"White, Ryan" wrote:
>
> xgl [mailto:xli03@emory.edu] wrote:
>
> [begin]
>
> what i find absolutely intriguing is the very possiblity that the
> universe is flat. i trust that members of this list do not need any
> reminders as to what eerie odds would be overcome if such were really
> the case. funny that a year ago, few would have considered such a
> possiblity -- the universe was either open or closed, and open
> looked more likely ...
>
> [end]
>
> I've been watching this thread for some time and my ignorance of these
> matters is driving me crazy - what is meant by 'flat' in this context? My
> immediate reaction to the adjective 'flat' is 'nearly two dimensional'.
> Certainly I have the wrong idea - given a >2 dimensional universe.
>
> And, I would love to hear more about,
> 'what eerie odds would be overcome if such were really the case.'
>
'flat' as in wider than it is deep, pancake shaped, though the pancake is still
many billions of light years thick, so no, it doesn't mean a two dimensional
universe. The 'flatness' may also only be a quasi-local observation, much as a
bacteria living in the material of a rubber balloon is convicenced that a) the
balloon universe is flat, and b) that it is hugely thick. Its all a matter of
perspective, and it does not discount the possibility of an inflationary
universe, though it does imply a much larger universe than we had originally
anticipated...it will be interesting how this situation resolves itself.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:29 MDT