Location in what?

It is a perplexing paradox that "time and space" is in the box we call the universe, but that the box is all there is. There is no larger box. There might be, some think, other boxes (universes). So, if there are other boxes, doesn't there have to be a larger container?

I would probably need some mind altering drug to really enjoy the idea. Dead sober, I don't like it.

This is a question I find very confusing.

With the Big Bang and inflation, all points in space are expanding. The analogy used is an inflating balloon - there is meant to be no centre to the expansion - if the balloon is deflated, all points become the centre. So maybe it is valid to say all points in space were once the centre of the universe.

But it seems to me that some points in space are more 'central' than others? IE those expanding less quickly than others would be closer to the centre of expansion. So I would have thought that there would be a centre to the expansion?

But then astronomers report a strict proportionality between the distance of remote galaxies and their recession rate - there does not seem to be any reported asymmetry that you might expect if we were on the edge of the expanding universe and galaxies closer to the centre of expansion were visible to us.

So without a spacial centre of the universe, it seems assigning spacial coordinates to positions of objects in the universe has to be done relatively rather than absolutely.

The Big Bang took place about 14 billion years ago so assigning temporal coordinates seems possible.

Perhaps we have some astronomers who can explain exactly what is going on?

It has a location--a lot of them, actually because that's what space is.

Locations aren't literally in a container (that is space). Space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations of/between matter. Space doesn't exist as "something in itself" and it's not a "container" that things are in.

Location is extensional relations. We can't say that locations have no locations.

There is no centre to the expansion apparently:

http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Space itself is expanding so nowhere/everywhere is the centre. Spacial distances have to be measured relative to something else than the Big Bang.

It's location is here and around here for a long ways in all directions.

The mistake that's commonly made is to think of space as a container (and to think of it as a container that could exist on its own, like an empty box to use a rough analogy)

If it is the objects in space that are moving further apart then that seems to imply a regular explosion type expansion. But such an expansion would have a centre - but astronomers insist that the expansion of the universe does not have a centre.

So the ballon analogy is confusing - it is only the points on the balloon surface that correspond to galaxies. The contents of the balloon are not part of space in this analogy. But it is the balloon itself that is expanding...

There is no "balloon itself," things moving apart are simply changing extensional relations.

Location in what? — SophistiCat

Yep.

It has a location--a lot of them, actually because that's what space is. — Terrapin Station

Yes, it's a bit like asking where in the elephant is the elephant.

Answer: everywhere.

would probably need some mind altering drug to really enjoy the idea. Dead sober, I don't like it. — Bitter Crank

But if you think about it long enough you might go into a brown study.

If galaxies were moving apart themselves then there should be a centre to the expansion. With a centre to the expansion, the rates of expansion would vary according to distance from the centre - things on the edge of expansion moving faster that things close to the centre.

But astronomers say the rate of recession of all objects is simply proportional to their distance from earth. I would have thought that would be impossible unless by chance earth happens to be the centre of the universe? Thats very unlikely so for a regular explosion we should be not at the centre so the rate of expansion should be asymmetrical as observed from earth. Thats not what is observed.

If galaxies were moving apart themselves then there should be a centre to the expansion. With a centre to the expansion, the rates of expansion would vary according to distance from the centre - things on the edge of expansion moving faster that things close to the centre. — Devans99

There would only be a center in an abstract sense. It would be in the sense that we can basically "triangulate" a relational center. Rates of positional change would be an empirical matter.

Right

does it have a spatial or temporal location? — frank

It's here. Come on. Pick a hard one.

If space itself is not expanding and it is a regular explosion instead then I would have thought it would have to fit in with one of the following patterns:

- The edges of the explosion are moving faster the the centre parts. In which case matter might be evenly distributed (homogeneous) like we observe, but we do not observe differing rates of expansion.
- Everything is expanding out at the same rate from the centre of the explosion. In which case the galaxies would form a spherical shell, which is not what is observed.

o, if there are other boxes, doesn't there have to be a larger container? — Bitter Crank

Yeah, if the multiverse lies along the 11th dimension, them our universe would have a location in that dimension. Also, if there is an upside down Stranger Things universe, then our universe is located right side up. And if it's the Marvel multiverse, then our our heroes are typically located on Earth-616.

So the answer is that our universe can have a location if it's in some sort of spatial relation to other universes.

So the answer is that our universe can have a location if it's in some sort of spatial relation to other universes. — Marchesk

Though it would be fair to say, in those scenarios, that what you are calling 'our univerise' is a portion of The Universe, the whole shebang, rerasing the issues and answers related to where everything is.

Does the universe have a location?
Everything, whatever that may be: does it have a spatial or temporal location?
I argue no, there would have to be space and time beyond it for that. — frank

The Universe (everything) is all existence (all spatial and/or temporal extension).

Space is finite or infinite multidirectional distance. Space implies objects.

Location is a geometrically defined part of space.

Time is finite or infinite unidirectional duration. Time implies events.

So, the OP is nonsense, because it makes no sense to refer to:
1) A location for all existence.
2) Temporal location.
3) Existence beyond all existence.

If space itself is not expanding and it is a regular explosion instead then I would have thought it would have to fit in with one of the following patterns:

- The edges of the explosion are moving faster the the centre parts. In which case matter might be evenly distributed (homogeneous) like we observe, but we do not observe differing rates of expansion.
- Everything is expanding out at the same rate from the centre of the explosion. In which case the galaxies would form a spherical shell, which is not what is observed. — Devans99

Isn't that putting theory above observations?

Theory should explain observations, not dictate what can be observed, and then require fanciful inventions to not have to discard the theory.

We can say that the movements are "as if" the objects in question were on the surface of a balloon, but to then posit the balloon as a real, independent thing isn't justified. The "as if" is simply to help us picture/understand what we're observing.

Moving this discussion over here:

Are you suggesting that you or anyone else is presenting arguments or observations? Just curious. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I just gave one. You, however, have simply been asserting.

You've got to be joking. You observe "unified space"? Can you point to what you're looking at? — Terrapin Station

I observe that something over here can interact with something over there. Neither is bounded by its own individual space.

Explain how you're observing that "here and there are parts of space," please. — Terrapin Station

It seems to me that spatial relations must exist within space, which can’t itself be located anywhere and so must be immaterial and the thing which unifies the cosmos. You’re just insisting those relations are, and that’s that.

. Neither is bounded by its own individual space. — AJJ

What does this phrase refer to? What would that amount to, to be "bounded by its own individual space"?

. Neither is bounded by its own individual space.
— AJJ

What does this phrase refer to? What would that amount to, to be "bounded by its own individual space"? — Terrapin Station

There’s no empirically observable reason why the space I occupy should have anything to do with the space the floor beneath me occupies. It holds me up because my atoms interact with its, but why should they? That they do seems to be because the cosmos is unified; it occupies a unifying space.

Theory should explain observations, not dictate what can be observed, and then require fanciful inventions to not have to discard the theory.

We can say that the movements are "as if" the objects in question were on the surface of a balloon, but to then posit the balloon as a real, independent thing isn't justified. The "as if" is simply to help us picture/understand what we're observing. — Terrapin Station

The theory predicts what we observe:

- The theory of inflation; the ballon is a 2D analogy used to describe what is happening to 3D space
- The observation is of a homogeneous universe which is expanding the same rate everywhere

The two are in agreement.

There’s no empirically observable reason why the space I occupy — AJJ

You're assuming here that's there's something different from you, called space, that you occupy.

It holds me up because my atoms interact with its, but why should they? That they do seems to be because the cosmos is unified; it occupies a unifying space. — AJJ

That's not at all something that you're observing. You're deducing it based on you thinking that there needs to be some reason other than simply things interacting however they do, and "unifying space," for whatever reason that I can't fathom, intuitively satisfies your psychological need for there to be a reason.

None of this makes clear what "bounded by its own individual space" would refer to, though.

The theory predicts what we observe: — Devans99

Because stuff is invented (space as a separable thing) to make it work. It's akin to epicycles re planetary motion. That theory fits what we observe, too. It's just that it's wrong. But it was adopted so that we wouldn't have to change the theory.

Well whatever. That’s just you refusing to get the point. “Psychological need”. Glass houses mate.

Because stuff is invented (space as a separable thing) to make it work. It's akin to epicycles re planetary motion. That theory fits what we observe, too. It's just that it's wrong. But it was adopted so that we wouldn't have to change the theory. — Terrapin Station

But it does seem, with galaxies receding from each other faster than the speed of light, that space itself expanding is the only possible explanation. Also, as already discussed, the expansion of the universe does not fit with a normal explosion-type expansion.

Empty space appears to have properties - such as quantum fields and (maybe) dark energy. It seems to be something substantial.

If the universe has no location it isn’t finite but goes on forever.