# If 2d is only length and width, but not depth then can something really exist in 2d?

2d is length and width, not depth. So if I have an object in 2d (0 depth), then it would be non-existent, right? Paper, graphite, etc. have depth even if it is extremely small. Here is my own theory on the 2cnd dimension:The first thing that comes to my mind would be light, but it is made up of waves which have length width and depth. But I thought for a while and realized that color has no depth, but physically exist in our world. Color being how much light is reflected from an object (or how much of one or more types of light waves are absorbed by an object) then, is 2d. So another question I have is, would 2d be measured by length and width, or something like temperature and frequency?

EDIT

I would ask anybody leaving comments to bear in mind that the OP is a potential physicist, at some time in the future and would probably appreciate encouragement. Thanks........ Count_to_10

END EDIT

• you are just saying that true 2D objects does not exist in our 3D world. But what if there exist a 2D world? People living there would have a hard time understanding your question, just like you wouldn't be able to 'visualize' 8D. Beside, even though no 'object' is 2D in our world, the concept is still useful to describe 3D objects. For example, how many dimension does a surface of your table have? – pathintegral Aug 17 '16 at 22:52
• Well, I do believe that 2d exists in "our world", but I don't think it is measured by length and width. – Emanuel Van Rijn Aug 17 '16 at 22:55
• The first thing that comes to mind would be light, but it is made up of waves which have length width and depth. But I thought for a while and realized that color has no depth, but physically exist in our world. Color being how much light is reflected from an object (or how much of one or more types of light waves are absorbed by an object) then, is 2d. – Emanuel Van Rijn Aug 17 '16 at 23:00
• What I would do, is write out your ideas on paper first, read through the paper slowly and look where people might not understand what you are saying and then, rather than post your ideas in one go, ask questions about every part of it here, one at a time, to make sure you are right in your assumptions. There is plenty of time to get things checked, if you just go ahead and post your ideas, unless you have your facts right, people will not pay much attention to it, no matter how sensible and right it seems to you. – CountTo10 Aug 17 '16 at 23:10
• Ok, I am sure you know about the atoms and the bits that go to make them up, like the electron. As far as we know, the electron might be 2 D, or 4 D or 0 D, (no dimensions at all) and that's because we can't measure it with the instruments we have. If you read this link pantone.com/how-do-we-see-color you might see how complicated it is to figure out how exactly we see color, especially when it's detected by an electron, which might have no dimensions at all. It's really, really complicated, if you read this you will see for yourself en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron – CountTo10 Aug 17 '16 at 23:26

(...)
'I do not mean to ask you to accept anything without reasonable ground for it. You will soon admit as much as I need from you. You know of course that a mathematical line, a line of thickness nil, has no real existence. They taught you that? Neither has a mathematical plane. These things are mere abstractions.'
'That is all right,' said the Psychologist.
'Nor, having only length, breadth, and thickness, can a cube have a real existence.'
'There I object,' said Filby. 'Of course a solid body may exist. All real things-'
'So most people think. But wait a moment. Can an instantaneous cube exist?'