Is the center of the universe empty?

In summary, the concept of a center of the universe is a misconception. The big bang was not an explosion from a single point, but rather a rapid expansion of space. This means that all objects in the universe appear to be moving away from us, regardless of where we are located. The idea of an infinite universe is more widely accepted among cosmologists, as it explains the uniform distribution of matter and expansion rate in all directions. It is not logical to assume that an infinite amount of matter was packed into a pinpoint before the big bang, as an infinite entity cannot grow to infinite size. Therefore, there is no center of the universe and the observable universe is just one small part of a much larger, infinite universe
  • #36
nikkkom said:
When the math of your theory stops working, you cannot rigorously extrapolate past that point. The rigorous answer to "what was before this point according to your theory?" is "I don't know".
(If course, people can, and do embark on various handwavey explanations past that point, but this is not real knowledge).
In particular, it may well be so that with a better theory, past that point there is an infinitely long past, not a "beginning of spacetime". Many eternal inflation models are like that.
You are speaking of t+10-43 seconds?
Again, speculation as I said in my previous post, although I like the idea of eternal Inflation, but as yet still speculative.

What do you guys think of the following scenario...
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.
In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Professor Lawrence Krauss, as you probably know, also has a book out entitled "A Universe from Nothing"
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #37
This is obviously a BS parade, you cannot assert something originated from nothing without violating every known law in the universe. W e either need new laws or a broader definition of 'reality ',
 
  • #38
Chronos said:
This is obviously a BS parade, you cannot assert something originated from nothing without violating every known law in the universe. W e either need new laws or a broader definition of 'reality ',
Hi Chronos:
What speculative scenario do you suggest to explain why the universe exists, or for that matter, why we exist, also?

http://www.phys.utas.edu.au/physics/aip_tasbranch/program/Abstracts/2012f%20Krauss-9August2012c.pdfI'm not saying the speculative comments of Alex Filippenko or Lawrence Krauss are necessarily correct, just that they are scientific answers to the eternal questions man has forever been asking.
 
  • #39
Chronos said:
This is obviously a BS parade, you cannot assert something originated from nothing without violating every known law in the universe.
You seem to be arguing against a position that no one is taking. Or making assumptions that are not needed. However, it is difficult to be sure since you have not identified a statement with which you disagree.
 
  • #40
Thread locked.

The debate appears to have lost its B-level and the focus on the OP's question.
Ed Lenarduzzi said:
Well, thank you everyone. Even though most of it is over my head I did learn somethings. I have no formal education in physics but watch every science program on cable including Brian Cox's recent series. He loves saying billionths of billionths...of a second after the start of the universe everything was say 100 feet wide which reinforces the idea of a center.
The basic difficulty here is not to imagine the universe as something placed in somewhere. The universe itself is already the somewhere and we haven't a clue of its actual topological shape. Only evidence that it seems to be almost perfectly flat, so it's either really flat or so big, that its curvature cannot be taken to get an idea of the overall shape. Since we are limited to a three dimensional imagination and surfaces, which are embedded in a three dimensional Euclidean space, it is difficult for us to imagine something without being embedded anywhere. The best picture to come up with, is in my opinion the surface of the earth. If this surface were all that the universe is made of, what is its center? And standing on a prairie in Kansas or Kazakhstan might well lead to the observation, that Earth is flat. It's similar with the universe, only on a higher dimension.
What this forum could use is a 'For Dummies' section that explains these ideas to folks with no physics background.
Thanks again,
Ed.
... so the purpose of this thread is fulfilled?

I don't want to stop the debate, but it might be a good idea to start a new thread and eventually based on some publications to find a common ground.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top