According to Kip Thorne, it is just the opposite. As the number of dimensions increase, the effective mass density, such as to form black holes, increases.

I think we see evidence of that in nature. I have already suggested that spiral universes have that 2-d configuration in order to protects themselves from black holes. Pull the plug on a sink full of water and a vortex forms. Vortexs are essentially 2-d configurations as the variation in the radial direction is much greater than in the longitudinal direction.

The dynamic reason why 2-d or cylindrical configurations are more stable is because mass can obtain rotational energy in such a configuration. Rotational energy is a characteristic of 2-d, not 3-d or higher.

So by 2-d what I mean is that the properties of a system vary in the radial, and perhaps angular directions, but not in the longitudinal direction. Perhaps you are thinking that I meant that all mass in 3-d was to be projected on the 2-d plane.

• I have a few questions... - phillipmartin - December 11, 2001 - 00:47 UTC
  • Two cents - luis_hamburgh - December 11, 2001 - 03:42 UTC
    • Kip Thorne meant 2-d symmetry - yanniru - December 11, 2001 - 14:32 UTC
      • Those posts answered my question about 2-d. - phillipmartin - December 13, 2001 - 01:28 UTC
        • No mass, but perhaps gravity - yanniru - December 13, 2001 - 16:01 UTC
          • I have no idea. - phillipmartin - December 13, 2001 - 23:25 UTC