- #71
Loren
- 183
- 31
UncertaintyAjay said:Oops. Sorry. Must have misinterpreted that one. It's just that this is a very heated ' discussion', and I got a bit excited. haha
:-)
UncertaintyAjay said:Oops. Sorry. Must have misinterpreted that one. It's just that this is a very heated ' discussion', and I got a bit excited. haha
The problem is that that expansion has a very different geometry from the one we observe. The galaxies on one side would have different velocities from the galaxies on the other, which would point us toward the center.Jim Hasty said:But there are other good analogies. For example... (3) Suppose we live in the 'volume' and not the 'surface' of a sphere. If the universe sprang from a singularity at t=0; then our local universe could be a small sphere within the volume of a much larger sphere, which is all expanding outward from the singularity. The same effects of looking in any direction appears that all other galaxies are moving away from ours.
Then the center of the universe is "under" every point in space (since the big bang), the same way that the center of the Earth is "under" every country on earth.PeroK said:Instead of considering the universe, let's just consider the question of shapes and geometry.
In two dimensions: a disc (the area within a circle) has a centre that is part of the disc, but the centre of a circle is not part of the circle. If you were compelled to live on a circle, there would be no centre that you could visit.
In three dimensions, you have the same situation with a solid sphere (the centre is part of the sphere) and a spherical surface (its centre is not part of itself).
In higher dimensions, you have similarly the concept of a hypersurface.
To begin with, you could expand your knowledge of shapes and geometry. Then use this knowledge to understand what people are saying about the universe.
The point here is that you don't actually need that hypervolume to have a fully defined geometry of space.Jheriko said:the other point that people try to make is that with the balloon analogy it has volume, and the volume has a centre. comparing this to volume in the universe completely missing the abstraction the balloon analogy makes to simplify things - specifically using 2D as a substitute for 3D because people struggle with visualising and understanding 4D representations. in that sense, if the universe was an unbounded 3-sphere then we have a 'hypervolume' inside of it which also very much has a centre in that 'fictional' 4-space - note, that this 4-space is not a minkowski style space-time but a 'fictional' euclidean 4-space, in the same sense that the 3-space the balloon is embedded is not a 2,1 space-time, but euclidean 3-space - or alternatively an extension of the sphere's local coordinate system that replaces intrinsic curvature with extrinsic curvature by embedding the system in a space with higher dimensionality.
Seeking said:In a 4d space-time, why is the center not the limit as time approaches 0? In this view the center does not exist in the present (not on the surface of the balloon).
These posts propose essentially the same idea - to place the centre of the universe in the fourth spatial dimension.zylon said:Then the center of the universe is "under" every point in space (since the big bang), the same way that the center of the Earth is "under" every country on earth.
The fourth dimension of space visualized here may not be physically real, but it should clear up the "center of the universe" confusion. Do you agree?
Of course, this would cause us to ask what is outside the aforementioned hypersphere, which would get into the subject of things existing before they are created.
Actually, we got together last year and decided to keep saying it incorrectly just to annoy you (Blame @Drakkith . It was his idea )Bandersnatch said:As a side note, and I keep hammering this in but nobody ever seems to care, 'unbounded' has a precise mathematical meaning, and in the context of finiteness of spaces means the same as infinite.
Yes, but you always do that so it doesn't count.Drakkith said:I blame everyone but myself.
thetexan said:Expansion and recession makes each observable object in the universe seem to be moving away from us, the observer. The resulting conclusion that we are at the center of the universe is therefore unfounded when it is based solely on this visual appearance.
UncertaintyAjay said:About the singularity stuff. If the universe began as a singularity, the singularity was,at that instant, the entire universe. After that, the entire universe expanded. Every part. There was no part that did not, and hence there is no centre.
It should be obvious from the context that thetexan meant large-scale universe. Clusters of galaxies and beyond. All blue-shifted galaxies are close enough for their peculiar motions to exceed the recession caused by the expanding space.Thierry Clicot said:Well, Andromeda (and A LOT of other objects) is blue-shifted and supposedly moving TOWARDS us, so your statement is unfounded at the start.
Also, your statement's conclusion is a non-sequitur--if everything was moving away from us, one could *logically* draw the inference that we ARE at the center of the "universe".
russ_watters said:I'm not sure if this is already taken care of, but:
The problem is that that expansion has a very different geometry from the one we observe. The galaxies on one side would have different velocities from the galaxies on the other, which would point us toward the center.
Your concept is clear, and clearly wrong. You are not thinking through the geometry of your proposed situation. Think about how you would see a different speed for objects not directly on a line with this magical center you want to invoke than you would for ones on that line. That implies a preferred frame of reference and that's a no-no.Jim Hasty said:But what if the expansion of space was accelerating with distance from the singularity, i.e. the epicenter of the universe, like we see today? Then if you looked in the direction of the expansion those galaxies would be accelerating away from you; and looking in the direction of the center those galaxies would appear to be accelerating away but it is actually you moving away from them. Would there be a way to discern the true direction of a center? I am not convinced that this gives the same picture as the balloon surface scenario; but I hope I am conveying my idea.
Bandersnatch said:Also, I think you're being too hard on human ability to work with infinities, or higher dimensions.
I'm not sure if that's entirely correct, phinds. As long as we're not talking about some explosion with particular, uneven distribution of matter, but about metric expansion, then expansion 'from' the point specified as the centre should look just like metric expansion from any other point in the universe. The point being not that the distribution of recession velocities would look different, letting you to discard that hypothesis, but that you can't distinguish that point from any other point, making it meaningless.phinds said:Your concept is clear, and clearly wrong. You are not thinking through the geometry of your proposed situation. Think about how you would see a different speed for objects not directly on a line with this magical center you want to invoke than you would for ones on that line. That implies a preferred frame of reference and that's a no-no.
All the infinite models (i.e. with flat or saddle-like geometry).DaveC426913 said:Or are there models of the universe where there is no centre, no outside, and yet it does not wrap around?
phinds said:Your concept is clear, and clearly wrong. You are not thinking through the geometry of your proposed situation. Think about how you would see a different speed for objects not directly on a line with this magical center you want to invoke than you would for ones on that line. That implies a preferred frame of reference and that's a no-no.
Then, how could you know this, if...?DaveC426913 said:If you head in any direction on the surface of a sphere, you will arrive back at your starting point.
Any point on the surface of a sphere looks the same as any other point.
Even in a wraparound universe, doesn't the spacetime mathematical model still apply... "time" has changed (passed), does your starting point actually still exist?And there are no points that are not on the surface.
That's exactly the scenario I was just describing. Yes, you could tell which direction the center was. If the center was to your left, the galaxies to your right would be moving away from you faster than the galaxies to your left (and with speed differences that depend on distance from the center). That's not what is observed.Jim Hasty said:But what if the expansion of space was accelerating with distance from the singularity, i.e. the epicenter of the universe, like we see today? Then if you looked in the direction of the expansion those galaxies would be accelerating away from you; and looking in the direction of the center those galaxies would appear to be accelerating away but it is actually you moving away from them. Would there be a way to discern the true direction of a center? I am not convinced that this gives the same picture as the balloon surface scenario; but I hope I am conveying my idea.
I should have been more precise to say 'observing from any point on the surface looks the same as observing from any other point on the surface'OCR said:Then, how could you know this, if...?If you head in any direction on the surface of a sphere, you will arrive back at your starting point.
Any point on the surface of a sphere looks the same as any other point.
Yes, I have not suggested otherwise.OCR said:Even in a wraparound universe, doesn't the spacetime mathematical model still apply... "time" has changed (passed), does your starting point actually still exist?
In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time.
russ_watters said:That's exactly the scenario I was just describing. Yes, you could tell which direction the center was. If the center was to your left, the galaxies to your right would be moving away from you faster than the galaxies to your left (and with speed differences that depend on distance from the center). That's not what is observed.
phinds said:Your concept is clear, and clearly wrong. You are not thinking through the geometry of your proposed situation. Think about how you would see a different speed for objects not directly on a line with this magical center you want to invoke than you would for ones on that line. That implies a preferred frame of reference and that's a no-no.
Jim Hasty said:But what if the expansion of space was accelerating with distance from the singularity, i.e. the epicenter of the universe, like we see today? Then if you looked in the direction of the expansion those galaxies would be accelerating away from you; and looking in the direction of the center those galaxies would appear to be accelerating away but it is actually you moving away from them. Would there be a way to discern the true direction of a center?
The aim of science is to discover good explanations for things which are observed, explanations which make predictions that are testable.Infintelycuriou said:Several proposals which I found have been discarded as "nonsense", are not that nonsense at all.
rootone said:What kind of proposal did you have in mind though?
Tongue only half-in-cheek. Rootone is in danger of giving carte blanche to the posting of a personal theory of a new member who may not be aware of PF's policy on personal theories.OCR said:Thanks for responding, Dave...
No!, it may have seemed that way I can see your point.DaveC426913 said:T... Rootone is in danger of giving carte blanche to the posting of a personal theory of a new member who may not be aware of PF's policy on personal theories.
PeroK said:Instead of considering the universe, let's just consider the question of shapes and geometry.
In two dimensions: a disc (the area within a circle) has a centre that is part of the disc, but the centre of a circle is not part of the circle. If you were compelled to live on a circle, there would be no centre that you could visit.
In three dimensions, you have the same situation with a solid sphere (the centre is part of the sphere) and a spherical surface (its centre is not part of itself).
In higher dimensions, you have similarly the concept of a hypersurface.
To begin with, you could expand your knowledge of shapes and geometry. Then use this knowledge to understand what people are saying about the universe.
AgentSmith said:Are you saying the universe is the surface of a 4-D sphere?
It's a logical deduction when projecting 2D geometry to 3D geometry.PeroK said:No. Why would you think that?
It turns out that the geometry of curvature works perfectly well without having to invoke a 4th dimension. This has been demonstrated mathematically.AgentSmith said:Are you saying the universe is the surface of a 4-D sphere?
You are not being clear here as to whether or not you still argue that the universe has a center. Are you now convinced that it does not?Jim Hasty said:Update on my recent reply. I see what you mean now by 'preferred frame' in the context of the cosmological principle. There are several googled articles [2011-2012] which mention 'preferred frames' in the context of 'asymmetrical expansion'. So yes, I agree with you in that context.