Does a 1D Line Have Physical Width in Physics?

AI Thread Summary
A one-dimensional (1D) line is defined as having length but no physical width. The discussion raises questions about the implications of 1D lines in two-dimensional (2D) objects, suggesting that if 2D objects consist of infinitely many 1D lines, they could also be infinitely large. However, this leads to confusion regarding the concept of infinity and whether it can be subdivided into smaller infinities. The visualization of drawing lines from the center to the edge of a circle is mentioned as a way to conceptualize this, but it is acknowledged that this may not provide a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately, the consensus is that a 1D line does not possess any physical width.
Tarantula
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey!
I have some dumb-smart question
Does 1D line have physical width?
My logic says that mathematically you can go smaller and smaller,but I see there being a problem with 1D having infinitly small width in physics.

If 2D object has infinitly many 1D lines that would suggest that 2D object is also infinitly long/large - for it not to be infinitly long
-it has to have infinitly many smaller infinitys(but that seems to be also flawed)-I draw a circle and started to pull lines from center to edge to visulise it and it seemed to work,but I don't see it being a good answer.
-otherwise it's infinitly large number that is actually a number and isn't infinity atall.
English isn't my first language ,sorry :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hey Tarantula! Welcome to PF! :smile:
Tarantula said:
Does 1D line have physical width?

There is no width in 1D …

so a 1D line has length but no width.

(btw, you need to use the word "a" more often :wink:)

If 2D object has infinitly many 1D lines that would suggest that 2D object is also infinitly long/large - for it not to be infinitly long
-it has to have infinitly many smaller infinitys(but that seems to be also flawed)-I draw a circle and started to pull lines from center to edge to visulise it and it seemed to work,but I don't see it being a good answer.

Sorry, I don't understand. :redface:
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top