Was the Early Universe 2 Dimensional Spacetime?

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."

Comments

Physicists

[wed128]

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

[trollertron3000]

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

[pushing-robot]

s/see what we'll buy/get the world to notice them/

Re:Physicists

[vlm]

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.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[underqualified]

Yes.

Wait. Physicists? I thought you were talking about Apple.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Not far from the truth. You don't even know what big is.

Re:Physicists

[((hristopher _-*-_-*]

I think we are all a bit crazy then.

I had the same thought, but only because it seemed a logical deterministic beginning to the big bang, not due to temperature as I'd say that was a by product.

Re:Physicists

[LordLimecat]

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

[operagost]

Replace "speck" with "turtle" and I'm totally with you.

Re:Physicists

[PopeRatzo]

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."

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

[Anonymous Coward]

It is relevan because hese scientists are not aliens with brains far more powerful than ours. These are human, very smart human but humans nonetheless. At one point the crazy theories become too hard to be falsifiable under the constraint of us being not infinitely smart. Is comology there ? I'm leaving cosmologists the benefit of the doubt. For now.

Re:Physicists

[rubycodez]

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

[kyuubiunl]

So long as said "turtle" does not decide to go for any suns any time soon, indeed.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like Sheldon.

Re:Physicists

[AlecC]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yes, everyone should go with the herd. Being contrary and questioning things is unmutual. Questions are a burden to others; answers are a prison for oneself. Be seeing you.

Re:Physicists

[khallow]

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

[jgtg32a]

True, but scientists at one point mathematically proved that the Earth was the center of the universe, based on all available data.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the 11-Dimension theory literally 'dreamed up'? I mean, the guy actually had the dream, came up with the math to support it and that's how it was proposed?

Yes. [Citation Needed]

Re:Physicists

[The_Wilschon]

Here's a bit of post-diction for you. This idea might explain the evenness of the matter distribution in the universe (without needing an inflaton field). Since there is no continuous mapping from R to RxR or RxRxR, when these events occurred, locations throughout the universe would have been thoroughly mixed. Of course, I'm not a theorist and I'm not any good at differential geometry and I haven't read the paper. So this is nothing more than idle musings, and noone should take it as more than that without better evidence or at least better authority.

Re:Physicists

[georgesdev]

wake me up when the universe folds again, giving us a 5th dimension

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you want to meet the really whacky impractical "crazy-for-the-sake-of-crazy" folks"

I call them Space Nutters. Fortunately they are harmless since none of their ideas are feasible, but they are still annoying!

Re:Physicists

[FrootLoops]

"Mathematically proved" would seem to imply something like reasoning that could be cast in formal logic, which I don't think you mean. It's an important point that scientific proof and mathematical proof are different. In science, you basically never prove things without any doubt--you prove likely error margins on data that supports or doesn't support your model. In math, the whole point is to prove things without any doubt whatsoever subject to the constraints of your system of logic/rules of deduction, and axioms. (Math proofs aren't usually written quite that formally since it's just incredibly tedious, but in principle it should be possible.)

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you read that scientist proved that earth was the center on the universe? How people twist things that they don't know. The first models of the universe or let's say solar system, assume that earth was the center. THAT IS NOT PROVE, it's an assumption. In fact, Einstein general relativity teach us that any reference frame can be used to model a system, that implies that I can choose any point to be the center (earth, sun, a black hole), this mean that all points are the center and also none of them.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else think sometimes that physicists are just coming up with crazier and crazier ideas just to see what we'll buy?

We need those guys, otherwise we won't get out of the box. These are the guys that we need to move forward, no matter if they are right or wrong

Re:Physicists

[LordLimecat]

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

[AchilleTalon]

You are so wrong and in fact, this hypothesis about the evolution of space-time of the universe is in fact very attractive, even if still an hypothesis. And making sometimes silly looking hypothesis is what we need to make a leap forward. Science history has proven this very well over the centuries.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

No they didn't. People love to toss around the word "proof", especially in conjunction with mathematics, but have a little respect for that phrase before you use it offhandedly. Mathematical proof is immune to being overturned by the "knowledge of the day". The absolute certainty of mathematical proof is what sets mathematics apart from the other sciences; relativity or QM may (and in fact ideally will) eventually be supplanted by (technically mathematically contradictory) theories. But a mathematical proof given by Pythagoreas was true then, is true now, and will be true forever.

What you mean is, the best scientists of the day argued that the Earth was the center of the universe, based on all available data.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a windows fanboy... It pains me to know the reference you're making.

Re:Physicists

[jellomizer]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've got one spatial dimension (and one time dimension), there are obviously two directions in which a particle can move. No problem at all. Essentially x=x(t), y=0, z=0, v = dx/dt. Heat in one-dimensional systems is a basic thermodynamical exercise. The main difference is that the heat capacity of a simple gas changes from 1/2 R then (1D) to 5/2 R now (3D) as many modes were unavailable.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

One dimension is a line, so motion along that line is possible.

Re:Physicists

[Ackmo]

This will happen when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy: you move in only one dimension. I'm more interested in why it is asserted that gravity cannot operate in only two dimensions.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what she sed!

Re:Physicists

[Raenex]

Reading Flatland might give you a different perspective.

Re:Physicists

[funkelectric]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

auto incremental numbers

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

In zero dimensions "movement" is impossible. However you can still move in one dimension, there is no contradiction.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

You still have motion in a one dimensional universe, it is just always along the same line.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

You still have motion, just in a line rather than in a volume. Also, remember, at these energies, the fundamental forces don't work the same way, either.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Motion is very possible in one dimension, it's just back and forth along a line.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Why would you not have motion with one dimension?
Let x(t) -> R be the position of an object at time t.
dx/dt is the speed of the object.

What was your point again?

Re:Physicists

[Rockoon]

"The difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics is that microeconomics is wrong about specific things, and macroeconomics is wrong about things in general." -Yoram Bauman

Re:Physicists

[kyle5t]

There are ways to formulate a gravitational potential in 2 dimensions, but I think the idea is that if they existed gravitational waves (actually, all waves) would reverberate when propagating in 2 dimensions, and become distorted. Huygens' principle does not apply in 2 dimensions. See this link: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath242/kmath242.htm

Re:Physicists

[NotSanguine]

Perhaps theoretical physicists (at least the ones you know) need to get a little crazier.

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 to thank?

If not, it might make for some interesting faculty meetings. :)

Re:Physicists

[NotSanguine]

Wake up, George!

The Fifth Dimension is here!

Re:Physicists

[vegiVamp]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This validates a couple things for me. Most theoretical physicist I know are straight laced as well. Another, they and/or their social crowd are likely to think of smoking weed as some sort of crazy thing. Without a doubt, the hardest partiers I know in academia are surgeons. Specifically neurosurgeons. I've lost track of the number of times I've been with buddies who get right up close to the OD edge. Come to think of it, almost everyone I know involved in the neurosciences in general enjoys their altered states.

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

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I would have said it was a toss up between the Social "Sciences" people and the Education people.

Re:Physicists

[Tsingi]

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.

Yes, everyone should go with the herd. Being contrary and questioning things is unmutual. Questions are a burden to others; answers are a prison for oneself. Be seeing you.

Actually the 'herd' in economics is what brought us to the point we are at today. The 'Efficient Market Hypothesis' that states that complex derivatives et.al. created by the current financial structure does not cause economic turmoil is, well, you get my point.

Our current ecomomic model is nothing short of a Ponzi scheme that screws the public to enrich Wall St. I say give the Feakonomists a chance, most of us can't afford cars as it is.

Re:Physicists

[Oligonicella]

As long as it stays on paper, I agree. As soon as you start trying to prove it in the real world, you contradict yourself.

In order to find the data needed to back up newer hypotheses, billion dollar plus apparatuses are needed which cost millions of dollars a shot to use. It very much matters to me that these hypotheses be of an understandable nature, pointing in a distinct direction of fruits, else it's just a squib for some math guy. Let them buy their own squibs.

Re:Physicists

[haruchai]

They're trying to compete with the religious thinkers, the greatest salesmen of all time.

Re:Physicists

[BudAaron]

This brought me back to one immutable fact. I get sensory input through my eyes, ears and other organs. It all goes into my brain. My total universe is, in absolute fact, contained between my ears in a meat brain. Going with that, I have absolutely no knowledge of what things look like to you nor do you have knowledge of what my universe looks like. Think about it. You and I agree that a particular color has the name green but you and I may actually see totally different things that we call green. We all agree that a physical universe exists and that we live in it but it's all in your brain. Question is - would the universe still exist if your brain died. We can answer yes but by god I dare you to prove it!!!!

Re:Physicists

[truthseeker69]

You mention x(t). Correct me if I am wrong, but you are signifying 'x' as the "one dimension" and 't' as time...correct? But when I slept through Physics time was explained to me as being a dimension...the 4th dimension. x(t) describes two dimensions, not one.

Re:Physicists

[georgesdev]

Now I see the light. Thank you!

Re:Physicists

[ThePromenader]

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

[davester666]

It's turtles, all the way down!

Re:Physicists

[rgbatduke]

Or we can go even further and argue that we cannot even be sure that the external universe exists at all, since all your knowledge of it is "in your brain", which might not even exist since your knowledge of your brain could be as false as anything else.

Given, then, that we can never be certain of anything concrete about the actual Universe (except that it exists and isn't empty, something exists even if it is only your perceiving mind -- whatever that is) we can forget about "proof" and "certainty" and instead pursue plausibility, or probable knowledge (following in the footsteps of Richard Cox and Edwin Jaynes). In this case the Bayesian estimate for the probability that the Universe would still exist after your brain dies is "nearly certain", on a logarithmic scale (Jaynes proposes the use of decibels to describe the approach to certainty of either truth or falseness of any proposition, since most of what we know is known as "almost certain truth" or "almost certain falsehood", not certain truth of falsehood.

Your total universe almost certainly does not exist only in your brain. The mere fact that you have a referent to something called "your brain" that we all understand is very, very strongly implicative of the existence of an objective external Universe of which your brain is just a tiny, transient part.

Now, don't bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me...;-)

rgb

Re:Physicists

[LordLimecat]

How is that going to change the fact that particles as we understand them are 3 dimensional constructs, that electron orbitals are 3 dimensional, and that all of those concepts break down in one dimension? In one dimension, you cant even have electron orbitals.... or electrons, as those too have volume (AFAIK).

Re:Physicists

[LordLimecat]

Huh? Why would you not have motion with one dimension?

Because I wasnt thinking clearly this morning and screwed up.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure Douglas Adams was right with
>>There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by
>>something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Must have happened at least a dozen times

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Particles, as we understand them, are bound-up little balls of either mass or energy, or mass that looks like energy, or energy that looks like mass - depending on how you look at it. How does their normal configuration or appearance in 3D space relate to how they would interact and appear in 2D space or 1D space?

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask a train

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many continuous maps from R to RxR or RxRxR. There are even continuous bijective functions from R to RxR--for instance, f(x) = x.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the -1 Complete Bollocks option?

Re:Physicists

[PopeRatzo]

So perhaps the next major breakthrough in theoretical physics will have Psilocybin [wikimedia.org] to thank?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that to lead larger groups of people you have to be sure about your statements or they will not feel that you are a leader. To seem that sure, you have to display idiocy of the kind that is counter to these quotes. So to lead, you have to be an idiot or at least pretend to be one. So we cannot expect an understanding of science from leadership because science and leadership are at opposite extremes of the idiot scale.

Re:Physicists

[pclminion]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You can certainly prove this under General Relativity: First, choose a frame centered on the Earth...

Re:Physicists

[TriezGamer]

A line is two dimensions. One dimension is just a single point, thus the question of how movement (and thus heat and energy) can exist at that point.

Re:Physicists

[newcastlejon]

x in this case is just a variable name for position/displacement, rather than referring to an X+Y(+Z) cartesian coordinate system. If it helps, replace it it with s(t); like many others I am accustomed to s* being used for displacement.

*Note the lower case; S is commonly used to refer to thermodynamic entropy.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad "Freakonomics" is the only way to a sane economics science..

Freakonomics is a book about the first step you need before you can ever try to write your complicated formulae. It is about incentive analysis - in other words, it is about finding out what are the best interests of the decision makers. Until you understand that some traders are rewarded generously for good performance and have little to lose by leaving a bankrupt company and searching for a new job you will a problem with describing their tendency to take stupid risks.

Freakonomics is only "contrary" to the mainstream which merrily used Effective Market Hypothesis despite obvious discrepancies between EMH and a lot of practical observations.

Of course, there are good books on game theory, and after learning game theory, you will fail to find anything non-obvious in Freakonomics.

Re:Physicists

[_0xd0ad]

No, a line is one dimensional (having length). A point is zero dimensional, having no size at all.

Re:Physicists

[MrL0G1C]

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),

Theorised, not discovered - new theories and measurements supporting/opposing universal expansion and dark matter/energy etc seem to come out every few months, I am far from convinced that scientists have solid theories regarding these ideas.

Re:Physicists

[HiThere]

The basic distinction between spacelike and timelike dimensions, is that timelike dimensions are monotonically ordered, while in spacelike dimentions one can go back and forth. This distinction is derived from the way we order our thoughts. If you can only move one way (and that includes not being able to stop), then that direction has become timelike.

I'm not really certain that this is the precise distinction that physicists make, but it's certainly the one that we make in thinking. (I don't really mean when one is briefly caught up in a torrent, as it takes experience to shape a model, so normally there's only time which is timelike. But if North-South also became monotonic, it would also, after awhile, be seen as timelike.)

N.B.: I'm not sure what loops would do to our conception of a dimension that was "locally monotonic" I think that it would continue to be seen as timelike, but I'm not sure. Various stories about time machines don't seem to leave the reader thinking that the thing they're calling time isn't really time, so my first guess is that loops, at least large ones, wouldn't affect the model.

Re:Physicists

[sjames]

How long it takes may not be all that interesting but that it happens in order is certainly relevant. At the same instant or not is also interesting.

In other words, causality is interesting. From that we derive relativity and then we're back to looking at time.

Re:Physicists

[truthseeker69]

Perhaps we are both missing something. I agree with you, but there is something far more fundamental than arbitrary variables, and consider your comment a red herring. I was merely suggesting that if the poster was going to discuss "one dimension" there was little point to use the assistance of another dimension, time. If the poster had said "in space-time, one dimension can be described with x(t) -> R" then that would be fine. Sometimes folks either forget or do not believe time is a dimension....I don't think it is a dimension but a lifestyle ; ) Totally kidding there.

Re:Physicists

[mind.the.oranges]

The Eames' Powers of Ten is better, even if it is 40 years older...

Re:Physicists

[PopeRatzo]

Too bad "Freakonomics" is the only way to a sane economics science..

Freakonomics is a book about the first step you need before you can ever try to write your complicated formulae. It is about incentive analysis - in other words, it is about finding out what are the best interests of the decision makers. Until you understand that some traders are rewarded generously for good performance and have little to lose by leaving a bankrupt company and searching for a new job you will a problem with describing their tendency to take stupid risks.

Freakonomics is only "contrary" to the mainstream which merrily used Effective Market Hypothesis despite obvious discrepancies between EMH and a lot of practical observations.

Of course, there are good books on game theory, and after learning game theory, you will fail to find anything non-obvious in Freakonomics.

And there friends, is the best evidence for my opinion of the "New Economics". Read over the statements above a few times. Then compare it with what's been written in the best-selling "Freakonomics" books. Tell me what this has to do with the notion that the best approach to climate change would be blowing enough crap into the atmosphere to block the sun, which is one of the chapters in the latest "Freak-" book.

Economists are the worst kind of charlatans. They are the equivalent to astrologers or the guy who talks to your dead relatives. Despicable. And if you ever have the fortune to visit a University economics department, you will find that there a surprising uniformity in the horribleness of people therein.

Re:Physicists

[wamatt]

Is a particle itself not three dimensional? (regardless if its moving along a 1d line)

Re:Physicists

[NotSanguine]

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.

I'm not sure if we're of the same generation but we did the same, and quite irresponsibly I might add..

Lucky for me, I decided I'd "expanded" my mind with those substances while I was still pretty young (early 20s). As for the damage, I think that the scientific establishment has been cowed by a vocal minority that real scientific experimentation with those substance is a bad idea.

It's sad, especially if you're (like me) a lover of expanding human knowledge.

