Heh, you mean the blank picture that's on the screen? Maybe, but I think that it's also two-dimensional.
The problem that I consider with a hypothetical one-dimensional object, is that I can't figure out how to measure it's dimension. Right now, we measure dimensions using two of the three at a time, because each side that we measure consists of two dimensions, and that's how we can recognize that there's actually an object. I can't see how we'd be able to tell where a one-dimensional object would begin, and where it would end.
I don't know if anyone will understand what I just typed......
Oh well... Someone who's more eloquent than I, please come in here...
A one dimensional object is called a "ray", "line", or "line segment". All these things have only one dimension: length, whether length is infinite or is determinate between two end points. I think you might agree that lines serve a very important function in the universe as without 1-diminsional lines it would be impossible to define 2-dimensional geometric shapes other than those defined purely as splines or arcs.
To hazel dragoneye, what you have attempted to describe is also known as a "point". A point can be defined in space as having a 3-dimensional location with polar or cartesian coordinates, however the point itself bears noe dimensions. Thus it could be said that a point is a zero-dimensional object.
Are those 1-dimensional objects hypothetical, theoretical, or actual? If you're referring to rays from the sun, or radiation (like radiant heat, or light emissions), then are they considered "objects", or something else?
Are we talking about defining objects within their dimensions?
The term "object" may be throwing you off. If you get right down to it, there's no such thing as a "physical object" anyway.. it's all minute charges of energy clinging together forming complex shapes and what-not.
Rays, lines and line segments are defined in geometry. They are "objects" or "entitites" which have one dimensional property: length and that's it. They bear other properties as well such as point positions which fall along the entity's defining line, and spacial data for positioning and orientation. But in terms of dimensions, there's only one.
Comparing a ray to something your three-dimensional brain can rationalize, you might use something like the path that a photon follows.. or perhaps a line of gravitational attraction. Mostly one dimensional entities are used as a basis for performing calculations against more complex entities though. In a 3D universe, we humans cannot perceive one or zero dimension objects. We could see 2 dimensional objects if they existed as physical things in the universe. A piece of paper is close to that except that, though being very thin, it indeed does still have a third dimension. If that dimension were compacted to 0 then the paper would visually disappear if we were looking at the plane perfectly on edge; we would only see it if it were in a position other than perfectly perpendicular like this. And of course we're all familiar with 3D objects.
Sean Kelly said this in post #7 : A piece of paper is close to that except that, though being very thin, it indeed does still have a third dimension.
we cannot perceive things in four dimensions, Sean. IF the world was shaped differently then maybe we could see an actual four dimension object in front of us. The front, the back and the sides from a 3 dimensional object would be shown. The measurements could be length, width, height but another measurement as well.
I had this computer software that rotated the images of a piece of paper. It showed that a piece of paper has a small width but a large height. A computer software is the only closest thing that we have of viewing dimensions. I have perviously thought that the energies combine for a second and then onto a fifth, sixth and seventh dimension.
02-17-2005 08:50 PM
