I There must be a center of the universe....?

[thetexan]

I am going to state the few assumptions I am making as I ask this question.

1. The big bang was an expansion of space/time rather than a physical explosion, although the general effects seem similar.
2. The universe is not infinite and cannot be if #1 is true.
3. The observable universe is but a small visible subset of the actual entire universe. How much the ratio is I don't know.
4. 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.
5. If there is a center to the universe we can not know where it is.

Now here are my assertions based on these assumptions.

1. A few femtoseconds after the big expansion began the universe was maybe 100 feet across. (I am aware of the ridiculousness of this measurement due to relativity but go with me for a minute).
2. If I could stand off from this 100 foot sphere I could point to it and say to my friend, "Joe, there is the entire universe and it fits into a sphere 'that' big (however you want to describe 'that' big...I am using 100 feet across).
3. Since the entire universe fits into an observable sphere of 'that' big then we can say that the extents of the universe fit into a observable if not measurable geometric sphere.
4. Even if the sphere or whatever shape it is is irregular we can say that it is a finite object with a 3 dimensional shape observable by me and Joe.

Here is my point...

5. That observable shape which contains the universe has a geometric center if not an effectual center. By that I mean the center from which all expansion is expanding from. Which means...
6. That there will be some mathematical point that is not part of the expansion because it is dead center to it.
7. And unless there is some future disturbance to the overall space/time in that region containing that point, it will remain at its original point in the expanding universe.

This is a long way to ask my question but I wanted to show how I am arriving at my notions that generate this question. Here it is...

Even though we can not know where the center of the expansion is, theoretically, must there not be one somewhere? Isn't there a theoretical center to the sphere that contains the entire universe?

I know we are talking about big numbers here but if one can build a sphere around the actual physical extents of the universe isn't it a simple geometry question?
tex

 

[Orodruin]

2. The universe is not infinite and cannot be if #1 is true.

This is wrong. The universe is possibly infinite and has been infinite all the time (the time $t=0$ is a singularity which is not part of the Big Bang). What goes to zero as $t\to 0$ is the scale factor $a(t)$.

Even if the universe is finite, it does not need to have a center.

 

[phinds]

And I would add that your statements about "standing off" from the universe do not make any sense. The universe is now, and always has been, everything there is and there IS no place from which you can "stand off" because there is no place that is not part of the universe. This is not semantics, it is fundamental to the physics. You cannot (legitimately) say "if I suspend the laws of physics, what do the laws of physics have to say about <insert nonsense of your choice>".

 

[thetexan]

I'm trying a thought experiment here. It's not nonsensical to imagine being able to visualize the universe from afar. I see pictures in science mags all the time of multi universes where they are drawn as individual and distinct objects as if observed from afar. This is no more imaginary than my illustration. And I don't believe this convolutes any discussion about my question.

Is the universe containable within a large enough sphere. This should be a simple yes or no. And if no there should be a good reason why not. Don't mistake this a argumentative. My understanding is limited and I know it's difficult to explain this kind of stuff to non-physicists. It seems to me after everything I've read that the universe is not infinite in the sense that if it can continue to expand then it can annex more of whatever stuff it has been annexing. AND I UNDERSTAND that even this statement implies that there is a relationship between the expanding universe and whatever 'stuff' is beyond meaning that the 'stuff' itself is existent and therefore part of the universe. In that sense the universe in infinite in that all that there is or can be is already a part of the universe.

I get all of that. But to my point, the universe expanded from a point to a bigger 'something'. I think the something has a general shape...spherical or something and if so has a center.

And what I would like is someone to explain how my neophyte analogy is incorrect...in a way I can understand.

This brings up an interesting definition question. Let's consider what is beyond the universe which is nothing. Not even nothing...it is a nonexistent nothing where even space/time doesn't exist. What makes it something? As the universe expands space/time is expanding but into what. Doesn't the use of the word expand imply expanding into something. Otherwise the term is meaningless. We hypothesize that the universe is expanding and has expanded. The only term of reference seems to be based on the relationship of objects to one another within the universe. Not the size of the universe to some huge ruler outside of the universe. And expansion includes the implication of a size change relative to something else.

Doesn't it.

tex

 

[phinds]

I'm trying a thought experiment here. It's not nonsensical to imagine being able to visualize the universe from afar. I see pictures in science mags all the time of multi universes where they are drawn as individual and distinct objects as if observed from afar.

Yes, popular science is wonderfully misleading and often has nothing to do with actual physics.

Is the universe containable ...

No.

It seems to me after everything I've read that the universe is not infinite in the sense that if it can continue to expand then it can annex more of whatever stuff it has been annexing

This is incorrect. Infinite can continue to be added to. Google the Hilbert Hotel.

I get all of that. But to my point, the universe expanded from a point to a bigger 'something'.
.

Wrong again. It MAY have expanded from a finite size or it may have been infinite to start with. We don't know. Current experimental evidence points toward an infinite universe but that's not conclusive.

I think the something has a general shape...spherical or something and if so has a center

Wrong again. Finite shapes do not have to have a center.

This brings up an interesting definition question. Let's consider what is beyond the universe which is nothing. Not even nothing...it is a nonexistent nothing where even space/time doesn't exist. What makes it something? As the universe expands space/time is expanding but into what. Doesn't the use of the word expand imply expanding into something. Otherwise the term is meaningless. We hypothesize that the universe is expanding and has expanded. The only term of reference seems to be based on the relationship of objects to one another within the universe. Not the size of the universe to some huge ruler outside of the universe. And expansion includes the implication of a size change relative to something else.

Doesn't it.

No. You are making the common mistake of assuming infinity can be treated algebraically like a number. It can in some forms of math but not in this case. Google "Hilbert Hotel".By the way, this topic is discussed here with great regularity. If you would like to see the answers we gave you repeated over and over (and often expanded on) just do a forum search.

A good place to start is the 5 links at the bottom of this thread.

 

[nikkkom]

1. The big bang was an expansion of space/time rather than a physical explosion, although the general effects seem similar.
2. The universe is not infinite and cannot be if #1 is true.

#2 is wrong. Universe can be infinite. However, let's assume that it is finite...

3. The observable universe is but a small visible subset of the actual entire universe. How much the ratio is I don't know.
4. 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.
5. If there is a center to the universe we can not know where it is.

Now here are my assertions based on these assumptions.

1. A few femtoseconds after the big expansion began the universe was maybe 100 feet across. (I am aware of the ridiculousness of this measurement due to relativity but go with me for a minute).
2. If I could stand off from this 100 foot sphere I could point to it and say to my friend, "Joe, there is the entire universe and it fits into a sphere 'that' big (however you want to describe 'that' big...I am using 100 feet across).

I'm sure you have played "pacman" game. Now imagine yourself in some magic office building which has properties of "pacman field": namely, you can go through rooms and corridors and they never end (there is no "outside"); however, even if you go into one direction (IOW: not in circles), you notice that you eventually enter a room you already been through.

Where is the center of this "magic office building"?

 

[Lino]

...
3. Since the entire universe fits into an observable sphere of 'that' big then we can say that the extents of the universe fit into a observable if not measurable geometric sphere. ...

Thetexan, Maybe I could just add one more thing that helps me ... It is not the entire universe that fits into an observable sphere, it is the entire OBSERVABLE (caps only for emphasis, not a shout :) ) universe that fits into an observable sphere.

If you could step outside our observable universe, then you could talk about the expanding sphere of that observable universe, with its geometric centre ... but you are still in the overall universe, which maybe infinite / closed / flat / ... or not, and does not need to have a centre

Other corrections that have already been highlighted, what you are saying is correct for the observable universe, not the overall universe.

Regards,

Noel.

 

[russ_watters]

1. The big bang was an expansion of space/time rather than a physical explosion, although the general effects seem similar.
2. The universe is not infinite and cannot be if #1 is true.

People have already pointed out that #2 is wrong, but didn't connect it to #1: #2 is wrong because of the gloss-over you did with #1, saying that "the general effects seem similar". Right: #2 only follows from #1 if the effects really are similar. They aren't. The Big Bang has virtually nothing in common with an explosion. Superficially you could say both involve an expansion, but the geometry of the expansion is very different.

 

[Hellmut1956]

I have seen once a picture, sadly I do not remember where, that was claimed to be closer to what our current understanding of the universe is. Imagine, just for the purpose to keep it imaginable, that the universe consists of a 3D-Matrix of locations. The universe expansion is just that the distance between those nodes increases. So very early in the universe all those nodes in this 3D-Matrix all those infinite number of nodes where there. So it doesn't matter next to which node you were or are, the other nodes of this matrix are all increasing their distance to the neighbouring nodes! An Indication of this is that independent in which direction or from which location you look at the background radiation, it will always look the same!
The other aspect the initiator of this thread should make clear to himself, is that the view is dependent from the viewer. The photon behaviour when going through the 2 slits is either like a particle or like a wave dependent on how the viewer observes. It is not independent of the viewer, another indication that the only way to really grasp physical concepts is by using the only language we know of that can grasp, describe, calculate issues in physics that are counter intuitive, is mathematics. I am just studying the course from Keith Devlin, professor at the Stanford University, Introduction to Mathematical Thinking, as part of my efforts to learn that language!

 

[curious Tom]

thetexan has a good point. Ten Billion years ago, the universe was considerably smaller than it is now, so something must have been 'outside the borders' of the universe then; five billion years after that the universe, though still considerably smaller than it is now, had expanded into that area which had previously been beyond its borders and so therefore was considerably larger than it used to be. The best guess is that it will continue that way forever (or will as long as dark energy propels it). Consequently, whatever was beyond the borders before either (a) has been incorporated into the present universe after being engulfed by it or (b) been simply pushed further away from where it used to be by the inexorable force of expansion. Curious Tom

 

[phinds]

thetexan has a good point. Ten Billion years ago, the universe was considerably smaller than it is now, so something must have been 'outside the borders' of the universe then;

Absolutely incorrect. There IS no "border". The universe has no center and no edge.

five billion years after that the universe, though still considerably smaller than it is now, had expanded into that area which had previously been beyond its borders and so therefore was considerably larger than it used to be.

It was larger, but it did not expand "into" anything. I recommend you study some basic cosmology.

The best guess is that it will continue that way forever (or will as long as dark energy propels it). Consequently, whatever was beyond the borders before either (a) has been incorporated into the present universe after being engulfed by it or (b) been simply pushed further away from where it used to be by the inexorable force of expansion. Curious Tom

again, there IS no "border" and no "outside".

Google "metric expansion" and "the Hilbert Hotel".

 

[QST]

If space/time is a true continuum then the universe is infinite no matter what "size" it is. The universe could only be finite if space/time were digital.

 

[phinds]

If space/time is a true continuum then the universe is infinite no matter what "size" it is.

Incorrect. What makes you think this?

The universe could only be finite if space/time were digital.

HUH? that doesn't seem to make any sense. What does it even MEAN for the universe to be digital?

 

[russ_watters]

thetexan has a good point. Ten Billion years ago, the universe was considerably smaller than it is now, so something must have been 'outside the borders' of the universe then;

Sorry, but that's just a re-statement of the same wrong understanding thetexan had. I know it is hard to envision something else being true, but you are going to have to let that go. I'm not sure what else to say except to suggest you read some of the other posts in the thread.

 

[PeroK]

I know we are talking about big numbers here but if one can build a sphere around the actual physical extents of the universe isn't it a simple geometry question?
tex

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.

 

[QST]

Incorrect. What makes you think this?
If you impose a coordinate grid upon space/time and if space/time is a continuum then there is no limit to the possibilities. That is what I mean by infinite.

HUH? that doesn't seem to make any sense. What does it even MEAN for the universe to be digital?

If you try to impose a coordinate grid upon a space/time that were digital then there would be only a finite number of possibilities. I realize it is hard to imagine space/time being digital.

 

[phinds]

If you try to impose a coordinate grid upon a space/time that were digital then there would be only a finite number of possibilities. I realize it is hard to imagine space/time being digital.

I still have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JJNic]

I still have no idea what you are talking about.

I think he means that GR is a continuum field theory and that R^n is an uncountable set? by "being digital" i think he actually means 'discrete' (to overcome the uncountability). Anyway, QST, that's not always problematic (n-volume integrals over R^n can still be finite), but can be (like UV divergences in QFT) when not taken care of properly.

 

[curious Tom]

If the 'expanding balloon' explanation is correct, then thetexan and I have to be on the right track. From what the staff said, this and other diagramable conventions are actually incorrect. On the other hand, neither thetexan nor I invented them -- these were invented and drawn by physicists and/or their illustrators to explain concepts that were difficult to put into words. However, these weren't just some guys off the street from Disney making diagrams in their spare time, but include regular contributors to Scientific American and Discover magazines. The concept is even used by Steven Hawking himself in A Brief History Of Time, especially at pages 36 and 148-181. Hawking speaks in terms of the light cone of an event: a particle which is traveling at or below the speed of light is said to be in the future of P. That which is in the past is able to reach event P by traveling at or below the speed of light and is said to be in the past. The events that do nor lie in the future or past of P are said to lie in the elsewhere of P. When the event P is the universe itself -- either at the time of the big bang or at various times (like now, for instance) during the expansion of the universe, what exactly is 'the elsewhere'? Numerous illustrations regarding time cones show the elsewhere to be the space into which the universe is expanding. If these and all the other illustrations that physicists and popularizers of science use are false, isn't what you're really saying to me and thetexan: "Fools, how could you possibly be gullible enough to believe what we told you last time?" Curious Tom

 

[russ_watters]

If the 'expanding balloon' explanation is correct, then thetexan and I have to be on the right track.

Sorry: still no.

 

[Orodruin]

If the 'expanding balloon' explanation is correct, then thetexan and I have to be on the right track

No, you are not, you are misinterpreting the analogy. The analogy is quite fine, but your interpretation of it is not.

 

[rootone]

What is often misunderstood about the balloon analogy is that it applies to the surface of a balloon.
The surface only, air inside the balloon or outside of the balloon (invisible extra dimensions) is no part of it at all.

 

[phinds]

If the 'expanding balloon' explanation is correct ...

I suggest you follow the link in my signature.

 

[Chronos]

Drawing from GR, it would be not be inappropriate to deduce that 'finiteness' is strictly local in a sense similar to that of the relativity of simultaneity. A universe that originated with finite boundaries can never grow to infinite proportions. Neither can a universe that originated in an unbounded state ever shrink to finite proportions. The observable universe does not conflict with these principles. It is widely agreed the observable universe has always been bounded, hence finite and could in principle be quantized. There is, however, no compelling evidence suggesting an absolute lower limit on the size of any such fundamental units. Our best guess is that quantization could emerge somewhere around the Planck scale. But, this remains little more than conjecture. We do not, and most likely will never have technology sufficient to validate this hunch. Quantization is merely a mathematical trick useful for managing the divergencies that appear to arise when we approach the realm of the infinitesimal. Just because it works does not prove the universe is inherently discrete or finite. The laws of physics have always been scale dependent. The laws of gravity are extremely well represented by our modern theories of gravitation. Yet most scientists would agree they appear to be incomplete at sufficiently small and possibly at sufficiently large scales. Would a working quantum gravity theory be the ultimate end all theory of gravity? I would guess it is merely another layer in an unending layer cake. Surely, GR has taught us that the universe abhors absolutes.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Hawking speaks in terms of the light cone of an event: a particle which is traveling at or below the speed of light is said to be in the future of P. That which is in the past is able to reach event P by traveling at or below the speed of light and is said to be in the past. The events that do nor lie in the future or past of P are said to lie in the elsewhere of P. When the event P is the universe itself -- either at the time of the big bang or at various times (like now, for instance) during the expansion of the universe, what exactly is 'the elsewhere'? Numerous illustrations regarding time cones show the elsewhere to be the space into which the universe is expanding.

The 'elsewhere' are the places in the universe from which light did not have the time to reach the observer at P, or which could not yet observe P.
You can draw lightcones in any universe, regardless of its expansion status, and there will always be events that lie outside past lightcones of other events.

Lightcones do not represent any sort of event horizons, but merely show which past events had the chance to interact with event P (or, which events event P will be able to interact with in the future). This is nothing else than expressing what is the extent of what you can see, when the time light had to travel and reach you is finite.

Since lightcones are drawn in space-time coordinates, they naturally 'expand' as you move forward in time (their 'peak' moves up the time axis together with you, the observer). This is unrelated to the expansion of the universe, and just represents the passage of time, and that you get to see farther and farther as time passes.

So, for example of a (future) lightcone, if the event P is you reading this, the 'elsewhere' at the time of P is everywhere in the universe, including e.g. your next door neighbour, or an alien sitting on Mars, as at the precise time of P there is no other place in space that could have seen the event but the place collocated with P. As the time passes, and light from the event spreads out, the 'elsewhere' shrinks as more and more observers get to see the light.

 

[phinds]

Doesn't thetexan's core question simply go back to the model or theory of the 'Big Bang'? If there was a BB would not that beginning point be considered a 'center of the universe' or at least a 'origin point'?

No, no, no, no, no ... As has been pointed out in this thread and thousands of others here on PF, there IS no center and never has been. The big bang was not an explosion from a point. That is the very point of this thread. Have you even read the other posts?

 

[Jim Hasty]

This discussion, it appears to me, follows two different concepts: finite vs. infinite universe. Thetexan's core question though addresses the theory of the Big Bang, which assumes a singularity, an origin, or whatever you wish to call it for a point of beginning of the universe. Literature on this subject refers to the expansion of the universe as proceeding outward in relation to this point of origin (call it a center if you can accept that). So if we limit the discussion to the Big Bang, there should be a center (origin point) of the universe; whether it is finite or infinite. However, if you disagree, are you not off on another tangent: such as a different theory, multiverses, etc?

 

[Loren]

Everything I have read about the universe talks about the Big Bang: and includes the 'beginning' or the 'singularity' at the 'origin' of the universe. So I agree with TheTexan about the universe being both possibly 'finite' , but particulary as having some kind of center, if you equate center with some origin point from which the outward expansion proceeded. Again, as many articles on this topic point out: if we play the movie of the expanding universe 'backward' it results in a 'big crunch' which is the location of the singularity or the so-called center (if you are willing to accept that) of the universe. I have one qualification: (1) can the universe be infinite? yes. We may/ or may not, live in a 'pocket' of a much larger universe, outside of which is beyond our observation. But I fail to see how this negates the concept of a center?

If you think of an explosion from a point source, everything would be vectoring away from that point source. However, when you look at the observable universe we don't see that. We see everything moving away from everything else, but not vectoring away from a common point. Geometrically there is a huge difference between the two phenomenas.

The problem is the word bang. It automatically associates with the word explosion and that is something easy for the human mind to grasp since we all have experienced that in one form or another.

Such is the problem with using common words to explain observations. They create entrenched ideas that are not necessarily aligned with the reality they attempt to describe. Until you are ready to cast away the preconceived notions like bang and explosion you will always have difficulty grasping the meaning of an infinite universe that is expanding.

There are no privileged places in the universe and there is no center. Don't take the idea of a big bang literally. It is just a simple abstraction to try to explain something more complicated.

 

[Loren]

This discussion, it appears to me, follows two different concepts: finite vs. infinite universe. Thetexan's core question though addresses the theory of the Big Bang, which assumes a singularity, an origin, or whatever you wish to call it for a point of beginning of the universe. Literature on this subject refers to the expansion of the universe as proceeding outward in relation to this point of origin (call it a center if you can accept that). So if we limit the discussion to the Big Bang, there should be a center (origin point) of the universe; whether it is finite or infinite. However, if you disagree, are you not off on another tangent: such as a different theory, multiverses, etc?

The concept of a center assumes an outside to the universe, which is a falsehood. It's natural to want to think of it that way since we mentally like to look at problems by stepping outside of them, turning them in our virtual hands, and examining them from all sides. However, this mental abstraction is a false reality. You can't be outside the universe (except in a science fiction novel).

As far as then balloon analogy goes, if you consider the skin of the balloon or better yet, a sphere, as a 2D representation of the universe, where would it's absolute 2D center be?

 

[Jheriko]

Finite shapes do not have to have a center.

This is a bold claim. Is there an example for this that you can give or a proof of some kind?

I guess it depends on what centre and finite both mean too - both are ill defined term in the layman's sense.

I tend to think centre means "centre of mass if this shape was filled evenly with some material" and finite means "finitely bounded in every axis".

I'm pretty certain this is always possible to find if a shape is finite since that implies some kind of bounding - even if we ignore my idea of what finite means and we have a horrible edge case like a fractal which has finite volume but infinite surface area, then so long as it is bounded you can still solve the problem... even if you must resort to numerical approximation schemes.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a bold claim. Is there an example for this that you can give or a proof of some kind?

Latitude and longitude have an arbitrary reference at the prime meridian and equator, but that's not a center: Finite surface, no center.
[late edit]
And no edge either.

 

[phinds]

This is a bold claim.

It is a trivial claim, as Russ has shown.

 

[Loren]

Latitude and longitude have an arbitrary reference at the prime meridian and equator, but that's not a center: Finite surface, no center.
[late edit]
And no edge either.

I agree, but a cube is a different story, so, the statement doesn't hold for all geometries.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree, but a cube is a different story, so, the statement doesn't hold for all geometries.

Why would we bother with a cube? The poster requested "an example" and I provided what is probably the most popular and easy to recognize (since we're sitting on it).

 

[phinds]

This discussion, it appears to me, follows two different concepts: finite vs. infinite universe. Thetexan's core question though addresses the theory of the Big Bang, which assumes a singularity, an origin, or whatever you wish to call it for a point of beginning of the universe. Literature on this subject refers to the expansion of the universe as proceeding outward in relation to this point of origin (call it a center if you can accept that). So if we limit the discussion to the Big Bang, there should be a center (origin point) of the universe; whether it is finite or infinite. However, if you disagree, are you not off on another tangent: such as a different theory, multiverses, etc?

Jim, this "center of the universe" and "the big bang is an expansion from a point" mistake is very common and is debunked here with great regularity. Continuing to insist that there is a center is a waste of time. Better you would accept the fact that you are wrong and then try to figure out why your logic is leading you astray. That way, you'll learn something. Continuing to believe there's a center, you'll learn nothing.

 

[UncertaintyAjay]

Numerous illustrations regarding time cones show the elsewhere to be the space into which the universe is expanding.

Artists are not physicists. The people who come up with these illustrations do not have a good understanding of physics. They draw whatever they want in the name of ' artistic license'. Illustrations and artist's concepts are not good things upon which to base your understanding of physics.

 

[phinds]

Artists are not physicists. The people who come up with these illustrations do not have a good understanding of physics. They draw whatever they want in the name of ' artistic license'. Illustrations and artist's concepts are not good things upon which to base your understanding of physics.

Yeah ! What he said.

 

[Jim Hasty]

I will try

Jim, this "center of the universe" and "the big bang is an expansion from a point" mistake is very common and is debunked here with great regularity. Continuing to insist that there is a center is a waste of time. Better you would accept the fact that you are wrong and then try to figure out why your logic is leading you astray. That way, you'll learn something. Continuing to believe there's a center, you'll learn nothing.

Phinds, thanks for your concern. I'm not trying to be closed minded about a center - in fact I'm very open-minded about physics. What I am concerned about is arguments that appear to be simply different points of view. I looked at your website and the 'balloon analogy' which is an example of my point. You are telling people there is 'no center' and 'no boundary' for the surface of the balloon - CORRECT! - for the analogy. But (and this is also a simple analogy) if you think of the balloon surface as 3-D residing on the surface of a 4-D sphere, then the center of the sphere is at coordinate (0,0,0,0). Or, if you take the view the balloon surface is 4-D; then the universe center could be at (0,0,0,0,0). There is no center for where we live (surface) but there is a center in a higher dimension. That's all I'm saying. The arguments seem to be over interpretation.

 

[Jim Hasty]

The concept of a center assumes an outside to the universe, which is a falsehood. It's natural to want to think of it that way since we mentally like to look at problems by stepping outside of them, turning them in our virtual hands, and examining them from all sides. However, this mental abstraction is a false reality. You can't be outside the universe (except in a science fiction novel).

As far as then balloon analogy goes, if you consider the skin of the balloon or better yet, a sphere, as a 2D representation of the universe, where would it's absolute 2D center be?

Lauren, I actually agree with you. But let me ask you a question: do you accept the notion there can be higher dimensions to the universe beyond the ones which we live in and can actually access? If so, then in your example, we live on the 2D surface and there is no center. But in the 3D world (which flatland 2D people do not live in) the center of the 3D universe is (0,0,0).

 

[UncertaintyAjay]

As far as then balloon analogy goes, if you consider the skin of the balloon or better yet, a sphere, as a 2D representation of the universe, where would it's absolute 2D center be?

First off, there is no centre to the surface of a balloon. Think about it. If you still think there is one, please calculate it for a sphere of , say, radius 10cm. You'll find that you won't be able to.

 

[phinds]

Lauren, I actually agree with you. But let me ask you a question: do you accept the notion there can be higher dimensions to the universe beyond the ones which we live in and can actually access? If so, then in your example, we live on the 2D surface and there is no center. But in the 3D world (which flatland 2D people do not live in) the center of the 3D universe is (0,0,0).

I disagree completely. You are doing exactly what I warned about in the discussion of the balloon analogy. You are taking the analogy to places it just does not logically go, and more to the point you are trying to apply that to reality also in a way that just doesn't work. It is NOT a matter of interpretation. This is the last I'll have to say on the subject. Believe what you believe but don't expect physicists to agree w/ you.

 

[UncertaintyAjay]

I looked at your website and the 'balloon analogy' which is an example of my point. You are telling people there is 'no center' and 'no boundary' for the surface of the balloon - CORRECT! - for the analogy. But (and this is also a simple analogy) if you think of the balloon surface as 3-D residing on the surface of a 4-D sphere, then the center of the sphere is at coordinate (0,0,0,0). Or, if you take the view the balloon surface is 4-D; then the universe center could be at (0,0,0,0,0). There is no center for where we live (surface) but there is a center in a higher dimension. That's all I'm saying. The arguments seem to be over interpretation.

Here is a direct quote from phind's ' the balloon analogy':
"The analogy is NOT intended to imply that our 3D universe is embedded in some 4D space (I’m not talking about 4D space-time but 4 dimensions of distance) "
Because I have nothing better to do, I counted, and in that article, it has been mentioned at least 4 times that there is no centre. There seems to be no contradiction.

 

[Jheriko]

Latitude and longitude have an arbitrary reference at the prime meridian and equator, but that's not a center: Finite surface, no center.
[late edit]
And no edge either.

It is a trivial claim, as Russ has shown.

I agree, but a cube is a different story, so, the statement doesn't hold for all geometries.

with all due respect i believe you are too quick to shoot these things down and that you haven't paid close attention to the detail of what i said.

at the risk of coming off with a similar poor tone to these comments, allow me to explain in more detail so that it is not so easy to make the mistakes.

i quite explicitly defined what i imagine a laymen means by 'finite' - bounded in the dimensions of the coordinate system under consideration. in his ideals the surface of a sphere like you describe is an /infinite/ surface because in the local coordinate spaces there are no bounds unless you are choosing a chart that has a seam (singularity) on it rather than multiply wrapping around the sphere (e.g. a cylindrical projection) - in which case we now have a finite area /with well defined bounds in all coordinates/ and so we can use the layman's understanding of what a centre is and there very much is one at 0 latitude and longitude (assuming we go from -pi to pi, -1/2 pi to 1/2 pi).

with regards the cube you can map a cube to a sphere and a sphere to a cube (any convex geometry to a sphere) so using a cube makes no difference to the nature of this, nor a dodecahedron or a cylinder. it just introduces a deformed version of the same coordinate system.

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.

now, if i am wrong, and you can construct a reasoned argument for why instead of a flat statement asserting that these things are wrong and that i simply do not understand, then i will consider it and hope that i have the good graces adjust my stance accordingly if it is a convincing argument.

again i apologise if my tone is poor. its very frustrating to see these kinds of comments, they paint a poor picture of the scientific community to laypeople and they are not uncommon - i have been guilty of this my self plenty too. its a natural way to behave when you are confident in your knowledge and weary of trying to explain the same things repeatedly.

 

[Loren]

Lauren, I actually agree with you. But let me ask you a question: do you accept the notion there can be higher dimensions to the universe beyond the ones which we live in and can actually access? If so, then in your example, we live on the 2D surface and there is no center. But in the 3D world (which flatland 2D people do not live in) the center of the 3D universe is (0,0,0).

We have nothing but some mathematical speculation of additional dimensions and those postulated may very well be so small as to be inaccessible. We can't prove the math is even correct.

You can't make a hypotheses based on pure mathematical speculation without testability.

 

[Loren]

First off, there is no centre to the surface of a balloon. Think about it. If you still think there is one, please calculate it for a sphere of , say, radius 10cm. You'll find that you won't be able to.

Of course. That was my point, too.

 

[UncertaintyAjay]

Of course. That was my point, too.

Oops. Sorry. Must have misinterpreted that one. It's just that this is a very heated ' discussion', and I got a bit excited. haha

 

[Loren]

with all due respect i believe you are too quick to shoot these things down and that you haven't paid close attention to the detail of what i said.

at the risk of coming off with a similar poor tone to these comments, allow me to explain in more detail so that it is not so easy to make the mistakes.

i quite explicitly defined what i imagine a laymen means by 'finite' - bounded in the dimensions of the coordinate system under consideration. in his ideals the surface of a sphere like you describe is an /infinite/ surface because in the local coordinate spaces there are no bounds unless you are choosing a chart that has a seam (singularity) on it rather than multiply wrapping around the sphere (e.g. a cylindrical projection) - in which case we now have a finite area /with well defined bounds in all coordinates/ and so we can use the layman's understanding of what a centre is and there very much is one at 0 latitude and longitude (assuming we go from -pi to pi, -1/2 pi to 1/2 pi).

with regards the cube you can map a cube to a sphere and a sphere to a cube (any convex geometry to a sphere) so using a cube makes no difference to the nature of this, nor a dodecahedron or a cylinder. it just introduces a deformed version of the same coordinate system.

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.

now, if i am wrong, and you can construct a reasoned argument for why instead of a flat statement asserting that these things are wrong and that i simply do not understand, then i will consider it and hope that i have the good graces adjust my stance accordingly if it is a convincing argument.

again i apologise if my tone is poor. its very frustrating to see these kinds of comments, they paint a poor picture of the scientific community to laypeople and they are not uncommon - i have been guilty of this my self plenty too. its a natural way to behave when you are confident in your knowledge and weary of trying to explain the same things repeatedly.

Thanks. No offense taken.

I was just pointing out that the broad statement made by Russ was perhaps a poor analogy. I think he adjusted his comment, so all is well.

 

[UncertaintyAjay]

"After observing red-shifts of many stars, we can determine the orbit of our solar system about the milky way galaxy. By extending this for distant galaxies, in addition to observing the average Hubble expansion, we measure that our galaxy itself is not quite at rest with respect to the expanding universe. (Deep sky surveys show that galaxies are also arranged into larger structures, and that the pattern has no single "special" centre.)

So there is hard scientific evidence that the Earth is not the centre of the universe, let alone the sun or the galaxy even (though you might pedantically argue that the the Hubble Space Telescope satellite is at the centre of the observable universe). To put this another way, in light of modern cosmology: Can you tell me which city (or country) is at the centre of the globe?"
Quote from a 2008 PF post on " Does the Universe have a Centre." Note the " hard scientific evidence" part

 

[Jim Hasty]

Here is a direct quote from phind's ' the balloon analogy':
"The analogy is NOT intended to imply that our 3D universe is embedded in some 4D space (I’m not talking about 4D space-time but 4 dimensions of distance) "
Because I have nothing better to do, I counted, and in that article, it has been mentioned at least 4 times that there is no centre. There seems to be no contradiction.

I fully agree with the article - as far as the analogy. THERE IS NO CENTER FOR THE SURFACE OF A BALLOON.

 

[UncertaintyAjay]

Similarly, there is no centre for the Universe. Also, do read my last post. Scientific evidence and all that.