I never got around yesterday to writing about this new theory that states that the universe is a sort of big, mirrored soccer ball that only kind of looks likes it's infinite because of all the reflecting surfaces.
In a paper being published today in the journal Nature, Dr. Jeffrey Weeks, an independent mathematician in Canton, N.Y., and his colleagues suggest, based on analysis of maps of the Big Bang, that space is a kind of 12-sided hall of mirrors, in which the illusion of infinity is created by looking out and seeing multiple copies of the same stars.
If the model is correct, Dr. Weeks said, it would rule out a popular theory of the Big Bang that asserts that our own observable universe is just a bubble among others in a realm of vastly larger extent. "It means we can just about see the whole universe now," Dr. Weeks said.
Well, already the idea is taking some (it's not my pun; blame the NYT) sharp kicks.
If the model is correct, Dr. Weeks said, it would rule out a popular theory of the Big Bang that asserts that our own observable universe is just a bubble among others in a realm of vastly larger extent. "It means we can just about see the whole universe now," Dr. Weeks said.
Why it matters so much:
The stakes for cosmology, should the soccer ball or some other variety of small universe prevail, are not small at all. A small universe, everybody agrees, would present severe problems for the prevailing theory of the Big Bang, known as inflation, which posits that the cosmos underwent a burst of hyperexpansion in its first moments.
Moreover, Dr. Weeks said, a small universe would eliminate one popular variant of the theory known as eternal inflation, in which bubble universes give rise to one another endlessly in what some cosmologists call a "multiverse."
"This puts the whole universe in view," he explained. "It wouldn't rule out other universes. There could be others. They would be totally unrelated, without any contact between them."
I just find it surprising that this could even be the subject of debate. Hasn't the shape of the universe already been established to everyone's satisfaction?
Posted by Phil at October 10, 2003 07:43 AM | TrackBackI am underwhelmed by the evidence for and against. For example, I don't know where you get a straight path length of 74 billion light years in a universe where we can only see 13 or so billion light years. If the finite universe expands at the speed of light, we'd never be able to observe that it was finite.
Posted by: Karl Hallowell at October 11, 2003 07:24 AM