-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
If you were able to create a sword with a blade so thin
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
A Ninja could.
. . .wait. . .yes you can move a shadow. . .you just move whatever object is casting the shadow and the shadow moves.
That is sort of analogous to the original question come to think of it. . .The OP is sort of saying what if you could make a sword that had a blade made of shadow. . .If such a sword could be made, only a Ninja could wield it.
That being said we can easily try out this experiment. Get a ninja sword and place an object on a table in front of a plain white wall. Place a light source on the other side of the room directed at the object. Stand between the light source and the object and swing the sword such that the shadow of it passes over the object. Does it cut? There's your answer. Make sure you try it with a variety of different objects to be sure the answer is conclusive.
Joemonkey
Diamond Member
yet the shadow DOES exist, we can see it and interact with it, same with moving the hole of a donut around when you move the donut around. The hole doesn't stay in one place, it would just be random air, only when it is inside the inner circumference of the donut is it the "donut hole"
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
ummm...move the object creating the shadow...
which is exactly why you can move it faster than light. because its not actually an object.
Chiropteran
Diamond Member
I'd like to see you move a donut around without moving the hole.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
All a 3D object is is a 2D object with multiple planes. A 2D object can easily interact with a 3D object, provided they are on the same plane. As a 3D object, you can "look down" to lower dimensions.
A 2D sword would likely sever any 3D bonds (assuming it was "sharp" enough) it intersects. However I would think the damage would be so minimal (it would happen below the sub-atomic level) that most of it would be repaired via atomic forces nearly instantaneously.
TallBill
Lifer
Even for the nubs saying that a shadow is 2D, it isn't projected on a "flat" surface so it wouldn't be 2d. That being said, you could give it a volume, because it would include the entire area that contained less photons due to an object blocking the projection of a light source. Whichever way you want to look at it, it isn't 2D.
Yes. . .very Zen. . .For there can be no donut without the donut hole and there can be no donut hole without the donut ring which defines and encompasses it. The two are inextricably linked yet one exists while one, in a sense, does not. To move the donut is to move it's hole yet the hole is non-existent. What is the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the woods but nobody hears it does it make a sound? If I fart and nobody smells it, does it stink? Such is shadow. . .to exist yet not exist at the same time. . .to be the only truly 2 dimensional thing in a 3 dimensional world. . .to both exist and yet be nothing at the same time. The shadow is a true oxymoron in a 3 dimensional universe. . .an impossibility but yet clearly visible. Though it exists not, it moves. . .silent, unseen in the darkness. . .Like the Ninja!
polarbear6
Golden Member
hehe 🙂
polarbear6
Golden Member
As the op wants it to be 2D which is not possible we can atleast make it a molecule wide !!! Then again cutting objects produces HEAT !! which is highly enough for a object a molecule wide to get ionized.So my argument is that the thinnest of the thinnest blades will melt through the way out of the objects they are cutting or get ionised. Either way they will deform !!
My argument is that as things get thinner and thinner, they become more and more unmanageable. That's cause the things you cut will be broken into two parts. And both the parts starts exerting force on the cutting surface. the surface irregularities/friction becomes humongous due to the thinness, as the sepration between the parts will be very less electromagnetic forces start acting.So even if you manage to make such a small thing, moving it will be hard !!! due to the electrons present on both the parts.
My argument is that as things get thinner and thinner, they become more and more unmanageable. That's cause the things you cut will be broken into two parts. And both the parts starts exerting force on the cutting surface. the surface irregularities/friction becomes humongous due to the thinness, as the sepration between the parts will be very less electromagnetic forces start acting.So even if you manage to make such a small thing, moving it will be hard !!! due to the electrons present on both the parts.
Chronoshock
Diamond Member
Oh yeah and in case no one's linked it yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomolecular_wire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomolecular_wire
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
