Center of Universe not center of expansion?

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - What evidence do you have that there is no center of the universe? <br /><br />I would tend to agree, but I have not seen convincing proof to that effect.<br /><br />How about the above links concerning universal spin - how do you feel about models of the universe that include global rotation?

 

[aetherius]

Stephen Hawking writes:<br />--------<br />"A singularity is a place where the classical concepts of space and time break down as do all the known laws of physics because they are all formulated on a classical space-time background."<br />----------<br /><br />So, the singularity did not have a center. It was without dimension.<br /><br />I see no reason why the product (universe) of something with no center (singularity) should have a center.<br /><br />The leap then, that must be made is that there was an event that simultaneously started the march of time and produced 3 dimensional 'energy' from a zero-dimensional point.<br /><br />Would it be correct to say that something with zero dimensions is both everywhere and nowhere? <br /><br />At the moment of the big bang, is it possible that a vast swath of 3 dimensional space popped into existence at time 0? Or, perhaps randomly scattered lumps of space simultaneously popped into existence at time 0?<br /><br />If scattered lumps are possible then by definition some would be in close proximity and exert gravitational effects upon one another. <br /><br />Lumps that popped up too close to one another might merge or collide and become a single 'observable' universe, leaving artifacts that appear inconsistent with the notion of a single, expanding (observable) universe.

 

[alokmohan]

Singularity itself is the center.

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - Yes, I agree, the singularity itself is the center, now a 4-d center.

 

[newtonian]

Aetherius - Yes, I have heard similar models.<br /><br />In that case, how did the laws of physics originate?<br /><br />And where did dimensions come from and how?<br /><br />To me it is quite a leap of faith to merely accept, by authority by some good scientists, that space, time, and all the known laws of physics break down in the origin at the singularity.<br /><br />However, I do accept the possibility that the specific laws and properties of our universe did not pre-exist our universe but were created at the origin of our universe.<br /><br />Either way, I am very interested in exactly how those laws and properties were set - including global rotation if that is, indeed, a property of our universe.<br /><br />Also, why couldn't our universe have begun from an origin causing spin and from an origin with a radius, while less than Planck length, was neverthes less greater than zero?<br /><br />Also, this talk of being everywhere and nowhere sounds more like a religious doctrine than science!<br /><br />Mhy thought is that perhaps the cause of the origin of our universe involved a fine tuned collision of branes which had dimensions.<br /><br />See various collision of branes models.<br /><br />In that case said collision or interaction could have been at a point resembling a singularity. Dimensions can intersect at a point.<br /><br />Of course, multiple dimensions can meet in a one dimensional line also, either straight or curved.<br /><br />And, the number of possible origin shapes increases as one increases the number of dimensions involved, e.g. if the origin intersection of branes involved meeting at 2 dimensions instead of 1 or zero.<br /><br />BTW - my current favorite model is a big bang model with the origin as a singularity caused by the fine tuned collision of branes at a point.<br /><br />But I am certainly open minded about other models, including those that could impart spin or global rotation in the origin.

 

[newtonian]

Aetherius - On your lump colliding model, such a collision could impart spin.

 

[alokmohan]

Thank you Newtonian.I am Newtonian.

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - Your welcome.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<i><font color="red"><br />Stephen Hawking writes:<br />--------<br />"A singularity is a place where the classical concepts of space and time break down as do all the known laws of physics because they are all formulated on a classical space-time background."<br />---------- <br /></font></i><br />No problem. Our current math wont work in singularity. But we can always invent a new math based on the properties of singularity which will fit right in 'singularity space-time'. <br /><br /> When we are on land we use certain laws of physics, when we are under water we use another set of physics laws. I know it's a crude analogy but one can get the picture.<br /><br /><br />My 2 cents about center of the universe. The universe is so vast, the visible universe falls well within the margin of error of the center. That's why we hear phrases like 'there is no center', or 'center within a center within a center...', and others.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>