Posted on 11/04/2019 3:19:12 PM PST by NoLibZone
Travel far enough in the universe and you could end up back where you began. Measurements from the Planck space observatory have shown that the universe might be shaped like a sphere rather than a flat sheet, which would change nearly everything we think we know about the cosmos.
The Planck observatory, which operated from 2009 to 2013, mapped the cosmic microwave background, a sea of light left over from the big bang.
One set of observations showed that there was more gravitational lensing – stretching of the light due to the shape of space-time, which can be distorted by heavy matter – than expected. Alessandro Melchiorri at the Sapienza University of Rome and his colleagues calculated that this could be because the shape of the universe is different from what we thought.
All other cosmological data suggests the universe is flat, meaning it has no curvature, similar to a sheet of paper. These Planck measurements indicate that it could be “closed”, or spherical, which would mean that if you travelled far enough in one direction, you would end up back where you started. That is because the extra lensing implies the presence of extra dark matter, which would pull the universe into a finite sphere instead of a flat sheet.
According to these observations, the universe is 41 times more likely to be closed than flat. “This is the most precise cosmological data and it is giving us a different picture,” says Melchiorri.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
the universe is flat, just like the earth is flat.
problem solved.
You might want to read an actual physics book instead of ones more philosophical in nature. Science fiction is not science. And to start off with something simple, Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” is a popular one. You can also read Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe” and its sequel “The fabric of the Cosmos”. Tackle quantum mechanics at your own risk. But I’ll admit, these can be somewhat dry reading. I often find myself putting them down for long spells.
1)I read those physics books you named. Thanks.
2) And no, I am not willing to take a pop quiz on their contents.
Hard to believe I passed the physics “component” of my 1964-1968 honors college education (Political Science with minor in history.) Never know it from my posts here.
Don’t remember everything I read but, but....
I Remember the Alamo.
And Kim Kardashian proves the theory of curved spacetime.
If any of the Kardashians fell down in a forest but no one videoed or reported it on social media did it actually happen?
My cat doesn’t care, and neither do I.
Very funny. But inaccurate. My world is shaped like a wine bottle. My cat's world looks like a can of cat food.
Maybe it’s just me, but instead of spending time, brains and money on this question, I’d rather the smart ones would find a cure for prostrate cancer.
How about it is an illusion.
Maybe I’m like the kid in the fable who said that the Emperor has no clothes on, but can somebody explain how the universe can possibly have a boundary? When you travel to the farthest point, where the theoretical physicists say you begin to turn around and go back where you came from, is there somebody there who holds up a stop sign?
A "flat universe" is analogous to a sheet of paper which contains everything. A "spherical universe" is like the interior of a constantly expanding balloon. Yet in neither instance is there a boundary because there is no existence outside of space-time.
Or like a gigantic tempura item.
And the crux of that biscuit is the apostrophe ...
Timothy Ferris "Coming Of Age In The Milky Way" has always been a favorite of mine. While not actually a 'physics' book per-se, it's an easy read for the inquisitive layman, similar to Hawking' "Brief History Of Time"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/239796.Coming_of_Age_in_the_Milky_Way
What would a flat universe do to the big bang theory? Will they have to develop a theory about why the original point of nothing was a shaped charge?
I've long doubted that we are living in a 3-d universe (+1 of time). However, until we can get information to/from one of those other dimensions in a meaningful, repeatable way, there is no practical use of the knowledge.
Thanks. Saw it around but never read it. sounds good.
You guys will educate me yet.
Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series was always a favorite of mine, although I know what FReepers tend to think of him. Yes he was an atheist, but not a militant one like Richard Dawkins, whom I can’t stand. I also read the book. It’s a good primer for a wide range of science concepts (especially cosmology, naturally). And at no point does he attack religion, but his skepticism of it shows, if you can overlook it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.