Experts ask where the center of the universe is
This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.
About a century ago, scientists were struggling to reconcile what seemed a contradiction in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Published in 1915, and already widely accepted worldwide by physicists and mathematicians, the theory assumed the universe was static – unchanging, unmoving and immutable. In short, Einstein believed the size and shape of the universe today was, more or less, the same size and shape it had always been.
But when astronomers looked into the night sky at faraway galaxies with powerful telescopes, they saw hints the universe was anything but that. These new observations suggested the opposite – that it was, instead, expanding.
Scientists soon realized Einstein's theory didn't actually say the universe had to be static; the theory could support an expanding universe as well. Indeed, by using the same mathematical tools provided by Einstein's theory, scientists created new models that showed the universe was, in fact, dynamic and evolving.
I've spent decades trying to understand general relativity, including in my current job as a physics professor teaching courses on the subject. I know wrapping your head around the idea of an ever-expanding universe can feel daunting – and part of the challenge is overriding your natural intuition about how things work. For instance, it's hard to imagine something as big as the universe not having a center at all, but physics says that's the reality.
First, let's define what's meant by "expansion." On Earth, "expanding" means something is getting bigger. And in regard to the universe, that's true, sort of. Expansion might also mean "everything is getting farther from us," which is also true with regard to the universe. Point a telescope at distant galaxies and they all do appear to be moving away from us.
What's more, the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving. Those galaxies also seem to be moving away from each other. So it's more accurate to say that everything in the universe is getting farther away from everything else, all at once.
This idea is subtle but critical. It's easy to think about the creation of the universe like exploding fireworks: Start with a big bang, and then all the galaxies in the universe fly out in all directions from some central point.
But that analogy isn't correct. Not only does it falsely imply that the expansion of the universe started from a single spot, which it didn't, but it also suggests that the galaxies are the things that are moving, which isn't entirely accurate.
It's not so much the galaxies that are moving away from each other – it's the space between galaxies, the fabric of the universe itself, that's ever-expanding as time goes on. In other words, it's not really the galaxies themselves that are moving through the universe; it's more that the universe itself is carrying them farther away as it expands.
A common analogy is to imagine sticking some dots on the surface of a balloon. As you blow air into the balloon, it expands. Because the dots are stuck on the surface of the balloon, they get farther apart. Though they may appear to move, the dots actually stay exactly where you put them, and the distance between them gets bigger simply by virtue of the balloon's expansion.
Now think of the dots as galaxies and the balloon as the fabric of the universe, and you begin to get the picture.
Unfortunately, while this analogy is a good start, it doesn't get the details quite right either.
Important to any analogy is an understanding of its limitations. Some flaws are obvious: A balloon is small enough to fit in your hand – not so the universe. Another flaw is more subtle. The balloon has two parts: its latex surface and its air-filled interior.
These two parts of the balloon are described differently in the language of mathematics. The balloon's surface is two-dimensional. If you were walking around on it, you could move forward, backward, left, or right, but you couldn't move up or down without leaving the surface.
Now it might sound like we're naming four directions here – forward, backward, left and right – but those are just movements along two basic paths: side to side and front to back. That's what makes the surface two-dimensional – length and width.
The inside of the balloon, on the other hand, is three-dimensional, so you'd be able to move freely in any direction, including up or down – length, width and height.
This is where the confusion lies. The thing we think of as the "center" of the balloon is a point somewhere in its interior, in the air-filled space beneath the surface.
But in this analogy, the universe is more like the latex surface of the balloon. The balloon's air-filled interior has no counterpart in our universe, so we can't use that part of the analogy – only the surface matters.
So asking, "Where's the center of the universe?" is somewhat like asking, "Where's the center of the balloon's surface?' There simply isn't one. You could travel along the surface of the balloon in any direction, for as long as you like, and you'd never once reach a place you could call its center because you'd never actually leave the surface.
In the same way, you could travel in any direction in the universe and would never find its center because, much like the surface of the balloon, it simply doesn't have one.
Part of the reason this can be so challenging to comprehend is because of the way the universe is described in the language of mathematics. The surface of the balloon has two dimensions, and the balloon's interior has three, but the universe exists in four dimensions. Because it's not just about how things move in space, but how they move in time.
Our brains are wired to think about space and time separately. But in the universe, they're interwoven into a single fabric, called 'space-time.' That unification changes the way the universe works relative to what our intuition expects.
And this explanation doesn't even begin to answer the question of how something can be expanding indefinitely – scientists are still trying to puzzle out what powers this expansion.
So in asking about the center of the universe, we're confronting the limits of our intuition. The answer we find – everything, expanding everywhere, all at once – is a glimpse of just how strange and beautiful our universe is.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
2 hours ago
- WIRED
The Hunt for a Fundamental Theory of Quantum Gravity
Jul 20, 2025 7:00 AM Black hole and Big Bang singularities break our best theory of gravity. A trilogy of theorems hints that physicists must go to the ends of space and time to find a fix. ILLUSTRATION: MARK BELAN FOR QUANTA MAGAZINE The original version of this story appeared in Quanta Magazine . Two blind spots torture physicists: the birth of the universe and the center of a black hole. The former may feel like a moment in time and the latter a point in space, but in both cases the normally interwoven threads of space and time seem to stop short. These mysterious points are known as singularities. Singularities are predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. According to this theory, clumps of matter or energy curve the space-time fabric toward themselves, and this curvature induces the force of gravity. Pack enough stuff into a small enough spot, and Einstein's equations seem to predict that space-time will curve infinitely steeply there, such that gravity grows infinitely strong. Most physicists don't believe, however, that Einstein's theory says much about what really happens at these points. Rather, singularities are widely seen as 'mathematical artifacts,' as Hong Liu, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it, not objects that 'occur in any physical universe.' They are where general relativity malfunctions. The singularities are expected to vanish in a more fundamental theory of gravity that Einstein's space-time picture merely approximates—a theory of quantum gravity. But as physicists take steps toward that truer and more complete theory by merging general relativity and quantum physics, singularities are proving hard to erase. The British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose won the Nobel Prize in Physics for proving in the 1960s that singularities would inevitably occur in an empty universe made up entirely of space-time. More recent research has extended this insight into more realistic circumstances. One paper established that a universe with quantum particles would also feature singularities, although it only considered the case where the particles don't bend the space-time fabric at all. Then, earlier this year, a physicist proved that these blemishes exist even in theoretical universes where quantum particles do slightly nudge space-time itself—that is, universes quite a bit like our own. This trilogy of proofs challenges physicists to confront the possibility that singularities may be more than mere mathematical mirages. They hint that our universe may in fact contain points where space-time frays so much that it becomes unrecognizable. No object can pass, and clocks tick to a halt. The singularity theorems invite researchers to grapple with the nature of these points and pursue a more fundamental theory that can clarify what might continue if time truly stops. Space-Time's Fatal Flaws Karl Schwarzschild first discovered an arrangement of space-time with a singularity in 1916, just months after Einstein published general relativity. The bizarre features of the 'Schwarzschild solution' took years for physicists to understand. Space-time assumes a shape analogous to a whirlpool with walls that swirl more and more steeply as you go farther in; at the bottom, the curvature of space-time is infinite. The vortex is inescapable; it has a spherical boundary that traps anything falling inside, even light rays. It took decades for physicists to accept that these inconceivable objects, eventually dubbed black holes, might actually exist. The British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose proved that given two simple assumptions, space-time must end at points called singularities. COURTESY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN J. Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder calculated in 1939 that if a perfectly spherical star gravitationally collapses to a point, its matter will become so dense that it will stretch space-time into a singularity. But real stars bubble and churn, especially while imploding, so physicists wondered whether their nonspherical shapes would stop them from forming singularities. Penrose eliminated the need for geometric perfection in 1965. His landmark proof relied on two assumptions. First, you need a 'trapped surface' inside of which light can never escape. If you cover this surface in light bulbs and switch them on, their light rays will fall inward faster than they can travel outward. Crucially, this shell of light will shrink regardless of whether it started out as a perfect sphere, a dimpled golf ball, or something more misshapen. Second, space-time should always curve in such a way that light rays bend toward each other but never diverge. In short, gravity should be attractive, which is the case so long as energy is never negative. With these two stipulations, Penrose proved the mortality of at least one of the trapped light rays. Its otherwise eternal journey through space and time must terminate in a singularity, a point where the space-time fabric ceases to exist, where there is no future for the light ray to travel into. This was a new definition of a singularity, distinct from the infinite curvature of the Schwarzschild solution. Its generality enabled Penrose to prove in three scant pages of math that, under his two assumptions, singularities will inevitably form. Caption: A hand-drawn figure in Penrose's 1965 paper proving the singularity theorem shows the collapse of space-time to form a singularity. The paper has been called 'the most important paper in general relativity' since Einstein's. ILLUSTRATION: Roger Penrose, Physical Review Letters, American Physical Society 'Penrose's paper was probably the most important paper in general relativity ever written, other than Einstein's original paper,' said Geoff Penington, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. Stephen Hawking soon extended Penrose's argument to the early universe, proving that a cosmos described by general relativity must have sprung from a singular point during the Big Bang. This cosmological singularity resembles a black hole in that, if you imagine rewinding the history of the universe, light rays will run into a wall at the beginning of time. Over the years, physicists have accumulated heaps of evidence that black holes exist, and that the universe began with an event that looks very much like a Big Bang. But do these phenomena truly represent space-time singularities? Many physicists find the actual existence of such points unthinkable. When you try to calculate the fate of a particle approaching the singularity, general relativity glitches and gives impossible, infinite answers. 'The singularity means a lack of predictability,' Liu said. 'Your theory just breaks down.' But the particle in the real world must have a fate of some sort. So a more universal theory that can predict that fate—very likely a quantum theory—must take over. General relativity is a classical theory, meaning that space-time takes on one, and only one, shape at every moment. In contrast, matter is quantum mechanical, meaning it can have multiple possible states at once—a feature known as superposition. Since space-time reacts to the matter in it, theorists expect that any matter particles in a superposition of occupying two different locations should force space-time into a superposition of two distortions. That is, space-time and gravity should also follow quantum rules. But physicists haven't yet worked out what those rules are. Into the Onion Theorists approach their quest for a quantum theory of gravity the way they might peel an onion: layer by layer. Each layer represents a theory of a universe that imperfectly approximates the real one. The deeper you go, the more of the interplay between quantum matter and space-time you can capture. The German physicist-soldier Karl Schwarzschild calculated the shape that space-time takes around a massive point. Years later, physicists realized that this geometry contains a singularity. COURTESY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN Penrose worked in the outermost layer of the onion. He used the general theory of relativity and ignored quantumness entirely. In effect, he proved that the space-time fabric has singularities when it is completely devoid of any quantum matter. Physicists aspire to someday reach the onion's core. In it, they'll find a theory describing both space-time and matter in all their quantum glory. This theory would have no blind spots—all calculations should yield meaningful results. But what about the middle layers? Could physicists resolve Penrose's singularities by moving to something a little more quantum, and therefore a little more realistic? 'It was the obvious speculation, that somehow quantum effects should fix the singularity,' Penington said. They first tried to do so in the late 2000s. The assumption that had confined Penrose's proof to the outermost layer was that energy is never negative. That's true in everyday, classical situations, but not in quantum mechanics. Energy goes negative, at least momentarily, in quantum phenomena such as the Casimir effect, where (experiments show) two metal plates attract each other in a vacuum. And negative energies play a role in the way black holes are thought to radiate particles, eventually 'evaporating' entirely. All the deeper, quantum layers of the onion would feature this exotic energetic behavior. The physicist who peeled the top layer was Aron Wall, then based at the University of Maryland and now at the University of Cambridge. To cut into the quantum realm and abandon Penrose's energy assumption, Wall latched on to a theoretical discovery made in the 1970s by Jacob Bekenstein. Bekenstein knew that for any given region of space, the contents of the region grow more mixed up as time goes on. In other words, entropy, a measure of this mixing, tends to increase, a rule known as the second law of thermodynamics. While considering a region that contains a black hole, the physicist realized that the entropy comes from two sources. There's the standard source—the number of ways that quantum particles in the space around the black hole could be arranged. But the black hole has entropy too, and the amount depends on the black hole's surface area. So the total entropy of the region is a sum: the surface area of the black hole plus the entropy of nearby quantum stuff. This observation became known as the 'generalized' second law. Wall 'made it his mission to understand the generalized second law,' said Raphael Bousso, a physicist at Berkeley. 'He was thinking about it in much clearer and much better ways than everybody else on the planet.' Reaching the quantum layers of the onion would mean accommodating negative energy and the presence of quantum particles. To do so, Wall reasoned that he could take any surface area in general relativity and add to it the entropy of those particles, as the generalized second law suggested. Penrose's proof of his singularity theorem had involved the trapped surface. So Wall upgraded it to a 'quantum trapped surface.' And when he reworked Penrose's singularity theorem in this way, it held. Singularities form even in the presence of quantum particles. Wall published his findings in 2010. In 2010, Aron Wall, now at the University of Cambridge, revamped Penrose's proof to show that singularities exist in a world where space-time has no quantum properties but is filled with particles that do. PHOTOGRAPH: NICOLE WALL 'Aron's paper was a seminal breakthrough in combining quantum mechanics and gravity in a more precise way,' Penington said. Having peeled back the classical outer layer of the onion, where energy is always positive, Wall reached a lightly quantum layer—a context physicists call semiclassical. In a semiclassical world, space-time guides the journeys of quantum particles, but it cannot react to their presence. A semiclassical black hole will radiate particles, for instance, since that's a consequence of how particles experience a space-time warped into a black hole shape. But the space-time—the black hole itself—will never actually shrink in size even as the radiation leaks energy into the void for all eternity. That's almost, but not exactly, what happens in the real universe. You could watch a black hole radiate particles for a century without seeing it shrink a single nanometer. But if you could watch for longer—many trillions upon trillions of years—you would see the black hole waste away to nothing. The next onion layer beckoned. Dialing Up the Quantumness Bousso recently revisited Wall's proof and found that he could cut a little deeper. What about the world where black holes shrink as they radiate? In this scenario, the space-time fabric can react to quantum particles. Using more refined mathematical machinery developed by Wall and others since 2010, Bousso found that, despite the intensified quantumness of his scenario, singularities continue to exist. He posted his paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, in January. The world of Bousso's new theorem still departs from our universe in notable ways. For mathematical convenience, he assumed that there's an unlimited variety of particles—an unrealistic assumption that makes some physicists wonder whether this third layer matches reality (with its 17 or so known particles) any better than the second layer does. 'We don't have an infinite number of quantum fields,' said Edgar Shaghoulian, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Still, for some experts, Bousso's work delivers a satisfying denouement to the Penrose and Wall singularity story, despite its unrealistic abundance of particles. It establishes that singularities can't be avoided, even in space-times with mild reactions to quantum matter. 'Just by adding small quantum corrections, you can't prevent the singularity,' Penington said. Wall and Bousso's work 'answers that pretty definitively.' The Real Singularity But Bousso's theorem still doesn't guarantee that singularities must form in our universe. Some physicists hold out hope that the dead ends do somehow go away. What seems like a singularity could actually connect to somewhere else. In the case of a black hole, perhaps those light rays end up in another universe. And a lack of a Big Bang singularity might imply that our universe began with a 'Big Bounce.' The idea is that a previous universe, as it collapsed under the pull of gravity, somehow dodged the formation of a singularity and instead bounced into a period of expansion. Physicists who are developing bounce theories often work in the second layer of the onion, using semiclassical physics that exploits negative-energy quantum effects to get around the singularity required by the Penrose and Hawking theorems. In light of the newer theorems, they will now need to swallow the uncomfortable truth that their theories violate the generalized second law as well. One physicist pursuing bounces, Surjeet Rajendran of Johns Hopkins University, says he is undaunted. He points out that not even the generalized second law is gospel truth. Rejecting it would make singularities avoidable and continuations of space-time possible. Singularity skeptics can also appeal to the theory at the core of the onion, where space-time behaves in truly quantum ways, such as taking on superpositions. There, nothing can be taken for granted. It becomes hard to define the concept of area, for instance, so it's not clear what form the second law should take, and therefore the new theorems won't hold. Bousso and like-minded physicists, however, suspect that a highly quantum arena with no notion of area is tantamount to a dead-end for a light ray, and therefore that something Penrose would recognize as a singularity should persist in the core theory and in our universe. The beginning of the cosmos and the hearts of black holes would truly mark edges of the map where clocks can't tick and space stops. 'Inside of black holes, I am positive there is some notion of singularity,' said Netta Engelhardt, a physicist at MIT who has worked with Wall. In that case, the still-unknown fundamental theory of quantum gravity would not kill singularities but demystify them. This truer theory would allow physicists to ask questions and calculate meaningful answers, but the language of those questions and answers would change dramatically. Space-time quantities like position, curvature and duration might be useless for describing a singularity. There, where time ends, other quantities or concepts might have to take their place. 'If you had to make me guess,' Penington said, 'whatever quantum state describes the singularity itself does not have a notion of time.' Original story reprinted with permission from Quanta Magazine, an editorially independent publication of the Simons Foundation whose mission is to enhance public understanding of science by covering research developments and trends in mathematics and the physical and life sciences.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Studying a galaxy far, far away could become easier with help from AI, says researcher
A recent Memorial University of Newfoundland graduate says his research may help study galaxies more efficiently — with help from Artificial Intelligence. As part of Youssef Zaazou's master's of science, he developed an AI-based image-processing technique that generates predictions of what certain galaxies may look like in a given wavelength of light. "Think of it as translating galaxy images across different wavelengths of light," Zaazou told CBC News over email. He did this by researching past methods for similar tasks, adapting current AI tools for his specific purposes, finding and curating the right dataset to train the models, along with plenty of trial and error. "Instead of … having to look at an entire region of sky, we can get predictions for certain regions and figure out, 'Oh this might be interesting to look at,'" said Zaazou. "So we can then prioritize how we use our telescope resources." Zaazou recently teamed up with his supervisors Terrence Tricco and Alex Bihlo to co-author a paper on his research in The Astrophysical Journal, which is published by The American Astronomical Society. Tricco says this research could also help justify allocation of high-demand telescopes like the Hubble Space Telescope, which has a competitive process to assign its use. A future for AI in astronomy Both Tricco and Zaazou emphasised the research does not use AI to replace current methods but to augment them. Tricco says that Zaazou's findings have the potential to help guide future telescope development, and predict what astronomers might expect to see, making for more efficient exploration. Calling The Astrophysical Journal the "gold standard" for astronomy journals in the world, Tricco hopes the wider astronomical community will take notice of Zaazou's findings. "We want to have them be aware of this because as I was mentioning, AI, machine learning, and physics, astronomy, it's still very new for physicists and for astronomers, and they're a little bit hesitant about these tools," said Tricco. Tricco praised the growing presence of space research in general at Memorial University. "We are here, we're doing great research," he said. He added growing AI expertise is also transferable to other disciplines. "I think that builds into our just tech ecosystem here as well." 'Only the beginning' Though Zaazou's time as a Memorial University student is over, he hopes to see research in this area continue to grow. "I'm hoping this is the beginning of further research to be done," he said. Though Zaazou described his contribution to the field as merely a "pebble," he's happy to have been able to do his part. "I'm an astronomer. And it just feels great to be able to say that and to be able to have that little contribution because I just love the field and I'm fascinated by everything out there," said Zaazou. Download our free CBC News app to sign up for push alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador. Sign up for our daily headlines newsletter here. Click here to visit our landing page.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
No electrons needed: This optical microscope sees atoms at one-nanometer resolution
Microscopes have long been scientists' eyes into the unseen, revealing everything from bustling cells to viruses and nanoscale even the most powerful optical microscopes have been limited by a fundamental physical rule known as the diffraction limit, which prevents them from clearly seeing anything smaller than about 200 nanometers—far too large to capture single limitation has stood in the way of observing how light interacts with individual atoms or molecules, a critical step for advancing materials science, electronics, and quantum a team of international researchers has overcome this challenge. They've developed a novel imaging technique called ULA-SNOM (ultralow tip oscillation amplitude scattering-type scanning near-field optical microscopy), which can optically resolve features just one nanometer in size—small enough to see individual atoms with light. In short, the scientists have developed an optical microscope that lets us watch light behave at the level of single atoms—a feat once thought possible only with electron-based microscopy tools. The breakthrough could revolutionize how we study matter at its fundamental level, and reshape everything from how solar cells are built to how we understand chemical reactions and quantum systems. Shrinking light to the size of atoms To break past the resolution limits of traditional optics, the team built on a technique called scattering-type scanning near-field optical microscopy (s-SNOM). In s-SNOM, a sharp metal tip is illuminated with a laser and scanned across the surface of a material. The light scatters off the surface in patterns that reveal nanoscale details. However, typical s-SNOM setups only reach resolutions of about 10 to 100 nanometers. Which is too big for atomic-scale imaging. Using their novel approach, ULA-SNOM, the researchers managed to reduce the movement of the scanning tip to an incredibly tiny level. In this method, the tip oscillates with an amplitude of only 0.5 to 1 nanometer, which is about the width of three atoms. This precise motion was found to be large enough to pick up optical signals, but small enough to detect the finest structural details. A larger amplitude would degrade the optical resolution, and any smaller would overwhelm the signal with noise. The tip itself was made of polished silver, carefully shaped using a focused ion beam to ensure a smooth and stable surface. A visible red laser with a wavelength of 633 nanometers and six milliwatts of power was directed at the tip, producing a phenomenon called a plasmonic cavity, a tiny, confined pocket of light formed between the tip and the sample surface. This cavity was squeezed into a volume just one cubic nanometer in size, which allowed it to interact with the material at the scale of single atoms. To keep this delicate setup stable, the entire experiment was carried out in ultrahigh vacuum and at an ultra-cold temperature of eight Kelvin (−265°C). These cryogenic conditions eliminated vibrations and contamination, helping the tip stay precisely positioned just a nanometer above the surface. Then, to filter out background light and enhance the real signal, the team used a specialized method called self-homodyne detection, which made the optical data clearer and more reliable. At this point, the ULA-SNOM microscope setup was ready for testing. Capturing images at the atomic scale The team used their ULA-SNOM setup to image single-atom-thick silicon islands placed on a silver surface. Despite the fact that these silicon layers were just one atom tall, the microscope was able to clearly show where the silicon ended and the silver began, not just in terms of shape, but in how each material responded to light. This result confirmed that the system could capture true optical contrast at atomic resolution. The microscope also offered something unique. It could gather different kinds of information at the same time. Along with optical signals, the setup also measured electrical conductivity and mechanical forces using built-in scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and atomic force microscopy capabilities. Moreover, by analyzing how the tip responded at different vibration frequencies (harmonics), the team was able to separate signals from different sources. The fourth harmonic, in particular, revealed the clearest differences in optical behavior between materials. When the scientists compared the spatial resolution with that of a traditional STM—a powerful instrument used to image surfaces at the atomic scale—they found the optical images from ULA-SNOM matched its detail, about one nanometer, nearly identical to the 0.9-nanometer resolution of the the first time, researchers could see clearly how a single atom or defect affects the optical behavior of a material. The development can potentially lead to precise design of nanostructures in electronics, the discovery of new photonic materials, or even better solar cells that absorb light more efficiently. Furthermore, scientists could use this technique to study quantum dots, single-molecule sensors, or biological structures with a level of detail that was previously impossible. However, ULA-SNOM requires cryogenic cooling, ultrahigh vacuum, carefully shaped metal tips, and stable laser systems, tools available only in specialized labs. Hopefully, future studies will focus on making the approach more practical, accessible, and scalable. The study is published in the journal Science Advances. Solve the daily Crossword
