shape of universe..worked out...

[young-albert]

according to eniestien,matter bends space..so what woud happen if you put more and more stars to it...it will cuve and curve untill...untill it encloses it self....i.e.universe has a shape of a sort of sphere....you will run out of new places to see but you will never find a end...that's what i think..pls correct me if i am wrong....

[spikerz66]

wouldnt it only make sence tho that if the big bang theory is correct that the only plausible shape of an expansion would be a sphere anyways?

[young-albert]

ya...it's true..but spikerz66 if the big bang theory is correct then the universe will collapse some time due to gravitation.....so there must be a thery like big collapse or stuff like that...pls let me knoe if there is any such theory...

[weknowthewor]

According to Indian shastras, the universe is infinite but in the shape of a person standing with his feet a foot wide.... I read a book and it is really interesting...

[foodchain]

wouldnt it only make sence tho that if the big bang theory is correct that the only plausible shape of an expansion would be a sphere anyways?

 

Going from the leftovers of a nova such do not always lead to a sphere, or some other perfect shape or formula for that matter. Plus I always thought if matter formed a curve or a dip, that orbits from gravity would following such would make a cone possibly Instead of looking planar.

[spikerz66]

ya...it's true..but spikerz66 if the big bang theory is correct then the universe will collapse some time due to gravitation.....so there must be a thery like big collapse or stuff like that...pls let me knoe if there is any such theory...

 

 

Sorry about posting late.

 

Theres a modification of the big bang theory.

Its the crush- bang- crush theory also theres a bang- crush-bang theory

[Sisyphus]

wouldnt it only make sence tho that if the big bang theory is correct that the only plausible shape of an expansion would be a sphere anyways?

 

No, the universe is not a sphere, because the Big Bang was not an "explosion" in the sense you're thinking. There was not some point in space from which all the matter in the universe expanded outward. Rather, it is space itself which is expanding, with all objects equalling getting farther apart from one another, even though there is no actual "motion" involved.

 

The analogy that first made sense to me is as follows. The universe is the surface (but not the interior) of a balloon. Thus, it's two dimensional, but it "folds back" on itself, so travelling in one direction eventually brings you back to where you started. The expansion of space is like the inflation of the balloon. Points on the surface, representing objects in space, are not "moving," per se, because moving means travelling along the surface. They are, however, getting farther apart, because there is more surface.

 

That said, the "shape" of the universe is not at all settled. It might just be infinite and have no shape at all. It might, like the balloon, fold back on itself in some way. The only thing that IS clear is that it is not a simple, three-dimensional shape like a sphere, which has boundaries. This should make perfect sense. The universe cannot have boundaries. Boundaries between what and what? The universe, by definition, is everything that is, and so there cannot be anything "outside" it.

[ajb]

First thing, General Relativity tells you the local geometry of space-time, but not the global topology (i.e. it's global shape). Sometimes you can make statments about the topology via local geometry, eg the sphere for example has a constant local curvature and so you can make this a global notion.

 

Generally, one can have many manifolds with the same local geometry but are very different topologically. (consider compactification for example). Thus the topology of the universe is not fixed by GR.