Universe may be shaped like a soccer ball by Succatash

NEWS HEADLINE DISCUSSIONS

Universe may be shaped like a soccer ball

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Friday, December 12, 2003 01:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5118
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, October 9, 2003 3:26 PM

I feel bad for all the other balls that aren't shaped like the universe. They got screwed.

Scientists Say Universe Might Be Soccer-Ball Shaped
Wed Oct 8, 2:16 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031008/sc_nm/space
_universe_dc_2

Scientists said Wednesday the universe could be spherical and patched together like a soccer ball -- and it may not be infinite. ...if Weeks and his colleagues are correct we might indeed live in a small, closed universe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 9, 2003 6:23 PM

SOUTHERNMERC

I understand that it may be finite but unbounded. This means it has a finite amount of "room" but, like old videogames like "Asteroids", you go one way far enough you just come back to where you started.

Or another example: Blow up a balloon (don't pop it), the balloon's surface has a finite area. But you can keep tracing a line across its surface without coming to a boundary.

It may also be a 4th dimensional representation of a 5 dimensional reality, much like a square is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional cube...which is a 3 dimensional representation of the 4 dimensional tessaract.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 7:03 PM

HUMBLE

here's a question(s) to ponder: is space a natural result of the presence of matter? at the time of the big bang, would space have been a localized and finite phenomenon? or has there always been a "certain amount" of space and no more. if there are alternate dimensions, how do they exist relative to our universe? could our universe be a pocket of space adjacent to even larger macro-universes?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 8:52 PM

PARADIGMSHIFT

From what I can tell, the popular theory among cosmologists is that, at the moment of the BB, the universe was infinitely compressed. It only follows with Hubble's law (galaxies continue to move farther away from one another, and the farther away they get, the faster they move) that, at one point, there was no expansion, or, infinite compression.

Then, you have the Big Bang and about 400000 years of nothing but hot gas everywhere, a uniform spread, too hot even to have electrons and protons coalesce into molecules (this is evidenced by the Cosmic Background Radiation- leftovers from the energy given off by the luminous gas). Then, finally, the gas cools enough for the formation of early hydrogen and the universe became transparent, then tiny ripples in the distribution of that eary matter (also detectable in extremely sensitive analyses of the Cosmic Background Radiation)soon became the focal points for early star and galactic development.

And there you have it. A brief, hopefully not so technobabbly description of the present theory of the Big Bang.

As to the curvature of the universe, well, recent research (don't even make me go into what it is. Let's just say it has to do with sources of light that never change, Standard Candles (which we think we've found in type Ia Supernovae) and how we percieve the fan out of theur light) that, if the measurements are to be trusted (a debatable thing at the moment) that, unlike the Entropy theory, in which the universe is negatively curved and all of the molecules will get so far apart and moving so slowly that everything will drop to 0 degrees Kelvin (all molecular motion ceases), the universe is actually accelerating, and the theory of positive curvature, or, as you've said, a soccer ball, seems more and more likely. In this theory, the universe will eventually collapse under its own weight, and very possibly infinitely compress and Big Bang once more.

Yes, I know I took the long way around giving current popular thoughts on two questions, but they were rather complex.

Hope it helps, at any rate!

Paradigm Shift

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:23 AM

HUMBLE

i suscribe to the theory that the universe is infinite. how the universe came into being is currently speculative. one view is still the big bang. another is the universe was created due to the collision of two adjacent realities/dimensions. ensuing collision gave off energy particles, etc. (if you have a better understanding of THIS theory, elucidate please) the idea however, that the universe will only expand so much and then collapse upon itself, seems to be more viable with advent of dark matter presence. (rubber-band effect). then again, if the universe DOES keep on expanding forever, what effect do you think proton decay will have on the continuation of life in the universe? would "life" as we know it, be forced, sometime in the VERY distant future, to evolve to a different state of being? also, as an aside, what do you think of the idea of earth's magnetic field reversing whithin next century? speculation is that venus and mars experienced a loss of magnetic field protecting them from stellar wind. this in turn broke down water on both planets and "killed" possibility of life as we know it. i love this kind of stuff! (have you read any kip thorne?)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:19 AM

DRAKON

I have to admit, I don't believe in infinity. It is inconsistent with objects observed, and appears to be a logical inconsistency. And in a choice between accepting a logical universe, or an infinite one, I'll go with logic, as I have evidence to support that, while I do not have evidence to support infinity.

