Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Xmo1, Mar 29, 2018.

  1. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    ESA’s Planck

    I'm looking at this 2d picture of 'the funiverse.' So is it shaped like a dinner plate, or a sphere? I read that it was flat. Can the instruments not see beyond our universe, or through it - past its few billion light years existence? They (the instruments) did a pretty good job with what they did, but I wonder if there are limitations of the universe, or in the instruments viewing it, or if that's just all there is to it. The universe looks random and weird, but something like a light bulb. If there were no light it would be a pretty different place for us.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Bored - went funiverse wiki - no idea what it's about apart perhaps click bait site for odds and ends

    If anyone has better idea? Otherwise I'm done

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I think that's simply a typo?

    Planck looks at the surface of last scattering, which is like looking outwards from the center of a hollow sphere. The pictures it produces don't directly show the shape of the universe.

    It is flat, as in: not curved. This term has a specific meaning in this context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature#Curvature_of_space "A space or space-time with zero curvature is called flat."

    It's not clear that this is even possible, so currently, no, they don't.

    This is not possible due to the finite speed of light; you can't observe things very far away, because the light from those objects hasn't travelled all the way to us yet.

    The instruments are limited, both due to us not knowing how to make them better, and because of fundamental limitations nature imposes.

    You really need to post a link to the picture you saw. I've never heard of such a thing.

    True, although without light it's very likely we wouldn't exist to experience that universe in the first place.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member


    Errrr not see beyond our Universe implies 1/ there is something beyond our Universe 2/ light from that something has arrived at Earth
    Don't see that it makes sense otherwise

    We can see back to about 13.4 light years which is fairly good

    Trying to remember what Xmo1 has posted in the past (any mods wish to enlighten please?)

    From a shakey memory I think Xmo1 engages in Ping Pong or resembles a chess playing pigeon. If this is not the case I apologize .A few more posts will enlighten

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I found the same link; but I wouldn't be surprised if Xmo1 meant "universe".

    Exactly my point.

    (13.4 billion, right?)
    I would even dare to call it "amazing"; being able to spot anything from a distance of 13+ billion light years is quite a feat!
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Ya right

    Not quite a week since I got back from 2week Bali holiday

    Garden a shambles from cyclone Marcus

    Taking me an effort to be back in the real world

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    The sensors are pulling in the data, but the software is shaping it improperly.
    If it's not a sphere, then the software should not display it as a sphere.
    The translation should be more intelligent.
    I knew that. Read the same article.
    Consider the instruments are not seeing the universe as a human would.
    It's more like using butterfly eyes. Could be another universe is already in contact with ours,
    so close to our noses that we don't see it. I think future instrument data is going to change how we view space.
    Some speeds are instantaneous, so I don't necessarily hold the speed of light as important today as it was awhile ago.
    We didn't know crystals vibrated 100 years ago. Just because it hasn't been observed doesn't mean by any stretch that
    its isn't there. I understand though - the instruments detect radiant emissions.
    A few years ago we didn't have ccd's on telescopes.
    But what if we did exist. Would we discover the wheel?
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2018
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Please give/describe the proper display then. Hint: Perhaps you should first read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection It's about how to display the surface of the Earth properly on a flat 2D plane.

    Then you know that your statement about it being shaped like a "dinner plate" is nonsense. So why did you write that?

    As I said: "It's not clear that this is even possible."

    Name one. And note that we are explicitly talking in the context of measurements (i.e. information exchange).

    Source please.

    True, but just because one can imagine it, doesn't mean it's possible either.

    Right, and those are (to the best of our knowledge) restricted to the speed of light.

    Sure, technology is improving all the time, but CCD's can't magically make light in transit go faster.

    There is not a single mention of the Planck satellite there; are you sure that's the right link? This page is showing results from a computer simulation, not an actual measurement.

    Well, first you have to explain how we humans can exist without light, and how we would be differently from how we are now. Only after you've established that can your question be answered.
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

  13. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Earth is a sphere, so when displaying a sphere that is the way to do it. But space is not a sphere, so the resultant display should not reflect that the instruments are contained
    in a sphere, but rather focus from some outward point to some inward point. There's really no reason to display the images as a map of a sphere, other than the software is
    'off the shelf,' which for such a costly set of instruments is below par.

    The dinner plate: I thought: Space is flat. Here's a map of a sphere. What's going on here? Is this not a map, but actually a 'model' of space derived from instrument data?

    Instantaneous speed: quantum behavior at a distance.

    Since all electromagnetics are bound by the speed of light, I expect the next set of instruments to have a quantum multiplier as part of it's detection gear.

    The millennium sim is said to be an accurate depiction of the universe. The filaments (which are glowing) look like the inside of a giant early Edison light bulb.

    first you have to explain how we humans can exist without light:
    Not much flexibility there.
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    I have seen many a movie where The Space Council is gathered around a large floating sphere depicting a 3D model of the Universe with the innards showing the galaxies in their respective quadrants

    So that is a perspective looking inwards and simple to construct

    Our galaxy could be highlighted and the outward looking view shown on wall screen

    Easy done

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    So no 2D-pictures of the Earth are allowed; only full 3D-globes? Or, are you saying all pictures of the Earth should display it as a globe, in which case you thus want to ban all maps of the Earth?

    The visible universe is roughly spherical; we don't know the shape of the entire universe. So you're wrong in both cases.

    Except that the Planck satellite is, effectively. It's looking at positions that are about 13 billion lightyears away. If you gather all the points in the universe that are 13 billion lightyears away from Earth, you get a (hollow) sphere.

    Outward/inward from where, what point of view?

    Except that printing 3D spheres is much more expensive than printing 2D paper maps, so your argument is incorrect.

    That's why I linked you to that Wikipedia article. Space isn't flat as in "dinner plate"; it's flat as in "no curvature".

    A dinner plate is a terrible projection to use to display a sphere...

    No, the universe isn't dinner-plate-shaped. That's just something you came up with (at least, I haven't heard it before).

    Right, this is where my qualifier about information comes in. Please demonstrate that there is information exchange with instantaneous speed. In other words, please demonstrate that one can build an instrument that can thus measure something at faster than the speed of light.

    What is a "quantum multiplier"? And you do understand that (for example) CCD's already operate on a quantum level? So please be more specific what this "quantum multiplier" is/does.

    Sure, but it's not a measurement made by the Planck satellite, something you claimed.

    Aha, so you weren't saying it's shaped like a light bulb, but that it contains light-bulb-like components. Got it.

    You almost casually said in post #7 that it's possible. Are you now saying it isn't?
  16. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    The source of the universe is the big bang, so the distribution of matter is not spherical. It is conical, and directional. There is no reason that the software should display it any other way, as a cylinder, as a sphere, as a pyramid, or anything else. We control the software. We form an image in binoculars using translational prisms. That is the hardware equivalent of a software translation.

    The previous poster noted that space navigators use 3d representations of local space. You could take a 2d picture of that if you wanted. So the representation presented in images is totally under the control of the software developers. They can color it, or ad depth (with anaglyph for example) or anything they wanted. But to present the universe as a globe (to map it as a globe) is inaccurate. It is not.
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    First of all, that doesn't follow. Why couldn't it be spherical? Secondly, I never made that claim; I said that the visible universe is (roughly) spherical, and that what the Planck satellite is observing is a roughly-spherical shell.

    This is simply false. Please provide evidence for this statement.

    Alright, can you please provide the procedure to produce an accurate representation of the universe? (So I guess that would be a 3D cone.) And now explain how this is easier to handle than a flat piece of paper.

    Also, since the Planck satellite is looking at a roughly-spherical shell, it is looking at a 2D surface. A 2D surface that can be projected onto a flat piece of paper. You acknowledge that in the case of the Earth's surface, such a projection is fine. Why wouldn't it be fine for the surface of last scattering, which is geometrically pretty much the same case?

    Wait, are you talking about what the Planck satellite is observing, the visible universe, the entire universe, or our local neighborhood in the universe? Those are all different things!
  18. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    So the big bang is not a directional, but a spherical explosion? Why should all light be at 13.4? If it's not a sphere, then there will be more light coming from one direction. Anyone measure it, or is the quantity of measurable magnetic interference - such as light equal in all directions? I got a look at a good graphic of a black hole. It was a spherical hole - very strange. Why would a black hole explode?
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Exactly. At most one could argue it was "pointed at the future", but then again, everything is, so that statement is kinda useless.

    No, I never said that.

    It isn't? But I think you're referring to the surface of last scattering. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background (you'll have to search for "surface of last scattering".)

    I'm not sure that is necessarily true? But as I've said, the surface of last scattering is (roughly) spherical, so your "if"-condition isn't satisfied anyway.

    You yourself mentioned the Planck satellite... Heck, you opened this very thread with mentioning it!

    How is this relevant?

    Perhaps you've heard of this thing called gravity? It tends to make large masses spherical.

    What? Who claimed that a black hole can explode? And more importantly, what is the relevance to the big bang? You are making no sense!
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    This is profoundly incorrect. Planck is looking at all the lights incidence on its lense.
    It is the question of data analysis, primarily based on red shifts, by eliminating the foreground, redshift closer to z=1100 is hypothesized as CMBR, that relic radiation, but nothing stops you from evaluating the data of z=10.

    oops, what else do you think it could be with such amount of isotropy? Take a square of 100 meters side and place a detector at the center with detector range less than 50 meters, what would you observe, a visible range of sphere only. So if the universe is isotropic in the visible range and bigger than our observational capabilities (restricted by speed of light), then it got to be sphere only.
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Well, obviously. I just didn't want to muddy the water with insignificant details.

    True, but you do need to take into account that the Planck satellite isn't sensitive for all wavelengths, so it's only a limited spectrum you can observe with it.

    Tell me: what is the shape of an infinite universe? And tell me: how do you know it cannot be cubic in shape?

    I fully agree that if the universe has a shape, spherical makes the most sense, but that doesn't mean it is, and we certainly currently have no proof for that.

    I think I'm misunderstanding your argument. You sketch an analogue using a square, and conclude a sphere? How does that work?

Share This Page