Slashdot Mirror


The Universe May Be Shaped Like a Doughnut

NewbieV writes "The NY Times (reg., etc.) is reporting that data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe may suggest that the universe might be shaped like a doughnut or a cylinder: it might be possible, like in the old video game Spacewar, to drift off one 'side' of the Universe and reappear on the other."

495 comments

  1. Sincere question by billybob2001 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hi Larry, I'd really like to know,

    Do you like Donuts?

    If so, what's your favorite type?

  2. So I guess that makes God.. by flinxmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the Cop of the Universe?

    1. Re:So I guess that makes God.. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 3, Funny

      Am I the only one who never wants to know what God used to make the doughnut hole?

    2. Re:So I guess that makes God.. by aiyo · · Score: 1

      God can't be a pig, he's pro-marijuana.

    3. Re:So I guess that makes God.. by schmink182 · · Score: 1
      Am I the only one who never wants to know what God used to make the doughnut hole?

      I hope so...

    4. Re:So I guess that makes God.. by borgdows · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      no!
      the cop of the Universe is... Georges W. Bush!! :p

    5. Re:So I guess that makes God.. by kinnell · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it make him a baker?

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    6. Re:So I guess that makes God.. by Spunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      *sirens*

      Licence and registration please.

      Now just how fast do you think you were going there?

      Look, sir, the law says you just can't go faster than c. I'll let you off with a warning this time, but don't let it happen again.

    7. Re:So I guess that makes God.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, scientists have determined that God is shaped like Homer SImpson.

    8. Re:So I guess that makes God.. by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who never wants to know what God used to make the doughnut hole?

      The US Tax Code. It's held there by some old tape with Nixonian ramblings.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  3. homer knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    damn stephen hawking!

    (ps. - third?)

    1. Re:homer knew it by Erik+Fish · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Damn, fool! You think you gots what it takes to step to tha Hawkman?!

      You stone cold trippin, bee-yotch!

  4. The last thing Homer needs to learn... by Xeriar · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is that the universe is donut shaped.

    1. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by Dynedain · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually....in the episode where the Mensa society runs Springfield, Stephen Hawking shows up, and at the end says: "Homer, your idea of a doughnut-shaped universe is intriguing. I must steal it for my next book."

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by whovian · · Score: 2, Funny

      This also reveals that the ultimate demise of the Universe is a Big Crunch.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    3. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by billmoss · · Score: 0

      When all you have are microwave anisotropy probes your world begins to resmble a dougnut.

    4. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Larry Flint is right!

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    5. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by ruriruri · · Score: 1
      Is that it, or is it the opposite? I thought that if the universe is flat, then a big crunch puts us in a state where we become some kind of viscous black-hole fluid from which there is no escape, but if we're in a toroid universe then the big crunch is reversible, thus leading to another big bang--

      --Wait!! ..... AH!! Haha, it's a joke! It's just a silly joke..

      Forgive me, I'm slow.

    6. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention he stole Fry's "Fry Hole" in Futurama's first anthology of interest.

    7. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ya know what's sad. That's the first thing I thought of when I saw the story on slashdot. Maybe I do watch the show too much

      Nah ..

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    8. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

      I don't think they had doughnuts in ancient Greece.

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
    9. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I read this far in the posts and thought that the Homer everyone was talking about was the Greek philosopher . . . . I feel so stupid, what was I thinking??

    10. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by Mr_Cheeky · · Score: 0

      Better that than a Krusty Burger.

    11. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real lines from that Simpson's episode are as follows (from this guide):

      % So, the gang ends up at Moe's Tavern.

      Hawking: Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is intriguing, Homer. I may have to steal it.

      Homer: Wow, I can't believe someone I never heard of is hanging out with a guy like me.

      Moe: All right, it's closing time. Who's paying the tab?

      Homer: [imitating Hawking's voice box] I am.

      Hawking: I didn't say that.

      Homer: [still imitating] Yes I did.

      [the boxing glove comes out again, bopping Homer in the face]

      Homer: [still imitating] D'oh.

    12. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      To coin a phrase uttered on "South Park"...

      "Simpsons already did it!"

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    13. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To coin a phrase uttered on "South Park"...

      "Simpsons already did it!"


      s/coin/quote. To "coin a phrase" means "to devise a new phrase". You are not devising anything new, but are instead "quoting".

    14. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homer wasn't a philosopher, he was a bard. Therefore, you actually are so stupid. Thanks you, have a nice day.

  5. oh no by odyrithm · · Score: 2, Funny

    homer was right!

    --
    moo
    1. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      YOU AND YOUR 4 MILLION SIMPSONS-REFERENCING FRIENDS ARE NOT FUNNY, ASSHOLE.


      This will be posted in response to each and every "huh huh, homer wuz write!" post in this thread. Enjoy!


      adfwvqre23

    2. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bart: But what's really amazing, is that this is exactly what Dad said would happen.
      Lisa: Yeah, Dad was right....
      Homer: I know kids, I'm scared too!

    3. Re:oh no by billybob2001 · · Score: 1

      homer was right!

      So was Larry Niven as I noted just a few days ago.

  6. Mmmmm... by joncraft · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mmmm... Universe... (knew someone would do this, thought I'd try to get in first)

    1. Re:Mmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on being derivative!

      A Slashdot article about a doughnut-shaped universe. I think we all guessed that an endless stream of bad jokes would follow. That guess has proven correct, so far.

    2. Re:Mmmmm... by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      not to mention holier than thou AC posts!

      --

      -pyrrho

    3. Re:Mmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bless you, my child!

    4. Re:Mmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But can they be holier than HIM?

    5. Re:Mmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean HIM?

    6. Re:Mmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no HIM

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Coming up... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Krispy Kreme Endowment for Excellence in Cosmology.

    1. Re:Coming up... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      I'll bet they will use this as some sort of cosmic endorsement of their product. At least a new ad campaign.

      Stranger things have happened.

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Coming up... by davidstrauss · · Score: 4, Funny
      The Krispy Kreme Endowment for Excellence in Cosmology.

      I think you mean: "The Krispy Kreme Endowment for Excellence in Kosmology."

    3. Re:Coming up... by imadork · · Score: 1

      Krispy Kreme: We Put The "Ugh" In Doughnut!

    4. Re:Coming up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that make them the KKK? :/

    5. Re:Coming up... by bytesmythe · · Score: 1

      I didn't know the KDE project was into kosmology, too!

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
  9. Silly students by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    2 dimensional universes are shaped like donuts. 3 dimensional ones like ours are shaped like hyperspheres.

    I guess they forgot to carry the 1.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Silly students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are 4 dimensional ones shaped like?

    2. Re:Silly students by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

      Hyperdonutspheres.

      Duh.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    3. Re:Silly students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Nope, they're claiming full 3-torus status for the Universe.

      Kind of disappointing, because 3-projective planes are much more fun! Go far enough in any direction and the universe comes back as its mirror image!

    4. Re:Silly students by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, no, they didn't. n-dimensional universes -- if they are compact -- are shaped like n-tori, not n-spheres. The question is quether they have genus one (and are thus flat) or have genus 2+ (are have negative curvature.)

    5. Re:Silly students by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      You mean 3-uncurled non time dimensional ones like ours are hyperspheres.......
      :)

    6. Re:Silly students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      n-dimensional universes -- if they are compact -- are shaped like n-tori, not n-spheres.

      An n-dimensional sphere (S^n) is compact, as is an n-dimensional torus (T^n). An advantage of a torus is that you can use it to make a flat spacetime. (& So far the best measurements are consistent with a flat spacetime.) Of course, you can also use plain old Euclidean space to make a flat spacetime, which is infinite and not compact.

      It will be extremely interesting to see how these and future results turn out.

    7. Re:Silly students by dimator · · Score: 1

      *wooosh* (making palm down hand motions, over head)

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    8. Re:Silly students by robmered · · Score: 1

      Our universe isn't three dimensional. At the very least we can perceive four dimensions. The latest guess, though, seems to put the actual figure at 11 dimensions.

    9. Re:Silly students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      n-dimensional universes -- if they are compact -- are shaped like n-tori, not n-spheres.


      They can be shaped like either. Or like something else. Torii and spheres don't exhaust the list of compact manifolds.


      The question is quether they have genus one (and are thus flat) or have genus 2+ (are have negative curvature.)


      A genus greater than 1 does not imply negative curvature. (For that matter, a genus of 1 doesn't imply flatness; there can be non-flat torii.)
    10. Re:Silly students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up, they actually know something about topology

    11. Re:Silly students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess none of the moderators got the joke, dimator...

    12. Re:Silly students by DancingSword · · Score: 1

      I fail to see why it is assumed that only Time and Space count as dimensions: cannot Non-locality ( or unitary-ness/field-ness, as opposed to wave-ness or particle-ness ) or Mind count as one too?

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
    13. Re:Silly students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Damn hippies. Learn some applied math instead of smoking your "dope" and dancing to devil-music at "festivals".

    14. Re:Silly students by The+Wing+Lover · · Score: 1
      Actually, no, they didn't. n-dimensional universes -- if they are compact -- are shaped like n-tori, not n-spheres. The question is quether they have genus one (and are thus flat) or have genus 2+ (are have negative curvature.)

      Yeah, that's what I thought too.

      --

      - In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!

    15. Re:Silly students by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      Let's not start with the "Mind over matter" crap....sorry but the laws of physics don't care what you want/think should happen. You can tell your self all day that the secret to flying is tripping and forgetting to fall, but in reality that won't work.

    16. Re:Silly students by Gauchito · · Score: 1

      Duh!

    17. Re:Silly students by DancingSword · · Score: 1

      brane-theory's categorically wrong, then, since it insists that there are more spacial dimensions than the open 3 ( and, obviously, if things CAN exist without being particles in the open-3, then they have to exist somehow, and therefore Mind may exist... ).

      Thank GOD/YOUR-NATIONALISM/RELIGION/CHURCH you have set me straight on that.

      Yes, that Primary Law of Scientism: Scientism Knows that Knowing Cannot Exist ( hence the existence of "The Hard Problem" ).

      Therefore Only Scientism's Knowing CAN Exist, and logically must be Ultimate Truth.

      Convenient how "Dark Matter" is something that doesn't obey the reductionism's religious assumptions, twit, nor does "Dark Energy"...

      I'm NOT claiming "Mind Is Inherently More Real Than Matter" ( as you so conveniently suggest with your Mind Over Matter deliberate misquote... ), I'm Suggesting that Mind Actually Exists, IN SPITE OF your existence.

      IF something exists in 10-dimensional space, PLUS time, AND doesn't manifest as particle in the open3, THEN it is possible that it is existing in Time+Space+SomeThingElse that Manifests as NonLocalCoherence or Mind.

      Oh, yes, I'd forgot that your Scientism banished depth from Universe, eh?

      IF evidence of non-locality NEED be ignored by your religion, in order to make your precious assumptions perfect, then you don't have any place for Scientific Method, and that's fine: neither did the Church/Inquisition, or Nazism or any other form of rabies

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
    18. Re:Silly students by The_K4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, it sounds to me like YOUR the one talking about religion.....NonLocalCoherence ok, go have your out-of-body-experience (or what ever you want to call it), I really don't care. I am not taking the view point of Scientism; I am taking the view point of a skeptical scientist. Just because you think that curled dimensions (which probable do exist) can contain extensions of your mind does not mean that you have ANY evidence that it does, and in the absence of any evidence i tend to not give myself abilities that i probably don't have....thanks.

  10. Okay... by Flarelocke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In this case, the obligatory Simpson's references really *are* obligatory.

  11. Simpsons quote! by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Stephen Hawking: "Your theory of the donut shaped universe is intriguing Homer, I may have to steal it."

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    1. Re:Simpsons quote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU AND YOUR 4 MILLION SIMPSONS-REFERENCING FRIENDS ARE NOT FUNNY, ASSHOLE.

      This will be posted in response to each and every "huh huh, homer wuz write!" post in this thread. Enjoy!

      adf41q2e23

    2. Re:Simpsons quote! by warpath · · Score: 1

      Heh. No matter how many times you post it, I think you're still out numbered.

  12. FPITM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This fp is lost in the mysterious void that is the hole in the centre of the donut. All attemps to find it will result in falling down the -1, offtopic black hole.

  13. Old hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those of us who have played games like Space Wars, Asteroids and Star Castle were already well aware of the toroidal truth.

    1. Re:Old hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bad news, too, with people already worried about another dinosaur killer. I can't tell you how many times an asteroid has wrapped around the short side of the universe and whacked me...

  14. eh? by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

    Matt Groening (sp?) came up with this concept no more than 4 years ago.

  15. wait... by bigmase521 · · Score: 1

    you mean to tell me the universe is actually shaped like a doughnut? Does this vouch for the existance of life (cops) on every planet in the universe? If this were really true, then this means that we really ARE living in the Matrix, but it's run by Homer Simpson. Yikes

    --
    "I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin"
    1. Re:wait... by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... interesting hypothesis. If we assume as given that AI will start as a rudimentary intelligence (Homeresque, if you will) and would gather much initial data from the Internet, specifically sites for Nerds (Slashdot) it is entirely possible that AI would derive a human fascination with sex and doughnuts, thus leading to the creation of a toroidal universe for the human control matrix.

      Mmmm... doughnuts...

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
  16. Obligatory free link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
  17. Homer was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched Homer Simpson tell Stephen Hawking that a couple of days ago. Hawking even told him that it was an interesting possibility.

    I didn't think that The Simpsons could predict the future.

    1. Re:Homer was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU AND YOUR 4 MILLION SIMPSONS-REFERENCING FRIENDS ARE NOT FUNNY, ASSHOLE.

      This will be posted in response to each and every "huh huh, homer wuz write!" post in this thread. Enjoy!

      ad721qfqkrsf

  18. Donut? by ASDFer · · Score: 1

    What kind of donut? Cream/jelly filled? Eclair? I think it's BAGEL Shaped!

    --
    It's ASDFing to the Ultra!!!!!
  19. I'm no whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative



    March 11, 2003
    Universe as Doughnut: New Data, New Debate
    By DENNIS OVERBYE

    ong ago in the dawn of the computer age, college students often whiled away the nights playing a computer game called Spacewar. It consisted of two rocket ships attempting to blast each other out of the sky with torpedoes while trying to avoid falling into a star at the center of the screen.

    Although cartoonish in appearance, the game was amazingly faithful to the laws of physics, complete with a gravitational field that affected both the torpedoes and the rockets. Only one feature seemed outlandish: a ship that drifted off the edge of the screen would reappear on the opposite side.

    Real space couldn't work that way.

    Or could it?

    Imagine that the Spacewar screen is wrapped around to form a cylinder or a section of a doughnut so that the two edges meet.

    That is the picture of space, some cosmologists say, that has been suggested by a new detailed map of the early universe. Their analysis of this map has now provided a series of hints -- though only hints -- that the universe may have a more complicated shape than astronomers presumed.

    Rather than being infinite in all directions, as the most fashionable theory suggests, the universe could be radically smaller in one direction than the others. As a result it may be even be shaped like a doughnut.

    "There's a hint in the data that if you traveled far and fast in the direction of the constellation Virgo, you'd return to Earth from the opposite direction," said Dr. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

    The new data have generated both buzz and skepticism among cosmologists in recent weeks. Dr. Tegmark and other astronomers agree that the measurements are far from conclusive, or even persuasive about the shape of the universe.

    But if true, the doughnut universe would force cosmologists to reconsider their theories about what happened in the earliest moments after the universe was born in the Big Bang; those theories predict an infinite cosmos.

    The new findings have brought to center stage the hope that astronomers may be able to test speculations about the shape, or topology, of the universe that until recently have been relegated to the abstract mathematical margins of cosmology.

    The results are part of the bounty of data produced by a NASA satellite known as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, built and operated by an international collaboration led by Dr. Charles L. Bennett of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The satellite recorded the pattern of heat, in the form of faint microwave radiation, that fills the sky.

    This radiation is believed to be the afterglow of the Big Bang itself, and thus constitutes a portrait of the universe when it was only 380,000 years old.

    As the COBE satellite first confirmed in 1992, the microwave cloud is laced with ripples and splotches -- lumps in the cosmic gravy -- from which galaxies and other cosmic structures would ultimately form.

    According to theory, these lumps are born as microscopic fluctuations during the first instant of time and then amplified into sound waves as the universe expands and matter and energy slosh around.

    Now the new satellite has illuminated the findings of COBE (pronounced KOE-bee, for Cosmic Background Explorer) in exquisite detail.

    By analyzing these waves cosmologists can determine many of the characteristics of the universe, which scientists have long debated, like its age and density. To their delight, the first results from the Wilkinson satellite, released last month, confirmed many of the strange ideas that cosmologists entertained in the last decade, including the notion that most of the universe consists of something called dark energy, which is pushing space apart at an accelerating rate.

    "Cosmologists have built a house of cards and it stands," said Dr. James Peebles, a cosmologist at Princeton.

    But to their even greater delight, perhaps, as they dig into the trove released last month, cosmologists are finding hints of even more strangeness.

    In principle, in an infinite universe, the waves in the cosmic fireball should appear randomly around the sky at all sizes. But, according to the new map, there seems to be a limit to the size of the waves, with none extending more than 60 degrees across the sky.

    The effect was first noted as a puzzle in the COBE data, according to Dr. Gary Hinshaw, an astronomer at the Goddard Space Flight Center and a member of the Wilkinson probe team, and now seems confirmed.

    If the universe were a guitar string, it would be missing its deepest notes, the ones with the longest wavelengths, perhaps because it is not big enough to sustain them.

    "The fact that there appears to be an angular cutoff hints at a special distance scale in the universe," Dr. Hinshaw said.

    Another analysis of the new map suggests that there is a special direction, as well as a special scale in the universe. While reanalyzing the Wilkinson data to eliminate radio noise from stars and our own galaxy, Dr. Tegmark, Dr. Angélica de Oliveira-Costa, also at Pennsylvania and married to Dr. Tegmark, and Dr. Andrew J. S. Hamilton of the University of Colorado have discovered that the universe appears lumpier in one direction through space than it does in another. When they combed finer variations out of the map, the remaining large-scale variations formed a line across the sky.

    It could be a chance alignment, a statistical fluke, Dr. Tegmark said, or contamination from radio noise from the galaxy.

    But in a paper posted on the physics Web site (at arXiv.org/pdf /astro-ph/0302496) late last month, the three cosmologists wrote that it was "difficult not to be intrigued" that their results bore all the earmarks of what are variously called small, compact, finite or periodic universes.

    If the universe is finite in one dimension, like a cylinder or a doughnut, Dr. Tegmark said in an interview, there is a limit to the size of clumps that can fit in that direction. They couldn't be bigger than the universe in that direction, just as a guitar string can only play a note so low, depending on its length. So the biggest blobs would have to squish out in a plane in other directions. The way home around the doughnut would be perpendicular to that plane.

    Nobody is yet claiming that this is a revolution. The notion of a special direction is on less firm ground than the discovery of a cutoff of large structures. "More detailed work in needed to clarify what's going on," Dr. Tegmark said.

    Dr. Martin Rees, a cosmologist at Cambridge University," said he didn't think there was evidence for "anything crazy" in the data.

    Even aficionados of finite universes are guarded. Dr. David Spergel, a Princeton cosmologist and Wilkinson satellite team member, called the results "intriguing," but cautioned that they could also be due to chance.

    Dr. Hinshaw called the findings of Dr. Tegmark's team "surprisingly robust," but added, "I'm not sure it says something profound about the universe."

    Dr. Alexei Starobinski, a theorist at the Landau Institute in Moscow, proposed in 1984 with his mentor, Dr. Yakov B. Zeldovich, that the universe could have been born as a doughnut. Dr. Starobinski emphasized that an infinite universe with ordinary Euclidean geometry was the most natural universe and still favored by theory.

    "However, theory is theory, but observations might tell us something different," he said in an e-mail message.

    The Science of Shapes
    A Compact Universe
    Like Mirrored Halls

    The new work involves topology, the branch of mathematics that deals with shapes. Topologists are often accused of not knowing the difference between a coffee mug and a doughnut; because each object has one hole, the two can be deformed into each other and are thus topologically equivalent. In a similar vein, a figure 8 and a pair of eyeglass frames are also the same to a topologist. The more holes, the more complicated the topology.

    The simplest topology is just the infinite space of the Euclidean geometry taught in high school. But some cosmologists have a hard time calculating how an infinite universe could have appeared in that kind of space. Nature, they contend, might have had an easier time making a small "compact" universe than an infinite one, and they assume Nature would take the easy way out.

    "The basic idea is that God's on a budget," said Dr. George Smoot, a physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and a leader on the COBE team.

    The simplest of these compact universes is something called a 3-torus, a doughnut wrapped in three different dimensions. This object is essentially impossible to visualize: it is the equivalent, in a way, of a cube whose opposite sides are somehow glued together. In two dimensions it works just like the Spacewar screen.

    Living in such a universe would be like being inside a hall of mirrors, Dr. Tegmark said. Instead of seeing new stars deeper and deeper in space, you see the same things over and over again as light travels out one side of your cube and back in the other.

    This mirror game is not limited to cubes and doughnuts. Over the years mathematicians, particularly Dr. William Paul Thurston, now at the University of California at Davis, and Dr. Jeffrey Weeks, an independent mathematician, have speculated about universes composed of various polyhedrons glued together in various ways.

    In 1996 the French astronomer Dr. Jean-Pierre Luminet of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues Dr. Roland Lehoucq and Dr. Marc Lachieze-Rey, both of the Center for Astrophysical Studies in Saclay, France, developed a method called "cosmic crystallography," using galaxy statistics to detect and diagnose the repeating periodic patterns that would be created in the sky by light going around and around in differently shaped universe.

    Finite or Infinite?
    Problems Are Posed
    For Favored Theory

    Why would the universe want to do this to us? Partly to avoid the difficulties of the infinite, said Dr. Glenn Starkman, an astronomer at the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Besides being difficult to create, an infinite universe is philosophically unattractive. In an infinite volume, he pointed out, anything that can happen will happen.

    "Somewhere there are two guys having this same conversation," Dr. Starkman said in a telephone interview, "except that one of them has a purple phone."

    Moreover, the idea that dimensions could be curled in loops occurs naturally in theories that try to unite gravity and particle physics, several physicists pointed out. For example, according to string theory, the leading candidate for a theory of everything, the universe actually has 10 dimensions -- 9 of space and 1 of time -- rather than the 4 we are familiar with. The extra dimensions are curled up into submicroscopic loops, like the threads in an uncut carpet pile, so that we don't notice them in ordinary life.

    "This is the same idea on a very large scale," Dr. Smoot said.

    Knowing that all nine of the spatial dimensions predicted by string theory are finite and thus on the same footing could help string theorists decide among the nearly endless possibilities allowed by the theory, scientists say.

    But a finite universe would create big problems for the reigning theory of the Big Bang, inflation theory. It posits that the universe underwent a burst of hyperexpansion in its earliest moments. Among other things, it implies that the observable universe today, a bubble 28 billion light-years in diameter, is only a speck on the surface of a vastly greater realm trillions upon trillions of light-years across.

    "There's no natural way yet proposed to get the inflation to stop and give a space that's big enough to house all the galaxies but small enough to see within the observable horizon," said Dr. Janna Levin, a Cambridge University cosmologist who wrote about finite universes in her 1992 book, "How the Universe Got Its Spots, Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space."

    Dr. Spergel added, "If the universe were finite, then this would rule out inflation and require something new."

    The Search for Patterns
    One Convincing Sign
    Of the Doughnut

    So far, sporadic searches for repeating patterns of quasars or distant galaxy clusters that would occur in a hall of mirrors universe have been unsuccessful.

    For finite universe aficionados, the first encouragement of note was COBE's discovery that the universe appeared to be deficient in large-scale fluctuations. There were no structures extending more than about 60 degrees across the sky. But the finding was subject to large statistical uncertainties, astronomers said.

    There are other possible explanations for the cutoff in fluctuation size, Dr. Starkman explained. According to inflation the biggest longest waves are created first, and thus the missing notes are the earliest ones that would have been strummed by inflation's guitar. Perhaps, he said, this is telling us something about the beginning of inflation.

    Dr. George Efstathiou of Cambridge University has pointed out in a recent paper submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society that the Wilkinson satellite data are also marginally consistent with yet another finite shape, namely a sphere. In that case, fluctuations larger than the radius of the sphere might be dampened, he said, producing the observed cutoff.

    The most convincing sign of a doughnut universe, if it exists, astronomers say, could come from a search of the satellite data now being performed by Dr. Spergel, Dr. Starkman and Dr. Neil J. Cornish of Montana State University. "We're looking for circles in the sky," Dr. Starkman said.

    In a 1998 paper they point out that if the universe is small enough, part of the cosmic background radiation, which essentially fills the sky surrounding us, will hit the sides of the "box" or the space war screen we are in and appear on the other side. The result, in the simplest case, would be identical circles on opposite sides of the sky with the same patterns of hot and cold running around them.

    In the simplest case, the size of the circles would depend on the distance between the "walls" of the universe: the smaller the universe, the bigger the circles.

    Success or even a definitive failure is not guaranteed. "It would be fantastic if something like that was found," Dr. Hinshaw said of the circles.

    But success or even a definitive failure is not guaranteed. If the universe is finite but still much larger than today's observable universe -- 28 billion light-years in diameter -- the circles will not show. "Usually in science when we see an intriguing pattern that appears to contradict existing theory we do a better experiment," Dr. Spergel wrote in an e-mail message, but in this case, "Ultimately we will be limited by the fact that we can only observe the `visible' universe."

    Dr. Levin was doubtful, "I suspect every last one of us would be flabbergasted if the universe was so small," she said in an e-mail message. When she first heard about the new satellite data, she reported, "I tried on the idea that we were really and truly seeing the finite extent of space and I was filled with dread.

    "But I'm enjoying it too."

    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

  20. Re:Mmm...doughnut.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  21. Stephen Hawking discussed this.... by cxmarin · · Score: 1

    ...on the Simpsons. It was Homer's idea, actually. And now that I think about it, I think that was actually Larry Flint...

    --
    Don't you hate pants?
    1. Re:Stephen Hawking discussed this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU AND YOUR 4 MILLION SIMPSONS-REFERENCING FRIENDS ARE NOT FUNNY, ASSHOLE.

      This will be posted in response to each and every "huh huh, homer wuz write!" post in this thread. Enjoy!

      15jg4325h

  22. Mmmmm.... by n3rd · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....cosmic size donut with solar sprinkles.

    /me drools

  23. That explains it by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1

    Since doughnuts can be deformed from coffee cups, it explains why caffeine makes my world go around.

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  24. Observations by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Then in theory, we'd be able to see the same part of space from two vantage points, assuming that they're not farther away from us than the distance that light could have travelled since the universe came into being, assuming that one believes in the big bang theory.

    So, would this mean that if we can't see one point from two directions now, that if we suddenly can, we've reached the halfway point of the life of the universe? Would we lose the redshift in favour of a green shift?

    --

    IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
    And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
    1. Re:Observations by fredrikj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Though I could be wrong, I think the opposite of redshift is blueshift, not greenshift.

    2. Re:Observations by The_K4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes we could see "the half way" point, however there red shift would NOT become green shift (there is no such thing) or blue shift (which does exist) because each point of view would still see things in that direction as getting further away. Think of the donught getting larger....just becuase you know where the oppisites side is doesn't mean taht things getting further from the right get closer to the left. In fact it wouldn't even effect the amount of redshift.

    3. Re:Observations by wurp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, firstly, it has long been thought that the universe was closed. This is just suggesting that the universe might be topologically equivalent to the equivalent of the hypersurface of a hypertoroid, rather than the hypersurface of a hypersphere, as previously assumed.

      Secondly, the opposite of a red-shift is a blue-shift. The complementary nature of red and green is a property of human eyes, not of the light itself. Red light is lower in energy; blue light is higher. Things rushing away from us as space expands would leave light from distant objects moving more slowly relative to us if not for special relativistic effects. With the effects, the energy of the light is reduced. However, you're right... when an object is approaching you, light from it is blue-shifted, and that would be what we should expect when the universe starts collapsing.

    4. Re:Observations by chrisseaton · · Score: 1

      Greenshift? What the fuck is that?

      I think you mean Blueshift.

    5. Re:Observations by c0wh · · Score: 1

      When you suddenly see the same object in two directions, it means you will have a very finite estimation of the size of the universe, not necessarily its lifespan.

      I do imagine that one image would be redshifted and the other blueshifted.

    6. Re:Observations by Dua · · Score: 1

      We could in theory be seeing the same point twice now and not realised it, as it's actually very difficult to tell: remember that if the light has traversed the universe and then landed on the other side again it's taken quite a long time, in which the galaxy/quasar will have evolved. It's a possible way to definitively say that our universe is a hypertorus, but not the easiest!

    7. Re:Observations by zipwow · · Score: 1

      How does this 'torus getting larger' (I'm eschewing the 'donut') idea relate to the space in the middle of the torus?

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    8. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Tell that a cop.

      But the light was blue, honest!

      YHBT HAND!

    9. Re:Observations by Dan+D. · · Score: 1

      I don't think this changes anything in regard to whether or not we should be able to see something half-way around. As I always heard before the assumption was that its like being on the surface of a balloon. (I have no idea the manifold differences between a balloon and a donut other than how it maps onto a 2d plane.) But the reason for the explanation of the balloon was that as you blow up a balloon all points move away from each other. Even those half-way around (where you could potentially see 4 copies from left right up and down. (Oh, hmm, I guess if it were on a donut you'd see only two copies as opposed to 4) Anyway if we do see a greenshift then it means the universe is collapsing again and you should panic... or at least reserve your seats at the Restaurant.

      --
      People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
    10. Re:Observations by Cleveland+Steamer · · Score: 1

      Maybe he is color blind! :-)

    11. Re:Observations by Cleveland+Steamer · · Score: 1

      If the universe is torus shaped, then there is no space in the middle of the torus!

    12. Re:Observations by oni · · Score: 1

      ding! 2 points for the reference.

    13. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shot against the Red Yellow Blue folk...

    14. Re:Observations by Dan+D. · · Score: 1

      Probably "A Brief History of Time" but I remember originally hearing about the balloon thing in the 8th grade (14 years ago). Hawking and Penrose still, but it predates the book. Actually I'll just give the reference to my 8th grade teacher. If you can find her you can ask her for a reference :)

      --
      People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
    15. Re:Observations by luzrek · · Score: 1
      Think of all the weakly interacting objects in space (that which interacts via gravity over a long distance, Ex. galaxies) as being linked by straws. As the overall volume of the universe increases the straws must get longer to maintain the same relative spacing. AKA everything is moving away from us.

      In the three versions of cosmic doom, the universe can end up colapsing, expanding quickly at first and then slowing down, or expanding faster and faster until it basically falls apart. In the first case Einstein's Equations (General relativity) lead to a concave universe, the second leads to a flat universe, and the last leads to a convex universe. The only one of these forms that is really easy to picture is the flat universe since it is pretty much what we live in. The concavity or convexity of the universe has mainly to do with how to find the shortest distance between two points. Basically math becomes a pain in the a** because the derivative becomes location dependant.

      --

      Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

    16. Re:Observations by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      the universe isn't the space in the middle, it's the surface area, (remember this is a 3-d representation of a 4-d problem. In this "flat world" (as it's been called before) has only X and Y axies. There in no height....so it would be impossible to get off the surface of the donught into the middle....

    17. Re:Observations by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then in theory, we'd be able to see the same part of space from two vantage points

      SETI: "We found a signal! Yipeee! Wait, Is that a Toyota commercial? Damn! It is just us."

    18. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oops. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought:

      or at least reserve your seats at the Restaurant. ...was a reference to the hitchhiker's guide and the _restarant at the end of the universe_.

    19. Re:Observations by DerKlempner · · Score: 1

      Things rushing away from us as space expands would leave light from distant objects moving more slowly relative to us if not for special relativistic effects. With the effects, the energy of the light is reduced. However, you're right... when an object is approaching you, light from it is blue-shifted, and that would be what we should expect when the universe starts collapsing.

      Set in a closed universe and based on the concept of red-shift and blue-shift, wouldn't each object - when viewed from any vantage point - be visible to the viewer as a red-shift object in one direction and a blue-shift object in the opposite direction? Isn't the object - when viewed from one direction - moving away from you, but when viewed from the opposite direction, it's moving towards the viewer?

      So how would we know if the universe is expanding, contracting, or stabilized?

      --
      UNIX: Find it, fsck it, forget it.
    20. Re:Observations by Dan+D. · · Score: 1

      Ah. That too :)

      --
      People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
    21. Re:Observations by wurp · · Score: 1

      Yes, except from one direction the object is much, much farther (the circumference of the universe) from you. In fact, I believe the current assumption is that the circumference of the universe is larger than the amount of time it would take light to go around the circumference in the age of the universe, so you can't see the light from the object moving toward you since the universe hasn't been around long enough for it to get to you.

    22. Re:Observations by nusuth · · Score: 1

      It is possible (and AFAICT, actually the case) that the object in question is moving away in both directions if the spacetime is expanding.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    23. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One shift, two shift, red shift, blue shift.

    24. Re:Observations by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 1

      Because space itself is getting bigger, you would just see the opposite sides of the object both being redshifted.
      Think of space as the Ocean. You're on a boat and a friend another boat is sounding a horn. Neither you nor your friend is "moving" but the water itself is getting less dense which pushes you way from each other. Pretend you are on a small only-water planet. You can hear your friend's horn getting quieter and in lower pitch as the planet-ocean expands. It's a really loud horn that the water somehow doesn't transmit but the air does (and the air miraculously doens't change density.) and you both have floated to the opposite sides of the planet. Now you hear the down-shifted sound coming from all directions.
      Because the planet is getting bigger, you aren't getting closer to your friend from either side, but his horn is so loud you can still hear it, but with doppler-effect away from all sides.

      IMarv

    25. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice nick. I miss O & A.

    26. Re:Observations by kfx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Imagine space as a rubber sheet with a grid of dots (atoms/particles/etc) on it; as space expands ( you stretch the sheet in all directions) all of the dots get farther from each other. My understanding is that matter itself isn't really flying outward, but space itself is stretching so that everything seems to be growing farther apart (so no matter where you're looking from, light gets redshifted). Recent studies lead to the conclusion that eventually the rubber sheet of space will be stretched so much that the dots (atoms/particles/etc) will be so far apart that the attractive forces cannot bind them any longer; at that point the universe undergoes the "Big Rip" and everything disintegrates into nothingness....

    27. Re:Observations by drunkToaster · · Score: 1

      And the laws of thermodynamics are finally and completly satisfied.

    28. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the object - when viewed from one direction - moving away from you, but when viewed from the opposite direction, it's moving towards the viewer?


      Not necessarily. Compare two points on an expanding torus. There is a "short path" from one point to another, and a "long path" (going the other way around). But both paths increase in length as the torus expands, and so you will get a redshifted image if you look either way.
    29. Re:Observations by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      Actually, it gets better. In theory, if you looked far enough with a strong enough telescope, you could see the back of your own head...

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    30. Re:Observations by kevlar · · Score: 1


      Green shift? You mean Blue Shift.

      This would also mean that the same junk that was flung out from the big bang could eventually collide.

      I personally don't buy it however.

    31. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many kids?

    32. Re:Observations by DancingSword · · Score: 3, Funny

      Greenshift: when something is standing still at high relativistic velocity.

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
    33. Re:Observations by Kompressor · · Score: 1

      Feed that one to the travelling salesman!

      --
      kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
    34. Re:Observations by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      What's this about shooting Blue Man Group?

    35. Re:Observations by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Only if you were bald (chrome-dome), standing outside, and not obscured by any celestial bodies.

      Sure, it's possible to see through matter, but ... not yet. Otherwise we'd have working X-Ray glasses, like James Bond does. :)

    36. Re:Observations by AlecC · · Score: 1

      There does not need, actually, to be an embedding 4-space holding our 3-torus. Toroidal just describes the properties of space.

      Go back to the Spacewars game described in the article. The space in which those shipe manoievered has the properties of a torus: there ere many independanc circles you could follow (all the verticals on the screen) which would each bring you back to your start point without crossing any other verticals. These correspond to going around inside the donus, passing (in out 3-space) through the hole.

      There are also a load of horizontals with the same property. These correspond to going round the donut along the ring. Again, many parallel lines get back to their start point without crossing.

      But this is a flat screen. Where is the hole in the donut? There is no hole, is is just that the space behaves as if there were a hole.

      Another interesting point is that we reagd the donut as havin an orientation. it lies flat on the table, this its hoole vertical. But in the spacewars game, horizontal and vertical are interchangeable. The hole is no more, and bo less, above/below the screen than it is left/right of the screen. In fact the "hole" is the whole of 3 space *not* in the plane of the screen: everywhere that out little 2-d spaceship cannot reach even if we allow the screen surface logically to extend to infinity.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    37. Re:Observations by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Can you hear me now?

      Good!

    38. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The universe is expanding too quickly to make objects visible from several directions.

      If light propagated instantaneously, the entire sky would be bright (because in every possible direction, there would be a light-emitting object).

    39. Re:Observations by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      But this is a flat screen. Where is the hole in the donut? There is no hole...

      I think you may have just created the first koan for Krispy Kreme Buddhism.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    40. Re:Observations by zod1025 · · Score: 1
      The space in which those shipe manoievered has the properties of a torus:

      Why a torus, and not a hypersphere? All throughout this article, folks have chimed in "Of course, it's a torus, duh" but nobody has said why a torus would be more fitting than a hypersphere. In either shape, you can travel in any direction and return to where you started, but the hypersphere certainly seems more intuitive to me.

      Any thoughts?

      --

      -ZOD-
    41. Re:Observations by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      Because for most people the torus is the more intuitive creation....hyperspheres exist in 4 spacial dimensions, and not everyone can picture those easily. :)

    42. Re:Observations by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

      actually if you looked far enough with a strong enought telecscope - wouldnt you see the opposite side of earth since you would be viewing it from the opposite direction you are looking into space?

    43. Re:Observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The space in which those shipe manoievered has the properties of a torus:

      Why a torus, and not a hypersphere? All throughout this article, folks have chimed in "Of course, it's a torus, duh" but nobody has said why a torus would be more fitting than a hypersphere.


      The Spacewar "universe" was a torus, because that's the space you get when you take a rectangular region and topologically identify opposing boundaries. For instance, imagine running a horizontal line from one side of the screen to another. This corresponds to a loop around a torus. You can tell because you can't smoothly shrink it down to a point. If the space were a sphere, you could.

      Or, if you were talking about why our universe is being discussed as a torus, that's what the preliminary data indicate. But they're pretty crude and the whole claim could go away.
    44. Re:Observations by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Simply that an unwrapped torus has the same properties as the Spacewars screen, and an unwrapped sphere does not. If it were a sphere, the top and bottom of the screen would be a single point. Space should distort as you approach the top, so that as you approach the top of the screen you fill all space, and you reappear not at the same point at the bottom of the screen but at its mirror image.

      A toroidal space in 2D has two preferred axes - the X and Y axes of the Spacewars game. A sphere has no preferred axis. The microwave background seems to show preferred axis, which suggests that space may have such a preferred axis and hence possibly not a hypersphere.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    45. Re:Observations by jcast · · Score: 1

      That'd make a good SF story---many centuries from now, a generation star ship makes ``first contact'' with a ship that turns out to be a later generation star ship.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
    46. Re:Observations by nizo · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking, boy are we going to feel stupid when we launch a ship to check out what looks like a habitable star, only to arrive back here. Suddenly the plot from the original "Planet of the Apes" makes more sense however.

    47. Re:Observations by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      boy are we going to feel stupid when we launch a ship to check out what looks like a habitable star, only to arrive back here.

      There was a sci-fi movie called something like Dopliganger that more or less had that plot.

    48. Re:Observations by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      If light was continuing to go on and on like that, coming around from the other side for another pass so we could see it again, then with all the lightsources that have been born since and continue to burn, wouldn't the universe be getting gradually brighter and brighter?

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Shaped like a donut. by ewhenn · · Score: 2, Funny

    That is kinda vague. What kind of donut, as we all know the jelly filled ones take on a different shape than a fritter.

    1. Re:Shaped like a donut. by shamilton · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they mean a four-dimensional donut, such that it's possible to travel forever in 3d space. Much like you can arrange 2d space into a 3d donut and create an infinite surface.

      shrug.

      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    2. Re:Shaped like a donut. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps one of us will RTFA and find out. Perhaps even you!

  27. doughnut? by fragged+one · · Score: 0

    ich bin ein berliner ~ jfk proof that he is god *ducks*

    --
    if it wasn't for that horse, i wouldn't have spent that year in college.....
    1. Re:doughnut? by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when do jelly donuts have holes?

      You're violating the fifth law of thermodonutdynamics here ... ... as well as SpaceCorps directive 97G!

      (97G: No officer will false teeth shall attempt oral sex in a zero gravity environment.)

  28. hrm. by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1

    Would that make the Milky Way and other galaxies the sprinkles on the galactic doughnut? And, do you think the rich, chocolatey coating represents "dark matter" or the other way 'round?

    Would doughnut holes be alternate universes? Or does God just use the holes to carry the doughnut(s) around on his fingers?

    I'm going to go get drunk and ponder this...

  29. I've actually often wondered this. by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

    Not the doughnut shaped part, because I wasn't sure if it would be render-able in a three dimension shape, but rather just connected at the ends, if that makes sense. I always though it would be interesting to take a light speed trip around the universe and see how humans end up doing in a bzillion years. (that's the scientific term for a lot, I think).

  30. mmm....donuts... by bravehamster · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I had a math teacher at the Naval Academy that specialized in donut-shaped mathematics. I bet he's calling up all his math friends right now and yelling at them "See! I told you I wasn't wasting my time!" He did have a really cool poster of the earth if it were shaped like a donut and he spent several class periods describing what the gravity and climate would be like on such a world.

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    1. Re:mmm....donuts... by Limited+Vision · · Score: 1

      OK, I bite (no pun intended.) What *would* the weather and gravity be like on such a world?

      Depending on how it spun, you could have areas in permanent shadow. Gravity would be interesting on the edge of the donut hole...

  31. Let the jokes begin... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    ... since the longest distance possible in the universe is going forward to what one is having behind, I think that not all will be so nice.

  32. Donuts... by ekephart · · Score: 1

    Is there anything they can't do?

    mmmmm Universe...

    --
    sig
    1. Re:Donuts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU AND YOUR 4 MILLION SIMPSONS-REFERENCING FRIENDS ARE NOT FUNNY, ASSHOLE.

      This will be posted in response to each and every "huh huh, homer wuz write!" post in this thread. Enjoy!

      ad721q5y45aq

    2. Re:Donuts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you are even less funny, asswipe!

  33. Other sources for this story? by CresentCityRon · · Score: 1

    I found the story very interesting but skipping over the details to keep it lively. I would be interested in reading something of the level of Scientific American on this elsewhere on the web.

    The article made it seem like this idea is far from proven. If it IS so wacky then why such attention paid to it?

    1. Re:Other sources for this story? by pla · · Score: 1

      I would be interested in reading something of the level of Scientific American on this elsewhere on the web.

      Do you read the same SciAm that I do?

      Their coverage of it, following their recent trend, would run something like a sociological study of how the validation of some long-dead Central American indian tribe's doughnut-based cosmology impacts the plight of modern clear-cut-rainforest-land cattle ranchers in Peru.

      They might find a way to throw something about how a toroidal universe demonstrates the need to increase funding to fight AIDS in S.Africa.

      Heh... Sorry for the rant. Actually the previous few issues haven't sucked *nearly* so bad as last year's run. But it just really annoys me the BS they pawn off on readers lately. If I could afford it, I'd dump SciAm and subscribe to "Science", but, alas, $125/year for a magazine (actually a "journal", but a pretty soft one as research journals go) seems kinda steep. ;-)

  34. Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already... by Omega · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did anyone here actually *read* A Brief History of Time? Hawking described how the gravity of the universe may be so intense that it causes the universe to wrap around into a spherical shape. Of course this was just a theory back when he wrote the book.

  35. Please don't insult my intelligence... by ubiquitin · · Score: 0

    ...the shape is called a torus.

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
    1. Re:Please don't insult my intelligence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NEEERD! (ala Homer Simpson's voice)

      By the way, your a nob Mr. Intelligence.

    2. Re:Please don't insult my intelligence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...the shape is called a torus.


      It's called "a tubey-looking thingie", Poindexter.
    3. Re:Please don't insult my intelligence... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Come to think of it, there are several shapes doughnuts can come in. Yeah, there's the torus, but there's also just the "big blob of dough we injected jam/creme/etc into" shape. DDs even has some more elaborate shapes.

      So, it could be that by describing the universe as "doughnut shaped", they're merely hedging their bets. When the proof comes in that there's no hole in the middle, they'll smirk and cry "But we didn't say what type of doughnut..."

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Please don't insult my intelligence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well really a torus is only 3-Dimensional. This would be a hypertorus.

      So instead of using a highly-technical term, or going with a word that has a precise mathematical definition which does not apply in this case, they chose to go with a common term for a shape that most closely resembles what they are talking about in 3D.

  36. I can see it now.. by bigmase521 · · Score: 2, Funny

    At BASF, we don't make the Universe, we make it, more doughnut like.

    --
    "I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin"
    1. Re:I can see it now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here at 3DO, we move things, and then shake them. In that precise order.

  37. dimensions by planckscale · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A popular theory is that our universe is but a bubble (or doughnut) in a sea of other universe bubbles (or doughnuts); contained and wrapped up into about 10 dimensions. But looking at our universe from another dimension, it may have the appearance of an O or just some contorted blob of goo. This is depending on the relative point and dimension of the observer.

    --
    Namaste
    1. Re:dimensions by NegativeK · · Score: 1

      A popular theory is that our universe is but a bubble (or doughnut) in a sea of other universe bubbles (or doughnuts); contained and wrapped up into about 10 dimensions.

      You had to do it, didn't you? Now I'm going to picture our universe as a plastic bubble in bubble wrap.. I just hope some possible being that can see these universes doesn't pop us. Though, the thought of doughnut bubble wrap is appealing..

      --
      This statement is false.
    2. Re:dimensions by planckscale · · Score: 1
      To clarify my post, the strings themselves are thought to be 10 dimensions, and our 'visible' universe is I guess 4 dimensions, (3 dimensions plus space and time).

      But in regards to our bubble popping, it is possible, given the uncertainty principle, that our universe's physics could break down, wiping out our universe as we know it at the speed of light. We wouldn't know what hit us.

      --
      Namaste
    3. Re:dimensions by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would make the metaverse like a bowl of Spaghetti-Os, wouldn't it?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also depends on how much soap is used to make the suds, or whether the oil was hot enough for the deep fryer.

  38. Obvious by CodeWheeney · · Score: 1

    "And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped."

    - Sir Bedevere

    --
    C8H10N4O2 | Developer > Code
  39. You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't really new news. People have been thinking this for quite a long time. Nothing new.

  40. What is outside of the donut? by CresentCityRon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Coffee? Void? Dark Matter? Does that question even make sense? I'm not up on this and would be most interested in getting a better understanding of this.

    1. Re:What is outside of the donut? by wurp · · Score: 4, Informative

      The question is assumed to not make sense. The surface of a torus has topological properties similar to that of the universe (according to the article). It's just a statement about what happens when you move a long way in one direction and how points in the universe can be reached from one another, not an assertion that the universe is sitting in some hyperdimensional 'space' outside the universe.

    2. Re:What is outside of the donut? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      Little donuts are for eating. Big donuts are for sitting on. Just ask someone hemroids.

      This may explain why the universe was created. God has a bad case of hemroids.

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    3. Re:What is outside of the donut? by nusuth · · Score: 1

      Why do we even assume a simple symmetrical shape? For example, what is to stop universe from being Klein bottle shaped? Or perhaps the universe is a hypersphere, but has dimples like a golf ball. I'm really curious.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    4. Re:What is outside of the donut? by planckscale · · Score: 1

      A different dimension. Maybe another alternate universe. Our donut may be one of many other donuts. As far as 4th-dimensional creatures like us our concerned, if you could look from 'outside' our universe, everything could look like a big blob within a dark void, or what you should ask yourself is what would our universe look like from the inside? Superstrings may be tiny (Planck's Scale) looped strings wrapped up into 10 dimensions. Should you be able to consiously envelope yourself within one of these dimensions, most likely, time, space, light, and sound wouldn't be anything like you know it.

      --
      Namaste
    5. Re:What is outside of the donut? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why do we even assume a simple symmetrical shape? For example, what is to stop universe from being Klein bottle shaped? Or perhaps the universe is a hypersphere, but has dimples like a golf ball. I'm really curious.

      If the universe began as a point object (planck-scale sized) and was extremely uniform to begin with, then this uniformity would be reflected in its shape later in life.

      OTOH, some of the newer ideas about scalar fields and self-replicating universes would give a contorted, infinitely complex shape on a large scale (imbalances would magnify themselves).

      The simplest answer is "because it makes the math easier" (cue mathematician/physicist/engineer jokes...).

    6. Re:What is outside of the donut? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Informative

      A different dimension. Maybe another alternate universe. Our donut may be one of many other donuts. As far as 4th-dimensional creatures like us our concerned, if you could look from 'outside' our universe, everything could look like a big blob within a dark void

      As the donut (or sphere or what-have-you) represents space itself, the concept of something "outside" it doesn't really work. Only relationships between different parts of the universe are defined. Treating the universe as the surface of some object is just a trick to make it easier to visualize (otherwise it would just be a set of functions defining relationships between points).

      Some of the inflationary models put the universe we can interact with within a larger space, but that just gives us disjoint parts of one larger universe. Much like the event horizon of a black hole, the interface between them would represent a boundary across which interaction and information flow is restricted, and different space/time coordinate systems would be used inside and outside them. (The inflationary bubble looks like an infinite space from the inside and an expanding bubble from the outside; all points on the boundary look like they're at the beginning of time from the inside.)

      So, no Voyager-esque bright expanding shell or external vantage point in the simplest scenario, and something a bit different from what you're probably envisioning in the various inflationary models that posit bubbles within larger spaces.

    7. Re:What is outside of the donut? by entrigant · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyways knows. Does anything exist outside of it? Even empty space must exist. Dark Matter, "Void", whatever you might think would be there must exist, but from what I'd guess there is no existance beyond well... existance. It's a little crazy to think about, and your mind may be extremely unwilling to accept such an idea, but I'd imagine it's the case. Dimension and time wouldn't be out there, as those are part of our universe. You really get into some freaky concepts when you turn your thought in this direction... if nothing existed, if there was no reality... there would be no shape, no form, no time, no space... nothing is not a strong enough word.

      Hope this helps at least a little. Though there might be some actual theories out there. IIRC string theory includes the possibility of other universes existing in a multiverse, but then... what's outside the multiverse ;)?

    8. Re:What is outside of the donut? by wurp · · Score: 1

      Well, the curvature of space-time is caused by gravity, according to general relativity. Every mass in the universe causes a dimple. The net effect of those dimples is believed to bend the universe back in on itself to form a closed hypersurface.

      In the past, the shape was believed to be topologically spherical. Apparently, someone's now suggesting that the shape is toroidal. In fact, though, a cube, your average rock, a tube closed at both ends, etc. are all topologically a sphere. To determine if something is topologically a sphere, pretend the surface is infinitely stretchable. If you can deform the object into a sphere, then the object is topologically a sphere. Now, there is no way to deform the surface of a doughnut into a sphere. So, a sphere is topologically distinct from a torus.

      I don't think any reputable physicists believe that the universe is a perfect sphere or doughnut. This article is arguing that the universe is a lumpy, dimply shape that is the topological equivalent of a torus, as opposed to a lumpy, dimply shape that is the topological equivalent of a sphere.

    9. Re:What is outside of the donut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we even assume a simple symmetrical shape?


      We don't have to, but we tend to, since it's the simplest hypothesis that fits the facts.


      For example, what is to stop universe from being Klein bottle shaped?


      It's hard to define consistent field theories on non-orientable manifolds.


      Or perhaps the universe is a hypersphere, but has dimples like a golf ball.


      If it does have large "dimples", they'd have to be outside of the observable universe, because the part we can observe is really flat.
    10. Re:What is outside of the donut? by superyooser · · Score: 1

      You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down.

    11. Re:What is outside of the donut? by zenyu · · Score: 1


      As the donut (or sphere or what-have-you) represents space itself, the concept of something "outside" it doesn't really work. Only relationships between different parts of the universe are defined. Treating the universe as the surface of some object is just a trick to make it easier to visualize (otherwise it would just be a set of functions defining relationships between points).


      If you define the universe as everything related to the Big Bang, then we couldn't we conceivably interact with other universes? A part of our universe could already be interacting with a "nearby" universe resulting from another big bang or some previous collision of universes(it's effects would only travel 1ft/ns, light very slow on the cosmic scale, or if you're trying to make fast processors, but that's another discussion.) The whole assumption of the closed universe under this definition doesn't preclude another universe far enough away that it is outside of the envelope that forces, like gravity and electric(static/magnetism), from can travel from within our universe. But this doesn't preclude universes expanding into each other, does it? This would change the nature of the envelope, the genus would skyrocket while the lumpy bits collided, then close to only a few holes. I have a hard time thinking of the universe being in motion, but say there was an initial motion to the big bang 'particle' wouldn't that motion remain, if it was small could we observe it? What's to say that, even if our universe and everything we observe is not moving on average, most universes aren't on the move? If so couldn't we also collide with another universe by running into it? I somehow doubt it since big bangs must be sufficiently rare or we would observe some smaller bangs within our universe, no? Still not impossible even in a closed universe under the definition. I think there is confusion because the science can only describe the observable universe, which might always be limited to the results of the big bang, while we civilians think of the universe as "everything" something we can't know about unless there is some unnatural/unlikely out from the known laws of physics.

      Of course, you can just believe in some god or mystisism to see an out, but that doesn't mean all of us can't imagine what lies outside the observable universe. Maybe it's a waste of time, but it might lead to some interesting novels or theories that inform our understanding of the 'real' observable universe.

    12. Re:What is outside of the donut? by nusuth · · Score: 1
      I'm an engineer myself so "it makes the math easier" is something I can easily relate to. I was wondering if there was any reason to believe math can't be complex.

      Initial point object's uniformity rules out Klein bottles I guess. Dimples are not a good idea either, as one of the others posters point out the large-scale topology is the question and a dimpled ball is a just as sphere as an undimpled one.

      OK, how about a universe with infinite number of holes? Initially uniformity does not rule out symmetry breaks, does it? In fact, since the universe is no more a lump of homogenous gas, there must have been some symmetry breakages.

      I have read only popular science books about topology, so if these doesn't make sense, please say so, I won't be surprised.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    13. Re:What is outside of the donut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some mite say thats where god hangs out

    14. Re:What is outside of the donut? by SlipDisc · · Score: 1

      Outside the Multiverse, I believe its the Omniverse?

      If you're into Marvel Comics ;-)

    15. Re:What is outside of the donut? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      If you define the universe as everything related to the Big Bang, then we couldn't we conceivably interact with other universes? A part of our universe could already be interacting with a "nearby" universe resulting from another big bang or some previous collision of universes(it's effects would only travel 1ft/ns, light very slow on the cosmic scale, or if you're trying to make fast processors, but that's another discussion.)

      You seem to be missing the point of my original statement - there is no larger space in which our universe and other universes exist. "Space" is only defined within our universe.

      If you MUD, think of the universe as being an ungodly-huge number of nodes (each of planck radius) connected by links. The fact that any given MUD is finite or has recognizable geometry doesn't mean you'll suddenly have a collision between PernMUSH and KillEverythingMUD.

      In summary, there is nothing accessable for our universe to interact with, in the simplest scenario.

      If inflationary bubbles are embedded in a larger space, then you just have disjoint regions of the same universe. Inflationary bubbles could collide in this scenario; the results would involve the flow of vast amounts of energy, and the intersection region would probably be moving faster than light (no visible effect, just sudden engulfing).

      However, as both inflationary bubbles would be part of the same universe, several components of the physics of each bubble would be the same. How many, no-one's sure.

      I personally don't think the embedded-bubble scenario is as plausible, because it postulates more complex behavior for the scalar field (a metastable vacuum state must exist (local minimum) above the global minimum).

    16. Re:What is outside of the donut? by Tassach · · Score: 1

      So would that mean that our universe is in the reject bin at God's donut shop?

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  41. that's interesting by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Funny

    But then what the hell is the jelly?

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:that's interesting by TheMidget · · Score: 1, Funny
      Ik bin ein Berliner!

      Beat's "Saddam is a Pretzel" any day...

    2. Re:that's interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that would be us.

    3. Re:that's interesting by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm more curious about the donut hole. If you could cut across it, you get to go faster than light.

      Of course, the trick would be figuring out how to go "that-a-way."

    4. Re:that's interesting by scotay · · Score: 1

      I think you may be confusing a 'boston creme' manifold with a cruller topology.

    5. Re:that's interesting by betis70 · · Score: 1

      >> But then what the hell is the jelly?

      EGADS! You've solved the problem of Dark Matter.

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
    6. Re:that's interesting by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      I just hope it isn't like a day old donut, then there's no way you're breaking through to the hole.

  42. So does this mean.... by kaoshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Voyager could also become the first device of our civilization to sail around the entire universe?

    1. Re:So does this mean.... by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      Like we really need that TV Series to comeback!

      THANK YOU,THANK YOU! I will be here the rest of the week!

    2. Re:So does this mean.... by gekman · · Score: 1

      And, like a cartoon boomerang, smack us in the back of the head when we're not paying attention?

      --
      Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn...
    3. Re:So does this mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Voyager could also become the first device of our civilization to sail around the entire universe?
      I do not think that Voyager is fast enough to leave our galaxy.
    4. Re:So does this mean.... by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

      but voyager only went around the galaxy, not the universe. Only in the episode of TNG did a starship travel to a different galaxy (The Traveler I think it was called)

  43. Oh, Brother... by knightinshiningarmor · · Score: 1

    All replies alluding to the Homer Simpson should be modded down... Mmmmmm Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

  44. Shape of the Universe by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

    So what is the radius?

    1. Re:Shape of the Universe by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article says that an experiment is going on that could find this out, but it is only possible to measure up to 28 billion light years which is most likely too small, even if the universe is finite.

    2. Re:Shape of the Universe by IXI · · Score: 1

      The radius is the distance of any point on the circumfence of a circle from its center.

      SCNR

      --
      He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
    3. Re:Shape of the Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, you'd have to simply define the "radius" as the circumference divided by 2pi, since the universe doesn't have a center.

    4. Re:Shape of the Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or rather the Universe might have a center which is actually not part of it.

    5. Re:Shape of the Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or rather the Universe might have a center which is actually not part of it.


      You're too attached to thinking in terms of embedding. There is no reason to picture a a curved (spherical, toroidal) universe as "curving inside a higher space".
  45. Oh, GOD NO!!!! by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

    The universe is going to end in a few minutes, as soon as Homer Simpson hears about this!!

    1. Re:Oh, GOD NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU AND YOUR 4 MILLION SIMPSONS-REFERENCING FRIENDS ARE NOT FUNNY, ASSHOLE.

      This will be posted in response to each and every "huh huh, homer wuz write!" post in this thread. Enjoy!

      ad72shwwe

  46. Noooooo by ConsoleDeamon · · Score: 1

    I dont whant the universe to be un donut ( cry ) then how can i get a house att the end of the universe

    1. Re:Noooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have a house at the end of the universe, there is already a restaurant there.

      (yeah, yeah, I know, D. Adams meant time-end and not location-end)

  47. Please don't insult my stomach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the shape is called a donut.

  48. As I was telling Weight-Watchers by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 1

    During the meeting down at Dunkin' Donuts, I explained how the torus is a great shape for confining stuff with fields (think cyclotrons, eg). This suggests that we are just part of some big experiment. When the experimenter's funding runs out, our donut is toast.

  49. Which leads to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the universe is an ever decreasingly point.

  50. Reality is adjustable... by Quazion · · Score: 1

    Just aslong enough souls believe something it becomes our reality since more and more start believing. Its like a sort of Matrix...

    One person thinks its a donut, then he convince's person two etc, etc, until the universe is what we think it is. Isnt this why science keeps coming with new improved idea's ?

    its all in our mind...happy dreaming

    1. Re:Reality is adjustable... by n3k5 · · Score: 1

      Youre right, if you find enough soul's that believe in your apostrophe placement, itll become correc't.

      --
      but what do i know, i'm just a model.
  51. Simpsons by cranos · · Score: 1

    I knew all those hours watchning the Simpsons were worth it.

  52. Space War Analogy is bad by crumley · · Score: 1, Interesting
    The Space War anlaogy for a curved universe doesn't really fit. The behavior in Spae War is discontinuous. You start out on one edge of the screen and after going past the edge of the screen, you are magically transported to the other side.

    In certain types curved universe the behavior would be quite different. If you start out going in one direction and continue going long enough, you may end up where you started. There would be nothing discontinuous about this motion though. A "straight" path in a curved universe isn't really what we would think of as straight. As you go along your "straight" path the stars that appear to be ahead of you would impercibly change as time wore on. Eventually you could end up back where you started, but considering the likely size of the Universe, it might take you longer than the age of the Universe to do it.

    Anyway, curved space is weird to think about, but not as weird as Space War.

    --
    Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
    1. Re:Space War Analogy is bad by SandSpider · · Score: 1
      Actually, the analogy is fine*, it's just that your point of reference is off. If you fixed the position of the ship in Space War so that it's always in the center of the screen, and moved everything else instead, then Space War would, topologically, fit the same way the theory proposes (except in 2D, of course - but it is an analogy).


      To put it another way, if you fixed a camera outside the universe (just pretend like there can be an outside of the universe), and watched the ship, it would have to warp around the other side from the proper camera angle.


      =Brian


      * - Um, well, I'm guessing the analogy's fine. I didn't really read the article. But presuming the parent post is correct aside from what I'm mentioning, then my post is also correct.

      --
      There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
    2. Re:Space War Analogy is bad by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      How is the SpaceWar behaviour discontinuous? It only looks that way to us as observers because our view is stationary. It could be easily reprogramed so that the view stayed centered on the ship and you would see the star and other ship disapearing into the distance behind you and reapearing in front of you.

      If the universe does work in the way proposed in the article, and you had a ship capable of traveling many _many_ times the speed of light, observers who stayed behind on earth would see the same behavior (ignoring relativity for the moment of course.) "Oh look, it disapeared off in some direction to galactic north. Oh look, it 'magically' reapeared to the galactic south!"

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    3. Re:Space War Analogy is bad by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right - it's more like Tempest!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    4. Re:Space War Analogy is bad by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      What I want to know, is does anybody have a copy of this? :D I remember my dad stealing "Big Blue Disk" disks from my Uncle's trailer back in about 1986, 1987ish. And I think that's where I first encountered Space Wars. The first video game I ever played. When you quit the game it said "may the farce be with you!" I just spent about an hour looking for this, and then other games I used to know. Anyone who was old enough back then to know what was going on care to enlighten any of us who want to grab a copy of the game to see what they're talking about?

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    5. Re:Space War Analogy is bad by Zerth · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to /. my uni server. Here's the 1985 version of spacewar(the farce one). You'll need something to slow it down.

    6. Re:Space War Analogy is bad by crumley · · Score: 1
      Well, I really got nailed on this one. I wasn't clear in what I meant, and a bunch of you called me on it.

      You are indeed correct that you can think of Space War as a curved space projected on a flat screen. I doubt that too many of the people who played the game thought of it that way, though. Space War being a projection of a curved space is not well explained in the article, and in fact he seems to emphasze the discontinuous way that most people would perceive the game.

      "Oh look, it disapeared off in some direction to galactic north. Oh look, it 'magically' reapeared to the galactic south!"
      Argh! It this kind of perception (which is similar to perceiving Space War as discontinous) that bothers me. Of course if you set up your hypothetical Universe correctly, your example would work out, but your example also makes it seem as though something discontinous happening. I think a better example is to say that in certain types of curved universes, with a powerful enough telescope, you can look off in one direction and your own backside (or the backside of your planet). This of course assumes that you can wait long enough and that nothing else moves, but then again so does your example. Also, relativity isn't really relevant - there is no reason that you need to be going faster than the speed of light for this type of scenario, you just have to wait long enough.
      --
      Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
    7. Re:Space War Analogy is bad by crumley · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I think that I've played Space War on just about every computer that I've ever owned. First, on a TRS-80, then on DOS and Windows machines, and finally on Linux.

      There are lots of clones on Space War out there. There's a java version that supposed runs the original on a PDP emulator, but I can't get it to work - probably a java VM problem. KDE also has an updated clone with prettier graphics called kspaceduel (apt-get install kspaceduel).

      --
      Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
  53. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Xeriar · · Score: 4, Informative

    We're talking about a Torus, not a spherical universe. If true, the universe is still 'flat', there's no 'wrapping' as you put it, it just repeats in all directions.

  54. What's next? The Big Bake? by Opiuman · · Score: 1

    Instead of the big bang, you insensitive clod!... :)

  55. Tetrisphere on N64 was shaped like a doughnut... by Nutsquasher · · Score: 1

    I can't find the original write up about it, but Tetrisphere on Nintendo 64 wasn't really a sphere at all, but a doughnut. I found an old article about it on Google, but it doesn't go into as much depth as the original one did:

    http://www.n64cc.com/CCTET.HTM#Fun%20Glitch

    The original article was on Nintendojo.com if anyone can find it...

  56. Re:Also shaped like a doughnut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That doesn't look like a doughnut to me!! It looks more like a black hole!

  57. Re:Mmm...doughnut.... by shamilton · · Score: 1

    That diner image gives me whack dejavu/nostalgia... what's the original? It appears to be a bit of a recurring theme.

    --
    "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
  58. I can see it now... by Ironix · · Score: 1

    Kent Brockman (on TV): "Scientists announced today that the universe is a giant doughnut."

    Homer Simpson (drooling and gurgling): "Mmmmmm.... Doughnut..."

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
    1. Re:I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You win the lameness contest.

  59. Belive it or not... by Repran · · Score: 1
    ...but I have had this theory for something over a year now.

    I imagine the big bang as the inflation of a point shape baloon with the 3 dimensional space of the universe projected to the baloons surface.

    So yes: when you start walking forward on the baloons surface you will reapear where you started. I even thought about a way to prove it:

    Survey the sky and record objects parameters such as size, distance, velocity and direction. Look deep and long enough and in theory - since you are always looking back to yourself - you should find same patterns - or at least very similar ones, as the space the light travels through to reach the instrument travels though, varies depending on the direction one looks in.

    --

    -- Contradictions only exist in thought - not in reality.

  60. Would anyone else by Threni · · Score: 1

    like to post a Homer Simpson quote? I mean, there have only been about 20 so far!
    I guess thats what -1, Redundant was made for!

    1. Re:Would anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha... the comment immediately following yours makes your statement even better. Ah, sweet irony.

  61. My reaction by porkface · · Score: 1

    mmmmmmm...Universe

  62. Somewhere in the code running the universe... by product+byproduct · · Score: 5, Funny

    /* comment this out to get an infinite universe */
    if (particle->position.x < LEFT_LIMIT)
    particle->position.x += RIGHT_LIMIT - LEFT_LIMIT;
    else if (particle->position.x >= RIGHT_LIMIT)
    particle->position.x -= RIGHT_LIMIT - LEFT_LIMIT;

    1. Re:Somewhere in the code running the universe... by pnatural · · Score: 4, Funny

      God called. You're in violation of the NDA. He'd sue, but He doesn't have any lawyers.

    2. Re:Somewhere in the code running the universe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, or maybe it's commented out and the universe is actually 2^64 planck units long (thank god God used a 64-bit processor).

    3. Re:Somewhere in the code running the universe... by AndrewRUK · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well of course not. Everyone know that all lawyers belong to the devil.

    4. Re:Somewhere in the code running the universe... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I'd think that he'd at least smite that person's computer for distributing NDA code.

    5. Re:Somewhere in the code running the universe... by TummyX · · Score: 1

      Easier to use modulus.

    6. Re:Somewhere in the code running the universe... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Later, SCO subpoenaed God, arguing He couldn't possibly have created the code that run the universe without substantial use of unlicensed Unix(tm) source

    7. Re:Somewhere in the code running the universe... by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1
      but He doesn't have any lawyers.

      Sadly, you are right, all the lawyers are with satan

      --
      My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
      FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  63. Homwer was right! by trialsboy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Your theory of a donought shaped universe intrigues me."

    Haha Homer I love you!

    --

    "Pushing little children, with their fully automatics, they like to push the weak around"
  64. Not Sound Waves...Gravity Waves by codeonezero · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the article:
    As the COBE satellite first confirmed in 1992, the microwave cloud is laced with ripples and splotches -- lumps in the cosmic gravy -- from which galaxies and other cosmic structures would ultimately form. According to theory, these lumps are born as microscopic fluctuations during the first instant of time and then amplified into sound waves as the universe expands and matter and energy slosh around.
    That should be "amplified into gravity waves" i think... I seem to remember reading this description in Scientific American...and yeah its gravity not sound waves.
    --

    ....
    int main (void) { ... }

    1. Re:Not Sound Waves...Gravity Waves by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Umm, I thought they were microwaves (which would be E-M waves, not sound or gravity waves).

    2. Re:Not Sound Waves...Gravity Waves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gravity waves, at that point.

      Also, the microwaves that COBE and MAP et al look at weren't microwaves when they were created. They've been stretched out by the expansion of the universe (or so goes the model).

    3. Re:Not Sound Waves...Gravity Waves by codeonezero · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna have to wait to get home and look up that Scientific American issue...I can't seem to find it on their web site...
      If someone does please post.

      I'm not a physics major so I might be wrong on them being gravity waves. So verification would be good.

      Thanks.

      --

      ....
      int main (void) { ... }

    4. Re:Not Sound Waves...Gravity Waves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "lumps" will not cause gravity waves, only something really massive will do that. They mean sound waves (I read the Scientific American article too).

    5. Re:Not Sound Waves...Gravity Waves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They really did mean "sound waves". That's why they look for the so-called "acoustic peaks" in the CMBR spectrum.


      It is possible for inflation to produce gravitational waves, which in turn are imprinted as CMBR anisotropies, but we haven't seen evidence of them (in the tensor modes). But then, WMAP wasn't expected to be sensitive enough to detect the indirect effects of inflationary gravitational waves on the CMBR.

  65. other news by Guipo · · Score: 1

    In other news, a second universe has been found shaped like a coffee cup. Photo's at 11.

    --
    Theonlyuse of monkeys is to testthings onthem.Some peoplemay say"Hey That'scruel!"and myresponse is"I don't like monkeys
  66. Obligatory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doughnuts... is there anything they can't do?
    --Homer

  67. This has enormous ramifications for theology too.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what if the afterlife is nothing but a big maze where you eat globing gobs and are chased by gigantic, pixelated ghosts?

  68. The WMAP site says otherwise by Snover · · Score: 1

    From http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_content.html:

    "WMAP has determined, within the limits of instrument error, that the universe is flat."

    Hmm...

    Honestly, I've often thought that the Universe was in a donut shape. However, the question still remains: what the hell's outside of it?

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
    1. Re:The WMAP site says otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "WMAP has determined, within the limits of instrument error, that the universe is flat."

      Yeah, and I'm sure that Aristottle might have said the same thing about the earth.

    2. Re:The WMAP site says otherwise by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I've often thought that the Universe was in a donut shape. However, the question still remains: what the hell's outside of it?

      Nothing. Reality ends there. There is no outside.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:The WMAP site says otherwise by Dynedain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      except that there are theories that other 'insides' exist in the 'outside'....complicated as that may seem

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    4. Re:The WMAP site says otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WMAP has determined, within the limits of instrument error, that the universe is flat."


      Yes, and a doughnut can be intrinsically flat (as is the case of the "Spacewar" universe).


      Honestly, I've often thought that the Universe was in a donut shape. However, the question still remains: what the hell's outside of it?


      Who said there had to be anything outside of it?
  69. So I guess in the center we have a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... black doughnut hole! Thank you. I'll be appearing here all week.

  70. Dr. Tegmark's original paper on the web by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There's also a BBC story on the same topic, or you can go straight to Dr. Tegmark's webpage version of his paper (with cool pics).

    I've admired Dr. Tegmark's home page since he was a grad student, not so much for the design skills (ha!) but as an exemplar of mixing serious and non-serious publications for other colleauges and onlookers to enjoy, explore, and learn from. Tegmark gets the web. As for the science, some of it I can actually understand.

    I would also commend to the curious Slashdot reader a couple items I found facinating from the 'non-serious' section of his website:

    a very cool diagram of "Relationships between various basic mathematical structures" from his Theory of Everything paper

    and another paper addressing the question: Why does the universe have 3 spatial and 1 time dimension?

    --LP

  71. What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A cockring? (you can decide whose I mean ;-)

  72. How about the Star Trek: TNG references? by PseudoThink · · Score: 5, Funny

    Space is a toroid with finite size? Augh, I must be trapped in a static warp bubble! CleverNickName, this is all your fault!

  73. The universe is round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the universe is round, like a hollow sphere. The portion that we can detect is really just a speck on the edge of the sphere. Sort of like how if you just go into an open field and look around, the Earth appears flat. But if you go up high enough into the atmosphere, you can see that it is, in fact, a sphere. I think the same principle applies to the universe. The universe is so unimaginably massive that what we currently perceive to be the entire universe is just our view of the "horizon". As technology improves we will get closer and closer to a more curved appearance. Perhaps what these scientists are actually detecting is just the opposite side of the sphere?

  74. Makes me wonder... by burningd · · Score: 1

    Which place makes this huge a Doughnut?
    Is every eaten Doughnut a destroyed Universe?
    Is "The Restaurant at the end of the Universe" a marketing gag?
    If the Universe is bent how do we really look? I mean I see a whole lot of Fashion coming up: "Elvis, the bent jeans. Made to fit the REAL you"
    And finally, does the inventor of Doughnuts sue God because he stole the patented design?

  75. So... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

    ... is our perception of the universe warped along with the toroid shape? If so, couldn't we eventually look so far that we see ourselves?

    I'm curious how we'd test that, given that the distances involved would mean that we'd see events so long ago that we wouldn't recognize them. It would explain how the universe would seem infinite, though...

  76. Actually it is very good analogy by efuseekay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    -Begin Jargon-

    A torus (dougnut) is topologically equivalent to a square with sides identified (like the Space War).

    -End Jargon-

    Discontinuous or stuff like that is not really important concept. Whether you are "magically" transported or not when you reached the end is just a matter of choosing the right coordinates.

    Also, curved universes do not enter the argument. Curvature is a statement on Geometry of the Universe, while being a Dougnut is a Topological Statement.Both of completely independent of each other. A Toroidal Universe can be flat (like, hey , a square with sides identified!). A curved universe can be a plain sphere.

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    1. Re:Actually it is very good analogy by Ninja+Programmer · · Score: 1
      • -Begin Jargon-

        A torus (dougnut) is topologically equivalent to a square with sides identified (like the Space War).

        -End Jargon-
      Well as long as we are spouting jargon, you might as well point out *how* the sides are identified. A normal torus, for example, would not twist, rotate, or flip the sides as the means of identity, as that would create some kind of mobius strip-like topology. I.e., the sides are mapped as if rigidly translated.
    2. Re:Actually it is very good analogy by sam_nead · · Score: 1
      Curvature is a statement on Geometry of the Universe, while being a Dougnut is a Topological Statement.Both of completely independent of each other.

      It is an amazing, but true fact, that you are wrong. That is, topology and geometry do have something to do with one another. If you are interested you should look at a copy of Jeff Week's book "The Shape of Space".

      Long story short, if space is positively curved or flat then the universe can only be one of finitely many topological shapes (but it will be very difficult to tell which one it is). On the other hand, if space is negatively curved then space could be any one of an infinite number of shapes, called by mathematicians "hyperbolic manifolds". (And in this case, it should be easy to decide which shape the universe is!)

      For a readable article which explains some of this stuff read this.

    3. Re:Actually it is very good analogy by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      well, yes. But that's a bit of a nitpick isn't it :).

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
  77. The Universe May Be Shaped Like a Doughnut by MouseR · · Score: 1

    After having initially said it was more like a pancake, their only comment about the donut was

    Doh!

  78. ObSouthPark by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 1

    Dougie as General Disarray: "Simpsons did it!"

    --
    Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  79. Heres the story, regfree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    March 11, 2003
    Universe as Doughnut: New Data, New Debate
    By DENNIS OVERBYE

    ong ago in the dawn of the computer age, college students often whiled away the nights playing a computer game called Spacewar. It consisted of two rocket ships attempting to blast each other out of the sky with torpedoes while trying to avoid falling into a star at the center of the screen.

    Although cartoonish in appearance, the game was amazingly faithful to the laws of physics, complete with a gravitational field that affected both the torpedoes and the rockets. Only one feature seemed outlandish: a ship that drifted off the edge of the screen would reappear on the opposite side.

    Real space couldn't work that way.

    Or could it?

    Imagine that the Spacewar screen is wrapped around to form a cylinder or a section of a doughnut so that the two edges meet.

    That is the picture of space, some cosmologists say, that has been suggested by a new detailed map of the early universe. Their analysis of this map has now provided a series of hints -- though only hints -- that the universe may have a more complicated shape than astronomers presumed.

    Rather than being infinite in all directions, as the most fashionable theory suggests, the universe could be radically smaller in one direction than the others. As a result it may be even be shaped like a doughnut.

    "There's a hint in the data that if you traveled far and fast in the direction of the constellation Virgo, you'd return to Earth from the opposite direction," said Dr. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

    The new data have generated both buzz and skepticism among cosmologists in recent weeks. Dr. Tegmark and other astronomers agree that the measurements are far from conclusive, or even persuasive about the shape of the universe.

    But if true, the doughnut universe would force cosmologists to reconsider their theories about what happened in the earliest moments after the universe was born in the Big Bang; those theories predict an infinite cosmos.

    The new findings have brought to center stage the hope that astronomers may be able to test speculations about the shape, or topology, of the universe that until recently have been relegated to the abstract mathematical margins of cosmology.

    The results are part of the bounty of data produced by a NASA satellite known as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, built and operated by an international collaboration led by Dr. Charles L. Bennett of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The satellite recorded the pattern of heat, in the form of faint microwave radiation, that fills the sky.

    This radiation is believed to be the afterglow of the Big Bang itself, and thus constitutes a portrait of the universe when it was only 380,000 years old.

    As the COBE satellite first confirmed in 1992, the microwave cloud is laced with ripples and splotches -- lumps in the cosmic gravy -- from which galaxies and other cosmic structures would ultimately form.

    According to theory, these lumps are born as microscopic fluctuations during the first instant of time and then amplified into sound waves as the universe expands and matter and energy slosh around.

    Now the new satellite has illuminated the findings of COBE (pronounced KOE-bee, for Cosmic Background Explorer) in exquisite detail.

    By analyzing these waves cosmologists can determine many of the characteristics of the universe, which scientists have long debated, like its age and density. To their delight, the first results from the Wilkinson satellite, released last month, confirmed many of the strange ideas that cosmologists entertained in the last decade, including the notion that most of the universe consists of something called dark energy, which is pushing space apart at an accelerating rate.

    "Cosmologists have built a house of cards and it stands," said Dr. James Peebles, a cosmologist at Princeton.

    But to their even greater delight, perhaps, as they dig into the trove released last month, cosmologists are finding hints of even more strangeness.

    In principle, in an infinite universe, the waves in the cosmic fireball should appear randomly around the sky at all sizes. But, according to the new map, there seems to be a limit to the size of the waves, with none extending more than 60 degrees across the sky.

    The effect was first noted as a puzzle in the COBE data, according to Dr. Gary Hinshaw, an astronomer at the Goddard Space Flight Center and a member of the Wilkinson probe team, and now seems confirmed.

    If the universe were a guitar string, it would be missing its deepest notes, the ones with the longest wavelengths, perhaps because it is not big enough to sustain them.

    "The fact that there appears to be an angular cutoff hints at a special distance scale in the universe," Dr. Hinshaw said.

    Another analysis of the new map suggests that there is a special direction, as well as a special scale in the universe. While reanalyzing the Wilkinson data to eliminate radio noise from stars and our own galaxy, Dr. Tegmark, Dr. Angélica de Oliveira-Costa, also at Pennsylvania and married to Dr. Tegmark, and Dr. Andrew J. S. Hamilton of the University of Colorado have discovered that the universe appears lumpier in one direction through space than it does in another. When they combed finer variations out of the map, the remaining large-scale variations formed a line across the sky.

    It could be a chance alignment, a statistical fluke, Dr. Tegmark said, or contamination from radio noise from the galaxy.

    But in a paper posted on the physics Web site (at arXiv.org/pdf /astro-ph/0302496) late last month, the three cosmologists wrote that it was "difficult not to be intrigued" that their results bore all the earmarks of what are variously called small, compact, finite or periodic universes.

    If the universe is finite in one dimension, like a cylinder or a doughnut, Dr. Tegmark said in an interview, there is a limit to the size of clumps that can fit in that direction. They couldn't be bigger than the universe in that direction, just as a guitar string can only play a note so low, depending on its length. So the biggest blobs would have to squish out in a plane in other directions. The way home around the doughnut would be perpendicular to that plane.

    Nobody is yet claiming that this is a revolution. The notion of a special direction is on less firm ground than the discovery of a cutoff of large structures. "More detailed work in needed to clarify what's going on," Dr. Tegmark said.

    Dr. Martin Rees, a cosmologist at Cambridge University," said he didn't think there was evidence for "anything crazy" in the data.

    Even aficionados of finite universes are guarded. Dr. David Spergel, a Princeton cosmologist and Wilkinson satellite team member, called the results "intriguing," but cautioned that they could also be due to chance.

    Dr. Hinshaw called the findings of Dr. Tegmark's team "surprisingly robust," but added, "I'm not sure it says something profound about the universe."

    Dr. Alexei Starobinski, a theorist at the Landau Institute in Moscow, proposed in 1984 with his mentor, Dr. Yakov B. Zeldovich, that the universe could have been born as a doughnut. Dr. Starobinski emphasized that an infinite universe with ordinary Euclidean geometry was the most natural universe and still favored by theory.

    "However, theory is theory, but observations might tell us something different," he said in an e-mail message.

    The Science of Shapes
    A Compact Universe
    Like Mirrored Halls

    The new work involves topology, the branch of mathematics that deals with shapes. Topologists are often accused of not knowing the difference between a coffee mug and a doughnut; because each object has one hole, the two can be deformed into each other and are thus topologically equivalent. In a similar vein, a figure 8 and a pair of eyeglass frames are also the same to a topologist. The more holes, the more complicated the topology.

    The simplest topology is just the infinite space of the Euclidean geometry taught in high school. But some cosmologists have a hard time calculating how an infinite universe could have appeared in that kind of space. Nature, they contend, might have had an easier time making a small "compact" universe than an infinite one, and they assume Nature would take the easy way out.

    "The basic idea is that God's on a budget," said Dr. George Smoot, a physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and a leader on the COBE team.

    The simplest of these compact universes is something called a 3-torus, a doughnut wrapped in three different dimensions. This object is essentially impossible to visualize: it is the equivalent, in a way, of a cube whose opposite sides are somehow glued together. In two dimensions it works just like the Spacewar screen.

    Living in such a universe would be like being inside a hall of mirrors, Dr. Tegmark said. Instead of seeing new stars deeper and deeper in space, you see the same things over and over again as light travels out one side of your cube and back in the other.

    This mirror game is not limited to cubes and doughnuts. Over the years mathematicians, particularly Dr. William Paul Thurston, now at the University of California at Davis, and Dr. Jeffrey Weeks, an independent mathematician, have speculated about universes composed of various polyhedrons glued together in various ways.

    In 1996 the French astronomer Dr. Jean-Pierre Luminet of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues Dr. Roland Lehoucq and Dr. Marc Lachieze-Rey, both of the Center for Astrophysical Studies in Saclay, France, developed a method called "cosmic crystallography," using galaxy statistics to detect and diagnose the repeating periodic patterns that would be created in the sky by light going around and around in differently shaped universe.

    Finite or Infinite?
    Problems Are Posed
    For Favored Theory

    Why would the universe want to do this to us? Partly to avoid the difficulties of the infinite, said Dr. Glenn Starkman, an astronomer at the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Besides being difficult to create, an infinite universe is philosophically unattractive. In an infinite volume, he pointed out, anything that can happen will happen.

    "Somewhere there are two guys having this same conversation," Dr. Starkman said in a telephone interview, "except that one of them has a purple phone."

    Moreover, the idea that dimensions could be curled in loops occurs naturally in theories that try to unite gravity and particle physics, several physicists pointed out. For example, according to string theory, the leading candidate for a theory of everything, the universe actually has 10 dimensions -- 9 of space and 1 of time -- rather than the 4 we are familiar with. The extra dimensions are curled up into submicroscopic loops, like the threads in an uncut carpet pile, so that we don't notice them in ordinary life.

    "This is the same idea on a very large scale," Dr. Smoot said.

    Knowing that all nine of the spatial dimensions predicted by string theory are finite and thus on the same footing could help string theorists decide among the nearly endless possibilities allowed by the theory, scientists say.

    But a finite universe would create big problems for the reigning theory of the Big Bang, inflation theory. It posits that the universe underwent a burst of hyperexpansion in its earliest moments. Among other things, it implies that the observable universe today, a bubble 28 billion light-years in diameter, is only a speck on the surface of a vastly greater realm trillions upon trillions of light-years across.

    "There's no natural way yet proposed to get the inflation to stop and give a space that's big enough to house all the galaxies but small enough to see within the observable horizon," said Dr. Janna Levin, a Cambridge University cosmologist who wrote about finite universes in her 1992 book, "How the Universe Got Its Spots, Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space."

    Dr. Spergel added, "If the universe were finite, then this would rule out inflation and require something new."

    The Search for Patterns
    One Convincing Sign
    Of the Doughnut

    So far, sporadic searches for repeating patterns of quasars or distant galaxy clusters that would occur in a hall of mirrors universe have been unsuccessful.

    For finite universe aficionados, the first encouragement of note was COBE's discovery that the universe appeared to be deficient in large-scale fluctuations. There were no structures extending more than about 60 degrees across the sky. But the finding was subject to large statistical uncertainties, astronomers said.

    There are other possible explanations for the cutoff in fluctuation size, Dr. Starkman explained. According to inflation the biggest longest waves are created first, and thus the missing notes are the earliest ones that would have been strummed by inflation's guitar. Perhaps, he said, this is telling us something about the beginning of inflation.

    Dr. George Efstathiou of Cambridge University has pointed out in a recent paper submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society that the Wilkinson satellite data are also marginally consistent with yet another finite shape, namely a sphere. In that case, fluctuations larger than the radius of the sphere might be dampened, he said, producing the observed cutoff.

    The most convincing sign of a doughnut universe, if it exists, astronomers say, could come from a search of the satellite data now being performed by Dr. Spergel, Dr. Starkman and Dr. Neil J. Cornish of Montana State University. "We're looking for circles in the sky," Dr. Starkman said.

    In a 1998 paper they point out that if the universe is small enough, part of the cosmic background radiation, which essentially fills the sky surrounding us, will hit the sides of the "box" or the space war screen we are in and appear on the other side. The result, in the simplest case, would be identical circles on opposite sides of the sky with the same patterns of hot and cold running around them.

    In the simplest case, the size of the circles would depend on the distance between the "walls" of the universe: the smaller the universe, the bigger the circles.

    Success or even a definitive failure is not guaranteed. "It would be fantastic if something like that was found," Dr. Hinshaw said of the circles.

    But success or even a definitive failure is not guaranteed. If the universe is finite but still much larger than today's observable universe -- 28 billion light-years in diameter -- the circles will not show. "Usually in science when we see an intriguing pattern that appears to contradict existing theory we do a better experiment," Dr. Spergel wrote in an e-mail message, but in this case, "Ultimately we will be limited by the fact that we can only observe the `visible' universe."

    Dr. Levin was doubtful, "I suspect every last one of us would be flabbergasted if the universe was so small," she said in an e-mail message. When she first heard about the new satellite data, she reported, "I tried on the idea that we were really and truly seeing the finite extent of space and I was filled with dread.

    "But I'm enjoying it too."

    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

  80. Actually... by Qaless · · Score: 0

    some people have theorized that the universe is like a circle turned inside out

    --
    Jolan Tru. (If you know what this means, you're a tru geek)
    1. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Others say it's a circle turned outside in.

    2. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (sig) > Jolan tru

      Enjoy your Romulan ale. Jolan tru.

      -etosin

  81. Donut Shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bet the collective Police Departments of the world are killing their fund drive for the Police-Person's ball and diverting that funding into the creation of a super shuttle, complete with cargo bay full of coffee...

    Sorry, I just couldn't resist...

  82. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by sheddd · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yep; great book; I loved one of his analogies (referring to a finite universe with no boundaries) that went something like this:

    Imagine you're a 2-D dude wandering the earth (which is really a 3-D globe like you'd find in a classroom). You can walk and walk and never hit a wall but there's a finite amount of 2-D space. Now imagine you're a 3-D dude... This is where my feeble brain says 'help!'.

    The analogy would seem to back up the article; whatever direction you take if you walk long enough you end up where you started.

  83. LOL by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    This comment made my day :)

  84. In related news... by BlackjackGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was discovered that the internet is shaped like a pringle.

    1. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and once you 'pop'
      you just cant stop.

      you know we're all addicted.

    2. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the spirit of the "torus, not donut!" geometry nerds... you mean hyperbolic paraboloid, you insensitive clod.

  85. In the Flintstone's Universe by zephc · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the Flintstone's house is it's own tightly bounded universe with high curvature... notice when they run in a straight line, they nevertheless keep passing the same circular window and pelican ash tray? Perhaps they have floating bubble universes they get trapped in from time to time.

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  86. Not a Simpsons reference by Tsuzuki · · Score: 1

    All I could think was Pacman. Ooooh, little pills and repetitive music.

  87. Homer by luzrek · · Score: 1

    Doughnuts, is there anything they can't do? -Homer, in the monorail episode.

    --

    Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

  88. The shape of a doughnut? by reinard · · Score: 1
    IANAS.

    If I read this right, then the shape they are describing can pretty much not be thought of as a three dimensional object. And I don't think there would be any way to look at it and make it resemble anything like a doughnut. I think the best description was in the article itself:

    This object is essentially impossible to visualize: it is the equivalent, in a way, [to] a cube whose opposite sides are somehow glued together.


    Then again...three doughnuts whose surfaces rotate, one for each dimension, in the same spot at the same time, and movement would be rotation of the surface of those doughnuts... Nah, sorry. I can't visualize it.
    --
    Reinard
    1. Re:The shape of a doughnut? by Nihilanth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the donut analogy is a bit of a gloss. The interior space of the torus dosen't represent the three dimentional space we inhabit, rather, the path you take around the inside of the torus is supposed to represent all three dimentions, simplified as a vector in the torus...so, picture being inside the torus, and travelling all the way around the interiour of it and coming back to where you started...well..there's no way to visualize this situation for all three dimentions, but the torus is as clear as you can make it. Don't think about what happens if you travel to the inner or outer wall, that would be equivilant to "leaving" space in this simplified abstraction.

    2. Re:The shape of a doughnut? by Nihilanth · · Score: 2, Informative

      oops..i got it backwards.

      imagine travelling across the SURFACE of the torus.

      whoops!

    3. Re:The shape of a doughnut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the donut analogy is a bit of a gloss"

      Ah, a glazed donut.

  89. your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mario is cooler

  90. Is it possible??? by cachorro · · Score: 1

    The universe is a donut.

    If you travel through the universe far enough you will get back to where you started.

    I guess the ancient ones were wise to this when they said:

    No matter where you go, there you are!

    1. Re:Is it possible??? by Bzap · · Score: 1

      I guess the ancient ones were wise to this when they said:
      No matter where you go, there you are!


      I guess the ancients were referring to the stargates :-)

    2. Re:Is it possible??? by murphyslawyer · · Score: 1

      The ancient ones knew Buckaroo Bonzai?

      --
      I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
  91. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

    On learning of this news Ford Motor Company immediately sent the universe a "cease and desist" letter, claiming violation of their trademark "Taurus."

    While someone was trying to explain to a Ford executive that "Taurus" was a different word, and only applied to to an abstract portion of space, not the universe, and the word "Torus" refered to a donut shaped object, said executive got a blank look in his eye, muttered the words, "Hmmmmmmmmmmm, Donut," and wandered off.

    KFG

  92. Wait just one minute.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The universe is not round I'm telling you! It's flat! I guess we're back to that old argument again...

    Eric Jaakkola

    1. Re:Wait just one minute.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont confuse between the Universe and the Earth!!

  93. Old news... by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

    Check out a book called "Time Travel in Einsteins Universe" I forget the name of the author though.

    Anyway, this idea is explored fairly in depth, and explains how it would be done... and how it would allow people to travel in time, or at the very least, see into the past.

    With a sufficiently powered telescope, you could see what was *actually happening* during the big bang, if the universe is indeed shaped like torus or the universe is mapped out onto a sphere (as opposed to being an expanding sphere that we are inside of).

    It's a very interesting book, and a fairly quick read. Has a lot of nice explanations for the physics challenged as well.

    Pick it up!

  94. Interesting... by raehl · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder what color our sprinkles are.

    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will never know, as it is beyond the event horizon. You'll have to make due with the filling.

  95. A Thought... by solarlux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting... let's assume for a moment that the universe's expansion was frozen.

    Now, if I threw a baseball in a straight line from point x,y,z in the universe, at some point, that baseball would again pass through one of the planes of its starting location? (I'm neglecting all interferences, including gravity)

    3-d space curving ... hmmmmm... I'm having trouble picturing what this 3-d curvature would look like. Anyone have a helpful mental image of this?

    1. Re:A Thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if I threw a baseball in a straight line from point x,y,z in the universe, at some point, that baseball would again pass through one of the planes of its starting location?


      I'm not sure what you mean by "one of the planes of its starting location", but if I'm interpreting you correctly, the answer is yes.

      It needn't pass through the original location itself, though. That depends on whether the trajectory is a rational or irrational winding around the torus.


      3-d space curving ... hmmmmm... I'm having trouble picturing what this 3-d curvature would look like. Anyone have a helpful mental image of this?


      Actually, this universe is not curved, it is flat. Picture being inside the Spacewar videogame universe, except instead of identifying opposite sides of a rectangular region (the screen), you're identifying opposite sides of a cubical region.
  96. Actually it's not that bad by oGMo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The Space War anlaogy for a curved universe doesn't really fit. The behavior in Spae War is discontinuous. You start out on one edge of the screen and after going past the edge of the screen, you are magically transported to the other side.

    Actually it's a fine analogy. The problem is the display screen, not the Space War universe. If you were to map a torus onto a flat display, it would seem that you're magically transported. In reality, the discontinuity is the display, not the universe. (In similar games, I'm not sure about this one in particular, you can be "right on the border" and see your ship halfway on either edge. Perhaps Space War lacks this "sophistication".)

    Anyway, this is like saying "that is not a picture of something 3D, because the picture is 2D". Just because it's 2D doesn't mean it can't represent something 3D.

    Besides, if you want to be really pedantic, the real problem would be the dimensions of the toroid universe in question... it wouldn't really map exactly to a rectangular screen unless you changed a few "universal constants". ;-) (Not that I have a problem with this. ;-))

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:Actually it's not that bad by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      if he had compared it it asteroids he might have made a point. as it is he just makes us wonder what the hell was space war?

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    2. Re:Actually it's not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >wonder what the hell was space war?

      You have no honor....

  97. Re:Homer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Homer was right about you too.

  98. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If true, the universe is still 'flat', there's no 'wrapping' as you put it, it just repeats in all directions.

    Au contraire, if the universe is a torus there is plenty of curvature. Points along the inner half-torus have a negative curvature, points along the outer half-torus have a positive curvature. The only points where the curvature is zero are along the circles where the inner and outer halves meet.

  99. This in not 'Funny', it is 'Insightful' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh .. talk about 'silly students'

  100. cosmic variance by TMB · · Score: 1

    Most of this is based on the low quadrupole in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) power spectrum.

    But... it's not really that much lower than in the concordence model, and is more likely just a result of cosmic variance - you can only measure 2 quadrupoles over the entire sky. The quadrupole power in our observable universe happens to be slightly below average - if you did the same experiment at many random points in the universe (esp. if you include points outside our horizon), you'd get a distribution of values whose mean was the concordence model value, with our observation slightly on the low side of the distribution.

    [TMB]

  101. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hawking described how the gravity of the universe may be so intense that it causes the universe to wrap around into a spherical shape.

    IIRC, Hawking was talking about the shape of spacetime in that section. And in fact, the results from WMAP indicate that the universe will expand forever, contradicting that particular model of spacetime.

    When these people say that the universe may be shaped like a donut or like a cylinder, they are supposing that spacetime can be expressed as the product of a space part and a time part, and that the space part is shaped like a donut (or whatever).

    In this model the space part would be the 3-torus T^3, the time part would be an open interval I, and spacetime would be IxT^3. Good luck on visualising that!

  102. They are "sound waves" by efuseekay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are sound waves in the looses sense of the word.In the sense that you have stuff (the photon-baryon fluid) and a wave is travelling through it (like sound waves travelling through air).

    Gravity waves exist of course, but we have no way of detecting them yet since their signature is much much much harder to detect.

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    1. Re:They are "sound waves" by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Gravity waves exist of course, but we have no way of detecting them yet since their signature is much much much harder to detect

      i. Stand up, and hold your mobile phone with your arm extended perpendicular to your body.

      ii. Let go of phone.

      iii. Pick up pieces of phone.

      iv. Profit!!! I mean, detected gravity waves.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    2. Re:They are "sound waves" by ShoeHead · · Score: 1

      Not so. There are several detectors around the world (TAMA in Japan... hehe, one of the few words I know) and LIGO in the US (Sponsored by Caltech/MIT) as well as a couple others in Europe, one in Australia. The gravity waves they're trying to detect are generally caused by neutron star pulsars, and cause stretching of space of amplitude like... 10^-18m or so, I think.

      True, LIGO (which, btw, is the NSF's largest project ever--$500 mil) is not at full operational sensitivity yet, but it does work, and it is improving. The two LIGO (laser interferometer gravitational wave observatory) stations are in Louisiana and ... Washington. Funny how politics works, eh?

    3. Re:They are "sound waves" by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      Well, LIGO is an engineering test. The LIGO team is hoping against hope to detect any gravitational waves. LISA might get a better shot, but that is ways off. But then, I don't work in the field, so there.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    4. Re:They are "sound waves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a gravitational field. Detecting gravity waves is to detecting the gravitational field as to detecting radio is to picking up iron filings with a magnet.

  103. Infinite universe is philosophically unattractive by scotay · · Score: 2, Funny

    In an infinite volume, he pointed out, anything that can happen will happen.

    "Somewhere there are two guys having this same conversation," Dr. Starkman said in a telephone interview, "except that one of them has a purple phone."


    Whoa!

  104. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the lamest karma whore I have seen in a long time. Horribly unfunny, and predictable in all the wrong places.

    As if we've never seen a fake "In other news..." post on Slashdot before. At least don't include such a boring and obvious Homer reference.

    1. Re:Wow... by kfg · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm sorry, really, but that has to be the lamest attempt at an AC accusation of Karma Whoring I've seen in a long time. Horribly boring and uninsulting, and predictable throughout.

      At least don't include such a boring and obvious accusation of including a boring and obvious Homer reference in a thread custom made for, already half composed of, boring and obvious Homer references.

      If you object to seeing the same lame shit on Slashdot over and over again, the solution is boring, obvious, predictable and you've seen it on Slashdot before.

      Don't you *ever* listen?

      KFG

  105. Monty Python by James+Chamberlain · · Score: 2, Funny

    And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.

    Someone had to say it. ;-)

    1. Re:Monty Python by funkhauser · · Score: 2, Funny

      This new learning fascinates me. Tell me again how sheeps' bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes.

  106. This is a special report... by nburtner · · Score: 1

    Since the news of this discovery, it has come to the attention of this reporter that the $$60,000,000,000 Man, Vash the Stampede, has been seen trying to hijack space ships. More on this story as it develops.

    (For those who don't know, Vash the Stampede really likes Doughnuts)

  107. I knew it! I knew it all along! by LemurShop · · Score: 1

    So Homer Simpsons was right after all!

    --

    This sig was cut off by the sla
  108. I'm scared by zzyzx · · Score: 1

    What if there is a parallel universe filled with coffee and we're about to get dunked in it?

  109. ETERNAL LIFE??????????/ by cryofan2 · · Score: 1

    So if this theory is correct, what does this mean for the possibility that mankind may someday me able to live forever?

  110. redundant ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how is the parant redundant? I posted it as soon as the story was posted. There were no comments posted when I posted it.

  111. Actually.... by jemenake · · Score: 1

    Reappearing on the other side of the universe would happen if the universe were a plain ol' hypersphere (not that 4-dimentional objects of any sort are plain).

    Just like a beetle (perceiving the world, essentially, in 2D) crawling on the surface of any 3D object (sphere, doughnut, cylinder, etc.) would eventually return to his starting point, so should we (perceiving the world in 3D) eventually return to our starting point if we travel long enough along the 3D "surface" of a 4D hypersphere, hyperdoughnut, or hypercylinder.

  112. Black hole from the inside. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember the rubber-sheet/morning glory shaped deformation model of gravity? Some time back I recall a description of a black hole as dropping such a BIG marble on the rubber sheet that it keeps going down, stretching the "rubber sheet" forever, at least as fast as the speed of light. Think a "taffy sheet", or a "stem" of the "morning glory" stretching like a stream of honey.

    It's easy to see why enough gravity keeps light ORBITING the gravity from spiraling out and away. But this also explains why light going STRAIGHT AWAY from the center of the hole never gets out - space is being stretched at least as fast as it moves (or maybe even faster), so it never makes it out of the hole.

    Well, this got me thinking: "What does a black hole look like from the INSIDE? What would one see from the viewpoint of the matter that was already there when the event horizon formed?"

    And the answer seemed to be: "An expanding universe, starting from a very small but finite volume and expanding indefinitely, containing a large-but-finite amount of matter, which was initially compressed into an EXTREMELY dense lump - perhaps a quark fluid or denser."

    In other words, something like the current universe. Perhaps with the moment of the formation of the event horizon corresponding to the end of the big-bang model's "inflationary period", but eliminating the need for a faster-than-light inflationary period.

    Cosmic background becomes the layer of matter and energy just below the event horizon, which is just getting here now. Cosmic background structure represents the matter distribution at that level at that time - a fossil of the orbital dynamics of the accretion cloud. (I don't think you get to see an "inside view" of the infalling half of the Hawking radiation.)

    You can go in any direction at up to the speed of light and never reach "the edge", which is (from your viewpoint) receeding at lightspeed.

    Not being a professional physicist, at this point I haven't attempted any mathematical models or resolutions with any of the current cosmological models. So I have no idea if I'm just spinning a yarn or if this can be pounded int shape for testing against the real universe. But it might be interesting to try some time.

    (The concept of gravity indefinitely stretching the coordinate system also leads to another possibility: Can gravity be modeled as masses constantly "sucking up" the coordinate system, which stretches between them meanwhile?)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you've described a gravity fractal.

      Each black hole is stretching space not as a simple singularity (though that may be sufficient to describe the black hole from the outside) but with millions of little blacker holes in turn stretching space at the speed of light.

      Cool...

    2. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First, let me just start with the qualfier "I Am Not A Physicst."

      "Think a "taffy sheet", or a "stem" of the "morning glory" stretching like a stream of honey."

      Except it can only get stretched so far until you run into the brick wall that is quantum mechanics. Space-time isn't infinitely smooth, and the finer a view of it you get, the less uniform it is.

      This is why physics gets all weird at the infinitessimal center of a black hole, because "infinitessimal" shouldn't be possible.

      "space is being stretched at least as fast as it moves (or maybe even faster), so it never makes it out of the hole."

      Except that relativity tells us that light is always moving 3E8 m/s faster than that. Even an observer in that space that's getting stretched to the breaking point would measure light as going 3E8 m/s away from him.

      "What does a black hole look like from the INSIDE? What would one see from the viewpoint of the matter that was already there when the event horizon formed?"

      As you pass through the event horizon, the entire sky would shrink until all you saw was a single point of light in the direction directly away from the center. All light that passes through the event horizon gets pulled towards the center, and unless its journey from its source to the center of the black hole is intercepted by your head, you'd never see it. It would get deflected towards the center of the black hole before it had a chance to reach your retinae.

      "An expanding universe, starting from a very small but finite volume and expanding indefinitely, containing a large-but-finite amount of matter, which was initially compressed into an EXTREMELY dense lump"

      You're forgetting about the space being taken up by you. As the space you occupy gets stretched out, so do you. And you can only get stretched out so far before you're torn apart (the old quantum mechanics bit again). That finite mass being smeared out into a seemingly infinite volume is you.

      "In other words, something like the current universe."

      Our universe looks uniform in any direction we look. The view inside a black hole would be a whole lot of nothing in the sky except for that point directly away from the center of the black hole.

      I'm pretty sure we'd know if we were inside one.

    3. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about? The usual approach for choosing a metaphor is to make something MORE understandable/relatable to people. WTF is a taffy sheet or a morning glory?!

    4. Re:Black hole from the inside. by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      your sig is one of the mysteries of the universe.

      my current theory is it's some sort of donut.

      --

      -pyrrho

    5. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >WTF is a taffy sheet or a morning glory?!

      you don't want to know, it's disgusting!

      - Murder By Death Troll (hello? I'm saying hello!)

    6. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, this got me thinking: "What does a black hole look like from the INSIDE? What would one see from the viewpoint of the matter that was already there when the event horizon formed?"

      And the answer seemed to be: "An expanding universe, starting from a very small but finite volume and expanding indefinitely, containing a large-but-finite amount of matter, which was initially compressed into an EXTREMELY dense lump - perhaps a quark fluid or denser."


      Except that it doesn't really look like that. A sphere of matter inside the horizon collapses to a singularity -- but that doesn't mean that it looks like it is in an expanding universe, anymore than someone sitting on a deflating beach ball would think he's in an expanding universe.

      Also see the FAQ.
    7. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      "Think a "taffy sheet", or a "stem" of the "morning glory" stretching like a stream of honey."

      Except it can only get stretched so far until you run into the brick wall that is quantum mechanics. Space-time isn't infinitely smooth, and the finer a view of it you get, the less uniform it is.


      Why? The more it stretches, the more of it there is to stretch. You're constantly creating more coordinate system. No quantum limit on the INSIDE at all.

      From the inside it never DID collapse to a singularity. Before that happened the stretching of the space overcame the gravitational collapse. Presto! No singularity. Physics can continue without nasty divide-by-zeros.

      "space is being stretched at least as fast as it moves (or maybe even faster), so it never makes it out of the hole."

      Except that relativity tells us that light is always moving 3E8 m/s faster than that. Even an observer in that space that's getting stretched to the breaking point would measure light as going 3E8 m/s away from him.


      That's right. Because the observer is farther down the hole. The space BETWEEN them is ALSO being stretched, fast enough that the photon is observed as leaving him behind at c, as well.

      The WHOLE SPACE inside the event horizon is being stretched. From any point, in any direction, it looks like the "far edge" - the most distant place observable - is receeding at c. Fire some photons at it and you observe the photons traveling at c and never getting there - i.e. going on forever.

      "What does a black hole look like from the INSIDE? What would one see from the viewpoint of the matter that was already there when the event horizon formed?"

      As you pass through the event horizon [...]


      But you DON'T pass through the event horizon. You (i.e. the mass/energy that eventually became you) were inside it when it formed. Your scenairo is from the viewpoint of matter that falls in AFTER the event horizon formed.

      "An expanding universe, starting from a very small but finite volume and expanding indefinitely, containing a large-but-finite amount of matter, which was initially compressed into an EXTREMELY dense lump"

      You're forgetting about the space being taken up by you. As the space you occupy gets stretched out, so do you. And you can only get stretched out so far before you're torn apart (the old quantum mechanics bit again). That finite mas being smeared out into a seemingly infinite volume is you.


      Nope. That large-but-finite mass being smeared out into a seemingly infinite volume of space is the sea of quarks (or whatever) that started out as the matter forming the initial black hole. The stretching of space is what lets it escape its mutual gravatation sufficiently to thin out, cool down, become atoms, stars, supernovae, solar systems, and eventually evolve observers like you and me.

      "In other words, something like the current universe."

      Our universe looks uniform in any direction we look.


      Well, actually it doesn't. That's what the article is about, after all. B-)

      The view inside a black hole would be a whole lot of nothing in the sky except for that point directly away from the center of the black hole.

      I think you're talking about the viewpoint of an infalling object ABOVE the event horizon again. I won't go there. (Lots of physicists already have. Besides, I can't get there from inside. B-) )

      Seems to me that beneath the horizon you'd see an infinite space (or at least as much of it as light leaving at the "big bang"/"horizon forming" moment could have reached), filled with the matter that was inside the event horizon at the moment it formed.

      Look toward the center and you see matter that was farther in. Look away and you see matter that was farther out. Look far enough in ANY direction and you're looking at the event horizon - where you see either the photons from infalling hawking radiation (spread out very thin by the sheer size of the "surface" and red-shifted almost to zilch) or nothing at all.

      So from the viewpoint of the initial ball of matter there's space around the ball, expanding at the speed of light in all directions and carrying with it the outermost layer of the ball. This layer includes inward-moving photons that are red-shifted down to near nothing, along with outer mass layers that get stretched out into a very hard vacuum. Meanwhile the rest of the matter of the ball fills the rest of the space (perhaps more densely in some places than others - ESPECIALLY near the center).

      Sounds like a big bang (starting at the end of the "inflationary period") to me.

      I've always been uncomfortable with a faster-than-light "inflation" phase. That seems like a kludge to rescue the extrapolation of an expanding universe backward to a point. This way you never GET back to a point - because you never came from one. The closest you get to a point is the center of mass of the matter trapped in (and forming) the new black hole.

      ===

      I'm not sure what happens to the Hawking radiation. Maybe we should ask Hawking. (And see if he laughs us off or tells us he already thought of it and rejected or published it decades ago. B-) )

      Seems to me its a toss-up: Either we eventually get hit by the infalling Hawking matter or we don't.

      The first is bad: From our viewpoint the Hawking matter is biased toward antimatter and eventually wipes out the hole. We disappear in a high-density big crunch under a rain of antiparticles.

      The second is good: The evaporation of the black hole from the outside corresponds to the final disconnection of its guts from the outer universe and continuation as a separate universe inside, with the negative energy from the mutual attraction balancing the positive mass-energy of the contained mass and energy.

      Either way the outer universe never gets to know the configuration of matter/energy/space that was inside the event horizon.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      A sphere of matter inside the horizon collapses to a singularity -- but that doesn't mean that it looks like it is in an expanding universe, anymore than someone sitting on a deflating beach ball would think he's in an expanding universe.

      See my more extensive answer to a previous poster.

      Short form: The space soon is stretching more than the matter is collapsing - outward at lightspeed at the edges, fast enough to overcome the gravitatinal crush in the middle.

      You're sitting on a beachball that started inflating VERY fast. The collapse to a singularity doesn't happen. All that matter in the middle expands outward into the newer, bigger, vacuum.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why? The more it stretches, the more of it there is to stretch. You're constantly creating more coordinate system.


      There's no such thing as "creating more coordinate system".


      No quantum limit on the INSIDE at all.


      As the curvature grows, quantum effects take over and space can no longer be described as a smooth sheet.


      Nope. That large-but-finite mass being smeared out into a seemingly infinite volume of space is the sea of quarks (or whatever) that started out as the matter forming the initial black hole.


      Actually, all that mass collapses to a point in a finite time --- from its own perspective.


      The stretching of space is what lets it escape its mutual gravatation sufficiently to thin out, cool down, become atoms, stars, supernovae, solar systems, and eventually evolve observers like you and me.


      That doesn't actually happen in a black hole. If, say, a 10-solar mass star collapsed into a black hole, then an observer standing on the surface of the star would see the star underneath him, and himself, be crushed down to zero volume in less than 150 microseconds (according to his own watch and meter stick).

      Space does not expand inside a black hole. This is true regardless of who the observer is.


      Seems to me that beneath the horizon you'd see an infinite space (or at least as much of it as light leaving at the "big bang"/"horizon forming" moment could have reached), filled with the matter that was inside the event horizon at the moment it formed.


      You'd see a whole lot of nothing, because the original collapsing star would be long gone, as would its light. (Unless you fell in as the star collapsed; then you could watch its surface collapse underneath you.) There certainly won't be any matter further out from you, if it fell in before you.


      Look far enough in ANY direction and you're looking at the event horizon


      No. You can look in directions that don't end at the event horizon.


      I've always been uncomfortable with a faster-than-light "inflation" phase. That seems like a kludge to rescue the extrapolation of an expanding universe backward to a point.


      Inflationary theory has nothing to do with the universe's origin as a singularity. It was not introduced to be compatible or incompatible with that.


      This way you never GET back to a point - because you never came from one. The closest you get to a point is the center of mass of the matter trapped in (and forming) the new black hole.


      It still doesn't look like an expanding universe from the inside. It looks like lots of things collapsing inward, and it all ends very quickly.
    10. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Short form: The space soon is stretching more than the matter is collapsing - outward at lightspeed at the edges, fast enough to overcome the gravitatinal crush in the middle.


      But that's wrong. If you don't believe me, take the Schwarzschild metric and compute the curvature tensor. The black hole interior does not expand.


      You're sitting on a beachball that started inflating VERY fast. The collapse to a singularity doesn't happen. All that matter in the middle expands outward into the newer, bigger, vacuum.


      That's all very nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what goes on inside a black hole.
    11. Re:Black hole from the inside. by JaymzDean · · Score: 1

      Actually, in the end, we will learn that the universe is currently shaped like a hollow expanding sphere. Like a boiled egg with no shell and no yolk - just a hollow space in the middle. * If there were only two objects in the universe, the universe would be made up of the two objects and the space between them. This universe would be described as a line or a cylinder which would grow longer as the two objects moved further apart. * If there were no objects in existence, there would be only space. Technically, we couldn't call it space, since there would be no objects for there to be space between. But we could logically perceive this situation to be an infinite vacuum. * In our current universe, if you were to exit one edge, you would not come in on the opposite side. Rather, you would only increase the size of the universe, because you are just another object of the universe, and you would only be increasing the space between you and the rest of the objects in existence.

    12. Re:Black hole from the inside. by dpete4552 · · Score: 1

      Well that seems much more logical. Thanks for ruining the "Damn, that's cool" factor :p

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
    13. Re:Black hole from the inside. by jelle · · Score: 1

      So basically you're saying that a black hole really is a universe being formed, which for the observer inside of the black hole is a similar experience as the big bang that we think formed ours.

      So we already are inside of a black hole... that is inside of a black hole inside of a black hole (while(true)).

      Plus: So all we have to do to prove it is find this hawking radiation, that is thinned out to infenitesimal low density?

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    14. Re:Black hole from the inside. by mumwahead · · Score: 1

      Actually i think what ungrounded was saying is quite a bit more logical than the idea that space goes on forever, unless human perception is entirely flawed. Think of a set of numbers ( our universe) well it can always be contained in a larger set, but what about an infinite set ( an infinite amount of space) wouldn't it have to be contained in some sort of abstract concept of our cosmos? But as hard as i try to imagine something without end, I can't because everything we(I) can imagine must be contained within something else, and thus forth contained in something else, but then i get into this logic bomb of some infinite chain of containment. However, what can contain something infinite? The answer to that is NOTHING. So, if we cannot imagine a cosmos that is finite then we must exist in nothing... But nothing can exist in nothing, thus we are nothing...

    15. Re:Black hole from the inside. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      When I was a teenager I was obsessed with this basic concept and trying to turn it into some sort of programming metaphor. Infinite recursive containment. I thought the same applied to time and that by understanding how time and space contain each other recursively you could learn to move from any point in space time to any other point just by knowing the right move to make. For the most part I treat time as space. Thinking of each layer of space or time as either a hyper sphere or torus (do any other shaped make sense?) that intersect with infinite hyperspace objects there should be infinite possible moves we could make to leap from one point to any other. I thought of the whole thing as a hyperspace object that wrapped back on itself so if you passed the limit of the most infinite outter object you'd be back dealing with the most infinite inner object.. but that there really wasn't a difference in the two.

      I'm not really into physics or theoretical math but it worked out rather nice for creating some novel approaches to representing data. I guess it's more my personal concept of how space and time works. I've found the concept lends itself to data compression if you can keep from getting brain fried for long enough.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    16. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      So basically you're saying that a black hole really is a universe being formed, which for the observer inside of the black hole is a similar experience as the big bang that we think formed ours.

      IF the speculation about stretching coordinate systems has any meaning. B-)

      Plus: So all we have to do to prove it is find this hawking radiation, that is thinned out to infenitesimal low density?

      Not sure.

      If the conjecture is true, one possible outcome might be that the hawking radiation can never get to the original matter. When the black hole "evaporates" in the original universe the detached "inside" ends up as two separated sub-universes, one filled with the original matter, the other with the antiparticles from the "inside" half of the Hawking radiation. Sum of the quantum numbers comes out to zero (maintaining parity in the original universe).

      Or I could be blowing smoke.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    17. Re:Black hole from the inside. by mumwahead · · Score: 1

      I am still a teenager and i am still obsessed with the basic concept... :: sigh ::

    18. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      But that's wrong. If you don't believe me, take the Schwarzschild metric and compute the curvature tensor. The black hole interior does not expand.

      All my ranting above was based on the assumption that it was right. If it's wrong, my speculation is just noise.

      Theories are cheap. Formulating them into testable predictions is much more difficult - and beyond me at the moment. It isn't science unless it can be formulated into something that can be falsified, then tested against other theories by comparison with emperical data. At this point I don't even have a self-consistent mathematical model, so I don't know if I'm even making sense, let alone whether this matches the real universe.

      Nevertheless, I find gravity as a stretching, rather than just a warping, of the coordinate system to be more satisfying. For starters it explains why light can't make it out of a black hole even if it's going exactly along a radius, and why two masses at rest next to each other accellerate toward each other, without putting everything at lightspeed in a warped four-dimensional spacetime.

      Now maybe everything moving at lightspeed on locally-straight, globally-curved paths in four-space is dead on, bendy 4-D coordinate systems are what the universe is made of, while stretchy coordinate systems are right out. And if I were another Einstein I'd be writing mathematical models rather than shooting off my keyboard without 'em.

      But hey - it's slashdot! B-) Here we get to shoot from the wrist and see if comes anywhere near a target.

      That's all very nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what goes on inside a black hole.

      You mean with what current models predict is going on inside a black hole? (After all, current models also say that anybody who goes in to look isn't going to come out - or even get inside before the heat death of the outside universe - even if the fall takes a very short time along the victim's world line.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    19. Re:Black hole from the inside. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Go into physics or mathematics. Maybe you can solve the problem once and for all. I don't have the patience. Besides people thought I was crazy when they saw my digrams of infinite recursive hyper objects. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    20. Re:Black hole from the inside. by fleppir · · Score: 1

      I think your fallacy is that you actually cannot be INSIDE the singularity when the event horizon forms. The explotion caused by the last energy/matter particle/wave that pushes the object past the threshold would likely expand from the 'center'.

      Or am I taking a too classical view of the whole shebang?

      --
      I am the Barber of Seville.
    21. Re:Black hole from the inside. by soundofthemoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Black holes, like quantum mechanics, are not something you can reason about using your newtonian-evolved intuition. So don't feel too bad.

      The manifold within an event horizon has significantly different properties than without. Outside the event horizion, the manifold is "timelike", meaning you are free to move in space but limited in time. Inside, the manifold is "spacelike", meaning you are free to move in time, but your direction in space is limited. At this point, analogies become difficult.

      You can generate multiple event horizons around a black hole. You can get one from mass, and another one from angular momentum. If you pass through both of them, I think you go back into a timelike region. But don't ask me what things are like in there, I gave up on physics and switched majors to comp sci.

    22. Re:Black hole from the inside. by vidarh · · Score: 1
      His point is that if you imagine that the singularity the existed at the point of the big bang was actually the singularity of a black hole, then our entire current universe is the singularity of a black hole contained in a another universe, expanding at the speed of light. I'm not even going to bother trying to discuss the merits of that idea, as physics isn't my strong side :-)

      But in other words, you're probably right that being around at the time the even horizon formed wouldn't be a good idea. On the other hand it is an interesting question whether it would be possible that conditions inside a singularity as seen from the inside could allow something like our universe to form. And if not, then why not?

    23. Re:Black hole from the inside. by vidarh · · Score: 1
      It might not have anything to do with what current theories say goes on inside a black hole. And granted, those theories are probably a lot more likely to be close to reality than crazy ideas posted here.

      But I'd be careful about talking about black holes as if we know for sure how they behave - after all we haven't exactly observed any up close, and most of the theories related to black holes are based on finding something that fit nicely with other current theories. It's not that long ago since black holes were considered pure unsubstantiated conjecture, and our understanding of black holes might suddenly change dramatically tomorrow.

      Fact is, we don't know what goes on inside a black hole, and we don't know how to find out and be able to report anything meaningless back. Some guesses, theories and ideas are more likely to be right, sure.

      But you're answering the wrong question: You're answering the question of how this fits in to current theories about what is going on inside a black hole, while the real question is whether or not the concept outlined could fit in with the existing observed behaviour of the universe.

      You're probably right that the idea wouldn't fit in with current theories, but are there observations that would directly contradict this idea?

    24. Re:Black hole from the inside. by anshil · · Score: 1

      People talk so much bullshit.

      Honestly we don't have a franky idea how a black hole would look from the inside. From where do we know that any physical laws we know are valid inside of it? Quantum Mechanics? Might not be valid?

      There are theories that even simplistic mathematical laws are not valid in the near of heavy (or even inside) of bended space-time. Like what is the sum of angels inside a triangle. 180 ? Wrong! It may be less. Think of a triangle beeing bend over a sphere.

      So don't talk bullshit no man really knows or can be sure of.

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    25. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in other words, you're trying to state conclusions from a theory that doesn't exist yet, because this "stretching of space stuff" doesn't happen in any theory that anybody has postulated so far, including yourself. In fact, you don't even know if black holes can exist in this "theory" in the first place, because you don't even know if there is such a theory.

      You could be more clear about this up front, instead of claiming you have some idea what should happen inside a black hole.

    26. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside the event horizion, the manifold is "timelike", meaning you are free to move in space but limited in time. Inside, the manifold is "spacelike", meaning you are free to move in time, but your direction in space is limited.


      Manifolds, or regions of manifolds, are neither "timelike" nor "spacelike". Only directions can be timelike or spacelike.

      I think you're trying to say that in Schwarzschild coordinates, the 't' coordinate becomes spacelike inside the horizon, and the 'r' coordinate becomes timelike. However, you should note that this is an artifact of the coordinate system -- there are other coordinate systems that don't switch like this.

      It is true that all timelike trajectories end up at the singularity in finite proper time inside a black hole.
    27. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're answering the question of how this fits in to current theories about what is going on inside a black hole, while the real question is whether or not the concept outlined could fit in with the existing observed behaviour of the universe.


      Since he doesn't have a theory to go with this concept, sure. My concept that black holes are filled with magic fairies is also consistent with the existing observed behavior of the universe. Since we can't actually look inside black holes, the only way to have any confidence in what goes on inside them is to have a theory that predicts what happens outside them as well as inside. But the poster has given no such theory.


      You're probably right that the idea wouldn't fit in with current theories, but are there observations that would directly contradict this idea?


      It's impossible to contradict a vague idea. I'm not being facetious when I say that it isn't any better than magic fairies. Anybody can just make up some claim about what happens inside a black hole, but there isn't anything to the claim unless you've got some sort of testable theory to go with it.
    28. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly we don't have a franky idea how a black hole would look from the inside. From where do we know that any physical laws we know are valid inside of it?


      If we don't assume that the laws of physics suddenly change for no reason as we pass through an event horizon -- and they shouldn't, since the horizon is not some locally defined surface; you wouldn't even be able to tell whether you'd passed through it -- then we do have an idea of what should happen inside a black hole. At least, until general relativity breaks down when you get close enough to the singularity. But outside of it, we have about as good an idea of what should go on inside, as we do outside.
    29. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      * In our current universe, if you were to exit one edge, you would not come in on the opposite side. Rather, you would only increase the size of the universe, because you are just another object of the universe, and you would only be increasing the space between you and the rest of the objects in existence.

      So what's at the leading edge then? As you move forward, expanding the universe by increasing the space between you and the rest of it, what's that area in front of you that you're moving into?

    30. Re:Black hole from the inside. by anshil · · Score: 1

      No we don't. As said already principal pyhsical laws are likely not to change. However most laws we know are only gained through observation. Observation of "normal" space, we don't have an actual idea why it is that way it is. You can't tell if this ideas are true in extreme environments like singularities. Some physical laws might only have a stastical basis, they are very likely not to count in singularities.

      Like Newtons laws are very true in "normal" environments and normal space. However if you get into extremer conditions and nearing light speed, or having heavy masses Einstein comes in place. There are very likely to be also new laws or new aspects of current laws in or near singularities.

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    31. Re:Black hole from the inside. by anshil · · Score: 1

      I cannot share the argumenting of the FAQs. Come on people keep it real and confess that singularities are actually so ming boggling that our brains which are created to understand "normal" space cannot fully understand a singularity.

      The FAQ mentions Past and Future. Do they exist inside a singularity at all? I mean the singulraity from the side of the singularity. Of course Past and Future exist from our view, but from it's own view? If you argue that they do exist, how does time flow inside a singularity? As far I understood on the event horizont itself it's standing, seen from an observer from the outside, but beyond?

      For the original Poster, why not? It might as well be that our whole universe is just a single moment of a black hole in another super-universe. Time flows here different than there.

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    32. Re:Black hole from the inside. by JaymzDean · · Score: 1

      As you move forward, expanding the universe by increasing the space between you and the rest of it, that area in front of you that you're moving into would be a vacuum. We would percieve it as "virgin space". Remember, the universe is expanding. If the fantasy theory were true, that an object exiting the border edge of the universe would come in on the opposite side, everything would be colliding with these opposite-side-entering objects. The border edge of the universe is an imaginary border that we have come up with to deal with our difficulty with the concept of infinity.

    33. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Newtons laws are very true in "normal" environments and normal space. However if you get into extremer conditions and nearing light speed, or having heavy masses Einstein comes in place. There are very likely to be also new laws or new aspects of current laws in or near singularities.


      As I said before, we already have astrophysical evidence that general relativity works near the event horizons of black holes. It should therefore work near event horizons on the inside, as well. You seem to have missed the point that event horizons are not local phenomena. You could fall into one and there's no way to tell, because nothing happens as you cross it.

      It's true that GR is expected to break down near singularities, but "near singularities" means close to the Planck scale, which is tiny. For most of the interior of the black hole, there isn't any reason to believe that the laws of physics drastically change, anymore than they do just outside the black hole.
    34. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot share the argumenting of the FAQs. Come on people keep it real and confess that singularities are actually so ming boggling that our brains which are created to understand "normal" space cannot fully understand a singularity.


      You seem to be confused between black holes and singularities. Singularities are one single point within a black hole. Just because we don't understand singularities, doesn't mean we can't understand what goes on inside a black hole away from the singularity.


      The FAQ mentions Past and Future. Do they exist inside a singularity at all? I mean the singulraity from the side of the singularity. Of course Past and Future exist from our view, but from it's own view?


      Time flows inside a black hole just fine, at least until you hit the singularity after having fallen a while. Once you get the the singularity, we don't know what happens.


      For the original Poster, why not? It might as well be that our whole universe is just a single moment of a black hole in another super-universe. Time flows here different than there.


      Hey, anything can be true if you want to discard the laws of physics and replace them with nothing specific. Oh wait, you're still using elements of existing theories, such as time dilation. Well, if you're going to use existing theories, then those say that the inside of a black hole isn't like the Big Bang. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    35. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      You're thinking classically. The Big Bang didn't just create all the matter and energy that fills up space-time, it created space-time itself. There is no "moving beyond the edge of the universe" (at least not in four dimensions). And space-time is defined by a lot more than just "the distance between two points." It's closer to "the ability to have distance between two points."

      Go see if you can dig up a copy of Sphereland, it's a very good allegory

    36. Re:Black hole from the inside. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "But as hard as i try to imagine something without end"

      A circle is infinite from a one-dimensional point of view. A sphere is infinite from a two-dimentional point of view. A hypersphere is infinite from a three-dimensional point of view. "Infinite" means different things to different people.

      "However, what can contain something infinite? The answer to that is NOTHING. "

      Your average second semester calculus student knows about a mathematical function called "Gabriel's Horn," which produces a solid that has a finite volume but an infinite surface area.

      "The answer to that is NOTHING. So, if we cannot imagine a cosmos that is finite then we must exist in nothing..."

      The universe is far from limited by human imagination. Just look at quantum mechanics.

    37. Re:Black hole from the inside. by mumwahead · · Score: 0

      Well, I guess being a first semester calculus student didn't help me there. And by the way, let's try to keep a less condescending and judgemental tone when critiquing someone's post, though i thank you for the input.

  113. Homer teh genius? by Space+Coyote · · Score: 1

    Between this and being the only one to correctly predict that the comet heading to Springfield would harmlessly break up before hitting the groud, methinks that crayon gets jostled around now and then and a little bit of the true Homer intellect seeps through.

    --
    ___
    Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
  114. Not new news by cyko500 · · Score: 0

    I've known about this and the fourth dimensional theroies for years..... heh no one ever believes/understands what the hell I'm saying. But anyhow slashdot must be REALLY slacking.... this has been out for how many years? I think Einstien was the 1st to theorize this.

    1. Re:Not new news by JaymzDean · · Score: 1

      ~Actually, in the end, we will learn that the universe is currently shaped like a hollow expanding sphere. Like a boiled egg with no shell and no yolk - just a hollow space in the middle. * If there were only two objects in the universe, the universe would be made up of the two objects and the space between them. This universe would be described as a line or a cylinder which would grow longer as the two objects moved further apart. * If there were no objects in existence, there would be only space. Technically, we couldn't call it space, since there would be no objects for there to be space between. But we could logically perceive this situation to be an infinite vacuum. * In our current universe, if you were to exit one edge, you would not come in on the opposite side. Rather, you would only increase the size of the universe, because you are just another object of the universe, and you would only be increasing the space between you and the rest of the objects in existence.

  115. whats on the other side by jrs · · Score: 1

    Just like now how we imagine whats beyond our planet. What could be beyond The Universe?

  116. LIke a doughnut? by kaiguy · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that the universe shares other characteristics with doughnuts? Could "dark matter" be a powdery tasty substance on the surface of the universe?

    --
    My user number is the sum of 4 squares.
  117. Thanks. by zipwow · · Score: 1

    That's the part I was forgetting. The torus==doughnut was getting me confused, and I forgot that inner 'circumference' == outer 'circumference'.

    If it isn't obvious already, my understanding of the torus is tenuous at best.

    Thanks again,

    Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
  118. where are those notes? by ironfroggy · · Score: 1

    I wish I could find my papers from a few years back when i drew up a diagram for the universe as a four dimensional donut. this was my idea first.

  119. Does that mean... by Rai · · Score: 1

    God got up really early and stumbled into his kitchen saying "Time to make the universe..."

  120. Sprinkles? by Akardam · · Score: 1

    I actually hope we're an old fashioned doughnut with chocolate frosting.

    Mmm... doughnuts...

  121. doughnut OR a cylinder? by trefoil · · Score: 1

    and the world may be flat OR round?

  122. Mmmm... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mmmm, universes...

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  123. Shape of the Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought is was shaped like Uranus.

    *** Pseudo-sig *** just how many time could this POSSIBLY be duped????

  124. The Universe is Flat, not Doughnut shaped. by itistoday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From their site:

    "The Inflationary Theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that density is very close to the critical density, producing a flat universe, like a sheet of paper. WMAP has determined, within the limits of instrument error, that the universe is flat"

    Last I heard doughnuts aren't flat.

    1. Re:The Universe is Flat, not Doughnut shaped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I heard doughnuts aren't flat.


      Doughnuts themselves, as in the food, aren't flat. However, you can have a universe with the same topology as a doughnut (i.e., a shape that can be deformed into "a sphere with a handle") that is intrinsically flat. (It won't have the geometry of a normal doughnut, but it will have the topology. Except of course this is a "hyper-doughnut", the three-dimensional analogue of a two-dimensional dougnut's surface.)
  125. Curvature vs Topology by GryMor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even if the hypertori topology of the universe is correct it doesn't imply that the universe has any particular curvature, it's still possible that it has positive, negative or flat intrinsic curvature.

    You have to remember that the curvature of a torus embeded in 'flat' 3 space is purely an artifact of that embeding and not intrinsic in the topology of the torus. More specifically, there exist mappings from the embeded (intrinsicly curved) surface of the three dimensionally embeded torus to topologically identicle spaces that have everywhere flat intrinsic curvature.

    As a thought experiment, consider a cube where the faces are portals to their oposites. Internally, this construct has the topology of a hypertorus but an everywhere flat topology.

    For some nice diagrams and comentary that explain curvature (of the important, intrinisic kind) rather well, take a look at this, just skip over any of the math thats beyond your abilities, it's not really needed to understand the concepts.

    --
    Realities just a bunch of bits.
  126. Uninformed prediction by Damned · · Score: 1

    I assume this will be lost in the flood of other comments, but...

    I'll say that we will probably come to find out that space is really a moebius loop. I'll also bet that anyone trained in cosmology who reads this, if they decide to comment, will tell me why this is wrong in detail.

    --
    "I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony
  127. Re:Homer? by diwanicka · · Score: 1

    what the heck is your problem? It is a funny reference which is on topic and is mandatory on /..

  128. n-tori and spacetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about but: If the universe is curved in on itself, and we know that time can be curved by mass and momentum (or speed, I forget), does that mean the possibilty exists that time itself could curve onto itself. If so, would this likely be only a localised effect, if you managed to attain the speed of light, which in itself requires infinite energy?

  129. Of course it's shaped like a tourus by DrFrob · · Score: 1

    Without periodic boundary conditions, you run into finite size and surface problems.

  130. Doughnut by Bad+Fugs · · Score: 1

    Every time I have a big bang, I put a hole in the doughnut, and a new star is born.

  131. Homer Simpson! by t0ny · · Score: 2, Funny

    Donuts. Is there anything they cant do?

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    1. Re:Homer Simpson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "homer, i am intrigued by your theory of a donut-shaped universe. perhaps i'll steal it." -stephen hawking (on the simpsons, of course)

    2. Re:Homer Simpson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the first thing I thought of when I read the article title. I expected this quote to be first post.

  132. I heard some sad news on talk radio this morning.. by Salsaman · · Score: 1
    Oh, Steven *Hawking*, I thought you meant Steven *King*.

    Sorry, could not resist ;-)

  133. Integer overflow by Temporal · · Score: 1

    Looks like God forgot to check for integer overflow when he coded the universe!

    Mr. Andrew Jackson here (that's $20 for those of you not familiar with US currency) says the width of the universe is a power of two (times the minimum quantized unit of length)!

  134. really now.... by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

    Well I have had my name on slashdot for like 3 years, long before this. It was suppose to be DoughnutShapedUniverse but that didn't fit.

    Homer Simpson was right

  135. Obligatory anime reference by dacarr · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that Vash The Stampede is now part of the donut, and therefor has achieved a zen state?

    --
    This sig no verb.
  136. Go homer simpson... by Transcendent · · Score: 1

    "Your doughnut shaped universe theory is intreaguing to me, homer, I may just have to steal it..."

    Homer and Hawking in Moe's bar...

    The genius is revealed.

  137. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by MMaestro · · Score: 1

    I never actually read any of Stephen Hawking books (yet at least) but could someone tell me if this question has been answer yet : If the universe is known to be expanding farther and farther away from each individual star from the Big Bang, would the universe one day begin to 'collapse' on itself when stars begin to attract each other towards the center of the universe caused by their own gravities? Thus causing yet another Big Bang when all matter and atoms in the universe compress into one small piece of space?

  138. This theory was said before.... by dragontooth · · Score: 1

    Didn't Homer Simpson have a theory about a donut shaped universe?

    "Homer, your theory of a donut shaped universe is intriguing..." - Stephan Hawking

    --
    "Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you. Cry, and they still think its funny." - Mr. Boffo
  139. Or as Homer would say by bcilfone · · Score: 1

    Mmmmm.... the universe....

  140. hmm... by C21 · · Score: 1

    I think we're forgetting something very important, event horizon. Cosmologists have already declared that we do not have a view of the entire universe, therefore any shape we assign to the universe will presently be nullified when we discover that the universe is a lot more "whack" than we think...lets all just wait about 50-100 more years until our technology actually ripens...

    --
    this is not a sig.
  141. Mmm.... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    Mmmm.... universe donut.... drool......

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  142. Tim Horton is God? by Limited+Vision · · Score: 1

    Apparently Timbits are far more important that we ever imagined...

  143. Re:Mmm...doughnut.... by derch · · Score: 1

    Edward Hopper's Nighthawks - pics and details at http://edwardhopper.info/painting/Nighthawks.html

  144. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Wehesheit · · Score: 0

    cool new theory instead of "The Big Crunch" they have The Big Rip

    --
    This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
  145. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Wehesheit · · Score: 0

    dammit i forgot the link. Here it is and appologies for the double post. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_0303 06.html

    --
    This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
  146. So Homer was right!?!?! by Joey7F · · Score: 1

    I distinctly remember Stephen Hawking wanting to discuss Homer's theory of a donut shaped universe...

    --Joey

  147. What happens if a Krispy Kreme explodes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Does that create a bunch of new universes?

    Or does it destroy them?

    And why?

  148. What about the article... by eluusive · · Score: 1

    That "proved" the universe was geometrically flat? *shrug* Or does this somehow not relate?

  149. So if the Universe wraps around... by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    Now I know why I always have that feeling that someone is looking at me. No matter which direction I look, I'm looking at myself! ;)

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  150. Doughnut? Don't you mean... by Farq+Fenderson · · Score: 1

    Hypertaurus?

  151. Prooving once again that I am a smarty-pants by FamedLamer · · Score: 1

    Last November, while I had no electricity, I was smoking a bowl and listeing to Art Bell on my crank-up AM radio. Art had some Indian (native american) dude who was talking about his idea of God.

    Somehow, during one of my deep inhilations, the conversation between Art and Red Elk (I think that was his name) turned to UFO's, as is often the case on the Art Bell show. Someone called in describing a triangular device that floated in the sky silently.

    This set the mood for my discovery of the Universes shape. It is rather like a donut, but only when viewed from a distance, which we aren't able to do, unless you buy some of this shit I get from.. nevermind.

    Anyways, triangles are the key to understanding the whole thing. Where the sphere idea came from I do not know, but it seems fairly obvious to me: Triangles make up everything, and everything is a donut. Untold numbers of triangles whose sides meet to make one giant donut! Yeah! Whos with me? Lets burn one and then work on explaining why toast always lands butter-side down.

    (Most of this post is based in reality, I just seriously doubt anyone would believe that a pot-head without electricity could imagine this sort of thing on his own)

  152. When all you have are ... by billmoss · · Score: 0

    When all you have are microwave anisotropy probes your world begins to resmble a dougnut.

    ^M

  153. Re:The last thing Homer needs to learn... (PROOF) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It is true...

    Hawking: Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is
    intriguing, Homer. I may have to steal it.
    Homer: Wow, I can't believe someone I never heard of is
    hanging out with a guy like me.
    Moe: All right, it's closing time. Who's paying the tab?
    Homer: [imitating Hawking's voice box] I am.
    Hawking: I didn't say that.
    Homer: [still imitating] Yes I did.
    [the glove comes out again, bopping Homer in the
    face]
    [still imitating] D'oh.

    Script from the episode

  154. jelly donut? by GrendelT · · Score: 1
  155. AD&D Planescape... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The city at the center of all the planes in the AD&D Planescape campaign setting was a place called Sigil, and it was shaped like a donut, effectively making it infinite in sense. Somewhat interesting, wouldn't you say?

  156. Re:Let me help! by scubacuda · · Score: 2, Funny
    You could have just written:

    10 print "Oh no, Homer was right!"
    20 print "Mmm... Universe."
    30 goto 10


    or, better yet....

    for (i=0; i < 1; i--)
    cout << "Oh now, Homer was right!\"\n"Hmm... Universe\"\n

  157. I just knew.. by skinnydskitzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From reading the title of this article, that there was going to be a string of Homer Simpson references. Woohoo!

  158. More details from Max Tegmark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be interested in reading something of the level of Scientific American on this elsewhere on the web.


    I don't know of a better non-technical source. But a better technical source is Max Tegmark's page.


    The article made it seem like this idea is far from proven. If it IS so wacky then why such attention paid to it?


    Because it's the only really interesting potentially new result from WMAP. (As one of the astrophysicists in my department semi-sarcastically remarked.) Everything else was more or less reconfirming "the standard model of cosmology" to a higher precision.
  159. corrected link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  160. Re:how to go "that-a-way." by NetFusion · · Score: 1

    You throw yourself at the universe and miss.

  161. Funny you should mention that by Lupus+Rufus · · Score: 1

    It turns out that one of the natural Riemannian structures to put on a torus is a flat metric, coming from the flat metric on Euclidean space modulo a lattice. That this has the topology of a torus you can see by gluing pairs of opposite sides of a "fundamental domain" for the lattice (a square). This corresponds to an embedding of the torus in 4-space (S^1 x S^1 into R^2 x R^2) which you can't really visualize but which avoids the messy curvature of the torus embedded in 3-space.

    --

    Aren't you dead?

  162. what one minute by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    a month ago, they said the universe was flat, not it is a doughnut...what is it!!

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:what one minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Universes that have the topology of a doughnut can have a geometry that is intrinsically flat.

    2. Re:what one minute by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      head hurts.....does not understand diffrence...ahhhhh

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  163. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Au contraire, if the universe is a torus there is plenty of curvature. Points along the inner half-torus have a negative curvature, points along the outer half-torus have a positive curvature. The only points where the curvature is zero are along the circles where the inner and outer halves meet.


    That's true of a torus whose intrinsic geometry is induced by its canonical extrinsic embedding in Euclidean space. But it's possible to construct a torus whose intrinsic geometry is flat, as the previous poster mentioned. Such a torus cannot be isometrically embedded in R^3, but it doesn't have to be. General relativity does not require that space be embedded (isometrically or otherwise) in a higher-dimensional geometry.
  164. MMMM... UNIVERSE by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

    Or should it be, "Mmmmmm, redundant astro-confectionary hypothetical model"....

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  165. Just a screen saver by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    So we're all just an Alife screen saver on God's computer. Assuming I'm a made in gods image it would make sense that she's a geek too. :o)

  166. Cops everywhere... by No.+24601 · · Score: 1

    REJOICE!

  167. Doughnuts! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Is there anything they can't do?

  168. Heard about this story on NPR by Dram · · Score: 1

    I even posted about it on my blog. I'm cool now, right?

  169. Remember Bloom County? by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Actually, it's shaped like a burrito"

  170. There is no outside by spun · · Score: 1

    There may well be higher dimensions, other universes, or planes of existence. If they do not interact with ours in any way at any time, then from our perspective their existence or lack of it is undefined. If they do interact with ours at all, then they are not really seperate from ours, rather, both universes make up some larger entity which still has no outside.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  171. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

    Of course this was just a theory back when he wrote the book.

    and it's still just a theory.

    --
    This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
  172. Anisotropy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No big deal. My video card has *that*.

  173. The Earth is not round. by deathcloset · · Score: 1

    It has been my personal observation that everything in this universe tends to become a sphere (like an exploded dog in space will eventually coelesce into an exploded doggie sphere).

    It has been peoples observations in the past the the earth was flat, but further observation proved otherwise.

    It has also been my observation that people seem to regard the 4th dimension of time as another 1 dimension.

    For example, you hear of time going forward and backward, but never up down left or right.

    how could a superset dimension of our familiar three have less attributes then our second dimension?

    I'll tell you what (here comes some opinion), I get a little tired of theoretical physics at times. I mean, yes, nothing would happen without theories in place first, but there is something to be said for the practical application of these theories. Cosmologist, while great to listen to can really piss me off when they go throwing out all these exotic concepts without hard, hard, hard evidence to back it up.
    I mean, einstein had his three letters equal sign and exponent and they were just letters with some math to back them up until....boom! Then we could really test his numbers and see a practical (and deadly-radioactive) example of his theory. This donut thing and this cylinder thing. It takes more faith to belive these cosmologist at times then it takes faith to believe in the almighty! in fact, in light of some of these whacked out sounding theories some of god's stuff sounds downright logical.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that while there were those who thought the earth was flat and there were those who observed the earth as round and spherical there additionally were those who thought the earth was the shape of a donut.

    1. Re:The Earth is not round. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been my personal observation that everything in this universe tends to become a sphere (like an exploded dog in space will eventually coelesce into an exploded doggie sphere).


      Sufficiently large objects get pulled into spherical shapes because their gravity overcomes their internal structure. Smaller objects, such as you, do not.


      It has also been my observation that people seem to regard the 4th dimension of time as another 1 dimension.

      For example, you hear of time going forward and backward, but never up down left or right.


      Does your clock measure time "left and right"? Neither does anybody else's. It measures "forward".

      In a spacetime picture, a timelike direction doesn't have to be entirely "forward in time" --- it can be partly "forward in time, and sideways in space". But there is still no "left and right in time".


      how could a superset dimension of our familiar three have less attributes then our second dimension?


      Huh?


      Cosmologist, while great to listen to can really piss me off when they go throwing out all these exotic concepts without hard, hard, hard evidence to back it up.


      You mean, like a statistical analysis of the anisotropies in the CMBR power spectrum?


      I mean, einstein had his three letters equal sign and exponent and they were just letters with some math to back them up until....boom! Then we could really test his numbers and see a practical (and deadly-radioactive) example of his theory.
      This donut thing and this cylinder thing. It takes more faith to belive these cosmologist at times then it takes faith to believe in the almighty!


      You're confusing the practical application of a theory, with its experimental support. It's possible to have good evidence that a theory is correct, regardless of whether that evidence is "practically useful".


      I guess what I am trying to say is that while there were those who thought the earth was flat and there were those who observed the earth as round and spherical there additionally were those who thought the earth was the shape of a donut.


      However, the observations supported a spherical shape --- once people started going by observations. Why do you think it takes more faith to believe an astronomer's observations concerning the geometry of the universe, than it does to believe them concerning the geometry of the Earth? Both of them have precise experimental support. (And our experiments are more precise than the ones that originally indicated that the Earth was spherical.)

      However, if you read the article, you will read that although we've got good evidence that the universe is close to flat, the evidence in favor of it having a toroidal topology isn't so good. Nobody's asking you to take that on faith.
    2. Re:The Earth is not round. by PigleT · · Score: 1

      "For example, you hear of time going forward and backward, but never up down left or right."

      Read _A Brief History of Time_. You'll find complex-time being posited in there, maybe 3/4 the way through or so - so left/right is very much a possibility, or at least, the "time" equivalent of such things.

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
  174. Going around it in different directions. by Decimal · · Score: 1

    With a torus shape as opposed to a spherical shape (Yes, yes, a hyper-shape but visualize it in 2D/3D) you could go one direction and go "around" the universe a lot faster than if you were to go another direction. But if you were an ant on this universe-ish donut and couldn't see very far, how would you know which direction to go? One way would take you towards the center and around the edge and another would take you lengthwise around the donut. Still others would send you spiraling around the donut in seemingly strange twisty patterns and you would pass close to the point where you started many times and not know it unless you paid close attention. Does this really work with the idea that in space, there is no privileged point of view? This would essentially give space a directional system where we're used to thinking of it as going on and on without a standard up or down, center or edge.

    --

    Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
    1. Re:Going around it in different directions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Does this really work with the idea that in space, there is no privileged point of view? This would essentially give space a directional system where we're used to thinking of it as going on and on without a standard up or down, center or edge.


      In a toroidal universe, there are indeed privileged directions. (This does not violate the relativity principle, however. That only requires space to be locally isotropic -- that you can't determine a preferred direction by doing experiments within a small closed box. If you made the box the size of the universe, it would be a different story.)
  175. The things Video Games have taught us by euxneks · · Score: 1

    Ah yes.. If you go off one end of the screen, you'll end up on the other.. Eat the bigger pill and you can defeat the ghosts.. Mushrooms make you grow bigger.. Women can jump over people and shoot perfectly with two guns.. There are always alligators in pits.. Am I missing anything?

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    1. Re:The things Video Games have taught us by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

      don't forget flowers make your able to shoot fireballs, stars make you flash and seemingly invincible, gorillas like to throw barrels, and crossing checkered lines gives your car more fuel

  176. universe by JaymzDean · · Score: 1

    Actually, in the end, we will learn that the universe is currently shaped like a hollow expanding sphere. Like a boiled egg with no shell and no yolk - just a hollow space in the middle. * If there were only two objects in the universe, the universe would be made up of the two objects and the space between them. This universe would be described as a line or a cylinder which would grow longer as the two objects moved further apart. * If there were no objects in existence, there would be only space. Technically, we couldn't call it space, since there would be no objects for there to be space between. But we could logically perceive this situation to be an infinite vacuum. * In our current universe, if you were to exit one edge, you would not come in on the opposite side. Rather, you would only increase the size of the universe, because you are just another object of the universe, and you would only be increasing the space between you and the rest of the objects in existence.

  177. Hmm... ([x]) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it might be possible, like in the old video game Spacewar, to drift off one 'side' of the Universe and reappear on the other

    So, the machines based the Matrix on Pacman. Well, that's great.

    1. Re:Hmm... ([x]) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explains the ubiquitiousness of capitalism.

      *eats you, and your little job too*

  178. Number overflow? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

    it might be possible, to drift off one 'side' of the Universe and reappear on the other.

    If I was getting circular results in a simulation, I'd blame the software, not redefine the universe as being circular like an asteroids game.

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  179. Re:Let me help! by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1
    i will eventualy overflow and terminate your loop

    what you want is this:
    while(true)
    cout << "Oh now, Homer was right!\"\n"Mmm... Universe\"\n";
    --
    Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
  180. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All discussion methods are yours - except for humor. We've seen what passes for humor around here. Attempt no forays into humor.

  181. Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Although cartoonish in appearance, the game was amazingly faithful to the laws of physics, complete with a gravitational field that affected both the torpedoes and the rockets. Only one feature seemed outlandish: a ship that drifted off the edge of the screen would reappear on the opposite side."

    Does this mean Pioneer 10 may be passing us by again from the other direction?

    1. Re:Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it; it'll probably get captured in another star's orbit before it travels that far.

      Even if it did manage the round trip somehow, the Sun would have long since incinerated the inner planets and become either a dwarf or a black hole. I'd be surprised if we were still around to notice (not in a universal sense, but a solar one.)

  182. Re:Let me help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooh! ooh! I can thrown in a quote here too:

    It's funny, because it's true.

  183. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by 6hill · · Score: 1
    If the universe is known to be expanding farther and farther away from each individual star from the Big Bang, would the universe one day begin to 'collapse' on itself when stars begin to attract each other towards the center of the universe caused by their own gravities?

    In short, the fate of the universe depends on the true nature of Einstein's cosmological constant, also known as "that damn nuisance of a lambda" in more jocular astrophysics circles. I quote:

    "In this model, called the inflationary Big Bang, the universe should contain a critical density of matter, just enough to slow expansion to a halt, given infinite time. Scientists express this condition of critical density as omega equals one. Too little mass -- if omega equals less than one -- and the universe would expand forever, growing ever more tenuous. If omega equals more than one, then the universe would collapse of its own weight, contracting in what is called the Big Crunch."

    Read the link for more. There was also an excellent article on this in last month's (?) American Scientist, IIRC.

  184. Re:Let me help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that supposed to be MFCPopUp(hIncance, handle, event); sorta crap?

  185. Where is the coffee ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, we have found God's doughnut. Where is the coffee mug that he is dunking it into ?

    1. Re:Where is the coffee ? by John+Bayko · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you know anything about topology, you'd know that coffee cups are doughnuts.

  186. video games by DZign · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just knew the old video games had to be right !

    Now all we can do is wait until pacman passes and eats the earth ?

  187. Re:I heard some sad news on talk radio this mornin by Bald+Wookie · · Score: 1

    I thought you meant Steven *King*.

    No, then you'd never get out of Maine.

  188. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by podperson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And er Stephen Hawking was hardly the first to suggest this.

  189. Re:Old hat - Where's the magic dot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhere in deep space there is a magic sphere which if you fly into, will give you a list of the credits of the makers of the universe.

  190. Evidence of a looping universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We must combine all mankind in creating the worlds (or even the universes) biggest nuclear device and detonate it in space and then look the other way.

    If theyr right we'll see the massive boom as a little speck the split second before all of mankind is annihilated.

    This definately proves that this idea is more dangerous than Eisteins

  191. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey pretensious dumbfuck, did you actually read the fucking book? Then you'd know Hawkings made no such prediction, he was stating the generally accepted theories put forward by Einstein more than 80 years ago. Christ you idiot.

  192. ObSimpsons by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    I Will Not Hang Donuts On My Person
    I Will Not Hang Donuts On My Person
    I Will Not Hang Donuts On My Person
    I Will Not Hang

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  193. Of course by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    I've heard physicists use the analogy of a balloon when talking about the universe expanding. People in a 2-D universe on the surface of the balloon seem to be getting farther apart because their universe is expanding. Expanding into what? Well it's a closed 2-D surface in 3-Space. I always thought this was supposed to explain how we are a closed 3D "surface" in 4-Space. They always get so abstract I think most of them overlooked the fact that this implies wrap-around.

    1. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in a 2-D universe on the surface of the balloon seem to be getting farther apart because their universe is expanding. Expanding into what? Well it's a closed 2-D surface in 3-Space. I always thought this was supposed to explain how we are a closed 3D "surface" in 4-Space


      No. Picturing the universe as embedded within some higher space is just a visualization tool. You don't know how to visualize a 2D balloon without envisioning it inside a 3D space, because all the balloons you actually see are so embedded. But it's possible to mathematically describe an expanding 2D surface without appealing to anything outside of that surface -- you can tell it's expanding because things inside it are getting farther apart, not because it's moving around within anything bigger. And it's possible to construct physical theories around this "intrinsic geometry" (as opposed to the "extrinsic geometry" of an embedding). So the universe, in general relativity at least, is not supposed to be "expanding into" anything.
    2. Re:Of course by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      I may well be missing something. So can you please give me a mathematical definition for a 2D surface of finite size with no "end". And please provide this in 2-Space. This will likely require me to do some reading to understand, so could you provide some good links or a reference? I guess I can search on "intrinsic geometry" for a start.

      Thanks

  194. Re:Let me help! by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

    Better yet:

    .text
    .globl _start
    _start:
    movl $1,%ebx
    movl $donuts,%ecx
    movl $44,%edx
    movl $4,%eax
    int $0x80
    jmp _start

    .data
    donuts:
    .ascii "Oh no, Homer was right!\nMmm... Universe\n"


    Note: This is adapted from a hello world assembler - I have no idea what I'm doing here.

  195. Mmmmmm...universe by objekt · · Score: 1

    I bet no one noticed this yet!

    Hawking: Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is
    intriguing, Homer. I may have to steal it.

    Homer: Wow, I can't believe someone I never heard of is
    hanging out with a guy like me.

    Moe: All right, it's closing time. Who's paying the tab?

    Homer: [imitating Hawking's voice box] I am.

    Hawking: I didn't say that.

    Homer: [still imitating] Yes I did.
    [the glove comes out again, bopping Homer in the
    face]

    [still imitating] D'oh.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  196. Inside of what? by MoogMan · · Score: 1

    And this doughnut is held in what, where?

  197. Not so much a pringle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More a bowtie pasta. Linkage and sauce.

  198. Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well duh!

  199. PAK CHOOIE UNF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have discovered the terrible secret of space!

  200. Okay.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, this kind of sounds like a troll.. but... there is something here that many people misunderstand.

    Yes, it's possible the universe might collapse back in on itself one day due to gravity. howeve.r..

    When we talk about the universe expanding "away" from the big bang... we aren't talking about a 3d explosion.. where everything is moving away from a central point. If that were the case, we would be able to calculate where the center of the universe was, where the big bang started, and things would be really un-uniform (more spread out the further away you get from the center)

    We are talking about a 4d explosion... with spacetime itself going from a single point to.. well.. the universe today.

    That's why when we look, everything is moving away from everything else, no matter which direction.. there is no middle. There is no direction to the spread, other than "away". This is also why you hear scientists talk about looking further and further away, and hence, further and further back in time....no matter which direction they look in.

    1. Re:Okay.... by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      Well, finding the center of the universe would be impossible because of space, but because they would have to trace every single atom "created" (I use the term loosely) since the beginning of time. Since gravity is always around us, all the planets and galaxys ect are all being pulled by one another making it a big mis-mash of a universe. Think of it as a giant soup pot and there is one spoon inside stirring around one ingredient all at the time. The result is the soup gets missed up so much thats its "impossible" to find the center of the soup without travelling back in time or calculating each and every motion caused by each spoon.

      This is why we cannot find the "center". This also cannot be done on a 2D scale because there are too many factors to be calculated. Just think of a giant game of tug of war with 10 teams all trying to pull each other towards one another all at the same time. If you can do the math for that and accurately calculate where each of the teams ends up after 5 minutes of pulling, kudos to you, you may have a future as a scientist trying to calculate the center of the universe.

    2. Re:Okay.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, finding the center of the universe would be impossible because of space, but because they would have to trace every single atom "created" (I use the term loosely) since the beginning of time.


      No, it's because there isn't and never was a center, just like there isn't a center to the surface of the Earth.
    3. Re:Okay.... by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      Well a 'center to the surface of the Earth' seems like a bad example to me since you're asking for a 2D center point on a 3D scale. Its hard to argue anything based on something that cannot exist without violating a good number of proven physics laws.

      Think about it, if there was no center to the universe, then how did galaxies manage to pull enough atoms together to form planets? Keeping in mind the Big Bang theory, if there is no center of the universe for all atoms to "start at", then it would have taken well over a trillion years just to attract enough atoms together to form a small marble. The rest of the atoms would be "smeared" across space since they are going too fast to use their very, very, very small fields of gravity to form anything. To say that there is no center of the universe is like saying "There is no end to the universe because we can't calculate the distance."

  201. Right... by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

    The "Universe" is not only knowable, but it's shaped like a donut. Uhhh huh. Gotta love modern physics. They just make crap up at will.

    Hint: The "Universe" is unknowable. I wish they would come up with a better term. Known Universe would at least be less ridiculous.

    Th problem with bandying about terms like Universe is that there's always a chance there's "something" just beyond what you think is the limit.

    1. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what they need to say to be less ridiculous is that "The known universe is knowable"?

  202. Re:Let me help! by DChristensen · · Score: 1

    for (i=0; i < 1; i--)
    cout < < "Oh no, Homer was right!\"\n"Hmm... Universe\"\n


    This only works if i is an infinitely long signed data type; otherwise, you will end once you overflow.

    </anal>

    --

    --
    Mac OS X--Unix without the assholes^Whassles.

  203. The reason thats funny is by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    some other physicist (cant remember name) claimed that Stephen Hawking had stolen some of his ideas used in 'a brief history of time'. It was mostly proven that this was not the case...

  204. Re:Actually Stephen Hawking predicted this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey pretensious dumbfuck, did you actually read the fucking book? Then you'd know Hawkings made no such prediction, he was stating the generally accepted theories put forward by Einstein more than 80 years ago.


    Well, maybe he read it. He at least spelled "Hawking" right.

    (But anyway, you're right.)
  205. Re:Also shaped like a doughnut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope to see the day when we can actually mod up moderators...

  206. obligatory by Greenrider · · Score: 1

    Homer: [ruefully] I'd sell my soul for a donut.
    [The devil appears, looking like Flanders]
    Flanders: Heh heh, that can be arranged.
    Homer: What -- Flanders! You're the devil?
    Flanders: Ho ho, it's always the one you least suspect.
    ...
    Flanders: Now remember, the instant you finish it, I own your soul for --
    Homer: [through a full mouth] Hey, wait: if I don't finish this last bite, you don't get my soul, do you?
    Flanders: Well, technically, no, but --
    Homer: [gloating] I'm smarter than the devil!

    [later]
    Homer: "Mmm, forbidden donut."

    -SNPP

  207. Old news? by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Isn't this old news? Maybe we have data now, but the theory I remember hearing in the eighties.

  208. Check out Lee Smolin's theories by Ze+Kraggash · · Score: 1

    Some basic googling provides plenty of really interesting information...

  209. Re: [Krusty the Clown] Coming up... by Ocelot+Wreak · · Score: 1
    The Krispy Kreme Endowment for Excellence in Cosmology.

    No, I think you mean: "The Krusty Clown Endowment for Excellence in Kosmology."

    Mmmmmmmm. Kosmology...
    -wjc.

    --
    "I figure you're here 'cause you need some whacko who's willing to stick his finger in the fan. So who are we helping?
  210. Where No One Has Gone Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject for title of episode.

  211. The Number of the Beast by Tassach · · Score: 1

    Heinlein's The Number of the Beast is based around the concept of 3-dimensional time. An interesting read, to say the least.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  212. empty calories by tsoquark · · Score: 1


    God: "Damn universe! Went straight to my hips."

  213. "Pacman"? by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

    That's "Prostethnic Vogon Jeltz" to you, scum. :-)

  214. very unattractive by Wah · · Score: 1

    because there would have to be some universe out there where slashdot isn't a tech news site, but a daily orgy.

    --
    +&x
    1. Re:very unattractive by peter · · Score: 1

      Things can only happen if they're _possible_.

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  215. Re:Black hole from the inside. - Won't work by tiohero · · Score: 1
    I've thought about this myself and can think of many aspects that are solved by such a senario. The sticking point is that black holes have a fixed surface area. The universe is closed (it has no suface area) Anybody see a way around this?

    I've wondered if the supposed acceleration of the universe may be the result of pressure (Enegy/volume)induced by a slight anisotropy of the quantum vacuum fluctuation, implying some type of surface that we can't detect. (More stuff enters our universe from somewhere else than leaves)

  216. So ... The universe looks like a cockring? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    So the universe looks like a cockring, everybody knows half the universe runs because of sex ...

    Maybe god just needs a large size of cockring, some people need large sizes of a cockring ...

    So I have to conclude we are "somebodies" toy?

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..