Where is the center of the universe?

[petm1]

The shortest line back to big bang is centered in every atom. I am as close to the center of the universe "now" as any other form of matter, because the direction in time to big bang is the center connection we feel as mass. The longest lines in time to big bang are taken by photons. This is why I still feel that I am the center of my own visible universe while the Earth in the center of our one visible universe.

 

[Fredrik]

Other than change the age of the universe, i don't know.

Then why did you bring it up?

What would falsify your theory?

Is that a serious question? I suppose you could ask those guys what they meant. If many of them answer e.g. that there's a brick wall at the end of the universe, I'll concede that I was wrong (about what they meant).

 

[Quantum-lept]

Fredrik, I did not know..that is why i asked the questions...you know the math, you know your theory, it's history, strengths and weakness, i don't.

I have to take it on faith, and i don't do faith well.

If Darwin and others point out what will falsify their theory, then i assumed that every theory has an argument or evidence that will falsify it. Has nothing to do with what others believe or think if they can support their theories and those theories are not falsified.

I thought that is what science is, postulating a theory and trying to falsify it.

I only have theories based on what i observe and understand. These can be easily falsified because observation without specific knowledge is prone to error.

So, if there are no questionable variables in your mathematical models which no one has taken issue with, then it is a sound working theory and obviously beyond my understanding. I can only try.

And the center of the universe is not me..(:

 

[Fredrik]

I thought that is what science is, postulating a theory and trying to falsify it.

It is, but you must have lost track of what we were talking about very early in this exchange. I said that physicists who use the phrase "the edge of the universe" are probably talking about the most distant things we can see, and you questioned that with some very confusing comments. I see now that you at some point must have started talking about something completely different. I still don't know what.

 

[Chronos]

Ok, back to the original question, in case we lost track of that. We are at the temporal edge of the universe and the rest of it looks very smooth. Does that mean we reside at the center of the universe?

 

[Quantum-lept]

Ok, back to the original question, in case we lost track of that. We are at the temporal edge of the universe and the rest of it looks very smooth. Does that mean we reside at the center of the universe?

I'm questioning the mathematical models that come to conclusions that may at this time observably may be confirmed, but since there is still so much that we don't observe, require some faith to believe.

What if we observe that the universe goes back 100bly?
That would make the universe much, much older than we think it is now...If some mathematical model says it is 14bly, then observation or the model is in error.

There may not ever be a way to confirm if there is an edge to the universe other than a mathematical model, so that has to be tested and questioned and if a weakness is found, suspected as flawed beyond a certain point.

I just read that "singularities" are a problem...I have a problem with them too...The BB makes a ripping good yarn, gives people something to think about and have faith in, but singularities may be an invention because we can't see mathematically into the area that we are looking toward.

Another problem: Too many infinities...infinity this, infinity that...infinities piled into, onto, or otherwise associated with infinities...the universe may not be infinite. time may not be infinite..infinite mass, just a glitch in the math.

To say for certain that there is or is not an edge to a universe requires faith, or faith based science...for now, anyway.

 

[petm1]

We are at the temporal edge of the universe and the rest of it looks very smooth. Does that mean we reside at the center of the universe?

Yes when you think of visible universe, but no because the center is relative to each of us through our own center connection in time and not through space. In some ways time appears to be the boundary condition for all waves to a point.

Too many infinities...infinity this, infinity that...infinities piled into, onto, or otherwise associated with infinities...the universe may not be infinite. time may not be infinite..infinite mass, just a glitch in the math

Good thing we can keep it to finite numbers because we are seeing motion relative to each of us in time not just space.

 

[JediSouth]

Yes, that is what Halls of Ivy is saying, and I agree.

Yes, but WHERE IS THE STARTING POINT that everything starting moving away from

 

[Chronos]

Everywhere is the short answer. Since everything began at the initial 'singularity', every atom in the universe still thinks it is at the center.

 

[EinsteinII]

Welcome to PF. Imagine sitting on a high mountain. Turn around in every direction - in every direction, the Earth looks roughly the same. This is a good 2d analogy for the 3d space.

Everywhere we look in space, it looks about the same. This implies rather strongly that there is no center to the universe. And expansion need not require one: replace the Earth with a giant balloon, expanding, and the analogy still holds.

I need one more explanation. I think by this question our friend wants to know the location of Big Bang.. If that.. Do we have any clues as of now?

 

[petm1]

Everywhere is the short answer. Since everything began at the initial 'singularity', every atom in the universe still thinks it is at the center.

We see the atoms as separate pieces of this single event as for distance just think of redshift as a measure of time's dilation not just space's expansion after all relative they are one.

 

[Radrook]

Let's assume that our universe is one of the theoretical millions that are like soap bubbles in a vast endless sea. If so then it is finite. If finite that means it has a periphery. If it has a periphery then the distance from its peripheries inward until we achieve radius would give us its approximate center.

Multiverse Theory
http://www.makli.com/multiverse-theory-008210/

 

[Chronos]

We are at the temporal edge of the universe. No matter what direction we look, the rest of the universe appears more ancient [due to the finite speed of light]. Since it looks the same in every direction, it creates the illusion we are at the center. The same is true for any other observer in the universe. The concepts of 'center' or 'edge' of the universe are therefore irrelevant.

 

[Radrook]

We are at the temporal edge of the universe. No matter what direction we look, the rest of the universe appears more ancient [due to the finite speed of light]. Since it looks the same in every direction, it creates the illusion we are at the center. The same is true for any other observer in the universe. The concepts of 'center' or 'edge' of the universe are therefore irrelevant.

But does perception relative to position make a center impossible? Isn't that like saying that perception makes reality? Also, how does irrelevancy make reality any different? Isn't that simply a dismissal of the presently unknowable? Neither does inability to comprehend change reality. It merely proves inability to comprehend. We may be fish in a vast sea which seemingly has no center but the sea might indeed have a center despite our inability to see or comprehend where it is. If we say that the universe was infinitely small and suddenly appeared and expanded, then we create paradoxes. That is a fact. But to say that every single point on that expanding universe was and still is at its center, or that it was and is impossible for it to have a center is to postulate the impossible. If indeed it is impossible for our universe to have a center even though it is acknowledged to be finite then the reason why it i impossible has to be proven. Despite my extensive reading on the subject I have as yet not encountered a convincing or even an attempted explanation proving this supposed impossibility.

 

[Chronos]

Do you agree every observer in the universe perceives they are as far away as possible from the 'center' of the 'big bang', 'now'? [given the finite speed of light]?

 

[Radrook]

Do you agree every observer in the universe perceives they are as far away as possible from the 'center' of the 'big bang', 'now'? [given the finite speed of light]?

I agree that every observer sees the universe receding from his position. That doesn't justify the observer to conclude he holds the universal central position. It only proves that from his perspective it seems as if he does. Neither does it prove there is no central position. If indeed the relativity of perspective justifies concluding that no central position is possible then please explain how.

 

[Chronos]

Science is derived from observation. If it appears you are at the center of the universe, you must derive an experiment that attempts to disprove this theory. Lacking any such evidence means either you are at the center, or no center exists. We can say with fair certainty we are at the temporal edge of the universe, yet we observe the same distribution of galaxies [at large scales] in every direction. That too is compelling evidence the notion of any 'edge' to the universe is an illusion. An unbounded region has no 'center' according to the rules of geometry.

 

[DLuckyE]

Science is derived from observation. If it appears you are at the center of the universe, you must derive an experiment that attempts to disprove this theory. Lacking any such evidence means either you are at the center, or no center exists. We can say with fair certainty we are at the temporal edge of the universe, yet we observe the same distribution of galaxies [at large scales] in every direction. That too is compelling evidence the notion of any 'edge' to the universe is an illusion. An unbounded region has no 'center' according to the rules of geometry.

So basically, you're saying if I'm drifting somewhere in a big ocean and can see the distance of water to the horizon is equal in every direction I have to conclude that I'm either at the center of that there's no center to the ocean at all? That makes no sense at all... It just means that the ocean is bigger than your horizon and thus you can't determine if there's a center and if you're at that center.

 

[petm1]

Science is derived from observation. If it appears you are at the center of the universe, you must derive an experiment that attempts to disprove this theory. Lacking any such evidence means either you are at the center, or no center exists. We can say with fair certainty we are at the temporal edge of the universe, yet we observe the same distribution of galaxies [at large scales] in every direction. That too is compelling evidence the notion of any 'edge' to the universe is an illusion. An unbounded region has no 'center' according to the rules of geometry.

Unbounded may be what we "see", but bounded is what we feel. We are bounded by gravity which is a true center connection and the center of gravity is a real direction in time. Relative to my "now" the path back through time is inward opposite of the flow set into each atom. I "think" big bang was a little twist, a focal point of motion, because it formed our atoms, like a little focal point that broke into all of our dilating massive points. Time does not contract it is still dilating outward from big bang, and even though relative to my now I do not know where its center is in space, I "think" time's center was big bang the original dilating entity.

 

[bytecash]

This still does not make sense, there HAS to be a "center" of the Universe under the big bang theory, even if it is a ball or balloon blowing up, there is still a CENTER or middle of the ball or balloon. Even if there are no "edges" of the universe there is still a geometrical point of center. If the universe started from one point in space and expanded in all directions there is a center even if it is a moving central point.

 

[Greylorn]

IMO you are correct. Your analysis is one of others which expose the absurdity of Big Bang theory.

I can afford to agree with you because my theory of the beginnings, which would never be allowed here, does not incorporate a singularity (which would represent absurd physics, no different from claiming that God did it) and has a different explanation for both the observed expansion of the universe as well as its acceleration.

None of this will help you any unless I publish, but at least you know that you are not alone. Keep thinking!

 

[nonequilibrium]

This still does not make sense, there HAS to be a "center" of the Universe under the big bang theory, even if it is a ball or balloon blowing up, there is still a CENTER or middle of the ball or balloon. Even if there are no "edges" of the universe there is still a geometrical point of center. If the universe started from one point in space and expanded in all directions there is a center even if it is a moving central point.

I think you're simply misunderstanding the balloon analogy. The balloon actually tells the story for a two-dimensional universe. In that case the "center of the balloon" isn't a part of space at all! If people were to live in a 2D world, the balloon analogy would be exact (but then again, people in a 2D world can't imagine an inflating balloon, so they would use the analogy of a closed loop getting bigger).

Anyway, for our 3D spatial universe you have to inflate a "balloon" in 4D instead of 3D. You see that the "center of the balloon" isn't a part of our physical reality at all.

(To be exact, you'd probably need a 5D space, as time is an extra dimension, but that's besides the point in this discussion.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyway, for our 3D spatial universe you have to inflate a "balloon" in 4D instead of 3D. You see that the "center of the balloon" isn't a part of our physical reality at all.

(To be exact, you'd probably need a 5D space, as time is an extra dimension, but that's besides the point in this discussion.)

In fact, not only do you not need a 5th dimension, you do not even need a 4th. The mathematics of a curved 3D space work out just fine without needing to invoke a 4th dimension in the equations.

 

[nonequilibrium]

Hello Dave. Can it be that you misread my post? Otherwise I don't understand your objection. I was saying that the correct balloon analogy should be a 3 dimensional balloon in a 4 dimensional space (the 3D balloon then playing the role of our 3D space), but of course such an analogy would be useless due to not being able to imagine it :p

 

[DaveC426913]

Hello Dave. Can it be that you misread my post? Otherwise I don't understand your objection.

No, and I wasn't objecting.

Pointing out that the 2D balloon analogy is like our 3D universe expanding into a 4th dimension is tantamount to suggesting that our universe would have a center - in that 4th dimension. That is going to send bytecash the wrong message.

