Big Bang & Flat Universe

I have been reading the thread on the Big Bang and Relativity over the past several days. I must say that I have been quite impressed by the indepth knowledge and opinion expressed - but, frankly, alot of it zoomed stratospherically over my head. Anyway, I was interested in the parts that I am able to say that I understood. Perhaps this is a good spot of ask my question.

I just read an article in Science News Vol 157, that says that there is now more evidence of a flat universe based on another balloon-borne experience recording relic radiation from the Big Bang. MAXIMA has been confirmed by BOOMERANG.
The author of the article [RC] said that “the result matches predictions for a flat universe – one that has just the right density of matter and energy to expand forever instead of collapsing in a Big Crunch”. Am I wrong in assuming that flat means like a board, a table top, a plate?

Now my question [this is probably a very rough segue]: if there was a Big Bang that transformed the universe, wouldn’t it explode spherically rather than flat? This would assume that there are no other forces out there that the expanding universe could run into. Someone said in their posting that it was not a question for the previous thread… so I am asking the question now.

Perhaps I should ask for two groups of responses:

a. the “scientific” thinking types as those who responded to the Big Bang and Relativity thread

b. the “absurdists” who lurk these halls of SDMB.

flat…

disc-shaped (i.e., overall flat, can be viewed edge-on)? I dunno.

I read a treatise recently from a mathematician who postulated a “flat” universe, one that can be described using a minimalist set of terms—in other words, a hologram. Interesting stuff, for sure, but hardly conclusive.

I’m of the opinion that the universe is much more jello-in-vacuum-shaped: chunky and quivering. Why? There is no why. For a uniform universe to have evolved, it seems to me that the Big Bang would really have to have been a Big Balloon Pop, which just grates on my nerves.

In a perfect universe, things are things, and we’re all different. (“Yes, we’re all different!” “I’m not.”)

Cosmologists use the term “flat” a little differently than most people think of it, hence the common confusion. Basically, the curvature of the universe (which we’ll get to in a second) is determined by something called the critical density fraction, or mass-density fraction, or various other names, or just Omega. Omega is the ratio of the amount of matter in the universe to the amount of matter needed to close the universe (i.e. stop expansion). (it gets a bit more complicated with inflation, cosmological constants, and all that, but it’ll do for our purposes)

If Omega > 1, then the universe is positively curved; if Omega < 1, it is negatively curved, and if Omega = 1, it is flat.

This is usually explained via 2-D analogies, since most of us can’t visualize into a 4th dimension. Picture a sphere. If you draw a triangle on its surface, the angles will add up to more than 180 degrees. Now picture what’s usually referred to as a “saddle”; here a triangle’s angles add up to less than 180 degrees. Now picture a perfectly flat, or Euclidian surface.

Space has similar curvature, but in an extra dimension. Just as it’s possible for a 2-d person on the sphere to measure the angles of a triangle and determine that the space he lives in is curved, so should such effects be seen in the universe if space is curved. The problem with figuring this out observationally is that space is very, very big, and there’s no telling how large of scales we would have to look at to detect curvature if it existed–if someone painted a perfect 1-meter square on the sidewalk, could you figure out that the earth was a sphere because the angles totaled more than 360 degrees?

So, you see, the term “flat” refers more to the way things behave geometrically than an actual picture of the universe.

As mentioned in the article you quoted (by the way, you would not believe how excited my cosmology prof was on the morning of the day the BOOMERANG results were released, having seen them a little ahead of time), the geometry of the universe also has something to do with its fate. If Omega > 1 (positive curvature), then at some point expansion will stop, then reverse, and everything will come back together in a “Big Crunch”. If Omega < 1, the universe will continue expansion forever (and become a rather dreary place after a while, I might add). If space is truly flat, as BOOMERANG has pointed to pretty strongly, then expansion will stop after an infinite amount of time (subtle but important distinction from “expand forever”). (again, it’s a bit more complicated when there’s more than just matter/gravity at work, but this is the basic idea)

Most cosmologists have long been rooting for a flat universe; basically, it’s the cleanest and most elegant solution to all the various equations. Naturally, many have pointed out that this is a silly reason to believe something. But BOOMERANG is a big boost to the idea, and another (I believe space-borne) experiment in a few years should make it even clearer (or shoot it down).

Of course, providing this explanation for flatness/curvature to the question you asked leaves open the question of what space is expanding into, one which I don’t think I can provide a very good explanation for (especially since I’m about to get kicked out of here). This page has some quick answers towards the top.

[ul]
[li]The Hot Big Bang Model[/li][li]Big Bang Science: Exploring the Origins of Matter[/li][li]Astronomy Tutorial: The Big Bang[/li][li]From Big Bang to LHC[/li][li]Creation of a Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory[/li][/ul]
If anyone else has some good sources of Big Bang Theory information, please post them.

The problem with the balloon analogy is that people tend to think that the universe is within the balloon. It is meant to be a lower dimensional version of our universe. Or you can look at it as a slice of our universe. The inhabitants of the balloon universe are two dimensional and confined to the surface of the balloon, it is so large (relative to them) that they think they are on a plane. The universe is confined to the surface of the balloon. The whole universe is expanding outward from a point not contained in the universe. From within the universe, it appears that every point is the center of expansion. If our universe fits the analogy, then we would be the 3D surface of a 4D hyper-sphere expanding in some hyper-space. The curvature is only noticeable on very large scales.

The balloon analogy is an example of a positively curved universe. If the universe is flat the a slice would look like a plane. If space is negatively curved, then a slice would curve like a saddle.

BOOMERANG actually has a lot of cosmologists scratching their heads in puzzlement. The flat Universe part of the observation is all well and good, but the thing about CMB (Cosmic microwave background) measurements, is that you can get values for most or all of the major cosmological parameters that way, and for most of the other parameters measured by BOOMERANG, the values are way outside the error bars of all previous measurements-- For instance, the BOOMERANG data supports a current Hubble constant of about 80 km/s/Mpc, whereas everything else is screaming that it’s 65 ± 5. I’m honestly not sure what to say about the data, other than “Well, let’s just wait for MAP to be launched, and see what it says.”

Another problem some physicists have with omega = 1 is that it’s awfully exact. It may be analogous to balancing a nedle on its tip; possible in simplistic theory, but impractically unstable in the real world. I think that “hyperinflation” theories have it that the universe is much larger than the observable usinverse, and a significant overall curvature may appear flat in our limited view.

as has been explained, “flat” = Euclidean, not flat like a dinner plate. (yet another example where I think scientists would do well to be careful in their word choice.)

Chronos - that is interesting about the Hubble constant. I had not heard that Boomerang data supports a higher than expected constant of 80 kps/mpc. At least it’s in the same ballpark. (btw, what’s the standard deviation on that?)