Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Was the Early Universe 2 Dimensional Spacetime?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i've-always-felt-a-bit-flat dept.

Space 309

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

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Physicists (4, Funny)

wed128 (722152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558174)

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

Re:Physicists (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558182)

Well they do get the very best weed available.

"What if we're just a speck on a speck on a speck and that speck stack is like, you know, like, infinite man."

Re:Physicists (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558304)

Not far from the truth. You don't even know what big is. [youtube.com]

Re:Physicists (3, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558476)

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

Re:Physicists (1)

kyuubiunl (1747574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558590)

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

Re:Physicists (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558512)

Well they do get the very best weed available.

"What if we're just a speck on a speck on a speck and that speck stack is like, you know, like, infinite man."

Actually, in my twenty-plus years as an academic, the theoretical physicists I've known and occasionally played cards with are among the most grounded and sensible people. They are not weed-smoking crazies.

If you want to meet the really whacky impractical "crazy-for-the-sake-of-crazy" folks, you have to go to the economics department. Especially since the rise of the contrary-for-no-good-reason "Freakonomics". Those are people who should not be driving cars. They should also not be calling themselves "Science" but that's a discussion for another day.

Re:Physicists (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558906)

Those are people who should not be driving cars. They should also not be calling themselves "Science" but that's a discussion for another day.

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

Re:Physicists (2)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558928)

contrary-for-no-good-reason

It sells books. Now, you know too.

As I see it, the real problem with economics isn't its status as a science, but the fact that there are huge interests at stake. In addition, a whole bunch of people already made up their mind on how human societies behave (ignoring, of course, the actual ones they're immersed in). So any science which draws contrary conclusions is likely to be ignored, perhaps even labeled "not science".

weed smoking crazies, like Carl Sagan? (0)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559046)

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

Richard Feynman, almost became a full blown alcoholic?

i could go on.

Re:weed smoking crazies, like Carl Sagan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35559346)

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

Richard Feynman, almost became a full blown alcoholic?

i could go on.

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

Re:Physicists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35559222)

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

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

Re:Physicists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558200)

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

yes

Re:Physicists (2, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558204)

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

Re:Physicists (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558254)

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

IF their second degree is in business marketing, sure.

Publish or perish => minor in marketing (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558524)

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

Re:Physicists (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558272)

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

Re:Physicists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558556)

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

Re:Physicists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558608)

You sound like Sheldon.

Re:Physicists (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558960)

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

Re:Physicists (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559244)

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

Re:Physicists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35559324)

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

Re:Physicists (2)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559132)

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

Re:Physicists (4, Funny)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558286)

Yes.

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

Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (3, Funny)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558372)

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

And speaking of which, doesn't this make "foldspace technology" described in Frank Herbert's Dune a bit less fantasy based? The thought is making my mind crinkle!

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558452)

Don't fear the crinkle. Fear is the mind-killer.
I've always liked the classic name for a type of coffee called Melange. Drink enough and you will fold space. Can I watch?

/ I've got Dune quotes in my head for the rest of the day :)

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (3, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558964)

No, it doesn't sound anything like it. One is a theory about things that happen at Big Bang levels of energy, the other is an author putting the words "space" and "fold" together.

Re:Nope that's Science Fiction Authors (1)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558984)

If space-time can "stretch" in the presence of a large amount of mess, then maybe it was crinkly in the first place? Presumably every atomic nucleus stretches a miniscule area of space-time around it, it's only really noticable to us as gravity when bundled together into planet sized objects.

There was guy who was . [fourmilab.ch]

Re:Physicists (1)

((hristopher _-*-_-* (956823) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558404)

I think we are all a bit crazy then.

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

Re:Physicists (2, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558470)

How does a concept of heat and energy even work when there is no possible motion (how do you have motion with only one dimension?)?

Re:Physicists (3, Informative)

AlecC (512609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558648)

Backwards and forwards along the line. Each particle, if such exists, is bouncing back and forward against its neighbour. Or, perhaps more likely, there are no particles, and the universe is one ginormous string twanging along its length with compression waves which along though and interfere with each other. A bit like Gods organ pipe (God's bong?)

Not the physicists (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558558)

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

Re:Physicists (4, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558568)

In the past 40 years we've discovered crazier and crazier things about the universe. The discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, the discovery that the speed of stars around center of galaxy is nearly uniform (dark matter), CP symmetry violation, multiple quark flavors, irregularities in the cosmic ray background, etc.

Re:Physicists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35559102)

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

Yes. [Citation Needed]

Re:Physicists (1)

georgesdev (1987622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559202)

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

Duh... (4, Funny)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558186)

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

lunatic alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558410)

Please warn us when you link out to raving lunatics.

I think this nutter is scarier than the goatse guy.

Re:lunatic alert (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558462)

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

Re:Duh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558522)

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

*Whoosh* (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558188)

The sound of this thing going completely over my head.

Re:*Whoosh* (4, Funny)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558238)

The sound of this thing going completely over my head.

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

Re:*Whoosh* (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558520)

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

- aah, so there is a downside to having too many dimensions!

Re:*Whoosh* (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558802)

Last night I watched this movie called Cube^2. Hypercube [google.com] . The premise was interesting, the beginning and middle okay, but the ending just plain sucked. I felt like the writer got bored and took a cheap ending using violence. I mentioned this because of your comment. In one scene a character gets chopped up by a tesseract gone Freddy Kruger. That was the beginning of the slide down to the crappy end and certain one too many dimensions for the poor victim.

Re:*Whoosh* (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559058)

In 2-D space + time the point could have simply gone past him; I believe you were thinking of 1-D space + time when you wrote that.

1-D space + time... where it'd be pretty damn hard to miss the point. Unless, I suppose, it's pointed the wrong way.

Its a Tardus. (-1, Redundant)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558226)

So its bigger on the inside.

Re:Its a Tardus. (4, Informative)

sirdude (578412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558280)

TARDIS [wikipedia.org] *

Re:Its a Tardus. (0, Redundant)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558580)

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

Re:Its a Tardus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558750)

His user name is appropriate, though.

The Cameron Divide (5, Funny)

swrider (854292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558230)

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

Re:The Cameron Divide (4, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558302)

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

And the acting went from 3D to 2D.

Re:The Cameron Divide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558400)

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

Re:The Cameron Divide (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558726)

guido punched first.
I've seen it clearly documented in the historical documents [nj.com] .

Re:The Cameron Divide (4, Funny)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558514)

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

Re:The Cameron Divide (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559084)

In fact I would make the argument that only best acting in the original star wars was at most one-dimensional. In the prequels it went down to 0-dimensional, with only the most important character being 2-state with atomic transitions: In love/not in love, evil/not evil.

Re:The Cameron Divide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35559340)

You mean like a plank of wood with no depth?

Mooninites (0, Offtopic)

dintech (998802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558242)

"this porn is infinitely excellent"

Re:Mooninites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558702)

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

THE MOST IMPORTANT RESEARCH EVER?!? (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558246)

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

And I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558248)

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

That's funny... (2)

Ghlad (1934434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558250)

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

Ouch! (1)

crndg (1322641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558278)

I think my brain just folded.

It's Discovery News (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558292)

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

Flatland? (1, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558300)

With regards to 2 D universe in the early universe, "Flatland" was from 1884. Err... 1884 is "early universe" to this 5 digit UID, you lower digit UIDs probably think of 1884 as your middle age.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/97 [gutenberg.org]

Time. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558308)

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

Re:Time. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558316)

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

Re:Time. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558464)

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

Re:Time. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559052)

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

Time is not a dimension (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559280)

it is a sub property of each dimension. THAT is how it should be said.ITS why your all wrong.

Waiting for the 4D (2)

Partaolas (1926386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558336)

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

Re:Waiting for the 4D (1)

frostfreek (647009) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558478)

But wait, if we heat the universe back up, we can fold it, and then cool it again and unfold it. If we orient the folds in the right way, we can jump to another location!

All we need is enough energy to warm up the entire universe.

Re:Waiting for the 4D (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558902)

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

Re:Waiting for the 4D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558530)

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

Re:Waiting for the 4D (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558656)

They'll make ten be the top number :(

Re:Waiting for the 4D (3, Funny)

avgjoe62 (558860) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558996)

You know, as soon as they finish deploying this new 4D universe, they'll come out with 5D and that'll make 4D obsolete.

Looks like I'm going to have to buy the White Album again...

We can't tell (2)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558340)

Fact of the matter is we can't deduce what happened during the early BB because we can't make experiments to determine how quantum gravity works. Until somebody comes up with a theory which actually produces testable predictions for it all the weirdo suggestions is just pure speculation.

