We're not all Quantum physicists like J so here's a really cool clip going through all the dimensions.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

Make sure you can listen to it with some attention, or you'll lose track in a second.

I lost myself somewhere during the 5th dimension.

I just had to quote this. Might have to add it to my signature, completely out of the context

And quantum physics still give me traumas. Infinite wells and stuff arrgh i'm sure they'll be back to haunt me this night.

Thou, I think linear algebra is what speaks of much more understandable model of spaces with even infinite dimensions.. so, why to bother about 10?

I found it (as far as this simplified presentation goes) not that hard to understand, tbh. But then I did spend a good part of my life reading SF novels dealing with multiple realities and precognition etc, which is likely to have helped me grasping the concepts.

But yeah, like GFree said: starting from dimension 7, who the fuck cares anymore? We can't grasp infinity anyway, so we can't grasp multiple infinities and definitely not dimension 10. Which would be infinity to the infinity power, I s'ppose.

Well I have told at least we CAN more than grasp n-dimensional spaces, where n is from N, and therewith the infinity too. The problem is only: we cannot visualize them in the way that would be absolutely abstract and naturally (without proper intro) understandable to most of people.

In linear algebra (which I took as most fundamental example) you do not need to visualize anything, but just to write it down and calculate with it under the set of given rules. As simple as can be.

Get help, seriously!

But when you write it down and can't visualise, it just stays very abstract, you know what to do because some mathematical rules/logics, but you can't picture the whole concept do you? And i think mankind (in general) is used to understand things by visualising them. If we can't see it we hardly understand it.

Go atoms, neutrons, electrons, ... !

On Quarks! On Leptons! On Dancer! On Prancer!

I hope to have your forgiveness, J, for that I possibly play with the words but "picturing something" does not always have something to do with drawing it (this sentence can fall as well, if we take that writing a letter or number is kind of drawing too). But to the point: if I tell

in an euclidean space, the x is family of points that suffice:
"the distance between x and fixed point O is fixed real number r"

then I just defined a circle with center O and radius r. Note that I didn't tell in which dimension it all happens so if dimension is 2, it is just simple circle in euclidean plane (R^2). If dimension is 3, then it is a circle in our euclidean three-dimensional space (R^3) - that circle has name sphere; If dimension is n, then it is circle in euclidean R^n.

[spoiler]If you do not use euclidean metric, it may happen that a circle actually looks like a square or even point-grid.[/spoiler]

So although I cannot draw a circle in R^n, I know that it is actually an hyperplane with given specifications (see the definition above). It is easy to understand at that point.

Now why would I need to do do calculations in such spaces, where i.e. ten parameters change (in most) independently, but need to be taken together as that is the way they impact their environment? It could be just a simple control table of ten generators.. You may need a function (eleventh dimension) that calculates what the power all ten generators generate, but you do not need to draw eleven-dimensional picture for that - it is easy enough to follow the whole situation with eleven 2D pics.