# Why Space is 3D



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

Interesting new research and mathematical modeling of the early moments of the universe based on superstring theory shows how space became 3-dimensional. 



> In this study, the team established a method for calculating large matrices (in the IKKT matrix model [4]), which represent the interactions of strings, and calculated how the 9-dimensional space changes with time. In the figure, the spatial extents in 9 directions are plotted against time.
> 
> If one goes far enough back in time, space is indeed extended in 9 directions, but then at some point only 3 of those directions start to expand rapidly. This result demonstrates, for the first time, that the 3-dimensional space that we are living in indeed emerges from the 9-dimensional space that superstring theory predicts.


Mechanism Explains Why Universe Was Born with 3 Dimensions


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

String theory has too many possible formulations. About all studies like this suggest is that physicists are correct in assuming that there are explanations for such things and they aren't completely arbitrary.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

Yeah, all they show is potentially plausible theories... ones where the math can fit what is known about the Universe, but we are far from being able to test key predictions of such theories.

As for "first", I haven't read the article yet, but I don't even swallow that. For years, algebraic topologists and physicists have been suggesting ways in which 6-7 dimensions could be curled up in spacetime without us noticing them.


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> String theory has too many possible formulations. About all studies like this suggest is that physicists are correct in assuming that there are explanations for such things and they aren't completely arbitrary.


hmm... isn't that what science is about? Coming up with possible formulations to describe things and then testing to see if they match reality? 



JohnGalt said:


> Yeah, all they show is potentially plausible theories... ones where the math can fit what is known about the Universe, but we are far from being able to test key predictions of such theories.
> 
> As for "first", I haven't read the article yet, but I don't even swallow that. For years, algebraic topologists and physicists have been suggesting ways in which 6-7 dimensions could be curled up in spacetime without us noticing them.


Yes, indeed, they have been suggesting that some dimensions are curled up for quite some time. It is interesting though that this result seemed to just appear out of the mathematics as well.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

listentothemountains said:


> hmm... isn't that what science is about? Coming up with possible formulations to describe things and then testing to see if they match reality?


Any 3 year old can do that. Science is about cataloging and exploring which answers are actually useful.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

wuliheron said:


> Any 3 year old can do that. Science is about cataloging and exploring which answers are actually useful.


Is that not the exact same thing @listentothemountains just said? Redundancy FTW?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> Is that not the exact same thing @listentothemountains just said? Redundancy FTW?


Nope. Three year olds might ask if they can fly or if fairies exist because they have no standards and aren't particularly interested in how useful the answers are.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

wuliheron said:


> Nope. Three year olds might ask if they can fly or if fairies exist because they have no standards and aren't particularly interested in how useful the answers are.


Regardless of your unnecessary, degrading three year-old remark which has nothing to do with the statement you followed it with, you did say the exact same thing she did. 



> hmm... isn't that what science is about? Coming up with possible formulations to describe things and then testing to see if they match reality?





> Science is about cataloging and exploring which answers are actually useful.


Same thing, same outcome. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> Regardless of your unnecessary, degrading three year-old remark which has nothing to do with the statement you followed it with, you did say the exact same thing she did.
> 
> Same thing, same outcome. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.


A bit of a three year old yourself I see. No, they are not exactly the same thing.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

wuliheron said:


> A bit of a three year old yourself I see. No, they are not exactly the same thing.


Again with the unnecessary degrading comments, hey? 

How are they not exactly the same thing?


----------



## orphansparrow (Dec 10, 2011)

okay...i'm not a 3 year old, but i definitely don't know all there is to know about time and space! no matter how much doctor who i watch. 

thanks for the link *listentothemountains* - it's fascinating stuff!


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> Again with the unnecessary degrading comments, hey?
> 
> How are they not exactly the same thing?


When in Rome....

Since I already explained the difference I suggest asking your mommy what it means.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

wuliheron said:


> When in Rome....
> 
> Since I already explained the difference I suggest asking your mommy for an explanation.


You explained nothing. I'm pretty sure everyone can tell who the more childlike of the two of us actually is in this conversation. Ta ta


----------



## orphansparrow (Dec 10, 2011)

wuliheron said:


> When in Rome....
> 
> Since I already explained the difference I suggest asking your mommy what it means.


omg. what's wrong here? don't worry, by the sound of this thread, no one was out to get you. *hug*


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

orphansparrow said:


> omg. what's wrong here? don't worry, by the sound of this thread, no one was out to get you. *hug*


I suggest you read Ace Face's posts. S/he/it loves nothing better then picking fights.


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> I suggest you read Ace Face's posts. S/he/it loves nothing better then picking fights.


Whoa. 

On another thread, I would just leave this. You are either a troll, or very very childish. However, since I started this thread, I'll say something. This is a perfectly reasonable thread to discuss superstring theory and recent advancements in supercomputer matrix calculations. 

You are the one who picked the fight. Your first comment was pointlessly negative. In your second comment, you used the 3-year-old argument. From there, your comments just degraded into personal attacks. I am a little annoyed that you filled this thread up with your childish comments. If you have something rational to add to this discussion, please do so. Otherwise, I have no idea why you are wasting your time.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

listentothemountains said:


> Whoa.
> 
> On another thread, I would just leave this. You are either a troll, or very very childish. However, since I started this thread, I'll say something. This is a perfectly reasonable thread to discuss superstring theory and recent advancements in supercomputer matrix calculations.
> 
> You are the one who picked the fight. Your first comment was pointlessly negative. In your second comment, you used the 3-year-old argument. From there, your comments just degraded into personal attacks. I am a little annoyed that you filled this thread up with your childish comments. If you have something rational to add to this discussion, please do so. Otherwise, I have no idea why you are wasting your time.


Stating the obvious that superstring theory is a 50 year old theory that has provided nothing more useful then some interesting mathematics and has so many different formulations you can prove just about anything using the theory is not "unnecessarily negative". Even physicists have claimed the theory is nothing more then philosophy and shouldn't be taken seriously as a physical theory. If you consider such comments to be too negative then I suggest abandoning superstring theory because its been controversial this way since its inception.


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Stating the obvious that superstring theory is a 50 year old theory that has provided nothing more useful then some interesting mathematics and has so many different formulations you can prove just about anything using the theory is not "unnecessarily negative". Even physicists have claimed the theory is nothing more then philosophy and shouldn't be taken seriously as a physical theory. If you consider such comments to be too negative then I suggest abandoning superstring theory because its been controversial this way since its inception.


Thank you. Now we can discuss logically. 

First of all, I would like to point out that I did not state that I agree with superstring theory. I hold a similar opinion to you, namely, that string theory is just a theory and, until now, has shown no results or predictions that are testable. 

I found this article interesting on two points. Firstly, this version of sting theory seems to be formulated in such a way that, when calculations were done with it, unexpected results showed up that matched reality. It may be possible that the equations were set up to work that way, although I think the people who carried out these calculations were surprised by the results as well. Secondly, apparently they had to invent new math to complete these calculations.

Overall, it would be interesting if something did finally come of string theory. We've already seen the speed of light barrier broken this year, what else could happen?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

listentothemountains said:


> Thank you. Now we can discuss logically.
> 
> First of all, I would like to point out that I did not state that I agree with superstring theory. I hold a similar opinion to you, namely, that string theory is just a theory and, until now, has shown no results or predictions that are testable.
> 
> ...


Nobody's really quite sure if the speed of light has been broken. Its just one facility that measured it even though countless others have never seen anything remotely like it measuring all kinds of neutrinos at different energy levels. We'll just have to wait for confirmation from an independent facility. 

Personally I find the possible discovery of the Higgs to be much more interesting at this point. Theorists have been struggling to make progress for the last 50 years and results like this string theory study are a dime a dozen. Its pretty obvious to me people are missing something vital that will either require experimental evidence to discover or something completely different from the same old bag of tricks string theory offers. Faster then light neutrinos might do the trick, but we'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime characterizing the Higgs and more advanced contextual theories seem to be our best bets at this points.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Ace Face said:


> Regardless of your unnecessary, degrading three year-old remark which has nothing to do with the statement you followed it with, you did say the exact same thing she did.
> 
> Same thing, same outcome. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.


Not the same at all.



> hmm... isn't that what science is about? Coming up with possible formulations to describe things and then testing to see if they match reality?


Is entirely different from



> Science is about cataloging and exploring which answers are *actually useful*.


The difference is right there in the words, and I don't understand how one could miss it.

Translation: _not all possible formulations are *useful ones*._ Things can be formulated but not useful. @wuliheron directly and very clearly referred to things that are *actually useful*. That is a big difference, and that difference was in fact the point, it would seem.


----------

