I imagined a simple camera

Ideas about how a world with more than three spatial dimensions would work - what laws of physics would be needed, how things would be built, how people would do things and so on.

I imagined a simple camera

Postby Nasser » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:42 pm

a simple camra consist of a closed box (cube) which has a very small circular hole in the center of the front face so that the light can pass through from the third dimension and the back face of the box will be for the projected picture. I used this box when I was in my university studing the architecture.

so for higher dimension it will be like below
a simpe camera consist of a closed hyperbox (hypercube) which has a very small spherical hole in the center of the front cube so that the light can pass through from the fourth dimension and the back cube of the hyperbox will be for the 3D projected picture
Nasser
Mononian
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: I imagined a simple camera

Postby gonegahgah » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:32 pm

Cool. Sounds very clever.
gonegahgah
Tetronian
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:27 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: I imagined a simple camera

Postby quickfur » Thu May 03, 2012 4:58 am

This is what I do all the time for visualizing 4D objects. This is also the basis for my renderings of 4D projections. :)
quickfur
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:20 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: I imagined a simple camera

Postby gonegahgah » Sun May 06, 2012 12:32 am

I imagine an eyeball would be fairly similar but I think we can also view it in a similar way that I've been describing a 4D tyre.
The eye is largely symmetrical apart from the optic nerve and I don't think there is not much reason to suspect that it would be similar in 4D.
So again I think we could cut a 3D eye up into inifinte vertical cross-sections and just spin these 360deg through the forward axis to complete each 4D vertical cross-section.

Because the 4D 'human' sees things from their inside front face, rather than from our planer outsides, I imagine it is okay to just morph these cross-sections through any one of our directions and they will still represent the same thing from a 4Ders perspective maybe.

So if you took all these 4D cross sections and morphed the front backwards and smaller and morphed the back forwards but bigger and the rest just followed...
Now, I'm not sure about this because the middle would end up at the front and the back and the front and back would both be in the middle?

In terms of perspective my approach gives priority to the forward perspective being at front whereas I'm guessing the OPs perspective puts the forward dimension inside the camera.

I just use the approach of putting the front dimension in one direction and the side directions in the other two axis and having the vertical as cross-sections.
With my approach, which I think helps to directly connect our 3D objects with 4D objects a little easier, would it be possible to then convert them into a projection model?
Maybe it is a little difficult when curves are involved?
gonegahgah
Tetronian
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:27 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia


Return to Higher Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest