Physicists investigate lower dimensions of the universe

Mar 18, 2011 By Lisa Zyga feature

(PhysOrg.com) -- Several speculative theories in physics involve extra dimensions beyond our well-known four (which are broken down into three dimensions of space and one of time). Some theories have suggested 5, 10, 26, or more, with the extra spatial dimensions "hiding" within our observable three dimensions. One thing that all of these extra dimensions have in common is that none has ever been experimentally detected; they are all mathematical predictions.

More recently, physicists have been theorizing the possibility of lower dimensionality, in which the universe has only two or even one spatial dimension(s), along with one dimension of time. The theories suggest that the lower dimensions occurred in the past when the universe was much smaller and had a much higher energy level (and temperature) than today. Further, it appears that the concept of lower dimensions may already have some experimental evidence in cosmic ray observations.

Now in a new study, physicists Jonas Mureika from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California, and Dejan Stojkovic from SUNY at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York, have proposed a new and independent method for experimentally detecting lower dimensions. They’ve published their study in a recent issue of .

In 2010, a team of physicists including Stojkovic proposed a lower-dimensional framework in which spacetime is fundamentally a (1 + 1)-dimensional universe (meaning it contains one spatial dimension and one time dimension). In other words, the universe is a straight line that is “wrapped up” in such a way so that it appears (3 + 1)-dimensional at today’s higher energy scales, which is what we see.

The scientists don’t know the exact energy levels (or the exact age of the universe) when the transitions between dimensions occurred. However, they think that the universe’s energy level and size directly determine its number of dimensions, and that the number of dimensions evolves over time as the energy and size change. They predict that the transition from a (1 + 1)- to a (2 + 1)-dimensional universe happened when the temperature of the universe was about 100 TeV (teraelectronvolts) or less, and the transition from a (2 + 1)- to a (3 + 1)-dimensional universe happened later at about 1 TeV. Today, the temperature of the universe is about 10-3 eV.

So far, there may already be one piece of experimental evidence for the existence of a lower-dimensional structure at a higher energy scale. When observing families of cosmic ray particles in space, scientists found that, at energies higher than 1 TeV, the main energy fluxes appear to align in a two-dimensional plane. This means that, above a certain energy level, particles propagate in two dimensions rather than .

In the current study, Mureika and Stojkovic have proposed a second test for lower dimensions that would provide independent evidence for their existence. The test is based on the assumption that a (2 + 1)-dimensional spacetime, which is a flat plane, has no gravitational degrees of freedom. This means that gravity waves and gravitons cannot have been produced during this epoch. So the physicists suggest that a future gravitational wave detector looking deep into space might find that primordial gravity waves cannot be produced beyond a certain frequency, and this frequency would represent the transition between dimensions. Looking backwards, it would appear that one of our spatial dimensions has “vanished.”

The scientists added that it should be possible, though perhaps more difficult, to test for the existence of (1 + 1)-dimensional spacetime.

“It will be challenging with the current experiments,” Stojkovic told PhysOrg.com. “But it is within the reach of both the LHC and cosmic ray experiments if the two-dimensional to one-dimensional crossover scale is 10 TeV.”

Lower dimensions at higher energies could have several advantages for cosmologists. For instance, models of quantum gravity in (2 + 1) and (1 + 1) dimensions could overcome some of the problems that plague quantum gravity theories in (3 + 1) dimensions. Also, reducing the dimensions of spacetime might solve the cosmological constant problem, which is that the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to fit observations and does not match theoretical calculations. A solution may lie in the existence of energy that is currently hiding between two folds of our (3 + 1)-dimensional spacetime, which will open up into (4 + 1)-dimensional spacetime in the future when the ’s decreasing energy level reaches another transition point.

“A change of paradigm,” Stojkovic said about the significance of lower dimensions. “It is a new avenue to attack long-standing problems in physics.”

Explore further: Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

More information: Jonas Mureika and Dejan Stojkovic. “Detecting Vanishing Dimensions via Primordial Gravitational Wave Astronomy.” Physical Review Letters 106, 101101 (2011). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.101101

4.2 /5 (45 votes)

Related Stories

Who cares about the fourth dimension?

Feb 03, 2009

Austrian scientists are trying to understand the mysteries of the holographic principle: How many dimensions are there in our universe?

Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale

Mar 25, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Usually, we think of spacetime as being four-dimensional, with three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However, this Euclidean perspective is just one of many possible multi-dimensional ...

Recommended for you

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

21 hours ago

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

Jul 29, 2014

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 87

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Kyleric
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2011
Very interesting, considering that gravity is renormalizable in lower dimensions.
Feedhorn
1.6 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2011
Wow,

Sounds a lot like Multi-Space Physics that I invented but never published. In MSP the definition of space is affected by size. Neutron-Space, Atom-Space, STEM-Space, and Our-Space. Are 0,1,2,3Dimensions.
WxWizard
1.2 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2011
While math tricks can be used to hypothesize the existence of other dimensions, at the end of the day, there needs to be a fundamental force to define the dimension.

Our dimension is defined by gravity. Subatomic particles operate in a dimension defined predominately by the strong and weak forces.

Sooo... What other yet to be discovered forces would create the framework for these other dimensions to exist?
kaasinees
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2011
There are no time dimensions.
SincerelyTwo
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2011
box is still a circle


Being able to deform a circle in to a box doesn't make them equal. Boxes have properties that circles don't have. Maybe you don't understand the concept of equality.

What is it with you guys, ridiculously inane statements back to back.

I better stop replying, I'm just getting frustrating being forced to experience this insanity.
newsreader
5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2011

This is really interesting. I wish I understood it better.
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2011
I better stop replying, I'm just getting frustrating being forced to experience this insanity.


Thinking of time as a dimension is not insane?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2011
i already see at least one dimension that you will never realize and dont need any of your theories for it, explain this then? you never will, and this dimension is billions of years in front of your science, and dont want to offend you, just saying ;p and if everything is made of atoms, and if pi is pi and if 1+1=something who need the theories you babble if you have it all already except how the master of nothing create something? you are not describing the universal theory, you are exploring the universe and this is a big difference, or should i say, you are driving a car on the road but are blind for the landscape...see ya buddies

Word salad anyone?
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2011
They used to make early video games using just one one-dimensional array of text characters.

However, the machine operating on this one-dimensional array is actually a 3-dimensional machine, and the memory locations storing this one-dimensional array are actually 3-dimensional cells.

You cna't actually do "work" on a one-dimensional array without access to other dimensions through which to move "information".
kaasinees
3 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2011
mala, please take your pills and SHUT UP.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2011
You cna't actually do "work" on a one-dimensional array without access to other dimensions through which to move "information".
Which circles back to your point Kaas.

Time is a dimension as it is the progression through which the other 3 dimensions are measured.

Our dimension is defined by gravity. Subatomic particles operate in a dimension defined predominately by the strong and weak forces.
You're not talking about dimensions, you're talking about fields and scopes of effect.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2011
you truly think that you are smart ;p you are not even a piece of cake with your knowledge yet ;p


What do you care? You are not even a man with your pre-pubes yet. ;p The smartest people here are also the most modest about their knowledge and abilities. This is a forum for laypeople, and most of us act accordingly.

This topic got crazy, and quick.
mfytq
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2011
M-theory says there are 11 dimension with time
TabulaMentis
4 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2011
Sounds a lot like Multi-Space Physics that I invented but never published. In MSP the definition of space is affected by size. Neutron-Space, Atom-Space, STEM-Space, and Our-Space. Are 0,1,2,3Dimensions.
You should have published those works, dummy.

Lisa Zyga knows a good story when she sees one!
Birthmark
4 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2011
I've heard there could be life in other dimensions--

I know these postings have been crazy (and here I go!) but the subject of many dimensions brings up a lot of questions and possible theories.

--But could there be life in other dimensions?
Pyle
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2011
Some comments must have been deleted because I have no idea what most of you are commenting about...

Anyway,
Enough talk of extra dimensions. The idea that originally there were fewer dimensions and that as the universe cools more develop seems counterintuitive to me, so they must be on to something.
Sounds like they fit the timing of their dimensional expansion to inflation and the next step from 3+1 to 4+1 to DE behavior? This one is a real mind bender. Neat idea.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2011
I've heard there could be life in other dimensions--

I know these postings have been crazy (and here I go!) but the subject of many dimensions brings up a lot of questions and possible theories.

--But could there be life in other dimensions?
You may want to ask Skeptic Heretic about dimensions before expecting an answer.

Gawad
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2011
Hummm. There's something a little fishy about this story. Apart fromm the fact that it seems to borrow heavily from holographic principles (and the "appears (3 + 1)-dimensional at todays higher energy scales" blunder), the author already hints at one test from condensed matter physics that seems to rule out (at least part of their hypothesis. Since they claim that cosmic rays are interacting at such high energies that they are behaving as if back in a 2+1 spacetime, and they expect the trend to higher dimensional spacetimes will continue as the local energy level of the universe continues to drop...wouldn't condensed matter experiments (which have brought matter to within billionths of a degree above 0°K) have already produced 4+1 spacetime effects? If not, then how to explain this new hierarchical problem that arises with the gap between going from 1+1 to 2+1 and 3+1 vs going from 3+1 to 4+1? Will have to read the paper....
TabulaMentis
Mar 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deadbolt
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2011
How can you even have any less than three coordinates? An object with 0 breadth, must also have 0 length, and 0 height.
MorganW
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2011
"They predict that the transition from a (1 + 1)- to a (2 + 1)-dimensional universe happened when the temperature of the universe was about 100 TeV (teraelectronvolts) or less, and the transition from a (2 + 1)- to a (3 + 1)-dimensional universe happened later at about 1 TeV. Today, the temperature of the universe is about 10-3 eV"

Are these transistions they speak of similar to "Phase changes" I've heard of previously? Would such a transition be likely to occur instantaneously across the entire universe, or would it appear to occur over time (to an observer)?
Gawad
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2011
How can you even have any less than three coordinates? An object with 0 breadth, must also have 0 length, and 0 height.
Wellll...wouldn't that make it a point particle? ;^)
Burnerjack
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2011
I guess I'm just not smart enough....
Sounds like something that happens when you give full tenure and a hit of acid to a group of theorists....
Pyle
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2011
Gawad: In response to your longer post. I think they are suggesting that at higher energies the universe would revert back to the lower dimensional count. So cosmic rays reverting to 2-dimensional behavior would support their claims rather than "rule out" their hypothesis.

I imagine that the transition from a 2+1 to 3+1 could explain our inflationary period as well as flatness.

TM:
You may want to ask Skeptic Heretic about dimensions before expecting an answer.
SH was right, WxWizard's comment was very confused, misusing the term dimensions. Birthmark's comment is just fantasy thinking, which in my eyes is perfectly acceptable if not taken too seriously without further reality based development.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2011
I imagine that the transition from a 2+1 to 3+1 could explain our inflationary period as well as flatness.
Or a transition from 4+1 to 3+1.

The mathematics behind the potential for creating a universe in a particle accelerator are incredibly interesting. As the created Universe increased in interior dimension, the mathematics show that it would appear to be decreasing in physical dimension from a perspective outside of that universe.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2011
Gawad: In response to your longer post. I think they are suggesting that at higher energies the universe would revert back to the lower dimensional count. So cosmic rays reverting to 2-dimensional behavior would support their claims rather than "rule out" their hypothesis.
Yes, and I agree. Sorry if that was unclear. What I meant was that given that cosmic rays reverting to 2D spatial behaviour supports their hypothesis AND that they are claiming that at lower energy levels 4+1 behaviour would become apparent, shouldn't condensed matter experiments have already demonstrated such behaviour? IOW, while they claim support from cosmic ray data, condensed matter experiments seem to be in conflict.(Unless there's something spatially 4D about Bose-Einstein condensates.)
baudrunner
1.5 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2011
If Hollywood can't reproduce or depict a reality in any of these theoretical dimensions then their being are just figments of the mathematicians' imaginations. Matter exists in this reality. What could possibly exist in any of those other "realities"? There is nothing practical in doing this kind of research. Mathematics is just a tool, and only occasionally a predictor of reality. It can also be used to prove the impossible. What a WOT!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2011
If Hollywood can't reproduce or depict a reality in any of these theoretical dimensions then their being are just figments of the mathematicians' imaginations.
Until about 13 years ago, Hollywood couldn't represent anything in 3 dimensions. Does that mean we don't exist?

You need a better yardstick.
Pyle
3.6 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2011
br:
If Hollywood can't reproduce or depict a reality in any of these theoretical dimensions then their being are just figments of the mathematicians' imaginations.
Wow! Now I've heard everything. So rather than, "You can't believe what you see in the movies," you are of the opinion that if it can't be made into a movie it isn't worth your time? Interesting take.

Mathematics is just a tool, and only occasionally a predictor of reality.
Every engineer and scientist on the face of the planet disagrees with the tenor of this statement. Math is a powerful tool that we use everyday to predict reality. Yes, it can show the impossible, but that is usually a result of flawed application or exceeding the predictive capacity of a theory.
Ricochet
Mar 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OdinsAcolyte
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2011
There is only now. Time truly is relative. What most folks mean is a measured interval.
Now lets parallel it with other possible realities.
Our universe is a leaf on a branch. We don't even know where the leaf or branch sits.
Anyway it is fun to think about and in the end it matters not in the least. Reality is particulate and fleeting.
Merrily! Merrily! Merrily! Merrily! Life is but a dream!
TabulaMentis
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2011
Anyway it is fun to think about and in the end it matters not in the least. Reality is particulate and fleeting.
Merrily! Merrily! Merrily! Merrily! Life is but a dream!
Then that means you do not understand the future implications of this article.
jselin
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2011
I bet (3+1) to (4+1) is going to hurt :)

On a related note, this reminds me of the book "A Wrinkle in Time"
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2011
The test is based on the assumption that a (2 + 1)-dimensional spacetime, which is a flat plane, has no gravitational degrees of freedom.


So categorizing gravitational forces as fictitious is "leading the witness"? What effect or role does matter play when the plane has no gravitational degrees of freedom?
beelize54
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2011
Illustratively speaking, try to imagine, you're observing objects around you inside of landscape under haze. The more remote object will appear less and less detailed, the 3D shapes will change into 2D ones and the most remote objects will appear only like fuzzy 1D blobs. The red/shift (Pioneer anomaly) is another example of dimensionality decreasing with distance scale. The light is spreading gradually more slowly through dispersing space-time, which creates an illusion of accelerated space-time expansion with distance from observer. Dark matter is manifestation of lower dimensions, too. For example, MOND theory considers inversely proportional dependence of gravitational force to distance.
SpikeTheHuman
not rated yet Mar 18, 2011
How would electromagnetism work in 2D? Don't there need to be two planes intersecting at right angles for Maxwell's equations to allow for photons?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2011
Exactly what is the angle of the two-dimensional plane of the higher cosmic ray flux energies, relative to the plain of our solar system ...our galaxy ...our local cluster ...etc? In other words, does this plane correlate with any defined cosmic structures?
LLove
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2011
I'm appreciating all of the comments... except for the ones that call other people names and treat each other like they're stupid. But other than that, I just want to say "thank you" for shedding some light on this very thick article. It's a lot to wrap my head around. :-)
Moebius
1.5 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2011
More recently, physicists have been theorizing the possibility of lower dimensionality, in which the universe has only two or even one spatial dimension(s), along with one dimension of time.


I think there is only one dimension (where any point in it can be described by 3 coordinates) and time which isn't one. My theory from way back. Sounds like they are getting closer to agreeing with me, now all they have to do is figure out what time really is instead of what they now think it is.

I honestly hope there are lots of dimensions, the stranger the universe is the better I like it.
RobertKarlStonjek
1.6 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2011
Philosopher's make up 'just so' stories, science proposes testable hypotheses.

It is good to see science moving away from the just-so stories like string theory and toward hypotheses that can actually be tested.

Good riddance to the faith based models such as creationism, SUSY and Dark Energy.

BTW the two models, both equally implausible, that involve versions of wriggly things that nobody has ever seen are String theories and the Australian Aboriginal's Dream Time story of the great rainbow snake that created the universe...time to move on from myth based cosmologies...
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2011
I'm appreciating all of the comments... except for the ones that call other people names and treat each other like they're stupid. But other than that, I just want to say "thank you" for shedding some light on this very thick article. It's a lot to wrap my head around. :-)
Welcome to the world of blogging. :-|
beelize54
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2011
This stuff is quite trivial and it leads into aether model (zero-dimensional, particle-like structure of space-time) in its extrapolation. It points into dispersive character of red shift and light spreading in vacuum - the light waves are losing their dimensionality in the same way, like the light waves spreading along water surface. What actually happens during spreading of light through density fluctuations of space-time is the dispersion of light waves from three dimensions into extra-dimensions. Their spreading is becoming lower-dimensional gradually in the same way, like the spreading of water ripples along water surface. So that the low-dimensional character of space-time at cosmological distances can serve as an evidence of additional dimensions, too (the dispersion of surface ripples wouldn't be possible without extradimension of underwater, analogously).
beelize54
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2011
..it is good to see science moving away from the just-so stories like string theory and toward hypotheses that can actually be tested..
I don't understand, why hypothesis of low dimensional space should sound more plausible, then the hypothesis of higher dimensional space-time. At the moment, when we admit, the number of dimensions can vary, we should expect both variants in symmetrical way, until we have no good reason against it. After all, the evidence for both variants has been observed already at many places in much more comfortable ways, then the article is proposing. The simplest example of low-dimensional space are streaks of dark matter, similar to neural network. BTW this model is symmetrical with respect to both cosmological, both quantum one.
TabulaMentis
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2011
It is good to see science moving away from the just-so stories like string theory and toward hypotheses that can actually be tested.
I agree with you, almost.

Good riddance to the faith based models such as creationism, SUSY and Dark Energy.
I love all three and would not be here if there was not a connection.

BTW the two models, both equally implausible, that involve versions of wriggly things that nobody has ever seen are String theories and the Australian Aboriginal's Dream Time story of the great rainbow snake that created the universe...time to move on from myth based cosmologies...
So people over in Australia have seen that serpent too. Very interesting!!!
stvnwlsn
2 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2011
Stupid question: Aren't there at least two dimensions of time, past and future?
rwinners
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2011
While math tricks can be used to hypothesize the existence of other dimensions, at the end of the day, there needs to be a fundamental force to define the dimension.

Our dimension is defined by gravity. Subatomic particles operate in a dimension defined predominately by the strong and weak forces.

Sooo... What other yet to be discovered forces would create the framework for these other dimensions to exist?


Well said. Didya know that most of the scientific discoveries ever made were made in the lab, not the mathematics classroom.
mjesfahani
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2011
I believe it but my wife does not! it is the place where UFOs come from. It's very very interesting.
mjesfahani
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2011
I forgot tosay that friends are recommanded to check this link too maybe we can find connections too.
http://en.wikiped.../Tachyon
rwinners
3 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2011
Apparently, we live in a universe that is beyond our ability to totaly comprehend. That's not to say we shouldn't study what we can ... just that we should realize that all things unproven are really just science fiction.
TabulaMentis
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2011
I believe it but my wife does not! it is the place where UFOs come from. It's very very interesting.
Oh yes, plus those UFOs will never make it off the ground using Einstein gravity.

Apparently, we live in a universe that is beyond our ability to totaly comprehend.
Maybe for you.
soulman
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2011
Apparently, we live in a universe that is beyond our ability to totaly comprehend.
Maybe for you.

So you totally comprehend the universe?
TabulaMentis
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2011
So you totally comprehend the universe?
The major parts. I'll leave the minor details for people like you, Skeptic Heretic, Frajo, Ethelred, Edward Witten, Brian Greene, etc.
soulman
4.5 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2011
The major parts. I'll leave the minor details for people like you, Skeptic Heretic, Frajo, Ethelred, Edward Witten, Brian Greene, etc.

You really are deluded if you think you've got the universe mostly figured out. And even more so if you think that I could possibly share the same stage with the likes of Ed Witten and Brian Greene!
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2011
if you think that I could possibly share the same stage with the likes of Ed Witten and Brian Greene!
You're too overanxious - you weren't on the list...;-)
beelize54
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2011
thing that all of these extra dimensions have in common is that none has ever been experimentally detected; they are all mathematical predictions.
Extra- or intra-dimensions is everything what deflects the path of light and/or violates the inverse square law. Even CMBR noise and photons in general are manifestation of 3-dimensionality violation - not to say about massive objects composed of low-dimensional particles. This is just a requirement of consistency in thinking.
Alex_Reynolds
not rated yet Mar 19, 2011
Im not going to gloat here (especially since this is at yet unproven, although there are some hints at a 2+1 underlying structure to the universe) but this is exactly what I have been talking about for months now.
Alex_Reynolds
not rated yet Mar 19, 2011
BTW Skeptic Heretic, you and I are thinking along the same lines with regards to 2+1 --> 3+1 transition causing inflation; as you'll notice in the article they mention a period when gravity waves cannot be produced.
Alex_Reynolds
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2011
I imagine that the transition from a 2+1 to 3+1 could explain our inflationary period as well as flatness.
Or a transition from 4+1 to 3+1.

The mathematics behind the potential for creating a universe in a particle accelerator are incredibly interesting. As the created Universe increased in interior dimension, the mathematics show that it would appear to be decreasing in physical dimension from a perspective outside of that universe.


SH, this would actually take on the structure of a multilayered fractal as viewed from the outside, one that eventually "winked" out of existence (as seen from the "outside") as it appeared to grow smaller.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2011
There are no time dimensions." -xyz

Korrekt time iz a parametric variable.
Rohitasch
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2011
..the main energy fluxes appear to align in a two-dimensional plane.

Which plane is this?
nothingness
not rated yet Mar 19, 2011
this sounds about right (theres always room at the bottom) as dimensionality increases
Martin_Shaw
Mar 19, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
soulman
Mar 19, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2011
Almost seem to be describing an Entropic effect- as energy decreases, degrees of freedom/randomness increase. Perhaps only a symptom of the process, but still related. Opens up plenty of room for speculation, though.
X24
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2011
"E" Space???

huh, so one should, please, imagine an inverse-loop transdimensional destabilizer/converger/converter/generator/harmony-drive as being more than "just" Science Fiction...
GreyLensman
not rated yet Mar 20, 2011
box is still a circle


Being able to deform a circle in to a box doesn't make them equal. Boxes have properties that circles don't have. Maybe you don't understand the concept of equality.

What is it with you guys, ridiculously inane statements back to back.

I better stop replying, I'm just getting frustrating being forced to experience this insanity.


Amen to that mate. There is so much B/S in the forums - it'd be better if they were disabled.
Bill_Zimmerly
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2011
Something to think about trans-dimensionals (did I invent that term?) is to consider the memory of a computer. It is linear and mapped from addresses that normally go from 0 to 1, 2, 4, 8 GB or more.
---
Yet - BECAUSE WE HAVE RANDOM ACCESS TO ANY BYTE - we can make it seem to be "N"-dimensional in usage.
Blakut
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2011
Two dimensional worlds are uncool. There'd be no way to have normal a digestive system there!
ruebi
not rated yet Mar 20, 2011
if you had an object that could withstand the 10 TeV and you surrounded it at that temperature, would the object cease to be 3 dimensional? could you travel beyond light speed because you would no longer effect the laws of physics known to be 3 dimensional.
Ron_Alford
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2011
It makes sense. Genes are encoded on a one-dimensional strip that is "read." A Turing Machine is a one-dimensional strip that is read. Both things can create a vast complexity.
rwinners
not rated yet Mar 20, 2011
The limitation is always energy.
flying_finn
not rated yet Mar 21, 2011
If verified, what are the applications?
noodler
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2011
Any implications wrt black holes where energy density potentially goes up 'without limit'?

At some radius beneath the event horizon it's 2D; at a smaller radius, it's 1D; and at the center, it's 0D?

ribbonification instead of spaghettification--or does 2D ribbonification become linification?

Does the question of the mechanism of gravity propagation out of the event horizon become even more problematic under this theory?

Fascinating stuff!
JPK69
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2011
Dimensions don't exist. They are human explanations of nature/reality. It is what it is.
Squeezle42
not rated yet Mar 21, 2011
maybe it would help to think of this dimensionality in the same way a tree grows branches, or the brain folds in on itself to provide more surface area in relation to volume?

Could the universe/dimensions of reality, also be folding in such ways to pass information between these folds better? Makes me wonder what the surface are of the human brain actually is when completely unfolded... Anyone have an answer to that?

Edit: Looks like approx 2500cm squared
SteveL
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2011
I bet (3+1) to (4+1) is going to hurt :)


And it'll be quite cold, so dress warmly.
jjoensuu
not rated yet Mar 23, 2011
lower dimensions? Isn't that where the Titan Spirits are imprisoned? Sounds dangerouuuuus....
slash
not rated yet Mar 23, 2011
if you had an object that could withstand the 10 TeV and you surrounded it at that temperature, would the object cease to be 3 dimensional? could you travel beyond light speed because you would no longer effect the laws of physics known to be 3 dimensional.

That's an interesting thought. Length contraction based on the laws of special relativity do cause one dimension of an object to diminish when accelerated to close to the speed of light. If it weren't for the mathematical singularity in these equations, you could think that at some point that one dimension would vanish, reducing the object to just two dimensions. It would require a modification of Einsteins formulas though, something that would only add a meaningful component at energies approaching the TV range ...
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2011
lower dimensions? Isn't that where the Titan Spirits are imprisoned? Sounds dangerouuuuus....
Where ever that place is, there most likely will be a whole lot of gravity.

