Jump to content
Science Forums

Research Indicates A Spherical Universe


Dubbelosix

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

No it doesn't, in space, a fourth leg of the triangle is what allows space to manifest observable geometry, a curved sphere in 4D space only encompasses three spatial and one temporal dimension alone. Its not any more special than that. Hypersphere in higher dimensions, clearly has additional physics not encapsulated in a four dimensional model. More over the sphere is no more intriguing than a box in four dimensions (tesseract).

 

I think the universe is a higher dimensional object if you consider that each force has a properties which can be geometrically put into the form of a dimension that is curled up, the universe could even be a 7 to 32 dimensional object with each property being a a space direction that is curled into each point of space.

 

 

One Possible Configuration for the Forces and Space-time as Dimensions of space being 12+1 Dimensional

 

New-Bitmap-Image-2.png

 

Basically with that model ΣEgravityΣESNFΣECharge/electro-magnetism + ΣEHiggs/Flavour  the compressed dimensions give rise to Energy that is experienced as Energy-mass, but the model is far to simple to be a actual solution of "Real Universe". It does strangely look like T00 of the Energy-Stress Tensor in different units with more forces added to the list being accounted for other than just electricity and magnetism.

 

download.png

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Why not simplify and assume a membrane which evolves additional dimensions, not unlike space time, or other dimensions as may or may not be required by a model to explain what is observed or measured. You already have a good idea of the geometry of space time. Assuming it evolves from a membrane, coming into and out of existence at varying rates, depending its environment (mass or massless), not unlike your Ricci flow perhaps. Why involve a hypersphere. 

 

I do believe a fifth dimension is possible, heck, Kaluza and Klein attempted the unification under such a model. The only reason physicists add extra dimensions is to account for other forces. The dimensions may not even exist, but the unification under a five dimensional model, even if it doesn't exist, may still hold hidden secrets we can learn about why such models could lead to a better understanding of nature. But going above this, seven, eight to twelve, I find abhorrent. 

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some problems with this because the research does not really indicate that at all, the question is 'Open or Closed', and the problem with this is that the research shows within the error bars of measurement that it is FLAT. (not open or closed).

 

This is an interpretation that says basically "What if the amount of curve was within the error bars of the observation?"

 

If you make that assumption you can say whatever you want, except say that the research indicates that is the case.

 

My argument is that space is without shape, that is it is not geometrical in nature, it has properties, but like a color it's property is not its shape. 

Also something without boundaries cannot have a shape at all, the universe (space and time) is the universe all the way down (forever), it cannot have a shape.

Things in space can have a shape, (and a color) but space (and color) themselves does not have the fundamental property of shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...