Just what we need, a finite dodecahedral universe

In summary, the article discusses the theory that the universe is not made of regular pentagons, but rather solid regular dodecahedra. The theory is based on the fact that certain angles fit together perfectly. Jean-Pierre Luminet, a French astronomer, has agreed to test the theory by fitting the bumps in the cosmic background (WMAP data) to the model. Although the theory is not confirmed, it is still worth considering because it explains the 60° cut-off of the angular scale in the cuadrupole and octopole modes of the CMB.
  • #1
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,775
792
things seemed to be going along just fine and then a friend sent me

http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/0310253 [Broken]

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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #5
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:
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by thermonuclear
It seams that this cut-off is not a widely accepted empirical fact, why?

Because the statistics aren't good enough. It's right on the borderline between "definitely a real effect" and "probably not a real effect". Effects reported at this level of confidence have turned out to be non-existent before. So people are being cautious: it's significant enough to be worth considering explanations for it, but not significant enough to be sure that it's not just noise in the signal.

(I know an astrophysicist who cynically remarked that it's the sort of result you include in your paper because it's flashy and suggests new physics, as opposed to being something you're sure is there.)

Anyway, WMAP continues to collect statistics, and in a few years there will be Planck, so eventually we will know whether it's real or not.
 
  • #8
By the way, it's not really a cutoff in the power spectrum, it's just a dip.
 
  • #9
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?
 

1. What is a finite dodecahedral universe?

A finite dodecahedral universe is a theoretical model of the universe where it has a finite size and is shaped like a dodecahedron, a 12-sided polyhedron with regular pentagonal faces.

2. How is a finite dodecahedral universe different from the commonly accepted infinite universe model?

In the commonly accepted infinite universe model, the universe has no boundaries and goes on forever in all directions. However, in a finite dodecahedral universe, the universe has a defined size and shape, unlike the infinite model.

3. What evidence supports the existence of a finite dodecahedral universe?

Currently, there is no concrete evidence that supports the existence of a finite dodecahedral universe. The model is based on mathematical theories and the study of cosmic microwave background radiation.

4. How would a finite dodecahedral universe affect our understanding of the universe?

If a finite dodecahedral universe were proven to exist, it would challenge our current understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. It would also open up new possibilities for the shape and structure of the universe.

5. Can we ever prove the existence of a finite dodecahedral universe?

Due to the vastness of the universe and limitations in technology, it is currently impossible to prove the existence of a finite dodecahedral universe. Continued research and advancements in technology may one day provide evidence for or against this model.

Similar threads

  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top