Where Is The Center Of The Big Bang Universe?

[a_unique_person]

Well you can always do what woo do and use this lack of understanding as proof that your woo is true.

Now how many times have I seen that argument used.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?

The example in your link only claims the singularity was infinite and if we were sentient during the singularity, it would still be infinite around us. But that is one conceptualization. There is no proof it is the only correct option. It ignores the problem of proof the Universe is infinite rather than finite. Last I heard we really couldn't say that. More importantly, it ignores the matter of the singularity as a concept of a finite thing. We are sort of schizophrenic in viewing the singularity as infinite and finite depending on what we are conceptualizing about it.

I quite understand the 'the Universe is all, and isn't expanding into anything' concept. What I question, (and apparently so does the scientist who rationalized a way to calculate the actual diameter of the Universe) is, how can we conclude that particular conceptualization is the correct conceptualization? I have an issue with having to use a 2D model to describe the 3 dimensions of the Universe (not including time). In that 2D model, while you could just expand it in your concept to 3D space instead of a 2D surface, you have to have the Universe curving back on itself. We do not know if that is true.

The problem with our distant observations is they are constrained by the time dimension. We cannot see across the Universe in real time. We can only see across it in past time. The concept of no center and no edge comes from observing the expansion. But it ignores the theoretical concept that there is a real time Universe out there that we just cannot see.

 

[ynot]

How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?

So a singularity/big bang/expanding universe theory doesn’t mean that the universe per se is not infinite?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So a singularity/big bang/expanding universe theory doesn’t mean that the universe per se is not infinite?

Not when you add in the expansion and relativity principles.

 

[Yllanes]

The example in your link only claims the singularity was infinite and if we were sentient during the singularity, it would still be infinite around us. But that is one conceptualization. There is no proof it is the only correct option. It ignores the problem of proof the Universe is infinite rather than finite. Last I heard we really couldn't say that. More importantly, it ignores the matter of the singularity as a concept of a finite thing. We are sort of schizophrenic in viewing the singularity as infinite and finite depending on what we are conceptualizing about it.

I don't mean that the universe has to be infinite, I just argue that it can without contradiction.

I have an issue with having to use a 2D model to describe the 3 dimensions of the Universe (not including time).

We don't use a 2D model to describe the 3D universe. We use a 2D model as an analogy to explain it to people with no background in maths or physics.

The problem with our distant observations is they are constrained by the time dimension. We cannot see across the Universe in real time. We can only see across it in past time. The concept of no center and no edge comes from observing the expansion. But it ignores the theoretical concept that there is a real time Universe out there that we just cannot see.

No, it doesn't. If you want to learn about the definitions of distance and time in cosmology and why we can make such claims I recommend the tutorial I linked.

I am afraid I won't be able to respond to this thread, because I will be away the whole week. But there is no shortage of knowledgeable people on this fourm about these matters.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't mean that the universe has to be infinite, I just argue that it can without contradiction.

No problem then.

We don't use a 2D model to describe the 3D universe. We use a 2D model as an analogy to explain it to people with no background in maths or physics.

Really? Care to explain then, if you return to your starting place if you travel in a straight line across the Universe and were not constrained by the speed of light and what evidence you have for that model and what it actually looks like in 3D instead of 2D? Humor me, I get the math.

I'll wait until you return, no worries there.

No, it doesn't. If you want to learn about the definitions of distance and time in cosmology and why we can make such claims I recommend the tutorial I linked.

There is so often an assumption that because one does not accept a certain conclusion they must not have the knowledge base and that is the underlying problem. There is no doubt this is very often the case. It is frustrating because you cannot get through to such people and they just keep putting forth stupid premises.

But once in a while someone who disagrees actually does understand the underlying premises and concepts and is simply drawing a different conclusion from the evidence. I may not be a physicist, and I may not have an expert command of relativity and special relativity. Were I the only one to contemplate a different model of the Universe, then I would probably just have kept my mouth shut.

But I have been contemplating this problem for quite some time and I have a pretty sufficient command of the concepts but more importantly, the link I provided suggested at least one person well versed in the science, Neil Cornish, an astrophysicist at Montana State University, also was contemplating the same things as I have been. It may be I don't understand his position, I will try to read a bit more before being certain of that. But what he did say in the interview in the link I posted was that

The results do render impossible a "soccer ball" shape for the universe, proposed late last year by another team. "However, if they were to 'pump up' their soccer ball to make it larger, they could evade our bounds" and still be in the realm of possibility, Cornish said. Other complex shapes haven't been ruled out.

Once you start talking about actual shapes rather than mathematical concepts of flat or curved, then you are talking edges and centers.

The main issue here is the difference between the observed Universe and the real time Universe we do not observe. Those are conceptualizations worth considering the implications of. The hypothesis that the expansion of the Universe is preventing us from observing an edge and a center is a possible hypothesis. It may not be correct, but it would explain the observations and still allow for a center and an edge.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

There is so often an assumption that because one does not accept a certain conclusion they must not have the knowledge base and that is the underlying problem. There is no doubt this is very often the case. It is frustrating because you cannot get through to such people and they just keep putting forth stupid premises.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cornish's homepage

At one point in 2003 Cornish was on the side of an infinite Universe.

Physicist At The Center Of Debate Over Soccer-shaped Universe

The idea seems appealing, Cornish has answered, but his group has found no evidence of a finite, closed universe shaped like a soccer ball. Or a doughnut or a bagel, as has also been suggested. Working with Cornish are David Spergel of Princeton and Glenn Starkman of Case Western.

"Weeks and friends are making a dramatic claim, perhaps one of the biggest science stories of the century," Cornish told the New York Times, "but extraordinary claims require extraordinary support."

His group had actually hoped to prove that the universe was finite and was disappointed that they weren't able to do that, Cornish said after his MSU presentation. A finite universe is easier to understand and measure than one that is infinite, he explained. But Cornish's team had already ruled out the possibility of a relatively small universe before Weeks' claim came out in Nature.

"The universe is not a soccer ball. Sorry, Nature," Cornish said at his MSU seminar. "It's probably not a small world after all. Sorry, Disney."...

...Cornish's team began analyzing right away. His team is the "official" science team for the NASA probe, although WMAP data have been accessible to other scientists and mathematicians over the Internet.

Ironically, those data are behind both the assertion of a closed shape and its refutation. The two groups have been communicating regularly as the Nature paper neared publication, and Spergel and Starkman held a press conference Friday, Oct. 10, in Cleveland to announce the findings of the official science team. Cornish said their work has been reviewed by the full WMAP science team, which found no flaws in the analysis.

Cornish, Spergel and Starkman have posted their findings on the Internet (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310233) where other scientists can evaluate them. Ultimately, Cornish said, it's the scientific community that will decide.

"The most amazing thing about this whole story is the fact that we can go out there and try and figure out the shape of the universe," Cornish said. "... Regardless of what the results are, I think it's great for people to know this is even a possibility."

Constraining the Topology of the Universe - Authors: Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman, Eiichiro Komatsu:
Abstract
Whole paper, pdf file

Summarizing these ideas, you have either a finite Universe that does not wrap back around itself having no center or edge, meaning it has a center and an edge if it is finite, or you have an infinite Universe with no center and edge. And Cornish might lean toward the infinite Universe but he is not committed to that conclusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, I know what you mean.

"very often the case"

I know when to tread cautiously, unlike some people....

 

[sol invictus]

Really? Care to explain then, if you return to your starting place if you travel in a straight line across the Universe and were not constrained by the speed of light and what evidence you have for that model and what it actually looks like in 3D instead of 2D? Humor me, I get the math.

The spatial geometry is a 3-sphere. If you get the math, that's all you need to know.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The spatial geometry is a 3-sphere. If you get the math, that's all you need to know.

Right, and in that model you end up looping back to where you started. But is that the case? We don't know that. The math is only of models, not of actual observed space because we don't have a complete view. And, you can model it theoretically, but you cannot make a physical model that makes sense like the 2D surface of a sphere which you can easily make.

Why shouldn't we be able to make a physical model of the Universe's shape? We can make other shapes? Yet we only have this mathematical concept and we can draw pieces of it. Shouldn't we be able to make a mini-Universe showing the shape just as we can make other geometrical shapes? Even if it was infinite we should be able to make a physical model of the shape. What I am saying is that because we cannot make that model, perhaps we shouldn't be so sure we actually understand it.

Many of the Universe diagrams are of the expanding space time Universe rather than the static 3D Universe at a single point in time. Again, that shows our model is not quite complete. That leaves the possibility open for a shape we are more familiar with.


BTW, I am not claiming to know anything here except that I am unsatisfied with the inability to make a physical model because if the Universe exists, which I think we agree it does, then something is there. If I travel in a line I either return to where I am or I do not. And we don't know that answer.

 

[sol invictus]

And, you can model it theoretically, but you cannot make a physical model that makes sense like the 2D surface of a sphere which you can easily make.

Huh? So what?

Can you make a "physical model that makes sense" of a photon? A black hole? The big bang? A Bose-Einstein condensate? Any other possible universe in 3 spatial dimensions?

Why shouldn't we be able to make a physical model of the Universe's shape? We can make other shapes? Yet we only have this mathematical concept and we can draw pieces of it.

"Draw"? How are you going to draw any 3d manifold? No offence, but do you know what you're talking about?

 

[ynot]

Right, and in that model you end up looping back to where you started. But is that the case? We don't know that. The math is only of models, not of actual observed space because we don't have a complete view. And, you can model it theoretically, but you cannot make a physical model that makes sense like the 2D surface of a sphere which you can easily make.

Why shouldn't we be able to make a physical model of the Universe's shape? We can make other shapes? Yet we only have this mathematical concept and we can draw pieces of it. Shouldn't we be able to make a mini-Universe showing the shape just as we can make other geometrical shapes? Even if it was infinite we should be able to make a physical model of the shape. What I am saying is that because we cannot make that model, perhaps we shouldn't be so sure we actually understand it.

Many of the Universe diagrams are of the expanding space time Universe rather than the static 3D Universe at a single point in time. Again, that shows our model is not quite complete. That leaves the possibility open for a shape we are more familiar with.


BTW, I am not claiming to know anything here except that I am unsatisfied with the inability to make a physical model because if the Universe exists, which I think we agree it does, then something is there. If I travel in a line I either return to where I am or I do not. And we don't know that answer.

I’m with you Skeptigirl. How can totally abstract math and impossible analogies alone represent what is actual?

 

[Reality Check]

I’m with you Skeptigirl. How can totally abstract math and impossible analogies alone represent what is actual?

You are correct: "totally abstract math and impossible analogies" do not "represent what is actual". I guess we should throw away all science .

Real mathematics and anaolgies represent what is actual.

 

[ynot]

I guess we should throw away all science .

Why do you suggest this? I certainly haven’t and don‘t. Sounds like crazy-talk to me.

Real mathematics and anaolgies represent what is actual.

There’s no such thing as “real mathematics”. Mathematics is an abstract system/language that only has an abstract reality. Mathematics only becomes “real” when verified by actual existence.

Analogies represent what is actual if the things being analogised are actual. An actual computer to an actual human brain analogy for instance. An abstract 2D surface of a sphere to an actual universe isn’t an analogy that represents what is actual.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Huh? So what?

Can you make a "physical model that makes sense" of a photon? A black hole? The big bang? A Bose-Einstein condensate? Any other possible universe in 3 spatial dimensions?



"Draw"? How are you going to draw any 3d manifold? No offence, but do you know what you're talking about?

Yes I know what I am talking about but you apparently are expecting too much from my Universe contemplation.

I can actually conceptualize the uncertainty principle, photons, and certainly I can conceptualize black holes.

I have not contemplated many of the new elementary particles or all the concepts of quantum mechanics. But in that case, we don't have a clear picture of what is going on in all cases. We have phenomena and we don't know what it actually looks like. However, we admit we don't know what things at the quantum level look like.

For a black hole we know there is tremendous space between elementary particles and that space condenses in the black hole. That isn't hard to conceptualize. Gravity leaking out into other dimensions one can imagine, but we don't know what that looks like if it is occurring. I can imagine there are unseen dimensions that I don't know what they look like.

But here's the thing. If I could see things at the quantum level, I am convinced there would be something to see. It might be the most bizarre unimaginable thing, but it would be something. And, at the quantum level, various physical models have been proposed, but no one is claiming they know which physical model is actually correct.

In the case of the Universe, there are a lot of cosmological features which can be described mathematically. And the mathematical models are descriptive and very useful. They explain measurable phenomena. The expansion model makes for a lot of weird things in the Universe that are more easily represented by mathematical models than physical models. You think I don't get that, but I do. I may not have the physics vocabulary to discuss it like a cosmologist or a physicist, but I understand the concepts being discussed.

What I am saying is if one takes away the time dimension and we were able to view the Universe in a single unit of real time the thing that was there to be observed would have a physical form. The 2D model used to describe that form is inadequate. The 3 sphere or hypersphere or 3D manifold are not adequate to describe what is there. It may be that what is there (IE the form or shape of the Universe as you will) is as bizarre as the quantum universe, in fact that almost certainly has to be. But to describe the Universe as formless at a single moment in time makes no sense. Even the uncertainty principle says if you don't include motion (aka time) then you can tell where that electron is.

If the Universe is infinite, then there would be no center and no edge. My concept of that Universe has past time as the center and future time as the edge. It's my personal Universe contemplation I don't expect anyone else to consider.

If the Universe is finite then it either loops back in on itself as some bizarre 3 sphere shape and again has no center and no edge, or it doesn't have that bizarre shape and there is a center and an edge that we just cannot see because of the limits of viewing across space in real time.

I see no reason it cannot have that center and edge. It leaves an additional problem of whether there is anything beyond the Universe or nothing and what that means in terms of conceptualizing the model, but that is another matter.

Why are you so sure that if you could see across the Universe in real time, that you would see no physical model that included a center and an edge? You have to include certain assumptions but we can only speculate because we cannot see across the Universe in real time and we cannot stop time for other observations either.

There is something on the quantum scale we could see if we could see that small. There is something that we call the Universe that we could see if we could see that large of a scale. There is something that we would see if we could travel across the Universe in a single moment in real time. I am not satisfied that a physical model we cannot conceptualize is what we would see. Having to use that 2D surface of a sphere as the conceptual model means our concept is not quite right even if the math is. A lot of QM math is right too but we don't know what the physical things actually look like.

 

[Reality Check]

Why do you suggest this? I certainly haven’t and don‘t. Sounds like crazy-talk to me.

It is sarcasm - note the sarcasm icon .

There’s no such thing as “real mathematics”. Mathematics is an abstract system/language that only has an abstract reality. Mathematics only becomes “real” when verified by actual existence.

Analogies represent what is actual if the things being analogised are actual. An actual computer to an actual human brain analogy for instance. An abstract 2D surface of a sphere to an actual universe isn’t an analogy that represents what is actual.

And that is what the analogy is doing - using abstract mathematics as verified by actual existence to describe a 2D representation of a 3D reality.

Or are you saying that the only analogy to a actual universe is an actual universe?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is sarcasm - note the sarcasm icon .

...And that is what the analogy is doing - using abstract mathematics as verified by actual existence to describe a 2D representation of a 3D reality.

Or are you saying that the only analogy to a actual universe is an actual universe?

How about a 3D model to describe a 3D universe? Or are you saying we actually live in Flatland?

 

[Reality Check]

How about a 3D model to describe a 3D universe? Or are you saying we actually live in Flatland?

If we want a static model of the 3D universe then we can consider a 3D model. But if we want to look at changes, e.g. a point in the universe that moves, then we have to look at a dynamic model of the universe and add time as a fourth dimension. So now we need a 4D model of an 4D universe.

 

[bokonon]

This point, right here, is the center of the Universe --------> .



Oh, and here too: -------------> .

God is a sphere whose center is everywhere, and circumference nowhere.

The apparent acceleration in the "expansion" of the universe is actually normal acceleration as all the matter in the universe "falls" into this center.

Imagine a balloon turned inside out... or imagine a normal balloon with a brain that's been turned inside out.

When the big stretch has run its course, all the matter compressed into the non-localized "center" of the universe will be inverted in a new big bang which will give birth to the next universe, the yin to our yang.

At least, that's how the caterpillar explained it to me.