Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
Chargement... What Shape Is Space?: A Primer for the 21st Century (The Big Idea Series)par Giles Sparrow
Aucun Chargement...
Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre. aucune critique | ajouter une critique
What Shape is Space? This is a question with surprisingly far-reaching implications for our understanding of the very nature of reality and our place within it. The concepts involved may be sophisticated, but Giles Sparrow's effortless prose style easily renders them understandable, allowing readers to get to grips with the overarching debates at the cutting edge of cosmology today. Infographics, diagrams and astronomical visualizations illustrate and clarify the various astonishing implications of a universe of infinite space. Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque |
Discussion en coursAucun
Google Books — Chargement... GenresClassification décimale de Melvil (CDD)520Natural sciences and mathematics Astronomy AstronomyClassification de la Bibliothèque du CongrèsÉvaluationMoyenne:
Est-ce vous ?Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing. |
Questions about the Universe's shape always lead back to questions about mass. If we have a high mass density then we are likely to have a closed universe that will eventually collapse back into itself. If we have a low mass density then the universe will continue to expand at an accelerating rate, And if it's just right ...we'll have a flat universe...continuing to expand but not curving inwards or outwards. (Not sure that there is much practical difference between flat and expanding). Anyway, a whole lot of measurements and estimates have been made about density of stars and frequency and so estimates of the mass of the universe have been made....but Zwicky around 1933 found that galaxies were moving as though they contained 400X more mass than the starlight suggested. He called the "missing" mass dark matter and subsequent investigations showed it was universal. Best candidate today is for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). Yet even with dark matter taken into account the omega factor (for open or closed universe) remained well below 1.....indicating an open universe. And measurements of anisotropy in ripples from CMBR (between normal matter and dark matter) indicated that omega was well below 1. So case closed: Open universe? Not quite. Measuring angular size of CMBR ripples indicate that the rays are parallel over the 46 billion light years ..so omega equals 1 and universe would be flat.....Ok but when you add normal (baryonic) matter and dark matter together it's not enough to give this result.
Enter dark energy. A type 1a supernova always releases the same amount of energy and therefore same peak luminosity...so can be used as a standard candle. But they are very rare. Nevertheless astronomers harvested data for 42 supernova with high red shifts. They expected that the very distant ones would be brighter than expected from a combination of red shift and the Hubble Constant ...in other words they would be starting to slow down. But Big surprise...the distant supernova were consistently fainter than predicted so cosmic expansion is accelerating. What's causing this? Explanation ..."Dark Energy". And measurements conclude that the mass/energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 27% dark matter and 68% dark energy. But at this level the universe still appears to be flat (Parallel lines really are parallel) whilst expanding at an accelerating rate.
If we could travel, faster than light. and get to the "edge" of our observable universe (currently 46 billion light years distant) we could look into regions forever hidden from earth based astronomers. And space would seem to be a vast sphere growing faster than the speed of light. Each position in the universe would be surrounded by its own sphere of observable distance (an infinity of universes). But this is just Level One Multiiverse of many such possible structures categorised by Max Tegmark. (Seems to me that these get increasingly dodgy and un-falsifiable). A Level 2 Multiverse can spin -off separate bubbles of Level 1 iMultiverses but these might have very different physical constants. The argument goes along the following lines: Our early universe apparently experienced a period of rapid inflation which allowed concentrations of mass. The best explanation for inflation was the energy released by the phase change of electro nuclear forces separating out. It's claimed the phases also apply to spacetime itself and the "vacuum energy" contained in spacetime itself can spontaneously give rise to new inflationary universes inside the old. This could be an explanation for the extra dimensions postulated to explain how the fundamental forces could be unified..eg in string theory. (Though recent commentary has been that string theory has gone nowhere and is essentially unfalsifiable so one can postulate anything). But other theories about unifying physics do not rely on the unproven notion of extra dimensions...eg Loop Quantum Gravity.
One way of resolving the quantum uncertainty problem (such as Schrodinger's cat...neither dead nor alive until observed) was the many worlds hypothesis of Hugh Everett. He suggested that the different outcomes of quantum events are resolved by the entire universe splitting into two divergent paths (Q: why only two?). So one universe where cat is alive, another where cat is dead. The structure of this Level 3 Multiverse would be like a branching tree ..giving rise to a fractal pattern. Obvious question is: where are all these other versions? The tricky answer is that they occupy exactly the same spacetime as we do. Most physicists interpret the many worlds proposal as a statement that our multiverse incorporates all the possible outcomes of quantum events within it. The wave function explaining this sort of multiverse can be described in terms of a Hilbert Space....A minority of physicists suggest that the universe really does branch to create new physical realities at every point in history. So a distinction is drawn between this position and the idea of quantum superpositions. And Tegmark suggested a Level 4 multiverse would be where a mathematical ensemble could give rise to all the other possible types of multiverse. This in turn gives rise to the idea that we could be in (part of) a mathematically simulated universe...but again...it's unscientific since it cannot be disproven).
Bottom line is: On current evidence, today's universe is "flat" extending essentially uniformly in all directions with no large scale curvature. But it almost certainly extends beyond the range of our visible universe into an effectively infinite Level 1 Multiverse. But because our universe has dark energy driving expansion it seems possible to have a universe that is both flat and likely to continue expanding forever. But another wrinkle in the scenario is that if dark energy is growing exponentially we might get the "big rip" in the cosmos where everything ..down to atoms are ripped apart by dark energy.
The question of why is the universe suspiciously fine tuned to foster the development of life: Two answers...... the weak anthropomorphic argument is that if it were not fine tuned we would not be here to observe it.......The strong Anthropic principle, described by Barrow and Tipler is that there is actually an imperative to give rise to life; either by a deity, or the universe could not exist without conscious entities to observe it (and resolve quantum outcomes)....Seems crazy to me....who was doing this before humans evolved after 4 billion years? Or, third variant..... there are multiverses such that there has to be an option somewhere like ours.
So some pretty weird ideas out there. But probably simplest to accept the idea of a flat universe currently accelerating under the influence of dark energy.
But if dark energy is populated totally on the basis of the distant type 1a supernovas being dimmer than expected...what if there are a sub type of 1a supernovas (just as there were two types of Cepheid type stars). Maybe the measurements are wrong. Seems to be a lot hanging on 42 type 1a Supernovas.
But a really good book. Delivers what it promises ...but wth a few deviations. ( )