What is the Shape of the Universe?!

I dunno

You gonna eat your fries?

>>18243530
KEK

>>18243515
closed. science says so

>>18243555
Trips confirm. It's undoubtedly closed.

>>18243560
Welp I guess that's it then.

Now what?

>>18243515
Maybe its spherical from a 3D point of view, but fabric like from a 4D point of view. Then it turns in to point particles once we get higher in D. Ya know, kinda like multiverse and all.

>>18243555
>>18243560

You've never been to the end, so how do you know for certain?

>>18243515
I am leaning towards believing the universe does not have a specific shape, only what we perceive as a shape. We as humans tune into reality using our human brains, so our shape of the universe would be different from let's say the shape in a bird's brain. And this might reflect upon the lowest levels of reality.

Meaning that the universe could both be open, closed , flat or round all at the same time. Depending on the timeline evolution and the perception that the universal mind has of itself (assuming there exists such a thing) one could wonder then if the universe does not simply exist on many different states all at once.

>>18243600

DUBS CHALLENGE TRIPS!

File: Bryan_Brandenburg_Big_Bang_Big_Bagel_Theory_Howard_Boom[1].jpg (133KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1000x1000px

>>18243515
C'mon guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

File: PdRHrN1.jpg (79KB, 1636x1582px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1636x1582px

>>18243600
How do know for certain he hasn't been to the end?

>>18243637

I know where he lives. No neckbeard has even been to the end of their driveway let alone the universe.

>>18243723
Ah, I see.

Well I rest my case then.

>>18243555
>>18243560
No, it's flat according to science

File: 1476733444733~01~01~01.jpg (19KB, 263x186px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 263x186px

>>18243515

>>18243723
>implying you have to leave your house to get to the end of the universe

File: image.jpg (58KB, 419x420px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 419x420px

>>18243624
But what's in the blue?

>>18243840
the shape should fill the whole image really - there is no blue

>>18243515
>If it were an explosion, such as the Big Bang
Already starting off on the wrong foot.
This is also very /sci/.

>>18243624
I don't get it

>>18243624

Lol.
Yes. It's this.

>>18243515
this video supposedly was an attempt to model the big bang so take from it what you will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA3bsl9oCBE

>>18243515
from inside it there is no way of telling the shape as its infinite. from the outside you could tell if its folded into itself

the folding wont be noticeable from within and could be done any which way. a sphere where at the outside edge of the sphere it doubles back the way it came to the center and past again each time it reaches the maximum distance from the center it can achieve a infinite number of times

>>18243515
What you show are the three from friedmann in the 60s theorized forms of the universe. A few years ago evidence was found that the space expension increases. This would mean the first solution is true and the universe is open. It expands infinite and most likely ends in a cold nothing. The alternative 3 could have the implication of a multiverse. If you take lightspeed as reachable border and map spacetime inside absolute time, The expansion would really look like conical to the future and the past. The Big Bang was infinite small in the beginning. Without extensions you have mathematically a point. If you blow up a point it should expand spherical like a baloon. It is theorized that matter and antimatter behaves somewhat different which would explain the fluctuations in microwave background and the form of the visible galaxies.

>>18243624
>>18243948
Simpson's did it

File: YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH.jpg (32KB, 281x194px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 281x194px

>>18243624

So it's shaped like a doughnut?

Is that why life's...

So sweet?

>>18243760

Well, not if you live on the street with a Starbucks that's across the street from another Starbucks.

>>18244394

So it's in the shape of an old television screen?

>>18243946

No it's not because God made the universe.

The universe is flat, just like Earth! Praise Jesus!

>>18245381
My sides

Wonder if people are gonna look back in the future to the time when people though the universe was flat/round/eatable. Just like we fo with people who thought the earth was flat.

>>18243515
The shape of the universe refers to the curvature of space-time

To understand the whole concept of space, and to understand the "shape" of the universe, I would think that you would need to know the concept of time as well. These are things beyond our species, and perhaps beyond life itself.

File: IMG_0335.jpg (32KB, 990x701px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 990x701px

The universe is constantly expanding. We're located roughly on the right nut

>>18245792
Whats going to happen when we reach maximum expansion?

>>18243624

This implies the Big Bang had a point of origin.

Which of course isn't true.

the shape of the universe if your eyes when u look the universe is created lol ()

>>18245897
is* lol

It's a toroid.

>Muh projections
>Muh raster layers

It's a circle. Resembles an atom.

>>18246078
so what is it?

