Primordial weirdness: Did the early universe have 1 dimension?

Apr 20, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Did the early universe have just one spatial dimension? That's the mind-boggling concept at the heart of a theory that University at Buffalo physicist Dejan Stojkovic and colleagues proposed in 2010.

They suggested that the -- which exploded from a single point and was very, very small at first -- was one-dimensional (like a straight line) before expanding to include two dimensions (like a plane) and then three (like the world in which we live today).

The theory, if valid, would address important problems in particle physics.

Now, in a new paper in , Stojkovic and Loyola Marymount University physicist Jonas Mureika describe a test that could prove or disprove the "vanishing dimensions" hypothesis.

Because it takes time for light and other waves to travel to Earth, telescopes peering out into space can, essentially, look back into time as they probe the universe's outer reaches.

can't exist in one- or two-dimensional space. So Stojkovic and Mureika have reasoned that the (LISA), a planned international gravitational observatory, should not detect any gravitational waves emanating from the lower-dimensional epochs of the early universe.

Stojkovic, an assistant professor of physics, says the theory of evolving dimensions represents a radical shift from the way we think about the cosmos -- about how our universe came to be.

The core idea is that the dimensionality of space depends on the size of the space we're observing, with smaller spaces associated with fewer dimensions. That means that a fourth dimension will open up -- if it hasn't already -- as the universe continues to expand.

The theory also suggests that space has fewer dimensions at very high energies of the kind associated with the early, post-big bang universe.

If Stojkovic and his colleagues are right, they will be helping to address fundamental problems with the of particle physics, including the following:

  • The incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are mathematical frameworks that describe the physics of the universe. is good at describing the universe at very small scales, while relativity is good at describing the universe at large scales. Currently, the two theories are considered incompatible; but if the universe, at its smallest levels, had fewer dimensions, mathematical discrepancies between the two frameworks would disappear.

  • The mystery of the universe's accelerating expansion. Physicists have observed that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, and they don't know why. The addition of new dimensions as the universe grows would explain this acceleration. (Stojkovic says a fourth dimension may have already opened at large, cosmological scales.)

  • The need to alter the mass of the Higgs boson. The standard model of particle physics predicts the existence of an as yet undiscovered elementary particle called the Higgs boson. For equations in the standard model to accurately describe the observed physics of the real world, however, researchers must artificially adjust the mass of the Higgs boson for interactions between particles that take place at high energies. If space has fewer dimensions at high energies, the need for this kind of "tuning" disappears.

"What we're proposing here is a shift in paradigm," Stojkovic said. "Physicists have struggled with the same problems for 10, 20, 30 years, and straight-forward extensions of extensions of the existing ideas are unlikely to solve them."

"We have to take into account the possibility that something is systematically wrong with our ideas," he continued. "We need something radical and new, and this is something radical and new."

Because the planned deployment of LISA is still years away, it may be a long time before Stojkovic and his colleagues are able to test their ideas this way.

However, some experimental evidence already points to the possible existence of lower-dimensional space.

Specifically, scientists have observed that the main energy flux of cosmic ray particles with energies exceeding 1 teraelectron volt -- the kind of high energy associated with the very early universe -- are aligned along a two-dimensional plane.

If high energies do correspond with lower-dimensional space, as the "vanishing dimensions" theory proposes, researchers working with the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator in Europe should see planar scattering at such energies.

Stojkovic says the observation of such events would be "a very exciting, independent test of our proposed ideas."

Explore further: First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives

More information: Detecting Vanishing Dimensions via Primordial Gravitational Wave Astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 101101 (2011) [4 pages] DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.101101

Abstract
Lower dimensionality at higher energies has manifold theoretical advantages as recently pointed out by Anchordoqui et al. [arXiv:1003.5914]. Moreover, it appears that experimental evidence may already exist for it: A statistically significant planar alignment of events with energies higher than TeV has been observed in some earlier cosmic ray experiments. We propose a robust and independent test for this new paradigm. Since (2+1)-dimensional spacetimes have no gravitational degrees of freedom, gravity waves cannot be produced in that epoch. This places a universal maximum frequency at which primordial waves can propagate, marked by the transition between dimensions. We show that this cutoff frequency may be accessible to future gravitational wave detectors such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna.

Related Stories

Physicists investigate lower dimensions of the universe

Mar 18, 2011

(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, ...

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?

Is the Vacuum Empty? -- the Higgs Field and the Dark Energy

May 10, 2007

The problems in understanding the true nature of the “vacuum” of space were discussed by theoretical physicist Alvaro de Rújula from CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, Switzerland, and a professor ...

Recommended for you

First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives

14 hours ago

While creating the first-ever images of explosives using an x-ray free electron laser in California, Los Alamos researchers and collaborators demonstrated a crucial diagnostic for studying how voids affect ...

New approach to form non-equilibrium structures

Jul 24, 2014

Although most natural and synthetic processes prefer to settle into equilibrium—a state of unchanging balance without potential or energy—it is within the realm of non-equilibrium conditions where new possibilities lie. ...

Nike krypton laser achieves spot in Guinness World Records

Jul 24, 2014

A set of experiments conducted on the Nike krypton fluoride (KrF) laser at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) nearly five years ago has, at long last, earned the coveted Guinness World Records title for achieving "Highest ...

User comments : 198

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

pauljpease
3.7 / 5 (13) Apr 20, 2011
I really enjoyed this article, I agree that some people should spend some effort on weird ideas. If for no other reason than the history of physics. Very few major discoveries came from extending old models (quantum theory and relativity were complete departures in terms of how we view the universe, not just logical extensions of previous theories).

Last night I was thinking outside the box and came up with a strange theory. What if the failure to reconcile quantum theory and relativity is evidence that our universe is a simulation running on a computer in a different universe? Briefly...

A simulation has two factors that affect the simulation. Software and hardware. Software is simply information, and is independent of the laws of physics (it's math!). The hardware however must obey the laws of physics. Intelligent beings that evolve within the simulation could gain access to information about the simulation and therefore derive the rules of the program generating the simulation. ->
pauljpease
4 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2011
However, the details of how the program runs, and therefore the data output from the simulation, depends on the hardware it's running on. So the physics observed by beings within the simulation would be a product of both the program that's running, and the laws of physics in the universe that contains the hardware.

I propose that the Standard Model, i.e. quantum theory, is a result of the software in the "real" universe. That's why in the most simple systems you don't need relativity, quantum theory is a perfect description of the behavior of particles/fields. Furthermore, I propose that Relativity is a consequence of the laws of physics (the hardware) in the "real" universe. Because we can only logically derive the properties of the software, we will never be able to have a theory that predicts the masses of particles, because the mass of particles depends on the hardware running the program.

So why do we not observe Relativity at small scales but it dominates at large scales? ->

pauljpease
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2011
I'm not an expert on how computers work, but I imagine that the simpler the calculations, the less dependent the calculations are on hardware. For example, if I am only running one program on my computer, it runs precisely as predicted based on the software. However, as I put more demands on the hardware, by opening more programs, weird things start to happen. Some programs lag, time seems to pass at different rates in different programs, etc. Not an exact analogy, but this is generally how I envision the difference arising. At short scales, the processing required is simple and is not hardware-limited, so it matches exactly with theory. But as the system gets larger, requiring more processing, the hardware becomes limited and there will be weird effects that we perceive as Relativity. In this view mass = energy = number of calculations (roughly speaking). Think of a massive particle as a large file that needs to be processed, it will impact the performance of the hardware more. ->
6_6
1.5 / 5 (36) Apr 20, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..
pauljpease
5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2011
Interestingly, if this hypothesis is true, we might actually expect to see exactly what we observe. For example, whatever problems the hardware is having as it running the simulation, the rules of the program won't be violated. In my crude analogy, even though microsoft word might lag, when I press the "f" key I still observe an "f" appear on the screen. So, we should expect the laws of quantum theory to be invariant, so we will always observe the same speed of light, charge of an electron, etc. But you would observe larger systems to exhibit different frame rates essentially, even though within each reference frame the simulation is exactly following the rules in the program.

Obviously this is a very weird theory, but it has several things going for it.

1. Explains why quantum theory does not predict particle masses. To predict particle masses we would need a complete understanding of the laws of physics in the "real" universe and an understanding of the specific hardware we're on.
MadLintElf
4.5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2011
Non-Physics major question.

If you cannot have gravitational waves in dimensions 1 or 2, can you have gravatational mass? IE a planar mass that is only 1 or 2 dimensional?

Thanks
banjopete
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2011
Obviously it had pi dimensions back then.
pauljpease
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2011
(continued)

2. It explains why quantum theory and relativity seem so different. One results from software and the other from hardware-limitations.

3. Very exciting possibilities if true. For example, are the programmers god? Can we communicate with them? If so, could we tell them to alter the simulation so that time travel, life-after-death, worm-holes/FTL travel are possible? Is the "real" universe actually just a simulation run by yet another universe? Could we create a simulation and create a whole new universe?
pauljpease
4.4 / 5 (16) Apr 20, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..


You must know everything there is to know, since you're so confident that they are just wasting their time. Thankfully we don't all have to spend our time the way others think we should. I think it's sad that you, and many other people, think that trying to understand reality is a waste of time.
ealex
4.3 / 5 (13) Apr 20, 2011
I wish I would see more pertinent comments on articles like these. This is a good theory unlike the mumbo-jumbo peddled by some of the tiny trolls roaming around the comment threads. It may prove to be false, but considering the general picture of physics and cosmology today I think it's needed and welcome, regardless of the final outcome. The assumptions seem reasonable enough and there is at least "some" initial observable data that seems to agree with it. Sure it may be for a completely different reason, but research like this should definitely be encouraged and commended rather than be categorized as a "waste of life".

It's also one more piece of news to expect from the LHC for all the people yelling 'waste of money'. Knowledge can't come for free forever like it did in previous years. I wish the people protesting on how money is wasted on things like the LHC would be as adamant about protesting the use of money for military purposes or other pointless shit.
maxcypher
5 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2011
So... back to the article: Does a one-dimensional space have spacetime? Can we always add time to whatever dimensional space is being considered?
El_Nose
4.8 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2011
awesome article --- QUESTION

if the universe has less deminsion at higher energies doesn't that mean that the Higgs cannot be found using a particle accelerator becaause the energy levels of say two lead atoms hitting each other will at near c will be so high that impact will create forces that will necessarily dissipate over 2 deminsions, and the Higgs may need the uncoupling of gravity from the other forces in a 3+ deminsional system to show it's existance??? -- not a pysicist but is that what the article is suggesting???

please comment on this
TopherTO
5 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2011
That was one monster of a tangent Pauli!

Sounds like screenplay notes from the Matrix. Hmmm, today is 4-20. Maybe I've figured out the source of that tangent of yours.

BTW, not shooting it down. The length made me chuckle was all. Post away
jamesrm
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 20, 2011
"What we're proposing here is a shift in paradigm," Stojkovic said. "Physicists have struggled with the same problems for 10, 20, 30 years, and straight-forward extensions of extensions of the existing ideas are unlikely to solve them."

But we must protect the Big Bang at all costs, that would be to much liike a real Paradigm Shift

"We have to take into account the possibility that something is systematically wrong with our ideas," he continued. "We need something radical and new, and this is something radical and new."

They wouldn't know an epicycle if it bit them. So instead of just adjusting the Higgs mass we get a knew knob for the number of space/time dimensions at particular epochs. At least this idea might be falsifiable?

rgds
James
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2011
So I wonder if dimension itself is a Quantum? And dimensions appear when energy levels drop to some critical point, when they reorganize and that reorganization is expressed as an additional dimension?

A sort of Quantum Entropy?

And maybe this single dimension/energy level can explain Inflation? As in -the single dimension energy extended to the limit of supposed inflation, before the second, and then third dimensions were manifested?

?

Just some speculations. Any thoughts/observations?

technodiss
2 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2011
holy cow! evolving dimensions! this theory may turn out to have some validity. the accelerated expansion of our universe could have something to do with an emerging dimension. but would this be more evident at the center or the outer edges of reality? anyway it makes more sense than the theory that our universe only has two dimensions and what we experience is a hologram along the axis of time and space. but there is still the question of what was before the big bang and what will come after the maximum of entropy when our universe accelerates to or beyond the speed of light. but these are BIG questions and likely cannot be answered by the tiny minds of us mere mortals
technodiss
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2011
also i think that, if the theory is relative, that the first dimension would have been what we think of as time. and another thing occurs to me; they may have the lower dimension/higher energy speculation (thats not the right word) reversed.
Pete83
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2011
One problem though, apparently LISA has been canceled thanks to budgeting. I've been waiting for LISA to go online for years... very frustrating.
George_Rodart
4.4 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2011
Time has no meaning in isolation. A one dimensional universe would be pure energy and since it's single dimension doesn't need a time metric, it's covered by the space metric.

Once the space dimension becomes 2, time becomes emergent, total dimensionality is now 2+T. And so on, with 3D+T we get gravity and mass.
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2011
"One problem though, apparently LISA has been canceled thanks to budgeting."

Though NASA is pulling out of the LISA project the European Space Agency will continue to fund mission planning. This is still a major blow to LISA as it now stands, though a scaled back mission might still be a viable option. I share your frustration with the situation though.
sstritt
2 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2011
How does this fit with string or M theory with their 11 dimensions? As the universe evolves, do extra dimensions eventually become unwrapped until all 11 are revealed?
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
@pauljpease,

Funny, I had a similar thought a few years ago. I suspect when you say "Relativity", you really mean "General Relativity", or in other words the theory and phenomenology of gravitation.

Yes, it does appear as if matter/energy is more complex than simple spacetime, and that the more such complexity you cram into a given volume (and so the more activity/interactions occur within that volume per unit of external observer's time), the greater the distortion of spacetime.

In a way, gravity wells are a direct correlate of information density. And devilishly enough, they scale linearly with mass, too. However, I then thought about phenomena like frame-dragging and gravity waves, which are propagating, dynamical distortions of spacetime in absence of any obvious complexity to undergird or drive them. And why should gravity fall off smoothly to apparently INFINITE distance (rather than become exactly 0 past a certain threshold)?
Avitar
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2011
Thirty years ago I attended an evening physics lecture on Roger Penrose's work that after the lecture strayed into what happens when the mass of the universe was inside of the Swartz child radius of the universe The conclusion we came to was that the special dimensions must have rotated with the other dimensions at the event horizon and at least and two dimensions dropped before that point. That the Acceleration did not take place in a space resembling our current space-time. I don't think anyone developed anything from this concept but what happens at such high energy environments is fascinating. Like can you measure the speed of Gravity?
SemiNerd
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
Since Gravity cannot propagate at all in 1 or 2+T spaces, how would gravity be affected by the opening up of a 4th dimension at large cosmological distances as described in this article? Could this be the origin of the MOTD theories that cause a slight deviation from strictly quadratic behavior at extremely long distances? Extremely interesting article.
Dingdongdog
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2011
The concept discussed in the article would make very good sense if the following were true:

(1) The cosmos originated from a "singularity" or a zero point of absolute unconditioned space (as postulated by Einsteins General relativity).
(2) The potential energy of total cosmic hyperspherical spacetime i.e., its infinite zero-point energy (ZPE) source was (is) in the form of infinite angular spin momentum, having 0-dimension (i.e., the ZP singularity is located everywhere).
(3) The cosmos (and any potential particle-wave within it) began its (their) initial manifestation as a single 1-dimensional ray emanated from that ZPE.
(4) The initial ray (or superstring) circles that zero point as a continuously repeating, 2-dimensional spiral vortex, Mobius-Klein triple cycle loop like a figure eight within a surrounding circle (having potentially infinite diameter after maximum inflation).
Moebius
1.6 / 5 (15) Apr 21, 2011
Another wacko theory right up there with string theory. Theories like this come about by building on other ideas that are probably wrong or incomplete. The idea of a singularity is probably something that doesn't actually exist. Like infinity, it only exists in our imagination. So if you have this idea of the universe starting from zero dimensions it's easy to come up with a theory that it goes to 1 dimension on the way to 3. The next iteration will be that it also makes a stop at 2 dimensions before 3 dimensional inflation happened. It isn't hard to come up with theories like this when you start out with the wrong theory.
impZ
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
In any given dimension we have all other sub-dimensions , so it's only natural that ours is a sub-dimension of the dimensions above , I personaly agree with pauljpease's theory enven if it sounds how most people think it sounds.
But the observable univers is made of "suff" and "anti-stuff" in mirror so how is this perpetuated in dimensional discrepancies ... as we observe anomalies and try to fit them onto teoretical models , but that is as false as this world of ours , the equilibrium of mater and anti-mater is governd by us , gods , human beengs , energy with self consciousness . Our science is based on knowledge of a 3'd dimension , and completly disregards the human energy and any other spiritual energy for that matter. All of the spacetime is an actual inteligent point of no relative dimension but with a thinking algorithm on diferent dimensions (all in one). Magic particles like Higgs Boson is actualy universal inteligence or what people refere to as deities.
antialias
3.4 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2011
Another wacko theory right up there with string theory.

Not quite. While there is no viable test for string theory there actually may be a viable test for this. Unlike the theory of yours:
The idea of a singularity is probably something that doesn't actually exist. Like infinity, it only exists in our imagination

which IS a wacko theory because you have proposed no test for it.
ZephirAWT
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZephirAWT
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epsi00
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2011
To Moebius

It isn't hard to come up with theories like this when you start out with the wrong theory.


if it is that easy to come up with theories like this, why don't we have 365 of them for every calendar year? And when are you coming up with your very own theory? Or do you just criticize others for coming up with new theories?

The question is or should be: is the theory self-consistent? Is the math correct? Can it be verified experimentally? Are there facts out there that support this theory?

The fact that the theory "looks" weird to some should not affect its validity as a theory. Who did not feel that quantum mechanic was weird when it first came up?

Too many nay sayers on this forum.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2011
So how long did it take the 2nd and 3rd dimensions to appear? If it wasn't on the order of less than a second I could see some problems with this theory.
rynox
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
I could subscribe to this theory.

Additionally, I think it lends to the fact that the universe's existence is highly probable. If some amount of energy existed originally... an amount between, say, 0 and infinity, what is the likelihood that 0 exists? 0 meaning no existence? Not very likely. Matter, energy (energy that we know), time, space are all products and a natural consequence of the existence of this energy. I'm no physicists, so this could all be bollocks, but it helps me personally understand our existence.
kaypee
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..


Yeah, Michael Faraday, stop wasting your life playing around with magnets and voltaic piles, and focus on opening your own bookbinder business.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
what is the likelihood that 0 exists?


Very likely in fact. It's the simplest "system" of the two. The fact that anything goes to the bother of existing at all is the highly improbable eventuality.
CSharpner
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..

Wasting their lives? Did you even read the article? If they're right, this could solve many fundamental problems in our understanding of the laws of physics, which opens up new possibilities of all sorts of scientific progress.
NameIsNotNick
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all.

Actually that's implied. The primordial singularity that spawned the BB had no dimensions.
all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life...

Einstein's Old Man probably told him the same thing...
Scheckles
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
I'm merely a science enthusiast as I lack any formal training, but this theory is very interesting.

Is it possible that the Universe itself evolves through dimensions? Is it possible that the Universe existed in 1 dimensional space then evolved into 2 dimensional and finally the Big Bang resulted from the evolution into the third dimension?

What would an evolution into the 4th dimension look/feel like? Would those existing in this Universe know if something like this happened? Is it possible to have consciousness and intelligence in the 1st or 2nd dimensions?

Again, very interesting.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
Actually that's implied. The primordial singularity that spawned the BB had no dimensions.


Source?
pauljpease
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
However, I then thought about phenomena like frame-dragging and gravity waves, which are propagating, dynamical distortions of spacetime in absence of any obvious complexity to undergird or drive them. And why should gravity fall off smoothly to apparently INFINITE distance (rather than become exactly 0 past a certain threshold)?


Interesting thought. If my theory is true, I think gravity waves would still exist.

Imagine a dense region of spacetime (a lot of matter/energy). This causes the computation in the processor working on that region of the simulation to lag. This doesn't immediately affect the simulation in different regions of spacetime because it is beyond the event horizon. A gravity wave would be a correction factor that adjusts the state of the simulation in the distant region. In the crude analogy, this would be like my computer lagging now, which doesn't affect how a program will run later today, but it will affect the time and place that program runs.
pauljpease
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
Regarding the theory described in the article, I had the same thought a few years back. My thinking was like this.

Postulate: Universe is an information process.

As the information processing progresses, entropy increases. If you store data in one dimension, the rate of the process slows, so increase in entropy slows, due to the ever increasing distances of data transmission (imagine your hard drive getting further and further from your CPU). Eventually the data gets reformatted/compressed by storing it in two dimensions, which allows the data to be accessed more quickly, maintaining speed of processing and rate of entropy increase. Eventually the two dimensions get filled and so a third dimension begins to emerge. Funny, it's similar to the evolution of our information processing technology (linear magnetic tapes, 2D disks, soon-to-be 3D memory devices...). All in an effort to store the most information in the most efficient way possible as close to the CPU as possible.

pauljpease
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
(continued)

In this view of the universe, the emergence of forces at different energy scales might be related to the algorithm used to format data in the extra dimensions. Easy to envision if you think of physical bits. If they are stored in a straight line, they can only move in certain ways. If you add another dimension, those bits can now be moved in entirely new ways, which means there must be a new force of nature. (A force, such as electromagnetic force, is a rule that tells bits how to move, so new rules for movement of bits = new force). Another consequence of this view is that adding new rules for the movement of bits allows different patterns of bits to emerge, so as new forces emerge we should expect different types of particles to be stable. So maybe zero dimensions equals no rules (random processing). One dimension would be random + 1 force. 2D would be random + 2 forces and 3D would be random + 3 forces. This is what we see (gravity + 3 forces (EM, strong and weak).
Paljor
3 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2011
I don't wanna be on a simulation thats just to weird a thought for most!
beelize54
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2011
..Is it possible that the Universe itself evolves through dimensions?..
This is what every density fluctuation of gas does during condensation into droplet. From singular, zero-dimensional particles it evolves into stringy density fluctuations (which are visible at the beginning of supercritical fluid condensation) into 3D spheres/droplets.

http://www1.chem....co24.jpg

But this is not all. When the density of fluid is sufficiently hight, then the droplets inside of resulting condensate will behave like particles of another fluid (a "hyperfluid") and the complex hyperdimensional fluctuations (nested droplets?) will emerge.

http://www.aether...cal1.avi

And this process may even repeat a several times...
pauljpease
5 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2011
I don't wanna be on a simulation thats just to weird a thought for most!


But quantum theory is not too weird?
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2011
Not a physicist here, but I have a question... I've tried googling it, didn't get much help.

Comments above would indicate to me that a "reality" consisting of a singularity would be different than reality consisting of a single dimenison, indeed singulatrity = "no dimenions". Is that right? But what is the perceptual difference? How do these realities "look" any different, if one were to percieve each reality from "inside" it? And maybe my problem here is I'm trying to "visulaize" these realities, when perceiving them de facto requires three dimensions? But wouldn't one dimension just be a "continuum" of zero dimensions?

They say to think of 1-D as a straight line in the article, but it's not even that is it? Wouldn't it be more accurately described as an "axis", just a potential for "something" to happen or a progression of something happening? My head hurts....
beelize54
1 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2011
My head hurts...I'm trying to "visualize" these realities.
IMO 1D universe is no mystery - it's represented just with fibers of dark matter observable at the cosmic distances.

http://www.mpa-ga...06_1.jpg

The same situation occurs during spreading of ripples at the water surface - the wave propagation is losing its regular circle character and it changes into stringy caustic, which is propagating low dimensionally at large distances.

http://www.brainy...ples.jpg

If we consider, every EM wave is spreading in photons from dipole at distance, the same process occurs during light spreading in vacuum: the spherical harmonic wave is changing into stream of photons due the decoherence.

http://www.aether...tons.gif
emsquared
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2011
IMO 1D universe is no mystery - it's represented just with fibers of dark matter observable at the cosmic distances.

But don't these "cosmic distances" you envision mean there is already at least 3D reality? Even a fiber has 3Ds, no matter how thin, because if it's a fiber, then there's something else out there for it to be a fiber within, if it doesn't have a thickness than it isn't a fiber, it's 1D. 1 D would have no fiber, no thickness, no?

I guess I imagined it something like 0-D is all the energy that will be existence condensed into, well, a singularity, which seems just a poetic expression for potential energy with no beginning or end of propagation, "everything else" "outside" of that OD would be anti-matter, or something? Then 1D would be when time-space simultaneously come into existence and "something" starts happening with that potential, is it moving linearly? Is it expanding? That's thee part I don't get. Is it just a moment before everthing else?
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 21, 2011
Actually that's implied. The primordial singularity that spawned the BB had no dimensions.


Source?

What search engine did you use and what search phrases did you enter? let me know so I don't repeat them while finding it for you.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2011
Actually that's implied. The primordial singularity that spawned the BB had no dimensions.


Source?

What search engine did you use and what search phrases did you enter? let me know so I don't repeat them while finding it for you.


If it's so easy to find it shouldn't matter should it. Fetch boy.
Bigblumpkin36
3 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
we need a flux capacitor
beelize54
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
..but don't these "cosmic distances" you envision mean there is already at least 3D reality?..
What happens during spreading of 2D ripples at the water surface is, part of energy of these ripples is dispersing into extra-dimensions of underwater, whereas the dimensionality of surface wave spreading just decreases. In probability model of Universe it doesn't mean, the number of dimensions decreases or increases. We are 3D creatures, so we tend to observe Universe in 3D slices. But with increased distance from observer the probability of such slice decreases and the significance of both higher, both lower dimensions increases. If we could travel to this distant place, we would probably observe the Universe as 3D there, as we can experience it right here. After all, in similar way, like the visibility scope travels with observer in foggy landscape. This view is symmetric and the notion of 1D space-time is expressed in foamy character of space-time at quantum scales in LQG theory.
emsquared
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
What happens during spreading of 2D ripples at the water surface is, part of energy of these ripples is dispersing into extra-dimensions of underwater...

No... what happens during spreading of 2d ripples is the area the energy is spreading through is increasing, so the waves have less magnitude (same energy, more area equals less concentration, i.e. shorter waves)... I'm going to stop listening to you. Can someone who knows what they're talking about please engauge me?
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2011
If we extrapolate the 1D space-time at very large and small distances to the zero-dimensional space-time, we simply get the aether model again. Because the zero-dimensional space-time simply means, the Universe has a granular structure composed of scalar particles. The formally thinking physicists apparently afraid of such extrapolation, because it cannot be handled with formal math due it singular nature - but its undeniable consequence of the dispersive character of energy spreading in vacuum. After all, in Big Bang theory the Universe was initially formed from zero-dimensional singularity - so what? Why we couldn't expect the transition from zero-dimensional space-time to three-dimensional space-time just through 1D and 2D space-times?
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2011
what happens during spreading of 2d ripples is the area the energy is spreading through is increasing, so the waves have less magnitude (same energy, more area equals less concentration, i.e. shorter waves)... I'm going to stop listening to you.
The amplitude of ripples is not so significant here, their wavelength is. And the dispersion of 2D ripples at the water surface is much more complex, because it's wavelength dependent.

The behavior you're describing is relevant only for ripples of certain wavelength, which is (not quite accidentally) close to the wavelength of CMBR. The ripples of smaller wavelengths are dispersing much faster, whereas the ripples of longer wavelengths undergo anomalous dispersion and their wavelength increases instead. Such ripples are losing their energy a much slower, then the inverse law predicts.

http://www.aether...ples.jpg
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2011
The same phenomena we can observe at the sky. The least dispersive is the microwave radiation, which is the reason, we can see the Universe as large as possible in just microwave light. In visible light the wavelength of light collapses fast from extrinsic perspective, expands from intrinsic perspective - which is basically what the red shift and "tired light" theory is about.

But in radiowaves of longer wavelengths the universe appears quite differently. The distant radiowaves are much more intensive, then corresponds their distance - the inverse square law apparently doesn't work here. In high-altitude balloon experiment called ARCADE-2 the background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was several times brighter than anyone was expecting.

http://arcade.gsf...006.html

It can serve as an experimental confirmation of the dispersive nature of so-called Universe expansion.
BraidenCollier
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
But the observable univers is made of "suff" and "anti-stuff" in mirror so how is this perpetuated in dimensional discrepancies ... as we observe anomalies and try to fit them onto teoretical models , but that is as false as this world of ours , the equilibrium of mater and anti-mater is governd by us , gods , human beengs , energy with self consciousness . Our science is based on knowledge of a 3'd dimension , and completly disregards the human energy and any other spiritual energy for that matter.

The equilibrium of matter and anti-matter is governed by us? Evidence please. God? Evidence please. Self Conscious energy? Spiritual energy? EVIDENCE PLEASE. Please define "human energy". Please indicate what theories support these assertions and what experiments were performed that actually allow for the possible falsification thereof.
Please reference papers in authentically peer reviewed publications.
Otherwise they merit about as much consideration as invisible pink unicorns
beelize54
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
Briefly speaking, whereas in visible light the dimensionality of our Universe decreases, in the light of wavelengths longer, then the wavelength of CMBR its dimensionality should increase, instead. We can observe this effect with polarization of CMBR, which increases with increasing wavelength. The polarization is a hyperdimensional effect, because it allows the light to undulate in additional directions/dimensions.

For light of wavelength equal the wavelength of CMBR most of phenomena related to the red-shift (for example the Sunyaev-Zheldovitch effect) disappear, which means, the Universe neither expands, neither collapses, when being observed in the microwaves and its dimensionality shouldn't therefore change with distance. Briefly speaking, in CMBR whole the Universe appears pretty steady-state and uniform.

http://www.tgdail...t-at-all
beelize54
Apr 21, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
Actually that's implied. The primordial singularity that spawned the BB had no dimensions.


Source?

What search engine did you use and what search phrases did you enter? let me know so I don't repeat them while finding it for you.


If it's so easy to find it shouldn't matter should it. Fetch boy.

I was trying to help. Don't be an ass. I'm not your water boy. You can now do it yourself. If you can't find it, ask someone else for help, because I'm no longer available.
deepsand
3 / 5 (12) Apr 21, 2011
Non-Physics major question.

If you cannot have gravitational waves in dimensions 1 or 2, can you have gravatational mass? IE a planar mass that is only 1 or 2 dimensional?

As a plane has a thickness of zero, it can contain no mass as we know it.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2011
A 'single dimension' or 1D just means that something can be defined by one variable. From a perspective 'inside' a 1D space location is represented by a single parameter. A 2D space requires two parameter to define a unique location and so on. The way we think of 3D space may be uniquely necessary for the existence our material world and higher dimensions may exist but not be directly observable to us within our 3D frame of reference.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (14) Apr 21, 2011
A 'single dimension' or 1D just means that something can be defined by one variable. From a perspective 'inside' a 1D space location is represented by a single parameter. A 2D space requires two parameter to define a unique location and so on. The way we think of 3D space may be uniquely necessary for the existence our material world and higher dimensions may exist but not be directly observable to us within our 3D frame of reference.

An observer in 1D will see only a point (0D); one in 2D will see only a line (1D). To see a plane (2D) requires that the observer be in 3D or greater.

General rule: An observer in xD observes no more than (x-1)D.

Therefore, we exist in 4D or greater.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2011
General rule: An observer in xD observes no more than (x-1)D.

Therefore, we exist in 4D or greater.
Nope. 1D objects are bounded by points (0-D). 2D objects are bounded by lines (or curves that can be tessellated into piecewise linear approximations -- 1D). 3D objects are bounded by planes (or curved surfaces that can be tessellated into piecewise planar triangles -- 2D). Unless you've observed an object whose boundary can only be described in terms of tetrahedral volumes (which are the 3D simplex), or by some warped manifolds that can be tessellated into tetrahedra, you're not living in 4D.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2011
1D objects are bounded by points (0-D). 2D objects are bounded by lines (or curves that can be tessellated into piecewise linear approximations -- 1D). 3D objects are bounded by planes (or curved surfaces that can be tessellated into piecewise planar triangles -- 2D). Unless you've observed an object whose boundary can only be described in terms of tetrahedral volumes (which are the 3D simplex), or by some warped manifolds that can be tessellated into tetrahedra, you're not living in 4D.

Consider one who lives in a 1D dimensional realm; i.e., a line. All that he can see is a point ahead of him on that line. An object of a higher dimension that intersects his line will be seen as only a point.

The "flatlander," who dwells in a plane, can see nothing outside that plane. Anything of a higher dimension that intersects that plane will appear to him as being a line.
Nameless
Apr 22, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2011
one who lives in a 1D dimensional realm; i.e., a line. All that he can see is a point ahead of him on that line.
He can see more than that: he can measure distance between points on that line. He can define line segments on that line (bounded by two points each), and measure their lengths.
An object of a higher dimension that intersects his line will be seen as only a point.
Depends on the object, and the manner in which it intersects the line; most nontrivial objects will generate at least one line segment, but possibly more than one if the shape is concave.
The "flatlander," who dwells in a plane, can see nothing outside that plane. Anything of a higher dimension that intersects that plane will appear to him as being a line.
No, he can define shapes on a plane: circle, triangle, square, line segment, etc. Higher-order shapes intersecting a plane will create bounded planar cross-sections.

For an example of a 3D projection of a 4D object, look up "tesseract".
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2011
The line dweller cannot look "down" on his line to see any marks.

The flatlander cannot look "down" on his plane to see a geometric shape; he can only see the intersection of it with his plane, that intersection being a line.

Seen edge on, there is nothing to distinguish one planar shape from another.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2011
Deepsand your error is that you haven't applied the same thinking to OUR universe even though you think you have.

Using the same thinking you used for 1 and 2 D space we do NOT see three dimensions, we only see a planar section of 3 D objects. Since we have two eyes our brains can compare the two slightly different planar sections and this allows us to perceive depth as well. A 2D entity could also have two receptors and thus perceive the depth of the lines it sees.

You don't see any 3D objects as a whole. If you could do that THEN you would be seeing the objects from outside the volume that contains the object.

Now using this sort of thinking to analyze how perception would take place in a 4D space tends to make the brains of 3D creatures hurt. Which is ample evidence that I am a 3D creature.

Ethelred
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2011
Somewhere out there is an interactive animated presentation that visually displays what I peak of. As I'm not now locating that, these two pages will have to do.

http://www.kcptec...gle1.htm

http://www.kcptec...cene.htm

Note that the boxes labeled "Show," "Hide," etc. are actionable.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2011
Yes that is exactly what I am talking about. That is a 2D analogue of what we see. The 2D creatures see in line segments and we see in PLANE segments. A 3D creature and see INSIDE a 2D creature but the 2D creature cannot do so unless the it is transparent. Same for us. We cannot see within 3D objects unless they are transparent. We don't see line sections we see plane sections.

