Flat universe

Oct 17, 2011 By Steve Nerlich, Universe Today
Various universe evolution scenarios. A universe with too much density collapses in on itself, a critical density universe stays static, while a universe with not enough density keeps expanding at a steady (coasting) rate. However, today's cosmology puts emphasis upon the cosmological constant, which gives an accelerating expansion. Does this mean that density is irrelevant? Credit: NASA.

A remarkable finding of the early 21st century, that kind of sits alongside the Nobel prize winning discovery of the universe’s accelerating expansion, is the finding that the universe is geometrically flat. This is a remarkable and unexpected feature of a universe that is expanding – let alone one that is expanding at an accelerated rate – and like the accelerating expansion, it is a key feature of our current standard model of the universe.

It may be that the flatness is just a consequence of the accelerating expansion – but to date this cannot be stated conclusively.

As usual, it’s all about Einstein. The Einstein field equations enable the geometry of the universe to be modelled – and a great variety of different solutions have been developed by different cosmology theorists. Some key solutions are the Friedmann equations, which calculate the shape and likely destiny of the universe, with three possible scenarios:

• closed universe – with a contents so dense that the universe’s space-time geometry is drawn in upon itself in a hyper-spherical shape. Ultimately such a universe would be expected to collapse in on itself in a big crunch.

• open universe – without sufficient density to draw in space-time, producing an outflung hyperbolic geometry – commonly called a saddle-shape – with a destiny to expand forever.

• flat universe – with a ‘just right’ density – although an unclear destiny.

The Friedmann equations were used in twentieth century cosmology to try and determine the ultimate fate of our universe, with few people thinking that the flat scenario would be a likely finding – since a universe might be expected to only stay flat for a short period, before shifting to an open (or closed) state because its expansion (or contraction) would alter the density of its contents.

Although the contents of the early universe may have just been matter, we now must add dark energy to explain the universe's persistent flatness. Credit: NASA.

Matter density was assumed to be key to geometry – and estimates of the matter density of our universe came to around 0.2 atoms per cubic metre, while the relevant part of the Friedmann equations calculated that the critical density required to keep our universe flat would be 5 atoms per cubic metre. Since we could only find 4% of the required critical density, this suggested that we probably lived in an open universe – but then we started coming up with ways to measure the universe’s geometry directly.

There’s a You-Tube of Lawrence Krauss (of Physics of Star Trek fame) explaining how this is done with cosmic microwave background data (from WMAP and earlier experiments) – where the CMB mapped on the sky represents one side of a triangle with you at its opposite apex looking out along its two other sides. The angles of the triangle can then be measured, which will add up to 180 degrees in a flat (Euclidean) universe, more than 180 in a closed universe and less than 180 in an open universe.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Krauss: Why the universe probably is flat (video).

These findings, indicating that the universe was remarkably flat, came at the turn of the century around the same time that the 1998 accelerated expansion finding was announced.

So really, it is the universe’s flatness and the estimate that there is only 4% (0.2 atoms per metre) of the matter density required to keep it flat that drives us to call on dark stuff to explain the universe. Indeed we can’t easily call on just matter, light or dark, to account for how our universe sustains its critical density in the face of expansion, let alone accelerated expansion – since whatever it is appears out of nowhere. So, we appeal to dark energy to make up the deficit – without having a clue what it is.

Given how little relevance conventional matter appears to have in our universe’s geometry, one might question the continuing relevance of the Friedmann equations in modern cosmology. There is more recent interest in the De Sitter universe, another Einstein field equation solution which models a universe with no matter content – its expansion and evolution being entirely the result of the cosmological constant.

De Sitter universes, at least on paper, can be made to expand with accelerating expansion and remain spatially flat – much like our . From this, it is tempting to suggest that universes naturally stay flat while they undergo accelerated expansion – because that’s what universes do, their contents having little direct influence on their long-term evolution or their large-scale geometry.

But who knows really – we are both literally and metaphorically working in the dark on this.

Explore further: How the hummingbird achieves its aerobatic feats

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Big rips and little rips

Jul 04, 2011

One of a number of seemingly implausible features of dark energy is that its density is assumed to be constant over time. So, even though the universe expands over time, dark energy does not become diluted, ...

Cosmic coincidence

Sep 05, 2011

Cosmologists tend not to get all that excited about the universe being 74% dark energy and 26% conventional energy and matter (albeit most of the matter is dark and mysterious as well). Instead they get excited ...

Astronomy without a telescope - bubblology

Jul 25, 2011

One model of a hypothetical multiverse has, perhaps appropriately, some similarity to a glass of beer. Imagine an eternal false vacuum – that’s a bit like a fluid, though not all that much like a f ...

Dark statistics

Mar 28, 2011

The hypothetical dark flow seen in the movement of galaxy clusters requires that we can reliably identify a clear statistical correlation in the motion of distant objects which are, in any case, flowing o ...

Recommended for you

Measuring NIF's enormous shocks

26 minutes ago

NIF experiments generate enormous pressures—many millions of atmospheres—in a short time: just a few billionths of a second. When a pressure source of this type is applied to any material, the pressure ...

How the hummingbird achieves its aerobatic feats

22 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The sight of a tiny hummingbird hovering in front of a flower and then darting to another with lightning speed amazes and delights. But it also leaves watchers with a persistent question: How ...

New terahertz device could strengthen security

Nov 21, 2014

We are all familiar with the hassles that accompany air travel. We shuffle through long lines, remove our shoes, and carry liquids in regulation-sized tubes. And even after all the effort, we still wonder if these procedures ...

CERN makes public first data of LHC experiments

Nov 21, 2014

CERN today launched its Open Data Portal where data from real collision events, produced by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will for the first time be made openly available to all. It is expected ...

User comments : 68

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

remoran
2.5 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
I am not a scientist but doesn't this concept indicate the possibility we exist in a white hole as dark energy would work in opposite effect to the gravitational pull of a black hole? If this were the case, the multiverse would consist of endless black hole/white hole connects constantly evolving through time. Just a thought from one who is mathematically challenged but can visualize abstract concepts at a fairly high level. :)
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (13) Oct 17, 2011
..a remarkable finding of the early 21st century, that kind of sits alongside the Nobel prize winning discovery of the universes accelerating expansion, is the finding that the universe is geometrically flat...
The question is, from which data/model such opinion was taken? IMO we are rather facing the quite opposite findings, in which time in university vanishes

http://www.prophe...niverse/

and/or the space gets lower or higher dimensionality with distance

http://atramateri...niverse/

http://www.nasa.g...023.html

For every article like this one I can cite another article, which is claiming exactly the opposite. In another words, you can write what you want about Universe today - which is definitely not good with respect to public belief in mainstream cosmology.
rawa1
1 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2011
The dense aether model provides explanation of this conceptual confusion with water surface model. The water surface can remain fully flat from perspective of the observer from outside (who is using the light waves for its observation) - but from perspective of the observer at the water surface (who is using surface ripples as the only source of observation) the water surface appears expanding, collapsing or steady state, depending on the wavelength of light, in which he is observing it.

http://www.aether...ples.jpg

The situation can be even complicated with fact, even the water surface is never completely flat, so we would observe the space-time deformation even if we would observe it from steady-state perspective (compare the Doppler anisotropy of CMBR or fine structure constant, dark flow, parity violation and another findings observed recently at the cosmic scale).
Shootist
4.7 / 5 (23) Oct 17, 2011
Stop it, dense aether theory is elephants on turtles' backs, all the way down.
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2011
Stop it, dense aether theory is elephants on turtles' backs, all the way down.
Technically yes, as it's trying to describe the Universe from the opposite, outer and more general perspective perspective.

The similar situation occurred before four hundreds of years, when Galileo and others started to promote the extrinsic perspective of solar system. Whereas the existing models were based on epicycle perspective of planetary motion, i.e. the perspective of human observer, who is sitting on the Earth and who is observing the solar system from inside.

The point is, the extrinsic perspective is more difficult to prove (believe it or not, we still never observed the planetary motion of Solar system from outside) - but it simplifies and reconciles the existing rigorous models, which are based on intrinsic perspective.

The experts are never happy from such turnaround, because they must learn new paradigms and they're facing the lost of jobs connected with reduction of old theories.
Eoprime
4.5 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
Leads me thinking that the Universe "tries" to stay flat by expanding Spacetime, like light "tries" to keep its speed by contracting spacetime. Maybe just weird layman toughts...
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2011
If we would observe the water surface with its own waves from average distance, then the perspective mediated with background independent surface ripples will dominate - so that the appearance of water surface can be described quite well with general relativity (FLRW metric based on relativity in particular). But with increasing scope of telescopes we are reaching the area, when all surface ripples disperse into underwater.

http://people.rit...4565.jpg

Under such a situation we are observing the observable part of Universe both from intrinsic, both from extrinsic perspective at the same moment and both approaches will converge mutually. In dense aether model the event horizon of black holes represents the fragments of outer surface of Universe, as being observed from inside it from perspective of distant past. And the surface of elementary particles represents its inner surface, as being observed from perspective of distant future of Universe.
Erscheinung
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2011
We're inside out and the universe is actually falling. :()
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2011
Such geometry may appear pretty strange for someone - but we should realize, the space-time represented with physical vacuum has a foamy structure and the light is spreading along membranes of this foam. In foam it's quite normal to observe the things both from inside, both from outside at the same moment.

Try to imagine the shinning light bulb in the deep bucket covered with pile of foam. Whole volume of foam will glow - not just interior of bucket. Which means, we can observe the bucket both from outside, both from inside of it, because the light of bulb is heavily dispersed into all directions possible. You can remember the Möbius strip and/or Klein bottle geometry in this connection.
thales
3.3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
Leads me thinking that the Universe "tries" to stay flat by expanding Spacetime, like light "tries" to keep its speed by contracting spacetime.


That's an interesting idea. Light doesn't contract space-time, but I think I see what you're trying to say. The speed of light is really a measure of a space-time boundary, and there may be a connection between that measure of space-time and its flatness. Or something.
hush1
2.5 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
You have to free yourself from your classical traditional maths. All Geometry is shape or form.
Poincare's Conjecture:
All shapes and forms without a hole is a sphere.
When you realize what this means for all Geometry, you will find Euclid insufficient, unnecessary, and incomplete.

The new paradigm is:
All Geometry is Poincarian, not Euclidean. And when one does this, n-body problems are no longer intractable. Field equations have exact solutions, and protein folding problem is solved.
Pyle
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
Alright hushie, throw me the title of the book you just read. That little gem stinks of "pet theory book of the week". Quite a stray from phonemes. (BTW, it's raw-jer)
typicalguy
4.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
You guys with these theories seem to forget that we aren't observing from outside a foam bucket or the surface of water. We would be IN it. Explain how we can observe surface changes while being submerged in your wether.
hush1
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
All pets of mine are favorites. lol Pyle. Finally, the right pronunciation! The American pronunciation was getting me strange looks.

lol guy. A disciple-ian collarory of raw1's interpretation. Do you have his approval?
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
By the way, where do you place the accent? On 'raw' or 'jer'?
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
Pyle
A book?!?! You want a book of conjecture?
It's too late to use Poincare's Conjecture.
Using proven conjecture to conjecture is silly.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
There must be a hole somewhat. Probably black. An fMRI will shine light on this.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
somewhat=somewhere
A subliminal and superluminal typo.
Erscheinung
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
Can you provide reference where the solution to the Poincaré conjecture has allowed cosmologists to determine anything meaningful about the large scale structure of the universe,.. or are you just simply connected?
Erscheinung
3 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
Alright hushie, throw me the title of the book you just read. That little gem stinks of "pet theory book of the week". Quite a stray from phonemes. (BTW, it's raw-jer)


I tried and tried but couldn't get any clarity here,...

http://www.physor...ong.html

His arrogance in the above thread is comical especially sense one can't pry out any semblance of the idea.

(Noumenon)
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
lol
I can not provide reference where the solution to the Poincaré conjecture has allowed cosmologists to determine anything meaningful about the large scale structure of the universe.

Is this connected to both of your questions?
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
What would be the effects on spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, van der Waals bonds, Lamb shift, etc in a universe undergoing a collapse ?
Erscheinung
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
You have to free yourself from your classical traditional maths. All Geometry is shape or form.
Poincare's Conjecture:
All shapes and forms without a hole is a sphere.
When you realize what this means for all Geometry, you will find Euclid insufficient, unnecessary, and incomplete.

The new paradigm is:
All Geometry is Poincarian, not Euclidean. And when one does this, n-body problems are no longer intractable. Field equations have exact solutions, and protein folding problem is solved.


Ok then, can you elaborate any on the meaning of the above? GR already uses a non-Euclidean geometry. What's the difference between "Poincarian" and Riemannian?
hush1
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
Poincaré conjecture was conjecture. Not suited for any meaning. Poincaré conjecture is not longer conjecture. Now suited for physical meaning as well.

"Sometimes an otherwise complicated operation reduces to multiplication by a scalar (a number). Such numbers are called eigenvalues of that operation. Eigenvalues are closely related to vibration frequencies and are used in analyzing a famous problem: can you hear the shape of a drum?. Essentially an eigenvalue is like a note being played by the manifold. Perelman proved this note goes up as the manifold is deformed by the Ricci flow. This helped him eliminate some of the more troublesome singularities that had concerned Hamilton, particularly the cigar soliton solution, which looked like a strand sticking out of a manifold with nothing on the other side. In essence Perelman showed that all the strands that form can be cut and capped and none stick out on one side only."
http://en.wikiped...njecture
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
Erscheinung
The curvature derive for non euclidian geometries come from the Euclidean.
Only 'flat' is not 'flat' even for euclidean geometries.
The definitions for euclidean geometries are superseded by Poincaré conjecture.

Even though the definitions define 'flat' for euclidean geometries, there is still 'curvature' there.

The quote is merely to show the practicality and connections to the physical - Can you hear the shape of a drum - sounds 'tangible' to anyone.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
The difference between "Poincarian" and Riemannian is that the Reimannian assumes the Euclidean is flat, whereas the "Poincarian" does not.

hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
lol
My name is Hush. That's how people address me when they do not want to hear...any shape.
Erscheinung
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
I found this,...

http://sofia.nmsu...care.pdf

Is this what you mean?
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
That is a most wonderful start.

Figuratively, the "Poincarian" puts in or takes up the 'slack' the Riemannian ignores or introduces.
primalvisions
not rated yet Oct 17, 2011
I don't think he explained why the observations are wrong, or rather what could have made the observations give the wrong result instead of what he expected.

Anyone have a link to more of his lecture?
ArmyFighter04
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
So I'm slightly confused... if dark matter was 63% prevalent 13.7 billion years ago and now it is 23% that is a 40% difference.. take the 25% of both photons and neutrinos and add that to the 40% we get 65% hmm.. now where can we get this other 7% from? 12%-4.6 equals 7.4% add that to the original 65% and we get 72.4% which is the amount or "estimated amout" of dark energy... how is that those numbers all added up and worked out to be 72%?
Pyle
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
AF: Don't try to math your way between the two pie charts.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are plugs, placeholders, unknown things that are observed, but as of yet unexplained and not yet completely understood.

The DM amount in the early universe is what is required to make the BB work using the theories we have now. Theories that have been supported time and time again by our most accurate measurements of experiments and observations of the universe.

The DM amount currently is more of the same; what is necessary for the universe to work if our current standard model is correct. The DE similarly to explain our observations (flatness/red-shift). DE may have been there all along, not doing anything, and only recently has been "turned-on" and is influencing the Universe. Or maybe it is all wrong and something else is going on at the grandest scale.

In any event, don't math your way between the two charts, that isn't what they are meant to be used for.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
Pyle:
DE may have been there all along, not doing anything, and only recently has been "turned-on" and is influencing the Universe

That is, compress a spring (or spacetime if you imagine it to be compressibile - it certainly is expandable). There's lots of energy there but you never know it until you release the compression. So - DE may be there and have been there all along in the form of some potential energy beginning to be released at the big bang.

So what happens when the compression energy is all used up (assuming it is finite) - does spacetime (the springs) continue to fly apart? Yes, maybe, but the acceleration stops. But what happens if the springs hang together and begin to be stretched? It could be deja vu all over again.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2011
Numerology, Army. Numerology....
omatranter
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 18, 2011
My eternal Gratitude for this wondrously vague article.

"we are both literally and metaphorically working in the dark on this."

Being "7th Dan Black Beat" in the art of self satisfaction I can assure you that making your hand go to sleep as well it heightens the pleasure of "The Stranger"
(http://www.urband...ranger), I also find the excited utterance "Replant Neutrons Assemble" makes my day.
cps
4 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
There's another implicit assumption, that the inertial frame is the same everywhere. We're inferring the strength of the gravitational field from this.

Perhaps what's really happening is something like Mach's principle. Matter near the centre of a galaxy sees lots of matter around it so experiences a large centrifugal force whereas on the outskirts of the galaxy (or in dwarf galaxies) there's less matter to constrain the rotation.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
...Matter near the centre of a galaxy sees lots of matter around it so experiences a large centrifugal force

I thought centrifugal force comes from rotation? Maybe objects aroung the center affect its rotation? Interesting.
vidyunmaya
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
Sub: Ignorance of the first Kind
sun is not flat with Earth Planet ?
Even the Milky defies your Flat-Universe Logic ?
Cosmology needs best of Best of brains Trust- Scientists have Credibibility at stake ?How do we stand-up with Conscious Head! Cosmology Vedas Interlinks help in time. Vidyardhi Nanduri
vidyunmaya
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
Sub: Back to Square One? Where lies Cosmological Index!
Cosmology Studies-Science to Progress
Cosmology needs best of brains trust.Understanging Nature and Philosophy is a long way for Comprehension. Basic functions-Source,Fields,Flows,Reflectors are ignored-Leave alone protective functional Index. From and above these Concepts, One needs to define Cosmology and identify Prime concepts.
See: BOOKS BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI [1993-2011]-
http://vidyardhic...pot.com/
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
lol
My name is Hush. That's how people address me when they do not want to hear...any shape.

;) So..what's YOUR shape? Or, at least, how do you perceive it to be? It's rather hard to infer the nature of something, when it is absent (or perceives itself to be thus). But then again, silence is supposed to be golden.....synesthesic connection perhaps? Hehe DH66
hush1
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
If there such a thing as absolute silence, then finding the shape is trivial. It's curved. Just don't know how much.

lol DH
Out of shape right now.
Out of shape shapes sound strange.
When heard.
jinsincity
5 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
ok so if the energy that is in the universe is what creates the acceleration of expansion and we are flat on top of a conical shape that represents time and expansion and as Einstein and Hawkings have stated that at some point in time as we expand and the force pushing the universe out wards and apart falls less than the force of gravity pulling it back which is the opposite of what is happening now. Physics should also be able to predict when the outward force will stop and when the universe will begin its steady force over time of collapsing upon itself, its apex then its return correct given it is flat ? Also on another thought - if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding from ? what is "outside" the conical shape? That should be predictable pertinent because maybe that could be energy and time without matter and mass and we are simply expanding matter into that area of unkown past the " universe" and this would make it likely that there could be many "universe" situations
jinsincity
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
that all started with a infinitely dense and infinitely small particle that expanded. Here is another thought- we only need 2 of 3 constants to solve anything right, ok what if matter and gravity are the constants and energy is the variable ? Just a thought
jinsincity
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
I also want to continue my thought here- based on this and the fact that there was an article that found a particle traveling 12 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light - Einsteins theory is off. Close but off. Look at the universe from the edge looking in. If energy is = mass x multiple of light squared and in this article it clearly states that the universe = 0 total energy- then the equation is wrong.because 0 = total mmass of universe x total multiple of light 2 would not = 0. Either the math for the total energy of universe is wrong, or einstein is wrong, or at the very edge of the constantly expanding universe, physics would not apply. Maybe time is not expressable as would be in a closed universe ? I am just an amature theorist but does anyone else see this?
jinsincity
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
and if total energy is 0 then einsteins theory is wrong. based on this and an article that they have found a pareticle traveling 12 nano seconds faster than light leads me to believe it is close but not correct and maybe we are a closed universe.
Pirouette
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2011
A closed Universe would indicate a finite value. If that was the case, then what is on the other side of this Universe? Possible more Universes?
Daleg
not rated yet Oct 23, 2011
Again we are talking purely hypothetical mathematical models based on observations. Einstein's equations simply give a framework in which to work out a solution for how the Universe would behave under certain assumed properties. The odd thing as this article attempts to point out is that as observation shows that our Universe is almost completely spacially flat, we can derive models like de Sitter space from the equations to explain this. The time worn speculation of whether or not this is caused by matter/energy content or empty space are just that speculations attempting to explain the observed reality. The CMD model with slight adjustment can perfectly account for the results as measured,
but there is plenty of room for wider speculation about why we live in a flat Universe when most Astronomers based on observations would expect we live in an open Universe, but as the old saying goes, you have to take it as you find it, all pet theories aside.
Daleg
not rated yet Oct 23, 2011
and if total energy is 0 then einsteins theory is wrong. based on this and an article that they have found a pareticle traveling 12 nano seconds faster than light leads me to believe it is close but not correct and maybe we are a closed universe.

It is taking Gravity as negative or purely attractive into account in Einstein's Theory which indicates the paradoxial effect that the energy content of the Universe may be zero. Einstein's theory isn't wrong, the statement that the Energy content of the Universe =0 is an explanatory guess as to why space is flat, as measured, and an attempt to remove all curvature by making the energy content =0, through the negative contributions of Gravity, could just possibly be the right answer.
Daleg
not rated yet Oct 23, 2011
Hush1 please explain the concept of parralell lines, and Why non-Euclidean Geometries are any type of Geometry that does not allow for Parralell Lines? And how Euclidean geometry is based on just that concept. First and foremost while you are correct about Poincaire's conjecture so far as non-Euclidean geometry goes. Ricci curves,don't have so much to do with Euclidean Geometry not being flat, but how to describe non-Eucliden Geometric forms under constant change of curvature in time, and retain the non-Euclidean form. This is what Poincaires's conjecture assumes can be done mathematically,
and demonstrates. The reference to "correcting" the Reimanian meric tensor, means just that making sure it does and can maintain the "correct" curvature through constant change in scale over time, otherwise you create anamolies which destroy the ability to measure the resultant curve and cannot prove the theorom of the contraction of a sphere in all three dimensions down to a single point.
Daleg
not rated yet Oct 23, 2011
I should also point out here that while Perlman demonstrated that this can be done, still the anamolies, or as the main mathematicians call them singularities occur, and to prove the theorem requires mathematical "surgery" so to speak to cut through these "Singular" Points to reveal the proper curvature that results, a kind of flat/thin two piece resultant topologicl metric, that retains the three dimensional characteristics of the sphere which was constricted. Not so much proving as you state that everything resolves down to a sphere, But that spherical objects can be contracted into shapes based on their dimensionality that have the characteristics of the Geometrical form from which they were constructed. Proving that that was the form they held in the first place. A nice conjecture, and even finer proof, which is the essence of Homology or topological transformations of geometrical dimensionality based on that dimensionality.
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2011
Hush, you are more than 'out of shape'. You are bent and twisted more than the spacetime curvature that you need to dismiss Euclid. Interesting though.

