In which direction from Earth is the center of the universe?

[contriver]

As I understand it, the universe started from a big bang, thus I assume this means that the point at which that big bang occurred is the the center of the universe. In that case, which direction from Earth did the big bang occur and how far away from Earth is the point where the big bang occurred? Thanks!

 

[brigandier]

It's impossible to know. If we can't see the "edges", we can't know where the "center" is. I put those two words in quotations because they may or may not exist

 

[centsworth_II]

The universe may be shaped in such a way that there is no center. It <br />may be like asking where is the center of a rubber band loop. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

That's a real good question which more fundamentally is 'what is the shape of the universe'; and a subject of debate among cosmologists.<br /><br />Here is a Physics World link and a space com link arguing that the shape may be more like a dodechedron (because there seems to be a very odd 36.5 degree opposing symmetric twist in the cosmic microwave background, which is exactly what would be expected for a dodecahedron), or perhaps even a football. Basically, no one knows if space has a shape, and if so, which one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

In all directions.<br /><br />The center of the Universe is every point in the Universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">The center of the Universe is every point in the Universe.</font><br /><br />This is correct. The name big bang is sort of an unfortunate title because people automatically associate the big bang to an explosion. In an explosion there is a point where the explosion occurred and the matterial is thrown out from this center point.<br /><br />That is not how the big bang occurred. In the big bang scenario the universe is expanding in all directions, it is not expanding relative to a single point. So there is no center of the universe or every point is the center. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[logicize]

Then it would be a correct statement to say that I am the center of the universe. I always kind of suspected that to be true.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"The center of the Universe is every point in the Universe."</font><br /><br />It would be simpler to say there is no center. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kewell_]

Does this mean that if I were in a different galaxy other than our own, I would suspect that I am at the center of the universe? All galaxies are receding away from eachother correct?

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think the suggestion there is no center is the most accurate statement I've seen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

In Einstein's relativity, you cannot have a spatial center. You have to consider spacetime. The center of the universe is the bigbang event, and the direction from Earth to the center is: opposite to time!!.<br /><br />This is an approximation, as the real shape of the universe is not known.

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i>"Does this mean that if I were in a different galaxy other than our own, I would suspect that I am at the center of the universe? All galaxies are receding away from eachother correct?"</i><br /><br />Yes that is correct, although what we observe us more consistent with a model where galaxies group together into clusters due to their gravity, and it is all those clusters that are receding from each other.<br /><br />Our nearest neighbour, Andromeda, is actually moving <i>towards</i> the Milky Way, because the two galaxies are part of a gravitationally bound system. Our local supercluster of galaxies are all part of this system, but outside of our supercluster, all the other <i>(clusters of)</i> galaxies are receding from us. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />It seems as if all the clusters of galaxies retain their relative position within the volume of space, but that volume increases in size, increasing the distance between those clusters.<br /><br />To visualize this, think of a volume of space with a grid of points in it, all 1m apart in each direction. If you put yourself on one of those points, whichever direction you look (up, down, left, right, backwards or forwards) you see your nearest neigbouring points at 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m, and 5m away.<br /><br />Now imagine the volume of space <i>and</i> the grid of points within it expands to 10 times its original size. Your nearest points will now be 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m and 50m away. So in the same amount of time that your nearest point moved from 1m to 10m away, the point at 5m moved to 50m away! Your nearest point receded by 9m whilst a further point receded by 45m in the same length of time and so that further point looks as if it is moving away a lot faster than the closest one.<br /><br />The further away you look, the faster a point seems to be receding from you, but if you put yourself on a different point at the start you would see exactly the same thing. Wherever you are, everything seems to be moving away f <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> "The center of the Universe is every point in the Universe." <br /><br />It would be simpler to say there is no center. </font><br /><br />Yes, it would be simpler.... but much less dramatic. <br />If they both are true, which they are, I like to use language that makes things more immediate.<br /><br />For example, if there is no center, then there is no center... and that's it.<br /><br />But if the center is everywhere, then I can point to a spot in front of my face and I can SHOW another person where the center of the Universe is ! (this is something I enjoy doing on a regular basis) This is a much more engaging way of stating the same thing.<br /><br />Also, if there is no center, you couldn't make statements like "I am the center of the Universe" which is also a rather fun thing to say....<br /><br />I am developing a whole philosphy out of that.<br />It begins with the factual statement that I am (or you are) the center of the Universe.<br />Then I make the case that it would matter not at all to me (or to you) whether the Universe actually exists, if we were never born. <br />Then we ponder the idea that the ONLY way you or I could have been born is for the Universe to exist.<br />And from there we make the connection that the whole PURPOSE for the existence of the Universe is you!<br /><br />So it is only fitting that you should be at the center of everything there is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[trumptor]

It's so hard to tell. Considering the time right now the direction from Earth that the Big Bang occured is almost exactly to the left. In about 12 hours due to Earth's rotation it should be to the right of us. And this is always changing because of the revolution about the sun as well. But at the present hour I believe it is directly to the left from our planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

MannyPim: <font color="yellow"> I am developing a whole philosphy out of that. <br />It begins with the factual statement that I am (or you are) the center of the Universe. <br />Then I make the case that it would matter not at all to me (or to you) whether the Universe actually exists, if we were never born. <br />Then we ponder the idea that the ONLY way you or I could have been born is for the Universe to exist. <br />And from there we make the connection that the whole PURPOSE for the existence of the Universe is you! <br /> </font><br /><br />Sounds good to me! <br /><br />Next time someone says to me, "You think you're the center of the F$%#ing universe!!" I can comfortably sit back and smile, knowing that they're right! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

That reminds me of the touchy-feely sixties song whose chorus was:<br /><br />"You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars"<br /><br />It was then followed by the inevitable parody whose chorus went:<br /><br />"You are a fluke of the universe, you have no right to be here, you shouldn't have been born."

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> That reminds me of the touchy-feely sixties song whose chorus was: <br /><br />"You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars" <br /></font><br /><br />What I am stating is a much stronger claim than that.<br /><br />Not only am I a child of the Universe, and certainly no less than the trees and the stars...<br />But the whole REASON why there are trees and the whole reason why there are stars and the whole reason why the Universe exists at all is so that I can exist. The trees, the stars and the whole universe exist solely for my benefit, therefore I am the Universe's greatest and only purpose. <br />There is more, but modesty prevents me from going any further at this point.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[jsmoody]

Actually, if you must know...go slightly south of the North Pole and then straight up from there. Then go for about 7.6 billion light years and hang a left at the 3 colliding galaxies and continue for 1.37 billion light years....ya can't miss it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">Not only am I a child of the Universe, and certainly no less than the trees and the stars... <br />But the whole REASON why there are trees and the whole reason why there are stars and the whole reason why the Universe exists at all is so that I can exist. </font><br /><br />Nah, it's more like <br /><br />you are a fluke of the universe.<br />and the whole universe is laughing behind your back.<br /><br />But who cares, the Patriots lost the superbowl, so I'm happy.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> Actually, if you must know...go slightly south of the North Pole and then straight up from there. Then go for about 7.6 billion light years and hang a left at the 3 colliding galaxies and continue for 1.37 billion light years....ya can't miss it. </font><br /><br />And if you still haven't found it at this point, it's on the same corner as the Starbucks, about a mile past the Wal-Mart. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Or, you could just stop at the local gas giant and ask for directions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

It's a bit like crawling around on the 2-dimensional surface of a balloon looking for the center of the surface. The fact is that there is no center on the surface of the balloon, and at the same time, every point can call itself the center of the surface.<br /><br />To get to the true center of the balloon (and the center of its expansion when the balloon is being inflated), you need to leave the surface and move in 3 dimensions, ie. not just follow the 2-dimensional surface of the balloon.<br /><br />If the balloon is being inflated, it would be observed on the surface that every point on this surface is moving away from every other point on the surface, and every point seems to be in the center of that expansion.<br /><br />Also, the balloon's surface has a finite size, but has no edge (if we think of the balloon as a sphere, disregarding the kid blowing air into it).<br /><br />It seems it is the same thing with the universe. No matter where in the universe you are, you would see that the more distant galaxies are, the faster they also move away from you. The universe is of a finite size, but has no edge or "wall" out there (actually, if you follow through with the balloon-comparison, if you travel deep enough into the universe - as in billions of lightyears - you would finally arrive at.... drumroll... Earth!!! After circumnavigating the Universe).<br /><br />So, just like the surface of a balloon is the 2-dimensional surface of a 3-dimensional object, space as we know it is just the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional object.<br /><br />Can't get any simpler than that, really. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[jsmoody]

It's wherever I happen to be at any given time.....<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> To get to the true center of the balloon (and the center of its expansion when the balloon is being inflated), you need to leave the surface and move in 3 dimensions, ie. not just follow the 2-dimensional surface of the balloon. <br /> </font><br /><br />Which suggests that there very well could be more dimensions to our universe than just four.<br /><br />If you live in a 1-dimensional universe, you are just an infinitely thin line, you can only move forwards and backwards (fyi, this is the nature of superstrings as well). However, all you can see is what is directly in front of you. You only have one direction of movement, meaning you can't turn around. This is all you know as your observable world.<br /><br />If you live in a 2-dimensional universe, you are an infinitely thin sheet. You can move forwards and backwords, and, left and right. This is all the dimensions you know of; to the best of your knowledge, there is nothing more to the universe. <br /><br />Now, you live in a 3-dimensional universe (this is us, excluding the 4th dimension of time <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). You can move forwards and backwards, left and right, up and down. In addition, just like living in a 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional universe, this is all that you know. <br /><br />So, with these three comparisons of universes, we can see that there may be more to our universe than what meets the eye. Just because we can't see it or perceive it, doesn't mean it's not there. <br /><br />This is the very essence of M-theory.<br /><br />If we could hypothetically jump out of our 4-dimensional universe, we might find that there are many more dimensions existing higher than our level of perception. Many physicists, who support M-theory, think that this may be the missing link of gravity. It could be possible that gravity is so weak because it is simply dilluted throughout our universe as it is spread out from the larger universe of 11-dimensional Branes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

I believe we are well beyond the 4-dimensional Universe.<br /><br />If string Theory turns out to be correct, the strings which comprise all there is, are twisted into a very complex 7-dimensional Calabi-Yau shape and their vibrational modes in all these 7 dimensions account for the different properties of all elemental subatomic particles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>