Are There Any Non-3D Objects in the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter demosthenes_001
  • Start date Start date
demosthenes_001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know if science has actually proved that anything other than 3 dimensional objects exist? We call drawings 2d, because it is the only way we can concieve of it, but the lead particles on a page are still 3 dimensional. My question comes partially from recently looking at string theory. I am unable to concieve of a 1 dimensional thing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
demosthenes_001 said:
Does anyone know if science has actually proved that anything other than 3 dimensional objects exist? We call drawings 2d, because it is the only way we can concieve of it, but the lead particles on a page are still 3 dimensional. My question comes partially from recently looking at string theory. I am unable to concieve of a 1 dimensional thing.

Well, non-string physics already has 0-dimensional objects, namely point particles, so you should then consider string theory as a major step forward, no ? Still 2 such steps, and we're home :smile: Give those scientists some time, they're a bit slow on the mental side :biggrin:

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Why are u unable to conceive a 1D-string...?All strings are 1D.It would be really weird to talk about 2D strings...Or 0D strings...

Daniel.
 
This depends on what you mean by "string". in quantum physics it is one dimensional, but in the world on a larger scale, a string is three dimensional. What I was asking was, could these one dimensional strings be seen by a human eye, or on some kind of electron microscope, and therefore be truly proved? What I meant by not being able to concieve of something that is one dimensional, is that I can not see it or picture it in my mind, and therefore, can not concieve it.
 
demosthenes_001 said:
What I was asking was, could these one dimensional strings be seen by a human eye,


Definitely not.

demosthenes_001 said:
or on some kind of electron microscope, and therefore be truly proved?

Definitely not.

demosthenes_001 said:
What I meant by not being able to concieve of something that is one dimensional, is that I can not see it or picture it in my mind, and therefore, can not concieve it.

Think of electrons...Do we see them...?They're 0D objects (treated by theory),but we would like to think they have 3 dimensions...How do we know electrons exist,if we can't "conceive" it...?

Daniel.
 
thank you. that definately gives me a better understanding of dimensions. :smile:
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...

Similar threads

Back
Top