I thought with a US accent it would be more like 'rah-jar'. Here, its more like 'roh-ja'. In any case a worthwhile distraction.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
lol BH
First the earth, and now the universe is flat!! lol. The only form of life in the universe existing and living on a curve!, manages a construct labeled 'line' and 'flat' first, for starters, and the curve second!!! lol

And then to conjecture what is to be incomprehensible for flatlanders!!! lol

And then wonder why angles can't be trisected, and the quadratures of circles offering nothing but frustration!!lol

Imagine the curve being first. Imagine all the hyperboloid buildings and architecture of the ancients. Imagine humans trying to revert and revamp their dwellings to conform to a 'line', or 'flat' or god forbid a box!!
Unimaginable. No human can be that stupid.

Thanks Euclid. Way da go. You have no idea what you done.
Our celestial mechanics are screwed, GR embeds you locally, QM is utterly clueless and we can't fold proteins. Whatever.
nickelsworth
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2011
Perhaps, the greatest questions of the Universe will ultimately be discovered as nothing more than pure economics distilled into the most simple terms. If we accept as fact that we reside in this universe, might it be the universe also resides in us?

I've no equations ,theorems nor empirical truths. That said, I do know wave patterns and propagation. It seems the forest cannot be seen through all the trees. Stabilization is Chaos; as much as Chaos is Stabilization. It may be better to first get a firm understanding of the nature of things in our own small woods called the solar system. The study of our own sun will answer more questions than the forests light years away. P.S. 'Pi to the 10 Trillionth Digit' = 5
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
Perhaps, the greatest questions of the Universe will ultimately be discovered as nothing more than pure economics distilled into the most simple terms
At the very general level the behavior of people can be approximated with energy spreading in dense gas, because at the sufficiently global level all intelligent motivations of individuals compensate mutually in accordance to principle "what is good for you isn't god for me". As the result, at the sufficiently general level the global economics is behaving like fluctuations of dense gas and it's literally out of control and it evolves independently to human consciousness like the new level of observable reality. The behavior of Universe at the very general scale can be approximated in the same way: the galaxies are condensing and evaporating like giant fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas in AWT model.

The convergence of both approaches illustrates, your insight has some merit in context of dense aether model.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
I'm using the socioeconomical analogies often, when explaining various aspects of observable Universe and vice-versa. The evolutionary cycles of empires share many common aspects with evolution of galaxies, etc. For example, every large sectarian state or community is behaving like the black hole, filled with boson condensate. It's rigid and nontransparent from outer perspective due the censorship, whereas from inner perspective it behaves like superfluous environment without friction, because the individualistic thinking is driven with propaganda there. Maybe it will motivate you in another thinking in this direction.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
I'm using the socioeconomical analogies often, when explaining various aspects of observable Universe and vice-versa. The evolutionary cycles of empires share many common aspects with evolution of galaxies, etc. For example, every large sectarian state or community is behaving like the black hole, filled with boson condensate. It's rigid and nontransparent from outer perspective due the censorship, whereas from inner perspective it behaves like superfluous environment without friction, because the individualistic thinking is driven with propaganda there. Maybe it will motivate you in another thinking in this direction.


Well Callippo maybe human thinking is driven by the uncertainty principle?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2011
Callippo:
...At the very general level the behavior of people can be approximated with energy spreading in dense gas,

I guess our reputation precedes us wherever I go. Sort of like Charlie Brown's friend Linus?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2011
jinsincity:
...and maybe we are a closed universe.

