Is the center of the universe empty?

[Ed Lenarduzzi]

If the big bang through matter in every direction away from itself (the center) shouldn't there be a huge void there?

 

[Michael27]

See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/center-of-the-universe-what-again.878741/
See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/there-must-be-a-center-of-the-universe.845032/
Short answer: There is no center of the universe.
Take the example of a balloon and blow it up. Even though it is getting bigger you cannot find a center. However from the point of view of an observer (you for instance) the furthest you can see in all directions is what is called the observable universe and from this point of view you are indeed in the center. The idea of a big bang explosion going into all directions is not what really happened, it is popular science that made that appear as true.

 

[Drakkith]

The big bang was not an explosion in the sense that everything is moving away from an initial location. The big bang refers to the rapid expansion of space that occurred in the early universe. Expansion means that the distance between all unbound objects increases over time. Unbound means that the force of gravity (or other forces) is not strong enough to keep two or more objects together against expansion. We usually talk about galaxies and galaxy clusters, since they are typically the minimum scale at which expansion overpowers gravity. One of the key points is that for any observer, anywhere in the universe, distant galaxies will appear to recede directly away from them.

So here in the Milky Way, all galaxies other than the ones in our own galaxy cluster and supercluster are redshifted and moving away from us over time. Yet, at the same time, an observer 1 billion light-years away would look up into their sky with their telescopes and see distant galaxies (including our own) redshifted and receding directly away from them.

That is what the expansion of space means. Not expansion away from a single point, but the increase in distance between all unbound objects.

 

[phinds]

@Ed Lenarduzzi I recommend the link in my signature

 

[Chronos]

The notion of the BB as the mother of all explosions has persisted despite the efforts of cosmologists to clarify the meaning of observational evidence. Consider this: if the observable universe began as a Planck size point that flew apart in every direction to become what is now the entire observable universe, then we are forced to accept a shocking truth - we are the most distant and ancient point in the observable universe relative to the BB. Due to the finite speed of light, everything we see in the distant universe must be younger, and consequently less distant, relative to the BB point of origin. No matter where you are now in the observable universe, you are the victim of this same illusion simply because you, and all of those other 'places' you see in the distance, were once a part of the same tiny point in the very beginning.

It is, however, equally valid and logical to assume the universe started out infinite and remains so today. If we could see that the most distant visible object in the universe was, say, a billion light years distant in one direction, and 2 billion light years distant in the opposite direction, the idea the universe sprang from a specific point within the observable universe would be viable. Even if we cannot see the entirety of the universe in anyone direction, it would still hint at being finite if it expanded a little faster in one direction than in the opposite direction. That is not, however, what we see. As we build bigger and better telescopes we see even more distant objects in every direction and the rate of expansion also appears to be the same in every direction. These two facts lead to the inescapable conclusion the universe must either be infinite or far vaster than we can observe in order to exhibit no discernible difference in its matter distribution, or rate of expansion, regardless of which direction we look. Thus, an infinite universe is the popular choice among cosmologists. A universe that is infinite now must always have been infinite, because a finite entity cannot grow to infinite size. This sums up why we believe the universe did NOT originate at any specific point within the current observable universe.

 

[lifeonmercury]

Thus, an infinite universe is the popular choice among cosmologists. A universe that is infinite now must always have been infinite, because a finite entity cannot grow to infinite size. This sums up why we believe the universe did NOT originate at any specific point within the current observable universe.

If the universe is in fact infinite and the cosmological principle holds true, there should be an infinite amount of matter in the universe. Does this mean that an infinite amount of matter was packed into the size of a pinpoint prior to the big bang?

That doesn't seem to make any sense. What am I missing here?

 

[Ed Lenarduzzi]

Well, thank you everyone. Even though most of it is over my head I did learn somethings. I have no formal education in physics but watch every science program on cable including Brian Cox's recent series. He loves saying billionths of billionths...of a second after the start of the universe everything was say 100 feet wide which reinforces the idea of a center.
What this forum could use is a 'For Dummies' section that explains these ideas to folks with no physics background.
Thanks again,
Ed.

 

[phinds]

If the universe is in fact infinite and the cosmological principle holds true, there should be an infinite amount of matter in the universe. Does this mean that an infinite amount of matter was packed into the size of a pinpoint prior to the big bang?

That doesn't seem to make any sense. What am I missing here?

You are missing that it was NOT "packed into the size of a pinpoint prior to the big bang", if it is infinite now, it was infinite then, exactly as Chronos said.

 

[lifeonmercury]

"It is, however, equally valid and logical to assume the universe started out infinite and remains so today."

I interpret Chronos' comment to mean that the Big Bang ‒ although not an explosion from a single point outward as often portrayed in popular science ‒ marked the beginning of the universe and that the universe has been infinite since its inception. Prior to the Big Bang, however, there was a singularity that is believed to have had infinite density. I would like to know if this singularity contained an infinite amount of matter.

 

[phinds]

I interpreted Chronos' comment to mean that the Big Bang ‒ although not an explosion from a single point outward as often portrayed in popular science ‒ marked the beginning of the universe (and time and space) and that the universe has been infinite since its inception. Prior to the Big Bang, however, there was a singularity that is believed to have had infinite density. I would like to know if this singularity contained an infinite amount of matter.

"Singularity" in this context does NOT, as you seem to believe, mean "a point in space". What is means is "the place where the math model gives unphysical answers and we don't have any idea WHAT was really going on". This is perhaps the single most common misconception in cosmology and has been commented on here on PF approximately 14,000 times.

 

[weirdoguy]

there was a singularity that is believed to have had infinite density

Singularity means that the model we are discussing breaks down. It's nothing physical, so actually your question doesn't make sense.

 

[phinds]

Singularity means that the model we are discussing breaks down. It's nothing physical, so actually your question doesn't make sense.

Exactly.

 

[Drakkith]

Does this mean that an infinite amount of matter was packed into the size of a pinpoint prior to the big bang?

No, it just means that the density of the (possibly infinite) universe was extraordinarily high. Much higher than we can recreate here on Earth. If all of the matter of the visible universe was packed into a volume of space the size of a pinpoint, then there may have been an infinite number of these pinpoint-sized volumes of matter filling the entire universe.

 

[Chronos]

The notion the universe existed in some form [like a singularity] before it came into existence is pretty weird, if you think about it. A analogous question would be, 'Did you exist before you were conceived?' Most people would instinctively reply, 'Of course not, that doesn't even make sense.'

 

[lifeonmercury]

Sorry, I'm still a bit confused about this even after reading some of the other threads on this topic. Are these statements correct?
A.) Before the Big Bang, the universe didn't even exist at all so it was not infinite then.
B.) In the very instant the Big Bang took place, the universe that was created immediately had an infinite amount of space.
C.) There is an infinite amount of matter in the universe.
D.) It's impossible to know what was before the Big Bang and where all the matter in the universe came from.

 

[Drakkith]

A.) Before the Big Bang, the universe didn't even exist at all so it was not infinite then.

We can't speak of anything prior to the big bang. The universe either didn't exist or it existed in an unknown state.

B.) In the very instant the Big Bang took place, the universe that was created immediately had an infinite amount of space.
C.) There is an infinite amount of matter in the universe.

Unknown. The universe could be infinite or it could be finite.

D.) It's impossible to know what was before the Big Bang and where all the matter in the universe came from.

The first is correct, but the latter may not be. It's possible that all matter in the universe originated from an inflation field, but then the question is pushed back to "where did this field come from?", for which we again have no answer.

 

[Bandersnatch]

@lifeonmercury you're going at it backwards.
Start with the present day, when you look at galaxies and CMBR and see expansion in a universe that might be infinite (or not, it doesn't matter!). Then extrapolate the expansion backwards in time, which makes all distances become shorter. This shortening of distances works regardless of the scale you pick, so either finite or inifinite works fine.
At some point, as your distances go to zero, the process gives you unreasonable results: densities and temperatures trendining to infiinity. This is an indication that the extrapolation you were using enters a domain it's no longer applicable in. So you just stop using it. You don't take the infinities (i.e. the singularity) as a valid prediction of a physical state - you just accept that your theory doesn't work beyond some time in the past.
The point here is that it doesn't make sense to ask what the BB theory says about what was before what it describes.

 

[maroubrabeach]

[
At some point, as your distances go to zero, the process gives you unreasonable results: densities and temperatures trendining to infiinity. This is an indication that the extrapolation you were using enters a domain it's no longer applicable in. So you just stop using it. You don't take the infinities (i.e. the singularity) as a valid prediction of a physical state - you just accept that your theory doesn't work beyond some time in the past.
The point here is that it doesn't make sense to ask what the BB theory says about what was before what it describes.

I'm fond of saying that the BB was simply an evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] as we know them. The observable Universe we see today, arose from that.

 

[Bandersnatch]

BB was simply an evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime]

I don't think I understand what that means.

 

[maroubrabeach]

I don't think I understand what that means.

Simply referring to space and time, as the accepted 4 dimensional background against which the laws of physics and GR operate and in which we exist and within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I understand what space-time is. I don't understand what it means for it to evolve.

 

[maroubrabeach]

I understand what space-time is. I don't understand what it means for it to evolve.

The BB was the evolution of space and time, as distinct from matter,[in the first instant] is the important point being made.

 

[jbriggs444]

The BB was the evolution of space and time, as distinct from matter,[in the first instant] is the important point being made.

If space-time is the thing being modeled then there is no time left over for it to evolve within. There is also no first instant.

There is no first instant because we model things using "open" sets. An open set, is like an open interval. For instance, the open interval between 0 and 1, exclusive. There is no smallest number within this interval. Similarly, there is no first instant in a space-time with an initial singularity.

 

[maroubrabeach]

If space-time is the thing being modeled then there is no time left over for it to evolve within. There is also no first instant.

There is no first instant because we model things using "open" sets. An open set, is like an open interval. For instance, the open interval between 0 and 1, exclusive. There is no smallest number within this interval. Similarly, there is no first instant in a space-time with an initial singularity.

I'm not sure I understand what you are inferring. As per the BB model, space and time had a beginning as we know them, and that can be applied at t+10-43 seconds. Our first fundamentals did not evolve until around t+10-33 seconds when the hypothetical Superforce started to decouple. These happened around 13.83 billion years ago.
I see that as a reasonable description.

 

[weirdoguy]

I'm not sure I understand what you are inferring.

Maybe he refers to the fact that specetime does not evelove in time in the sense that you are thinking, because it does not live "next to time" the way that space does (in our everyday thinking). Spectime contains all events, the future, and the past. Everything is in it already.

 

[maroubrabeach]

Maybe he refers to the fact that specetime does not evelove in time in the sense that you are thinking, because it does not live "next to time" the way that space does (in our everyday thinking). Spectime contains all events, the future, and the past. Everything is in it already.

I'm saying space and time, [spacetime ] had its beginnings as we understand them at the BB, and which we are able to reasonably describe and assign the laws of physics and GR to, at t+10-43 seconds. There is no before according to the BB.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm saying space and time, [spacetime ] had its beginnings as we understand them at the BB, and which we are able to reasonably describe and assign the laws of physics and GR to, at t+10-43 seconds. There is no before according to the BB.

My understanding is similar to jbriggs444's. The BBT models spacetime in a certain way and this model simply stops working when the density of the universe reaches some critical value and the math 'blows up'. I don't believe it describes spacetime as 'coming into existence' at this time.

 

[maroubrabeach]

My understanding is similar to jbriggs444's. The BBT models spacetime in a certain way and this model simply stops working when the density of the universe reaches some critical value and the math 'blows up'. I don't believe it describes spacetime as 'coming into existence' at this time.

Hi Drakkith: Yes, I certainly understand that at some critical value, the maths blows up: This is at t+10-43 seconds, and the region where quantum effects take hold as I understand it.
Extrapolating back to the instant of the BB, is presumed as the beginning of space and time, except of course as you say, the maths blows up and we have nothing of that era...which is why I said earlier that space and time, [spacetime] as we understand them, came into existence, or evolved at t+10-43 seconds, at least that is what I have understood over the last few years.
In essence, according to the BB, there was no before and time and space [as we understand them] did have beginnings.
Perhaps I'm putting this rather poorly, or perhaps after all these years, what I have believed to be understood by the BB is wrong.

 

[Drakkith]

Hi Drakkith: Yes, I certainly understand that at some critical value, the maths blows up: This is at t+10-43 seconds

I think that point is t=0, not t=10^-43.

Extrapolating back to the instant of the BB, is presumed as the beginning of space and time, except of course as you say, the maths blows up and we have nothing of that era...which is why I said earlier that space and time, [spacetime] as we understand them, came into existence, or evolved at t+10-43 seconds, at least that is what I have understood over the last few years.
In essence, according to the BB, there was no before and time and space [as we understand them] did have beginnings.
Perhaps I'm putting this rather poorly, or perhaps after all these years, what I have believed to be understood by the BB is wrong.

I think the key point is that the Big Bang Theory doesn't say a thing about how spacetime or the universe came into existence. It merely does its job at making predictions about the conditions of the universe until it has to throw in the towel at t=0. Note that t=0 shouldn't be taken as "nothing came before this", it's just that we can't make predictions past this point as I understand it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.

 

[maroubrabeach]

I think that point is t=0, not t=10^-43.
I think the key point is that the Big Bang Theory doesn't say a thing about how spacetime or the universe came into existence. It merely does its job at making predictions about the conditions of the universe until it has to throw in the towel at t=0. Note that t=0 shouldn't be taken as "nothing came before this", it's just that we can't make predictions past this point as I understand it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.

I totally agree with your statement that the BB says nothing about the how or why spacetime came into existence, or evolved, but from my understanding, and as encompassed by the BB, it does say that space and time had a beginning.
I also understand that our understandings, maths, laws and GR fail at the quantum/Planck level, which is at 10-43 seconds after the instant of the BB. This is when as I understand it, and as you put it, "we can throw in the towel"
This is why physicists are working towards a QGT.

Let me say as I did in my introduction, I am only a retired lay person, with a great interest in cosmology, and have been active in forums which have supplemented what knowledge I have gained from reading many reputable books such as Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps, Begalman's and Rees' "Gravity's Fatal Attraction" Paul Davis' "Superforce" Stephen Weinburg's "The First Three Minutes" and many others.

 

[jbriggs444]

I'm not sure I understand what you are inferring. As per the BB model, space and time had a beginning as we know them, and that can be applied at t+10-43 seconds.

The "BB model" does not go anywhere nearly that far back. Idealized extrapolations can go back to that neighborhood, but they have no scientific validity -- there is no experimental test that can confirm or refute their correctness in that regime. However, that is not the point that I am trying to make.

When you take an idealized extrapolation which features a singularity, that extrapolation takes the form of a "manifold". A manifold models space time as a continuum in which every part can be described with an n-dimensional cartesian coordinate system in which Newton's laws hold good -- locally. That "locally" part is important. It means that for any accuracy you specify and for any event in space-time you select, one can always find a neighborhood around that point which is small enough so that Newton's laws hold good throughout that neighborhood to the accuracy specified. As you approach the edges of the region that is covered by the coordinate chart, you may find that things get more and more extreme. The neighborhoods you have to pick so that Newton's laws are upheld may get smaller and smaller as you approach the edge.

You may find that even though you can get closer and closer to the edge, you can never succeed in extending a coordinate system all the way to (and past) the edge. In that case, the edge is a singularity. All points up to the edge are part of the manifold. But the edge itself (aka the singularity) is not part of the manifold.

To say it briefly: "If there is a singularity in the model at t=0 then t=0 is not part of the model".

 

[maroubrabeach]

To say it briefly: "If there is a singularity in the model at t=0 then t=0 is not part of the model".

I agree, as I said to Drakkith in the following...

I totally agree with your statement that the BB says nothing about the how or why spacetime came into existence, or evolved, but from my understanding, and as encompassed by the BB, it does say that space and time had a beginning.
I also understand that our understandings, maths, laws and GR fail at the quantum/Planck level, which is at 10-43 seconds after the instant of the BB. This is when as I understand it, and as you put it, "we can throw in the towel"
This is why physicists are working towards a QGT.

Perhaps I have not put it clearly enough, and my use of extrapolation back to t=0 was wrong.

The "BB model" does not go anywhere nearly that far back

I also realize that the further back we go, the less certain of conditions we become, but particle accelerators such as the LHC have taken us pretty close to t+ 10-43 seconds, is that correct?.
Direct observations as far as I know, will never be possible further back then 380,000 years post BB, or when temperatures had dropped far enough to allow electrons to be captured by atomic nuclei.

 

[Drakkith]

I totally agree with your statement that the BB says nothing about the how or why spacetime came into existence, or evolved, but from my understanding, and as encompassed by the BB, it does say that space and time had a beginning.

On the contrary, it says nothing of the sort. That's what jbriggs444 and I have been saying. There are, in fact, speculative models regarding the existence of the universe prior to the big bang. These would overlap with the standard BBT at some point in the past near where the BBT breaks down.

To quote from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

Cosmologist and science communicator Sean M. Carroll explains two competing types of explanations for the origins of the singularity which is the main disagreement between the scientists who study cosmogony and centers on the question of whether time existed "before" the emergence of our universe or not. One cosmogonical view sees time as fundamental and even eternal: The universe could have contained the singularity because the universe evolved or changed from a prior state (the prior state was "empty space", or maybe a state that could not be called "space" at all). The other view, held by proponents like Stephen Hawking, says that there was no change through time because "time" itself emerged along with this universe (in other words, there can be no "prior" to the universe).[5] Thus, it remains unclear what combination of "stuff", space, or time emerged with the singularity and this universe.

While it is certainly possible that spacetime had a beginning, the BBT doesn't say either way. Hence the disagreement between scientists noted in the quote.

 

[nikkkom]

Hi Drakkith: Yes, I certainly understand that at some critical value, the maths blows up: This is at t+10-43 seconds, and the region where quantum effects take hold as I understand it.
Extrapolating back to the instant of the BB, is presumed as the beginning of space and time, except of course as you say, the maths blows up and we have nothing of that era...

When the math of your theory stops working, you cannot rigorously extrapolate past that point. The rigorous answer to "what was before this point according to your theory?" is "I don't know".
(If course, people can, and do embark on various handwavey explanations past that point, but this is not real knowledge).
In particular, it may well be so that with a better theory, past that point there is an infinitely long past, not a "beginning of spacetime". Many eternal inflation models are like that.

 

[maroubrabeach]

On the contrary, it says nothing of the sort. That's what jbriggs444 and I have been saying. There are, in fact, speculative models regarding the existence of the universe prior to the big bang. These would overlap with the standard BBT at some point in the past near where the BBT breaks down.

To quote from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

I have plenty of respect for Sean Carroll and his general cosmology knowledge, but speculation is just that: Nothing wrong of course in speculating as that is generally the first step to any legit scientific theory.
I like to speculate myself that the BB is simply the back end of a BH from another universe, or a White Hole.
The BB theory though while only being a theory of the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds, as distinct from telling us how or why, or anything else about the quantum/Planck realm, is still the overwhelming supported theory.
The BB theory also arose from the theory of dynamic spacetime as predicted by GR, and all mathematical conclude with t=0 and a singularity where all our solutions and knowledge break down.

While it is certainly possible that spacetime had a beginning, the BBT doesn't say either way. Hence the disagreement between scientists noted in the quote.

Hmmm, OK, I'm sure I've seen it in reputable sources as I have detailed.
Thanks for an interesting debate anyway...given me stuff to think about.