An Ellipsoidal Universe? Part II

Excellent!!!!!

I think you're perfectly right, Europium. One can say the observable universe has shape, because there is at least a 'horizon', but what shape has an (perhaps) infinite universe? As you said, meaningless!

The term "shape" is sometimes used in terms of the expansion rate - I use it in my ebook like that. But this is nothing comparable to Christie's! It is simply the shape of a curve, like parabolic, hyperbolic, or something else.

In the article that Roger quoted, a slightly anisotropic large scale expansion rate is postulated to explain certain CMB radiation properties. But it is inconclusive at this time.

Jorrie

Consider this: Infinite surface area within a fixed volume = 3D fractal such as the Sierpinski Arrowhead. Could the universe be such a beast?

O dear it's me again well I must concur your design of the ununiverse is exceptional.

Although nothing would give me greater pleasure to think that size shape and elements of our known universe could be all but an image of our own significance.

where one starts at the know spectrum of value in human terms,it is given that `the solar system lies within the known universe`, and as we move closer afield there are worlds and other solid worldly bodies (planets, Pluto, chrion, the moon to name a few).
Then on delving deeper within these spheres (although in some cases a bit elongated and such the like) we find biological and inanimate object which in them selves could be referred to as pocket universes (no pun intended) albeit by a different NAME`. For in language we find our answers.

Then to conclude my prognosis I claim that the known universe is a mere replication of those atoms that make up our own biological and inanimate pocket universes as mentioned above.

So for an explanation.

The sizes related to atoms and their structural relationships to all it's segment are similar in nature of the known universe occupancy in the greater all ( that which lies outside our known universe.)
reasoning:
when nano sized particles are formed into nanotubes. When they are collapsed there is a great release of energy.
atomic force from atomic splitting of atoms also releases vast amounts of energy virtually bilging their size.

In the known universe our energy also needs to relate to an external dimension other wise the expansion of matter would have no reason to rotate, Otherwise were it not enclosed all our universal objects would be able to expand unilaterally for each particle.

Gravity would be meaningless as the coherent universe would be unattached to it's own being it's own self. (ego if you will) and have little or no apparent destiny nor reoccurrences of our elliptic reality.

(let: unmeasured phenomena include, attractive repellant forces from masses further afield)
(let: particles with out a positive or negative energy charge be termed unmeasurable for simplicity)
All known particles have a force that attracts or repels, by way of differences in the aligned or rotating mass, they occupy these forces periodically and changes of these forces relate to restructuring the placements of the particles within the mass and in relation to external masses in their proximity , One could infer that the known universe re writes it's self to disk (although on a disk it is uni-dimensional or should that be clockwise?) and comes out -attracting and repelling momentarily different for it's give time frame-.

did I miss something.. you'r sure to inform... oH it's debatable theory and inclinde to entertain.
To bee or not to bee that is the question - shakespear

Is it possible that our universe, the way we visualize, is only a pocket universe of something much greater?

First all, please forgive me for sticking my nose in your reply to another's post and where it probably doesn't belong. It's a bad habit borne of curiosity, mostly.

Would either or both of you please explain what you specifically mean by "pocket universe?" For my part, there are a couple of wildly different interpretations I might give for this term - all of them speculative.

Thanks!

--Europium

To the words pocket universe I was making a distiction of the `self`, the oneness of an organised structure such as we humans are or other biological species, my idea was to resemble within a oneness of an orginsed system, (biological for now) and that the make up of that orgainsed system is atoms

and associating the known universe as a far more advanced atomic structure that is part of great all that our known universe resides in.

I've of couse presumed that the basic atomic nuculei is in a sence a sub-element of everything up to our known universe. Our known universe in turn is in a more elaborate manor is the atomic substance of the great all that our know universe is a part of.

Thanks, And I toO thoughly enjoy you elegant rhetoric.

Life is what happens to us while where busy making other plans - John Lennon

"Is it possible that our universe ... is only a pocket universe of something much greater?"

Fo Sho! There are an infinite number of what we call universes, each of them infinitely far apart. And each is expanding at a faster-and-faster rate (approaching infinite speed, eventually). So there is the new question:

Did He do this all "just for us"? Or will we someday figure out how to communicate with Others from the other universes? And will we find that they, too, recognize (worship) Him, for all He has done?

OK, the idea of a 'shape' for the universe may be meaningless, but does that mean there is no outer boundary? If you postulate an infinite universe there can be no boundary, but if it is finite there must be a boundary!

Also, if it's finite there must be an 'outside', so does it look the same shape from the outside as the inside?

I still think that 'doughnut' shape is the way to go!

I concur Donuts are always a possibleoutcome of a biological experence.

Although the constricted shape of a toroidal donut seems petit off center when related to out known universe, for we are all made in the shape of a donut (no pun intended)

Although for a correct analization some of the first pimardial soups had organisms with a tubular shell or membrain and developed into such things as jelly fish like creatures with a canpy that when contracted and expanded would propel it.(and also others).

Yes sauages with cheese in the middle all the way through. (pun)

"I still think that 'doughnut' shape is the way to go!"

And I still think you're a cop.

Think of it in the way that a colony of "flat" (intelligent?) microbes constrained to living on the surface of a balloon would. In their world there is no such thing as three dimensions, but, they can measure the difference between a spherical Universe and a sausage shaped one.

Great post, BTW...

Randall writes: "Think of it in the way that a colony of "flat" (intelligent?) microbes constrained to living on the surface of a balloon would. In their world there is no such thing as three dimensions, but, they can measure the difference between a spherical Universe and a sausage shaped one."

Except that, in our case, the whole "balloon" exists in four dimensions, rather than three? And the "surface" on which we dwell has three dimensions, rather than two? Yes?

As a two-dimensional microbe who's recently died a brutal, agonizing death (mostly by choking on a musty 2D physics textbook after trying to bite off more than he could chew), I have since gone to 3D Microbe Heaven and, from here, can easily see my tearful 2D ex-wife writhing in sorrow over my demise. That said, I think it's absolutely great how my new 3D vantage point here outside her Universe lets me see the whole shape of the place in one glance. Uh-oh

Did I just say the 'O' word?' Did I just say outside?

And where's here?

Maybe my coming to 3D Microbe Heaven wasn't such a great idea. It's raising more questions than it answers. Questions like: How do I explain from my new vantage point that my ex's Universe seems to now 'enclose' a 3D Something, A Something not only distinct from her 2D Universe, but distinct also from another 3D Something, the What Lies Beyond kind of something where I seem to be floating. What would I say of this to my grieving 2D ex-wife before those distracting post-mortem Social Security benefits kick in?

BTW, do these Somethings have names? Are they real Things, or do they exist only as artifacts of my own pathetic 2D attempts to interpret my new 3D Universe in 2D terms? I'm really not sure, actually. I'm even less sure what to make of this analogy were I to add yet another dimension required by my own, Real Universe. You know, the Universe from where the guy who's pretending to be me is writing this post.

I can appreciate that the surface of a balloon is finite and unbounded. I can appreciate how it might actually be possible to speak meaningfully of the shape of the Universe, without having to invoke any references to its having a surface - or even of needing one. But I'd like to know what to make of the interior and exterior parts of the balloon in this analogy. Are they artifacts, or do they have some reality in our own Universe?

How would you describe the interior of the 3D Balloon Universe to its microscopic 2D denizens? The exterior? As I asked earlier, are these simply artifacts arising from the limitations of this 2D/3D analogy, or is there more to it than that? Assuming they are meaningful in the Microbe Universe, how would these concepts map to a description of our own Universe?

(Welcome to Pandora's Box)

Thanks again for a nicely thought-provoking post!

--Europium

I'm not sure what the shape should be but I have started an intensive programme of research into Christie Brinkley's shape in order to discover the truth.

We know the edge of the universe exists because the Enterprise has been there. The ship and crew even passed through the boundary layer to the other side.

The view screen clearly showed the boundary layer to be a rainbow-colored gaseous mass many parsecs thick. The other side is devoid of stars or any discernible matter, but apparently some form of energy exists there as the Enterprise was clearly visible in the void.

I agree. I also saw the documentary on the edge of the universe by the brave crew of the Enterprise.

For those of you who subscribe to the big bang theory, you must subscribe to the finite size of the universe also, 12 issues for the price of 6.

Why, you ask, because at t=0 a big bang occured, and the universe was born and started expanding. Was there not a boundary at t=.00000000001 seconds after the bang? The boundary has just moved to a position at t=now. What would be on the other side? Absolutely nothing.

I don't believe this crap, but just throwing some fuel into the mix.

Repost: Consider this- Infinite surface area within a fixed volume = 3D fractal such as the Sierpinski Arrowhead. Could the universe be such a beast?

Let us get to the bottom of this! If we take the universe, as we conceptualize it, as infinite. Just take the portion that we know about and shrink that by 1,000,000, then we would still have an infinite universe left, no matter how you want to theorize, carry on with the debate, or be rude to one another. Look up the word infinite in the dictionary. Dhu! Wake up you guys!!!! Put yourself out there; floating in the infinite; look in every direction from top, bottom, front, back and everywhere. What do you see? For sure you do not see a horizon. You guys are guessing, theorizing, and unless you can produce absolute facts, you had all consider yourselves still to be in kindergarten and scratching your heads. Therefore:::: One theory is as good as another, just a guessing game. Some of you seem more knowledgeabe, humble and polite, but there are those who are trying to brow beat in almost every discussion.

The point: Just as surface area can be infinite within a finite volume, so could volume be infinite within the next dimension (time), and so on into the realm of theory that assumes an additional 6 dimensions.

Capturing the big picture or paradigm is the essence of the discussion and creates more food for thought to intrigue others to look beyond what they know.

But to trash others is arrogance and will qualsh a discussion. I'd rather be on a baby's high-chair, than a high-horse. At least, then I will still give others the benefit of the doubt and respect.

In the World of The Very Small (on the order of a Planck Length), some interpretations of Quantum Theory postulate that spacetime itself takes on a roiling 'foamlike' nature, and where virtual particles constantly flicker in and out of existence. It's way over my head, to be sure, but I think that's about as close as you're gonna get to a Sierpinski Fractal.

--Europium

I saw those episodes (countless times, thanks to the Miracle of Reruns). In those episodes (there were at least two of them, as I recall), the Enterprise passed through some 'energy barrier' that existed at the edge of the Galaxy. But it was the edge of the Galaxy that they went through, not the edge of the Universe.

If the shape of the Universe is meaningless and the CBM results are inconclusive why is NASA spending all the money on satellites and publishing data about those results on their web site? It never ceases to amaze me that no matter what the subject or how worldly the knowledge on that subject, there's always a group who pretends to know more or actively clouds the issue with even more speculation without a proven answer of their own. If GP-B shows Albert's GTR to be incorrect or somewhat off the mark will that be meaningless and inconclusive also.

If the results don't meet your expectations then just put your stick in the mudhole and stir it again! Finding the Holy Grail is a moving target and these "Universe" questions and answers are way beyond our lifetime! However the results of exspensive endeavors should be measured with some reverence gentlemen.

Very Good!

Just as we were in our mother's womb. The walls are stretching and we don't know what's on the exterior. One day we will though, just like at birth. So there is an interior and exterior with a surface between and a passage to get there. The physical world doesn't change just because we can't see it.

If you travel far enough across the Earth you will eventually fall off the edge and then where will you be Ollie? The Twilight Zone with Rod or in OZ with Dorothy?

Lucy you've got some serious "splainin" to do! They're trying to convince us that the outer reaches of the physical world are only mystical ramparts that are meaningless and non-existant. We hold these truth to be self evident all men are not created equal. Especially when it comes to dealing with reality.

And so, instead of discussing these issues myself and, in the process, betraying my own flawed understanding of space-time geometry by means of such posts, and of asking questions designed to further my own deep understanding of such things, should I then accept - and on faith - the recognized 'authority' of the majority and let it dictate to me my own understanding of how the Universe works?

Is that the way you do it? If so, then please allow me to point out that this approach is not always the most profitable course of action.

As any self-respecting armchair physicist knows, Albert Einstein's accurate explanation of the Photoelectric Effect won him, in 1921, the Nobel Prize in Physics. Evidently the Nobel Committee considered his explanation more fundamentally deserving of the Prize than even his far more famous Theory of Relativity. However, regardless of whether Einstein actually cared about winning the Prize, or not, he would never have arrived at his explanation for the effect by taking the path of least resistance.

At that time the "corpuscular theory of light" had long since fallen out of favor. No other physicist of any repute considered this theory to be anything more than a laughable hiccup in the Annals of Science. Any physicist who seriously considered its claims was obviously not paying attention in class. Far worse still, such persons were clearly disrespectful and disruptive individuals who had no regard for scientific 'authority,' and who failed to exhibit the requisite deference thereto. For any physicist of the time to be foolish enough to resurrect any part this theory was clearly committing an act of scientific sacriledge.

Only Albert Einstein, alone among all the physicists of his time, and in the face of enormous opposition from the scientific Establishment, had the sheer guts to buck the system and seriously consider the corpuscular nature of light long enough to realize that it, alone, was the only possible prerequisite to an explanation of the photoelectric effect.

Not one single physicist of the time who subscribed exclusively to the wave theory of light - and they all did - came up with anything even close to an explanation. Yet, in spite this, none of them were willing to abdicate their positions in the majority long enough to consider what seemed to them to be unlikely alternatives. Only Einstein himself had enough disregard for such authority - not to mention having the cajones - to successfully pull it off.

I've always deeply admired this trait of his. His example gives me the courage to exchange a public betrayal of my own ignorance for the greater prize of a deeper understanding. Object, then, to my post as much as you like. I am certainly no Einstein as my posts clearly demonstrate.

But neither am I a parrot.

--Europium

By his own admission Einstein was an observer and a very good one. He was good at observation and then debunking myth with reality when he had the ammunition. But 100 years later we still haven't proven or debunked some of his theories. 100 years from now will we have the same reverence for his body of work? If his GTR gets passed the GP-B tests then I'm very impressed especially with regard to his gravitational model. Frame dragging and time dilation just fall out of the gravitational model. He remains a supreme genius in my mind. What genius will come up with a TOE that's keeps us mere mortals working for hundreds of years to prove? And the beat goes on...

By his own admission Einstein was an observer and a very good one. He was good at observation and then debunking myth with reality when he had the ammunition.

Einstein was an excellent observer, due largely to his willingness to approach problems with a very open mind. This willingness made it possible for him to see the apparent invariance of the speed of light suggested by the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment as implying that everything else we take for granted as invariant - such as as time, distance, and mass (Lorentz' contributions didn't hurt at this time either) - are the real variables in the way the Universe actually works.

It is my opinion, at least, that Einstein's conclusion that "God does not play dice with the Universe" clearly marked the point up to which Albert Einstein stopped being Einstein the Good Observer, to his new life as Einstein the Scientific Bigot. First of all, it was never Einstein's prerogative to say what God does and does not do with the Universe. For all we know God may not only play dice, but may actually own a few casinos as well.

This conclusion also betrayed Einstein's new unwillingness to accept the results of scientific experiments which clearly suggested that the Universe is not, in fact, the nice, clean-cut, well-behaved, deterministic bit of precision clockwork that Einstein seemed to prefer it was.

I'm convinced that Albert Einstein's rejection of the implications of quantum theory were made not rationally - as one might have expected, given his other accomplishments - but as being an emotional rejection of the results based largely on his own aesthetic prejudices. It didn't feel right to him, and so he rejected what seemed to him to be a bit messy. Had Einstein taken this approach in 1905, he would not have had, in my opinion, the willingness to accept that it was the speed of light that was the standard constant by which all other familiar aspects of physical reality should be gauged. Nor would we now be calling it "Eintein's Theory of Relativity" but rather, perhaps, "George's Theory of Relativity," because "George" hadn't thought to reject this apparent "absurdity" on the basis of aesthetic considerations.

