I was talking to Quantum Quack on another thread where he mentions a link to the Eridanus Void, and he recommended I start a new thread dedicated to the void.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...t-Theory-the-universal-constant-Gravity/page8
I mentioned to him that I have read before, (will try to dig up the book I remember it from if anyone is interested), that theoretically a black hole can be seen to be made larger by the electromagnetic force, or the interaction of charged particles. In this work, that predicts suppermassive black holes, the density of a suppermassive black hole is said to be relatively close to one or that of water (that is about 1000 kg/m^3 or 1g/m^3). So then I thought that someone could avoid all of the infinities and GR breaking down if I could assume that the density of a suppermassive black hole is one. Then the total mass of the void could then be calculated just by a matter of its density, to do this we would then also need to know the volume. This brings the question of what is the true shape of the void? I then noticed that such a large black hole that is a disc shape would then have to be perfectly perpendicular to the Earth, to give its apparant shape. Then I thought well, like the sun and the moon that also looks like a "perfect" disc they are actually spherical. So, then I calculated the mass of the void to be about 7.6 x 10^27 kg. I then noticed that is was stragely close to the number to a link to another number of 6 x 10^27 kg/m^3, the requirment of the amount of mass needed for a closed universe. But wait a minute, 6 x 10^27kg/m^3??? That would mean that there would have to be an Eridanus Void in every cubic meter in order for the universe to be closed. So, I think the m^3 is a typo for the required mass of a closed universe. Any better value of this calculation would be appreciated!
So then it brings me back to where Quantum Quack suggest that the void may just be an optical illiusion. It was strange to find that it has a bit over the total mass needed for a closed universe. Could we be seeing an affect of all of the combined mass of the closed universe just looping around back on itself? I think more information would be neccesary to validate this conclusion. For instance, does the gravitational attraction of the void obey the normal laws of gravity, or does the void pull everything exponentially away from it? Is the density actually close to one, or is it a value much larger that would then make the mass of the void much larger than the necessary mass of the closed universe?
Then it rasies the question of if this is actually what we would see if the universe was closed in around on itself. The book that talks about this sort of thing the most is called Hyperspace, by Michio Kaku, Ph.D. I actually did a book report on it once It states that someone that can only observe the three spatial dimensions around them floated down in the direction of a higher dimensional object that they would see a series of different sized three dimensional objects changing shape in front of them. For instance, a hypersphere would look like a sphere that changed in size as you moved through a fourth spatial dimension. So then the void can be seen as a higher dimensional object if it looks like a sphere, but then it would have to change in size as the universe travels in this higher fourth spatial dimension.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...t-Theory-the-universal-constant-Gravity/page8
I mentioned to him that I have read before, (will try to dig up the book I remember it from if anyone is interested), that theoretically a black hole can be seen to be made larger by the electromagnetic force, or the interaction of charged particles. In this work, that predicts suppermassive black holes, the density of a suppermassive black hole is said to be relatively close to one or that of water (that is about 1000 kg/m^3 or 1g/m^3). So then I thought that someone could avoid all of the infinities and GR breaking down if I could assume that the density of a suppermassive black hole is one. Then the total mass of the void could then be calculated just by a matter of its density, to do this we would then also need to know the volume. This brings the question of what is the true shape of the void? I then noticed that such a large black hole that is a disc shape would then have to be perfectly perpendicular to the Earth, to give its apparant shape. Then I thought well, like the sun and the moon that also looks like a "perfect" disc they are actually spherical. So, then I calculated the mass of the void to be about 7.6 x 10^27 kg. I then noticed that is was stragely close to the number to a link to another number of 6 x 10^27 kg/m^3, the requirment of the amount of mass needed for a closed universe. But wait a minute, 6 x 10^27kg/m^3??? That would mean that there would have to be an Eridanus Void in every cubic meter in order for the universe to be closed. So, I think the m^3 is a typo for the required mass of a closed universe. Any better value of this calculation would be appreciated!
So then it brings me back to where Quantum Quack suggest that the void may just be an optical illiusion. It was strange to find that it has a bit over the total mass needed for a closed universe. Could we be seeing an affect of all of the combined mass of the closed universe just looping around back on itself? I think more information would be neccesary to validate this conclusion. For instance, does the gravitational attraction of the void obey the normal laws of gravity, or does the void pull everything exponentially away from it? Is the density actually close to one, or is it a value much larger that would then make the mass of the void much larger than the necessary mass of the closed universe?
Then it rasies the question of if this is actually what we would see if the universe was closed in around on itself. The book that talks about this sort of thing the most is called Hyperspace, by Michio Kaku, Ph.D. I actually did a book report on it once It states that someone that can only observe the three spatial dimensions around them floated down in the direction of a higher dimensional object that they would see a series of different sized three dimensional objects changing shape in front of them. For instance, a hypersphere would look like a sphere that changed in size as you moved through a fourth spatial dimension. So then the void can be seen as a higher dimensional object if it looks like a sphere, but then it would have to change in size as the universe travels in this higher fourth spatial dimension.