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

[big_bounce]

Hello all .
We know Planck length is

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 ؟

 

[mfb]

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.

 

[big_bounce]

I don't understand these questions.

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

 

[phinds]

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.

 

[big_bounce]

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 ?

 

[mfb]

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.

 

[big_bounce]

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 ?

 

[phinds]

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 ?

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.

 

[mfb]

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.

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.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

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.

 

[phinds]

10^17-10^16= 9e16s or 90'000'000'000'000'000s seconds.
Not ten seconds. This a logarithmic scale.

doh !