- #1

- 115

- 1

## Main Question or Discussion Point

How certainly is the universe flat? Is is absolutely approved or not?

If yes, what will cause the big crunch?

If yes, what will cause the big crunch?

- Thread starter Chemist@
- Start date

- #1

- 115

- 1

How certainly is the universe flat? Is is absolutely approved or not?

If yes, what will cause the big crunch?

If yes, what will cause the big crunch?

- #2

- 2,081

- 104

Thanks to WMap our certainty of the shape of the universe is considered flat with an uncertainty of 0.4 % . However as the vacuum energy density is greater than the critical density we are expanding and not predicted for a big crunch. Unless something unpredicted were to happen. Rather were destined for the big whimper.

The Thread " Look 88 B Years into the future and see the Universe shaping up " posted in the sticky threads above has some powerful tools in the calculators. In the sticky thread on the ballon analogy their is also some good articles covering expansion.

The Thread " Look 88 B Years into the future and see the Universe shaping up " posted in the sticky threads above has some powerful tools in the calculators. In the sticky thread on the ballon analogy their is also some good articles covering expansion.

Last edited:

- #3

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 785

There are various non-standard models in which the constants vary and different things happen, but the standard consensus model that most cosmologists use and fit the data to, as new observations are made, is the LCDM model. This has no big crunch.How certainly is the universe flat? Is is absolutely approved or not?

If yes, what will cause the big crunch?

The overall mean curvature for the LCDM has been measured over the years and the error bar for it has been gradually shrinking down as more and more observational data is acquired.

I forget the actual latest figures on the curvature---basically, very roughly, it is something like with 95% certainty we think it is zero plus or minus 1%. that is, we

As I recall a very recent report, from South Pole Telescope, said that with 95% certainty the curvature was not zero but just a wee bit on the positive side of zero! So that while the U is not infinite (according to them) it is so nearly flat that the hypersphere circumference could be as large as 880 billion lightyears. That is, the 3D analog of a sphere so that if you could stop expansion right now and sail off at light speed in some direction you could travel in a straight line for 880 billion years before you found yourself back home. But it might not be that near flat, or that large--there is a range of uncertainty about the mean curvature.

This finiteness (if it is a fact) does not imply a crunch because we have learned about the acceleration resulting from the small measured value of the cosmological constant Lambda.

LCDM stands for Lambda cold dark matter.

Last edited:

- #4

- 5,601

- 40

Yet we have been fooled many times thru the ages:

The earth was NOT the center of the universe,

and up through about the 1920's...

We thought the universe was our own Milky way galaxy,

we thought the universe was static...up through the 1920's,

we thought we knew about 99.9% of the matter in the universe....then up popped 'dark matter'

- #5

- 2,081

- 104

In the thread I mentioned above Marcus is one of the best qualified to explain how to use it.

- #6

- 115

- 1

Thanks to everyone for their replies.

Even as a child I was thinking about the shape of the universe and I thought that it probably won't be determined in my lifetime. Now, I feel really satisfied. In a great time we live.

I got few more questions if it's not a problem:

1. When was the shape of the universe approved with the 0.4% uncertainty?

2. Below is a picture of the flat universe:

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/412/55426705.gif [Broken]

The arrow is pointing towards the smallest dimension of the universe. How wide would it be? It shouldn't be that long (relatively speaking).

3. Marcus, did you mean in your post that if you reach one end of the universe from your home, you will start at the another end and that way you can return home?

Even as a child I was thinking about the shape of the universe and I thought that it probably won't be determined in my lifetime. Now, I feel really satisfied. In a great time we live.

I got few more questions if it's not a problem:

1. When was the shape of the universe approved with the 0.4% uncertainty?

2. Below is a picture of the flat universe:

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/412/55426705.gif [Broken]

The arrow is pointing towards the smallest dimension of the universe. How wide would it be? It shouldn't be that long (relatively speaking).

3. Marcus, did you mean in your post that if you reach one end of the universe from your home, you will start at the another end and that way you can return home?

Last edited by a moderator:

- #7

- 2,081

- 104

1) a flat universe does not imply closed or open both possibilties in a flat model.

The strongest data for the shape og the universe was released with WPAPS 7 year survey of thr CMB. I have the findings of WMAP though heavily on technical detail. Many of the posters on this thread have the same.

Marcus post is in reference to South post findings in favor of a closed universe.

Remember that flat does not imply closed or open. Open is infinite in size. The post by Marcus describes possibilty of closed but REALLY huge.

- #8

- 115

- 1

From which year are these data?

How would a flat closed universe look like?

How would a flat closed universe look like?

- #9

- 329

- 28

The resulting shape is 3d 'flat' euclidean w/ .4% uncertainty based from data collected using several methods like subgrading type (large-scale nonsmooth convex). Picking each saddle points of convex-concave in the area of the map; solving its variational inequalities and some techniques for unconstrained minimization of smooth convex functions (Gradient Descent,T

1. When was the shape of the universe approved with the 0.4% uncertainty?

Conjugate Gradients, quasi-Newton methods with restricted memory, etc.). There is a .4% margin of uncertainty where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state.

The report was submitted 20 Dec 2012, last revised 30 Jan 2013.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5226

Here you can play on the values of CMB...

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/camb_tool/cmb_plot.swf

- #10

- 115

- 1

Okay, thanks. I need answers to 2 and 3. What is the most approved shape, open or closed?

- #11

Chalnoth

Science Advisor

- 6,195

- 443

Yeah, but I wouldn't put any stock in that. Not yet, anyway. That's just not significant enough to say anything.As I recall a very recent report, from South Pole Telescope, said that with 95% certainty the curvature was not zero but just a wee bit on the positive side of zero!

- #12

- 5,601

- 40

Chemist: try reading here for some background and alternatives......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

Open versus closed is unknown, but maybe if a vote was taken one or the other would be more popular??

Shape: who knows?? A three space dimensional Mobius strip would be especially fun. Then China would not just be upside down but 'inside out'...[note to police: just a JOKE!!]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

Open versus closed is unknown, but maybe if a vote was taken one or the other would be more popular??

Shape: who knows?? A three space dimensional Mobius strip would be especially fun. Then China would not just be upside down but 'inside out'...[note to police: just a JOKE!!]

Last edited:

- #13

- 329

- 28

If you mean "accepted prior to current/accumulation of data's". It is humongous-ly flat but then again we do have slight positive curvature which give you the impression that it might be huge/closed. Until we have a definitive constraint to what a 'UNI'verse should be. Open or closed remains open to criticism (consequence of that small curve). Till then we rely on mathematical predictions and hope data's fit directly to it. To answer your question. In general. It is 'uncertain' unless you put a probabilistic value to it.Okay, thanks. I need answers to 2 and 3. What is the most approved shape, open or closed?

- #14

- 8

- 0

- #15

- 115

- 1

Found on wikkipedia: The latest research shows that even the most powerful future experiments (like SKA, Planck..) will not be able to distinguish between flat, open and closed universe if the true value of cosmological curvature parameter is smaller than 10^−4. If the true value of the cosmological curvature parameter is larger than 10^−3 we will be able to distinguish between these three models even now.

Someone knows the latest info? How much is the

- #16

Chalnoth

Science Advisor

- 6,195

- 443

We haven't yet definitively detected any deviation from zero. Could be 10^-3, 10^-4, 10^-10, 10^-100.Someone knows the latest info? How much is thecosmological curvature parameter?

- #17

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 785

It's something to watch evolve as information comes in. The next installment will be delivered in just one month from now at a symposium in Holland....

Someone knows the latest info? How much is thecosmological curvature parameter?

http://congrexprojects.com/13a11/programme [Broken]

On 2-5 April, the European Space Agency (ESA) is having its first meeting on the results from the Planck mission.

Skydive Phil noted that there is also a press conference scheduled for 21 March.

What WMAP did, with each new release of data, was to roll their data up with other studies to give a combined estimate based on all the available observation (appropriately weighted).

So WMAP would give its own 95% confidence interval, and also it would give the same thing for WMAP+BAO+SPT+SNe... (i.e. including South Pole Telescope and Supernovae studies etc...)

So when Planck mission reports a month from now they will probably give their own separate estimates of basic cosmological parameters and also probably give some estimates labeled Planck+WMAP+otherCMB+BAO+... or something like that.

The talk that cosmologists will be waiting for is at 2PM on the first day:

Session 2 (Plenary): Main Cosmology results

14:00

G. Efstathiou

=========================

So whatever numbers anybody digs up for you on the curvature right now are likely to soon be made obsolete by numbers from Planck combined with "other experiments", as per Efstatiou's talk. That said, I will get some recent numbers nevertheless.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4279205#post4279205

Last edited by a moderator:

- #18

- 115

- 1

- #19

Chalnoth

Science Advisor

- 6,195

- 443

A cylinder is geometrically flat (you can bend a piece of paper into a cylinder without tearing).if this deviation is high enough, then the universe would be cylinder shaped.

If there is a slight positive curvature, then it's like our observable universe is a small piece of a very large sphere. If there's a slight negative curvature, then it's like our observable universe is a small piece of a large saddle-shaped surface.

- #20

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 785

Chem,what Chally says here is very instructive (even though he dismisses the possibility that the latest data could be telling us something.) We can estimate the CIRCUMFERENCE of the "very large sphere" he mentions--in that case. And imagine "circumnavigating" to get a concrete mental picture of the experience.

_{k}.

==from the October 2012 SPT report, page 14 equation (21)==

The tightest constraint on the mean curvature that we consider comes from combining the CMB, H0 , and BAO datasets:

Ω_{k} =−0.0059±0.0040. (21)

==endquote==

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7231

You can see that the most negative of the 95% confidence interval is Ω_{k} =−0.0099.

This corresponds to a universe where space is like the 3D analog of the 2D surface of a sphere. Circumnavigating corresponds to heading off at the speed of light in some direction and (assuming expansion could be halted for the duration of your trip) it would take 880 billion years.

The formula you use is divide 88 billion years by the square root of the number 0.0099.

That is like dividing 88 billion years by 0.1, so it comes to 880.

By cosmologists convention, a slight positive curvature corresponds to measuring a slight NEGATIVE value of a number called Ω...

If there is a slight positive curvature, then it's like our observable universe is a small piece of a very large sphere. ...

==from the October 2012 SPT report, page 14 equation (21)==

The tightest constraint on the mean curvature that we consider comes from combining the CMB, H0 , and BAO datasets:

Ω

==endquote==

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7231

You can see that the most negative of the 95% confidence interval is Ω

This corresponds to a universe where space is like the 3D analog of the 2D surface of a sphere. Circumnavigating corresponds to heading off at the speed of light in some direction and (assuming expansion could be halted for the duration of your trip) it would take 880 billion years.

The formula you use is divide 88 billion years by the square root of the number 0.0099.

That is like dividing 88 billion years by 0.1, so it comes to 880.

Last edited:

- #21

- 115

- 1

The biggest probability is that the universe as a whole is a sphere or the coat of a sphere?

- #22

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 785

The 3D coat of a 4D ball.

The biggest probability is that the universe as a whole is a sphere or the coat of a sphere?

So if expansion could be halted to allow this, you could head off straight in some direction and eventually find yourself returning (from the other direction) to your home base.

- #23

- 115

- 1

The coat would have a very short dimension. What would happen if someone reaches the end of it?

- #24

- 2,081

- 104

The balloon analagy in the sticky threads above offers some decent descriptions to answer this.

The coat would have a very short dimension. What would happen if someone reaches the end of it?

However if your thinking that the sphere would have an inside or outside that isn't the case.

One of the easiest ways to avoid confusion though not accurate. Is to think of the inside as the past and the outside as the future.

This like I said isn' t accurate however its a useful metaphor to avoid the inside-outside confusions that the balloon analogy always leads up to.

Also keep in mind their is no clear consensus if the universe is open or closed. At this point we can only say that it is flat or extremely close to flat.

As mentioned in a month as Marcus mentioned. We will be getting further data.

The sticky thread on the balloon analogy also has tons of useful links. I highly recommend the ones leading to Ned Wrights tutorials. Particularly his FAQ article. Its one of the better articles for those relatively new to cosmology.

Some things to add on the open closed description. If the universe is closed/finite now then its always finite. Same applies to infinite/open.

- #25

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 785

As I understand it, what you call the "coat" of a ball is what I would call a sphere.

The coat would have a very short dimension. What would happen if someone reaches the end of it?

in our 3d world, the ball is the solid thing and the sphere is the hollow thing. It has zero thickness. It is a pure 2D surface.

A dimension is a direction you could point, or move in.

Or, in the case of a 2D world, it is the direction a 2D animal living in a zero-thickness purely 2D surface could point, or move in.

As I understand it

- Last Post

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 31

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 39

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 29

- Views
- 8K