>>18246094
A circle. Resembles an atom.

>>18246097
An atom doesnt resemble a circle

>>18246106
Think harder and stop believing what they tell you

>>18246152
You are just wrong. Cant just shift the error to my side like this. That was an absolute non-response. try again

>>18246162
It isn't a non-response. G-d, the shilling is getting bad on here lately.

I would have assumed spherical, but there's a possibility of an amorphous blob.

I still don't get the logic of how the universe could have objects that are say 20 billion light years apart, and the universe only 15 billion old, and stuff originated from 1 point, and nothing moves faster than the speed of light.

Sumthins broken......

>>18246164
>le ebin trolling

>>18246192
Space is expanding

>>18246197
>brings up facts that go against """"their"""" narrative
>lol he must be trolling
try harder shill

>>18246217
(You)

>>18243760
yeah i can think of 4 drugs that'll let you visit the rim of the universe

File: tmp_23150-Screenshot_20160807-135825-309106526.jpg (346KB, 912x820px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 912x820px

>>18245832
Nother big bang

>>18246250
I can think of 2 drugs that'll get your mom to the rim of my universe.

anyone else notice the open geometry when fully rendered is a donut shape?

>>18246205

Just like your mom!

The bing bang was no explosion with stuff flying off from the "center" of "explosion".

The whole universe started off from a singularity, and every point in it is a center-point in it's own coordinate system.

>>18245837
?

>>18243515
>>18243591


I guess not many people have suffered imagination explosion, but thinking along those line just brings so many god damn possibilities to even think of the original is just ridiculously arbitrary.

I don't even know how we can apply 3d dimensions to a fourth dimension. Mathematicians and physicists are way weirder than they think

>>18243602

This, we think numbers and geometries are our most reliable prized concepts and we then apply the grand structure of the universe to it. It feels like just a trend of thought rather than having the tangibility or universal explanatory power it has. Even when we look into history we see how wrong people were and how their way of thinking was stifled by the zeitgeist and the environment at the time yet we don't see all of this ridiculous mathematics applied to the universe in ridiculous nonsensical ways is just us applying our conception in ways that aren't the real heart of things.

File: Hyperbolic paraboloid.png (26KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x300px

>>18246335
No, it's a saddle. A hyperbolic parabaloid. In my pic (which took too long to find a simple drawing with axes), the yx line that makes the center "hump" will never curve back to meet itself. It's a parabola - it will slowly have a sharper and sharper incline as it approaches but never reaches a vertical line.

>>18246518
>we don't see all of this ridiculous mathematics applied to the universe in ridiculous nonsensical ways
No, Math is likely the language of the universe it just depends on your math.

The right equations and calculations have predicted things that weren't even discovered until years later like the periodic table, or accounting for the presence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy (which honestly are still technically X variables in a sense, but hey, better than nothing) in the mass of galaxies and expansion of the universe. Likewise if you have no idea what you're doing with your numbers you'll get incorrect things that doesn't mean math isn't correct, you're just a bad mathematician.

This sort of thing happens a lot in chemistry and particle physics due to the scale we're talking of but an example I like to always come back to is the spin charge value of elementary particles.
Because of how we tend to comprehend things in whole terms when we get to the spin of quarks fractional terms like 1/3 and 2/3rds show up. The quarks aren't actually fractionally spinning a third of a total, that's silly, but as a result of our mathematical explanation relative to elementary charge those are the figures we arrive at. Messy, but an interesting example and point for how math can act as a translator for just about any concept if you understand the language of Math and then in turn the meaning of the original concept Math is explaining.

>>18243934
But there's always the conceptual blue.

To be presented an absolute boundary and ask "now what lies beyond that?"

File: Hole Into Nothing.jpg (19KB, 300x195px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x195px

>>18246593

So eventually it'll be shaped like a butt? Is that why life stinks?

I say it's like a hole got poked into the great vastness of nothing and spewed forth everything therefrom. This picture of science proves it.

Its shaped like a cube, trust me my dad is steven hawking

>>18248411
One of the axes in that image is time, it's not spewing spatially

>>18248411
>So eventually it'll be shaped like a butt? Is that why life stinks?
No, because

1. hyperbolic space is uniformly curved outwards, it doesn't ever curve inwards on itself the way a butt would require
2. the universe is flat and not hyperbolic

>>18243515
Nah its shaped like a dodecahedron

>>18248823

So it's a flat circle then?

>>18249724
No, Nietzsche.

>>18243624
Donut shaped universe?

[spoiler]Is the center full of jelly?[/spoiler]

>>18250372
No spoilers on non-media boards, not a complex things to remember.

>>18250380
No plural forms when indicating a singular noun, my nigga. Basic grammar is a lot easier to remember than the mechanics of a polynesian cloisonné forum.

>>18243515
OK, you're interested in the universe. This is awesome, it's an incredibly fulfilling hobby. It can be absolutely meditative as well.

I recommend getting a pair of binoculars or using them if you have access, as well as a star chart. You can see tons of shit with just binoculars.

The mind-blowing thing is that you are experiencing these things directly, it's not a picture but the real thing. Light from these incredible things directly interacting with your eyeballs. Understanding what they are is awe-inspiring.

A telescope can show you even more.

Once you get into it the night sky becomes a very familiar landscape as you learn constellations and the locations of things.

>>18250372
>Donut
>center
topkek


>>18250380
how is it going reddit?

>>18243515
This question doesn't have an answer. Space doesn't have shape, it passes through everything that isn't space.

>>18246518
I guess not many people have suffered imagination explosion.

Yeah, I feel you. "Mania" as the normies call it, right?

>>18243530
LIKE

>>18243515
Which one?

>>18243515
A cube like being on the inside of a Mario 64 overworld.

For any science-minded folks actually bothering to read this, look into ECE Theory. Cartan spacetime geometry specifically.

>>18249728

Bless you!

>>18251173

Professor Ece dunno shit about shit.

>>18243515
The shape of the universe is subjective. I knew someone who used to operate a device for experiments on questioning. Lets call it a oscillation de-factor. The device was put around the neck. And it would interrupt all the brain signals via the neck. Which would put the person in a dormant state. Every thought the person had stayed saved in the device. From there they would do a reuptake of the signals and send it back. And every thought the person had in the personal state materialized into impersonal matter. Sort of like a predestined proxy situation. From this research alone we can conclude that the world was created out of intellect, it follows patterns, and not mere chaos. The universe may be shaped like an assymetric carbon molecule structure. If living matter is the apex of universal structure, than its composition, carbon, may play a huge role in the universal form.

>>18245381
made me kekkle during a meeting

>>18251645
Well I know someone whose dad works for nintendo and he says he's working on a super secret console project that will directly interact with your brain

It's a muh-fuggin' circle.

I remember watching a tv show that had the theory that the universe was shaped like a soccer ball. Not an actual ball, but a truncated icosahedron.

Tetrahedron. Bible says so and in this matter is equally good source of speculation.

>implying the universe is 3 dimensional
There are many theories that suggest more than 3 dimensions. ATM nobody has been able to draw an N-dimensional figure, where N>3

>>18243515
Maybe it's a helix would explain why time seems to be experienced as missing or sped up for some people

Skyscraper shaped

File: 4D sphere.gif (2MB, 454x302px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 454x302px

>>18248411
This answer was spot on:
>>18249675

>>18249724
It's a flat, infinite 3D space. Since we can observe an equal distance in all directions, it appears to be a sphere to us.

>>18253622
>There are many theories that suggest more than 3 dimensions
And some that theorize the universe only has one dimension.

>ATM nobody has been able to draw an N-dimensional figure, where N>3
Pic is exactly that - 4th dimensional object. A sphere moving through time.

>>18251645
>The shape of the universe is subjective.
No it's not, retard.

The shape of the universe has testable implications for how reality should operate, see Noether's theorem.

Just stop talking. You are hurting everyone when you open your mouth.

>>18254927
>4D sphere
wow what a useful projection

>>18254951
What a pathetic avoidance to admitting you were wrong.

>>18254959
I don't even know what the discussion was about but you already sound like a smug faggot

>>18254973
Then you should go back and read instead of trying to defend your ignorance.

File: RAW.jpg (39KB, 758x270px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 758x270px

>>18243515
a multidimansional triangle with its apex at your pineal gland.

thats the best way to describe its "shape"

or its a tunnel.

>>18254993
>being this asshurt
Why are you so defensive? Are you insecure about something?

>>18254927

>flat
>3D space

Can't be both... Explain this shit, you faggot!

File: curved space.jpg (29KB, 500x264px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x264px

>>18256793
When describing the universe as "flat," what is meant is that parallel lines will STAY parallel, and will not return to their origin.

In a "closed" universe, if you choose a vector in space and move along it for long enough time, you will return to the exact spot you started from. This does not happen in a "flat" or "open" universe.

In an "open" universe, if two people choose parallel vectors and travel along them at the same speed, they will find the distance between them varying. The variance is not because of their vector or speed, but because space itself is warping.

Think of a triangle: 3 straight lines, 3 angles
Drawn on a flat 2D surface (piece of paper), these angles will ALWAYS sum to 180. They have to, geometrically.

But if you take the "flat" 2D and "close" it (give the space positive curve), you get a hollow sphere, and you can draw 3 straight lines with 3 angles that sum to 270. Pic related.

You can also take the flat 2D and "open" it (give the space negative curve) to create a saddle, where a triangle can sum to less than 180. Pic again related.

(1/2)

Ya'll niggers need to watch Zogg from Betelgeuse

File: universe curves.jpg (52KB, 557x501px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 557x501px

>>18258919
(2/2)
Since 2D geometry still applies in 3D space, we can use this to determine whether our 3D space has a positive, negative, or flat curve. However, as Flat Earthers make us abundantly aware here on /x/ - if your lines aren't long enough, they will look flat even on a sphere or a saddle.

To get any meaningful answer, we needed a really big triangle. Like, really REALLY R E A L L Y

R
E
A
L
L
Y

big.

The "conclusive" experiment used a triangle that extends to the limit of our observable universe: the cosmic microwave background. That's what OP's pic was showing - the minute variations in this radiation that we would expect to see if the curve was open, flat, or closed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
>Using a method similar to this, the BOOMERanG experiment has determined that the sum of the angles to 180° within experimental error, corresponding to an Ωtotal ≈ 1.00±0.12.

File: 1456513363384.jpg (195KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1000x750px

>>18258919
>>18258941
That's that fucking science right there son!

>>18243515
A lot of mythologies, if not most, describe the universe as an cosmic egg

File: 1457510185932.jpg (268KB, 1280x832px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1280x832px

>>18245832
this chart should explain it

>>18258958
Somebody's been watching too much ancient aliens

File: 137250042444.jpg (157KB, 700x462px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 700x462px

>>18259059
Here it is from a different parallel angle.

The multiverse truly is a fascinating and diverse place.

File: Zero-Raws_Kill_la_Kill_-_07_(MBS_1280x720_x264_AAC).mp4_20131116_002135.621[1].png (634KB, 743x417px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 743x417px

>>18248252
It's circular/folds in on itself

The universe having an edge is like the world having an edge: fundamentally doesn't work that way. Shit is round.

Why don't you ask chuck Norris op. Everyone knows he round house kicked God in the face to cause the Big Bang.

>>18243624
The only beef I have with Big Bang theory is that it presumes singularity at the beginning, containing all the mass. Much smaller objects than that, like black holes, contain from a few to millions of solar masses in a singularity. We know black holes don't explode, they expand with gained mass, but at the same time, evaporate by emitting Hawking radiation over giant timescales.
So, what kind of special terms were going on? Quantum fluctuations are mentioned, but then wouldn't it be possible for a typical black hole to suddenly explode, releasing all the mass? It would mean the presence of a factor that is able to overcome gravity strong enough to stop light from escaping.

The multiverse is a false vacuum tree. Axioms relevant to this can be derived from the magical truism that 0=2.

>>18245570
Time is a concept we made ourselves, to make distinction from past, present and those activities planned in the future.
I'm only genuinely interested in time manipulation. Slowing time is possible, but stopping not really, as even the black holes are not frozen in time but change.
Now, if it was possible to navigate timelines, jump into the past for an example... we, living now, would never know, as in this world the given time traveler never showed up, he's only meant to make the jump. In another timeline, he is meant to show up at a given time and inflict whatever changes he may. But that is only possible with Everett's multiverse.

>>18258941
So, it is flat. I think it raises more questions than answers, since it makes Big Bang even more enigmatic. Since all things that have a beginning also have an end, then especially in this case, it should be possible to reach "the end of the Universe". I always thought that in order to solve this problem, it would mean that Universe spread in a medium that allowed its growth, just like an air bubble in boiling water. With this, reaching an "end" would be possible, it would be just blackness without any matter interactions. We'd have to move at the speed of light to observe this, though, since there's still photons coming from the most distant objects and constant expansion of the Universe, driven by one of the most interesting problems in the physics - Dark Matter/Energy. Where the fuck that came from? It appears the early Universe had a completely different structure, so it means it has to be created from "normal" matter. And now look, it is the absolute of mass-energy.

>>18258919
>>18258941
this poster is spot on

>>18259463
The universe could very well be infinite.

File: IMG_0532.png (153KB, 333x254px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 333x254px

Life is fucking amazing. I love you guys.

>>18258955
>>18259542
stop samefagging your shit

File: spoton.png (5KB, 559x165px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 559x165px

>>18259634
I'm sorry to have offended you

File: ireallyneedcreditformypostssinceiamsousedtoreddit.png (7KB, 559x165px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 559x165px

>>18259661
You got me! I wasnt pointing out faggotry just to point out faggotry at all!

In fact, I am the pop-sci faggot myself!

>>18259675
nice photoshop

>>18259463
I may add, if Universe started from a single point, then it is indeed like an air bubble in boiling water. The energy and mass comes from outside, the expansion created by temperature over the phase point, creating what we know today. The bubble isn't invaded by "water" outside, so just like our Universe, it should be free from outside interaction. We'd never be the wiser unless we somehow crossed the boundary.
Stephen Hawking himself once said he thought of Big Bang as a bubble in boiling water and it makes sense - but then, the medium outside isn't nothing - it's something that allows bubbles like ours to exist. Perhaps Dark Energy and Matter will get us closer to the answer?
Quantum fluctuations cannot explain the amount of mass-energy we observe, unless it happened in something incredibly dense, but at the same time, governed by different laws (black holes have much lower masses than observable (!) Universe and even though they contain singularities, the gravity that binds them makes it impossible to expand like our Universe unless more matter is pulled in). Black holes do expand, however, as long as they have mass to drain, so one of them could be similar to our Universe. Massive mass at the center, inability to see what's outside but still showing sings of aging.

>>18259548
Also, I'll add - the implications behind infinite mass-energy are tremendous. They will throw all our current knowledge inside-out, meaning we have an infinite source of energy and endless expansion, completely breaking the laws of physics. However, looking at our current observations, it does not seem the case. The Universe is aging, it does not have a replacement for gas used already and with billions of years it will become darker and colder. The accelerating expansion, if it keeps up, means one day, if Earth still existed somehow, there would be no stars in our sky to see - nothing. Just absolute zero and a complete standstill. If protons do decay, then even that won't be preserved.
The accelerating expansion also means that the matter as we know it acts as an anti-force, while something in the vacuum speeds it. So, the bigger the Universe is, and matter is not replenished (there goes the infinite Universe theory) then that vacuum energy gains more and more power, speeding up acceleration. Until everything is torn, even the strong force, so that atoms are unbound and gone.

>>18259059
thanks

>>18260067
>They will throw all our current knowledge inside-out, meaning we have an infinite source of energy and endless expansion, completely breaking the laws of physics.
This is not necessarily true. The universe can be infinite but still locally bounded.

For example, unless we invent a way to travel faster than light, we will never be able to travel anywhere outside of the observable universe. Furthermore, with the expansion of the universe, some stars are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. We will never be able to reach them.

So just because the universe might be infinite overall does not mean we have access to all of that infinite energy, since there are very real physical limits to what we can actually interact with.

>>18260067
>and matter is not replenished (there goes the infinite Universe theory)
Non sequitur

>>18260045
>if Universe started from a single point, then it is indeed like an air bubble in boiling water
I think this analogy is kind of misleading. Unless you are refering to something like hilbert space, the universe isnt surrounded by anything

>>18260440
>>18260045
>>18260067
I think there's some confusion going on here between the universe being finite or infinite, and the universe being bounded or unbounded.

A bounded universe presents many theoretical problems, and almost all of modern theoretical physics is done by assuming an unbounded universe - meaning the universe has no ‘edge’ or ‘border’.

However, that doesn't answer whether it's finite or infinite. It could very well be an unbounded but finite universe. To help understand what that means, think of the surface of the earth. If I pick a direction and start walking, I will never reach the ‘end’ of the earth. I will eventually keep wrapping around and around forever, but I will never hit a ‘border’ or ‘edge’ of the universe.

This is a separate configuration from an infinite universe, within which you could keep walking forever and never reach the same place again.

This is also separate from a bounded universe, within which you would eventually hit some sort of ‘edge’ of the universe, where our laws of physics would break down.

>>18260468
>meaning the universe has no ‘edge’ or ‘border’
which is what I meant by
>the universe isnt surrounded by anything

>>18260515

But there has to be an edge or an end to it somewhere?!

>>18261698
no

>>18243840
another universe

its blackholes all the way down m8

>>18244836

No one's going to give this any credit?

For fucks sake guys...

>>18246422

!