The shape of the Universe.

[Ronald Hyde]

Here's another shape that it can be in. Imagine a cube, of finite size, but mathematically 'connect' each face

to its direct opposite. And it increases in size with time too. If you lived inside it and you went up through

the top you would return through the bottom. It's a very interesting space, for translations it is perfectly

symmetrical, but it is different in different directions, it has no less that seven different axis, three for the

sides and four for the corner to opposite corner axis. Just what you need to represent certain aspects of

physics.

[Greg H.]

Here's another shape that it can be in. Imagine a cube, of finite size, but mathematically 'connect' each face

to its direct opposite. And it increases in size with time too. If you lived inside it and you went up through

the top you would return through the bottom. It's a very interesting space, for translations it is perfectly

symmetrical, but it is different in different directions, it has no less that seven different axis, three for the

sides and four for the corner to opposite corner axis. Just what you need to represent certain aspects of

physics.

 

What you're describing is called a three dimensional torus. And it does mathematically describe one possible shape of the curvature of space-time - it's a variation of the infinite flat space-time geometry, which allows space to act like it's infinite, without edges or borders, while still being finite in total size. However, it is not the only possible shape of space time.

 

You should check out Brian Greene's book The Fabric of the Cosmos (which is where I got the above). He spends some time talking about the curvature of the universe (in physicist speak, whether it is positive, negative, or zero) on pages 238 - 243.

 

As an aside, the jury is still out on which curvature is actually taken on by our universe, but Greene says this on page 243:

Although the observational issue is yet to be settled definitively, the most refined data are tipping the scales on the side of no curvature - the flat shape.

 

He notes, however, that on the subject of which of the two possible shapes of zero curvature is more accurate - the infinite plane, or the 3d torus - the question is still open.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Greg H.

[Ronald Hyde]

What you're describing is called a three dimensional torus. And it does mathematically describe one possible shape of the curvature of space-time - it's a variation of the infinite flat space-time geometry, which allows space to act like it's infinite, without edges or borders, while still being finite in total size. However, it is not the only possible shape of space time.

 

You should check out Brian Greene's book The Fabric of the Cosmos (which is where I got the above). He spends some time talking about the curvature of the universe (in physicist speak, whether it is positive, negative, or zero) on pages 238 - 243.

 

As an aside, the jury is still out on which curvature is actually taken on by our universe, but Greene says this on page 243:

 

 

He notes, however, that on the subject of which of the two possible shapes of zero curvature is more accurate - the infinite plane, or the 3d torus - the question is still open.

 

I'm actually aware of what you've said, but I didn't know about Greene's book, that would be interesting. For others reading this post, this is not a regular 3d torus with a curved geometry embedded in a 4 dimensional space, it has a 'flat' metric and is only embeddable in a torus of the same type in a higher dimension.

[uncool]

I'm actually aware of what you've said, but I didn't know about Greene's book, that would be interesting. For others reading this post, this is not a regular 3d torus with a curved geometry embedded in a 4 dimensional space, it has a 'flat' metric and is only embeddable in a torus of the same type in a higher dimension.

Err.

 

It can be isometrically embedded in 6-dimensional space directly. Try the subspace:

 

[latex]\left (cos \theta_1, sin \theta_1, cos \theta_2, sin \theta_2, cos \theta_3, sin \theta_3 \right)[/LATEX]

where [latex]\theta_i[/latex] is allowed to vary over all real numbers (or equivalently, over [latex][0, 2\pi)[/LATEX]).

=Uncool-

Edited August 22, 2012 by uncool

[Ronald Hyde]

Err.

 

It can be isometrically embedded in 6-dimensional space directly. Try the subspace:

 

[latex]\left (cos \theta_1, sin \theta_1, cos \theta_2, sin \theta_2, cos \theta_3, sin \theta_3 \right)[/LATEX]

where [latex]\theta_i[/latex] is allowed to vary over all real numbers (or equivalently, over [latex][0, 2\pi)[/LATEX]).

=Uncool-

 

Yes, that is an isomorphism of it, where [latex]2\pi[/latex] is the length of the sides. You can see it is related to SU(3).

Edited August 22, 2012 by Ronald Hyde

[Nobrainer]

An Aether can exist in three dimensions and I believe does exist and can be demonstrated to be the active hidden process that explains everything.

Here is how it intuitive could work.

In the beginning, the singularity (100% particle) became the big bang transferring energy into what became Mass( mostly particle behavior), energy (particle/wave duality) and space(100%wave) the aether, the monopole gravitational wave. But in order for the Aether to exist and elude Michelson and Morley, each piece of mass and energy still decay into the aether, creating more space and the Lorenz rules. Thus this is another explanation behind relativity except with this explanation, dark matter and energy and gravity and forward time and relative space-time are all accounted for.

It requires two new laws

1). All mass and energy decay creating space itself via the release of the gravitational wave creating the measurable actions of forward space-time.

2). When equal energy waves (in-phase) they collide and stack creating a reaction to the action of wavefront formation which is gravity.

I call this the Ghost wave theory and have both indirect and direct evidence that supports it.

[ACG52]

This is just word salad.

[Greg H.]

This is just word salad.

 

Can I get blue cheese on that?

[Ronald Hyde]

This is just word salad.

What part is word salad? That's a very vague remark, quite meaningless as it stands.

[too-open-minded]

I like to think of the universe as finite but unbound with no definite size or shape.