# Thread: Why aren't we the center of the universe?

1. We are able to guess how big the universe is by looking at the furthest stars and seeing how long it takes for the light from those stars to reach us. We have guesstimated it to be 14billion light years or whatever. The number is not important.

From the point of measurement to where we see the furthest we can see, there would be a circumfrence from that point. Wouldn't this mean that we are infact the center of the universe?

2.

3. Originally Posted by The Huntsman
From the point of measurement where we see the furthest we can see, there would be a circumfrence from that point. Wouldn't this mean that we are infact the center of the universe?
What you are describing is the known or observable universe.
And yes, we are at the centre of the observable universe.

4. Originally Posted by The Huntsman
We are able to guess how big the universe is by looking at the furthest stars and seeing how long it takes for the light from those stars to reach us. We have guesstimated it to be 14billion light years or whatever. The number is not important.

From the point of measurement where we see the furthest we can see, there would be a circumfrence from that point. Wouldn't this mean that we are infact the center of the universe?
Geometrically, the universe is a 4-dimensional manifold, not a sphere expanding outwards; as such the universe has no centre point and no boundary, in the same way as the surface of the earth has no centre point and no boundary.

5. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by The Huntsman
We are able to guess how big the universe is by looking at the furthest stars and seeing how long it takes for the light from those stars to reach us. We have guesstimated it to be 14billion light years or whatever. The number is not important.

From the point of measurement where we see the furthest we can see, there would be a circumfrence from that point. Wouldn't this mean that we are infact the center of the universe?
Geometrically, the universe is a 4-dimensional manifold, not a sphere expanding outwards; as such the universe has no centre point and no boundary, in the same way as the surface of the earth has no centre point and no boundary.

If that were the case, would the centre point be the when the big bang first started?

6. Geometrically, the universe is a 4-dimensional manifold
The big bang happened everywhere not at a single point
Which really begs for an investigation into the meaning of the 4th dimension
(at-least for one of my feeble imagination)

If "time" then , PhD...., everywhere at every time?
Or am I assuming a rather colloquial interpretation to "time"?

7. Originally Posted by sculptor
If "time" then , PhD...., everywhere at every time?
Or am I assuming a rather colloquial interpretation to "time"?
It's quite analogous to the North Pole on Earth - if you stand there, all directions are south for you. Same at the BB - if you stand there, all other events are in the future for you. There is no past; that's what defines the "instant" of the BB.

8. Originally Posted by PhDemon
The big bang happened everywhere not at a single point. There is no centre point as Markus has said.
Well 4 dimensionally speaking the universe would have time and space as one object, as time goes on the expansion goes on. . so therefore the centre point would have to be in a certain point at a certain time.

which leads me to another question, if that's the way the universe works, how do we know we're measuring in the right direction?

9. Originally Posted by The Huntsman
so therefore the centre point would have to be in a certain point at a certain time
No, that is not really correct. At the moment of the BB the distance between any two points in the universe was exactly zero; more simply put, all points in the universe were united as one. As time started to progress, each event started to recede from all other events, both in time and in space - it simply isn't possible to define a "centre" on such a manifold.

10. and, now, a word from our sponsor

It is said of the TAO
before being was non-being
before non-being was nothingness
before nothingness was the void
and before the void was the TAO

as/re
It's quite analogous to the North Pole on Earth - if you stand there, all directions are south for you. Same at the BB - if you stand there, all other events are in the future for you. There is no past; that's what defines the "instant" of the BB.
maybe it's a psychological thing?
everyone wants closure----a beginning and an end
I really got pissed off at the guy in the chair when he responded to the same question the same way by saying: "That's like asking what is one mile north of the north pole."

It seems, that when addressing the concept "big bang" there is (much like a black hole) an event horizon, beyond which all rational logic and reason ceases to have meaning nor understanding.

Why the phrase "big bang"?

11. Originally Posted by sculptor
It seems, that when addressing the concept "big bang" there is (much like a black hole) an event horizon, beyond which all rational logic and reason ceases to have meaning nor understanding.
Yes, in a way you are correct. Trying to extrapolate concepts from our everyday world past the BB event is pretty much meaningless.

Why the phrase "big bang"?
Beats me. Personally I very much dislike the term, since it smacks too much of "explosion", which the BB was not.

12. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Why the phrase "big bang"?
Beats me. Personally I very much dislike the term, since it smacks too much of "explosion", which the BB was not.

Henry Reich (creator of MinutePhysics) proposes that it is better to call it the "Everywhere Stretch".
What do you think of that?

13. "an instantaneous universe popping into(and out of?) existence"
without constraints of space and time?

14. The Big Appearance just doesn't have the same ring to it.

15. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Henry Reich (creator of MinutePhysics) proposes that it is better to call it the "Everywhere Stretch".
What do you think of that?
It sounds weird tbh, but, having said that, it is much more true to the physical principle at work.

16. Imagine being shrunk down and standing on the surface of a balloon, but you can only see a couple of inches' distance of the balloon's surface from your location. From your perspective, it looks like you're standing in the "middle" of the balloon because you can see for the same distance in every direction, even though there is no real "middle" on the surface of a balloon.

17. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by The Huntsman
From the point of measurement where we see the furthest we can see, there would be a circumfrence from that point. Wouldn't this mean that we are infact the center of the universe?
What you are describing is the known or observable universe.
And yes, we are at the centre of the observable universe.
I didn't know that Sir Red Panda!! MAHALO!!!

18. Since our universe is over 13 billion years old and earth is only 4 billion years old , we can't be located within the "center" for we are ever expanding outward away from that beginning like a balloon being inflated.

19. Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
Since our universe is over 13 billion years old and earth is only 4 billion years old , we can't be located within the "center" for we are ever expanding outward away from that beginning like a balloon being inflated.
Now I am confused.

Are we or aren't we?

20. Originally Posted by PhDemon
We are at the centre of our "observable universe", i.e. what we can see (which makes sense if you look around an area with no obstructions you are at the centre of your field of view) but not at the centre of the "universe" which is larger than what we can observe.
Thank you for the clarification!! As I am not a science person....clarification is a great benefit to me and I truly appreciate your patience!

21. Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
Since our universe is over 13 billion years old and earth is only 4 billion years old , we can't be located within the "center" for we are ever expanding outward away from that beginning like a balloon being inflated.
So does that mean we are expanding in a certain direction?

Like this picture here

It shows we are expanding as we go along. When we look at far away stars are we looking at both the past, present and future? How would we know? Could we look far enough back to see the big bang?

Sorry if these are really dumb questions

22. Originally Posted by The Huntsman
Sorry if these are really dumb questions
These questions aren't dumb...they are actually really good and valid ones.

So does that mean we are expanding in a certain direction?
We are expanding into the future. In the picture the x-Axis ( left-right ) represents time, whereas the y-Axis ( up-down ) represents the size of the universe. As you can see there was a short period of very rapid expansion in the beginning ( that is called "inflationary period" ), followed by some time of almost uniform expansion, followed by the modern era where expansion is increasingly accelerating.

When we look at far away stars are we looking at both the past, present and future?
We are looking at the past.

How would we know?
Because the speed of light is finite and constant; that means that the further away something is, the longer it takes light to get from there to us. The light we are seeing now from distant stars is old, so we are effectively looking into the past.

Could we look far enough back to see the big bang?
Not really, because for the first period of time after the BB event the universe was more or less opaque.

23. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Not really, because for the first period of time after the BB event the universe was more or less opaque.
And the cosmic microwave background is the light that was first free to travel long distances when the universe was no longer opaque. Which is why it was pretty much the clincher for the big bang theory: it was discovered by accident but fit perfectly with the predictions of the theory.

24. The banned word: big bang theory

25. But I can point out the matter on it.

The big bang theory is concidered by the redshift of a star. All planets seem as red shifted from Earth. Why do all planets see as redshift? Modern science answered it, due to all planets move far away from Earth. Therefore, on the theory, the stars must gathered at one point at first and now expanded by all pieces of star. It's the reason of big bang concidered.
Currently redshift is concidered to be occured only when something moving to far. But if redshift happens by another reason, big bang theory completely collapses. The last problem is, what is the most conciderble structed theory, the light behaves redshift by another unknown theory or Earth is centre of space.
Though I don't have the scientific reason for the another theory of redshift to write down here.

26. Originally Posted by overthelight
But I can point out the matter on it.
Actually, that is only one piece of evidence, there are many others.

Modern science answered it, due to all planets move far away from Earth.
That's not correct. The redshift is observed because of metric expansion of space between ourselves and the distant object. The objects themselves do not move locally relativistically.

Therefore, on the theory, the stars must gathered at one point at first and now expanded by all pieces of star.
No, because they don't just appear to recede from us, but also from each other.

Currently redshift is concidered to be occured only when something moving to far.
There are three possible reasons for redshift to occur :

1. Local movement
2. Difference in gravitational potential
3. Metric expansion of space along propagation of light

The first two can be observationally ruled out in the case of cosmological redshift, leaving only metric expansion.

27. Originally Posted by overthelight
The big bang theory is concidered by the redshift of a star.
Red shift of galaxies (we can't resolve individual stars at that distance).

All planets seem as red shifted from Earth.
No. Any Doppler shift of the planets will be minute, will vary from red-shift to blue-shift depending if the are moving away from or towards Earth and are nothing to do with the big bang theory.

But if redshift happens by another reason, big bang theory completely collapses.
Other reasons have been considered. None fit all the evidence.

Though I don't have the scientific reason for the another theory of redshift to write down here.
Then what is the point of your post: "It could be caused by something else but I don't know what it is and it probably doesn't explain the other evidence for the big bang"

28. Originally Posted by overthelight
The banned word: big bang theory
That is not a banned word (phrase); it is what is being discussed.

29. As we look out into the universe in any direction, we are looking backwards in time. The farther we look, the earlier in the history of the universe we are seeing and the smaller the universe was at that time. If we could see all the way back to the Big-Bang, we would be seeing what happened *right here*.

And your view of things would be the same wherever you are in the universe.

30. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by The Huntsman
We are able to guess how big the universe is by looking at the furthest stars and seeing how long it takes for the light from those stars to reach us. We have guesstimated it to be 14billion light years or whatever. The number is not important.

From the point of measurement where we see the furthest we can see, there would be a circumfrence from that point. Wouldn't this mean that we are infact the center of the universe?
Geometrically, the universe is a 4-dimensional manifold, not a sphere expanding outwards; as such the universe has no centre point and no boundary, in the same way as the surface of the earth has no centre point and no boundary.
Do not understand, the earth has no boundary? Then why call it earth and not the all? Is it not the boundaries that make it earth? I am sure you will explain this you always do.

Markus this might sound a bit unusual to you, but it has been going around my mind and no one better to ask but you. If universe means all and everything, how can there be multiply universes? Is that term right? The way I am seeing it, if there is multiply universes they must be all in one universe, does that make any sense to you? This is suggesting to me that the universe must have a boundary in order to define it. You know one universe ends and the other begins.

31. Originally Posted by Stargate
Do not understand, the earth has no boundary?

He said that the surface of the earth has no boundary. You can walk and walk and walk...and you never get to the "end."

Then why call it earth and not the all?
Because a surface not having a boundary does not logically imply that the surface is the whole universe. Just look at the earth. It is not the whole universe, obviously. Yet the surface has no boundary. You are creating a false paradox.

Is it not the boundaries that make it earth?
No. The earth is made of many things. Boundaries aren't one of them.

If universe means all and everything, how can there be multiply universes?
Don't parse the word "universe" so literally. Again, you are creating problems for yourself unnecessarily. If it helps, append an adjective of your choice to the word. Call it, say, "the universe that we previously thought was all." Or "the only universe we've known about" or something like that.

Is that term right? The way I am seeing it, if there is multiply universes they must be all in one universe, does that make any sense to you?
Again, you are trying to fix a problem of your own making. These multiple universes could be causally disconnected. You could arbitrarily call them "one universe" collectively if you wish. Not sure why you're so hung up on that, though.

This is suggesting to me that the universe must have a boundary in order to define it. You know one universe ends and the other begins.
You have implicitly imposed a specific geometry on these universes. There is no necessity for the universe(s) to conform to your personal idea, though. These universes could be commingled, for example, with no identifiable boundary between them.

32. TK421.
He said that the surface of the earth has no boundary. You can walk and walk and walk...and you never get to the "end."
Yes I get what you mean, Thanks.

33. Have you ever looked at the prices of real estate at the center of the universe?

34. Originally Posted by Stargate
Do not understand, the earth has no boundary? Then why call it earth and not the all? Is it not the boundaries that make it earth? I am sure you will explain this you always do.
The boundary of a surface is where a surface "ends" - clearly, the surface of the earth has no end, you can keep going into any direction you like without ever falling off anywhere. In that sense the earth's surface has no boundary, or else it would like this :

If universe means all and everything, how can there be multiply universes? Is that term right?
In the multiverse theory, the meaning of the term "universe" is somewhat amended - it refers to a region of space-time which is ( not necessarily causally ) connected. What this means is that it is a region of space-time where you can connect two arbitrary points in at least one way by a line. This then does not preclude the possibility that there might be other, isolated regions of space-time which cannot be reached from where we are because they aren't connected to our local universe. To put it simply - in the multiverse theory the word "universe" has local meaning, whereas the all-there-is now has the name "multiverse". Please bear in mind that this idea is mere speculation.

This is suggesting to me that the universe must have a boundary in order to define it. You know one universe ends and the other begins.
No, a boundary is not needed for this, neither is a "beginning" or "end". The question is quite simply if the regions of space-time can be connected or not; if not, they are separate universes. I realise that all of this is rather difficult to visualise.

35. TK421:
He said that the surface of the earth has no boundary. You can walk and walk and walk...and you never get to the "end."
Sorry TK421....that made me laugh...just because if you were really walking and never got to the end....man I'd not be a happy camper. No disrespect intended. I do understand your point and actually using that analogy was superb!!!

36. Originally Posted by babe
TK421:
He said that the surface of the earth has no boundary. You can walk and walk and walk...and you never get to the "end."
Sorry TK421....that made me laugh...just because if you were really walking and never got to the end....man I'd not be a happy camper.
I wouldn't be too happy, either!
No disrespect intended. I do understand your point and actually using that analogy was superb!!!
You're always so sweet!

37. Thanks Markus, I appreciate your explanation. Sometimes words get in the way and if you try to visualise it confusion moves in.

38. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by sculptor
If "time" then , PhD...., everywhere at every time?
Or am I assuming a rather colloquial interpretation to "time"?
It's quite analogous to the North Pole on Earth - if you stand there, all directions are south for you. Same at the BB - if you stand there, all other events are in the future for you. There is no past; that's what defines the "instant" of the BB.

It leaves the question : why is time privileged?

Shouldn't the universe look the same no matter which dimension we choose as our "special" dimension?

In a 3D sense, if you chose "East/West" as your "special" dimension, and measured everything relative to it, the surface of the Earth would look pretty much the same as if you chose "North/South" as your "special" dimension, and measured everything relative to it.

Why isn't time like that?

39. Originally Posted by Stargate
Thanks Markus, I appreciate your explanation. Sometimes words get in the way and if you try to visualise it confusion moves in.
No problem. Many aspects of this aren't intuitively obvious, but rest assured that the maths behind it are all rigorous.

Why isn't time like that?
Good question, to which science doesn't have the answer. Temporal dimensions are distinct from spatial ones in that they have a preferred direction, and a different metric sign. Why the universe has made it so - I cannot say.

40. Originally Posted by Stargate
Thanks Markus, I appreciate your explanation. Sometimes words get in the way and if you try to visualise it confusion moves in.
Markus is always incredibly helpful without being condescending ....a truly good person.

41. Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by Stargate
Thanks Markus, I appreciate your explanation. Sometimes words get in the way and if you try to visualise it confusion moves in.
Markus is always incredibly helpful without being condescending ....a truly good person.
Thank you, much appreciated !!

42. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by Stargate
Thanks Markus, I appreciate your explanation. Sometimes words get in the way and if you try to visualise it confusion moves in.
Markus is always incredibly helpful without being condescending ....a truly good person.
Thank you, much appreciated !!
Honestly and acknowledgment earned.

43. Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by Stargate
Thanks Markus, I appreciate your explanation. Sometimes words get in the way and if you try to visualise it confusion moves in.
Markus is always incredibly helpful without being condescending ....a truly good person.
Please be more restrained in your praise. The forum finances can only extend to one moderator hat per moderator. If Markus outgrows his we are all screwed.

44. Originally Posted by John Galt
Please be more restrained in your praise. The forum finances can only extend to one moderator hat per moderator. If Markus outgrows his we are all screwed.
They should really start paying us, you know...for everything we have to deal with on a daily basis ! Might get onto Sahil for that...

45. To offer another hypothesis as to why we are not at the centre.

At the start of the universe energy collapsed into anti-matter and matter. This is a problem because matter and anti-matter destroy each other on contact. However we are still here and made of matter so what happened?

The answer is that the universe is now known to be non-symmetrical. That means that the matter created was not completely destroyed by the antimatter. So after all the antimatter was destroyed the bit that was left over became us. The reason why we are not at the exact centre is because the universe was not created with an even distribution. In other words the universe is lumpy. We are made out of bits of matter that are left over. The universe is not neat, it is messy. Not everything is symmetrical and so we are not at the centre.

46. Originally Posted by uptonryan
To offer another hypothesis as to why we are not at the centre.
Why is another hypothesis required?

The answer is that the universe is now known to be non-symmetrical.
True. But the asymmetry is not enough to explain the amount of matter left.

That means that the matter created was not completely destroyed by the antimatter. So after all the antimatter was destroyed the bit that was left over became us.
OK so far. All part of the standard big bang model...

The reason why we are not at the exact centre is because the universe was not created with an even distribution.
This doesn't seem to follow from the previous points. The current universe is observed to be very homogeneous (on large scales) and the early universe even more so. Almost perfectly so, in fact. (As predicted by the big bang model.)

So what is the cause for your uneven distribution and where is the evidence for it?

Your description also seems to assume that there is a centre for us to not be at. That isn't the case in current models.

47. If you want an alternative view upton, then we are at the centre of the universe and so is everywhere else.

48. If the universe was a balloon, the physical present day universe the surface, and expanding lets say, and lets say the 4th dimension is time, would the inside of that balloon be the past, and the outside be the potential future? In that imaginary scenario, the center of the universe would be a point far back in the past?

As a layman, when I look at a distribution of stars in the observable universe, I get he feeling the real universe is many orders of magnitude larger than a gazillion times the size of the observable universe, but its just a feeling...

49. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by uptonryan
To offer another hypothesis as to why we are not at the centre.
Why is another hypothesis required?

The answer is that the universe is now known to be non-symmetrical.
True. But the asymmetry is not enough to explain the amount of matter left.

That means that the matter created was not completely destroyed by the antimatter. So after all the antimatter was destroyed the bit that was left over became us.
OK so far. All part of the standard big bang model...

The reason why we are not at the exact centre is because the universe was not created with an even distribution.
This doesn't seem to follow from the previous points. The current universe is observed to be very homogeneous (on large scales) and the early universe even more so. Almost perfectly so, in fact. (As predicted by the big bang model.)

So what is the cause for your uneven distribution and where is the evidence for it?

Your description also seems to assume that there is a centre for us to not be at. That isn't the case in current models.

The original question about why we are not at the centre of the universe suggests that we are important in some way. Some people, Carl Sagan, feel that we are not important. They say we are just an insignificant spec. Others feel differently, quite a few religions etc. I am suggesting a hypothesis that we might be important. Important in the way entropy is important. Maybe intelligent life and evolution is necessary and an unavoidable outcome in a similar way entropy or gravity is. Intelligent life may be needed in the same way gravity is.

I am noting that being important and at the centre are two different facts. I am noting that you can be important and not at the centre. I am noting that we could have started out at a 'centre' and drifted. Maybe the centre is full of antigravity and dangerous. If I plant a garden I might think the tomatoes are important. That doesn't mean I plant them at the centre. Maybe I plant them where I think they will be protected or in the sunny part of the garden.

The evidence for the lumpiness of the universe is here. The COBE satellite.

The Lumpy Universe

50. Originally Posted by John Galt
If you want an alternative view upton, then we are at the centre of the universe and so is everywhere else.
I agree with you that at some point everywhere was once the centre. However I am not so sure that is still true.

51. Originally Posted by uptonryan
To offer another hypothesis as to why we are not at the centre.

At the start of the universe energy collapsed into anti-matter and matter. This is a problem because matter and anti-matter destroy each other on contact. However we are still here and made of matter so what happened?

The answer is that the universe is now known to be non-symmetrical. That means that the matter created was not completely destroyed by the antimatter. So after all the antimatter was destroyed the bit that was left over became us. The reason why we are not at the exact centre is because the universe was not created with an even distribution. In other words the universe is lumpy. We are made out of bits of matter that are left over. The universe is not neat, it is messy. Not everything is symmetrical and so we are not at the centre.
Just so I get it right, are you saying two energies matter and antimatter made contact and destroyed itself only leaving a small amount that turns out to be us? If that is true, there could only have been one matter left, either matter or antimatter. Even if a small amount of matter and antimatter was left, why did it not destroy itself?

I cannot understand how matter and antimatter two potent energy destroyed itself, I could more understand if you said changed energy because we still have matter and antimatter.

So after all the antimatter was destroyed the bit that was left over became us.
Again I am asking did matter destroy its opposite, or changed its opposite? Matter cannot exist by itself.

52. Originally Posted by uptonryan
Originally Posted by John Galt
If you want an alternative view upton, then we are at the centre of the universe and so is everywhere else.
I agree with you that at some point everywhere was once the centre. However I am not so sure that is still true.
Where did the center go? Is this not saying that at one time everywhere was center, the center of what?

53. I don't believe in Big Bang theory so please bear in mind that these sentiments are consistent with BBT, not necessarily myself. In regards to the original question: The universe doesn't have a center because all points are expanding from all points. If the expansion were a radial phenomena then we could define a center; but we could draw that radial expansion from any point. It becomes nonsensical to consider any origin in those conditions.

54. Originally Posted by uptonryan
The original question about why we are not at the centre of the universe suggests that we are important in some way.
Does it?

I am noting that being important and at the centre are two different facts. I am noting that you can be important and not at the centre.
You didn't say anything about "importance" (and neither did the OP).

I am noting that we could have started out at a 'centre' and drifted. Maybe the centre is full of antigravity and dangerous.
You are ignoring the simple explanation that there is no centre.

The evidence for the lumpiness of the universe is here. The COBE satellite.

The Lumpy Universe
That pretty much supports what I said: at the beginning the universe was extraordinarily smooth ("at the part-per-million level") and still is on large scales: "This is known as the cosmological principle: the fact that no matter where the observer is located in space, the properties of the Universe will appear to be the same, as long as you're looking at the Universe at a sufficiently large scale." Which works because there is no center.

55. Originally Posted by Stargate
Just so I get it right, are you saying two energies matter and antimatter made contact and destroyed itself only leaving a small amount that turns out to be us? If that is true, there could only have been one matter left, either matter or antimatter. Even if a small amount of matter and antimatter was left, why did it not destroy itself?

I cannot understand how matter and antimatter two potent energy destroyed itself, I could more understand if you said changed energy because we still have matter and antimatter.
There are two sorts of matter: normal matter and anti-matter. So, for every particle (electron, proton, neutron, etc) there is a corresponding anti-particle (anti-electron (or positron), anti-proton, anti-neutron, etc).

When a particle and its anti-particle meet they "annihilate"; in other words they are converted to energy: two gamma ray photons.

If there had been exactly the same amount of matter and anti-matter created in the early universe then they would have completely annihilated each other. However, more of one was left (which we call matter) so there was obviously some sort of asymmetry in the creation of matter and antimatter.

56. If there had been exactly the same amount of matter and anti-matter created in the early universe then they would have completely annihilated each other. However, more of one was left (which we call matter) so there was obviously some sort of asymmetry in the creation of matter and antimatter.
However, more of one was left (which we call matter)
I can't help it Strange, but the question arises why did the universe create matter and antimatter only to destroy one another and leaving one more than the other? The logic of one existing without the other is not clear to me. It is suggesting there was more matter than antimatter. There has to be another force to represent the opposite of matter if one is annihilated, or not?
I might not be looking at it from the right angle, but it is not clear to me.

Antimatter did not just go away so it must be present doing the same thing now.

57. Originally Posted by Stargate
I can't help it Strange, but the question arises why did the universe create matter and antimatter only to destroy one another and leaving one more than the other?
This part of the evolution of the universe is poorly understood (especially by me ).

As the universe cooled, it became possible for particles such as electrons, quarks, etc to be formed (and their anti-particles). That'a about the limit of my knowledge of the subject.

The logic of one existing without the other is not clear to me. It is suggesting there was more matter than antimatter.
Yes, that is the generally accepted explanation: more matter than antimatter. But no one knows why. (There are alternative hypotheses but none of them are any more satisfactory.)

