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

What if the Universe had this cosmology

  1. Nov 3, 2006 #1
    I've just been reading some of these threads, as i am quite interested in cosmology. I was wondering about a possible cosmology of the universe that i haven't really seem written about anywhere.

    What if, each point of the universe is both the centre AND edge of the universe?

    If the Universe had this cosmology, then the universe would look like a singularity at the time of the big bang, and still look like a singularity today even after billions of years of expansion. With this cosmology, if you were to travel in a spaceship in one linear direction fast enough, then you'd eventually arrive back at the point where you started. This also means that all stars in the eastern sky would be 'mirrored' in the western sky, which obviously doesn't happen but that might simply be because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

    So a universe with this cosmology would have these basic properties:

    1)There would be no physical 'boundary' to the universe as each point of the universe is a boundary, like spheres at each point which would be extremely small.

    2)You could travel in any direction for an infinite distance, however you would end up back where you started over and over.

    3)At any position in the universe you are at both the centre and edge of the universe.

    4)The universe would have finite volume overall, and look like a singularity to some 'outside observer' at both the time of the big band and even today after billions of years of expansion.

    What do the cosmologists among us think? I'm just curious about this and thought i'd start a thread about it. Thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 3, 2006 #2

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    How could this be anything but a universe with 0 spatial dimensions? Quite a boring one, don't you think?
     
  4. Nov 3, 2006 #3
    IF each point of the Universe were the edge and centre, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Universe has 0 spacial dimensions.

    To ellaborate on this idea a bit more... imagine that at every point in space, there's a void... think of each void as a sphere. Inside the sphere is absolutely nothing, and the surface of that sphere is the edge of the Universe. Now there's one of these spheres at every point in space. BUT the spheres aren't static... they are dynamic, in that, they continusouly appear and dissapear, as electrons do. I mean, if you look at any phenomona on the quantum scale, i understsand that everything fluctuates into and out of existence... virtual particles for example. So i'm kind of extending that principle to the idea of these spheres at every point in space. Now since not all the spheres 'exist' at the same time, there wouldn't be 0 spacial dimensions with this cosmology. When a sphere dissapears, a 'real particle' comes into existence in its place. And in that manner you can have a universe which has dimensions but also which has its centre and edge at every point. I know that is counter-intuitive, that you would have real particles come into existence as these 'voids' go out of existence, but i guess an analogy would be foam. If the tiny bubbles represent particles of matter, then imagine that each bubble expands until it eventually pops, and for a moment there is just 'air' where the bubble was (although in this analogy that air is one of these spherical voids) and then the bubble forms again and this process repeats itself.

    I think that would be an interesting model, not just of cosmology but also of gravity. If you make two assumptions, that matter radiates these 'voids' and is also attracted towards these voids, then that also explains gravity from a quantum perspective. Around Earth for example, there would be a higher density of these 'voids' as the particles of the earth radiate these voids... so particles are attracted towards the Earth.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2006
  5. Nov 3, 2006 #4

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    "Centre" is a relative term. You can only be in the centre with respect to something else. Hence there must be something "at the sides" of the centre. Hence this something is further out. That is, the centre cannot be at the edge by definition. (Besides that, you of course also have the "minor" problem with your model contradiciting almost all observations made throughout the history.)
     
  6. Nov 3, 2006 #5

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Also, I'm afraid you're starting to propose this as your own theory. And since this is well outside any mainstream, I guess this thread is fairly close to get locked.
     
  7. Nov 3, 2006 #6
    whoa, its not my theory... close the thread if you want to... i'm just thinking out loud here...
     
  8. Nov 3, 2006 #7

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No, I cannot close any threads. I'm just warning you that this is probable to happen whenever a mentor sees it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?