Shape of the Universe

[Raisa]

"We cant tell what the shape of the universe is because we are always inside it"


What do you think of this statement?

[RedAnarchist]

We cannot see it from every possible viewpoint, so we cannot ever know the true shape of the Universe. It is like looking at a cube - you would need to be abel to see it from many different angles in order to find its shape.

[che's long lost daughter]

If one could only go from its beginning to its end then, one can know whaat is its shape but that's impossible therefore knowing its shape is also impossible.

[Clarksist]

It is said that our universe is finite. And at the edge are more universes with different qualities, elements, and different physics.

That is something to ponder.

[coda]

The shape of the universe is like Che's long lost daughter's avatar. always expanding and pulsating. possibly ready to implode

[MarxItUpSome]

One theory is that space bends in ways we cannot comprehend, like an ant walking along a wire, it canwalk forwards, backwards, left or right and to it, the wire is two dimensional. It's the same thing with the universe, there are other directions we cannot understand. It has been said that if you were to travel through the universe far enough, we would return to where we started without understanding why.

[Vallegrande]

Reminds me of the song "Third Planet" by Modest Mouse,

The universe is shaped exactly like the earth if you go straight long enough you'll end up where you were

[encephalon]

we can look at the shape of the universe relative to our own perspective.

The statement is like saying you can't determine the shape of a house if you're sitting in it. You might not be able to know what the color of the paint is, but you can usually make an educated guess about its basic structure.

That said, we've a rather detailed map of the universe we're aware of; it resembles a soap bubble in structure, actually, and displays a repeating fractal-like pattern.

[bed_of_nails]

The universe is constantly expanding, so that makes it hard to get near the edge.

If you were at enough points around the edges of the universe with marking beacons and uploaded the coordinates into a computer, it would be extremely easy to determine the shape of the universe.

[encephalon]

The universe is constantly expanding, so that makes it hard to get near the edge.

Correct, but the same objects would remain at the edge of the universe now matter how large it became. You can therefore still determine its shape (provided it doesn't loop around, as has been suggested), as long as you know which objects are at the edge. As far as I'm aware, the furthest objects we've found are quasars, and that has remained consistent for quite some time.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:25 PM
The statement is like saying you can't determine the shape of a house if you're sitting in it. You might not be able to know what the color of the paint is, but you can usually make an educated guess about its basic structure.
I was gonna say the same thing. I can see a corner (or "where 2 walls meet in a 90º degrees angle") a metre behind my computer, so I can conclude with only that fact, that my room is not a sphere.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:08 PM

The universe is constantly expanding, so that makes it hard to get near the edge.

Correct, but the same objects would remain at the edge of the universe now matter how large it became. You can therefore still determine its shape (provided it doesn't loop around, as has been suggested), as long as you know which objects are at the edge. As far as I'm aware, the furthest objects we've found are quasars, and that has remained consistent for quite some time.
Wrong, or the distance between the Sun and the Earth would be expanding at an enormous rate.

The distance between any two given objects may be expanding, but it isnt necessarily increasing at the same rate as any other two given objects.

[Che NJ]

If the big bang theory is correct, then the universe would be roughly the shape of a sphere. People say the universe inly exists as far as light has reached since the beginning of the universe so therefore it is expanding at the speed of light. Only large gravity and light bending objects could divert the direction of the light and distort the shape of the unverse in a certain area. it would still be roughly the shape of a sphere.

[ComradeRed]

But what if the big bang theory is correct and the universe does not expand like a single balloon. Rather, it could be like a single balloon, then on every point of the balloon a new balloon is created, and these new balloons have a ballon on every single point, ad infinitum. What shape would this have?

[Rural_Communalist]

Can't they predict the shape of the universe by the way light and radiation reflect within the universe?

I remember in science one time, using an estimate of how fast the universe was growing at a certain rate, how many grains of sand it would take to put across it's diameter (assuming it is round).

