Are There Any Non-3D Objects in the Universe?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter demosthenes_001
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of non-3D objects in the universe, particularly in the context of theoretical physics and string theory. Participants explore concepts of dimensionality, including 0D, 1D, and 2D objects, and the challenges of conceiving such dimensions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether science has proven the existence of non-3D objects, noting that while drawings are termed 2D, they are made of 3D particles.
  • Another participant mentions that point particles in non-string physics represent 0-dimensional objects, suggesting that string theory is a significant advancement.
  • A different participant asserts that strings are inherently 1-dimensional and questions the feasibility of discussing 2D or 0D strings.
  • Concerns are raised about the visibility of one-dimensional strings, with a participant asking if they could be observed with the naked eye or an electron microscope.
  • One participant argues that while we cannot conceive of 1D objects, we can understand the existence of 0D objects like electrons, which are theorized but not visually observable.
  • A later reply expresses gratitude for the clarification on dimensions, indicating a positive reception to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of dimensionality and the ability to conceive of non-3D objects. There is no consensus on the visibility or proof of one-dimensional strings, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the conceptualization of these dimensions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their ability to visualize or conceive of non-3D objects, which may affect their understanding of the topic. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of dimensionality in different contexts, such as quantum physics versus macroscopic observations.

demosthenes_001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know if science has actually proved that anything other than 3 dimensional objects exist? We call drawings 2d, because it is the only way we can concieve of it, but the lead particles on a page are still 3 dimensional. My question comes partially from recently looking at string theory. I am unable to concieve of a 1 dimensional thing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
demosthenes_001 said:
Does anyone know if science has actually proved that anything other than 3 dimensional objects exist? We call drawings 2d, because it is the only way we can concieve of it, but the lead particles on a page are still 3 dimensional. My question comes partially from recently looking at string theory. I am unable to concieve of a 1 dimensional thing.

Well, non-string physics already has 0-dimensional objects, namely point particles, so you should then consider string theory as a major step forward, no ? Still 2 such steps, and we're home :smile: Give those scientists some time, they're a bit slow on the mental side :biggrin:

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Why are u unable to conceive a 1D-string...?All strings are 1D.It would be really weird to talk about 2D strings...Or 0D strings...

Daniel.
 
This depends on what you mean by "string". in quantum physics it is one dimensional, but in the world on a larger scale, a string is three dimensional. What I was asking was, could these one dimensional strings be seen by a human eye, or on some kind of electron microscope, and therefore be truly proved? What I meant by not being able to concieve of something that is one dimensional, is that I can not see it or picture it in my mind, and therefore, can not concieve it.
 
demosthenes_001 said:
What I was asking was, could these one dimensional strings be seen by a human eye,


Definitely not.

demosthenes_001 said:
or on some kind of electron microscope, and therefore be truly proved?

Definitely not.

demosthenes_001 said:
What I meant by not being able to concieve of something that is one dimensional, is that I can not see it or picture it in my mind, and therefore, can not concieve it.

Think of electrons...Do we see them...?They're 0D objects (treated by theory),but we would like to think they have 3 dimensions...How do we know electrons exist,if we can't "conceive" it...?

Daniel.
 
thank you. that definitely gives me a better understanding of dimensions. :smile:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Group Theory Appearing in Griffith's Elementary Particles (2nd Ed.)
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Blog: The Fascinating Possibilities of 2D Objects in a 3D Universe
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
High School The 3D Universe: A Speck in the 4D Universe
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Alternative topology of our 3D space
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad The Boundary of the Observable Universe
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
8K
Undergrad Understanding the proof of Goldstone theorem
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Has anyone worked on higher dimensional strings?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Big Freeze: Resolving the Universe's End?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Can someone please explain to me the motion of an electron?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K