Center of the Universe - Is it Possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter superdave
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Center Universe
superdave
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
So every physics/astro student is told there is no center of the universe, imagine it like a balloon and every point expands equally from every point.

Except, there is a center of a balloon. Right in the middle where the air is. The universe isn't the flat surface of a balloon, it is 3 dimensions and expands in 3 dimensions.

Now, if we are measuring from Earth, and pick a direction, there must be a galaxy out there that is the farthest from Earth. Unless space curves completely back in on itself. There is some debate about that. Now, this galaxy is likely too far for us to actually ever see, but it exists.

And if we measure in every direction, there should be similar 'farthest galaxies'. The distances to these farthest galaxies won't necessarily be the same. But there should be a point in space where the distance to these 'farthest galaxies' is roughly the same in all directions. That point would then be the center of the universe.

I'm sure this has been thought of and holes poked through it, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts.
 
Space news on Phys.org
The balloon analogy is for a 2d universe.
Imagine you are a 2d flat creature on the surface of the balloon there is no centre.
 
It all depends on definitions really. There is a centre of the universe with regard to the fact that it's the point where it expanded from.

The centre doesn't exist in any of the three dimensions we can comprehend, so it's all a bit moot.
 
If a center could be identified, wouldn't it need to be plotted over time?
 
I have always struggled with this one
I am not arrogant enough to challenge the statement that there is no centre, as I have heard it stated before, and I am sure by much brainier people than me, but in the interests of discussion and provoking the right answers via my own stupidity, here is my (incorrect) thought process on it anyway:

At t=0s, all matter is in the centre
At t=1s all matter is heading off in different directions
At t=1s some matter is at one side of the universe, and some matter is on another side of the universe
At t=1s the universe now has a finite size with edges/boundaries

Therefore, why is there not a point within the universe, perhaps occupied by nothing, that is no more towards one side than the other? And the same in all dimensions thus a true 3 dimensional centre point?
 
Molydood said:
Therefore, why is there not a point within the universe, perhaps occupied by nothing, that is no more towards one side than the other? And the same in all dimensions thus a true 3 dimensional centre point?

But its 3D spacetime that is expanding. You could set off in 1 direction, and so long as you went straight you'd end up back where you started.

Just like blowing up the balloon with the 2D universe, for the 2D creatures there is no centre in the 2 dimensions they are aware of.

Lenth, width.

To be aware of the fact the centre of the baloon lies in a 3rd dimension, you need to be aware of depth.Moving this concept to a 3D universe. The centre lies in an nth spatial dimension.

Length, width, height, sometihng else.It acutally can't have centre defined by the 3 dimensions.
 
I think its because our perception of what the big bang was is what's confusing. It wasnt an explosion with a center but it was the expansion of space itself. Also you couldn't even find a center since there is no definite point of complete rest. Its all relative.
 
Wasn't the three dimensional expansion of the universe discovered by observing the red shift, then logically reckoning that by working backwards, everything must have come from some definite point in space ?
Big Bang matter and light radiated outward in all directions, so there must be a very big dark hole left behind. (Just kidding. Or am I ? ;)

Light emittted from the Big Bang must still be expanding the universe by continually creating more space (at the speed of light), and that light is continually creating the ever expanding "edge" of the universe. Physical matter (unable to keep up with C) is surely being left far behind.

May I take the original question a little further ?

We know gravity can bend light, but can it slow it down ? Yes, because black holes stop it entirely. So the gravitic pull of the mass of the universe must be slowing down its expansion by decelerating the light from the Big Bang. (Imagine gravity's effect if you traveled from the Earth's centre to it's surface.)
So the further you are from the centre of the universe, yet still within the sphere of expanding matter, the slower light will travel in the outward direction. (Until it goes beyond the mattersphere.)(Did I just invent a new word ?)(I bet someone got there first.)
But does this gravity also speed up light going toward the centre of the universe ?

If so, could we construct an instrument that would compare the two speeds, and thereby indicate our distance from the centre ?

