I Does a 2-dimensional world really exist?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Lars1408
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d dimensions
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of dimensions, specifically questioning the existence of true two-dimensional (2D) space. It explores how higher-dimensional beings might interact with lower-dimensional beings, using the example of a sphere moving through a 2D world. The idea that a line or dot could exist without height raises philosophical and mathematical questions about the nature of dimensions. While some argue that 2D is a useful mathematical abstraction, others suggest it may not exist in reality. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the distinction between theoretical constructs and their practical implications in understanding dimensions.
Lars1408
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
When we try to explain different dimensions we say that higher dimension beings have control over lower dimension beings. If a sphere moves trough a 2D world, the 2D beings will see a dot appear followed by a line which is increasing in size. Thereafter, the line decreases in size and becomes a dot again before it disappears completely.

However, when you think of a line you always think of a certain amount of height. A line without any form of height seams to me like it would be invisible. Even a piece of paper has height, even the graphite from the pencil which you draw with has a certain 3D trail on top of the paper.

When I imagine a 2D world, I imagine a very narrow horizontal area 360° around me in which I can see. It is however still an area with a height. So my question, does actual 2D exist? How can you have a line or a dot with no height?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A two-dimensional space exists as a mathematical construct which can be useful in modelling systems found in the real world. However the world we live in is (as far as we know) three dimensional.
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN, sophiecentaur, vanhees71 and 2 others
Lars1408 said:
So my question, does actual 2D exist?
One surface of a piece of paper is 2d. That, of course, is a mathematical abstraction. Whether it "really exists" or not is less important than whether the concept is useful.
Lars1408 said:
When we try to explain different dimensions we say that higher dimension beings have control over lower dimension beings.
Do we? I guess you've been reading Edwin Abbott's Flatland. Do remember that it's a satire on English social attitudes as well as a fun description of some different dimensional manifolds. Don't take it too literally.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, jim mcnamara, Lars1408 and 1 other person
Ibix said:
One surface of a piece of paper is 2d. That, of course, is a mathematical abstraction. Whether it "really exists" or not is less important than whether the concept is useful.

Do we? I guess you've been reading Edwin Abbott's Flatland. Do remember that it's a satire on English social attitudes as well as a fun description of some different dimensional manifolds. Don't take it too literally.

With the second quote I mean that we could be above a 2D space withouth the 2D space ever knowing about this. IF a 2D world does exist it would make sense that they could only percieve the plane they are in.
 
Lars1408 said:
With the second quote I mean that we could be above a 2D space withouth the 2D space ever knowing about this. IF a 2D world does exist it would make sense that they could only percieve the plane they are in.

This is just a science fiction concept, science has nothing to say about this.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara and Ibix
HomogenousCow said:
This is just a science fiction concept, science has nothing to say about this.
I think that's the perfect note on which to close this thread.

@Lars1408, have you read the classic "Flatland" by Edwin Abbott? (Just for fun.)
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, etotheipi and Mark44
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. I am in no way trolling. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. Yes, I'm questioning the most elementary physics question we're given in this world. The classic elevator in motion question: A person is standing on a scale in an elevator that is in constant motion...
Thread ''splain this hydrostatic paradox in tiny words'
This is (ostensibly) not a trick shot or video*. The scale was balanced before any blue water was added. 550mL of blue water was added to the left side. only 60mL of water needed to be added to the right side to re-balance the scale. Apparently, the scale will balance when the height of the two columns is equal. The left side of the scale only feels the weight of the column above the lower "tail" of the funnel (i.e. 60mL). So where does the weight of the remaining (550-60=) 490mL go...
Let us take the Ampere-Maxwell law $$\nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \mu_0\,\mathbf{J}+\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ Assume we produce a spark that is so fast that the ##\partial \mathbf{E}/\partial t## term in eqn.##(1)## has not yet been produced by Faraday’s law of induction $$\nabla \times \mathbf{E}=-\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ since the current density ##\mathbf{J}## has not yet had time to generate the magnetic field ##\mathbf{B}##. By...