He's not wrong, there's just no way to represent it in three dimensions. Educate yourself before you talk

That's why this is a four-dimensional object. Oh look, science!

And you just proved you also don't know what the 4th dimension is either... Thanks for playing.

If you tell me the fourth dimension is time I'm going to weep for humanity

Do people still believe that? I mean I guess it can be technically correct and a somewhat decent model to teach the concept by comparing apples to oranges by I didn't think it was still taught in that manner

Whether or not the fourth dimension is time is irrelvent hre. This is just a hypothetical mathematical concept in a fourth spacial dimension, it has nothing do with physics.

Ok buddy, let's just take this step by step. Is the red highlighted a shape? Is it a cube? Original comment is false.

Probably a bit late to reply here (I haven't had Internet for a day or so), but here's a 2-dimensional representation of what you're saying.

Would you believe me if I told you that the shape outlined in red was a perfect square?
This is actually a 2D model of a cube, viewed from the front. All sides of the cube are perfect squares, and there are 6 sides (even though you can only see 5 of them from this angle, and only one of those appears to be a square).

Same thing with the tesseract. What you have is a 2D picture of a 3D model of a 4D object.
Just as a 1D line segment has two 0D "sides" that are points, a 2D square has 4 1D sides that are line segments, a 3D cube has 6 2D sides that are squares, and a 4D tesseract has 8 3D sides that are cubes. And so on.

Of course the 4th spatial dimension is a hypothetical mathematical concept. It could exist in theory, but if it does we cannot observe it.

After this entire conversation I did more research that I'd like to admit about the subject, mainly because I found it very interesting. I found out what a tesseract actually even is beyond my previous comprehension and basically found a textbook length explanation of what you condensed into a comment. I'll admit I did not know what I was talking about at the time and now am better educated for circumstances involving the subject in the future.

it's called a linear transformation.

If you transform an object consisting of 8 cubes from a 4 dimensional vector space onto a 3 dimensional vector space, and then onto a 2 dimensional vector space, you get this.

The 4th dimension in physics might be time, but its not in mathematics

Fuckin blowing my mind here. What level of math is this covered in?

college second semester

what class?

linear algebra

makes sense, as a biochem major, all that was required for me was Calc 1-3

inb4 someone spews idiocy and refuses to realize that the image of a tesseract is the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D cube.

Alright whatever, apparently I don't know what I'm talking about especially since people think THAT is a cube. Real cute people, real cute

You obviously don't, since it's not a cube. Let me repeat that, the tesseract is the 2D representation of the 3D shadow of a 4D cube. The actual 3D shadow looks different, because humans cannot percieve 3D - and the 4D cube looks very different, because humans can't even imagine 4D since we live in 3D and our eyes watch in 2D.

Alright so then there must be an explanation for the distortion of the "cubes" since the tesseract is a standard, conceptual figure of our perception as a 4d figure.

Does that shadow of a three dimensional cube look like a cube?