Question about a torodial universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vorde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of toroidal structures, specifically whether the dimensions of a torus must adhere to a "smaller" and "larger" relationship in higher-dimensional analogs. Participants explore the topology of a 2D torus and its higher-dimensional counterparts, including the implications of embedding these structures in different dimensional spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the meaning of "smaller" in the context of toroidal dimensions, suggesting that a 2D torus can be constructed from a square without a requirement for one dimension to be smaller than the other.
  • Others clarify that the identification of opposite sides of a square to create a torus topology does not necessitate a size relationship between dimensions.
  • A participant notes that the concept of a torus can extend to higher dimensions, such as a 3D torus formed by identifying the faces of a cube, which also does not require a surrounding higher-dimensional space.
  • There is a suggestion that the limitation of dimension relationships may only arise when embedding the torus in three-dimensional space, with alternatives proposed for four-dimensional embeddings or non-embedded considerations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of dimensional relationships in toroidal structures, with no consensus reached on whether such relationships must hold in higher dimensions.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of embedding toroidal structures in various dimensions, highlighting that the properties of the torus may change depending on the dimensional context considered.

Vorde
Messages
786
Reaction score
0
Does the fact that on 2D torus's, one dimension on the torus always has to be 'smaller' than the other dimension hold on the higher dimension versions?
 
Space news on Phys.org
You can have a 2d torus?
 
I mean 2D in the way you could call the surface of a sphere a 2-sphere, I guess I was trying to sound 'mathy'. I just mean a doughnut surface by 2D torus.
 
I am not sure what you mean...even in 2D, you can identify the opposite sides of a *square* to have torus topology. So what do you mean by "smaller"?
 
yenchin said:
I am not sure what you mean...even in 2D, you can identify the opposite sides of a *square* to have torus topology. So what do you mean by "smaller"?

Good point, thanks. 2D torus so constructed is often given as an example of a flat differential manifold. Zero intrinsic curvature. No boundary. Not embedded in any surrounding space.
Sometimes people talk about the "Pac Man" game screen as a square with left edge identified with right edge, and top with bottom.

It is not true that one circumference or girth has to be bigger or smaller than the other. The construction works just as well with a square as with a rectangle.

The original question was about higher dimensional analogs and the same is true, one can for instance start with a cube and make the same "Pac Man" identifications. Going out thru the right side is the same as coming in thru the left. Ditto front and back, ditto top and bottom.

that's a 3D torus and it does not have to "live" in any higher dimensional space, and it is boundaryless. Standard differential geometry.

Thanks for making the same point in the other thread about the 1D torus analog---the 1D "ring" made by taking a line segment and identifying the endpoints. Does not require a 2D surround. Need not be immersed in any higher dim'l space.
 
marcus said:
It is not true that one circumference or girth has to be bigger or smaller than the other. The construction works just as well with a square as with a rectangle.
Right. This limitation only comes into play when you embed the torus in three dimensions. I believe you can get around this limitation by embedding it in four dimensions instead. Or just by not embedding it at all and only dealing with the two dimensions inherent to the torus.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K