What Lies at the Center of the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Grimmus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Center
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the concept of whether the universe has a center, with participants debating the implications of the Big Bang theory. Some argue that the universe is finite but unbounded, suggesting that while it has a size, it lacks a definitive center, akin to the surface of a sphere. Others assert that the universe's expansion and the nature of space imply there is no central point, challenging the idea of a black hole at the universe's center. The conversation also touches on the complexities of cosmic curvature and the limitations of current scientific understanding. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the notion that the universe does not have a center in a traditional sense.
The Grimmus
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
I have heard very little about what is suposedly there. I heard one perosn say a black hole...ok actulay that is all i heard.

But what is there and what causes all of the galxy clusters to revolve around it
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Solar systems have suns around them.

The stars (no matter if they have planets or not) make up a galaxy.

At the center of every galaxy discovered so far, is a black hole.

A galaxy is rotating.

The step up from a galaxy is far just the universe itself.

I have never ever heard any scientific experimentation or theory that talks about what is at the center.

Based on the big bang I was say nothing is at the center.

The universe is not rotating at all = it's just expanding - so there's nothing there.

that's all the input I have! I have yet to read any scientific data about the center of the U.

But as far as I know - it's way to far away to detect even anything that would give an answer
 
The universe is hypothesized to be boundaryless; thus "center of the universe" is a nonsensical term.

IOW there is no center to the universe.
 
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The universe is hypothesized to be boundaryless; thus "center of the universe" is a nonsensical term.

IOW there is no center to the universe.


Nah - the universe has already been proven to be of finite size.

Any other theory is old-world.
 
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Nah - the universe has already been proven to be of finite size.

Any other theory is old-world.

I'm curious. Why do you think it has been "proven" to be of finite size?
 
Originally posted by marcus
I'm curious. Why do you think it has been "proven" to be of finite size?

Good question.

The big bang has been proven. As the big bang expanded, it continueed to expand the size of the universe - as far as the matter and light of the big bang stretched, that was the size of the universe at that moment.

So right this second, the universe is exactly the radius in light years, the years of which is the exact age of the universe, since the big bang.

Simple as that.

In other words, you cannot have the big bang and have an infinite universe. Because the universe is defined by how far light has traveled since the big bang.

The big bang created space - space did not exist before it.
 
I thought that the universe's center is unacessible because it does not have a dimension, like Earth with an unbreakable crust. We only live on the surface of it.
 
Good subject>

Is the Universe finite? Probably.
Does it have a center. Well, probably not quite: The curvature of space-time prevents us from defining a center.
A center is based upon 'anthropic' views. It probably does not have an independant physical location.
We have discovered "laws" of Physics which are probably a reflection of the true state of matter-energy. But the universe could care less.

Basically, all we have is Logic/Scientific Method, an artificial system of iteration/measurement and, possibly, insight/intuition.
These are probably puny weapons in a quest for understanding.

Mankind has acquired bodies of knowledge which, to us, are quite impressive. But how does this knowledge compare to that obtainable? Probably miniscule.

We are very, very far from a Theory of Everything. But perhaps the search, the game itself, is the point.

Thanks, Rudi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The univberse doesn't have a centre, though it is thought be closed(i.e. be of finite size) it is also thought to be boundless (i.e. without boundaries) like Hurkyl said. The best analogy is the surface of a sphere as it is finite in size but lacks any boundaries.
 
  • #10
Greetings !

TG,
The Universe does not have a center. Like jcsd said, think
of all the Universe being located on the surface of
a sphere. The sphere expans and points on the sphere
get further apart from each other, but there's no location
in the Universe that is central.

CS,
The Universe may be infinite. The Universe does
not expand at c but rather faster which is why it does
not have a radius in LYs equal to its age. As for the BB,
it is scientificly proven to a certain extent, but not
all the way, of course.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Good question.

The big bang has been proven. As the big bang expanded, it continueed to expand the size of the universe - as far as the matter and light of the big bang stretched, that was the size of the universe at that moment.

So right this second, the universe is exactly the radius in light years, the years of which is the exact age of the universe, since the big bang.

Simple as that.

In other words, you cannot have the big bang and have an infinite universe. Because the universe is defined by how far light has traveled since the big bang.

The big bang created space - space did not exist before it.

The accepted picture of the big bang, at least to the best of my knowledge, is that it is infinite in spatial extent.

At least this is what is assumed in every recent article I've seen.

So talking about the big bang would seem to confirm that the universe is infinite.

A good recent (May 2003) overview of cosmology is in

Lineweaver "Inflation and the Cosmic Microwave Background"

arxiv: astro-ph/0305179

a good spacetime diagram suggesting the infinite extent of space is Lineweaver's figure 5, in which figure 1 (showing our finite horizon) is a small insert.

Lineweaver was one of those in charge of COBE which mapped the CMB and has a firsthand knowledge of the new dataset on which cosmology is based, IMO it's well worth checking out what he has to say about the universe---its infinite extent is only one of several interesting features
 
  • #12
Originally posted by marcus
The accepted picture of the big bang, at least to the best of my knowledge, is that it is infinite in spatial extent.

The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space) as is the nonsense notion of a "singularity". Neither of those terms have any causally definable meaning wrt physical reality.
 
  • #13
ermmm, yes the conventional model of the universe is finite and unbounded, but curved space has been observed at our own sun and the large scale curvature of the universe has supporting physical evidence in the shape of the reshift magnitude test (i.e. the lensing of the furthest redshifted sources which increases their apparent magnitude).

That said, I believe no sugnificant curvature was found by COBE.
 
  • #14
It's a common misconception that the big bang implies the universe is finite. In actual, the theory says nothing about the overall size of the universe, only that it began to expand from a much denser, hotter state.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by subtillioN
The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space) as is the nonsense notion of a "singularity". Neither of those terms have any causally definable meaning wrt physical reality.

Why is the notion of curved spaces nonsense while flat Euclidean space is acceptable?

Awaiting your well reasoned and logical response.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Eh
Why is the notion of curved spaces nonsense while flat Euclidean space is acceptable?

Awaiting your well reasoned and logical response.

Space is a metrical abstraction. In reality the Universe is neither flat not curved.
 
  • #17
So the universe has no structure or size at all? If it does, what is the geometry of it?
 
  • #18
Originally posted by jcsd
ermmm, yes the conventional model of the universe is finite and unbounded, but curved space has been observed at our own sun

The "spatial curvature" found was much more complex than the model of relativity could explain. And the notion of curvature is simply a method of quantifying the increased density of the field surrounding the sun.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by Eh
So the universe has no structure or size at all? If it does, what is the geometry of it?

I did not say the Universe has no structure. I said that our mappings of its structure are not the same thing as its actual structure.
 
  • #20
Ok, so what is the actual geometric structure of the universe if not Euclidean or curved?
 
  • #21
The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from Earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Eh
Ok, so what is the actual geometric structure of the universe if not Euclidean or curved?

It doesn't have a geometric structure. Geometry is a method of measurement (metry).
 
  • #23
You can't have size without geometric structure, by definition since volume is also a geometric term. So taking away the geometry is the same as claiming the universe has no size.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from Earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not

String theory is a desperate kludge of a dying theory. Dimensions are a metrical abstraction as well. No one has ever seen a dimension.

There was no big bang so there is no center of the universe either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Originally posted by Eh
You can't have size without geometric structure, by definition since volume is also a geometric term. So taking away the geometry is the same as claiming the universe has no size.

No the point is not to confuse our metrical tools with reality. There is no causal explanation of how space could be finite but unbounded and there is no evidence to support the notion.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

The WMAP findings deal with the overall curvature on average. In that sense, space is flat.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

There is absolutely no evidence to support either string theory or any extra dimensions. None, zero, ziltch, nadda etc.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from Earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not

Where is the center of the surface of a balloon?
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Eh
The WMAP findings deal with the overall curvature on average. In that sense, space is flat.



There is absolutely no evidence to support either string theory or any extra dimensions. None, zero, ziltch, nadda etc.



Where is the center of the surface of a balloon?

Yes in that metrical sense "space" is flat. The Universe is no balloon!

I think we are agreeing with each other on many accounts. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Originally posted by CrystalStudios

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded". The problem is that The Big Bungle is not a logical theory. So to believe in it is to compromise your logic center in your brain. I say "GIVE IT UP!" There are better models that don't require such a debilitating compromise!

see www.electric-cosmos.org[/url] and [url]www.anpheon.org[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
Originally posted by subtillioN
Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded". The problem is that The Big Bungle is not a logical theory. So to believe in it is to compromise your logic center in your brain. I say "GIVE IT UP!" There are better models that don't require such a debilitating compromise!


Haha this guy thinks the BB is a myth. Everyone laugh at him.


I suppose you think logic proves the unicorns and elves made the universe?> gagaa man oh man, you make ME look good!
 
  • #30
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Haha this guy thinks the BB is a myth. Everyone laugh at him.


I suppose you think logic proves the unicorns and elves made the universe?> gagaa man oh man, you make ME look good!

Heckling? Lol look what you have resorted to!

You suppose wrong and a desperate appeal to the mob mentality that you subscribe to is the weakest form of argument.

Check the link below and make your arguments against it... if you can open your blinders that far.


http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
non- big bang cosmology (or more strictly steady state theories) in general have theses problems:

1) cannot explain the CBR and it's istropy and uniformity

2) cannot explain the redshifting of distant sources

3) cannot explain the redshift magnitude test and the predicted curvature of the universe.

subtillion, I recommend you find out more about cosmology and the problems facing non-big bang cosmologys.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by jcsd
non- big bang cosmology (or more strictly steady state theories) in general have theses problems:

1) cannot explain the CBR and it's istropy and uniformity

2) cannot explain the redshifting of distant sources

3) cannot explain the redshift magnitude test and the predicted curvature of the universe.

subtillion, I recommend you find out more about cosmology and the problems facing non-big bang cosmologys.

Thanks but I recommend the inverse for you, because your assumptions are absolutely not true. I have researched both sides and it appears that the same cannot be said for you.


see www.electric-cosmos.org

and see also http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

and http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

and... http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by jcsd
When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.

Exactly my man.

Other theories often seem to show some small part of the BB isn't right. But it could be human error in perception of one little idea.

However the BB has been proven from hundreds of independant angles and theories, as well as experimentation - and so it can't be a result in error because it has so many strengths to it.

Right on my man!
 
  • #35
Originally posted by jcsd
When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.

That is absolute bull****. I have gone to a university and they do NOT deal with the alternatives. When they do mention them they mis represent them drastically.

If you can deal with the alternatives then prove it and debate the links I posted.
 
  • #36
Unfortunately a lot of references in those sites are well over 15 years old. The progress made in the development of the big bang theory has been rather well documented. I would suggest getting some more reliable sources as well.

Indeed, the BB theory has passed countless tests as has been stated.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by subtillioN
That is absolute bull****. I have gone to a university and they do NOT deal with the alternatives. When they do mention them they mis represent them drastically.

If you can deal with the alternatives then prove it and debate the links I posted.

Well can you explain to me the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.
 
  • #38
cop out
 
  • #39
Greetings !

These are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental verification.
This is what the scientist that wrote that Physics Essays
article in ST's link says about what is theorized to have
happened in the BB. I wonder, when he says "experimental
verification" what precisely does he mean ? Has he ever
seen a virtual pair of particles, or directly interacted
with them or touched them ? Did he ever set his feet on
Mars ? Did he taste the Sun to check it's flavour and
make sure it's "real" ? :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by jcsd
Well can you explain to be the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.

