Shape of the Universe

[anigma46]

Has anyone decided on a shape for the universe? I don't see how one would,it would be like determining the shape of the Pacific ocean from about 2 miles down,we can only see 15 billion years into it. Since nature seems to like spirals or vortexes, is it poossible that from a distance our universe would look like a gigantic spiral of material suspended in a void and other universes would be distant neighbors?

 

[anigma46]

I meant to include this in original question,but the dark matter could actually be the cental hub of a spiral universe,similar to a galaxy.

 

[Maddad]

Well, it's an interesting question, whether the universe as a whole rotates. The usual cause of rotation is a condensing something-or-other. A giant molecular dust cloud shrinks and that begins the rotation. With the whole universe you don't have anything condensing; it's expanding instead. There would be nothing to cause rotation that I can think of.<br /><br />And don't anyone say that's the best reason to say it's rotating! *LOL*

 

[nacnud]

It is probably not rotating but if it was Kurt Godel came up with some interesting solutions to general relatively where time travel was possible!

 

[kmarinas86]

If galaxies orbit a central point:<br /><br />The orbit of a galaxy around the center of the universe could be likened to the the orbit of a comet around the sun. This eliptical orbit would cause the ice to melt when the comet is close to the sun and to freeze when comet is far away. Likewise, the temperature of a galaxy increases as it approaches the center of the universe (i.e. a region of greater energy density). Such galaxies beget very wild very large and very youthful stars. Galaxies with wild youthful stars are blue in their color. Many examples of blue galaxies can be seen in the images of Hubble Deep Field.

 

[iron_sun_254]

It wouldn't work like that. If there was a central "hot spot" we'd be able to detect it. Also, if there was a central point where there was a strong source of gravity it would pull galaxies apart when they got close. Unlike a comet, a galaxy is not a solid object.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">if there was a central point where there was a strong source of gravity it would pull galaxies apart when they got close.</font><br /><br />Actually, in our spiral galaxy, energy density increases in as you approach center. The same concept applies with the interior of the sun, and of molten and gas planets. There is greater gravity where there is greater energy. Therefore, galaxies come together, but not only that, temperatures increase as gravitational and inertial pressure rise. The consequences of these changes are complex and are noticable by the structure of wildly hot blue galaxies seen in deep universe images.<br /><br />In the recourse of further explanation, I meant to say that the universe has no mean center of origin.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It wouldn't work like that. If there was a central "hot spot" we'd be able to detect it.</font><br /><br />Not really. I'm speaking of a mass (or masses rather) that are so huge, that they pull the fringes of the universe (13+ billion ly) unto themselves. With so much gravity, direct signs of their existence (as far as EM goes) are redshifted out of existence. Areas covering perhaps 1/5 of the sky maybe devoted to each of these masses. Everywhere we look into that portion of the sky, we would find evidence (not related to EM) for one these neighboring masses. Our galaxy would be attracted to that mass, but it would also be attracted to other masses. In effect, it is better to say that there is a multi-way, tug-of-war on the Milky Way by these "missing" masses.<br /><br />A common observation of scientists and theorists of cosmology is that the universe is expanding. This is evident to them because the observed redshift increases with distance. Doppler redshift, which has been scientifically proven, is evidence for this expansion.<br /><br />http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/accelerating.htm

 

[alokmohan]

I thing he is asking shape of the universe,to which reply should be we dont comprehend.We should confine ourselves to what universe has revaled.

 

[alokmohan]

Todays yaho news .Space is flat.

 

[anigma46]

What if the center of the universe was not a massive black hole,but just the opposite,a whitehole for lack of a better name. Maybe there is matter swirling into our universe causing the expansion and rotation of the universe as we know it. Eventually it would run out of material and the expansion would stop,then gravity would take over with bigger and bigger black holes till all matter eventually reenters the central core which itself is now a huge black hole,the matter then percolates until it is blown the other side creating a parallel universe to our own. Maybe an antimatter universe. . like an hourglass when one side becomes empty it is turned over. This could be a process that repeats itself endlessly. Everything in nature is recycled in some way,so a cold dead universe seems unlikely.

 

[kmarinas86]

continued from above...<br />The gravitational tug of the Very Large Masses weakens with distance. The Milky Way is 13+ billion ly from these masses. The increase of redshift is due to escaping the gravity well's force. The weaker the force, the slower the change redshift as light escapes the well.<br /><br />According to cosmology, the redshift of light coming from midway to near galaxies differ at a higher rate than redshift coming from galaxies afar.<br /><br />According to the conjecture that I have made in the previous post, several things alter the redshift of light:<br /><br />The trajectory of a photon escaping the gravity well of Very Large Masses and the Milky Way (redshift++).<br />The movement of galaxies away from the Milky Way (redshift++).<br />The trajectory of a photon escaping this Very Large Mass with respect to the gravity wells of Very Large Masses on the opposing end of the Milky Way (redshift--).<br />The orbital velocity of the galaxy of the photon's origin (redshift±).<br /><br />To accomodate for current cosmology, which implies that redshift increases at a increased rate from midway to near distances, the redshift of galaxies from midway to near the Milky Way needs to be higher than the status of my conjecture suggests.<br /><br />If the orbital mechanics of galaxies around very large masses is compared to "Galactic Rotation Curves" (link), then this could have implications on how redshift is increased from midway to near distances (according to the conjecture).

 

[kmarinas86]

New color coded graphic illustrating the Cyclic Multiverse Theory

 

[jmilsom]

Cyclic Multiverse Theory aside, I though that it was reasonably well established now that the Universe was 'flat'.<br /><br />As I understand it. This relates to matter, dark matter, and dark energy. If there were no other forces affecting the universe's accelerated expansion other than dark matter, then the universe would be slowing down slightly. This as I have read would make the geometry of the universe slightly hyberbolic (i.e. the three angles of a large enough tirangle would add up to slightly less than 180°). <br /><br />Our studies of distant supernovae as well discussed on these fora indicate that the expansion is accelerating and the universe is 'flat' (i.e. angles of triangles add up to exactly 180°). A flat universe that contains something else than atoms and dark matter. Now physicists are talking of this 'something else' as an unexplained 'dark energy' that overwhelms gravity and affects the geometry of the universe. <br /><br />This is all beyond me, but one thing I wondered, if the universe is accelerating, could the angles of a large enough triangle add up to slightly <i> more </i> than 180°? Making the shape of the Universe????? I know the obvious answer is that then it wouldn't be a triangle, but then I am always amazed by the weird and wonderful things mathmeticians are able to prove working in more than the usual number of dimensions. (Anyone here working on M-Theory and its 11 dimensions and can explain it to a lay-person?) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

If I understand things correctly, the universe isn't and can't be "rotating" in the traditional sense of the word.<br /><br />I think that the discovery that the universe is expanding and that the expansion is accelerating would render that idea invalid.<br /><br />Planets orbit the sun because they don't have enough delta vee to escape its gravity well. The same goes for the stars orbiting the galactic center (although they have discovered one star escaping the galaxy).<br /><br />Let me qualify my position though. I'm not an astrophysicist. Lust a layperson with an extreme interest in all this stuff.<br /><br />As far as the true "shape" of the universe, it would be relative to our 4 dimensional space-time perspective.<br /><br />With reference to more than 4 dimensions, I'd be inclined to believe the "flat universe" idea.<br /><br />The only analogy I can offer would be the classic "two dimensional creature". It would perceive a 3 dimensional object in one dimesnion only.<br /><br />We 3 dimensional creatures perceive him (or her) as flat. So from outside our dimensions, WE would be flat to a theoretical 11 dimensional creature.<br /><br />That leads me to believe 2 things. <br /><br />1."Flat" is relative to the viewer.<br />2. I'm getting way in over my head. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[newtonian]

anigma46 - First, the Biblical model of our universe is a 3 dimensional stretching fabric (Isaiah 40:22 - stretching fine gauze). <br /><br />That is a mathematically flat model, not literally since it expands in all 3 directions. [The balloon model is also perceptual, not literal]<br /><br />The question of rotation is independent and fascinating - thank you for posting the possibility.<br /><br />Expansion would make rotation at our location in space and time to be virtually imperceptible.<br /><br />However, it could be a key to the cause of the big bang.<br /><br />Rotation increases with contraction - that is the cause of very fast rotation pulsars and magnetars, for example.<br /><br />Looking back to the singularity at the origin of our universe, popular big bang model, an imperceptible current rotation could become astronomical, way faster than light speed, at the singularity.<br /><br />That could have effects which we do not understand in present scientific knowledge.

 

[newtonian]

Dragon04 - Thought provoking post!<br /><br />Expansion does not make the rotation idea invalid. <br /><br />It makes any such rotation imperceptible - see my above post.

 

[newtonian]

jmilsom - There was just a very good broadcast on M-theory on the science channel yesterday - the theme was parallel universes.<br /><br />I will post in depth eventually on that thread.<br /><br />The main point is that the origin of our universe at the singularity would be due to collision of branes involving other dimensions.<br /><br />And, or, other universes.<br /><br />The program asserted the existence of other universes in these other dimensions.<br /><br />One should also consider the possibility of other universes in our more familiar 3 dimensions but much larger and/or separate from our universe.<br /><br />Either or likely both could be involved in a model based on the Biblical model:<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) ". . ."But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you. . ."<br /><br />I had assumed this was simply talking about a much larger universe (heaven of the heavens) containing many universes (heavens).<br /><br />It could just as easily refer to other universes involving other dimensions.<br /><br />The word "contain" is the operative word in my research on this.<br /><br />Either way, the Science channel program - for some reason I have not grasped - assumes an infinite number of universes.<br /><br />I would assume a large finite number, not infinite.<br /><br />If I remember correctly, mathematical research confirms a limited number of possible dimensions, not infinite.<br /><br />See String theories.

 

[dragon04]

Newtonian - I think I disagree. I don't know the math, but if the universe is accelerating away from some gravitational center, that center is no longer able to exert enough influence on a galaxy's motion to make it rotate.<br /><br />I'd go along with a spiral outward trajectory, but not rotation.<br /><br />Objects accelerating away from the center would forever do just that. Travel away from the center. Not around it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[xmo1]

That which cannot be detected cannot be explained. We come to the limits of our devices when attending to the universe.<br /><br />The flying monks of Tibet can stop flying. They are walkers not flyers. They were made to walk the Earth, and given the wisdom to realize the significance of their perceptions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[heyo]

Come on you guys. <br /><br />Don't you watch the Simpsons? Homer already figured it out.<br /><br />We live in a donut shaped universe.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Heyo

 

[newtonian]

Holie dough!<br /><br />I new the doubh was expanding....<br /><br />Oh, nuts!<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

Dragon04 - I think we agree. Or, er, we may disagree about disagreeing. I think I'll stop that loop, or rotating circular paradox.<br /><br />Actually, I suspect the rotation is so imperceptible at this degree of expansion that it would not be considered spiral at all - at this time or, for that matter, any time after inflation if inflation theory is correct.<br /><br />However, before inflation during the first minutes after the origin of our universe (aka big bang), the universe may have been rotating.<br /><br />I had never considered the possiblility.<br /><br />As I said, extrapolating back with a slight rotation before inflation to the singularity we may indeed reach faster than light rotation near the instant or at the instant of the big bang.<br /><br />I would think it merits serious scientific research to determine if the effects of FTL rotation of the singularity may have been a factor in causing the big bang.<br />I simply do not remember any scientist questioning this - and no question should ever be ignored.

 

[just_curious]

My two cents:<br /><br />Since waves are vaery much a part of our universe, perhaps it is traveling as wave, but not like one you normally might think of. Picture a sphere and matter begins to expand for some reason at a point on this sphere, if looking at it say that spot to be 270 degree spot of a circle. For some reason matter can only travel the surface of the sphere, which could be space/time. At about 15 billion years the matter has now traveled halfway through its voyage. From far away it clould look the moon half covered with shadow. Now because the shape of the sphere matter begins to fall in on itself and thus begins to accelerate. At about 30 billion years there is another big bang and the cycle repeats itself. The cycle continues over and over.<br /><br />Our extremely small size could make our universe look flat to us but we can never really know the true shape unless we step back far enough.