Chad Cooper wrote: >Let me remind everyone that these are representations or models based on >popular belief that the Universe has boundaries. I have not read any >literature that convinces me that there are boundaries, hence a shape to the >big U. I know this is very controversial, but I strongly disagree with the >Big Bang Theory. What do you mean by "boundaries" (like an edge or something?) What kind of evidence would you require for a Universe with boundaries? When you state that you strongly disagree with the Big Bang theory, is this because you've not seen evidence of boundaries? Why do you feel that the Big Bang Theory requires a universe with boundaries? The Big Bang does not require a universe with boundaries. In fact most descriptions I've seen of the Big Bang universe never mention boundaries. My understanding is that the Big Bang created space itself -- the posited primeval fireball did not expand into space, the fireball was space itself. In that sense it won't have a boundary (or edge) for a couple of reasons: -- During inflation, space expanded faster than the speed of light. Depending on how long inflation lasted and how rapid it was, you could travel in straight line at the speed of light and never reach all of the points in space. Thus there is no boundary. [Of course then you could ask the question if those unreachable points are really part of our big U if you can't reach them.] -- Even without inflation, the universe could be "connected", kind of like a wormhole but on a cosmic scale. This means that you could travel in a straight line, and eventually arrive back at the point you started from. The simplest connected universe is a hypersphere, where no matter which direction you travel, you always end up back at your starting point. That's where the balloon analogy comes from: no matter which way you travel on the surface of the balloon you always come back to where you started from. The universe may also be connected in more complicated ways You can actually test for the connectedness by looking for signs in the cosmic background radiation. (see http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499weeks.html and http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/2_21_98/bob1.htm) Given our current observation capabilities we've not seen signs, but they've not been ruled out either. But the balloon analogy still has it's flaws because the two dimensional surface of the balloon is expanding into the existing three-dimensional space. From the three-dimensional perspective, the surface of the balloon still has boundaries. This is where the baloon analogy falls apart, because in the real universe the kinds of "simple" hypersphere connectedness or the more complex forms do not require expansion into an existing hyperdimensional space, so there would still be no boundaries. Jeff --- http://www.netjeff.com/
