Forum menu
the issue is not what it is (as to which I do not need persuading), but why we think it is like that.
Because the mathematical models that best agree with what we observe point to the universe being finite, but unbounded, as I understand it. It has no center and no edge because it curves back on itself in a dimension that we can't perceive directly. We can only model it mathematically.
On the centre:
does this work - where is the centre of the surface of a globe? It doesn't have one
Av it...
Because the mathematical models that best agree with what we observe point to the universe being finite, but unbounded, as I understand it. It has no center and no edge because it curves back on itself in a dimension that we can’t perceive directly. We can only model it mathematically.
Thanks @thols2. I also appreciate everyone trying to explain "not having a centre", though I already understood that bit. I suppose the next step would be to find out what the observations you refer to are, but I don't think this thread would be the place for that.
You can read Wikipedia articles about it but you won't actually understand why physicists came to those conclusions if you can't follow the mathematical reasoning. I did well at physics at high-school, did ok at first-year physics at university, but it was obvious I would have to spend two years doing some serious maths study if I wanted to keep taking physics. I was too lazy and was more interested in philosophy of science so I just did a philosophy degree because it was much easier. When you get to things like string theory, you aren't going to understand it if you aren't fluent in the mathematical language.
Too right about the maths. One of my lockdown hobbies was to do try to understand a couple of those subjects that I dropped during undergrad final year back in '92. Starting with Quantum Mechanics. Done a few of those MIT youtube lecture series on all kinds of useful topics, but the quantum one seems to be an entire semester of lectures manipulating the Schroedinger equation. Crazy how the Math(s) courses seem like somewhere between A-level and undergrad physics/engineering, but the quantum physics one feels like math(s) overload and brain explosion.
Some of the Feynmann stuff was pretty good though. Good to see how the understanding and analogies evolved over the years as science progressed rather than all in with current maths.
Still remember my first A-level physics class (although I think it's absolutely true for Maths too, given that Physics is just Applied Maths). "Physics is a load of b******s! It's just a load of rules that seem to work".
I agree (which was why I only wanted to know what the observations were that lead to the conclusion - I know I wouldn't be able to understand the logic). I studied quantum chemistry at university 40+ years ago. I am pretty sure I remember doing a thing called "solving the eigen functions of the shift operator" (or something like that). Now, not only can I not do it, I don't know what an eigen function (?eigenfunction) is and, as for the shift operator, not a clue.