Strings; Existing in One Dimension

[Eric 5]

Eric 5, I gave a list of good academic references above....

 

 

 

 

Klaynos. I have looked up some of the references that you suggested, to show me that indeed there can exist a 1D or 0D object. I am going to comment on the first reference and then when I have a responses from you regarding my comments then I will discuss the next one. The reason for doing it this way is it keeps the whole discussion simple by preventing miscommunication on exactly with report or reference we would be talking about.

 

So just to make this crystal clear, I am stating that from the definitions that I have read in regards to the terms: OBJECT, ZERO and DIMENSION, I could not see that it is possible for a 1D or 0D object to physically exist. You have stated in post (#24) that you could give examples of a 1D and 0D object. Your examples were “a semiconductor quantum wire” and “electron constriction”

 

I defined these and other related terms and posted them on this thread showing that these items were not 1D or 0D OBJECTS.

 

You then posted some references that would help clear this up for me.

 

So now I will comment on the first reference which can be found at the following address.

 

http://www.eng.yale.edu/reedlab/publications/26%20QDot%20PRL.pdf

 

In this research paper much is said about what the title states which is “Observation of Discrete Electronic States in a Zero-Dimensional Semiconductor Nanostructure” Now in this paper the term dimension is not specifically defined, which means that in order for anyone to find out what they mean when the term dimension is used, all anybody has to do is look in a standard dictionary. This is a given. Nobody who is using a term whose definition can be found in a standard dictionary would need to state exactly which definition of any term they using. It is the responsibility of the reader to define the term he is unsure of or would like a more complete definition of. Unless otherwise stated, we have to assume that when someone is using a word, that this person is using this word in the way it is defined in a standard dictionary. So, after reading this paper and using the many definitions of dimension that are stated in a standard dictionary. I still have not been convinced that there exists a physical object that is 1D or 0D.

 

The pictures of nanostructures containing quantum dots are not 1D or 0D. From the pictures it is obvious that these objects are at least 2D. They have height and width, and the tops of these structures it is seen they have depth. So that adds up to 3D.

 

I would like to hear your response to this, and then I will comment on the next paper that you referred me to.

 

I would also suggest that you look up the terms dimension and object. Then you can decide for yourself if there can exist a 1D or 0D object.

 

I have not viewed all of the references that you posted regarding this topic of 1D and 0D objects, so if you know of one of these references that gives a specialized definition of dimension and object than please refer me to that one, otherwise I will be left with using the standard definition of dimension and object on the rest of the papers and I will have to give you the same comment I gave about the first paper. So, if no other paper that you referred to me has a specialized definition of dimension and object then it would be pointless to read the rest of the papers using the definitions that are stated in any standard dictionary, since this would lead anyone to the same conclusion that a 1D or 0D object could not physically exist.

 

You define dimension and object and then decide if it is possible to have a 1D or 0D object physically exist.

[Klaynos]

Have you considered that the images are of the 'boxes' within which the low dimension objects are restricted?