Just what we need, a finite dodecahedral universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marcus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a finite dodecahedral universe, exploring its implications for cosmology and the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Participants examine the geometric properties of dodecahedra and their potential connection to the structure of the universe, as well as the validity of this model in light of current observations and theoretical frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention a preprint article discussing the possibility of tiling a 3-sphere with regular dodecahedra, suggesting that this could represent the structure of the universe.
  • One participant notes that while the model may fit certain observations, it is also acknowledged that different interpretations of data can lead to varying conclusions.
  • Another participant claims that the model is generally considered false due to predictions that do not align with current observations.
  • There is a question raised about the significance of the 60° cut-off in the angular scale of the CMB and how it might be explained by the dodecahedral model versus the standard infinite Euclidean space model.
  • Some participants refer to ongoing research using supercomputers to test the viability of non-trivial topologies for the universe, indicating that the dodecahedral model has been ruled out in favor of a flat and infinite universe.
  • A participant queries whether the universe could be bordered by polygons or embedded with polyhedral spaces, suggesting a connection to concepts like cosmic strings or walls.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the dodecahedral universe model, with some asserting it has been ruled out by observations while others explore its implications and raise questions about current cosmological models.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific observational data and theoretical assumptions regarding the universe's topology and geometry, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
795
things seemed to be going along just fine and then a friend sent me

http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/0310253

this is a preprint of an article appearing in the current (9 October 2003) issue of Nature, which is also their cover article---a picture of a dodecahedron or something on the cover

the gist is like this: you can't tile the plane with regular pentagons because the inner angle is 108 degrees

but you can tile an ordinary 2-sphere with spherical regular pents that have the inner angle 120 degrees, because 3 angles of 120 degrees each will fit together

Also JR Weeks is a freelance geometer Macartherfellow who does educational geometrical computer graphics----works at home (he is not institutionalized) and probably has more fun than a lot of other Math PhDs from Princeton

And JR Weeks (never believe what geniuses tell you) says that since you can tile a 3-sphere with solid regular dodecahedra, well, obviously that must be what the universe is made of

and he got this French Astronomer (Jean-Pierre Luminet) to believe him and they are fitting the bumps in the cosmic background (WMAP data) to this model.

Luminet is at the "Observatoire de Paris" where, in 1675, a young Dane named Olaus Roemer first determined the speed of light---and got within roughly 10 percent of the right answer, which makes it holy ground, and JR Weeks is just running around loose in the town of Canton, NY.

maybe this is all familiar to other people here but it took me by surprise this morning
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
and he got this French Astronomer (Jean-Pierre Luminet) to believe him and they are fitting the bumps in the cosmic background (WMAP data) to this model.
---------------------------------------------------------------
sometimes even the wrong bits fit in the wrong place.
every one is doing this jigsaw and getting a different
picture.
 
I think it is now generally agreed that this model cannot be true as it would make certain predcitions which don't fit in with current observations.
 
Why such a model? It seams that it explains the 60° cut-off of the angular scale in the cuadrupole and octopole modes of the CMB.

But how does the current model of an R^3 infinite euclidean space explain this cut off? Or does it ignore the cut off? It seams that this cut-off is not a widely accepted empirical fact, why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I hear currently, the team that is testing the viabilty of non-trivial topologies for the unievrse (given the observed flatness) using supercomputers has ruled out this model. Apparently they have tested most of these toplogies (though they are running out computer time) and it looks very likely that the universe is flat and infinite on a global scale.
 
Could our universe be bordered by polygons with positive curvature such that angles fit seamlessly, or embedded with polyhedral spaces such that they fit positively curved spacetime seamlessly? Does the author refer to or imply cosmic strings or walls?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K