You Are the Centre of the Universe

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter The Binary Monster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether individuals can be considered the center of the universe, particularly in the context of an infinite universe and the implications of the Big Bang theory. Participants explore the philosophical and physical interpretations of these ideas, touching on the nature of infinity and the expansion of the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if the universe is infinite, then all points are equidistant from each other, suggesting that everyone can claim to be the center of the universe.
  • Others argue that the Big Bang occurred everywhere, implying that there is no single center, and every point in the universe can be considered a center.
  • A participant questions the assumption of an infinite universe, suggesting that the concept of infinity complicates the idea of distance and center.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that if the universe is infinite, it cannot have a center, as infinity lacks boundaries or limits.
  • Some participants express a desire for clarification and correction of their understanding, indicating a willingness to learn and refine their ideas.
  • There is a challenge regarding the implications of an infinite universe on the concept of expansion, with some questioning how expansion can be meaningful if the universe is infinite.
  • One participant references external sources to support the idea that an infinite universe can coexist with the Big Bang theory, suggesting multiple models exist.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of the universe, its center, and the implications of infinity. Some express agreement with the idea of everyone being a center, while others challenge this notion based on different interpretations of the universe's structure.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on definitions of infinity, the assumptions made about the universe's size, and the unresolved nature of the discussion regarding the implications of the Big Bang theory.

The Binary Monster
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I just thought of this... I'm sure I'm wrong, somewhere, or there'll be a flaw in my logic, but here we go.

Assuming the universe is infinite in size, then the edge of the universe is infinitely far away from me in all directions.

If the edges of the universe are the same distance away from me in all directions - an infinite distance - then all points on the edge of the universe are equidistant from me.

Surely this means that I (and everyone else) can logically claim to be the centre of the universe?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The point is that The Big Bang happened everywhere in the universe. It did not expand into something, it just expanded, like inflating a balloon. Thus, the universe has no center, or, if you will, every point in the universe is just as much the center as any other.
 
Grizzlycomet said:
or, if you will, every point in the universe is just as much the center as any other.

Isn't that what the questioner already concluded? "Surely this means that I (and everyone else) can logically claim to be the centre of the universe."
 
It's often explained as trying to define the center or edge of the surface of a sphere. The concepts of edge and center are obviously meaningless. This is, however, merely a visual aid. The universe is not literally a 'sphere'. You cannot 'step outside' of the universe and look at it the way you can a basketball or earth, and perceive it as a geometrical shape surrounded by 'nothing'.
 
neoweb said:
Isn't that what the questioner already concluded? "Surely this means that I (and everyone else) can logically claim to be the centre of the universe."

Indeed, that is what he concluded, but I do believe he was asking for some help in determining whether or not his conclusion was correct. I tried to provide that help, by showing that my conclusion is the same one.
 
Grizzlycomet: "Where did the Big Bang start from? Here!" (points to own heart)
The Binary Monster: "Actually, it started here!" (points to own heart)
;oih?£^fÅioh {denizen of a minor planet, orbiting a minor star, in a minor galaxy, in a nameless small galaxy cluster, ~3,234 Mpc from the Milky Way}: "The Big Bang started here!" (points tactile sensor #345 to neutrino-sensory lobe #5)

How can this be? :confused:
 
The Binary Monster said:
Assuming the universe is infinite in size,
This is quite an assumption.

then the edge of the universe is infinitely far away from me in all directions.
The universe is expanding. I think the question is whether the universe will continue to expand infinitely, not whether or not it already has.

If the edges of the universe are the same distance away from me in all directions - an infinite distance - then all points on the edge of the universe are equidistant from me.
I think that this is quite a leap, based on my point above.

Surely this means that I (and everyone else) can logically claim to be the centre of the universe?
Logic has nothing to do with it. You may certainly think this way, but I do not.
 
Thank you all (or most) for helping me with this, and assuring me I've concluded something which isn't completely stupid... as the current ideas and theories stand, at least.

Prometheus said:
You may certainly think this way, but I do not.
At the moment, this is indeed the way I think. Saying this, if anyone comes to correct me with any evidence or theories that show the universe is indeed finite and the big bang is a myth then I shall welcome them with open arms. Just because I think this way at the moment does not mean I'm correct, as I'm sure you'd agree. It merely means I don't feel I've been presented with a better alternative yet...
 
The Binary Monster said:
if anyone comes to correct me with any evidence or theories that show the universe is indeed finite and the big bang is a myth
You seem to be changing horses in midstream.

I never suggested that the universe is finite. As well, you now seem to be saying that you suggested that the universe is infinite, which is not what you said at all. You said that the universe if infinite is size. Furthermore, you also maintainted that your source for this contention was an assumption.

This is the first time that you mentioned that the Big Bang is a myth, is it not?
 
