Can 2-Spheres Exist in 2D Slices of 3D Space?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TrickyDicky
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant Euclidean
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence and definition of 2-spheres within 2D slices of 3D space, exploring concepts of dimensionality, curvature, and perception in different spatial dimensions. Participants engage with theoretical implications and analogies related to geometry and topology.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that 3-dimensional objects like 2-spheres cannot exist in 2-dimensional space, while another contends that they can be defined in a specific way using spherical coordinates.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of topological bending and questions the validity of the balloon analogy, suggesting that the center of expansion is not on the surface.
  • A participant discusses intrinsic curvature, stating that while a 2D surface can be curved, without a 3D embedding, one cannot observe 2-spheres directly, only perceive their curvature.
  • There is a suggestion that beings in a 2D world could only infer the existence of 3D objects through measurements, but would not be able to see or touch them.
  • One participant challenges the question of defining a sphere, suggesting that the definition itself is subjective and questioning how spheres might be defined in higher dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and definition of 2-spheres in 2D space, with no consensus reached on the validity of the arguments presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants' arguments depend on various assumptions about dimensionality and perception, and the discussion includes unresolved questions about the nature of definitions in different contexts.

TrickyDicky
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
28
Hi, I was wondering if someone can set this right , I'm discussing this with another person that says that If (working in spherical coordinates) we make r constant in a Euclidean 3d space, in the resulting slice (phi-theta plane) we can define 2-spheres. I say that in my opinion you can't have 3-dimensional objects such as 2-spheres in bidimensional space, but he says it is obvious we can.
I would appreciate it if someone clarifies this seemingly easy problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anyone?
 
I have very similar confusion, and it relates directly to the concept of topological bending, expansion or contraction of finite 3D space in the absence of at least a 4th spatial dimension.

The classic example offered is the balloon analogy, wherein the balloon expands - with all points diverging - but without a specific center from which expansion occurs. My objection to that analogy has always been that the center is "INSIDE" the balloon, not on it.

The good people in cosmology suggest that this is flawed thinking, and insist that the center of the balloon DOES NOT EXIST. They refer me to the topological concept of a 2D torus existing in three dimensions, in a universe that DOESN'T HAVE THREE DIMENSIONS!

It seems to me that this is an arbitrary set selection of dimensional space... simply defining a limited area of 3D space with 2D specificity. Can anyone please explain this in terms that I can understand?
 
Last edited:
To make the question more specific, I understand that intrinsic curvature doesn't need a higher dimension embedding to be computed and in this sense you only need 2 dimensions to have a curved surface, and this 2d surface could be spherical, and inhabitants of the 2d world could perceive this spherical curvature, what I'm saying is that without the 3d embedding, one can't discern , or observe 2-sphere objects, the maximum the 2d inhabitants can aspire to is to perceive they live in a spherical world. Is this reasoning right?
 
Can you specify what extra information they can discover if their world is embedded in 3 dimensions?
 
Office_Shredder said:
Can you specify what extra information they can discover if their world is embedded in 3 dimensions?

Well' I'd say they would be able to actually see and touch 3-d objects such as spheres, cubes and pyramids, while in their original 2d world they can conclude their world is spherical by doing certain measurements in their world, but of course they can only see circles, triangles, etc, they haven't really ever see a cube or a ball, etc so they could only try to imagine what they are like.
It is a similar situation in our 3d world, we can try and imagine what it would be like a 3-sphere(hypersphere) but we can't see them, they don't exist in our world, even if our universe turned out to be spherically curved, a hypersphere itself, since we can't see it from a higher spatial dimension.
 
Can you define a sphere in a sphere? Sure. You certainly can't embed a sphere in a plane.

For the question of "defining a sphere" the first step is realizing that the question is silly. You can define anything to be anything. The question is whether such a definition would make sense. Let's ask instead an easier question. How would you define a sphere in four dimensions? Five? The concept of a sphere certainly makes sense there.
 
zhentil said:
Can you define a sphere in a sphere? Sure. You certainly can't embed a sphere in a plane.

For the question of "defining a sphere" the first step is realizing that the question is silly. You can define anything to be anything. The question is whether such a definition would make sense. Let's ask instead an easier question. How would you define a sphere in four dimensions? Five? The concept of a sphere certainly makes sense there.

Yes, of course that "define" it is possible,it was possible a bad choice of words for the meaning I had in mind so I have made a distinction in the following posts of two different meanings of "defining" a 2-sphere and my question-confusion is solved.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K