I asked this questiion yesterday: Does the shape of the Universe refer to the curvature of spacetime in 5-dimensional space?

While I now understand and got good answers, my question was closed as duplicate. However, in my opinion, the linked questions are questions around the same topic, but a different question:

In the following, I try to briefly sum up the core of the linked questions.

Question 1: Is your 3-dimensional universe part of the surface of a 4-dimensional sphere [like in the ant-sphere analogy] that we cannot perceive or access?

Question 2: The correctness of the bend-sheet-analogy for GTR

Question 3: Could the universe be bend over a forth dimension to form a 4-dimensional shphere?

The essence of my question (linked above) was: When we refer to the shape of the universe (being flat e.g.), do we mean the same curvature as in GTR (as in being warped over a forth dimension)?

The answers (again - thanks to Shashaank and bapowell!) clarified that I was about half-correct: It is the same curvature as in GTR, but as this is intrinsic curvature, a forth dimension is not necessary (however not wrong).

I see that the linked questions are somewhat similar (especially the third), but in my opinion, it is still a different question (e.g. all the linked questions either referred to GTR or the universe's shape but did not ask whether these refer to the same principles).

So why was my question closed?

(Note: I do not ask this question because I am angry about my question being closed (as I said before, I got great answers, so I'm fine) or to hate against those that closed it - I just want to know the reasons so that I can ask better questions in future.

| |
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Note that the question was closed by a single user. Hopefully they will come here and explain why they closed it. I would attempt to speculate, but this topic itself is one I am mostly unfamiliar with. Perhaps they thought that even though the questions are not the same, their answers have the information you need? But I would argue this doesn't make your question a duplicate. We shall see. $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Jul 3 at 11:11

It seems (to me at least) that most of elements you mention here should be included as part of an edit of your OP:

“I’m aware of related questions but: [Question 1] is related to ...

However, my question is really about...“

This would specifically differentiate your question from others, and the edit would send your modified version in the queue for reopening and possibly be reopened if the case is sufficiently strong.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ thank you for the recommendation, I will try that. $\endgroup$ – Jonas Jul 4 at 14:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ yes if you make your edit constructive then you may have a case. I don’t do GR and choose not to vote on these questions but step 1 is always to see how the linked questions relate/differ from the one you have in mind. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Jul 4 at 14:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .