Talk:Dimension/Archive 1

Number of parameters

What is the "number of parameters or measurements" needed to describe an object? Since when do angles used to describe orientation count as "dimensions"? I have reverted the introduction. Brian Jason Drake 06:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See "Electron spin" above. The spin is a parameter/measurement, but it is not a dimension. [signature added just after submitting comment Brian Jason Drake 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Euclidean vs spherical geometry

I had to reword the last couple of sentences of this paragraph, since east-west and north-south movements are only applicable to spherical geometry, and spatial dimensions are based on Euclidean geometry. NickBush24 06:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity?

I'm moving this paragraph to talk, because as far as I can tell it's either hogwash, or at least not properly sourced:

Infinity is the 5th dimension because it cannot be defined using the other four dimensions. We know of it's existence because no matter how large you can always add one more unit of measurement to almost any distance/time/number. However since we can engineer everything from the wheel to a moon-landing using just the first four dimensions there been no practical need to recognize infinity as being the 5th dimension, although it will be necessary in describing the Theory of everything.

--Delirium 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity is not a dimension. It is the continual expansion of the current 4 finite dimensions at light speed. Also, it is impossible to have a one dimensional object/entity. The smallest dimensions allowed for an object/entity are two dimensions. Only the motion of an object and the direction of forces are allowed to have one dimension. ( Francie. Scientific Ambassador of the universe. 25 May 2007)

The pages "infinity" and "theory of everything" don't appear to support that paragraph. Brian Jason Drake 07:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth dimension is not infinity; see Hilbert space. Fredil Yupi go 00:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement

"We can move up-or-down, north-or-south, or east-or-west, and movement in any other direction can be expressed in terms of just these three."

Can you really speak of movement in terms of just the three spatial dimensions? Doesn't the very concept of movement depend on the time dimension? Without time all you have is position and no movement. Right?

yeah, that's right - BriEnBest 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movement is change of location. One moment a thing is here, and another it's there. Moving is not necessarily related with time. --Inyuki 12:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yeah but moments are, i challenge you to define "movement" without using a word that is somehow related (directly) to time. - BriEnBest 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would a change of location occur except through or in time? Hyacinth 00:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can argue that time is the same as the three spatial dimensions, so "location" includes all 4 dimensions as well as any others that may exist, and movement is still defined as "change of location", so there is nothing special about time when it comes to movement. Brian Jason Drake 06:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how movement is discribed. Time has no relevence to where an object is. Therefore time is not another dimention. If time was another dimention, it would not speed up or slow down as it states in Einstein's theory of relitivity.

3 dimensions could describe the universe AT ONE MOMENT IN TIME, but no more than that. If you want to describe movement (motion, kinetics, which are a part of our world), then you need time. Time is the 4th dimension, because energy can be converted from matter, and it is the "stuff" inside of time, just like matter is the stuff inside of the 3 dimensions of space. - BriEnBest 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetime

What's the difference between space and time? Haven't we treated them as one thing ("spacetime") since Einstein? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In most usages, no we haven't: people continue to perceive them as 3-space and 1-time. And if you want to be picky the strong people like 11-d (10-d?) space anyway. The "physical" section seems to handle this OK; the intro is a bit odd, though it says "a space" not "space". William M. Connolley 09:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

It says "a space", which is correct. In mathematics we can have 3 dimensions or 4 dimensions - they can't be the same space, so there is more than one space, and in the intro we are not referring to any particular space. Brian Jason Drake 08:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space origin

Why (how come?) our space have three dimensions of space and one of time? How did the space originate? --Inyuki 12:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many Some scientists believe that space originated from particales slaming together at hype-speed, thus, creating the Big Bang, but there is also an unknown factor, where did the the particals come from, and what made them accelerate so fast, so it might point to a God, or a great force, existing before and possibly after the Big Bang.:No,1 kg corresponds to 25,000,000,000 kWh of energy,the "Fight" between matter and anti-matter is simular to the rebellion against Heavean strangely,here :No,1 kg corresponds to 25,000,000,000 kWh of energy, here, http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01.html--Dansanman 06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Electron spin

Electrons can move in 3 dimensions in space, move through time, can spin, and don't appear to have an internal structure. How can all this be accomplished if there are only 4 dimensions? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 12:00, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

An electron's position in spacetime can be described with four coordinates. An electron's _state_ takes more degrees of freedom. It's spacetime that has four dimensions. State of a system that evolves over time is often expressed in terms of Hilbert spaces with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. Different things being talked about.--Christopher Thomas 21:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Physics is confusing... Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 08:40, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Multiple Dimensions

Can't multiple dimensions exist in a way that allows a particle to be in two places at once. If so, our whole universe could be a single particle (entity) that can be veiwed from an astronomical number of locations.

Huh? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 09:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My theory (and i think it happens to coincide with the accepted theories lol) is that the universe is a big 4 dimensional sphere that we are on the surface of...kind of like the earth is a 3 dimensional sphere and the things living on the surface of it basically can only move in 2 dimensions...
so yeah, if you were a 4 dimensional (spacial) guy or girl floating around "above" our universe then yeah you could see it from different angles (at different times) (or if you were 5 dimensional then you could see it from different angles at once :p .... but... about being in two places at once? wtf? - BriEnBest 10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality

"Classical physics theories describe three physical dimensions: from a particular point in space, the basic directions in which we can move are up/down, left/right, and forward/backward."

Is there anything in physics to justify the "up/down", "left/right" and "forward/backward" labels or are these arbitary directions that humans have decided to label and consider special? Brian Jason Drake 08:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, i think physics is a description OF those directions and the different applications of "moving" in different directions (and stuff...) - BriEnBest 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction

"Also, in science fiction, a "dimension" can also refer to a separate world or plane of existence, though this meaning is not discussed in this article.)"

What article would this concept be addressed in? parallel universe? i am sure several articles aim here for that concept. - Omegatron 02:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is discussed in "parallel universe", which is under a proposal to merge into Multiverse. Brian Jason Drake 08:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal seems to be gone from both articles and Talk:Multiverse. Brian Jason Drake 08:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String theory?

String theory certainly should be somewhere other than the science fiction section, for it has been proposed as a real theory, but it might belong in science fiction as well. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 06:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

string theory can dip its balls in lava for all i care - BriEnBest 10:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of this edit, where someone seems to have assumed that string theory does not appear in science fiction. Brian Jason Drake 08:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Well I have rewritten the lead and my change has been reverted. I think however the lead should not make a too strong distinction between common sense, mathematics and physics. The mathematical definition is simply an extension (abstraction) of the common sense concept. The difference with physics is not really true. Adding a unit to a dimension is not really something that important. Not only physicist are using multi dimensional spaces with units. Economists, chemists, physicians, etc... Moreover an simple example should belong to the lead just as in manifold or in eigenvalue. This is also recommended in the mathematics project. Vb 12:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your version to the one with bullet points, which reads more like a disambiguation page. Charles Matthews 12:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the bulletted version (otherwise I would have modified it after seeing the change myself). The point of an introduction is to be introductory. As long as all interpretations of "dimension" are mentioned, and have sections discussing them, I think that smaller is better. --Christopher Thomas 20:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletted sections are systematically criticized as list-like when it comes to featured article candidates. List-like paragraph are frown upon in wikipedia. Prose should always be the first choice. Introductory means often understandable for the layman. From this point of view, introduction to math articles usually have to show a simple example. Opposing the common usage to mathematics or physics usage is in this case a bad idea because the mathematics concept is clearly a generalization or abstraction of the common usage. I think the present version of the lead does not present an interpretation. If you believe so, then could you expand a bit your criticism so that we can find a compromise. Vb 08:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly that it should be prose, fine - make it half the length, and briefly touch on uses in physics and other uses in mathematics besides degrees of freedom. At present, it doesn't mention these and it goes into an in-depth discussion of dimension as used to mean degrees of freedom, which is a) disproportionate to the amount of space used to describe other uses in the introduction, and b) already covered in the appropriate subsection. I find your statement that it "does not present an interpretation" to be puzzling - it's _supposed_ to give an overview of _all_ interpretations, and does so (with the exceptions noted above). The key word here is overview. An introduction is the first thing that a reader will see. The first decision they make is whether to bother reading it. The second decision they make, after reading it, is whether to read any of the rest of the article. If the introduction is overly-long, it won't get read, and the user will either skim at random or move on to another article. If it does not reflect the contents of the article (or in this case, strongly emphasizes some parts at the expense of others), the reader will make the decision to read or not read based on incomplete information. This is why the goal of an introduction is to provide a concise overview of an article's content, which I do not feel is being adequately done here. I'd modify it myself, but you appear to feel strongly about what it should look like. --Christopher Thomas 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the lede simply because it needed to be done. The previous version was just too poorly entangled with the airplane concept and needed to be abstracted. Someone qualified might want to try writing an article on the concept of position - currently there is only a disambig. -MagnaMopus 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D-Film

Some of the information added in this section was incorrect. The relevant info belongs to the 3-D film article. The Simpsons mention would also be better served elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Metron4 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical calculations - huh?

I wasn't able to make any sense out of this:

But looking at the four dimensions starting from 1 up to 4, we can see through philosophical calculation that there might be a small question mark at the 3rd an 4th dimension. If we consider that the 3 rd dimension (depth which allows radiation).

But we need time through which space is created in the calculative world where time involves any material action or development. If an object wants to radiate energy then that energize needs time and space to travel toward our eyes. So the 3rd dimension can only do its job when the 4th dimension is created first to allow that specific energy (radiation-3rd dim) to travel through space (4th dim) in and (with) a certain time sequence.

So I deleted it. --Alvestrand 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Thomas's Reversion

~~Lestrade's deleted comments~~

"...a maximum of three lines can intersect a point at right angles... according to Kant... is the reason that space has three dimensions". Shouldn't that be the other way around? That space having 3 dimensions is the reason why no more than 3 lines can intersect a point at right angles? Of course, that still leaves unanswered the reason as to why space only has (or seems to have) the 3 dimensions. Answer that one -- in a way that everyone here can agree to -- and we'll let you put anything you want on this page. Deal? Ewlyahoocom 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lestrade's deleted comments~~

I interpreted the sentence you added as trying to make a claim that any space must have three dimensions, because of a property observed in (and unique to) our three-dimensional universe. If this is not what you meant, or what Kant meant, then by all means propose an alternate phrasing here. If it was instead intended a means of _measuring_ the number of dimensions in the universe we inhabit, then I'd again suggest altering the phrasing to make this clear, though that material is already covered in the preceding paragraphs (the number of degrees of freedom, or (alternatively) the number of non-degenerate basis vectors, required to uniquely define a location in a space is the dimensionality of that space, for spaces with integer dimensionality). --Christopher Thomas 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we be using Kant as an authority on this anyway? He is a philosopher. I very much doubt he originated the idea anyway William M. Connolley 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lestrade's deleted comments~~

You miss the point. I don't think the idea is original to Kant. what makes you think it is? Did he ever claim it was? William M. Connolley 14:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lestrade's deleted comments~~

Anaglyph

this section needs its tone revised

any reason to not just delete it? it's covered adequately elsewhere, and doesn't seem to add to the subject of this article. --Alvestrand 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension and exponentiation

There is a discussion at the ref desk about whether raising to a different power expresses a different dimension. If you want to contribute, be quick, because these discussions die out in a few days. DirkvdM 08:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

If you look at sections 4, 4.2, and 4.4.1 there seems to be some vandalism there. 24.185.25.78 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innacuracy in diagram

This diagram is extremely innacurate for the 0th and 1st dimension. Even the slightest thickness of a 0 dimensional object would make it one dimensional. An actual one dimensional shape should be an infinitely small point. Any thickness of a one dimensional line would make it two dimensional. An actual one dimensional shape should be an infinitely thin line. Fredil Yupi go 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" link

My reasons:

1. It's primarily designed to sell a book on the subject,

2. It's pseudoscientific, and unaccepted by the majority of the scientific community, and,

3. It's not mentioned elsewhere in the article. illspirit|talk 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with your reasons and have just removed the link. It hurts Wikipedia's credibility to have these kinds of links. Mdmkolbe 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to have had that link personally - BriEnBest 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissism?

I've been removing this poorly-written, (apparently) ideologically driven section. It needs the following to reappear: coherent style, sources, and NPOV. 129.171.233.29 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not replace this section. It contains a very basic (even if unorthodox) observation, so it would be hard to find a citation that would make it conform to NOR. It was, however, entirely coherent, and was no more ideological than any other contribution. SemblaceII 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, people can actually look at the history page and read it, so your claim of its coherence is pretty much refutable by a few seconds of reading. But ok then. 72.144.103.202 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showing a new reality

I am somewhat new to the whole more than three dimensions. done some research and found the tesseract and torus. however, it is real hard to visualize what it would look like being a 4 dimensional being. how about starting a project about what the world would look like if we could see it in the 4th dimension? THE WORLD IN 4D 5D and so forth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paintedrealms (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So, what the world would look like if we were entirely different creatures. Hard sell, man. 72.144.60.229 09:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wikismart at ALL but I'm fascinated by theoretical dimensions despite the fact that I can very loosely understand even the 4th dimension...anyway I don't want to mess up the main page so I thought I'd leave this here for someone else to do...[1] thats a link to a very good example of what a spider web would look like in 4D, i thought it might be a useful thing to have on the page... --71.117.1.116 07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in 1.3 - Additional Dimensions

&QUOTE "Theories such as string theory and m theory predict that the space we live in has in fact 10 or 11 dimensions, respectively, 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. We as humans can only perceive up to the third dimension while we have knowledge of our travel through the fourth. We, however can not perceive anything past the fourth."

the universe is NOT smaller than an atom - ~~i'm sorry - not even string theory could say anything that contradictory - must be a mistake.~~ BriEnBest 10:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Flatland by Edwin A Abbott? If not, you should, before you comment on the thickness or lack thereof of imperceivable dimensions. Stannered 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Stannered, the universe is STILL not smaller than an atom. This is like saying THE house someone lives in is smaller than an apple.

it's just some sort of error is all...i know that the author was not trying to make it sound like that.

I will look for the book though, soon. and thanks for turning me on to that as i am very interested in impercievable dimensions and the like... - BriEnBest 08:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for reference, here is the next sentence: " As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size" - this does not make sense because the sentence before it says that our universe (and more importantly, the dimensions we perceieve) are all MICROSCOPIC in size, then it says they're macroscopic...

let me try again, "...predict that the space we live in has in fact 10 or 11 dimensions, respectively, but that the size of these dimensions compared to the universe as a whole are subatomic in size."

how's that? can someone verify that for me, please? BriEnBest 08:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the current version makes more sense. the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size means that if you could put a nano-ruler along the imperceivable axes, then the distance measured would be less than 10^-10 metres. The universe measured along the three conventional dimensions (which aren't "additional") is much larger than this. We are specifically not saying that the house is smaller than the apple. Stannered

well that should be explained better. what does that mean - that the universe is hella small along some dimensions.......ugh......maybe that whole part should just be taken out - or explained in just a tad more depth... - BriEnBest 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on second thought - the two statements mean the exact same thing, in terms of relativeness: the universe is small when measured along the certain imperceivable dimensions and "the dimensions are small, compared to the universe as we perceive it"

$Insertformulahere$

Nope, yours doesn't say "additional". With "additional" included, they would mean ~~pretty much~~ almost the same thing, but the "compared to the universe" is unnecessary and confusing IMO. Stannered 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so "predict that the space we live in has in fact 10 or 11 dimensions, respectively, but that the size of these additional is subatomic in size." is this better than what is there now, do you think? ie. clearer and easier to understand than "the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size? - BriEnBest 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the simplified version, it's still not necessarily accurate IMO - theoretically, the dimensions themselves could extend beyond the Universe. I think. Draw some co-ordinate axes, and draw a blob centered about the origin to represent the Universe. The size of the Universe measured along either of the co-ordinate axes is finite, but the length of the axes themselves is obviously infinite (or at least longer than the measured width of the Universe along that axis). Stannered 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ummm, i think the term "dimension" is something that is applied to something in particular, therefor the "dimension" when applied to the "perpendicular parts" of OUR universe that are subatomic in size (if that is true.... although i see as probably necessary to the 2 small forces). well the dimensions are subatomic in size.... but the universe is DEFINATELY NOT subatomic...lol. sorry .

about the coordinate axes, think of a sphere...think of yourself on the surface of that sphere... which would be somewhat of a plane, right? so if you draw the coordinate axes on the ground, then they have a finite circumferance. it depends on the shape of the universe, but i think the dominant theory (i could be wrong) is that the universe is somewhat of a 4 dimensional sphere or something like that, which would mean that the three spacial dimensions are in fact finite. - BriEnBest 10:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Dimensions

how exactly do string theory and m theory predict that *just one* additional spatial dimension? what evidence do they base this on, or is it just theoretical math? if so, what is the math based on and where does it start? - BriEnBest 09:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try having a read of [2]. Stannered 17:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

k, i really don't see anywhere on that page where they point out how they predict extra dimensions? - BriEnBest 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if you don't understand that far, then I doubt you'll stand a chance of getting as far as the point where you're able to understand the derivation of a multi-dimensional universe. You could do worse than trying reading the rest of the site. Or doing an undergraduate degree in Physics (if you have not already done so). Stannered 13:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it seems that this page assumes that
a) certain particles are made up of, or in fact are strings
b) when these strings are applied to the laws of harmonics, there is some type of mathematical need for 26 dimensions?

that is basically where i'm at right now... i would like to see the "proofs" of the equations they start with on that page, or maybe be told where they came from. i research that page off and on and the rather esoteric physics vocabulary they use. they also do things to the equations like change an x to a t. and add things without adding the same to both sides... it has a pretty reputable address, but seems a bit, unfinished. i do believe there is reason to why they do those things, but i do not understand them... - BriEnBest 10:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- BriEnBest 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mistake

"Adding the three Euler angles, for a total 6 dimensions, allows the current degrees of freedom —orientation and trajectory —of the aircraft to be known."

Preceeding this sentence, which is in the second paragraph of the article, is discussion saying that to pinpoint an aircraft you need three dimensions, and then comes a sentence stating that time can be a dimension, making the total count so far - four. Then comes this sentence which says that if you add three more "Euler angle" dimensions the total count is 6. Either this means that: 6 should be 7; or, they should say that "without the dimension of time," or something like that. - BriEnBest 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 is correct, and it shouldn't include time. It used to make sense, but has been messed up by careless edits. I'll attempt to fix it. --Zundark 08:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice edit - BriEnBest 08:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Quantum Theory is highly illogical

Mmmmmm, Donuts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.26.1.99 (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It might be illogical but it's still a theory. ♥ Fr edil 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larn to splel (Deliberate -_-) Gamesftw (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill

With regards to: "The equations used in physics to model reality often do not treat time in the same way that humans perceive it. In particular, the equations of classical mechanics are symmetric with respect to time, and equations of quantum mechanics are typically symmetric if both time and other quantities (such as charge and parity) are reversed. In these models, the perception of time flowing in one direction is an artifact of the laws of thermodynamics (we perceive time as flowing in the direction of increasing entropy)."

While this is very true and very interesting and very impressive sounding, I'm not sure it has found it's home in Dimension -> Time. Dhatfield 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disbelief

I'm no rocket scientist, but if there are dimensions in space, then the simple act of moving backward would be moving backward in time. The article gives misleading hints that the fourth dimension is time, but a tesseract is seen to be a hypercube and all dimensions have time. So, if it is proved that there is one dimension, there is one dimension in time, et ceterae (not et cetera) and therefore you may see that a for every unit in space, there is a unit of time. Even from a simple notion of force, one would find squared time. If so then there must be another set dimensions for time that match each and every superposition or "world" of space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.10.103 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Add to the Disbelief Article

Note to the author of this article:

I recommend not watching sci-fi movies deep in the night an writing an article some may be unfortunate as to cite.

Note to those who think the quantum theory and its applications are highly illogical:

Please explain why light can be polarized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.10.103 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

books

I am doing a research paper and i was wondering, what books should I read to get a better understanding about different dimensions? My topic is how understanding dimensions can be beneficial to our society. if there is any book or website to help me with my topic i would like to know what they are, but i am mainly focused on understanding the demensions first.i would like some differing opinions as well, so i can interprit what i think

Maybe the novella Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions? By the way, this page is for discussing improvements to this article. A better spot for such questions is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. But then, of course, once you understand the concept of dimensions really well, you can help improve this article, which will be beneficial to Wikipedia specifically and thereby to our society in general. --Lambiam 08:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could i have a copy of your report lol, i'll help you understand what physical dimensions are - i don't know how understanding them can benefit but that is why i want to read your report - to learn that. BuT THIS PERSON DID NOT SIGN so it's kind of hard to communicate with him/her -BriEnBest (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]