What if there was only two dimensions. Space and Time.

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of dimensions, specifically space and time. It is suggested that there are only two dimensions, but each has three subdimensions. Space has length, width, and height, while time has past, present, and future. The uncertainty principle is also mentioned, which states that it is impossible to determine a particle's exact position and velocity at the same time. The relevance of velocity is questioned and it is proposed that time and space are real dimensions, while velocity is imaginary. The conversation also delves into the idea of adding more dimensions, such as the four known forces in the universe. It is debated whether time and space are closely related or completely separate, but it is agreed that they work together to create
  • #1
Eepl
What if there was only two dimensions. Space and Time. And those two dimensions each have three subdimesions. Space has length, width and height. Time has past, present and future. Each dimesion can be sepratly graphed to find a particles exact position.

As I recall the uncertainty principle is because you cannot determine a particles exact position and velocity at the same time. Isn't velocity really unrealivant. The velocity of an object can fluxuate, so you would be measuring an avarage, not a set. But the position from one time to another is. If you could expand or contract the distance in the time and space dimensions together then you would have a change in velocity. So time and space are real, and it's velocity that's imaginary.

hey, why not.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2


Originally posted by Eepl
What if there was only two dimensions. Space and Time. And those two dimensions each have three subdimesions. Space has length, width and height. Time has past, present and future. Each dimesion can be sepratly graphed to find a particles exact position.

How does this devision of time into 3 dimensions work? After all, "present" is simply a point on the time-axis. Would this be a dimension with only 1 (always moving forward) point? Seems a bit strange to have such a construction...
 
  • #3
I actually believe you are somewhat correct eepl. I believe however that you are not thinking of it right. There are actually 4 known dimensions right now. Human minds can currently have the ability only realize 3 dimensions. Think about the world we are living in as being 2 dimensional. It would be one minute slice of an infinite 3d space. As well if you think about the change in complexity of a 1d space to a 2d space, and a 2d space to a 3d space you can see just how complex a 4d space would be to visualize. I was curious if all the basic forces in the universe represented a different dimension. If you add in the 4 basic forces we know of that makes space 7d and would certainly acount for the complexity of the Universe.
 
  • #4
The way I would define dimensions is each would have to be completely independant of each other. This is why space is one dimension, with three sub dimesions. And time is another. OK suyver, maybe you're right and time is just one dimension. But they are independant of each other. They just work together to create reality.

And what you said at the end Piecemaster is kind of what I was getting to. There could be many independant dimesions, each with subdimensions.

But I still believe that there is no such thing as the uncertainty principle. We just don't know enough yet.
 
  • #5
I believe your somewhat write... I however think that time ans space are really so closely related that it might be counterproductive to see them as two separate things. Though it is useful to look at it as diffrent dimensions for the sake of scientific research, they really all exist together in one over all dimensional shape. just my thoughts...
 
  • #6
Interesting. As an added thought, I wonder if specific dimensions withought relational attributes don't become essentially meaningless and non-functional. For example, time without space would be useless.
 
  • #7
Pallidin, you are correct when you say that time and space are usless without each other. If you had only time one would be everywhere at once, and if one had only space you would be no where at once.

The dimensions are seprate, but without each other there is no inbetween. A photon only exists in time, to itself. So if there was no space it would be everywhere, but it has a speed and direction. This is from space slowing it down, creating distance inbetween point 'a' and 'b'. I don't know the scientific reason for matter gaining mass when it accelerates, but here's my thought.
-The faster you go, the more places you are at once. Once 'c' is obtained you exist in only time, therefore realitive to you, you are everywhere at once. And if you are everywhere at once then you'd have to have enough mass to be everywhere at once. So you don't acctually gain mass with speed, it's just an illusion.

Poy, I am going to have to dissagree with you. I believe that space and time are completely different. They work together to create reality.
 

1. What is the difference between two-dimensional space and three-dimensional space?

In two-dimensional space, there are only two axes (x and y) and all points are confined to a flat plane. In three-dimensional space, there is an additional axis (z) and points can exist in a three-dimensional volume.

2. How would gravity work in a two-dimensional world?

In a two-dimensional world, gravity would only be able to pull objects towards each other along the x and y axes. This means that objects could only fall in a straight line towards each other and would not experience any force along the z axis.

3. Would time exist in a two-dimensional world?

Yes, time would still exist in a two-dimensional world. However, it would be perceived differently since there would be no depth to measure the passing of time. It would be more like a flat line rather than a linear progression.

4. How would living beings be affected by living in a two-dimensional world?

If living beings existed in a two-dimensional world, they would only be able to move along the x and y axes. This would greatly limit their movement and abilities compared to beings in a three-dimensional world. Additionally, their bodies would likely be flat and lack the complexity of organs and systems that exist in three dimensions.

5. What would be the implications for technology in a two-dimensional world?

In a two-dimensional world, technology would be limited in its complexity and capabilities due to the lack of depth and space to work with. Tools and machines would have to be designed to function on a flat plane, and concepts such as perspective and depth perception would not exist.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
901
Replies
11
Views
692
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
0
Views
947
Replies
8
Views
912
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
916
Back
Top