Yes the MBR is due to the Planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes the MBR is due to the Planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
I get the feeling sub is just a troll...
 
  • #43
Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.


1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.
 
  • #44
Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded".

This is the point where you cease working with the analogy of an explosion and you seek what the math actually says.

The big bang theory says that there was a time when the universe had an extremely small volume (but no boundary) and extremely high temperature. From that time onward the universe has been expanding.



With an ordinary explosion, you can point at a region of the universe and say "Yah, all of the material was there, inside a bomb, then it exploded". (Of course, you still can't find a point that is the exact center of the explosion, but you can say something fuzzy like the bomb was the center of the explosion)

With the big bang, there is no "outside" to the universe from where you can say "Yah, it was all inside that little region at first"; the energy was spread through the entire universe.

But if you really like to cling to analogies, then this will do. After your bomb explodes, can you tell me which atom of the bomb was at the center of the explosion?


The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space)

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)
 
  • #45
Originally posted by jcsd
I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?

The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.


1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.


There are measurements of vast H clouds in interstellar space. It is not as tenuous as you believe. The mere presence of the Hydrogen in interaction with the ambient radiation from stars and other astrophysical objects is enough to account for the MBR.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

Inflation is a kludge to fix the huge problem of isotropy of the MBR and a valid argument is a valid argument regardless of its age.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.

There are simpler cosmologies which fit the data much better without the constant readjustments of inflation etc. required by the big bungle.
 
  • #47
there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.
 
  • #48
This may sound picayune, but: The CBR is not isotropic.Recent measurements have demonstrated this (although the means of measurement are taxed to the limit, signal-to-noise-wise).

Incidentally, the spectrum of CBR should tell us the same thing (or the fact that CBR has a spectrum).

The concepts of uniformity and isotropy are related, but different:
CBR may be "uniform" everywhere we look, but not necessarily isotropic (A bit like comparing precision with accuracy).

We can't "see" the future, but we can predict it (A bit like predicting the weather, though).

For example: Assuming the same dimensions, if we could reasonably compare the manifold(s?)) of the CBR with the manifold(s?) of what the Universe looks like today, perhaps we could derive an end-point of some sort.

It may be simplistic to say so, but the fact that CBR is the same everywhere we look may mean the the Universe has no center.

Thanks, Rudi
 
  • #49
Right on, I was just about to say, the CBR is slightly anisotropic..but this is extremely small, which is good. If it were perfectly isotropic, structure would not have emerged in the universe.

Anywho, cases for the Big Bang:

The universe is expanding. This indicates that sometime in the past it was denser.

The CBR. Not only does the thermal spectrum match extraordinarly well with what the BB predicts. Not only that, but we can measure it at cosmic distances as well and show it was hotter in the past (Researchers at the Paranal Observatory showed it was by studing intersteller dust clouds).

Not only that, but the evolution of stars and galaxies and clusters is indicated by the big bang and observed. As are the production of light elements from primordial nucleosythesis.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by subtillioN
The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.

But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)

Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.
 

Similar threads

I Why Do Galaxies Spin and What Drives Their Motion?
2
Replies
53
Views
8K
Stargazing Dark matter and its effect on the orbit of stars
Replies
13
Views
3K
B I Need Help on Understanding Some Basic Astrophysics / Sand Clock Universe
Replies
5
Views
2K
B What keeps most galactic stars from falling into the centeral black hole?
Replies
6
Views
2K
A Gravity as space-time curvature?
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Nuclear Fusion in the Singularity
Replies
7
Views
2K
What is the center of a globular clusters made of?
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
I How is Adaptive Optics Revolutionizing Our Understanding of the Galactic Center?
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Early Universe massive Black Holes question
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Is there a radial gradient of redshifts within individual galaxies?
Replies
10
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top