The Center of the Universe

In summary, after reading about the center of our Universe, it is important to understand that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning that it looks the same in all directions and there is no special position. This is evidenced by Hubble's relationship and is compatible with a Copernican view of the Universe. Therefore, there is no specific center of the Universe, as it is constantly expanding and there is no point from which it started expanding. It is also important to note that our understanding of space-time in the context of general relativity is limited to cosmological scales, and it is difficult to define a center in this context. Furthermore, the assumption that the Universe is infinite is based on observation, but cannot be confirmed. Therefore,
  • #1
Vogue
6
0
I was reading about the center of our Universe, Here is a FAQ.

"[URL [Broken] Where is the center of the Universe?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Often when people are told that galaxies are receding from us, they
assume that means we are at the center of the Universe. However,
remember that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. No matter
where one is, it looks the same in all directions. Thus, all galaxies
see all other galaxies receding from them. Hubble's relationship is
compatible with a Copernican view of the Universe: Our position is not
a special one.

So where is the center? *There isn't one*. Although apparently
nonsensical, consider the same question about the *surface* of a
sphere (note the *surface*). Where's the center of a sphere's
surface? Of course, there isn't one. One cannot point to any point
on a sphere's surface and say that, here is the center. Similarly,
because the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, all we can say is
that, in the past, galaxies were closer together. We cannot say that
galaxies started expanding from any particular point.[/URL]

------------------------- Question ---------------------------
If every Galaxy acts as the center of the Universe would this be strong evidence for the infinite Universe Theory, If the Universe was infinite wouldn't all Galaxies appear to be the center relative to the observer?
--------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Vogue said:
------------------------- Question ---------------------------
If every Galaxy acts as the center of the Universe would this be strong evidence for the infinite Universe Theory, If the Universe was infinite wouldn't all Galaxies appear to be the center relative to the observer?
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Evidence" means that we have some observation that directly supports it. IMO there is no evidence that "every Galaxy acts as the center of the Universe". All we have is that it appears homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, for as far (distance wise) as we can observe.

Further, observation indicates that the universe is open, so we make an assumption that it is infinite, but we cannot be certain. If the universe is open but finite, then, in a way, there must be a center.

What we can however say for sure is that we are very near the CENTER of OUR observable universe!
 
  • #3
Well doesn't it seem that the question as to what is the center we have to take into account that your space is not an euclidian space?
It is instead a 4-dimensional space that is curved and not euclidian. That it is not euclidian means space and time axes are distinctly different.

So what would "center" even mean in a 4-dimensional Minkowski manifold?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I don't think we live in "a 4-dimensional space" - did you mean "a 4-dimensional space-time"? "Center" as I used it means a "spatial center" and not a space-time center!
 
  • #5
Jorrie said:
I don't think we live in "a 4-dimensional space" - did you mean "a 4-dimensional space-time"? "Center" as I used it means a "spatial center" and not a space-time center!
But isn't that the problem?

For instance, if I understand it correctly, in space-time the light cones can be bent by the distribution of mass, hence when one is to take a time slice of space-time at the local frame of reference one is not at all guaranteed to have a view of space only.

Isn't it true that one cannot take an absolute slice of time in space-time since that simply does not work in a Minkowski space. Each local frame of reference determines time. And in GR it only gets worse since the cones are turned by the curvature of space-time.

So are you not trying to ask or answer a question about space as if it were something different as what it really is?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
I think you are moving into GR on local scales, where much of what you say is correct, except that in GR one should rather think Schwarzschild spacetime and not Minkowski!

However, cosmology (and the original question of a center of the universe) works only on cosmological scales, where matter is taken to be spread homogeneously.
 
  • #7
Jorrie said:
I think you are moving into GR on local scales, where much of what you say is correct, except that in GR one should rather think Schwarzschild spacetime and not Minkowski!
Well you seem to appear much more knowledgeable about all this than me, but my understanding is that our spacetime is definately a 4-dimensional Minkowski manifold. I never heared of a Schwarzschild spacetime, Schwarzschild was simply the guy who provided a solution to Einstein's field equations for a spherical non-rotating mass. As far as I know he did not invent any different kind of space-time.

However, cosmology (and the original question of a center of the universe) works only on cosmological scales, where matter is taken to be spread homogeneously.
Yes and how does that invalidate the ideas of GR?

Are you saying that the question as to where is the center of the universe has any meaning?
So all the GR concepts of space-time are no longer valid because it is "cosmological"?
 
  • #8
What do you mean by

MeJennifer said:
a 4-dimensional Minkowski manifold,

and by

a solution to Einstein's field equations
 
  • #9
Jorrie said:
Further, observation indicates that the universe is open, so we make an assumption that it is infinite, but we cannot be certain. If the universe is open but finite, then, in a way, there must be a center.


Ok, I'm probably ignorant, but anyway...: If the universe is infinite, how come it started expanding from one point about 13.7 billion years ago? In other words, if it is expanding, then how can it be defined as "infinite"? Can something "infinite" have a beginning and be expanding? Or does that really mean that the universe is expanding towards infinity?

Sorry for being off-topic, but I have wondered about this for a while now. :redface: :smile:
 
  • #10
Jorrie said:
What we can however say for sure is that we are very near the CENTER of OUR observable universe!

Isn't saying the Universe has an edge just as bad as saying it is infinite if they haven't the optical power to prove it?

I think we need to increase our light amplification Quadrillions fold in telescope technology, If our optical power runs out by square laws then the
Universe should be called infinite because no edge was found strictly by evidence of no edge. I think an edge should only be called if an edge is found and no other systems exist outside the edge.
 
  • #11
Regardless of our observational powers, we cannot see objects that are so distant their light has yet to reach us. The "edge" of the observable universe is not a physical barrier; it's just the limit of what objects are close enough to us to be visible.

- Warren
 
  • #12
no theory can ever be "proven without a doubt".

We do actually see to the edge of the observable (in terms of photons) universe when the cosmic microwave background is observed. Beyond this, the universe is opaque to photons, however we should be able to see further back with gravitational wave detectors (once they become sensitive enough) and neutrino detectors.
 
  • #13
warning: (these things migt have been said before)

If we view the universe from a view of string theory then the universe has to be finite.
This is because, according to string theory or whatever they call it now, the universe is like 10 dimensions (or 11 i haven't read on it for a long time), f our universe was infinite, then we would assume all of the dimensions to be infinte. So, we should be able to go to every single one if we wanted to, but we can't, because 6 are rapped in a little, little, curl.

So, why should 4 be infinite and six not?

The Big Bang theory also dissallows the infinite universe idea. Since there was a big bang, time has started, meaning, 3-infinite demensions, one-expanding, and 6 curled up? No, 4 expanding and 6 curled up is more realisitc.

That finishes the infinite part.

Now, galaxies don't help it. Let's make it from 3 space, to 2 space. Now, let's say we have a bunch on dots in a circles. The space between them begins to expand. The circle that holds them is expanding also because we find, the circle is actually a 3-d dohnut. There for, our dots are around the entire hyperdonut. The ones at the top, push the ones at the bottom away. The ones at the left push the ones at the right away. This causes an illusion that the universe is infinite.
Because its a hyper-torus (dohnut). And a circles is seemingly infinite.
 
  • #14
Arian said:
If we view the universe from a view of string theory then the universe has to be finite.
This is because, according to string theory or whatever they call it now, the universe is like 10 dimensions (or 11 i haven't read on it for a long time), f our universe was infinite, then we would assume all of the dimensions to be infinte. So, we should be able to go to every single one if we wanted to, but we can't, because 6 are rapped in a little, little, curl.

So, why should 4 be infinite and six not?

I'm no expert on this but I believe physicists actually do have some suggestions about why this should be so. In any case the problem is not why the four dimensions should be "extended" but why the others should be "compact". And since the four ARE extended (we see them to be so), they might be infinite without straining the theory at all.
 
  • #15
Vogue said:
If every Galaxy acts as the center of the Universe would this be strong evidence for the infinite Universe Theory, If the Universe was infinite wouldn't all Galaxies appear to be the center relative to the observer?

Let's go back to the sphere analogy posed in the answer and see what we get:

"If every point on the sphere acts as the center of the sphere, would this be strong evidence for the sphere being infinite in size?"

It now becomes obvious that symmetry-of-viewpoint provides no evidence at all about the size of the object in question.
 
