Slashdot Mirror


Time Dimension To Become Space-like

KentuckyFC writes "The Universe is about to flip from having three dimensions of space and one of time to having four dimensions of space. That's the conclusion of a group of Spanish astrophysicists who have calculated that observers inside such a Universe would see it expanding and accelerating away from them just before the flip (abstract, full paper pdf on the physics arXiv). 'We show that regular changes of signature on brane-worlds in AdS bulks may account for some types of the recently fashionable sudden singularities. Therefore, the fact that the Universe seems to approach a future sudden singularity at an accelerated rate of expansion might simply be an indication that our braneworld is about to change from Lorentzian to Euclidean signature. Both the brane and the bulk remain fully regular everywhere.'" Update: 10/09 16:06 GMT by Z : A few readers have written in to point out that the article is not peer-reviewed; your mileage may vary.

17 of 587 comments (clear)

  1. Mayan Calender by andyh3930 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So that's whats going to happen when the Mayan calender rolls over in 2012.

    1. Re:Mayan Calender by dark404 · · Score: 5, Funny

      There will be a patch to update the calendar software to granite instead of sand stone, this will push the calendar into 4096.

  2. Ode to the new way by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, I'm living in a tesseract,
    a four dimensional box.
    It's bigger on the inside,
    what why my four-space rocks!
    When you get on the inside,
    the outside becomes the in,
    Dimensionally speaking,
    it's all about the spin.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  3. Re:So. . . . by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  4. the intersection of mathematics and cosmology by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    where the theories and calculations of the brightest brains in the room become indistinguishable from the random brainfarts of two stoners sitting on a smelly couch in a dorm room at 4:20 AM

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  5. "... about to ..." by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So dpilot was talking with God, and God said, "To Me, a minute is like a million years, and a million years are like a minute." So dpilot said, "In a that vein, is a penny like a billion dollars, and a dollars like a penny?" God replied, "You've got it." Which led dpilot to ask of God, "Can you spare a penny?" "Sure," said God, "in just a minute..."

    When you say "about to" in sports, something generally happens pretty fast.
    When you say "about to" in geology, something generally happens pretty slow.
    Generally speaking, saying "about to" in cosmology is to geology as geology is to sports.

    But not always. At some points in time, the volcano under Yellowstone does go off. Likewise, supernovas happen, and perhaps brane changes too. But to say "about to" or "soon" is just meaningless to human scales of time.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  6. Define "about to"? by WibbleOnMars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd like to know how they define "about to flip".

    Are we talking about something they see as imminent -- could happen at any moment?
    Or are we talking about geological time scales -- it'll happen in a few hundred thousand years, give or take?
    Or do they mean cosmological scales -- where 'about to happen' means somewhere in the next ten or twenty million years?

    Or is the whole question of when a silly thing to ask, given that they're talking about the end of time as sequential/chronological?

  7. Re:Explanation? by xPsi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lets say I told you we had two spatial dimensions. You would imagine a plane with perpendicular x-y axes everyone knows and loves. If I asked you to draw the set of points that were equidistant from the origin, you would probably assume the geometry was Euclidian and would probably instinctively draw a circle (a good guess!). It is commonplace to hear "time is the fourth dimension." As first pass to visualize this, you might try to draw a two dimensional space-time plot: an x axis and a perpendicular time axis in a plane. If I then asked you to draw all the points equidistant from the origin, you would probably again draw a circle in this x-t plane. It seems to make sense, but is only true of time is a "space-like" dimension like "y" in the x-y plane. This is way Newton thought of things and it seems to be what the authors of the paper are advocating. But, unbeknownst to some people who cite "time as the fourth dimension," according to the theory of relativity, the set of equidistant points from the origin on a x-t graph would actually be hyperbole, not circles. This is because in relativity space-time is a Minkowski geometry, not Euclidian. All the weird stuff in special relativity like time dilation and length contraction come about because of this weird geometry. In fancier language, time has an opposite sign than space in the metric. The metric determines how distances are calculated in a given geometry. If time has the same sign as space in the metric, then space-time becomes Euclidian and one would say that time was a space-like. The article is probably extra confusing to non-physics people because most probably didn't know time wasn't space-like to begin with.

    --
    i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
  8. Re:Not just what, but when? by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the future, time will become very confusing...

    Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
    Sandurz: Now, you're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is happening now.
    Dark Helmet: What happend to then?
    Sandurz: We passed then.
    Dark Helmet: When?
    Sandurz: Just now. Were at now, now.
    Dark Helmet: Go back to then!
    Sandurz: When?
    Dark Helmet: Now.
    Sandurz: Now?
    Dark Helmet: Now!
    Sandurz: I can't.
    Dark Helmet: Why?
    Sandurz: We missed it.
    Dark Helmet: When?
    Sandurz: Just now.
    Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
    Sandurz: Soon.
    Dark Helmet: How soon?

    --
    Demented But Determined.
  9. Assumptions by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    Change requires time. It's a logical paradox.

    You're assuming that there is only one time dimension. But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Assumptions by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny

      All I know is, my boss has now declared that our fifteen-minute breaks are to be replaced by 15-centimeter breaks. Asshole.

  10. Time speeding up by Skevin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I first heard that the rate of the universe's expansion was actually accelerating, I came up with a weird hypothesis after a few days...

    Time in our frame of reference is slowing down.

    The only way that seemed possible was if we were traveling at speeds close to c, but that didn't sound feasible since we were observing objects that were moving away from us, in all directions. Then another weird thought occurred to me...

    Our observed universe is self-contained within the event horizon of a giant black hole.

    We're closer to the singularity, and accelerating towards it faster than objects closer to the edge of the event horizon. Time will move slower for us, and far away objects will appear to speed up. An outside observer (if such a thing could possibly exist) would perceive our universe as shrinking, but in our current frame of reference, we still think of it as expanding.

    One other observation that lends to this possibility is the fact that we have not seen evidence of other "Big Bangs" or other "Universes". If the Big Bang happened once, shouldn't it be a repeatable occurrence in the limitless void of space?

    Okay, that's my rant. You can slap the straitjacket on me now and ship me off to the funny farm.

    Solomon Chang

    --
    "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    1. Re:Time speeding up by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Funny

      Okay, that's my rant. You can slap the straitjacket on me now and ship me off to the funny farm.
      Or give you a Phd in theoretical physics. It's all good.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Time speeding up by dissy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The big-bang didn't happen sometime in the limitless void of space, the big-bang was the creation of the space-time continuum itself. Not according to current brane and bulk theories. In them, time and space existed forever, and still do. The big bang is just a massive release of energy, that reorders the energy and matter within our brane in a way that appears everything is moving away from that 4d point.

      One suggestion was that two branes within the bulk colided, and all that energy that has to go somewhere goes into a big bang in a 4d brane (the bulk is either 10 or lately 11 dinentions while we are just in 4)

      If those theories are correct, both time and space existed before the big bang, and also at some point in the future our brane will collide with another again and cause another big bang. This happens through out all the branes at different times and repeats forever.

      Note that I word my post as if "this is", when it should be pointed out that my wording is this way "if these theories are right", so please take it as such.

    3. Re:Time speeding up by addbo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting when I took astronomy in University I had the same hypothesis that the Universe itself is a black hole.

      One of the unintuitive properties of a black hole is that as mass increases the average density inside the Schwarschild radius decreases... even though the radius itself increases. Anyways as Mass goes to infinity, Density inside the Schwarschild radius goes to Zero and of course the Radius goes to infinity.

      The radius of the known Universe along with the mass that is hypothesized almost satisfy the Schwarschild radius equation and is only off by a factor of 2 or 3.(Which isn't much in Astronomy)

  11. Well, I for one welcomed our five dimentional by crovira · · Score: 5, Funny

    overlords.

    Breaking "time's arrow" will really fuck with our verb tenses.

    But I worried about that tomorrow...

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  12. Thank you, Doctor by Prototerm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't blink, don't turn away, don't close your eyes, and whatever you do, don't blink!

    (for those of you who didn't recognize the Doctor Who quote in the parent, turn in your geek badge!)

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)