# Could torus spaces (defined by Planck length) exist?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
36 views

Let $\epsilon_c$ denote critical energy density, $\epsilon_t$ energy mass density at time $t$, $c$ the speed of light, $G$ the gravitational constant, $H=\dot a/ a$ the Hubble parameter, $\Lambda$ the cosmological constant, $\ell_p$ Planck length, and $E_p$ Planck energy. From the first order Friedmann equation,

H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3 c^2}\left(\epsilon_t+\epsilon_\Lambda\right)-\frac{\kappa c^2}{R^2_0 a},

and the quantum field theoretical assumption that, letting $V_\mu\left(\ell_p\right)$ denote the Planck volume,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\epsilon_\Lambda &= \frac{\Lambda c^2}{8\pi G},\\
&\equiv \frac{E_p}{V_\mu\left(\ell_p\right)},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
we may define $\epsilon_c=\epsilon_t$ when curvature $\kappa=0$:

\epsilon_c=\frac{3c^2}{8\pi G}H^2-\frac{E_p}{V_\mu\left(\ell_p\right)}.

There exists a closed manifold $\mu$ such that

V_\mu\left(\ell_p\right)=\frac{8\pi G E_p}{3c^2 H^2-8\pi G\epsilon_c}.

Let $\mu$ denote a torus (as a closed, compact 2–manifold). It should be noted that any topological space homeomorphic to a torus may be considered with the same treatment. The Planck volume is then,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
V_\mu\left(\ell_p\right)&=2\pi^2 R\left(\frac{\ell_p}{2}\right)^2,\\
&=\frac{G R\hslash\pi^2}{2c^3}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The outer radius of $\mu$ is denoted by $\frac{\ell_p}{2}$. If $0<\frac{\ell_p}{2}<<1$ denoted the inner radius, then $\mu$ degenerates into a double-covered sphere with radius $R$, which yields an undesirable $\Lambda$. Equating with (3) yields

R=\frac{16 E_p c^3}{\hslash\pi\left(3c^2 H^2-8\pi G\epsilon_c\right)}.

Given observational data, whereby $\epsilon_c\approx7.8\cdot10^{-10}J m^{-3}$,
\begin{equation*}
R\approx 1.9265995345\cdot10^{48} m.
\end{equation*}

The outer radius would then be approximately $2\cdot10^{32}$ light years. A space of these 'tori' could technically exist since packing densities are higher than that of spheres (one could conjecture this as a minimum possible size of the universe – assuming total size is at least $3\cdot10^{23}$ times larger than the observable). So, how could this be disproven? What implications would such a large outer radius have on other areas of physics and cosmology (seems absurd that the Planck length could describe such a large region of space – in terms of radii, not volume)? I would be grateful for any help on this.

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$OverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.