Rotating universe

[RichyRich]

I have it on good authority that the universe is rotating, and rotating about ALL its axes simultaneously and instantly!! Therefore no directional observations in motion or CMBR will be or can be found.

[nicksauce]

I have it on good authority that your post doesn't make any sense.

[RichyRich]

to who?

[hadsed]

To at least two people..

[RichyRich]

Maybe 3.....what do you both not understand?

[nicksauce]

I have it on good authority
From whom? What is their evidence?

that the universe is rotating
This goes against all current evidence

, and rotating about ALL its axes simultaneously
How can something rotate about all its axes?

and instantly!!
What do you mean by instantly?

Therefore no directional observations in motion or CMBR will be or can be found.
But directionality (i.e., a dipole) has been found in the CMB.

[Chronos]

Let's be patient Nick ... Richy, can you quantify how many rotational and timelike 'axes' you have in mind? 'All of them and instantly' is a bit vague - not unlike a pink fairy.

[RichyRich]

ok
quantify infinity!! i wont be spending much time on that one.
cosmologists talk of (mem)branes etc-what dimension are these in? rhetorical question.
if you had a 2d object in a 3d universe could it rotate about all its axes instantly? rhetorical question.
how can the universe rotate instantly about all its axes? how can a particle be in 2 places at once? how can an observer affect what he is observing?..i believe your question to be short-sighted.
the universe is rotating in a higher (further dimension)- is that so far-fetched??
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the universe's motion in a further dimension, has a net result which may be described by us (in a limited way) as rotation about all axes,at each instant.
Chronos, you are obviously of the Flat Earth Society. You should listen to Sir Oliver Lodge.
I have no evidence for this idea (surprisingly), but there is currently NO evidence against it.
The dipole mentioned is thought to be as a result of earths motion through the CMBR. Not a result of 'direction' in the universe. The universe is still thought of as isotropic. Anyway, such discrepencies in CMBR might go some way to proving my idea, not discrediting it.
I welcome some observations/evidence against this idea???
Cosmologists dont feel the universe is rotating, but only think of 1 axis, not multiple. Literally one-dimensional thinking if you ask me.
Look at the universe, the motion within it. Ask yourself is it more likely that the universe is static or rotating? I would say evidence is needed to say its not rotating, not the other way round!! Where is the pink fairy? Valid points of criticism are welcomed.

[hadsed]

What would make you think our universe would be rotating? Sure we can come up with any old idea we want to say something about our cosmos, but does it address any issues? You say there's no evidence for it (or against it), but science requires evidence. Without this, you might as well be talking about pink fairies.

Basically, the question is why.

[RichyRich]

science does require evidence...agreed. BB Vs steady state. over time steady state was rejected through evidence. static universe vs rotating universe-2 ideas. Is it unscientific of me to believe in a rotating universe until evidence is provided against it? Some 'any old ideas' go against what we know as fact so they are pink fairies. This idea does not. Has every scientific accomplishment addressed an issue? Knowledge has its own worth. I personally think that investigating this idea may help understand dark energy, dark matter and even replace 'inflation'! Can I ask what would make you think the universe is not rotating? If I said 'prove it' could you? I have to agree my idea is currently not science, but a belief. But so is the opposing view. All I am asking here is for evidence/argument against my view. As for 'why' I am not sure if you mean why would it be that way or why do I believe it to be that way. By the way, I am not so entrenched in my view, that if I was provided valid argument I would admit to being wrong-I am not a bible-basher who, no matter what the evidence, believes in what I choose to. Starting to feel pink fairies might be real though!

[hadsed]

Still, do you have any reason to believe in this? If not, then it doesn't matter. If you're presenting an alternative explanation with your idea and if you've at least shown that it's consistent, mathematically and otherwise, then it might have some merit. At this point, though, it's just jibber jabber. And just to clarify, neither I nor the other posters are saying we believe the universe is rotating or not rotating, but we're highly skeptical when someone comes along and say, "The universe is rotating!" At that point, we ask why do you think so, what consequence does this have, and is it provable?

[Radrook]

Seems like this idea has its small following. LOL

Excerpt:

Nature 298, 451 - 454 (29 July 1982); doi:10.1038/298451a0



Is the Universe rotating?


P. Birch


University of Manchester, Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories, Jodrell Bank, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, UK


From the study of the position angles and polarization of high luminosity classical-double radio sources, it appears that the difference between the position angles of elongation and of polarization are highly organized, being generally positive in one half of the sky and negative in the other. The effect was first noticed amongst a sample of 94 3CR sources and later confirmed in three independent samples. Such a phenomenon can only have a physical explanation on a cosmic scale; an attractive theory is that it demonstrates the existence of a universal vorticity, that is, that the Universe is rotating with an angular velocity 10-13 rad yr-1. This would have drastic cosmological consequences, since it would violate Mach's principle1,2 and the widely held assumption of large-scale isotropy.



References 1. Raine, D. J. Rep. Prog. Phys. 44, 1151−1195 (1981). | Article | ISI |
2. Ostvath, I. & Schücking, E. Nature 193, 1168−1169 (1962).
3. Tabara, H. & Inoue, M. Astr. Astrophys. Suppl. 39, 379−393 (1980). | ChemPort |
4. Simard-Normadin, M., Kronberg, P. P. & Button, S. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 45, 97−112 (1981). | Article |
5. Haves, P. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 173, 553−568 (1975). | ISI |
6. Laing, R. A. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 195, 261−324 (1981). | ISI |
7. Ekers, R. D. Aust. J. Phys. Astrophys. Suppl. 6, 3−87 (1969).
8. Conway, R. G., Burn, B. J. & Vallée, J. P. Astr. Astrophys. Suppl. 27, 155−170 (1977).
9. Simard-Normadin, M. & Kronberg, P. P. Astrophys. J. 242, 79−94 (1980).
10. Högbom, J. A. Astr. Astrophys. Suppl. 36, 173−192 (1979). | ISI |
11. Laing, R. A. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 193, 439−449 (1980). | ISI |
12. Vallée, J. P. Nature 254, 23−26 (1975).
13. Partridge, R. B. Phys. Scr. 21, 624−629 (1980). | ISI |
14. Collins, C. B. & Hawking, S. W. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 162, 307−320 (1973). | ISI |
15. Smoot, G. F. Phys. Scr. 21, 619−623 (1980). | ISI | ChemPort |
16. Gorenstein, M. V. & Smoot, G. F. Astrophys. J. 224, 361−381 (1981). | Article |


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v298/n5873/abs/298451a0.html

[bcrowell]

There is nothing inherently stupid or impossible about the idea that the whole universe could be rotating, and the nature of rotation in GR is such that it is possible for this to happen without violating homogeneity, i.e., without having a central axis of rotation.

Some relevant papers:

Clemence, C.M. (1957). 'Astronomical Time', Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 29, p. 2

Hawking, S.W. (1969). 'On the Rotation of the Universe', Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. Vol. 142, p. 529.

Collins, C.B., and Hawking, S.W. (1973). 'The Rotation and Distortion of the Universe', Mon. Not. R. astr.Soc. Vol 162, p. 307.

Clemence uses solar-system data to put a model-independent upper limit of 0.1"/century on the universe's rotation. Using model-dependent arguments, the other two papers reduce this limit by orders of magnitude.

A useful web page: http://web.archive.org/web/20070701033428/http://www.ettnet.se/~egils/essay/essay.html

[Chronos]

To my knowledge, no one has claimed evidence of 'rotation' from WMAP date.

[bcrowell]

To my knowledge, no one has claimed evidence of 'rotation' from WMAP date.

You can get a model-dependent upper limit from isotropy of the CMB. This is what the Hawking and Collins papers in #13 did. However, it's model-dependent, and it's an upper limit. Nobody can prove that the rotation is zero. All they can do is put an upper limit on it. The model-independent upper limits are very weak.

[RichyRich]

Wow...what happened to the pink fairies!
Clearly I am the least educated and least informed person here.
Does that make my views less valuable, if I attempt to base them in science. I am not suggesting the moon is made of cheese.
Far greater men than me have had ideas that had a 'small following', Einstein for 1.
Radrook, are you stating Machs principle is broken or not? I would be grateful if you could state your evidence against my idea in more layman terms please. If I can understand the points against this idea, it will be easier for me to let them go.
For one, I am definitely missing something, if 'we' think 'we' can measure a rotation we are part of! How could we measure/test the idea of rotation about ALL axes then....to my limited thinking, we could only do this indirectly. Would it be such a waste of time if someone were to plug the numbers into a programme and see if it produced anything like the universe we 'see'?
Am I correct in thinking cosmologists have rejected (and therefore, thought of) a universe rotating about 1 axis? Has anyone even considerred that it may be rotating about multiple/or as think, infinite axes? Is this such an outrageous idea? Is it more outrageous than (mem)branes, many world theories etc?
I have great respect for scientists, and even envy them. I have to provide for my family by decorating. I have always had a great interest in cosmology and read considerably about it. It seems to me that the scientists who do not 'toe the party line' make the biggest strides. I do not poopoo everything i read but I guarantee all of you that believe in inflation will be proved wrong! Not to say this will replace it, but something will. It may add up mathematically,but that does not mean it happened.
My reasons for believing in a universe rotating about infinite axes:
It is an attempt to explain dark energy and dark matter (dark meaning 'we' have no idea). Also, I have heard of something called dark flow. All of which means we cannot explain all the movements we observe. Some believe that most matter is dark matter(i think the figure is aprox 90%). Is this not as far-fetched as my idea?! All the questions asked of me, could be asked of dark matter...dark fairy perhaps!
The flatness problem ONLY solved by inflation. What if the BB was a result of a rotating force and not an explosive (for want of a better term) force. I presume that at the end of the BB no more matter/energy is created. The matter/energy levels are set for the universes lifetime-cannot be destroyed or created post BB or post planck time. If the singularity 'rotated' itself into existence, then the level of mass/energy in the universe could be set by the amount of rotation. An infinite rotation provides an arbitrary figure for mass/energy. A larger, infinite rotation would provide a larger arbitrary figure for mass/energy. Rotation is directly linked to mass/energy contained in the universe. This could mean that rotation/mass/energy and expansion are all linked. This may GUARANTEE a flat universe. So, any universe that came into being would have to be flat, and stay flat. Its not a coincidence that it is, and inflation is not needed. I believe it is possible to have a bigger infinity than infinity!!
I would be grateful for more thoughts/ criticism of this. But please keep it simple.....like me I hear you all say.

[RichyRich]

I am not inherently stupid-thats fantastic news.

[Radrook]

....Radrook, are you stating Machs principle is broken or not? I would be grateful if you could state your evidence against my idea in more layman terms please. ....

No, I was simply attempting to post evidence showing that your idea of a spinning universe does have scientific support based on certain interpretation of observable phenomena.

Is the universe rotating?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575


Is the universe rotating Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmowtFHixSU

One thing to keep in mind about Mach is that virtual subatomic particles, perticles that flitt in and out of existence, had as yet not been discovered. Such particles can be used as a reference point to determine absolute motion of objects within the universe. Neither had Cosmic Backround Radiation as evidence of the big bang been discovered. In fact, Mach questioned the existence of atoms. So in view of this, IMHO, it's best to go with the views of more recent scientists who are up to date on current discoveries when it comes to this area since they have the more accurate info to properly evaluate the issue.

[bcrowell]

One thing to keep in mind about Mach is that virtual subatomic particles, perticles that flitt in and out of existence, had as yet not been discovered. Such particles can be used as a reference point to determine absolute motion of objects within the universe.

I don't think this is right. Quantum field theory has virtual particles, but QFT has exact Lorentz invariance.

[Chronos]

... For one, I am definitely missing something, if 'we' think 'we' can measure a rotation we are part of! How could we measure/test the idea of rotation about ALL axes then....to my limited thinking, we could only do this indirectly. Would it be such a waste of time if someone were to plug the numbers into a programme and see if it produced anything like the universe we 'see'?Please clarify the meaning intended by 'All axes'.
... Am I correct in thinking cosmologists have rejected (and therefore, thought of) a universe rotating about 1 axis? Has anyone even considerred that it may be rotating about multiple/or as think, infinite axes? Is this such an outrageous idea? Is it more outrageous than (mem)branes, many world theories etc?It has been considered and deemed unlikely. Rotation about multiple axes has not been addressed to my knowledge. Probably because the notion appears illogical.
... I have great respect for scientists, and even envy them. I have to provide for my family by decorating. I have always had a great interest in cosmology and read considerably about it. It seems to me that the scientists who do not 'toe the party line' make the biggest strides. I do not poopoo everything i read but I guarantee all of you that believe in inflation will be proved wrong! Not to say this will replace it, but something will. It may add up mathematically,but that does not mean it happened. No cosmologists are completely happy with inflation. It is merely an ad hoc explanation that fits observational evidence.
... My reasons for believing in a universe rotating about infinite axes:It is an attempt to explain dark energy and dark matter (dark meaning 'we' have no idea). Your concept still makes no sense.
... Also, I have heard of something called dark flow. All of which means we cannot explain all the movements we observe. Some believe that most matter is dark matter(i think the figure is aprox 90%). Is this not as far-fetched as my idea?! All the questions asked of me, could be asked of dark matter...dark fairy perhaps! Dark matter comprises about 25% of the energy content of the universe according to the LCDM model [our current best guess].
... The flatness problem ONLY solved by inflation. What if the BB was a result of a rotating force and not an explosive (for want of a better term) force. I presume that at the end of the BB no more matter/energy is created. The matter/energy levels are set for the universes lifetime-cannot be destroyed or created post BB or post planck time. How does this rotation thing work? The BB was not an 'explosive' event.... If the singularity 'rotated' itself into existence, then the level of mass/energy in the universe could be set by the amount of rotation. An infinite rotation provides an arbitrary figure for mass/energy. A larger, infinite rotation would provide a larger arbitrary figure for mass/energy. Rotation is directly linked to mass/energy contained in the universe. This could mean that rotation/mass/energy and expansion are all linked. This may GUARANTEE a flat universe. So, any universe that came into being would have to be flat, and stay flat. Its not a coincidence that it is, and inflation is not needed. I believe it is possible to have a bigger infinity than infinity!!I would be grateful for more thoughts/ criticism of this. But please keep it simple.....like me I hear you all say.The fairies are still in play.

[Imax]

If you look at it in terms of relativity, it could be difficult to observe a rotating universe in the absence of external reference points, which cannot be observed because they would lie outside the observable universe.

[Radrook]

I don't think this is right. Quantum field theory has virtual particles, but QFT has exact Lorentz invariance.


My point is that the more accurate knowledge we have about the universe the more accurate inferences we can make. I made no other claim nor assertion. I leave those types of scientific assertions to the experts, such as you, on this forum.

BTW
I don't consider it logical to conclude that the whole universe is spinning simply because we might see evidence of it. What we can conclude logically is that the visible universe might be spinning. As to its non observable or non-detectable part which can very well be as the universe is to an atom in relation to the detectable part, we can only express opinion based on irrelevant data. An illustration of the illogical nature of such generalizations can be illustrated by a large hotel in which we observe a few rooms and all turn out to be small and then we conclude all the remaining rooms follow the same pattern. Obviously they don't have to. Same with observable vs unobservable universe.

[RichyRich]

Firstly, I would like to apologize for my original post; it was done in a manner as to invite comment/criticism.
Thankyou Radrook for your link. I was pleased (yet a bit saddened!) to see similar thoughts to my own. Although my idea of rotation about all (infinite) axes still seems to be original.
I am happy to try and clarify my statements. I have probably not stated things too clearly so I can understand some may be unclear of exactly what I am trying to say. I think it is unwise to make such comments as fairys whilst someone is in that position. Maybe when certain of what I am saying, such insights can be made. I am unaware of insulting anyone.
All axes: A sphere has infinite axes. If we had something like a gyroscope, we could arrange it to rotate the central mass about multiple axes. In theory, not paractice, we could keep adding 'levels/rings' to the gyroscope, to rotate the central mass about infinite axes. In theory, we could have each ring rotate at an infinite speed causing the central mass to rotate at an infinite speed about infinite axes. Perhaps another way to look at it: could a point-like 1D object or a flat-like 2D object rotate about infinite axes in a 3D space? Assuming our universe to be 4D spacetime, could it rotate about infinite axes in a 5D space/area/dimension-whatever it may be called.
My mention of dark this and that, was to illustrate that although we have a fair grasp of gravity and particle physics, we still cannot explain basic motions occuring relatively close to us! I was proposing that 'my'? idea may help understand this.
Given that we are talking about rotation in or about a further dimension your statement of 'illogical' escapes me. When talking of such a rotation, I cant see that it makes sense to say it is more logical that the universe is rotating about 1 axis, rather than multiple. To me this just seems more evidence of 3D thinking about a multi-dimensional problem.
I did qualify 'explosive' force-you can supply a more accurate term if you wish.
We know a rotating object causes an outward force. If the singularity was rotating as I suggest, it would have caused severe outward force post BB. I am also suggesting that singularity rotation would be directly linked to the amount of energy in the universe, that singularity created. For instance, if rotation of the singularity was high, energy in the early universe was high. This relationship would be a way of ensuring that any possible, resulting universe was flat. No inflation. No coincidence. It HAS to be that way. This seems reasonable thinking to me? I would think this rotation would explain isotropy as well.
I have sympathy with Imax's view, but feel theoretical work (much above myself) might reproduce a universe like ours.
bcrowell your comments seem very fair. I would be grateful if you could make some comments on specific points I have made please.
Hope I have cleared up some things.

[RichyRich]

A further note to help explain my reasoning behind linking rotation with energy. An ice skater spinning with arms by her side. As she extends her arms her rotation slows. If she has weight-lifter arms, her rotation slows quicker. And vice versa. There is a relationship. Extend this analogy to my above comments.

[bcrowell]

If you look at it in terms of relativity, it could be difficult to observe a rotating universe in the absence of external reference points, which cannot be observed because they would lie outside the observable universe.

Yes, but general relativity actually isn't totally Machian. Absolute rotation is observable in GR without reference to anything external (e.g., using gyroscopes or the Sagnac effect).

[Chronos]

Richy, if the initial singularity was rotating, as you suggest, it predicts a unverse that is not homogenous. Matter would be preferentially distributed relative to its original axis of rotation. Adding twisting moments to the original rotation axis does not make this issue go away. If you make it infinitely twisted, it is the same as saying it was not rotating to begin with.

[RichyRich]

Thankyou for your comments chronos. Do you feel I have made my thoughts a bit clearer, and do you feel they at least do not go against science (the FACTS we do know)? I am not suggesting I am 100% right but the reason for this thread was to see if there were gaping wholes in my reasoning. You have only questioned one point. I am not asking you to say that I have all the answers, but do you feel it is at least possible, and the argument is does not fly in the face of science. My education on the subject is limited, but if my 'handle' on subjects is wrong I am more than happy for that to be pointed out. In reply to your comment. I am having a little laugh if you will excuse me. Surely the twisting and inhomogenous nature would be a result of rotation about 1 axis. Maybe I am reading you wrong. My central concept is there is no 'original axis of rotation'. Rotation about ALL axes simultaneously. I can see your point about infinite twisting is same as no rotation. The way I look at this is...the 'look' of the universe may be the same, so you may say whats the point whether there is this kind of rotation or not. But wouldnt there be forces arising from such rotation, that would distinguish between these universes? To try and illustrate my point...If there was just 1 object/body in space. There is no external frame to say if this body is rotating. It could have 2 different 'properties'? It could 'sit there' showing no signs of rotation... Or it may have a bulge around its 'equator', or have a measurable outward force. If you were on this body you would probably have no idea of rotation or an outward force, you would probably just measure gravity to be lower, measured against the first body mentioned? In summary, bodies that have no outwardly difference (we wouldnt be able to compare the 2). I am not sure I have explained myself too well, but I am trying to say infinite twisting may 'look' the same as no rotation, but there could be a difference in forces not immediately apparent. Hope I have made myself clear...I very much doubt it!! Thanks again for your comments.

[LithiumHelios]

Article by Barrow et al may be worth reading:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985MNRAS.213..917B

[RichyRich]

Thankyou Lithium. My first thoughts are 'wow 'we' can do all that'! and there has got to be a mistake in observation, testing or theory in there some where!! I confess, I didnt understand most of the article. I can understand the summarys etc and some theory. If someone could do a quick summary of that article in laymans terms it would be greatly appreciated.
If I understood correctly, the article relates expansion to rotation rate, which I find interesting. However, I still find it hard to put much weight into observation. Surely any observation would depend on what fraction the observable universe was compared to actual universe size-are we measuring a local vorticity or a more universal one etc? Also, I wonder if different rotational combinations could illicit the same vorticity-could we 'stir' a body of water in different ways and still get the same overall movement in the water?...If cosmologists said tomorrow we have measured a universe rotation (about 1 axis) of 1 revolution each earth year (for simplicity) I would immediately wonder if the universe was actually rotating in a more complex way that gave a NET result that looked, to us, like once per year??? I think the article concludes the universe is probably rotating? but says nothing has to how much etc?
Does anyone know if it is possible to assume a singularity, and resulting universe that rotate about all axes, and plug these numbers into a computer programme and see if we could even get a universe anything like ours?
Once again, thankyou to anyone taking the time to post.

[Tanelorn]

Everyone keeps refering to the Pink Faries as a measure of something being unreal, so I thought you should all know that they are in fact real:

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


Carry On.

[Chronos]

Richy, your interest is refreshing. I hope you don't find my comments overly critical. I do not believe the universe is rotating. You need an absolute reference frame and I see no credible evidence of such a thing - aside from the CMB rest frame - and it does not support your idea.

[Chronos]

A rotating universe would produce anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. WMAP data tightly constrains how much [if any] rotation may be present. After a little digging, I found the paper I had in mind:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575
Is the universe rotating?
Shi-Chun Su, M.-C. Chu

Models of a rotating universe have been studied widely since Godel {1}, who showed an example that is consistent with General Relativity (GR). By now, the possibility of a rotating universe has been discussed comprehensively in the framework of some types of Bianchi's models, such as Type V, VII and IX {2,3}, and different approaches have been proposed to constrain the rotation. Recent discoveries of some non-Gaussian properties of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies (CMBA) {nG1,nG2,nG3,nG4,nG5,nG6,nG7}, such as the suppression of the quadrupole and the alignment of some multipoles draw attention to some Bianchi models with rotation {bi1,bi2}. However, cosmological data, such as those of the CMBA, strongly prefer a homogeneous and isotropic model. Therefore, it is of interest to discuss the rotation of the universe as a perturbation of the Robertson-Walker metric, to constrain the rotating speed by cosmological data and to discuss whether it could be the origin of the non-Gaussian properties of the CMBA mentioned above. Here, we derive the general form of the metric (up to 2nd-order perturbations) which is compatible with the rotation perturbation in a flat Lambda-CDM universe. By comparing the 2nd-order Sachs-Wolfe effect {4,5,6,7,8} due to rotation with the CMBA data, we constrain the angular speed of the rotation to be less than $10^{-9}$ rad yr$^{-1}$ at the last scattering surface. This provides the first constraint on the shear-free rotation of a Lambda-CDM universe.

[RichyRich]

I am not offended, critical is what I was after. I have strictly an amateur interest in cosmology, but you can read a lot in 44yrs!! From what I can see, there is a lack of evidence to say one thing or another on this matter so we will have to agree to disagree. Aside from whether the universe is rotating, or not, would you say evidence of rotation is evidence of another dimension? If rotation is occuring, it must be in/about a different frame of reference?

[Imax]

Aside from whether the universe is rotating, or not, would you say evidence of rotation is evidence of another dimension? If rotation is occurring, it must be in/about a different frame of reference?

Maybe. It’s possible that some equations may work better in 5D space, consisting of 4D spacetime with a fifth dimension of spin. I’m not certain that spin is independent of space and time.

[Tanelorn]

Perhaps a rotating universe helps to explain its expansion through centripetal force? Hey everything else we know is rotating around something. Consider electrons in atoms, moons around planets, planets around stars, stars around galaxies, and at the next level, galaxies around... the pillars of creation?

[Chronos]

Why do you need extra dimensions to explain current observational evidence? I'm not aware of any compelling reason to add extra dimensions - aside from string theory. And the classical 3d +1 version of reality still seems to make more sense than any version of string theory of which I am aware. PS - I don't think string theory is wrong, merely irrelevant.

[Tanelorn]

Chronos thanks I thought I was alone in thinking that!

[hadsed]

Perhaps a rotating universe helps to explain its expansion through centripetal force? Hey everything else we know is rotating around something. Consider electrons in atoms, moons around planets, planets around stars, stars around galaxies, and at the next level, galaxies around... the pillars of creation?

That's an interesting idea. I wonder if this is falsifiable, or flat out wrong. Perhaps one of our SA's can shed some light on this.

[RichyRich]

I didnt ask about compelling reasons or observational evidence. I am just asking would a universe that rotates in any way, necessitate a further dimension? Forget for a minute whether ours is rotating or not! Just, does one follow the other, as consequence?

[bcrowell]

I didnt ask about compelling reasons or observational evidence. I am just asking would a universe that rotates in any way, necessitate a further dimension? Forget for a minute whether ours is rotating or not! Just, does one follow the other, as consequence?
No additional dimensions are required for rotation to exist. All the rotating models that are normally discussed and compared against observation are 3+1-dimensional.

Perhaps a rotating universe helps to explain its expansion through centripetal force? Hey everything else we know is rotating around something. Consider electrons in atoms, moons around planets, planets around stars, stars around galaxies, and at the next level, galaxies around... the pillars of creation?
Rotation would have dynamical effects. That's why it can be tested experimentally. Since current observations can only place an upper limit on the rate of rotation (i.e., they're consistent with zero rotation), no, rotation cannot play any large effect in explaining the observed expansion. I believe you can also have rotation without expansion, e.g., I think the Godel metric rotates but does not expand (it has a timelike Killing vector).

For anyone who actually wants to understand this stuff, the first thing to do would be to read some of the papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985MNRAS.213..917B
http://web.archive.org/web/20070701033428/http://www.ettnet.se/~egils/essay/essay.html

[RichyRich]

I do actually want to understand this stuff and have read these papers. Unfortunately, i do not understand quite a lot of it. This is why I originally started this thread-to get more understanding. Unfortunately this site seems to be full of people wishing to show off their knowledge, rather than converse and even teach a little. The reason for my being here is to learn, yet it seems people wish to send me elsewhere to learn. And I do believe its possible to simplify most physics-to get the crunch of the matter, rather than pages of math. I have read a lot about Einstein and Feynman-I tend to think they would have been happy to talk to me in what would be for them, a simplified way. I dont think they would give me an equation and tell me to get lost. All I wanted here was a simplified, scientific criticism (and you can have both) of some of the thoughts I had. Maybe people like me, should know my place.

[Imax]

I do actually want to understand this stuff and have read these papers. Unfortunately, i do not understand quite a lot of it.

I don't understand quite a lot of it either. Everything rotates, spin, so its likely that the universe rotates also.

[Chronos]

SA's who commented on this thread have tried to explain why your idea is unsound. Acceptance is optional.

[RichyRich]

Il try one question at a time.
I believe I am correct in saying we have no idea how large the observable universe is compared to actual size.
Would we expect to observe dynamical effects from rotation, if the observable universe were a tiny fraction of the actual size of the universe?