Again your error isn't at the 2D level its at the 3D level. You think we see 3D objects. We see plane sections of 3D objects.

Ethelred
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
@deepsand,

Ethelred is quite correct, but I thought I'd also address your statements directly:
The line dweller cannot look "down" on his line to see any marks.
He can look (and move) along the line, thereby inspecting all the points on it.
The flatlander cannot look "down" on his plane to see a geometric shape
Again, he can move within the plane to inspect the overall configuration of the shape.

Or, in both of the above cases, instead of moving around and "feeling" the scene out like a blind person, he could just shoot light rays at the shapes, and measure roundtrip times thereby determining the geometry by lidar.
Seen edge on, there is nothing to distinguish one planar shape from another.
To see, one must use light. And with light, one can measure depth and distance. Furthermore, one can move around the scene and observe how the projection of the object changes. Based on this, one can reconstruct the complete cross-section of the object.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
1D worlds do not have to be bounded by a point. In a 1D world all points lie relative to the viewer, either in a positive or negative direction.

If we embed a 1D world into a higher dimension, it could have a shape, imagine a coil for example. This higher dimensional shape would not be visible from within the 1D world but might be inferable mathematically.

A 1D world could be like a Turing machine with each of its points carrying a bit of information. If one could store a bit, it could calculate (maybe that takes 2D).

It's an interesting question whether or not we have to include time when talking about a 1D world. Would moving 'forward' or 'backward' mean anything different than observing a new coordinate on the line?
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2011
I was trying to help.


Apologies, I took it the wrong way. Not used to people on this site being nice, that's about me not you.

Again very sorry.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
Stojkovic includes time so its 1D+t
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
Thank you, everyone, for expanding on this, I especially found Rodarts words helpful.

Another question though, does it have to be denoted 1D+t (or 2D+t or 3D+t, etc.) or does the existence of a spatial reality (a reality > 0D) pre-clude or necessitate time, what with the space-time continuum thing (thereby at the same time negating the existence of 0D? as time is a variable? and 0D = no variables?)?

And then it makes me wonder, it sounds like some sub-atomic particles only exist on certain dimentions and therefore all dimensions exist separately but together all at once(?), but can 0D exist at all anywhwere in the entirety of existence if greater dimensions exist anywhere else? Because it kind of seems like 0D is literally all-or-nothing, or something... ? And once we've "escaped" the 0D, it no longer eists, or maybe it's always everything, or maybe it never exists, and is just a mathematical necessity to be expressed? Okay, I'm rambling, but fun thought experiments.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
@em2, you're going to get into trouble if you try to visualize the 1D+t or 2D+t worlds in terms of where we are now 3D+t. In a 1D world there probably aren't any kinds of "particles" at all. I suspect it's all energy, and that the energy "makes" space, first just in 1D then...

It's not likely that this energy is uniform but varies in density along the 1D axis Like this -> |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| At some point the density could get so great it 'breaks' the 1D dimension, forming a 2D sheet.

Moreover, if the 1D dimension exists in a higher dimensional hyperspace, it wouldn't have to be a straight line but could be coiled or tangled without any joins or cuts and still be viewed as a 1D space. This leaves the possibility that the 1D 'line' is deformed in hyperspace by its uneven energy densities eventually causing the break into 2D.

OD is theoretical only.
CSharpner
not rated yet Apr 22, 2011
@MM,
I was trying to help.


Apologies, I took it the wrong way. Not used to people on this site being nice, that's about me not you.

Again very sorry.


Apology accepted. Thanks.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
George Rodart, thanks for your awesome explanation :) So following your hyperspace analogy.... let's say that our universe is just one amongst many, in this so-called omniverse, where the "bulk" (or the area outside of the universes aka hyperspace), consists of 4S+1T dimensions.... would the time "on the outside" be different-- for example-- Hawkings' "Imaginary Time"-- than the time that we exist within? This goes along with F-theory, which predicts 10+2 dimensions. If so, then in the one dimensional phase, our universe may have been like a mobius strip..... the question is, what does the "twist" signify-- the source of the big bang?
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
I suspect it's all energy

Makes sense, on the level that if a particle must have a mass or structure to be a particle, than of course it couldn't be less than 3D. But I guess I was thinking more like a graviton type thing, when I said sub-atomic particle. Perhaps more what I was trying to say was, "different types of energy" exist only on certain dimensions?
...this energy is... varies in density along the 1D axis Like this -> |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| At some point the density could get so great it 'breaks' the 1D dimension, forming a 2D sheet.

I follow you, but to have density, don't you have to have 2 non-t variables? Would it be any more or less accurate to say frequency, for 1D? I see how you could have a quantifiable energy density at 2D, you can have areas and varying concentrations of energy within them, but 1D it'd just be a series of faster or slower "blips"?

Sorry for the nagging I'm trying to put the article in the context of all this... or vice versa.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
Thats what this little diagram was about |||.||.|.|.|.||.|||.|.| where the | represents something (a bit) and the . an empty space. Or like a bunch of BB's in a straw clumping together.

I actually think its a bit different than that and that the 1D space is contained in a higher dimensional space. From outside the 1D space, it would appear that the 1D space 'vibrates' with its energy and at some point 'breaks' to form a 2D space. The higher dimensional space is not part of the 1D to 3D space but contains it only.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
I agree, our universe's dimensions are contained within the higher dimensional space.... and actually, one can envision that "from the outside" our universe would always appear to either be a point particle or "vanish" altogether as it increased in dimensionality on the inside.....because our universe's dimensions are not among the dimensions of the exterior but only contained within. This applies to our time also.
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
To get back to the original article making sense if the following conditions are true:(continued)
(5) Since the initial ZPE was also spinning at right angles to the pole of the initial triple cycle loop, its continual repeating (at its initial, near infinite spin frequency) would form a 3-dimensional hypersphere consisting of two spheres within a surrounding sphere like twin bubbles within a larger bubble.
(6) Following the same spiral vortex, double helix pattern, these inner bubbles (3-dimensional hyperspace-time fields) composed of near infinite lines of 1-dimensional ZPE or G-force spinergy, would continue to fractal involve (harmonically) down to their ZPE centers, so as to form analogous triple cycle hyperspherical involutions like bubbles within bubbles, within bubbles, within bubbles, etc., ad infinitum.
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
(continued)
7) This triple cycle harmonic involution, at constant reduction in frequency phase orders, would continue, until after three such initial fractal iterations (involutions) our 4th lowest phase order physical universe appears.
(8) The physical space-time universe analogously and correspondingly continues to fractal involve until, on its fourth lowest frequency phase order (EM frequency spectrum, light velocity) the symmetry breaks and the first quantum particle wave forms appear at the Planck level.
(9) This analogous involution replicates down through all the sub-quantum virtual particles within the Planck volume to the smallest particle-waveforms closest to the zero-point.
(10) Accordingly, all such particle-fields, up to the cosmos itself, would be, fundamentally, hyperspherical standing waveforms with electromagnetism (& weak force) being the nature of the outgoing (expansive) wave, and Gravity (& strong force) being the nature of the incoming (compressive) wave.
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
(continued)
If all that is true then the theory discussed in this article is only a small part of a much bigger picture which not only considers that the universe is a hologram, but that it and its governing nature is cyclic, that both it and the cosmos are eternal, and that the so called big Bang is nothing but a big bounce within a bigger bounce (at the next higher frequency phase level) on up through an even bigger bounce, to the biggest bounce of the highest frequency phase of the initial cosmos itself. (How many bounces there are in between is yet to be determined). However, it appears that everything is fundamentally cyclic in nature.

Such a picture also gives credence to the existence of invisible dark matter/energy on two other axes within this universe, as well as the possibility of infinite other analogous and corresponding cosmoses and universes... (more)
Moebius
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2011
Another wacko theory right up there with string theory.

Not quite. While there is no viable test for string theory there actually may be a viable test for this. Unlike the theory of yours:
The idea of a singularity is probably something that doesn't actually exist. Like infinity, it only exists in our imagination

which IS a wacko theory because you have proposed no test for it.


So you have a test for the actual existence of a point source like a singularity? Or a test that proves something is infinite?
Callmewhatuwant
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2011
a 4th dimension opening up??.....that sounds scary!!
Callmewhatuwant
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2011
incongrous....but i guess you can't use that one word in cosmology where anything is possible..!!
Zack_Tribianni
3 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2011
it was 0-dimensional before it was 1 dimensional. e.g., cantor's set is 0-dimensional. It is very likely that it *is* indeed a cantor set, and as it is looked at bigger and bigger scale (i.e. rougher resolution), it's dimension increases. Indeed, any compact continuum is a continuous image of the cantor set. (that's a theorem from elementary point-set topology.) Now this i am talking about space-time. Not sure what would cause dimension of *space* change as time flows, though. Just the size of the space sections of the universe can NOT bring that about, so i am assuming there is something else in their theory which makes this happen. Anybody's read the arxiv article, yet?
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2011
"Anybody's read the arxiv article, yet?"

Do you mean the arXiv preprint of the PRL paper: http://arxiv.org/...34v2.pdf

I've looked at the paper but I'm not really qualified to offer comment. However, a paper critical of this work has been posted: http://arxiv.org/...23v1.pdf

From the abstract-

"It has been recently claimed that quantum gravity models where the number of dimensions reduces at the ultraviolet exhibit a potentially observable cutoff in the primordial gravitational wave spectrum, and that this is a "generic" and "robust" test for such models, since "(2+1)-dimensional spacetimes have no gravitational degrees of freedom". We argue that such a claim is misleading."
kasen
not rated yet Apr 23, 2011
This is weird. I had almost the same idea pop in my head last year. I was so bored I started writing haphazardly, about boredom. I ended up with a sort of creation story. Starting with nothing, adding a point, another one, boundaries, an attractive force and the prerequisite that boredom/lack of action is to be avoided at all costs, I ended up with 2 space dimensions and time.

It was a crappy piece of writing, but it got the idea that the universe isn't/wasn't 3+1D stuck in my head for quite a while. I recall discussing that on a thread here, actually. Later musings made me think that dimensions form as a necessity for an increase in energy. I don't see why the universe should've popped in existence straight in 3+1D.

I heard that Gauss had once set out to prove that space has to be 3D, mathematically. Anyone know anything about this? Until I see such a proof, I'll be quietly holding my belief that the universe is 2+1D, and started as a point Well, not too quietly, of course
CarolinaScotsman
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2011
So... back to the article: Does a one-dimensional space have spacetime? Can we always add time to whatever dimensional space is being considered?

Perhaps time didn't "start" until the universe became more than a singularity.
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2011
So the strings were rigid at first, then as space expanded, they exploded like a cable under high tension when it snaps. Then as they unraveled from the "primordial bundle" they took on various properties depending on the force that each of them took from the expansion.

Or not? Neat ideas here. Science never ceases to amaze me when it comes to ideas that get generated. Keep the ideas coming!
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2011
(And if all that is true to conclude)

... Since the infinite spin momentum of the absolute zero-point must occur on infinite axes, its law of cycles governing all potential physical laws in any cosmos or universe must be fundamental. Thus, all such universes would penetrate each other and be mutually invisible. However, the dark matter-energy within each universal sphere could possibly contribute to its overall gravitational effects, and the apparent acceleration of its expansion (which may simply be the carry over of the overall initial cosmic inflation)... With the apparent red shift in our universe being merely the loss of energy as photons collide with cosmic dust during their travels from the most distant physical event horizons beyond the reach of our most powerful telescopes.

In addition, such spatial conditions would indicate, information and consciousness are as fundamental as potential time, mass and energy. See illustrations/descriptions at:

http://www.jcer.com/i
beelize54
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2011
loss of energy as photons collide with cosmic dust during their travels from the most distant physical event horizons
Not just with dust, but with CMBR photons and all other smaller density fluctuations of vacuum in similar way, like the waves are dispersed at the surface of water. During this dispersion the dimensionality of wave increases into account of the rest of wave, whose dimensionality decreases instead.

The surface of incompressible water doesn't illustrate this behavior particularly well, but if we would model the vacuum with the surface of more elastic fluid (like the supercritical fluid), we would see, how the surface ripples are dispersing into longitudinal waves and back again repeatedly - which would create an impression of universe generations at the surface for every standing wave (soliton) at this surface.

We shouldn't think, the universe filled with longitudinal waves is too distant from us - we are walking on it, because it's forming the Earth surface.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2011
Yes. A wonderful and provoking article. The thread commentary reflects the article's spirit, as well.

I will look back at this, and you will too. In fifty years.
I do hope we all still recognize our thoughts and words from what we call 'now'. Until then, everyone's understanding remains theoretical. Although hardly at 0D from which we first made our first assumption. :)

Not sure what bestows us, beyond our 3D+t. We are learning to 'empathized' with 'life' that deals with less than 3D+t. Anything more than this just makes our heads hurt.
And we don't want it any other way.
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2011
In special relativity whole the Universe would appear void and empty (with no gravitational lens, massive bodies the less). The world of special relativity is an example of hyperdimensional slice of multiverse. In AWT the special relativity describes the thin slice of Universe at the dimensional scale, corresponding the wavelength of CMBR (like if we would observe the Universe through narrow-band FFT filter tuned to the wavelength of our brain waves).

Only the microwaves aren't dispersed with microwave photons very much, so we could look into black holes with them. The shortwavelength light is focused with common gravitational lens, the longer wavelenght light (radiowaves) is dispersed with them. With compare to it, the radiowaves are focused with passing of the rest of the whole sky (the void places at the sky are serving like the antimatter gravitational lens for them). This perspective may appear weird, but it's actually imaginable quite easily.
beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2011
AWT explains the space-time fabric like the density fluctuations inside of dense gas (supercritical fluid), which are of stringy mesh appearance.

http://www1.chem....co24.jpg

The structure of dark matter illustrates, how such space-time foam appears from inside.

http://www.davidd...tion.jpg

The important aspect of space-time foam in AWT is, it effectively disappears, when you close come to it, because we can detect only gradients and differences in aether density - not the aether itself. So that every observer flying through quantum foam can get an illusion, he is passing the void in the foam, which travels together with him. Actually it's the similar perspective, like we can experience during traveling through fog or foam.

http://arxiv.org/.../9906290

In this way our perspective both violates, both confirms the Copernican principle at the same moment.
Husky
not rated yet Apr 24, 2011
It would be convenient for the antimatter/antigravity crowd to have a 1 dimensional start as it would provide a path for missing antimatter to fly the other way as a a Jet Bang rather than a big bang, the two opposing jets would loose self-pinching coherence as they form a bar magnet that is overstretched and the magnetic fieldstrength per unit lowers to the point the jets can uncurl in higher dimension, but like i said more convenience than science.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
This depiction of yours reminds of me of opposing jets like those that come from spinning pulsars and from the centers of active galaxies. It also sounds a bit like quark jets when particles are collided at extreme speeds.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
What you depicted sounds like opposing jets emanating from pulsars or from the centers of very active galaxies. It also sounds a bit like the jets that occur when particles are collided at super high speeds to produce quark jets.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
Sorry, didn't mean for that to happen, the site was lagging for me and I didn't know the comment went through.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
Idle speculations. If we assume there was a big bang, and it was 1D+t. Visualize it like spray string. Its pure energy confined to 1D. A 1D space can wiggle and curve around in a higher dimensional containment space and still be only 1D.

So what can occur in a 1D space filled with energy? As the space gets longer the energy cools down (giving us a time arrow direction as well). Eventually energy becomes matter, and if this is symmetric we could expect matter and antimatter particles to be created.

Matter and antimatter particles couldn't exist in a 1D space, they would revert back to energy. For matter to exist, the space has to bifurcate into 2D. Since the antimatter time arrow is opposite the matter time arrow (i.e. negative) the matter and antimatter separate into the positive and negative sides of the plane. ...cont.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
Continued.. I'm not quite sure how to visualize the 2D space. Maybe it's just occupied by energy and massless particles or strings. However at some point the cooling will lead to the creation of particles with mass. So the space takes on another dimension to 3D.

The matter space has positive coordinates relative to the bifurcation points and the antimatter space has negative coordinates relative to the bifurcation points. There is NO jet of matter in one direction and antimatter in the other direction because the arrow of time is set by entropy in the 1D phase before the existence of matter.

When the transformation from 2D to 3D occurs, the matter is on one side and the antimatter is on the other side. The antimatter has a negative time arrow but because antimatter has negative spatial coordinates, its time arrow points in the same direction as the matter time arrow. ...cont.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
Cont-3.. Matter and antimatter exist simultaneously in a single 3D space but can't communicate across the zero boundary. Well maybe the graviton can because it's a spin 2 particle but the others are isolated by the direction of the matter and antimatter time arrows.

Never the less, matter and antimatter can gravitationally deform the common 3D space which could account for the galaxy clustering and the observed voids.r
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
George, that's a very interesting view of how dimensions can emerge from 1D.... is it possible for two universes to emerge when the universe bifurcates from 1D, with one universe made of matter and the other with antimatter? What would be the implications of this? I agree with you about the reverse arrow of time relative to the other universe, but forward relative to itself.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
Also, what would separate the two universes, some boundary of energy-- like the luxon wall? If we go by this description, it's possible that the "other" (or antiverse as it were) universe's particles would always seem to exceed the speed of light (if we could perceive it-- which we can't) while we would likewise seem to exceed c from the viewpoint of this antiverse with the energy existing along the luxon wall always moving at the speed of light.... however, in reality (or from our own perspective and the perspective of the antiverse regarding it's own matter) neither exceeds c.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
Your views are very intriguing, and very similar to those I have expressed. I likened the dimensions to primary colors + background.... and viewed the antiverse (if one exists) to have dimensions complementary to our own-- for example, using color theory, we can analog our own universe to consist of the additive primaries as dimensions.... RGB and time can be symbolized as the fabric (black), with the antiverse consisting of the subtractive primaries as dimensions CMY on a background of white.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
BTW this idea of six spatial dimensions (3 additive primaries and 3 subtractive primaries) seems to agree with the concept of 6 dimensional CY manifolds.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2011
At first I didn't think much of this proposal, due to the discrete nature of the transitions. At what point do you "bump" from 2 to 3, or 3 to 4? Talk about a huge discontinuity!

But then I remembered there is already a well-established description of what *fractional* dimensions may look like, and it's very intuitive and easy to understand. It turns out that an infinite fractal curve doesn't fill a 1D space, but can fill a space closer to 2D; for example the well-known Koch snowflake has a dimension of about 1.26 (I'm talking about fractal dimension if you want to get technical).

http://en.wikiped...operties

To understand why, look at a space-filling curve and see that 1D fractals are so "large" they can be interpreted as occupying more than just 1D, like this:

http://en.wikiped...ng_curve

It's not a big stretch to imagine a complicated curve (our Universe) taking on more and more dimensions as it stretches and gains complexity.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
@Alex, remembering I'm only speculating here. When 1D+T opens up, it's in a positive direction. There is no matter involved, only energy and the arrow of time is positive.

What I speculating is that the increase in dimension occurs because matter comes into existence. At high energies this split into 2D could initially pop in and out of existence like virtual particles do in the 3D universe we know.

However at some point the bifurcation caused the 2D+T surface to appear. In order for matter and antimatter to coexist in this 2D space, one of them has to be in the negative coordinate part of the space. For everything to continue pointing in the right direction, towards entropy, the boundary is zero time relative to either the matter or antimatter side.

For everything to continue pointing in the right direction, towards entropy, the boundary is zero time relative to either the matter or antimatter side. In 3D it's like matter and antimatter are on opposite sides of a sheet.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2011
In 2D you can visualize the space like this. Fold a sheet of paper in half, then flatten it again. On the left side of the crease write some pluses and the word "matter". On the right side of the crease write some minus signs and the word "antimatter".

Refold the paper. It's now a smaller sheet with matter on one side and antimatter on the other side. If you glue it together, it's a single sheet in 2D with an antimatter world on one side and a matter world on the the other.

While the folding occurs in 3D, what really has happened is that the coordinate systems have just been transformed so the arrows of time both point in the same direction.
Dingdongdog
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011
Trying to explain the actual nature of multidimensional (1-2-3d) space, time and real or anti-matter-energy by comparing unconditioned absolute empty space with a sheet of paper, folds, and lines on both sides is like trying to explain the taste of honey or the smell of a rose with numbers, mathematical symbols, and/or words.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011
@Ddd:
You are ahead of the game. All (human) language is still in gestation. Be it numbers, mathematical symbols, and/or words.

If your mind was 'enhanced' with CPU functionality, the digital-ized version (the 'printout' of '0's' and '1's') of Beethoven's' Fifth contains the same 'meaning' as the Fourier Transform your mind performs on the 'original' acoustical performance. The perfect 'translation'? Hardly. No one knows (yet) what those 'sounds' have for meaning to you.
The perfect replication? Yes.

Perhaps later physics will translate with universal meaning.
After the birth of the human languages. Until then, the physics community rejoices at mere replication. And nothing is so wonderful, that it can not be repeated.

The 'George/Alex/Jotaf' input is nevertheless, enlightening.
"unconditioned absolute empty space" expresses a physics desire, from what I sense, to have an 'independent' event (input) from Nature - an Absolute Frame (of reference).

My sentiments are expressed - cont
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011
cont...
by the following (ancient) article:
http:://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/10/science/useful-invention-or-absolute-truth-what-is-math.html

(Delete the extra colon to implement the link)
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011
George, I appreciate your easily understood example.... it got me thinking about another scenario. Is there anyway this universe could bifurcate in four directions? Bifurcate is probably not the right word for this (quadfurcate?) Basically, Im thinking of a cartesian coordinate system with space (of however many dimensions) on the y axis and time on the x axis. We can call the Origin the point of big bang. Ok so now we have four quadrants.... (positive space, positive time), (negative space, negative time), (positive space, negative time), (negative space, positive time). I don't know if this fourway arrangement can exist (perhaps there would be some sort of overlap, which might be the source of dark matter and dark energy?)..... but if this can exist, we may be able to subdivide this universe into a matterverse, antiverse, mirrorverse and antimirrorverse.... with the other two units consisting of mirror matter and anti mirror matter. There has been some preliminary evidence
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011
posted elsewhere on this site about the existence of mirror matter, but of course that is still tentative. Nevertheless, perhaps it accounts for some of the dark matter (if that exists.) This quadverse structure while admittedly just speculation, seems interesting.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011
@Alex. Remembering this is just conjecture on my part. Actually there are 8 possible coordinate cubes to be considered. The others all have at least one axis in a negative direction and my hunch is that this would cause problems with the math involving CPT down the line.

My thought was that at the point when the new dimension opens up it also establishes the zero point for the time arrows, The spatial transformation I suggested serves to cause the two time arrow to point in the same direction. Even though their signs are opposite one another they both point towards increasing entropy.

I think that antimatter and anti-gravity are a plausible replacement theory for the unknown/undiscovered dark matter and dark energy.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011
It would be great to see if this might have some implications for the cyclic model of the universe, could the dimensions eventually converge again and cause a big bounce as it all came together, only to restart again? The quintom scenario comes to mind.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011
Check out the new article posted on here that claims time is a fourth spatial dimension.
Moebius
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011
To Moebius

It isn't hard to come up with theories like this when you start out with the wrong theory.


if it is that easy to come up with theories like this, why don't we have 365 of them for every calendar year? And when are you coming up with your very own theory? Or do you just criticize others for coming up with new theories?

The question is or should be: is the theory self-consistent? Is the math correct? Can it be verified experimentally? Are there facts out there that support this theory?

The fact that the theory "looks" weird to some should not affect its validity as a theory. Who did not feel that quantum mechanic was weird when it first came up?

Too many nay sayers on this forum.



I have proposed my ideas of time, space and other dimensions many times on other threads. All pretty much low rated. However a new article here 'Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension' seems to propose the very same ideas.
ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011
..spacetime has no time dimension' ..
..is an oxymoron - or not?


Time is only a measure of change from one condition or position in space to another. Therefore, it cannot be a physical (geometric) dimension of spherical space itself. Also, time can only be measured in only one direction, from past to future or lower to higher entropy. Thus, when we speak of different dimensions of total space, we are not speaking of either geometric dimensions or time... But simply about different frequency/energy phase orders (spectrum's) of electro-magnetic and gravito-magnetic forces which distinguishes between ordinary physicsl/material space-time fields and extraordinary hyperspace-time fields... With time relative to those diffreences in frequency phase.
TabulaMentis
2 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..
Why not? Before the one-dimensional universe appeared out of the big bang there was a zero-dimension of somethingness, but not nothingness.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..
Why not? Before the one-dimensional universe appeared out of the big bang there was a zero-dimension of somethingness, but not nothingness.


How does something exist in zero dimensions?
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2011
How does something exist in zero dimensions?

And you've just hit on one of the questions that fascinates the curious and scientifically minded. When one investigates this question with scientific rigor, fascinating possibilities emerge... possibilities that impact overall knowledge of space, time, and matter, which can also affect actual applications of science.

If we don't ask and investigate, we're guaranteed never to find out.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..
Why not? Before the one-dimensional universe appeared out of the big bang there was a zero-dimension of somethingness, but not nothingness.

How does something exist in zero dimensions?
First of all, we should tell physics and mathematics apart.
There is no zero-dimensional object in physics. Everything occupies at least some epsilon-vicinity with epsilon being a _positive_ real number. The physical continuum is not a mathematical continuum.
George_Rodart
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2011
When you say zero dimensions, from what frame of reference? There could be any number of dimensions possible including our world space.

Our 3D+T space may have been emergent, existing solely because matter exists. Some event in another set of spatial dimensions could cause an event like the big bang to occur, creating matter and an emergent space to contain it.
TabulaMentis
1.8 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
It depends of what theory one wishes to endorse: the cyclic universe, the big bang that came from somethingness, or some other theory. I support the idea the big bang came from somethingness and that we live in an area in total that some refer to as the universe, multiverse, omniverse or whatever one wishes to call it. Outside of the verse in total there is an area I refer to as the dimension of zero. Even though there is somethingness in that area, there is no dimension of space. The sub-Planck realm could be called zero-dimensional space because no organized structures exist in that domain containing any dimensions over zero. If something did appear in the sub-Planck realm over the dimension of zero, then it would dissolve back into the sub-Planck realm almost instantly, except for the creation of our universe or another which only happens about every googleplexplex years at one point in space over a googleplexplex meter area of infinity.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..
Why not? Before the one-dimensional universe appeared out of the big bang there was a zero-dimension of somethingness, but not nothingness.

How does something exist in zero dimensions?
First of all, we should tell physics and mathematics apart.
There is no zero-dimensional object in physics. Everything occupies at least some epsilon-vicinity with epsilon being a _positive_ real number. The physical continuum is not a mathematical continuum.


Exactly thank you Fraj. It's simply not a tenable concept to say something has zero dimension and yet exists. It's no different than saying rocks dream...
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
Exactly thank you Fraj. It's simply not a tenable concept to say something has zero dimension and yet exists. It's no different than saying rocks dream...
Great. Then what should it be called based on what I said in the statement before yours?
TabulaMentis
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2011
@Modernmystic:
Frajo has confused zero-dimensional space (or infinity) with zero-dimensional objects. They are not the same thing.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2011
Tabula...you're a kook you're not going to get a serious response from me.

Suffice to say it's an invalid concept, something that has zero dimension can't physically exist...period.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
Suffice to say it's an invalid concept, something that has zero dimension can't physically exist...period.
There is a misunderstanding on your part because of your low IQ. I am talking about zero-dimensional space, not zero-dimensional particles/objects. And yes, I did get a response from you, but I was hoping to get one from Frajo instead.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2011
Suffice to say it's an invalid concept, something that has zero dimension can't physically exist...period.
There is a misunderstanding on your part because of your low IQ. I am talking about zero-dimensional space, not zero-dimensional particles/objects. And yes, I did get a response from you, but I was hoping to get one from Frajo instead.


Space too is something hence can't exist in zero dimensions either...
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
Space too is something hence can't exist in zero dimensions either...
I probably should have not given you a one star for replying, but when you go around calling people kooks, then you deserve it. You are wrong with your response. Maybe it will be best for you to leave it up to the big boys for a correct answer even though I have been working on the idea for twenty years and you for only a few hours.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011
TAB, interesting ideas.... but if we add in what George said, can't we just say that the zero dimensional space you're talking about may contain other dimensions, just not the ones we are familiar with? IOW our 3+1 would be like a point within a larger dimensional space. Other points may pop up from time to time, and depending on their dimensionality, physical laws, etc, would determine their stability as far as growing into a universe or evaporating.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2011
Space too is something hence can't exist in zero dimensions either...
I probably should have not given you a one star for replying, but when you go around calling people kooks, then you deserve it. You are wrong with your response. Maybe it will be best for you to leave it up to the big boys for a correct answer even though I have been working on the idea for twenty years and you for only a few hours.


If someone tells me they've been working on the theory that 2+2=3 for twenty years I'll call them a kook and be right.

Not only does zero dimensional space not exist, it CAN'T exist. Zero dimensional anything is an axiomatic contradiction.
George_Rodart
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2011
A point at X,Y,Z in our world space has zero dimensions. It is located by XYZ but has zero degrees of freedom and occupies no space.

Specifying a points location is not the same as its having a dimension. The space it is in has 3 dimensions but the point itself has zero dimensions.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
TAB, interesting ideas.... but if we add in what George said, can't we just say that the zero dimensional space you're talking about may contain other dimensions, just not the ones we are familiar with? IOW our 3+1 would be like a point within a larger dimensional space. Other points may pop up from time to time, and depending on their dimensionality, physical laws, etc, would determine their stability as far as growing into a universe or evaporating.
Infinite space is not inside of our verse, it is outside of it. Infinite space contains different types of universes and objects. Outside of those universes/objects is where the zero-dimensional space exist. George is referring to a place inside of a verse.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2011
I think one has to consider what they mean when they use the word "space". If we use the word space to refer to an environment that can be occupied by something, then saying it has "zero dimensions" is meaningless. As I view the concept of space, I include the idea that its dimension(s) refer to its degrees of freedom. We generally think about this using a cartesian coordinate system for up-down, right-left, forward-backward but right away you can see we are referencing space with our bodies. But it's just as real to say dark-light, hot-cold or clockwise, counterclockwise.
Dingdongdog
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
The unconditioned (absolute) empty space which contains all conditioned metric space must contain all the potential energy of the entire cosmos. Therefore, it must exist as a pure ZPE potentiality... Since, at absolute zero degrees Kelvin, unconditioned space is a BEC, such potential energy must be in the form of nonlinear abstract motion, or zero-point infinite angular spin momentum that is located everywhere in metric space-time, at the ZP origin of every radiant energy field. (This would include the spherical standing wave of every fundamental quantum and sub quantum particle.) Therefore, such spin momentum must have zero-dimension, along with infinite information and pure unconditioned consciousness. For the whole story, see: http://www.jcer.c.../view/85 (PDF)
http://leonmaurer.tripod.com/ (web reprint)

How can anything come from nothing? How can energy or information not be conserved? How can the universe not be cyclically eternal? Is GRT wrong?
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011
Yes, this is what I was referring-- basically something along the lines of what Linde said.... let's say we can *some day* create a baby universe inside a particle collider. Would this universe appear point size to us because the dimensions it contains are not the same as the ones we are in? As it expanded inside and gained more dimensions (none of ours of course), shouldn't it seem (from our perspective) to disappear?

Perhaps this is how it happens "naturally" also?
Alex_Reynolds
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2011
So perhaps inside this "infinite space" all the universes could be embedded, but the infinite space would not contain the dimensions of the universes within (those would exist only inside each universe)-- therefore the universes floating in it may appear like point particles if hypothetically viewed from the "outside," that is, from infinite space? Sorry for the confusion-- that's what I meant.
TabulaMentis
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
So perhaps inside this "infinite space" all the universes could be embedded, but the infinite space would not contain the dimensions of the universes within (those would exist only inside each universe)-- therefore the universes floating in it may appear like point particles if hypothetically viewed from the "outside," that is, from infinite space? Sorry for the confusion-- that's what I meant.
I think you got it!
George_Rodart
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011
This discussion is rapidly degrading into science fiction.

I didn't say there was any such thing as "infinite space" I suggested that there could be another set of spatial dimensions which could have caused the big bang. However, there is no way of knowing what happened prior to the big bang, it's a mystery.

The babushka doll universe can't exist or emerge the way Alex suggests. DDD's "infinite angular spin momentum" is postmodernist blather, I don't buy it for one second.

There are some theorists who postulate a quantum multiverse (see David Deutsch), I find his theories tedious but maybe possible. Maldacena, Hooft and a few others postulate a Holographic principle which models the universe as a 2D projection.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
I think Modern Mystic made the mast relevant comment.
If someone tells me they've been working on the theory that 2+2=3 for twenty years I'll call them a kook and be right
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
Everybody seems to think that infinite unconditioned or absolute space surrounds each universe (supposedly separately "floating around within it, like individual particles-waves of an electrodynamic field)...

When actually, since such absolute space is also a BEC, the ZP "singularity" underlying each universe is everywhere.

Thus, since each universe (of infinite possible universes) emanates and radiates from that BEC singularity on a different spherical axis of spin momentum, they all interpenetrate each other everywhere... But are entirely invisible and undetectable to each other. Apparently, this is because their instruments of observation are made of the same stuff their universe is made of.

(more)

Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
(continued)

Obviously, in our physical universe, all ZP energy sources and their fields fundamental particles rotate on the same absolute ZP spin axis. (This is not the same as the orbital rotation of the particles spherical standing wave.) Thus, all other universes, spinning on different ZP axes of the absolute space's singularity would be invisible to us.

If we imagine that all ZPE fields in our physical metric space originate from the same BEC singularity's spin axis, and thus, interpenetrate each other everywhere it's also obvious that they each must contain the same total spatial information at their source. Therefore, since every zero-point in our metric space-time contains the information of the total cosmos, the entire universe must be a hologram, as Bohm pointed out... And, all concepts that see the spatial realities as individual particles, separated from each other, and floating in a sea of empty space are entirely wrong.
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
Since it's most likely that the entire cosmos is a hologram, and that all information is carried as wave interference patterns on the 2-d surfaces of electromagnetic fields all of which are resonantly fractal harmonic... Wouldn't it be logical to assume, then  since we see the universe indirectly through the brain and its EM fields that the entire universe we experience is simply an illusion created in our mind field?

