Estimate the size of our universe

[Dream-Runner]

ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF OUR UNIVERSE USING DATA FROM COSMIC EVENTS.pdf

ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF OUR UNIVERSE USING DATA FROM COSMIC EVENTS

 

Assumptions:

1.     Our 3-D universe is on the surface of a 4-D globe.

2.     Gravitational wave travels within the 4-D globe at speed of light.

3.     Gamma-ray, as well as other electromagnetic waves, travels along the surface of the 4-D globe.

 

As illustrated above, X is the distance of the cosmic event; R is the radius of our 4-D globe; C is speed of light; t is the time difference between detection of gravitational wave and gamma-ray.

X – 2R*sin(X/2R) = C*t

On 8/17/2017, gravitational wave GW170817 was detected. 1.7 seconds later, gamma-ray burst GRB 170817A was detected.  The binary stars are 40 Mpc (130 Mly) away. 

Put these numbers together, the radius of our 4-D globe is around 1015LY (1000 trillion light-years).

 

The estimate could be more accurate with more and more cosmic events being recorded.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Dream-Runner
add word file

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, Dream-Runner said:

ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF OUR UNIVERSE USING DATA FROM COSMIC EVENTS.pdf

ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF OUR UNIVERSE USING DATA FROM COSMIC EVENTS

 

Assumptions:

1.     Our 3-D universe is on the surface of a 4-D globe.

2.     Gravitational wave travels within the 4-D globe at speed of light.

3.     Gamma-ray, as well as other electromagnetic waves, travels along the surface of the 4-D globe.

 

As illustrated above, X is the distance of the cosmic event; R is the radius of our 4-D globe; C is speed of light; t is the time difference between detection of gravitational wave and gamma-ray.

X – 2R*sin(X/2R) = C*t

On 8/17/2017, gravitational wave GW170817 was detected. 1.7 seconds later, gamma-ray burst GRB 170817A was detected.  The binary stars are 40 Mpc (130 Mly) away. 

Put these numbers together, the radius of our 4-D globe is around 1015LY (1000 trillion light-years).

 

The estimate could be more accurate with more and more cosmic events being recorded.

This does not seem like it includes Universe Expansion by the Hubble constant, the speeds of some particles would actually exceed the speed of light due to Universe expansion. you cannot just say, Δt * C = Δr  you would be completely assuming no expansion of this 4D sphere's manifold, this would work for a static universe but not a expanding one. Δr = Δt * C + (H * Δt)/1000 would be non static, the divided by 1000 is due to hubble's constant being in kilometers per second per megaparsec.

[Dream-Runner]

Thanks for the insight. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Dream-Runner

[Strange]

You are also not taking into account that the gamma rays would take longer to be released from the merger than the gravitational waves.

[Vmedvil]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

You are also not taking into account that the gamma rays would take longer to be released from the merger than the gravitational waves.

That is also true, there are many things wrong with that calculation originally posted, I do not know the exact time lag between photon release and Gravitational wave release maybe our Resident "SuperNerd" can shed some insight, but yes but I do know know a function that does that, would it be a ratio of the difference between energy of G waves and the Photons because it has to reach a certain energy density or temperature to make gamma ray photons where as gravitational waves not so much.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

That is also true, there are many things wrong with that calculation originally posted

Like the baseless assumption that the universe is the surface of a 3-sphere.

[Vmedvil]

33 minutes ago, Strange said:

Like the baseless assumption that the universe is the surface of a 3-sphere.

Ya, the Universe is many more dimensional then just a 4-D sphere us being the 3-D surface of that sphere, but it does make sense in a cosmological sense, that calculation is way oversimplified. The Universe is not a hyper-sphere that being definitely too simple considering the 4 forces it as at least a 7-D object with space expansion 8-D at least. I guess they were assuming just time and space exist being 4-D, that would also make the universe cubic and not a sphere, that cannot be correct thinking about it. Curvature adds another dimension so what are we up to 9-D at least. Superstring says 32-D, so way too simple to be a correct calculation.

 

Hyper-sphere 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Carrock]

17 hours ago, Dream-Runner said:

ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF OUR UNIVERSE USING DATA FROM COSMIC EVENTS.pdf

ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF OUR UNIVERSE USING DATA FROM COSMIC EVENTS

 

Assumptions:

1.     Our 3-D universe is on the surface of a 4-D globe.

2.     Gravitational wave travels within the 4-D globe at speed of light.

3.     Gamma-ray, as well as other electromagnetic waves, travels along the surface of the 4-D globe.

There is a simple problem with these assumptions.

If information can travel faster than electromagnetic waves (photons), then time travel or acausality is possible.

You're assuming gravitational waves take a 'shortcut' and arrive before any electromagnetic waves can possibly arrive i.e. they travel faster than light.

Information is associated with gravitational waves....

[Strange]

Quote

We use the observed time delay of (+1.74 +/- 0.05) s between GRB 170817A and GW170817 to: (i) constrain the difference between the speed of gravity and the speed of light to be between -3 x 10^-15 and +7 x 10^-16 times the speed of light, [...]

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c/meta