Forgot your password?
Space Science

Was the Early Universe 2 Dimensional Spacetime? 309

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i've-always-felt-a-bit-flat dept.
astroengine writes "According to two theoretical physicists, our current four-dimensional Universe (3 dimensions of space, 1 dimension of time) is actually an evolution from a lower-dimensional state. The early Universe may have existed with just one spatial dimension (plus one time dimension) up until the Universe cooled below an energy state of 100 TeV. At this point, a transition occurred when the spatial dimension "folded" to create 2 dimensions. At 1 TeV, it folded again to create the Universe we know today: 3 dimensions of space, one of time. This may sound like a purely theoretical study, but there might be evidence of the evolution of universal dimensions in cosmic ray measurements and, potentially, in gravitational wave cut-off frequency."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Was the Early Universe 2 Dimensional Spacetime?

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Its a Tardus. (Score:5, Informative)

    by sirdude (578412) on Monday March 21, 2011 @09:27AM (#35558280)
    TARDIS []*
  • Re:Time. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21, 2011 @09:31AM (#35558316)

    Um no.

  • The actual article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bromskloss (750445) <auxiliary DOT ad ... privacy AT gmail> on Monday March 21, 2011 @09:54AM (#35558496)
    Please include a link to the work you are reporting on, not just to someone else reporting on someone else's reporting etc. I think this might be the link you are looking for: []
  • Re:Physicists (Score:5, Informative)

    by rubycodez (864176) on Monday March 21, 2011 @10:00AM (#35558568)
    In the past 40 years we've discovered crazier and crazier things about the universe. The discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, the discovery that the speed of stars around center of galaxy is nearly uniform (dark matter), CP symmetry violation, multiple quark flavors, irregularities in the cosmic ray background, etc.
  • Re:Physicists (Score:3, Informative)

    by AlecC (512609) <> on Monday March 21, 2011 @10:06AM (#35558648)

    Backwards and forwards along the line. Each particle, if such exists, is bouncing back and forward against its neighbour. Or, perhaps more likely, there are no particles, and the universe is one ginormous string twanging along its length with compression waves which along though and interfere with each other. A bit like Gods organ pipe (God's bong?)

  • Re:Physicists (Score:3, Informative)

    by funkelectric (931604) on Monday March 21, 2011 @11:35AM (#35559986)

    As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. — Albert Einstein

    The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure - that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know everybody realizes that this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and very strong struggle. Permit us to question - to doubt, that's all - not to be sure. And I think it is important that we do not forget the importance of this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained. — Richard Feynman

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.