If we want to prove this experimentally, simply look at the sky, and trace back the light from every star converging to every zero-point on the 2-d surface of our eye. Obviously, as Bohm and Pribram pointed out, if we removed the eye lens, all we could see is the interference patterned hologram of the star field. So, what we think of as reality, is only the virtual reality in our mind which we observe from a zero-point of awareness in the center of the mind-memory field (that are harmonically resonant with each other and the brain field).
Alex_Reynolds
2.3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
George, I wasnt suggesting an infinite space model universe.... I was just trying to reword what Tab was saying so I could picture it in my mind better :) My view is that there is another set of limited dimensions in which the big bang occurred (probably a higher universe, aka superverse), but that is just conjecture, as you said. However, if you've read the George Ellis article (I'll look for the link), you'll see there are some tests for the multiverse theory and cosmologists are devising ways to determine what may have happened-- if anything-- before the Big Bang using CMBR data from the Planck satellite. Tests that even severe skeptics of the theory admit might actually work. Of course, until we can implement them, all of this is conjecture as we've all said multiple times.
Alex_Reynolds
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
Edit: I saw what you said about the Babushka dolls and am wondering why you think creating a baby universe inside another universe isn't possible? I believe this is one of the things they've been discussing with the LHC and have even created models of what might be created. Yeah, I know until they do it, creating a "model" doesn't mean anything, but I would think if one could create something like that in a particle collider, it would be quite possible for that to exist in "nature" also-- particularly since so much of what we've made already exists in the cosmos and the energies with which particles collide in the universe is much much greater than any collider can achieve here on earth.
George_Rodart
4 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011
@Alex no diss intended, I'm always open to speculation. I just don't think we will ever know what is behind the wall of the big bang. I think the disparity in the amount of matter vs anti-matter in our present universe is an interesting question.

The multiverse theories seem like they stem from Feynman's ideas and an attempt to view the universe as a quantum system. Maybe, but maybe not. Maldacena postulates that the information inside a black hole isn't lost but contained on the 2D boundary of the event horizon. His work is highly cited and holographic idea appears to be a result of viewing this in reverse. That the "real world" is a projection of events on a 2D containment surface. It's convoluted but there's a wiki.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2011
I appreciate it George, and I also find Maldacena's ideas intriguing.... I'm wondering if these ideas can all be meshed somehow. Do you remember reading about quantum superposition being like a mirror effect? Maybe data from the same universe bouncing off the interior of the event horizon is all that the multiverse is (as far as Deutsch's version which refers to multiple timelines if Im not mistaken, not Tegmark's version which talks about universes of different physical laws).... we just don't know. If Maldacena is on the right track, would that mean our universe is on the inside of a black hole, and if so, where would this black hole be located? Another question to ask is if the real world is a projection of events on a 2D surface.... what causes the illusion of 3D? Gravity? Perhaps Verlinde's idea of gravity as an entropic force may have some merit after all.
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
heck why not go further back when it had no dimention at all. lol.. all these theories.. these people have too much free time.. why not do something constructive instead of wasting your life..
Why not? Before the one-dimensional universe appeared out of the big bang there was a zero-dimension of somethingness, but not nothingness.

How does something exist in zero dimensions?
First of all, we should tell physics and mathematics apart.
There is no zero-dimensional object in physics. Everything occupies at least some epsilon-vicinity with epsilon being a _positive_ real number. The physical continuum is not a mathematical continuum.


Yes. But that's because it is actually a vibrating wave motion continuum... With every positive and negative cycle passing at least once through each zero-point of null motion. Didn't Einstein say, "Energy is space in motion"? As I see it, all spatial fields and their particles are spherical standing waves.
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
Suffice to say it's an invalid concept, something that has zero dimension can't physically exist...period.
There is a misunderstanding on your part because of your low IQ. I am talking about zero-dimensional space, not zero-dimensional particles/objects. And yes, I did get a response from you, but I was hoping to get one from Frajo instead.


Space too is something hence can't exist in zero dimensions either...


According to GR, prior to 3-d metric space there had to be a "singularity" in absolute (empty of form) space that would also have to contain all the energy of the subsequent dimensional space. Such dimensionless ZPE, based on pure logic alone, could only be contained as ZP angular (spin) momentum - having zero metric dimension and zero metric time (infinite duration).

Since physics is based solely on measurement and observation of the light speed limites space-time field, there can be no directr experimental way to verify this true reality.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2011
I was just trying to reword what Tab was saying so I could picture it in my mind better :) My view is that there is another set of limited dimensions in which the big bang occurred (probably a higher universe, aka superverse), but that is just conjecture, as you said. Tests that even severe skeptics of the theory admit might actually work. Of course, until we can implement them, all of this is conjecture as we've all said multiple times.
Superverse is the correct word to use for many muliverses within one single structure. Outside of the superverse vacuum structure would be infinite zero-dimensional space.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2011
Outside of the superverse vacuum structure would be infinite zero-dimensional space.
That is self contradictory. Zero dimensional can NOT be infinite as it has NO size whatsoever.

How the hell did you even write that sentence without noticing it made no sense at all?

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
. His work is highly cited and holographic idea appears to be a result of viewing this in reverse. That the "real world" is a projection of events on a 2D containment surface. It's convoluted but there's a wiki.
The concept works IF you just do the math and assiduously avoid thinking about what contortions you have to go through to do it. It has no relationship to causality. It CANNOT have any such relationship as points that are contiguous in 3 space are NOT contiguous in 2plane.

Yes, you can represent 3Space in 2. Heck you do it in ONE dimension every time you run a model in a computer. Data in a computer is not even flat. It is linear. But we have to take those linear numbers and run them through transforms to make them behave as if they were 3D. Causality is forced on those linear numbers by treating them as a 3 dimensional array.

More
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
You notice these things when you have created an array in Forth. It does't hide the structure of the data. Indeed YOU have to create that structure. Oh, I don't recommend learning Forth. It SUCKS. Just plain unreadable.

The whole idea is just a case of people falling in love with a weird idea and just plain avoiding its blatant problems with causality, action at a distance, cube square laws, inverse square laws, pressure laws and pretty much any other physical you think off. NONE on them work naturally out the math. It require that you turn all back into 3Space before you think about it.

It adds nothing to our understanding of the Universe. Indeed it does the exact opposite since none of the laws of the universe make any sense at all in 2Space.

The idea is just plain silly.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2011
Outside of the superverse vacuum structure would be infinite zero-dimensional space.
That is self contradictory. Zero dimensional can NOT be infinite as it has NO size whatsoever.

How the hell did you even write that sentence without noticing it made no sense at all?
It is a whole lot better idea than something coming from nothing or a void. Hang in there because there is a whole lot more to this silly story. The people who wrote this article are on the mark. I am just adding that our one-dimensional space came from zero-dimensional space. This is more than conjecture. It involves a lot of reasoning. If you wish to believe the world is flat or humans are the center of the universe, then you are free to think what you wish.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
It is a whole lot better idea than something coming from nothing or a void.
Not when you actually do the math.
TabulaMentis
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2011
It is a whole lot better idea than something coming from nothing or a void.
Not when you actually do the math.
From nothing comes nothing!
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
It is a whole lot better idea than something coming from nothing or a void.
Not when you actually do the math.
From nothing comes nothing!
Well we know that isn't true because virtual particles come from nothing all the time.

Second, the only person saying that something comes from nothing is you.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011
The concepts/terms of "something" and "nothing" are entirely human constructs and may have little or no meaning beyond our own level of cognition. Reality may be over our heads. Whether you take the creationist stance, or any flavor of scientific view on things, what evidence is there that suggests we are capable of understanding the big picture? How can you ever prove that there isn't some part we are not seeing or maybe not capable of seeing? Dark matter/energy, for example? What if we never figure that one out? Could we one day find indirect proof that we aren't capable of perceiving some aspects of reality? ...or is such a proof logically self-prohibited by it's own nature?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011
This is all academic though. I'm still waiting for someone to prove that there IS a Universe. Until then, discussing how it was created is like talking about the mating habits of bigfoot.

:)
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011
This is all academic though. I'm still waiting for someone to prove that there IS a Universe.
That sort of naval gazing remark deserves a punch in the nose.

Did that bother you? If so you are invested in dealing with reality so give us a break and drop the nothingness nonsense. This is a science discussion not a Philosophical Circle Jerk.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2011
Zero-dimensional space contains the sub-Planck realm. That is not nothing.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011
So universes may come into being the same way virtual particles do and the ones that "stick" around are the ones with the right combination of physical laws to ensure their stability? Could virtual particles themselves be echoes of mini universes that are coming into being, that vanish (from our universe) when they expand into their own space?

On a further note, I saw that "action at a distance" was mentioned.... this is what happens at the quantum level all the time. I remember seeing a theory that since the universe began as a quantum particle, entanglement may exist across vast distances of space, remnants of the original state of the universe.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2011
Well we know that isn't true because virtual particles come from nothing all the time.
Virtual particles come from quantizable vacuum which is neither empty space nor nothing.

"Nothing" is a philosophical term without physical reality. There's no place in the universe without some pervading quantum and gravitational fields.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011
I was just going to say-- "nothing" cannot exist because there is nothing there to exist.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2011
Zero-dimensional space contains the sub-Planck realm. That is not nothing.
If it has no dimensions it can't contain anything. It MUST have some sort of dimension to have content.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2011
The sub-Planck realm contains things that do not have structure thereby making it dimensionless (zero-dimensional). There is no such thing as nothing, anywhere. Only a caveman would believe in that.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2011
Dimensions are not limited to those of space and time. Nor is there any indication of a sub Planck realm in the first place.

There IS nothing if there is no dimension.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2011
Dimensions are not limited to those of space and time. Nor is there any indication of a sub Planck realm in the first place. There IS nothing if there is no dimension.
The sub-Planck realm has no dimension, yet it exists. The sub-Planck realm is something. If you do not think it exists, then we agree to disagree.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011
The sub-Planck realm has no dimension, yet it exists.
That is YOUR opinion. It is not based on evidence.

The sub-Planck realm is something. If you do not think it exists, then we agree to disagree.
I agree that you are making claims that aren't backed any physical evidence.

If you think there is a Planck realm please show something besides your own repeated and repeatedly unsupported claims to support it. There is NO math and NO evidence that supports you on this. Things are true just because claim they are.

Ethelred
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011
Tab, what do you mean by subplanck realm? Do you mean quantum foam?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) May 01, 2011
Tab, what do you mean by subplanck realm? Do you mean quantum foam?

No, he's not sure what he's referring to. Most quantum hypothesis for this realm include 5 or more spatial dimensions, not the elimination of all spacial dimensions.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011
That sort of naval gazing remark deserves a punch in the nose.

Did that bother you? If so you are invested in dealing with reality so give us a break and drop the nothingness nonsense


Well if you don't consider what might lie outside of the known or knowable then you risk an incomplete understanding, like making a map of the known world before 'discovery' of the Americas. I guess you would say that they didn't need a map of the Americas because nobody went there. I would counter that if nobody had asked the question of what lay beyond the known world, they would never have found out. You're talking about science without asking questions about the unknown? If asking questions about the unknown is philosophy and seperate from science then what is science?

My point is that the above story talks about a theory that seems a little strange. In the past, when theories seemed strange they sometimes turned out to be fundamentally wrong in some way. I like to ask before I trust.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011
if nobody had asked the question of what lay beyond the known world, they would never have found out.
It's funny, but Columbus did not find America because he asked the question what lay beyond the known world, but because he thought he knew that there was a westward route to India.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011
If asking questions about the unknown is philosophy and seperate from science then what is science?

In a word, 'demonstrable'.

The difference between philosophy and science is demonstrability. If you can't demonstrate it, directly or indirectly, it is pure philosophy.

For example, gravity is demonstrable, the existence of preons is not.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2011
Tab, what do you mean by subplanck realm? Do you mean quantum foam?
Thanks for asking. No, it is not about quantum foam. What I am talking about resides in zero-dimensional space. It is a much better solution than everything coming from nothing. Actually, the idea that everything came from nothing sounds a lot like pure philosophy to me that will never be proven correct mainly for the reason it is wrong and could never be proven correct! As an intelligent person I am going to stay away from the word nothing or nothingness. The word void on the other hand can take on several meanings. A superverse could be created by a void, but never by nothing. I see the word 'void' as a popular alternative, but I like zero-dimensional space better.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
What I am talking about resides in zero-dimensional space.
Well then, as is often the case with you, you are talking about nothing since zero dimensional space is an oxymoron and it can't have anything in it even if it wasn't an oxymoron.

It is a much better solution than everything coming from nothing.
It is EXACTLY something from nothing.

Now mathematical principles are NOT nothing. They exist without even a zero dimensional non-realm. The question 'why does the Universe exist?' is simply a bad question. Why shouldn't a mathematically valid universe exist?

As an intelligent person I am going to stay away from the word nothing or nothingness.
Instead you are going to use an oxymoron and say it can contain things even though it has zero dimensionality. I will restrain myself on the more obvious part.

The word void on the other hand can take on several meanings.
None of which are zero D space.

More
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) May 03, 2011
but never by nothing.
I will go with that. Of course zero D space IS nothing.

but I like zero-dimensional space better.
So you like oxymorons instead of something that isn't inherently wrong. This is just like when you insisted on using the term 'black sun'.

Enough restraint.

Do you read Nietzsche? Rob banks? Kill pet fish?

Ethelred
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2011
The difference between philosophy and science is demonstrability. If you can't demonstrate it, directly or indirectly, it is pure philosophy


There are many predictions of theory that have not yet been demonstrated. By your definition, the higgs boson might as well be a unicorn. Black holes were not indirectly observed until many years after the philosophers had suggested that they might exist. The entire theory of relativity sprung from what Einstein called a gedankenspiel (thought game, or mental exercise). In other words, it came from philosophy. The math came later. Same thing for Newton. Logic and imagination first, applying creativity to explain what they observed. That's what I'm doing. Since we can't explain the creation of the Universe, we can either think about it or just say that it's not explainable. I prefer to think.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2011
Ethelred said:
Do you read Nietzsche? Rob banks? Kill pet fish?


I was talking about the storms in Alabama on another thread. My brother is going to lose his huge collection of tropical fish because the power is out. He's staying here in South Carolina for now.

In response to my comments, Trekgeek1 said:
What? He left perfectly delicious tropical fish behind to go to SC? Not the choice I'd have made.


Delicious tropical fish. Meh. Thought you might get a laugh about that. Enjoy.
TabulaMentis
1.8 / 5 (5) May 03, 2011
@Ethelred:
I talked to someone about the word 'void' and they agreed 'zero-dimensional space' would be more proper for how it is being applied.

In another article I used the term 'Black Star' not 'Black Sun.' Wikipedia has a Web page for the term 'Black Star' that people can go to to find the specific subject they are trying to research. See the attached link:

http://en.wikiped...ack_star
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
I talked to someone about the word 'void' and they agreed 'zero-dimensional space' would be more proper for how it is being applied.
Try talking to someone with a clue.

In another article I used the term 'Black Star' not 'Black Sun.'
Either way it was wrong.

See the attached link:
Very good. A disambiguation page. For people that don't know the proper terms.

Zero dimensions and SPACE are contradictory. A void is a hole. A hole requires an exterior or it isn't a hole and either way it has or implies dimensionality.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
@Ethelred:
You sound old fashioned stuck in the past. Words are going to have to expand into including new meanings.

As far as Dark Stars go, you get what you pay for!
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
Words are going to have to expand into including new meanings.
There is no need to use the WRONG word when there is allready a perfectly functional word. There are two reasons to use the wrong word.

Ignorance - which has been the case for you.

Intentional obfuscation. Maybe that as well.

Once you know that there is a word that others understand and use the continued use of the wrong word is rather difficult to justify. And calling me names is not even remotely justification.

As far as Dark Stars go, you get what you pay for!
A meaningless noise.

Go ahead, try and justify your concept of a zero D space. Explain how it can have properties of any kind without dimensions. Unless you can do that you need to use a term that makes sense.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) May 03, 2011
There is no need to use the WRONG word when there is allready a perfectly functional word. There are two reasons to use the wrong word.
And the words you like are void, nothing and nothingness, correct? Those words will not work in this situation, nor will they ever work in explaining the origin of the big big bang.

Once you know that there is a word that others understand and use the continued use of the wrong word is rather difficult to justify. And calling me names is not even remotely justification.
You sound old fashioned to me!
A meaningless noise.
Why are you talking about another article here and the blogs related to that article?
Go ahead, try and justify your concept of a zero D space. Explain how it can have properties of any kind without dimensions. Unless you can do that you need to use a term that makes sense.
I plan on doing so in the near future, for profit, not free.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
And the words you like are void, nothing and nothingness, correct?
In regards to what? You made a ludicrous statement that had a zero dimension idea WITH CONTENT which is impossible. For that the only words available are:

Its a bad idea. Drop it. Replace it with something that isn't self-contradictory.

Those words will not work in this situation,
Self contradiction does and that is what I said.

nor will they ever work in explaining the origin of the big big bang.
Neither will self-contradictory statements. AND no one can explain the BB. All anyone can do is try out ideas. When the idea turn out to be a major fail in logic

sub-Planck realm has no dimension, yet it exist
Which is clearly self-contradictory. No dimensions means non-existent. And there is no evidence for a sub-Planck realm even with dimensions, though that might be possible. Without dimensions its just plain nonsense.

More
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
You sound old fashioned to me!
You sound foolish. And I don't give a damn about fashion. If you do that is another thing you do wrong. I bet you leave the tags on your clothes. I cut them off when they are on the outside.

Why are you talking about another article here and the blogs related to that article?
You seem to have severe reading problem. I have been discussing your idiotic idea of a realm without dimensions.

I plan on doing so in the near future, for profit, not free.
Cranking, cranking cranking every night and day.

So how much will it cost you to self-publish? I recommend a very short run. One copy for yourself should fill the demand. Unless of course you are selling religion. Dr. Behe has made a lot of money selling his nonsense. I borrowed his from the library.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011
So how much will it cost you to self-publish? I recommend a very short run. One copy for yourself should fill the demand. Unless of course you are selling religion. Dr. Behe has made a lot of money selling his nonsense. I borrowed his from the library.
Religion is at the very heart of the book and I think you know that, don't you?
This article does not talk about Black Suns you mentioned earlier.
You still sound old fashioned.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
Religion is at the very heart of the book and I think you know that, don't you?
So then, when was the Great Flood?

At the moment the heart of this book seems to be self-contradictions. Kind of like Genesis One and Two.

This article does not talk about Black Suns you mentioned earlier.
I was giving an example of your use of the wrong words when there are good choices already. Using the wrong word under those conditions simply causes confusion.

When you do have to use a new word then it needs to defined. Using a word that already has a DIFFERENT definition can lead to confusion. You have even confused yourself.

You still sound old fashioned.
I really don't care if you think that. People understand what I say. If clarity is old fashioned then I will remain that way. If confused, self-contradictory nonsense is the fashion then I will leave you to it. You and Brittany Spears.

Fashion is so last week.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
So then, when was the Great Flood?
Who said I believe in the Great Flood or the hateful remarks about homosexuals, or an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, or people who do not accept Jesus as their lord and savior will not be allowed to enter Heaven, as mentioned in the Bible? I did not say I endorsed those things. The book I have been working on for twenty years does not kiss butt with the Bible. My theories explain a lot of things that are not in the Bible, for example: God had a beginning and has not always existed. That alone contradicts all religions big time. That is what I have been trying to explain to you, that you are not the only one having great difficulty understanding how everything got started. Anyone who thinks my works are going to compliment the Bible or any other religious text word for word will be in for a humongous surprise. Finally, new words are required and the definition of existing ones will have to be expanded.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2011
Who said I believe in the Great Flood or the hateful remarks about homosexuals,
Where did I mention homosexuals? And why believe the Bible if it is just the words of fallible men that got pretty much everything wrong that can be checked?

The book I have been working on for twenty years does not kiss butt with the Bible.
So it's your own personal fantasy land then? Or is a non-Christian religion? Never answering such questions leads to doubts about just what the hell you are thinking.

My theories explain a lot of things that are not in the Bible, f
You have never posted anything that explains much at all.

God had a beginning and has not always existed.
The Universe had a beginning and has not always existed. But the principle of mathematics do not depend on the Universe we live in.

More
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) May 07, 2011
That alone contradicts all religions big time.
I doubt it. All religions based on the Bible but not all religions. And it isn't a theory. Might be a hypothesis but my bet is that it violates know laws. Your refusal to make anything resembling a clear statement is the sort of thing that Cranks do.

That is what I have been trying to explain to you,
You have refused to explain anything except your desire to make money.

only one having great difficulty understanding how everything got started.
Actually I have ideas on how things got started and, unlike you, I have written about them right here on this site. Without feedback Crankery becomes more probable.

Anyone who thinks my works are going to compliment the Bible or any other religious text word for word will be in for a humongous surprise.
The only I will be surprised about is if it doesn't violate known laws and experimental evidence IF it says anything that can be tested.

More
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) May 07, 2011
Finally, new words are required and the definition of existing ones will have to be expanded.
New words are fine IF you define them. Definitions of existing ones are unlikely to need to expansion. Just using old words to mean different things then actually mean is the sort of thing that is popular with the religious and Cranks of all kinds. Which is what you have been doing.

To give examples from others:

Good News - A lie to get people to pick Crank Christian pamphlets.

Black Hole - confusing it with a singularity no matter how many time it is pointed out that the two are different concepts.

Inerrant - another Christian lie about the Bible a book that fails innerancy in the first two chapters alone.

I am a genius, after all geniuses are always denigrated for their new thinking, I am denigrated therefor I am a genius - Which is two lies at one go and a standard claim of Cranks of all kinds.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) May 07, 2011
Where did I mention homosexuals? And why believe the Bible if it is just the words of fallible men that got pretty much everything wrong that can be checked?
Oh, so you hate homosexuals? What have they done to you or have you been having strange thoughts? You can tell me about it here!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2011
And why believe the Bible if it is just the words of fallible men that got pretty much everything wrong that can be checked?
There are a few gems in the Bible, you just have to be willing and smart enough to figure it out! However, those gems are mine now!
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) May 08, 2011
Oh, so you hate homosexuals?
Lying again. Don't you ever get tired of lying?

You can tell me about it here!
You are the one that brought them up. So, what deep seated problem of yours caused you to do that and then lie about me? Do you have fear that Oliver K. Manuel is going to adopt you?

There are a few gems in the Bible, you just have to be willing and smart enough to figure it out!
Sure there are. For instance Cain was cursed to wander the rest of his life and then he went and founded a city, married, had multiple children and those children were recorded for many generations. Another gem of a failed prophecy and all in one single chapter. It was Jehovah's own curse that failed. Some all powerful god he was.

However, those gems are mine now!
Yeah just like your problem with gays. All yours. However I suspect that about 2 billion people would disagree with you on your owning the Bible. I have multiple e-book copies myself.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2011
However I suspect that about 2 billion people would disagree with you on your owning the Bible. I have multiple e-book copies myself.
Copyrights and trademarks are the name of the game.