![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've seen no presentations of what hyperbolic space would look like to
an Earth-based observer. Hyperbolic space models an additional large dimension which causes the "shells of space" to have larger volumes per del-radius than would flat 3D space. Since we don't see this large extra dimension locally, it follows that (in this model) our 3D space is embedded in a 4D space such that the 4th dimension manifests only over large scales; the Randall-Sundrum model is like this. An extension of this is that the 4D space is itself bounded within a 5D sphere, as a boundary point of 4D space can be thought of as an asymptote to the hyperbola, i.e. the line in the cone x(0)^2-x(1)^2-x(2)^2-x(3)^2-x(4)^2-x(5)^2 = phi. It follows that the boundary del-H(5) is a sphere, being just the 5D case of a general rule across n dimensions. In the absence of redshift we wouldn't be able to visually distinguish between such a space and flat space, as e.g. if the shell of space at radius R were twice the volume expected in flat space and thus contains twice the objects, we would see those objects at just half their expected angular size and so would conclude that they were further away than they really are, using a perceptual correction which mapped it into flat space. However, if we now model that redshift is linear to distance, then we have a ruler against which to measure the visible shells of space. Objects at e.g. z=0.5 would be seen to be smaller in size and more numerous than provided by flat space. This is in fact observed, see e.g. astro-ph/0407216 where Sne II (core collapse stars) are found to be 3x as numerous at z=0.3 as the local rate. Some cosmologists would explain this with "evolution", but hyperbolic space explains both the higher rate and the lower apparent magnitude, as the smaller angular size naturally leads to lower flux received. Bye-bye accelerating universe. An additional refinement comes when redshift is modelled not just as linear with distance, but as a function of distance modified by the cosmological model. We know that the BB model is characterized by the Hubble constant H(0) which however seems to manifest as different values depending on how far out we are measuring. In a static model we can model redshift as polarization in the large extra dimension, i.e. z=tan^2(A) where A is the angle on the 5D sphere, and so redshift goes to infinity at theta(5D)=pi/2; thus we can see half the universe in such a model. Combining such a redshift dependency on distance with hyperbolic space makes a volumetric map which accomodates current observations nicely. Of course, then there is the CMB which altho tractable is a topic for another day. Eric P.S. to the moderator: feel free to boot this article; I can post it to sci.astro no problem. Just looking for signal sans noise. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Policy | 145 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |