Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

There must be a center to it all.

  1. Mar 21, 2004 #1
    This thought came to me a few years ago, I was watching the Atomic Bomb Movie, and I had just writen to the NASA web site about the center of the univers. I got a reply back stating that there was no center because the univers was flat (I am assuming they didn't realy mean flat like a sheet of paper)I found this odd becouse flat is not a very natural shape. Then I read Steven Hawkings A bref History of Time. and still I came away feeling unsatisfide. The graphs and ilistrations showed cones with the singularity at the point or bowl shapes with no set point for the singularity. Then a few years later I was watching the Atomic bomb movie and it came to me as a was watching the last part of that movie. The high altitude detinations looked to me like what I think the big bang must have looked like. A central point with the explotion expanding outward in all directions at once.and as the temp. droped the atoms clumped togather and stars and every thing is as we see it.[?]
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 3, 2004 #2
    The universe could be spherical in shape ,because gravity bends everything-even universe
     
  4. Apr 3, 2004 #3
    what you need to understand as well is that there is more than one universe(multi-verse theory) which is linked to string theory and when they mean flat is sort of psuedo as they should of said more of a ripple(for example place your hands flat together and ripple your hands together and the spaces between your hand is where the big bang occurred forming our universe) so in essance there is no singular point where our universe formed.
     
  5. Apr 3, 2004 #4
    Metaphysics "In an Infinity the Center can be Everywhere!"

    From perfect, to the 'appearence' of im-perfect(tion)
     
  6. Apr 7, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "The Big Bang" is an unfortunate name that leads people to believe it was like an explosion. It was not.
     
  7. Apr 14, 2004 #6

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Could you elaborate a little. It is difficult not to imagine a "bang" as an explosion.
     
  8. Apr 14, 2004 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's why the name is unfortunate. It wasn't a bang or explosion. It was simply a beginning of the expansion of the universe - an expansion that occurs between all points in the universe. There is no center and no edge.
     
  9. Apr 18, 2004 #8
    The word "bang" elaborates the real incident. The universe began as a singularity, which evapoarated and eventually, the gases began expanding. This was a very slow process, not a "bang" which by definitoin is "A sudden loud noise, as of an explosion". The evaporation of a singularity is definitely not a sudden loud noise or explosion.
     
  10. Apr 24, 2004 #9
    I agree the 'bang' isn't required. Since the idea of an initial pinpoint of all mass was begun from an idea that came from Hubble's law. He used a novel method to indirectly obtain the conclusion that masses at the outer edge of the universe are moving faster. He actually did not say this implies a 'pinpoint' or 'big bang' start of the universe.

    However, I have to disagree about the idea that their is no center. At anyone time, our conservation of momentum principles say that the center of mass of the all the objects in the universe is the same going forward in time and going backward. This is sufficient to use as a center, even if all the mass did not begin at a single point 13.7 billion years ago.
     
  11. Apr 24, 2004 #10
    Universe creates us to question it...
     
  12. May 1, 2004 #11
    Using any given point in space as an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of polar coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, in a relative context every point in the cosmos is its center.
     
  13. May 25, 2004 #12
  14. Jun 24, 2004 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    big-egg, if the universe had a center (and we weren't there), then it wouldn't look the same in every direction.
     
  15. Jun 25, 2004 #14

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    Using information theory: There is no Shannon information in the universe. We must therefore conclude there is no net energy in the universe. What we have is a quantum balanced state between the two. The universe is in a constant state of fluctuation between no possibilities [0] and all possibilities [infinity]. My conclusion, however flawed, is that we exist in the most probable state of existence possible between those quantum bounces. Perhaps all of reality we can observe is forced to conform to a Bohrs model of the atom.
     
  16. Jun 25, 2004 #15

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

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

    The tough part to comprehend is the idea that space expanded without expanding into anything (i.e., stuff did not explode out into empty space...all points in space got farther apart).
     
  17. Mar 31, 2005 #16
    I assume you are referring to quarks?
     
  18. Mar 31, 2005 #17

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually I was referring to atoms. PErhaps I should have clarified that it was about 300,000 years after the Big Bang before the universe cooled enough for the fundamental particles to get together into atoms.
     
  19. May 3, 2005 #18
    the name 'big bang' was made by some interviewee on a radio programme, he was a septic of the theory, and insulted it by calling it a 'big bang'

    obviously, the name's stuck
     
  20. Jun 21, 2005 #19
    Big Bang is quite a misleading term. Big unwind might be better. Consider the torque when all the universal energy was circling around in a meter of space!

    The idea of a center is implicit in the concept of space having finite size which implys walls, but is wrong: curved space and especially higher than 3 dimentional space does not lend itself to a classical mechanical view.
     
  21. Jun 22, 2005 #20

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle" [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  22. Jun 22, 2005 #21

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    torque relative to what?

    what about the singularity condition?

    The modern view still only has 3 dimensions of space.
     
  23. Jun 28, 2005 #22
    Is it not also true that there was not emission of light in the same manner that a "bang" would produce? Where would the light escape to, anyway?
     
  24. Jun 28, 2005 #23
    The one thing I really don't like about the 'educated' person is that they like to portray theories as 'Facts'. The best we can do is have a good guess using what little information we have, or think we have, in our possession.

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

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

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

    Sorry about the rant but this is something that has always annoyed me about the arrogance of Man.
     
  25. Jun 28, 2005 #24
    Phobos "The modern view still only has 3 dimensions of space."

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

    Phobos - "torque relative to what?"

    Exactly, if I say spinning internally; then internal to what? Assumptions that the spinning has a center are obvious wrong. Perhaps it was a Mobius strip. We cannot conceptualize the big bang, but everything is still spinning because of the initial condition, that we know for sure. From the smallest quantum particles to star systems and galaxies!
     
  26. Jun 29, 2005 #25

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Also note that 'Man' has to proceed as best we can and correct ourselves when we err. We shouldn't, IMO, throw up our hands and say it's impossible to know anything.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook