The Rotation of the Universe: A New Perspective on Cosmic Expansion

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9703/9703082.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9604049

Authors: V.A. Korotky, Yu.N. Obukhov
Comments: 22 pages, Revtex
Journal-ref: Published in ``Gravity, Particles and Space-Time'', eds. P. Pronin and G. Sardanashvily (World Scientific: Singapore, 1996), pp. 421-439

We overview our recent studies of cosmological models with expansion and global rotation. Problems of the early rotating models are discussed, and the class of new viable cosmologies is described in detail. Particular attention is paid to the observational effects of the cosmic rotation.

Global rotation would i guess make a huge difference to cosmology, but it
seems it is not a great topic in the literature, i can only wonder how the
angular mommentum component would change astro phys, ie rotation
non rotation.

 

[wolram]

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0409073

Authors: Godlowski, Wlodzimierz; Szydlowski, Marek

We analyze dynamics of the FRW models with global rotation in terms of dynamical system methods. We reduce dynamics of these models to the FRW models with some fictitious fluid which scales like radiation matter. This fluid mimics dynamically effects of global rotation. The significance of the global rotation of the Universe for the resolution of the acceleration and horizon problems in cosmology is investigated. It is found that dynamics of the Universe can be reduced to the two-dimensional Hamiltonian dynamical system. Then the construction of the Hamiltonian allows for full classification of evolution paths. On the phase portraits we find the domains of cosmic acceleration for the globally rotating universe as well as the trajectories for which the horizon problem is solved. We show that the FRW models with global rotation are structurally stable. This proves that the universe acceleration is due to the global rotation. It is also shown how global rotation gives a natural explanation of the empirical relation between angular momentum for clusters and superclusters of galaxies. The relation $J \sim M^2$ is obtained as a consequence of self similarity invariance of the dynamics of the FRW model with global rotation. In derivation of this relation we use the Lie group of symmetry analysis of differential equation.

 

[wolram]

I find quite amazing, a two hour search of the net came up with next to nothing
on this subject, i think it is one of the most basic properties of our universe, if
we have no knowledge of the motion of our U, "rotating or not", how can we
explain with any certainty the dynamics within it?
I don't know if the subject is to problematic to solve, or it is just overlooked
in the literature, "may be i am looking in the wrong places", but the two papers
i have posted contain the bulk of information.

 

[wolram]

I guess one can ask, "rotating relative to what", but to me that is a circular
question, better rephrased as "does the universe have angular momentum"?

 

[wolram]

The best information i can find suggests that our universe is rotating,
but the problems that arise from this rotation are ignored by cosmologists.
One of these problems is, it would falsify the Big bang, i do not know how
or why.
another is it would infer a preferred direction, i guess this is true, but it
would depend on the speed of this rotation for any observational effects
to be apparent.

 

[Mike2]

The best information i can find suggests that our universe is rotating,
but the problems that arise from this rotation are ignored by cosmologists.
One of these problems is, it would falsify the Big bang, i do not know how
or why.

If the universe started from a singularity, and was in thermal equilibrium, then there is no way it could acquire a global rotation.

another is it would infer a preferred direction, i guess this is true, but it
would depend on the speed of this rotation for any observational effects
to be apparent.

If there were a preferred direction then galaxies moving in the direction for rotation would have a higher component of centrifigal force accelerating it away more than those galaxies traveling in the opposite direction to this rotation. Since we do not see a recessional velocity of galaxies depending on their direction of travel, then we should conclude that it does not exist. Besides, a center point or axis of the universe would have to be identified in order to have a global rotation presumably around it, right? This would violate any spherical symmetry the universe might have had.

 

[wolram]

If the universe started from a singularity, and was in thermal equilibrium, then there is no way it could acquire a global rotation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well some think that the singularity was a BH and they rotate
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there were a preferred direction then galaxies moving in the direction for rotation would have a higher component of centrifigal force accelerating it away more than those galaxies traveling in the opposite direction to this rotation. Since we do not see a recessional velocity of galaxies depending on their direction of travel, then we should conclude that it does not exist. Besides, a center point or axis of the universe would have to be identified in order to have a global rotation presumably around it, right? This would violate any spherical symmetry the universe might have had.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe is a big place, rotation could be non trivial, but difficult to
detect, depending on the observers possition.

 

[Chronos]

Rotating relative to what is a valid question. Superhorizon modes is one possibility. The existence, or ability of causally disconnected regions of the universe to affect the observable universe has been rather hotly debated. The nays appear to have the upper hand for the time being.

In hydrodynamic models, rotation does lead to observable consequences. If the universe behaves according to such a model [which is in itself an issue] this could should show up as anomalous motion in large scale structures, like galactic clusters. It is, however, more likely and easily detected in the CMB - especially the polarization map. The year 2 WMAP results may shed some light on this [and could be the reason its release has been delayed].

The more troubling aspect of this rotation business is it would run contrary to one of the more cherished assumptions of GR - that the universe looks the same regardless of location. A rotating universe would necessarily have an axis of rotation effectively confering it a center - which could be construed as a preferred reference frame.

All said, a rotating universe would create at least as many headaches as it might solve, hence cosmologists cannot be expected to rush to embrace it. Like most of the rest of us, they have a fondness for ideas that make life simpler.

 

[Mike2]

one of the more cherished assumptions of GR - that the universe looks the same regardless of location. A rotating universe would necessarily have an axis of rotation effectively confering it a center - which could be construed as a preferred reference frame.

And it would also contradict the FRW metric which assumes homogeneity and isotropy from a singularit.

 

[wolram]

Chronos
All said, a rotating universe would create at least as many headaches as it might solve, hence cosmologists cannot be expected to rush to embrace it. Like most of the rest of us, they have a fondness for ideas that make life simpler

I agree on keeping things simple Chronos,i thought resurrecting this rotating U was a good idea
for debate,as understanding any dynamics our U has is basic to understanding anything that
happens within it, I doubt if finding some rotation would be as problematic as discovering
the the U is not static but expanding.
Mike2
Is a center so bad? I agree that something that is an infinite infinite can not have a center,
but this thing we call a bounded infinity has the properties that are so unintuitive.

 

[wolram]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2444
Einstein and Gödel
This is not a "scientific", article, but is worth a read.

 

[wolram]

This article http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

Is an article about FRW model, and shows to me, how "open" a debate can
be that this model is correct.

 

[wolram]

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0008089

This thesis concerns the compatibility of inhomogeneous cosmologies with our present understanding of the universe. It is a problem of some interest to find the class of all relativistic cosmological models which are capable of providing a reasonable `fit' to the universe. This thesis, in some respects, is part of this process. We consider Stephani models, which are a generalisation of the standard Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) models, which can be thought of as FLRW models with acceleration and pressure gradients. Thus these models generalise the `dust' assumption of standard cosmology. The crucial aspect of this work is the retention of the Copernican principle -- an assumption regarded by many as crucial to cosmology. It states that we are not at a special location in the universe. This is a vital aspect of the original work in this thesis: consideration of an inhomogeneous model, while retaining the Copernican principle has, as far as the author is aware, not been considered in detail before. We start by generalising the Ehlers-Geren-Sachs Theorem to identify the class of inhomogeneous spacetimes which allow an isotropic radiation field for all observers in the spacetime. We then investigate observational and physical aspects of these models from all observer locations. We conclude that there exist spacetimes which conform to present observational constraints (especially anisotropy constraints) for any location in the spacetime, while at the same time being significantly inhomogeneous; ie, not `almost-FLRW'.

This Thesis is 118 pages and covers a lot of ground, i have not read it all yet.

 

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0503/0503029.pdf

April 2005

The cosmological background we are interested in here, is the rotating
universes.

 

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0008106

Authors: Yuri N. Obukhov
Comments: Revtex, 85 pages, no figures; ref. list is updated as compared to the published version
Journal-ref: Published in "Colloquium on Cosmic Rotation", Eds M. Scherfner, T. Chrobok and M. Shefaat (Wissenschaft und Technik Verlag: Berlin, 2000) pp. 23-96

An overview of the cosmological models with expansion, shear and rotation is presented. Problems of the rotating models are discussed, their general kinematic properties and dynamical realizations are described. A particular attention is paid to the discussion of possible observational effects which could be used to estimate or to put limits on the cosmic rotation.

 

[Garth]

It seems to me that if the universe could rotate then it should. Otherwise, for rotation as a whole to be possible and yet the universe 'select' to have zero rotation would appear contrived.

If the universe is rotating then that rotation should be observable as an anisotropy, either of the galactic field or the CMB or probably both.

Such rotation does not appear to have been observed, therefore one conclusion is that not only is the universe not rotating but that it cannot rotate. This would seem to be consistent with Mach's Principle, i.e. there is nothing for the universe to rotate with respect to.

Garth

 

[wolram]

It seems to me that if the universe could rotate then it should. Otherwise, for rotation as a whole to be possible and yet the universe 'select' to have zero rotation would appear contrived.

If the universe is rotating then that rotation should be observable as an anisotropy, either of the galactic field or the CMB or probably both.

Such rotation does not appear to have been observed, therefore one conclusion is that not only is the universe not rotating but that it cannot rotate. This would seem to be consistent with Mach's Principle, i.e. there is nothing for the universe to rotate with respect to.

Garth

Garth, did you read page 6 of last post? or any?

 

[Garth]

Garth, did you read page 6 of last post? or any?

I did and I was agreeing with you!

Garth

 

[wolram]

Garth my apiologies, i was being over protective and vein, it seems that my
outlook is as an outsider, so i tend to overreact, i do wish that other or not
well understood theories were taken into account, it may make a huge difference to our understanding, but the many rule, and it is difficult to see
where they are are going

 

[sonhouse]

Hi all, just a thought about the rotation idea:
It occurred to me reading the statement that if the universe was rotating, we would see differential motions in certain directions which we don't therefore there is no rotation. The thing I was thinking is this: first, if the universe were rotating, would it be flattened like Jupiter or the sun, "equitorial" bulge and all, second, if the dark matter is so prevalent in the universe, could not a situation occur here like what we see in the rotation of galaxies where they act as if they were all sitting on a lazy susan, that is to say all the galaxy rotates at the same rate presumably because of this massive hidden mass keeping the whole thing in lock-step rotation wise. If something like that were going on in the universe as a whole, wouldn't any differential rotation data be lost, just like the rotation rates vs. the radius of galaxies?

 

[wolram]

Hi all, just a thought about the rotation idea:
It occurred to me reading the statement that if the universe was rotating, we would see differential motions in certain directions which we don't therefore there is no rotation. The thing I was thinking is this: first, if the universe were rotating, would it be flattened like Jupiter or the sun, "equitorial" bulge and all, second, if the dark matter is so prevalent in the universe, could not a situation occur here like what we see in the rotation of galaxies where they act as if they were all sitting on a lazy susan, that is to say all the galaxy rotates at the same rate presumably because of this massive hidden mass keeping the whole thing in lock-step rotation wise. If something like that were going on in the universe as a whole, wouldn't any differential rotation data be lost, just like the rotation rates vs. the radius of galaxies?

The way i have read the idea is that, initially galaxies coupled to the rotation
of the universe, but as expansion increased the galaxies decoupled from any
"drag", that could carry them with this rotation, from then on other forces
effected the motions of galaxies.

 

[Pocketwatch]

Look at any distant galaxy. They all appear to be rotating around a central point. You can see the spiral patterns around the edges of galaxies.

There appears to be a very strong gravity source at the center of every galaxy.

That gravity source could be a super massive black hole that each galaxy is slowly falling into.

When matter falls toward a singularity it falls in a spiral. That spiral pattern extends from the edge of the galaxy all the way to the singularity at its center.

The good thing about this structure is that everything is locked into a very stable, orderly, orbit around the black hole. None of the stars are just wandering about. They are locked into orbit around the singularity as they fall into it.

So, what keeps all the galaxies in an orderly orbit?

Could it be that a super super giant black hole is at the the center of the universe keeping all the galaxies spiralling toward it?

You wouldn't really think so right? After all we could see such a huge black hole.

We could. Unless we have already crossed the event horizon. Falling at near the speed of light toward the singularity. Perhaps even thousands of years ago.

When we look at distant stars and it appears that most are moving away from us. It could be that we are closer to the singularity and falling faster than them. Distant stars toward the singularity also appear redshifted because they are moving faster than us.

All I'm saying is if it works for the galaxies it can work for the entire universe just like one giant galaxy of galaxies spiralling toward the singularity.

It would be a rotating universe.

 

[mastacontrola]

Universal Rotation.

I know that you all have been talking about this theory for a while and I just wanted to put my input into it, I too, just the other day, thought about this.

The idea is that Well, if all of the solar systems and galaxies are rotating, and supposedly big bang was this tiny mass of gravity and energy, then wouldn't this actually still exist. But because of the mass of the explosion the gravity singularity cannot pull the universe back into itself. That the "Expanse" of the universe is not really an expanse, but the light being bent from gravity itself hence making it look like the Universe is growing. We don't really know how large the universe is, however we do know that it is huge. We believe that it is growing, but like I said, if it is just light being bent around the orbit of the Universe rotating around the singularity.

I know that this seems strange, I am by no means an expert or physics and math expert, but I thought that this should be brought up.

I watched the movie, Michael Clayton, then took a shower. As soon as I turned on the shower this idea popped in my head, so I thought that I need to share it, I did not know that it already was suggested.

I thank you all for taking the time to read this.