Finite Universe is it possible?

Here's my stab at a substitute for the balloon analogy:

Imagine you're in a room with two doors, one to the right, and one to the left. In fact, it's a chain of rooms, each one leading to another, like the cars of a train. Amazingly, the chain never seems to end. There may be an infinite number of rooms, or it may be that eventually the rooms "wrap" and you wind up back where you started -- that's still an open question.

Now, imagine that every room is slowly getting wider, all at the same time. If you look toward the door on the left, you'll see that doorway (and the room beyond it) gradually moving away from you, as the room you're standing in expands around you. Ditto the room on your right. On top of that, if you look through the room on your left, to the next room down, you'll see that it is receding even faster than the room next to you. It's pretty obvious that, if you try to look even further down, that more distant rooms will be receding even faster.

That's what the universe is like now. It's expanding, but it's not expanding into anything; the rooms are just getting bigger. Note that, from your vantage point, you appear to be in the center of the expansion. Rooms to your left are moving away to the left, and rooms to your right are moving to the right, and all the while you appear to be standing still. But you can also see that it would look the same from any of the rooms, and that there isn't really any special center to the expansion.

So what's the Big Bang, then? Well, it's easy to picture the Big Bang in reverse, using the room analogy. Imagine that time is going backwards, and the rooms are shrinking instead of growing. Now they're ten meters wide...now only five. It's starting to get crowded. One meter wide. You're elbow-to-elbow with the person in the next room. Now one centimeter wide -- you've been crushed out of existence...there are a hundred rooms per meter. Now there are a thousand...now a million...the matter that used to be your body is has been compressed to an unimaginable density. How far can the shrinking continue? What happens when the rooms shrink to zero size?

Well, picture that process in reverse, and you have a pretty good idea of the Big Bang. The rooms start out unbelievably compressed, but are rapidly expanding, getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. The matter in the rooms, incredibly dense to start with, gets more and more spread out, until eventually the rooms are so big that they're almost entirely filled with empty space.

The question of what happens at zero is the big mystery. What does it mean to have an infinite chain of zero-sized rooms? Our math can't answer that, so we throw up our arms and call it a singularity. It's the same with the Big Bang: we can envision what the universe was like earlier and earlier, back to just fractions of a second after the Bang, but our equations all fall apart at t=0.

Does that make any sense?

Jeremy
 
Eos of the Eons said:
How do we know this?

Orangutan's frame-dragging link is one example. But more generally speaking, that's what comes out of general relativity. General relativity is the description of the geometry of space and how it gets distorted by the presence of mass. One of the things that comes out of general relativity is gravitational waves - just like electromagnetic radiation comes out of Maxwell's E&M equations. You cannot have general relativity without gravitational waves - if they don't exist, then the theory is fundamentally and deeply broken. And not just in the sense that Newtonian mechanics is broken, but still works as an effective approximation: I mean broken at the deepest levels, completely nonsensical.

We have been searching for gravitational waves, but we haven't succeeded yet. That's not terribly surprising: although any orbiting objects will produce them, they're so weak that we probably only have a chance to detect gravitational waves of something super-massive and high frequency, like a star collapsing into a black hole - so the fact that we haven't detected any yet isn't surprising at all, even assuming the theory is exactly correct. However (and this is really the key), so many OTHER predictions of general relativity have been experimentally verified (the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, gravitational lensing, frame dragging). So General Relativity is correct to the extent that we can test it, which means that, if not complete or exact, it must still (like Newtonian physics) be an excellent approximation. Which means that we cannot ignore what it's telling us: that space itself has intrinsic geometry.

Somebody tried to explain the balloon analogy to me. Thing is, there's space inside and outside of balloons.

Not if you're a two-dimensional creature confined to live out your existence on the surface of said balloon. Then space IS the balloon.

For a nice way to think about this, try reading the book "Flatland". It was originally published in 1880, and it's about the life of a square living in flatland who gets visited by a sphere. The sphere tries to convince the square that there are actually three dimensions, not just two, and the square has a hard time coming to grips with it. But the questions he faces, the way he has to think about the problem, are really exactly analogous to the problems of imagining a three-dimensional "surface" embedded in some higher-dimensional space. Despite being rather old, it's such a classic (and fairly short too so it's an easy read) that pretty much every public library should have a copy (if they don't, complain to the librarian). And it really doesn't take much prior geometry to understand either.
 
Just a little something to make you think:

If space is emptiness, how many dimensions does it have? If the universe was 2 dimensional there should be
'emptyness' above and below, so stuff could fall into that. If it was 3 dimensional there would be 'emptiness' to the (name of directions I don't know)... Repeat to infinity.
 
Alkatran said:
Just a little something to make you think:

If space is emptiness, how many dimensions does it have? If the universe was 2 dimensional there should be
'emptyness' above and below, so stuff could fall into that. If it was 3 dimensional there would be 'emptiness' to the (name of directions I don't know)... Repeat to infinity.

String theory suggest 11 dimensions, time, and 3 unfolded spacial dimensions. The others are curled up so tightly that they don't seem to effect us on a macro scale, but can be used to explain some of the problems general relativity has with singularities.

I've just started reading "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality". I'll report back anything interesting.

:)
O.
 

Back
Top Bottom