Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Size of the Universe

  1. Nov 10, 2005 #1
    Anyone care to guess the size/diameter of the Universe?

    Somehow I think we live in a Universe with extra dimensions, and we'd be fooling ourselves to guess the Universe's size because we don't even know it's shape.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 10, 2005 #2

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In 3 dimensions, I'll go with unbounded/infinite.
    I'll reserve judgement on the possibility of additional dimensions until more evidence is in.
     
  4. Nov 10, 2005 #3

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What do you mean with "diameter" of the universe? Twice the curvature radius or what?

    Anyway, my guess is infinite.
     
  5. Nov 10, 2005 #4

    hellfire

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The lack of patterns over a specific angular separation in the CMB map lead Neil Cornish to the conclusion that the universe must be at least 24 Gpc in diameter, see this. My vote goes to a finite closed universe, with a curvature radius considerably greater than the radius of the observable universe.
     
  6. Nov 10, 2005 #5
    finite

    My guess is it is finite with non-compactified extra dimensions. Now that requires an explanation where the extra dimensions are. I think that is interesting. I don't particularly like the Randall-Sundrum II model. Does anyone know of other possibilities for infinite extra dimensions?

    Take Care,

    Sabine
     
  7. Nov 10, 2005 #6

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Unbounded and infinite, both spacially and temporally.
     
  8. Nov 10, 2005 #7
    Isn't the universe in a current state of expansion?
     
  9. Nov 10, 2005 #8

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's correct, but there's no good reason to suppose a spatially infinite universe can't expand. As for turbo, he doesn't believe in expansion, but that idea pretty far out of the mainstream by now.

    I think our universe is probably finite. I wouldn't try to even guess whether or not there is an infinite multiverse.

    Edit: Generalized response, wasn't sure who vincent was responding to.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2005
  10. Nov 10, 2005 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I do not believe in cosmological expansion, and I do not expect you to expound upon this or support this idea in any way. It would be nice however if you would acknowledge that prior to Penzias and Wilson's discovery of the CMB radiation (already predicted by Eddington and many others dating about 60 years earlier in the Steady State model), Gamow had refined his prediction to 50 deg K, and this prediction was refuted, as Eddington's was confirmed. The measurement of the CMB was a confirmation of the SS model and a falsification of the BB model, although you would not know that from all the flak surrounding concordance cosmoology today.
     
  11. Nov 11, 2005 #10

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    See

    Eddington's Temperature of Space

    He predicts a radiation background with an effective temperature (i.e. one obtained by considering the energy density of the radiation) of 3.18 K by integrating the starlight in our galaxy. If one were to neglect dust and do a similar calculation today, one would get a similar result, so he wasn't entirely wrong. The problem is that it didn't predict the CMB, which lies in an entirely different part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
     
  12. Nov 11, 2005 #11

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I can't resist that bait, turbo. Getting the right answer is meaningless without getting it for the right reasons. Eddington himself admitted his reasoning was wrong in predicting the CMB temperature. This has been discussed before on PF. It is true Gamow came up with a less accurate prediction, but his reasoning was rock solid. This is why he got credit, and Eddington did not... at least in scientific circles. In my, and many other minds, it boils down to choosing between clairvoyance and science.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Size of the Universe
  1. Size of the universe (Replies: 17)

  2. Size of the Universe (Replies: 14)

  3. Size of universe (Replies: 6)

  4. Size of the universe (Replies: 4)

  5. Universe size (Replies: 32)

Loading...