If Universe originated as a Big Bang then there will be a point of origin for the explosion to have happened? Is that center of our Universe?

[J@i]

If Universe originated as a Big Bang then there will be a point of origin for the explosion to have happened? Is that center of our Universe?

When we say we look back into time by measuring the infrared radiation left from those early universe, are we actually looking towards any one direction in space towards this Big Bang Ground Zero where the original explosion would have happened?

If we look back 13.8 billion years in any one direction, will we be able to see that point of explosion (in whatever possible way we can measure that using todays technology)?

 

[Helio]

This is a common misnomer. The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion since explosions send stuff flying through space. Big Bang was an explosion of space. This is why it’s called an expansion.

Imagine baking a loaf of raisin bread where it expands. The raisins become farther away from one another and the overall density decreases, too. Galaxies are those raisins.

I prefer to shrink the universe from today to get to as small a size as science can address.

 

[SIDexplorer]

The childish big bamg theory says that space and time too came from the big bang or came into existence after the bang, lol. Believing in the big bang is not different than believing in fairy tales. Space is eternal and everlasting whilst time doesn't exist, time is a human construct and ya I know it's Einstein's fourth dimension but it very much is like 'iota' or simply 'i', the same imaginary number that helped us solve numerous problems,similarly time is an imaginary but helpful tool. Coming back to your question, if such a childish bang did took place then 'NO' tgere can't be any point if origin, since it spread in every direction at once amd did not leave a navel or something behind to be called thepoint of origin. But believe me mate please STOP believing in the big bogus bang.

 

[Phillip Huggan]

Imaginary numbers are used all the time for tactile physics representations. If you are trying to image granite or ice with entangled radio waves, it is correlated with your extinction coefficient. It can tell you if you can image through a tree cover from satellite.
It is also used for magnetic fields in telling you the relationship between the near and the far field. It is also exclusively causing metamaterial effects to happen. The are hundreds of real physics principles the math is used for. I'm not big on some math concepts, but a quadrant with one quarter of reality being imaginary is a good model as light and magnetics are strongly affected by it. It seems Grade 8 a knowledge base if rational numbers are taught in grade 7. If NATO doesn't use imaginary numbers and Russia does, Russia has Moldova by now.

 

[Catastrophe]

The childish big bang theory says that space and time too came from the big bang or came into existence after the bang

There is general confusion here. This depends on whether or not the actual t = 0 occurrence is included in the 'big bang' or not. Should we include the unknowable t = 0, or should we separate it, from the following back story, which is amenable to scientific scrutiny?

My personal stance is to keep 't = 0' separate from the following big bang, for this very reason. It seems courting disaster to include 't = 0' in the 'big bang', since this mixes unknowable and science.

Here, I am relying very much on Korzybski (Science and Sanity) "The map is not the territory". By using 'big bang' as map, we are confusing unknowable and science as common territory. No wonder if any discussion of this hybrid creature can be confusing.

Cat

 

[J@i]

This is a common misnomer. The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion since explosions send stuff flying through space. Big Bang was an explosion of space. This is why it’s called an expansion.

Imagine baking a loaf of raisin bread where it expands. The raisins become farther away from one another and the overall density decreases, too. Galaxies are those raisins.

I prefer to shrink the universe from today to get to as small a size as science can address.

Thanks! Helio. However if we were on one of the raisins then relatively we have moved away from other raisins when all raisins were together (or getting formed) while expansion was happening. Is that point where expansion started a Centre of the Universe?

Another way to ask this question!!! If Hubble or JWST were to look for the ancient galaxies back in time do they look for it in any one direction or can find it looking in space in any direction from any point around the Earth?

 

[J@i]

The childish big bamg theory says that space and time too came from the big bang or came into existence after the bang, lol. Believing in the big bang is not different than believing in fairy tales. Space is eternal and everlasting whilst time doesn't exist, time is a human construct and ya I know it's Einstein's fourth dimension but it very much is like 'iota' or simply 'i', the same imaginary number that helped us solve numerous problems,similarly time is an imaginary but helpful tool. Coming back to your question, if such a childish bang did took place then 'NO' tgere can't be any point if origin, since it spread in every direction at once amd did not leave a navel or something behind to be called thepoint of origin. But believe me mate please STOP believing in the big bogus bang.

Agreed, it is one of the plausible theories.

 

[Helio]

Thanks! Helio. However if we were on one of the raisins then relatively we have moved away from other raisins when all raisins were together (or getting formed) while expansion was happening. Is that point where expansion started a Centre of the Universe?

Another way to ask this question!!! If Hubble or JWST were to look for the ancient galaxies back in time do they look for it in any one direction or can find it looking in space in any direction from any point around the Earth?

There aren't many great analogies to help us see what happened but the most common one is the balloon analogy:

Place dots on a balloon, then inflate the balloon. The dots move away from one another but no one dot can claim to be the center. [Of course, you have to stick with just the surface of the balloon and ignore that a real balloon has a center, but it's not on the surface.]

Another way to say it is by rewinding the clock from today. If you keep shrinking the universe, the galaxies will be in the same relative position but we will get closer and closer together. No center can be found by doing this.

Of course, the universe began with energy, then elements formed, then atoms (380,000 yrs after the beginning instant), then stars then galaxies. But if you ignore all those small motions through space, then all is still where it was when it began.

Also, if you use your largest magic wand and freeze the universe, then shine a bright light and wait billions of years, it, in principal, then you would eventually see its light coming in the opposite direction. No matter which way you shine the light, it would come back to you because spacetime has no edge or center.

 

[J@i]

There aren't many great analogies to help us see what happened but the most common one is the balloon analogy:

Place dots on a balloon, then inflate the balloon. The dots move away from one another but no one dot can claim to be the center. [Of course, you have to stick with just the surface of the balloon and ignore that a real balloon has a center, but it's not on the surface.]

Another way to say it is by rewinding the clock from today. If you keep shrinking the universe, the galaxies will be in the same relative position but we will get closer and closer together. No center can be found by doing this.

Of course, the universe began with energy, then elements formed, then atoms (380,000 yrs after the beginning instant), then stars then galaxies. But if you ignore all those small motions through space, then all is still where it was when it began.

Also, if you use your largest magic wand and freeze the universe, then shine a bright light and wait billions of years, it, in principal, then you would eventually see its light coming in the opposite direction. No matter which way you shine the light, it would come back to you because spacetime has no edge or center.

Thanks! How about this "If Hubble or JWST were to look for the ancient galaxies back in time do they look for it in any one direction or can find it looking in space in any direction from any point around the Earth? "

 

[Catastrophe]

This currant analogy corresponds to virtually what I have been saying for years. If you look at the surface of the bun (aka sphere) then flatlanders can only perceive the surface, and thus perceive expansion of their 'universe' as objects moving apart on the surface of their sphere.

The being of a higher dimension would see the expansion caused by / related to increase in the radius of the sphere.

The inhabitants of the bun see it as a three (spatial) dimension universe, and the bun expanding into a 4th spatial dimension. Thus, they see the currants moving apart in their 'only' (3- spatial dimensional) universe

A higher (spatial) dimensional observer would see the bun expanding into his/her/its 4th spatial dimension.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Thanks! How about this "If Hubble or JWST were to look for the ancient galaxies back in time do they look for it in any one direction or can find it looking in space in any direction from any point around the Earth? "

Good question.

All evidence supports we will see essentially the same number of galaxies for any given area no matter which direction we look. This is what has been found using the HST, or any other telescope. The JWST will let us see farther.

The biggest evidence that this is so can be found in what some have claimed to be the greatest discovery of all time -- the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

As the early universe expanded, it cooled (just like gases in an expanding cylinder). Physicists calculated that the hot soup (plasma) of protons and electrons would cool to a point (~ 3000K) when the electron would combine with the proton (Recombination). When that instant happened, then light no longer was scattered to and fro by zillions of electrons so this light suddenly shot out in all directions. Today, we are seeing that light from the distant regions that have taken this long to reach us. This discovery elevated the BBT to the top, and all but eliminated the one decent competitor - The Steady State theory.

What we see in the CMBR is isotropy --- it all looks almost identical. There is only a tiny bit of variation (anisotropy). This anisotropy is what allowed gas clouds to collapse and form the first stars. There is a remarkable level of "fine-tuning" in the universe that allowed so much wonder to come along.

So with the isotropy (and homogeneity) comes uniform distribution of star and, later, galaxy formation... in all directions.

 

[Helio]

Agreed, it is one of the plausible theories.

BBT has what all great theories love to have - multiple lines of objective evidence that all point to support the theory itself.

Here's a list....Big Bang Bullets

A theory must be falsifiable to be called a scientific theory. So all are welcome to produce such evidence to falsify it. The more scientists have tried, the stronger it has become.

[If one studies some of those bullets, it's likely they will learn a great deal about the theory itself without having to read numerous books.]

 

[Catastrophe]

Here's a list....Big Bang Bullets

I can thoroughly recommend Helio's excellent work here.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

If Universe originated as a Big Bang then there will be a point of origin for the explosion to have happened?Is that center of our Universe?

Analyse this question:

If Universe originated as a Big Bang

You impose a question which mixes science with metaphysics (t = 0) - how can an appropriate answer be expected? There is no logically consistent definition of BB to ask about. A fatal commencement.

Then there will be a point of origin . . .

This builds on the inappropriate question to arrive at an inappropriate conclusion, in relation to t= 0.

for the explosion to have happened

The use of the word explosion is being questioned - quite correctly in view of the lack of observation at t = o.

Is that center of our Universe?

Every point can be considered central in relation to an expansion. Currant buns, et cetera.

I do thank and commend OP for posing such a thought provoking question, which brings into focus ideas which need to be considered.

Cat