Teacher? ...Teacher? I have a question: How, exactly, can a dimension be "small"? We have three, visible, physical dimensions of which we are all aware. Do you describe those dimensions as "large" or "small"? It seems to me that the terms hold no meaning when talking about dimensions, or rather, the terms are redundant and self-referential. The terms "large" and "small" imply the existence of a dimension in which those relative measurements apply. Don't they?
It's like an extreme case of atmospheric refraction, the mirage, where everything in that direction is compressed into near flatness as seen by the eye. Everything is still in there, but you can cover it all with your thumbnail.
"Teacher? ...Teacher? I have a question: How, exactly, can a dimension be "small"? We have three, visible, physical dimensions of which we are all aware. Do you describe those dimensions as "large" or "small"? It seems to me that the terms hold no meaning when talking about dimensions, or rather, the terms are redundant and self-referential. The terms "large" and "small" imply the existence of a dimension in which those relative measurements apply. Don't they?"
Imagine looking at a telephone wire from a distance, it looks like a straight line. Imagine an ant crawlic along the telephone wire, fro a distance, it appears that he has on dimentional freedom of movement. (The long dimention along the wire)
As you get closer, or look closer with binoculars, it then becomes apparent that there's another dimension, or direction of freedom of movement, the ant has, in the circular dimension around circumference of the wire.
This is what physicists and string theorists mean when they say there may be smaller, curled up dimentions on a scale that is too small for our technology to perceive. Mathematically there is nothing stopping extra dimentions from existing, though I am still skeptical as to whether this translates to phsycal reality.