Re:We can't tell (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558360)

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

Re:We can't tell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558474)

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

Just one dimension! (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558346)

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

gravitational wave cut iff frequency (1)

gnalre (323830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558374)

Since to the best of my knowledge no one has ever directly detected a gravitational wave the best guess for the cut off frequency is 0

So, where is Ms. Triangle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558376)

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

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

Holographic Principle? (5, Interesting)

rmcgehee (142010) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558378)

I wonder if this follows from the Holographic Principle [wikipedia.org] , which states that the information from the entire universe scales with area, rather than volume. That is, the information inside our universe is embedded in 2-space, not 3- or 4-space.

Re:Holographic Principle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558548)

So we are like a animated egyptian hieroglyph ?

Re:Holographic Principle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35559190)

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

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

The Number of Dimensions Shall Be... THREE! (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558418)

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

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

Transition to 5D (1)

nethenson (1093205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558422)

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

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

Re:Transition to 5D (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558450)

I guess that the transition to 5D means that all the matter that we know (atoms, light, ...), will be destroyed.

Not necessarily. To visualize increasing dimensions, think of a sheet of paper. Two dimensions. Imagine it being progressively crumpled, until it becomes a paper ball. Now it's three dimensional. Everything you wrote on the paper is still intact.

Re:Transition to 5D (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558532)

I guess that the transition to 5D means that all the matter that we know (atoms, light, ...), will be destroyed.

Not necessarily. To visualize increasing dimensions, think of a sheet of paper. Two dimensions. Imagine it being progressively crumpled, until it becomes a paper ball. Now it's three dimensional. Everything you wrote on the paper is still intact.

Now, try doing that to a monopoly board. How would it feel to be one of the people living in the houses and hotels? :)

Tetris 1D (1)

bourdux (1609219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558424)

We know which game [tetris1d.org] they were playing then:

Why stop at 2? (1, Interesting)

degeneratemonkey (1405019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558430)

Or one for that matter?

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

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

The actual article (5, Informative)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558496)

Please include a link to the work you are reporting on, not just to someone else reporting on someone else's reporting etc. I think this might be the link you are looking for: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.101101 [doi.org]

String theory? (1)

Elendil (11919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558542)

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

So you mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558606)

The world was flat?

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

What I don't get... (2)

Kookus (653170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558622)

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

Re:What I don't get... (2)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559304)

Going back to that point is like winding the universe backwards towards the big-bang. As you collect everything into one point, all the energy in the form of photons and particle radation is going to heat everything up to the point it is ionized gas. Go to an even smaller volume and the nucleii themselves would break down into what the astronomers call a "quark soup". Forces such as gravity would cease to exist.

  Its been proved that the electromagnetic and weak interaction forces are two aspects of the same electro-weak force [wikipedia.org] , and would unify at high energies when the temperature is above 10^15Kelvin.

When the universe was new... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558748)

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

Re:When the universe was new... (1)

Coeurderoy (717228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558890)

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

It's all a simulation! (1)

Galaga88 (148206) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558854)

Maybe this is proof that the entirety of existence is merely a simulation in a computer run by a superior race.

After all, our increasing number of dimensions seems to match up with the increasing number of dimensions in video games. (Except Space War and Pong had the decency to skip that entire 1D thing.)

Sure you laugh, but I'm starting to seriously consider the nature of that giant disembodied hand in the sky that periodically gives me orders to gather more vespene gas.

changing dimensions (3, Interesting)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35558944)

This isn't the first theory about the dimensionality of the universe changing over time. A while back it was proposed that time itself is shifting into a spacelike dimension. [telegraph.co.uk]

Fascinating opportunities (1)

Coeurderoy (717228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559070)

So when the universe will be "real cool" it will generate new dimensions ?
So maybe we do not have to fear the end of times, it will just become "curiouser and curiouser" ...

I just wonder if there where some one or two dimensional sentient beings around at 100mev and 1mev, and what happened to them ?
(except living and a cross of Jasper Pforde's bookworld and flatland...

Universe "folding" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35559160)

So -- what happens if it folds again?

origin of spacelike dimensions (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35559356)

Actually, if time is shifting into a spacelike dimension [telegraph.co.uk] , than perhaps this is the origin of all spacelike dimensions.

In that case I would predict that they will not discover a gravity wave cutoff at high energies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?