Scientific research causes headaches: Life can exist in a two-dimensional universe

Occasionally, we have difficult-to-understand articles, so as always, you consider it a little before reading.

According to some famous cosmologists, our universe has 3 dimensions and 1 time dimension. Why do you have to believe their words? What if the universe has two-dimensional time and more space?

In recent decades, physicists have asked the same question, they study the characteristics of the universe to find out the answer whether life can exist in a universe unlike what we are have. They conclude: Life cannot exist in a universe of four dimensions or more than one time.

So the fact that we exist in 3 + 1 , 3-dimensional and 1-dimensional space, is inevitable.

Life cannot exist in a universe of four dimensions or more than one time.

These cosmic, difficult issues have their own names, the 'debate in human existence - anthropic argument' . The idea behind it is that the Universe must have certain characteristics so that observers of the Universe can live.

But what has just been said (three dimensions of space, one dimension of time) is just the upper limit, so for the universe to be simpler - with two dimensions of space, one dimension of time, the universe of 2 + 1 - what ? Physicists assume that two-dimensional space will not be complicated enough to support developmental life. They also found that the gravitational force could not function in two-dimensional space, similar structures, but a star system would not form .

But how true is this statement?

Thanks to the work of James Scargill working at the University of California, we have the first evidence that a 2 + 1 universe can support both gravity and complex life. New research has led to a 'debate' foundation cracking, making cosmologists and philosophers to find another reason for: Why is the universe in its present shape?

In a universe with such a 'deviant' view, life cannot be formed.

First of all, know what the new foundation is cracked

One of the hardest puzzles in science is why fundamental laws of physics support life so perfectly. For example, value constants for a stable and functioning structure are suspiciously arbitrary, about 1/137 but a series of physicists point out that this number is only slightly different, intact. Death or any complex structure will not be formed. In a universe with such a 'deviant' view, life cannot be formed.

The perfect structure constant , fine-structure constant , also known as Sommerfeld constant , is often denoted by α (alpha character), considered to be an unformed physical constant that shows the strength of the electric interaction. from between basic charged particles. It carries the same numerical value in every measurement unit system, the value equivalent to 1/137.

The idea of 'debate in the human era exists' is that if Sommerfeld's constant carries some other value, no creature can form to observe the Universe. That's why we measure that value!

In the 1990s, physicist Max Tegmark came up with a similar debate about the amount of spatial dimension in this universe. He suggested that if the universe existed more than one time, the laws of physics would lack the necessary elements for observers to make predictions. That is, science will not be able to exist, when no one can make predictions about phenomena to rely on that method of analogy, it can be inferred that life does not exist either.

But with a universe containing up to four dimensions of time, it has its own characteristics. In this universe, Newton's laws of motion will be extremely sensitive, changing even when there are minimal disturbances. One of the consequences: The universe cannot have a stable orbit, since it cannot have a star system or similar structures.

Tegmark said: ' In a space with more than 3 dimensions, there is no traditional atom and stable orbital structures '.

Max Tegmark

Based on what has been said, life cannot exist in a universe that has more dimensions than the Universe we live in. But considering the Universe has fewer dimensions, no one can deny that life can exist.

Some people point out the importance of gravity: when space is only two-dimensional, gravity cannot exist, there will be no life.

But James Scargill has a different point of view. In the new paper, Scargill shows that in a simple, scalar gravitational field that can exist with only two dimensions, the new model still has stable flight trajectories and an active cosmological background. OK.

But the remarkable result in Scargill's research is this: the complex element can completely be present in the 2 + 1 universe . From the perspective of neural networks, Scargill approached the problem in a way never before seen. Scargill points out that the complex element of a biological neural network can exist, based on the properties that the 2D system produces easily.

The two-dimensional universe will have the 'small world' attribute, which is a connection structure that allows things to pass through complex networks in just a few steps. One of the other properties is a neural network that works in a transfer mode between high and low operating states. According to initial observations, only networks formed from smaller networks.

The Scargill question poses: whether a 2D network can contain all three factors, the 'small world' attribute , operating in special mode, formed by smaller networks.

At first, it looked like everything was impossible in the 2D model, with the note points tied back into a boring two-dimensional network. But Scargill still found a way to express the 3D network that could support the existence of these three attributes.

This result is remarkable, showing that 2D networks can support complex elements. Obviously, this is not proof that the 2 + 1 universe can support life. Scargill himself confirmed that more research is needed to confirm that the Two-dimensional Universe is capable of supporting complex elements, such as living organisms.

But this is still evidence that it cannot be confirmed that the 2 + 1 universe cannot support life. Those who claim otherwise will have to have another study refute new findings, or accept the truth.