2d

[AngelLestat]

Rotating singularities are disc shaped. But it's a disc.... of no lenght, width, or height. With a volume of zero. Physics are fun no? A non rotating singularity would be shaped as a classical perfect sphere of no dimensions either. We don't know much about singularities, but we know that they can exist, and we know getting past the event horizon and very close to it breaks every law of classical physics we know. Quantum mechanics still kind of work, but quantum mechanics are already odd by themselves.

But from what I know, there is not such thing in reality as a not rotating black hole.

What are the odds?

Stars rotate, and the BH creation accelerate the rotation by a lot, when they consume matter they also accelerate their rotation.

Mostly all massive black holes rotation speed are close to relativity limits.

[stupid_chris]

But from what I know, there is not such thing in reality as a not rotating black hole.

What are the odds?

Stars rotate, and the BH creation accelerate the rotation by a lot, when they consume matter they also accelerate their rotation.

Mostly all massive black holes rotation speed are close to relativity limits.

Non rotating singularities are possible and can exist. It's important to note that while singularities cause black holes, talking of black holes and singularities is two different things. It would be possible to create a micro singularity in a lab (which would evaporate in a few nanoseconds) that would have no angular momentum. It's unlikely for it to happen naturally, but the object could still exist, and would have slightly different properties than a rotating singularity.

[Deutherius]

Non rotating singularities are possible and can exist. It's important to note that while singularities cause black holes, talking of black holes and singularities is two different things. It would be possible to create a micro singularity in a lab (which would evaporate in a few nanoseconds) that would have no angular momentum. It's unlikely for it to happen naturally, but the object could still exist, and would have slightly different properties than a rotating singularity.

Interesting. I have no real deep knowledge on the subject, but intuitively I have always imagined that it's the other way around - black holes cause singularities. As in, matter gets compressed into it's Schwarzschild radius -> forms a black hole -> stuff inside gets further compressed so much that it reaches singularity status. Was I always imagining it wrong? (Or maybe I just don't understand the innards of a black hole well enough?)

[AngelLestat]

and would have slightly different properties than a rotating singularity.

Yeah it will.

[stupid_chris]

Interesting. I have no real deep knowledge on the subject, but intuitively I have always imagined that it's the other way around - black holes cause singularities. As in, matter gets compressed into it's Schwarzschild radius -> forms a black hole -> stuff inside gets further compressed so much that it reaches singularity status. Was I always imagining it wrong? (Or maybe I just don't understand the innards of a black hole well enough?)

It's a simple matter of concepts. A singularity is an object of no dimensions, with a given mass. A black hole is the effect a singularity has, creating the event horizon. While both are related, the black hole is mostly an emergent property of the singularity, and black holes *do* have dimensions, as the even horizon is considered the limit of the black hole. Naked singularities (singularities without black holes) have been theorized, but would be a major problem to Relativity.

[Chiboko]

I could argue that a shadow, while not technically an object, has no thickness. Its simply an absence of reflected light and therefore contains no measurable physical properties of any kind.

[Whirligig Girl]

I have come up with a great theory a GAME THEORY just kidding

so the you know how the second demes ion has no thickness? And the first no width?

My my theory may sound stupid and it probably is, but I think you no matter how hard you try you can't make a true 2d or 1d object in are universe because every thing in are universe has thinkness and width.

draw a square on a piece of paper that would be at least 1 atom thick have a projecter project something at least one photon thick

is my theory correct?

Let me fix this for you.

I have come up with an idea.

A two dimensional object has no depth, and a one dimensional object has no depth or width, only length.

The idea may not hold up to scrutiny, but I think that you can not create a true 2D or 1D object in our universe. This is because everything in our universe has thickness and width.

Draw a square on a piece of paper, even with a perfect pencil the drawing will be 1 carbon atom thick. If you project an image, it will be one photon thick.

Does this idea make sense?

Yes, it does, though I'm not sure about the projector one, as a projected image isn't an object. There is a limit on the minimum size of our universe, called the Planck Length. The Planck Length is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000161619926 meters across. This is unbelievably tiny. Although, perhaps in can be argued that anything that is smaller than that could still exist, but that it would not register as an object that is smaller than that, or it will merely not be observable.

So as an idea, it makes sense. As to whether it is correct? I do not think science has the answer to this at this time.

[PlonioFludrasco]

Equipotential surfaces of a field are 2 dimensionals. You can't see or touch them, but they have their definition.

[ZetaX]

Equipotential surfaces of a field are 2 dimensionals. You can't see or touch them, but they have their definition.

There is a very relevant difference between actual 2d objects and imaginary 2d things we imagine. Equi-whatever surfaces/lines are an example of the latter.

[PlonioFludrasco]

Not necessary they are imaginary things. Atomic borders are equi-whatever surfaces, and they are real.

[ZetaX]

Atomic borders are equi-whatever surfaces, and atoms are real.

Atoms have no definite borders. Your mind just imagines them like that. They have as much border as two magnets have one between them when repelling, i.e. none, just a force growing stronger when getting closer.

The part that is real is the actual field itself, which is 3D.