I wonder how much gravity there is in the center of earth compared to the surface of our planet?
Thraxzer
not rated yet Mar 23, 2011
Quantum mechanical effects can appear to be 4+1 dimensional. Locking in measured values in our piece of the multi-verse locks out those values for the parallels. There was also a force implied from being in a higher dimension, would that allow additional forces in a 5+1 dimension? If gravity disappears under 2 dimensions, could the electro-weak force disappear under 1?
HaveYouConsidered
not rated yet Mar 23, 2011
As my garage is nearly full of junk I'm hopeful that next dimension opens up soon.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2011
If gravity disappears under 2 dimensions, could the electro-weak force disappear under 1?
I think the electro-weak force will disappear in the zero dimension, unless this is a trick question? It is thought provoking.
Alex_Reynolds
not rated yet Mar 23, 2011
I wonder if it actually "disappears" or just becomes unified with the other forces. Perhaps the additional dimensions are "unified" and when they separated to create our 3+1 reality, so did the forces.
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2011
Pretty sure electro-weak would disappear in 2+1 just like gravity would, in the theory. Still tied to the Higgs field.

Just a guess though.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2011
Lower dimension of the universe? How about lower dimension of human being?
Critic
not rated yet Mar 26, 2011
The idea of vanishing dimensions in the early Universe is plagued with many fundamental flaws. For example,
1)A 2+1 space-time (two spatial dimensions and one time dimension)does not allow gravitational waves to exist. This means that gravitational field cannot be transmitted in 2+1 dimensions and simply vanishes. This is in flagrant contradiction with cosmological models of the early Universe and the known fact that gravity becomes increasingly strong at short distances.
2) Likewise, free electromagnetic (EM) waves cannot exist in 2+1 dimensions. Free EM fields are transverse with the electric (E) and magnetic (H) vectors orthogonal to each other and to the direction of propagation. In 2+1 dimensions, E and H are orthogonal but the direction of propagation is simply non existent.
3) General Relativity is a low-energy (effective) field theory of gravity valid for large distances and there is no indication whatsoever that it remains valid in the quantum realm.

Ervin Goldfain
Thraxzer
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2011
Now if the forces just unify at lower dimensions, the strong force maybe takes on the role that the photon and graviton have. In our dimensions the strong force is restricted to decay within the atom. With less dimensions, maybe that restriction is lifted and the strong force does in 2+1 what gravity/EM do in 3+1 and the the cosmological models remain correct?
js81pa
not rated yet Mar 30, 2011
I am by no means an expert or even half knowledgable of this topic, however, time as a dimension doesn't seem to click with me. To me, the expansion of the universe is what is creating time. If it stopped, I think time would stop. I remember watching (and I'm sure it's outdated) a brief history of time on VHS and Hawkings said the big crunch if it could happen would result in everything going in reverse. So, to me, that is why if the expansion stopped, time would stop. Is it possible that the center of the universe (if there is one) is collecting particals that cause everything else to repel from its center, similar to what may occur with elements and electrons?
ab3a
not rated yet Apr 03, 2011
This is really interesting. I wish I understood it better.


Uh, no. An incomprehensible theory is not interesting. Something you understand and can see the implications of is interesting. This is the attitude that begat the Emperor's New Clothes.
freeluck
not rated yet Apr 04, 2011
A circle, for example can be described by one dimension (circumference). In the same way, so can a sphere. So, you can describe a two or even a three dimensional space with one dimension.
josetphy
not rated yet May 18, 2011
At least against John Baez "Crackpot Index", a few years ago I've elaborated- pretty naïvely, I must say - a conjectural mechasnism which started, precisely, from the opposite side of things, i.e., in abstract, quantum dimensional fluctuations within a low entropy, sub-Planckian-scale vacuum would only allow, occasionally, the popping-up of a full 3+1 dimensional space-time, the direct consequence of which, would be the enormous energy content of such an 'excited' vacuum state.
My basic questions (which I haven't found in the original paper), are:
1. Does the ~100TeV crossover correspond to the Big-Bang itself (and nor "shortly after", as stated in this article);

and,

2. Does the next crossover (~1TeV) correspond to the beginning of the inflationary period?

and,

3. Since the last crossover is roughly an order of magnitude lower than the first, and, since the actual temperature is about 10^-3 eV (which is far from an order of magnitude lower than the last), is there the a [calculate