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

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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: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