Was the Early Universe 2 Dimensional Spacetime? 309
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."
Physicists (Score:4, Funny)
Does anyone else think sometimes that physicists are just coming up with crazier and crazier ideas just to see what we'll buy?
Re:Physicists (Score:2)
Well they do get the very best weed available.
"What if we're just a speck on a speck on a speck and that speck stack is like, you know, like, infinite man."
Re:Physicists (Score:3, Interesting)
Not far from the truth. You don't even know what big is. [youtube.com]
Re:Physicists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Physicists (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in my twenty-plus years as an academic, the theoretical physicists I've known and occasionally played cards with are among the most grounded and sensible people. They are not weed-smoking crazies.
If you want to meet the really whacky impractical "crazy-for-the-sake-of-crazy" folks, you have to go to the economics department. Especially since the rise of the contrary-for-no-good-reason "Freakonomics". Those are people who should not be driving cars. They should also not be calling themselves "Science" but that's a discussion for another day.
Re:Physicists (Score:3)
contrary-for-no-good-reason
It sells books. Now, you know too.
As I see it, the real problem with economics isn't its status as a science, but the fact that there are huge interests at stake. In addition, a whole bunch of people already made up their mind on how human societies behave (ignoring, of course, the actual ones they're immersed in). So any science which draws contrary conclusions is likely to be ignored, perhaps even labeled "not science".
Re:Physicists (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Physicists (Score:2)
Niels Bohr wasn't sure about Wolfgang Pauli:
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.
So perhaps the next major breakthrough in theoretical physics will have Psilocybin [wikimedia.org] to thank?
If not, it might make for some interesting faculty meetings. :)
Re:Physicists (Score:3)
We English Dept types prefer ayahuaca. I knew a very bright physics post-doc who thought he'd find answers with DMT. He's a cabdriver now I heard, but who's to say he won't find those answers eventually.
I'm of a generation that used drugs, especially entheogens, in the most irresponsible ways. The damage done really hurt the possibility for some possibly interesting tings that might have been learned.
Personally, I get better results with Daoist alchemy. The alchemy part worked for Isaac Newton and the Daoist part pares away a lot of the baggage - makes it easier for numbskulls like me. I hate to brag, but between the Daoist alchemy and the t'ai chi, I have developed super-powers.
Now what were we talking about?
Re:Physicists (Score:4, Funny)
Anyway, I am starting to believe we are now evolving to a higher dimensional universe with two time dimensions, otherwise how would you explain it is taking twice the time when my girlfiend is saying to me to wait a minute?
Okay, I admit, real geeks don't have girlfriends.
Re:Physicists (Score:3)
So why are we still stuck on the 'three dimension' concept? It is impossible for any matter to exist if it does not have height, width AND depth: matter either exists, or it doesn't. Time, on the other hand, is largely a measure based on the context (timeframe) in which all matter was created. Physics should base its model upon the comparative interaction of existing matter; it's what happens that's important, how 'fast' a reaction happens is only a secondary question (that only appeases our longstanding habits of 'comparative' understanding).
Re:Physicists (Score:3)
Relativity (derived naturally from thinking about causality) is what shows us time behaving as a dimension. Time dilation and other effects of relativity have all been experimentally confirmed. They exist.
Any alternative theory will necessarily have to also make those predictions.
Re:Physicists (Score:3, Insightful)
s/see what we'll buy/get the world to notice them/
Re:Physicists (Score:3)
Does anyone else think sometimes that physicists are just coming up with crazier and crazier ideas just to see what we'll buy?
IF their second degree is in business marketing, sure.
Publish or perish => minor in marketing (Score:2)
Re:Physicists (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what one buys or likes. Nature doesn't give a damn about opinions. It's just the way it is and that's it. Either scientists find data to back that hypothesis up and it explains data better than other attempts or not. But whether one finds it crazy or not is completely irrelevant.
Re:Physicists (Score:2)
Re:Physicists (Score:3)
Re:Physicists (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Physicists (Score:3)
Since we care nature cares! (Score:3)
Since we care nature cares (humans being a part of nature) and that is the "way it is".
Re:Physicists (Score:5, Funny)
Yes.
Wait. Physicists? I thought you were talking about Apple.
Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (Score:4, Funny)
Does anyone else think sometimes that physicists are just coming up with crazier and crazier ideas just to see what we'll buy?
And speaking of which, doesn't this make "foldspace technology" described in Frank Herbert's Dune a bit less fantasy based? The thought is making my mind crinkle!
Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (Score:2)
I've always liked the classic name for a type of coffee called Melange. Drink enough and you will fold space. Can I watch?
/ I've got Dune quotes in my head for the rest of the day
Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (Score:2)
Melange simply means "mixture". French, yanno.
Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't sound anything like it. One is a theory about things that happen at Big Bang levels of energy, the other is an author putting the words "space" and "fold" together.
Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (Score:2)
If space-time can "stretch" in the presence of a large amount of mess, then maybe it was crinkly in the first place? Presumably every atomic nucleus stretches a miniscule area of space-time around it, it's only really noticable to us as gravity when bundled together into planet sized objects.
There was guy who was . [fourmilab.ch]
Re:Physicists (Score:3, Interesting)
How does a concept of heat and energy even work when there is no possible motion (how do you have motion with only one dimension?)?
Re:Physicists (Score:3, Informative)
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:2)
Particles as we understand them exist in 3 dimensions, however; it seems kind of silly to take concepts as defined in 3 dimensions and then apply the terms to a 1 dimensional hypothetical universe.
Re:Physicists (Score:2)
Reading Flatland [uiuc.edu] might give you a different perspective.
Re:Physicists (Score:3)
Calculating the energy levels of a 1-dimensional hydrogen atom is one of the first exercises you do in quantum mechanics. No concepts break down. The reason we have three dimensional electron orbitals is because there are three dimensions. If we had two dimensions, we'd have two dimensional orbitals. I'll let you fill in the answer for one dimension.
Re:Physicists (Score:2)
Forward and backward.
When you add a second dimension, you add left/right motion; the third dimension gives you up/down. All of which are really just convenient names for forward/backward along a different axis.
Re:Physicists (Score:2)
Not the physicists (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine (Score:2)
... It is stranger than we CAN imagine."
You know you're lazy when you don't even bother Googling a quote to find out who said it.
Re:Physicists (Score:5, Informative)
ObQuote (Score:3)
Re:Physicists (Score:2)
I wonder if I can come up with an odd claim. Write a Paper about it. Attach 3 or 4 randomly generated formulas. And completely pass Peer review. As my peers would be scam artists it just might pass.
Re:Physicists (Score:2)
Duh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Duh... (Score:2)
You know, what I never got about that is that whole "earth is a cube, it has four corners" bit. Last cube I saw had eight.
Re:Duh... (Score:3)
Earth has 4 TIME CORNERS!! Further proof that Americans are dumb, educated ONE stupid and they worship ONEism Evil. It is not immoral to kill believers, for the stupid bastards EVOLVE from son or daughter who precedes them. NOT one damn human adult has ever been created - for ONLY babies are CREATED - and every adult has within them the LIFE given by children who DIE to give-up their lives to their parent image - so their mom or Dad can live.
Seriously though...I hope he doesn't turn out to be right.
Re:lunatic alert (Score:2)
Re:Duh... (Score:2)
*Whoosh* (Score:2, Funny)
The sound of this thing going completely over my head.
Re:*Whoosh* (Score:5, Funny)
The sound of this thing going completely over my head.
Good thing we have three space dimensions now, otherwise it would have gone right into your head.
Re:*Whoosh* (Score:2)
Good thing we have three space dimensions now, otherwise it would have gone right into your head.
- aah, so there is a downside to having too many dimensions!
Re:*Whoosh* (Score:2)
Last night I watched this movie called Cube^2. Hypercube [google.com]. The premise was interesting, the beginning and middle okay, but the ending just plain sucked. I felt like the writer got bored and took a cheap ending using violence. I mentioned this because of your comment. In one scene a character gets chopped up by a tesseract gone Freddy Kruger. That was the beginning of the slide down to the crappy end and certain one too many dimensions for the poor victim.
Re:*Whoosh* (Score:2)
In 2-D space + time the point could have simply gone past him; I believe you were thinking of 1-D space + time when you wrote that.
1-D space + time... where it'd be pretty damn hard to miss the point. Unless, I suppose, it's pointed the wrong way.
The Cameron Divide (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Cameron Divide (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Lucas Shift" is when it went to being 'far, far, away'.
And the acting went from 3D to 2D.
Re:The Cameron Divide (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Cameron Divide (Score:2)
In fact I would make the argument that only best acting in the original star wars was at most one-dimensional. In the prequels it went down to 0-dimensional, with only the most important character being 2-state with atomic transitions: In love/not in love, evil/not evil.
Re:The Cameron Divide (Score:3)
Re:The Cameron Divide (Score:3)
Nop. Han Solo was and interesting + flamebait character at the same time....
Yoda was a troll and funny monster but also an insightful teacher...
R2D2 was an interesting machine...
C3PO was an informative translator...
Leia was underrated and Ewoks were overrated...
Re:The Cameron Divide (Score:3)
In fact I would make the argument that only best acting in the original star wars was at most one-dimensional. In the prequels it went down to 0-dimensional, with only the most important character being 2-state with atomic transitions: In love/not in love, evil/not evil.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
ohwait...
Re:The Cameron Divide (Score:2)
I've seen it clearly documented in the historical documents [nj.com].
Re:The Cameron Divide (Score:3, Funny)
guido punched first. I've seen it clearly documented in the historical documents [nj.com].
Actually it was "Greedo." Contrary to popular belief, Tatooine is *not* near Bensonhurst.
That's funny... (Score:2)
Flatland? (Score:2, Insightful)
With regards to 2 D universe in the early universe, "Flatland" was from 1884. Err... 1884 is "early universe" to this 5 digit UID, you lower digit UIDs probably think of 1884 as your middle age.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/97 [gutenberg.org]
Time. (Score:2)
Re:Time. (Score:3, Informative)
Um no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Re:Time. (Score:4, Insightful)
It cannot be modelled mathematically unless it involves statistics, which physicists hate to admit becasue it means no tractable solutions for real General Relativity problems exist.
Time is no dimension, but if you don't mind a little uncertainty, you can pretend it is.
Re:Time. (Score:2)
Re:Time. (Score:2)
Re:Time is not a dimension (Score:2)
that actually maeks me right.
Waiting for the 4D (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for the 4D (Score:2)
But wait, if we heat the universe back up, we can fold it, and then cool it again and unfold it. If we orient the folds in the right way, we can jump to another location!
All we need is enough energy to warm up the entire universe.
Re:Waiting for the 4D (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for the 4D (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for the 4D (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for the 4D (Score:4, Funny)
You know, as soon as they finish deploying this new 4D universe, they'll come out with 5D and that'll make 4D obsolete.
Looks like I'm going to have to buy the White Album again...
We can't tell (Score:3)
Fact of the matter is we can't deduce what happened during the early BB because we can't make experiments to determine how quantum gravity works. Until somebody comes up with a theory which actually produces testable predictions for it all the weirdo suggestions is just pure speculation.
Just one dimension! (Score:2)
Time is an illusion, big bang doubly so.
gravitational wave cut iff frequency (Score:2)
Since to the best of my knowledge no one has ever directly detected a gravitational wave the best guess for the cut off frequency is 0
Re:gravitational wave cut iff frequency (Score:2)
I for one, believe Einstein was right, but am so disappointed that so many physicists failed to understand how a detector may actually be impossible to build at all since it is entirely possible that Gravity Waves are merely an observable phenomenon as distant objects have apparent skews. A detector that feels a passing gravity wave either absorbs it and can interact with it, or if it bends the reference frame, it may leave no trace as it passes through since it is merely an illusion of skew for others to observe.
They seem to be counting on it interacting with matter in a way that must in some way throw away the principle of relativity - that c is a constant for any observer. The reason why c is a constant is becasue the reference frame bends to match it - or more precisely, nothing is bending, but it sure looks that way to an observer that is directly involved in space-time, since in observing themselves, nothing has changed and for the subject observed, the same self-observing story, but the subject *appears* to be in a different space-time to the object, to keep the 2 different locations under the same laws.
No energy states changed via gravity waves other than what resulted from quantum observations.
Holographic Principle? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if this follows from the Holographic Principle [wikipedia.org], which states that the information from the entire universe scales with area, rather than volume. That is, the information inside our universe is embedded in 2-space, not 3- or 4-space.
The actual article (Score:5, Informative)
What I don't get... (Score:2)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3)
Going back to that point is like winding the universe backwards towards the big-bang. As you collect everything into one point, all the energy in the form of photons and particle radation is going to heat everything up to the point it is ionized gas. Go to an even smaller volume and the nucleii themselves would break down into what the astronomers call a "quark soup". Forces such as gravity would cease to exist.
Its been proved that the electromagnetic and weak interaction forces are two aspects of the same electro-weak force [wikipedia.org], and would unify at high energies when the temperature is above 10^15Kelvin.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2)
Note: I do not know the details of this theory, and what little cosmology I did do was a long time ago and didn't touch on this sort of thing at all.
That said I imagine it may be due to an effect like the Joule-Thomson effect [wikipedia.org], which is why deodorant feels cold when you spray it on.
(Also as an AC already pointed out, points are zero-dimensional, as they have absolutely no extent (size) whatsoever. Lines are 1D - they have length, but absolutely no thickness or width)
When the universe was new... (Score:3, Funny)
When the Universe was new it wasn't 2D, it was text based.
Re:When the universe was new... (Score:2)
If i'd had mod points I would mod it funny :-)
It's all a simulation! (Score:2)
Maybe this is proof that the entirety of existence is merely a simulation in a computer run by a superior race.
After all, our increasing number of dimensions seems to match up with the increasing number of dimensions in video games. (Except Space War and Pong had the decency to skip that entire 1D thing.)
Sure you laugh, but I'm starting to seriously consider the nature of that giant disembodied hand in the sky that periodically gives me orders to gather more vespene gas.
Re:It's all a simulation! (Score:2)
changing dimensions (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't the first theory about the dimensionality of the universe changing over time. A while back it was proposed that time itself is shifting into a spacelike dimension. [telegraph.co.uk]
Fascinating opportunities (Score:2)
So when the universe will be "real cool" it will generate new dimensions ? ...
So maybe we do not have to fear the end of times, it will just become "curiouser and curiouser"
I just wonder if there where some one or two dimensional sentient beings around at 100mev and 1mev, and what happened to them ?
(except living and a cross of Jasper Pforde's bookworld and flatland...
origin of spacelike dimensions (Score:2)
Actually, if time is shifting into a spacelike dimension [telegraph.co.uk], than perhaps this is the origin of all spacelike dimensions.
In that case I would predict that they will not discover a gravity wave cutoff at high energies.
Sounds like a plot for a Bond movie (Score:2)
Villain: Mr. Bond, you will be witness to my transcendent rule over the reshaped universe. I will cause the universe to expand into a fourth spacial dimension.
Bond: How do you plan to accomplish that?
Villain: By cooling the entire universe below the transition temperature.
Bond: But won't that kill everyone?
Villain: No, Mr. Bond, just you.
Bond: One last request, please before I die. I'd like an extra large martini, shaken, not stirred.
I swear...they just never give up... (Score:2)
The "Earth is Flat" crowd just doesn't know when to quit!
Integer dimensions (Score:2)
Since time can exist in a 1, 2 or 3 space... (Score:2)
Is it really valid to think of it as another "dimension" as such? It seems more like a geometric property of any space that supports interval.
Speaking of which, I gotta go. Lunchtime.
Not that crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
We might imagine the universe is starting with a very large amount of energy compressed into singularity and then it starts expanding by inflating dimensions. You can assume that there are as many dimensions as you want, but that they are very small; not infinitely small, but small enough so that a complete circuit of the dimension is much smaller than a Planck length. The dimensions are expanding to create a place to put all that energy, so we might expect that one dimension would inflate significantly before it runs out of space - literally - and the next one would start to inflate in earnest. So to expand out and get the three big dimensions we have now, you would naturally pass through a stage where we have 1 and then 2 dimensions. If this happened, we should be able to see the tell-tale signs still imprinted in the make-up of the current universe. For instance, events that happened at very high energies (from early universe), should look today like they all happened in a line or plane instead of in 3D space. That is what the paper is about - more ways to check for this..
BTW, the reason inflation mostly stops after 3 dimensions is that three dimensions is the lowest number of dimensions where randomly distributed items are no longer on top of each other. (e.g., a 1d or 2d random walk will always return to its origin, but in 3D you can get lost for good). You can also hypothesize that a few more dimensions also expanded a little in the process, but not by very much. This is (very) basically what string theory holds.
Many people have trouble understanding the relationship between how many dimensions you have, how much you can hold, and the energy levels involved. Here is a simple thought experiment that anyone can do with just a pen and paper or maybe a string. We will use the paper for space and the string for energy. Draw a 1" line. How long of a piece of string can it "hold"? Only an 1" of course. Now draw a 1"x1" box. How long of a piece of string can it hold? About 1.4", if you stretch it from corner to corner. Now make a 1"x1"x1" box. How long of a piece of string can it hold now?
You can actually stick the Empire State Building into a 1" n-dimensional cube, as long as n is sufficiently large (I think around 225 million should do it...
Re:Its a Tardus. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Transition to 5D (Score:3)
I guess that the transition to 5D means that all the matter that we know (atoms, light, ...), will be destroyed.
Not necessarily. To visualize increasing dimensions, think of a sheet of paper. Two dimensions. Imagine it being progressively crumpled, until it becomes a paper ball. Now it's three dimensional. Everything you wrote on the paper is still intact.
Re:Transition to 5D (Score:2)
I guess that the transition to 5D means that all the matter that we know (atoms, light, ...), will be destroyed.
Not necessarily. To visualize increasing dimensions, think of a sheet of paper. Two dimensions. Imagine it being progressively crumpled, until it becomes a paper ball. Now it's three dimensional. Everything you wrote on the paper is still intact.
Now, try doing that to a monopoly board. How would it feel to be one of the people living in the houses and hotels? :)
Re:Transition to 5D (Score:2)
If we are transitioning to 5D, I'm going to wait a little longer before shelling out for a 3D television.
Re:So, where is Ms. Triangle? (Score:2)
And for those who were thinking penis, you are SICK.
Nobody was thinking that. You said the object was long.
Re:I don't think time is a dimension though (Score:2)
The problem is, when you look at relativity and do the math, time acts just like another dimension. In fact, it has to, or else relativity just won't work.
There's certainly something odd about it (re: thermodynamic arrow of time) but if it looks like a dimension, and quacks like a dimension, it's probably a dimension.