Cosmological Conundrum

[Noah]

I am no expert by any means in cosmology, but I thought I might add something. You (msafrin) said that there is evidence that the universe is expanding, and indeed that is true. However, with the new theory that the speed of light is not constant, this could have a MAJOR effect on the theories of the rate of the universe's expansion, because we measure the speed at which an object is traveling away from us by its redshift. So if the speed of light is not constant, that could have an effect on the redshift. IF the theory is true, we will have to find the original speed of light, ie, the speed at the beginning of the universe, and figure that into our calculations. However, this might help prove that the expansion of the universe is indeed accelerating.

Noah

[msafrin]

The description of the apparent flat shape of the universe as being as 'flat-shaped as possible' was taken from an article I read when this news story first appeared several years ago.

My description of the universe as related in the article 'as flat-shaped as any three dimensional geometric object could be' was used in exercising 'poetic license' to elaborate and explain the description in the simplest words possible but which seems ironically to have created more confusion instead of making it easier to understand.

My reference to the universe being 'as flat as any geometric,three dimensional could be' relates to the conceptual degree of the relative out-of-proportion relationship in comparing its depth to its length and width and can be explained if I used the illustration of a sculptured marble block designed as a pedestal or platform for a statue as a three dimensional model of the universe, the block's dimensions being three feet long,one foot wide and two inches thick it would most definitely be considered flat by any definition of the word.

As an artifact (and three dimensional geometric form),the block could certainly be made relatively flatter by physically chiseling it in half and flatter still until the thickness would remain a sliver of marble up to the very limit in which the marble base retained its physical attributes,or as flat as it could possibly be.

For the purposes of dramatizing how flat a three dimensional object could be relative to its other two dimensions in as precise an incremental measurement as possible let's assume we have a pane of glass one hundred miles long by twenty miles wide and a thickness of one inch, the fact is relative to the admittedly surreal dimensions of this imaginary pane of glass, we could conceivably modify the thickness to one hundredth of an inch creating a flatter three dimensional shape and thus create an ever more flatter three dimensional object so on and so on.

I hope this analogy might explain what I meant when using the term "as flat as possible" when describing the apparent flat shape of the universe which incidentally has absolute no bearing on the question I had originally intended to propose, which is this; Why is the universe indeed flat shaped instead of, let's say,a three dimensional circle? In other words, what specific forces,what physical laws exist in the universe going back to the Big Bang that would result in a flat shape as opposed to any other? Obviously,there must be *some* reason that the universe took this specifc shape.I myself would assume that if the singularity was uniform and the forces that existed at the moment of creation were uniformly applied it should then have radiated out in all directions uniformly and equally into a circular shaped universe.

So,inconclusion what are the specific cosmic forces in the universe that led to the flat shape as opposed to having any other shape???

[Tormod]

I think you are confusing the concepts of flatness in objects with flatness in space.

A one-inch-thick block of marble is not necessarily flatter than a two-inch-thick block. They can both be as flat as the other. Flatness has nothing to do with thickness.

Thus, even the glass plate is no good analogy, because flatness generally will not depend on the size of an object, but on its properties in relation to the spacetime in which it floats.

What I am saying is that it does not make much sense to say that an object is flat just because it has a certain thickness. Consider a sheet of paper - it is also flat in this sense. But if you hold it up by one end, what happens to this flatness? It goes away, because the paper now curves downwards due to the force of gravity. So "flatness" is not a property, it is a state which can only be found by measuring an object. It does not exists as a physical property - there are no true "flat" objects.

If you placed a large, flat, glass plate in space, with the dimensions you specify, it would possibly stay flat for an amount of time. But such a large object, if placed within the vicinity of a planet or a moon, would become attracted to this object (well, in fact, according to Newton the two objects would attract each other), which will make the object curve, most strongly on the part of the object closest to the planet or moon.

So what?
I think it makes no sense to compare the "flatness" of small, physical objects with the flatness of spacetime in itself. I believe that what is referred to when we talk about a "flat" universe, is the curve which can be drawn when you measure the density in our Universe with the rate of expansion.

A "flat" universe is not a universe that is box-shaped with a flat top and bottom. It is a universe in which the density is at a point where the Universe will continue to expand forever.

However, if the Universe is not flat, it must be curved, and that gives us two possibilities:

1. it may be "open", and expand faster and faster (which current observations actually support), in which it will grow infinitely old (read my review of the book The Five Ages of the Universe for an explanation of this)

2. it may be "closed", and expand slower and slower (eventually causing a Big Crunch, where it collapses into a singularity and possibly a new Big Bang).

this web page has an excellent explanation of what "flatness" as related to our Universe really means:
Spatial Curvature; Flatness-Oldness; Horizon

[Tormod]

Here is an interesting story regarding Big Bang:

FOUND: Polarization in the Cosmic Microwave Background

Astrophysicists now think they have proof that the Big Bang actually happened, because they can observe a polarization in the microwave background.

Basically what this means is that they can track the ripples in spacetime caused by the expansion which occured after the Big Bang. I think. It's a bit over my head but it's very interesting news.

[Eugene]

Interesting topic, no doubt, and most positive in that it leads to all sorts of speculation. Yet I have to wonder if attempting to explain the origin and ultimate course of the universe (or universes) isn't kind of like trying to read the mind of God. Is it not the symmetries we discover in the process what is of most importance to us as relevant to our past, present and future existance?

I'm a horticulturist (hottotrotulist) and when I consider the apple that drops from the tree what I see is a symmetry. I know (surmise) from all I have experienced of the apple - its hereditary traits and all the observable environmental traits imposed upon it from external sources - that the outer symmetry I view is but a reflection of all its symmetrical possibilities. The apple in particular is interesting because it seldom (never by my experience) comes to true to seed, yet experience also shows that within the seed is all that the apple is, has been, or ever will be. Is not that seed somewhat similar to the cosmologic singularity we derive from observation of the celestial bowl or symmetries observed of the quantum field?

Hey, folks, I'm out of my element here, and no offense meant, okay; but if I were a cosmologist or the quantum physicist I think the tendency might be to make the best I could of the symmetries observed and let the the singularity take care of itself.

[Tormod]

Eugene -

your comments are of course not offensive...but highly welcome.

But I beg to differ. You hold that the seed contains all that is (was, and will ever be) the apple. But this is a vast oversimplifaction in my eyes. How can the seed possibly contain the interactions between the apple and the outer world? How can it possibly foresee when and how the apple will fall, if it will fall at all? Perhaps it will be eaten by an animal or picked by a child.

I believe Cosmology to be the study of the Universe, not what mind is behind it. It is important to question the discoveries astronomers make, but it is also important not to throw everything out the window simply because our intuition tells us otherwise.

Like msafrin pointed out, there are many different views of what the Big Bang was, how it happened, whether it was the beginning of time or not, whether our Universe will expand forever - or not - et cetera, et cetera.

The constants of nature may not be as constant as we think. I am currently reading a very good book by John D. Barrow ("The Constants of Nature") in which he explains many of the very different theories which have come up through the ages to explain the inexplicable symmetry we observe in so many things. And they more often than not turn out to be symmetric simply because of the way we observe them.

But what it boils down to, as far as I can see, is how much we know at any given time, and how much we are able to learn from the mistakes we make. So we see one symmetry today - we might see another symmetry tomorrow.

And that's what makes it all so incredibly exciting for people like me...

And - if I may ask - what is the problem with trying to read the mind of God? Einstein spent most of his life doing exactly that.

[devo]

I have a friend who once tried to explain how there might be more dimensions beyond the third to someone by saying: "Imagine you are a drawing. You live in two dimensions. There is an up, down, forward, and backwards. If you have lived your entire life only knowing that there are two dimensions, then the thought of a third dimension would never even enter into your mind."

This leads to my question. If there is a multiverse, then couldn't there be another dimension, one that we do not yet know about, that bridges the gap between each universe? This could explain why light can not travel between the universes.

Another question, which has nothing to do with any of these posts, I have read that when matter reaches the speed of light it becomes energy. Then couldn't there be a way to convert the energy back into matter? That really wasn't my question. My question is, is this the basis of the theory of wormholes?

[msafrin]

This is an article I cut and pasted from the October 18, 2002 Science Journal in the Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal requires a paid subscription for access and because of the article's compelling subject matter I wanted to share it with everyone.

msafrin

WALL STREET JOURNAL SCIENCE JOURNAL by Sharon Begley
'Scientists Seek 'Dark Energy' That's Filling In the Universe'
__________________________________________________ ________The creative bookkeeping at some accounting-challenged firms is nothing compared with what cosmologists must do to balance the universe's ledgers. But thanks to their efforts to make the numbers come out right, these scientists have stumbled on an improbable coincidence: The amount of a mysterious energy that seems to pervade the cosmos is precisely what is needed to allow for the emergence of stars, planets and life itself.
The road to this revelation began in the 1990s, when it became clear that most of the cosmos is AWOL. According to observations of majestically swirling galaxies, the universe is filled with "missing mass," or matter that betrays its presence in the motions of galaxies but that not even the most powerful telescopes can spy. It seems to exist in some exotic, nonluminous form different from the protons, neutrons and electrons in ordinary matter.
Talk about humbling. The matter that makes up our planet, our star and our very selves is an anomaly, perhaps a mere afterthought on the part of creation, accounting for just 5% of the mass-energy of the universe. The shadow world of dark matter makes up 25%. (Or as a popular T-shirt says, "If it isn't dark, it doesn't matter.") Until about three years ago, no one had a clue what the other 70% might be.
In 1998, observations of exploding supernovas hinted that cosmic expansion has been speeding up lately. As astronomer Robert Kirshner of Harvard University describes in his witty new book, "The Extravagant Universe": That "dropped a bombshell right at the epicenter of cosmology." Suddenly, cosmologists had more hidden stuff to contend with. Says physicist Patrick Greene of Fermilab in Batavia, Ill., "This was compelling evidence that there must be some kind of dark energy, a repulsive energy that makes the expansion of the universe accelerate."
Dark energy was the biggest single quarry for the cosmologists and physicists at last month's Cosmo-02 meeting at Chicago's Adler Planetarium. Dark energy "is the most exciting development in physics now," physicist Andreas Albrecht of the University of California at Davis said. "Observations are driving us to think about things we never have." Their creativity in explaining dark energy, he went on, reflects that "some of us have inhaled and some of us haven't."
How much dark energy might be out there? In 1999, measurements of the afterglow of the Big Bang (in which the universe began) supported an old hunch that the cosmos has just the right density to keep it perfectly balanced between (as Robert Frost put it) ending in fire or ice.
Too high a density, and all of creation collapses back in a fiery Big Crunch; too low and the universe expands forever, until all the stars twinkle out in an icy death. But at one ideal density -- call it 100% -- the universal expansion will slow yet never halt. Since matter seems to make up 30% of this density, that leaves 70% to exist in the form of the enigmatic dark energy.
At Cosmo-02, most bets for the source of the dark energy were on what Einstein termed a "cosmological constant." This is a long-range force that acts as a sort of antigravity, and which he reluctantly introduced into his equations of general relativity in 1917 to make them agree with the observation that the universe is static. With the 1929 discovery that the universe is expanding, Einstein called the constant his biggest blunder, and it skulked off the physics scene.
The cosmological constant must have a new agent, because it's now superstar hot, a leading candidate for the repulsive force that generates th

[msafrin]

Tormod is correct.
It was no one less than Albert Einstein who said,"There's no science without religion and no religion without science" meaning they are not mutually exclusive and they both have a place in our (collective) consciousness in helping humanity (at least attempt to) grapple with the unfathomable incomprehensibility of it all.

The topic of 'God', a god as supreme being who created the cosmos by 'willing' it into existence has been overwhelmingly and ferociously debated ever since the very first spark of conciousness began to emerge within the embryonic brain of our pre-historic ancestors, as they first gazed into the night sky struggling throughout the ages to come to terms with the awe-inspiring profundity and meaning of it all.

The discussion of whether or not there is a supreme creator is not the place of this forum or the HYPOGRAPHY site in general, nevertheless,the subject of a supreme creator deserves to be addressed here not the least of which because it occupies such an overwhelmingly prominent position within the history of mankind and our very lives, down to the very core of what is our consciousness and basis for our social values and mores.

I do not subscribe to the concept of a God or a supreme creator and don't see how it is possible for any sort of an accomodation between the empirical, scientific realm and those of a meta-physical, philosophical perspective.

I have often wondered what it is that makes people want to believe in a supreme being and only recently came up with a fulfilling, satisfying explanation.

There is an overwhelming need within us to be in control, first and foremost to resolve the mysteries of the world driven by our unquenchable intellectual curiosity and will seek out any sort of explanation however implausible in an attempt to satisfy our inherent 'need to know' as we have demonstrated time and again throughout history.

It is much simpler,easier and comforting to believe in a supreme being however ridiculous and illogical it may seem towards resolving the unfathomable incomprehensibility of our very lives and all that ever was and will ever be,sort of like a philosophical "Occam's Razor" or 'spiritual placebo' if you will, than to accept the harsh reality of our mortality or abandon the smug arrogance and sense of superiority that religion provides in the divine pomposity of a geo-centric universe or to even try grasping the infinite scientific complexity as the basis for everything there is.

Furthermore, mankind in his all-consuming egotistical vanity and inability to accept his own mortality has had to invent the concept of a supreme being in an effort to allay the fears of the unknown towards perpetuating his fervent hopes for eternal existence through the creation and guise of a 'Supreme Being'. As the clever saying goes, "God did not create Man,Man created God" (to suit his own selfish needs).

We have discovered that the universe in which we live in is infinitely more complex and enigmatic than we can ever imagine and defies a simple 'easy-to-understand' explanation of all that there is, which unnerves and disturbs many people who would rather ascribe 'God' to be the be-all-and-end-all to everything and thus unburden themselves from the need to deal with it all.

While believing in a supreme being may be tautologically
absurd,nevertheless it is a much simpler,comforting belief to those that feel they need something greater than themselves to lead a productive,fulfilling existence and in bringing meaning to their lives.

[msafrin]

To those who have been with us from the very first 'Cosmological Conundrum' post all the way throughout our entire journey of discovery of the universe and of the very cosmos itself your patience and interest have been rewarded with what I believe are two of the very best most interesting and informative cosmological links I have yet seen.

First off is a fantastic site called 'Atlas of the Universe' that not only provides the clearest most concise explanation on some of the most enigmatic aspects of the universe,it features these really cool 3D-like star/galaxy maps that you can zoom in and out from our local star neighborhood vicinity of just 12.5 light years from the sun all the way up to a billion times further away with a mind-boggling 15 Billion light-year map of the (so far) known universe! Really Cool!

Atlas of the Universe
http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/bigbang.html

HOME PAGE
This web page is designed to give everyone an idea of what our universe actually looks like. There are nine main maps on this web page, each one approximately ten times the scale of the previous one. The first map shows the nearest stars and then the other maps slowly expand out until we have reached the scale of the entire visible universe.
12.5 Light Years from the Sun
The Nearest Stars
The closest star to the Sun is a mere 7000 times further than the edge of our solar system. This map shows all of the stellar systems that lie within 12.5 light years from us.
250 Light Years from the Sun
The Solar Neighbourhood
A large proportion of the stars visible with the naked eye are within 250 light years. This map shows this tiny section of our galaxy that surrounds our Sun.
5000 Light Years from the Sun
The Orion Arm
The local arm of our galaxy is called the Orion Arm. It is depicted here showing the millions of stars interspersed with clouds of interstellar gas.
50000 Light Years from the Sun
The Milky Way Galaxy
Our galaxy is a loose spiral disc of two hundred billion stars rotating around a compact centre. This is a diagram showing the main features of the Galaxy.
500000 Light Years from the Sun
The Satellite Galaxies
The Milky Way is surrounded by several dwarf galaxies slowly orbiting it in periods of billions of years. This map shows the nearest such satellite galaxies.
5 million Light Years from the Sun
The Local Group
The Milky Way is gravitationally bound to two other large spiral galaxies as well as dozens of dwarf galaxies. This local group of galaxies is illustrated here.
100 million Light Years from the Sun
The Virgo Supercluster
The local group of galaxies is just one of many centred around the massive Virgo Cluster. Collectively, all of these groups and clusters form a unit known as the Virgo Supercluster shown here.
1 billion Light Years from the Sun
The Neighbouring Superclusters
The distribution of galaxies in the universe is far from regular. They tend to clump together into huge supercluster formations. This map shows many of the superclusters within 1 billion light years of us.
15 billion Light Years from the Sun
The Visible Universe
Although our knowledge of the large scale structure of the universe is incomplete, many large and small scale features are visible right out to the very edge of the visible universe. The entire universe is fairly uniform, as this map shows.

The following article is the latest most up-to-date cosmological overview and perspective EVER featured in the New York Times October 29,2002 and of course prominently displayed on the HOME PAGE of the best most fascinating science site in this or any other universe, HYPOGRAPHY, where we always keep you up on the very latest cutting edge scientific discoveries and information available!

And,indeed, in keeping our highly informed members up on the very latest from the widest possible spectrum of scientific fields and topics available, those of you who have gone through all of the posts in this forum will have already read and been fa