Jun 27, 2019 06:34 AM
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/61378...cs-anyway/
EXCERPT: . . . conclusion [of physicists] is that it [life] could not exist in a universe with four dimensions, nor in one with more than one dimension of time. So the fact that humanity finds itself in a 3+1-dimensional universe is inevitable, they say. This is known as the anthropic argument—the idea that the universe must have the properties necessary for observers to survive.
But what of simpler universes, such as one with 2+1 dimensions? Physicists have assumed that two spatial dimensions could not allow the kind of complexity to support life. They also think gravity would not work in two dimensions, so solar-system-type objects could not form. But is that really true?
Today, we find out thanks to the work of James Scargill at the University of California, Davis, who has shown against all expectations that a 2+1-dimensional universe could support both gravity and the kind of complexity that life requires. The work undermines the anthropic argument for cosmologists and philosophers, who will need to find another reason why the universe takes the form it does. (MORE - details)
EXCERPT: . . . conclusion [of physicists] is that it [life] could not exist in a universe with four dimensions, nor in one with more than one dimension of time. So the fact that humanity finds itself in a 3+1-dimensional universe is inevitable, they say. This is known as the anthropic argument—the idea that the universe must have the properties necessary for observers to survive.
But what of simpler universes, such as one with 2+1 dimensions? Physicists have assumed that two spatial dimensions could not allow the kind of complexity to support life. They also think gravity would not work in two dimensions, so solar-system-type objects could not form. But is that really true?
Today, we find out thanks to the work of James Scargill at the University of California, Davis, who has shown against all expectations that a 2+1-dimensional universe could support both gravity and the kind of complexity that life requires. The work undermines the anthropic argument for cosmologists and philosophers, who will need to find another reason why the universe takes the form it does. (MORE - details)