I came up with this insane theory, will it change some physicists views?

Question

Okay,
Today in Physics there are people who believe in a infinite universe and then there are those that believe the universe is finite.
In this theory lets say the universe is finite, like most of the famous physicists of today say it is, (such as Hawking) this would mean the universe has an end.
Some say (including hawkings) if you were to reach this end you would immediately transport to the other side of the universe, in a spherical theoretical universe.
Now if this was true, wouldn't it also be true that ever star that gave forth light close to the edge of the universe would travel past the edge and to the other side, making it look like the same star was in two positions at once?
Even more amazing is if light is really constant (Like every one says it is) it would send a banner of light from one edge of the star to the other, or intill that constant light was stopped hitting into another soild star, am I not correct?

Answer 1

You are partially correct. That is to say, you are only correct in that light from a star would eventually reach itself if this universe is in a repetitive shape. However, I think Stephen Hawking was using a spherical universe model to express a specific analogical point about the nature of dimensions.

So, I hope you don't mind if I critique your theory somewhat, but it is unknown as to whether or not the universe is open or closed, finite or infinite. The only thing we can be reasonably sure of, is that it is finite in time, but not in space. That is to say, we can reasonably "point" to a moment WHEN we believed the universe started; however it is well believed that there wasn't a single point in space WHERE the universe began. Rather, that it began everywhere at once, which implies an infinite 3 dimensional realm in which the visible universe exists, but doesn't exclude extra, unseen dimensions/universes from existing beyond this realm. But as it stands the only boarder we've been able to even remotely claim as the "edge of the universe" is the distance light has travelled since the universe's inception. But note, this does not preclude that there isn't matter existing beyond what we can see. We do know that if we look one way, we don't see the same thing as if we look another way.

It's good that you're thinking about it, keep it up.

Answer 2

what do you mean when you say the edge of the universe? i think its clear that even though the total mass it contains is finite, there is no edge because that would mean there is an outside.

i think everything is probably looped together in a way like when people talk about gravity as a bowling ball on a bedsheet, only instead of being a dent the universe would have all the edges of the sheet sewn together into a sphere, making a straight line spanning the entire universe look like a circle viewed from outside (if it could be).

however the real shape of the universe is not geometric and we are not capable of concieving it, a sphere is the closest we can come

i geuss that is what you are saying and it looks right in theory, but we cannot observe it in reallity because light is so slow on the universal scale

i dont think your theory is anything new, and for the light to reach the star again it would have to travel the same distance no matter WHERE the star was located (WHEN would matter).

sorry : (

Answer 3

you are partly correct, the star would basically appear in two places. if you looked to the right, you would see light coming out of the star and if you looked to the left you would also see the star. as light can travel an infinite distance, the star doesnt have to be on the edge of the universe, it could be anywhere. so in theory, every star is sending light that circles the universe. Of course, the light gets diffused and shifted since the universe is expanding. so the frequency and amplitude will change considerable in its journey.

Answer 4

not inevitably, if what he says would not upload up, his PhD is irrelevant! i become quite unimpressed along with his astronomical cycles for the reason that he did not make clean precisely what they have been. sure, he did point out some planets and a few time classes yet how those have been appropriate become not defined! in spite of everything even if if there become a planetary result, (i don't think there is) it could be cyclical, would not it? Why could the planets now be generating a warming result? As for the image voltaic orbit around the galaxy, to signify that it must be linked to the temperature upward thrust of cutting-edge an prolonged time, that's in simple terms moronic! it quite is in simple terms too sluggish! PhD or not, i think of this gentleman has already desperate that it's not CO2, for psychological quite than scientific reasons and his diagnosis reflects that concept. the place his PhD is considerable is that he's able to produce convincing fabric to the nonspecialist. i'm going to attempt and supply this slightly greater time later.

Answer 5

You're making an incorrect assumption. Saying that the universe is infinite does not say that it has an end. It's not common sense, but most things in physics today aren't.

Answer 6

Light is energy and thus can be altered to different forms. It can be absorbed to black holes, large masses can bend it and so forth. The end of universe as we know and understand it may well be a beginning to a larger, yet unknown complex. Remains to be seen...?