Where is the center of the universe?

In summary, there is a debate about whether there is a center or someplace close to the center of the universe. Some argue that the actual universe can be contained in a physically describable bounding box with a center, while others believe that everything emanated from a center, also known as the singularity. The position of this singularity is considered to be a fact, even though it may be unknowable. The existence of a center is supported by the fact that prior to the discovery of the universe's acceleration, scientists believed it would collapse back into a singularity. However, it is argued that the logic of the everyday physical universe may not be applicable in this realm. Additionally, the concept of a finite universe with a boundary is not
  • #36
Flatland said:
Positive curvature would be like the outside surface of a sphere and negative curvature would be like the inside. The angles of a triangle would add up to more than 180º under positive curvature and less than 180º under negative curvature.
Just to clarify Marcus' statement, the inside of a sphere has the exact same curvature as the outside. Negative curvature has a different shape entirely: it's more like a saddle.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #37
Flustered said:
I feel like you cannot compare the expansion of the universe to ants on a balloon. Ants can only move across the surface of the balloon.
Yes, and we can only move in our three dimensions of space.

Anyway, the main point here is that a center is a point of symmetry. It's a unique point in the space where stuff is the same in basically every direction from it. The Sun, for example, is a reasonable center for our solar system because if we choose it as our center, the rest of the solar system moves around it. If you're near the Earth, then the center of the Earth makes for a good center for most things. If you're talking about our galaxy, well, that's got a center too: Sagittarius A*.

What makes all of these important is they are points of symmetry: the galaxy, or the solar system, or the Earth all look very similar if you rotate those respective systems around those centers. The universe as a whole has no such unique point of symmetry. Instead, you can rotate the entire universe all you like around any point and it will, more or less, look the same. There simply isn't any unique point of symmetry for the whole universe.
 
  • #38
Chalnoth said:
Yes, and we can only move in our three dimensions of space.

Anyway, the main point here is that a center is a point of symmetry. It's a unique point in the space where stuff is the same in basically every direction from it. The Sun, for example, is a reasonable center for our solar system because if we choose it as our center, the rest of the solar system moves around it. If you're near the Earth, then the center of the Earth makes for a good center for most things. If you're talking about our galaxy, well, that's got a center too: Sagittarius A*.

What makes all of these important is they are points of symmetry: the galaxy, or the solar system, or the Earth all look very similar if you rotate those respective systems around those centers. The universe as a whole has no such unique point of symmetry. Instead, you can rotate the entire universe all you like around any point and it will, more or less, look the same. There simply isn't any unique point of symmetry for the whole universe.

Yes we can move in 3d, a balloon is 3d. Ants are moving 2d on a 3d object. How does that correspond to our 3d universe? Unless you are implying that our 3d is on a face of a 4d object. I'm not talking about time.
 
  • #39
But our universe is at least 4d object. And I am talking about time.
 
  • #40
Flustered said:
Yes we can move in 3d, a balloon is 3d. Ants are moving 2d on a 3d object. How does that correspond to our 3d universe? Unless you are implying that our 3d is on a face of a 4d object. I'm not talking about time.
Obviously the analogy isn't perfect. No analogy is. That's why they're called analogies. But it works if you note that the ants are moving in two dimensions on a two dimensional surface. It's a two-dimensional analogy for a three-dimensional phenomenon. If you try to talk about the third dimension in the balloon analogy, you're focusing in on the point where the analogy breaks down: it only works if you only consider it as a two-dimensional analogy and nothing more than that, with the third dimension only there for visualization purposes.
 
  • #41
Flustered said:
Yes we can move in 3d, a balloon is 3d. Ants are moving 2d on a 3d object. How does that correspond to our 3d universe? Unless you are implying that our 3d is on a face of a 4d object. I'm not talking about time.

You can think of our universe as the 3d "surface" of a 4d sphere. That's what the balloon analogy is trying to convey.
 
  • #42
Flatland said:
You can think of our universe as the 3d "surface" of a 4d sphere. That's what the balloon analogy is trying to convey.

It is important to recognize though that it is just an analogy. It does not require the existence of a 4th dimension in order for the 3D universe to have this curvature. i.e. the curvature we see is not evidence of the existence of a 4th dimension.
 
  • #43
It seems that my sticking point is going from the 'common sense' idea of the universe being a big loaf of baked bread to only a surface of a sphere or a flat or near flat surface. If I just accept the surface idea then I have no problem understanding the other points. Maybe someone can help me to understand that model. Or better stated, at one point decades ago the big 3 dimensional loaf of bread idea must have been the popular idea. Then, at some point, scientists said 'no, even though that seems common sensical, here is some evidence that points to the idea that the universe is curved...or flat...or whatever' and then that seemed correct. Please help me understand that transition and maybe it will help me see all of this.

tex
 
  • #44
In cosmology when people say "flat" they mean zero curvature. This can be with 3D space as well as the more familier 2D examples.
What would be an example of UN-flat in the 3D case? Well you would know that you were living in an Un-flat region of 3D space if when you measured the angles of a triangle you kept getting different from 180 degrees.

In a NON-flat 3D region, the bigger the triangle the more noticeable the discrepancy.The bread analogy came into use as a picture of expansion. Popular science writers would talk about RAISIN BREAD DOUGH RISING. The raisins were the galaxies and they were getting farther apart.

An important part of that picture was that the dough was infinitely big. The loaf had no boundary. If you didn't get that detail then you missed an important part of the story.

The rising unbaked bread-dough analogy is still used in popular accounts. We sometimes use it here. You seem to have gotten the notion that things have changed because you used to hear the bread dough analogy and now you hear the word "flat". That doesn't represent a change---the messages are consistent.

The raisin bread-dough analogy actually depicts the case we call "flat". That is infinite volume 3D space with zero curvature where, for example, the angles of a triangle always add up to 180.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
If a 2D balloon surface makes sense for a 3D thing, wouldn't make an explosion make even more sense ?
 
  • #46
voxilla said:
If a 2D balloon surface makes sense for a 3D thing, wouldn't make an explosion make even more sense ?
The problem is that explosions are messy. Really messy. Here's some cool high-speed videos of some explosions:


By contrast, the early universe was extraordinarily smooth and uniform, only becoming more clumpy much later on due to the gravitational attraction of matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
  • #48
Can someone post a picture of a geometric shape that they believe the universe most likely resembles. I heard some cosmologist say that they think the universe is like a soccer ball, and it's looped in on its self.
 
  • #49
Flustered said:
Can someone post a picture of a geometric shape that they believe the universe most likely resembles. I heard some cosmologist say that they think the universe is like a soccer ball, and it's looped in on its self.
Unfortunately, there really isn't any way to say.

Imagine the soccer ball, for example. If our universe happens to be of that shape, then the part of it that we can see is only a teeny tiny fraction of one of the little sections of the ball. So even if the overall shape is rather like a soccer ball, the fact that we can only see this itsy bitsy bit of it means that it would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to ever actually show that it genuinely is that shape.

Our best bet of finding the overall shape, if it is possible at all, is to demonstrate that the start of our universe had to happen in a certain way. It may be (but it is absolutely not guaranteed!) that this kind of start tends to occur with a particular shape. So we may be able to indirectly deduce that our universe is probably of that shape, though we're not anywhere close to that kind of indirect deduction yet. Even then, finding direct evidence will always be hard if not impossible.
 
  • #50
Chalnoth said:
Unfortunately, there really isn't any way to say.

Imagine the soccer ball, for example. If our universe happens to be of that shape, then the part of it that we can see is only a teeny tiny fraction of one of the little sections of the ball. So even if the overall shape is rather like a soccer ball, the fact that we can only see this itsy bitsy bit of it means that it would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to ever actually show that it genuinely is that shape.

Our best bet of finding the overall shape, if it is possible at all, is to demonstrate that the start of our universe had to happen in a certain way. It may be (but it is absolutely not guaranteed!) that this kind of start tends to occur with a particular shape. So we may be able to indirectly deduce that our universe is probably of that shape, though we're not anywhere close to that kind of indirect deduction yet. Even then, finding direct evidence will always be hard if not impossible.

Why is it a forgone conclusion that the universe has no edge to it, when we cannot see outside our own observable section? To say there is no edge is absurd in my opinion because our vision it limited.
 
  • #51
Flustered said:
Why is it a forgone conclusion that the universe has no edge to it, when we cannot see outside our own observable section? To say there is no edge is absurd in my opinion because our vision it limited.

Because if would violate some of the fundamental laws of physics for the universe to have a physical edge.
 
  • #52
Flatland said:
Because if would violate some of the fundamental laws of physics for the universe to have a physical edge.

Proof your point.
 
  • #53
voxilla said:
Proof your point.
It's not his point, it is generally accepted cosmology.

There's a fair bit of reading, but you could start with the Cosmological principle and the Principle of Mediocrity, though they are not compelling.
 
  • #54
Flustered said:
Why is it a forgone conclusion that the universe has no edge to it, when we cannot see outside our own observable section? To say there is no edge is absurd in my opinion because our vision it limited.

They don't say there isn't an edge. They say that the model doesn't require there to be an edge for it to work. As far as I know at least.
 
  • #55
Drakkith said:
They don't say there isn't an edge. They say that the model doesn't require there to be an edge for it to work. As far as I know at least.

There is some truth to that! You can put it in terms of Occam Razor commandment---Thou shalt not make thy models unnecessarily complicated.

We see no evidence of a boundary, so why put it in the model? Plus it would be a mathematical headache. If there is a boundary forces would be unbalanced and expansion would appear asymmetrical unless you put the Earth at center. But putting Earth at center is "Un-Copernican"

The thing a lot of newcomers don't realize is that cosmology is a mathematical science that is primarily concerned with a math MODEL of the universe and that model runs according to the 1915 GR equation (Einstein Field Equation) which is our current law of gravity. If you have a model which must run according to an equation you don't have a lot of freedom to mess around.

The GR equation describes the evolving geometry of all space. We know it changes and the law of gravity describes how. On page one of the book you are given a manifold which is all space thru all time, and a metric or distance function that describes the geometry---what paths are straight and how distances relate to areas and volumes and how distances change thru time etc.

Personally I find the idea of a boundary UNINTUITIVE. The universe is supposed to be ALL SPACE. So what would a boundary be separating space from?

The GR equation is by far the most accurate law of gravity we've ever had---it gives more precise numbers than the older Newton law. It has been tested repeatedly and checks out every time. And it is a law both of gravity and evolving geometry because they are the same thing (how massive objects influence geometry).
So there is a COMMON SENSE reason to base models of the universe's geometry on the GR equation. Its a no-brainer in fact.

So if you accept to base your model cosmo on the accepted law of gravity/geometry, then the idea of a boundary has no standing. How to implement? Maybe by having the average density of galaxies gradually peter out so that our region is surrounded by a large "void". But then expansion would most likely be decelerating so let's fix that with a larger cosmological constant, and so on. It is not naturally a part of the picture. Just giving the idea of a boundary a meaning seems likely to lead to headaches and a more complex picture.

The discussion gets over into talking about what's called the "cosmological principle". On large scale the universe seems on average uniform. Matter seems uniformly distributed throughout space, at anyone time. So we infer looking back in time. At each epoch matter was uniformly distributed at some average density that prevailed at that time.

So people say "homogeneous and isotropic" which basically just means evenly distributed on largescale average.

That makes the model simple and we see no evidence to the contrary so since the job is to get the simplest model with the best fit, and no evidence to contrary, evenness is assumed.

Maybe, as Drakkith suggests, it is at heart an Occam thing--the ancient tradition in mathematical sciences of keeping the model simple.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
marcus said:
Personally I find the idea of a boundary UNINTUITIVE. The universe is supposed to be ALL SPACE. So what would a boundary be separating space from?

Precisely. "Bubble theory" as a model for the uber-universe, does not require any membranes around the bubbles but rather they may simply be viewed as cosmological villages in the vast darkness, collections of local activity activated by some localized phenomenon such as a big bang and separated from any other such areas of activity by lots and lots of nothing, or something or what have you. And, of course, the mass and energy making up the village are reorganized every 14 billion years or so, at least in this mind model. It's always been there and always will be there following the various conservation laws.

But, no boundary or membrane encapsulating the universe or universes is needed since the vastness of infinite space pretty much takes care of the isolation question on its own.


RD
 
  • #57
marcus said:
So if you accept to base your model cosmo on the accepted law of gravity/geometry, then the idea of a boundary has no standing. How to implement? Maybe by having the average density of galaxies gradually peter out so that our region is surrounded by a large "void". But then expansion would most likely be decelerating so let's fix that with a larger cosmological constant, and so on. It is not naturally a part of the picture. Just giving the idea of a boundary a meaning seems likely to lead to headaches and a more complex picture.

Right, and what about this 'bounded' universe to be surrounded by similar universes ?
 
  • #58
it gets into semantics and I lose interest. most "other universe" talk seems vacuous, devoid of empirical content. I try to keep language simple and consistent with professional usage---universe is all space and all physical existence.

That seems to be how it is used in 99% of the cosmology research papers that come out daily on the preprint archive.

Have a look for yourself. http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph.CO/recent
Essentially nothing about "multiverse" in the run of mill professional literature.
More confined to popular media where they stimulate the imagination in order to sell books. Talk about string theory and God and multiverses and stuff.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
You obviously don't get my point.
Call our accelerated expaning bubble of galaxies 'A', picture it in space and surround it with 'A2', 'A3', ...
 
  • #60
voxilla said:
You obviously don't get my point.
Call our accelerated expaning bubble of galaxies 'A', picture it in space and surround it with 'A2', 'A3', ...

What about it? Even if it's possible, there's no way for us to know at the moment. Our current theory is difficult enough as it is without trying to complicate it with unknowable stuff.
 
  • #61
Chalnoth said:
The problem is that explosions are messy. Really messy.

I think that sometimes are not that messy :)
 
  • #62
minio said:
I think that sometimes are not that messy :)
I believe that you only get this nice picture in a few, very specific wavelengths.
 
  • #63
Drakkith said:
What about it? Even if it's possible, there's no way for us to know at the moment. Our current theory is difficult enough as it is without trying to complicate it with unknowable stuff.

At least it can explain the acceleration of expansion, because of attraction to surrounding A2, A3, ... without need for dark stuff, isn't that a simplification ?
 
  • #64
How would you see an outer edge or for that matter an inner edge, from our view point we only see signals between objects?
 
  • #65
voxilla said:
At least it can explain the acceleration of expansion, because of attraction to surrounding A2, A3, ... without need for dark stuff, isn't that a simplification ?

Absolutely not. And it doesn't even explain the accelerating expansion.
 
  • #66
One day I may make a GPU simulation out of it, to show how it can work.
 
  • #67
marcus said:
it gets into semantics and I lose interest. most "other universe" talk seems vacuous, devoid of empirical content. I try to keep language simple and consistent with professional usage---universe is all space and all physical existence.

That seems to be how it is used in 99% of the cosmology research papers that come out daily on the preprint archive.

Have a look for yourself. http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph.CO/recent
Essentially nothing about "multiverse" in the run of mill professional literature.
More confined to popular media where they stimulate the imagination in order to sell books. Talk about string theory and God and multiverses and stuff.

You might as well say that the cosmos revolve around the earth. That kind of perspective amounts to the very same thing. It could well be true but without proof in either favor, it is speculation and only serves to hinder progress. Nobody will ever find a way to prove it if we refuse to consider the possibilities.

Existing models are useful for practical applications but contemplating what is beyond our knowledge domain is paramount to discovery.
 
  • #69
Just to reinforce some previous comments.

The entire Universe has no center, for it to have a center would also preclude a leading edge. This would violate the Cosmological principle and also undermine relativity by applying different and preferential reference frames.

The BB was not a ballistic explosion in a pre-existing space and is entirely background independant.

To try to assume external vantage points "outside" the Universe is pointless and does not provide any helpful understanding IMO.

Now there are edges to the Universe, but these are not spatial; they are temporal. When I stand and look up into the sky I am on the temporal edge of the Universe.

I hope this helps and am happy to discuss this further as sometimes it can help for a layperson to explain this. (My head still hurts if I think about it too much.)

Cosmo
 

Similar threads

B T: "Exploring the Possibility of a Theoretical Center in a Finite Universe
Replies
6
Views
1K
I Question on the horizon problem
Replies
17
Views
2K
Is Earth the Center of the Universe?
Replies
6
Views
4K
I Infinite Universe from Dimensionless SIngularity
Replies
17
Views
2K
I Is the Big Bang a White Hole? Exploring Possibilities
Replies
22
Views
4K
B The observable and non-observable parts of the Universe
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
What happened to the center of the universe?
Replies
19
Views
5K
B Do we still live in a Big Bang Singularity?
Replies
14
Views
3K
I Some questions regarding the initial singularity
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Did the Big Bang create space and time?
Replies
9
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top