[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 617 KB, 700x525, fkhouse5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3948435 No.3948435 [Reply] [Original]

Hello /sci/, I'm writing a book which involves some physicery-pokery early on, and I'd like my impossible scenario to at least fit in with what most people would think it would be like. So of course I do not know this, so mind experiment time?

Hypothetically, If I took a 2D object (say a rectangle) and placed it in front of me in the real world and looked at it, what would it look like as I walked around it?

>> No.3948444

You wouldn't be able to see it unless you were looking down at it but from far away you wouldn't see anything

>> No.3948457

hold paper in front of your face
slowly rotate
???
OP's an idiot.

>> No.3948490

>>3948457
>implying paper is actually 2d, and literally has no thickness.

if its really 2d, it has no depth dimension. this means there is nothing to block photons passing straight through it.

therefore, any 2d object in a 3d world will be invisible from all angles.

...prove me wrong.

>> No.3948491

>>3948444

So would it be possible for the 2d shape to 'stand up' like a door or mirror?

>>3948457

But paper is 3D. And calling me names just because I don't know something and ask about it is a faggot thing to do.

>> No.3948492

>>3948457
Paper is still 3-dimensional. You're an idiot.
>>3948435
I don't think you would see it at all. Since it's infinitely thin (lacking a third dimension) so photons wouldn't "bounce" off. Even if you saw it directly from the x or y planes, there would be no z plane to offer up a thickness in order to become visible.

>> No.3948493

>>3948490
Why wouldn't you be able to see it if you're looking at it perpendicular to the shape?

>> No.3948498
File: 3 KB, 126x108, sci5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3948498

>>3948492
this guy!

>> No.3948503

>>3948493
like >493 says, there is no solid 3d matter for photons to interact with, therefore you see nothing.

>> No.3948510

>>3948493
like Photon says, there is no solid 3d matter for photons to interact with, therefore you see nothing.

>> No.3948514

>>3948498
Ha, thanks.
>>3948435
For some mind-candy, think on this: You couldn't "take" a 2D object and place it in the "real" (3D) world. To place it in a space that is 3D, you'd have to give it an extra dimension to make it "real" in the 3D space. But that's getting philosophical.

>> No.3948515

>>3948503
>>3948492

Thank you!

>> No.3948521

>>3948510
>>3948492
singularities at centre of black holes are zero-D yet they interact with light

>> No.3948531

>>3948521
NO.
The fields that they manipulate (gravity) interact with light. Also, a mathematical singularity and a physical one are two different things.

>> No.3948532

>>3948521

that is a meaningless assertion

>> No.3948535

>>3948490
Well, since this is all hypothetical, imagine a 2D surface on which alternate laws of physics operate, holding the electromagnetic field on the surface at zero. That would look like a mirror.

>> No.3948536

>>3948521

>yet they interact with light

There isn't really any evidence of that. Moreover, the interactions between the singularity and anything is pretty unclear.

>> No.3948537

>>3948514
MIND
FUCKING
BLOWN

and yeh, i could have been a cunt and done the old
>[impossible situation]
>what would happen?
>constana.jpg

>> No.3948542

>>3948514
>But that's getting philosophical.

Only if you don't know what philosophy is.

>> No.3948545

>>3948537
It creates an interesting perspective with which to view Flatland, eh?

>> No.3948556

>>3948535
That would depend on the laws that apply to the plane. I suppose that because of the wave-particle duality, photons *could* *maybe* interact with a field originating from a 2D plane yet keep their "standard" effects when interacting with a 3D object (our eyes, for example) after being affected by such fields.

>> No.3948566

>>3948536
of course it interacts. the singularity is where all the mass is, which bends space-time

>> No.3948577

>>3948556
Photons *are* the electromagnetic field. (To be most accurate, they're excitations of the field.)

>> No.3948583

>>3948566
Look. The physical properties of black holes are largely in the realm of speculation. We don't exactly know how a singularity (if it exists) would affect our world. And you can't say that the singularity is where all the mass is because a 0-dimensional object cannot contain a polydimensional property.

>> No.3948591

you could have a 2-D topological effect of spacetime such as a cosmic domain wall.

we would interact with that.

>> No.3948598

>>3948583
if a singularity exists that is the only place the mass could be

you can't say what we can and can't say when we are in areas that physics breaks down

>> No.3948604

>>3948591
That has thickness, too. The field doesn't instantly go from one local energy minimum to another; there's a region where it's in between the two values.

>> No.3948608

>>3948583
if singularities exist, that's where the mass is

>> No.3948623

>>3948435
Physics noob bere. If a the centre of a black hole was a singularity, wouldn't that mean its mass was infinite? If it had infinite mass, wouldn't that also result in infinite gravity thus sucking the rest of the universe into it instantly?

>> No.3948636

>>3948623
Whoah. Explain how you got the idea that a zero-dimensional singularity produces infinite mass.

>> No.3949245

the darkness in a room without light is 2d. shadows can be 2d.