  • #10
Yes, yes it is. In my mind, the infinite size of the universe (which I had mentioned, infact, check my FIRST post) is part of the consequences of the big bang. So perhaps anything saying the universe was not infinite would show that the big band was not true?

Please, stop nitpicking. I'm a newbie, and I wish to learn. I welcome people to correct me, and help me learn from my mistakes. I don't welcome people to pick holes in my posts just for arguments sake. If it'll teach me, say something. If you're posting to try and annoy me - don't bother.
 
  • #11
The Binary Monster said:
Please, stop nitpicking. I'm a newbie, and I wish to learn. I welcome people to correct me, and help me learn from my mistakes. I don't welcome people to pick holes in my posts just for arguments sake. If it'll teach me, say something. If you're posting to try and annoy me - don't bother.
Why are you getting so upset? Don't blame me. Perhaps it is you who is trying to annoy me. You are changing your statements in a significant manner, perhaps because you equate two concepts that are not at all the same, and you blame me for nitpicking that your changes change everything.

What are you trying to say? You are assuming that the universe is infinite in size. Why? I have never heard anyone ever make such a statement, so what is your basis for assuming it? Scientists claim that the universe is expanding. If the universe were infinite in size, expanding would have no meaning.

I recommend that you attempt to develop a more precise way to formulate what you are thinking. If you do not want to dialog with me, then do not respond to me. However, do not complain that you are annoyed with people who respond to your post.
 
  • #12
I think that if the universe is infinite in size, then it has no center whatsoever. Infinity is a concept, not a numerical value. If there are infinity meters to the left, and infinity meters to the right of anyone point, I can't say that the two sides of the universe are "equidistant", because there is no assignable numerical quantity for this distance.

I cannot know for sure that x = y until I know the actual numerical values for both x and y. I can't assign them both a value of "infinity" to make them equal any more than I can assign them both a value of "love".

If something is truly an infinite distance away, then technically it doesn't exist based on definition. In fact infinity means "having no boundaries or limits". The universe you describe has no boundary, and therefore you cannot define a center.

The balloon example is no good. Based on my observations, I am surrounded by three spatial dimensions of universe, but the dots on the surface of the balloon are only reflecting a two dimensional plane. If you scatter the dots inside the balloon at random locations, you can see they aren't all at the three dimensional center. A balloon only has one center, one point that is the radius' distance away from all points on the surface.
 
  • #13
Prometheus said:
What are you trying to say? You are assuming that the universe is infinite in size. Why? I have never heard anyone ever make such a statement, so what is your basis for assuming it? Scientists claim that the universe is expanding. If the universe were infinite in size, expanding would have no meaning.
Hi, Prometheus!

A LOT of scientists believe the universe is expanding and infinite. Here is a link to Ned Wright's page where he explains the concept that the universe can be infinite, and have arisen from a big bang. Actually, there are quite a few models for infinite universes, some incorporating a big bang and some not.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html


The Binary Monster said:
Yes, yes it is. In my mind, the infinite size of the universe (which I had mentioned, infact, check my FIRST post) is part of the consequences of the big bang. So perhaps anything saying the universe was not infinite would show that the big band was not true?
Hello, TBM, and welcome to the Physics Forum!

There are in fact lots of models of the universe, in which an infinite universe can arise from a variety of mechanisms, one of which might be the big bang. Here is a link to a heavily cross-referenced on-line encyclopedia that you might enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology
 
Last edited:
  • #14
turbo-1 said:
A LOT of scientists believe the universe is expanding and infinite.Actually, there are quite a few models for infinite universes, some incorporating a big bang and some not.
Hello.

The idea of infinite universes is typically that the universe will continue to expand infinitely.

I do not think that there is much thinking that since the Big Bang the universe has already expanded to the point that it has already reached infinite size. Furthermore, what would that even mean?

What would it mean to say that since the Big Bang the universe has expanded such that right now at this point in time, if we were to measure the size that it has expanded to since the Big Bang, we would find that it has expanded to infinite size? I claim that such an idea is not compatible with the Big Bang model.

When scientists conjecture that the universe is infinite in size, they do not mean that it has already achieved infinite size, but that Big Bang expansion will continue infinitely. Therefore, in the future the size will be infinite, not in the present.
 
  • #15
It's very possible, perhaps even probable, that the universe is infinite in spatial extent and we can be absolutrely sure it is expanding. a lot of people do have conceptual diffuclties with an infinite expanding universe. One analogy is an infinite piece of graphing paper where the squares are increasing in size.

What this actually means in the terms of the unievsre is that, in general, galaxies are getting further paart as the unievrse expands, i.e. the unievrse's average density is decreasing.
 
  • #16
The Binary Monster said:
Yes, yes it is. In my mind, the infinite size of the universe (which I had mentioned, infact, check my FIRST post) is part of the consequences of the big bang. So perhaps anything saying the universe was not infinite would show that the big band was not true?
Hi The Binary Monster - Welcome to the forum!

The big bang does not imply that the universe is infinite in size. There are different possibilities. A closed universe is one in which the size of the universe is finite. An open universe is a universe which is infinitely large. In fact if the universe is an open universe (spatially flat) then the universe was became infinitely large the moment that the big bang occurred.

At the moment the universe appears to be infinite in size and expanding at an accelerating rate. This means that the spatial extent to the universe is infinite and the distance between any two points is increasing at an acclerating rate. Picture an infinitely long ruler for which the distance between the marks on the ruler are increasing at an increasing rate - same idea.
Please, stop nitpicking. I'm a newbie, and I wish to learn. I welcome people to correct me, and help me learn from my mistakes. I don't welcome people to pick holes in my posts just for arguments sake. If it'll teach me, say something. If you're posting to try and annoy me - don't bother.
If you are irritated by certain posters then you can click on "User CP" (i.e. user control panel) above and then scroll down an click on "Buddy / Ignore Lists" and add those persons user names to the ignore list.

I recommend using it since there are several posters in this forum who are quite irritating and seem to want to bicker a lot rather than discuss.

Pete
 
  • #17
this paper postulates the existence of a center of the universe

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408010
"An analysis of the big-bang theory according to classical physics
Authors: R. Alvargonzalez, L. S. Soto
Comments: 11 pages, 7 figures
Subj-class: Classical Physics; General Physics

This paper collects a consistent body of information on the observable Universe, from which an estimate of the total mass of the Universe is calculated as a function of the angle whose vertex is at the center of the Universe, and whose extremities stand on the Earth and on the limits of the horizon of visibility. This result leads to an analysis of the dynamics of the Big-Bang, taking into account the limitations imposed by the Schwarzschild radius, $R_S$. Where if $R_0$ is the radius of the incipient Universe when the formation of elementary particles has just finished, the value of the quotient $R_0/R_S$ determines its subsequent evolution. An important conclusion from this concerns the expansion of the Universe; all signs point to its being destined to expand indefinitely. "



Can somebody tell me if the ideas expressed are too much baloney? I'm having difficulties in understanding the ideas in it
 
  • #18
meteor said:
this paper postulates the existence of a center of the universe

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408010
"An analysis of the big-bang theory according to classical physics
Authors: R. Alvargonzalez, L. S. Soto
Comments: 11 pages, 7 figures
Subj-class: Classical Physics; General Physics
The authors are referring to the center of our visible universe, which is of course centered on us. People who adhere to the Standard Big Bang theory (redshift equates to distance in accordance with the Hubble relationship, etc) generally say that our visible universe has a radius of 13.7 billion light years and is spherical in shape. Most think the universe is infinite, but that due to the limitation of the speed of light, we can only see objects in a sphere of 13.7 billion light year radius (visible universe). The link I gave earlier to Ned Wright's site illustrates how our expanding, finite visible universe can be a subset of an infinite universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

According to the standard model, the number of galaxies in our visible universe is actually decreasing because the most distant galaxies we can see are currently receding from as at faster than the speed of light due to cosmological expansion.

To be fair, there are scientists who do not believe that redshift is caused (wholly or in part) by cosmological expansion, and who say that extrapolating back 13.7 billion light years to a theoretical singularity (at the big bang) is a mistake. They are in the minority, for certain, but the group includes some pretty astute fellows. These include a number of top-notch observational astronomers.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
The universe has only one center.
Assume you consider it consisted of N particles.
Every particle represents a force pressing at some position.
Using the rule of lever in equilibrium you can find the center and the central force for the 1st two particles.
That center is a position in which that central force is pressing and in combination with the third particle you can find the new center and central force and so on...
In the end, you end up with only one center which, assuming the universe is closed system, is subjected to no force.
 
  • #20
jcsd said:
It's very possible, perhaps even probable, that the universe is infinite in spatial extent
In this scenario, what do you mean by "infinite in spatial extent"?
 
  • #21
Prometheus said:
In this scenario, what do you mean by "infinite in spatial extent"?

I mean that any 'spatial slice' is infinite; that there is no limit to the the length of the shorsest path between two objects.
 
  • #22
jcsd said:
I mean that any 'spatial slice' is infinite; that there is no limit to the the length of the shorsest path between two objects.
Are you saying that there currently exists a set of objects in space for which the shortest path between them at this point in time cannot be measured as a finite measure of distance?
 
  • #23
if the univerce is 13.x billion years old and expanding at a sub light rate it canNOT be infinite and can have a center [center as in center of MASS not point of begining]
we currently don't have enuff data to say if it is very very big or infinite
or if there is an edge or if we are nearer an edge in any given direction or where the center of mass maybe
BUT that doesnot mean there is no edge or center just that we DONOT KNOW YET
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Prometheus said:
Are you saying that there currently exists a set of objects in space for which the shortest path between them at this point in time cannot be measured as a finite measure of distance?

I wouldn't say infite as length is defined usually by a real number, but their should be no limit to the spatial sepration between two objectsif the universe is infinite (forgeting other considerations that only a finite part of it is observable).
 
  • #25
ray b said:
if the univerce is 13.x billion years old and expanding at a sub light rate it canNOT be infinite ..
Not according to general relativity.
and can have a center [center as in center of MASS not point of begining]
Not according to general relativity. Given the cosmological principle and general relativity there can be no center to the universe.
we currently don't have enuff data to say if it is very very big or infinite
or if there is an edge or if we are nearer an edge in any given direction or where the center of mass maybe..
Not quite.
BUT that doesnot mean there is no edge or center just that we DONOT KNOW YET[/QUOTE]
Scuse me? Have you not heard of Boomerang? Please see --- http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2000/05/10/flat.html
The first detailed images of the universe in its infancy, obtained by an 800,000-cubic-meter balloon carrying microwave detectors, has settled a longstanding debate over the shape of the universe.

It's flat.

Data from 3 percent of the sky, taken during a 5,000-mile journey around the Antarctic, provided Andrew Jaffe, an astrophysicist at Berkeley, and an international team of scientists with tens of thousands of pixels and close to one billion measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation, which filled the universe shortly after the Big Bang. The data support the widely held view that the universe is, indeed, flat, and not curved.
A flat universe is an infinite universe. This is also consistent with the inflationary universe model. See also - http://www.lbl.gov/CS/Archive/headlines4-26-00.html
Analysis of the BOOMERANG Antarctic flight data has produced an impressive degree of certainty about some of the most fundamental cosmic parameters. BOOMERANG's power spectrum of the CMB establishes that the universe is flat -- that its geometry is Euclidean, not curved.

By the way, there is a difference between temporaly open and spatially open. A spatially open universe is a universe of infinite extent. Temporaly open means that the unviverse does not collapse.

Pete
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Assumption #1: The universe began 13.7 billion years ago as a point at a specific location relative to the current position of Earth that expanded.
Assumption #2: Distribution of matter in the universe is homogenous.
Assumption #3: Earth is not at the original 'center' of the universe.

Postulate: If you happen to look in the direction opposite the original 'center' of the universe, you will see fewer and less remote galaxies than when you look toward the original 'center'.

Observational evidence: There is no statistically significant 'hole' or 'clumping' in the distribution of galaxies at any distance in any direction.

Conclusion: One of more of the initial assumptions is incorrect. Assumptions 2 and 3 are deemed valid, therefore some aspect of assumtion #1 is invalid. The possibilities are as follow:
A] the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years
B] the universe did not begin as a point at a specific location relative to the current position of earth.
C] the universe never expanded.
 
  • #27
Chronos, I think it's C.

If the universe's size is infinite now, it cannot expand later, because the distance of the boundary now automatically encompasses where the boundary will be later, based on definition.

I have problems with the ruler and the graph paper. The only relevant measure conerning a size is the outside. Who cares what's going on in the inside.

If I open a business in the U.S.A that's 500 square feet, instead of one that has a 1450 square foot showroom, does that change the geographical area of the United States?

In terms of the boundary, if it's infinite now, how (by definition) can it expand in the future?
 
  • #28
Chronos said:
The possibilities are as follow:
A] the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years
B] the universe did not begin as a point at a specific location relative to the current position of earth.
C] the universe never expanded.
Can I take the unstated option D] ? All of the above?
 
  • #29
jcsd said:
I wouldn't say infite as length is defined usually by a real number, but their should be no limit to the spatial sepration between two objectsif the universe is infinite (forgeting other considerations that only a finite part of it is observable).
I don't understand what you are saying. As well, there are typos, such that I am not sure exactly what words you mean in key points in this sentence.

You said that space is currently infinite in extent. Are you saying that it is possible for two objects to be so far apart in space at this current point in time that they are infinitely far apart. In other words, is this true such that it is not possible to reach a finite measure of distance between them?
 
  • #30
Chronos said:
Postulate: If you happen to look in the direction opposite the original 'center' of the universe, you will see fewer and less remote galaxies than when you look toward the original 'center'.

A] the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years
I vote for A. The postulate is incorrect due to the word "look", which limits content to the visible universe.
 

Similar threads

High School How does the observable Universe have meaning?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Undergrad Does the Universe have a centre, yes or no?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School How did Earth get so far away from other galaxies?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Distance of Stars / Size of the Universe calculation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
High School Is the Earth the centre of the universe?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
High School How can the Universe be flat? Ridiculous
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
High School The Hubble deep field photos and the edge of the universe
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
High School Dark Energy: Are We All Missing The Obvious?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
High School Analogue Black Holes: Disposal?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K