The Center of the Universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

So there is a unique center of the Big Bang?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, the BB happened everywhere. No matter where you are in the universe, if you wind time backwards, you will end up at the BB.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood, the article failed to explain that we in fact are in the center, just not the "unique" center. A play with words I guess, I'd better change that wiki

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, it's not healthy to talk about a center of the universe relatively speaking, nor is it healthy to talk about a univese that began in an excited state.

 

Why wouldn't it be healthy?

I just got to say something regarding this matter.

If we look further away then we look further away in time as well.

So we would eventually wind up at the Big Bang, and I am assuming this means in all directions, and that the distance would be the same in all directions (as it is a distance of time AND space).

So in effect we would observe (if we could) The Big Bang event in all points (at all directions).

Wouldn't this also mean, that when the universe was very young, every point looked almost the same? (as it is hard to imagine that at first it looked like it was at every direction, but the moment after isolated into a single direction).

So what I'm saying is that there should be a directions where there are identical images of the same thing (if you observe far enough), as it is with the Big Bang.

(I guess the Big Bang is the edge of the universe, at least it was)

 

Yes, because we assume the universe began about the size of a proton. This gives us an ''imaginary center brought about through calculations.'' It's only an origin theory. But in relativity, all points in spacetime all happen simultaneously, such as grim as that might sound. That means, that the past and the future are only illusions, and there is only present frames of the universe, all alined out, frozen in time. So, any measurements we make distinguishing the past cone, to a present cone, are useless and futile in a relative universe.

 

You say that everything has allready happened? But I guess they haven't yet though, there seems to be a rate of time. In which everything is realised.

 

This is called the psychological arrow of time, but relativity is an observer-dependant theory to only a special extent. The observer seems to create a past and future, but Einstein solved equations that seems to describe all points as all being layed out frozen in time.

If it didn't work this way, time travel would be impossible, because the equations wouldn't state a present time frame in the future, relative to the one we are experiencing in the ''here and now.''

 

But when you are in the future, the rest is too. It's just that the time for you have gone slower, causing you to think that a normal day has went, when it in fact has gone three days (for example).

 

Not in an Copenhagen interpretation. What is interesting, is that if you move in a single universe throughout the time dimension, you are moving through a stretched fabric of space as well. But, even when the journey is complete, the time you end up in, does not agree with the statement ''But when you are in the future, the rest is too.'' It turns out to be a paradox.

 

In a parallel universe intepretation, you still can't get off saying that ''But when you are in the future, the rest is too.'' Instead, you can say that when you move through time, you can wind up in a different universe, but you still end up in another universe, in the illusion of a present time.

 

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Surfaces of simultaneity are defined via various time-like curves, not the entire manifold.

Actually, we calculate it to be much much smaller than that.

You're basically talking about determinism, which was in Newtonian physics too. There's nothing special about relativity in that regard. Besides you're putting your own massive spin (ie warped) philisophical views into the discussion and claiming 'That's what relativity says'.

And now you've jumped to a quantum mechanical thing.

Why is it stretched?

Cyperium, if you've never come across Reiku before (which I'd be very surprised at), take everything he says about mainstream physics, particularly anything taught beyond high school level with a massive pinch of salt and especially quantum mechanics or relativity, they are his favourite BS areas.

He doesn't understand much (if any) of it and so jumbles together pop science books he's half read, the ideas of one crank nut Dr Wolff and the rest he just makes up hoping to dupe people who don't know the aforementioned areas that he does know them. Take it from someone who does know them, he doesn't.

 

''No, it doesn't mean that at all. Surfaces of simultaneity are defined via various time-like curves, not the entire manifold.
Actually, we calculate it to be much much smaller than that.
You're basically talking about determinism, which was in Newtonian physics too. There's nothing special about relativity in that regard. Besides you're putting your own massive spin (ie warped) philisophical views into the discussion and claiming 'That's what relativity says'.
And now you've jumped to a quantum mechanical thing.
Why is it stretched?''

I say stretched, because its popular to believe you can move through a highly distorted frame of spacetime, such as a wormhole. As for the rest, such as the simultaneosity of events in spacetime, you can read:

Greenes, ''The Frozen Lake,'' and Wolfs ''Parallel Universes.'' In the latter, Dr Wolf explains the grim nature of time in relativity, stating that all events are somehow frozen in time itself, and your entire history is also frozen in time.

''Cyperium, if you've never come across Reiku before (which I'd be very surprised at), take everything he says about mainstream physics, particularly anything taught beyond high school level with a massive pinch of salt and especially quantum mechanics or relativity, they are his favourite BS areas.

He doesn't understand much (if any) of it and so jumbles together pop science books he's half read, the ideas of one crank nut Dr Wolff and the rest he just makes up hoping to dupe people who don't know the aforementioned areas that he does know them. Take it from someone who does know them, he doesn't.''

Cyperum:

I know more than what some of these ignorant wank stains give me credit for.

 

''Actually, we calculate it to be much much smaller than that.''

Maybe in string theory, but not the standard model as an experimental fact.

''You're basically talking about determinism, which was in Newtonian physics too. There's nothing special about relativity in that regard. Besides you're putting your own massive spin (ie warped) philisophical views into the discussion and claiming 'That's what relativity says'. ''

Einstein was a big supporter that everything was governed by some kind of determinism, and his relativity is interpreted in such a way by many scientists.

''And now you've jumped to a quantum mechanical thing.''

No, this is not what this is meant. It actually means that if one moved through a black hole (assuming it was possible), then it means that relativistically, you can end up at a different time in this universe alone. That's why parallel universes was used to explain how you can move through a universe, and end up in a different universe entirely.

 

You said moving through time. I'm moving through time right now and I'm stationary in my frame of reference. No distortion at all.

I prefer textbooks and lecture notes, not pop science books (some of which are written by cranks) devoid of maths and quantatitive discussions.

See the picture here.

You lie about studying relativity, claiming to know how to do the metrics and vectors, when you don't know any vector calculus. You claim to know about Euclideanisation but you cannot multiple complex numbers properly. You claim to be doing, in your 1st year in some crappy college somewhere, black hole material considered graduate work at Cambridge but you couldn't even copy the equations properly! And when asked, you cannot link to a single thread where you show working understanding of relativity.

So it's not surprising we give you no credit. You've thrown it all away.

No, it's that our equations break down when you get to the size of a proton because the energies get too high for the SM to model properly. That doesn't mean anyone doing the SM thinks the universe started the size of a proton.

That doesn't mean he introduced it. In the 1700s people realised that, in principle, Newtonian dynamics would allow you to compute the future and past.

Since when did the Copenhagen interpretation talk about black holes? I happen to have done a bit of that part of black holes and there's no way of knowing what the space you end up in is, either your original universe or another one. All the equations of relativity say is that it's a space-time which is asymptotic to the same space-time topology as your original universe. Makes for some very nice Penrose diagrams.

 

I give up. It's pointless talking about something with you. You've fudged everything.

 

Give an example. I've not 'fudged' anything. Okay, I was thinking Laplace lived in the 1700s. But my point was right.

The SM doesn't predict the universe started proton size, it's just it's equations break down then. The SM cannot say anything about the nature of space-time, it doesn't even include gravity after all. Whose fudging things now?

You give up because you've been backed into a corner which you cannot dig yourself out of.

 

It's silly things, like making it not proportional to the arguement i make. Here is a perfectly example.

Me> ''Einstein was a big supporter that everything was governed by some kind of determinism, and his relativity is interpreted in such a way by many scientists. ”

You > That doesn't mean he introduced it.

Did i say he did? I said from a relativistic viewpoint, he did.

This is why i give up. I simply can't be arsed by your dry attacks.

 

You mean the Many-worlds interpretation, that every event branches into a different universe.

I don't like that, since it would mean that for certain everybody you know aren't really them (since almost certainly you and the ones you learn to know, are in different universes), it's not the body that counts. It would be troublesome for other reasons as well, including the idea that there are identical versions of you doing exactly everything that you can do at any moment. Not to talk about the waste of space, etc.

I believe in a common reality where everyone are. I don't like the idea of someone I have learned to know just suddenly are in another universe, even if it goes unnoticed for him...but that is also weird cause then someone would be "replacing" him in the universe you are in. Look how weird this idea is.

There is a version of this idea that could allow you to live as long as you possibly can, always arriving at the universe where you don't die. Eventually I guess you would die of old age though, but as I said, I don't like that interpretation for the reasons given. I go rather for the copenhagen interpretation.

You can read about it here:
Copenhagen Interpretation

 

Yes, i don't like parallel universe theoy either. If anyone follows me around here, i am a bit of a Copenhagen Enthusiast.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!