Does the universe have a location?
Everything, whatever that may be: does it have a spatial or temporal location?
I argue no, there would have to be space and time beyond it for that.
I argue no, there would have to be space and time beyond it for that.
Comments (60)
I would probably need some mind altering drug to really enjoy the idea. Dead sober, I don't like it.
With the Big Bang and inflation, all points in space are expanding. The analogy used is an inflating balloon - there is meant to be no centre to the expansion - if the balloon is deflated, all points become the centre. So maybe it is valid to say all points in space were once the centre of the universe.
But it seems to me that some points in space are more 'central' than others? IE those expanding less quickly than others would be closer to the centre of expansion. So I would have thought that there would be a centre to the expansion?
But then astronomers report a strict proportionality between the distance of remote galaxies and their recession rate - there does not seem to be any reported asymmetry that you might expect if we were on the edge of the expanding universe and galaxies closer to the centre of expansion were visible to us.
So without a spacial centre of the universe, it seems assigning spacial coordinates to positions of objects in the universe has to be done relatively rather than absolutely.
The Big Bang took place about 14 billion years ago so assigning temporal coordinates seems possible.
Perhaps we have some astronomers who can explain exactly what is going on?
Locations aren't literally in a container (that is space). Space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations of/between matter. Space doesn't exist as "something in itself" and it's not a "container" that things are in.
Location is extensional relations. We can't say that locations have no locations.
http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Space itself is expanding so nowhere/everywhere is the centre. Spacial distances have to be measured relative to something else than the Big Bang.
So the ballon analogy is confusing - it is only the points on the balloon surface that correspond to galaxies. The contents of the balloon are not part of space in this analogy. But it is the balloon itself that is expanding...
There is no "balloon itself," things moving apart are simply changing extensional relations.
Yep.
Yes, it's a bit like asking where in the elephant is the elephant.
Answer: everywhere.
But if you think about it long enough you might go into a brown study.
But astronomers say the rate of recession of all objects is simply proportional to their distance from earth. I would have thought that would be impossible unless by chance earth happens to be the centre of the universe? Thats very unlikely so for a regular explosion we should be not at the centre so the rate of expansion should be asymmetrical as observed from earth. Thats not what is observed.
There would only be a center in an abstract sense. It would be in the sense that we can basically "triangulate" a relational center. Rates of positional change would be an empirical matter.
Right
It's here. Come on. Pick a hard one.
- The edges of the explosion are moving faster the the centre parts. In which case matter might be evenly distributed (homogeneous) like we observe, but we do not observe differing rates of expansion.
- Everything is expanding out at the same rate from the centre of the explosion. In which case the galaxies would form a spherical shell, which is not what is observed.
Yeah, if the multiverse lies along the 11th dimension, them our universe would have a location in that dimension. Also, if there is an upside down Stranger Things universe, then our universe is located right side up. And if it's the Marvel multiverse, then our our heroes are typically located on Earth-616.
So the answer is that our universe can have a location if it's in some sort of spatial relation to other universes.
The Universe (everything) is all existence (all spatial and/or temporal extension).
Space is finite or infinite multidirectional distance. Space implies objects.
Location is a geometrically defined part of space.
Time is finite or infinite unidirectional duration. Time implies events.
So, the OP is nonsense, because it makes no sense to refer to:
1) A location for all existence.
2) Temporal location.
3) Existence beyond all existence.
Isn't that putting theory above observations?
Theory should explain observations, not dictate what can be observed, and then require fanciful inventions to not have to discard the theory.
We can say that the movements are "as if" the objects in question were on the surface of a balloon, but to then posit the balloon as a real, independent thing isn't justified. The "as if" is simply to help us picture/understand what we're observing.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Yes, I just gave one. You, however, have simply been asserting.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I observe that something over here can interact with something over there. Neither is bounded by its own individual space.
Quoting Terrapin Station
It seems to me that spatial relations must exist within space, which can’t itself be located anywhere and so must be immaterial and the thing which unifies the cosmos. You’re just insisting those relations are, and that’s that.
What does this phrase refer to? What would that amount to, to be "bounded by its own individual space"?
There’s no empirically observable reason why the space I occupy should have anything to do with the space the floor beneath me occupies. It holds me up because my atoms interact with its, but why should they? That they do seems to be because the cosmos is unified; it occupies a unifying space.
The theory predicts what we observe:
- The theory of inflation; the ballon is a 2D analogy used to describe what is happening to 3D space
- The observation is of a homogeneous universe which is expanding the same rate everywhere
The two are in agreement.
You're assuming here that's there's something different from you, called space, that you occupy.
Quoting AJJ
That's not at all something that you're observing. You're deducing it based on you thinking that there needs to be some reason other than simply things interacting however they do, and "unifying space," for whatever reason that I can't fathom, intuitively satisfies your psychological need for there to be a reason.
None of this makes clear what "bounded by its own individual space" would refer to, though.
Because stuff is invented (space as a separable thing) to make it work. It's akin to epicycles re planetary motion. That theory fits what we observe, too. It's just that it's wrong. But it was adopted so that we wouldn't have to change the theory.
Well whatever. That’s just you refusing to get the point. “Psychological need”. Glass houses mate.
But it does seem, with galaxies receding from each other faster than the speed of light, that space itself expanding is the only possible explanation. Also, as already discussed, the expansion of the universe does not fit with a normal explosion-type expansion.
Empty space appears to have properties - such as quantum fields and (maybe) dark energy. It seems to be something substantial.
That every thing has a spatial and temporal location is merely the convention of human intelligence, as the means to show position of objects relative to diverse observations of them. It is much less a matter of convention to suppose the Universe is a thing, for none other than the entirely insufficient reason that because it can be talked about it must exist, and that which exists empirically must meet the conditions of time and space. Juxtapositioning these major and minor conventions brings about a contradiction, insofar as on the one hand the Universe as a thing is required to be extended in space and successive in time, because that’s what convention says things do, yet on the other hand no thing extending into one space can at the same time contain the same one space all else that is knowable, themselves extends into.
It follows necessarily, and with respect to the OP, that the Universe is not a thing therefore not subject to the same condition as things, or, the Universe is a thing extended into a space other than the space the Universe’s constituent objects extend into. The former is possible but unknown, the latter is possible but unknowable, from a strictly human perspective.
Fun question.
On my view that's more nonsense that we're making up in order to avoid having to revise theories on a more foundational level.
Science seems to show the pattern of two steps forward, one step back - for example they seem to have it badly wrong on infinity IMO - so maybe science could be wrong with the nature of empty space too. A lot of what we know now will surely turn out wrong in the fullness of time.
The concept of virtual particles is a little worrying - they do not exist for long enough to be directly detectable so we infer their existence from theory and side effects. But the side effects, like the casimir effect have other viable explanations. So it seems that there is no proper empirical support for virtual particles... more like a metaphysical theory than a physics theory.
But I think the expansion of the universe is in better shape - we have the redshift evidence and the CMB radiation.
You are an idiot to believe everything you are taught - you swallow it like a fool without questioning.
It is a fact that a large proportion of what we were taught at school is plain wrong. You have to learn to be skeptical. Have you never heard of group think?
You are downright rude, aggressive for no reason and ignorant.
if this universe is all that there is then i would agree with you that it has no position. If there are higher and lower dimensions then it does have some sort of position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
Any model of the universe that is actually infinite in space or eternal in past time is using actual infinity. Wikipedia summarises the situation - an actually infinite universe is an open question in cosmology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Cosmology
I agree. You're pointing to the fact that location is an extrinsic property.
Actually infinite is completely different from unbounded - the example I gave (CCC) has an actually infinite past - it has nothing to do with unbounded.
On which note I ask you: How exactly does countability even become an issue here?
Quoting Coben
But suppose our universe exists inside a larger universe, for example, as imagined in string theory. So long as we aren’t sticklers for the word “where” applying only to the spatial dimensions of our own universe, but accept that it may apply to other dimensions as well, our universe then has a location inside that larger universe. Which leads us to christian2017’s answer:
Quoting christian2017
“But,” some might say, “that’s just being pedantic. If the box is inside a larger box, the real question being asked here is clearly about the location of the larger box! Indeed, what we are really asking is where is the location the largest box of all. Whatever it may be.”
“Fair enough,” I say. “But what if there is no largest box? What if there is an infinite series of boxes? In that case there is no largest box, and every box has a location inside another box.”
Does that defeat Terrapin Station’s original answer?
I don’t think so. So long as we have some description or conception of the whole shebang, the infinite series [Edit: perhaps network rather than series?], even if our concept is just the word “cosmos,” then the location it has is clearly the set of all ordinates inside that cosmos.
Still... it was a fun ride while it lasted.
And I can’t help but add:
“Wherever you go, there you are.”
Who says philosophy has nothing to do with wisdom?
The assumption of the previous post i was responding to assumed the universe was all there was. I have no problem with you response. My response was based on someone elses response. I think we are in agreement on this.
Yes, I am familiar with the concept of countable vs uncountabile infinities. How exactly does it affect this argument?
Still not seeing what any of this has to do with countable vs uncountable infinities.
Religion discussions come to mind. Does God exist or not? Exists or not is a reasonable kind of question at human scale. But when we try to apply it to space, and perhaps gods, the exists or not concept starts falling apart.
Gotta answer your question with another question I often ask:
Is what we humans refer to as "the universe"...everything that exists?
Obviously it is possible that what we humans refer to as "the universe" may be just a tiny element in a much, much larger...thing.
If so...then the thing we call the universe probably does have a location within it.
Ummm...which is a rather convoluted way of saying, "No way we can know."
That's 14 billion years our time. The theoretical big bang is a black hole with a minus sign. If you fell toward a black hole, an observer outside the event horizon would see you fall faster and faster, then vanish (our time). But your experience would be an eternal freefall, getting ever closer to the singularity but never reaching it. Chuck a minus sign on that, i.e. run the early universe backwards, as an "observer" emerging from the big bang but backwards, and you'd get ever closer to the singularity, but never reach it. In this sense, the universe is both 14 billion years old (far from the singularity) and eternal (proper time of something emerging from the start, not that anything that could have a meaningful proper time did: all energy has a proper lifetime of zero).
Yes. Here and now.
The fact we can't perceive a larger box doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means that even if there would be one, we can't say anything sensibly about it.
Assuming that these boxes require individual space, that's to say that they arent able to overlap or exist simultaneously in the same location. Considering that the 1D, 2D, 3D and time dimensions exist and overlap one another in the same location I've no doubt other universes if they occupy other dimensions can simply be exactly in the same place as ours.
This gave me shivers. Oh look here comes the observer (13.8 billion years of emergence and evolution later) ... humans/life.
*flies past*
EEEEEEEEEMMM PPLLEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHH