What if the Earth (and the Universe) were 2d?

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of gravity in a 2+1 dimensional Newtonian universe with a flat Earth and the correct modification of Poisson's equation. It is suggested that it may be possible to work it out using GR theory and taking the Newtonian limit, but there is no 2D universe to compare the model's predictions to. It is also mentioned that a possible approach would be to consider a 3D universe with parallel cylinders, but ultimately it is not clear how the fundamental laws of physics would manifest in a 2D universe. Ancient posts and references discussing this topic are also mentioned.
  • #1
etotheipi
Well, okay, I should say: what does Newtonian gravitation look like in a ##2+1## dimensional Newtonian universe? Consider a flat Earth, i.e. a region ##\mathcal{E} = \{ (x,y): x^2 + y^2 \leq R \}## with mass density ##\rho##, then for ##r > R## a natural guess for the gravitational field seem like it might be$$\begin{align*}

\mathbf{g} &= - \frac{GM}{r} \mathbf{e}_r \\

\implies 2\pi GM&= - 2\pi rg_r = \int_0^{2\pi} -r g_r d\varphi = -\int_0^{2\pi} [r g_r \cos^2{\varphi} + rg_r \sin^2{\varphi}] d\varphi

\end{align*}$$where ##\mathbf{X}(\varphi) = (r\cos{\varphi}, r\sin{\varphi})## is a parameterisation of ##\partial \Omega##; then by Green's theorem$$2\pi G \int_{\Omega} \rho dS = 2\pi GM = - \oint_{\partial \Omega} g_1 dy - g_2 dx = - \int_{\Omega} \partial_i g_i dS= - \int_{\Omega} \nabla \cdot \mathbf{g} dS$$which leads to the identification $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{g} = - 2\pi G\rho \implies \nabla^2 \phi = 2 \pi G \rho$$with a potential ##\phi(r) - \phi(r_0) = GM \ln{(r/r_0)}##. The equations of motion can be derived pretty easily in principle from that.

But I was wondering if this is the correct modification of Poisson's equation? In other words, is the assumption that ##\mathbf{g} = - (GM/r) \mathbf{e}_r## correct for a flat Earth in a 2d universe?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
etotheipi said:
But I was wondering if this is the correct modification of Poisson's equation? In other words, is the assumption that g=−(GM/r)er correct for a flat Earth in a 2d universe?
It is a reasonable approach. I don’t know that there is any criteria you could use to identify any reasonable criteria as “correct” or “incorrect”
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and etotheipi
  • #3
Dale said:
I don’t know that there is any criteria you could use to identify any reasonable criteria as “correct” or “incorrect”

That's a really good point! I was thinking that maybe it's possible in principle to work it out in a 2+1 dimensional universe with GR theory, and then take the Newtonian limit; but I don't know nearly enough about GR to know if that's possible, or just nonsense.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #4
There should be more flattery in a 2D universe...(I couldn't help myself)
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes diogenesNY, berkeman, Nugatory and 3 others
  • #5
hutchphd said:
There should be more flattery in a 2D universe...(I couldn't help myself)
But then the conclusion is that flattery will get you nowhere. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and hutchphd
  • #6
etotheipi said:
That's a really good point! I was thinking that maybe it's possible in principle to work it out in a 2+1 dimensional universe with GR theory, and then take the Newtonian limit; but I don't know nearly enough about GR to know if that's possible, or just nonsense.
I'm not sure if it's possible or not, but I think that doesn't fix the underlying problem - you don't have a 2d universe to which you can compare your model's predictions. So I think that you can come up with plausibility arguments why physics "ought to be" this way or that way, but that's it.

A possible approach would be to consider a 3d universe containing only parallel cylinders (or whatever cross-section). Physics would have to be independent of the direction parallel to the cylinders by symmetry. See what that yields?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #7
Maybe the book Flatland by Abbott gives a hint?
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes diogenesNY and etotheipi
  • #8
etotheipi said:
What if the Earth (and the universe) were 2d?
Then the flat Earth society people would be insufferably smug. There'd be no living with them.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes nasu, etotheipi, anorlunda and 2 others
  • #9
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #10
Movies would be shown on a 1D screen.
 
  • Haha
Likes anorlunda

1. What does it mean for the Earth and Universe to be 2D?

In a 2D world, there would only be two dimensions - length and width. This means that everything would be flat and have no depth or height. It is a hypothetical scenario as our world is currently considered to be 3D.

2. How would life be different in a 2D world?

In a 2D world, life would be drastically different. Without a third dimension, living beings would not have any depth or volume. This means that they would be flat and unable to move in any direction other than left and right or up and down. They would also not have any internal organs or systems as we know them in our 3D world.

3. Would gravity still exist in a 2D world?

Yes, gravity would still exist in a 2D world. Gravity is a force that acts on objects with mass, and it is not dependent on the number of dimensions. However, the effects of gravity may be different in a 2D world as there would be no depth for objects to fall towards.

4. How would the laws of physics be affected in a 2D world?

The laws of physics would be fundamentally different in a 2D world. Our current understanding of physics is based on the three dimensions of our world, so in a 2D world, these laws would need to be redefined. For example, concepts like momentum and energy would have to be reevaluated in a 2D world.

5. Is it possible for the Earth and Universe to actually be 2D?

No, it is not possible for the Earth and Universe to be 2D in our current understanding of physics. Our world is considered to be 3D, and the laws of physics that govern it do not allow for a 2D existence. However, some theories in physics, such as string theory, suggest the possibility of extra dimensions beyond the three we currently know of, but these dimensions would not necessarily be 2D.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
956
  • Classical Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
763
Replies
2
Views
859
  • Classical Physics
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
369
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
923
  • Classical Physics
Replies
0
Views
151
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
726
Back
Top