11

Astrophysicists create the first accurate map of the universe: It’s very flat, and probably infinite

Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 9 months ago to Science
58 comments | Share | Flag

I think this points out some problems for the big bang and for general relativity. Thoughts?

All Comments

  • Posted by $ Mimi 8 years, 8 months ago
    A flat universe suggest that we missed the chance to give the author, Terry Pratchett a Nobel prize in Physics. (BG)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes;;; people forget that assumptions compound -- if you make
    an assumption (there are probabilities in everything) that
    the steel has a strength of 100,000 psi and that the car has a weight
    of 3,000 pounds, the variabilities (plus or minus) will magnify
    when the steel has an actual strength of 90,000 psi and
    the car actually weights 3,300 pounds, full of vacation gear.
    then, the outdoor temperature will drop to minus ten degrees
    and the whole family is in jeopardy. . Check Your Premises!!! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 9 months ago
    I find this stuff fascinating. The Hubble Deep Field (showing hundreds of galaxies in a "dark" portion of the sky) is my desktop background.

    This discovery raises all sorts of speculative fantasies. A "relatively flat, infinite universe" sounds a lot like a disk or spiral galaxy. A galaxy of galaxies.

    But where are we in this universe? I hoped to find a "map" showing our location - are we close to the edge? If we are supposed to be close to the center, that sounds very familiar and somewhat medieval ;-) But I think it may say more about either how far we can see, or how old the universe is. If it's only ~14billion years old, we could only see 14 billion light years. Assuming a constant speed of light. But I've also heard that the speed of light may not be constant over time, especially in the early fractions of a second after the big bang.

    If this discovery doesn't make the big bang a quaint, old fashioned notion. Wait a minute ... isn't the big bang "settled science"? ;-)

    Ah, the possibilities!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I read a physics blog one time that used the balloon analogy, and went as far as to claim that the question "what's outside the balloon" was not valid and had no meaning.

    I can't grasp that, but hey, I'm a mere engineer, not an astrophysicist. Seems to me that either the universe is infinite, or if there is a boundary, there must be something (another universe?) on the other side.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed. When dealing with safety issues, an understanding of the safety factors, the uncertainties, and the assumptions are all critical. I see too many engineers straight out of college who do not have an appreciation for this. I spend some of my time teaching them that just because the computer model says something will last for 142.98 years doesn't mean you can ignore it for 142.97 years before replacement. In most cases, the safety factors will keep them from doing anything dangerous, but shaving away at the safety factor is not a good practice - that's not why they exist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 9 months ago
    Imagine a sphere with a radius of 13 billion light years. If you can only see about 1000 light years, your sample size is too small to really say anything about the structure of the universe.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am just glad that we are actually investigating these questions. I read that an old joke among astrophysicists used to be, "We're going to do a seminar on Cosmology tonight. Bring a sixpack."

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I read that book in high school and loved it - for a variety of reasons.

    It still comes down to a question of tools, though: One must have good enough tools to measure a tiny difference. If the sphere is many times larger than the Hubble limit, we may not be able to measure the difference...yet.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is supposed to be an experiment going on to answer that question. The answer is best explained with reference to the book flatlanders, which is about two dimensional beings living on a 3D sphere. They cannot see that they live on a sphere, but from geometry they know if they live on a plane then the sum of the angles of a triangle will add up to 180 degrees. If they live on a sphere the angles will be greater than 180 degrees..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    M.A.
    We must suffer from the same human conditions. I was 5'11.5" (pretty close to 6). I am now 5'9.5" and counting. In between birth & death is a roller coaster ride we call life. Unlike a roller-coaster, however, we are in charge of everything except the unexpected. Hmm - I can carry this analogy on for several more paragraphs. BORING!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I used to be six feet tall. Now I'm 5'10" tall. I used to have a 28" waist now it's 36" That goes with the theory of the flat universe shorter and wider. Einstein also pointed out speed of light varies.

    In the end there are three truths. Birth, life, and death. One per customer. the proofs are statistically indisputable. If not show me the statistics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My theory is mundane. If you have the time and the distance all chaotic events eventually repeat themselves.No way to prove it or disprove it. But the Professor thought it great idea.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 8 years, 9 months ago
    It is a symptom of the poor philosophical state of modern physics that physicists will blithely accept the possibility of actual spatial infinities without blinking.
    As there is no evidence that the universe is actually "flat" - there is no way to exclude very slightly "positively curved" spacetime, which implies a finite but unbounded universe - there is no scientific justification for claiming such a infinity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No other resource I can think of for Laniakea. As far as the 'Chaos' theory, I recently read a piece on chaos verses order in Scientific America, Aug 2015, entitled: Planet Hard Drive. It's fascinating and proposes that knowledge is order as a bit in a hard drive. The only way to combat 'Chaos' is with Order. Order grows the universe or more properly...Creation, ( the cosmos if you prefer) Another great conscious expanding read.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes! . if I can't approximate a math answer closely enough to
    guarantee, say, public safety, then I won't do the job. . as my
    first father-in-law said, "Good enough is perfect." -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes! . I "know" that the earth's rotation accelerates slightly when
    I move west on its surface, and it slows slightly when I move
    east. . but measuring the difference is currently impossible.
    and if we can "only" see at the speed of light, parts of
    the universe would have to be receding faster than that
    to become invisible to us. . maybe that's the infinite part!!! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have watched a number of these videos and they have some very valid points - IMHO. But some make overly broad claims.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm about to cry big crocodiles. All these years of study and they tried to jump ahead of me. I'll fool them. I'll write my own book! Do you have any references besides u tube? I don't have the bandwidth ...grump grump grump does that mean the simiple explanation of chaos is out the window too? Skip that the first five or six was some Queen wannabe's . Then i found electricuniverse.info. Good stuff ! I have a use for that in my Universal Theory of Relativity Model. Actually it's fascinating. Just when you think Science Fiction has outstripped Science - Science fools you and leaps bravely forward where no man has ever gone. That solved the question. Is there enough static electricity to power all those motors? Another late night read and thanks again for the tip!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago
    The big bang, general relativity and gravity as the controlling force are just about history now. The 'Electric universe' is a most promising concept and not only explains what we know but also what we had to abort the rules and call exceptions.
    Have you seen the work of Laniakea-our home super cluster? It's fascinating!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyy...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are still mathematicians that have problems with calculus because of its use of infinites. I do not think they should be dismissed, but I think they are wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    Wow! I just created my science fiction version last night while the wifi was down. Big Bang begets dough nut shaped expansion something like a dough nut balloon. As it expands out ward it also expands inward. As the outward expansion begets planets and system that eventually succumb to super novas intelligent life moves outward. As the dough nut expands to the center it eventually reaches the prime location of the Big Bangs The whole thing starts again.In one of the evolutions our heroes discover a library that proves they have been there before. The theory is as the super novas unrelenting time approach they make the jump further out and when the outer limits are reached jumpt back to the center at an earlier time and start over again. Finally the ask if everything is removed from the universe except space and space itself is removed ....? One discovers a door to true outer space......the area beyond the limits of the effects of the Big Bang! Mankind is saved once again. Only to find out they are now in an infinitely larger universe and so it goes.....But if you look at an expanding doughnut from the side and envision it in a lenticular way such as the clouds that produce green flash events.....very flat and seemingly infinite.

    The door to true outer space of course is one of many and always marked '51.'

    See what happens when the wifi shuts down?

    We also found static motors.

    Cheers!

    Edit I forgot the Universal Theory of Relativity. The answer to that is how the door was located. First remember that the speed of light is not a constant. There is only one constant in the Omniverse.....the location of the most interior bang!

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Watch for the Movie ...Music by Bryan May
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ahh, the historic argument between Engineers and Mathematicians.
    Put an Engineer and Math major against one wall in a room and a naked woman on the opposite wall.
    Each is allowed to move towards the woman 1/2 the separation distance each step
    Can they reach her?
    The Math major says he can never reach her. The Engineer replies that he'll get close enough.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo