Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

The universe is geometrically flat?

<< < (3/4) > >>

Renegade:
I was right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe#Flat_universe

And the punch line:

A flat universe can have zero total energy. Thus, physicists suggest a flat universe could come from nothing.
--- End quote ---

For some illustrations of non-flat geometry, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus.

There are many more.

IainB:
Here you go  - it's described in NASA's: Universe 101
Time to change paradigms...

daddydave:
Here you go  - it's described in NASA's: Universe 101
Time to change paradigms...
-IainB (June 05, 2012, 07:11 AM)
--- End quote ---

Is it saying the third dimension exists but it is so disproportionately small, it may as well be flat?

My non-scientific mind finds this consistent with the universe having been pressed into a shape by a giant cookie cutter, handy if you are creating several.

Paul Keith:
Maybe I don't understand the meaning of "geometrically flat" but I thought it was a known fact that the universe was flat. :huh:

I remember explaining to a friend about the flatness of the universe back in 2006. She, too, was having trouble comprehending it. I thought I was doing a bad job explaining it, but maybe it is the concept itself that is difficult for some people to understand?
-Deozaan (June 05, 2012, 04:17 AM)
--- End quote ---

I dont understand it - but I dont know anything about it.
Does it mean there is no third dimension? (I know there are probably other dimensions, but that's hard to grasp too.)
-tomos (June 05, 2012, 05:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

There will always be a third dimension as you are able to witness a third dimension all around you.

I don't trust WMAPs honestly. All these measurements rely on some faith that what is currently being measured is the same across the entire span of the universe. It'd like trying to measure the entire human body as a tick who judges the universe based on the layers of skin it can penetrate. It might not even know whether it's on a dog or a human so how can it take that into account?

I think another flaw about the flat universe is this thought that something which does not need energy would then introduce concepts within it that does need energy. It's on the same level as saying you're measuring "the magical output" behind an infinite scroll that writes itself and using the current space that the infinite scroll occupies as a measuring stick, you determine the characteristic of the magic that occupies that scroll and then make the mistake of measuring it through that. Such a method won't even get you near the architect of the scroll maker or replicate the magical output in the same manner. i.e. You still wouldn't be able to produce another flat universe until you figure out what replaces that zero total energy and if you do, it might not be considered energy, but it still would be utilized like an energy/engine for another infinite flat universe in order to establish the original theory but like a duplicate copy of an infinite scroll, it doesn't necessarily guarantee that both infinite scrolls are created through identical methods.

To shorten: Even if someone knows about the universe, all they can do is measure it based on their assumed parameters which is based on the surrounding environment they are able to measure in. How then can anyone in that situation even know what the "basic" parameter is not just for a different planet but for the entire universe?

Renegade:
Here you go  - it's described in NASA's: Universe 101
Time to change paradigms...
-IainB (June 05, 2012, 07:11 AM)
--- End quote ---

Is it saying the third dimension exists but it is so disproportionately small, it may as well be flat?

My non-scientific mind finds this consistent with the universe having been pressed into a shape by a giant cookie cutter, handy if you are creating several.
-daddydave (June 05, 2012, 07:43 AM)
--- End quote ---

I don't think it's saying that at all. It's talking about the topology of the universe, and that it is flat, i.e. Euclidean, and not topologically similar to an n-sphere or torus something like that.

Remember, the number of dimensions has almost nothing to do with the topology, e.g. a 1-sphere is a circle, a 2-sphere is what you would normally call a sphere, but you also have 3-spheres and n-spheres. All of those are topologically spheres, but they exists in n+1 dimensions. You get the exact same thing with other topologies like an n-torus.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page