flatuniverse

The Geometry of Space at Cosmic Distances.

The results of two experiments carried aloft on balloons has reputedly confirmed the universe is geometrically flat. The two experiments were the Maxima and Boomerang. The Boomerang balloon was launched in Antarctica. The Maxima balloon was launched in Texas and claims to have more detailed data than Boomerang. Both balloons carried telescopes and extremely cold and sensitive equipment that detects variations on the order of millionths of a degree in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). One of the interesting features of this radio noise is that it has the same intensity vs. frequency as a black body with a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins. In every direction the radiation is incredibly uniform. Scientists say the two balloon experiments are in agreement. The CBM is a weak radio noise. Most scientists believe the CMB originated when atoms formed perhaps about a hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. Scientists say the universe became transparent to the light at this time. The balloon borne equipment measured tiny variations in the temperature of the background radiation whose size is about one degree across.

Why do astronomers believe in the Big Bang? In the early 20^th century Edwin Hubble calculated the distances to some galaxies by using Cepheid variable stars. He found that if he plotted his calculated distances against the galaxy redshift, he got a straight line. Astronomers interpreted this to mean that distant galaxies are flying away from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it is supposed to be receding. The Hubble Velocity - Distance relation has resulted in many debates about the age and size of the universe. The Hubble Constant is the slope of the straight line through all the galaxy data points. Astronomers believe that if you could know how fast the universe is expanding and how much it is slowing down, then you could estimate the size and age of the universe. When astronomers talk about the speed of the expansion, they are not talking about galaxies physically flying through space. They are talking about space and time expanding - that is the entire universe is expanding and everything in it. Of course they do not mean the earth or the galaxies are expanding because they believe that gravity locally prevents these smaller objects from expanding. If space-time is expanding and gravity applies the brakes to the expansion, will the universe continue to expand forever? Think about a ball thrown straight up from the earth. Our planet's mass slows the ball and it soon falls back.

Astronomers talk about the curvature of space. How much space is curved has to do with how fast the universe is expanding and how much mass and energy there is in the universe. The faster it is expanding, the more matter and energy you need to stop and reverse the direction. Astronomers often debate whether there is enough matter in the universe to reverse the expansion.

They calculate the average density of matter in the universe. Strangely the results of their calculations say our universe is very close to the critical energy - mass density. They call this a flat universe. Astronomers say the universe is flat if it will slow down but continue to expand. At infinite distances, all particles in the universe would stop but never quite fall back again. Think about throwing a rock from the surface of an asteroid. It could fall back again or possibly go into orbit. If you threw it fast enough it would escape and never come back. It would be extremely unlikely that you would throw it at exactly the escape velocity. The escape velocity varies with distance from an asteroid. At exactly the escape velocity, the rock is always exactly at the critical speed between orbiting and escaping.

In a flat universe, cosmic sized triangles have angles whose sum is exactly 180^o. Parallel photons never cross but continue in straight lines ( at least if they didn't accidentally graze a large object somewhere). In such a universe, Euclid's geometry is valid over very long distances.

If the universe had too much mass and energy, it slows down and eventually stop expanding. It would then fall back into a "Big Crunch." In such a closed universe, cosmic sized triangles have angles whose sum is greater than 180^o. Parallel rays of light converge. Such a universe is closed, shaped like a sphere and obeys Riemann's geometry.

If the universe had too little mass or energy, it continues to expand forever. In such a universe, cosmic sized triangles have angles whose sum is less than 180^o. Parallel rays of light diverge. Such a universe is open, curved like a saddle and obeys Lobachevsky's geometry.

I am not here to argue the merits of the balloon experiments. Experiments about the distant past are always based on assumptions. The experiments do not test the assumptions. The results are interpreted by means of the assumptions. I am not here arguing the big bang or if red shifts are the result of a Doppler shift. I only want to ask you to think about a simple idea.

Why should the universe be flat?

Isn't this amazing? Of all the possible densities of matter, why do instruments record a universe which they interpret as flat. Of all the billions of possible concentrations of mass and energy, why is it that scientists calculate that it equals the critical value? Let us do a simple thought experiment as an analogy. Think about a person who invents a gun and makes a single bullet. On the first shot the bullet exactly hits the escape velocity of the earth. Wouldn't that be an incredible coincidence? For years to come, this bullet will always be at the escape velocity of the earth. People have built millions of guns. No gun has yet fired a bullet that did not fall back to earth. This gun would have to be an electromagnetic rail of massive power. It would have to accelerate an incredibly hard bullet to overcome the atmospheric friction and still hit the escape velocity exactly. The immense stresses and temperatures on the bullet could not destroy it. Both the bullet and the gun would have to be perfectly matched to exactly equal the Earth's escape velocity. Isn't that improbable especially if it was not deliberately planned that way?

Let us for a moment accept that a big bang really occurred. What are the odds that this one time event of incredible power would precisely thread such a needle as a flat universe? Why should the precise mass and initial expansion fall right on the line between two vast chasms? Isn't that an amazing coincidence? Here is another analogy. How probable is it that you could drop a coin on a smooth hard surface and it would land on its edge? Imagine that as the coin sped along on its edge it would never wobble off to one side or the other. It would remain perfectly balanced and never fall to the left or the right. At some infinite time and distance it would run down from friction and remain balanced on its edge. Remember, according to the Big Bang scenario, this precisely balanced condition is a result of a totally random event - the creation of our universe.

Let's talk about Assumptions!

Assumptions are very interesting ideas. They are ideas which are taken for truth without proof. Could these incredible results from the CMB be telling us something about our assumptions? This web page discusses the "fundamental assumption." I call it the fundamental assumption because it must come first and is also the most important. All scientists accept the fundamental assumption without question. To question the assumption would cast doubt on the very foundations of science. Of course the rules of science prevent questioning science itself. Scientists are like priests of Marduk who cannot question the existence of their god. Scientists cannot imagine a universe in which science fails. They also cannot image the fundamental assumption. Scientists have the most bizarre and remarkable faith. Their dogma is really amazing. There is absolutely no evidence to support their dogma - yet they never question it. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of scientists have never even thought about it. They are trained to think that way.

Am I suggesting that everything scientists do is false? NO! It is precisely because scientists hold the fundamental assumption that they are able to do higher math. It is because of their assumption that they are so successful in the present. It is because they hold their assumption that they can accomplish so many technological marvels. It is also because of their assumption that they have invented such improbable myths about the past.

It is important to understand that the fundamental assumption is really there. I did not invent it. None of my teachers ever talked about it. And yet it is a historical assumption. Aristotle clearly stated why his assumption overcame the difficulties the previous philosophers struggled with. Have you ever wondered why Aristotle invented logic? How could he have been the father of science? Although the scientific method came later, Aristotle defined the nature of the cosmos. He invented the fundamental assumption. You don't believe me! Go and read Aristotle. His assumption remains the first dogma of science. Why don't I explain what the fundamental assumption is? You can only have one fundamental assumption. You cannot stand on it and examine it because you are standing on it. You must back away from it to test whether it is false. That is why this page does not tell you how to think. I only want you to question and examine your thinking process.

If the fundamental assumption were false, what would the universe look like? I claim that astronomers would measure what they thought was a flat universe. Their experiments would conclude that there was a big bang. They could easily conclude that the universe was filled with "dark matter." Their experiments would likely find something like a redshift versus distance relation. It is my contention that if the fundamental assumption were false, scientists have invented a mathematically complex system of myths about our past. Notice that it is possible for science to "work" and still have a false basis.

I do not claim to know the age or dimension of the universe. I am not presenting some new exotic idea. In fact the idea is ancient and predates the Greek philosophers. I contend that we would be better off examining ancient records of the universe. The archaeoastronomers often recorded things which do not match our scientific reasoning. Astronomers usually only believe their records if they can make them agree with modern ephemeris. Could it be that their myths were based on what they saw with their eyes? On the other hand, modern scientific myths are mathematical solutions which rely entirely on the fundamental assumption.

No one ever proved the assumption that Aristotle invented. No modern scientists question it. No modern school of philosophy examines it. Why not? The entire Western way of thinking is based on it. If you question the assumption, you will immediately become a pariah. Don't let this ancient Greek dogma keep you from a search for truth. Is the geometry of the universe flat? I doubt that the universe is measurable. Man makes observations with his instruments, but that does not mean he can understand the universe. Perhaps the best answer is that you can understand why astronomers measure a flat universe if you just get rid of the fundamental assumption. The universe is so not so paradoxical without the assumption. It is just not measurable. Can you understand the universe? No! If the fundamental assumption is false, you can know something very profound. You can know why it cannot be understood. Can you think about it?