generating accurate futures generating probable predictions formulating accurate forecasts calculating contingent insights generating intelligent estimations mapping the future mapping critical understanding exploring quantitative forecasts delivering probable estimations forecasting predictive forecasts assembling intelligent contingencies mapping quantitative estimations forecasting definitive futures assembling critical predictions
Rankings Categories Find Questions

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Progress in why the universe is 3+1 dimensional?

We live in a 3+1 dimensional world, meaning that to specify the location of some point in space-time requires four coordinates. But why? Fundamental laws of physics such as Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity can be consistently posed in any number of spatial dimensions (though more than one time dimension is generally problematic), and mathematically N dimensions are just about as easy to described as 3.

Relatively few compelling explanations have been put forth to explain this question. One explanation is the "anthropic" one: too few dimensions life is very difficult (e.g. a 2D lifeform can't have a digestive tract without bifurcating!), and in 4+ dimensions orbits and traditional atoms are unstable. (See Max Tegmark's paper for some details.) Another explanation, due originally to Brandenberger and Vafa, has to do with the dimensionality of N-dimensional "branes" interacting as a gas in a higher-dimensional space; see this recent work and this review article.

Recently a new preprint by Julian Gonzalez-Ayala and F. Angulo-Brown appeared making an argument for 3 spatial dimensions on rather general thermodynamic grounds.

Will this explanation prove to be influential?

Question will resolve as positive if (a) this paper appears in a refereed journal by May 1 2017 and (b) if there are at least ten citations on a Google Scholar Search by papers that do not include Gonzalez-Ayala or F. Angulo-Brown as authors.

For reference, in the two papers mentioned above, Tegmark's 1997 paper has been cited 120 times, and Greene et al.'s 2010 paper has been cited 10 times, and the 2006 review has been cited 180 times.

Categories: Physical Sciences – General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, Physical Sciences – High Energy Physics

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site
random question question list

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.