For the sake of SF http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2734507#post2734507
The Universe has boundary?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Are you saying it's possible to have a two dimensional volume? I mean, do you imply a two dimensional sphere? A two dimensional cylinder? Cool, tell me more! I can relate to cylinders. For instance, in an internal combustion engine, what would the stroke be of a 2 dimensional cylinder? How would the crank be able to turn with a 0" stroke? Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Don't you mean cantaloupes?
Bah! You and your weird theories!
You may not believe this but I think you might be right. If particles are *shhh, don't tell I said this* composed of energy in the form of waves then it might be reasonable to consider them vibrating with inflowing and out flowing waves ...
. I mean, if you are allowed to speculate about the imponderables, lol.No, I think you misunderstood me.
If there is a two-dimensional universe means there the "objects" do not have volume.
If they do not have volume, then the objects do not exist for us.
But not that was the "scenario".
Lol, yes, it is hard to use the 2D analogy. I would like to say that though I agree with your greater point about any boundary, the boundary of the universe that would fit the definition of a boundary in GR would be one called the "no space" boundary. I other words, if it was weird but true that the universe was creating space into which it expanded then the boundary would be called "no space".Are you saying it's possible to have a two dimensional volume? I mean, do you imply a two dimensional sphere? A two dimensional cylinder? Cool, tell me more! I can relate to cylinders. For instance, in an internal combustion engine, what would the stroke be of a 2 dimensional cylinder? How would the crank be able to turn with a 0" stroke? Things that make you go hmmmmm.
It would stand to reason that in a universe bounded by no space, straight lines would curve around and meet themselves.
If we consider a two-dimensional curved space so as it "closes" a sphere, and I would be a bi-dimensional "creature", then I came back to where I started, but from the other side.
Why not be true if we increase the dimensions by one?
Last edited:
Weird huh?
I think it's a reasonable inference. It's not quite scientific because we have no actual evidence for it. But on the other hand we have evidence from WMAP that the universe is flat with a 2% margin of error, we have evidence for the big bang, and we have no evidence for an infinite universe. So we're left mulling over a big bang universe where space itself is expanding, and isn't infinite. So it has some kind of boundary. It's important to appreciate that there is no space beyond this boundary. And that with a flat universe, you don't end up coming back on yourself. The universe we're talking about here would be a sphere rather than a hypersphere.
Well, I added that because of what Dywyddyr said to me after I suggested she meant cantaloupes, lol.
Perhaps if you were a 4-dimensional creature it would, somehow.
Let me see ... that avatar ... Oh yes, I remember, you told me about the operation about a year ago. Was it you that has been to Kalamazoo or was that someone else?
If I were a 4-dimensional creature then I could see inside you,
or I could to make you an operation without the need to cut the skin.
If I were a 4-dimensional creature then I could see inside you,
or I could to make you an operation without the need to cut the skin.
You could work for airport security.
Visible universe = All the galaxies with stars
Real universe = The visible universe and every thing else whatever it may be.
Saint
Valued Senior Member
Does the Physics text book teaches so?
When he asked the question "The Universe has boundary?", I thought by reflex to how big is the universe.
But there is also a universe infinitely small.
This universe infinitely small, it has a border? So small that nothing there something even smaller?
There is a boundary for visible universe infinitely small? (I understand by this, thanks to a "super microscope", the increase is so large that the photon is so great that there no resolution on the retina.)
But there is also a universe infinitely small.
This universe infinitely small, it has a border? So small that nothing there something even smaller?
There is a boundary for visible universe infinitely small? (I understand by this, thanks to a "super microscope", the increase is so large that the photon is so great that there no resolution on the retina.)