Question about a torodial universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vorde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of toroidal structures in various dimensions, specifically addressing whether one dimension must be smaller than the other in higher-dimensional toruses. It clarifies that in both 2D and 3D toruses, such as a doughnut or a cube, there is no requirement for one circumference to be larger or smaller than the other. The conversation highlights that these structures can be defined without embedding them in higher-dimensional spaces, maintaining their boundaryless nature. The "Pac Man" game screen analogy is used to illustrate the concept of identifying edges in a square to form a torus. Ultimately, the limitation of dimension size only arises when embedding in three dimensions, which can be circumvented by considering the inherent dimensions of the torus itself.
Vorde
Messages
786
Reaction score
0
Does the fact that on 2D torus's, one dimension on the torus always has to be 'smaller' than the other dimension hold on the higher dimension versions?
 
Space news on Phys.org
You can have a 2d torus?
 
I mean 2D in the way you could call the surface of a sphere a 2-sphere, I guess I was trying to sound 'mathy'. I just mean a doughnut surface by 2D torus.
 
I am not sure what you mean...even in 2D, you can identify the opposite sides of a *square* to have torus topology. So what do you mean by "smaller"?
 
yenchin said:
I am not sure what you mean...even in 2D, you can identify the opposite sides of a *square* to have torus topology. So what do you mean by "smaller"?

Good point, thanks. 2D torus so constructed is often given as an example of a flat differential manifold. Zero intrinsic curvature. No boundary. Not embedded in any surrounding space.
Sometimes people talk about the "Pac Man" game screen as a square with left edge identified with right edge, and top with bottom.

It is not true that one circumference or girth has to be bigger or smaller than the other. The construction works just as well with a square as with a rectangle.

The original question was about higher dimensional analogs and the same is true, one can for instance start with a cube and make the same "Pac Man" identifications. Going out thru the right side is the same as coming in thru the left. Ditto front and back, ditto top and bottom.

that's a 3D torus and it does not have to "live" in any higher dimensional space, and it is boundaryless. Standard differential geometry.

Thanks for making the same point in the other thread about the 1D torus analog---the 1D "ring" made by taking a line segment and identifying the endpoints. Does not require a 2D surround. Need not be immersed in any higher dim'l space.
 
marcus said:
It is not true that one circumference or girth has to be bigger or smaller than the other. The construction works just as well with a square as with a rectangle.
Right. This limitation only comes into play when you embed the torus in three dimensions. I believe you can get around this limitation by embedding it in four dimensions instead. Or just by not embedding it at all and only dealing with the two dimensions inherent to the torus.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top