Do we 100% know what the geometry of the Universe is?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the geometry of the universe, particularly in relation to the Big Bang theory and the implications of a flat universe. Participants explore concepts of spatial geometry, cosmological models, and observational evidence, while addressing misconceptions about the nature of the universe's expansion.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that if the Big Bang occurred, the universe must be spherical due to the nature of explosions, while others challenge this assumption, stating that the Big Bang was not an explosion in the traditional sense.
  • There is a claim that the universe is spatially flat according to current models, but this is accompanied by the acknowledgment of finite error bars in measurements.
  • Participants discuss the misconception that all stars and planets lie in the same plane as Earth, clarifying that "flat" in cosmological terms refers to Euclidean 3-space, not a two-dimensional plane.
  • Some argue that theories in science are validated through observations rather than proofs, emphasizing that the statement about the universe being flat is based on the best current theory with high confidence.
  • There is a discussion about the distribution of matter in the universe, with participants noting that matter exists in all directions and dimensions, and that the universe does not have a center.
  • One participant raises a question about whether all matter comes from a single source, which is met with confusion and clarification that current models do not support the idea of a central point of origin.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of the Big Bang and the geometry of the universe. There is no consensus on the interpretations of these concepts, and several misconceptions are identified and challenged throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature of the Big Bang and the implications of a flat universe. The discussion reflects varying levels of understanding and interpretations of cosmological models.

  • #31
Ibix said:
Alan Guth's inflationary theory is the current leader of the field.
Inflation models don't necessarily eliminate the initial singularity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
user079622 said:
Obviously that's the problem, hmm. So we are in math world.
Newtonian physics is "math world" just as much as GR is. Newtonian physics is just different math, whose predictions are now known to not be as accurate as those of GR.

user079622 said:
so that mean we are still finding what is really happening.
Depends on what you mean. We don't have good knowledge of what happened before the hot, dense, rapidly expanding state that we call the "Big Bang" (which is not the same thing as the "initial singularity" that appears in some models). We do, however, have good knowledge of the current spatial geometry of the universe--that it is flat to within a very good approximation (i.e., if it is actually curved, the radius of curvature is much, much larger than the radius of our observable universe).

user079622 said:
So that mean all above members wrote in posts maybe is not 100% correct?
As has already been pointed out, we never can be certain that anything in science is "100% correct".

However, that is not the same as saying that we know nothing at all or that we don't know that the naive Newtonian model you have been implicitly using in your intuitions is not correct. We do know that that model is wrong, to an extremely high confidence: its predictions are nothing like what we see.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke, user079622 and Ibix
  • #33
Ibix said:
In this context, flat is a technical term referring to the geometry of spacetime
And, specifically, to the geometry of space.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
  • #34
Ibix said:
flat is a technical term referring to the geometry of spacetime
Jaime Rudas said:
And, specifically, to the geometry of space.
More precisely, to the geometry of spacelike hypersurfaces of constant FRW coordinate time (or, equivalently, constant proper time for comoving observers) in the overall FRW spacetime geometry.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72
  • #35
user079622 said:
But how can this be physically possible?
Example with fluid, if you decrease distance between each molecule of air, shouldn't it come to one point?
Suppose simply that a current cosmological time state of the universe is unbounded Euclidean 3 space. Then every earlier state, however many doublings of density involved, is also unbounded. The cosmological time exactly zero is not actually part of the model (even in the idealized mathemetical model). Every time later than zero (even e.g. ##1/(((10^{100})^{100})^{100})## seconds after zero) is still an unbounded state. That is just the nature of infinity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72 and PeterDonis
  • #36
user079622 said:
All stars/planets in universe lay at same plane as earth? How thick is this plane?
You are misunderstanding what “spatially flat” means. Intuitively it means that the Euclidean geometry works everywhere - the Pythagorean theorem is valid, parallel lines never intersect, the interior angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees, and so forth. The opposite of “flat” is “curved”.

It’s easy to visualize a three-dimensional flat space - we live in one, it’s the only three-dimension space we’ve ever known. It’s not so easy to visualize a three-dimensional curved space so we have to fall back on a two-dimensional analogy: the surface of a sheet of paper is two-dimensional and flat so Euclidean geometry works; the two-dimensional surface of the earth is not flat and Euclidean geometry doesn’t work (lines of longitude, initially parallel at the equator intersect at the poles, the interior angles of a triangle with two vertices on the equator and the third at a pole add to more than 180 degrees, and so forth).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #37
user079622 said:
But how can this be physically possible?
Example with fluid, if you decrease distance between each molecule of air, shouldn't it come to one point?
No, not if the fluid extends infinitely in all directions. In such a situation, as the distance between the molecules decreases, the density of the fluid approaches infinity everywhere while at the same time the volume always remains infinite.
 
  • #39
After moderator review, the thread will remain closed. Thanks to all who participated.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K