You're right. My bad.
There is nothing physicsally manifest that is 2-dimensional. Dimensional models are only used to explain the properties of the world around us.Here's another question. If 4+ dimentions are physically manifest, we should be able to go backwards and say that 2 dimentions are physically manifest as well, right? So show me something that is physically and exactly 2 dimentions...
Well, that may be your opinion (and you are entitled to it), but string theory heartily disagrees with you.Originally posted by avemt1
There is nothing physicsally manifest that is 2-dimensional. Dimensional models are only used to explain the properties of the world around us.
Well, sting theory postulates the existence of one-dimensional strings, and two-dimensional membranes. These have physical existence (according to the theory).Originally posted by (Q)
Well, that may be your opinion (and you are entitled to it), but string theory heartily disagrees with you.
Please, explain exactly how string theory disagrees. Show the math if it will help your explanation.
I don't know!Originally posted by elas
Right now you have 3 dimension note that they are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum; are you prepared to accept that each force has its own spectrum?
The only reason we see 3-d is that we have two eyes, but if we had one wew would only see 2-d. Better yet, if we had three eyes we would probably see 4-d.I'm sorry. I can see the mathematics behind it, but I just can't buy that anything in this universe could physically be only one dimension, let alone two dimensions. I mean we live in a world that depends on 3-D...
yes, that is where we get string theory.But even if we had one eye, we could deduce through observation that a "2-d" object that we perceive to be as such, has length, width, and depth.