I read in a magazine

  • Thread starter Blahness
  • Start date
  • #1
106
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

I read in a magazine......

That a universe with 1 dimension of time and 2 dimensions would be too simple for life.

Why?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,381
4,156
Blahness said:
That a universe with 1 dimension of time and 2 dimensions would be too simple for life.

Why?
Since PF strives to maintain a higher standard of discussion than most open forums, it is imperative that when you decide to ask a question or clarification based on another external source (such as a magazine), that you make an accurate citation of that source, i.e. name of the magazine, the date/volume number, page number, name of author of that article, etc. If not, there is no way for any of us to double check on what you read, if you misinterpret the source, or if the source is even credible at all.

Zz.
 
  • #3
106
0
Okay, okay. Sorry about that.

Astronomy, Vol. 33 - Issue 10, October 2005.

Page: 39
Graph on the right side.
 
  • #4
Mk
1,984
3
Well, this may be an interesting thread.
 
  • #5
166
0
These things often refer to an example given by (I think) stephen hawking. The idea being that two dimensional life would have to be radically different to what we know, because your digestive tract would split you into two seperate beings. Check out this link.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
535
0
exactly. in a 2 dimensional world, all the universe is flat and one atom thin.it you slice an animal in half, the digestive track being down the middle, and the animal now being only an atom or so thick, its body splits into pieces
 
  • #7
Danger
Gold Member
9,608
244
You wouldn't be able to see anything either, because EM propogates in 3D.
 
  • #8
535
0
yea. and movement of even one cell would be near impossible, but alot of chain reactions would be alot more common because the atoms are hitting each other on a 2d plane not a 3ed one so many many less factors to account for. loose protons and what not would be the end of all life before it starts most likely
 
  • #9
ZA
13
0
As I know, the life forms in a 2 (space) dimentional space could never become complex for the simple reason that a 2-dimentional life form with a mouth and a bottom would split in half. However, something like an amoeba could still possibly exist. I think read this from a book by Michio Kaku. I don't remember exactly where, but it might have been "hyperspace", or "parralel worlds" and possibly from Brian Greene's "The elegant universe". However, you must realize that all of this is purely speculative, and assumes that life would have to be just like ours, but there are about a million ways life could adapt to survive in 2 dimensions. If you don't find it there just look through modern popular science books on string theory and higher dimensions.
 
  • #10
2-d beings would logically have to be energy based
 
  • #11
535
0
not possible. cells wouldn't be able to perform osmosis without floating away from other pieces of itself
 
  • #12
whos to say that an energy based being could be able to fathom the complexitys of organic beings (aka think non caporal)and likewise whos to say we could understand the complexitys of an energy based being. considering there isn't even a unified field theory YET whos to say that there would even be cells considering that it would have to be energy based not cell (organic) based.
 
  • #13
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,381
4,156
This thread is getting to a point where it is about to get away from us. It is appropriate then that I remind people about PF Guidelines of posting in here, in case people forgot, or didn't know such a thing exists (since there are many new members participating in this one).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

Zz.
 
  • #14
Try to design an organism that is able to have more than one opening, now try to imagine it operating in any sort of complex manner and you would have answered the question for yourself.

Dont forget to have connecting components that are not solid but hollow (as channels i.e. 2D analogue of blood vessels).
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Danger
Gold Member
9,608
244
We've all been avoiding the fundamental fact that atoms and the components thereof, plus leptons and bosuns, are 3D, so I think that pretty much rules out anything existing in Flatland.
 
  • #16
Danger said:
We've all been avoiding the fundamental fact that atoms and the components thereof, plus leptons and bosuns, are 3D, so I think that pretty much rules out anything existing in Flatland.
Not so, leptons and quarks are treated (approximated) as 0 dimensional point particles.
 
  • #17
Danger
Gold Member
9,608
244
For the sake of simplicity in calculations, that is proper. In physical reality, however, the wave functions that define them have to exist in more than 2D. Even if that 3rd dimension is almost infinitely small, it still has to be there. (Okay, this is a little out of my area, but I can't conceive of a true mathematical point actually having physical reality. I have the same feeling about singularities. If there's contrary evidence that I've overlooked, please elaborate.)
 
  • #18
535
0
is it possible to have anything at all without a density for it. thats what the 3rd demetion would determine right?
 

Related Threads for: I read in a magazine

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
605
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Top