Doughnut-shaped Universe: Astronomers say Universe is small and finite

  • Thread starter Thread starter SF
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Universe
SF
Ulm University scientists have found evidence suggesting that the Universe is small and finite, and shaped like a 3-torus (doughnut).

They used three techniques to compare predictions of how the cosmic microwave background's temperature fluctuations in different areas of the sky should match up in both an infinite Universe and a doughnut one. In each case, the doughnut gave the best match to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data.

The team has even been able to pinpoint the probable size of the Universe: 56 billion light years across.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id=8758
 
Space news on Phys.org
Thanks for spotting this SF!

The article in Nature is free, if anyone wants to read it
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080523/full/news.2008.854.html

It is a news article written for general audience about a research paper that was posted last year on arxiv.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1420
Do we Live in a "Small Universe"?
Ralf Aurich, Holger S. Janzer, Sven Lustig, Frank Steiner
(Submitted on 10 Aug 2007 (v1), last revised 8 Apr 2008 (this version, v2))

"We compute the effects of a compact flat universe on the angular correlation function, the angular power spectrum, the circles-in-the-sky signature, and the covariance matrix of the spherical harmonics coefficients of the cosmic microwave background radiation using the full Boltzmann physics. Our analysis shows that the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three-year data are well compatible with the possibility that we live in a flat 3-torus with volume ~5x10^3 Gpc^3."

Notice that they don't claim to have proved it. They say that the 3-year WMAP data are COMPATIBLE with it being torus.
If they check it against the 5-year WMAP data they could well get a negative. More data may be able to rule out what they say.

Glen Starkman is something of an expert---has done a study of this very question that came up with negative finding. He says wait till we have data from the Planck satellite. It will provide a much more detailed map of the CMB. then we will see if the torus of that volume is still a possibility.
===================

About the numbers, their model is a cube with a volume 5000 cubic gigaparsecs
(and then identify the opposite faces of the cube so going out one side makes you reappear coming in the other side.)

so we have to take the cube root of 5000, and that will tell the length of the side of the cube
 
Last edited:
Two articles by Glenn Starkman et al which did NOT find evidence of torus topology are

1. arXiv:astro-ph/0604616 [ps, pdf, other]
Title: Extending the WMAP Bound on the Size of the Universe
Authors: Joey Shapiro Key, Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman
Comments: 9 pages, 16 figures
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
2. arXiv:astro-ph/0310233 [ps, pdf, other]
Title: Constraining the Topology of the Universe
Authors: Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman, Eiichiro Komatsu
Comments: Submitted to PRL
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev.Lett. 92 (2004) 201302

BTW if you take the cube root of the volume that paper gives you get that the SIDE OF THE CUBE has length 1709 Megaparsecs. Which is the same as 56 billion light years.
So I guess that is where the number 56 billion came from. It is the cube root of the volume that they give
 
I'm sorry, I had to:

Homer Simpson would be very proud!

Other than that, this is very interesting stuff, even to a non-donut-fanatic such as myself.

Good find, both of you!
 
That is very interesting , but i have read that the universe is flat. They carried out some experiment where they launched two beams from Earth and always addded up to 180 degrees a right trangle. Earth is the location of 90 degrees on a triangle
 
th3plan said:
That is very interesting , but i have read that the universe is flat. They carried out some experiment where they launched two beams from Earth and always addded up to 180 degrees a right trangle. Earth is the location of 90 degrees on a triangle
You mean no matter the two beams shot at whatever direction?
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top