Right now there is no evidence of proton decay, which is EXTREMELY troubling for theories that require it. We have had several experiments used to measure it, and so far have found nothing indicating the process takes place.

As for alternate realities/dimensions and the like, part of this is based on a flawed understanding of Schrodinger's cat paradox, and part of this is nice looking mathematics of questionable applicablity to the real world. We can imagine all kinds of things outside the real world, create ideas and concepts that have no relation to reality. That does not make them real. More dimensions makes the math look nicer, but to date, there is no evidence that such exist.

Pole swapping: I have heard this could cause some problems related to solar winds, but not sure it will be that big a deal. It has happened before, and life still exists on this planet. So there is little reason to suppose that it is as severe a danger as a lot of folks make it out to be, or that anything can be done to prevent it.

Mars lost its atmosphere because it was too light to keep it. Because of its low mass, its solid crust is thicker, making volcanism a lot harder. (Yes, I know about Mons Olympus and her 3 sisters. These are pretty rare on Mars, and have apparently been extinct for some time.)

Venus, lost her water, probably due to being too bloody close to the sun and getting too hot. She still has volcanoes, and is almost as massive as the Earth. Without rain, CO2 released by volcanism stays in the air, instead of becoming carbonate minerals. Which simply accelerates the green house effect.

Mars does not have a magnetic field, apparently because its small size caused it to lose its heat so fast it no longer has a liquid core. Venus does not have plate tectonics (as such) due partly because of its lack of water, which acts a a lubercant. But beside that, its axial spin, its day, is so long, whether it has a core or not, its not rotating fast enough to do much.

Now, whether the lack of a magnetic field contributed to the water loss is debatable, as other mechanisms seem more active in removing water. Extreme closeness to the sun (whose surface grows hotter as it ages) and simply being too light to hang on to it.

Evolution: I have no idea. I do see advances in medical technology accomplishing, possibly in your lifetime, several amazing things such as, an end to cancer and the whole host of genetic diseases; an end to organ transplants, (simply grow a new one in situ, teach the body how to repair itself) and possibly even practical immortality. Beyond that, its anybody's guess as to what challenges the physical form will be subjected to, and have to evolve to adapt to.

I can see that other advances will allow folks to tailor their bodies not too different picking clothes. You want fur, a tail, horns, wings, tenticles? Simply take the proper synthetic retrovirus, wait for a bit, (possibly a lot of scratching involved) and there ya go. You want to change genders, even temporarily? Take this other retrovirus. Lost your arm? Well grow a new one and stop bugging me.

Love Kip Thorn. Would recommend Matt Visser as well.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 9:05 AM

PARADIGMSHIFT

I agree that the universe has to be finite. The evidence to support the non-Euclidean idea of curved space is so much more grounded than infinity (and, if space is curved, the beginning and end point eventually have to meet togetehr again, therefore, finite). Infinity is a nice thought, but it's also impractical. How the hell did the universe reach infinite proportions? Where did it come from? To have an infinite universe implies that it always was and always will be that size (because once you reach the point of infinity, there's no way out of it), and that is in direct contradiction of Hubble's Law, and all Einsteinian thories (which have been tested exhaustively in the lab, and are very much supportable). Matter doesn't just spontaneously burst into being, and the thought of infinite matter makes no sense. The only time with any evidence to support that the universe might have been infinite was at the moment of the Big Bang (though the concept of simultaneous infinity and infinte compression does boggle the mind, or, at least, it boggles mine.) Still, the best evidence I can give that the universe is not infinite is that it is expanding. There is hard physical evidence for this fact, and, if the universe was infinite, how, exactly, would it expand?

As to the theory that the universe is unbounded, well, it makes perfect sense to me. It is like a soccer ball, if the theory of positive curvature is to be trusted, and, therefore, eventually you'll be travelling along its surface in a straight line, and find you've come full circle. You're back to where you started.

Mmm. I love this sort of discussion.

Paradigm Shift

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:09 AM

HUMBLE

problem i've always had with the big bang theory is if the universe was compressed into a very small area of space at one time, why, at some much earlier point, didn't a black hole form. if a star above a certain critical mass collapses in upon itself black holes form. also, if matter does affect "space" (or gives definition to it), that is, matter creates a gravity well and kind of sinks into surrounding space. this being so, what is matter "sinking" into? is there a flip side universe that is experiencing a reverse gravity well? if the matter in the universe expands more or less uniformly in every direction,then i agree the universe is spherical, but i can't resolve in my mind the how or why space SHOULD exist except as a result of the presence of matter. if matter does distort space, and matter is energy, then would a large amount of energy in a small space create the equivalent of a gravity well distortion? if so, could this "bend" in space caused by the energy source be used to be used to connect to another source-created "bend" to create a "shortened" area of space (or shortcut) between one point and another destination? (sort of like how they folded space on dune) realize source would have to be quite large, but would this be within the realm of possibility?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:44 PM

PARADIGMSHIFT

The problem with black holes is that we don't, and possibly can't know a lot about them. We know that they're extremely dense, and there's so much matter compressed so highly that it not only bends space, but rips through it (if the theory of General Relativity is any indicator). Think of space as a trampoline with various weights being put on it. Eventually, you're going to get something that's so heavy that it simply rips through the fabric of the trampoline. This is your black hole (which is black, consequently, becasue it has such a gravitational draw that not even light can escape). As to what is beyond a black hole, well, no one knows. We can't exactly probe beyond the event horizon, and, so, we really don't know what would happen to something that falls into such a gravity well. The popular theory of the day, as proposed by Stephen Hawking, is that, should anything pass beyond the event horizon, the gravity would literally turn whatever fell in into a chain of its own molecules, so, if a person ever was spit back out after going in, they'd be a some-hundred-miles-long, molecule thick spaghetti noodle.

This also applies to the wrinkle in time thing. As nifty as it sounds, it just isn't plausible, becasue you really can't bend space. If you tried, what would msot likely result from the production of as much energy as is needed to that severely damage the four-dimensional space-time (and we're talking on the scale of a supernova), you wouldn't get a bend, you'd get another rip, and you'd once again encounter the issue of the human spaghetti noodle.

The Big Bang is a fun topic, becasue, basically, the theory goes (and try to wrap you mind around this one), while matter was infinitely compressed, it was also infinite, so matter was both nowhere and everywhere at the exact same moment. It sounds insane, but that's how things go, then, of course you have the Big Bang.

Paradigm Shift

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:16 PM

CPTBUCK25

Another thing to remember is that in those first moments ( and even years) after the BB, it was just raw energy, matter didn't start happening till a little ways further down the line. By the time matter DID rear it's head in the new universe, the expansion of the univers was already well under way. As energy has no mass, gravity wouldn't have played a role towards forming a black hole, and by the time there was enough matter to maybe get a good start on a BH, everything was already moving away from eachother way too fast for A BH to really have a chance.

I've got some sources for this if anyone's interested.

Keep on flyin'!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:57 PM

HUMBLE

the more i think about it, the more the big bang theory just doesn't wash. if energy is equal to mass x speed of light^2, doesn't that imply an equivalent amount of energy will "act" the same as mass (gravity formation)? was space "stronger" at the instant of the big bang to prevent black hole formation? obviously our understanding of physics breaks down at extremes. i just can't figure how/where all this energy came into being or how it all originated into being. how could so much energy come together into such concentration even for a short time. due to the expansion of matter in the universe, the big bang was an extremely violent reaction of unstable, highly excited energy/particles(?). doesn't big bang theory imply external intent? i just can't believe universe formation was "natural occurance". also, in reference to folding space might create "rip" in space, are you saying that a rip would lead to extra-space region not in our own space? why would space rip? if it does rip, does this imply that universe's expansion is finite, due to space reaching a maximum expansion limit and extra-space forces pushing our space back?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:39 PM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by humble:
problem i've always had with the big bang theory is if the universe was compressed into a very small area of space at one time, why, at some much earlier point, didn't a black hole form.

But the black hole is not the end. Remember Hawking radiation, which oddly enough increases in intensity as the black hole shrinks.

Start off with a large black hole. It starts emitting Hawking radiation. As it emits, it loses mass. As it loses mass, the intensity of radiation goes up, gets brighter. Causing it to loose more mass, more quickly. Until, it finally goes all out and explodes, kinda like a small bang.

Quote:
this being so, what is matter "sinking" into?

This is a very common misconception in General Relativity. It is due to attempts to explain the intrinsic curvature to folks who have no prior experience with the concept.

The surface of a ball is 2 dimensional. Yet the ball itself exists in a 3 dimensional world or "manifold" of 3 flat spatial dimensions. The ball's surface has "intrinsic curvature", one, who is restricted solely to the surface of the sphere can measure the curvature of that ball, and tell himself that he does live on a curved surface.

But, intrinsic curvature tells you nothing about an extrinsic manifold or higher dimensional structure that such an object may, or may not, exist in. You can see that a ball is a 3 dimensional curved object, because you exist in a 3 dimensional manifold, you are not restricted to the 2 dimensional surface manifold.

In explaining curved space-time, the "rubber sheet" analogies are often used. Stars sink into deep dents in sheets of rubber. But a sheet of rubber is 2 dimensional, not 3 (or 4) and so unless one recognizes that the rubber sheet analogies are just that, analogies, teaching aids, one can easily confuse it with an acurate representation of the model it is describing.

A black hole does not "sink", matter that disappears behind the horizon is essentially cut off from the rest of the universe. And if it is a rotating black hole, it has two event horizons, whereby matter sliding between them and back out, ends up elsewhere and possibly elsewhen. The equations don't tell us jack about where it ends up. In this universe, in another, at a different time or place, nothing.

Quote:
if matter does distort space, and matter is energy, then would a large amount of energy in a small space create the equivalent of a gravity well distortion? if so, could this "bend" in space caused by the energy source be used to be used to connect to another source-created "bend" to create a "shortened" area of space (or shortcut) between one point and another destination? (sort of like how they folded space on dune) realize source would have to be quite large, but would this be within the realm of possibility?

I think you are talking about "white holes", kind of the flip side of black holes, and not really up on the latest research in that area. So far we don't see anything that looks like such a critter. It may very well be that space can only be bent one way, but nobody knows for sure. Besides there is already Hawking mechanism for the release of energy from a black hole. So not sure that it is necessary.

Would recommend Matt Visser's work except it is highly technical and you gotta be a math nut.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 12, 2003 12:00 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by humble:
the more i think about it, the more the big bang theory just doesn't wash. if energy is equal to mass x speed of light^2, doesn't that imply an equivalent amount of energy will "act" the same as mass (gravity formation)?

Yes, and so far experiment backs this up. As a matter of fact, black holes depend on this very facet in order to exist in the first place.

One form of energy is pressure. Stars are sized based on a balance of forces, gravity trying to shrink it, and heat pressure due to fusion trying to push it out, make it bigger. Where these two forces balance, that is where you get your star's diameter.

But for really massive objects, the pressure ain't enough to balance. Not only that, but the additional pressure created further curves the space time, making the situation worse. So you get a runaway situation where by gravity creates pressure, which creates more gravity, which creates more pressure and so on, till it falls out or form a black hole.

Essentially a black hole forms because nothing can stop the gravitational collapse. Anything that might do so, such as heat, or pressure, only adds to the gravitational collapse of the object.

Quote:
was space "stronger" at the instant of the big bang to prevent black hole formation?

I will give you the standard science answer, the best answer we have to date, which I am not sure I buy either.

"Space and time were formed at the big bang" essentially the manifold was created by the big bang, along with the matter and energy. Not sure I buy it either, but if you consider that space and time really have no meaning without objects, particles and the like existing in them, well...

Quote:
i just can't figure how/where all this energy came into being or how it all originated into being.

It would not take that much energy to create an entire universe. Some calculations I have seen seem to indicate you could do it with as little as 7 pounds of matter.

As to how it occured, yes, our present models of reality break down under those extreme conditions. Right now, quantum fluxuations are blamed for the creation.

You ask a lot of good questions. The problem with the big bang, is that the model breaks down just before before the initial singularity. And if space and time did not exist prior to the big bang, then "before" really does not make a lot of sense. What happened before time existed?

Which can lead one on a very philosophical quest to define terms. What is energy? What is mass, time, space? How do we know? How are these concepts interelated? All good question, and there are many different opinions and theories to all this. But to a large extent, this borders on what scientists call "metaphysics". To them, it is pointless, as it creates theories and models which have no utility nor produce different conclusions compared to other theories. Without differences in conclusions, no experiment can be run to determine which of two theories are correct.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 12, 2003 1:49 AM

HUMBLE

yeah, i agree somewhat with much of what you're saying. but i think a lot of "popular" ideas are popular because of who's popularizing them. further discussion on big bang theory WOULD lead to philosophical debate rather than scientific. but stuff like this is just facinating to me! hope to continue studies on this at u of i later. thanks to drakon, paradigmshift,succatash, everyone, for discussion/answers as well as insights. (i think we're looking at the universe from the ant's perspective, and our understanding will grow with further exploration)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE