There is no special place in our cosmos, as far as we can tell.

DR. ALFREDO CARPINETI

• https://www.iflscience.com/why-there-is-no-center-of-the-universe-69143

Senior Staff Writer & Space Correspondent

PublishedMay 29, 2023

63Comments

1.9kShares

About 14 billion years ago, everything we know of started with the Big Bang. A common misconception, however, is to envision it as an explosion. The actual event did not explode into anything; space and time were created as the universe began. Picturing it as an explosion makes us also think that it started at a single specific point – but this is not the case.

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.575.0_en.html#goog_461915233

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.575.0_en.html#goog_553714507

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.575.0_en.html#goog_333954242

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.575.0_en.html#goog_1238903802

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.575.0_en.html#goog_1238903803Top Stories01:0301:12Oldest Evidence Of Plague In Britain Identified Via4,000-Year-Old Teeth

The Big Bang happened everywhere. In your right hand and your left hand. In the town of Whynot, North Carolina, and in the Andromeda Galaxy. When astronomers say everywhere they really mean everywhere; because there was no single point where it began, all distances in the universe were zero, so every point in the universe was effectively in the same place: everywhere. 

Is there a center of the universe?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is as follows.

The visible universe is about 94 billion light-years across. It is everything that we can see. If we consider that, we are at its center. It is the visible universe after all. What we see has two very important properties defined by cosmologists: it is isotropic and uniform. Isotropic means it looks the same in whatever direction you look at and uniform means that at the largest scale it’s the same everywhere.

These facts inform us a little about the universe as a whole, which is much bigger than the universe that we can see. We don’t know how much bigger yet or what the whole universe is like, so our patch of the universe might be special or might be representative of the whole.

To infinity and beyond 

The easiest scenario to deal with is that the universe is infinite. Something that is infinite doesn’t have a center. Now, our little ape brains did not evolve to visualize the concept of infinity but if something goes on forever we can consider there is no special middle point.

However, it’s not certain that the cosmos goes on forever, it could well be finite. Our experience with the world tells us that if something is of a finite size then there is a center, for example think of a cube or a sphere. Unfortunately, our experience doesn’t translate to the universe as a whole because the geometry that we are most familiar with is not the geometry of a finite universe. We have to deal with the concept of curvature, and once again our brains are not built to deal with curvature in three dimensions. 

An easier (but imperfect) analogy is this: “If you think about the surface of a sphere, if that’s all there is it doesn’t have a center. The center of the sphere is outside of that space, right? It’s not a real thing,” Professor Peter Coles, a theoretical physicist at Maynooth University, told IFLScience.

“You think of a sphere as being embedded in a three-dimensional space, and the center is in that three-dimensional space. But if all there is the two-dimensional space, it doesn’t have a center.”

This is all to say, the universe doesn’t have a center. Our physics, as far as we can tell, operates in the four-dimensional space-time continuum. Looking at it with more dimensions the curvature might imply a central position. But if there is one, it is not part of our universe, as we can understand it.

BY SAUL ELBEIN – 06/01/23 6:00 AM ET

SHARETWEET https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/4028811-climate-paradox-emission-cuts-could-unmask-deadly-face-of-climate-change-scientists-warn/

javascript:false

Scientists have uncovered a potentially lethal paradox at the heart of efforts to slow human-caused climate change.

A series of new studies suggest a stark truth.

One the one hand, cutting fossil fuel pollution is necessary for avoiding severe destruction over the long term. But such cuts will make the earth much hotter in the short term.

One recent study cast the well-known declines in air pollution during the COVID-19 pandemic in a darker light.

These cuts remain one of the only examples of successful cuts to climate-warming pollution, but the new study found that those pandemic-era cuts in air pollution led to a rise in global temperatures.

The findings, published on Wednesday in the journal NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, unveil a stark paradox at the heart of human-caused climate change.

It suggests that while cutting fossil fuel pollution is necessary for avoiding severe destruction over the long term — such cuts will make things noticeably worse in the short term.

