Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Was the Early Universe 2 Dimensional Spacetime?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i've-always-felt-a-bit-flat dept.

astroengine writes "According to two theoretical physicists, our current four-dimensional Universe (3 dimensions of space, 1 dimension of time) is actually an evolution from a lower-dimensional state. The early Universe may have existed with just one spatial dimension (plus one time dimension) up until the Universe cooled below an energy state of 100 TeV. At this point, a transition occurred when the spatial dimension "folded" to create 2 dimensions. At 1 TeV, it folded again to create the Universe we know today: 3 dimensions of space, one of time. This may sound like a purely theoretical study, but there might be evidence of the evolution of universal dimensions in cosmic ray measurements and, potentially, in gravitational wave cut-off frequency."

16 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. Physicists by wed128 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Physicists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter what one buys or likes. Nature doesn't give a damn about opinions. It's just the way it is and that's it. Either scientists find data to back that hypothesis up and it explains data better than other attempts or not. But whether one finds it crazy or not is completely irrelevant.

    2. Re:Physicists by underqualified · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes.

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

    3. Re:Physicists by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Physicists by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Physicists by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  2. Duh... by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Loading...
  3. The Cameron Divide by swrider · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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'.

    1. Re:The Cameron Divide by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      And the acting went from 3D to 2D.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:The Cameron Divide by operagost · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  4. Re:*Whoosh* by leromarinvit · · Score: 4, Funny

    The sound of this thing going completely over my head.

    Good thing we have three space dimensions now, otherwise it would have gone right into your head.

    --
    Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
  5. Re:Its a Tardus. by sirdude · · Score: 4, Informative

    TARDIS*

  6. Holographic Principle? by rmcgehee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. The actual article by Bromskloss · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  8. Not the physicists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Not that crazy... by davevr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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... :-) ).