How can we know the shape of the Universe?

[Mag]

Well, first I'll start out by saying that I love cosmology and relativity (ever since I learned about it) - granted I dont have a very good... er cross that out, non existent handle on the mathematics behind it, I like the theories and such.

 

Anyways, my question is that how can we possibly know the shape of the universe?

If its so large, how would we be able to tell the difference between a flat and curved system? or a curved and closed system?

 

thanks

[Realitycheck]

It's really very simple. Using the Big Bang model, the universe is shaped like a giant fuzzy wuzzy.

[Martin]

Well, first I'll start out by saying that I love cosmology and relativity (ever since I learned about it) - granted I dont have a very good... er cross that out, non existent handle on the mathematics behind it, I like the theories and such.

 

Anyways, my question is that how can we possibly know the shape of the universe?

If its so large, how would we be able to tell the difference between a flat and curved system? or a curved and closed system?

 

thanks

 

first of all dont forget that there is no OUTSIDE, so when cosmologists talk about curvature they mean internal curvature as experienced by us inhabitants.

 

in 1850 people like Riemann and Gauss figured out ways to experience the shape of something with no outside----it is different from what non-scientists normally understand by "shape" which tends to involve being outside what you are looking at, or believing (without evidence) that there IS an outside.

 

so you can ask, how do we tell the curvature of the space we live in and the answer is simple. take survey instruments, laser beam protractors, and set up a TRIANGLE and measure the angle at each corner, between the income and the outgo beam. Add up the angles and see if it is greater than 180 degrees. If it is then you live in positive curved 3D space!

 

Gauss actually wanted to do this, back around 1850. It occurred to him that space might not be flat. You can only tell with a BIG triangle.

 

Flat in this case just means that no matter how big the triangle its angles add up to 180 degrees. It doesnt mean 2D. It means uncurved.

 

I'm simplifying some---just aiming to get the gist of it to you

=======================

 

Now astronomers don't have these big triangles but they have mathematically worked out equivalent ways to measure. Like the distance volume relation. In an uncurved space, the volume a ball contains is always 4pi/3 times radius cube. And assuming galaxies tend to be uniformly distributed at very large scale you can kind of estimate the volume by COUNTING GALAXIES. So one way they measure curvature is by seeing how the galaxy count increases with radial distance.

 

If the volume increases more slowly than the cube of radius that indicates positive curvature. have to go.

[ajb]

By shape you mean local geometry. (By local, we include the observable universe). This can indeed be measured as Martin suggests by using light rays as we know how light propagates in curved space-times. Studies of the CMBR and other cosmological observations suggest the observable universe is flat.

 

The global topology (including outside the observable universe) is much harder to determine. The local geometry does not (in general) determine the global topology (or global geometry), it can however put constraints on it.

 

So, the question of the geometry and topology of the universe is still an open question. Maybe we will never know for sure.

[Mr Skeptic]

Now astronomers don't have these big triangles but they have mathematically worked out equivalent ways to measure. Like the distance volume relation. In an uncurved space, the volume a ball contains is always 4pi/3 times radius cube. And assuming galaxies tend to be uniformly distributed at very large scale you can kind of estimate the volume by COUNTING GALAXIES. So one way they measure curvature is by seeing how the galaxy count increases with radial distance.

 

If the volume increases more slowly than the cube of radius that indicates positive curvature. have to go.

 

That seems like a clever idea. Would that also mean that inverse square laws get slightly modified at these distances (as well as any force that could act at those distances)? That could prove to be a bit awkward, as things like type Ia supernovae would be a different brightness than expected.

[fripro]

That seems like a clever idea. Would that also mean that inverse square laws get slightly modified at these distances (as well as any force that could act at those distances)? That could prove to be a bit awkward, as things like type Ia supernovae would be a different brightness than expected.

 

 

The Universe is immense beyond all imagination of individual humans on Earth. One can see in the deep space photograph by NASA an obvious tilting of the galaxies at many different angles. This seems to infer that some background galaxies are on the surface of a transparent expanded globe.

 

This globe probably is rotating; however, because of its size, perception of the rotational movement on Earth, in our Milky Way galaxy, is impossible to measure.*

 

Of course the Hubble camera was looking in one direction, so where are we with respect to the globe? My guess is in the outer shell of the globe through which we are now looking, the shell being very thick but transparent to various frequencies of radiation infra red (UV, visual light, X rays, gamma rays, micro waves, radio waves, etc). *

 

Observation of the red shift exhibited less red shift than expected, indicating that the expansion of the Universe across the globe's surface is speeding up. It could also imply that the Universe is rotating.

 

A rotating Universe would be gyroscopic, the source of gravity ,g, on Earth.

 

Now watch the nasayers!

[DrDNA]

Of course the Hubble camera was looking in one direction, so where are we with respect to the globe? My guess is in the outer shell of the globe through which we are now looking, the shell being very thick but transparent to various frequencies of radiation infra red (UV, visual light, X rays, gamma rays, micro waves, radio waves, etc).

 

 

What is the "shell" made of?

[fripro]

What is the "shell" made of?

 

I know what you have asked me is a leading question,

next I would be asked to prove it, just how can I do that?

 

My answer is theoretical based on years of scientific experiments an observations.

 

It is very hard for our human mind to comprehend the premise that the entire Universe’s bubble-like globe is made of the ether's particle's, mass, and waves.

 

All mass galaxies are expanding across its particle atmospheric surface. This same Universe (a soap bubble example) floats in the infinite nothing.

[Edtharan]

I know what you have asked me is a leading question,

next I would be asked to prove it, just how can I do that?

Actually, the Universe is riding on the back of a Giant Tortise, but it is too big to observe so I can prove it...

 

Sorry, but if you are basing this Theory on "on years of scientific experiments an observations", then you must have some evidence of this "Sphere" (as that is just exactly what you said you have). So, no, by your own statemnts you have to have that evidence or you are just making it up.

 

Either you have the evidence and gave therefore give us the evidence that shows us what the sphere is, or you don't have any evidence and you were therfore lying about haing "years of scientific experiments an observations" that support your theory.

 

It is very hard for our human mind to comprehend the premise that the entire Universe’s bubble-like globe is made of the ether's particle's, mass, and waves.

This is a cop out. If you have understood it enough to come up with they theory (or any human for that matter), then it can not be outside the ability of humans to understnad it.

 

This leaves us again with two options:

1) The theory is made up with nothing to actually support it,

or

2) No human is capable of understanding it and therefore no human could have come up with it (and therefore the theory does not exist - unless of course you aren't Human)

 

One can see in the deep space photograph by NASA an obvious tilting of the galaxies at many different angles.

You would think that a "Surface" would cause the galaxies to line up on it. But as you said, they are at all different angles, so they are no lined up at all. This to me indicates that there is no surface at all.

 

This seems to infer that some background galaxies are on the surface of a transparent expanded globe.

Is this globe a sold, liquid, gas, plasma, Bose/Einstein Condensate? Is it matter or energy (photons and such)?

 

What are it's physical properties. As you say it seems to interact with matter (all those galaxies are stuck on the surface of it), so it must have some way of interacting with matter, how does it do this?

 

If it interacts with matter in any way we should be able to detect it and through that interaction we can determine many of it's properties.

 

In fact, if you are claiming that you have any evidence of this sphere existing, then this is the kind of data one would need to make that claim.

 

So is: "What is the "shell" made of?" a leading question?

 

No. It is a perfectly valid question that any theory like what you have proposed must fullfill.

 

Oh, and if you want to prove it, give us the data that supports you theory. All scientific theories must be supported by data (observations at least). IF they don't have this supporting data, then they are not a scientific theory.

[fripro]

I will give your perfectly valid question that any theory like what you have proposed must fullfill. but let's not get into argument of sarcasm, as that is not scientific.

[Phi for All]

I will give your perfectly valid question that any theory like what you have proposed must fullfill.

When?

[fripro]

I am preparing the text and photo's now that will give you something to think about. Please give me the time to answer ]when[/u

[DrDNA]

I know what you have asked me is a leading question,

next I would be asked to prove it, just how can I do that?

 

My answer is theoretical based on years of scientific experiments an observations.

 

It is very hard for our human mind to comprehend the premise that the entire Universe’s bubble-like globe is made of the ether's particle's, mass, and waves.

 

All mass galaxies are expanding across its particle atmospheric surface. This same Universe (a soap bubble example) floats in the infinite nothing.

 

Believe me when I say I that I did not intend for my question to be a "leading" anything. I am a chemist, so this is wayyyyy outside the scope of my expertise, and I am not in a position to critisize your theory or hypoth.

I have never heard of such a thing (an outer shell regarding the universe) and was (am) naturally curious.

 

It does seems like a normal question to ask, especially since you brought it up.

So, I'll ask again.....please tell me what this "shell" is (or isn't)....are you infering that it is like a "soap bubble"? a wave? particles? like light, both ? "ether"? "infinite nothing"?

[fripro]

DNA others

 

Phi For All

 

Martin pointed out in an earlier thread (Flat in this case) just means that no matter how big the triangle its angles add up to 180 degrees. It doesn’t mean 2D.

 

Stereoscopic telescopes like Hubble are capable of, seeing 3D.

 

It is sad that Hubble is off line now. NASA has announced that the Hubble telescope (which just was damaged by the CME from the sun and other reasons) will be repaired in 2008, and plans are still underway for the James Webb Telescope, Hubble's successor, which would be launched in 2011.

 

JWT will be designed to view objects in visible light and infrared, and its mirror will have six times the area of Hubble's mirror. Its goal is to study the first stars and galaxies that formed in the early Universe. It will operate 1 million miles (1.5 million km) away from the Earth, and will not be serviceable from orbit.

 

JWT can take stereoscopic photos years apart and we will be able to see the universe in greater resolution stereographically.

 

One way you can see the stero photo referenced, is to cross your eyes.

 

Here is a deep space stero-like photo in part from NASA Hubble space telescope. Imagine the points (when viewing this stero photo) that I have pointed out earlier. The red shift can also be viewed, at the yellow galaxy. Indicating rotation.

 

I also wish to point out that if the Earth was transparent and if one could see through the earth at the various hurricanes, tornado etc. on the so call tranparent globe. We could also see through the earth to huricanes on the other side--the same for a rotating Universe

 

These huricanes are similar to galaxies. The huricanes and tornados on a transparent earth would be at all angles, similar to the stero photo I have referenced. They are in the earth's thin atmosphere which is particle like also.

 

It would take an entire book to even approach the proof you are looking for.

 

The Universe is particle in nature and all mass and radiation(WAVES) are constructed in many form from these particles (dark matter) and the Vortex attraction between all matter is the Dark energy, we all are paying more attention to.

Log on to:

 

http://www.fripro.com/stero Universe.htm

[Realitycheck]

The problem with the bread dough analogy is that space is not bread dough. Space is essentially a vacuum. You cannot say that space grew when there was nothing there to grow. This is a flawed concept. Either the matter was propelled or ... bread dough space is illogical. In a vaccum, matter propelled at near c can still behave like it was still because there is no wind.

 

All across the universe you have 60 stars spread out evenly. One moves apart from the second one at c. The second one moves apart from the third one at c. The third one moves apart from the fourth one at c. So once you measure the aggregate speed between the first one and the 60th one, you get an aggregate speed of 60c. Fine. However, if that was the case, someone sitting at the first star would never even see the second star, because it was travelling at c, therefore making it unviewable.

[Martin]

...that was the case, someone sitting at the first star would never even see the second star, because it was travelling at c, therefore making it unviewable.

 

 

dammit Agent, that is covered in the SciAm Lineweaver article!

EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO TALK IN THIS FORUM SHOULD HAVE READ THAT ARTICLE BY NOW. it is the Kindergartens of cosmology the real real basics.

 

we observe galaxies all the time which were receding at more than c when they emitted the light, and Lineweaver explains how that happens in

real simple language.

 

You should have no problem understanding. At this point you just continually waste people's time by saying stuff that isnt true

 

For Cripes sake he explains it with a simple PICTURE

How many times to I have to give the same link

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=384716#post384716

 

I'm going to start a thread in Pseudoscience for posts based on sheer ignorance of the Baby Basics of Cosmology covered in the Lineweaver SciAm article. That way I can have somewhere to collect really repetitious mistakes and deal with them efficiently.

[Realitycheck]

I did see the movie, err, some movie about some guy teaching a class, but I will read that also. Stay tuned.

[Martin]

Good, the holding tank for posts which don't reflect a grasp of the Lineweaver article is now ready here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=386171#post386171

 

It has links to some sidebars and illustrations covering remedial basics. Short and easy to understand.

[Nick_Spanich]

Well I like all aspects of science not just one like you. I belive they all intersect That's why I study them all nd I may only be 13 but I already found my specialty bugs. They tell alot of our ancestors. Not the the shape question. The universe is never ending. It may be matterless. but Its not really a shape

[DrDNA]

The universe is never ending matter. Its not really a shape

 

 

Can you explain this in more detail?

[Nick_Spanich]

Can you explain this in more detail?

 

 

Yes I can. But my words will be small as I am only in 7th grade.

 

Well Think of the universe as a house there must a outside. Think of our planet earth. Theres a house and outside is more houses and yards and outside thouse is the planets and the universe and outside that there must be something. even if there is it is matterless.

[Klaynos]

The problem happens when someone points out the universe isn't a house, it's a universe :s

[Nick_Spanich]

The problem happens when someone points out the universe isn't a house, it's a universe :s

 

I am using the house statement to point out that the universe doesn't end.

 

even outside all the stars planest and galaxy's there is space. even if it is matterless. I am not saying the universe is a house

[fripro]

I admire the thought of houses, and I raise the point that as one travels in an airplane over the top of all the homes, even as the earth turns, and one continues to circle the globe of houses he will come back to the first house you pointed out

 

So is the Universe, rotating, the source of centripical gravity an the galaxies are the houses my young friend equates to.

 

One must not forget that the airplane must fly in an atmosphere, over these uncountable number of houses. So true is the Universe, it also has an atmosphere-- Dark Matter!

[thedarkshade]

Shape infinity:rolleyes: