%%% This file is part of PlanetPhysics snapshot of 2011-09-01
%%% Primary Title: The Possibility of a ``Finite" and yet ``Unbounded" Universe
%%% Primary Category Code: 04.20.-q
%%% Filename: PossibilityOfAFiniteAndYetUnboundedUniverse.tex
%%% Version: 1
%%% Owner: bloftin
%%% Author(s):
%%% PlanetPhysics is released under the GNU Free Documentation License.
%%% You should have received a file called fdl.txt along with this file.
%%% If not, please write to gnu@gnu.org.
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\pagestyle{empty}
\setlength{\paperwidth}{8.5in}
\setlength{\paperheight}{11in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\headsep}{0.00in}
\setlength{\headheight}{0.00in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9.00in}
\setlength{\voffset}{0.00in}
\setlength{\hoffset}{0.00in}
\setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.00in}
\setlength{\marginparsep}{0.00in}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.00in}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.15in}
\usepackage{html}
% this is the default PlanetMath preamble. as your knowledge
% of TeX increases, you will probably want to edit this, but
% it should be fine as is for beginners.
% almost certainly you want these
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
% used for TeXing text within eps files
%\usepackage{psfrag}
% need this for including graphics (\includegraphics)
%\usepackage{graphicx}
% for neatly defining theorems and propositions
%\usepackage{amsthm}
% making logically defined graphics
%\usepackage{xypic}
% there are many more packages, add them here as you need them
% define commands here
\begin{document}
\subsection{The Possibility of a ``Finite" and yet ``Unbounded" Universe}
From \htmladdnormallink{Relativity: The Special and General Theory}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/SpecialTheoryOfRelativity.html} by Albert Einstein
But speculations on the structure of the universe also move in quite
another direction. The development of non-Euclidean geometry led to
the recognition of the fact, that we can cast doubt on the
infiniteness of our space without coming into conflict with the laws
of thought or with experience (Riemann, Helmholtz). These questions
have already been treated in detail and with unsurpassable lucidity by
Helmholtz and Poincar\'{e}, whereas I can only touch on them briefly here.
In the first place, we imagine an existence in two dimensional space.
Flat beings with flat implements, and in particular flat rigid
measuring-rods, are free to move in a plane. For them nothing exists
outside of this plane: that which they observe to happen to themselves
and to their flat ``things'' is the all-inclusive reality of their
plane. In particular, the constructions of plane Euclidean geometry
can be carried out by means of the rods {\it e.g.} the lattice construction,
considered in \htmladdnormallink{section}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/IsomorphicObjectsUnderAnIsomorphism.html} 24. In contrast to ours, the \htmladdnormallink{Universe}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/MultiVerses.html} of
these beings is \htmladdnormallink{two-dimensional}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/CoriolisEffect.html}; but, like ours, it extends to
infinity. In their universe there is room for an infinite number of
identical \htmladdnormallink{squares}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/PiecewiseLinear.html} made up of rods, {\it i.e.} its \htmladdnormallink{volume}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/Volume.html} (surface) is
infinite. If these beings say their universe is ``plane," there is
sense in the statement, because they mean that they can perform the
constructions of plane Euclidean geometry with their rods. In this
connection the individual rods always represent the same distance,
independently of their position.
Let us consider now a second two-dimensional existence, but this time
on a spherical surface instead of on a plane. The flat beings with
their measuring-rods and other objects fit exactly on this surface and
they are unable to leave it. Their whole universe of observation
extends exclusively over the surface of the sphere. Are these beings
able to regard the geometry of their universe as being plane geometry
and their rods withal as the realisation of ``distance''? They cannot
do this. For if they attempt to realise a straight line, they will
obtain a curve, which we ``three-dimensional beings'' designate as a
great circle, {\it i.e.} a self-contained line of definite finite length,
which can be measured up by means of a measuring-rod. Similarly, this
universe has a finite area that can be compared with the area, of a
square constructed with rods. The great \htmladdnormallink{charm}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/QuarkAntiquarkPair.html} resulting from this
consideration lies in the recognition of the fact that the universe of
these beings is finite and yet has no limits.
But the spherical-surface beings do not need to go on a world-tour in
order to perceive that they are not living in a Euclidean universe.
