String theory initially required a model of 'string' as having properties in 21 dimensions to fit with the standard model and explain quantum phenomena. This was subsequently simplified to the point that only 11 dimensions were required. It has since been simplified again so that only 4 dimensions are required.
Those dimensions 510 (or 511) depend on the premise that the fourth dimension is time, which is not agreed upon. Some theorists say time does not exist, while others say it is a component of spacetime rather than a distinct dimension. According to the 11dimension theory, only 13 are spatial dimensions. This image represents a 3D model of an object in 4 spatial dimensions (meaning length, width, depth, and something else we can't imagine).
Everyone seems to be confused.
This is a twodimensional representation of the threedimensional shadow cast by a fourdimensional tesseract/hypercube.
*tactical facepalm*
The shape in the .gif is a representation (because 3D monitors are not common) of a shadow. Since the shadow is cast by a 4D object, the shadow itself is 3D (much like how shadows of 3D objects are flat and 2D).
There's a Wikipedia page on the 4D object this is a shadow of. Just search for Tesseract or Hypercube.
There are 8 compartments in that shape.
All 8 compartments are perfect cubes.
All angles are 90 degrees.
The shape is rotating, not changing shape at all.
Time is considered to be a dimension, but not the 4th necessarily. There may yet be extra 'directions' that are undetectable to us but the evidence is not conclusive. If we lived in two dimensions (Flatland) we would be unable to perceive of the 3rd, likewise perhaps we as 3 dimensional beings cannot percieve of the 4th or yet higher dimensions.
No, that's four spatial dimensions right there. And it's not turning inside out, it's spinning. If you include time, there are actually five dimensions. In fact, I could describe this object as a 17dimensional manifold, by indicating is position and orientation relative to a fixed point, then defining how fast it spins and in which direction. Or I could make it move at a constant velocity with respect to that point, which makes it 21 dimensions. And this is still a cube we're dealing with. I could also add another four possible variables for acceleration, and seven if the cube orbits the point I mentioned earlier. So we're up to 32 dimensions. And it's still a massless, chargeless set of points in simple motion in a universe with the LEAST number of dimensions required to contain it.
0
#34 to #13

Icksha**User deleted account** has deleted their comment []
Yes, but to define an object, along with it's motion, requires these variables. It's like the surface of a ball, you need two pieces of information to define a point on the ball, as well as a reference to measure these coordinates against. I'll admit, my followup was slightly inaccurate because two of my variables will actually describe the same thing, but to describe these in the same way as one describes a function on a Cartesian plane is just as valid, only now we require a 39dimensional sheet of paper to plot our point in. This sheet will have the minimal complexity required to create a onetoone correspondence between the possible states of the cube and the possible points on the graph.
0
#111 to #106

Icksha**User deleted account** has deleted their comment []
You know what, what the hell, we'll have it orbit a point that ISN'T our original reference, with an eccentricity. That's four for one focus of the ellipse, and two for the other. In fact, we'll make this a nice, even number; give it a charge and a mass, and assuming that those qualities are uniformly distributed, we now have 40 dimensions. From one little picture.
Some people are born with the ability to comprehend it. It is best told as duration, for example the difference between you now and you in thirty seconds is the 4th dimension.
if you look at the cube, and you can easily shift from seeing the cube with its front on the right, or the front on the left. i think thats what he meant. some people are better at seeing it than others
Technically we can't see in the 3rd dimension either. We see 2D images with the illusion of depth, which is created mostly perceived size (i.e. things that are farther away appear smaller). We can't actually see distances in "depth".
Actually I haven't studied this either, it just makes sense to me.
If we were twodimensional beings with eyes on our "edges", we would only see in one dimension possibly with some illusion of length (maybe things fade as they get farther away or something). So if you placed a twodimensional rectangle (think of a piece of paper) in front of us, we would only see the edge  a onedimensional line. Or we might see the corner with the edges "fading away" into the distance, depending on how the shape is oriented toward us. In order to see the paper in two dimensions, you would have to look at it from above  a direction that does not exist on a 2D plane because there is no "height" dimension.
Similarly, we can't see in all three directions at once because we would have to somehow step out of this 3D world (moving in a direction that doesn't exist here) to look at it from "outside".
You should read Flatland by Edwin Abbott. Good stuff.
+1
#57

StevieMaxis**User deleted account** has deleted their comment []