The review of Miller’s book propagates a misconception by referring to the fourth dimension as “time, not space,” repeating a comment from H. G. Wells. The fourth dimension appears explicitly as part of a displacement in spacetime, and has the form of not simply t, but rather ict, which is orthogonal to the other three classical spatial dimensions. The factor c puts all four dimensions on the same footing in the algebra of relativity.
The book’s purported correlation between relativity and modern art is reminiscent of the old saying about the correlation between the price of rum and the salaries of Presbyterian ministers. Almost any two things can be correlated by selecting some specious reasoning to make the correlation plausible, or by invoking faith. Astrology is a familiar example.
Lastly, the illustration printed with the review looks flat to me, lacking the perspective to suggest a third dimension, much less a fourth. If someone sees a fourth dimension here, perhaps others may see five, six, or more. Picasso painted many fine portraits with lifelike proportions and normal perspective. He knew what he was doing when he flattened the human subjects in his cubist paintings, but the results must be interpreted in our imaginations, not in the objective analysis of science.
