[trhway]

Interesting case if we are the “ants” and it is our 3 dims happen to be compact looping somewhere beyond our event horizon. Multitude of Universes in that garden hose in which gravity can be falling as cube or more while at small scale if our compact Universe we’ll see square, and only very precise measurements may notice a bit larger than square.

Another possibility is if our brane has a lot of folds coming close/touching - that would make gravity there stronger like say that dark matter idea inducing rotation speed curve of the disk stars.

[codethief]

> Interesting case if we are the “ants” and it is our 3 dims happen to be compact looping somewhere beyond our event horizon. Multitude of Universes […]

I think you're mixing up two different cases here: 1) Our established 3 dimensions are actually compact, i.e. loop around or hit a boundary somewhere. No multiverse here. 2) There are extra dimensions, meaning that for every point in that extra dimension there's another 3-dimensional universe as we know it.

[fc417fc802]

> Our established 3 dimensions are actually compact, i.e. loop around

Do they not loop? What other option is there? I assume you can't sail off the edge of the disk, so to speak.

[AnimalMuppet]

Option 1: They loop.

Option 2: They go on forever without looping.

Option 3: They end - there is some kind of boundary to spacetime.

[trhway]

The expansion of the space is the feature which prevents any physical process inside to distinguish between those options. Kind of a hack - make compact Universe, add expansion and it would inside look and feel indistinguishable from non-compact.

[fc417fc802]

How does option 2 fit with the big bang? The obvious issue (at minimum) being accounting for the CMB.

[trhway]

the 1. makes 2. "easier", i.e. having a multitude of compact Universes is "cheaper" than having a multitude of non-compact ones

[MPSimmons]

Would also be nice for possibly bridging gaps