  • #16
Infinite universe, or not?

VikingF said:
Ok, I'm probably ignorant, but anyway...: If the universe is infinite, how come it started expanding from one point about 13.7 billion years ago? In other words, if it is expanding, then how can it be defined as "infinite"? Can something "infinite" have a beginning and be expanding? Or does that really mean that the universe is expanding towards infinity?

Sorry for being off-topic, but I have wondered about this for a while now. :redface: :smile:

It seems this (not so off-topic) question is still unanswered! Let me give it a try:

The Big Bang does not necessarily start from a single point - it is thought to have started from an infinitely dense state, which may, or may not, have been infinite in size already! Say it was infinite in size - can it still expand? Yes, for sure! Twice infinity is still infinity, or is my engineering mind missing something? :smile:
 
  • #17
Jorrie said:
"Further, observation indicates that the universe is open, so we make an assumption that it is infinite, but we cannot be certain.
Why so you say we cannot be certain?

Seems to me that an open universe if by definition infinite and a close universe is finite.
 
  • #18
  • #19
Jorrie said:
The Big Bang does not necessarily start from a single point - it is thought to have started from an infinitely dense state, which may, or may not, have been infinite in size already!

I thought the singularity was infinitely small at t=0? :confused:


Jorrie said:
Say it was infinite in size - can it still expand? Yes, for sure! Twice infinity is still infinity, or is my engineering mind missing something? :smile:

Well, no. If it expands, it expands from a certain size, and if it has a certain size, it's not infinite... If my engineering mind isn't missing something, of course. :biggrin:
 
  • #20
VikingF said:
I thought the singularity was infinitely small at t=0? :confused:
...
Well, no. If it expands, it expands from a certain size, and if it has a certain size, it's not infinite... If my engineering mind isn't missing something, of course. :biggrin:
Jorrie is right. Have a look at the link loseyourname provided where I tried to explain this by an analogy...(post #9)
 
Last edited:
  • #21
VikingF said:
Well, no. If it expands, it expands from a certain size, and if it has a certain size, it's not infinite..
Well that is not correct.
Something that has an infinite size can most definately expand.

loseyourname said:
I was given an excellent explanation of this just a day or two ago.
Well I checked and I did not see the relevance.

A few comments, because perhaps all this is based on my misunderstanding of the matter.

A space (at least the kind of continuous spaces we are talking about in GR) is either open or closed correct?
For instance a 3-D Euclidean space is open and infinite. However the space on a 4-D sphere is closed and thus cannot be infinite.
Both open and closed spaces can expand and contract.

So, one either has an open or a closed universe, correct?
It it is open it must be infinit.

Now that does not imply that there is an infinite amount of mass in it. Inifinity simply referers to the structure of the universe and not to the number of objects it contains.

Now it is true that the amount of mass and the distribution of mass has a direct effect on how space looks, but once it is open it must be infinite.

Or am I seeing things wrong here?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
EL said:
Jorrie is right. Have a look at the link loseyourname provided where I tried to explain this by an analogy...(post #9)

Thanks for the answer! :smile: I have read your post #9, and I think we understand the BB theory in different ways.

You wrote: "Now, by shrinking this infinite plane (i.e. going backwards in time) more and more, the points will get closer and closer, representing an increasing density. However, the plane will of course still remain infinite.
After infinitely many "shrinkings" we'll reach the Big Bang singularity (that is infinite density) without having stuffed all matter into a single point!"

This is how I looked at the BB theory a while ago, but after some (cosmological) reading, it seems to me that the BB theory describes an expanding of both matter and space, i.e. that even space was "stuffed into a single point" back at t=0, and in that way is not infinite... The way I understand your analogy, the 2D-plane represents space, which is infinite all the time, and the dots represent matter, which is expanding?

I will be the first one to admit that I may be wrong, because I have no cosmological background, except being very interested in the topic, but this is atleast how I have understood the theory. :smile:


MeJennifer said:
Something that has an infinite size can most definately expand.

