Where is the center of the universe?

thousands of brightly colored orbs of light against a black gackground
The James Webb Space Telescope deep field image showing some of the earliest and most distant galaxies ever seen. (Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, and STScI)

The universe is undeniably vast, and from our perspective, it may seem like Earth is in the middle of everything. But is there a center of the cosmos, and if so, where is it? If the Big Bang started the universe, then where did it all come from, and where is it going?

To start tackling these questions, let's go back about 100 years. In the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble made two amazing back-to-back discoveries: Early in the decade, he found that "island universes," now known as galaxies, sit very far away from us; later that decade, he discovered that, on average, all galaxies are receding away from us.

Thankfully, there was already a handy theoretical explanation for all of this. Einstein's theory of general relativity had predicted that the universe was dynamic — either expanding or contracting. That contrasted with the prevailing view at the time: that the cosmos was perfectly static. And so it was up to a quartet of scientists working semi-independently to take Einstein's equations at their word, developing what is now known as the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric, the foundation of modern cosmology.

This solution to Einstein's equation, together with Hubble's startling observations, tells us that we live in an expanding universe. On average, all galaxies are getting farther away from all other galaxies, and long ago, all the matter in the cosmos was compressed into an infinitely tiny point known as the singularity — the Big Bang

 Related: How was the universe created? 

There is no center

So where is the Big Bang? Surely, that would be the true center of the universe. Unfortunately, the reality that we have uncovered about the universe through modern science does not lend itself to an easy explanation, or even the ability to imagine it. That's because there is no center of the universe. There is no edge, either. The cosmos is not expanding from anywhere, and it's not expanding into anything.

First, let's tackle the edge. The universe is, by definition, all of the things that there ever could be. Edges are things that divide one region from another. But if the universe consists of all regions, there can't be an edge. This means the universe might be infinitely big, and it's impossible to point to the center of an infinite space.

Another possibility is that the universe is indeed finite. But this would mean that at very vast scales — far larger than what we can observe — the cosmos curves back on itself. This also means it doesn't have a center.

As an analogy, look at Earth. You can point to the center of the three-dimensional planet — it's the molten bit in the core. But try to point to the center of Earth's surface, like on a map. It could be at 0-0 latitude and longitude; it could be at the poles; it could be at your grandma's house. Any point is just as good as any other.

This means the Big Bang happened everywhere throughout the universe simultaneously; it happened in the room you're sitting in, and it happened in the most distant galaxy we can see. The Big Bang was not a point in space; it was a location in time. It belongs in the finite past of every entity in the universe. 

Everywhere is a center 

But there is an interesting twist to this story. The universe does have an age; it's about 13.77 billion years old. And because the speed of light is only so fast, only a small portion of the cosmos is illuminated for us. There's a limit to what we can see, and that edge is about 45 billion light-years away. (This is possible because the universe expands faster than light.)

The vast majority of the universe is hidden from us, like the beam of a flashlight in a far forest; we can see only to the limits of the light. And from our perspective, all other galaxies are racing away from the Milky Way.

It appears as if we were at the center of the entire universe. Of course, the same could be said of any galaxy within the cosmos. From their perspective, they are at the center of their observable bubble, and all galaxies are racing away from them.

That's the curse and the blessing of an expanding universe. There is no center, and yet at the same time, all observers, including us, can rightfully claim to be in the middle of it all.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Paul Sutter
Space.com Contributor

Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron Institute in New York City. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research fellowship in Trieste, Italy, His research focuses on many diverse topics, from the emptiest regions of the universe to the earliest moments of the Big Bang to the hunt for the first stars. As an "Agent to the Stars," Paul has passionately engaged the public in science outreach for several years. He is the host of the popular "Ask a Spaceman!" podcast, author of "Your Place in the Universe" and "How to Die in Space" and he frequently appears on TV — including on The Weather Channel, for which he serves as Official Space Specialist.

  • Catastrophe
    Or, to put it more succinctly, the entire Universe is beyond our capacity to observe, being limited by the speed of light, which places every observer at the centre of their own observable universe. Furthermore, such observable universes may vary according to means of assisted observation, such as telescopes.

    Questions regarding the past and future of the Universe are limited by contingent constraints.

    Cat :)
    Reply
  • Helio
    Articles are meant to be somewhat easy on the general reader, but Hubble tends to get caught in the current of favoritism more than he should, IMO.

    In the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble made two amazing back-to-back discoveries: Early in the decade, he found that "island universes," now known as galaxies, sit very far away from us; later that decade, he discovered that, on average, all galaxies are receding away from us.”
    Yes: Oct. 4, 1923. This was the famous plate image of M31 (Andromeda). Hubble had discovered the first "Cepheid" variable star. He found others and by 1926, IIRC, had over a dozen of what he felt were fairly accurate distance measurements to other “extragalactic nebulae”, as he called them.

    But “No”: He didn't "discover" recessional velocities for spiral nebulae.
    Almost a decade earlier, Slipher (1914) received a standing ovation from the AAS for his discovery of redshift velocities. He held that their great speeds presented these spiral nebulae as “island universes”, as he published several years later.
    One of the strange twists of fate seems to be found in Hubble's Cepheid calculations. His 900,000 lyrs. distance for Andromeda was due to his, or anyone's, lack of knowledge for the Pop II Cepheids (i.e. W. Virginis) variables, which are roughly 4x dimmer and far less massive.

    But Leavitt's work was of the Cepheids (Pop I), and Hubble seems to have been finding these same Cepheids, so how did he stumble with such a low distance estimate for M31?

    One source mentions that he favored Shapley's detailed work in finding "Cepheids" in globular clusters. So, IMO, with his use of the world's greatest telescope at Mt. Wilson, Shapley likely had better P-L data superior to Leavitt, perhaps. But these, proved later by Baade, were the Pop II (W. Virginis) dimmer variables. Hence Hubble thought he was observing distant Cepheids (per Shapley's data) when he was really seeing the brighter Pop I. This would make for an erroneous closer distance calculation for Andromeda. It also produced too fast of a "Hubble Constant", which he seems to have shrunk a little to about 500 kps/Mpc from his initial estimate.
    Any comments on this, because this isn't something often mentioned anywhere that I've noticed? There must be something I'm missing in these calculations.
    Reply
  • Homer10
    OK, let me ask a slightly different question.
    At some point in the past there was a large explosion, and the Universe as we know it, is created, and expands to a very large size very quickly, and continues to expand today. At the moment of this big bang, it happened somewhere. Let's call this the origin (x=0, y=0, z=0). The Universe expands for 13.8 (more or less) Billion years. We are now at some new location as referenced to the origin point. If we look back in the direction from where we came from, can we determine how far we have traveled from the origin? If we look back in the direction from where we came from, what would we see? Notice I didn't ask for a center. I'm looking for a distance traveled from an origin point.
    Reply
  • Helio
    Homer10 said:
    OK, let me ask a slightly different question.
    At some point in the past there was a large explosion, and the Universe as we know it, is created, and expands to a very large size very quickly, and continues to expand today. At the moment of this big bang, it happened somewhere. Let's call this the origin (x=0, y=0, z=0). The Universe expands for 13.8 (more or less) Billion years. We are now at some new location as referenced to the origin point. If we look back in the direction from where we came from, can we determine how far we have traveled from the origin? If we look back in the direction from where we came from, what would we see? Notice I didn't ask for a center. I'm looking for a distance traveled from an origin point.
    This is a very common assumption. But BBT has the universe itself (space) expanding. A balloon will expand such that all the marks, if any, on it remain proportionally the same distance ratio with one another.

    Thus, we are essentially in the same location we were after, say, the first trillionth of a second, but space has expanded so much that our close neighbors aren't close any more. through space, of course, alters this somewhat.]
    Reply
  • Rangerer
    I remember an article referencing a galaxy not far from ours that was formed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Doesn't that imply that we are very close to the center of the universe?
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    The analogy of an expanding balloon's surface is not a good fit with the statement that there is nothing outside our universe. It implies that there is another dimension not modeled in our concept of our universe.

    And, the insistence that expansion observed now can be extrapolated backward to everything being at a single point is not very imaginative, especially considering all of the imaginative ideas that have gone into trying to explain how that could have worked in the time-going-forward direction to get to what we can see now.

    The BBT says we don't understand 95% of the matter and energy needed to fit the model to the observations. That is a lot that these theorists agree we do not understand. It occurs to me that there could be plenty of ways to not understand that the universe did not originate from a single point, but is instead going through some sort of dynamic process that does not require an origin at a single point for everything in the universe.

    The idea that the universe is flat, as far as we can tell, would seem to imply an infinite universe. Perhaps somebody can tell us what the minimum radius of the universe would have to be in order for us to see it as "flat" in our currently available data.
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    The universes emerge from every deep, therefore "at-a-distance," relatively dense-hot (Chaos Theory level "smooth) state (T=1), Planck point of universe(s). An infinity of points . . . and, yet, just one Horizon (P (BB)) of them all (Chaos Theory's level "smooth" state)!

    Since it is our internally deepest state points Horizon, and is superposition Horizon everywhere and deepest state points in everything everywhere, therein is the "Planck constant (unity ('1'))" emergent universe (Ever was! Ever is! Ever will be)!
    Reply
  • Gibsense
    Homer10 said:
    OK, let me ask a slightly different question.
    At some point in the past there was a large explosion, and the Universe as we know it, is created, and expands to a very large size very quickly, and continues to expand today. At the moment of this big bang, it happened somewhere. Let's call this the origin (x=0, y=0, z=0). The Universe expands for 13.8 (more or less) Billion years. We are now at some new location as referenced to the origin point. If we look back in the direction from where we came from, can we determine how far we have traveled from the origin? If we look back in the direction from where we came from, what would we see? Notice I didn't ask for a center. I'm looking for a distance traveled from an origin point.
    I don't seem able to get this point across to most. The Distance travelled (your question) is time. People need to get their heads around the fact that time and distance units are interchangeable. A light year IS a year and a year IS a light year. This is not a debatable point in current science.
    The elephant in the room is time. Time. Where do you see a definition of time rather than some vague assertion about arrows? Or clocks.
    Given the above, it is clear that the "centre" does not exist anywhere in the here-and-now universe. It has been left behind in the past. The current model is dead and buried (by data from James Webb) and people cling to the idea of flat Euclidian space simply because it is easy to understand and 'consensus'
    Our perception of reality in everyday life is untrue. Grabbing facts and shuffling until coherent mathematics makes sense and describes reality with numbers (spacetime) is a correct result. Minkowski (Einstine's teacher) did a good job of a description of relativity. Alive now he would point out that a better understanding of time (as a spatially additional dimension that does not change relativity mathematics) and we could all move forward to new ideas.
    Ha ha. Sorry about the rant but I get so frustrated. It is obvious.
    Easy to understand:

    Think of a balloon being inflated. This is an analogy that has been used for decades. We live on the surface. (this is the universe description by dropping a dimension to 'make things clear'). Our 3D environment is the surface and nowhere else in this description.
    The balloon was just a blob before inflation - The Big Bange event.
    Inflate the balloon and you get an expanding universe. The Universe is the surface only. The origin is back in time (a distance away) at the centre of the balloon. Conceivably, if you consider the Big Bang as a piece of material-type substance that has been teased out to the skin of the balloon then you could describe the universe centre as 'everywhere'.
    This is ok of course but it disguises the reality of a geometric centre that does not exist in the universe 'now'. By doing this 'everywhere' we avoid having to decide what time actually is and our limited perception of it!
    Reply
  • Gibsense
    Catastrophe said:
    Furthermore, such observable universes may vary according to means of assisted observation, such as telescopes.

    Questions regarding the past and future of the Universe are limited by contingent constraints.

    Cat :)
    I don't get this. Whether or not you have lost your glasses or your telescope makes not one jot of difference to the distance to the event horizon of an "observable universe".
    AH! I guess I have just cottoned onto your sense of humour! lol
    Reply
  • Gibsense
    Atlan0001 said:
    The universes emerge from every deep, therefore "at-a-distance," relatively dense-hot (Chaos Theory level "smooth) state (T=1), Planck point of universe(s). An infinity of points . . . and, yet, just one Horizon (P (BB)) of them all (Chaos Theory's level "smooth" state)!

    Since it is our internally deepest state points Horizon, and is superposition Horizon everywhere and deepest state points in everything everywhere, therein is the "Planck constant (unity ('1'))" emergent universe (Ever was! Ever is! Ever will be)!
    Amen, the past still exists in the 5th dimension - along with an infinite number of others (you have been reading Hawking again) LOL.
    Reply