Can the Universe Be Understood as a Two-Dimensional Model?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Futobingoro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores a model of the universe as composed entirely of points (0-dimensional objects) and time, suggesting that objects are collections of point-time constructions. It explains that higher-order constructions emerge from the 'time exposure' of lower-order objects, illustrating this with examples of shapes formed through time exposure. The conversation also touches on the philosophical implications of dimensions, with one participant expressing skepticism about their existence as natural entities. Additionally, a reference is made to the book "Flatlanders," which presents a narrative about beings in a two-dimensional universe encountering a three-dimensional object. The model is critiqued as potentially oversimplified, questioning its relevance in philosophical discussions.
Futobingoro
This is a model that describes a universe comprised entirely of points (0-dimensional objects) and time. The underlying mechanism of this model is very simple: any object is a collection of point-time constructions. A construction of a higher order can be accomplished through a kind of 'time exposure' of an object of a lower order.

Let me illustrate:

Think of one of the tail lights in http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/1807/1ld2.jpg .

Likewise, when a line is exposed to time its time exposure creates a rectangle.

And a rectangle creates a rectangular solid in time exposure.

A shape can therefore be thought of as a cross-section exposed to time.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7158/2gl4.png (time exposure is from left to right)

Note that, while a cube in our perception is the very unit of substance and form, it is nothing more than a point and some time in this model.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
Umm...


What?!
 
When you mentioned a "two-dimensional universe" I was guessing at first that it only included spatial dimensions and not time. I personally don't believe dimensions exist in nature but is only a fabrication of geometry. Singularities gives us good intuition of this.
There was a book that I think was written in the 19th century called "Flatlanders" It tells of a story of beings living in a 2 dimensional spatial universe when a three dimensional sphere passes through their plane of existence.
I coudn't find it on Google and the only reference to it was made in a book review of the book, "The Elegant Universe" which is probably where I heard about "Flatlanders". The book is probably out of print and cannot be ontained used due to its age but I would imagine that some university libraries have it in stock
RAD
 
Futobingoro said:
This is a model that describes a universe comprised entirely of points (0-dimensional objects) and time. The underlying mechanism of this model is very simple: any object is a collection of point-time constructions. A construction of a higher order can be accomplished through a kind of 'time exposure' of an object of a lower order.

Let me illustrate:

Think of one of the tail lights in http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/1807/1ld2.jpg .

Likewise, when a line is exposed to time its time exposure creates a rectangle.

And a rectangle creates a rectangular solid in time exposure.

A shape can therefore be thought of as a cross-section exposed to time.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7158/2gl4.png (time exposure is from left to right)

Note that, while a cube in our perception is the very unit of substance and form, it is nothing more than a point and some time in this model.
What's your point? Looks like an oversimplified model that might be used say to illustrate some simple point in relativity but I don't see why it is in philosophy section.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top