More Flat Science
May. 17th, 2006 06:41 amStill trying to work out how movement works, and realised something that may be important - if they're only one atom thick, Flatlanders must be incredibly light. For example the narrator, A Square, is 6" (150mm) square. Assuming a generous thickness of 1 nanometer (10-6mm) his volume is 2250 / 10-6 mm3 or 0.00225 mm3. So if he's made of something like flesh, density a little less than 1, his mass is about 0.002 mg. Most other common materials still give very low masses - lots of rounding follows (and hopefully not too many errors):
Glass / silicates - 0.005mg
Sapphire - 0.008mg
Steel - 0.016mg
Lead - 0.025mg
Gold - 0.05mg
This means that relatively weak forces, e.g. electrostatics, could be enough to move him.
Of course this light mass gives its own problems. Ignoring the possibility that he's something really exotic like neutronium, he still has tiny mass and a relatively big perimeter, about 600mm, with a surface area around the edges of 0.0006mm3 (yes, I know there's all sorts of reasons why this is nonsense, but bear with me, this is all hand-waving anyway).
So... with that big a perimeter he must experience a significant number of molecular collisions every second. My question - and this is where I need help - are we talking so many that they even out, or few enough that Brownian motion could occur? And if so, how do we go about converting random impacts into controlled movement? Would it be possible to change the number of impacts in a particular part of the perimeter by e.g. vibrating an edge slightly?
Glass / silicates - 0.005mg
Sapphire - 0.008mg
Steel - 0.016mg
Lead - 0.025mg
Gold - 0.05mg
This means that relatively weak forces, e.g. electrostatics, could be enough to move him.
Of course this light mass gives its own problems. Ignoring the possibility that he's something really exotic like neutronium, he still has tiny mass and a relatively big perimeter, about 600mm, with a surface area around the edges of 0.0006mm3 (yes, I know there's all sorts of reasons why this is nonsense, but bear with me, this is all hand-waving anyway).
So... with that big a perimeter he must experience a significant number of molecular collisions every second. My question - and this is where I need help - are we talking so many that they even out, or few enough that Brownian motion could occur? And if so, how do we go about converting random impacts into controlled movement? Would it be possible to change the number of impacts in a particular part of the perimeter by e.g. vibrating an edge slightly?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 07:23 am (UTC)Also, what are the top and bottom edges of the space like? I guess treating them as frictionless infinitely rigid surfaces make the most sense...
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 09:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 09:30 am (UTC)Perhaps they can only change the albedo of one side at a time. This would mean that those with more sides would be capable of finer control of their movement and that those with fewers sides might tend to rush about less controllably.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 09:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 11:46 am (UTC)I think of the Flatland fog as being very cold, which might reduce the effects of Brownian motion. There are a lot of parameters that can be varied.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 12:47 pm (UTC)Unless there is a lot of friction with the environment, of course, in which case the narrow isosceles and females, being the most streamlines, would have the advantage going forward. Remember that they have to push everything in their path out of the way to the sides - even in air of normal-ish density there'd be a LOT of air resistance for the higher figures.
This still doesn't explain how females move, unfortunately - no width to speak of, so very little force propelling them forwards - so maybe we need another answer.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 04:14 pm (UTC)Movement will be a bit saltatory, but it does work.
Having said all that, I think at 2uG, Brownian motion probably isn't a factor. :) Electrostatics could definitely work -- heck, geckos stick to walls via Van der Waals forces, and they're big.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 04:48 pm (UTC)I think I'm going to have to reread the book to see if there are any "clues" I'm overlooking. I know that Abbott wasn't thinking in these terms at all, but it could be that something I'm overlooking will suggest an answer.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 04:49 pm (UTC)Wind, possibly, but there are apparently ways for the Flatland critters to anchor things to the non-existent ground.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 09:16 pm (UTC)(I noticed Sgt. S'harper had a gun - I didn't think they fought that way?)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 06:30 am (UTC)I think that rather than gravity and such, it would be best to think of Flatlanders' swimming through some sort of liquid medium. Perhaps they propel themselves with millions of microscopic cilia around their perimeters. There may be different types of media. A river would be a current of a denser liquid through the thinner "air."
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 09:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 09:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 09:13 am (UTC)I presume they'd still only be able to make two dimensional swords, not one, so a woman would be more lethal than any sword. That feels right :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 09:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 11:43 am (UTC)This has probably been raised before, but I thought the Flatlanders were explictly two-dimensional? In which case they would not have a very low 3D mass and be easy affected by static, wind etc. anymore than we would have a very low 4D mass. We may be easily affected by 4D Brownian motion or electrostatics (now there's an idea - The Man Who Was Bumped Outwards By Hyperspace Smoke Particles) but we are nice and massive enough to live in the 3D world. Perhaps it's the same for the Flatlanders, depiction of their environment notwithstanding? A 3D force comes along (e.g. the Sphere brushes them and they flutter) but left by themselves they're much more... erm... solid?
no subject
Date: 2006-06-03 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-03 11:22 pm (UTC)