The pandemic-era economic slowdown led to “a large-scale geophysical experiment,” study leader Örjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University said in a statement.

https://1cc914d8d5c4124f6d84065b4409ce43.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

That’s because the shuttered factories and power plants led to a corresponding crash in emissions.

Even so, not all emissions fell in the same way.

From a research station in the Maldives, an island archipelago off the coast of India, Gustafsson’s team detected that when pollution from smokestacks fell, so did concentrations of aerosols — tiny floating particles that hang in the atmosphere.

That fall was an unmistakable boon to public health. According to Our World in Data, these contaminants — like tiny floating particles of soot or sulfates — cause millions of global deaths per year.

But for all the damage they do to human lungs, aerosols also help shade the earth by scattering light particles from the sun that would otherwise warm the planet.

After the cuts, the study found that light reaching the surface increased by 7 percent.

“While the sky became bluer and the air cleaner, climate warming increased when these cooling air particles were removed,” Gustafsson said.

While aerosol concentrations fell as the smokestacks shut off, other gases remained stubbornly high.

In particular, levels of the most potent climate-warming gases — like carbon dioxide — barely changed.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by trapping heat. The combination of more heat hitting the same amount of carbon dioxide meant a straightforward rise in temperatures.

The sudden rise in temperatures led by the pandemic reduction is a stark example of a more general problem — one that has long haunted the drive to cut pollution.

A draft study led by Columbia University climate scientist James Hansen suggests that the recent rise in temperatures doesn’t come from greenhouse gases at all, but from the reduction in sulfate aerosols since the early-2000s.

https://1cc914d8d5c4124f6d84065b4409ce43.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

Hansen has an esteemed pedigree on this issue. He is the former NASA scientist who in 1988 warned Congress about the dangers posed by burning fossil fuels, which he explained were causing climate change by releasing carbon dioxide.

But by 2021, Hansen was troubled: the Earth was warming too fast.

In part, that was because the U.S. and world governments had largely ignored his calls to cut carbon emissions. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by more than 40 percent between 1990 and 2021.

But even that surge in carbon dioxide levels wasn’t enough to account for how fast the climate was warming, Hansen and fellow scientist Makiko Sato warned in 2021. 

“Something is going on in addition to greenhouse warming,” they wrote.

Their culprit: The fact that the immediate aerosols released by fossil fuels temporarily hid their worse impacts, meaning that cutting them would make things worse before it made them better.

The two warned that declines in aerosols could lead the rate of global warming to double by 2040.

Last week, Hansen and colleagues reiterated those concerns. Under current emissions reduction policies, they predicted rapid warming.

Average temperature increase “will likely pierce the 1.5°C ceiling in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050,” they wrote.

One coauthor on the paper pointed to another troubling natural experiment of the COVID-19 era: the sudden surge in temperatures above ocean shipping lanes that were suddenly devoid of ships.

“For decades, this area has been kept relatively cool by sulfur emissions from ships,” climate entrepreneur Leon Simons wrote on Twitter.

“But this changed in 2020,” he added. “More extreme weather is likely.”

Not all climate scientists accept Hansen and company’s conclusion.

“I have nothing but respect & reverence for [Hansen] … but I think he is wrong on this one,” University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann tweeted.

But Mann said they agreed on something important: We don’t understand the earth’s atmosphere as well as we need to. “And where there is uncertainty, we should weigh in on the side of precaution,” Mann tweeted.

Like the larger threat of climate change, this threat has loomed for all long time.

The thorny double-edged relationship between aerosol and carbon dioxide emissions is something Hansen had warned of as early as 1990.Transgender teens, families sue Idaho over felony ban on gender-affirming carePoll shows 80 percent of older voters concerned prescription drug reform will hurt drug innovation

In their 2021 paper, Sato and Hansen described the problem — that the longer we burn fossil fuels, the hotter it becomes when we finally stop — not simply in practical terms but moral ones. 

Their point wasn’t subtle. The paper was subtitled “Faustian Payment Comes Due,” about the legendary doctor who makes a deadly deal with the Devil in exchange for an enviable life — at least for a while.

But there was one difference, they noted: “Dr. Faustus had to pay the debt himself. We have willed it to our children and grandchildren.”