Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?2019 Community Moderator Election Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara 2019 Moderator Election Q&A - QuestionnaireDid the Big Bang happen at a point?Does the universe have a center?What if the size of the Universe doubled?Presence Of an Another UniverseDoes (it make sense to say that ) the universe has a center?Does the universe have a center?Is there a finite amount of mass in the universe?Do bubble universes have a centre?Does “Infinite Universe” Imply Infinite Mass?Double the mass in the universe, double the inertiaWhy is the possibility of the universe having a centre around which everything orbits not considered feasible?Does an infinite universe imply infinite mass?

Putting Ant-Man on house arrest

Was there ever a LEGO store in Miami International Airport?

What is a good proxy for government quality?

Is a self contained air-bullet cartridge feasible?

Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?

What's parked in Mil Moscow helicopter plant?

Why I cannot instantiate a class whose constructor is private in a friend class?

What helicopter has the most rotor blades?

Will I be more secure with my own router behind my ISP's router?

Bright yellow or light yellow?

/bin/ls sorts differently than just ls

Why do people think Winterfell crypts is the safest place for women, children and old people?

Why isPrototypeOf() returns false?

Why does the Cisco show run command not show the full version, while the show version command does?

Like totally amazing interchangeable sister outfit accessory swapping or whatever

Are these square matrices always diagonalisable?

TV series episode where humans nuke aliens before decrypting their message that states they come in peace

Are there existing rules/lore for MTG planeswalkers?

Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department

Can gravitational waves pass through a black hole?

When I export an AI 300x60 art board it saves with bigger dimensions

Writing a T-SQL stored procedure to receive 4 numbers and insert them into a table

What is the term for extremely loose Latin word order?

What to do with someone that cheated their way though university and a PhD program?



Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?



2019 Community Moderator Election
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - QuestionnaireDid the Big Bang happen at a point?Does the universe have a center?What if the size of the Universe doubled?Presence Of an Another UniverseDoes (it make sense to say that ) the universe has a center?Does the universe have a center?Is there a finite amount of mass in the universe?Do bubble universes have a centre?Does “Infinite Universe” Imply Infinite Mass?Double the mass in the universe, double the inertiaWhy is the possibility of the universe having a centre around which everything orbits not considered feasible?Does an infinite universe imply infinite mass?










24












$begingroup$


Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?
If it does, doesn't it necessarily mean that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction somewhere in the universe so as to neutralize the disbalance of mass?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/25591/2451 and links therein.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Cross-posted to astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30592
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday
















24












$begingroup$


Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?
If it does, doesn't it necessarily mean that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction somewhere in the universe so as to neutralize the disbalance of mass?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/25591/2451 and links therein.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Cross-posted to astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30592
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday














24












24








24


1



$begingroup$


Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?
If it does, doesn't it necessarily mean that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction somewhere in the universe so as to neutralize the disbalance of mass?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?
If it does, doesn't it necessarily mean that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction somewhere in the universe so as to neutralize the disbalance of mass?







cosmology spacetime mass universe






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







Tapi













New contributor




Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









TapiTapi

12918




12918




New contributor




Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Tapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/25591/2451 and links therein.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Cross-posted to astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30592
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday

















  • $begingroup$
    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/25591/2451 and links therein.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Cross-posted to astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30592
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    yesterday
















$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/25591/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/25591/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic
2 days ago












$begingroup$
Cross-posted to astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30592
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday





$begingroup$
Cross-posted to astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30592
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
yesterday











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















30












$begingroup$

As far as we know, the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre. One of the basic assumptions we use when describing the universe is that, on average, it is the same everywhere. This is called the cosmological principle. While this is only an assumption, the evidence we have from observing the universe suggests that it is true.



This can seem a bit odd if you have the idea that the Big Bang happened at a point and the Big Bang blasted the universe outwards from that point. But the Big Bang did not happen at a point; it happened everywhere in the universe at the same time. For more on this, see Did the Big Bang happen at a point?



It is certainly true that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction because this is just Newton's third law. If I apply a force on you then you apply an equal and opposite force on me, so if we were floating in space our combined centre of mass would not change. So while it does not make sense to ask about the centre of mass of the universe we can ask what happens on a smaller scale, and we find that unless some external force is being applied the centre of mass of a system cannot change.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @LenaDas you are correct that the universe is expanding and that means the distances between objects are increasing. However the universe is increasing only on average. Some bits of the universe are shrinking, for example the collapsing dust clouds that create stars, and some are neither shrinking nor expanding, like the Solar System. It is only when we average out all the expanding bits, all the shrinking bits and all the static bits that we end up with the overall average expansion.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    2 days ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Anyhow, the Solar System is a static part of the universe so the expansion of the universe does not mean the Earth Sun distance is increasing.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    2 days ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @LenaDas What John said; however, there will be observable effects - at some (very distant) point in the future, it will no longer be possible to observe the galaxies that aren't gravitationally bound. This will probably mean that it would not be possible to observe the expansion of the universe either. Also, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not, and we don't know if there's universe beyond what was "our" Big Bang - all we know is that some 15 billion years ago, everything we have evidence for was in a tiny volume.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    "As far as we know the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre." I don't quite understand how this is a reason.
    $endgroup$
    – JiK
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I'm inclined to agree with @JiK... What even is a "center" for arbitrary objects? The center of mass is well-defined, but even a volumetric center isn't really meaningful unless you just happen to have, e.g., a sphere...
    $endgroup$
    – Scott
    yesterday


















13












$begingroup$

The universe is not obeying a classical Newtonian physics, only locally Newton's laws hold. The universe as seen in the standard Big Bang model, obeys General Relativity.



bb



This is a cut in the time dimension and one space dimension. At the line of the present universe, all points were at the beginning of the universe, and there can be no center of mass for the observable universe.



Visualize a balloon that starts inflating from a (0,0,0) point in space. At time t the surface is a sphere, and all points on the sphere were at the beginning (0,0,0). Is there a center of mass for the surface? All points are at the center of mass, because they are balanced by all other points.



The balloon is an analogue of the three dimensional space of the universe. In contrast to the balloon, the theory does not need to embed the universe in a higher dimension so as to start with a four dimensional space point. All points in our three dimensions were at the beginning of the Big Bang.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The universe is 3 dimensional, and so is a balloon. We have no evidence whatsoever for any curvature in some higher dimension. But we do know that the balloon has a centre.
    $endgroup$
    – John Duffield
    2 days ago







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @JohnDuffield The balloon is a two dimensional analogue embedded in our three dimensional space, to give an intuition of why there is no center to the surface. The general relativity obeying uiniverse is not embedded in a four dimensional space, as far as our modelin goes. The proof of the validity of the model is that it explains the observations up to now.
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @annav What is meant by "Earliest time visible with light" in the image attached? Does it mean that we've been able to see light coming from a point 380,000 years ago? And that it took light 380000 years to reach us and that any light beyond that has never reached us?
    $endgroup$
    – Tapi
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Lena, the times on the X axis, such as 380,000, are time after the origin, not time backward from the present. So that’s about 13 1/2 billion years ago.
    $endgroup$
    – prl
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe we will be luckier with the gravitaitonal decoupling www-ucjf.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~iss2017/ISS2017_files/… and be able to probe the very beginning
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    yesterday


















1












$begingroup$

The universe is often modelled by the FLRW metric with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. If we for simplicity assume that there is no curvature $k=0$, and even if we pick a global coordinate system for space (which would artificially distinguish an origin, but remember: the universe has no center), then the center of mass is given as



$$bf R_rm COM ~=~ fracint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~bf rint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~1,$$



which is mathematically ill-defined. (A similar negative conclusion is reached in the case of curvature $k=pm 1$.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    -4












    $begingroup$

    Well, assuming classical mechanics(which is of course not applicable for our universe), of course our universe does have a fixed centre of mass.



    I don't know which level you are in, but if you have the knowledge of general relativity(in which the idea of centre of mass seems pretty stupid) go through the other answers. But if you are somehow interested in the point of view of the classical physics too, you are welcome to read this answer.



    See, centre of mass is primarily arises just from a statistical idea which later turns out to be of a greater significance, as the centre of mass of all bodies interacting with each other remain unaccelerated.



    Wait, did i say ALL BODIES INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER? Yes, indeed.



    The idea is, any action we take involves more than one bodies. And of course you know that centre of mass remains unaccelerated.



    Now, since all the possible centre of masses are unaccelerated, centre of mass of these masses will also remain fixed, giving the universe a fixed CM.



    Now one may ask, SUPPOSE I'M PICKING UP A BOX FROM THE GROUND ONTO MY HEAD. WHO'S MOVING OTHER THAN THE BOX? HOW IS THE CENTRE OF MASS BALANCED HERE?



    The answer is(sequentially), when you picked up that box you had to apply some amount of force on the box in order to provide an upward acceleration. The reaction from the box caused your weigh more. Earth felt force from your feet more than before. This caused the earth move just a bit away from a box. The Earth is really massive. So the shift on centre of mass is not so negligible. This balances the movement of he centre of mass of you, earth and the box.
    So that C. M. remains fixed and your question is answered😊.



    Thank you😊






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 7




      $begingroup$
      The universe has no center and you can certainly not apply classical concepts (i.e. you need general relativity).
      $endgroup$
      – StephenG
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      yeah that's true. i just thought the concept of GR would be still unknown to him/her(by seeing the question). Sorry for such stupid deed.
      $endgroup$
      – Ritam Dutta
      2 days ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I don't think that adding "assuming classical mechanics" covers it. There's no point in talking about inapplicable physics under the pretext of targeting OP's background.
      $endgroup$
      – Chair
      2 days ago











    • $begingroup$
      Do you think your classical physics answer would apply to an infinite universe?
      $endgroup$
      – PM 2Ring
      yesterday











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Tapi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f474105%2fdoes-the-universe-have-a-fixed-centre-of-mass%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    30












    $begingroup$

    As far as we know, the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre. One of the basic assumptions we use when describing the universe is that, on average, it is the same everywhere. This is called the cosmological principle. While this is only an assumption, the evidence we have from observing the universe suggests that it is true.



    This can seem a bit odd if you have the idea that the Big Bang happened at a point and the Big Bang blasted the universe outwards from that point. But the Big Bang did not happen at a point; it happened everywhere in the universe at the same time. For more on this, see Did the Big Bang happen at a point?



    It is certainly true that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction because this is just Newton's third law. If I apply a force on you then you apply an equal and opposite force on me, so if we were floating in space our combined centre of mass would not change. So while it does not make sense to ask about the centre of mass of the universe we can ask what happens on a smaller scale, and we find that unless some external force is being applied the centre of mass of a system cannot change.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @LenaDas you are correct that the universe is expanding and that means the distances between objects are increasing. However the universe is increasing only on average. Some bits of the universe are shrinking, for example the collapsing dust clouds that create stars, and some are neither shrinking nor expanding, like the Solar System. It is only when we average out all the expanding bits, all the shrinking bits and all the static bits that we end up with the overall average expansion.
      $endgroup$
      – John Rennie
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Anyhow, the Solar System is a static part of the universe so the expansion of the universe does not mean the Earth Sun distance is increasing.
      $endgroup$
      – John Rennie
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @LenaDas What John said; however, there will be observable effects - at some (very distant) point in the future, it will no longer be possible to observe the galaxies that aren't gravitationally bound. This will probably mean that it would not be possible to observe the expansion of the universe either. Also, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not, and we don't know if there's universe beyond what was "our" Big Bang - all we know is that some 15 billion years ago, everything we have evidence for was in a tiny volume.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      "As far as we know the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre." I don't quite understand how this is a reason.
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I'm inclined to agree with @JiK... What even is a "center" for arbitrary objects? The center of mass is well-defined, but even a volumetric center isn't really meaningful unless you just happen to have, e.g., a sphere...
      $endgroup$
      – Scott
      yesterday















    30












    $begingroup$

    As far as we know, the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre. One of the basic assumptions we use when describing the universe is that, on average, it is the same everywhere. This is called the cosmological principle. While this is only an assumption, the evidence we have from observing the universe suggests that it is true.



    This can seem a bit odd if you have the idea that the Big Bang happened at a point and the Big Bang blasted the universe outwards from that point. But the Big Bang did not happen at a point; it happened everywhere in the universe at the same time. For more on this, see Did the Big Bang happen at a point?



    It is certainly true that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction because this is just Newton's third law. If I apply a force on you then you apply an equal and opposite force on me, so if we were floating in space our combined centre of mass would not change. So while it does not make sense to ask about the centre of mass of the universe we can ask what happens on a smaller scale, and we find that unless some external force is being applied the centre of mass of a system cannot change.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @LenaDas you are correct that the universe is expanding and that means the distances between objects are increasing. However the universe is increasing only on average. Some bits of the universe are shrinking, for example the collapsing dust clouds that create stars, and some are neither shrinking nor expanding, like the Solar System. It is only when we average out all the expanding bits, all the shrinking bits and all the static bits that we end up with the overall average expansion.
      $endgroup$
      – John Rennie
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Anyhow, the Solar System is a static part of the universe so the expansion of the universe does not mean the Earth Sun distance is increasing.
      $endgroup$
      – John Rennie
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @LenaDas What John said; however, there will be observable effects - at some (very distant) point in the future, it will no longer be possible to observe the galaxies that aren't gravitationally bound. This will probably mean that it would not be possible to observe the expansion of the universe either. Also, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not, and we don't know if there's universe beyond what was "our" Big Bang - all we know is that some 15 billion years ago, everything we have evidence for was in a tiny volume.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      "As far as we know the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre." I don't quite understand how this is a reason.
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I'm inclined to agree with @JiK... What even is a "center" for arbitrary objects? The center of mass is well-defined, but even a volumetric center isn't really meaningful unless you just happen to have, e.g., a sphere...
      $endgroup$
      – Scott
      yesterday













    30












    30








    30





    $begingroup$

    As far as we know, the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre. One of the basic assumptions we use when describing the universe is that, on average, it is the same everywhere. This is called the cosmological principle. While this is only an assumption, the evidence we have from observing the universe suggests that it is true.



    This can seem a bit odd if you have the idea that the Big Bang happened at a point and the Big Bang blasted the universe outwards from that point. But the Big Bang did not happen at a point; it happened everywhere in the universe at the same time. For more on this, see Did the Big Bang happen at a point?



    It is certainly true that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction because this is just Newton's third law. If I apply a force on you then you apply an equal and opposite force on me, so if we were floating in space our combined centre of mass would not change. So while it does not make sense to ask about the centre of mass of the universe we can ask what happens on a smaller scale, and we find that unless some external force is being applied the centre of mass of a system cannot change.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    As far as we know, the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre. One of the basic assumptions we use when describing the universe is that, on average, it is the same everywhere. This is called the cosmological principle. While this is only an assumption, the evidence we have from observing the universe suggests that it is true.



    This can seem a bit odd if you have the idea that the Big Bang happened at a point and the Big Bang blasted the universe outwards from that point. But the Big Bang did not happen at a point; it happened everywhere in the universe at the same time. For more on this, see Did the Big Bang happen at a point?



    It is certainly true that every action of ours has to be balanced by a counteraction because this is just Newton's third law. If I apply a force on you then you apply an equal and opposite force on me, so if we were floating in space our combined centre of mass would not change. So while it does not make sense to ask about the centre of mass of the universe we can ask what happens on a smaller scale, and we find that unless some external force is being applied the centre of mass of a system cannot change.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago









    Jonathon Reinhart

    1033




    1033










    answered 2 days ago









    John RennieJohn Rennie

    280k45560811




    280k45560811







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @LenaDas you are correct that the universe is expanding and that means the distances between objects are increasing. However the universe is increasing only on average. Some bits of the universe are shrinking, for example the collapsing dust clouds that create stars, and some are neither shrinking nor expanding, like the Solar System. It is only when we average out all the expanding bits, all the shrinking bits and all the static bits that we end up with the overall average expansion.
      $endgroup$
      – John Rennie
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Anyhow, the Solar System is a static part of the universe so the expansion of the universe does not mean the Earth Sun distance is increasing.
      $endgroup$
      – John Rennie
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @LenaDas What John said; however, there will be observable effects - at some (very distant) point in the future, it will no longer be possible to observe the galaxies that aren't gravitationally bound. This will probably mean that it would not be possible to observe the expansion of the universe either. Also, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not, and we don't know if there's universe beyond what was "our" Big Bang - all we know is that some 15 billion years ago, everything we have evidence for was in a tiny volume.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      "As far as we know the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre." I don't quite understand how this is a reason.
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I'm inclined to agree with @JiK... What even is a "center" for arbitrary objects? The center of mass is well-defined, but even a volumetric center isn't really meaningful unless you just happen to have, e.g., a sphere...
      $endgroup$
      – Scott
      yesterday












    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @LenaDas you are correct that the universe is expanding and that means the distances between objects are increasing. However the universe is increasing only on average. Some bits of the universe are shrinking, for example the collapsing dust clouds that create stars, and some are neither shrinking nor expanding, like the Solar System. It is only when we average out all the expanding bits, all the shrinking bits and all the static bits that we end up with the overall average expansion.
      $endgroup$
      – John Rennie
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Anyhow, the Solar System is a static part of the universe so the expansion of the universe does not mean the Earth Sun distance is increasing.
      $endgroup$
      – John Rennie
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @LenaDas What John said; however, there will be observable effects - at some (very distant) point in the future, it will no longer be possible to observe the galaxies that aren't gravitationally bound. This will probably mean that it would not be possible to observe the expansion of the universe either. Also, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not, and we don't know if there's universe beyond what was "our" Big Bang - all we know is that some 15 billion years ago, everything we have evidence for was in a tiny volume.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      "As far as we know the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre." I don't quite understand how this is a reason.
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I'm inclined to agree with @JiK... What even is a "center" for arbitrary objects? The center of mass is well-defined, but even a volumetric center isn't really meaningful unless you just happen to have, e.g., a sphere...
      $endgroup$
      – Scott
      yesterday







    6




    6




    $begingroup$
    @LenaDas you are correct that the universe is expanding and that means the distances between objects are increasing. However the universe is increasing only on average. Some bits of the universe are shrinking, for example the collapsing dust clouds that create stars, and some are neither shrinking nor expanding, like the Solar System. It is only when we average out all the expanding bits, all the shrinking bits and all the static bits that we end up with the overall average expansion.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @LenaDas you are correct that the universe is expanding and that means the distances between objects are increasing. However the universe is increasing only on average. Some bits of the universe are shrinking, for example the collapsing dust clouds that create stars, and some are neither shrinking nor expanding, like the Solar System. It is only when we average out all the expanding bits, all the shrinking bits and all the static bits that we end up with the overall average expansion.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    2 days ago




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    Anyhow, the Solar System is a static part of the universe so the expansion of the universe does not mean the Earth Sun distance is increasing.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Anyhow, the Solar System is a static part of the universe so the expansion of the universe does not mean the Earth Sun distance is increasing.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    2 days ago




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    @LenaDas What John said; however, there will be observable effects - at some (very distant) point in the future, it will no longer be possible to observe the galaxies that aren't gravitationally bound. This will probably mean that it would not be possible to observe the expansion of the universe either. Also, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not, and we don't know if there's universe beyond what was "our" Big Bang - all we know is that some 15 billion years ago, everything we have evidence for was in a tiny volume.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @LenaDas What John said; however, there will be observable effects - at some (very distant) point in the future, it will no longer be possible to observe the galaxies that aren't gravitationally bound. This will probably mean that it would not be possible to observe the expansion of the universe either. Also, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not, and we don't know if there's universe beyond what was "our" Big Bang - all we know is that some 15 billion years ago, everything we have evidence for was in a tiny volume.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    "As far as we know the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre." I don't quite understand how this is a reason.
    $endgroup$
    – JiK
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    "As far as we know the universe does not have a centre of mass because it does not have a centre." I don't quite understand how this is a reason.
    $endgroup$
    – JiK
    2 days ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    I'm inclined to agree with @JiK... What even is a "center" for arbitrary objects? The center of mass is well-defined, but even a volumetric center isn't really meaningful unless you just happen to have, e.g., a sphere...
    $endgroup$
    – Scott
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    I'm inclined to agree with @JiK... What even is a "center" for arbitrary objects? The center of mass is well-defined, but even a volumetric center isn't really meaningful unless you just happen to have, e.g., a sphere...
    $endgroup$
    – Scott
    yesterday











    13












    $begingroup$

    The universe is not obeying a classical Newtonian physics, only locally Newton's laws hold. The universe as seen in the standard Big Bang model, obeys General Relativity.



    bb



    This is a cut in the time dimension and one space dimension. At the line of the present universe, all points were at the beginning of the universe, and there can be no center of mass for the observable universe.



    Visualize a balloon that starts inflating from a (0,0,0) point in space. At time t the surface is a sphere, and all points on the sphere were at the beginning (0,0,0). Is there a center of mass for the surface? All points are at the center of mass, because they are balanced by all other points.



    The balloon is an analogue of the three dimensional space of the universe. In contrast to the balloon, the theory does not need to embed the universe in a higher dimension so as to start with a four dimensional space point. All points in our three dimensions were at the beginning of the Big Bang.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      The universe is 3 dimensional, and so is a balloon. We have no evidence whatsoever for any curvature in some higher dimension. But we do know that the balloon has a centre.
      $endgroup$
      – John Duffield
      2 days ago







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @JohnDuffield The balloon is a two dimensional analogue embedded in our three dimensional space, to give an intuition of why there is no center to the surface. The general relativity obeying uiniverse is not embedded in a four dimensional space, as far as our modelin goes. The proof of the validity of the model is that it explains the observations up to now.
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @annav What is meant by "Earliest time visible with light" in the image attached? Does it mean that we've been able to see light coming from a point 380,000 years ago? And that it took light 380000 years to reach us and that any light beyond that has never reached us?
      $endgroup$
      – Tapi
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Lena, the times on the X axis, such as 380,000, are time after the origin, not time backward from the present. So that’s about 13 1/2 billion years ago.
      $endgroup$
      – prl
      2 days ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Maybe we will be luckier with the gravitaitonal decoupling www-ucjf.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~iss2017/ISS2017_files/… and be able to probe the very beginning
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      yesterday















    13












    $begingroup$

    The universe is not obeying a classical Newtonian physics, only locally Newton's laws hold. The universe as seen in the standard Big Bang model, obeys General Relativity.



    bb



    This is a cut in the time dimension and one space dimension. At the line of the present universe, all points were at the beginning of the universe, and there can be no center of mass for the observable universe.



    Visualize a balloon that starts inflating from a (0,0,0) point in space. At time t the surface is a sphere, and all points on the sphere were at the beginning (0,0,0). Is there a center of mass for the surface? All points are at the center of mass, because they are balanced by all other points.



    The balloon is an analogue of the three dimensional space of the universe. In contrast to the balloon, the theory does not need to embed the universe in a higher dimension so as to start with a four dimensional space point. All points in our three dimensions were at the beginning of the Big Bang.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      The universe is 3 dimensional, and so is a balloon. We have no evidence whatsoever for any curvature in some higher dimension. But we do know that the balloon has a centre.
      $endgroup$
      – John Duffield
      2 days ago







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @JohnDuffield The balloon is a two dimensional analogue embedded in our three dimensional space, to give an intuition of why there is no center to the surface. The general relativity obeying uiniverse is not embedded in a four dimensional space, as far as our modelin goes. The proof of the validity of the model is that it explains the observations up to now.
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @annav What is meant by "Earliest time visible with light" in the image attached? Does it mean that we've been able to see light coming from a point 380,000 years ago? And that it took light 380000 years to reach us and that any light beyond that has never reached us?
      $endgroup$
      – Tapi
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Lena, the times on the X axis, such as 380,000, are time after the origin, not time backward from the present. So that’s about 13 1/2 billion years ago.
      $endgroup$
      – prl
      2 days ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Maybe we will be luckier with the gravitaitonal decoupling www-ucjf.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~iss2017/ISS2017_files/… and be able to probe the very beginning
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      yesterday













    13












    13








    13





    $begingroup$

    The universe is not obeying a classical Newtonian physics, only locally Newton's laws hold. The universe as seen in the standard Big Bang model, obeys General Relativity.



    bb



    This is a cut in the time dimension and one space dimension. At the line of the present universe, all points were at the beginning of the universe, and there can be no center of mass for the observable universe.



    Visualize a balloon that starts inflating from a (0,0,0) point in space. At time t the surface is a sphere, and all points on the sphere were at the beginning (0,0,0). Is there a center of mass for the surface? All points are at the center of mass, because they are balanced by all other points.



    The balloon is an analogue of the three dimensional space of the universe. In contrast to the balloon, the theory does not need to embed the universe in a higher dimension so as to start with a four dimensional space point. All points in our three dimensions were at the beginning of the Big Bang.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    The universe is not obeying a classical Newtonian physics, only locally Newton's laws hold. The universe as seen in the standard Big Bang model, obeys General Relativity.



    bb



    This is a cut in the time dimension and one space dimension. At the line of the present universe, all points were at the beginning of the universe, and there can be no center of mass for the observable universe.



    Visualize a balloon that starts inflating from a (0,0,0) point in space. At time t the surface is a sphere, and all points on the sphere were at the beginning (0,0,0). Is there a center of mass for the surface? All points are at the center of mass, because they are balanced by all other points.



    The balloon is an analogue of the three dimensional space of the universe. In contrast to the balloon, the theory does not need to embed the universe in a higher dimension so as to start with a four dimensional space point. All points in our three dimensions were at the beginning of the Big Bang.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    anna vanna v

    162k8154459




    162k8154459







    • 3




      $begingroup$
      The universe is 3 dimensional, and so is a balloon. We have no evidence whatsoever for any curvature in some higher dimension. But we do know that the balloon has a centre.
      $endgroup$
      – John Duffield
      2 days ago







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @JohnDuffield The balloon is a two dimensional analogue embedded in our three dimensional space, to give an intuition of why there is no center to the surface. The general relativity obeying uiniverse is not embedded in a four dimensional space, as far as our modelin goes. The proof of the validity of the model is that it explains the observations up to now.
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @annav What is meant by "Earliest time visible with light" in the image attached? Does it mean that we've been able to see light coming from a point 380,000 years ago? And that it took light 380000 years to reach us and that any light beyond that has never reached us?
      $endgroup$
      – Tapi
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Lena, the times on the X axis, such as 380,000, are time after the origin, not time backward from the present. So that’s about 13 1/2 billion years ago.
      $endgroup$
      – prl
      2 days ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Maybe we will be luckier with the gravitaitonal decoupling www-ucjf.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~iss2017/ISS2017_files/… and be able to probe the very beginning
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      yesterday












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      The universe is 3 dimensional, and so is a balloon. We have no evidence whatsoever for any curvature in some higher dimension. But we do know that the balloon has a centre.
      $endgroup$
      – John Duffield
      2 days ago







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      @JohnDuffield The balloon is a two dimensional analogue embedded in our three dimensional space, to give an intuition of why there is no center to the surface. The general relativity obeying uiniverse is not embedded in a four dimensional space, as far as our modelin goes. The proof of the validity of the model is that it explains the observations up to now.
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @annav What is meant by "Earliest time visible with light" in the image attached? Does it mean that we've been able to see light coming from a point 380,000 years ago? And that it took light 380000 years to reach us and that any light beyond that has never reached us?
      $endgroup$
      – Tapi
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Lena, the times on the X axis, such as 380,000, are time after the origin, not time backward from the present. So that’s about 13 1/2 billion years ago.
      $endgroup$
      – prl
      2 days ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Maybe we will be luckier with the gravitaitonal decoupling www-ucjf.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~iss2017/ISS2017_files/… and be able to probe the very beginning
      $endgroup$
      – anna v
      yesterday







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    The universe is 3 dimensional, and so is a balloon. We have no evidence whatsoever for any curvature in some higher dimension. But we do know that the balloon has a centre.
    $endgroup$
    – John Duffield
    2 days ago





    $begingroup$
    The universe is 3 dimensional, and so is a balloon. We have no evidence whatsoever for any curvature in some higher dimension. But we do know that the balloon has a centre.
    $endgroup$
    – John Duffield
    2 days ago





    6




    6




    $begingroup$
    @JohnDuffield The balloon is a two dimensional analogue embedded in our three dimensional space, to give an intuition of why there is no center to the surface. The general relativity obeying uiniverse is not embedded in a four dimensional space, as far as our modelin goes. The proof of the validity of the model is that it explains the observations up to now.
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @JohnDuffield The balloon is a two dimensional analogue embedded in our three dimensional space, to give an intuition of why there is no center to the surface. The general relativity obeying uiniverse is not embedded in a four dimensional space, as far as our modelin goes. The proof of the validity of the model is that it explains the observations up to now.
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    @annav What is meant by "Earliest time visible with light" in the image attached? Does it mean that we've been able to see light coming from a point 380,000 years ago? And that it took light 380000 years to reach us and that any light beyond that has never reached us?
    $endgroup$
    – Tapi
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @annav What is meant by "Earliest time visible with light" in the image attached? Does it mean that we've been able to see light coming from a point 380,000 years ago? And that it took light 380000 years to reach us and that any light beyond that has never reached us?
    $endgroup$
    – Tapi
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Lena, the times on the X axis, such as 380,000, are time after the origin, not time backward from the present. So that’s about 13 1/2 billion years ago.
    $endgroup$
    – prl
    2 days ago





    $begingroup$
    Lena, the times on the X axis, such as 380,000, are time after the origin, not time backward from the present. So that’s about 13 1/2 billion years ago.
    $endgroup$
    – prl
    2 days ago





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe we will be luckier with the gravitaitonal decoupling www-ucjf.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~iss2017/ISS2017_files/… and be able to probe the very beginning
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Maybe we will be luckier with the gravitaitonal decoupling www-ucjf.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~iss2017/ISS2017_files/… and be able to probe the very beginning
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    yesterday











    1












    $begingroup$

    The universe is often modelled by the FLRW metric with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. If we for simplicity assume that there is no curvature $k=0$, and even if we pick a global coordinate system for space (which would artificially distinguish an origin, but remember: the universe has no center), then the center of mass is given as



    $$bf R_rm COM ~=~ fracint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~bf rint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~1,$$



    which is mathematically ill-defined. (A similar negative conclusion is reached in the case of curvature $k=pm 1$.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      1












      $begingroup$

      The universe is often modelled by the FLRW metric with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. If we for simplicity assume that there is no curvature $k=0$, and even if we pick a global coordinate system for space (which would artificially distinguish an origin, but remember: the universe has no center), then the center of mass is given as



      $$bf R_rm COM ~=~ fracint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~bf rint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~1,$$



      which is mathematically ill-defined. (A similar negative conclusion is reached in the case of curvature $k=pm 1$.)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        The universe is often modelled by the FLRW metric with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. If we for simplicity assume that there is no curvature $k=0$, and even if we pick a global coordinate system for space (which would artificially distinguish an origin, but remember: the universe has no center), then the center of mass is given as



        $$bf R_rm COM ~=~ fracint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~bf rint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~1,$$



        which is mathematically ill-defined. (A similar negative conclusion is reached in the case of curvature $k=pm 1$.)






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        The universe is often modelled by the FLRW metric with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space. If we for simplicity assume that there is no curvature $k=0$, and even if we pick a global coordinate system for space (which would artificially distinguish an origin, but remember: the universe has no center), then the center of mass is given as



        $$bf R_rm COM ~=~ fracint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~bf rint_mathbbR^3 !d^3bf r~1,$$



        which is mathematically ill-defined. (A similar negative conclusion is reached in the case of curvature $k=pm 1$.)







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered yesterday









        QmechanicQmechanic

        108k122001253




        108k122001253





















            -4












            $begingroup$

            Well, assuming classical mechanics(which is of course not applicable for our universe), of course our universe does have a fixed centre of mass.



            I don't know which level you are in, but if you have the knowledge of general relativity(in which the idea of centre of mass seems pretty stupid) go through the other answers. But if you are somehow interested in the point of view of the classical physics too, you are welcome to read this answer.



            See, centre of mass is primarily arises just from a statistical idea which later turns out to be of a greater significance, as the centre of mass of all bodies interacting with each other remain unaccelerated.



            Wait, did i say ALL BODIES INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER? Yes, indeed.



            The idea is, any action we take involves more than one bodies. And of course you know that centre of mass remains unaccelerated.



            Now, since all the possible centre of masses are unaccelerated, centre of mass of these masses will also remain fixed, giving the universe a fixed CM.



            Now one may ask, SUPPOSE I'M PICKING UP A BOX FROM THE GROUND ONTO MY HEAD. WHO'S MOVING OTHER THAN THE BOX? HOW IS THE CENTRE OF MASS BALANCED HERE?



            The answer is(sequentially), when you picked up that box you had to apply some amount of force on the box in order to provide an upward acceleration. The reaction from the box caused your weigh more. Earth felt force from your feet more than before. This caused the earth move just a bit away from a box. The Earth is really massive. So the shift on centre of mass is not so negligible. This balances the movement of he centre of mass of you, earth and the box.
            So that C. M. remains fixed and your question is answered😊.



            Thank you😊






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 7




              $begingroup$
              The universe has no center and you can certainly not apply classical concepts (i.e. you need general relativity).
              $endgroup$
              – StephenG
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              yeah that's true. i just thought the concept of GR would be still unknown to him/her(by seeing the question). Sorry for such stupid deed.
              $endgroup$
              – Ritam Dutta
              2 days ago







            • 2




              $begingroup$
              I don't think that adding "assuming classical mechanics" covers it. There's no point in talking about inapplicable physics under the pretext of targeting OP's background.
              $endgroup$
              – Chair
              2 days ago











            • $begingroup$
              Do you think your classical physics answer would apply to an infinite universe?
              $endgroup$
              – PM 2Ring
              yesterday















            -4












            $begingroup$

            Well, assuming classical mechanics(which is of course not applicable for our universe), of course our universe does have a fixed centre of mass.



            I don't know which level you are in, but if you have the knowledge of general relativity(in which the idea of centre of mass seems pretty stupid) go through the other answers. But if you are somehow interested in the point of view of the classical physics too, you are welcome to read this answer.



            See, centre of mass is primarily arises just from a statistical idea which later turns out to be of a greater significance, as the centre of mass of all bodies interacting with each other remain unaccelerated.



            Wait, did i say ALL BODIES INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER? Yes, indeed.



            The idea is, any action we take involves more than one bodies. And of course you know that centre of mass remains unaccelerated.



            Now, since all the possible centre of masses are unaccelerated, centre of mass of these masses will also remain fixed, giving the universe a fixed CM.



            Now one may ask, SUPPOSE I'M PICKING UP A BOX FROM THE GROUND ONTO MY HEAD. WHO'S MOVING OTHER THAN THE BOX? HOW IS THE CENTRE OF MASS BALANCED HERE?



            The answer is(sequentially), when you picked up that box you had to apply some amount of force on the box in order to provide an upward acceleration. The reaction from the box caused your weigh more. Earth felt force from your feet more than before. This caused the earth move just a bit away from a box. The Earth is really massive. So the shift on centre of mass is not so negligible. This balances the movement of he centre of mass of you, earth and the box.
            So that C. M. remains fixed and your question is answered😊.



            Thank you😊






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 7




              $begingroup$
              The universe has no center and you can certainly not apply classical concepts (i.e. you need general relativity).
              $endgroup$
              – StephenG
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              yeah that's true. i just thought the concept of GR would be still unknown to him/her(by seeing the question). Sorry for such stupid deed.
              $endgroup$
              – Ritam Dutta
              2 days ago







            • 2




              $begingroup$
              I don't think that adding "assuming classical mechanics" covers it. There's no point in talking about inapplicable physics under the pretext of targeting OP's background.
              $endgroup$
              – Chair
              2 days ago











            • $begingroup$
              Do you think your classical physics answer would apply to an infinite universe?
              $endgroup$
              – PM 2Ring
              yesterday













            -4












            -4








            -4





            $begingroup$

            Well, assuming classical mechanics(which is of course not applicable for our universe), of course our universe does have a fixed centre of mass.



            I don't know which level you are in, but if you have the knowledge of general relativity(in which the idea of centre of mass seems pretty stupid) go through the other answers. But if you are somehow interested in the point of view of the classical physics too, you are welcome to read this answer.



            See, centre of mass is primarily arises just from a statistical idea which later turns out to be of a greater significance, as the centre of mass of all bodies interacting with each other remain unaccelerated.



            Wait, did i say ALL BODIES INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER? Yes, indeed.



            The idea is, any action we take involves more than one bodies. And of course you know that centre of mass remains unaccelerated.



            Now, since all the possible centre of masses are unaccelerated, centre of mass of these masses will also remain fixed, giving the universe a fixed CM.



            Now one may ask, SUPPOSE I'M PICKING UP A BOX FROM THE GROUND ONTO MY HEAD. WHO'S MOVING OTHER THAN THE BOX? HOW IS THE CENTRE OF MASS BALANCED HERE?



            The answer is(sequentially), when you picked up that box you had to apply some amount of force on the box in order to provide an upward acceleration. The reaction from the box caused your weigh more. Earth felt force from your feet more than before. This caused the earth move just a bit away from a box. The Earth is really massive. So the shift on centre of mass is not so negligible. This balances the movement of he centre of mass of you, earth and the box.
            So that C. M. remains fixed and your question is answered😊.



            Thank you😊






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Well, assuming classical mechanics(which is of course not applicable for our universe), of course our universe does have a fixed centre of mass.



            I don't know which level you are in, but if you have the knowledge of general relativity(in which the idea of centre of mass seems pretty stupid) go through the other answers. But if you are somehow interested in the point of view of the classical physics too, you are welcome to read this answer.



            See, centre of mass is primarily arises just from a statistical idea which later turns out to be of a greater significance, as the centre of mass of all bodies interacting with each other remain unaccelerated.



            Wait, did i say ALL BODIES INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER? Yes, indeed.



            The idea is, any action we take involves more than one bodies. And of course you know that centre of mass remains unaccelerated.



            Now, since all the possible centre of masses are unaccelerated, centre of mass of these masses will also remain fixed, giving the universe a fixed CM.



            Now one may ask, SUPPOSE I'M PICKING UP A BOX FROM THE GROUND ONTO MY HEAD. WHO'S MOVING OTHER THAN THE BOX? HOW IS THE CENTRE OF MASS BALANCED HERE?



            The answer is(sequentially), when you picked up that box you had to apply some amount of force on the box in order to provide an upward acceleration. The reaction from the box caused your weigh more. Earth felt force from your feet more than before. This caused the earth move just a bit away from a box. The Earth is really massive. So the shift on centre of mass is not so negligible. This balances the movement of he centre of mass of you, earth and the box.
            So that C. M. remains fixed and your question is answered😊.



            Thank you😊







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 2 days ago

























            answered 2 days ago









            Ritam DuttaRitam Dutta

            356




            356







            • 7




              $begingroup$
              The universe has no center and you can certainly not apply classical concepts (i.e. you need general relativity).
              $endgroup$
              – StephenG
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              yeah that's true. i just thought the concept of GR would be still unknown to him/her(by seeing the question). Sorry for such stupid deed.
              $endgroup$
              – Ritam Dutta
              2 days ago







            • 2




              $begingroup$
              I don't think that adding "assuming classical mechanics" covers it. There's no point in talking about inapplicable physics under the pretext of targeting OP's background.
              $endgroup$
              – Chair
              2 days ago











            • $begingroup$
              Do you think your classical physics answer would apply to an infinite universe?
              $endgroup$
              – PM 2Ring
              yesterday












            • 7




              $begingroup$
              The universe has no center and you can certainly not apply classical concepts (i.e. you need general relativity).
              $endgroup$
              – StephenG
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              yeah that's true. i just thought the concept of GR would be still unknown to him/her(by seeing the question). Sorry for such stupid deed.
              $endgroup$
              – Ritam Dutta
              2 days ago







            • 2




              $begingroup$
              I don't think that adding "assuming classical mechanics" covers it. There's no point in talking about inapplicable physics under the pretext of targeting OP's background.
              $endgroup$
              – Chair
              2 days ago











            • $begingroup$
              Do you think your classical physics answer would apply to an infinite universe?
              $endgroup$
              – PM 2Ring
              yesterday







            7




            7




            $begingroup$
            The universe has no center and you can certainly not apply classical concepts (i.e. you need general relativity).
            $endgroup$
            – StephenG
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            The universe has no center and you can certainly not apply classical concepts (i.e. you need general relativity).
            $endgroup$
            – StephenG
            2 days ago












            $begingroup$
            yeah that's true. i just thought the concept of GR would be still unknown to him/her(by seeing the question). Sorry for such stupid deed.
            $endgroup$
            – Ritam Dutta
            2 days ago





            $begingroup$
            yeah that's true. i just thought the concept of GR would be still unknown to him/her(by seeing the question). Sorry for such stupid deed.
            $endgroup$
            – Ritam Dutta
            2 days ago





            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            I don't think that adding "assuming classical mechanics" covers it. There's no point in talking about inapplicable physics under the pretext of targeting OP's background.
            $endgroup$
            – Chair
            2 days ago





            $begingroup$
            I don't think that adding "assuming classical mechanics" covers it. There's no point in talking about inapplicable physics under the pretext of targeting OP's background.
            $endgroup$
            – Chair
            2 days ago













            $begingroup$
            Do you think your classical physics answer would apply to an infinite universe?
            $endgroup$
            – PM 2Ring
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Do you think your classical physics answer would apply to an infinite universe?
            $endgroup$
            – PM 2Ring
            yesterday










            Tapi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Tapi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Tapi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Tapi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f474105%2fdoes-the-universe-have-a-fixed-centre-of-mass%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

            Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

            Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?