Re:Physicists

[AlecC]

I wouldn't say so. A particle is just an identifiable thing, something which retains its identity over time. You can identify that the thingy you saw at one position at one time is the same thingy as you saw in another position at another time. You have some reason for saying that e.g. you tracked it through several intermediate positions. In 3S1T spacetime it takes 3 values to identify its position, in 1S1T it takes only 1. But the key fact about a particle is its persistence, not its dimensionality,

Re:Physicists

[Lord Crc]

Does anyone else think sometimes that physicists are just coming up with crazier and crazier ideas just to see what we'll buy?

While I agree it is a bit mind boggling to think about, it seems that several different approaches to Quantum Gravity predict this phenomena of dimensional reduction at small scales (high energy). Thus it's not just a whack idea they've thrown out there.

I couldn't find the thread I had in mind, but this has been discussed several times at the Physics Forums board, see for example this thread:

Those who read in this forum are probably aware of the remarkable coincidence that three actively pursued approaches seem to agree on a contraction of dimensionality at microscopic scale. In all three (Loop, Triangulations, and UV-Safety) the microscopic geometry seems to become fractal-like and the spacetime dimensionality goes from 4D down to around 2D at very small scale.

Re:Physicists

[Culture20]

So, it might be possible that we started out with three timelike dimensions:time, length, and width, and one spacelike dimension: depth, but length and width were monotonically ordered in directions in which there was no freedom of movement, making it appear that length and width didn't exist yet? And then they somehow shifted from monotonic ordering to unordered? If so, what might it take to make time unordered?

Re:Physicists

[dave420]

But without time passing, how is there movement?

Re:Physicists

[abell]

there is no continuous mapping from R to RxR or RxRxR

Apart from the obvious examples of continuous mappings (just map the whole line to a single point or embed it any way in the plane or space), you might be interested in this article on space-filling curves, describing continuous surjective mappings from the segment to the square. Variations of those can be used to construct continuous surjective mappings from the segment to R^n for any n, i.e. curves filling the n-dimensional space (no point left out). A very interesting and counterintuitive fact of Mathematics, yet easy enough to grasp with only a limited background.

Re:Physicists

[FrootLoops]

I think that's a different definition of "center of the universe" than the GP was implying (admittedly they were vague). Defining away the problem doesn't solve it.

Re:Physicists

[0111 1110]

I wouldn't say so. A particle is just an identifiable thing, something which retains its identity over time.

Is there even the slightest shred of empirical evidence to suggest that any physical ''identifiable thing'' with less than 3 physical dimensions actually exists? It is one thing to postulate that an n greater than 3 or n less than 3 dimensional object *could* exist in theory and it is quite another to claim that it does. I would argue that there is no evidence (mathematics by itself cannot be evidence of anything) to suggest that 1 or 2 dimensional matter does exist or could exist. Even if a 1 or 2 dimensional object could exist we would have absolutely no way of perceiving/measuring it. So, from a scientific POV such matter would be irrelevant since the scientific method could not help you to learn anything about it. Four dimensional matter (4 physical dimensions: length, width, height, and strange) is more plausible since presumably we would be able to perceive at least part of it. However there is still no evidence of such matter.

As for Minkowski/Einsteinian spacetime, that is a useful but strictly mathematical construct that does not imply anything about the physical dimensions of matter. It is merely a way of looking at matter that incorporates what we think of as change (aka time). Just because time can be added on and called a "dimension" does not mean that you can arbitrarily add/subtract any number of physical dimensions to matter.

Re:Physicists

[ThePromenader]

That's it exactly - our thinking should be around "what is (was)" and "how it reacts together". Getting stuck in a 'dimension dogma' that is basically a crutch for a weakness in our conception of matter will only prove to be a roadblock in the end.

I also have reservations with the idea of 'time dilation': just because, from our spacetime point of reference, we haven't been able to accelerate any light-emitting particle to a speed anywhere near the speed of light (meaning that light emitted from the accelerated particle would be travelling ~faster~ than the speed of light away from us, from our point of reference) doesn't mean that it's not possible. I see time dilation as a crutch for both our lack of reference (we have only begun major experiments in particle acceleration) and our dogged idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it can't. But I digress.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is leaders play to the lowest common denominator when they should be educating.

As Confucius say Analects, Book 12):

Chi K'ang asked Confucius about government. Confucius replied, "To govern means to rectify. If you lead on the people with correctness, who will dare not to be correct?"

Re:Physicists

[0111 1110]

Just because a concept exists in mathematics does not imply that it also exists out there in the real world. This is why we have this thing called "science". To connect FantasyLand with Reality. Also there is a concept that "breaks down". The concept of n-dimensional matter where n does not equal 3. 1 dimension (a point or line) can exist in mathematics. It cannot exist in reality. 2 dimensions (a line or plane) can exist in mathematics. It cannot exist in the real world. Physical dimensions (length, width, and height) are just aspects of matter. They have no reality apart from the matter that they are describing. Color is another example of something that cannot exist without matter. The (non-supernatural) concept of dimension is no different.

Re:Physicists

[0111 1110]

Hasn't time dilation been demonstrated experimentally? I agree that n-dimensional FantasyLand is nothing but a tribute to our imaginations and will certainly not move science forward any more than other pseudo-science or religious beliefs will, but the mathematics of both special and general relativity has real experimental evidence in its favor. The equations have great predictive value, but they cannot explain the nature of the universe per se (except quantitatively within certain constraints). Only experiment can do that.

I don't think the problem is with the mathematics per se. The problem is with the flights of fantasy that the mathematician-scientists are using to try to explain the equations. That is a leap of logic that they cannot make without evidence. They only err when they use far-fetched analogies (which in no way genuinely reflect the math) to try to explain the math.

Re:Physicists

[sjames]

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

[ThePromenader]

I think you're right there too - time is but a dimension, or a 'direction of a chain of events'.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

YES. I think the original idea of time being a dimension is crazy. Time is literally nothing more then the observed difference between two quantum states and is effectively a bi-product of entropy. There is literally no evidence to support any theory of time being a dimension on it's own.

Re:Physicists

[pclminion]

It can't be true because you say so. Nice argument.

I guess all those guys researching quantum wires are just wasting their time.

Re:Physicists

[MelindaM2120]

This reminds me of the medieval model of planetary orbits - they used epicycloids to patch up the inaccurate circle-based model and created a mind boggling mess of intertwined circles until Kepler swept it all away with his elegant and simple(r) elliptical planetary orbits. I wonder if the same will happen to these 'theories of everything' based on spatial dimensions that look like twisted pretzel.

Re:Physicists

[vegiVamp]

I might have misread, but I was under the impression that it was "one dimension plus time".

Then again, that question is of the same order of "where is the universe expanding in to?".

Re:Physicists

[ginbot462]

I'm surprised nobody else brought up flatland. It's the first thing I thought of when I read the article.

Re:Physicists

[ginbot462]

>> He's a cabdriver now I heard, but who's to say he won't find those answers eventually.

Better chance there than Steinbeck.

Re:Physicists

[vgerdj]

Religion has been coming up with crazier and crazier ideas for 10,000 yrs, physicists have the math to back it up.

Re:Physicists

[Raenex]

It's sadly wasted on the people like "LordLimecat" and "0111 1110" that replied. " 0111 1110" in particular reminds me of the guy in Pointland:

"Look yonder," said my Guide, "in Flatland thou hast lived; of Lineland thou hast received a vision; thou hast soared with me to the heights of Spaceland; now, in order to complete the range of thy experience, I conduct thee downward to the lowest depth of existence, even to the realm of Pointland, the Abyss of No dimensions.

"Behold yon miserable creature. That Point is a Being like ourselves, but confined to the non-dimensional Gulf. He is himself his own World, his own Universe; of any other than himself he can form no conception; he knows not Length, nor Breadth, nor Height, for he has had no experience of them; he has no cognizance even of the number Two; nor has he a thought of Plurality; for he is himself his One and All, being really Nothing. Yet mark his perfect self- contentment, and hence learn this lesson, that to be self-contented is to be vile and ignorant, and that to aspire is better than to be blindly and impotently happy.

Re:Physicists

[rubycodez]

My point was the universe surprises us with invalidating long-standing models thought reliable. All these new theories, and the rapid rate which they are produced, are rooted in profound measurements that surprise and demand new models.

And some of those things I mentioned aren't theories though they demand radical changes to our theories, CP violation is observed fact. Abnormal redshift of spectrum of distant type IA supernovae are fact, you can argue about accelerating universe not being the cause, but if that isn't it something even more bizarre is occurring and our most basic long standing models need radical alteration. Irregularities in the cosmic microwave background are fact. Orbits of stars in galaxy not newtonian (fact) if galaxy's stars are the only observed mass outside the center, cause might be something other than dark matter but then force of gravity needs modified for long distance, or there is some new force.

