We don't really talk about "infinities", instead we talk about "cardinalities". Cardinality of the a set is the mathematical way of saying how large it is. Of course infinity could easily just mean $\infty$ which is a formal symbol representing a point larger than all real numbers (but the notion can be transferred to other contexts as well). This is not the same sort of infinity as infinite cardinalities. Infinite cardinalities are a whole other beast, and they are related to set theory (as we measure the size of sets, not the length of an interval).
Cantor's theorem tells us that given a set there is always a set whose cardinality is larger. In particular given a set, its power set has a strictly larger cardinality. This means that there is no maximal size of infinity.
But this is not enough, right? There is no maximal natural numbers either, but there is only a "small amount" of those. As the many paradoxes tell us, the collection of all sets is not a set. It is a proper class, which is a fancy (and correct) way of saying that it is a collection which is too big to be a set, but we can still decide whether or not something is in that collection.
In a similar fashion we can show that the collection of all cardinalities is not a set either. If $X$ is a set of sets, $\bigcup X=\{y\mid\exists x\in X. y\in x\}$ is also a set, and its cardinality is not smaller than that of any $x\in X$. By Cantor's theorem we have that the power set of $\bigcup X$ has an even larger cardinality.
What the above paragraph show is that given a set of cardinals, we can always find a cardinal which is not only not in that set, but also larger than all of those in that set. Therefore the collection of possible cardinalities is not a set.
First of all, kudos for introducing these ideas to your 10 year-old! That's an excellent way to get them interested in mathematics at an early age.
As to your question: The short answer is no. Any algebraic operation that you can do of the sort you're describing will yield a complex number. This is due to the fact that they are algebraically closed. What this means is the following.
One way that you can show that you can find a larger domain than the real numbers is by looking at the polynomial
$$
f(x) = x^2 + 1
$$
You can easily see that there are no solutions to the equation $f(x) = 0$ in the real numbers (just as the equation $x + 1 = 0$ has no solutions in the positive integers). So we must escape to a larger domain, the complex numbers, in order to find solutions to this equation.
A domain (to use your term) being algebraically closed means that every polynomial with coefficients in that domain has solutions in that domain. The complex numbers are algebraically closed, so no matter what polynomial-type expression that you write down, it will have as solution a complex number.
Now, this isn't to say that there aren't larger domains than $\mathbb{C}$! One example is the Quaternions. Where the complex numbers can be visualized as a plane (i.e. $a + bi \leftrightarrow (a, b)$), the quaternions can be visualized as a four-dimensional space. These are given by things that look like
$$
a + bi + cj + dk
$$
where $i, j, k$ all satisfy $i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1$, and moreover $ij = -ji = k$. The interesting fact about the quaternions is that they are non-commutative. That is, the order in which we multiply matters!
There are also Octonions, which are even weirder, and are an 8-dimensional analogue.
Anyhow, the answer is in the end that it sort of depends. In most senses, the complex numbers are as far as you can go in a relatively natural way. But we can still look at bigger domains if we want, but we have to find other ways to build them.
Best Answer
It depends. Two answers have pointed out that, as far as cardinality goes, the set of squares has the same cardinality as the set of rectangles. But there are other ways to look at the question.
For example, if you know where two opposite vertices of the square are, then you know the square. But a rectangle is not determined by two vertices – you have to know three vertices to determine a rectangle. So in a sense (and it can be made a quite precise sense), the set of all squares is a two-dimensional object, while the set of all rectangles is a three-dimensional object, and in that sense the set of all rectangles is a bigger object. It's like the two-dimensional surface of a three-dimensional ball; surface and ball have the same cardinality, but ball has the bigger dimension.