There must be a center to it all.

[PENDRAGONDS]

This thought came to me a few years ago, I was watching the Atomic Bomb Movie, and I had just written to the NASA website about the center of the univers. I got a reply back stating that there was no center because the universe was flat (I am assuming they didn't really mean flat like a sheet of paper)I found this odd becouse flat is not a very natural shape. Then I read Steven Hawking A bref History of Time. and still I came away feeling unsatisfide. The graphs and ilistrations showed cones with the singularity at the point or bowl shapes with no set point for the singularity. Then a few years later I was watching the Atomic bomb movie and it came to me as a was watching the last part of that movie. The high altitude detinations looked to me like what I think the big bang must have looked like. A central point with the explotion expanding outward in all directions at once.and as the temp. droped the atoms clumped togather and stars and every thing is as we see it.[?]

 

[anandshanbhag2003]

The universe could be spherical in shape ,because gravity bends everything-even universe

 

[ianb4all]

what you need to understand as well is that there is more than one universe(multi-verse theory) which is linked to string theory and when they mean flat is sort of psuedo as they should of said more of a ripple(for example place your hands flat together and ripple your hands together and the spaces between your hand is where the big bang occurred forming our universe) so in essance there is no singular point where our universe formed.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Metaphysics "In an Infinity the Center can be Everywhere!"

From perfect, to the 'appearence' of im-perfect(tion)

 

[russ_watters]

"The Big Bang" is an unfortunate name that leads people to believe it was like an explosion. It was not.

 

[Les Sleeth]

"The Big Bang" is an unfortunate name that leads people to believe it was like an explosion. It was not.

Could you elaborate a little. It is difficult not to imagine a "bang" as an explosion.

 

[russ_watters]

Could you elaborate a little. It is difficult not to imagine a "bang" as an explosion.

That's why the name is unfortunate. It wasn't a bang or explosion. It was simply a beginning of the expansion of the universe - an expansion that occurs between all points in the universe. There is no center and no edge.

 

[Imparcticle]

Could you elaborate a little. It is difficult not to imagine a "bang" as an explosion.

The word "bang" elaborates the real incident. The universe began as a singularity, which evapoarated and eventually, the gases began expanding. This was a very slow process, not a "bang" which by definitoin is "A sudden loud noise, as of an explosion". The evaporation of a singularity is definitely not a sudden loud noise or explosion.

 

[nickdanger]

That's why the name is unfortunate. It wasn't a bang or explosion. It was simply a beginning of the expansion of the universe - an expansion that occurs between all points in the universe. There is no center and no edge.

I agree the 'bang' isn't required. Since the idea of an initial pinpoint of all mass was begun from an idea that came from Hubble's law. He used a novel method to indirectly obtain the conclusion that masses at the outer edge of the universe are moving faster. He actually did not say this implies a 'pinpoint' or 'big bang' start of the universe.

However, I have to disagree about the idea that their is no center. At anyone time, our conservation of momentum principles say that the center of mass of the all the objects in the universe is the same going forward in time and going backward. This is sufficient to use as a center, even if all the mass did not begin at a single point 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[Ebolamonk3y]

Universe creates us to question it...

 

[Thor]

This thought came to me a few years ago, I was watching the Atomic Bomb Movie, and I had just written to the NASA website about the center of the univers. I got a reply back stating that there was no center because the universe was flat (I am assuming they didn't really mean flat like a sheet of paper)I found this odd becouse flat is not a very natural shape. Then I read Steven Hawking A bref History of Time. and still I came away feeling unsatisfide. The graphs and ilistrations showed cones with the singularity at the point or bowl shapes with no set point for the singularity. Then a few years later I was watching the Atomic bomb movie and it came to me as a was watching the last part of that movie. The high altitude detinations looked to me like what I think the big bang must have looked like. A central point with the explotion expanding outward in all directions at once.and as the temp. droped the atoms clumped togather and stars and every thing is as we see it.[?]

Using any given point in space as an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of polar coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, in a relative context every point in the cosmos is its center.

 

[big-egg]

The universe has a center and it is like a hyper huge atomic nuclei.
You should carefully read these links see the deference between what makes sense and non-sense in the understanding of the universe.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/toi_esavov.htm
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm

 

[russ_watters]

big-egg, if the universe had a center (and we weren't there), then it wouldn't look the same in every direction.

 

[Chronos]

Information theory is probably the most advanced method of explaining the observed universe. There is no center without a preferred reference frame. But a preferred reference frame does not exist according to GR. To ask where is the center of nothing is the same as asking where is the center of infinity.

Using information theory: There is no Shannon information in the universe. We must therefore conclude there is no net energy in the universe. What we have is a quantum balanced state between the two. The universe is in a constant state of fluctuation between no possibilities [0] and all possibilities [infinity]. My conclusion, however flawed, is that we exist in the most probable state of existence possible between those quantum bounces. Perhaps all of reality we can observe is forced to conform to a Bohrs model of the atom.

 

[Phobos]

This I got a reply back stating that there was no center because the universe was flat (I am assuming they didn't really mean flat like a sheet of paper)I found this odd becouse flat is not a very natural shape.

Right, not flat like paper. "Flat" meaning Euclidean. Shoot two parallel laser beams across the universe and they stay parallel. In a "closed" universe, those lines would eventually converge. In an "open" universe, they would diverge.

A central point with the explotion expanding outward in all directions at once.and as the temp. droped the atoms clumped togather and stars and every thing is as we see it.[?]

You're close, but as Russ explained, there's no center or edge to 3D space. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of all space everywhere. During the first few instants in time, the universe was filled with a hot soup of fundamental particles. As space expanded, it cooled and those particles formed atoms. Gravity worked those atoms into stars & galaxies.

The tough part to comprehend is the idea that space expanded without expanding into anything (i.e., stuff did not explode out into empty space...all points in space got farther apart).

 

[Prague]

As space expanded, it cooled and those particles formed atoms.

I assume you are referring to quarks?

 

[Phobos]

I assume you are referring to quarks?

Actually I was referring to atoms. PErhaps I should have clarified that it was about 300,000 years after the Big Bang before the universe cooled enough for the fundamental particles to get together into atoms.

 

[hexhunter]

"The Big Bang" is an unfortunate name that leads people to believe it was like an explosion. It was not.

the name 'big bang' was made by some interviewee on a radio programme, he was a septic of the theory, and insulted it by calling it a 'big bang'

obviously, the name's stuck

 

[BracaleRon]

Big Bang is quite a misleading term. Big unwind might be better. Consider the torque when all the universal energy was circling around in a meter of space!

The idea of a center is implicit in the concept of space having finite size which implys walls, but is wrong: curved space and especially higher than 3 dimensional space does not lend itself to a classical mechanical view.

 

[Phobos]

made by some interviewee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle"

 

[Phobos]

Consider the torque when all the universal energy was circling around in a meter of space!

torque relative to what?

what about the singularity condition?

higher than 3 dimensional space does not lend itself to a classical mechanical view.

The modern view still only has 3 dimensions of space.

 

[cDimino]

Is it not also true that there was not emission of light in the same manner that a "bang" would produce? Where would the light escape to, anyway?

 

[Daminc]

"The Big Bang" is an unfortunate name that leads people to believe it was like an explosion. It was not.

an expansion that occurs between all points in the universe. There is no center and no edge.

The universe began as a singularity, which evapoarated and eventually, the gases began expanding. This was a very slow process, not a "bang" which by definitoin is "A sudden loud noise, as of an explosion". The evaporation of a singularity is definitely not a sudden loud noise or explosion.

The one thing I really don't like about the 'educated' person is that they like to portray theories as 'Facts'. The best we can do is have a good guess using what little information we have, or think we have, in our possession.

if the universe had a center (and we weren't there), then it wouldn't look the same in every direction.

How can we be certain that what we see is 'real'. By that I mean if there are galaxies moving away from us on the other side of the 'origin' then perhaps the light wouldn't reach us. Or, due to gravitation lensing, or lots of light absorbent material, or ripples in space-time, or many more possibilities that, as a mere human, I cannot fathom or imagine.

We assume way to often that we understand what is going on around us. There is an inherent danger in this in that we can become overconfident, lose respect of nature and allow our arrogance to make our species extinct.

We should accept that what we 'know' is at best an educated guess (admittedly guessed by very intellegent people) but shouldn't be presented as absolute facts.

Sorry about the rant but this is something that has always annoyed me about the arrogance of Man.

 

[BracaleRon]

Phobos "The modern view still only has 3 dimensions of space."

Except in string theory which has 11 dimensions, most spatial. The concept of curved space still has not penetrated the assumptions that the Euclidian geometry of our everyday world implies. There is no center or many centers to many reference mollusks. Do not force ideals upon the universe, it is a mysterious place that does not follow the old concepts of linear 3-D space at all.

Phobos - "torque relative to what?"

Exactly, if I say spinning internally; then internal to what? Assumptions that the spinning has a center are obvious wrong. Perhaps it was a Mobius strip. We cannot conceptualize the big bang, but everything is still spinning because of the initial condition, that we know for sure. From the smallest quantum particles to star systems and galaxies!

 

[Phobos]

The one thing I really don't like about the 'educated' person is that they like to portray theories as 'Facts'. The best we can do is have a good guess using what little information we have, or think we have, in our possession.

We could preface every sentence with "According to the current mainstream version of Big Bang Theory,..." but that would make the discussion more cumbersome.

How can we be certain that what we see is 'real'.

Scientists verify observations more than once and are careful in their methodology. Use of the term 'theory' is a nod to the uncertainties and the neverending research to be done.

By that I mean if there are galaxies moving away from us on the other side of the 'origin' then perhaps the light wouldn't reach us.

But you would still see a preferential direction in the motion of the visible galaxies away from one "side" of the universe. But that is not what is observed.

Or, due to gravitation lensing, or lots of light absorbent material, or ripples in space-time, or many more possibilities that, as a mere human, I cannot fathom or imagine.

Which is why scientific explanations are called theories. As we learn more, they are updated accordingly. Some theories are more well supported than others. Big Bang theory has a lot of evidence going for it and it surpasses other theories in its ability to explain what we see.

We assume way to often that we understand what is going on around us. There is an inherent danger in this in that we can become overconfident, lose respect of nature and allow our arrogance to make our species extinct.

I think this is a misunderstanding derived from how science appears in the public media. If you review scientific papers, you'll see a keen appreciation for uncertainties.

We should accept that what we 'know' is at best an educated guess (admittedly guessed by very intellegent people) but shouldn't be presented as absolute facts.

Unlike the everyday usage of the word 'theory' (guess), a scientific 'theory' is different. A scientific theory is built up from the facts and has passed peer review and confirmation tests. And then further testing and modifications go on...

Sorry about the rant but this is something that has always annoyed me about the arrogance of Man.

Note that it's not Science that claims to have Absolute Truth.

Also note that 'Man' has to proceed as best we can and correct ourselves when we err. We shouldn't, IMO, throw up our hands and say it's impossible to know anything.

 

[Phobos]

Except in string theory which has 11 dimensions, most spatial.

True, but that's not the mainstream theory. String theory (M Theory) is making some good progress, but it has yet to clear some significant hurdles (for example, proving that any of those extra dimensions actually exist).

The concept of curved space still has not penetrated the assumptions that the Euclidian geometry of our everyday world implies.

With its roots in Relativity, Big Bang Theory does include curved space.

 

[Daminc]

We could preface every sentence with "According to the current mainstream version of Big Bang Theory,..." but that would make the discussion more cumbersome.

True, but it would be more accurate which in my opinion is more important to those of us who are trying to learn a few things (such as myself)

But you would still see a preferential direction in the motion of the visible galaxies away from one "side" of the universe. But that is not what is observed.

I wonder if we'll ever figure it out

I mean logic states one thing and if observation evidence doesn't support it how do we marry for a solution? Is our logic flawed, or is our observations flawed, or both?

I think this is a misunderstanding derived from how science appears in the public media. If you review scientific papers, you'll see a keen appreciation for uncertainties.

I agree there is a misunderstanding because the media potrays theories/statistics as facts which brings me back to my original whinge

You can 'forgive' the media for playing with the truth because we expect them to an give them the repect that is due to them (i.e. almost none) but I don't like people who love science to make the same mistake.

Unlike the everyday usage of the word 'theory' (guess), a scientific 'theory' is different. A scientific theory is built up from the facts and has passed peer review and confirmation tests. And then further testing and modifications go on...

A 'scientific theory' does hold more weight than other theories but it should always be stated as such.

Note that it's not Science that claims to have Absolute Truth.

Not yet (the search for TOE?)

Also note that 'Man' has to proceed as best we can and correct ourselves when we err. We shouldn't, IMO, throw up our hands and say it's impossible to know anything.

It's impossible to be perfect but it doesn't stop us striving to obtain it. It is impossible for us to know something for abolute certainty. If we take that as a given it becomes irrelevant (much like a common denominator) but we should assume that because we haven't proved something wrong then it's correct.

You see where I'm coming from? I don't want to be picky but there is usually an alternative explanation for observed phenomena. I thought of reasons why the Universe expansion was accelerating way before someone notices a puslar was red-shifting (1987-1988 graveyard-shift when I was on guard in the Army.

THE TOP PHYSICS STORIES FOR 1998 were, according to us, the realization (based on observations of distant supernovas) that the cosmological expansion of the universe is not only not slowing but actually accelerating Source: http://www.physics.auburn.edu/~wersing/SN%20%231

When I read that started to think about alternative solutions to the observed evidence which led me down to light traveling through varying space/time densities all of which is plausible, and I've never once believed that I could be correct it's just that if I can think of alternates then surely most others can also. But they won't even consider it if they believe something to be a 'fact'.

 

[Antiphon]

If you are with a woman, SHE is always the center of the universe.
This particular Relativity Principle is more important to get right than any other.

 

[BracaleRon]

In some String theory that I read in Scientific American, the big bang was never anything close to a point, but rather a previous universe existed, which collapsed to a small size, then expanded again.

 

[sruthisupriya]

there's no center or edge to 3D space. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of all space everywhere. .

Then, can it be that the 3D space as we know it is curving around a 4th spatial dimension?