If it's not actually heresy, can I ask:
Has anyone figured out which direction from our solar system is "inward", back toward the origin of the Big Bang ?
Or does that question naively ignore the extra dimensions ?
 
  • #10
bannerman100 said:
Wasn't the three dimensional expansion of the universe discovered by observing the red shift, then logically reckoning that by working backwards, everything must have come from some definite point in space ?

no, working backwards, all objects were closer and closer, and everyhting was more and more dense
BUT
there is no 'definite point in space'

So the rest of your post is wrong.
 
  • #11
Molydood said:
At t=0s, all matter is in the centre
At t=1s all matter is heading off in different directions
At t=1s some matter is at one side of the universe, and some matter is on another side of the universe
At t=1s the universe now has a finite size with edges/boundaries
No - this is a fundamental (and common) misunderstanding of the big bang.

There wasn't an empty black space where everything exploded out into.
The big bang created the space.
It was the actual universe (ie space-time and everything) being created and expanding
 
  • #12
Dmitry67 said:
no, working backwards, all objects were closer and closer, and everyhting was more and more dense
BUT
there is no 'definite point in space'

So the rest of your post is wrong.

So where is the universe expanding from ? The concept of expansion requires a centre as a starting point.
 
  • #13
bannerman100 said:
So where is the universe expanding from ? The concept of expansion requires a centre as a starting point.

No it does not.

Imagine INFINITE line (or surface).
Now you expand (or contract it, if we "go backwards")
You divide all distances by 1000, and now all objects are 1000 times closer. But still it is infinite.
Go go backwards even deeper, dividing all by 10000000000000000000. Now it is extremely dense and still it is infinite and there is no 'center'.
 
  • #14
Dmitry67 said:
No it does not.

Imagine INFINITE line (or surface).
Now you expand (or contract it, if we "go backwards")
You divide all distances by 1000, and now all objects are 1000 times closer. But still it is infinite.
Go go backwards even deeper, dividing all by 10000000000000000000. Now it is extremely dense and still it is infinite and there is no 'center'.

But that would mean there was no Big Bang, locatable in time, and everything just expanded, and always has been expanding, from an infinitely small space ?

That would mean time would have no beginning.

Please patiently correct me if I have misunderstood you.
 
  • #15
bannerman100 said:
But that would mean there was no Big Bang, locatable in time, and everything just expanded, and always has been expanding, from an infinitely small space ?

Why?
Big Bang has definite location in time, but not in space.

If Universe is Infinite now (which is very likely) then it was ALWAYS infinite.

here si a mathematical model
At t=1 we have an infinite line (all real numbers) from -infinity to +infinity
Going back in time, say, t=0.01 we have all distances 100 times smaller, but our line is infinite.
It is also infinite at t=0.00000001 or t=0.00000000000000000001
So it was always infinite at any t>0
However, the location in time of Big Bang is clear, it is at t=0.
 
  • #16
Saying that "the big bang created space" is a little presumptious. I know that many people are using that as an *assumption* based on relativity, but the idea is only an interpretation - and it may not be right. This is one of the things that the Gravity Probe B is out to answer.

James Overduin, currently assistant professor at Towson University in Maryland, is keeping in close contact with the project and has published the statement that, "spacetime behaves relationally but exists absolutely", based on information that is coming in from the probe.

On another note, I don't understand why people make the statement that time existed before space did. Why do we constantly forget that spacetime is a singularity? You cannot isolate one from the other. (This is another problem with Verlinde's idea. He based it on the assumption that time existed before space).
 
  • #17
Eternal time is another confounding fallacy, time is irrelevant prior to the big bang. As Einstein noted, time is what clocks measure. No clocks, no time.
 
  • #18
Chronos said:
Eternal time is another confounding fallacy, time is irrelevant prior to the big bang. As Einstein noted, time is what clocks measure. No clocks, no time.

EPIC FAIL

how can a Science Advisor post somthing like that?? Time probably won't exist only in absolutely homogeneous universe.
 
  • #19
Mihael, you have misunderstood Chronos, who is saying that time didn't exist before the big bang.

I'm the one who suggested that spacetime is absolute, and since I'm a layman, I guess I won't get such harsh criticism for it. However, as I said in my last post, evidence is mounting in support of the absolute view and more scientists are beginning to take it seriously. Check this out if you're interested - http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0htmwr32m4wd7kv/ . I will purchase the full article myself next week.

I know that the relational spacetime view compells us to say that "spacetime was irrelevant prior to the big bang", but since nobody actually knows what preceeded the big bang, that makes us unqualified to make such a statement.

Perhaps a way to bridge the absolute/relational spacetime controversy is by comparing it with the two kinds of energy, kinetic and potential. Both kinds of energy are very real, they're just in different phases of expression. Might this also apply to spacetime? Before the big bang was "potential spacetime" and afterwards it became "kinetic spacetime". Hmm...
 
  • #20
It happens from time to time, not to understend somebody here:) Did not ment to be rude, sorry!
 
  • #21
mgb_phys said:
The balloon analogy is for a 2d universe.
Imagine you are a 2d flat creature on the surface of the balloon there is no centre.

But it's 3D... So wouldn't it make more sense to say that you are a 3D creature inside the balloon? The way I see it, if the balloon is our universe, and the bug is us, shouldn't we be on the inside of the balloon, not on the outside? In that case everything expands from a central point, and you have a direct center of the "universe".
 
  • #22
Hoku said:
... evidence is mounting in support of the absolute view and more scientists are beginning to take it seriously. Check this out if you're interested - http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0htmwr32m4wd7kv/ . I will purchase the full article myself next week.

I know that the relational spacetime view compells us to say that "spacetime was irrelevant prior to the big bang",...

Hoku that is a strange post! You refer to a 2001 article by James Overduin. If you want to know what Overduin was saying almost 10 years ago, you don't need to purchase that article. You can read this 2001 review article by him for nothing:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101484

In any case how does what a not-too-prominent guy says in 2001 show that "evidence is mounting and more scientists are taking seriously"?

Why do you say that "relational spacetime view" entails believing that spacetime was irrelevant before the start of expansion?
It is people who explicitly adopt the relational view who have been constructing and studying models where spacetime goes back before the start of expansion. They say their view is relational and their computer models of evolving cosmic geometry go back before.

I'm talking about research proceeding at an increasing rate on the order of 100 papers a year. And current efforts to find ways to test the models.
This reality totally does not square with your statement.

Mihael@@/& said:
Time probably won't exist only in absolutely homogeneous universe.

Michael, that is an interesting statement. I think I understand. And I agree with what I think is the meaning you intended. The other issue is "does time go back before the big bang?"
On that question I think it is irrational, perhaps silly, to make statement Yes or No. We do not know. Do you perhaps agree with me here?

We have models where time stops and we have models where it continues on back before. The models have testable consequences and we should be able to test. But we have not yet tested. So there is no scientific reason to believe either one thing or the other.

Do you know the Einstein-Online website? I recommend reading A Tale of Two Big Bangs on the issue of does time have a beginning at the big bang.
http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/cosmology/index.html

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/big_bangs/index.html

It's a public outreach branch of the Max Planck Institute. Hope you check it out.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Marcus, thanks for your objections. Actually, the free article that you recommended is not the same as the one on Springerlink. I know this because I read the first page of the Springerlink article, which is free, and it is completely different from the arvix article. Still, it might have enough of the same info to save some money.

The arvix article was updated in 2002 but that doesn't mean the idea died out shortly thereafter. In fact, Stanford picked up on it and included the idea in their website http://einstein.stanford.edu/index.html, which is maintained to this day. Overduin wrote the "spacetime" section, which was current as of September 2007. His statement that "Spacetime behaves relationally but exists absolutely" can be found at the bottom of the "Einstein's Spacetime" subsection.

If there are any other objections to Overduin's publications let it be based on the specifics of what he is saying and not on date of publication or whether he's attained a high enough position at a prestigious enough university. An assistant professor position at a university in Maryland is respectable enough for a man as young as Overduin.

You are right about my incorrect use of the phrase, "relational spacetime view". I tend to incorrectly say that when the proper phrase I should be using is "emergent spacetime view". From an emergent spacetime view, spacetime IS irrelevant before the big bang because, based on that view, it did not yet exist.
 
  • #24
Hoku said:
... I tend to incorrectly say that when the proper phrase I should be using is "emergent spacetime view". From an emergent spacetime view, spacetime IS irrelevant before the big bang because, based on that view, it did not yet exist.

I don't see how that follows. There are theories where geometry emerges from some more fundamental degrees of freedom, which however can also exist before the beginning of expansion. I'm not sure what you mean by "emergent". It is a buzzword that people use various different ways. I don't see any reason why if spacetime emerges after the BB moment it could not emerge before the BB moment. No rational reason to believe that the same underlying stuff doesn't exist before. Fact is we don't know.

I'm not disrespecting James Overduin. As I say he's just not very prominent. In no way would I take him as an authority. And of course those two 2001 articles are different. I looked at the Springer sample too :biggrin: The free one is a long review article with lots of references and my guess is that it gives a good idea of what he thought and said around that time.

You cite a general audience outreach 2007 article by him at the GravityProbeB website. http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html
I don't altogether agree with it, but heck! Why not copy a sample excerpt here and see if anyone else has questions or objections?

==quote Overduin 2007==

Relational or Absolute?

In 1918, Einstein described Mach's principle as a philosophical pillar of general relativity, along with the physical principle of equivalence and the mathematical pillar of general covariance. This characterization is now widely regarded as wishful thinking. Einstein was undoubtedly inspired by Mach's relational views, and he hoped that his new theory of gravitation would "secure the relativization of inertia" by binding spacetime so tightly to matter that one could not exist without the other. In fact, however, the equations of general relativity are perfectly consistent with spacetimes that contain no matter at all. Flat (Minkowski) spacetime is a trivial example, but empty spacetime can also be curved, as demonstrated by Willem de Sitter in 1916. There are even spacetimes whose distant reaches rotate endlessly around the sky relative to an observer's local inertial frame (as discovered by Kurt Gödel in 1949). The bare existence of such solutions in Einstein's theory shows that it cannot be Machian in the strict sense; matter and spacetime remain logically independent. The term "general relativity" is thus something of a misnomer, as pointed out by Hermann Minkowski and others. The theory does not make spacetime more relative than it was in special relativity. Just the opposite is true: the absolute space and time of Newton are retained. They are merely amalgamated and endowed with a more flexible mathematical skeleton (the metric tensor).

Nevertheless, Einstein's theory of gravity represents a major swing back toward the relational view of space and time, in that it answers the objection of the ancient Stoics. Space and time do act on matter, by guiding the way it moves. And matter does act back on spacetime, by producing the curvature that we feel as gravity. Beyond that, matter can act on spacetime in a manner that is very much in the spirit of Mach's principle. Calculations by Hans Thirring (1888-1979), Josef Lense (1890-1985) and others have shown that a large rotating mass will "drag" an observer's inertial reference frame around with it. This is the phenomenon of frame-dragging, whose existence Gravity Probe B is designed to detect. The same calculations suggest that, if the entire contents of the universe were to rotate, our local inertial frame would undergo "perfect dragging" — that is, we would not notice it, because we would be rotating too! In that sense, general relativity is indeed nearly as relational as Mach might have wished. Some physicists (such as Julian Barbour) have gone further and asserted that general relativity is in fact perfectly Machian. If one goes beyond classical physics and into modern quantum field theory, then questions of absolute versus relational spacetime are rendered anachronistic by the fact that even "empty space" is populated by matter in the form of virtual particles, zero-point fields and more. Within the context of Einstein's universe, however, the majority view is perhaps best summed up as follows: Spacetime behaves relationally but exists absolutely.

==endquote==
 
Last edited:
  • #25
bannerman100 said:
So where is the universe expanding from ? The concept of expansion requires a centre as a starting point.

In a closed universe space curves back itself. What this means is that if you travel in a straight line in any direction you will eventually end back at your starting point. Now tell me what is the center to that?
 
  • #26
As Heraclitus and many others, we too try to comprehend the big stuff. Center of the universe and beginning of time is as big as it gets. My thoughts were in direction of black holes, and if their power can dissolve everything to a basic homogeneous state..no matter what that state would be.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
I dislike arguing these issues, but, there is no compelling evidence of a 'center' or 'begiining' of the universe. I fail to see the relevance of black holes. They are quite ordinary residents of the universe unless you get too close.
 
  • #28
As we are all free to imagine universe as we can, for me it is easiest to put a black hole in role of our universe's mother :) As long as this depiction is any good:
http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/11/17/prevailing-universe-evolution-model_9.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
Mihael@@/& said:
As we are all free to imagine universe as we can, for me it is easiest to put a black hole in role of our universe's mother :) ...

That's a good idea. Some quantum gravity models allow for a bounce, expanding to form a new spacetime region. The work is preliminary and some way needs to be found to derive testable predictions but there are QG models of collapse to black hole which do in fact bounce and initiate expansion.

Some authors (which can be looked up in arxiv) are Kevin Vandersloot, and Dah-wei Chiou.
Francesca Vidotto is working on something that might apply to this. Ashtekar has one or two recent papers that speculate along these lines. Leonardo Modesto is another who has studied the QG black hole. Sabine Hossenfelder too. Maybe I should get some links and try to organize the information.

Anyway it is remotely possible that a black hole collapse somewhere else can cause a new expanding tract of spacetime. We are, as you say, "free to imagine" this kind of thing. And some people actually study it. It's interesting and it hasn't been ruled out so far.
 
  • #30
Mihael@@/& said:
As we are all free to imagine universe as we can, for me it is easiest to put a black hole in role of our universe's mother :) As long as this depiction is any good:
http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/11/17/prevailing-universe-evolution-model_9.jpg

Ah, its turtles all the way down... sorry, black holes :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Most information about black holes is quite limited, its known that it warps spacetime much more than any other object. But piercing through spacetime and creating another, new spacetime is something else, somthing I would bet on... Have no idea what's the meaning of Quasi-Geostrophic models, at firs look its to much for me, or is it Quantum Gravity models or Quantum Geometrodynamics :)
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Could not edit my previous post again so I'll paraphrase:)

I know that some of you wisit PF just to relax, and that you have lots of intersting things to do and to think about. This particular topic shoud be intersting and for fun so I'll ask you to join.
Most information about black holes is quite limited, its known that it warps spacetime much more than any other object. I never understood what is main stream idea about
the efect of BH on normal spacetime. In everyday life, anything with denser mass falls
through anithing with lower density. On the other hand if somthing that warps and falls through space and time it probably should be with higher densty of mass and also with higher densty of time.
If, in some moment, such object reaches critical potential of space and time I don't see any reason not pearcing througth and creating new spacetime..
 
  • #33
I don't see how it "creates new spacetime"
For example, except the problem with the singularity, *ALL* properties of non-rotating black hole are visible on this wonderful picture (sorry no higher resolution):

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/DFblackIn.gif

So you can answer almost any question just by moving your fingure on the diagram.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Kronos5253 said:
The way I see it, if the balloon is our universe, and the bug is us, shouldn't we be on the inside of the balloon, not on the outside? In that case everything expands from a central point, and you have a direct center of the "universe".

Out of curiousity, can anyone explain to me why this doesn't work?
 
  • #35
Kronos5253 said:
Out of curiousity, can anyone explain to me why this doesn't work?
Kronos, the balloon analogy fails entirely once you depart from the surface of the balloon. Only the surface is included in the analogy. There is no analogy in the real universe for any point not located on the surface, such as the center of the balloon.

The same problem occurs whether the bug is inside or outside the balloon.

People have tripped over this conceptual problems many, many times.
 
  • #36
WhoWee said:
If a center could be identified, wouldn't it need to be plotted over time?


If you want a center to the universe, you can call every point on the spacetime map as the center of the universe, since big bang happened everywhere - but not at any single point.
 
  • #37
Unless we happen to reside very near the 'center' of the universe, which I consider highly improbale, the CMB would be decidedly non-uniform.
 
  • #38
Chronos said:
Unless we happen to reside very near the 'center' of the universe, which I consider highly improbale, the CMB would be decidedly non-uniform.
What?? Why are you suggesting there's a centre??


Chronos said:
Eternal time is another confounding fallacy, time is irrelevant prior to the big bang. As Einstein noted, time is what clocks measure. No clocks, no time.

What?? So, time did not exist prior to the fifteenth century or so?


Look, I know this is not literally what you meant but you can't go around posting these pithy platitudes without putting them in some context where they are heavily conditioned. Someone, somewhere is going to say "Time did not exist before clocks, and we might be near he centre of the universe. Yes I have a reference, see this Science Advisor on Physics Forums? No more venerable reference than that..."
 
Last edited:
  • #39
As far as i understand, there is no centre.
 
  • #40
ManyNames said:
If you want a center to the universe, you can call every point on the spacetime map as the center of the universe, since big bang happened everywhere - but not at any single point.

You know, this is what bugs me about the current model. People cite all of it's tenets as fact without regard to relative probability. It is highly likely that everything we see around us was unimaginably dense and compact at one point. Fine. We have evidence that is very hard to interpret any other way. Something went Bang. You bet.

BUT. To state as fact that the Big Bang happened everywhere is a philosophical statement at best. The eviedence is only that it happened everywhere we are likely to be able to see any time soon, which is NOT to say that we even have any idea what "everywhere" amounts to. That the universe has proven to hold more diverse features beyond the contemporary human ability to resolve them at any given time is as likely now as it was a thousand years ago.

A little perspective and a generous helping of phrases like we think, or presumably, or according to the current model would go a long way in helping people establish a little theoretical context around some of the more tenuous aspects of the standard model.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Cuetek said:
You know, this is what bugs me about the current model. People cite all of it's tenets as fact...

No, they cite it as the theory it is. The theory part is implicit in all discussions.

If people are coming on to a physics board to discuss physics and do not know this, then they are woefully unprepared.
 
  • #42
DaveC426913 said:
What?? Why are you suggesting there's a centre??
I thought I was suggesting IF that were true, the CMB would not be uniform UNLESS we are at the putative center - a possible, but, unlikely explanation.

DaveC426913 said:
What?? So, time did not exist prior to the fifteenth century or so?
I believe you are confusing clocks with mechanical timepieces. Ancient civilizations used the motions of the sun, moon and stars. Motion is the essence of any clock, be it subatomic particles, pendulums, or the stars. Time without motion cannot be quantified, hence is meaningless. I believe that is context Einstein intended with regard to clocks.

DaveC426913 said:
Look, I know this is not literally what you meant but you can't go around posting these pithy platitudes without putting them in some context where they are heavily conditioned. Someone, somewhere is going to say "Time did not exist before clocks, and we might be near he centre of the universe. Yes I have a reference, see this Science Advisor on Physics Forums? No more venerable reference than that..."
I hope this clarification satisfies any perceived contextual needs.
 
  • #43
Cuetek said:
You know, this is what bugs me about the current model. People cite all of it's tenets as fact without regard to relative probability. It is highly likely that everything we see around us was unimaginably dense and compact at one point. Fine. We have evidence that is very hard to interpret any other way. Something went Bang. You bet.

BUT. To state as fact that the Big Bang happened everywhere is a philosophical statement at best. The eviedence is only that it happened everywhere we are likely to be able to see any time soon, which is NOT to say that we even have any idea what "everywhere" amounts to. That the universe has proven to hold more diverse features beyond the contemporary human ability to resolve them at any given time is as likely now as it was a thousand years ago.

A little perspective and a generous helping of phrases like we think, or presumably, or according to the current model would go a long way in helping people establish a little theoretical context around some of the more tenuous aspects of the standard model.

-Mike
Well, Mike, how else can you interpret it? No scientist I know of claims the BB as fact. It is merely our best approximation based on observation and physics. No one disputes our observations are incomplete and theories have error margins. To couch every assertion with 'our best guess is' unnecessarily diverts attention from efforts to propose new ideas. This is the only way to shore up our more fundamental assumptions. If something wrong with the pyramid of current theory, new observations will eventually cause it to collapse under its own weight. Furthermore, no scientist in his right mind would hesitate to attack the slightest inconsistency in any existing theory, however precious it may seem. This is how Nobel's are won.
 
  • #44
DaveC426913 said:
No, they cite it as the theory it is. The theory part is implicit in all discussions. .

The theoretical part is not implicit particularly in Cosmology. All theory includes a great deal of subject matter that is widely corroborated. Such factual components of theory may be factually stated with no ill-effect. However, the parts of theory that are either very low on data, long on inductive reasoning or presumptive of issues extending beyond the available evidence are highly speculative. Presenting such formal conjecture as factual by casual ommision is to perpetuate the weakest part of conventional wisdom as truth. Such casual ommision leads to casual acceptance of exactly the parts of theory most likely to be false.


DaveC426913 said:
If people are coming on to a physics board to discuss physics and do not know this, then they are woefully unprepared.

Words have meaning and to present pesumption as fact behind some ill conceived notion that everyone who's anyone "knows" where the line is drawn is pure arrogance and ultimately an impediment to science.
 
  • #45
Cuetek said:
The theoretical part is not implicit particularly in Cosmology.
Um, you do know that implicit is synonymous with unspoken, right? :wink:

i.e. the theoretical part of all physics is there as a given, it does not need to be spoken every time.

Anyone who is interested in cosmology will have to already understand the theoretical nature of physics (otherwise, as previously stated, they are in over their heads). Would you ask that every discussion of physics should be qualified so that school children or laypeople don't misunderstand the difference between fact and theory?


Cuetek said:
Words have meaning and to present pesumption as fact...
Please show one example where cosmological theory is presented as fact.

And for whom are you speaking? Are you having trouble with the difference between fact and theory? Do you treach a class where all your students have trouble? Is this a genuine problem of which you are aware? Or is this a complaint without substance?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
So we know that galaxies are moving away from us in accordance to their distance and the Hubble constant... but since all motion is relative, we can't very well say which galaxies are moving away from which; to every other galaxy, their neighboring galaxies are moving away from them similarly. BUT...

Why don't we just take the cosmic background radiation, take its red/blue shift, use that to calculate its speed relative to us (which is hence our speed relative to the greater universe), and then multiply that speed backwards by 18 billion years (or however old the universe is estimated to be currently), and then you have the position we'd be in 18 billion years ago, which would be the center of the universe?
 
  • #47
inhahe said:
So we know that galaxies are moving away from us in accordance to their distance and the Hubble constant... but since all motion is relative, we can't very well say which galaxies are moving away from which; to every other galaxy, their neighboring galaxies are moving away from them similarly. BUT...

Why don't we just take the cosmic background radiation, take its red/blue shift, use that to calculate its speed relative to us (which is hence our speed relative to the greater universe), and then multiply that speed backwards by 18 billion years (or however old the universe is estimated to be currently), and then you have the position we'd be in 18 billion years ago, which would be the center of the universe?

CMBR doesn't work like that as you are still thinking that the universe is 3D. If you did that you'd find we are the centre of the universe (which we know isn't the case). As it's pretty much uniform and ALL redshifting.
 
  • #48
DaveC426913 said:
Um, you do know that implicit is synonymous with unspoken, right? :wink:

It is not implicit in a forum where people have widely varying comprehension of the theories.

DaveC426913 said:
i.e. the theoretical part of all physics is there as a given, it does not need to be spoken every time.

I say, in this forum, it should be. It's not a lot of trouble to add "the math would indicate" or "theory suggests" to passages that are purely speculative like dark energy/dark matter.

DaveC426913 said:
Anyone who is interested in cosmology will have to already understand the theoretical nature of physics (otherwise, as previously stated, they are in over their heads). Would you ask that every discussion of physics should be qualified so that school children or laypeople don't misunderstand the difference between fact and theory?

It occurs to me that this forum is designed to be as much a resource for younger students as it is an exchange for seasoned enthusiasts. Such indignation over my suggestion that clarifying the degree of presumption in modern cosmology might be useful in this forum is hard for me to take very seriously.

DaveC426913 said:
Please show one example where cosmological theory is presented as fact.

Well, the guy I was responding to with my original complait said the following:

"... since big bang happened everywhere - but not at any single point."

Even if true this is unknowable, much less factual.

DaveC426913 said:
And for whom are you speaking?

Myself, thanks.


DaveC426913 said:
Are you having trouble with the difference between fact and theory?

No, I'm the one suggesting we formalize the difference between fact and theory a little more in our conversations.

DaveC426913 said:
Do you treach a class where all your students have trouble? Is[/B] this a genuine problem of which you are aware? Or is this a complaint without substance?

Have you quit beating your wife yet?

-Mike
 
  • #49
Cuetek said:
For whom do you speak.
Myself, thanks.
OK, so you alone are having trouble with the implicity that BB is a theory. For a moment, I thought you were suggesting anyone else was confused by it.

OK well that's easily rectified.

The BB is our best theory. There are no seriously competing theories. It is not fact.

You now know this. Problem solved.
 
  • #50
Chronos said:
Well, Mike, how else can you interpret it? No scientist I know of claims the BB as fact. It is merely our best approximation based on observation and physics. No one disputes our observations are incomplete and theories have error margins.

(snip -placed below-)

If something wrong with the pyramid of current theory, new observations will eventually cause it to collapse under its own weight. Furthermore, no scientist in his right mind would hesitate to attack the slightest inconsistency in any existing theory, however precious it may seem. This is how Nobel's are won.


It's true that nothing will stop the progress of science and sooner or later the data tells the tale. But there is a problem with new data. The CMB and the Super nova recession data are just about the only major new discoveries that have been made recently. And they are both corroborative of there universe having been very compact at some point in the past. So the BB is very attractive and has been for a century or so.

But the weakest part of the BB is not that things were compact some 15 billion years ago, but that everthing in the universe was compact and that there was nothing "outside" or "before" the BB. That is, the cosmological principle (CP) has been take as fact and is considered fact almost reflexively in most exminations of the new data and certainly in all conversations among the experts about the conventional models. But the CP is not only theoretical, it is unlikely.

Coversations about dark matter and dark energy are entirely predicated on the universe being homogeneous. The calculations of the total matter in the universe necessarily require uniformity throughout. And the CP is really an idealization of the locally visible universe and not a careful examination of the most probable disposition of the large scale universe.

All scales of the universe that we have ever examined shows a hierarchical structure, yet we humans always terminate that hierarchy with every new cosmology we devise. Currently the CP terminates the hierarchy by extending the largest visible scale out to whatever extent necessary. The CP is a very handy idealization that allows us to work backwards with all the local material to devise what I imagine to be a very accurate history, but it does not serve us to imagine so rigidly that it is universal. It is unlikely that the CP holds at, say, a million or a billion times the particle horizon.

Every physical phenomenon ever examined has proven to be finite in extent and multiply manifest (that is, for any given physical phenomenon we can find other examples in the universe). Why must the BB be unique. The CP is just as likely to be only a local idealization and if so, discussions about dark matter and dark energy are discussion about what an idealized homogenous universe would look like rather than a universe where larger structures and phenomonon dictated local matter/energy dispositions like they do at all the other scales of the universe we have examined so far.

Chronos said:
To couch every assertion with 'our best guess is' unnecessarily diverts attention from efforts to propose new ideas. This is the only way to shore up our more fundamental assumptions.

I don't see what you mean here. To me, the keeping everyone more apprised of the most presumptive aspects would be the better strategy in that it is probably the more presumptive aspects that will need modifying or replacing. I think that it wouldn't be too imposing for cosmologists, if only when talking to the public or the less cognizant groups, to add phrases like "the math suggests" or "the evidence suggests" or even "according to the model" before passages that deal with subject that are short on data, long on presumption or are projections beyond the existing data (eg dark energy, dark matter, curvature of the universe, etc). It would keep us more mindful of our own presumption.

-Mike
 
Back
Top