However, depending on the meterial of the universe (if it is limited), wouldn't that affect the way it expands? Kind of like a balloon, it doesn't expand perfectly circular.

[Exploited Class]

We know the shape and the age of the parts within that shape.

http://msowww.anu.edu.au/news/archive/2003/03_mar/WMAP_1.jpg

The second diagram is the American team's map of the cosmic microwave background, obtained with the WMAP satellite. The fluctuations, which show as colour changes, are a few ten-thousandths of a degree Kelvin. The fluctuations are the cooling remnant of the fireball of the Big Bang, and show the structure of the universe just 379,000 years after the Big Bang.


If we could look at all points of the universe, it wouldn't matter because we would be looking at light that left millions of years ago and has changed since the point it reached us. Also we know the mass of the universe, the ages between areas, the velocity of the big bang (through the aging of the universe) so we have a pretty good idea what the universe's (not outerspace which the universe sits in) shape.

[Vallegrande]

Why is it just thought to be one big bang. There could have been countless big bangs happening all at once, and still happening.

[encephalon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 04:32 AM
Wrong, or the distance between the Sun and the Earth would be expanding at an enormous rate.

The distance between any two given objects may be expanding, but it isnt necessarily increasing at the same rate as any other two given objects.
You misunderstand--everything is expanding away from the center, the origin of the big bang. Since the origin of all matter in the universe would be the same in this situation, then all matter propelled by it would travel at the same velocity until it hits another object.

Imagine a a culture of bacteria, for instance. The cells keep multiplying from the source in the center, continually expanding outwards. Although it depends upon the particular type of bacteria (and thus the rules that govern its multiplication), it comes out to be a symmetrical shape. If we were inside of it, however, we'd just see things moving away from us.

You could also do this with playdough, to an extent, although particular perturberances in pressure and other forces might interfere with the shape. simply smash a small ball of playdough with your hand, making it necessary for everything to expand outwards. Lift your hand and you see that it all expanded outwards roughly at the same rate, even though inside all the atoms and molecules are colliding.

[Vallegrande]

Imagine a a culture of bacteria, for instance. The cells keep multiplying from the source in the center, continually expanding outwards.
Yes I think there is something universal between the cells in our bodies, the planets, and the universe. They all have a round shape (the known symbol for continuance). And perhaps, since we have multiple cells in our bodies, and so on with the planets, then there must be multiple universes. Therefore I think it wasnt just one bang, but many. Is the big bang a fact anyways? It could have happened countless times.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:06 AM

Imagine a a culture of bacteria, for instance. The cells keep multiplying from the source in the center, continually expanding outwards.
Yes I think there is something universal between the cells in our bodies, the planets, and the universe. They all have a round shape (the known symbol for continuance). And perhaps, since we have multiple cells in our bodies, and so on with the planets, then there must be multiple universes. Therefore I think it wasnt just one bang, but many. Is the big bang a fact anyways? It could have happened countless times.
Or may not have even happened yet! If you travelled around the world at the speed of light theoretically you would see yourself leave. Therefore if you travelled faster than the speed of light theoretically you would coexist at the same point at the same time and at every other point along the route of your journey. My theory is similar to the multiple baloons theory mentioned by comrade red. when the big bang happened the 'edge' expanded rapidly and with no friction speeded up continually till it passed the speed of light at that point, not just all the points along the edge but every point along the journey i.e every point from the centre outwards are 'mirrored' infinately in all directions and dimentions. this event would cause the release of an incomprehensibly massive ammount of energy causing the universe to litterally turn itself inside out and outside in, again infinately, resulting ultimately in a helix like spiral. The energy from this event is what religious folk falsely believe to be god. I believe everything in the universe is made up of said energy we are like ripples in that energy. The only reason you see yourself as an individual is because of the difference bettween you and everything else around you. Point A cannot exist till it has point B to reference itself by. Its no fluke that DNA is in a helix spiral. Also if you shrank a black hole to the size of a football and tried to reach the centre you never would your arm would appear to travel straight but would infact spiral towards the centre.

