Where was the big bang singularity?

[DaveC426913]

How does Moebius fit in this thread?!?

The artist? He doesn't.

 

[finiter]

How does Moebius fit in this thread?!?

As the actual shape of the universe is yet undecided, the space can even be visualized as a three dimensional moebius!

 

[nismaratwork]

As the actual shape of the universe is yet undecided, the space can even be visualized as a three dimensional moebius!

No, it can't.

 

[finiter]

No, it can't.

I would have said, 'a four dimensional moebius with three space dimensions and a time dimension'. In a two dimensional moebius, one dimension has borders while the other dimension has no borders. In a similar manner, the three space dimensions of the universe can have borders while the time dimension would be without borders.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would have said, 'a four dimensional moebius with three space dimensions and a time dimension'. In a two dimensional moebius, one dimension has borders while the other dimension has no borders. In a similar manner, the three space dimensions of the universe can have borders while the time dimension would be without borders.

The central feature of a moebius strip is the topology, which doesn't match that of the observed universe.

 

[Cold Winter]

I'm not an expert of this but perhaps I can provide an explanation that will help.

The first thing you have to understand is that every direction we look, we can see for 13.7 billion light years. This means one of two things. WE are at the center of the universe OR the Universe is much larger than we can see and it is roughly uniform in every direction.
...

Or perhaps, any signal originating beyond 13.7B LYs is going to be effectively below the Planck limit and therefore not detectable by any instrument. Now that would also throw a rather large brick at a lot of cosmological theory?

Thoughts?

 

[nismaratwork]

Or perhaps, any signal originating beyond 13.7B LYs is going to be effectively below the Planck limit and therefore not detectable by any instrument. Now that would also throw a rather large brick at a lot of cosmological theory?

Thoughts?

I don't see how that would be the case, but if it were it would simply put a (presumably) temporary halt to our ability to search beyond 13.7B ly. The theory can still be sound as long as it doesn't make a wrong prediction, and given your formulation there could be no further predictions by any competing theories. According to your formulation, you just reach a "maximum resolution" for the 'image'.

 

[Cold Winter]

I don't see how that would be the case, but if it were it would simply put a (presumably) temporary halt to our ability to search beyond 13.7B ly. The theory can still be sound as long as it doesn't make a wrong prediction, and given your formulation there could be no further predictions by any competing theories. According to your formulation, you just reach a "maximum resolution" for the 'image'.

Well, it "could" be, if the distance from an isotropic radiator is so far, that the energy level falls below quantum limits of resolution. We "solve" that problem by using a larger aperture. But just maybe there is no practical aperture once you get past a certain distance. Even gravitational lensing from another galaxy ( now there's a aperture for you ) simply might not be enough.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, it "could" be, if the distance from an isotropic radiator is so far, that the energy level falls below quantum limits of resolution. We "solve" that problem by using a larger aperture. But just maybe there is no practical aperture once you get past a certain distance. Even gravitational lensing from another galaxy ( now there's a aperture for you ) simply might not be enough.

Well, if string theory is correct that would be roughly the Planck length, but wouldn't that require a universe FAAAAAAAAR larger than the 13.7B ly we observe?