Shape of the observable universe

>>8468253
what you drew is called a world line

also its called geometry of the universe, not shape, and there are literally thousands of papers on it.

>wants to make a point about the shape of the observable universe
>argues with the shape of a graph that includes time and has all spacial dimensions reduced to a single one

>>8468253
>observable universe
>observable
see hubbles law - this should point you in the right direction

>>8468260
>>8468262
So what does it look like then? Under "Geometry of the Universe I can see some papers with shitty clip art.
Is pic related supposed to be it? Whats the difference to mine then?
Genuinely asking.

>>8468272
your pic has nothing to do with the geometry
it is just a representation of the idea behind special relativity

its either a saddle or a sphere
probably a saddle since expansion is accelerating

>>8468274
I dont wuite understand how relativity comes into play here and how my image shows it?
Also thanks for pointing me in the direction. This seems very interesting. Can I comprehend anything beyond the popsci about it without having studied topology and just knowing the basics?

>>8468291
it seems like you're interested in relativity in general
just go ahead and read einstein's relativity book and take your fucking time, don't skip any parts you don't fully understand

or a relativity crash course

either way you need math to really understand it but don't worry, it's not as difficult as other physics branches

>>8468310
Not really interested in relativity as I will have lectures on it in due time and dont really care for popsci explanations.

I want to specifically know about the geometry of the observable universe in an astrophysical rather than a relativistic sense. If that overlaps thats fine of course.
Changing the search from shape to geometry has given me a lot of papers to read so thanks.

>>8468253
Is it just me or is the amount of stuff we can see in the universe decreasing over time?

>>8468274
and yet our measurements show that it is incredibly flat

>>8468253
>Observable universe
>universe expands everywhere at the same time
>be at the center of something which is expanding everywhere at the same time
>what shape is made when all points of the surface are equally distant from the center

How doesn't this make sense?

The "shape" of the universe is flat, and that's a statement which is referring to the geometric proportions that can be made from the average energy density in the universe.

The shape of the "observable" universe is a sphere because there's shit everywhere we look.

>>8468577
well we don't really know it's flat, the idea is that it could have "positive" or negative curvature at really long distances. Think the surface of a torus(which has negative curvature parallel to the ring and positive curvature along its cross-section), but instead of the surface of the 3d torus being "flat" 2d, our world would be a "flat" 3d "plane" stretched over a 4d torus. It would look flat over small distances, but if you could keep going in a straight line long enough without the hubble bubblu being a problem maybe you could come back to where you started.

>>8468577
>>8468527
>>8469549
The universe is 'flat' in every direction that we conduct the experiments in. Therefore we conclude the universe is flat and infinite - in every direction, and that is the limit of our current (testable by experiment) knowledge.

>>Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.