Is There a Center of the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RWHITE
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Center Universe
RWHITE
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am not a scientist. Just a normal 52 year old.
One question I have is - If there was a Big Bang,there has to be a place
where it started though I've never heard anyone talk about it.
Personally, I think there may be a Black Hole there.
I have some stuff on Black Holes but that can wait.
??
 
Space news on Phys.org
You have to remember that the big-bang wasn't just the creation of matter/energy; it was also an explosion of the dimensions of space and time themselves. The big-bang didn't occur in any particular "location" in space, because the big-bang gave rise to space itself.

Consider a "flatland" analogy: you live in a 2dimensional universe, there is only forward-back, and left-right. You also live on the surface of a balloon. The big bang, is when the balloon first began to expand from an infinitesimal point; at some time later, after the balloon has expanded, you try to figure out where the big bang "happened" i.e. the center of the universe. To do this, you look at a much of markers which are fixed in place, because the universe is expanding, it must be expanding from the 'center'--so where-ever things are expanding FROM is the center. On the surface of the balloon, however, every point is moving away from every other point at the same rate (imagine drawing something on the balloon, and blowing it up--it all stretches out evenly)--which shows that there IS NO center.

Astronomical observations show us that every location in the universe is basically equivalent, that can be interpreted as meaning that either there is no center, or every point in space is the center.
 
RWHITE said:
I am not a scientist. Just a normal 52 year old.
One question I have is - If there was a Big Bang,there has to be a place
where it started though I've never heard anyone talk about it.
Personally, I think there may be a Black Hole there.
I have some stuff on Black Holes but that can wait.
??

The Big bang happened everywhere.

Imagine a very long rubber sheet, and part of that rubber sheet is the observable universe (in 3d) and now stretch it from all directions to mimick the expansion. The expansion occurs in every part of the rubber sheet.
 
It might be useful to point out in this thread that when cosmologists use the term 'big bang', they are not referring to the initial moment of expansion, ie they are not discussing the initial singularity. Clearly the nature of the initial moment lies outside the regime of validity of current theories. What cosmologists mean by 'big bang' is really the model that describes how the universe evolved from a hot, dense, early phase; the big bang model refers to the expansion and concomitant cooling of the universe.

To argue against the validity of the big bang theory on the basis of the existence of singularities or the violation of energy conservation is a gross misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the theory.
 
It's theorized there was no "place" at the moment of the big bang...if it happened, no time nor space existed...that's what popped into existence perhaps from some type of quantum fluctuation...but as Crowell mentions, we have no real theory for that moment itself..only the evolution which began immediately after.

Personally, I think there may be a black hole there.

Very unlikely; black holes suck things in while the big bang blew up from "nothing" and as it did so created space and time and maybe gravity and energy (radiation)...It is thought that the big bang and black holes, the only singularities given much credence in current theories, are fundamentally different...the big bang having zero curvature and black holes virtually infinite curvature (Weyl curvature)..

For other views of the early universe search here or Wikipedia for titles like Verlinde or Jacobsen or Ekyprotic or Causal Dynamic Triangulation
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top