They can convince themselves of this on every part of their ``world,"
provided they do not use too small a piece of it. Starting from a
point, they draw ``straight lines'' (arcs of circles as judged in
three dimensional space) of equal length in all directions. They will
call the line joining the free ends of these lines a ``circle." For a
plane surface, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its
diameter, both lengths being measured with the same rod, is, according
to Euclidean geometry of the plane, equal to a constant value $\pi$, which
is independent of the diameter of the circle. On their spherical
surface our flat beings would find for this ratio the value
$$\pi \frac{\sin \frac{r}{R}}{\frac{r}{R}}$$
{\it i.e.} a smaller value than $\pi$, the difference being the more
considerable, the greater is the radius of the circle in comparison
with the radius $R$ of the ``world-sphere." By means of this relation
the spherical beings can determine the radius of their universe
(``world''), even when only a relatively small part of their worldsphere
is available for their measurements. But if this part is very small
indeed, they will no longer be able to demonstrate that they are on a
spherical ``world'' and not on a Euclidean plane, for a small part of
a spherical surface differs only slightly from a piece of a plane of
the same size.
Thus if the spherical surface beings are living on a planet of which
the solar \htmladdnormallink{system}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/SimilarityAndAnalogousSystemsDynamicAdjointnessAndTopologicalEquivalence.html} occupies only a negligibly small part of the
spherical universe, they have no means of determining whether they are
living in a finite or in an infinite universe, because the ``piece of
universe'' to which they have access is in both cases practically
plane, or Euclidean. It follows directly from this discussion, that
for our sphere-beings the circumference of a circle first increases
with the radius until the ``circumference of the universe'' is
reached, and that it thenceforward gradually decreases to zero for
still further increasing values of the radius. During this process the
area of the circle continues to increase more and more, until finally
it becomes equal to the total area of the whole ``world-sphere."
Perhaps the reader will wonder why we have placed our ``beings ``on a
sphere rather than on another closed surface. But this choice has its
justification in the fact that, of all closed surfaces, the sphere is
unique in possessing the property that all points on it are
equivalent. I admit that the ratio of the circumference $c$ of a circle
to its radius $r$ depends on $r$, but for a given value of $r$ it is the
same for all points of the ``worldsphere''; in other words, the ``
world-sphere'' is a ``surface of constant curvature."
To this two-dimensional sphere-universe there is a three-dimensional
analogy, namely, the three-dimensional spherical space which was
discovered by Riemann. its points are likewise all equivalent. It
possesses a finite volume, which is determined by its ``radius"
($2\pi^2R^3$). Is it possible to imagine a spherical space? To imagine a
space means nothing else than that we imagine an epitome of our
``space'' experience, {\it i.e.} of experience that we can have in the
movement of ``rigid'' bodies. In this sense we can imagine a spherical
space.
Suppose we draw lines or stretch strings in all directions from a
point, and mark off from each of these the distance r with a
measuring-rod. All the free end-points of these lengths lie on a
spherical surface. We can specially measure up the area ($F$) of this
surface by means of a square made up of measuring-rods. If the
universe is Euclidean, then $F = 4\pi R^2$; if it is spherical, then $F$ is
always less than $4\pi R^2$. With increasing values of $r$, $F$ increases from
zero up to a maximum value which is determined by the ``world-radius,"
but for still further increasing values of $r$, the area gradually
diminishes to zero. At first, the straight lines which radiate from
the starting point diverge farther and farther from one another, but
later they approach each other, and finally they run together again at
a ``counter-point" to the starting point. Under such conditions they
have traversed the whole spherical space. It is easily seen that the
three-dimensional spherical space is quite analogous to the
two-dimensional spherical surface. It is finite ({\it i.e.} of finite
volume), and has no bounds.
It may be mentioned that there is yet another kind of curved space:
``elliptical space." It can be regarded as a curved space in which the
two ``counter-points'' are identical (indistinguishable from each
other). An elliptical universe can thus be considered to some extent
as a curved universe possessing central symmetry.
It follows from what has been said, that closed spaces without limits
are conceivable. From amongst these, the spherical space (and the
elliptical) excels in its simplicity, since all points on it are
equivalent. As a result of this discussion, a most interesting
question arises for astronomers and physicists, and that is whether
the universe in which we live is infinite, or whether it is finite in
the manner of the spherical universe. Our experience is far from being
sufficient to enable us to answer this question. But the \htmladdnormallink{general theory}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/GeneralTheory.html} of relativity permits of our answering it with a moduate degree
of certainty, and in this connection the difficulty mentioned in
Section 30 finds its solution.
\subsection{References}
This article is derived from the \htmladdnormallink{Einstein}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/AlbertEinstein.html} Reference Archive (marxists.org) 1999, 2002. \htmladdnormallink{Einstein Reference Archive}{http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/index.htm} which is under the FDL copyright.
\end{document}
