Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I read in a magazine

  1. Sep 21, 2005 #1
    I read in a magazine......

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

    Why?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 21, 2005 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  4. Sep 22, 2005 #3
    Okay, okay. Sorry about that.

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

    Page: 39
    Graph on the right side.
     
  5. Sep 22, 2005 #4

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Well, this may be an interesting thread.
     
  6. Sep 23, 2005 #5
    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
     
  7. Sep 23, 2005 #6
    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
     
  8. Sep 23, 2005 #7

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You wouldn't be able to see anything either, because EM propogates in 3D.
     
  9. Sep 23, 2005 #8
    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
     
  10. Sep 24, 2005 #9

    ZA

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  11. Sep 24, 2005 #10
    2-d beings would logically have to be energy based
     
  12. Sep 24, 2005 #11
    not possible. cells wouldn't be able to perform osmosis without floating away from other pieces of itself
     
  13. Sep 24, 2005 #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.
     
  14. Sep 24, 2005 #13

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  15. Sep 24, 2005 #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: Sep 24, 2005
  16. Sep 24, 2005 #15

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. Sep 25, 2005 #16
    Not so, leptons and quarks are treated (approximated) as 0 dimensional point particles.
     
  18. Sep 25, 2005 #17

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.)
     
  19. Sep 25, 2005 #18
    is it possible to have anything at all without a density for it. thats what the 3rd demetion would determine right?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?