Re:Physicists

[StuffMaster]

Whoaaah buddy. None of that seemed right to me. You're going to need some citations.

Re:Physicists

[StuffMaster]

It's my understanding that some fundamental particles (like the photon and electron) have no internal structure or volume - a point charge, and thus no 3D.

Re:Physicists

[HiThere]

I'm not claiming that this is what physicists meant...quite. If not, it's very close. But I'm talking about what we intuitively see as timelike.

Well, one example is the wall of complexity that occurs in evolutionary theory. Things (nearly) have to have started off in the simplest possible way. Then they got more complex. After they got more complex, it was also possible for them to get simpler. (See cave animals, parasites, etc.)

P.S.: One shouldn't consider viruses to be devolved in this fashion, as they may BE one of the earlier simpler forms, adapted to live in an environment where their original food source had been scavenged by cells. OTOH, they are too complex to be the original form. But the original form probably didn't have it's own cell wall, so they may just have learned how to live without serpentine rock around them, or clay, or whatever the original substitute for a cell wall was.

Re:Physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

During my early experiments with Psilocybin I realised that the universe was a very simple place as long as you can accept that God exists and he is gravity. You have to forgive me because it made alot of sense at the time but in my defense I was tripping balls at the time. Anonymous for a reason.

Re:Physicists

[RockDoctor]

If you want to meet the really whacky impractical "crazy-for-the-sake-of-crazy" folks, you have to go to the economics department.

Oh, how time move on. That was the Philosophy Department's job when I was a student. And they were the acid-freaks too. Hash at the Maths department though.

Re:Physicists

[PopeRatzo]

Hash at the Maths department though.

Now it's DMT at the math dept and ayahuaca at Philosophy.

The economists are just sociopaths.

Re:Physicists

[jrade]

Even go back farther. Einstein's theory of relativity still isn't common knowledge. The simple fact that time is relative to the observer should be taught early on. I find it fascinating that an identical clock at the top of a mountain ticks faster than an identical clock at sea-level...and it has nothing to do with the clock, or atmosphere, it is because time is faster up there than it is down here.

Re:Physicists

[The_Wilschon]

f(x) = x is not even a mapping to RxR as x is not an element of RxR when x is an element of R. So I'm not quite certain what you are trying to say here.

Re:Physicists

[The_Wilschon]

I think that what I really meant to say was that there are no homeomorphisms between R and RxR (or RxRxR). I believe that a homeomorphism would preserve locality, so that locations that were "near" before the "folding" event would remain "near", and locations that were "far" would remain "far", but I'm not a topologist either. Obviously, that is not what continuous mapping means, and I apologize for my sloppy language. Hopefully I've cleared things up?

The space-filling curves are certainly very interesting, but they still would mix locations and produce the sort of smoothing that I talked about before.

Duh...

[Stenchwarrior]

I thought we done with this "theory" crap ever since this guy revealed the truth...

Re:Duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

This new physics reveals that a "timesquare" predates Nature's harmonious 4-day time cube.

Re:Duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr?

Re:Duh...

[vegiVamp]

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...

[Stenchwarrior]

No need. You can see the guy is bat-shit crazy in the first paragraph.

Re:Duh...

[bityz]

looks like Charlie Sheen's got another blog...

Re:Duh...

[Stenchwarrior]

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:Duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn! Even a short quote like that... I couldn't finish.

Re:Duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear god. That thing has actually a page two! And links...

Re:Duh...

[speroni]

I have no idea what that is trying to say...?

Re:Duh...

[g253]

It is a rather well-done hommage to the TimeCube website linked earlier. I'd mod it up, but I'm out of mod points.

*Whoosh*

[Anonymous Coward]

The sound of this thing going completely over my head.

Re:*Whoosh*

[leromarinvit]

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*

[roman_mir]

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*

[Bucc5062]

Last night I watched this movie called Cube^2. Hypercube. 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*

[_0xd0ad]

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.

Re:*Whoosh*

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

And an upside, a leftside, a rightside... well, you get the idea with that.

Re:*Whoosh*

[newcastlejon]

Granted, it was the weakest of the three movies, but you can't expect too much from a movie trying to depict a 4-dimensional construct in 3 dimensions and then project the result on a 2-dimensional screen, eh?

It didn't help that the actors were 2-dimensional (at best) too!

The Cameron Divide

[swrider]

"The Cameron Divide" is the point at which the Universe went from 2D to 3D. "The Lucas Shift" is when it went to being 'far, far, away'.

Re:The Cameron Divide

[pushing-robot]

"The Lucas Shift" is when it went to being 'far, far, away'.

And the acting went from 3D to 2D.

Re:The Cameron Divide

[Anonymous Coward]

And it went from Han shot first to Gido shot first. It all makes sense now.

Re:The Cameron Divide

[operagost]

Two entire dimensions of acting? Meesa don't tink so!

Re:The Cameron Divide

[Thud457]

guido punched first.
I've seen it clearly documented in the historical documents.

Re:The Cameron Divide

[Carewolf]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like a plank of wood with no depth?

Re:The Cameron Divide

[sznupi]

For your sake, I hope you simply exclude Liam Neeson from consideration in any discussion which touches on criticisms of acting; treat him as "outside of context"...

Re:The Cameron Divide

[DiegoBravo]

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

[Psmylie]

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

[NotSanguine]

guido punched first. I've seen it clearly documented in the historical documents.

Actually it was "Greedo." Contrary to popular belief, Tatooine is *not* near Bensonhurst.

Re:The Cameron Divide

[dadelbunts]

All i can think is. Meeesa 3d now!

Re:The Cameron Divide

[dadelbunts]

Even a great actor can come off as bland and 0 dimensional when the writing of his script is bland and 0 dimensional.

Re:The Cameron Divide

[newcastlejon]

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...

Han Solo was your typical mercenary with a heart of gold - but easily forgiven because he was my first exposure to such a character.

Yoda was just the wise, yet nebulous teacher type - see above.

R2D2 was a device (in every sense) to advance the plot, no more, no less.

C3PO was there as the comic foil and was a damn sight better than he which must not be named. Also filled in for ^^

Leia started off well, but degenerated into a love interest as the series went on.

I have nothing to say about the Ewoks, who could have been so much more.

P.S. Han was only flamebait because Lucas is, well, Lucas - I think that's insulting enough a word after what he did...

Re:The Cameron Divide

[newcastlejon]

You mean like a plane of wood with no depth?

FTFY

Re:The Cameron Divide

[sznupi]

"Great"?...

Mooninites

[dintech]

"this porn is infinitely excellent"

Re:Mooninites

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this off-topic? The mooninites definitely come from a time when the universe was 2 dimensional. Hand in your geek card, mods.

Re:Mooninites

[dadelbunts]

They were obviously threatened by the amazing vertical leap of the mooninites. Or maybe the quad lazer.

THE MOST IMPORTANT RESEARCH EVER?!?

[drsmack1]

I can't wait until there is come corroboration on this; I'm trying to decide what tie to wear today.

And I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I just went cross-eyed...

That's funny...

[Ghlad]

...because most of the folks that I know who are hot-headed are still 1-dimensional.

Ouch!

[crndg]

I think my brain just folded.

Re:Its a Tardus.

[sirdude]

TARDIS*

It's Discovery News

[oh_my_080980980]

Say no more....more crackpot ideas. Yeah 2-D space...yeah and it magically folded. Nice. But i love the plug for string theory. Mentioning string theory doesn't give your idea any more credence, especially since STRING THEORY HAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!

Flatland?

[vlm]

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

Time.

[unity100]

Is a dimension we made out of our ass. its properties do not fit with the properties of the other dimensions it is being bundled with. its just for practicality of physics really.

Re:Time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Re:Time.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's where you're wrong. If it was just for the "practicality" (better said "elegance") of physics, then the theory of relativity should have been proven wrong by now. The theory of relativity predicts exactly the opposite of what you say, that time is a dimension just like space.

Re:Time.

[unity100]

being affected by other dimensions, does not necessarily make time a dimension like others.

Re:Time.

[FrootLoops]

The properties of Euclidean space were basically made up from nothing. I don't see how adding time as a dimension (presumably you mean in spacetime) is any less natural than, say, completing the rationals to get the reals for use geometrically. It's all contrived in some sense. One hopes the end result is useful is all.

Re:Time.

[PiSkyHi]

Actually, the URL you posted merely confirms it, check the the General relativity component and you'll find that unless the universe contains completely uniformly mathematically constructed content *and* reference frame together to define space-time, then the dependency of the reference frame's shape upon its content rules out time being a dimension anything like space is.

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.

[StikyPad]

Your statement is factual and well reasoned, and as such it will be ignored by moderators.

Re:Time.

[bityz]

Yes, time is clearly different from space (or else we would live in a Euclidean universe without CPT symmetry). No, time is not treated as a dimension just for convenience - doing so gives great predictive power - explaining local Lorentz invariance as a fundamental principle that goes well beyond the properties of electromagnetism, and, combined with the equivalence principle, leading to predictions of the bending of light (among others). I think the real challenge comes in trying to understand the root difference between the time dimension and the space dimensions without throwing out the theories that we've built over spacetime, just as we've built theories over spacetime without throwing out Newtonian theory.

Re:Time.

[ceoyoyo]

Tell that to your boss when you're telling him where (but not when) the meeting is.

Re:Time.

[lazy genes]

Time is very difficult to understand. it helps if you split TIME up into several flavors , dimensions or whatever you wish to call them. The only downside to this is that it will drive you bat sht crazy like the time cube guy. a few experts in string theory have tried this path but it is very difficult.

Waiting for the 4D

[Partaolas]

So how long until it cools enough to get a fourth dimension and will we ever get to 11?

Re:Waiting for the 4D

[frostfreek]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Spinal Tap: See our universe goes to 11.
Reporter: Is that better?
Spinal Tap: Well, its 7 dimensionaller isn't it?

Re:Waiting for the 4D

[ciderbrew]

They'll make ten be the top number :(

Re:Waiting for the 4D

[chichilalescu]

"folding" refers to bending, not making one dimension go away. nice idea though. kind of reminds me of the ansible stuff from Children of the Mind.

Re:Waiting for the 4D

[avgjoe62]

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...

Re:Waiting for the 4D

[mldi]

Have you learned nothing from Event Horizon??? DISASTER!

Re:Waiting for the 4D

[swrider]

If you fold it in just the right way, you could have an Origami Swan Universe.......or a broach.....or a hat.

Re:Waiting for the 4D

[Remus Shepherd]

You've got it the wrong way around. When the universe was hotter, it was unfolded. It *might* unfold again if we heat it up enough...but that won't help us space jump, it'll just destroy everything. It would be like slicing an apple into thin strips and scattering the slices over a field.

Now, if we could somehow cool the universe to the 5D transition point, then the universe will fold and we might be able to create a hyperspace jump. But there is a slight danger that we'd destroy time in the process. I am quite relieved that experiments of this type will not be done until long after I'm dead and gone.

Re:Waiting for the 4D

[Anonymous Coward]

3D, 4D and 5D are all just marketing terms anyway.

We can't tell

[BlueParrot]

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.

Re:We can't tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. And speculation is useful, because it leads to building tests, which leads to producing results. Thank you for your comment.

Re:We can't tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, no. This isn't discussing that early BB, if you RTFA. The "quantum gravity barrier" is around 10^16 TeV, so this is many orders of magnitude later.

Re:We can't tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly why this isn't a Scientific Theory, no falsifiability. Without it, this is just some guys thought, or guess.

Just one dimension!

[VincenzoRomano]

At the very beginning there was just one dimension.
Time is an illusion, big bang doubly so.

Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[Fibe-Piper]

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

[ciderbrew]

Don't fear the crinkle. Fear is the mind-killer.
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

[Quiet_Desperation]

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

[mikael]

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 .

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[drinkypoo]

It makes that neither less nor more fantastical. However, it does lend strength to the theory that this is all a computer simulation. At first they didn't have the processing power to do 3D graphics, but they have apparently brought more machines online. As we dig deeper into reality we discover new physics models which govern behavior at smaller and larger power states than we have previously been able to create and observe simultaneously...

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[vegiVamp]

Melange simply means "mixture". French, yanno.

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[Oligonicella]

No. In fact, it could well be that Dune inspired the search for math that would yield such a mental construct. Math is a description, not reality itself.

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[Anonymous Coward]

The space must fold.

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been common knowledge that space can be folded for quite some time. The Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) is space folded through itself to create a shortcut between two points.

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[Anonymous Coward]

Through will alone I set my mind in motion.
Through the beans of Java the thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking,
the shaking becomes a warning
Through will alone I set my mind in motion.

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[Rhacman]

Well hang on now, I think he may be on to something. Additionally, consider this video of how the Japanese fold their shirts in a way that saves both time AND space! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5AWQ5aBjgE Just watch that and tell me that there are no implications to the physics community! Hell, when I tried to do that I got sucked into a wormhole full of floating clocks before I blacked out. When I woke I was in the ER where they were still cutting out pieces of shirt fabric that were bound around my hands!

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[Quiet_Desperation]

I like clocks.

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors

[Thing 1]

It makes that neither less nor more fantastical. However, it does lend strength to the theory that this is all a computer simulation. At first they didn't have the processing power to do 3D graphics, but they have apparently brought more machines online. As we dig deeper into reality we discover new physics models which govern behavior at smaller and larger power states than we have previously been able to create and observe simultaneously...

To me, the potential existence of billions of computer simulations (we'll all soon have at least one on our desks, if not in our phones) lends strength to "what are the chances that we are existing in the original?" And the corollary, how many simulations does our reality need to create in order for it to choke the computer it's running on? In other words, once we've achieved it, our runtime is complete.

I like the duality of the corollary: we aspire towards technological excellence, but achieving it will be our downfall.

gravitational wave cut iff frequency

[gnalre]

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

[PiSkyHi]

I've never heard of such a blatant excuse for funding as "We have already placed a lot of money down trying to show evidence of gravity waves and come up with nothing, so why not pretend it is there so we can try again in a new way."

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.

Re:gravitational wave cut iff frequency

[mbkennel]

Quasi static deformations of spacetime have clearly observable consequences (gravitational lensing).
Why do you believe that dynamic ones would be different?

Then there's the observed fact that pulsar frequencies decay slightly consistent with emission of gravitational radiation. I would not bet on it being some kind of kinematic illusion.

Re:gravitational wave cut iff frequency

[lazy genes]

Nice one,

So, where is Ms. Triangle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are all the flatlanders at?
I have, er.. something i want to show them.

I want to penetrate their world with something long and simple in shape to teach them of the 3rd Dimension.
And for those who were thinking penis, you are SICK. I did, of course, mean a pen.
I just hope they don't fall in to that hole left by it, god knows where that would lead to. The blackholes of their universe, you could say.

Re:So, where is Ms. Triangle?

[Manos_Of_Fate]

And for those who were thinking penis, you are SICK.

Nobody was thinking that. You said the object was long.

Holographic Principle?

[rmcgehee]

I wonder if this follows from the Holographic Principle, 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.

Re:Holographic Principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we are like a animated egyptian hieroglyph ?

Re:Holographic Principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

That link is buggered for me. I'll try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Re:Holographic Principle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, I wonder if Holographic principle is yet another special case of Divergence theorem, only for information flux?

lunatic alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Please warn us when you link out to raving lunatics.

I think this nutter is scarier than the goatse guy.

Re:lunatic alert

[Stenchwarrior]

Hah, yes I'd have to agree. At least Goatse is upfront about trying to mind fuck you. Here is a funny ass video of an interview with the "creator".

Re:lunatic alert

[dadelbunts]

Maybe the universe came from deep within goatse.

Re:lunatic alert

[Sean_Inconsequential]

/me baffled

Can anyone tell me what just happened? When did Ross Perot go crazy? Nothing makes sense anymore, yet I understand everything.

The Number of Dimensions Shall Be... THREE!

[macs4all]

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Sorry, but modern astrophysics just smacks of the "Our main weapon is surprise..." bit; where the number of "weapons" keeps increasing.

Transition to 5D

[nethenson]

The Universe will eventually be promoted again, to a five-dimensional state, at some point in the future.

I guess that the transition to 5D means that all the matter that we know (atoms, light, ...), will be destroyed. But somehow, I imagine the transition to be a really beautiful thing (in my mind it happens with music by Gustav Holst in the background)

Re:Transition to 5D

[mangu]

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

[sorak]

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

[MikeyO]

If we are transitioning to 5D, I'm going to wait a little longer before shelling out for a 3D television.

Re:Transition to 5D

[0111 1110]

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.

That doesn't help. A sheet of paper is very much 3 dimensional, which is a shame since it would probably be a lot cheaper if it were actually massless. When you crumple a sheet of paper it does not become 4 dimensional. It just becomes crumpled. You have merely changed its shape, not the fundamental nature of reality.

How about using a valid analogy: start by imagining a massless 2 dimensional object, one with only length and width, but no depth at all. Then add depth. Still doesn't help you to imagine going from an object with length, width, and height to an object with length, width, height, and [some other measurement that we cannot even imagine] though.

Tetris 1D

[bourdux]

We know which game they were playing then:

Why stop at 2?

[degeneratemonkey]

Or one for that matter?

Obviously the universe was dimensionless in the beginning. I'm talking out of my ass (of course!), but I have come to believe that the form and structure of the present-day universe evolved from an initial state of dimensionless chaotic energy bounded by a single (and not comprehensible, at least not yet) mode of operation which ultimately lead to the separation of that energy in arbitrary but locally persistent ways.

What a mouthful of BS. I still think I'm right, and I look forward to physicists proving me right or wrong in my lifetime.

Re:Why stop at 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not very scientific to talk of right or wrong, or to expect proof of anything not strictly mathematical. In the world of science we only talk of probability, and error margins in data.

Belief and certainty are elements of religion, not science. Doubt is an uncomfortable state but certainty, especially strong belief without proof, is dangerously close to insanity. There is only one demonstrably true statement about existence, "Je pense, donc je suis." Descartes had to invoke God to prove the existence of anything else. Again, no other statements, except in the context of mathematics, can be considered to be "true": there is only the probable. Theories are either consistent with conventional knowledge, or they are not.

As to your "theory", it seems a rather facile statement. In the beginning was something that was not the Universe, and later the Universe existed --- thank you, Einstein. I might recommend a university education, a subscription to an astrophysics journal (no, that does not mean ArXiv), and less time on Slashdot.

Or you could keep being right. It must feel good. Oh yeah ... that's the stuff.

The actual article

[Bromskloss]

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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.101101

Re:The actual article

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about this non-paywall version? http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3434

Re:The actual article

[Slackcity]

Ta, muchly.

Re:The actual article

[ladadadada]

Thank you. Unfortunately, the paper is hidden behind the customary paywall but the abstract contains enough information to let me know that the summary here has missed the point entirely.

The universe being 1+1 and 2+1 dimensional in its past is not a new theory. You will find it in Stephen Hawking's "A brief history of time" amongst other places. The trouble with the theory has always been that we didn't know a way of testing it. These guys are proposing a way to test it. Well done to them.

Publish or perish => minor in marketing

[tepples]

As I understand it, the "publish or perish" mentality means physicists almost have to minor in marketing to get prestigious journals (the ones that can get away with paywalls) to "buy" their papers.

String theory?

[Elendil]

Doen't string theory (supposed to be predicting the behavior of spacetime at very high energies as far as could understand from popular science books) claim that there are more dimensions than the 4 we observe, rather than less? I'm confused...

Not the physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not the physicists, its you, along with billions of others. Your grip on reality isn't strong enough to deal with how strange the universe really is, or how limited your perceptions really are.

Re:Not the physicists

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what religious people have been telling physicists for years.

Chances are the truth will be quite a lot simpler than either group expects though.

Re:Not the physicists

[rgbatduke]

Or it my be better put that -- given the infinite number of possible ways reality might really be underneath it all, including string theories, 1+1 dimensional space splitting into 3+1 dimensional space, every religion you can imagine, world of warcraft universe, the Matrix -- it is just fine for physicists and metaphysicists to speculate all they like about this sort of thing and other invisible fairies such as magnetic monopoles, Higgs bosons, dark matter and energy, and gravitons, but humans with a fair dose of common sense will wait for solid evidence to support even the most attractive of these theoretical ideas, and extremely solid evidence to support any of the relatively implausible ideas, such as (pick the religion of your choice, doesn't matter as unless it involves pirates and pasta it is highly implausible).

As far as physicists (theoretical and otherwise) and weed is concerned, it all depends on when they went to school. Physicists in grad school in the late 60's through the early 80's have a fairly high probability of having smoked weed anywhere from once ("without inhaling") up to living with a more or less perpetual nonzero concentration of THC in their blood. I rather think that the probability dropped some in the 80s and 90s, and I don't feel qualified to comment on the 2000s so far. I doubt the relevance of this to the issue at hand, though. There is substantial evidence in the form of several paradigm-shifting revolutions in the way we think about nearly everything since the Enlightenment and Newton that it is a capital mistake to limit your imagination to only the accepted and boring and simple and already consistent with experiment, even as it is an equally great mistake to completely divorce your flights of imagination from empiricism. Physicists quite correctly span the range from complete divorce, a.k.a. "mathematicians" through various flavors of theorist through various flavors of experimentalist right up to empirically grounded engineer. I've been to string theory talks where the theorist spoke about spaces with 8192 dimensional spaces -- with a straight face. It's all good clean fun as long as you don't try to pretend that this should be taken as probable fact unless and until the theory is empirically grounded and shown to have both explanatory and predictive value that isn't easily obtained without it.

rgb

Re:Its a Tardus.

[Ltap]

TARDIS. You fail the geek test. Thank you and try again when you feel ready.

So you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

The world was flat?

Yes, yes, factor in time and so forth...

What I don't get...

[Kookus]

If everything was collected into a 1 dimensional line/point, wouldn't there be so much gravity that not even energy could escape? How can something cool down if it can't release energy? Or how can energy escape from an absolute container? I'm more of a fan of great crunch and bang than these singularities. I'd like to think that there truly is an absolute minimum space that matter can exist, and that space is bigger than a point.

Re:What I don't get...

[mikael]

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, and would unify at high energies when the temperature is above 10^15Kelvin.

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no physicist, but I'm going to take a really wild and pulling-hairs-outta-my-arse kind of guess. So I'm going to say that the actual progression of time itself is variable. Thus if you can create conditions which change the bounds of time for a given amount of energy, it can provide a relativistic loophole with witch a singularity can be escaped. In other words it lets you go faster than light, even if there are other rules that say you can't be observed doing so while within the bounds of this universe.

Mad? Insane? Who knows? But I'm no more able to test it via experiment than the professionals are.

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in my day what you young whippersnappers call the Big Bang was called the Big Lengthening - getting longer and longer in 1 dimension.

(A point is 0D).

Later on it became the Big Spreading Out, getting longer and wider in 2 dimensions.

Now it's the Big Bloating! Longer, Wider and Thicker, in 3 dimensions.

Re:What I don't get...

[Tim C]

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, 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)

Re:What I don't get...

[Kookus]

Quarks have mass though, attraction due to mass is still gravity, so I'm not sure how someone can say forces such as gravity would cease to exist... We have the conservation of energy and conservation of mass and mass - energy equivalence to thank for all of this.

When the universe was new...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Universe was new it wasn't 2D, it was text based.

Re:When the universe was new...

[Coeurderoy]

If i'd had mod points I would mod it funny :-)

Re:When the universe was new...

[Anonymous Coward]

The GUI development seems to have been abandoned. I think it's time to fork.

Re:When the universe was new...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the beginning was the Word ...

Re:When the universe was new...

[Thing 1]

When the Universe was new it wasn't 2D, it was text based.

Yeah but when Infocom switched to graphics, they died... Text was where it was at!

Re:Its a Tardus.

[Anonymous Coward]

His user name is appropriate, though.

It's all a simulation!

[Galaga88]

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!

[Manos_Of_Fate]

Me not that kind of Orc!

changing dimensions

[PJ6]

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.

weed smoking crazies, like Carl Sagan?

[decora]

also known as "Mr X", an author for part of the book Marihuana Reconsidered?

Richard Feynman, almost became a full blown alcoholic?

i could go on.

Re:weed smoking crazies, like Carl Sagan?

[Anonymous Coward]

also known as "Mr X", an author for part of the book Marihuana Reconsidered?

Richard Feynman, almost became a full blown alcoholic?

i could go on.

No, no, no. They were weed-smoking eccentrics. Not crazies. Key difference!

Fascinating opportunities

[Coeurderoy]

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...

Universe "folding"

[Anonymous Coward]

So -- what happens if it folds again?

origin of spacelike dimensions

[PJ6]

Actually, if time is shifting into a spacelike dimension, 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

[cruff]

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.

ObQuote

[ozbird]

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Tell me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the first bit 0 or 1?

I don't think time is a dimension though

[exabrial]

Yes, flame me. No I don't have any scientific proof sorry. Yes I know Einstein probably disagrees. I'm a sofware engineer, I don't get paid to study these things. That being said, I don't believe time is a dimension. I think time is a separate classification of measurable attributes, but honkin it with with physical dimensions doesn't make sense to me. It's most likely the by-product of multiple very real physical dimensions we cannot sense and therefore is an derived(artificial) measurement (like acceleration, or volume). Time is probably product of two or three dimensions, just as volume/mass/density is the product of 3 physical dimensions. I really can't explain it I guess... but I think if the first three dimensions could be measured with a measuring tape by aligning it with the dimensional plane, it doesn't make sense that the 4th dimension couldn't be measured with a measuring tape as well.

Re:I don't think time is a dimension though

[Galaga88]

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.

Re:I don't think time is a dimension though

[0111 1110]

There is another problem. Math is a closed system. It cannot in itself be used to prove anything in the outside world. It can predict certain quantitative relationships in the outside world, but you still need actual experiment to validate a theory or model. Also just because time can be represented mathematically as equal to a physical dimension does not mean that it actually is equal to a physical dimension. Time itself is just a concept which represents changing matter. If all matter were motionless there would be no way to even measure this thing you refer to as "time". In a very important sense it does not even exist. For this reason, although it may be possible mathematically to go backwards in time, in the real world the idea is nonsensical.

Mr. LaForge, is that you?

[doramjan]

Was this copied from a transcript of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode?

3 dimensions

[Pro923]

I think that our assumption that space is 3 dimensional is a bit self centered. If we lived in 2 dimensional space, we'd never be able to consider or access the 3'rd dimension. Gravity pulls matter into as few dimensions as possible, but it's possible that the universe is like a warped record where most matter exists in a different 4'th dimensional plane than ours. Cosmic rays are just matter moving really fast that came from a different position in a higher dimension - they don't pass through objects, they go around them.

Re:3 dimensions

[Ben4jammin]

I agree with the assumption part. It reminds me of a quote I read: I don't know who came up with the concept of water, but it wasn't the fish.

Re:3 dimensions

[0111 1110]

I think that our assumption that space is 3 dimensional is a bit self centered. If we lived in 2 dimensional space, we'd never be able to consider or access the 3'rd dimension.

That is a religious idea. Not a scientific one. According to science no object can exist with only length and width and, no, you cannot imagine one either. By definition such an object would in a very real sense not exist at all. It would be matter without mass: a contradiction in terms. So the first problem with your analogy is that neither you nor anything else could live in 2 dimensions. You would have to postulate a life form without any mass at all.

The idea of empty space being physically "warped" is also not science. It is certainly not based on any evidence. Nor can you even really imagine it. The meaning of the word "warp" only validly applies to matter, to objects. You ask us to imagine a physical object like a record even though that has no relevance to n-dimensional space. The record is just another 3 dimensional object. You can bend and twist it or even break it or melt it, but no matter what you do to it it will still have exactly 3 physical dimensions when you measure it.

Re:3 dimensions

[Pro923]

I'm making analogies of 2 dimensional space since it's easier to understand - not because it could actually be real. The record is the same concept. Entire galaxies could exist that we can't see because it's not in the same 3 dimensional space as we are - thus it's light doesn't register with our eyes or our instruments. It's gravity certainly would though. No I have no proof - it's a concept that I have pondered for many years. You take the idea that we exist in a very special part of the universe and gather all of our knowledge, and run all of our science from here - then you try to imagine what could be true, given those constraints. We live on a node of mass, and much of the scientific knowledge that we have collected is gathered from experiments that take place under these very special conditions. Use your imagination, drop the pre-conceptions based on the special conditions that we live under, and think of what could be.

Re:3 dimensions

[Pro923]

And it's not religion, it's a hypothesis. I've thought about it for years and it's a good hypothesis. It could explain dark matter and cosmic rays (they don't pass through matter, they go around it - they come from a different location in space and as they do, they oscillate back and forth through our 3-dimensional space driven by gravity). If you can wrap your head around my 2d analogy, you can picture matter oscillating above and below the sheet of paper as it travels through the 2d space. It's gravity is always apparent, yet it can only be 'seen' when it passes through the paper.

I swear...they just never give up...

[EmagGeek]

The "Earth is Flat" crowd just doesn't know when to quit!

Integer dimensions

[Fractal Dice]

Why restrict the calculations to integer dimensions. The universe is obviously highly self-similiar from repeated elementary particles to repeated large scale structures, so why not model its geometry as an attractor of non-integeter dimension?

Re:Time is not a dimension

[unity100]

if its a sub property of each dimension, it means that it is a subproperty of dimensions, and NOT a dimension itself.

that actually maeks me right.

Since we care nature cares!

[mrnick]

Since we care nature cares (humans being a part of nature) and that is the "way it is".

No, actually it was...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the dot in slashdot then. At least it's about as likely. And then, who the f*ck cares!?!?!

As a physicist i have to say :

[Anonymous Coward]

You got us ! It was fun to see you all try to to grasp at concept we made on the spot. We all wondered at which point you would spot we were just laughing at you.

extrapolate..

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the universe cools a bit more, will we all become 4-dimensional? Or will there be 2 time dimensions?

Re:extrapolate..

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing I saved those old "5th Dimension" albums..

Since time can exist in a 1, 2 or 3 space...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

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.

Re:Since time can exist in a 1, 2 or 3 space...

[ceoyoyo]

"Up-down" can exist alongside any number of other dimensions as well. Is it a geometric property of any space that supports upness and downness?

Re:Since time can exist in a 1, 2 or 3 space...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

I think the "up-down" property is more generally defined as "supporting continuous interval values along a discrete coordinate system", but yes, I think you're basically correct.

Re:Since time can exist in a 1, 2 or 3 space...

[ceoyoyo]

It's tough to talk about just one of the three spatial dimensions individually, because there are three. Presumably if we experienced more than one time dimension we'd have trouble talking about past and future in the context of just one of them.

The point is that if you want to get rid of time as a dimension by defining "interval" as a property of a space, then you should also be open to getting rid of spatial dimensions by defining distance (in any one of them) as a property of space... but when you run out of spatial dimensions you suddenly have no space left to have properties!

"The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine

[wisebabo]

... 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.

Hey, I read Flatland too!

[herojig]

Another sci-fi novel come true?

Redundant?

[drinkypoo]

Redundant to what? Reality? The Matrix? Choke on one.

Interesting theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this possibly be one explanation for the first few verses in the book of Genesis, albeit given that they'd be a rather poor attempt to express to unscientific listeners what a 2D world was like prior to the addition of the 3rd dimension?

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. (Gen 1:2-4)

If we take "form" to mean the dimension of depth, then "void" would be the concept of nothingness, namely any point in a 2D surface would have no depth whatsoever, such that (to us, if we could exist there) the surface would seem to be not even exist, unless we looked at it from a perpendicular angle; hence the concept of God "hovering" over the "face" in a 2D world where there could be no sense of "over" except symbolically, to represent a spirit that existed outside of the dimensionality of the world itself. Then might the word "light" be used to convey the sense of adding depth to a flat universe?

Then in the end times, Revelation says that 3D space will itself be "rolled up", just as a 2D surface such as a flat paper would be crumpled or rolled into a third dimension:

I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. (Rev 6:12-14)

Existence within this 4th spatial dimension would be far beyond whatever we could possibly imagine - possibly explaining some of the paranormal locomotive abilities of Jesus in his "resurrection" body, which might have been able to step into that 4th dimension at will. And of course the current universe would be hopelessly fractured and ripped apart in the transformation, requiring another creative act of God to create a new "heaven and earth".

There's SHELDON from "The Big Bang"

[Anonymous Coward]

"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." - by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday March 21, @09:55AM (#35558512) Homepage

See subject line, lol... just kidding but he's funnier than hell (basically a decent person though).

