Shape of the universe

[Cyperium]

Since when we look further away, the universe observe is younger than it really is "now" as there should be a "now" that is the same throughout the universe (yes?), then the shape observed would be a illusion as we had to take into account the time difference to know how the universe looks "now".

First; this is taken into account by scientists yes?
Second; if it is taken into account, then how do they know where all the galaxies actually is (due to expansion, and then accelerating expansion)?
Third; is "now" the same throughout the universe?

This is, in my point of view, very important questions, so please take your time and answer them, if you feel that you have an idea of the answer.

[Prince_James]

Cyperium:

First; this is taken into account by scientists yes?

Yes, it is.

Second; if it is taken into account, then how do they know where all the galaxies actually is (due to expansion, and then accelerating expansion)?

No, we don't.

Third; is "now" the same throughout the universe?

According to Special Relativity, "now" is relative to observers moving at different speeds. Accordignly, there is no universal "now". Think Planet of the Apes, when Heston and Co. go millions of years in the future in a few minutes.

[spidergoat]

The shape of what? We cannot see to the edge of the universe.

[D H]

The shape of the universe: Is it open or closed, Euclidean or non-Euclidean, etc.

[cosmictraveler]

These are two images of the entire universe taken by two types of "telescopes".


http://www.universe.nasa.gov/images/cosmology/cobe_wmap_256.jpg



http://eprintweb.org/S/article/astro-ph/9708225

[Cyperium]

These are two images of the entire universe taken by two types of "telescopes".


http://www.universe.nasa.gov/images/cosmology/cobe_wmap_256.jpg



http://eprintweb.org/S/article/astro-ph/9708225That would be the background radiation right?

[Cyperium]

Cyperium:



Yes, it is.



No, we don't.



According to Special Relativity, "now" is relative to observers moving at different speeds. Accordignly, there is no universal "now". Think Planet of the Apes, when Heston and Co. go millions of years in the future in a few minutes.But there should be a universal "now" even though we can't experiance it.

That is, if there is a objective reality.

[blobrana]

Is it open or closed, Euclidean or non-Euclidean, etc.

“Could the Universe be shaped like a medieval horn?”
Read more (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4879)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picard_horn

“The density of the universe also determines its geometry.”
Read more (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)

http://www.sciforums.com/The-Universe-is-a-Giant-Donut*-t-70832.html
http://www.sciforums.com/The-shape-of-the-universe-t-47059.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

[Prince_James]

Cyperium:

But there should be a universal "now" even though we can't experiance it.

That is, if there is a objective reality.

Do you mean what is happening at everytime in the entire universe?

The problem would be finding a privileged reference frame.

Special relativity doesn't speak of privileged reference frames at all.

The closest you could get is to report the time according to every reference frame in the universe.

[spidergoat]

The shape of the universe: Is it open or closed, Euclidean or non-Euclidean, etc.

We can only see to 14 billion light-years away, and perhaps there was no light given off in the beginning of the universe, so the universe is far bigger than the visible universe.

[machiaventa]

How do you take a picture of the entire universe when when we can't even stand or go to it's edge? Personally I believe man will always try to find the end or edge because we think as finite beings and not eternal entities. Energy once created cannot be destroyed only modified.:shrug::eek:


Machiaventa Speaks

[Vkothii]

Well, isn't the idea to try and find what the local curvature is, and what the CMB has to say about energy densities and what sort of shape the early universe was.

Assuming it's a really big curve, and just looks flat from where we are?

[Cyperium]

Cyperium:



Do you mean what is happening at everytime in the entire universe?

The problem would be finding a privileged reference frame.

Special relativity doesn't speak of privileged reference frames at all.

The closest you could get is to report the time according to every reference frame in the universe.Well, it does state that time is a dimension just as space, and as we can all agree space should be everywhere, there should also be a time associated with that space that is everywhere. Otherwise it would be hard to describe any objective reality beyond our perspective.

[blobrana]

"Colossal structures larger than the visible universe – forged during the period of cosmic inflation nearly 14 billion years ago – may be responsible for a strange pattern seen in the big bang's afterglow, says a team of cosmologists. If confirmed, the structures could provide precious information about the universe's earliest moments."

Read more (http://space.newscientist.com/channel/astronomy/dn14098-hints-of-structure-beyond-the-visible-universe.html)

[Cyperium]

"Colossal structures larger than the visible universe – forged during the period of cosmic inflation nearly 14 billion years ago – may be responsible for a strange pattern seen in the big bang's afterglow, says a team of cosmologists. If confirmed, the structures could provide precious information about the universe's earliest moments."

Read more (http://space.newscientist.com/channel/astronomy/dn14098-hints-of-structure-beyond-the-visible-universe.html)Wow, THAT would be weird.

[Diode-Man]

These are two images of the entire universe taken by two types of "telescopes".


http://www.universe.nasa.gov/images/cosmology/cobe_wmap_256.jpg



http://eprintweb.org/S/article/astro-ph/9708225

That would be the KNOWN Universe.... I theorize it goes out in an infinitude of heavenly bodies rotating around heavenly bodies, with numbers so massive and uncomprehending that we realize human perception concocted numerology because we can count the fingers on our hands.

[OilIsMastery]

Might as well throw this one in the Religion Forum as well.

No possible way a posteriori physics can determine this.

See Kant.

[blobrana]

That would be the KNOWN Universe.... I theorize it goes out in an infinitude of heavenly bodies rotating around heavenly bodies

Yes,
and there is a possibility that the observable universe is only part of a larger finite universe.

[kaneda]

Every thing from the size of a moon upwards is a sphere. That is the most economical shape for gravity. There is no reason to believe that the universe is any different.

[kaneda]

In a big bang, there would be no reason for bias so expansion of energy should be completely uniform. Variations would only creep in with the appearance of the first matter, 380,000 years later.

[blobrana]

There is no reason to believe that the universe is any different.

Except evidence from the WMAP probe.

[kaneda]

Blobrana. Assuming WMAP has not been measuring things in our galaxy instead of the CMB. And that the CMB is what they think it is.

[blobrana]

Hum,
WMAP actually does record our galaxy.
That is how the galactic noise is then removed.

So it is almost certain that the CMB is not contaminated with signals from our galaxy.

[Cyperium]

In a big bang, there would be no reason for bias so expansion of energy should be completely uniform. Variations would only creep in with the appearance of the first matter, 380,000 years later.Actually they say that it became unstable somehow. At least they have to explain why there is so much matter relative to so little antimatter as it should be an equal amount...so it may have some bias, and perhaps we need also to take into account chaos, which means that everything is so complex that minor changes produces really big in time, and I guess that there are other processess that enhances the chaos.

[Diode-Man]

Since the universe has no edge to fall off of, it has no shape, and no center. The only real "center," being: individual self-aware life-forms.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Empty space would go on beyond any matter we can observe, you cannot expand into complete nothingness and create existence as you go along.


peace.

[blobrana]

Empty space would go on beyond any matter we can observe

Hum,
Yes, that is possible, but extremely unlikely.
And it could be also possible, but (even more!] extremely unlikely, that just beyond the visible universe that there is nothing but empty space-time.
(ie the earth is unlikely to be at the centre of the entire universe)

It seems more likely that the creation of space-time and matter was one event and that the two `components` are closely linked. We could also suppose that a universe cannot exist without either component.
Therefore we could regard the two `components` as one `entity`; and assume that where ever one component is present the other component is present too.
Therefore it is more likely that the entire universe is scattered with matter.
And that (roughly) our bit of the universe is the same as any other bit.

you cannot expand into complete nothingness... .

It is just wordplay. It is perhaps better to think of it as imploding or unfolding into complete nothingness.
Exactly what the meaning or mechanism of the word `unfold` means, we don't know.
But, all the current evidence shows that the `bigbang` happened, therefore we can assume, with what we know, that the universe did `unfold` into the void.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Hum,
Yes, that is possible, but extremely unlikely.
And it could be also possible, but (even more!] extremely unlikely, that just beyond the visible universe that there is nothing but empty space-time.
(ie the earth is unlikely to be at the centre of the entire universe)

It seems more likely that the creation of space-time and matter was one event and that the two `components` are closely linked. We could also suppose that a universe cannot exist without either component.
Therefore we could regard the two `components` as one `entity`; and assume that where ever one component is present the other component is present too.
Therefore it is more likely that the entire universe is scattered with matter.
And that (roughly) our bit of the universe is the same as any other bit.

.

It is just wordplay. It is perhaps better to think of it as imploding or unfolding into complete nothingness.
Exactly what the meaning or mechanism of the word `unfold` means, we don't know.
But, all the current evidence shows that the `bigbang` happened, therefore we can assume, with what we know, that the universe did `unfold` into the void.



That just doesent sit right with me, I have to make leaps of faith just to consider nothingness to even exist or not exist. Complete nothingness is illogical to me. I also dont see how the space infront of my eyes right now cold even be created. you cannot create tha which you cannot destroy. energy alone for one cannot be destroyed which inturn means it cannot be created. let alone an emptyness which has no physical mass, and I was always taught everything that existed has a physical mass of some sort, but I still fail to find any evidence that supports empty space having any kind of physical mass, therefore it doesent exist, but does exist because its infrontof my face right now.

Also that void would have to be included as the universe aswell, as unverse means everything in existence. So the universe already existed prior to the big bang.


peace.

[blobrana]

Hum,

The Void = “non-existence” (of space-time/matter).

It is just a term for nothingness; But perhaps we could refer to it from now on as `the Howling`.
(aka `BadWolf`)

BTW, Another common confusion is that the `Void` exists outside the universe; there is no `outside` to the universe

[Cyperium]

Hum,

The Void = “non-existence” (of space-time/matter).

It is just a term for nothingness; But perhaps we could refer to it from now on as `the Howling`.
(aka `BadWolf`)

BTW, Another common confusion is that the `Void` exists outside the universe; there is no `outside` to the universeThat's the tricky part, so the universe is allways infinitly large, but yet every point travels away from eachother. There is no meaning in saying "how big was the universe 3 seconds from the Big Bang" since the universe is allways infinitly big, how else to explain that there is nothing outside?

[fadingCaptain]

Look at the latest WMAP data. Points to flat. We know the universe is expanding. This suggests finite. A boundary would indicate an absolute frame for which there is no evidence.

The universe is flat, unbounded, and finite. Basically, the universe is a giant game of asteroids.

[blobrana]

@Cyperium
Hum,
You are correct.
However, we can make assumptions about the visible universe.
We can extrapolate/calculate backwards to find out when the visible universe was 3 seconds old, or when the visible universe was all contained in a volume smaller than an atom.

But we could also suppose that the bigbang(s) happened all on the surface of an infinite sheet of (for simplicity) `magic paper`; and our visible universe just came from one dot on it.

[Cyperium]

Look at the latest WMAP data. Points to flat. We know the universe is expanding. This suggests finite. A boundary would indicate an absolute frame for which there is no evidence.

The universe is flat, unbounded, and finite. Basically, the universe is a giant game of asteroids.This is just a weird idea...but what if time *is* the curvature? Could that explain the seeming acceleration of the universe?

It would take a infinity of time (and a infinity of energy) to get to the speed of light (where time stops, and starts if looked at the other way around).

Also at the speed of light the universe get's infinitly small, and etc...

I guess that at the speed of light, time not only goes slower, but it bends space and time so that you get closer to the Big Bang, have this been measured to be false?

What do you think?

[fadingCaptain]

Hmmm. I'll have to think about what you wrote. I see things differently in regards to time and such. The universe having curvature means the space-time continuum itself curves and is open or closed.

[Cyperium]

Hmmm. I'll have to think about what you wrote. I see things differently in regards to time and such. The universe having curvature means the space-time continuum itself curves and is open or closed.Well, it seems a bit non-intuitive to think that 3D space can curve at all, but if it could, it could be manifested as time and it would curve into a fourth dimension (obviously, where else could it curve), and that would be time.

[goose]

Would it be possible to say that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light? I mean, we say we can see roughly 14 billion light-years away from our point of observation, and if our universe is only that old, then we could only see light from that far because thats how long it took the light to travel to us.
And as for the shape of our universe, i dont think we could understand its shape because i believe that its expanding in at least 4 different dimension, (time being the 4th)

[blobrana]

Yes,
i presume that the the edge of the visible universe is receding at the speed of light.
And yes, ultimately the shape of the universe is a mathematical geometry in more than 3 dimensions; Which is one reason why people find it so difficult to understand.

(open, closed, or flat, up or down, empty space has a habit of looking the same to an untrained eye.)

[Just Curious]

We seem to have drifted away from the original question which was

Since when we look further away, the universe observed is younger than it really is "now" as there should be a "now" that is the same throughout the universe (yes?), then the shape observed would be a illusion as we had to take into account the time difference to know how the universe looks "now".

Put more clearly it means that when we look at the stars some of them may not actually be there anymore as its only the light coming from them that we see. This must make stellar calculations difficult because you don't know whats real and unreal. If you are trying to measure the gravitational interaction between a real star and an apparition ( remnant star) you will get inconsistant results.

[Dr Mabuse]

the latest information from scientists is that the universe is shaped like a cannoli...

weird huh?...

i mean a freaking cannoli of all things...

as to 'now'...

in the strictest definition there is no perceptual 'now', it does not exist... lets say, since we are primarily ocular lifeforms that devote much of our brainpower to the visual world, everything you see is already 'then'... by the time it refracts off your retina... by the time it follows the optic nerve and is processed by your brain it's a distant 'then'... your mind creates an illusion of a cohesive time line...

you look up at a plane in the sky... you are 'seeing' where it used to be, not where it is... our minds have complicated ways for correcting this, but you are seeing a 'then'...

you go out into the distances of space?... forget any concept of 'now', as to any way we have of perceiving, measuring, knowing or understanding anything outside of our own minds...

all we have to study is some degree of 'then'...

time is not a constant... relativity covers this...

"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Einstein

[Just Curious]

Ok Dr Mabuse but imagine I am looking through my telescope at two stars and making some measurements. The first star is real because it still exists and is shining away as we speak. The second blew up a million years ago and only its light enters my telescope so it doesn't exist anymore although I have no way of knowing this. The gravitational effect of the second star on the first will long since have ceased but again I have no way of knowing this. I see two stars. So my question is can I beleive my meausrements or not. If both stars were really still there my measurememts would be different.

[blobrana]

@Just Curious

Hehe,
if i told you i was going to delete this post tomorrow, can you believe what you read just now?

[fadingCaptain]

Your measurements will not be different. Gravity travels at the speed of light.

[Dr Mabuse]

those types of measurements are far from exacting... you are right... now some very intelligent and talented men take those things into consideration and try to account for, or correct for, these type of things... so in fact you could use your measurements to work with...

but you are kind of accurate in your thought there... it depends on which theory you are proceeding on though... in relativity gravity is thought to be at the speed of light, as fadingCaptain posted... in actual observations it's been found to be, i think it's like 98% or 99% of the speed of light? something like that... proceeding on a different theory can change things though...

we are only just starting to learn about the universe... this is well known by many working scientists... maybe not so much known by the young student and the professor who teaches them...

our measurements of the universe and theories of the universe are constantly being reevaluated as we get new data showing the last theory was incorrect... ~20 years ago it was rather an open discussion as to whether Black holes even existed, some scientists thought they did exist and had reasons, some thought they were pure theory created in the math of very complex equations... both parties were basically wrong... we now know that not only are there black holes, they are everywhere, and appear to be one of the fundamental influences on the universe as we know it... in fact every galaxy we know of is known to have a supermassive black hole at the center with visible matter 'swirling' around it like water leaving the drain in a bathtub... black holes may be a key element in the formation of galaxies... this wasn't thought of even 10 years ago... the excellent work of Andrea Ghez turned the scientific world on it's ear a bit at the time...

that's just one example of something that was taught in a university 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, as 'scientific fact' that turned out to be off base or incorrect... 20 years from now many things put forth as 'scientific fact' now will be shown to be off base or incorrect...

our understanding of the universe is in it's infancy...

for another example... only rather recently have scientists begun to discover that the massive, massive, massive areas of dark matter in the universe may have gravitational fields that have been distorting our entire perception of the universe, including what are thought to be 'neighboring' galaxies... for only one example of what i mean...

the actual working scientists that i have been lucky enough to have the pleasure of discussing things like this with, at some of the most prestigious science installations on earth, are distinctly aware of how little we know and how skewed our understanding may be... many of them, all of the ones i've met and discussed things with to be exact, consider us in the infancy of understanding the universe... it was a man with a Phd in physics from Oxford and another Phd in physics from Princeton who first just blew my mind by shooting holes in the Big Bang theory during one of my gigs at LANL years ago, we talked for a few hours on a few occasions... he really opened my eyes in many ways to how little we know about this stuff... yet he, of course, proceeded in his work with the Big Bang theory as a part of it... as it's the best theory we have right now and that's the way science works...

the young erudite scholar calls out these things as hard facts... the working scientists don't so much, some do though... it's quite interesting to look at the way human nature influences things like that...

your measurements through the telescope of the two stars are not accurate, we have to question the accuracy of any measurements we make... but very intelligent men have ways of trying to account for and correct that to some degree... and we have to move science forward by using the best data the scientific method provides us, so you need to use the measurements you take and test them, open them to peer review, etc...

we do the best we can... and look at how much we've learned so far... it's astounding...

[goose]

Yes,
i presume that the the edge of the visible universe is receding at the speed of light.
And yes, ultimately the shape of the universe is a mathematical geometry in more than 3 dimensions; Which is one reason why people find it so difficult to understand.

(open, closed, or flat, up or down, empty space has a habit of looking the same to an untrained eye.)

awesome :)
at least i know im on the right track :D

[camilus]

Every thing from the size of a moon upwards is a sphere. That is the most economical shape for gravity. There is no reason to believe that the universe is any different.

Initial assuption: The universe is finite. An infinite universe would likely mean infinite matter because of the strange relationship between space and matter(as described by GR), and a universe with infinite mass/matter/energy poses serious theoretical problems and violates the conservation laws.

I'm sure this sounds fascinating: Imagine having a map of the universe, but not just an atlas collection containing every region of the universe but a small replica of the universe, analogous to what the a small globe of the world is to the Earth.

The first obvious question is: what is the shape of the universe? I' ll come back to this.

What would a "globe" of the universe look like? If we had every region mapped out we could certainly construct a small replica of the universe.

At this point, some might argue that you can't have a replica-map of the universe because for instance lets say the universe is one HUGE sphere, what is outside the sphere? That's the equivalent of saying what is outside the universe, and we could NOT know because we are inside of it.

Another argument is that lets for example Earth and our Solar System and the Milkyway galaxy is located is the near the center of the universe. Couldn't we just travel travel in a straight line from Earth outward, along a three dimensional radius, and after a long time reach the the outer boundary of the universe? It's as if the universe could really be modeled by a three-dimesional sphere, that would implicate that we would travel in space until we hit a crystal clear shell that prevented us from traveling any further in that direction, or that the universe has an edge where you can travel no more. This is obviously absurd and so my map of the universe represented by a three-dimentional sphere (or a compact/finite two-sphere) is flawed and will not work in representing the universe.

So far, I showed that you can't represent the universe in a small replica-map as a three-dimentional sphere (or a compact/finite two-sphere). Lucky we now have the mathematical tools of topology and this shell-edge problem can be easily fixed.

Instead of one compact 2-sphere representing the universe in our replica-map, it would be two compact 2-spheres joined at one point along the surface.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t121/camilus23/shapeoftheuniverse2.jpg

Now by aligning the two-dimensional manifolds of both three-dimensional spheres, we can travel in any straight line indefinitely through a finite universe (due to the fact that the manifold of a 2-sphere has no boundary).

The implication of the previous statement is that to travel in a straight line all the way across the universe would land you back where you started.

If this theory is correct, then the possible shape of the universe is a 3-sphere, or a three-dimensional manifold that models a four-dimensional sphere(also known as a hypersphere).

Now the easiest way to picture the universe shaped as a hypersphere is the two connected three-dimensional spheres, and this means that if I am correct, than in the far future we will have replica-maps or "globes" of the universe that will look like two spinning connected spheres next to each other that align depending on direction of travel.

[Reiku]

Since when we look further away, the universe observe is younger than it really is "now" as there should be a "now" that is the same throughout the universe (yes?), then the shape observed would be a illusion as we had to take into account the time difference to know how the universe looks "now".

First; this is taken into account by scientists yes?
Second; if it is taken into account, then how do they know where all the galaxies actually is (due to expansion, and then accelerating expansion)?
Third; is "now" the same throughout the universe?

This is, in my point of view, very important questions, so please take your time and answer them, if you feel that you have an idea of the answer.
As i once said, the shape of the universe is irrelevant next to our ability to play with the numbers behind them.:o

[Reiku]

Initial assuption: The universe is finite. An infinite universe would likely mean infinite matter because of the strange relationship between space and matter(as described by GR), and a universe with infinite mass/matter/energy poses serious theoretical problems and violates the conservation laws.

I'm sure this sounds fascinating: Imagine having a map of the universe, but not just an atlas collection containing every region of the universe but a small replica of the universe, analogous to what the a small globe of the world is to the Earth.

The first obvious question is: what is the shape of the universe? I' ll come back to this.

What would a "globe" of the universe look like? If we had every region mapped out we could certainly construct a small replica of the universe.

At this point, some might argue that you can't have a replica-map of the universe because for instance lets say the universe is one HUGE sphere, what is outside the sphere? That's the equivalent of saying what is outside the universe, and we could NOT know because we are inside of it.

Another argument is that lets for example Earth and our Solar System and the Milkyway galaxy is located is the near the center of the universe. Couldn't we just travel travel in a straight line from Earth outward, along a three dimensional radius, and after a long time reach the the outer boundary of the universe? It's as if the universe could really be modeled by a three-dimesional sphere, that would implicate that we would travel in space until we hit a crystal clear shell that prevented us from traveling any further in that direction, or that the universe has an edge where you can travel no more. This is obviously absurd and so my map of the universe represented by a three-dimentional sphere (or a compact/finite two-sphere) is flawed and will not work in representing the universe.

So far, I showed that you can't represent the universe in a small replica-map as a three-dimentional sphere (or a compact/finite two-sphere). Lucky we now have the mathematical tools of topology and this shell-edge problem can be easily fixed.

Instead of one compact 2-sphere representing the universe in our replica-map, it would be two compact 2-spheres joined at one point along the surface.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t121/camilus23/shapeoftheuniverse2.jpg

Now by aligning the two-dimensional manifolds of both three-dimensional spheres, we can travel in any straight line indefinitely through a finite universe (due to the fact that the manifold of a 2-sphere has no boundary).

The implication of the previous statement is that to travel in a straight line all the way across the universe would land you back where you started.

If this theory is correct, then the possible shape of the universe is a 3-sphere, or a three-dimensional manifold that models a four-dimensional sphere(also known as a hypersphere).

Now the easiest way to picture the universe shaped as a hypersphere is the two connected three-dimensional spheres, and this means that if I am correct, than in the far future we will have replica-maps or "globes" of the universe that will look like two spinning connected spheres next to each other that align depending on direction of travel.

No.

[camilus]

whatchu mean no? This is very possible homeboy, and this aint the pseudoscience you fill up your posts with. Read it again.

[Reiku]

Both abstracts realize the same value = 1. This is not good in physics, never mind mathematics.

[Reiku]

Got a problem with this????

[camilus]

what value are you talking about???

[Vkothii]

NoBut, yes.

[Reiku]

Conjugates. Naturally....

[Reiku]

@Just Curious

Hehe,
if i told you i was going to delete this post tomorrow, can you believe what you read just now?
No... That is what the universe is all about.

[camilus]

And the universe doesnt have to be a perfect sphere, it can be anything homeomorphic to a hypersphere.

[Reiku]

Yes, and no. Since there was no defined condition without a God, then we have no actual universe.

[Reiku]

I am, away to sleep now. Goodnight, everyone.

[blobrana]

@Reiku
i have no idea what you mean.
i was replying to Just Curious, and wittily pointing out the obvious flaw to his statement.

[camilus]

@Reiku
i have no idea what you mean.
i was replying to Just Curious, and wittily pointing out the obvious flaw to his statement.

none of us do.

Man, Im not even gonna lie. I smoke marijuana. But Reiku, omg.. it would be sad if he wasnt on some type of drug. He doesnt pull shit out of his ass cuz it all couldnt possibly fit in there. I never seen anyone on science forums with such inconsistent and irrelevant posts, not to mention the mindless gibberish. Someone make him moderator of the cesspool... cracks me up, we need more clowns like him, they lighten up the atmosphere here. We all need a bit a comedy in our lives lol.

[goose]

Initial assuption: The universe is finite. An infinite universe would likely mean infinite matter because of the strange relationship between space and matter(as described by GR), and a universe with infinite mass/matter/energy poses serious theoretical problems and violates the conservation laws.

I agree with this, that the universe is in fact finite, and always will be... However i do not think we will ever know to what value of finite it really is because i believe that its expanding faster than the speed of light (I know you havent said otherwise, but i need to say this for my later thought)


Instead of one compact 2-sphere representing the universe in our replica-map, it would be two compact 2-spheres joined at one point along the surface.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t121/camilus23/shapeoftheuniverse2.jpg

Now by aligning the two-dimensional manifolds of both three-dimensional spheres, we can travel in any straight line indefinitely through a finite universe (due to the fact that the manifold of a 2-sphere has no boundary).

The implication of the previous statement is that to travel in a straight line all the way across the universe would land you back where you started.


When i think about space, i always use the classical balloon picture... imagine a balloon infinitly expanding outward, you would end up with basically a perfectly flat surface on all sides of the balloon. Now imagine the balloon's surface to be our three dimensions (it might be hard to see our 3 dimensions compact into the 2 dimensional surface of a balloon, but just imagine for the sake of what im trying to get across). And the space going into the balloon would represent a fourth dimension, time...
This shows that, if you did travel indefinently then you would come back to the same place that you would have started from.
Now, i was a little confused when you showed the picture of what, two identical universes, each of which we are living in and when we hit the edge we end up right back on the other side of the universe that we started in??? If thats what you mean then i can see what your saying, but doesnt that also pose serious theoretical problems? i mean, it would make sense if it was like here on earth, (you throw something with enough speed and it basically makes an orbit around earth and comes back to where it started).
Actually maybe it just dawned on me while i was writing this what you are saying... Are you saying that, because there is absolutely nothing outside of the universe, then when you hit the edge you have nowhere to go but back through the other side? But then you must ask the question, if the universe it expanding faster than the speed of light, (maybe it isnt, but i believe that it is, see bottom of post for reason i believe it is) then how could we ever get to the edge to pass through to the other side... and if it is in fact expanding like that, then it is expading into nothing, which means that it would be expanding into itself on the other side... but that cant be either because that would mean the the universe isnt actually expanding, that it just has a set value of how big it was when it started and it kept expanding, overlaping itself over and over again... If there was infact nothing outside of the universe, absolutely nothing, then i dont think that the universe could expand at all (and by nothing i mean nothing it could expand to, i dont mean to say that there are objects out there floating around). By the way, im not saying all of this to try and argue and make you mad at me, im just saying it to show my side and what i believe...

As for why i believe the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light... well, first of all it was theorized, (i think by einstein, but i may be wrong, not sure) that nothing under the speed of light could catch up or go faster that the speed of light, and nothing traveling faster than the speed of light could slow down or go slower than the speed of light. Well, if you start with nothing, (just before the big bang) and you have the explosion and everything is created at that point, it makes logical sense that it would start off expanding faster than the speed of light. Plus, we can see as far as roughly 14 billion light years away, which is how old we believe the universe to be... which means that the light from that object took 14 billion years to reach us, and if thats true, which it is, then that object must have been sitting there at least 14 billion years previous to this time that we see it, which also means that the universe must have already expanded past that point...

Im open for suggestions and arguements about what i said... i dont know everything, and im sure that some of the things ive said have in fact been disproven, so im all ears to learn more and expand my knowledge :)

[camilus]

I agree with this, that the universe is in fact finite, and always will be... However i do not think we will ever know to what value of finite it really is because i believe that its expanding faster than the speed of light (I know you havent said otherwise, but i need to say this for my later thought)



When i think about space, i always use the classical balloon picture... imagine a balloon infinitly expanding outward, you would end up with basically a perfectly flat surface on all sides of the balloon. Now imagine the balloon's surface to be our three dimensions (it might be hard to see our 3 dimensions compact into the 2 dimensional surface of a balloon, but just imagine for the sake of what im trying to get across). And the space going into the balloon would represent a fourth dimension, time...
This shows that, if you did travel indefinently then you would come back to the same place that you would have started from.
Now, i was a little confused when you showed the picture of what, two identical universes, each of which we are living in and when we hit the edge we end up right back on the other side of the universe that we started in??? If thats what you mean then i can see what your saying, but doesnt that also pose serious theoretical problems? i mean, it would make sense if it was like here on earth, (you throw something with enough speed and it basically makes an orbit around earth and comes back to where it started).
Actually maybe it just dawned on me while i was writing this what you are saying... Are you saying that, because there is absolutely nothing outside of the universe, then when you hit the edge you have nowhere to go but back through the other side? But then you must ask the question, if the universe it expanding faster than the speed of light, (maybe it isnt, but i believe that it is, see bottom of post for reason i believe it is) then how could we ever get to the edge to pass through to the other side... and if it is in fact expanding like that, then it is expading into nothing, which means that it would be expanding into itself on the other side... but that cant be either because that would mean the the universe isnt actually expanding, that it just has a set value of how big it was when it started and it kept expanding, overlaping itself over and over again... If there was infact nothing outside of the universe, absolutely nothing, then i dont think that the universe could expand at all (and by nothing i mean nothing it could expand to, i dont mean to say that there are objects out there floating around). By the way, im not saying all of this to try and argue and make you mad at me, im just saying it to show my side and what i believe...

As for why i believe the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light... well, first of all it was theorized, (i think by einstein, but i may be wrong, not sure) that nothing under the speed of light could catch up or go faster that the speed of light, and nothing traveling faster than the speed of light could slow down or go slower than the speed of light. Well, if you start with nothing, (just before the big bang) and you have the explosion and everything is created at that point, it makes logical sense that it would start off expanding faster than the speed of light. Plus, we can see as far as roughly 14 billion light years away, which is how old we believe the universe to be... which means that the light from that object took 14 billion years to reach us, and if thats true, which it is, then that object must have been sitting there at least 14 billion years previous to this time that we see it, which also means that the universe must have already expanded past that point...

Im open for suggestions and arguements about what i said... i dont know everything, and im sure that some of the things ive said have in fact been disproven, so im all ears to learn more and expand my knowledge :)

I read 2 articles. one from year 2000 other from 2007


On the 1st it says (like if wasa truth) that scientists broke light speed barrier

Now, in the 2007 article they are skecptics about such experiments. They need more experiments to get sure.

I know that my english is not good lol but i got confused with those artices.

So, have we broke LightSpeed barried?

Last question, can you explain in a simple english and with simple examples what tunneling is??
thanks

oh, almost forgot the articles:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html
http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-160112.html

read those URLs

[goose]

read those URLs

ok, read them... not at one part did it "disprove" aything with what i said... i said nothing going at a speed of less than the speed of light can catch up or go faster, and vica-versa. i didnt say anything about what was already going at the same speed of light. I know that you can make photons go faster than the speed of light, since they are massless. However, these already travel at the speed of light...

[Vkothii]

you can make photons go faster than the speed of light, since they are massless. However, these already travel at the speed of light...Actually, you can't make photons go faster than the speed of, well, photons.

What you can do is make a pulse of light arrive slightly "before" itself - which although it sounds weird, is because the geometry of the pulse is altered or chirped, so it has a leading edge.
The frontal edge of such a pulse appears to arrive before it should, type of thing, but at no time does the pulse of light travel faster than light. It can't because there's a fundamental limit.

[goose]

Actually, you can't make photons go faster than the speed of, well, photons.

What you can do is make a pulse of light arrive slightly "before" itself - which although it sounds weird, is because the geometry of the pulse is altered or chirped, so it has a leading edge.
The frontal edge of such a pulse appears to arrive before it should, type of thing, but at no time does the pulse of light travel faster than light. It can't because there's a fundamental limit.

ok... that sounds good
so do you think what i said before has truth to it then?

[Cyperium]

We seem to have drifted away from the original question which was

Since when we look further away, the universe observed is younger than it really is "now" as there should be a "now" that is the same throughout the universe (yes?), then the shape observed would be a illusion as we had to take into account the time difference to know how the universe looks "now".

Put more clearly it means that when we look at the stars some of them may not actually be there anymore as its only the light coming from them that we see. This must make stellar calculations difficult because you don't know whats real and unreal. If you are trying to measure the gravitational interaction between a real star and an apparition ( remnant star) you will get inconsistant results.
Yes, that is true.

However I'm also looking forward to the other interesting answers that might come :) lol

[Cyperium]

Well, the truth is; that you cannot know for sure the shape of the present universe (at least I believe so), since we cannot know where everything is. But I think that the universe is flat anyway, which should have been obvious even before.




Sorry but I have to say something personal:

Isn't scientists always saying the obvious? Things we have known from kindergarden?

[goose]

Well, the truth is; that you cannot know for sure the shape of the present universe (at least I believe so), since we cannot know where everything is. But I think that the universe is flat anyway, which should have been obvious even before.




Sorry but I have to say something personal:

Isn't scientists always saying the obvious? Things we have known from kindergarden?

flat in what way?
i say its flat givin in the way that i gave my balloon explanation earlier... is that the way you see it too?

[Vkothii]

Here's my 2c:

The problem we seem to have with the model of spacetime and the cosmological constant, and with the hierarchy in the SM that the model can't explain, there may be a connection on a question of scale.

With the part of the cosmos we can see, we can't explain why it looks so flat on the one hand, or why we can't calculate the constant that should 'resolve' the GR problem Einstein complained about.
Maybe we're too close, or something, or the observed flatness isn't somehow at the scale we perceive it. Or on the other hand, with the mass of SM particles we can't get close enough somehow.

[camilus]

Here's my 2c:

The problem we seem to have with the model of spacetime and the cosmological constant, and with the hierarchy in the SM that the model can't explain, there may be a connection on a question of scale.

With the part of the cosmos we can see, we can't explain why it looks so flat on the one hand, or why we can't calculate the constant that should 'resolve' the GR problem Einstein complained about.
Maybe we're too close, or something, or the observed flatness isn't somehow at the scale we perceive it. Or on the other hand, with the mass of SM particles we can't get close enough somehow.


Thats what I think. I immediate measurable universe around us seems mostly flat, but thats like saying the Earth is flat prior to 1492. When we look outside from on the Earth, it seems flat, yet you look at it from space and you will know that its not.

And the fact is that there is a photobarrier that blocks us from seeing the entire universe. We cant see past 14 billion years because the light coming from those distant parts has yet to reach us. This just tells us that the universe is immense, and could be larger than any of can even imagine.

But the question of this thread is the SHAPE of the universe. Similar to the Earth analogy, I think we need to be outside the universe or atleast have the entire universe mapped out if possible in order to deduct the shape of the entire thing. We see that the immediate shape in our solar system is almost perfectly flat, and maybe even our galaxy. But this is probably just a quantum-sized fraction of the size of the entire universe.

[Cyperium]

flat in what way?
i say its flat givin in the way that i gave my balloon explanation earlier... is that the way you see it too?I thought too for a while that the universe was shaped like a balloon because they gave that example for the way that galaxies move away from eachother, but that's not it, the universe doesn't seem to be curved, it is flat. Unlike a balloon.

If you go in a straight line out from earth, you will never get to earth again (like you could in a curved universe).

That's my understanding of it as of yet.

[quantum_wave]

It is interesting to discuss and listen to views on the shape of the universe and about time, spacetime, curved space and the concept of now. Much of this kind of discussion is subject to different views which are often based on the amount of study of physics that has been done and on the level of understanding of the scientific method.

The concept of now and how it relates to every where in the universe is a good example of how many different ideas can be considered.

My thinking about "now" is that time passes as a continuum. There are no real increments of time passing even though we have many ways to measure it. But by the time we measure any given increment of time, that time has already past. Now is just a concept, a very useful and generally accepted concept meaning simply the present.

In the universe, regardless of the shape of the universe, and regardless of the reference frame, the concept of now could apply universally. Though quite impossible to do, it is possible to imagine converting all of the reference frames to a common universal frame. That would not change "the now" in any individual reference frame but all frames would have a point in time that occurred at the instant of the universal now.

[Reiku]

Since when we look further away, the universe observe is younger than it really is "now" as there should be a "now" that is the same throughout the universe (yes?), then the shape observed would be a illusion as we had to take into account the time difference to know how the universe looks "now".

First; this is taken into account by scientists yes?
Second; if it is taken into account, then how do they know where all the galaxies actually is (due to expansion, and then accelerating expansion)?
Third; is "now" the same throughout the universe?

This is, in my point of view, very important questions, so please take your time and answer them, if you feel that you have an idea of the answer.

Well, from what i have read, using the current model of nucleosynthesis, the universe should be disk-like, much like how we see galaxies in disk formations. And our galaxy should also be spinning. And if the wild theory is right about veiwing this universe as a black hole, then it could be spinning at the speed of light !!

[RussT]

In the universe, regardless of the shape of the universe, and regardless of the reference frame, the concept of now could apply universally. Though quite impossible to do, it is possible to imagine converting all of the reference frames to a common universal frame. That would not change "the now" in any individual reference frame but all frames would have a point in time that occurred at the instant of the universal now.

Actually, this is not possible.

If you were in a galaxy 5 billion light years away (Okay, 4.6 Billion), 5 billion years ago, and could see very clearly into the Milky Way, you would see our Sun and the solar system accretion disc, just being born.

SO, if you were any farther, there wouldn't even be an earth here for "Nows" to match up to...;)

In fact, the whole concept of being able to see an earlier (Or smaller) Universe doesn't even exist.

[RussT]

Well, from what i have read, using the current model of nucleosynthesis, the universe should be disk-like, much like how we see galaxies in disk formations.

Reiku, where did you get this?

You probably haven't delved very deeply into my model yet, But I am showing exactly that...

That Nucleosynthesis (BB Type, Hydrogen/Helium/Lithium/Deterium) is created on a galaxy by galaxy (New Galaxies being created when each galaxies SMBH is created).
And the creation of that SMBH creates a disc, which is a Magnetic Field that holds the gas and stars in their orbits...
Just like this.,..
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/images/ngc2915/


And our galaxy should also be spinning

Yes, all spiral galaxies spin....thats the rotation curve Non-baryonic DM problem.


And if the wild theory is right about veiwing this universe as a black hole, then it could be spinning at the speed of light !!

It absolutely wild, and those that propose it DO NOT understand Black Holes Event Horizons.

They do NOT understand that the Big Bang is an "Inside solution" to an expanding Naked Singularity.

The Horizons that mainstream uses are NOT black hole horizons of any kind.

Mainstream has no idea how "Not even wrong" an expanding singualrity even is...

None of those Horizons that mainstream is using even exist.

Considering an "Open/closed/static" universe is meaningless!!!

[quantum_wave]

Actually, this is not possible.

If you were in a galaxy 5 billion light years away (Okay, 4.6 Billion), 5 billion years ago, and could see very clearly into the Milky Way, you would see our Sun and the solar system accretion disc, just being born.Yes, but you would be looking back in time. Do the Lorentz transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) and while you look out at the young Milky Way, I would be here on my couch looking out at your galaxy 5 billion years ago at the same time, i.e. now.

SO, if you were any farther, there wouldn't even be an earth here for "Nows" to match up to...;)

In fact, the whole concept of being able to see an earlier (Or smaller) Universe doesn't even exist.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Though absolute simultaneity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) cannot be assured we can image simultaneity and the transformations would be close enough for any objective alien.

[Reiku]

Reiku, where did you get this?

You probably haven't delved very deeply into my model yet, But I am showing exactly that...

That Nucleosynthesis (BB Type, Hydrogen/Helium/Lithium/Deterium) is created on a galaxy by galaxy (New Galaxies being created when each galaxies SMBH is created).
And the creation of that SMBH creates a disc, which is a Magnetic Field that holds the gas and stars in their orbits...
Just like this.,..
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/images/ngc2915/



Yes, all spiral galaxies spin....thats the rotation curve Non-baryonic DM problem.



It absolutely wild, and those that propose it DO NOT understand Black Holes Event Horizons.

They do NOT understand that the Big Bang is an "Inside solution" to an expanding Naked Singularity.

The Horizons that mainstream uses are NOT black hole horizons of any kind.

Mainstream has no idea how "Not even wrong" an expanding singualrity even is...

None of those Horizons that mainstream is using even exist.

Considering an "Open/closed/static" universe is meaningless!!!

All due respect Russ, but if the universe was a black hole, then even our universe is analogous to any other black hole. The theory itself is actually based on concrete math and relativity, where an observer inside the black hole would view mass as not being that dense at all, and by measurement of our universe, we know this universe is not very dense.

[RussT]

Yes, but you would be looking back in time. Do the Lorentz transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) and while you look out at the young Milky Way, I would be here on my couch looking out at your galaxy 5 billion years ago at the same time, i.e. now.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Though absolute simultaneity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) cannot be assured we can image simultaneity and the transformations would be close enough for any objective alien.

Here's the "Spaghetti Monster" of SR.

To make SR work they have 'made up' a definition when they get to the Division by 0, and then justified it with all of the 'to die for maths', that have for 100+ years become the All Time Best Illusion trick in all of the hystory of mankind...10^122 OOM (Yes, I chose that number for a very obvious reason!) better than anything David Blaine or Chris Angel or any other illusionist could ever dream of! If there is a definition of what is actually in Pandora's Box, this is it, and in that same Box, you will also find Schrodingers Cat.

The definition that a 'spaceship' or light/photons, can travel any and all distances "Instantaneously" and "Time" for that travel is 0.

In other words, according to current thinking, and SR, Light/photons (Or a spaceship traveling at "c") can travel to Alpha Centauri 4 light years away, or to a Quasar 10 billion light years away, "Instantaneously".............The Aliens are/will laugh their scaly tails off...or have been....or maybe it is why they haven't contacted us, if they are even here!!! Cause it really does take 4 years of time to get to Alpha Centauri, even IF you are going the speed of light!

All of SR is wrong, and Time is "Constant" regardless of velocity.

[RussT]

All due respect Russ, but if the universe was a black hole, then even our universe is analogous to any other black hole. The theory itself is actually based on concrete math and relativity, where an observer inside the black hole would view mass as not being that dense at all, and by measurement of our universe, we know this universe is not very dense.

There are NO non-rotating Black Holes,,,they do not exist.

Therefore the ":Point Singularity:" does NOT exist.

ALL of those solutions are meaningless!

Singularities CANNOT expand.

The "Inside Solution" for an expanding Point Singularity does NOT exist!

Our Universe is NOT 'spinning" as the the space under an event horizon must.

[RussT]

“ Originally Posted by Reiku
Well, from what i have read, using the current model of nucleosynthesis, the universe should be disk-like, much like how we see galaxies in disk formations. ”


Reiku, where did you get this?

You probably haven't delved very deeply into my model yet, But I am showing exactly that...

That Nucleosynthesis (BB Type, Hydrogen/Helium/Lithium/Deterium) is created on a galaxy by galaxy (New Galaxies being created when each galaxies SMBH is created).
And the creation of that SMBH creates a disc, which is a Magnetic Field that holds the gas and stars in their orbits...
Just like this.,..
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/images/ngc2915/

I am not sure why this links keeps "Timing Out".

[Reiku]

Russ,

I don't believe in stagnent black holes either, but my opinion of whether they exist is niether here nor there, and there seems to be a great part of speculation from your side also concerning black holes.

''Reiku, where did you get this?''

I can't remember.

[Reiku]

And what does SMBH mean? I can only deduct, Black Hole, but what is SM?

[Vkothii]

SM = Standard Model.
SMBH = Supermassive Black Hole.

[Reiku]

You know, i wondered if it was ''standard model...'' :)

[RussT]

Russ,

I don't believe in stagnent black holes either, but my opinion of whether they exist is niether here nor there, and there seems to be a great part of speculation from your side also concerning black holes.

The Bold, is so NOT true.

once again...

First, stellar black holes do NOT effect/affect the 'initial conditions' of the universe...so forget anout stellar Black Holes for now!!! Their properties will need to be re-assessed, once the 'intitial conditions' of the universe are properly understood, which takes 'Re-assessing' SMBH.

NOW, mainstream has always assessed SMBH's using SR!!!

Applying SR to black holes, they have always used 'time' vs 'space' 3+1 world line vectors ETC.

When they do that, time and space 'inside/under' the event horizon are 'flipped' AND AT the singularity, whether it be r=0, "point Singualrity" OR Ring Singualrity, there is a "Repelling' "-" sign.

That means that "Nothing" can go "Straight through" that "Ring Singularity"!!!

Now....I don't know if you even understand or have investigated the supposed "Side Door" solutions, for how a 'worm hole' 'white hole' would extend/be formed, BUT they are absolutely "Irrelevent", as is the 'time flipped' and 'repelling "-" sign!!!

SO, ALL of mainstreams investigation/definitions of bh's/SMBH's has been from a "Closed Universe" perspective.

Nothing can come 'through' a "Naked 'Point' Singularity", AND 'nothing' can go "Straight Through" ANY singularity'

NOW, IF there are NO "point Singularities" IE: IF NO non-rotating black holes exist.............then............the "point Singualrity" maths solutions, whether the singualrity is IN a black hole OR Naked..............is meaningless.

IN other words, IF there is NO solution for anything to 'be happening' at r=0, and there is no solution for anything to be happening at r=Point...they don't exist, THEN...the OnLY solution for anything "Real" IE; Physically existing, is..........."What is happening" at the Ring, which is actually a "Torus Ring" if viewed from all angles.

Singularity is really a 'placeholder', for 'what is happening there', and actually once you identify the 'boundary condition' (just like for the event horizon), so for this case, Torus Ring, where 'space' is going 'straight through', said Torus Ring, THEN...........The Singularity actually disappears...;)

SO, when I came up with.....SMBH's in 'that other universe' are 'leaking gravity' to our universe (Lisa Randall) interpretation, as the 'initial conditions' for 'how our space gets here'....that effectively elliminated 'singularities' altogether.

Lee Smolin also has a concept on this, that can be applied to Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking"..."The 'Constant' at the "Pit" of Black Holes", BUT he only talks about Stellar black holes, and never relates that to SMBH's. Why he has not made that distinction, is beyond me, as it is absolutely obvious, that SMBH's are sooooooo much more powerful, to be able to 'tunnel' through 'space'.

Now, nothing "Hot" is coming "Through" those SMBH Torus Rings!!!

The CMBR is "Observed" to be ~2.73k

One of the biggest problems in cosmology today is....theory has the 'energy' of space 10^122 OOM greater than what is "Observed"

SO, what is "Coming Through" those Torus Rings, is Neutrinos, in straight line motion, traveling at "c", with the lowest energy 'photons'.

That IS our universe expanding to infinity, in all directions.

The CMB Neutrinos are going right through ALL of your body, at every angle conceivable, non-collisionally!

That IS the ZPE/Casmire effect.......BUT there are NO 'virtual particles' being created out of the CMB!!! Vitual Particles do NOT even exist, and when they had to use this to make the SM (Standard Model) work, they should have known that they were just doing 'majorly incorrect bookkeeping'!!!

Neutrinos are/is the "Higgs Field" and makes up ALL of "space", and when they got to 'neutrinos...energy conserved or NOT', the answer was NOT........

BUT, they did NOT know what to do there...how could they.........Long GRB's (3 to 500 seconds) being the result of SMBH's being created was NOT even available evidence yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! (1997)

[Cyperium]

Actually, this is not possible.

If you were in a galaxy 5 billion light years away (Okay, 4.6 Billion), 5 billion years ago, and could see very clearly into the Milky Way, you would see our Sun and the solar system accretion disc, just being born.

SO, if you were any farther, there wouldn't even be an earth here for "Nows" to match up to...;)

In fact, the whole concept of being able to see an earlier (Or smaller) Universe doesn't even exist.The nows would match up, if only the distance mattered, however the visual representation would be a illusion as you would look back in time (as light has taken that much time to travel there).