# Could we see a lower dimension within our universe? [closed]

My question refers to the fact, that, say if our universe were to be sitting on a 4 (spatial) dimensional plane, that we cannot see, then within our universe could there be a point mass in which 1 or 2 (spatial) dimensions could exist. We may not be able to see them, this could be a result of our world only consisting of 3 Dimensions. Although the computer screen, for example, is 2Dimensional, it sits on a 3 Dimensional object. Could a 2Dimensional object or world, exist in our 3D plane without having a 3D object that it is displayed upon, I have illustrated it below to build a clearer picture...

I hope this makes sense!

-

## closed as unclear what you're asking by joshphysics, Ben Crowell, Emilio Pisanty, akhmeteli, Waffle's Crazy PeanutAug 31 '13 at 14:27

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Have a look at geom.uiuc.edu/docs/forum/polytope for four dimensional (euclidean dimensions) objects appearing in three dimensions. We have no physical evidence of such objects. Of course when time is the fourth dimension we are all projections into the three dimensional world. – anna v Aug 30 '13 at 12:03
No, it doesn't. What precisely are you asking here, anyway? . What do you mean " a lower dimension within our univeorse " ? A 2 - dimensional object ? What do you think you're staring into?! – centralcharge Aug 30 '13 at 12:14
Well, does your lower-dimensional object interact in any way with our known 3+1-dimensional universe? – Qmechanic Aug 30 '13 at 12:39
I don't mean a 2D object like looking at a computer screen I was thinking more in the sense of a singularity. This singularity is something that one is unable to see due to the fact that it is special in sown form, after considering your point though, a 4th dimension or higher could be in the point mass but I still think that it would be difficult to see a 1D object. And the object would interact in a 1 space and 1 time dimensional way not 3 space and 1 time. – user28956 Aug 30 '13 at 12:41
The grammar, spelling, and punctuation of the question make it incomprehensible. – Ben Crowell Aug 30 '13 at 14:41

Due to the string-theory tag, I presume that you're asking about something like Braneworld scenarios. |

Brane-world scenarios refer to lower dimensional branes (or rather, worldvolumes) suspended in a higher dimensionaln spactimes, e.g. 4-dimensional world - volumes suspended in an 11 - dimensional spacetime.

A prominent example of a brane - world scenario is the Randall - Sundrum Brane - World Scenario.

To quote the abstract of the linked paper:

Conventional wisdom states that Newton's force law implies only four non-compact dimensions. We demonstrate that this is not necessarily true in the presence of a non-factorizable background geometry. The specific example we study is a single 3-brane embedded in five dimensions. We show that even without a gap in the Kaluza-Klein spectrum, four-dimensional Newtonian and general relativistic gravity is reproduced to more than adequate precision.

In other words, they show that general relativity is still around the same in such a brane - world scenario.

But what about the other forces?

Remember, the standard model interactions are generally open strings, so they' (with Dirchilet boundary conditions) are bound to the branes.

So, they'll only transverse across the branes, and therefore, Q.E.D.

If there can be those bosonic embedding functions $X^\mu$ for the embedding of a $p$-brane's $p+1$-dimensional world - volume in a higher dimensional spacetimme, then there probably could be such a brane in our spacetime too, right ? .