Current Events > Would it be Impossible to find the exact center of the Universe?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I was just thinking about this.

I'm right here

I'm not sure that concept even makes sense.

The observable universe is only a portion of the entire universe and is centered on the observer.
So
Accolon posted...

I'm not sure that concept even makes sense.

Accolon posted...

I'm not sure that concept even makes sense.

This. I think it's agreed on by scientists that there's no center

The commonly held understanding is that the universe is infinite, so there would be no center. And if the universe is finite, it might be shaped in such a fashion where saying that there's a centerpoint wouldn't make sense.

But even if you assumed that the universe was both finite and spherical, sure... but it'd be important to note that there'd be nothing special about that spot, as that's not where the Big Bang originated from but rather everywhere in the universe was the singularity prior to Big Bang.

But, in a way, we're all at the centerpoint of our own individual observable universes.

Well the theory was that the Universe started at a point and then exploded outward, so no, I don't think it'd be impossible. Just not possible right now, afaik.

A center would only work if the universe is finite. If the universe is infinite, then there is no center.

ClayGuida posted...

Well the theory was that the Universe started at a point and then exploded outward, so no, I don't think it'd be impossible. Just not possible right now, afaik.

This is my understanding. Even though we can measure expansion vectors from earth, that alone doesnt tell us the origin point of the Big Bang.

Gotta smoke weed first.

When we say the universe is expanding, we don't mean some hypothetical "boundary" is getting further away. Rather we mean that any two random points in the universe are getting further away from each other, but without actually changing their physical locations. (One admittedly imperfect analogy would be to imagine that the space between the two points is being "stretched thinner", but without changing the amount that's there. Sort of like how a rubber band doesn't add more material to itself just because its wrapped around a larger object).

Applying this principle in reverse suggests (and there's other evidence as well, so, the whole affair is a pretty solid theory) that the points in the early universe would be closer together until, at time 0, they were infinitesimally close to each other, effectively overlapping in all the ways that matter.

Because every point in space was the exact same as every other point at the start of everything, this significance, or, rather, lack thereof, continues to apply now. Depending on how you structure your definitions, either nowhere at all is the centre or literally everywhere is.

Either way, unless there's a grand shakeup in cosmology that dramatically redefines our conception of how the universe functions, no amount of advanced technology is going to help us find something that doesn't meaningfully exist.

Oh, and as for the "origin point" of the big bang, it occurred over all space simultaneously at time 0, so, similarly to the "centre", it's either nowhere or everywhere depending on your definition

Relatively speaking from your POV you are the center of the universe.

I dunno how the math works out but basically everything is moving away from you on a cosmic scale. If you recenter the POV somewhere else, that POV sees the exact same thing.

splodeymissile posted...
we mean that any two random points in the universe are getting further away from each other, but without actually changing their physical locations. (One admittedly imperfect analogy would be to imagine that the space between the two points is being "stretched thinner",

Interesting, I dont get this at all. How could everything be getting farther away and not changing location?

The Big Bang was a single point. After exploding everything pushed outward in all directions and is still moving outward from this point. While I have no idea if its possible to measure, it still seems possible to at least conceptualize an origin point of the Big Bang.

ironman2009 posted...

Gotta smoke weed first.

Have you ever seen the center of the universe...on weed??

boomgetchopped3 posted...

we mean that any two random points in the universe are getting further away from each other, but without actually changing their physical locations. (One admittedly imperfect analogy would be to imagine that the space between the two points is being "stretched thinner",

Interesting, I dont get this at all. How could everything be getting farther away and not changing location?

The Big Bang was a single point. After exploding everything pushed outward in all directions and is still moving outward from this point. While I have no idea if its possible to measure, it still seems possible to at least conceptualize an origin point of the Big Bang.

The more accurate way to think of the big bang would be an inflating balloon. The balloon is expanding from a smaller version of itself, and any two spots on it are getting further apart, but all points were part of the intial pre-inflation thing, and no part is more so central than any other part (in this analogy, we're only talking about the balloon itself, not the air within).

boomgetchopped3 posted...

we mean that any two random points in the universe are getting further away from each other, but without actually changing their physical locations. (One admittedly imperfect analogy would be to imagine that the space between the two points is being "stretched thinner",

Interesting, I dont get this at all. How could everything be getting farther away and not changing location?

The Big Bang was a single point. After exploding everything pushed outward in all directions and is still moving outward from this point. While I have no idea if its possible to measure, it still seems possible to at least conceptualize an origin point of the Big Bang.

A better analogy (which was used in my physics textbook, so, I probably should have led with it), is to imagine a sheet of grid paper, with all its little squares. We can mark the start of one square as "1" and the end as "2". If we allow our grid paper the magical property of increasing the size of its squares, then the distance between 1 and 2 will get increasingly larger over time. However, anyone stood at 1 would still be rooted to that position even at an arbitrary point in the distance future. They would simply see 2 as receding further away from them (and if they elected to travel there, it would take longer in the future than it would in the past).

Similarly, anyone stood at 2 will always be at 2 unless a force moves them elsewhere. 1 will be receding away from them, but both parties will be still be stood at 1 and 2 respectively. Someone stood at 1.5 will always be at 1.5, but they will see both 1 and 2 as getting further away.

It's like if the initial singularity consisted purely of overlapping whole numbers and expansion acts to "create" decimals, so, that these whole numbers gain increasingly meaningful separations. The longer expansion continues, the smaller a decimal can be and still actually matter.

boomgetchopped3 posted...

The Big Bang was a single point.

This is impossible conceptually. A point has no dimensions. Whatever caused the big bang must be measurable, however small, even if it's smaller than Planck length. In the event that the big bang happened from absolutely nothing at all, then there is no point of origin either. In either case, the big bang would not have exploded in a perfect sphere, meaning any center is an approximation at best, Even if you could capture the moment of explosion.

Interesting takes guys.

More like we are stuck in a black hole without realizing it.