Is there a physical way, in our own dimension, to prove that the fourth dimension exists?
>>8114165
What's wrong with
3 space + 1 time = 4 dimensions
?
looks like OP is in highschool and got cucked by a geometrytard
>>8114170
Try to imagine that. What kind of object do you end up with? Describe it to me.
Is there a physical way, in our own dimension, to prove that the three dimensions exists?
>>8114194
Shadows.
>>8114183
A video
>>8114165
Actually I think this question does not make sense. It's just about the way the idea of more than 3 dimensions is tought.
Dimensions are only a way used in I guess every physic model (and not only them of course) to describe a situation. But there is nothing strange here, because for example to describe a situation that involves heat on a surface over time you should use 3 space variables (x, y, z), a time variable (t) and a variable which describes the heat (h).
And you would have a formula like
h = f(x, y, z, t).
And it's actually like having
z = f(x, y),
but in the previous case you need more variables to describe the situation properly, and you would get a shape with 5 dimensions.
So, dimensions are the way we use to describe reality, and that doesn't mean that reality has dimensions itself.
I repeat one more time: dimentions are just a way to see reality, and it's the way we (any sentient being here) use to understand world. But this doesn't mean world is composed by dimensions.
Oh, sorry for my bad english.
>>8114194
Depends on the level of rigor you expect. The fact that Gauss's law/inverse-square force laws seem to be exact is a good indicator.
>>8114165
Try bubbles.
>>8114165
"exists"
In what sense?
>>8114170
Cause that's not what a dimension is
>>8114183
Imagine a suddenly appearing cube with a side length of one light second. It exists for one second and then disappears again. That’s a perfectly valid tesseract.
>>8115293
Yes it is. It's just not a spatial dimension.
I'd imagine the sound waves coming from a wind instrument are vaguely hypercubic
>>8115293
Isomorphic to R4, so yes it is 4 dimensional.
If your talking about 4 spatial dimensions, we can establish axioms for a spatially 4-dimensional system and then deduce certain properties that such a system would have, and further, even uncover the implications such properties would have for 3-dimensional spaces that are defined in this 4-dimensional space, but we as humans can't visualize this 4-dimensional space itself.
>>8115293
Yes it is. Please define dimension.
>>8114217
The modern magical world view identifies the model with the reality it models. The model then counts as a physical cause: curved spacetime = gravity.
Couldn't we just do it on people finding out the Earth is 3D/Spehere. Draw a triangle, add up the angles, find the curvature of the space.
>>8117283
You'd want to draw a tetrahedron and add up the solid angles.
