Geometrically 1d, 2d, 3d, etc only imply geometric quantities (length, area, volume, etc)
A circle has no mass but a disc (circle with some thickness) has.
Where does the idea of mass come from? Does it imply some thickness in a higher dimension?
Keiji wrote:Well, mass is essentially a count of particles such as neutrons and protons.
Those particles are three-dimensional in our universe, which means that for anything to have mass, it must be three-dimensional in order to contain them.
In a two-dimensional universe, the fundamental particles would probably be two-dimensional thus giving them mass too.
AmitX123 wrote:Keiji wrote:Well, mass is essentially a count of particles such as neutrons and protons.
Those particles are three-dimensional in our universe, which means that for anything to have mass, it must be three-dimensional in order to contain them.
In a two-dimensional universe, the fundamental particles would probably be two-dimensional thus giving them mass too.
The fact that mass needs 3 dimensions may not be entirely true. A blackhole point singularity has 0 dimensions and a ring singularity 1 dimension, but both have mass.
The fact that mass needs 3 dimensions may not be entirely true. A blackhole point singularity has 0 dimensions and a ring singularity 1 dimension, but both have mass.
gunnar98 wrote:The fact that mass needs 3 dimensions may not be entirely true. A blackhole point singularity has 0 dimensions and a ring singularity 1 dimension, but both have mass.
A ring with 1 dimension? Isnt that impossible seeing that everything has to have 3 dimensions, when you write on a paper, graphite takes up a fraction of a cm making a 3rd dimension even a tv has 3 dimensions light being the width. Also a ring as in a circle? I dont think that is possible seeing that a ring has to have a height and length to create a round side meaning a 2nd dimension. But also it could just be a 2d ring for in space it depends on your reference point that all objects are 3d. Concluding that mass might need to be 3d in order to measure, also again, it depends on your reference point. P.S. Im 13.
Keiji wrote:I shall just take the opportunity to point out that what you call the "inherent dimension" of an object I call its net space and have done so for years. This is as opposed to the bounding space, which is the number of dimensions of space it can be embedded in.
quickfur wrote:Not to mention that we don't know if truly fundamental particles like the electron are three-dimensional. For all we know, they could be actual 0-dimensional points, since we have not been able to discern any substructure to them.
Return to Higher Spatial Dimensions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests