The One Dimensional Universe - A Thought Experiment
October 14, 2013 at 8:46 pm
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2013 at 8:52 pm by ManMachine.)
When you ask people how many dimensions there are you will get a variety of answers. Almost everyone will mention the 3 Euclidian dimensions of length, width and height (x, y, & z axes), some will count ‘time’ as a fourth dimension and there are some theoretical physicists who will say more dimensions are required to make theories like String Theory and more recently M-Theory work (up to 11 in the latter case).
The problem with the standard three dimensional understanding of the Universe is that under scrutiny what seems obvious begins to look shaky, at best. We all stand by the three Euclidian dimensions, we can see them all around us, they give us an accurate description of where an object is in space, they are extremely useful. Dimensions are, in simple terms, measurement to help us make sense of our perception of objects in space (and time, perhaps) and where objects are within our perception. This works well when we are abstractly describing the attributes of an object, but when it comes to establishing the location of an object in space things get a little strange.
Dimensions are relative, that is to say they only work relative to another known point, without this known point they do not work. What is even more problematic is that there is a growing body of thought that spacetime is an emergent property of sub-atomic particles and not a fundamental property of the Universe. Humans experience spacetime as two separate entities, space and time, and if space is an emergent property of sub-atomic systems then describing quantum particles by using the three dimensional spatial references makes no sense. This is perhaps, why we experience such difficulties describing sub-atomic particles (just ask Schroedinger).
It’s not that the Universe is anthropic, but the way we observe it is, naturally, anthropocentric. We can only observe the Universe in ways that make sense to the organisms we have evolved into. The concept of matter is hard-wired into our brains, but matter doesn’t exist, matter is a convenient way for us to experience, describe and ultimately communicate specific energy configurations. We have evolved to be able to identify patterns, and matter is just that, a very particular type of energy pattern. Scientific Method is a way of identifying and communicating patterns. The three dimensions we use to describe objects is simply a means of describing the attributes of energy patterns.
Recent mathematical models seem to be suggesting that the higher the energy of a system the fewer dimensions it has. If we use this approach as a framework for a thought experiment then we can begin to make sense of thing that previously didn’t make sense. For example, why is the speed of light 299 792 458 meters / second? It could be that the energy needed to accelerate quanta to this speed take it out of our range of perception and into a 2 dimensional world, one we only experience as wave functions (areas of probability) instead of definite points in three dimensional Euclidian space.
If we accept that quanta exist only in two dimensions then we begin to see why our three dimensional description is no longer suitable. This is a gross over-simplification, but the ‘so-called’ wave function collapse is in fact a gradual drift and not, as the name suggests, an instantaneous collapse. All that is ever happening is that we’re pushing information around with measurement interactions in a completely continuous (unitary) way trying to make sense of a two dimensional object presenting itself to a three dimensional context. There would be, no space and no time for a two dimensional object, as spacetime only emerges from our three dimensional (i.e. low energy) Universe.
We can take our thought experiment another step, if we imagine a one dimensional super energy object dissipating unimaginable quantities of energy in millionths of millionths of millionths of a second, collapsing as it went firstly into two dimensional high-energy packets (quanta) then into more stable low-energy three dimensional packets, we get a remarkable description of our Big Bang.
Density is no longer the issue because mass becomes wrapped up in the dimension configuration. A one dimensional object with massive amounts of energy has no mass until it dissipates enough energy (with only one dimension to move in the geometry does not exist for mass to be a viable attribute), at which point the second dimension and mass appear, and after it dissipates even more energy the third dimension falls out along with it the structure of spacetime. It is likely that it is even more subtle than this. It is likely that objects in two dimensions will not suddenly drop large amounts of energy but gradually dissipate it leading to a variation in quantum masses, observable to us in our 3D world by their relative magnitude. We already know from Einstein that Energy and Mass are interchangeable, but more importantly that they are interchangeable in relation to the square of the speed of light (E=MC²) and we can see from our earlier thought experiment that the speed of light is an artifact of the observable threshold between the third and second dimensions. What is even more remarkable is that the dissipation of energy appears in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity by way of being buried deep in the heart of Emmy Noether's Symmetries, where the principle of least action is a critical modulator in all the fundamental laws of physics.
If this is the case, we might expect to see in areas where there has been a massive increase in energy to the objects in that area (e.g. a collapsing star) that they would ‘jump’ the light-speed barrier back into their two dimensional state and no longer be visible to us, it would look rather like a hole in three dimensional space from which no light could escape, which sounds very familiar.
One last fascinating thought experiment, if the dissipating energy from a one dimensional object leads to mass in two dimensions and higher (i.e. lower energy), then where does the energy that is dissipated from two dimensions go? Spacetime is not a force, it is a gemoetry that arises out of three dimensions, however, there is one Universal force that seems to be as yet unaccounted for in all of this that fits the bill neatly, gravity.
MM
The problem with the standard three dimensional understanding of the Universe is that under scrutiny what seems obvious begins to look shaky, at best. We all stand by the three Euclidian dimensions, we can see them all around us, they give us an accurate description of where an object is in space, they are extremely useful. Dimensions are, in simple terms, measurement to help us make sense of our perception of objects in space (and time, perhaps) and where objects are within our perception. This works well when we are abstractly describing the attributes of an object, but when it comes to establishing the location of an object in space things get a little strange.
Dimensions are relative, that is to say they only work relative to another known point, without this known point they do not work. What is even more problematic is that there is a growing body of thought that spacetime is an emergent property of sub-atomic particles and not a fundamental property of the Universe. Humans experience spacetime as two separate entities, space and time, and if space is an emergent property of sub-atomic systems then describing quantum particles by using the three dimensional spatial references makes no sense. This is perhaps, why we experience such difficulties describing sub-atomic particles (just ask Schroedinger).
It’s not that the Universe is anthropic, but the way we observe it is, naturally, anthropocentric. We can only observe the Universe in ways that make sense to the organisms we have evolved into. The concept of matter is hard-wired into our brains, but matter doesn’t exist, matter is a convenient way for us to experience, describe and ultimately communicate specific energy configurations. We have evolved to be able to identify patterns, and matter is just that, a very particular type of energy pattern. Scientific Method is a way of identifying and communicating patterns. The three dimensions we use to describe objects is simply a means of describing the attributes of energy patterns.
Recent mathematical models seem to be suggesting that the higher the energy of a system the fewer dimensions it has. If we use this approach as a framework for a thought experiment then we can begin to make sense of thing that previously didn’t make sense. For example, why is the speed of light 299 792 458 meters / second? It could be that the energy needed to accelerate quanta to this speed take it out of our range of perception and into a 2 dimensional world, one we only experience as wave functions (areas of probability) instead of definite points in three dimensional Euclidian space.
If we accept that quanta exist only in two dimensions then we begin to see why our three dimensional description is no longer suitable. This is a gross over-simplification, but the ‘so-called’ wave function collapse is in fact a gradual drift and not, as the name suggests, an instantaneous collapse. All that is ever happening is that we’re pushing information around with measurement interactions in a completely continuous (unitary) way trying to make sense of a two dimensional object presenting itself to a three dimensional context. There would be, no space and no time for a two dimensional object, as spacetime only emerges from our three dimensional (i.e. low energy) Universe.
We can take our thought experiment another step, if we imagine a one dimensional super energy object dissipating unimaginable quantities of energy in millionths of millionths of millionths of a second, collapsing as it went firstly into two dimensional high-energy packets (quanta) then into more stable low-energy three dimensional packets, we get a remarkable description of our Big Bang.
Density is no longer the issue because mass becomes wrapped up in the dimension configuration. A one dimensional object with massive amounts of energy has no mass until it dissipates enough energy (with only one dimension to move in the geometry does not exist for mass to be a viable attribute), at which point the second dimension and mass appear, and after it dissipates even more energy the third dimension falls out along with it the structure of spacetime. It is likely that it is even more subtle than this. It is likely that objects in two dimensions will not suddenly drop large amounts of energy but gradually dissipate it leading to a variation in quantum masses, observable to us in our 3D world by their relative magnitude. We already know from Einstein that Energy and Mass are interchangeable, but more importantly that they are interchangeable in relation to the square of the speed of light (E=MC²) and we can see from our earlier thought experiment that the speed of light is an artifact of the observable threshold between the third and second dimensions. What is even more remarkable is that the dissipation of energy appears in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity by way of being buried deep in the heart of Emmy Noether's Symmetries, where the principle of least action is a critical modulator in all the fundamental laws of physics.
If this is the case, we might expect to see in areas where there has been a massive increase in energy to the objects in that area (e.g. a collapsing star) that they would ‘jump’ the light-speed barrier back into their two dimensional state and no longer be visible to us, it would look rather like a hole in three dimensional space from which no light could escape, which sounds very familiar.
One last fascinating thought experiment, if the dissipating energy from a one dimensional object leads to mass in two dimensions and higher (i.e. lower energy), then where does the energy that is dissipated from two dimensions go? Spacetime is not a force, it is a gemoetry that arises out of three dimensions, however, there is one Universal force that seems to be as yet unaccounted for in all of this that fits the bill neatly, gravity.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
