A pair of two-dimensional supercompressed circles

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sikz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circles Pair
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a hypothetical scenario involving two-dimensional uncompressible circles colliding in a two-dimensional universe. Participants explore the implications of such a collision, including potential outcomes and analogies to three-dimensional objects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that when two uncompressible circles collide, they cannot refract or bounce, leading to questions about the energy transfer and possible outcomes, such as explosion or destruction of the universe.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of an immovable object meeting an irresistible force, questioning the validity of the scenario and the expectation of resolution.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while uncompressible objects may be conceivable, the concept of an unmovable object is inherently flawed due to the relative nature of motion.
  • One participant describes the collision as analogous to a purely elastic collision, where momentum is conserved, suggesting that the circles would rebound in opposite directions if they were approaching at the same speed.
  • There is a challenge regarding the definition of "bouncing," with a participant questioning whether the described rebound is possible given the uncompressible nature of the objects.
  • Another participant asserts that creating an uncompressible object is impossible due to the limitations imposed by the speed of light and the nature of impulse transmission.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of point particles as a potential exception to the discussion about uncompressibility.
  • One participant recommends the book "Flatland" to another, suggesting it may provide relevant insights into the two-dimensional universe concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of uncompressible objects and the implications of their collision. There is no consensus on the outcomes of the collision or the validity of the underlying assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in the assumptions regarding uncompressibility and the nature of motion, as well as the implications of hypothetical scenarios in physics.

Sikz
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Imagine a two dimensional universe, a plane. We take two perfect circles on this plane; they are uncompressable, being elementary particles or some such thing (whatever they are, the important thing is that they cannot be compressed). We take these two circles and set them on a collision course (the line defining the course passes through both of the circle's centers).

What happens when they collide? They can't refract because the angle is straight-on. They can't bounce because they can't be compressed. The energy has to go somewhere; so what happens?

They could explode, perhaps. Maybe the entire two dimensional universe is destroyed somehow? Or maybe the energy gets transferred in another direction, off of their twodimensional plane? While they are perfect circles ON the plane, they may not be spheres in 3d space- so perhaps one goes "up" and one goes "down" and they eventually end up in a different plane (universe) than when they started?

If the latter is the case, perhaps we could replicate this with three-dimensional spheres? Any thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?

If you want to build a system where you can deny everything, why bother to occlude it so crudely. If you construct a hypothetical paradox, why should you expect a resolution from someone else?
 
But uncompressable objects are possible, while an "unmovable" object is not (the very nature of motion is relative, so nothing is "unmovable" because of the lack of absolute location). In 3d space it is concievable that we could create or obtain spherical/point particles that cannot be compressed. Maybe black holes or something?

I havn't simply made up an entire new, impossible concept and asked for input (EG what if boxes were round? how would they be boxes?!). The two-dimensional universe is an analogy for the three-dimensional universe, and I've not included anything inherrently paradoxial or provedly impossible.
 
Originally posted by Sikz
Imagine a two dimensional universe, a plane. We take two perfect circles on this plane; they are uncompressable, being elementary particles or some such thing (whatever they are, the important thing is that they cannot be compressed). We take these two circles and set them on a collision course (the line defining the course passes through both of the circle's centers).

What happens when they collide? They can't refract because the angle is straight-on. They can't bounce because they can't be compressed. The energy has to go somewhere; so what happens?

They could explode, perhaps. Maybe the entire two dimensional universe is destroyed somehow? Or maybe the energy gets transferred in another direction, off of their twodimensional plane? While they are perfect circles ON the plane, they may not be spheres in 3d space- so perhaps one goes "up" and one goes "down" and they eventually end up in a different plane (universe) than when they started?

If the latter is the case, perhaps we could replicate this with three-dimensional spheres? Any thoughts?

The scenario you have set up here can be described as a purely Elastic Collision. It's analogous to billiard balls colliding as compared to spheres of putty colliding which would be considered an inelastic collision. In a purely elastic collision, no energy is converted to heat and momentum is conserved in the colliding objects. In your scenario, the circles will rebound in the opposite direction and the sum of their momentums will be conserved. This means if they were approaching each other at the same speed, after the collision, they will be moving in the opposite directions at the same speed.
 
But isn't that due to "bouncing"? If they can't compress they can't bounce. Or is that regardless of "bouncing", just happening normally?
 
Originally posted by Sikz
But uncompressable objects are possible, while an "unmovable" object is not (the very nature of motion is relative, so nothing is "unmovable" because of the lack of absolute location).

Actually, it's impossible to create an uncompressible object.

If an impulse hits one end of the object, then it takes at least d/c time for the far end of the object to react where d is the diameter of the object, and c is the speed of light.
 
Unless it's a point particle... right? (assuming they exist and aren't strings)
 
Sikz, have you read "Flatland" by Edwin Abott? I'm guessing you probably have but if not, I think you would enjoy it.

http://ry4an.org/flatland/

Originally posted by Sikz
Unless it's a point particle... right? (assuming they exist and aren't strings)

There is certainly nothing wrong with considering 'ideal' cases. Scientists do it all the time.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad What Are the Limits of the Universe According to Cosmologists?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Graduate Alternative topology of our 3D space
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Proving that the real projective plane is not a boundary
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Undergrad Looking closely at the descent into a black hole
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
Graduate Visualizing higher dimensional spheres
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Graduate Differential movement along a curved surface
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Graduate The Blessings of Dimensionality and Hilbert's 6th Problem
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Could a 4D Object Appear and Disappear Like a Sphere in Flatland?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
MHB The Unit Circle, the Sinusoidal Curve, and the Slinky....
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
Graduate Why are the Navier-Stokes equations inconsistent in this case?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K