Survey on Astrophysics

Post Reply New Topic

I read a book on Astrophysics the other day, and omega came up. I simply wish to know, what the majority of scientifically informed people say about the following question.

Is the universe Open, Flat or Closed ?

I personally think that untill we know more about dark matter and how if affects the universe, i will keep an OPEN mind

I'm not sure. Have you checked out string theory though? One of the models looks like a ball, which isn't flat, but seems closed.

"INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

all of the above and none of them/
how this is possible ?
because once u understand that the universe is expanding and collapsing simultaneously the dark matter assumptions become as obsolete as the 'ether' of old days and we can see why the universe can be seen as open and closed at the same time which means it is neither/

If I think about this hard enough my head might explode.

*applauds*

Well done.


The Universe is very close to being flat currently, if you're speaking of the general structure of spacetime, if it were fully hyperbolic, we would be able to see certain types of repeating patterns on the CMBR, if it were fully closed, we would not be able to observe the redshift we do at this stage in the Universe.

The deviation appears to be somewhat in the favor of hyperbolic, but only fractionally so, just enough to give an open ended unfurling currently.

Steady state models are dead, as are the crunch collapse cyclical forms, the ekpyrotic:
[img][650:800]http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000_p62.gif[/img] is possible, but I don't see it as being necessary currently.

The finding of an exact field equation solution for General Relativity which describes a mapping between the interior of a black hole, and the exterior of a Universe, is too much to ignore I feel.

My own work along these lines suggests that what Hawking Radiation does isn't evaporate black holes, it instead produces the same effects as what we observed and labeled Dark Energy.

Literally the Universe started to unravel the moment it formed a black hole, and the greater production rates have only added to that effect.

There is no topological manner to smoothly fold up a Universe which contains a black hole, but there is a way to fold up a Universe into a black hole, simple as that.

The discovery of dark energy and that the expansion of the universe is accelerating would rule out the possibility of a closed universe. The universe is probably open.

Personally, I ruled out the possibility of a closed universe a while ago. From what I gather from justMax, is firstly, you are a natural astrophysicist ! Secondly, the universe is somewhere in between open and flat.

Can someone (justMax preferably) explain how the term 'Omega' fits into this theory.

Eh, been pondering these problems for the last 20 some odd years, mostly into the search for a unification of GR/QM, but astrophysics is always interesting.



Omega represents the ratio between the energy density of the Universe, and that required for it to be flat. Ω=r/rₒ With rₒ being the density for flatness. If Ω>1, the Universe is closed, Ω<1 it is open, Ω=1 it is flat.

“Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy.” - Albert Einstein

Sorry, but that's the very first thought that popped into my head while reading this post.

all right, but if i hope u noticed that my theory is the only one on this thread that completely avoid the expansion paradigm so at least in that sense Einstein would found it the least ridiculous
my theory also render "black holes,big bang,dark matter and dark energy" useless and unnecessary("black" usually means not a hole in our reality or dimension but a hole in the theorists mind) /
time will tell
my intuition tells me I'm right on this one/

Thank you sincerely for replying ! I am a 13 year old 'Aspie' who has an intense intestest with most sciences. justMax, you scared me as I thought you were a child !

I shall add this discussion to favourites, and continue to read it until I fully understand the concept.

Thank you all !

HelixStein

I'm still 6 inside my head.

Start young, keep at it, don't be scared of math, it won't bite.

Well, infinities and transfinites will bite, Cantor learned that the hard way...

Still, don't be scared of math.

Btw, I've got explanations for black holes, dark matter, and dark energy which aren't simple holes in the theory.


Incidentally, Einstein disliked expansion models aesthetically, because the general idea at the time was those models suggested an evolving "now" model of time, rather than the fully existant "block" model Einstein saw holding greater truth.

Technically the expansion is only an accurate description if you're looking at the Universe from an ant perspective, crawling across it, viewing each 3 dimensional surface in sequence.

The Universe from the bird perspective, looking at the full expanse of spacetime, shows it to be a 4 dimensional structure composed of 3 dimensional slices oriented along a temporal axis. The ant perspectives are actually lines traced through the structure, as are you and I.

I am only aware of a point on that line at each updated cycle of my consciousness, but I encode data of points along a certain axis, decided by the path oriented towards the maximally entropic surface states opposite the minimally entropic states of the early Universe.

That path orientation is again distinguished due to the structure in of my quarks and electrons, and the extent they stretch along the temporal axis.

Positively charged (mostly) lumps of matter have a causal arrow from the past towards the future, negatively charged lumps have the opposite orientation.


Anyway, I'm rambling way off topic, lol, and don't wanna confuse the heck out of anyone, as this is pretty obscurely theoretical stuff.

Well justMax, may I ask what your occupation is ?

My main field is theoretical physics, though I've been fleshing out my grasp of mathematics for the last year and a half, in order to be able to rigorously formulate and test my temporal interaction model of GR in a manner suitable for incorporation of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

Been a bit obsessed with the Riemann Hypothesis lately.