Alternate dimensional existance

[ecoli]

I was reading this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8033

and was thinking about multi-universes when this though occured to me.

 

We live in a 3 demensional world. Everything we perceive through our senses, and even things that require instuments to perceive have volume (h,l and w). However, is it possible for object...even other life forms to exist in a different dimensional world, say 2 demention.

Say there was a colony of rats with only length and width, but it was impossible for us to percive them, becasue they completely lack height.

It's hard for humans to imagine this, as we live in the 3d part of the universe, but could this be true. Could different objects exist in alternate dimension...maybe even in dimensions we have not even thought of yet?

[[Tycho?]]

The book is called Flatland. Here is a link http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/, I dont know if this is the whole text of the story or not as I have never read it.

 

Basically quite a while ago some guy asked the same question, and describes interactions between 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional beings.

[ecoli]

Thanks for the link...The book sounds familiar, I think one of my friends has it.

 

Any comments on the validity of this theory?

[Cadmus]

Any comments on the validity of this theory?

I will offer a comment. This is just my subjective opinion, of course. I think that the idea that you proposed is not possible at all.

 

You say that we live in a 3 dimensional world. How do you know? Really? Some physicists are suggesting that there are 10 or more dimensions. How can you claim for a fact that we live in a 3 d world?

 

Anyway, all objects that humans are aware of exist in at least 3 dimensions. Perhaps more. I think that nothing can exist in 2 dimensions. You propose rats that are devoid of height. Are you suggesting that their height is infinitely small? If so, I will challenge your proposal of infinity in space. I contend that there is no existence that has infinite smallness in any dimension.

 

I get the impression that what you are suggesting is not something that exists in 2 dimensions. but the science fiction concept that something exists in an "alternate" dimension. Whatever this might mean, and however possible it might be, I do not think that anything in the universe can have existence in less than 3 dimensions. Of course, it is possible for humans to be aware of less than 3 dimensions, just as most science types believe that they recognize existence to be in 3 dimensions.

[ecoli]

You say that we live in a 3 dimensional world. How do you know? Really? Some physicists are suggesting that there are 10 or more dimensions. How can you claim for a fact that we live in a 3 d world?

 

Because all the objects we "experiance" have 3 demensions; Length' date=' Width and Height.

 

Anyway, all objects that humans are aware of exist in at least 3 dimensions. Perhaps more. I think that nothing can exist in 2 dimensions. You propose rats that are devoid of height. Are you suggesting that their height is infinitely small? If so, I will challenge your proposal of infinity in space. I contend that there is no existence that has infinite smallness in any dimension.

 

No, I'm saying that they have no, 0, height. Smallness is subjective. I could say that the width of a piece of paper is small, but paper would tower over my "rats"...and even taller still. An object with zero height would be impossible for humans to see...our eyess do not work that way. We can't see individual molecules...and they have some height. You can't see something no height.

[Hank McCoy]

You can't see something no height.

 

what about from above?

[mrbc19]

what about shadows? Aren't they 2 dimensional? They have length and width, but because they are just a blocking of light, they have no height, there is just nothing there, but you can still see it, and its 2-d.

[Sayonara]

There's a thread on shadow dimensionality here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7243

[ecoli]

Shadows are just the absence of light, though. I wouldn't consider them being 2-d either. It's just a place on the ground where less light strikes. There composed of photons (or a lack thereof)...not molecules.

[Sayonara]

Not just on the ground - they describe a volume.

[YT2095]

what about shadows? Aren't they 2 dimensional? They have length and width, but because they are just a blocking of light, they have no height, there is just nothing there, but you can still see it, and its 2-d.

 

and so what may happen when a "shadow" falls upon a 3D object such as a ball?

[ecoli]

What you said about shadows, mrbc19, could also be said of mirrors...or at least, the relfection upon them. Shadows are merely a pictoral representation of our 3d world onto a another surface using light.

 

2d objects are completely different.

 

Could 2d objects be living in the same space as us. We just can't measure them. What do you guys think about that?

[Mart]

Could 2d objects be living in the same space as us. We just can't measure them. What do you guys think about that?

 

I think 2d objects live in their own 2d space and good luck to them. They never did me any harm. At least I don't think so.

[syntax252]

Anyway' date=' all objects that humans are aware of exist in at least 3 dimensions. Perhaps more. I think that nothing can exist in 2 dimensions. You propose rats that are devoid of height. .[/quote']

 

never mind.

[ecoli]

You should read my above arguments, syntax252, if you don't agree with them, please explain why. I want to hear your arguments.

[syntax252]

You should read my above arguments, syntax252, if you don't agree with them, please explain why. I want to hear your arguments.

 

I posted that shadows are 2 dimentiona; before I noticed that someone else already had done so.

 

That is why I changed it to never mind.

 

I don't think shadows are really "objects" anyway.

[ecoli]

Exactly. That's why I don't consider them as 2 demensional objects in my thinking.

[YT2095]

I don't think shadows are really "objects" anyway.

 

well that`s a step in the right direction!

 

but are you sure? <<PLAY> Twilight Zone Music/>

[Sayonara]

They aren't two-dimensional because they describe a volume, not because they "aren't objects".

 

The two-dimensional "image" (for want of a better term) you see of yourself on the ground is not a shadow - it's the area of intersection between your shadow and the ground. The intersection is a Boolean union, +ground -shadow.

 

Imagine cutting an apple in half, putting it flat-surface-down on a piece of paper, and drawing around it. Now shade in the outline you just drew. For extra marks, invite someone else to tell you how many dimensions your apple has, while pointing at the drawing.

[ecoli]

Sayonara...can you explain how the "image you see of yourself on the ground is not a shadow, it's the area of intersection between your shadow and the ground." That seems like a slight condradiction to me.

 

Maybe you could explain a different way so that I can understand a little better. Thank you.

[Sayonara]

We call it a shadow for convenience.

 

The shadow is actually the umbra and penumbra cast by the object that the light is hitting. The darker area described on a given surface, what we call a "shadow" in conversational terms, is a projection onto that surface.

[syntax252]

The two-dimensional "image" (for want of a better term) you see of yourself on the ground is not a shadow -

 

Well it has always been referred to as a shadow. I always thought that the words "shadow" and "shade" were related somehow.....

 

Actually, as someone said above, it is just a place where less light is striking the Earth/floor/wall/whatever. What?

[syntax252]

We call it a shadow for convenience.

 

The shadow is actually the umbra and penumbra cast by the object that the light is hitting. The darker area described on a given surface' date=' what we call a "shadow" in conversational terms, is a projection onto that surface.[/quote']

 

 

 

Are you sure that it is not simply a lessening of light intensity?

[Sayonara]

You are confusing characteristic and identity.

[Mart]

You are confusing characteristic and identity.

 

Please explain