Too bad, too. Some folks quote Einstein's "Dice" conclusion as some sort of justification for holding onto their own prejudices that the Universe is deterministic. For my part, I feel that these folks are perhaps so enamoured with Einstein's obvious accomplishments and the considerable weight of his own scientific authority, to stop and realize that they are, in fact, demonstrating their own willingness to repeat his gravest mistake. The Universe is not deterministic, like it or not, and it continues to be non-deterministic regardless of whether Einstein approves - or not. It is not Einstein's Universe, after all, it is God's.

I personally feel that Einstein's conclusion about God and Dice was the single greatest impediment to his ever having finished his Grand Unified Theory. He never finished it before he died, and I seriously doubt that he ever would have finished it whilst clinging to his own aesthetic prejudices. If you are attempting to build a house, for example, does it help to throw away half the materials even before you begin pouring the foundation?

In his early years, Albert Einstein approached the Universe with both eyes open wide and with a mind equally open. But his subsequent aesthetic rejection of quantum non-determinism was, essentially, a declaration that he was no longer willing to consider all the facts. As if to say, "Sorry, folks, but I'd much rather now see the Universe with one eye closed."

(IMHO)

--Europium

Actually I look at the results of instrument testing on working theories to dictate my understanding. I'm not judgemental and I certainly don't give a hoot what the majority thinks. The majority isn't interested, worried or even caring enough to give this a second thought. We are a minorities minority here. The majority is drinking beer, eating hamburgers, watching sports and living life's precious dream. What ever that is? Every answers different about that one!

I would never profess my own theory without proof because you could rightly claim that another fool was born in 1944. The results of the COBE, WMAP and GP-B satellite instruments are not worthless or misunderstood. You got to believe in some of the data collected. It's not a work in science fiction. But I don't worry about the exterior because I still don't undertand the interior yet. Until we understand what occurs in the interior a black hole the interior of our realm will remain a mystery.

I completely agree with your post, with one exception: "I would never profess my own theory without proof because you could rightly claim that another fool was born in 1944."

1. Never be afraid of being called a 'fool.' You know you're not a fool, so why should you identify with someone else's characterization of you? Consider that they, too, have their own demons to exorcise.

2. As an established fool, I am in the best of company.

3. Every single now-dead theory in History was supported at the time by ample 'proof.' (Speaking of which, I still have an unopened bottle of vintage Phlogiston in my fridge.)

4. The lack of 'proof,' in and of itself, is not a sufficient basis on which to reject a theory - even one's own. More often than not a "wait-and-see" attitude is necessary prior to drawing any final conclusions. (BTW, how is your gravity-wave observatory coming along?)

5. For peculiar reasons known only to this forum's resident online psychologists, posting a question disguised as an actual statement-of-fact consistently invites the very best dialog. (Of course, it never hurts to have an asbestos suit handy for such occasions.)

--Europium

"But neither am I a parrot."

And to those ArtSmasses here who'd care to reply, "Aparrotly not!" please allow me beat you to the punch.

(Please also note that I have root privileges and I know where you're parked.)

muiporuE--

Someday I must post the Forrest Gump joke (clean). You of all good people will appreciate it. Or maybe you've already heard it?

Gump: Yes, I even know God's first name!" Leading to the punch line.

I live in Huntington Beach, CA and my best friend lives in south Austin. A gentlemen by the name of Sam Bartholomew. He drinks lots of beer and shoots pool but we won't hold that against him will we. He's part of the majority, he's never contemplated anything as weighty as we've been discussing here but he's a very likeable fellow. We were raised in southern Kansas during the 1950's with the Hardy Boys and Tom Sawyer. Why heck I married Becky Thatcher she on her way home from work as we speak. Thanks for the conversation I had fun today.

Sam Bartholomew? Hell, everybody knows Sam!

BTW, Sam might drink lots of beer, but after that last party he still ended up having to drive Willie Nelson home (now thar's one man who kin drink!)

--Europium