Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: A dizzying hypothesis

  1. #1 A dizzying hypothesis 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Is the Universe spinning?
    Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"
    Awaiting results from southern hemisphere observations, it says. Well...
    Is the Universe Spinning? : Discovery News
    And indeed they are according to a separate 1991 survey of 8287 spiral galaxies in the southern galactic hemisphere.
    Was the universe born spinning? - physicsworld.com
    What I find interesting in this article is this:
    Neta Bahcall, an astrophysicist at Princeton University in the US, feels that there is no solid evidence for a rotating universe. "The directional spin of spiral galaxies may be impacted by other local gravitational effects," she said. She believes that this could result in small correlations in spin rotation over distances less than about 200 Mpc – whereas the observable universe is about 14 Gpc in size.
    Yet, Logan claims this:
    The excess is small, about 7%, and Longo says that the chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million.
    Thoughts? Criticism? Support?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Seems logical, given that everything else involves spin, from the smallest parts of atoms to the galaxies, so why not the universe, they may even offer a possible new variable in working out how much gravity there should actually be in the universe.


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    i don't think the "spin" talked about in quantum physics is the same kind of spin talked about in classical physics. so not all things spin. just because objects within the universe spin doesn't mean that the universe spins. plus i would like a larger sample to be convinced.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,394
    Can something that's infinite...... spin? My head hurts thinking about it.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Hey Neverfly,

    Thoughts? Criticism? Support?
    I don't think there are any known hypothesis for this according to the Big Bang model. If they find the same circumstance in the southern galactic hemisphere, then I think it will be even more difficult to explain.

    We have seen that galaxies form in clusters rotating around their mutual center of gravity, whereby galaxies within the cluster tend to be more on the same plane, and those galaxies would revolve more in one direction than another, concerning those on the plane of the galaxy. We also know that these galaxy clusters form superclusters. It is also theorized that these supercluters might be formed into mega-clusters. The universe itself might be just one cluster level above the highest self orbiting level that we have theorized. The entire observable universe itself might fall within an even larger "mega-mega cluster" that is orbiting its common center of gravity. Within the mega-maga cluster there would be a preferred direction of galaxy rotation, for the same season we see this same effect in clusters. This is my best bet and think we will likely see the same thing in the southern hemisphere.

    Of course this over-all universe rotation would be difficult to discover since its rotation would only have meaning if we could observe the larger whole of it that this rotation would be relative to.

    Although such ideas might be possible from a Big Bang origin/model, other orbiting universe models have also been proposed as well as fractal universe models that might propose similar ideas concerning what is alleged to be observed.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 3rd, 2012 at 12:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    there would be a preferred direction of galaxy rotation
    This is confusing. Are you talking about the direction stars in the galaxy are rotating or the direction the galaxy as a whole is moving about a common center of gravity within the cluster?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    there would be a preferred direction of galaxy rotation
    This is confusing. Are you talking about the direction stars in the galaxy are rotating or the direction the galaxy as a whole is moving about a common center of gravity within the cluster?
    hmmmmmmmmmmmm'
    ?????
    are we coming to a "center of the universe" here?
    what does spin imply?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Spin, in the classical sense, implies a center point to spin around. There is no center point of the universe.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I don't think there are any known hypothesis for this according to the Big Bang model.
    Exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Spin, in the classical sense, implies a center point to spin around. There is no center point of the universe.
    Which is contradictory information.
    There's also a good chance of a flaw in the measurements. The articles stress that as unlikely... But they are just articles and must be taken with a grain of salt.
    I haven't found anything on this that's Peer Reviewed, yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    there would be a preferred direction of galaxy rotation
    This is confusing. Are you talking about the direction stars in the galaxy are rotating or the direction the galaxy as a whole is moving about a common center of gravity within the cluster?
    Yes, there are two factors. One is that galaxies in a cluster rotate in the same direction around their mutual center of gravity. Secondly galaxies in a cluster tend to have galaxies rotating closer to the galactic plane than perpendicular to it, and their stars and matter tend to rotate in a preferred direction. In these related articles they are also proposing that the stellar rotation with galaxies has a preferred direction concerning samplings of galaxies observable from the northern hemisphere, I expect involving many different galaxy clusters. Since almost all spiral galaxies rotate according to the form of their spirals, I expect this is related to how they may have come to their conclusions, based upon the galaxy's physical appearance when a face of it is observable. I really don't understand how they determined clockwise or counterclockwise when the same galaxy can appear to be rotating clockwise or counterclockwise depending upon its orientation relative to us.

    I too would like to see more technical papers to see if I could get a better handle of what they are really claiming
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 3rd, 2012 at 01:35 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    there would be a preferred direction of galaxy rotation
    This is confusing. Are you talking about the direction stars in the galaxy are rotating or the direction the galaxy as a whole is moving about a common center of gravity within the cluster?
    Yes, there are two factors. One is that galaxies in a cluster rotate in the same direction around their mutual center of gravity. Secondly galaxies in a cluster tend to have galaxies rotating closer to the galactic plane than perpendicular to it, and their stars and matter tend to rotate in a preferred direction. In these related articles they are also proposing that the stellar rotation with galaxies has a preferred direction concerning samplings of galaxies observable from the northern hemisphere, I expect involving many different galaxy clusters. Since almost all spiral galaxies rotate according to the form of their spirals, I expect this is related to how they may have come to their conclusions, based upon the galaxy's physical appearance when a face of it is observable. I really don't understand how they determined clockwise or counterclockwise when the same galaxy can appear to be rotating clockwise or counterclockwise depending upon its orientation relative to us.

    I too would like to see more technical papers to see if I could get a better handle of what they are really claiming
    What about some of the largest galaxies that are elliptical in shape? They have stars in orbit every which way around the galactic center. Also, I've never been under the impression that galaxies in a cluster orbit a common center in the same direction. I'd sure like to see some credible studies that prove this is common in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Don't see why not really.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    there would be a preferred direction of galaxy rotation
    This is confusing. Are you talking about the direction stars in the galaxy are rotating or the direction the galaxy as a whole is moving about a common center of gravity within the cluster?
    Yes, there are two factors. One is that galaxies in a cluster rotate in the same direction around their mutual center of gravity. Secondly galaxies in a cluster tend to have galaxies rotating closer to the galactic plane than perpendicular to it, and their stars and matter tend to rotate in a preferred direction. In these related articles they are also proposing that the stellar rotation with galaxies has a preferred direction concerning samplings of galaxies observable from the northern hemisphere, I expect involving many different galaxy clusters. Since almost all spiral galaxies rotate according to the form of their spirals, I expect this is related to how they may have come to their conclusions, based upon the galaxy's physical appearance when a face of it is observable. I really don't understand how they determined clockwise or counterclockwise when the same galaxy can appear to be rotating clockwise or counterclockwise depending upon its orientation relative to us.

    I too would like to see more technical papers to see if I could get a better handle of what they are really claiming
    What about some of the largest galaxies that are elliptical in shape? They have stars in orbit every which way around the galactic center. Also, I've never been under the impression that galaxies in a cluster orbit a common center in the same direction. I'd sure like to see some credible studies that prove this is common in the universe.
    Yeah, I expect that elliptical galaxies probably do not apply to this study, since like you said they have no discernable common rotation direction. Here's the idea of it.

    Clusters of Galaxies

    Galaxies are not randomly strewn throughout space. Instead the majority belong to groups and clusters of galaxies. In these structures, galaxies are bound gravitationally and orbit a common center of mass.
    http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/depo.../lecture13.pdf

    Clusters and superclusters that have somewhat of a circular structure to them tend to orbit within the same plane and more in one direction than another. Irregular shaped groups and clusters tend to orbit their center of gravity but more in random directions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    I'd think that it would be likely to be "vibrating" for all atoms vibrate so wouldn't then the entire universe be also doing the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I'd think that it would be likely to be "vibrating" for all atoms vibrate so wouldn't then the entire universe be also doing the same?
    All atoms and atomic particles have "spin." There is a vibration associated with atomic spin but the spin or vibration is based upon the number of nucleons so that different elements and molecules would vibrate differently. There could be no synchronized vibration to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    There could be no synchronized vibration to it.
    Why not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/depo.../lecture13.pdf

    Clusters and superclusters that have somewhat of a circular structure to them tend to orbit within the same plane and more in one direction than another. Irregular shaped groups and clusters tend to orbit their center of gravity but more in random directions.
    I browsed through that document and didn't see anything that looked like support for what you said. Every picture I've ever seen that showed a supercluster didn't look circular and I haven't seen any studies that implied most of the galaxies rotated in the same direction around a common center of mass. In our own local cluster the Milkyway is going to collide with the Andromeda galaxy. They are not moving in the same direction and after the collision the new merged galaxy will have a new different orbit around the center of mass. In any event I would have to see a lot more supporting evidence to even think there might be a predominate motion in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    A word of caution here - in General Relativity there is nothing which forbids the universe from "spinning", in fact it is very easy to derive cosmological solutions to the field equations which feature a non-vanishing angular momentum. The classical example here is the Goedel Metric - in itself this is not a very realistic model of the universe ( it contains "naked" closed time-like curves ), but it demonstrates the principle. A "centre point" is not needed for this, since we are talking about an intrinsic kind of angular momentum here.
    And since we are already at it, and some of you might be wondering - yes, one can give the universe electric charge as well.
    Kerling likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Markus can you elaborate? Thanks for your input, I'd like to hear more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    A word of caution here - in General Relativity there is nothing which forbids the universe from "spinning", in fact it is very easy to derive cosmological solutions to the field equations which feature a non-vanishing angular momentum. The classical example here is the Goedel Metric - in itself this is not a very realistic model of the universe ( it contains "naked" closed time-like curves ), but it demonstrates the principle. A "centre point" is not needed for this, since we are talking about an intrinsic kind of angular momentum here.
    And since we are already at it, and some of you might be wondering - yes, one can give the universe electric charge as well.
    But if the universe was spinning that would imply a center of mass, would it not? After all you can't just spin around aimlessly can you? Next, if the universe is carrying a charge. Is there some way we could determine if it's negative or positive? Either way that would imply something else outside our universe with an opposite charge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Markus can you elaborate? Thanks for your input, I'd like to hear more.
    Certainly. Just as is the case with "normal" gravitational bodies such as black holes, one can give the universe as a whole three degrees of ("metric") freedom : energy (density), angular momentum and electric charge. The most well know cosmological solution ( FLRW ) is an example of a universe governed by just energy distributions, nothing else. The first example of a cosmological model with non-vanishing angular momentum was developed by Kurt Goedel in 1949, and is ( not surprisingly ) called the Goedel Metric. It looks like so :



    The turns out to be angular momentum, which is present equally everywhere in the universe. The result of this would be that for a non-spinning stationary observer everything around him will spin clockwise along an axis of symmetry going through him; this would hold for every point in the universe, and is thus an intrinsic property. This has interesting consequences for the overall geometry of space-time, which is a topic I gladly admit I am not all that knowledgeable about. In fact the above metric looks deceptively simply, but once you sit down and start calculating stuff it turns out that the maths are actually pretty involved. Another cosmological solution with angular momentum is the Van Stockum Dust, which is equally as interesting, and equally as confusing

    As for an electrically charged universe, I read an interesting paper a while back, which unfortunately I do not seem to be able to find at the moment. I do remember though that the solution was based on the so-called Majumdar-Papatreou metric applied on cosmological scales. I did find this paper elaborating on this idea :

    http://www.math.jhu.edu/~js/mp.final.pdf

    All of this is not to say that the universe is in fact electrically charged or possesses angular momentum ( or both ), but merely that the possibility exists in the Einstein Field Equations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    But if the universe was spinning that would imply a center of mass, would it not?
    Not as far as I understand it ( see my last post ). The Goedel Dust is a 4-dimensional solution without boundaries, and thus does not possesses a center of mass, yet it does possess intrinsic angular momentum.
    I readily concede though that there are many things about this solution which I am really not all that sure about. The global geometry and topology of this space-time is highly non-intuitive and very confusing. Here is some basic info :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedel_metric

    and here is the other one :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Stockum_dust
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    [QUOTE=arKane;373243]
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    Clusters and superclusters that have somewhat of a circular structure to them tend to orbit within the same plane and more in one direction than another. Irregular shaped groups and clusters tend to orbit their center of gravity but more in random directions.
    ........... In any event I would have to see a lot more supporting evidence to even think there might be a predominate motion in the universe.
    This paper and the evidence presented in the link below, I think, is generally independent of the preferred direction of galaxy rotation such as in the OP links, and also I think different from the idea of the rotation of the observable universe. This paper generally presents the idea that some galaxy clusters may be rotating as a whole while others to a lesser extent or not at all, which contains some of the generalities that I mentioned above. There seems to be no general theme or hypothesis regarding this paper.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/.../70829.web.pdf

    They do not discuss those that have random galactic orbiting of a common center of gravity but I expect there are more like that then those that have a discernible pattern and motions concerning the galaxies within them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Another cosmological solution with angular momentum is the Van Stockum Dust, which is equally as interesting, and equally as confusing
    Heard that... - I've been struggling with it since you submitted this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    As for an electrically charged universe, I read an interesting paper a while back, which unfortunately I do not seem to be able to find at the moment. I do remember though that the solution was based on the so-called Majumdar-Papatreou metric applied on cosmological scales. I did find this paper elaborating on this idea :

    http://www.math.jhu.edu/~js/mp.final.pdf

    All of this is not to say that the universe is in fact electrically charged or possesses angular momentum ( or both ), but merely that the possibility exists in the Einstein Field Equations.
    Yes and according to the paper, although it's allowable, it's unlikely since some calculations do not meet observational evidence, including shell stars satisfying a boundary condition.
    It's a fine juggling act to keep greater than zero and less than or else deal with dust decay problems (damn TeX!). After which they end up using lax milgram weak formulation to keep the prior proofs held together.

    Of course, I haven't even gotten all the way through that .pdf and I could be blowing nothing but hot air- I'm strictly amateur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Yes and according to the paper, although it's allowable, it's unlikely since some calculations do not meet observational evidence, including shell stars satisfying a boundary condition.
    It's a fine juggling act to keep greater than zero and less than or else deal with dust decay problems (damn TeX!). After which they end up using lax milgram weak formulation to keep the prior proofs held together.

    Of course, I haven't even gotten all the way through that .pdf and I could be blowing nothing but hot air-
    No, you are quite right. What ultimately kills it is the simple fact that we do not observe the universe around us to have any net charge. Period.

    I'm strictly amateur.
    So am I
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. New Hypothesis
    By Aphadonangūl in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 15th, 2011, 01:46 PM
  2. The hypothesis of ones
    By Mark Ian in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 14th, 2010, 07:55 PM
  3. Some dudes hypothesis
    By GoldDounuts in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 1st, 2009, 04:07 AM
  4. Quick hypothesis
    By Raymond K in forum Physics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 14th, 2009, 12:42 PM
  5. Hypothesis
    By Raymond K in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2008, 10:27 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •