What are "Dimensions". Can you please explain in detail. Like what is fourth dimension.?
600049
The three dimensions they are most likely talking about are the x,y, and z planes in space. Time is the fourth dimension, and there could be more after that. read stephen hawkings book A Brief History of Time. He explains how to conceptualize dimensions in your head very well.
183005
Alot of people pinned down 4 dimensions pretty good, but nobody has explained the dimensions beyond 4 very well, except to say that they exist. Let me take a shot:\n\nOPE did the best job of explaining the first 4 dimensions, I'll summarize and then move into the other ones.\n\n0D: Imagine a point, the smallest little dot with no length. There is only one point in this dimension, 0.\n1D: Imagine a line that can have any length in 1 direction but no length in any other direction. We can describe a point on this line with one coordinate, x.\n2D: Imagine a sheet of paper that is infinitely thin (you hold it sideways you see nothing). We can locate a point on this plane by (x,y).\n3D: This one's easy. You find a point in 3D space by (x,y,z)\n4D: Harder. In 3D, your point cannot change. You cannot move around because in order to change position you need one more dimension, time. For a point to move from one place to another (dx,dy,dz) it requires a change in time (dt). To locate this point now you need to define its position as (x,y,z,t) or else you won't find it. If you imagine your point is a person you want to meet, you would have to be told where in space (x,y,z) they will be and when (t) they will be there, or else you are not guaranteed to find them (unless you both have cell phones).\n5D: The hardest. Go back to 0D (a single point). If we were able to shrink down to the size of this point, instead of seeing a point, we would see a tiny circle. So if you were trying to locate a point in 5D, you could not locate it exactly unless you placed it in (x,y,z,t) and w, it's location on that circle. So you now have (w,x,y,z,t). The radius of this 5th dimension is so small that we can't see it, but we should be able to perceive its effects when our technology improves. It makes a lot of sense mathematically because it explains why we can't explain gravity at tiny (quantum) levels. The math doesn't work unless we add dimensions and wrap strings around them. Note that dimensions 5 and up have a property called compactification. That means that anything operating on the compactified radii of these dimensions moves in a complete circle, always returning to its original position. The radii are so small that we cannot percieve a change in position at all; a particle changing position along one of these dimensions seems to not move to us.\n6D and up: Very hard to imagine. Your point can now be found on two circles. The easier way to think of this is a point on the surface of a sphere, which will give it two coordinates on a tiny round surface (like longitude and latitude on the Earth's surface). Now you can add as many compactified dimensions as mathematics permits given whatever theories you are trying to incorporate. Your compactified radii can be given upper and lower limits to allow them to be plausible.\n\nI saw some people say infinite dimensions and another say 27. The reigning theory has 11 dimensions. 27 dimensions comes from a part of string theory that claims that matter does not exist and that there exists a fantasy particle with very strange properties, called a tachyon. This theory ties in to the most prominent theory, M-theory, which says only 11 dimensions is needed to explain everything.
1095974
this is sort of trival, dimensions can be thought of as derivatives, and you can take a formula and make any number of derivatives of the original derivatives and still end up with a line that bends, indicating no limit to the number of dimensions we can really conceive..   \nModern string theory is a bunch of hoo haa,   such a sub-atomic idea makes no sense, the reality we know could not have order if there were "strings".  "strings" have no way of organizing themselves into different sub-atomic particles, the universe would just be a bunch of "strings"
991771
We observe four dimensions everyday, three spatial and time.\nTime is called a dimension because it makes mathematical sense to do so. \nBut...theories such as string theory predict that the space we live in has in fact many more dimensions (frequently 10, 11 or 26), but that the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size. As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size.\n\nThis is not so strange as it sounds, which I'll show with an example. Imagine you are in an airplane, flying over sea. Seen from a height, the sea looks flat, two-dimensional. But when the plane looses height we start to perceive the waves, that move in a third direction we could see before.\n\nThe universe could be the same. Four macroscopic dimensions and a few more, hidden ones. We can only perceive them for instance, by the small effects their existence might have on subatomic particles.
1153435
We observe four dimensions everyday, three spatial and time.\nBut...theories such as string theory predict that the space we live in has in fact many more dimensions (frequently 10, 11 or 26), but that the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size. As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size.\n\nThis is not so strange as it sounds, which I'll show with an example. Imagine you are in an airplane, flying over sea. Seen from a height, the sea looks flat, two-dimensional. But when the plane looses height we start to perceive the waves, that move in a third direction we could not see before.\n\nThe universe could be the same. Four macroscopic dimensions and a few more, hidden ones. We can only perceive them for instance, by the small effects their existence might have on subatomic particles.
545067
"Time" is not a dimension in the same sense that x,y,z,a,b,c, ..etc are spatial dimensions.\n\nThough the human mind is cabable of imagining muti-dimensional space, and can create clever matematical concepts supporting the idea, there is not one whit of physical evidence to support it.  And there is ample evidence to refute it.  \n\nTake gravity, for example.  Measurments show that gravity decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the source, exactly as it should in three-dimensional space.  If there were more than three spatial dimensions, that wouldn't be the case.  So if you want to postulate there are more than three dimensions, you've got to explain why gravity ignores them!\n\nAlso, take ElectroMagnetic Radiation (EMR), which also behaves the same way - i.e. it decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the source, just as it should in three dimensional space.  So if you postulate more than three dimensions, you've got to explain why EMR doesn't know about it!\n\nAs to string theory, scientists proposing it can't agree whether it requires twenty-six dimensions in order for the math to come out right, or "just" ten!  And they all admit there's no known way to prove or disprove the theory itself. That's makes the theory pretty weak. In fact, it makes it almost science fiction! Great mind exercise, but no eidence of reality!\n\nEinstein's theories provide predictions that can be proved or disproved. That's one reason they are so powerful.\n\nSo the jury's still out on multi-dimensional space - and pobably will be for some time to come.\n\nBut it's fun to speculate!  Just don't bet your food money on it!
1009023
The universe that we live in has only three spatial dimensions. We are limited to length, width, and height, and we can only travel along three perpendicular paths. This page attempts to explain the properties of a hypothetical universe with a spatial fourth dimension. While people generally call time the 4th dimension in the universe we live in, time will be the 5th dimension in my hypothetical universe. \n\nMany fascinating possibilities exist when a spatial fourth dimension is present. Several types of wheels are possible, very complex machines can be built, and many more shapes are possible. Objects can pass by each other more easily, but they are harder to break into multiple pieces. Energy reduces much faster with distance than in the 3rd dimension, so both light and sound are weaker. Much more things can be compacted into a small space, but its much easier to get lost. In this page, I will explore these and many other interesting properties of the fourth dimension.
1006040
we can measure 4, height, width, length, and time, but there are theories, (super string, and the like) that are suggesting upwards of 11. So, it's a hard question. But the defining part of the answer is, "we live in," and one would then have to answer, just the 4. Peace!
83422
Scientist belive there are several dimesions.  Remember dimensions are based on measurement.  Length width height, 3 dimesions so we are in the third dimension.  A showdow for example only has length and width so it is the 2nd dimseion.  We cannot comprehend other demensions because we live in a 3d world where only LWH exist.  It is like asking your shadow what is tall, he would know because he lives in the 2nd demsiond.  So there are other dimensions yes and we can dicipher them though the wonders of mathmatics and physics.\n\nGravity works likes a bowling ball on a bed.  Think of the bed as the fabric of space.  If you put a tennis ball on the bed it would "gravitate" towards the bowling ball.  This is the theory of realtivity.  A worm hole forms when a really heavy mass punches through that space fabric.  If you had a million pound bowling ball it would go right though the bed.  The same things happens in space that heavy mass punches right though to the other side forming a worm hole.
332409
Our universe has 4 dimensions: up/down, back/forth, left/right, and time. According to well established theoretical physics, it is likely that our universe has more than 4 dimensions and could have as many as 11 (according to String Theory). As to why we can't see them, the leading explanation is that, at the beginning of the universe, all dimensions were curled up, but that at the time of the "big bang", 3 of the spacial dimensions and time unfurled, creating the universe we know to day.  The other 7 dimensions currently remain curled up in space where we cannot see them.
588539
I am assuming this question comes from some thought on the 10-11 dimensions needed by string theory. In this occasion these dimensions are not noticable and have been added because they are needed to make the equations work. In three dimensions and time you only have four variables to work with. But now many physicists have noticed that if you increase our dimennsions to 7,8,9,10,11 it gives more mathematical flexibility and enables us to make equations that can unify gravity with the quantum world. Now for what is the seventh dimension, the first three dimensions are the normal spacial dimensions, up/down, right/left, forward/back. There is also a time dimension sometimes noted as the fourth. Then string theory says there should be another 7 dimensions. Where these would be and why we cant see them is still up for debate but current though is that they are extremely small crumpled up dimensions that we cant notice because there small size makes them have a minimal effect on forces and measurements. I would reccomend reading David Greene's books if you are still intersted in the ideas of string theory and such.
322523
The fact that we can observe only four dimensions seems obvious, but that doesn't mean that there are not more.\n\nAs an example: the sea as seen from an airplane looks pretty flat and seems to have two dimensions only. But as the airplane looses height, the waves can be distinguished and we see that the see surface in reality is three-dimensional.\n\nThe same might be true for the universe: it could be that more dimensions are present, but we don't see them as they are tiny, too small to observe from our human scale.\n\nTheories that suppose the existences of more dimensions have been proposed.\n \nThey were invented because we are not so happy about the models we use now. For instance, there are four forces in nature. Three of them -electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force- have been combined into one force that has three manifestations at our energy scale.\n \nTo model the fourth force -gravity- Einstein invented general relativity.\n\nThe problem is that both theories are incompatible. Calculations done with them in the region where they overlap, notably when we go back in time to the Big Bang, give different results.\n\nThat is ...embarrassing.\n\nSome of the newer theories, like superstring and M-theory, try to overcome these problems. The price to pay is the assumption of extra dimensions.
255954
I will take a shot at it.\n\nWe are all very familiar with 3 dimensional space, up down, left right, forward backward. To describe the location of an object in space we have to use those three dimensions. BUT. Nothing is actually fixed in space. Everything is moving. So in order to describe the location of an object in space you must also describe at what time that object was at that location or will be at that location. That is why time is called the 4th dimension. \n\nNow here is the really bizaar part. Some scientists think there are more than 4 dimensions. Some propose 10 dimensions and some 26 dimensions. It is called string theory and it is all over my head.
110094
Yes, definitely multiple postings... \n\nwell... a fourth dimension is time... so anything that changes over time is a fourth dimensional object. But that isn't what you are really asking.\n\nWe can only perceive four dimensions with our senses, so perceiving it is difficult. To us it would look as if it were a regular three-dimensional object, perhaps changing over time in some subtle way. Jack L. Chalker did a good job of describing such a structure in his "Quintarra Marathon" books. This is similar in idea to how you would describe a three-dimensional object such as a pencil to a person living in a two-dimensional world, at best they could only see a cross-section of the pencil, or if the world they were living on were curved they would see multiple cross-sections and not realize they were the same object (put a pencil through a folded piece of paper).\n\nIf you are looking for a way to visualize it to help with problem solving I recommend thinking about it in terms of computer arrays, or a group of three dimensional objects, each can be looked at seperately.\n\nGood luck with your conundrum :-)
12868
space as we see it has the three dimensions of space and one of it .But if u want to explain everything that is happening around us we have to assume that space is multi-dimensional.I know it is quite hard to imagine and think about a space having dimensions greater than 3 (also caled hyperspace)but there is no way out.A mathematics devised by reinmann is used to study hyperspace .It is easier to write down the equations of hyperspace than to imagine it.Gravity is also defined as the bending of this hyperspace.Many scientist's also believe that hyperspace can give us the answer for an unified field theory.
160693
You must think about the 3d visualization of 4d objects as partials projections or perspectives (as well as when you represent a cube drawing it on a paper sheet, you only describe some of its properties by analogy): so you cannot "see" 4d objects: you can only describe them.\n \n\nSee this link for a rough idea of an hypercube (there would be much more to say about it ...)\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Apvwu5u3VyjMZfW_mDnnJUnsy6IX?qid=1006012001214\n\nSee this other one (expecially the links in all answers) for the so-called "Klein bottle"\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As6vB06qMWLWdUaS3dhCfW_sy6IX?qid=1006013107146\n\n\nfour dimensions is interesting in maths because (they say: I'm starting now to study it) that there are many different "regular solids" which you can hypotize counting sides, vertexes and faces. From 5th dimension on, there is only one kind of regular solid, so it is not considered an interesting field of study.
1151026
According to classical physics 3: length, wideth and depth.\nModern physics add to that a fourth dimension - time.\nThose we now for certain exist. But there could be more (as much as 10 or 11 according to superstring theory).