Is the Universe Really 3D or Are Forces and Waves 2D?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AlbertRenshaw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forces
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the dimensionality of particles, forces, and waves in the universe, questioning whether they can be classified as 3D or 2D. Participants examine the implications of mass, volume, and the nature of forces and waves, considering both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that particles like electrons and quarks are 3D due to their mass and volume, while others suggest that massless entities like waves and forces may be considered 2D.
  • One participant questions the logic of associating masslessness with two dimensions, stating that fundamental particles are zero-dimensional and that their wave nature implies they can be three-dimensional.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to distinguish between forces and the particles that carry them, asserting that both fundamental bosons and fermions are considered zero-dimensional but can exhibit three-dimensional properties in terms of wave spatial extent.
  • There is a discussion about whether forces can exist in multiple places simultaneously, with some suggesting that forces only exist when acting on something, while others speculate on the nature of forces as interactions rather than substances.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their understanding of physics, indicating they are new to the subject and seeking clarification on their thoughts regarding dimensionality.
  • Another participant notes that if one were to limit an entity to fewer dimensions, it raises the question of why only one dimension would be removed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the dimensionality of particles, forces, and waves. The discussion remains unresolved with differing interpretations and understandings of the concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on specific interpretations of mass, volume, and dimensionality that may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes speculative elements regarding the nature of forces and their existence in relation to time and space.

AlbertRenshaw
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I think of Particles, Electrons, Protons, Up Quarks, Strange Quarks, etc. They all have mass, and therefore have volume... So they are 3D right?

But when I think of forces and waves, light waves, sound waves, photons, gravity (gravitons), they are essentially mass-less and therefore have no depth... which means they are 2D right? They may travel through the 3 dimension... but they are 2D and a planar? Correct?

Is there any way of proving this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AlbertRenshaw said:
they are essentially mass-less and therefore have no depth... which means they are 2D right?

Why would masslessness imply two dimensons? That just makes no sense.
 
Polyrhythmic said:
Why would masslessness imply two dimensons? That just makes no sense.

As far as we know, fundamental particles are zero-dimensional. For example, an electron has mass, but no volume. (This is based on present, well tested theories of physics. The answer would be different, for example, in string theory.) Although they have zero intrinsic size, they are also waves. If you talk about the spatial extent of the wave, then they are all three-dimensional objects.

AlbertRenshaw said:
But when I think of forces and waves, light waves, sound waves, photons, gravity (gravitons), they are essentially mass-less and therefore have no depth... which means they are 2D right? They may travel through the 3 dimension... but they are 2D and a planar? Correct?
You need to distinguish between forces (like a frictional force) and particles that carry forces (bosons). The fundamental bosons are just like the fundamental fermions in this respect. As far as we know, they have zero intrinsic size. In terms of the spatial extent of the wave, they are three-dimensional.
 
bcrowell said:
As far as we know, fundamental particles are zero-dimensional. For example, an electron has mass, but no volume. (This is based on present, well tested theories of physics. The answer would be different, for example, in string theory.) Although they have zero intrinsic size, they are also waves. If you talk about the spatial extent of the wave, then they are all three-dimensional objects.

How does that answer my question?
 
AlbertRenshaw said:
I think of Particles, Electrons, Protons, Up Quarks, Strange Quarks, etc. They all have mass, and therefore have volume... So they are 3D right?

But when I think of forces and waves, light waves, sound waves, photons, gravity (gravitons), they are essentially mass-less and therefore have no depth... which means they are 2D right? They may travel through the 3 dimension... but they are 2D and a planar? Correct?

Is there any way of proving this?
Well, if the world is three dimensional, then it would seem that everything in it can be considered, in some sense, three dimensional. Force is typically thought of as an influence that causes some change in the motion of a ponderable body. It's defined as the product of the mass of an object and its acceleration. Ultimately, everything's defined in terms of relative positioning in some coordinate space. So, it would seem that force in a 3D world can be rightly considered to be a 3D phenomenon. The difficulty with, say, gravitational behavior, or the behavior of light is that you're dealing with disturbances in unknown media, or media of unknown structure. Anyway, unless what is typically called empty space is really empty, then force, insofar as it involves the interaction of, assumed, 3D phenomena, is 3D.
 
Of course a force needs three dimensions to fully describe (accommodate?) it since the cross product of a force and a displacement points into the third dimension.

As far as we know, fundamental particles are zero-dimensional

I assume further to this any 'fundamental' particle that was later proved to possesses a finer structure would occupy volume to accommodate the components of that structure?
 
Studiot said:
Of course a force needs three dimensions to fully describe (accommodate?) it since the cross product of a force and a displacement points into the third dimension.



I assume further to this any 'fundamental' particle that was later proved to possesses a finer structure would occupy volume to accommodate the components of that structure?

But does 1 part of a force ever exist in 2 places at 1 time of our 3D universe, or does it just move to another place as time passes... so for the time being it appears 3D but if you stopped time the force would just be a 2D substance moving along our 3D universe?
 
Polyrhythmic said:
How does that answer my question?
It doesn't answer the question in your #2, which was addressed to the OP. The OP's question doesn't make sense to me, either.

Studiot said:
I assume further to this any 'fundamental' particle that was later proved to possesses a finer structure would occupy volume to accommodate the components of that structure?
Right. That's what happened, for example, with the proton and the neutron.

AlbertRenshaw said:
But does 1 part of a force ever exist in 2 places at 1 time of our 3D universe, or does it just move to another place as time passes...
Could you tell us something about your background in physics? The way you're using words here doesn't sound like the way those words are used in physics.

AlbertRenshaw said:
so for the time being it appears 3D but if you stopped time the force would just be a 2D substance moving along our 3D universe?
A force in the Newtonian sense isn't a substance. Again, it would help if you could tell us about your background.
 
AlbertRenshaw said:
But does 1 part of a force ever exist in 2 places at 1 time of our 3D universe, or does it just move to another place as time passes... so for the time being it appears 3D but if you stopped time the force would just be a 2D substance moving along our 3D universe?
I think it would be incorrect to think of force as a substance or an object, per se. Rather, think of force as being more or less synonymous with, ie., a function of, interaction. Interaction of what, one might ask (eg., in the case of gravitational behavior). Well, that's where a bit of scientifically based metaphysical speculation comes in.
 
  • #10
bcrowell said:
Could you tell us something about your background in physics? The way you're using words here doesn't sound like the way those words are used in physics.

No background, I know almost nothing about it except for what I have picked up from daily conversation with people who know something about physics. I will be taking my first physics course this year... sorry if I am not explaining my thoughts in a more practical way haha! Still learning O:)
 
  • #11
But does 1 part of a force ever exist in 2 places at 1 time of our 3D universe, or does it just move to another place as time passes.

All forces only 'exist' when they have something to act on. They have no separate existence of their own.

Some forces are local that is they only act at a single point.
An example would be the contact force between two perfect spheres, which touch at a single point.

Other forces, such as electrostatic attraction are available in an entire region of space to any and all charges within their region of influence.

go well
 
  • #12
Studiot said:
All forces only 'exist' when they have something to act on. They have no separate existence of their own.

Some forces are local that is they only act at a single point.
An example would be the contact force between two perfect spheres, which touch at a single point.

Other forces, such as electrostatic attraction are available in an entire region of space to any and all charges within their region of influence.

go well

I think I am using the wrong words... Force may not be right.. For example, a photon... Is that 2D traveling through our 3D world.. or is it 3D traveling through our 3D world?
 
  • #13
As far as we can tell we inhabit a universe of 3 spatial dimensions.

Further, as far as we can tell each of these three dimensions are equivalent - there is nothing to tell them apart.

If you wish to limit an entity to fewer dimensions why only remove one?

In other words why 2D, not 1D or even 0D?
 

Similar threads

Graduate Does Adding or Removing an Electron Change a Helium-3 Atom to a Boson?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad "Wave-particle duality" and double-slit experiment
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
Undergrad Neutron Stars: Flipping Up Quarks to Down Quarks
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad How Do Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity Explain the Quantum World?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Could the Discovery of the Graviton Connect Quantum and Classical Physics?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Oserving wave behaviour Is it 2d, 3d, or is there something more?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate Is the Planck Length a 3d area?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate In light of new evidence, what might be behind the Casimir Effect?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
Undergrad Radiation Vectors: Wave Direction After Electron Energy Shift?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad How to turn model of Schrödinger's Equation 2D?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K