There has to be another force to represent the opposite of matter if one is annihilated, or not?
I don't understand that. If matter and anti-matter meet, they both annihilate and are converted to energy. There is no "force" involved.

Antimatter did not just go away so it must be present doing the same thing now.
Apparently, it annihilated taking an equal amount of matter with it.

58. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Stargate
I can't help it Strange, but the question arises why did the universe create matter and antimatter only to destroy one another and leaving one more than the other?
This part of the evolution of the universe is poorly understood (especially by me ).

As the universe cooled, it became possible for particles such as electrons, quarks, etc to be formed (and their anti-particles). That'a about the limit of my knowledge of the subject.

The logic of one existing without the other is not clear to me. It is suggesting there was more matter than antimatter.
Yes, that is the generally accepted explanation: more matter than antimatter. But no one knows why. (There are alternative hypotheses but none of them are any more satisfactory.)

There has to be another force to represent the opposite of matter if one is annihilated, or not?
I don't understand that. If matter and anti-matter meet, they both annihilate and are converted to energy. There is no "force" involved.

Antimatter did not just go away so it must be present doing the same thing now.
Apparently, it annihilated taking an equal amount of matter with it.

59. Originally Posted by Stargate
I can't help it Strange, but the question arises why did the universe create matter and antimatter only to destroy one another and leaving one more than the other? The logic of one existing without the other is not clear to me. It is suggesting there was more matter than antimatter. There has to be another force to represent the opposite of matter if one is annihilated, or not?
I might not be looking at it from the right angle, but it is not clear to me.

Antimatter did not just go away so it must be present doing the same thing now.
One hypothesis is that there are equal amounts of anti matter and matter but a something like a strong magnetic field prevented the two from meeting. That could mean that there is a big cloud out there still waiting to annihilate us. However I think experiments were done and it was found that in the interaction there is always a tiny bit of matter left over. As per the following peer reviewed article.

Phys. Rev. D 19, 1036 (1979): Matter-antimatter accounting, thermodynamics, and black-hole radiation

Thus particle collisions can generate asymmetries only when nonequilibrium effects driven by cosmological expansion come into play
Antimatter is are not of opposite charge. They both fall the same direction in gravity.

Antimatter gravity experiment

Antimatter such as antimatter hydrogen (antihydrongen) is made up of one positron and one antiproton. Antihydrogen atoms should have many of the characteristics regular hydrogen atoms have. The positron charge is opposite of the electron. The antiproton charge is opposite of the proton. However in the form of antimatter such as an antihydrogen atom the overall charge is neutral.

When in contact the positron, which is an elementary particle, annihilates with an electron. The antiproton and proton interaction is less neat because they are not elementary particles. An antiproton consists of two up antiquarks and one down antiquark .

60. Originally Posted by uptonryan
One hypothesis is that there are equal amounts of anti matter and matter but a something like a strong magnetic field prevented the two from meeting.
Do you have a reference for that hypothesis. I haven't heard of such a thing.

That could mean that there is a big cloud out there still waiting to annihilate us.
If there is such a cloud, it cannot be anywhere nearby because it would be reacting with the matter around it and creating a distinctive gamma ray spectrum.

The AMS instrument is looking for signs of antimatter in distant galaxies: Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

61. Originally Posted by Strange
Do you have a reference for that hypothesis. I haven't heard of such a thing.
That scenario is discuss in the peer reviewed article I posted. I think they also talk about black holes and hawking radiation playing some part but that is ruled out.

62. Uptonryan.

Don’t know about you, but my mind is blank trying to figure out something I have no clue off. I split quarks and atoms and neutrons as if I am crazy. I have up and down quarks crossing positrons and neutrons all over the place. (Laugh)

There is for me the fundamental question of the annihilation of the two particles matter and antimatter where matter is not completely gone; we could say the disappearance of antimatter. I know it has to be there but I cannot see it because matter is there. If matter is there, some other force is keeping it isolated from annihilating itself? The annihilation must have created another sub particle.

63. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by uptonryan
One hypothesis is that there are equal amounts of anti matter and matter but a something like a strong magnetic field prevented the two from meeting.
Do you have a reference for that hypothesis. I haven't heard of such a thing.

That could mean that there is a big cloud out there still waiting to annihilate us.
If there is such a cloud, it cannot be anywhere nearby because it would be reacting with the matter around it and creating a distinctive gamma ray spectrum.

The AMS instrument is looking for signs of antimatter in distant galaxies: Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If there is such a cloud, it cannot be anywhere nearby because it would be reacting with the matter around it and creating a distinctive gamma ray spectrum.
I agree, this cloud cannot be there, if it is there then the annihilation is continuing even now.

64. Originally Posted by Stargate
There is for me the fundamental question of the annihilation of the two particles matter and antimatter where matter is not completely gone; we could say the disappearance of antimatter. I know it has to be there but I cannot see it because matter is there. If matter is there, some other force is keeping it isolated from annihilating itself? The annihilation must have created another sub particle. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
If (equal amounts of) matter and antimatter meet then they are both annihilated. There is no matter left. No antimatter left. No force needed to "keep it isolated from annihilating itself". The annihilation creates photons. That's it. Simple and straightforward.

matter + antimatter => photons

65. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Stargate
There is for me the fundamental question of the annihilation of the two particles matter and antimatter where matter is not completely gone; we could say the disappearance of antimatter. I know it has to be there but I cannot see it because matter is there. If matter is there, some other force is keeping it isolated from annihilating itself? The annihilation must have created another sub particle. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
If (equal amounts of) matter and antimatter meet then they are both annihilated. There is no matter left. No antimatter left. No force needed to "keep it isolated from annihilating itself". The annihilation creates photons. That's it. Simple and straightforward.

matter + antimatter => photons
So the reason an imbalance was created was just so matter would remain. No compute, no logic. Photons are being created now, that would mean the two particles are still creating it, you are not saying it was a onetime occurrence at the BB are you?

66. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by Stargate
Thanks Markus, I appreciate your explanation. Sometimes words get in the way and if you try to visualise it confusion moves in.
Markus is always incredibly helpful without being condescending ....a truly good person.
Please be more restrained in your praise. The forum finances can only extend to one moderator hat per moderator. If Markus outgrows his we are all screwed.
here is cowboy hat......it's called a 10 gallon hat....just show it to Markus if he gets to big for his beret...

67. Originally Posted by Stargate
So the reason an imbalance was created was just so matter would remain.
Who knows what the "reason" is for the imbalance. Presumably it is just due to an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. It certainly isn't in order to create the universe we see.

Photons are being created now, that would mean the two particles are still creating it
Photons are created by all sorts of processes, not just matter-anti-matter interactions. The lamps in your house produce photons; no antimatter involved.

you are not saying it was a onetime occurrence at the BB are you?
Not sure what you are asking about. The existence of large amounts of antimatter was a one time occurrence. Small amounts (single particles) of antimatter are still created every day - we use it in science and industry.

68. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by The Huntsman
We are able to guess how big the universe is by looking at the furthest stars and seeing how long it takes for the light from those stars to reach us. We have guesstimated it to be 14billion light years or whatever. The number is not important.From the point of measurement where we see the furthest we can see, there would be a circumfrence from that point. Wouldn't this mean that we are infact the center of the universe?
Geometrically, the universe is a 4-dimensional manifold, not a sphere expanding outwards; as such the universe has no centre point and no boundary, in the same way as the surface of the earth has no centre point and no boundary.
From my point of view I live at the center of the known world.

69. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by The Huntsman
We are able to guess how big the universe is by looking at the furthest stars and seeing how long it takes for the light from those stars to reach us. We have guesstimated it to be 14billion light years or whatever. The number is not important.From the point of measurement where we see the furthest we can see, there would be a circumfrence from that point. Wouldn't this mean that we are infact the center of the universe?
Geometrically, the universe is a 4-dimensional manifold, not a sphere expanding outwards; as such the universe has no centre point and no boundary, in the same way as the surface of the earth has no centre point and no boundary.
From my point of view I live at the center of the known world.
Like this?

70. Originally Posted by bill alsept
From my point of view I live at the center of the known world.
If by "known" you mean "observable", then yes, you are correct. Remember though that this is true for all observers, no matter where they are in the universe; hence there is no geometric centre point, only ( possibly infinitely ) many observational ones.

71. *coughing* *fluffing angel wings* *preening*

I AM the center of the universe

<font size=0> of my own world and just kidding

72. This is an invalid question !! Universe is holographic . The more you go the more it expands. The limitation of Universe is developed by our brain. More precisely i would say we are living in a holographic universe !!

73. Citation needed, or failing that just some evidence or logic to support it. This is a science forum not a "post whatever you've just made up forum".

74. What is a holographic universe, can you elaborate?

75. Originally Posted by icewendigo
What is a holographic universe, can you elaborate?
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind[1] who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn.[1][2] As pointed out by Raphael Bousso,[3] Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.
In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.[4][5]
The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects that have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.[6]
Here's the Wikipedia article on it: Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

76. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by bill alsept
From my point of view I live at the center of the known world.
If by "known" you mean "observable", then yes, you are correct. Remember though that this is true for all observers, no matter where they are in the universe; hence there is no geometric centre point, only ( possibly infinitely ) many observational ones.
You know Markus, it may sound simply but it is extremely difficult for people to understand this point. I think it comes from the fact that they do not observe themselves as the point of observation. They seem to go into projecting their own point into imaginary thought.

77. Originally Posted by Stargate
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by bill alsept
From my point of view I live at the center of the known world.
If by "known" you mean "observable", then yes, you are correct. Remember though that this is true for all observers, no matter where they are in the universe; hence there is no geometric centre point, only ( possibly infinitely ) many observational ones.
You know Markus, it may sound simply but it is extremely difficult for people to understand this point. I think it comes from the fact that they do not observe themselves as the point of observation. They seem to go into projecting their own point into imaginary thought.
For a good explanation, skip this video to 19 minutes and 30 seconds, though I strongly recommend the whole video for a basic rundown of basic concepts. Well worth your time, I promise.

Professor Brian Cox Lecture on the universe - YouTube

Or this one from 8 minutes 20 seconds:

78. The brain is hologram enfolded in a holographic universe . our brain is mathematically construct. objectives reality. by interpreting frequencies. that are ultimately from another dimensions . The worl we see is a 3D projection. created. by our brain. oyr brain. receives. million. and million. signals. and we organize. them into a hologram . which we project. outside ourselves. and call reality . Hologram takes n dimensions of information. and bring them down into n-1 dimensions . Everthing can be diveded into infinity. so never find the edge of the universe. Everywhere we look consciousness explore with the expectations that something will be there.

79. Repeating incoherent drivel does not make it true. Please stop it.

80. Originally Posted by ranjan.brahma
The brain is hologram enfolded in a holographic universe . our brain is mathematically construct. objectives reality. by interpreting frequencies. that are ultimately from another dimensions . The worl we see is a 3D projection. created. by our brain. oyr brain. receives. million. and million. signals. and we organize. them into a hologram . which we project. outside ourselves. and call reality . Hologram takes n dimensions of information. and bring them down into n-1 dimensions . Everthing can be diveded into infinity. so never find the edge of the universe. Everywhere we look consciousness explore with the expectations that something will be there.
Don't post in the main sections again. None of this is even close to mainstream. Please restrict yourself to New Hypothesis, Pseudoscience or Trash sections from now on.

81. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by Stargate
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by bill alsept
From my point of view I live at the center of the known world.
If by "known" you mean "observable", then yes, you are correct. Remember though that this is true for all observers, no matter where they are in the universe; hence there is no geometric centre point, only ( possibly infinitely ) many observational ones.
You know Markus, it may sound simply but it is extremely difficult for people to understand this point. I think it comes from the fact that they do not observe themselves as the point of observation. They seem to go into projecting their own point into imaginary thought.
For a good explanation, skip this video to 19 minutes and 30 seconds, though I strongly recommend the whole video for a basic rundown of basic concepts. Well worth your time, I promise.

Professor Brian Cox Lecture on the universe - YouTube

Or this one from 8 minutes 20 seconds:

Travel INSIDE a Black Hole - YouTube
Kalster, I find the link on the black hole pretty good to explain the center of the universe. I think you guys should store some of this info so you can post it when lay people ask this question. When you tell people the universe does not have a center they flip and cannot imagine what is meant. I hear them ask it all the time.

Fist thanks for the links, I had seen the first one before, and the second one leaves me with more questions than answers. I have yet to understand what he meant with "singularity". If you compress a star I cannot see how it can become a singularity, what does that mean? A star is made up of different components, is he saying when they are compressed at some point the components within the star become one or what? or is he saying the star is one of a kind?

82. Originally Posted by Stargate
Kalster, I find the link on the black hole pretty good to explain the center of the universe.
So you think that the universe has at least 100,000,000 centres in our galaxy alone?

83. Originally Posted by Stargate
I have yet to understand what he meant with "singularity". If you compress a star I cannot see how it can become a singularity, what does that mean? A star is made up of different components, is he saying when they are compressed at some point the components within the star become one or what? or is he saying the star is one of a kind?
You can think of the singularity as a point where the mass of the star is compressed to zero size (and, therefore, infinite density).

We don't know if that is what really happens or (more likely) that our current theories are not able to describe what really happens under those extreme conditions.

84. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Stargate
Kalster, I find the link on the black hole pretty good to explain the center of the universe.
So you think that the universe has at least 100,000,000 centres in our galaxy alone?
I think the center is anywhere you observe the universe, that is the center. The center is everywhere, Ok?

85. Originally Posted by Stargate
I think the center is anywhere you observe the universe, that is the center. The center is everywhere, Ok?
Then "black hole" as such is no more a "pretty good explanation" of "centre" than anywhere else, is it?

86. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Stargate
I have yet to understand what he meant with "singularity". If you compress a star I cannot see how it can become a singularity, what does that mean? A star is made up of different components, is he saying when they are compressed at some point the components within the star become one or what? or is he saying the star is one of a kind?
You can think of the singularity as a point where the mass of the star is compressed to zero size (and, therefore, infinite density).

We don't know if that is what really happens or (more likely) that our current theories are not able to describe what really happens under those extreme conditions.
Does that mean I can consider a singularity to be a compressed point where density is infinite? But that point could never be zero?
One small question to remove my ignorance, why did they name that point singularity?

87. Originally Posted by Stargate
Does that mean I can consider a singularity to be a compressed point where density is infinite? But that point could never be zero?
The size is zero, that is why the density is infinite.

One small question to remove my ignorance, why did they name that point singularity?
It is a mathematical term.

88. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Stargate
Does that mean I can consider a singularity to be a compressed point where density is infinite? But that point could never be zero?
The size is zero, that is why the density is infinite.

One small question to remove my ignorance, why did they name that point singularity?
It is a mathematical term.
Thank you Strange, I appreciate it.

89. Originally Posted by Stargate
I think the center is anywhere you observe the universe, that is the center. The center is everywhere, Ok?
Yes, this is a pretty good way to look at it

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement