I need someone to prove me wrong.

[Will H]

In our three dimensional world, the OP is right. One dimension implies another which in turn implies yet another, but does not imply any more. So, in our view of the world, governed by the law of 3-dimensions, a purely 1-dimensional object can't exist.

 

 

 

However, when we try to imagine worlds of higher or lower dimensions, visualising is very difficult because we're trying to invent new dimensional systems that we don't live in and have never experienced. However, if we do manage it, an actual 1-D line could exist in a perspective where our apparently necessary three dimensions (from our 3-D point of view) are actually no longer necessary, because we have thrown away our own world view.

 

 

 

The dimensions exist insofar as we perceive them. If we perceive them differently, the dimensions are also different. They're not so solid and absolute as we often make them out to be.

[assassin_696]

One dimensional lines exist mathematically, but not in the real world. Unless you count string theory, which takes tiny wiggling one dimensional points as the fundamental particles. But they don't exist macroscopically.

[indy500fan]

I'd argue that we can't perceive anything that doesn't have value in the first four dimensions: length, height, width, duration.

 

 

 

The 4th spatial dimension and time as the "forth dimension" are two different concepts.

 

 

 

And what does that have to do with what I wrote?

[sphinxor86]

I've actually got a Theoretical Physics degree lol

 

 

 

0 dimensional, is a dot with no size. It is a figment of your imagination. Think of this full stop here >>>.<<< this is a dot, but it does have a very small area. Now imagine shrinking it, smaller and smaller. The area gets smaller. Then take a leap, and shrink it so much that it has no area. Voilá, your zero dimensional "thing" has arrived.

 

 

 

Now, imagine extending this dot put putting a dot next to it, then add another one next to the one you have just added, repeat over and over..... what do you get? A one dimensional object.... ie a line!!

 

 

 

Repeat this dot-adding process but now with the lines.... add one next to the one before, this time you get a two dimensional object... a sheet...!

 

 

 

One again you can stack these sheets next to one another and get a 3 dimensional volume.

 

 

 

Higher spatial dimensions are VERY difficult to conceptualize. Four dimensional "cubes" exist, they are called hyper-cubes. A line has two "corners", a square has 4 corners, a cube 8, and a hypercube has 16... although where they all go is a mystery to me!

 

 

 

(a five dimensional cube has 2 to the power of 5 (thats 32) corners, and the pattern continues, so for an N dimensional cube, there are 2 to the power N corners...)

 

 

 

String theory has 5 different incarnations, but adding an extra dimension combines them all into a theory called M-theory, which has 10 space dimensions and 1 time dimension. Its mad, I hate it.

 

 

 

There is a Physics theory out there that works in MINUS 2 dimensions.... but don't ask me how the hell that works....

 

 

 

 

 

OK, geekfest over :ugeek:

[Shinjula]

Depends precisely on what you mean by 'exists'

 

I know that sounds a dumb thing to say, and it can make it a bit of a semantic argument but then in these debate language often has to become central.

 

If you mean, exist specifically in this 3D(ish) universe that we find ourselves in then obviously no it cant, any objects in this universe have to have precisely the number of dimensions that this universe has - that's a specific limiting factor to the universe. So if it turns out there's 11 dimensions (as string theory suggests) then every object (including you and me) is an eleven dimensional object.

 

 

 

If your definition extends 'existance' to include theoretical spaces then the answer is yes. In maths a one dimensional object can exist as easily as a 2D one or a 3D one. And this can be extended beyond the mathematical realm. We have no knowledge of anything which may be outside out own universe, there is no reason a one dimensional universe cant exist and be real and so in that sense a one dimensional object can really exist although its existance couldnt be proven by any current methods.

 

 

 

Well thats my thoughts for the mo

[Zierro]

I'd argue that we can't perceive anything that doesn't have value in the first four dimensions: length, height, width, duration.

 

 

 

The 4th spatial dimension and time as the "forth dimension" are two different concepts.

 

 

 

And what does that have to do with what I wrote?

 

 

 

Duration isn't spatial, it's relevant to time.

[fastortoise]

The 1st dimension's just the distance between two points... I don't see where width or anything comes into play

[Quoi_Tu]

 

 

 

Everything has been said that I would say, so I thought I'd just post this.

[indy500fan]

I'd argue that we can't perceive anything that doesn't have value in the first four dimensions: length, height, width, duration.

 

 

 

The 4th spatial dimension and time as the "forth dimension" are two different concepts.

 

 

 

And what does that have to do with what I wrote?

 

 

 

Duration isn't spatial, it's relevant to time.

 

 

 

I never mentioned the fourth spatial dimension at all, I have no idea where you guys are getting this from.

[Lateralus]

It's just because the rest of the topic has been about spatial dimensions (hypercubes etc).

[deathdrow]

just wondering. but do you think they'll invent some sort of a magic dimension travelling boat in the future?

 

that would kinda make me happy.