Flat - by actual measurement, as in the de Sitter solution to GR. Riding on top of this basic solution are some minor(?) perturbations caused by the uncertainty principle - the creation of matter/antimatter. Dark matter I attribute to turbulence in the de Sitter spacetime expansion function caused by the uncertainty principle. You might look at it as de Sitter (spacetime) is the carrier frequency and matter and radiation are AM and FM modulation.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
cont...
In a previous life I used to sit in second-year French class with a frat bro who tempted me with his cigarettes. I obliged. We sat in the second row with our feet propped up on the front row seats and blew smoke rings up on the blackboard. Nobody really cared that much since we were the only two in the class. We got pretty good at it. I didn't realize at the time that I was simulating rings of high-density spacetime (dark matter) blown away by the BB and later forming galaxies. So the U is a happy hybrid of GR and QM. May the two live happily thereafter.
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
There was another article on Physorg describing the ergodic properties of elements of dynamic systems (I call them fractals).
The article stated that repeated observation of an element of a system, in fact predicted how that dynamic system acted.
So, inasmuch as we are ALL elements of any number of "systems", perhaps Calippo's on to something there... And Seeker, too...
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2011
jinsincity:
...there was an article that found a particle traveling 12 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light - ...in this article it clearly states that the universe = 0 total energy

Daleg:
...through the negative contributions of Gravity,

I think I heard this from Hawking but he was only talking about mass and gravitational potential energy. I would extend it to anti-matter and anti-gravitational potential energy (if you've been around much you've probably encountered my theory of anti-gravity).
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
jinsincity:
...Physics should also be able to predict when the outward force will stop and when the universe will begin its steady force over time of collapsing upon itself, its apex then its return correct given it is flat ?

I suppose expansion will stop when the dark energy is used up, assuming it is finite. So the dark energy is now 73% of the total. 27% was used up in 13.7 billion years, so I guess you can do the math for when it will stop expanding and start contracting and returning mass/energy to the dark energy. I'm assuming conservation of energy over time.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
Daleg
I work with the hyperreals. If you can maintain the curvature flow over the hyperreals down to a limit - the point - the point must exhibit a Euler characteristic. Infinite density and temperature is perfect paired - not a problem.
I need a characteristic of zero in the field. Which excludes Euclid and retains curvature. A curvature as an absolute reference. This point has no volume, space, time, or length. It has infinite density, temperature and curvature.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2011
jinsincity:
...if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding from ?

From the dark energy, I suppose, concentrated in a very small (maybe Plank) volume.

...what is "outside" the conical shape?
The void, I suppose, if anything. Others I guess say the vacuum.

...this would make it likely that there could be many "universe" situations

Yes, some say an infinite number of situations - everywhere throughout all time and before if there is such a thing, but I don't work with the hyperreals.

...that all started with a infinitely dense and infinitely small particle

That seems to imply a zero volume. The uncertainty principle would rule that out.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2011
Callippo:
...At the very general level the behavior of people can be approximated with energy spreading in dense gas,

Another reference to Linus? Sorry.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2011
http://en.wikiped...of_light

Assigning properties to 'nothing' is as common as the weather.
Zero, the workhorse. Another workhorse: Infinity.

Harnessing the two horses pulls any carriage.

This is poetical. Without 'pulling a fast one'. Why?
To free all readers imaginations daunted by horses.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2011
You have declared Plank (all units) a demarcation point.
Beyond that point you declare:
Nothing is physical.
Nothing has meaning.

Math is devoted to that which has no meaning and is never physical.
Not once has science failed to find meaning to the imagination of math.

All else is failure of imagination.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2011
..At the very general level the behavior of people can be approximated with energy spreading in dense gas ... Another reference to Linus? Sorry.

In recent time various thermodynamical models of human evolution became popular. What do you think the thermodynamics is all about?

http://www.physor...868.html

http://www.physor...278.html

Isn't it a bit sad, when the people, who are visiting physorg regularly cannot even remember the articles presented just here? You people are of zero memory, not to say about ability to combine the existing knowledge. Instead of it, your ability to downvote everything, which you're not familiar with is extremely well developed.

As the result, the people who can remember and combine stuffs are systematically oppressed with people, who cannot do it. The trolls always win with their very nature.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.