Can We Move in Planck Length and Dimension at the Time of the Big Bang?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of dimensions and movement at the time of the Big Bang, particularly in relation to Planck length. Participants explore whether dimensions existed during the singularity and how movement might be conceptualized in that context, touching on theories such as loop quantum gravity and M-theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether dimensions existed at the time of the Big Bang and if movement in Planck length is meaningful.
  • Others assert that the concept of "size" is not applicable to the singularity, suggesting it was either finite but unbounded or infinite, with no center, edge, or direction.
  • A participant introduces loop quantum gravity and M-theory, proposing that these theories might allow for the consideration of direction or dimension at the moment of the Big Bang.
  • Some participants express confusion over the use of "direction" and "dimension," indicating that the terms may not be used consistently within the context of physics.
  • There is a discussion about the classical versus quantum mechanical nature of space-time, with some participants arguing about the implications of these classifications on the understanding of the universe's early state.
  • Participants also engage in a technical discussion regarding the time scales involved in the universe's history, with corrections made to earlier statements about the timing of galaxy formation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether dimensions or directions existed at the time of the Big Bang. Multiple competing views remain, particularly regarding the interpretation of singularity and the implications of various theoretical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of "direction" and "dimension," as well as the assumptions made about the nature of the singularity. The discussion also reflects unresolved mathematical interpretations related to time scales.

big_bounce
Messages
102
Reaction score
3
Hello all .
We know Planck length is
d2cad119035d71a07b70493b04b85e13.png
and universe was in that density at big bang .

Is that mean there was dimension at that time ?
I mean , can we move in Planck length ? like up , down, right, left, forward, backward ؟
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Is that mean there was dimension at that time ?
I mean , can we move in Planck length ?
I don't understand these questions.

like up , down, right, left, forward, backward
I am quite sure that we can move up, down, right, left, forward, backward. Note that those 6 directions are arbitrary definitions based on your current orientation in space.
 
mfb said:
I don't understand these questions.

what's initial size of the universe at big bang ? there was any direction at that moment ?
 
big_bounce said:
what's initial size of the universe at big bang ? there was any direction at that moment ?

The general theory is that "size" is not a meaningful question about the singularity as we currently understand it. It was everything there is, so either (1) finite but unbounded or (2) infinite.

In any case it had no center, no edge, and no direction.
 
phinds said:
The general theory is that "size" is not a meaningful question about the singularity as we currently understand it. It was everything there is, so either (1) finite but unbounded or (2) infinite.

In any case it had no center, no edge, and no direction.

How about in loop quantum gravity ?
The new theory and other new theory such as m-theory ( Brane ) said there was any singularity at that moment
So can we consider any direction at that moment ?

bounce-ns.jpg
 
I don't think you use "direction" and "dimension" the same way physics usually does. As a result, your questions look strange (at least to me) and I don't know how to interpret them.
 
mfb said:
I don't think you use "direction" and "dimension" the same way physics usually does. As a result, your questions look strange (at least to me) and I don't know how to interpret them.

Al right !
You consider direction and dimension is same ! and replace "dimension" to "direction" in my question .

So if we don't consider any singularity at big bang , can we say we have dimension or direction at that moment ?
 
big_bounce said:
How about in loop quantum gravity ?
The new theory and other new theory such as m-theory ( Brane ) said there was any singularity at that moment
So can we consider any direction at that moment ?

bounce-ns.jpg

This seems to be an exceptionally poor representation of anything realistic. Two problems jump right out at you

First, "space-time is classical" is nonsensical. Space and time are classical things, space-time is not.

Second, the time scale is just weird. I mean, "today" is 10E17 seconds and the first galaxies are 10E16 seconds. So galaxies just started forming 10 seconds ago? Doesn't seem likely.
 
If you consider "classical" as "not quantum-mechanical" (but allow special relativity), it is fine.

10E17s=1017s (~3 billion years)
10E16=1016 (~300 million years)
10E17-10E16=9*1016 (~2700 million years)

The universe is older than 3 billion years, but the order of magnitude is still correct.

big_bounce said:
So if we don't consider any singularity at big bang , can we say we have dimension or direction at that moment ?
3 spatial dimensions plus one time dimension, as usual. Plus some (undiscovered) extradimensions, maybe.
 
  • #10
phinds said:
This seems to be an exceptionally poor representation of anything realistic. Two problems jump right out at you

First, "space-time is classical" is nonsensical. Space and time are classical things, space-time is not.

Second, the time scale is just weird. I mean, "today" is 10E17 seconds and the first galaxies are 10E16 seconds. So galaxies just started forming 10 seconds ago? Doesn't seem likely.

10^17-10^16= 9e16s or 90'000'000'000'000'000s seconds.
Not ten seconds. This a logarithmic scale.
 
  • #11
jetwaterluffy said:
10^17-10^16= 9e16s or 90'000'000'000'000'000s seconds.
Not ten seconds. This a logarithmic scale.

doh !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K