[Lino]

Chronos (and others), in relation to the articles that you have mentioned, is the CMBA data mentioned used as a reference frame against which to scale / put an upper limit on (possible) rotation?

Regards,

Noel.

[bcrowell]

Chronos (and others), in relation to the articles that you have mentioned, is the CMBA data mentioned used as a reference frame against which to scale / put an upper limit on (possible) rotation?

Solar system test:
Clemence, C.M. (1957). 'Astronomical Time', Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 29, p. 2

CMB tests:
Hawking, S.W. (1969). 'On the Rotation of the Universe', Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. Vol. 142, p. 529.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985MNRAS.213..917B
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575

[Chronos]

The Su paper calculated rotation at the surface of last scattering using CMBA [an aspect of the last scattering surface] in combination with other astrophysical data. I just realized Radrook linked this same paper in post 18 - apologies for the oversight.

[Lino]

thanks bcrowell & chronos.

regards,

lino.

[RichyRich]

No takers on my last question?

[Chronos]

What suggests there is more to the universe than observed? Does an observationally finite universe insist there is more than we can see? If there is more, but, observationally inaccessible, is it scientifically relevant?

[RichyRich]

I asked if scale matters when it was stated 'we would expect to be able to observe dynamic effects if the universe were rotating'. So, when i question the relative size of observable to actual universe size, I am question would we really expect to observe dynamical effects? So, my response is relevant. The observable universe could be the dynamical effect within the actual universe, therefore undetectable?

[Chronos]

Rotation would affect properties like polarization and, IMO, constitute evidence of something external to the observable universe. An analogous situation is rotation of the earth. Even without relying upon sidereal motion of the stars, It is detectable in a variety of ways [e.g., focault pendulum]. See page 2 of
http://www.uv.es/moralesa/Cosmology/PRD-EvolutionPolarizationCMB-QSO(2007).pdf
for discussion of global rotation effects on polarization.

[RichyRich]

I do believe in science; i believe Relativity and Quantum Theory etc. But I am a sceptic, not to be confused with cynic. I dont believe everything I am told just for the sake of it, even if more educated people than myself tell me. I still cant help think we all (not me of course!!) look at this matter through 4D eyes. 'We' relate possible rotation of the universe to bodies rotating within it. Why do we assume the results of rotation would be similar? From the start, I said rotation about all axes simultaneously. This would be as familiar to us as a 5th dimension-it is a totally alien concept. The way I view it, I call it rotation because that is the most accurate term we as 4D inhabitants can use. But in reality it is not the same as rotation within the universe. I still do not believe observation of space will prove/disprove this. I believe answers are more likely from theory or atomic science. Einstein changed how we viewed the universe-that will not be the final story. Our view of the universe will be upgraded. The atom used to be thought of as an electon circling a nucleus, now upgraded to a cloud of probabilities. Maybe this will prove to be analagous to the universe itself. To me, everything i have read (with some limited understanding) points to a universe with some intrinsic motion, that plays a part (probably a large part) in its physical properties.

[Tanelorn]

Regarding your question about rotation are you meaning that the observable universe is itself rotating on a center point somewhere within it or that the universe is just a small spec relative to the whole which is rotating around the whole like a solar system in a giant spiral galaxy? I suspect you mean the latter.

[RichyRich]

Sorry, but I dont really mean either! I am humbly suggesting that the universe (observable and the rest) is rotating about a point not within itself. Call it another dimension or any other name. This is why I suggest it is infinite rotation simultaneously,or instantly. Clearly, infinite rotation within our universe would be problematic. My WHOLE point, from the start, was rotation about a point not within 'our' universe. To my mind, this scenario means observation of space to find 'our' normal consequences of rotation irrelevant. Maybe I am limited in putting whats in my mind into writing, but I am not sure anyone has really grasped what I am saying!

[bcrowell]

Regarding your question about rotation are you meaning that the observable universe is itself rotating on a center point somewhere within it or that the universe is just a small spec relative to the whole which is rotating around the whole like a solar system in a giant spiral galaxy? I suspect you mean the latter.

I can't speak for RichyRich, but if you want to know what relativists are actually discussing (i.e., what's consistent with GR and with observations), see the papers referenced in #12 and #13. The models described in those papers do not have a center of rotation. Rotation in GR does not require a center of rotation.

[RichyRich]

I have just read fore-mentioned papers. #13 is not a million miles away from what I am saying. This pleases me a great deal as my thoughts come quite independently. Alas, it does reinforce that it is unlikely someone like myself can think of something not already thought of! Whereas the writer assumes rotation about all/any point in space I still lean towards rotation about a point outside our universe. Are these points of view vastly different, or could they actually be the same thing!? I am still confused that we look for vorticity etc as proof of rotation. Surely, we are assuming that rotation of the universe would give effects we are familiar with from rotation of bodies within the universe. For arguments sake, who is to say rotation of the universe wouldnt produce an attractive force?? Because rotation within the universe produces a 'repellant' force, does that mean a universal rotation must?? The writer of that paper stated rotation about all points-surely this would have different effects than 'bog-standard' rotations!? Also, I cannot understand the writer favouring observation above theory. Is it so unlikely that atomic or quantum theory progresses to a point where we come to realise that it would all make much more sense in a rotating universe? ps what I liked about the papers are they are written in English!!

[Lino]

... Even without relying upon sidereal motion of the stars, It is detectable in a variety of ways [e.g., focault pendulum]. See page 2 of
http://www.uv.es/moralesa/Cosmology/PRD-EvolutionPolarizationCMB-QSO(2007).pdf
for discussion of global rotation effects on polarization.
Chronos (and others contributing to this thread), do you have any other references to articles / papers like this (preferably without too much maths / too many formulas ... please), or do you know of any such items on galactic / cosmologic equivilants to the focault pendulum?

Regards,

Noel.

[Lino]

Bcrowell, or anyone that may be able to shed some light on this, the article that you mention in #13 (Hawking, 1969, On the rotation of the universe) mentions (in para 2 of introduction on first page) that an element of the vorticity definition is "... relative to the inertial frame defined by gyroscopes." Do you have any orther references / examples to the use or application of gyroscopes in this type of (cosmic) context?

Regards,

Noel.

[bcrowell]

Bcrowell, or anyone that may be able to shed some light on this, the article that you mention in #13 (Hawking, 1969, On the rotation of the universe) mentions (in para 2 of introduction on first page) that an element of the vorticity definition is "... relative to the inertial frame defined by gyroscopes." Do you have any orther references / examples to the use or application of gyroscopes in this type of (cosmic) context?

Relativity is non-Machian in this respect. Linear motion is relative, but rotational motion isn't. You don't need GR to understand this -- it's a concept that's already present in SR. Another example is the Sagnac effect.

Here is a classic paper on this (link says "Original Brans-Dicke paper:"): http://loyno.edu/~brans/ST-history/

[Lino]

Thanks Bcrowell.

Regards,

Noel.

[RichyRich]

1. Would rotation of the universe result in similar effects to rotations observed within the universe? and why?
2. What are the fundamental differences between the concept that the universe may rotate about all points within itself, to the universe may rotate about point(s) outside of itself?
3. Is it possible that theory could play a role in proving/disproving universal rotation?

[RichyRich]

Strange as I am the person that started this thread, that my questions are answered least!! Are the questions I ask unscientific or are people just replying to points they wish to? I thought this was a discussional forum. I find the lack of conversation startling!!

[RichyRich]

1. Not necessarily.
2. Dont know.
3. Yes.
That was quite simple.
I will end this thread now and go to a site where people will answer questions they are not 'comfortable' with. I find reciting other peoples work in a robot fashion without discussing the implications of that work unscientific and quite frankly inhuman. Good luck looking for vorticities!!

[Imax]

RichyRich :

I can see you’ve given this a lot of thought, but without a reference point it could be difficult to establish that the universe is rotating, especially if that reference point lies outside the observable universe. If you believe that the entire universe is rotating, which it could be, then you need to describe experiments which can support your point of view. Is it something like a coriolis effect?

[Chronos]

1. Not necessarily.
2. Dont know.
3. Yes.
That was quite simple.
I will end this thread now and go to a site where people will answer questions they are not 'comfortable' with. I find reciting other peoples work in a robot fashion without discussing the implications of that work unscientific and quite frankly inhuman. Good luck looking for vorticities!!
I attempt to allow credible, published papers speak for themselves with minimal injection of personal opinion. It's not about comfort, it's about credibility. It's up to you to critique papers we have referenced supporting our views. Citing papers that draw contrary conclusions would be a plus you have studiously avoided thus far.

[RichyRich]

Imax, I understand the need for experiment and test. All I can say these are views I get from researching physics. I did ask is it possible to programme a computer to see if a simulation could help-I had no answer. Where is the experiment for p-branes, inflation and many other ideas? Admittedly these ideas are from much more credible sources! Yet, they are ideas. I havnt tried to say the moon is cheese; I came here to see if my views were consistent with current science. I have no wish to detract from science. Personally as Ive said before I dont believe the answer will come from observation.
Chronos I have found yourself and bcrowell to be very frustrating. You both clearly are more learned in physics than myself. I dont wish my views to be in ignorance; I wish to learn. The papers you have mentioned I have read. What I understood didnt tell me my views were wrong. However there was much I didnt understand-I did ask for clarification at times but received no such help. Do you ever read something and have questions? That is why I came to a forum where there is feedback. I cant ask a published paper a question! If you look at past posts you will see i have critiqued papers and asked questions. I havnt knowingly avoided anything that goes against my views-I dont see the point in that at all. From what I have seen there are contrary conclusions-all from observation, which I have said, I question anyway. I have stated why I question observation in this matter. I would be grateful if you would summarise the objections you have cited to a rotating universe. i must have missed them. The following questions have not only been unanswered, but ignored!
1 would we expect to observe dynammical effects from rotation if the observable universe were a tiny fraction of the actual universe. I believe not. If I am wrong please tell me. I believe this has been proposed as the reason we have not found any magnetic monopoles.
2. would rotation of the universe illicit similar results as rotations within the universe? again, i think not. i would think this is rotation unlike any rotations we know about.
3. why is theory unlikely to play a part in resolving this issue?
Credible answers to these questions would be welcomed. If you look at past posts, see how many of my specific views or questions have been replied to-hence my frustration. With respect, there is no point posting anything else unless these points are answered in some way. Dare I say it, I feel like Im going in circles, not the universe!

[bcrowell]

The papers you have mentioned I have read. What I understood didnt tell me my views were wrong. However there was much I didnt understand-I did ask for clarification at times but received no such help.
It sounds like you need more background in math and physics in order to understand this subject. If you start a new thread in the relativity forum asking for suggestions on how to start a program of self-study in GR, I'm sure you will receive many helpful answers. The answers you've gotten have been the kind of answers you should have expected, given the tone you set starting with your post #1.

[RichyRich]

If you read post 23 you see I apologised for the manner of my opening statement, without prompt. I mistakingly thought an abrupt manner would invite more comment/criticism. Also, my sense of humour possibly doesnt travel way. Thankyou for talking to me, and not around me, this time.
I understand what you say about the tone I set and I can only apologise again. I would say , however, that it seems pointless to reply to some points and not others. I self-study as much as I can on physics in general. Unfortunately I am at a level that cannot be raised without feedback and an amount of time I dont have. I do realise that , to a large degree, I am talking from ignorance. I am intelligent enough to realise that! This is why I came here. Its not about not accepting what I dont like. I have genuinely not seen anything here that tells me my ideas MUST be wrong, and/ or they are not consistent with current science. Some objections to my ideas have been raised. I have asked if these objections are valid. Then I get no response. Thats not much of a discussion to me! Id rather not take a course on GR. If, for instance, GR, says scale (observable against actual size of universe) doesnt effect the likelihood of observing dynamical effects, then you could just say that and briefly summarise why. Simplyfying science is not a bad thing, not to be confused with dumbing down science. I am currently reading a book by Stephen Hawking. He has made a number of bets with Roger Penrose. They are both learned men, yet their bets tell me they have different views where some physics will go. Both their views are consistent with current science. Thats all I wanted to find out. Are my views consistent with current science-not necessarily correct. You are correct, I do need more background in math and physics. But this ignorance will not stop me thinking, and I learn what I can. So, I will not start a new thread. I either get the discussion Id like here, or I dont! But each point has to be answered or there is no point in discussion, even if its to inform me of its irrelevance. As I have said, I apologise for my tone. You can either accept my apology and give me the honour of discussing this subject. Or you have no wish to. If your last post was your way of saying you will not discuss anymore because of my lack of knowledge and/or tone that is fine. I would much rather that, then be talked around or ignored.

[Imax]

RichyRich:

Maybe this can help you:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.4067.pdf

[thetexan]

Rotating relative to what?

[RichyRich]

Thankyou very much Imax. A rotating universe is clearly not such a remote idea amongst physicists. My thoughts still linger to a rotation that is substantially different from rotations that occur WITHIN the universe. Am I correct in thinking phyicists believe 'we' should be bathed in magnetic monopoles, based on theory. The 'favourite' answer to this is the universe expanded to such a size these monopoles have been diluted out. We do not know what fraction of the universe we are sampling-observable to actual size of universe. Therefore, absence of evidence is not is not evidence of absence in monopoles or, I would suggest, in dynamical effects of universal rotation. So one of bcrowells earlier responses is invalid.
thetexan, I believe the universe rotates about/in what we would call another dimension. I am not alone in thinking there are other dimensions. Many physicists believe theory points in that direction. If there is something other than our universe, would anyone really expect 'us' to be static in relation to it?! bcrowell mentioned, when he was confident of an answer!, that GR says rotation can occur without reference to anything else, so that also could be an answer. bcrowell, however, only answered certain points, based on my attitude! I would have thought a more reasoned response to my 'attitude' would have been no response, not selective responses!!
I would like to invite responses to the following thought. To me, it may be relevant to this thread and possibly to quantum theory. I really dont know, so would just like some comments about it in general.....
Say you had a CD. This CD was a uniform colour, save for a blue dot at its outer edge. You are looking down onto the CD's flat surface whist it spins at an infinite speed. You put your finger on the outer edge to stop the CD rotating. Would you expect to stop the CD with your finger on the blue dot? What if the blue dot were actually suspended in a medium, say water, rotating in the same way. Wherever on the 'edge' of this water you put your finger in, would the blue dot be there? None of this is to make any point as such, just would like to see any comments. Thanks.

[bcrowell]

Rotating relative to what?

Rotation in GR is not relative, it's absolute. For example, if you're inside a sealed laboratory, you can watch the behavior of a gyroscope and determine whether the lab is rotating. This is one of the ways in which GR is non-Machian.

[RichyRich]

thetexan GR says rotation doesnt recquire extra dimensions, but doesnt rule them out.

[Imax]

The math could work out easier in 5D?

[Imax]

Baby steps. Instead of looking at a rotating universe, look at another question. Why do galaxies exist? Current cosmological models need Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain why galaxies can form and don’t fall apart. Galaxies rotate and so could our Universe.

[bcrowell]

Baby steps. Instead of looking at a rotating universe, look at another question. Why do galaxies exist? Current cosmological models need Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain why galaxies can form and don’t fall apart.

You don't need dark matter to explain why galaxies can form. You only need it to explain why they have the rotation curves they do. In a universe without dark matter, galaxies would still form, but they would have different sizes and rotation curves.

Dark *energy* has nothing to do with galactic structure.

Galaxies rotate and so could our Universe.
You haven't given any logical connection between your previous statements and this one. In any case, GR establishes that rotating cosmologies are possible, and observations set an upper limit on the rotation. See the references given in #13.

[Imax]

You don't need dark matter to explain why galaxies can form. You only need it to explain why they have the rotation curves they do. In a universe without dark matter, galaxies would still form, but they would have different sizes and rotation curves.

You need Dark Matter to explain why observed data does not fit with current theory. Without Dark Matter, galaxies could have different size and rotation (i.e. spin).

[bcrowell]

You need Dark Matter to explain why observed data does not fit with current theory. Without Dark Matter, galaxies could have different size and rotation (i.e. spin).

Agreed.

[RichyRich]

Whilst any observations are worthwhile, in this case they are useless. Would any dynammical effects observed from rotation prove the universe is rotating-no. It may be that the observable universe has some movement/rotation within the universe as a whole. Observation is irrelevant unless we know scale. The question was rotation of the whole universe, not observable universe. Another stumbling block for mr crowell to avoid.

[Imax]

So Dark Matter could cause the Universe to rotate?

[bcrowell]

So Dark Matter could cause the Universe to rotate?

Huh? Why do you say that?

[Imax]

Pulling your leg :)