries of the tesseract, we have a way of understanding that spacetime is just as spatial as the other dimensions. Here’s a new video I made about the tesseract: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3bHc4GGeLx7f80

[@ThisismychannelXD]

This was actually very informative and much easier to understand than any other explanation. Good job sir.

[@darkpsyche710]

Best hypercube visualization I've seen. I really love this song.

[@cmcas]

Finally a good video, with clear explanation and not some endless rotation without any context.

[@peterphelan7580]

If you're having trouble stop just after halfway through when that perceived "cube" in the center is reformed again. Look at how the center cube and the cube of the "side" facing you are both almost perfect cubes. That is how I trick my brain into seeing a bit more of how complicated a shape this is

[@oldcoder9000]

Thanks for making this video. It helped me a lot to gain some understanding of what hypercube is.

[@Epicdino2912]

What if the hypercube was a solid colour, like the cube? Rather than having the clear window thingys? I do not know anything about this math stuff, so forgive me if my question is flat out stupid.

[@liam7073]

the clear sides of the hypercube are to show you the inside, if it wasn't clear you would just see a box changing sizes without seeing it moving within itself. It's not a stupid question as the reason we cannot see it otherwise is because it is a four dimensional shape when we can only see three. for example you cannot see if my text is raised or dipped into the screen as it is two dimensional.

[@johnharbinger7794]

It is somewhat complicated.I think this is a 2d representation of how a tesseract would feel if one had 3d vision. Humans have 2d vision.They cannot directly feel space when they see it. That is why there is proportion. A hypothetical creature with 3d vision can ignore proportion. It sees the whole of 3d shapes, and if it is fourdimensional,all insides of the shapes as well. In order to see the 3d objects with proportion,it would have to move in the fourth dimension towards them in angles that change.Which is what it would do with a tesseract. The 3d shapes it would look at would have proportion because it is a 4d shape. It is futile to try to imagine how a tesseract really looks from our 2d perspective. I think it would make no clear sense at all to the eyes. What is shown here is a 2d representation of a 3d shadow of a tesseract.

[@ahitler5592]

Taken 4: Liam was taken

[@johannfischerteixeira2968]

More like 2.5D I guess. Humans have two eyes.

[@IIIllllIIIIlllll]

Well done - this is by far the best explanation I've seen

[@Kuploosh]

That is truly beautiful!

[@Lastrevio]

This is the definition of mindblown.

[@gguerrero11]

wow! I can finally see it! Thanks for such a great explanation!

[@josephcoleman57]

Everything you see on a monitor is 2D. This is just an explanation of how your mind interprets this sort data.and why it does so. Good concise job hes done here dumbing it down

[@jaymthegenius]

Joseph Coleman Which is why when holographic tech comes to the masses and displaces 2D monitors such hypercube demonstrations would be even more amazing. Look at Vocaloid concerts, we've already far surpassed R2-D2's holographic tech.

[@k0walsk]

Amazing! Mind blowing stuff!

[@TeamTimmy028]

Definitely the best presentation i've seen yet, very easy to follow and really liked the back & forth visual of the 3D & 4D cubes, what I am curious about is how would my surroundings appear, you know, like people, or my dog?

[@CalculatedRiskAK]

Thanks very much for this video. It improved my perspective on 4D a little bit.

[@SuperLLL]

Fascinating!

[@shampajha1691]

Man that's amazing

[@monkeyrobotsinc.9875]

i love this

[@TheKise77]

Thanks Pat for leading me down this hypercube hole

[@kaja6857]

this is beautiful :D

[@gavsmith1980]

@Fernzero one of my favourite tunes in the last 14 years, this is my own chill out version, made entirely with spectrasonics omnisphere synth and cubase as the host/sequencer.

[@meljusttalent1]

Thanks for this... it gave me the best explanation on what I was seeing when watching a hyper cube rotate... 6 connected cubes distorted by our perception

[@ajeyasengar87]

Thanks man I got a total feel of it

[@OINMAS]

This video does a good job of partially explaining something that feels like it should be incomprehensible...

[@gavsmith1980]

@JessicaLee631 thanks. as demonstrated (i'd say agressively) below, I'm not in any way fully appreciative of the concept of a fourth spatial dimension, but I thought I'd convey that which I DO understand, into an easy to comprehend explanation.

[@Tarototh]

i love your remix of this music. the original track with its simplistic beat was the electronic music i used to like. now, i like the music more without the simple beat.. more dramatic, less predictable. well done

[@FernZepeda]

@gavsmith1980 I must say, great job on the remix my friend, it's a very chill version. I like it a lot =) BT would be proud! :D

[@UND3ADxRAGE]

"I finally understand quantum-physics" is the quote that comes to mind, but isn't even near capable of covering how much my mind is blown.

[@TaroOmiya]

Great explanation. It makes perfect sense.

[@acusemplectic288]

got here after begining of the movie to understand it better. i understanded it perfectly after third of your explanation, thank you! i can literaly see it after watching rotating on half speed!! i ended watching math videos instead of The Cube :D

[@Bad_Khanna]

Amazing!

[@d-552]

i can only begin to imagine what a rotating 4d sphere would look like, i think i’d honestly have a stroke trying to even interpret that

[@STUDENTSOFHEAVEN]

I love this thing. Thank You.

[@jorelldye4346]

By the way, a tesseract is a 3-dimensional line-shadow of a 4-dimensional object, just like if you shone a light over a wire-cube, on a piece of paper, the shadow would be 2-dimensional squares distorting into diamonds, flattening out, reversing, and passing through eachother. The cubes in a tesseract do not pass through eachother, but the distorting cubes in the 3d shadow do.

[@Tinkeralch]

Wonderful explanation. Thank you so much for posting this :)

[@TheObserver83]

I have a question which has been bugging me. Would viewing 3D from a 4D perspective be something akin to looking at 2D from a 3D perspective? For example, say that we hold up a 3D cube, imagine for a second that this 3D cube contains our 3D perception/reality as we experience it, would 4D be an additional dimension of perception whereby we are aware of a space/additional dimension 'surrounding' (all around/outside) of the 3D cube? The hypercube seems to show this (to me anyways).

[@LAEXCITOSAAPARECIDA]

2:22 The cube highlighted is "nearest the viewer." For the fourth dimensional viewer the bigest cube is the one nearest the viewer. Back to 3D... if We draw a Cube as a Small Square (the one on the hidden far side) "inside" a Bigger Square (one of the visible Squares - the Square Side closest to us; then we can see that the "bigger" looking Square (that's near to us) is the one facing us viewing the thing. Drawing a smaller cube inside a bigger one, is for 4D viewers representing farther away.

[@RbdJellyfish]

That's true that we can't see actual 4D objects and we can only see 3D cross-sections, but my point is that if we can draw something that looks like a 3D cube on a piece of paper using rotated lines and skewed 2D shapes, even if it is not actually 3D, that means we are able to project representations of objects of a certain dimension one dimension lower. So I'm saying, it must be possible to create a sort of "drawing" of a 4D object one dimension lower. It's kind of hard to explain :P

[@ktmbua]

This is the best 4D explanation video I've seen yet but still it doesn't look like an addition of a dimension to 3D world but looks like an extreme distortion to the perspective on a 3D world

[@badlywornshoes]

As another couple of comments below pointed out this guy is certainly on the right track and his illustration of Viktor Schlegel's hypercube is very easy to understand but he seems to omit pointing out that a hypercube contains 8 cubes in total (the final unmentioned two being the small one in the middle and the large one or hypercube itself). A hypercube has 8 cubes; 4 cubes, 6 squares, and 4 edges meet at each corner, 3 cubes and 3 squares meet at each edge, 2 cubes meet at each square.

[@eviljoker2012]

this is the most explicit demonstration of a hypercube that i've ever seen :)))

[@coopergates9680]

Regular shapes in 4D, such as tesseracts and pentatopes, are generally called polychorons (analogous to polygons and polyhedra), and since the polychorons are made of 3D objects, each "face" is termed a "cell," hence the names of the 120-cell and 600-cell (120 dodecahedra and 600 tetrahedra).

[@kimjong-illest9549]

I have now reached ultimate enlightenment.

[@pronounjow]

This is an interesting take on the tesseract!

[@RbdJellyfish]

Think of it like this. 1 dimension is a line, 2 dimensions is a plane (which is basically a line of parallel lines), and 3 dimensions is space (which is like a line of parallel planes). Now, when you get to the fourth dimension, you have a line of parallel 3 dimensional spaces. So the 4th dimension isn't for things moving inside each other, it's to add an extra direction, sort of. Some say that the 4th dimension is time, because we're kind of like a frame by frame 3D animation (we have a bunch

[@ArneBab]

Pretty nice, thanks! Square = Lines connected at the ends. Cube = Squares connected at the edges. Hypercube = Cubes connected at the faces. (it finally clicked :) )

[@OsyenVyeter]

well theres the left cube, right, top, bottom, front, back, inner, and the "outer total big one" Have you ever seen an unfolded 4d cube? that might help. Theres one you cant see when its folded, it hides within the arms of the cross, hidden in the core. Hope that helped.

[@alexyoung6418]

I've seen such illustrations numerous times, this's the first time I've taken a closer and slower look at it and I found out it's like turning a wriggly snake toy inside out. Kinda like the closest intuition a 3D being can get when trying to comprehend an extra dimension.

[@jfeucht82]

That's amazing... holy crap.

[@DRAKONETTA]

omg, i finaly get it, THANK YOU!!!!

[@RPKGameVids]

Which way is the 4D shape actually turning?

[@gavsmith1980]

@MrSkateholic "we've never heard of that direction" true, but what if we've merely never been able to experience that direction?

[@m80kamikaze]

That is a really clear explanation, I understand it pretty damn well and that is spot on to my understanding.

[@KnowHistory]

Thanks for finally making me understand 4D

[@LiamCuthbert]

being stuck in the 3rd dimension we cannot even comprehend or imagine what a 4-D shape would look like, the hypercube is just a 3-D shadow.

[@jfeucht82]

I can watch this for hours.

[@PC_Simo]

Once, when I watched this video, almost a decade ago, the music actually started talking to me, telling me that I’m not better than the crowd; because, back then, I used to be really arrogant and elitistic; so, this music basically said to me: ”Who do you think you are? You are no better than the next person.”, and it really was one of the most transcendental experiences I have had to date. I also hadn’t started drinking yet, so it wasn’t just my drunken stupour. 😮

[@SkulkerMechanic1989]

At 5:27 exactly you can see one of the 3D cubes perfectly and it helps your brain understand what’s happening because once you acknowledge the existence of the Square cubes in the structure it becomes relevant to the theory.

[@combatives]

Awesomeness

[@notjimpickens7928]

Man...i remember watching this back in class as a kid. Its so weird.

[@Burninizer]

I never really understood how a tesseract related the fourth dimension to the third, but this video very clearly explained the ideas of perspective. Thank you for this!

[@JTsDiamondMine]

I was just a second ago telling my older sister about how a Tesseract is 8 cubes combined. (Yes, there are 8 cubes if you unwrap a Tesseract) She keeps saying that it's a cube inside a cube when it's not!

[@Pascalore]

Both the inner and the outer cubes are actually the same cube. What you are seeing in the video is the younger outer cube being replaced with the older inner cube. You are seeing the cube age.

[@johncragg7695]

AWESOME! thx for that...I now understand 4D!!!! what a trip ;)

[@Sidus666]

Amazing!! I had a really hard time comprehending how the tesseract looks like projected in 3d, but thanks to you it's all clear now.

[@fizzingsoda1442]

Npc

[@Sidus666]

@@fizzingsoda1442 dude be replying to 10 year old comments lol

[@desertgreenery]

wow, this was a really good explanation! I felt like I could see the six cubes that make up the "sides" of a hypercube, much like 6 squares make up the sides of a cube.

[@awesome3dan]

this is madness :o

[@foxtheprogaymer]

luv the music

[@RbdJellyfish]

of 3D spaces in a line, and we're moving along that line through other 3D spaces). Saying that the 4th dimension is time isn't entirely correct, but that's one way of visualizing the 4th dimension, if that makes more sense.

[@colharve78]

Cheers - thanks to this I managed to solve the problem with an OpenGL hypercube progran animation.

[@PaulWaldorf]

Excellent Remix of BT' - Flaming June most excellent.