does universe have a centre

[SteveA]

I agree with the limit and that is why conceptually I like the idea of a one dimensional Planck Length Line (STRING). If it were smaller it would be in the other realm. If it were 0 dimensions it's not here. So even if strings didn't exist, they would exist conceptually as the smallest possible entity. The angels vibrating on the head of the pin and still be "real".

Consider if there was only matter and no space and we were effectively seeing a molecular universe.

Notice that any sequence of atomic bonds that transmitted information unaltered would look the same as a distance through space. "Nature abhors a vacuum" so the saying goes ... well that's because there may be no vacuum - notice that we can't truly measure the speed of light in a vacuum because wherever we detect it just so happens to have matter there.

Now consider that we can similarly construct an equivalent constant velocity space by simply measuring the number of "bonds" length a round trip communication occurs - time in physics is always measured as a ratio between two comparable units and hence is always a ratio.

Consider as well that information has no specific velocity per se, the significant component is the sequence or order of events - cause and effect chains need to exist but the specific "duration" between these isn't very relevant, so light could travel at any speed in an objective/external sense (consider as well that "light" in terms of a wavelength could effectively travel slower than an individual photon without a specific wavelength determined for it) - we only need the ordering of a sequence of observations to remain consistant to correctly denote positions in space.

So we could effectively compress the universe to an infinitesimal singularity in terms of distances between points (the scale is unimportant).

Now additionally, how do we integrate a large number of events into a single experience? How do two or more photons combine into a single information conveying unit? We don't necessarily need multiple photons to do this - we could actually have the equivalent of a single astronomically large "atom" use only a single virtual photon to convey information regarding the equivalent of collections of smaller photons.

For example, let's say we have 5 different detectors labelled A through E and we detect some sequence of 3 events for them. This gives us a total of 5*5*5=125 possible length 3 sequences - well we could similarly equate this to a single detection of a photon within a network of 125 detectors instead - and in a similar sense let's say that short term memory can retain the equivalent of 7 objects of which each of these could be 1 of 1,000,000 concepts - larger concepts are constructed by the collection in short term memory. In order to convey all this information via a single photon, we'd need (10^6)^7=10^42 possible "detectors". This is not very large at all relative to the size of the Earth.

The Earth is ~6x10^24 kg of mass and if we use a reference of an atomic weight of iron as ~56, then we have one mole of iron with a mass of ~56 grams.

6x10^24*1000g/(56 grams/mole)~=1^26 moles * ~6x10^23 (atoms/mole) ~= 6x10^49 atoms * (56 nuclear units/atom) ~= 3x10^52 nuclear units per Earth.

That leaves us with enough mass of the Earth alone to support 3x10^52/10^42 = 30,000,000,000 billion such conscious entities.

The delay time for a communication within a single such network (assuming light speed velocity as per NIST definition) would be approximately 1s/(pi*7 * (3x10^10)^(1/3)) ~= 1/7000th of a second. Definitely fast enough for support of "realtime" conscious perceptions.

And yes, such a structure would impose many fractal observations to physical properties as well as allowing for warped spacetime to be interpreted as a communication pathway could actually bend, yet from "inside" not be seen as being bent.

Now this isn't really the correct way to analyze it because the mass of Earth is based upon physical observations which would not be directly correlated with such a "virtual" space, but I simply wanted to show a model that effectively removes space and removes time (in terms of duration) and places everything in the context of something like a "conscious" internet. (Of course every age has it's own analogies)

Now there really is not much value in such a perspective as it has little of any specific form, but my intent was to just show a manner in which such a transformation is possible.

[dipayankar]

I agree. The big bang is an evolution of many theories.

Hi paradigm;

Philosophically I don't find time or space to be infinite, both are measurable, both are finite, it has the potential to become infinite. But you don't know, the universe could poof away tomorrow and no more infinite universe.

The big bang theory has much more evidence than just the expansion. It is as accepted among physicists as evolutionary theory has been with biologist.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

A singular Big Bang would set the grounds for a centre in the Universe. However multiple bangs would not have a Universal Center.

[theunify]

A singular Big Bang would set the grounds for a centre in the Universe. However multiple bangs would not have a Universal Center.

You say big bang, but if we had multiple bangs they are all be considered "big"?, and if so wouldn't they have enough energy to create their own universe, therefore making it possible that a multi verse occurs from which we have no knowledge.

[Mohan.C]

A singular Big Bang would set the grounds for a centre in the Universe. However multiple bangs would not have a Universal Center.

Hi Dip,
That is true if you consider the bang or the bangs as the ultimate beginning of everything. But, what if even the multiple bangs were centered around a point. THen, would there be no center for the universe.

[dipayankar]

Actually then probably we would have a series of centers all centered round one Universal center. Complicated isnt it??

Hi Dip,
That is true if you consider the bang or the bangs as the ultimate beginning of everything. But, what if even the multiple bangs were centered around a point. THen, would there be no center for the universe.

[Mohan.C]

Actually then probably we would have a series of centers all centered round one Universal center. Complicated isnt it??

That is true, but what if the boundaries of the miniverses creted from the multiple bangs, say, dissolved. Then with no distinguishable boundary. There would be no centers around a center. There would just be a center. That is, of course, assuming that the universe as of now does have boundaries.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Since space is real, being physical, although not material, having the quantification of volume as its quantity, there is no way for the prevention of it going to infinity; so, the infinite universe has no boundary, at least in 3-D.

Our finite realm of the real in this, the only universe, is the center, it residing exactly—as it must, between infinite largeness and infinite smallness.

(This will be my next topic in Fredrick's 'Incompleteness' thread.)

[Bogie]

I realize that this thread is four years old and has probably fifty different participants over that period, but this question fascinates us if we are prone to contemplation of the universe. Factually, ... we don't know. Even the consensus is becoming vague as the Big Bang Theory gets worked on and as attempts are made to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. At either level we don't know what caused the universe or if it has always existed. To discuss a center requires us to say what view of cosmology we are talking about.

We could exhaust the major possibilities and be looking at three main explanations (and others) for the existence of the universe. I would say those three biggies are that the universe came from nothing naturally, God did it supernaturally, or it just never had a beginning because it has always existed.

Regardless of what explanation we use, the topic of a center is still open. If it started from nothing it could have started everywhere at the same time or it could have started as a point in space. The same goes for "God did it". Even for the "no beginning" explanation it could be finite or infinite. That brings us back to "we don't know". But the point of a thread like this is say what we think and why.

Thinking that the universe has always existed satisfies me the best, at least out of the three major choices that I offer. Come up with other explanations or a different selection if you want and I would be interested in hearing them.

Thinking that space is infinite seems the simplest explanation for the history of space. Better yet it is the simplest to describe, i.e. length width and breadth if you consider space to be Euclidean. If you don't think Euclidean works with general relativity then you must have a reason. What is the reason based on in fact?

So for me to answer the question about a center of the universe, given my preferences of a spatially infinite universe that has always existed, the answer is no, there is no center to a boundless infinite universe.

Even if you answered this question here before feel free to jump in again as far as I'm concerned .

[chazzysaw]

According to our "know it all" scientist the big bang was the beginning of everything. So I would say the point of origin is the center. If the big bang is the point of origin then it is the center, therefore the universe has a center.