What if the Earth (and the Universe) were 2d?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter etotheipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d Earth Universe
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion explores the implications of Newtonian gravitation in a 2+1 dimensional universe, specifically focusing on the gravitational field around a flat Earth with mass density ρ. The gravitational field is expressed as g = - (GM/r) e_r, leading to the modified Poisson's equation ∇²φ = 2πGρ. Participants debate the validity of this approach and consider the potential of applying General Relativity (GR) to understand the dynamics in such a universe. The conversation highlights the challenges of validating theoretical models in a non-3D context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian gravitation principles
  • Familiarity with Poisson's equation and its applications
  • Basic knowledge of General Relativity (GR) concepts
  • Mathematical proficiency in calculus and vector analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Poisson's equation in non-standard dimensions
  • Study the principles of General Relativity and its application in lower dimensions
  • Examine the concept of dimensionality in physics through literature such as "Flatland" by Edwin A. Abbott
  • Explore theoretical models of gravity in 2D and 3D universes
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students interested in theoretical physics, particularly those exploring gravitational theories in non-traditional dimensions.

etotheipi
Well, okay, I should say: what does Newtonian gravitation look like in a ##2+1## dimensional Newtonian universe? Consider a flat Earth, i.e. a region ##\mathcal{E} = \{ (x,y): x^2 + y^2 \leq R \}## with mass density ##\rho##, then for ##r > R## a natural guess for the gravitational field seem like it might be$$\begin{align*}

\mathbf{g} &= - \frac{GM}{r} \mathbf{e}_r \\

\implies 2\pi GM&= - 2\pi rg_r = \int_0^{2\pi} -r g_r d\varphi = -\int_0^{2\pi} [r g_r \cos^2{\varphi} + rg_r \sin^2{\varphi}] d\varphi

\end{align*}$$where ##\mathbf{X}(\varphi) = (r\cos{\varphi}, r\sin{\varphi})## is a parameterisation of ##\partial \Omega##; then by Green's theorem$$2\pi G \int_{\Omega} \rho dS = 2\pi GM = - \oint_{\partial \Omega} g_1 dy - g_2 dx = - \int_{\Omega} \partial_i g_i dS= - \int_{\Omega} \nabla \cdot \mathbf{g} dS$$which leads to the identification $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{g} = - 2\pi G\rho \implies \nabla^2 \phi = 2 \pi G \rho$$with a potential ##\phi(r) - \phi(r_0) = GM \ln{(r/r_0)}##. The equations of motion can be derived pretty easily in principle from that.

But I was wondering if this is the correct modification of Poisson's equation? In other words, is the assumption that ##\mathbf{g} = - (GM/r) \mathbf{e}_r## correct for a flat Earth in a 2d universe?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
etotheipi said:
But I was wondering if this is the correct modification of Poisson's equation? In other words, is the assumption that g=−(GM/r)er correct for a flat Earth in a 2d universe?
It is a reasonable approach. I don’t know that there is any criteria you could use to identify any reasonable criteria as “correct” or “incorrect”
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and etotheipi
Dale said:
I don’t know that there is any criteria you could use to identify any reasonable criteria as “correct” or “incorrect”

That's a really good point! I was thinking that maybe it's possible in principle to work it out in a 2+1 dimensional universe with GR theory, and then take the Newtonian limit; but I don't know nearly enough about GR to know if that's possible, or just nonsense.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
There should be more flattery in a 2D universe...(I couldn't help myself)
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: diogenesNY, berkeman, Nugatory and 3 others
hutchphd said:
There should be more flattery in a 2D universe...(I couldn't help myself)
But then the conclusion is that flattery will get you nowhere. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and hutchphd
etotheipi said:
That's a really good point! I was thinking that maybe it's possible in principle to work it out in a 2+1 dimensional universe with GR theory, and then take the Newtonian limit; but I don't know nearly enough about GR to know if that's possible, or just nonsense.
I'm not sure if it's possible or not, but I think that doesn't fix the underlying problem - you don't have a 2d universe to which you can compare your model's predictions. So I think that you can come up with plausibility arguments why physics "ought to be" this way or that way, but that's it.

A possible approach would be to consider a 3d universe containing only parallel cylinders (or whatever cross-section). Physics would have to be independent of the direction parallel to the cylinders by symmetry. See what that yields?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
Maybe the book Flatland by Abbott gives a hint?
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: diogenesNY and etotheipi
etotheipi said:
What if the Earth (and the universe) were 2d?
Then the flat Earth society people would be insufferably smug. There'd be no living with them.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nasu, etotheipi, anorlunda and 2 others
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
  • #10
Movies would be shown on a 1D screen.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
806
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
579
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K