[ 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: 27 KB, 460x299, horatio sees her penis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2513346 No.2513346 [Reply] [Original]

Can something exist in space with more or less than 3 dimensions?

>> No.2513356

Time is the fourth dimension. So yes, more lol

>> No.2513365

yes, damn those machine elves

>> No.2513371

>>2513356
But space would still be 3. Time isn't adding an axis for space.

>> No.2513380

>>2513371
space and time are inextricable

they don't say space-time for nothing

>> No.2513392

How retarded am I for saying that space curves in 4 dimensions?

>> No.2513402

>>2513392
Your thinking of non euclidean geometry, so you're not being retarded. You just need a stronger grasp of the knowledge.

>> No.2513404

If you believe the model of physics which states that particles are 0-dimensional, then a single particle would be (duh) 0-dimensional.

If you like string theory and think that the smallest unit of matter is 1-dimensional, then there you go.

As soon as you have multiple things and start measuring the space between them as "volume," you get three spatial dimensions.

>> No.2513405

Time and space are same

Newfag mind status: blown

>> No.2513416

>>2513404
But how can something exist with only 1 dimension or 2? That would mean it has no length or width, or both. That would make it overlap planes.

>> No.2513447

>>2513405
I don't know what to say.

>> No.2513451

>>2513416
>But how can something exist with only 1 dimension or 2?
See previous post
>That would mean it has no length or width, or both.
Correct.
>That would make it overlap planes.
huh?

>> No.2513467

>>2513451
Space is composed of 3 dimensions, not 3 single dimensions. I know what you're trying to say but that's not how space works.

>> No.2513483

>>2513346
There are things in this universe that have less than three dimensions. Graphene, for example, is said to be small so it's literally two-dimensional.

>> No.2513497

Cosmos - Carl Sagan - 4th Dimension

http://www.youtube(motherfuckingdot)com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

>> No.2513498

>>2513492
Technically: Yes.

>> No.2513492

>>2513483
But is it actually 2d?

>> No.2513488

>>2513483
oh, ffs

>> No.2513501

>>2513498
Then wouldn't it need to exist in a 2d universe or something?

>> No.2513512

>>2513483
Graphene is two-dimensional in the same sense that paper is two-dimensional; it isn't.

>> No.2513513

>>2513467
Three-dimensional space is generally modeled as the Euclidean Space R^3, ie the direct product of three copies of the set of real numbers.

A point in space is an ordered triplet of real numbers. A single point has no dimensions. An object is usually considered to be a set of points, like how a line is the set of points {(a,b,c) + r(x,y,x) | a,b,c,r,x,y,z are all real numbers}.

Under classical physics, the smallest unit of matter exists at a single point, ie it is a set containing only one triplet. Such an object would be zero-dimensional.

>> No.2513516

>>2513497
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

>> No.2513517

>>2513501
ignore the troll/retard. Atoms are 3d.

>> No.2513527

>>2513501
No. You can have less an object, for this example, to have less dimensions than the current dimension if said current dimension is capable of it (like 1D materials in a 2D universe, or 1D and 2D in a 3D universe). But in order to have like a 4th dimension, you need to at least be in the 4th dimension itself and anything beyond it, just not less.

>> No.2513529

>>2513517
no, you need 3d glasses for things to be in 3d, which is why we're 2d.

havent you seen that commercial with justin timberlake and peyton manning?

>> No.2513544

>>2513529
3d movies are dangerous. They use polarized light, which is the same kind of light that comes out of lasers. Also I should be given all the candy in the world.

>> No.2513552

>>2513501
subspaces can take any number of dimensions fewer
it's not matter
it doesn't occupy space
it's just space: a mathematical abstraction of possible free motion
believe it or not, there are such things as 0-dimensional spaces
lrn2mathematics/wikipedia/google
gtfo

>> No.2513559

>>2513497
>>2513516
What I've never understood is, how can a 2nd dimension exist without a 3rd dimension?

I've watched the flatlanders with Sagan before, and while it's interesting, for something to be in the second dimension, doesn't it necessarily need some "height" (3rd dimensional thickness)?

I.E. how can something be 2nd dimensional if it doesn't have any height? Without any 3rd dimensional height (thickness) then it doesn't exist? And if they do have second dimensional height, they are in the 3rd dimension by default, no, even if they can't move in the 3rd dimension...?

>> No.2513561

>>2513512
Uhhh, no, it isn't because a sheet of paper still has at least a tiny bit of depth. Graphene atoms are barely capable of being able to move and deepen by the two dimensions it can allow itself to.

http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/nano/Publications/Naturemat_2007Review.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17972931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnmat2051
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnmat2011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17891144
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature05545
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17330039
http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/nano/Publications/PNAS_2005.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnmat1967
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17660825
https://newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1621
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063%2F1.2761266
http://www.tn.tudelft.nl/tn/Lectures/Meso/Phystoday_2007.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021%2Fjp040650f

>> No.2513573

>>2513561
> Uhhh, no, it isn't because a sheet of paper still has at least a tiny bit of depth.
And so does graphene.

>[long list of citations]
I can give you a long list of citations saying paper is two-dimensional too, but I won't because I'm not retarded.

>> No.2513581

>>2513573
Paper is only seemingly flat, but it has depth. Graphene has little to none. Also, that argument is an equivalent of saying "citations are for faggots."

>> No.2513583

holy shit graphene is not two dimensional

the molecular wavefunction extends in three dimensions

the lattice propagates in two dimensions

lattice dimension =/= actual dimension

>> No.2513586

>>2513581
>Also, that argument is an equivalent of saying "citations are for faggots."
No, it isn't. The papers you cited describe graphene as two dimensional for the same reason people describe paper as two-dimensional; it has very little thickness. It is expected that the reader will know enough to not interpret this as meaning zero thickness.

>> No.2513589

>>2513561
The atomic nuclei that are bonded to make it are themselves 3-d. So, yes, it does have thickness the same way paper does.

>> No.2513591

>>2513573
graphene doesn't have any depth because of how little subspace there is between the atoms. dimensional space is defined by how much room an atom can move within each other, which the honeycomb lattice and packed space graphene makes it difficult to accomplish

if you define dimensions by an object's ability to move within the directions it can allow, virtually nothing in this universe is any less or more than three dimensions

>> No.2513598

>>2513586 again,

Note also that the very first citation in >>2513561 describes fullerenes as zero-dimensional. One hopes that you don't think that fullerenes are literally points.

>> No.2513602

>>2513591
>if you confine an elephant to move in only 2 dimensions, then the elephant is 2-dimensional
nope
confirmed retard detected

>> No.2513603

>>2513586
I'm not the author of those posts, but I highly doubt anyone here has gone through any of them within two minutes. One citations claims electrons in graphene travel 100 times the speed of light.

>> No.2513612

ITT: College students confusing mathematic subspaces with scientific topology

Graphene is only mathematically a two-dimensional substance.

>> No.2513614

>>2513603
One doesn't have to read a long list of citations to know that two-dimensional can be used to mean that the thickness is negligible.

>> No.2513619

>>2513591
The wavefunction is inherently 3-d, so unless some process *completely and fully* cancels one or more directions of propagation, anything with a wavefunction (i.e. all matter and energy) is 3 dimensional.

>> No.2513620

>>2513573
>I can give you a long list of citations saying paper is two-dimensional too
Cite them because according to Google, no such articles claim paper is two dimensional.

>> No.2513629

>>2513614
But that's barely relevant and mostly anecdotal to the present argument at hand.

>> No.2513661

>>2513598 again,
The first citation even explains what exactly it means by two dimensional, and it's certainly not zero thickness:
>But how many layers are needed before the structure is
regarded as 3D? For the case of graphene, the situation has recently become reasonably clear. It was shown that the electronic structure rapidly evolves with the number of layers, approaching the 3D limit of graphite at 10 layers [20].

>> No.2513694

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space

>> No.2513716

>>2513661
>>2513661
just joined in the thread, but that's a misreading and mostly a misconception of what scientists define as a "two-dimensional" material. most of them are using mathematical definitions of "dimensional space" to describe graphene and other materials like it, not mention your quote is a simple preposition to the citation's point.

>> No.2513726

space exists in the third (space) and fourth dimension (space and time), so no

>> No.2513733

>>2513614
Uhmm, no. In science or any field of such, you need to read all the citations someone lists in order to make a valid argument against them, even if all the citations are the same and go off meandering, you generally need to read them all before making an argument. Even soft and pseudosciences don't skip on this practice.

>> No.2513747

>>2513614
>>2513598
>>2513661
As much as I want to agree with you, you're basically grasping at straws right now.

>> No.2513798

For those that argue that graphene is two-dimensional: Is an atom less than or equal to two-dimensional? If it's not (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), then graphene is not.

>> No.2513855

At small enough levels, the concept of the "volume" of a particle becomes meaningless, simply because its position is not well defined. The only way we can attribute a meaningful definition to the word "dimension" is to define it as the amount of degrees of freedom a particle has. The wavefunction of a particle has four degrees of freedom: 3 spacial and 1 temporal. No matter what, a particle always has some component in all three spacial directions, and no matter what it has no component in any other direction (at least on a scale that we can detect). That is to say, all matter and energy is inherently 3-d, even graphene ultimately has some "wiggle room."
I understand that it's "effectively" 2-dimensional, but unless it absolutely cancels all possible movement in one direction (which it can't--see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), it is in reality still 3 dimensional.

>> No.2513863

>>2513798
The arguments in this thread for that notion (I think) are using mathematic models and definitions of subspace and dimensions, which basically depends on the material and how much the atoms can move between each other, which would allow even 0D materials to "exist."

Though in terms of physiology, your definition, there's no material more than or less than three-dimensional one.

>> No.2513865

Everything that exists, exists in n-dimensions, where n is the number of dimensions the universe exists in, which may actually be more than 3 dimensions.

>> No.2515037

A shadow only has 2 dimensions:D

>> No.2515045
File: 404 KB, 768x1024, 4138394718_8343897a23_b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2515045

>>2515037
Does it now?

>> No.2515046

Sure.
Something with 4 or more dimensions can exist in our space, but not the whole thing, only a cross section of it can.

>> No.2515063
File: 88 KB, 1020x1024, 2510724671_f88c5e7055_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2515063

>>2515045
>>2515037