The balloon analogy is simply an analogy because it shows someone how it is possible to have an object that is finite yet has no centre. But you don't want to carry the analogy too far, or you defeat the lesson. We don't want bytecash thinking our universe has a center in some 4th dimension.

 

[Imax]

Expansion from a center is not compatible with the notion of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe. If the Universe did expand from a center, then the observed expansion rate would depend on how far you are from the center.

 

[Chronos]

What part of seeing the universe as it appeared in the past is escaping notice here?

 

[nonequilibrium]

The balloon analogy is simply an analogy because it shows someone how it is possible to have an object that is finite yet has no centre. But you don't want to carry the analogy too far, or you defeat the lesson. We don't want bytecash thinking our universe has a center in some 4th dimension.

True, I should have noted that, but bytecash's post seemed to suggest, at least to me, that he thought that our universe was actually expanding like the balloon does, i.e. as a 2D sphere expanding in 3D space, and that is why I wanted to point out that the balloon analogy was merely a substitute for something we can't imagine.

 

[petm1]

Do you agree every observer in the universe perceives they are as far away as possible from the 'center' of the 'big bang', 'now'? [given the finite speed of light]?

I agree with this. Do you think that every observer also perceives they are as close as possible to the 'center' of the 'big bang', 'now', given the finite speed of mass?

 

[salvestrom]

I was immensely please with myself when I finally got to grips with this question a few days ago. I think I deserved to be, having been struggling with it for two decades. =D

What I realized was that since the universal singularity consisted of all space and all matter/energy then that energy occupied all of space. So when it went up like an intergalactic roman candle, all energy was evenly distributed and blown apart. Essentially, the entire universe, at every point 'exploded'. While the universe, or more specifically, space may yet turn out to have a center, an edge, or neither, the location of the Big Bang itself was everywhere.

 

[xrx1113]

OK I'm new to this site but i was wondering why: if we can see the red shift/blue shift of galixies and we know they are moving can't we tell by the degree of red shift/blue shift which direction they are going . If galixies are going in a strait line they are leaving where they were, if you drew lines backwards from them at some point they would all intersect at the center of the universe, dosn't that tell us where to point the telescope .
Am i totally wrong?

 

[Cosmo Novice]

OK I'm new to this site but i was wondering why: if we can see the red shift/blue shift of galixies and we know they are moving can't we tell by the degree of red shift/blue shift which direction they are going . If galixies are going in a strait line they are leaving where they were, if you drew lines backwards from them at some point they would all intersect at the center of the universe, dosn't that tell us where to point the telescope .
Am i totally wrong?

Yes.

If we trace all motion for everything we can see - the center is our galaxy - all galaxies are moving away from our galaxy. If we were in Andromeda then we would see Andromeda as the center.

This can only ever tell us the Observable Universes center - the point is this; most mass in the Universe has not moved a great deal since the Big Bang (barring individual kinematic motion which is almost negligible on large scales) , the BB was not an explosion in the traditional sense but can be explained by expansion of the scale factor.

Scale expansion does not require a center. You can attribute a center to the Observable Universe but as we know the Universe is much much larger than the Observable (even if still finite) then this has no relevance to the U as a whole.

If the Universe is infinite then it can't possibly have a center and if it infinite it is bounded in a way that any point can be the center.

The only centers are for observables and the only edges are for temporals, there can be no centers or edges to the Universe as a whole - it would contradict the Cosmological Principle.

 

[Chronos]

We can only measure radial velocity wrt earth, direction is much harder.

 

[petm1]

What part of seeing the universe as it appeared in the past is escaping notice here?

I like to link the past through the center connection of mass, like a compass needle that always points north, mass always points back to its common beginning inward.

 

[mjacobsca]

Is it possible that space expands in wirey filaments, or like branches of a tree, such that our observable universe is only one small branch on an enormous tree with no center? Do theories of inflation all assume a perfectly uniform inflation of space? I always wondered if it were possible, based on quantum effects, for *inflation to spread out like a tree, in a non-uniform way on large scales, and our small viewpoint only capable of seeing our tiny branch.