Where Is The Center Of The Big Bang Universe?

[Skeptic Ginger]

If we want a static model of the 3D universe ....

That is what I am talking about.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

Can you clarify what you are saying here?

Our model of the universe is capable of producing a view of the universe at a single point in time. Not sure what use there would be to such a view but you could certainly construct one by choosing a coordinate system where time was measured by a system of clocks that aren't moving compared to the CMB over time. Can't think of any reason that wouldn't make sense.

 

[sol invictus]

The 2D model used to describe that form is inadequate.

Obviously. The universe is not 2D. It was presented as an analogy to help you conceptualize the 3D version, not as a proposed model.

The 3 sphere or hypersphere or 3D manifold are not adequate to describe what is there.

Why in the world do you think that? You're just wrong, as a glance at any of thousands of papers in cosmology would tell you.

The spatial geometry must be a 3D manifold, basically by definition. The only issue is whether it's a 3-sphere or something else.

I suspect you don't know the meanings of these terms, which is what's leading to a lot of this confusion. If you would just say so it might make the discussion more fruitful.

 

[Reality Check]

That is what I am talking about.

In this case a "static universe" means a universe without time and so one in which movement cannot occur. If you want to "travel in a straight line across the Universe" then you need to include time in your model.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In this case a "static universe" means a universe without time and so one in which movement cannot occur. If you want to "travel in a straight line across the Universe" then you need to include time in your model.

I don't want to travel. I am merely talking about the fact that at a single point in time, the physical Universe exists. That Universe at that point in time should be describable as a physical shape.

Why you all are ignoring that piece of my discussion and opting for the usual descriptions is getting annoying. I don't care if you want to argue about the shape/form at a single point in time, but trying to add the time dimension means you didn't read what I've posted.

And once again because people are not reading my posts your answer here makes a false assumption about what you think I know or don't know.


BTW, did you even bother to read the paper on the calculated actual width of the Universe?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the solution. Leave me to my lay person's Universe contemplating. I don't care what the cosmologists and physicists think of my dissatisfaction with the fact we need a 2D model to describe a 3D space. I also don't care that you all don't get what I am saying and think it is because I don't understand the usual Universe models. I know that I get it, and don't need someone else's approval.

If you cannot build a 3D model and need a 2D analogy instead to explain the Universe's shape/form, then there is clearly much about the shape/form of the large scale Universe that we don't really know, just as there is much about the quantum scale shape/form of particles and structures we also don't really know.

The shape/form is out there. We might have overwhelming evidence of a lot of scientific theories, but I don't think there is enough evidence to say for certain the Universe is either infinite or that it loops back on itself in 3D space. We certainly don't understand the time dimension since the mathematical models can't explain the uni-direction of time. And the extra dimensions suggested for the string theory models or to account for the weakness of the gravitational force have some shape/form we can hypothesize, but have not yet verified in any way.

I am not convinced the no middle and no edge concepts are as peachy keen as the way they are accepted suggests. I think they are being taken for granted but with not enough overwhelming support as far as the evidence goes. We cannot see across the Universe in real time. We can only see across the Universe in past time. It is not ignorance of the Universe models that I draw that conclusion from.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't want to travel. I am merely talking about the fact that at a single point in time, the physical Universe exists. That Universe at that point in time should be describable as a physical shape.

Why you all are ignoring that piece of my discussion and opting for the usual descriptions is getting annoying. I don't care if you want to argue about the shape/form at a single point in time, but trying to add the time dimension means you didn't read what I've posted.

And once again because people are not reading my posts your answer here makes a false assumption about what you think I know or don't know.

BTW, did you even bother to read the paper on the calculated actual width of the Universe?

I was referring to your previous posting in which you wrote

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.

That sort implies movement. But maybe we are talking about different themes in this thread. I was commenting on analogies to the universe.

I read the paper and it is also covered in the Observable universe article in Wikipedia. The fact that the observable universe has a lower limit of 78 billion light-years to its size does not mean that the actual universe has a finite upper limit to its size. Read the The universe versus the observable universe section of the article.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually I read the paper, Constraining the Topology of the Universe - Authors: Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman, Eiichiro Komatsu, and Cornish's stuff from his web page suggesting he supports the infinite Universe option even though he calculated the diameter of the Universe.

What I have been saying is that there are 3 options.

• An infinite shape/form with no center and no edge
• A finite shape/form that loops back on itself (but we can actually make this model in 2D, yet we do not have a decent physical model in 3D)
• A finite Universe that then has a center and an edge

 

[Reality Check]

Actually I read the paper, Constraining the Topology of the Universe - Authors: Neil J. Cornish, David N. Spergel, Glenn D. Starkman, Eiichiro Komatsu, and Cornish's stuff from his web page suggesting he supports the infinite Universe option even though he calculated the diameter of the Universe.

What I have been saying is that there are 3 options.

• An infinite shape/form with no center and no edge
• A finite shape/form that loops back on itself (but we can actually make this model in 2D, yet we do not have a decent physical model in 3D)
• A finite Universe that then has a center and an edge

I have reminded myself about the possible topologies of the universe and I think that your 3 options fall within the topologies. However even a finite Universe does not have a center. The universe expands uniformly from all points. It is not like an explosion which expands from a point. This applies to the observable universe. It is possible that there is a center on a scale bigger than the observable universe.

 

[theneedtoknow]

Skeptigirl, you whine about people "not getting what you are saying" and "ignoring pieces of your discussion". At the same time you continue to express your dissatisfaction of having to use a 2D model and not being able to make a 3D one, despite already being told that the 2D model is a simplfication and there is indeed a 3D one, assuming I understand sol correctly from this statement.


Skepti: But, we don't live in a 2D world, and no one really has a model of the same thing using 3D.

Sol: Sure we do. I could show it to you, but I don't know if it would mean much to you. So take my word for it - it's just as well understood as the 2d version (just a little harder to visualize).

Hypocricy is not becoming...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have looked at several 3D models and they are not "just a little harder to visualize" as you say. They amount to diagrams and mathematical representations. There is a real Universe that has some shape and form. It is not lines and numbers. Show me the physical model. You can't because we don't really know what it looks like. Our view is limited by the properties of the time dimension.

And anything finite has boundaries. That's synonymous with edge unless it loops back on itself which I included as one of the three options.

What hypocrisy? I don't agree with someone, that is supposed to be hypocrisy? Excuse me? Rude uncalled for comments when someone is merely discussing their views is unbecoming.

I am not trying to convince anyone here to see the Universe the way I currently conceptualize it. I am not claiming to be an astrophysicist.

I am saying that I don't buy the idea that the shape/form of the Universe is so certain. And I'm irked that everyone assumes that must mean I don't know the basics. Frankly, a couple of you are really sounding pretty snobby here.

And no one has yet even bothered to discuss the Universe as it exists rather than the light we see coming from objects billions years in the past. It is possible that y'all are so convinced you know what the shape/form is that you've forgotten the models are only hypotheses, the shape/form is not yet known.

 

[sol invictus]

BTW, did you even bother to read the paper on the calculated actual width of the Universe?

That's not what that paper did, as was explained earlier.

If you cannot build a 3D model and need a 2D analogy instead to explain the Universe's shape/form,

We don't need the 2D analog - except to help explain the geometry to laypeople.

And anything finite has boundaries.

False.

I am saying that I don't buy the idea that the shape/form of the Universe is so certain.

No one said it was certain.

Look - if the universe has a center, we must be sitting close to right on top of it, because when we look around we see the same thing in all directions. Do you really think we occupy such a special place in the universe?

As I already explained, given the following ingredients:

1) Einstein's equations for gravity

2) homogeneity and isotropy of the spatial universe

there are only three possibilities: flat, open, and closed. Boundaries and centers are inconsistent with 2), which we assume because it holds true for what we can see and because we do not expect to be at a special or unusual place in the universe, any more than we expect the sun and planets to revolve around us.

 

[theneedtoknow]

Hypocricy because you claim other people don't want to even try to understand your points, and ignore statemens you make, yet you've repeatedly been told that 3D models exist, and have good descriptive powers if you can understand the math, and disregard it. Just because you THINK that a 3D model means a physical item you can hold in your hands, doesn't make it so. A 3D model simply implies how many dimensions the calculations involve. As ALSO mentioned, there is a multitude of other phenomena which are their own single possible model (aka they cannot be represented in other ways physically / tangibly). As far as I know, these include electromagnetic waves/photons, spacetime warping, black holes etc, yet our very reliable, "on paper" descriptions of these things are probably satisactory for you. If you are going to doubt somehing on the basis of scientists failing to neatly hand it to you in toy form, I can't see you accepting any of the advances in physics of recent history, despite their accuracy and high-reaching implications in contemporary society.

 

[ynot]

skeptigirl - "And anything finite has boundaries."

False.

Please give an expample of an actual thing that is finite but has no boundaries.

 

[ynot]

Here's the solution. Leave me to my lay person's Universe contemplating. I don't care what the cosmologists and physicists think of my dissatisfaction with the fact we need a 2D model to describe a 3D space. I also don't care that you all don't get what I am saying and think it is because I don't understand the usual Universe models. I know that I get it, and don't need someone else's approval.

If you cannot build a 3D model and need a 2D analogy instead to explain the Universe's shape/form, then there is clearly much about the shape/form of the large scale Universe that we don't really know, just as there is much about the quantum scale shape/form of particles and structures we also don't really know.

The shape/form is out there. We might have overwhelming evidence of a lot of scientific theories, but I don't think there is enough evidence to say for certain the Universe is either infinite or that it loops back on itself in 3D space. We certainly don't understand the time dimension since the mathematical models can't explain the uni-direction of time. And the extra dimensions suggested for the string theory models or to account for the weakness of the gravitational force have some shape/form we can hypothesize, but have not yet verified in any way.

I am not convinced the no middle and no edge concepts are as peachy keen as the way they are accepted suggests. I think they are being taken for granted but with not enough overwhelming support as far as the evidence goes. We cannot see across the Universe in real time. We can only see across the Universe in past time. It is not ignorance of the Universe models that I draw that conclusion from.

BRAVO!!

 

[Paulhoff]

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

Which so-called and where is the proof.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Please give an expample of an actual thing that is finite but has no boundaries.

The surface of a sphere. The universe.

There two.

Paul

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
And anything finite has boundaries. [rest of statement inappropriately left out by sol changing the meaning completely]

False..

I could cut a sentence of yours in half and call it false also. Try reading what I actually posted.


"unless it loops back on itself which I included as one of the three options"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl - "And anything finite has boundaries."

Please give an expample of an actual thing that is finite but has no boundaries.

You also just took half my sentence. Try the whole sentence and then see if you have the same comment.

Sorry, I see you edited or I misread your post and now it makes more sense. The 2D surface of the sphere has no boundary in 2D but actually, it does have a boundary if you put it in a 3D space. However, the idea of the 2D model is to assume that 3rd dimension does not exist. I find it hard to conceptualize a 3D model looping back on itself but I can see that such an odd thing might exist in our Universe. There are many things we don't easily see and the story Flatland gives one an idea how you can't always conceptualize things like dimensions you cannot see or experience.

I don't have an issue with that on the small scale. And I am not saying it can't be possible to miss some weird concept of the Universe on the large scale. I'm just saying there are other possibilities and the fact is if you were to cross the Universe with time stopped, you have to either go on forever, return to the place you left, or reach an edge.


Goodness these posts are loading slowly right now.

 

[ynot]

The surface of a sphere. The universe.

There two.

Paul

The external boundary of a sphere is its outer surface.

Where is your proof that the universe is finite?

I’m just jealous that your avatar is better than mine.