What are you thoughts on the possible 4th dimension, that is

prove the 3 dimensions first shitbird

Time

>>7799754
A 4th dimension is just one more axis perpendicular to the other axes. X, Y, Z, W.
/thread

>>7799782
Yes but you need to explain to OP that there are more than 360 degrees. I cant be bothered.

The real question is what relationship, if any, exists between the euclidean 4th dimension and the fourth dimension of time?

>>7799805
We exist in 4D spacetime, what is really 3 dimensional "slices" in a 4D picture. Imagine the tesseract picture above, two three dimensional slices along a another dimensional line. That is why the fourth dimension to us is time, the lines connecting each three dimensional slice we see as what you would think of any given "moment" in time. A purely 3 dimensional slice would be frozen in time if you will. Its easy to just imagine a square as a 2 dimensional slice of a cube and scale it up one dimension in this regard if it helps to visualise it. You can also imagine gravity as a phenomena of this fourth dimension stretching outward from our three dimensions, this is basically leading into the philosophy behind general relativity and how space-time and gravity are all really elements of the same thing.

>>7799754
There is a 4th dimension: time

Do I believe in a 4th Euclidean dimension?
No, if I had to bet at least. Part of me believes there are more spatial dimensions that are tiny and have something to do with the four inexplicable fundamental forces.

>>7799901
Maybe I'm retarded but I don't get this.
In what way could you traverse time to get from point A to point B like a tesseract? I understand space-time being bent for gravity but that is not instantaneous or a tesseract; the object still has to travel within the 3 dimensions to get from A to B.

There are two types of people, people who think the past is a reality of nature, and people who think the past is a reality of thought.

I support the latter, your particles can not escape the universe. That events that unfold outside their [particle] interaction don't necessarily exist.

When you talk to someone, the content of their thoughts exist with your's, not outside of it.

>>7799754
The vector space defined by
[math]
\left [\matrix{x \\ y \\ z \\ w} \right]
[/math]
[math]
x, \text{ } y, \text{ }z, \text{ } w \in \R
[/math]

>>7799901
>>7800752
The metric in R^4 is not the same as in minkowski spacetime. That makes for a whole different picture

There is no 4th spatial dimension. If there was, you'd not even know it just like you can't differentiate between the 1st and 3rd dimensions.

Time as a dimension in relativity is simply just a mathematical convenience because while time and space are related, time is not a spatial dimension.

>>7800752
>In what way could you traverse time to get from point A to point B like a tesseract
>the object still travel within the 3 dimensions to get from A to B

What are you talking about? "points" A and B in 4D spacetime necessitate an additional time coordinate. An object can stay in the same spatial location and go from point A to point B because the time coordinate changes. So as each dimension (x, y, z) of the cube traverses from x1 to x2, y1 to y2, z1 to z2, time also traverses from t1 to t2. All a tesseract is in this case is just a cube in one time coordinate that connects to a cube in another time coordinate.

>>7800771
What exactly are "your" particles?

>>7800777
any other answer are retard theorists

>>7800878
A tesseract is a line in 4-space right, so how could how could I go from point A to point B if there's a 3d wall in the way?

>>7800928
A tesseract is not a line, it's the 4 dimensional analog of a cube. There's no "wall" in the way anymore than there's something in the way that stops you from taking a flat square on a table and extending it upward to become a cube. Then you take the cube and extend that along the axis of the fourth dimension until you have a tesseract. In the case of 4D spacetime, the cube sitting on the table doing nothing for a given amount of time does that nicely. Although given that the property of a cube is that all sides are equal, I'm not sure how this works when you combine it with a time dimension since the units are intrinsically different

>>7800752
Supposedly M theory, which is a type of string theory, theorizes that there are 11 spacial dimensions, and 1 temporal dimension.

I have not heard of any physics theories that suppose there is more than 1 temporal dimension.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

>>7800963
There have been several but they aren't very widely accepted

>>7800977

Makes sense. I don't think there is anything in the current big theories that would preclude a second time dimension though. I think there is just no evidence to support it.

>>7799782
Yes but in what sense Will that fourth axis be added?

File: ti6t09X.jpg (302KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 600x600px

the 4th dimension is the mind's eye

4th dimension is time...
You can say someone you will meet them at that some place for example in front of a building...
So you might have 1st dimension that is the location of that building, 2nd myb the area in front of that building and 3rd if you will go on an elevated area for example go to the 2nd floor....but you will also tell them when, at wich time do you meet them there you wouldn't just say yea meet you at your place...i mean when will you meet them??? And there you have it time is the 4th dimension that we can't acces