What Causes the Expansion of the Universe?

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509230

Authors: George Chapline (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), Pawel O. Mazur (University of South Carolina)
Comments: 5 pages, LaTeX file, 1 figure

Understanding gravitational collapse requires understanding how $\sim 10^{58}$ nucleons can be destroyed in $\sim 10^{-5}$ seconds. The recent proposal that the endpoint of gravitational collapse can be a "dark energy star" implies that the mass-energy of the nucleons undergoing gravitational collapse can be converted to vacuum energy when one gets near to conditions where classical general relativity predicts that a trapped surface would form. The negative pressure associated with a large vacuum energy prevents an event horizon from forming, thus resolving the long-standing puzzle as to why gravitational collapse always leads to an explosion. An indirect consequence is that the reverse process - creation of matter from vacuum energy - should also be possible. Indeed this process may be responsible for the "big bang". In this new cosmology the observable universe began as a fluctuation in an overall steady state universe. The fluctuations in the CMB in this picture are the result of quantum turbulence associated with vorticity. This explanation for the CMB fluctuations is superior to inflationary scenarios because there is a natural explanation for both the level of CMB fluctuations and the deviation from a scale invariant spectrum at large scales.

 

[Garth]

Interesting paper - thank you for the link.

No Inflation, finite size of universe ~ 10 Gpc. (SCC ~ 15 Gpc) - I like it!

But as a Machian my question in response to the title of this Thread is always: "If the universe did rotate what would it rotate with respect to?"

Garth

 

[wolram]

In a rotating universe, would every," body", with in it have more energy as
compared to a no rotating universe ?

 

[Garth]

In a rotating universe, would every," body", with in it have more energy as
compared to a no rotating universe ?

How would you first define and then measure such energy and how would you compare the 'rotating' with the 'non-rotating'?

Garth

 

[bayan]

No Inflation, finite size of universe ~ 10 Gpc. (SCC ~ 15 Gpc) - I like it!

Garth

Is that the size of the universe?

if so what unit is ir?

cheers

 

[JesseM]

But as a Machian my question in response to the title of this Thread is always: "If the universe did rotate what would it rotate with respect to?"

Do you consider general relativity to be a Machian theory? Some do, others don't...but GR does allow for the possibility of rotating universes, with the rotation having some experimentally observable consequences--see the "Is our Universe Rotating?" section of this article on rotating universes. The evidence so far suggests our universe is not rotating to any significant degree. The article also mentions that "rotation" in this context doesn't mean there'd be a single center of rotation:

Imagine you are in a laboratory without windows floating around somewhere in the universe. If you and the other objects in the laboratory get pressed against the walls, you would say that the laboratory is rotating, and centrifugal forces are responsible for the effects. Now, the laboratory happens to be equipped with small engines that can be used to control the rotation. Use the engines until you have totally eliminated the centrifugal forces, and thereby the rotation. When done, drill some peepholes in the laboratory (but please make sure you don't lose your air supply). Observe the galaxies. If you find that the galaxies rotate around you, then the universe is said to be rotating.

 

[Garth]

Do you consider general relativity to be a Machian theory? Some do, others don't...but GR does allow for the possibility of rotating universes, with the rotation having some experimentally observable consequences--see the "Is our Universe Rotating?" section of this article on rotating universes. The evidence so far suggests our universe is not rotating to any significant degree. The article also mentions that "rotation" in this context doesn't mean there'd be a single center of rotation:

It is generally acknowledged that GR is not a completely Machian theory, the fact that it can have rotating cosmological solutions being just one symptom of that. The example of the laboratory quoted above does not answer my question as a freely falling (orbiting) inertial laboratory itself may be rotating wrt the rest of the universe, because of the frame dragging gravito-magnetic effect, in other words it could be close to a large rotating mass such as the Earth.

Garth

 

[Chronos]

Bah, Garth. The universe cannot 'rotate' without something outside the universe for it to rotate with respect to. That is way too Machian, even for Mach to consider, IMO. I prefer your BD solution.

 

[Garth]

Bah, Garth. The universe cannot 'rotate' without something outside the universe for it to rotate with respect to. That is way too Machian, even for Mach to consider, IMO.

Bah Chronos!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v298/n5873/abs/298451a0.html;jsessionid=16909CAD327D8CB315573EF4346AB921

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.

(Emphasis mine)
This postulated rotation proved to be a Faraday rotation effect caused by our Galaxy's ISM magnetic and electric fields.

Mach's Principle and the Creation of Matter

Accurate experiments have shown that the local inertial frame is the one with respect to which the distant parts of the universe are non-rotating. This coincidence, first noticed by Newton, later led to the formulation of Mach's principle. It is known that relativity theory by itself cannot explain this coincidence.

Actually GR can explain this coincidence in a closed universe. It is the boundary conditions problem again - one of the reasons Einstein preferred a closed universe.

Garth

 

[reggnar]

Interesting paper - thank you for the link.

No Inflation, finite size of universe ~ 10 Gpc. (SCC ~ 15 Gpc) - I like it!

But as a Machian my question in response to the title of this Thread is always: "If the universe did rotate what would it rotate with respect to?"

Garth

Ive been trying to figure this out for awhile if "the universe" does rotate alone. However what i do know the universe moves relative to light itself at 2.8 angstroms per second per second (2.8*10 -10 power. About the diameter of a air molecule). The Fg on Earth is caused by the speed of the expanding universe ( i think its hubbles law), the current speed of our universe 2.8 angstoms per second per second equalivant to "c" and to the location of Earth in the universe and its rotation. This is in very very simple words a book i can reference you to is "the new gravity" by kenneth g. Salem. He explains it in detail, this is his work corrected and perfected. I have his 1st edition signed copy.

But what do i know I am only 16.