11

I was reading this page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/23/brian-cox-jeff-forshaw-answers

and I found this sentence by Brian Cox:

That seems to imply that everything is flying away from us and we're therefore somehow in a privileged position; that isn't true. The way it's often described is if you imagine some bread with raisins in it that you're baking in the oven and as you heat it, it expands. On any particular raisin, if you look, you can see all the other raisins receding from it. So it's space that stretching, it's not that everything's flying away.

I already heard this raisins analogy, but it never persuaded me:

I understand that the "big bang" is more like a "big stretch", and I see how every 2 observers in the universe are being distanced farther and farther away (regardless of their position)

Yet one of the Big Bang ideas is that the universe isn't anymore considered infinite and completely homogeneous

But the fact that the universe is finite, while inflating to me implicates that it should have some kind of bounds (not that we can reach these "bounds", since our distance to them is getting bigger, but they should still exist)

(And the fact that it's spreading inhomogeneous mass and energy over big distances, is thus making it more homogeneous, but this doesn't probably matter)

So: the very idea of a big bang seems to me in contradiction to the assertion that there's no such thing as a "center of the universe":

If it has a finite mass and some kind of bounds, then it should also have a barycenter.

And if we consider the bread with raisins analogy: the bread has a center from which it's expanding

Surely, the universe isn't homogeneous (like the distribution of the raisins), and so, in its hypothetical center, there may not be actually anything... but I think (even if it's really unlikely) it should still be theoretically possible to have a raisin in the exact centre of the bread

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
berdario
  • 221
  • 1
  • 5
  • 5
    Imagine a flatland universe (i.e., two-dimensional). Imagine that it's closed on itself in the shape of a sphere. To a 2D being inside this universe, it has no bounds, and it has no centre. The fact that the sphere has a centre is only an artifact of how I described the shape of this universe to you; that centre is meaningless and has no significance and no observable consequences to creatures living in such a 2D universe. – Roman Starkov Oct 23 '11 at 17:01
  • ok, so... if it's finite, it could have a closed topology that put its center outside of any meaningful position. But this would mean that a topology that has a meaningful center could still exists (w/ or w/out a boundary... even if I can't fathom a closed topology that has such a "center"), besides, we don't even know the density/curvature/topology of our universe... would this mean that this is a currently undecidable question? –  Oct 23 '11 at 17:15
  • Possibly related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2378/2451 , http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/136860/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Oct 23 '11 at 17:53
  • ok, I like David Zaslavsky's answer... I'm currently trying to grok it... the problem maybe lies with my assumption of the universe having bounds? – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 18:29
  • Maybe it would be better to reword my question like: "Does the universe have a center, assuming a finite flat universe"? with these 2 assumptions (bar the doubt about universe?=Hubble volume) to me seems like a better defined question – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 19:38
  • You can't make assumptions like those and still ask about our universe. Our universe is known to be non-flat. – Roman Starkov Oct 24 '11 at 00:28
  • @romkyns there doesn't seem to be agreement on this topic: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2916/ – berdario Oct 24 '11 at 13:34
  • I suppose; I was referring to local non-flatness, but that is irrelevant if it's globally almost flat. – Roman Starkov Oct 24 '11 at 15:10
  • This is related to the common "Is the Universe rotating?" question, e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/what-if-the-universe-is-rotating-as-a-whole. – recipriversexclusion Oct 24 '11 at 20:26
  • You like David Zaslavsky's answer? Where is that; what it removed? – Dronz Nov 01 '14 at 23:23
  • I'm not sure: it's been 3 years since I asked this question, but I was probably referring to the other linked question, which has an answer by David: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/2393/5825 – berdario Nov 02 '14 at 23:58

5 Answers5

6

The question of the center of the universe is a question of whether the universe is the same at all points. The easiest way to see that the universe now does not have a center is to use the Newtonian big bang. In such a description, everything is flying away from everything else with a velocity vector proportional to the position vector, where we are at the origin:

$$ v= a r $$

Suppose you are on one of the objects at position r. Then, from your point of view, everything is shifted in $r$, because of your new center $r\rightarrow r-r_0$, but everything is also shifted in $v$, because your velocity is not zero relative to us, but you will describe yourself as stationary. So $v\rightarrow v-ar_0$. The result is that you describe the objects as flying away from you with a speed proportional to their position vector.

The Newtonian big-bang is homogenous--- everyone feels that they are at the center. It is exactly analogous to the relativistic big-bang, which is also homogenous. But the Newtonian big-bang is infinite, while the relativistic big-bang is finite, in that there is no horizon in Newton.

The horizon in relativity occurs where the objects fly away at the speed of light, or equivalently, where the light-rays that reach you emerge straight from the big-bang (since looking further out is looking back in time). The horizon makes the space bounded, but it does not pick out a center, because every point has a horizon symmetric around itself.

  • ok, concerning homogeneity, I was partly mislead by some wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Few_inhomogeneities_remain if I understood you correctly, the wording on this page could be improved? I wasn't aware of a Newtonian/Relativistic distinction of the Big Bang... Is it all about the horizon? The horizon you're talking about is the Hubble limit, right? But I don't see how this negates the existance of a center: – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 18:17
  • The whole universe is bigger than the Hubble volume, and (even if we're unable to determine where it's lying, let alone determine if it's inside our horizon and not outside) this should mean that it should have a center... then again: I don't get what you meant with "the horizon makes the space bounded", I assume that maybe we have a conflicting definition of "space"? I think that even if it's unreachable/unobservable from our position it's still something that's well defined... should I reconsider this notion? – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 18:22
  • @berdario: The whole universe is equal to the Hubble volume--- there is no logical positivist sense I can give to the statement you make that it is bigger. Many people say that the universe is bigger regardless, but they are just being ridiculous. What was misleading in the WIkipedia article? I'll fix it. – Ron Maimon Oct 23 '11 at 18:31
  • from the third paragraph of the previously linked wikipedia article: "As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? " – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 19:28
  • The homogeneity of the universe seems an assumption that's not proven, so maybe it doesn't make sense to ask a question like mine without that assumption – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 19:30
  • @berdario: The homogeneity of the universe is reflected in the homogeneity of the initial conditions, which we can observe in the cosmic microwave background, which is almost perfectly homogenous. The large-scale galaxy structure is also nearly homogenous, with deviations consistent with the microwave background clumping up over time with dark matter and gravity as the only relevant effects. The standard cosmological model is well supported experimentally. – Ron Maimon Oct 23 '11 at 19:32
  • Concerning Universe?=Hubble Volume: the Hubble limit is a fixed size, function of c. The expansion of the universe may be accellerating. This means that some objects will inevitably go outside of the Hubble Volume... to say that the HV is equal to the whole universe would be like saying that such objects will go "out of existance", no? – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 19:34
  • Ok, I was under the assumption that the universe is vastly inhomogeneous... probably on wikipedia they were just talking about a smaller scale (even though I read that on some large cluster scale it may be not homogeneous)... Maybe I should open another question about this? by searching here I haven't found much, besides the fact that this is widely used assumption – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 19:48
  • @berdario: those objects will go out of "existence". The notion of existence is slippery. Once you stop being able to observe something, what does it mean to say it exists? The philosophical framework for resolving these issues is called "logical positivism", and it is much too clear and correct for the field of philosophy, so philosophers have maliciously and stupidly killed it. Don't be fooled by the philosophers--- physicists use logical positivism all the time, it will never be superseded as a philosophy. The inhomogeneity of the universe is small. This is called the "flatness problem". – Ron Maimon Oct 23 '11 at 20:18
  • Before I also had this in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume#Hubble_limit but now, by reading somewhere else here """It's best to avoid phrases like "the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light." In general relativity, notions like distances and speeds of faraway objects become hard to define precisely, with the result that sentences like that have no clear meaning"""... I'm not so sure anymore about the behavior of objects near the Hubble limit – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 20:21
  • Ok, but if it existed before inside our horizon, then it's probably still inside the horizon of another point closer to the "disappeared" object... I find it hard to ignore it... besides, if I'm not wrong, gravity probably works all the way through the universe, regardless of the speed of light... its pull becomes infinitely small, but it should still apply on that said object (I don't want to be philosphical, but this still seem quite practical) – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 20:27
  • Here is the other question I mentioned previously: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11014/will-the-night-sky-eventually-be-bright/11034#11034 """If you read the pop stuff, tread carefully. Some of it seems to be saying the incorrect thing I said before, namely that things that are currently inside our horizon move outside of it. The technical article is correct, but the nontechnical ones can be misleading.""" – berdario Oct 23 '11 at 20:31
  • 2
    @Ron, you've said a lot of good things on this site, but the philosophy that "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist" is absurd, especially when applied to space beyond cosmological horizons. Einstein was never able to observe you, because he died before you were born - does that mean that you don't exist? – Mitchell Porter Oct 24 '11 at 03:26
  • 1
    @Mitchell: It may sound absurd at first, but it is the way suggested strongly by the holographic principle. Stuff that leaves our causal patch is hone for good. I don't want to get too deep here, but I am not sure what it means to say I exist or don't exist. All the logical positivist can say is that I can see my posts. It is extremely important to give operational definitions to statements of ecistence, and when you can't as a matter of principle, to reject the notion. – Ron Maimon Oct 24 '11 at 03:49
  • @berdario: I don't usually rely on anyone else's commentary or calculations, if I do, I'll say "such and so says...", to deflect responsibility. Things currently inside our horizon will eventually move out of it, once the Hubble radius of the universe is close to its maximum, assuming a steady cosmological constant, but right now it's not like that, because the cosmological horizon is going out. – Ron Maimon Oct 24 '11 at 04:15
  • @Berdario: The statement "if it is outside our horizon, it might still be inside some other thing's horizon, which we can still see". This is incorrect--- horizon balls are pefectly nesting, and this is an essential often misunderstood property. If A can see B, and B can see C then A can see C. This means that the region that A can see includes the entire region that C can see, so long as A can see C. This property allows you to consistently excise the horizon exterior. – Ron Maimon Oct 24 '11 at 04:21
  • @RonMaimon by reading this answer http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8688/do-all-atoms-in-the-universe-gravitate-each-other/8689#8689 assuming that horizon balls aren't perfectly nesting, wouldn't this mean that we're still causally linked to that unreachable/nonexistent object? (just tell me if this is going out of scope and I should open some other question) – berdario Oct 24 '11 at 13:19
  • @RonMaimon the Hubble radius is a function of c and the Hubble costant, so... at the same point in time, 2 different places should have the same radius, but it these 2 points are not the same, their horizon shouldn't be perfectly overlapping, no? I saw you used "nesting" and not "overlapping", would this imply that all the other horizons (at least from our POV) are at best strictly contained in ours? (and could thus these be considered smaller?) – berdario Oct 24 '11 at 13:29
  • @berdario: all the horizons of points we can see are strictly contained in ours. The reason is that the things we see are in the past, and have a strictly smaller horizon themselves. It is easy to prove the transitivity relation I gave above, which shows this holds in general. The statement just says that the past light cone of a point in our past light cone is contained in our past light cone. – Ron Maimon Oct 24 '11 at 14:09
  • 1
    I looked again at this question/answer, and I realize that I haven't accepted any answer... so, even if Ron isn't active anymore, I felt that I should do it

    at the time, the discussion went over my head, and since I wasn't able to properly understand I didn't even know how to write down any more questions that I still had... but by looking at it again, at the very least I see that I had a serious misconception about gravity: "gravity probably works all the way through the universe, regardless of the speed of light" this isn' true... and so by acknowledging it, it's easier for me now to

    – berdario Apr 16 '13 at 18:18
  • understand the point that Ron was making about causality, the nesting of horizons and "going out of existance" by not being able to observe/measure something in any way whatsoever – berdario Apr 16 '13 at 18:22
  • Are you aware of anyone who has explored the idea that there is indeed an initial point of origin, and that all galaxies are moving away from one another for the same reason that pellets from a shotgun all move away from each other after leaving the barrel? – mkinson Nov 09 '21 at 18:27
0

The answer to your question depends on knowing what the true configuration of the universe is, and we do not have that knowledge at this time. It is conceivable that the space we see is somehow naturally embedded in a larger space for which the notion of center is well-defined. It is also quite possible that we live in a space where the notion of center is not meaningful.

We tend to build up an intuition that everything has a center, because that is true of everyday objects around us, such as loaves of raisin bread. These objects can be bounded inside a finite size box, and the space around us is flat enough that we can use Euclidean methods to determine centers (e.g., by integrating a characteristic function multiplied by a Cartesian coordinate). If our universe is in fact of this form, then it is meaningful to have a distinguished place that we can point to and call the center. So far, there doesn't seem to be any experimental evidence in favor of the idea that our universe has such a shape.

Most abstract manifolds that are potential spacetimes have no distinguished point that can be viewed as a center. These spacetimes are presented as an infinite set of points, together with a notion of nearness, and there is usually a group of diffeomorphisms that moves points around but doesn't really change the physics. This symmetry is what usually destroys any hope of having a point for which we have a good reason to describe as "the center" - we expect the physics to be the same at such a point and at nearby points, so that point is not distinguished for any physical reason.

0

General Relativity is about describing (the dynamics of) a curved spacetime. So you need a collection of events, and a metric that tells you the interval between nearby events.

That's it.

You can a stress energy source term too. But anything else is either unphysical or a straight up bias brought into a theory for no reason. There are some easily visualized examples that show a homogeneous finite space without boundary, let's start with the simplest.

Start with radial coordinates $r \in[0,\infty)$ and $\phi \in [0,2\pi)$ for the polar plane then consider the metrics like

$ds^2=c^2dr^2-\left( a(r)\right)^2\left( d\phi^2 \right)$

Where $r$ is a time coordinate and different $\phi$ correspond to different locations. So the big bang is the origin and all the rays emanating from the origin are the distinct locations, all the concentric rings are the different moments of cosmological time. And every location is perfectly equal to every other.

