Center Of The Universe

[AndyHolland]

Where is the center of the Universe, or the direction from which the Big Bang started. Has anyone found it?

As there weren't any walls to bounce off of, logically, shouldn't there be a low mass region about the center of the universe where the big bang initially occurred? Is there a universal center of mass region of space? :unsure:

Andy Holland

[MoonZeroTwo]

That's a very good question. And I think the "center" stops with "YOU".

Think about it, everything accelerates from YOURSELF.

(From my point of view, it starts from ME&#33.

It's a weird hurdle to ovecome, but it's there & it's real & let's cross it.

[devilmech]

Keep in mind that the center of mass of the universe might not be the point in space where the Big Bang originated. That would have to assume that the mass of the universe has been distributed equally for the last 13 billion years, or however old the universe actually is. Just thinking about that for a second would make one skeptical that the center of mass and Big Bang Burger Bar are indeed located in the same point in space.

[MoonZeroTwo]

Yes, DevilMech, and I agree with you there.

BUT...I was talking about the speed of light. YOU are the first conscious entity to observe anything outside yourself. And any IMAGE/EXTERNAL REALITY hits you at the speed of light...not instantaneously...

Which makes you in the FUTURE of everything else "outside" yourself.

So...if YOU are the absolute FUTURE of everything (ie "Right Now") then that means you are the BEGINNING/CENTRE/etc of the Big Bang. Same goes for "you" over there. And "you" over here. And "me" over here.

From MY point of view, YOU are all in my past. And vice versa.

It doesn't make sense, but it does.

I'm just talking about the speed of light here, nothing else fancy...

[StarLab]

OK, guys, you are officially confusing Mr. Holland.
Andy, I can help you understand what the heck these guys are saying: pretend that the entire universe is on the surface of a balloon. As you go back in time, that balloon shrinks. If you go back 13.6 billion years ago, the entire universe, that entire balloon, is a pinprick. A pinpoint. Reinflate it forward to our time, and you will understand that EVERY POINT IN THE UNIVERSE IS THE CENTER. THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVERYWHERE. Remember: spacetime. Every point in the universe right now can be considered the "center" of the universe. Where it expanded from is a different question. Stephen Hawking came up with the universe-on-a-balloon scenario. I don't believe in it, because then our universe would have no definable center, so that's a bummer, but what's inside that ballon that is our universe?

[devilmech]

@MoonZeroTwo: If you'll notice, he's not talking about the speed of light, he's talking about a universal center of mass.

@Starlab: He's not talking about inflation whatsoever, he's talking about a universal center of mass.

Did you guys read the sentences that said "As there weren't any walls to bounce off of, logically, shouldn't there be a low mass region about the center of the universe where the big bang initially occurred? Is there a universal center of mass region of space?"

Thus, my answer was entirely relevant, considering the questions he asked in his first and second paragraphs. I'm quite sure there was nothing confusing about what I said, given at least an average intelligence.

To reiterate my answer in different terms, we have no way of determining the center of mass of the universe because we can't quantitatively say how much mass is in the universe, and we cannot determine the point from which the Big Bang originated for much the same reason. It is also entirely probable that these two centers are not in the same locale.

I don't think it's possible to put it more simply.

[StarLab]

Ah. I see what you're getting at here. Good point.

Although, I still do think he's asking us where this low-mass reason of space is, because I can empathetically assume he is under the assumption this is where the "center" (of mass) of the universe is.
Let's assume there are two possible directions to come from on this issue. The first assumption is, of course, that the center is located in this low-mass area. The other assumption is that it isn't. I can understand your point of argument and concern, devilmech, but just for one moment suppose that the low-mass area was the center (of mass) of the universe. Then what would you deduce?

[devilmech]

Originally posted by StarLab@Jul 22 2004, 05:33 AM
Ah. I see what you're getting at here. Good point.

Although, I still do think he's asking us where this low-mass reason of space is, because I can empathetically assume he is under the assumption this is where the "center" (of mass) of the universe is.
Let's assume there are two possible directions to come from on this issue. The first assumption is, of course, that the center is located in this low-mass area. The other assumption is that it isn't. I can understand your point of argument and concern, devilmech, but just for one moment suppose that the low-mass area was the center (of mass) of the universe. Then what would you deduce?

Given the assumption that were there to be a region of abnormally low mass and that this region is the center of the universe, I would come to several conclusions.

First, we have not observed any low mass region of space, which could possibly mean that the universe is much much larger than we originally thought, or that the region is not low mass enough to throw up any red flags. Secondly, were we to find such a region, we have no evidence that it is indeed where the Big Bang Burger Bar is located, because there could possibly be several such regions.

The only way to be absolutely positive would be to know without a doubt the exact amount of mass in the universe, which would require being able to observe the entire universe. There are a few problems with this I won't go into for the sake of argument, so let us say that we could indeed calculate the mass of every single celestial body in the universe.

Were we to do this, we would have to make the further assumption that since the inflationary period, the universe has expanded uniformly, with an equal distribution of mass throughout. So there is another thing we would have to prove.

Assuming that we could determine exactly how much mass the universe has, and assuming that this mass has been uniformly distributed throughout, then we would be able to pinpoint a specific region of the universe from which the Big Bang originated. It would be further postulated that this region would be a "low-mass" region.

That's quite a lot of assumptions to make, and as I am pretty keen on using the scientific method, I don't make assumptions. If there is no qualitative and no quantitative evidence that something is as stated, I would not be able to place my support behind it.

[Weaselbunny]

Are scientists agreed that the universe has been constantly expanding from the site of the big bang or nearabouts (the location of the centre of expansion may have shifted over the last 13 billion years, like magnetic north does)?

Cos in that case, If our telescopes were powerful enough (which they aren't yet) could we not seek the point from which the universe is expanding by detecting the movements of galaxies near the likeliest looking spots etc. That could give us a site for the centre of expansion, though it would not necessarily be the exact location that the big bang happened at.

My science is crap, unlike many of you guys, so feel free to pull my idea apart, just don't be mean :unsure:

[AndyHolland]

I guess I will express more extreme ignorance.

Where is the center of the balloon?

Look at it this way, we have red shifts for galaxies, can we correlate them directionally? Is there a distribution? Do we have a directional sense of where the galaxies are speeding away from?

If the universe is 13billion years old, and there are 13billion year old galaxies in every direction of space, does this suggest that perhaps there wasn't a big bang or that perhaps we are near the center of the universe?

andy

[Guest]

I think it makes more sense to approach this question by separating the inflationary period from what happened afterwards. Or perhaps a better point would be the time where matter began to coalesce from the primordial soup, since we can trace the movement of matter from photons that are emitted from it. Judging by the relative motion of galaxies from each other and redshift of objects which tells you how long ago events occurred, it should be possible to determine roughly where the "center of the universe" might have been at that time. Of course this "center" is probably billions of light years in diameter.
Since space spreads out evenly in all directions, I don't think it is possible or appropriate to think of the center of the universe as a point, even though it probably emerged that way intially.

[StarLab]

I do not think it is appropriate to approach this question under any circumstances until we prove/disprove our universe is on the surface of a "balloon." Sorry.

[ShadonyGibz]

ill tell ya where the center of the universe is RIGHT HERE IN THIS CHAIR :angry:

like u didnt know

[ShadonyGibz]

its half whay across the universe <_<

[Tom2Mars]

I hate to ask this, but what is the point of a center? No pun intended.

It&#39;s like trying to appreciate a flower by asking, "where is the seed?". B)

[AndyHolland]

I guess I am very amazed by the responses.

There is a great deal to learn from the "center" from a cosmological standpoint.

It would be an interesting place to look and study the density or lack thereof of matter, just from a dynamics point of view.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So perhaps there is something near or at the "center" that is very, very large and perhaps very very different. Or very very small, and very very energetic.

Its worth a look. And again, if someone is dating the universe to 13-14 billion years, then unless we are close to the "center" there should not be 13-14 billion year old galaxies in every direction of the sky.

andy

[Sp1ke]

IMHO, I don&#39;t think there actually is a centre to the universe.

Going back to the balloon analogy, forget about inside the balloon, the universe is represented by the surface of the balloon. So where is the centre of the balloon&#39;s surface? There isn&#39;t one.

The balloon is expanding. It doesn&#39;t matter where you stand on the surface, every other point is receding from you. So every point appears to be the centre of the expansion.

Don&#39;t confuse the expansion of the universe in four dimensions with a simple explosion in three dimensions.

[StarLab]

You know, I think Tom has a point: who needs to know where the center of the universe is? What is the point? Is there a need to ask? Why?

[rahuldandekar]

I think that none of the answers given here actually tell something about the center of the universe.

Think about the theory about the center of the universe has been explained by Stephen Hawking in &#39; A brief history of time&#39;. In this, The solid balloon itself is the whole universe, in space-time. The north pole is the point at which the big bang happened. The universe &#39;moves&#39; in time from the north pole of this four-dimensional balloon. The universe expands from the north pole, and (possibly) to a south pole, the point of the big crunch. Or maybe it expands forever, and the baloon becomes a cone, with no end. Thus, the big bang is always in the past (we all know that) and the center of mass of any point in time is along a straight line drawn from the big bang point to the big crunch point ( considering that the mass is uniformly distributed in the universe) . The big bang can never be in this present universe as it is always in the past and the universe moves along the balloon as time progresses. Please remember that it is a solid balloon, so there can be no talk of what is inside, the universe is not on it&#39;s surface.

If you don&#39;t think this is in simple words, please simplify it, as I won&#39;t be able to do it. Please remember this is just a theory.

And as we can&#39;t peer back in time, we can&#39;t see the point of the big bang. You might say that what we see in the universe is back in time, but before we get to the big bang, we get caught in an immensely hot sea of radiation which we can&#39;t pass.

Who needs to know where the center of the universe is? What is the point? Is there a need to ask? Why?

Curiosity is the reason why science asks questions.

[AndyHolland]

I found this on the web that might shed some light (pardon the pun):

Thinking about the shape of the universe in the context of the standard Big Bang model is simplest using comoving coordinates.

While special relativity states that all inertial reference frames are equivalent, i.e. that there is no favoured set of space-time coordinates, this is only a local theory.

General relativity is also a local theory, but it is used to constrain the local properties of a Riemannian manifold, which itself is global.

In the context of general relativity, the assumption of Weyl&#39;s postulate is that a favoured reference frame in space-time can be decided. The most common notion of such coordinates is that of comoving coordinates, where the spatial reference frame is attached to the average positions of galaxies (or any large lumps of matter which are at most moving slowly).

With this set of coordinates, both time and expansion of the Universe can be ignored in order to concentrate on the shape of space (formally speaking, of a spatial hypersurface at constant cosmological time).

Space in comoving coordinates is (on average) static. This is perfectly consistent with the fact that the Universe is expanding. A choice of coordinates is just a choice of labels. There happens to be (according to the standard Big Bang model) a choice of these labels which can be used either for formal calculations or for intuition in which the Universe is static. To get back to thinking about an expanding Universe just requires remembering the scale factor.

This way there is also cosmological time, which for an observer at a fixed spatial point in comoving coordinates is identical to her local measurement of time.

Obtained from http://www.fact-index.com/c/co/comoving_distance.html
that have associated pages that discuss this in fairly laymen&#39;s term.

It is important to note that the dynamic (expansion) thoughts and geometric ones have been kept conceptually separate in these "models". But at some point there should logically be a link between the dynamics and the spatial shape.

Interesting to note that this site also explains that the shape of the universe may be 20 sided (Jeff Weeks) based on WMAP data. This is very interesting because it is the maximum number of sides a 3D object may have with uniform area sides except for a sphere, which has an infinite number of sides (Yes I know that one of the 3 dimensions is time and we are using 2D spatial so we can picture the shape in 3D - its still really interesting).

andy

[Terry M]

Well, I think that the answer to the question of &#39;center&#39; of or &#39;center of low mass &#39;completely depends on which modality one chooses.
If we accept the notion of the &#39;infinite&#39; then, as pointed out, there can be no center and every point in spacetime would indeed be the center.

HOWEVER,an infinite universe is a self nullifying statement or term.
In an infinite state there can be no space time or distance(not to mention the fact that math cannot exist) as we understand it.
So maybe the real question to ponder is "is it finite or infinite?

Think about it.
Terence M

[Ohma]

Was there a"Big Bang"?This idea has never appealed to me.It seems to me that the universe is infinite and therefore there is no beginning and no end.There is only change of matter and energy.
I recently found a very interesting website : THE INFINITE UNIVERSE.
www.eitgaastra.nl
I have not yet read everything he has written ,but is offers a fresh new perspective on astronomy. Strongly recommended&#33;
Have fun and (very important) always keep an open mind.

[Timothy]

I dont think we can or will ever see the center of the universe, we can see the same distance in every direction. Think about this, you drop a rock in a pool , ever ripple equals 15 billion light years . were sitting on the third ripple from the outside edge, and theres ten ripples. Were it not for God we would be insignificant.

[Freebird335]

Originally posted by Timothy@Jul 24 2004, 12:09 AM
I dont think we can or will ever see the center of the universe, we can see the same distance in every direction. Think about this, you drop a rock in a pool , ever ripple equals 15 billion light years . were sitting on the third ripple from the outside edge, and theres ten ripples. Were it not for God we would be insignificant.some day we may find the direction its in but first we must find out which way we are going.

sorry about the slip up. I signed my name as Timothy.My bad.

[Eclipse]

If the universe is 13billion years old, and there are 13billion year old galaxies in every direction of space, does this suggest that perhaps there wasn&#39;t a big bang or that perhaps we are near the center of the universe?

Very good Andy. Your anwsered your own question.

On the other hand, what if the closest boundry was 15 billion LY from us and all the others are at least 50 billion LY?
What if light from farther away just hasn&#39;t reached us yet?

I believe you are closer to the truth then most of the others on here, and quite likely closer then any of us may realize.

[s.m.vasagam]

[FONT=Times][SIZE=7]

As per [COLOR=red]HINDU Mythology GOD who has created the universe has no ends. Line has two ends which is extended to infinity and similarly Nature has. If you say where is atom, one has to visualise so also imagine the universe. In this circumstance where is the question of mass center. One end to other end are all the mass center.

[Freebird335]

as a being of God, we will always seek knowledge . There will be answers we cant find or explain. The people on these far reaching galaxies are looking back at our galaxy and the light reaching them makes our galaxy look young too. If they were to concentrate only on our galaxy, within their great big sky ,do you think , they think were here?

[JimAA2QA]

Time as well as space came into being from what apparently was a singularity; therefore, the explosion (expansion) happened everywhere and there would not be a center.

I know I&#39;ll get the name of the satellite (or experiment) wrong, but they did launch an experiment, I believe the name was COBE, which mapped the temperature of the (severely red-shifted) big bang. This would have been some time (a few hundred thousand years?) after the big bang, when the universe became transparent. The temperature measured was something on the order of 3 degrees Kelvin, with very small fluctuations (0.02 C) in the background radiation.

If this were a big ball and we were not at the center of it, we would be moving towards one side and away from the other as we moved, due to expansion, away from the &#39;center&#39; - and that would register as more red-shifting (and a lower temperature) from one side, and less red-shifting (and a higher temperature) at the other side. This did not happen. Either we are very close to the center, or there is no center to the universe. Considering the many trillions of stars and billions of galaxies, it is highly unlikely we are at the center.

There is no center. Time and space exploded everywhere at once (as far as our universe is concerned). Whew&#33; This calls for a beer :P


Kind regards from Rochester, NY
Jim

[Planetwatcher]

Does it really make difference to us wheatiher or not we are at the center?

[DarkChapter]

Just a thought here, be sure to correct me wherever I am wrong (or just being stupid).

In an explosion is ALL the matter always blown away? The initial blast is triggered, transferring energy to the innermost materials, lets say atoms, those inner most atoms begin to move uniformly away from the epicentre of the blast. Those initial atoms are going to hit other atoms that are further away from the epicentre, and transfer some, or all of their energy and momentum to these new atoms, which will in turn do the same to those further out. What this means is that you will have some atoms left near the initial blast with little to no momentum.

I know the Big Bang is different to any other explosion we have ever witnessed, as all the matter is theorised to haveexploded from a single point meaning that all matter within that point was subjected to uniform energy, but since we will probably never come to grips with what exactly that single point was, we cannot comprehend what was in that point (ie: was it similar to the singularity in a black hole).

Could this transfer of momentum from one atom to another after the big bang mean that the point of the big bang is not devoid of mass?