How? Being infinite means that it is being endless (with no beginning and/or end) in size, doesn't it? And if it's already endless in size, how can that be expanding? Are you sure you are not talking about something boundless? Something boundless could still be finite. Could you please explain a bit further? :smile:



Regards,
A confused VikingF
(who tries his best to learn some cosmology) :confused: :wink:
 
  • #23
VikingF said:
How? Being infinite means that it is being endless (with no beginning and/or end) in size, doesn't it? And if it's already endless in size, how can that be expanding? Are you sure you are not talking about something boundless? Something boundless could still be finite. Could you please explain a bit further? :smile:
Consider an infinite Cartesian 2D plane on a piece of clay.
Now start to stretch it in both directions, it will expand.
Or consider a balloon, then put more air in it, the surface will expand.
An open universe is more like the Cartesian 2D plane, it is open and infinite, a closed universe is more like the balloon, closed and finite.
Both, as I hope you see, both can expand or contract. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #24
MeJennifer said:
A space (at least the kind of continuous spaces we are talking about in GR) is either open or closed correct?
Basically our universe is considered either open, flat or closed. In a closed universe the angles in a triangle sums up to more than 180 degrees, in a flat to exactly 180 degrees, while in an open to less than 180 degrees.
A closed universe is spatially finite, while both the flat and the open are spatially infinite.

For instance a 3-D Euclidean space is open and infinite.
It's flat (and infinite).
However the space on a 4-D sphere is closed and thus cannot be infinite.
I guess you're really talking about the surface of a 4D ball, something we call a 3-sphere. That space is closed and finite.
Both open and closed spaces can expand and contract.
Correct. (And the same is true for flat spaces.)

So, one either has an open or a closed universe, correct?
Or flat. Basically.
It it is open it must be infinit.
Yes, basically. (The resaon why I keep on writing "basically", is because there's something called non-trivial geometries, which I don't know much about, and I anyway just think would be confusing at this stage.)

Now that does not imply that there is an infinite amount of mass in it. Inifinity simply referers to the structure of the universe and not to the number of objects it contains.
True, however if we assume a homogenous distribution of matter in such universe, there must be an infinite amount of matter in it.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
EL said:
True, however if we assume a homogenous distribution of matter in such universe, there must be an infinite amount of matter in it.
Of course if you assume that.
But is that realistic?

The way I see it, and greater minds feel free to correct me on my mistakes, is that in order to have a homogenous distribution of matter in an open and thus infinite universe one cannot assume it has a finite age AND that there was a big bang singularity or pseudo singularity.

It would take matter an infinite amount of time to occupy a homogenous and infinite universe. Expansion would not help since the pre-expansion universe must have been closed the expansion would not be able to expand a close space into an infinite homogenous space in a finite amount of time.

The only way I could see this work is that the expansion caused the creation of matter rather than that all matter came from the big bang singularity or pseudo singularity.

But perhaps I am missing something?
 
  • #26
VikingF said:
The way I understand your analogy, the 2D-plane represents space, which is infinite all the time, and the dots represent matter, which is expanding?
It is the space between the matter clumps (the dots) which is expanding. By this I mean that if you have a ruler and measure the distance between two arbitrary dots, you'll measure a larger and larger distance as time goes on. However, the matter clumps themselves do not get larger with time, so I won't say that matter is expanding. (For example the ruler you are using to measure the distances do not expand. If this wasn't the case, how could you then be able to notice the expansion at all...?).
So probably the most clear answer is that the distance (the space) between any two points increases with time. This is what we mean by "expansion of space".

I will be the first one to admit that I may be wrong, because I have no cosmological background, except being very interested in the topic, but this is atleast how I have understood the theory. :smile:
This is a very sound attitude! Thanks for having it!

Being infinite means that it is being endless (with no beginning and/or end) in size, doesn't it?
Yes.

And if it's already endless in size, how can that be expanding?
As said, it's the distance between any two points in space which is expanding. We call this "expansion of space".
 
  • #27
MeJennifer said:
Consider an infinite Cartesian 2D plane on a piece of clay.
Now start to stretch it in both directions, it will expand.
Or consider a balloon, then put more air in it, the surface will expand.
An open universe is more like the Cartesian 2D plane, it is open and infinite, a closed universe is more like the balloon, closed and finite.
Both, as I hope you see, both can expand or contract. :smile:

Just a comment: The 2D plane is really "flat and infinite".
 
  • #28
MeJennifer said:
Of course if you assume that.
But is that realistic?
All observations point in that direction.

The way I see it, and greater minds feel free to correct me on my mistakes, is that in order to have a homogenous distribution of matter in an open and thus infinite universe one cannot assume it has a finite age AND that there was a big bang singularity or pseudo singularity.
Sorry, but you're wrong here. Se below.

It would take matter an infinite amount of time to occupy a homogenous and infinite universe.
I see you're stuck in almost the same thoughts as loseyourname was. Check out the link lyn provided, and there look at post #9, where I try to explain that the matter could be everywhere in the infinite universe already at the beginning.
Expansion would not help since the pre-expansion universe must have been closed
The universe need not have been closed at the beginning. It could as well have been flat or open.

the expansion would not be able to expand a close space into an infinite homogenous space in a finite amount of time.
As said, there's no need for it to do so. And anyway, a closed universe stays closed during all times. The same holds for flat and open universes respectively.
 
  • #29
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it!

EL said:
I see you're stuck in almost the same thoughts as loseyourname was. Check out the link lyn provided, and there look at post #9, where I try to explain that the matter could be everywhere in the infinite universe already at the beginning.
No I understand that part.

But:
EL said:
The universe need not have been closed at the beginning. It could as well have been flat or open.
So you are saying that if space is open it must be true that it always has been and will be open and in specific that it was open at the time of the big bang?

But for instance the space in a black hole is not open right? From within, one cannot see beyond the event horizon.

Time reversed would not the same have to be true for a singularity condition like the big bang? Would not the accumulation of mass imply there must be an event horizon? And if that were the case the space must be closed.
There might not be anything beyond the event horizon anyway but that is not the point. :smile:
I hope you understand my question.
 
  • #30
So you are saying that if space is open it must be true that it always has been and will be open and in specific that it was open at the time of the big bang?
According to current BB-theory based on the FLRW-metric, yes!

But for instance the space in a black hole is not open right? From within, one cannot see beyond the event horizon.
It holds on large scales only, where the FLRW-metric should describe the universe well.

Time reversed would not the same have to be true for a singularity condition like the big bang? Would not the accumulation of mass imply there must be an event horizon? And if that were the case the space must be closed.
There might not be anything beyond the event horizon anyway but that is not the point. :smile:
I hope you understand my question.
I'm tempted to answer, but I think I'll better pass this on to someone else more knowledgeable in GR. I'm afraid my answer won't be correct enough...Anyone else please?
 
  • #31
EL said:
It is the space between the matter clumps (the dots) which is expanding. By this I mean that if you have a ruler and measure the distance between two arbitrary dots, you'll measure a larger and larger distance as time goes on. However, the matter clumps themselves do not get larger with time, so I won't say that matter is expanding. (For example the ruler you are using to measure the distances do not expand. If this wasn't the case, how could you then be able to notice the expansion at all...?).
So probably the most clear answer is that the distance (the space) between any two points increases with time. This is what we mean by "expansion of space".

Ok! Thanks again for your answer! Looking at it this way makes it more logical and less metaphysical! :smile:

But then again, if space is infinite, then the possibility that there are other universes in space (other collections of matter so to say) will be probable. I mean, if it's infinite, then we cannot "search the infinity" and ever disprove it. (But that's more philosophy than science though)


MeJennifer said:
Consider an infinite Cartesian 2D plane on a piece of clay.
Now start to stretch it in both directions, it will expand.
Or consider a balloon, then put more air in it, the surface will expand.
An open universe is more like the Cartesian 2D plane, it is open and infinite, a closed universe is more like the balloon, closed and finite.
Both, as I hope you see, both can expand or contract.

That is true! Thanks for your answer too! But it can never contract into a finite size, and as I wrote, I thought "all space" started expanding from a tiny point at BB, not that it was infinite in the first place. But that was obviously a misunderstanding. :smile:
 
  • #32
VikingF said:
Ok! Thanks again for your answer! Looking at it this way makes it more logical and less metaphysical! :smile:
Nice to hear! I think a big reason for those kind of common misinterpretations of cosmological concepts comes from the fact that popular science writers often do not have enough knowledge about the subject (or really, they do not have enough knowledge about what they don't know about the subject).
There's nothing metaphysical about (real) cosmology.

But then again, if space is infinite, then the possibility that there are other universes in space (other collections of matter so to say) will be probable. I mean, if it's infinite, then we cannot "search the infinity" and ever disprove it. (But that's more philosophy than science though)
I'm not sure I'm following you on this?

That is true! Thanks for your answer too! But it can never contract into a finite size, and as I wrote, I thought "all space" started expanding from a tiny point at BB, not that it was infinite in the first place. But that was obviously a misunderstanding. :smile:
Comment: The today observable universe, which is finite in size, of course expanded from a single point.
The concepts of what is infinite or not at the Big Bang singularity is really quite ill-defined. And anyway we don't know what the universe looked like the very first moments, since we still do not have a good theory for quantum gravity. Hopefully the singularity can be avoided when we find such.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
EL said:
I'm not sure I'm following you on this?

If we take your 2D-plane, which is infinite, it has a finite amount of dots/matter, right? If we go to the point where you have your "last dot" and further, then we will find only empty space. But how do we really know that the plane/space is empty everywhere beyond that last dot? There might be other "pockets of matter" beyond "our" (pocket of) matter, expanding from other Big Bangs or so. Isn't that a possibility?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
VikingF said:
If we take your 2D-plane, which is infinite, it has a finite amount of dots/matter, right? If we go to the point where you have your "last dot" and further, then we will find only empty space. But how do we really know that the plane/space is empty everywhere beyond that last dot? There might be other "pockets of matter" beyond "our" matter, expanding from other Big Bangs or so. Isn't that a possibility?

"My" 2D-universe is infinite with matter homogenously distributed all over it, which means that there's also an infinite amount of matter (infinite amount of dots) in it. So in this model there will be matter outside the observable universe. (The bounds of the observable universe could e.g. be represented by a circle centered about a "dot" representing our local galaxy cluster.)
 
  • #35
EL said:
"My" 2D-universe is infinite with matter homogenously distributed all over it, which means that there's also an infinite amount of matter (infinite amount of dots) in it. So in this model there will be matter outside the observable universe. (The bounds of the observable universe could e.g. be represented by a circle centered about a "dot" representing our local galaxy cluster.)


Ok, that was my point. :smile:
But all matter doesn't necessary come from the same Big Bang, does it?
 
Last edited:
<h2>What is the Center of the Universe?</h2><p>The Center of the Universe is a theoretical point in space that is believed to be the center of all matter and energy in the universe. It is often referred to as the "cosmic center" or the "origin point" of the universe.</p><h2>Is there a physical location for the Center of the Universe?</h2><p>No, the Center of the Universe is a theoretical concept and does not have a physical location. It is used as a reference point for studying the structure and expansion of the universe.</p><h2>How is the Center of the Universe determined?</h2><p>The Center of the Universe is determined by observing the movement and distribution of galaxies and other celestial objects. Scientists use various methods, such as measuring the redshift of galaxies, to calculate the location of the Center of the Universe.</p><h2>What is the significance of the Center of the Universe?</h2><p>The concept of the Center of the Universe helps scientists understand the structure and evolution of the universe. It also plays a crucial role in theories such as the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe.</p><h2>Can the Center of the Universe change?</h2><p>No, the Center of the Universe is a fixed point in space and does not change. However, our understanding of the universe and its structure may evolve as we continue to study and learn more about it.</p>

What is the Center of the Universe?

The Center of the Universe is a theoretical point in space that is believed to be the center of all matter and energy in the universe. It is often referred to as the "cosmic center" or the "origin point" of the universe.

Is there a physical location for the Center of the Universe?

No, the Center of the Universe is a theoretical concept and does not have a physical location. It is used as a reference point for studying the structure and expansion of the universe.

How is the Center of the Universe determined?

The Center of the Universe is determined by observing the movement and distribution of galaxies and other celestial objects. Scientists use various methods, such as measuring the redshift of galaxies, to calculate the location of the Center of the Universe.

What is the significance of the Center of the Universe?

The concept of the Center of the Universe helps scientists understand the structure and evolution of the universe. It also plays a crucial role in theories such as the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe.

Can the Center of the Universe change?

No, the Center of the Universe is a fixed point in space and does not change. However, our understanding of the universe and its structure may evolve as we continue to study and learn more about it.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
631
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
669
Back
Top