Similarly you can have a 3d spacetime with a 2d space. Start with spherical coordinates $r \in [0,\infty),$ $\phi \in [0,2\pi)$ and $\theta \in [0,\pi]$ then consider the metrics like

$ds^2=c^2dr^2-\left( a(r)\right)^2\left( d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2 \right)$

Where $r$ is a time coordinate and different $\theta$ and $\phi$ correspond to different locations. So the big bang is the origin and all the rays emanating from the origin are the distinct locations, all the concentric spherical thin shells are the different moments of cosmological time. And every location is perfectly equal to every other.

Similarly you can have a 4d spacetime, the concentric hyperspheres are the different moments, and the locations again are the rays from the origin.

So questions can be answered, such as expanding space, it expands into the future because surfaces farther from the origin are farther in the future. Why every point looks the same, every point on a circle looks the same, every point on a sphere looks the same and every point of a hypersphere looks the same.

There are no edges, just like a circle or a sphere has no edge. And all the General Relativity happens by finding out the dynamics of $a(r).$ And doing that is standard cosmology.

Timaeus
  • 25,523
-3

Yes! The center of the universe is the one place where time is "correct". That is, not influenced by extraneous gravitational fields. So by 'correct' I mean where time is running faster (or no slower) than anywhere else.

It is left as an exercise to the reader how this location might be found.

Jiminion
  • 2,639
  • What!?$,,,,,$ – Jim Apr 01 '15 at 13:19
  • Tell me this is an April Fools joke – Jim Apr 01 '15 at 13:21
  • No. I always felt there is one 'right' time in the universe, or perhaps multiple locations with the 'right' time. (Also, it's not funny enough to be an April Fool's Joke.) – Jiminion Apr 01 '15 at 13:25
  • Also, it's not true. While to some extend it makes sense to define the 'correct' time as time that is not affected by any dilation due to relative velocity or gravitational fields, it is not really any more 'correct' than any other time. And it has nothing to do with the "center of the Universe". There's no such thing, irrespective of the Universe being finite or infinite, just as there's no center of the surface of a sphere. – pela Apr 01 '15 at 13:50
  • @pela, Does this mean the universe is like a surface or a sphere, whose 'center' is inaccessible because it is earlier in time? And the 'now' universe is like the living portion of a tree trunk (the outer edge surrounding the dead 'past' tree core)? If that's the case, then there still could be a 4-D sphere of 'fastest' time, I suppose. – Jiminion Apr 01 '15 at 13:56
  • Okay, I think I see where you are going. You are thinking of the Universe as all space and all time, simultaneously. Usually, what we mean by "the Universe", is the (current) 3D volume of space. This is not a surface, but a volume. If it's infinite (and currently we think it is), it simply goes on and on forever, so no place — or all places — can claim to be the center. If it's finite, in principle you could fly in a straight line and end up where you started out, but there would still be no center, as in the not-always-too-good analogy of traveling on the surface of a sphere. – pela Apr 01 '15 at 14:10
  • Even if you think of space and time simultaneously ()and I understand if you do, because space and time are sort of entangled, you could envision the Universe as being finite in at least one direction, namely the time direction, and the center would then be halfway between the Big Bang and now. But since time runs differently for different observers, this definition becomes subjective, except for the undilated, "universal" clock that has never experienced any velocity in comoving coordinates, nor any gravitational field. – pela Apr 01 '15 at 14:10
  • Still, I think very few people would think of this as "the center of the Universe". Also, it wouldn't really be a useful concept. – pela Apr 01 '15 at 14:10
-5

It does makes sense to say where is the center of Universe. But unfortunately it is always explained in ambiguous way.One easy way to explain is this video

The explanation basically depends from what reference point you are looking at the Universe. For example if I am standing on Earth, I can say the Earth is stationary but if I am on another planet, I can see that the Earth moving not only in its orbit but also around its own axis.

Basically there no explosion in Big Bang. It was only an Expansion. Simply matter expanded in sort of a blast and started moving away from each other. It is much like a gas in a container. Lets suddenly expand the container, all the molecules will move away from each other. There will be no center because the expansion is uniform. Important point here inside that gas, not outside . So to you it will look as if you are the center of Universe because everything is moving away from you.

Now if you change the reference point, lets say you are looking at the universe from outside, you will see thee is a center, from which everything is expanding. Since we are inside that gas/matter, we assume there is no center because to use everything seems expanding from every single object. So I guess it really depends from which angle you are looking at the universe.

TheTechGuy
  • 347
  • 2
  • 3
  • 13
  • 3
    You would have to define what exactly it means to be outside the universe in order for an explanation like this to make sense. – David Z Oct 24 '11 at 03:31
  • Outside means, you are outside this universe and looking at it as it expands. You are stationary observer and the whole big bang unfolds in front of you. If you are inside, you would not know what is happening. If you were outside, you would know big bang is occuring. – TheTechGuy Oct 24 '11 at 13:07