---

"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"." - by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday March 21, @09:55AM (#35558512) Homepage

This I will agree with you on, 110%... why? Because 27++ yrs. ago, while I was in an economics class, we were told by our then professor that "The 'Service Economy & trickle-down economics' is 'the way'" (the future etc.) & I was like:

"Sir, wait a second: MOST people are NOT products of collegiate academia. They're not going to 'fit in' well into such a structure. They're the "regular joes" that wake in the a.m., go to the factory or warehouse, work their 7-5 day, & go home, eat dinner, drink a beer, sleep w/ their wife & get up & do it again ... I.E.-> They're going to be "the problem" later, because they're not prepared for such a form of economy, except THEY are not "the problem": You & YOURS, the economists, are... especially if you hold such an unrealistic view that takes away the futures of 'the masses' (& yes, I believe MOST folks fit into that type I just described). If this is what's being planned for later, then we're going to have problems... BIG problems!"

Well - Guess who was correct, as far as a "healthy economy" goes... myself, or the PHD?

Personally, I think the WHOLE thing was designed to make the rich richer, & the poor/middle class, poorer.

APK

P.S.=> And, here we are, today... He also threatened I would "fail his class" (I did not, because I told him "you have threatened me Sir, in front of MANY witnesses, & I think your dept. head would like to hear about it"). I didn't like his line of thinking, because I KNEW it was complete b.s. & nowadays proves it... apk

Good time to play Wolfestein 1D!

[dixiecko]

here it is: http://wonder-tonic.com/wolf1d/

so it is no so crazy according latest research? :)

Not that crazy...

[davevr]

In somewhat plain English:

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:Not that crazy...

[MaikB]

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.

MEH, I was about to suggest that the accelerated expansion of the universe is driven by the urge to unfold another dimension.

Re:Not that crazy...

[Pro923]

How would we actually KNOW if space is more than 3 dimensional? I don't think we can... Draw a picture of a sun, and a planet. Imagine that there are 2-dimensional people living in this 2d world. How would they ever know about a piece of matter that was raised off of paper? Their sun reflects light off of their 2 dimensional objects and into their 2 dimensional eyes. They aren't built to be able to access anything in any other dimensions.

Re:Not that crazy...

[0111 1110]

Imagine that there are 2-dimensional people living in this 2d world.

How am I supposed to do that? What is it that you are picturing exactly? A 2 dimensional person would be a person which could only be measured on 2 axes, entirely without depth. In my mind I can imagine a person or object and decrease the Z axis of a 3 dimensional object until the object disappears, but I cannot imagine any physical object with only 2 dimensions. The closest I could get would be too imagine a shadow projected onto a 3 dimensional object. But without the 3 dimensional object I cannot imagine it.

The shadow would be defined by a lack of photons (or EM waves) bouncing off that part of the 3 dimensional object. Photons are the only kind of matter which is said to be entirely massless. But the massless nature of photons is contradicted by certain experiments in which they do seem to possess mass, albeit a very, very small one. We are not even certain that a photon is a real particle per se due to the wave/particle nature of EM waves. The existence of shadows (or even the circle of a flashlight beam reflecting off a 3d object) is not evidence for 2 dimensional matter.

Re:Not that crazy...

[Pro923]

What I'm picturing is, that is exacly analogous to our existence - we are three dimensional beings, when the reality is that there are completely different spatial directions that we're naive to. If we could have a machine that could move an inch in that direction, it would vanish from sight - but it's impossible; just like it would be impossible for the two dimensional beings to access the third dimension. It's gravity and the fact that most of the local matter exists in these three dimensions that binds us here. Matter may behave differently - or strangely to us away from nodes of mass, oscilating in and out of our normal 3 dimensional space. Perhaps this is what dark matter is - the collection of matter that at any given time is not in the same 3 dimensional space as us.

Re:Not that crazy...

[VShael]

"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... :-) )."

Well that's the first sensible explanation of a Tardis' interior architecture that I've ever heard. Thanks.

We only see one side of the Big Bang

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like a black hole will shoot out hot gas and material, so did the big bang. We are vented material. Imagine a really big black hole.

And then there's reality and the results worldwide

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for "freakanomics" and its results.

just thinking. . .

[jafac]

maybe it's the mushrooms, but, wouldn't it be WEIRD, if the universe, for some reason, just, dropped a dimension right now? Like, we hit some critical energy level in our expansion, then BOOM! Scarlett Johannsen is back to an A-cup!

technically

[Anonymous Coward]

n=225,000,000 would only allow you to stick "a string as long as the ESB is tall" into a 1" n-dimensional cube.

Lunchtime?

[Mal-2]

Speaking of which, I gotta go. Lunchtime.

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.

2 dimensional beings would still have time!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always considered Time as a possible constant inherited form the dimension below. The "Arrow of Time" expands in every direction from the singleton point creating multiverses to obey the laws of probability.

Imagine a single point exploding into an infinite number 2D planes each "arrow of time" moving away from the 1D, each 2D plane expanding to a 3D cube, and 3D to the 4D hypercube expanding to the 5th.

Re:2 dimensional beings would still have time!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always considered Time as a possible constant inherited form the dimension below. The "Arrow of Time" expands in every direction from the singleton point creating multiverses to obey the laws of probability.

Imagine a single point exploding into an infinite number 2D planes each "arrow of time" moving away from the 1D, each 2D plane expanding to a 3D cube, and 3D to the 4D hypercube expanding to the 5th.

I have always considered Time as a possible constant inherited form the dimension below. The "Arrow of Time" expands in every direction from the singleton point creating multiverses to obey the laws of probability.

Imagine a single point exploding into an infinite number 2D planes each "arrow of time" moving away from the 1D, each 2D plane expanding to a 3D cube, and 3D to the 4D hypercube expanding to the 5th.

oops simple mistake each point expanding into 1D -> 2D -> 3D ect... all probability beginning at the first expansion of the singleton and ending at the 12th where every possible scenario has been generated from the 1st dimensional seeds. in a linear solution it would be like creating a method to generate all possible directions starting at the top of the tree, beginning from a single point.

a single point only has the possibilities to expand in all possible directions only creating 1 dimensional objects, 2 dimensional objects only have the probability to expand in all possible 3 dimensional objects.. This routine would continue until reaching all probable expansions.

Confusion of units?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought electron volt (assuming that's what is meant by eV) was a non-standard unit used only by reporters and script writers?

Shouldn't this be expressed in joules, which is the SI unit for energy?

If the conversion factor I found online (1eV = 1.6 x 10**-19 joule) is accurate, then 1TeV is only 1 x 10**12 x 1.6 x 10**-19 = 1.6 x 10**-7 joules = 160 nanojoules, which is an extremely small amount of energy. Even the 100TeV they mention works out to 16 microjoules. I think someone got confused somewhere along the line...

one dimention doesn't mean homeomorphic to R

[S3D]

There are several definitions of dimensions for metric and topological spaces which are not R^n. For example mesh of lines(like one-dimentional simplicial complex) would be one-dimensional in most(all?) of them, and it's metric wouldn't be much different from 2 or 3 dimensional region, so in that case location wouldn't get mixed much

Re:one dimention doesn't mean homeomorphic to R

[The_Wilschon]

I'm not sure I understand you. Could you clarify and elaborate your statement, please?

Re:one dimention doesn't mean homeomorphic to R

[S3D]

To pot it simply one dimensional space can "mimic" higher dimensions. Consider rectangular 2D grid embedded in 2D (R^2). It has metric induced by 2D, and if the grid is dense it's metric very "close" to 2D, but it's still 1-dimentional - it's built from 1-dimentional x and y intervals. Of cause it's can not be continuously(and back) one-to-one tranformed to R1, but still grid id one-dimentional according to generalized definition of dimentions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Like a turing machine?

[paylett]

One dimension? Sounds like tape. :)

Are Question Headlines Tiresome?

[AP31R0N]

Yes.

Currently there are only 2 dimensions-space &

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently there are only 2 dimensions: space & time. Space has 3 directions. Time has 3 directions (past, present, future).

What style of reporting is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you at least mention who those "two theoretical physicists" are? I mean, come on, people have names, and there is a reason for that.

How it started?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the universe started out in black and white as a feature on someone else's show. Then it got real popular.

Arxiv link

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link to the article in Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3434.

1 Dimensional beings have time too!

[jaunkst]

Im 1D, and I am an "X". X --X ----X ------X --------X Yes! I'm moving in one dimension and it will take X amount of time to reach my destination. Acoms Razor anyone?