Size of the universe

Gravity bends light... how do you think that is possible? Oh, I dunno... You can expand a mathematical matrix. You can expand your mind.Anyway, spacetime is where physical properties reside. Even your own rule here takes place within spacetime. Its kind of its own thing, and not necessarily subject to the rules that take place within it. That question is nonsensical.

If you want to put 10^-35 on one end of a continuum, and 10^25 on the other, and then find out about what size is in the middle, then wouldn't that just be 10^(-35 + 26) or 10^-9?So we're talking on the order of a nanometer.ABE: Ha! Didn't even see your previous message. I totally read your mind.ABE2: Actually I don't think 10^-9 is right.We're talking about 61 total exponents, so the mid-point would be at 30.5 point away from -35, so that'd be -4.5.So that'd be around 0.05 centimeters, or 50 microns, which is about the diameter of a hair.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Welcome to EvC, Lurkey! So much for lurking Thanks for joining up and posting. I guess it would look to be the size of a tennis ball, but the pressure from the density would be so great that you be crused to death. Not really. Back then there weren't the same kinds of matter as there is today. Heavier elements are fused inside of stars and then blasted across the universe via supernova. It'd be a very convoluted path back to the origin. I'm picturing it quite a bit differently than a genetic lineage.

Its whatever. Ask away if you want to. If we don't want to reply then we won't

No, there was "some time" after the Big Bang before matter even existed: click to enlargeIt was "really fucking short" but it was there nonetheless. In order to concepualize it, you're gonna have to be able to reduce dimensions in your mind. So, take a cube, it's 3-dimensions, and reduce it to 2 dimensions: It becomes a plane. That is, the plane is the "shadow" of a cube. Think about how your shadow on the sidewalk is a 2-D representation of yourself. Now, reduce that 2-d plane to one dimension: it becomes a line. If you take a sheet of paper (2D) and look at it just from its edge, it makes a line. Again, you can reduce a 1D line into a point in the same way: Take a pencil and look at it down the shaft and it becomes a "point" (0D). That's reducing dimensions in a nutshell.So, on to the analogy. Imagine the globe, the Earth. But just the surface of the Earth. Nothing on the inside just the surface, like a balloon. Let that 2 dimensional surface represent all three spatial dimensions, they're just reduced as per the above. Now, imagine that the lines of latitude represent the timeline. The closer you get to the North Pole, the farther back you are going in time. As you approach the North Pole, as you go back in time, the size of the Universe, the radius of the Earth, keeps getting smaller and smaller. That's the Universe getting smaller and smaller as we go back in time. So what happens when you get to the North Pole? You can't go farther north than that, i.e. you can't go back further in time than that. The surface "wraps back upon itself". That is, it is an asymptote <--. clicky. Asking what's before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. Your immediate reaction might be "upwards" from the surface, but due to the dimension reduction, there is no such thing as that. For, when you're at the North Pole, all directions are south. If you're confined to the surface, there is no upwards to point towards.That point, the North Pole, represents the singularity that the Big Band describes. All directions are "forward" in time and there is no such thing as "before". Time, itself, is an integrated part of the dimensions of spacetime, that is there are 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal one. So we're really talking about a 4 dimensions manifold <--. again, clicky. That manifold has a finite "shape" and that shape suggests a finite past, but that past "folds back onto itself" and exists at all points that time exists. Its like the Eath exists at all points of latitude even though there is only so far northwards that you can go.So that's the best analogy I've come across, let me know if you have any questions.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Type. 2D --> 1D for a line. Added (0D) to point

SimplifyingThank Son, lets just keep this rolling. So the metric is 'how the distances work'. It can be a mathematical equation where you input some particular of the manifold and determine the distance between them.So lets look at the metric we're all familiar with: The old X-Y Plane. To find the distance to the green dot, we use . That's the metric.You can make the manifold more complicated by adding more dimensions: And this will change the metric. People can use these manifolds to create some pretty cool shapes.

quote:

---

The Riemannian manifold is a very important extension of integral calculus, the idea of being able to take an integral over a complex and possibly curved surface, instead of just taking a measure over a simple flat surface like a line or a plane. The pictures here are a model of the real projective plane, a two dimensional surface that cannot be truly built in three dimensions because it must pass through itself without having a hole in the surface. The idea of the manifold is that this odd looking shape, and many other odd looking shapes, can be defined by covering the surface with a patchwork quilt of flat or nearly flat patches, and if two patches overlap, there is an "easy" method of matching points on one patch to the corresponding points on the other.

---

Hrm, that one's not hotlinking: rp2+model.jpg (image)lol - Someone made a kitty: sourcePeople are even using them to study biology:

quote:

---

Destruction of coral reefs is a serious issue, so surely no hyperbole? Ah, a simple error of diction. Actually hyperbolic space is a recognised mathematical model. As most people know, hyperbolic n-space, denoted Hn, is the maximally symmetric, simply connected, n-dimensional Riemannian manifold with constant sectional curvature −1.

---

You can create manifolds to see if and how they match observations to get a better understanding of the underlying causes of the way things happen. Some of the manifolds more accurately match observations of our Universe, itself, even. Like how Einstein's have.As you say: The blog for the sculpture above had this to say:

quote:

---

Of all of Riemann's ideas, the manifold may be the most useful, because without it, Einstein would not have had a mathematical model for the idea of curved space.

---

No, not even close. But you should start a new topic, as this is in the Science Forum. Just throw one into the Coffee House and I'll reply there when I see it.