[danny android]

the universe is shaped like a doughnut.

[Djehuti]

I have always believed in the funnel-shaped universe.
Like this: http://www.astronomytoday.com/forum/post-122.html

[codyvo]

I am not sure what the shape of the universe is but I have heard that it is very possible that it may simply just come to an abrupt end, but since the human brain has a difficult time comprehending this theory it is usually dismissed. And I know it is off topic but I have also heard the theory that humans are only three dimensional representations of something that is made of more dimensions, just like a shadow is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional being.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:32 AM
I have always believed in the funnel-shaped universe.
Like this: http://www.astronomytoday.com/forum/post-122.html
Interesting but no picture! I think I can visualize it though...

I am not sure about the abrupt end idea; perhaps the universe is looped and if so, it could be spherical but appear to be funnel-shaped because of how it doubles back.
I tend to go for the spear idea because... well that is gravity pulls bodies; though I suppose it is rather arbitrary for a shape of the universe. Uh-oh… this is going beyond physics and into the land of make-believe... I'm growing an idealist tumor :lol:

This is really one of those "no way to know" questions... makes you wonder.

[Kristatos]

I thought it had been proved that the universe was more or less flat. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99517.htm

[KC]

the universe is shaped like a doughnut.

Space-time is shaped like a hollowed-out sphere.

[Organic Revolution]

its impossible to accually know.

[Zingu]

ComradeRed is correct, the universe, or rather the multiverse; where new universes start sprouting off from an other is the theory physicists are proposing now.

But the exact shape, is out of comphresion at the moment. I believe physical science needs to go through a revolution before we understand this. Physicists needs to start looking at things from Archimedes' point; one detached from our temporal asymmetry, which has made us make so many mistakes, even today.

I also believe that our current theories of time are incorrect and asymetric, which is causing great mistakes in subjects like these and is probably the reason why quantum mechanics is so bizzare and confusing to us.

[Vallegrande]

This is what I think. Each organism is a universe in itself. We all have this same cycle of birth and death, which springs new life. This universe is alive and it will die someday, and its death will give life to other universes. Like when a tree dies it sprouts 20 little ones, the universe also has that potential.

[Led Zeppelin]

The shape of the universe can best be compared to the shape of an egg.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 11:58 AM
This is what I think. Each organism is a universe in itself. We all have this same cycle of birth and death, which springs new life. This universe is alive and it will die someday, and its death will give life to other universes. Like when a tree dies it sprouts 20 little ones, the universe also has that potential.
Can you offer evidence that the universe is alive?

Only living things can experience death. The universe may end, and it may spawn more universes based off that commonly accepted theory, but it cannot die unless it is alive.

[KC]

Isn't the current theory having to do with explaining how the big bang happened by two branes colliding?

[Vallegrande]

Actually, now that I think about, the universe encompasses both life and death at once. I dont know if the universe in itself is dead or alive, it must be neither then. But there is life and death within a universe, the same within our own bodies.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:50 AM
Actually, now that I think about, the universe encompasses both life and death at once. I dont know if the universe in itself is dead or alive, it must be neither then. But there is life and death within a universe, the same within our own bodies.
But you forget that our bodies are ALIVE.


Isn't the current theory having to do with explaining how the big bang happened by two branes colliding?

:huh:

[Vallegrande]

But you forget that our bodies are ALIVE.

And dying at the same time. Both are happening together I think.

[Zingu]

Think of dialectics for a moment; our bodies are never in a complete state of dying or being alive; constantly new cells are being created as old ones die. Eventually; quantative to qualitative, we are completely dead. ;)

[Vallegrande]

Or completely alive lol. This reminds me of the ancient concept of "It is, and it isn't".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have any of you thought that you might be asking the wrong question? I think we need to find out precisely how many dimensions the universe has before we start asking what the shape is. A 2D creature would percieve a cube as a square plane*, a sphere as a seemingly infinite plane etc. Our 3.5D** existance totally skews our perception of what the universe really is like.

The shape of the universe might not even be describable in normal language - indeed, that's why cosmologists have such a difficult time with lay people because the only truly accurate way to describe the universe is mathematically.

So how many dimensions are they? What are the properties of these dimensions?

(*This is a gross oversimplification. what you would actually 'see' if it were possible would be a horizon like series of dots and lines represnting 2D objects. This description is also inaccurate, but hopefully you get the idea.)

(** Time is counted as half a dimension because it is unidirectional, at least to us.)

[KC]

huh.gif

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010922/bob9.asp
There's some info on that. Amazing theory, really. Of course, you can't throw this at creationists because they will say "Where did the branes come from?" I'm about to buy a book about humanity's quest for the beginning of time. It sounds good.
Anyways, this site goes into string theory and stuff like that. If you want to learn more about this kind of stuff (string theory, grand unification theory, quantum physics, etc...) check out The Elegant Universe (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html
Here's the latest on the number of dimensions. Although it is somewhat old I admit, I haven't heard of any developments in this matter. Haha here's another book I have to read!

[zendo]

WELL THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING AND EVENTUALLY IT WILL CONTRACT, THUS THE BIG BANG WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN

REMEMBER WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN, BLACK HOLES PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN THE ABSORPTION OF THE UNIVERSE ONCE IT BEGINS TO CONTRACT.

THE INDIAN SAGES HAVE STATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO THAT THE UNIVERSE IS BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD AND THAT THE UNIVERSES LIKE THE SUN, PLANETS, STARS GO THRU LIFE CYCLES.

IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT OUT OF ALL THE RELIGIONS AND DIFFERENT ASTRONOMERS THE INDIAN SAGES WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT PROCLAIMED THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.

WWW.ACCESSTOINSIGHT.ORG

WWW.BUDDHANET.NET

WWW.BUDDHISMTODAY.COM

[Seeker]

Well said Seraphim.

http://www.meru.org/gm.jpeg

Pondering light-speed travel and being-everywhere-at-once has led me to the same conclusions.

[Vallegrande]

It looks like a cell dividing into two. And that spiral reminds me of some kind of pi.

[ComradeRed]

Well, with the "distortion of spacetime" theory in mind, it looks more like a plastic bag full of water with the observer as a fish. If the fish goes in one direction, spacetime (i.e. the bag) distorts itself accordingly so it appears to the observer that the universe is infinite.

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 10:03 AM
"We cant tell what the shape of the universe is because we are always inside it"


What do you think of this statement?
We haven't seen the entire universe I'd say. thus it is impossible right now to know it's shape.

What if there are multiple universes?

or:

what if this universe is actually one universe in a sequence of many universes that have died and been re-formed. let's say this universe dies according to this theory, then another might form in the place of it.

[ComradeRed]

The latter theory is more probable than there being an infinite number (or really any number beyond 1) universes; Einstein's relativity theory allows the universe to grow so large before collapsing into itself. If there were some way to manipulate gravity, we as humans could not be limited by the "big crunch".

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:09 PM
If there were some way to manipulate gravity, we as humans could not be limited by the "big crunch".
Manipulate it in what way? Obviously manipulating gravity is possible but somewhat our of our grasp as of now.

More importantly I would think, is the ultimate ability to harness energy from matter (E=MC^2). If we had the power of the matter in the universe; I don't think the "big crunch" would be a problem but the next expansion might be.

[ComradeRed]

Well the big crunch would have something along the lines of a density several fold of that of a black hole. No living being could survive; however, if gravity could be manipulated then the whole schism can be avoided due to the distortions of spacetime. We must do it quickly! We only have about 10 million thousand years! That's 10000000000 years, or 3.1556926 × 10^17 seconds! Hurry!

Wasn't the E=mc^2 thing doing with the distortion of spacetime in the first place? From my understanding there is no way (as of yet) to literally change matter into energy (or vice versa). But then again, what do we know now? In 10 years I could be wrong.