# Thread: Is the universe rotating like the galaxies are?

1. Just wondering If anyone knows the answer. I understand that It Is expanding outward but at the same time could It or Is It rotating?

2.

3. I've also been wondering about that, although we can compare the galaxy with the rest of the universe to determine it is rotating, what are we comparing the universe to?

4. ~ No. ~ No rotational velocity is detected by the component parts of the whole of the Universe visible and known.
That as gravity bound objects intersect a radial velocity is often observed does bring a conclusion of a trending rotation.. But that None is found.

5. If the Universe was rotating, it would have to be doing so around a central axis. This would imply the Universe *has* an centre.

6. Wouldn't that center be where the Big Bang occurred to start everything?

7. Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
Wouldn't that center be where the Big Bang occurred to start everything?
i think universe expands forward, in cone shape , started from one singularity. am i wrong?

8. This question is seeming to raise more questions than answers.

Was the big bang "expansion" the same thing as an "explosion"?

To "answer" the OP's question I understand that it is accepted that there is not considered to be any "centre" to the expanding universe (the "centre" is supposed to be everywhere) and ,on that basis there cannot be rotation as we would understand it-unless it could be stated that there is a rotation at every observable point.(with the "sum" of the rotations being equal ,presumably to zero-obviously unverifyably so)

Edit apparently not unverifiable .The idea seems to be to take as many rotational observations of large galaxies as possible and find a statistical anomaly.Still seems a tall order to me. What about Dark matter for example-just to start?

9. The cone shape is a 2d representation over time.

10. Originally Posted by Daecon
If the Universe was rotating, it would have to be doing so around a central axis.
No, it is rather more complicated than that. What we would be discussing is not the rotation around a stationary axis from classical mechanics, but intrinsic angular momentum in four dimensions, which isn't the same thing. The basic idea here is that there would be a preferred direction of rotation, but no fixed position for an axis. The practical consequence is that world lines of near-by particles would twist about one another in a double-helix-like structure, regardless of where in space-time those world lines are.

While there is no observational data to support such an idea ( see this article ), a universe with angular momentum is mathematically possible - one such model is the Goedel universe, being an example of an exact cosmological solutions to the Einstein field equations with some rather counterintuitive properties.

This would imply the Universe *has* an centre.
No, see above.

11. Originally Posted by geordief
Was the big bang "expansion" the same thing as an "explosion"?
No, it wasn't an explosion at all. The defining property of the BB singularity was that the distance between all points in space was exactly zero; as the universe then started expanding, the distance between any two points in space then began to increase, so every point moved away from every other point, like a piece of dough expanding in the oven. Thus there was no centre - rather, the BB happened everywhere at once.

12. There is some evidence in support of this: Was the universe born spinning? - physicsworld.com

Markus, so has it been established that a universal intrinsic angular momentum was not involved in the Pioneer anomaly?

13. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Daecon
If the Universe was rotating, it would have to be doing so around a central axis.
No, it is rather more complicated than that. What we would be discussing is not the rotation around a stationary axis from classical mechanics, but intrinsic angular momentum in four dimensions, which isn't the same thing. The basic idea here is that there would be a preferred direction of rotation, but no fixed position for an axis. The practical consequence is that world lines of near-by particles would twist about one another in a double-helix-like structure, regardless of where in space-time those world lines are.

While there is no observational data to support such an idea ( see this article ), a universe with angular momentum is mathematically possible - one such model is the Goedel universe, being an example of an exact cosmological solutions to the Einstein field equations with some rather counterintuitive properties.

This would imply the Universe *has* an centre.
No, see above.

Thank you for the links they gave me allot of data.

14. Understandings of the manor of the Big Bang in that what we have deduced from the cosmic background radiation remnant and studies of it. Have given us some clues as to the temperatures and time scale of that 'Event'. From a singularity to expansion might have seemed to be explosive but was inflationary. The whole of this ( case study of 1.) Universe underwent a expansion event of the space time it occupied. That it slowed and later began a continuing accelerated rate and ongoing to this day.. we have not observed any radial motion because we have no reference point of difference. We do not know. ( Oh I hate to say that ).

15. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Daecon
If the Universe was rotating, it would have to be doing so around a central axis.
No, it is rather more complicated than that. What we would be discussing is not the rotation around a stationary axis from classical mechanics, but intrinsic angular momentum in four dimensions, which isn't the same thing. The basic idea here is that there would be a preferred direction of rotation, but no fixed position for an axis. The practical consequence is that world lines of near-by particles would twist about one another in a double-helix-like structure, regardless of where in space-time those world lines are.

While there is no observational data to support such an idea ( see this article ), a universe with angular momentum is mathematically possible - one such model is the Goedel universe, being an example of an exact cosmological solutions to the Einstein field equations with some rather counterintuitive properties.

This would imply the Universe *has* an centre.
No, see above.
Oh wow, cool. I like learning new things.

16. Originally Posted by KALSTER
There is some evidence in support of this: Was the universe born spinning? - physicsworld.com

Markus, so has it been established that a universal intrinsic angular momentum was not involved in the Pioneer anomaly?
Thank you for that link it was interesting.

17. The intersection of toroidal branes where our universe exists may be rotating in a way.

18. Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
Just wondering If anyone knows the answer. I understand that It Is expanding outward but at the same time could It or Is It rotating?
Great question and an incredibly deep one. You had me going from a universe comprising 'absolute' notions of space and time via Newton (the bucket experiment) to universes simply obeying relativistic principles suggested by Leibnitz and Mach where the question of what the universe is spinning with respect to becomes meaningless, to the subtle distinction of General relativity between Einstein and Mach where spacetime takes on an independent expression of its own and allows for rotating solutions as Markus has described, to a rotating classical universe embedded in a greater configuration space.

Dependent on your viewpoint, this question raises significant challenges. For example;
1. if the universe was actually infinite, then how does an infinite universe rotate?;
2. how should we define a universe (for example should it really be 'all that exists' and if so, then can we then adopt a 'gods eye view' of our universe)?,
3. What implications does this have for alternate theories such as notions of a multiverse etc.?;
4. From our observations of the CMBR, how far can we extend any observed anisotropy 'suggestive of spinning' to our definition of the universe if the CMBR is only relevent for our hubble volume?

In my opinion, questions such as that raised in the opening post are probing at the most fundamental roots of our physics and perhaps will never actually be known.

What is very clear however is that this simple statement "is our universe rotating?" needs to be very carefully defined as inherent in this statement from all our various viewpoints is our preferred approach to answering it. For example, I would tend to take the most comprehensive definition of what a universe is (eg. everything that exists) and therefore fall into the relativists camp in my interpretation of it, however those schools of thought that start their journey up from the very small to the large would leave room for the notion of seperate universes, higher dimensional spaces etc. Of course I am hoping that the relativists argument wins in the end (personal preference only) but as everyone points out on this forum, the universe doesn't care what I think.......but there is still ample scope for the relativist in QM where 'observer dependence' can be likened to notions of frame of reference which lie at the hear of relativism.

:-))

19. 1. if the universe was actually infinite, then how does an infinite universe rotate?
What if infinity has multiple universes in it and each one is rotating?

20. Could the universe be rotating, but the galaxies are just going faster from outside spin?

21. Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
1. if the universe was actually infinite, then how does an infinite universe rotate?
What if infinity has multiple universes in it and each one is rotating?
LOL. You devious thinker you.........that just does my head in :-))

22. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
While there is no observational data to support such an idea ( see this article ), a universe with angular momentum is mathematically possible - one such model is the Goedel universe, being an example of an exact cosmological solutions to the Einstein field equations with some rather counterintuitive properties.
If a nonspinning inertial observer looks along his axis of symmetry, he sees his coaxial nonspinning inertial peers apparently nonspinning with respect to himself, as we would expect.
If we made observations from a point on a trajectory that was stationary with respect to the center of mass of the Milky Way, and our solar systems rotation path around it, any higher level of rotation would become apparent through the movement or non movement of galaxies outside of the MW. This observation point/trajectory would remove 3 angles of rotation from our observational data; earths rotation around its axis, earths rotation around the sun and the suns rotation around the MW galactic center.

23. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Markus, so has it been established that a universal intrinsic angular momentum was not involved in the Pioneer anomaly?
That's probably putting it too confidently. I would simply say that a lower limit to a hypothetical angular momentum has been established; it still can't be 100% ruled out.

24. A friend of mine told me there is a "parallel universe" with no time-space feature?
sorry, as it is not related here. just tell me if it is feasible?

25. Originally Posted by sir ir r aj
A friend of mine told me there is a "parallel universe" with no time-space feature?
sorry, as it is not related here. just tell me if it is feasible?
Our current understanding of physics would not support such a claim.

26. Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
1. if the universe was actually infinite, then how does an infinite universe rotate?
What if infinity has multiple universes in it and each one is rotating?
LOL. You devious thinker you.........that just does my head in :-))
And I still have trouble with three-body problems. Nice!

27. Originally Posted by astromark
Understandings of the manor of the Big Bang in that what we have deduced from the cosmic background radiation remnant and studies of it. Have given us some clues as to the temperatures and time scale of that 'Event'. From a singularity to expansion might have seemed to be explosive but was inflationary. The whole of this ( case study of 1.) Universe underwent a expansion event of the space time it occupied. That it slowed and later began a continuing accelerated rate and ongoing to this day.. we have not observed any radial motion because we have no reference point of difference. We do not know. ( Oh I hate to say that ).
~ and that I see a question evolving of multi Universe which is a simple movement of the goal posts.. Is it rotating ?.. We do not observe it as so., but can not know that as true with absolute certainty. It seems to be inflating infinitely. That we do not observe a rotational aspect is clear. The word used being 'UNIVERSE' does find a interpretation of all of everything. The addition of other just clouds the question. Is it rotating.. We do not observe it as so. In the scale of our awareness bubble..

28. it couldn't be and can be like not only the big bang singularity if you choose any point inour universe and with reference to that if you start saying that the point which you've chosen is or may be the center . check this out Origins: Hubble: Tools: The Center of The Universe | Exploratorium

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement