Is our universe smaller then we may think?

[pie]

We only know what we can observe. So is it possible that our universe is like a "house of mirrors" where our 2 dimensional universe has curves interwoven into space time, so it appears that we live in a 3 dimension + time universe?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/universe

 

A "strange string of galaxies 300 million light-year long that defy current theories about the evolution of the universe shortly after the Big Bang." These galazies are about 10 billion light years away. - The point being that there would not be enough time to create these galaxies in this short period of time from the Big Bang.

 

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/galaxy_string_puzzles_astronomers.html

 

This time problem may indicate that the universe as we observe it may be folded from a 2 dimensional universe, and much smaller then we think.

[[email protected]]

One of the things I like about hypography.com is the different specialties meeting. I don't know how credible the parallel universe theory is in scientific circles, but if true it renders the expression 'The Universe' uh ... meaningless !??

[Jay-qu]

Such a universe is said to be hypersphererical, or hypercylindrical. So you could fly in the same direction through the universe and end up back where you started. just like on earth you can sail on our oceans and not notice that you are actually curving back towards your starting point!

[Qfwfq]

So is it possible that our universe is like a "house of mirrors" where our 2 dimensional universe has curves interwoven into space time, so it appears that we live in a 3 dimension + time universe?

2 dimensions with the appearance of 3... I would answer no.

 

I see space being the hypersurface of an expanding hypersphere as a far more reasonable model than:

...it may be folded from a 2 dimensional universe...

[paultrr]

2 dimensions with the appearance of 3... I would answer no.

 

I see space being the hypersurface of an expanding hypersphere as a far more reasonable model :

 

I agree. I also suspect the "2 dimensions with the appearance of 3" and the folded out of comes from a wrong view and admixture of some modern theory(String Theory & Holographic Universe). Both of those theories would not support the above modeling at all.

[Queso]

does anybody know what's in the middle?

[Fishteacher73]

The doughnut hole? MMMMMMMMM doughnut........

[Queso]

so does that mean we don't know? or there isn't one?

[Tormod]

does anybody know what's in the middle?

 

Vanilla Cream.

[Queso]

ok so i'm guessing we don't know...

[Tormod]

Orb, didn't we talk about this in another thread? I think I wrote that there is no middle.

[Queso]

................

back to the books for me, again.

[paultrr]

Might add, no edge either. Finite and unbounded or infinite and unbounded.

[infamous]

Orb, didn't we talk about this in another thread? I think I wrote that there is no middle.

 

Ah, but there is a middle, and it is everywhere. And it is nowhere, so I quess we agree Tormod. Just havin a little fun with this if you don't mind, I've decided to take things much less seriously and try to have a little fun before I get too old and forget how.

[Odin]

The thing is if such a thing were true there would be the therom of parallel universes irregardless but otherwise such a theory could not be proven as there are stars that are only being discovered today from telescope technology of 30 years ago. That would mean the universe is alot bigger than imagined and the distances are just too great to travel and discover.

[HydrogenBond]

The size of the universe is dependant on the assumptions behind the red shift. If one assumes that only relativistic motion can cause a red shift, one gets maximum universe size. If one starts adding other factors, like gravitational lensing, expansion of time, entropy expansion, etc., to the red shift, the universe size gets smaller. Most people are more impressed by a bigger universe, instead of a smaller, so adding reasonable shrinking affects to the red shift, are avoided.

 

There is another reason they are avoided. It has to do with a ripple affect. The current theory uses the current extimate of size-age. If you decrease the time-distance, many foundation theories need to go back to the old drawing board, because they were designed for more time. That is far too much work, because it also messes up other things that depend on this potentially shakey foundation. It easier to ignor shrinking affects.

 

Many years back I did a mental experiment. For the sake of argument, I assumed the shrinking affects adjustment added to the current red shift, halved the age and size of the universe, just to use a number. Many of the slow boat theories, with extra time to waste, now don't have enough time. One has to go from BB to today in 7 billion years. If the sun is 5 billion, you only have 2 billion years from BB to sun. This means faster galaxy formation theory (which was eventually observed). Or one can shift the time allotment and budget 3-4Billion from BB to sun, leaving 3-4 Billion for the sun. But this gives us much less time for life to form on earth, making a the current random approach, very unlikely.

 

Although it was a mental experiment, that may become a neccesity, someday, it taught me that random, statistics and chaos are useful for filling in time when one has too much time on their hands. When you have less time to do the same universe building task, things need to become more logical.

[Odin]

What are you referring to when you say the redshift? Are you talking about the refraction of light by planets moving in front of stars which mimck the affect of light bending at a distance of 30 light years?

 

If you think of it a planets atmosphere continues for a good 2000km and light can be bent by any planet at a distance from 1500km away,refract it and make the light source look like it is being sucked in by a blackhole when in reality it is actually being refracted