Register to reply

Is the Universe rotating?

by utek1
Tags: rotating, universe
Share this thread:
utek1
#1
Feb25-08, 07:28 PM
P: 7
Since everything in the Universe seems to be rotating, be it atoms or planets or stars or galaxies, and since the Universe consists of everything, shouldn't the Universe also be rotating? And if it is rotating, what is its axis?
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Fermi satellite detects gamma-rays from exploding novae
Computer simulation suggests early Earth bombarded by asteroids and comets
Research finds numerous unknown jets from young stars and planetary nebulae
wolram
#2
Feb25-08, 07:51 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
I think the answer will be , rotating in reference to what.
Garth
#3
Feb26-08, 01:18 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
Quote Quote by wolram View Post
I think the answer will be , rotating in reference to what.
Well, that is the question, rather than an answer!

As a Machian asking this question I would say that the universe as a whole cannot be rotating, but I am willing to be proved wrong.

Garth

wolram
#4
Feb26-08, 01:32 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
Is the Universe rotating?

Quote Quote by Garth View Post
Well, that is the question, rather than an answer!

As a Machian asking this question I would say that the universe as a whole cannot be rotating, but I am willing to be proved wrong.

Garth
I have noticed that no machine with many moving parts is entirely static, may be the universe is in some perfect balance, but would that not be an exception?
utek1
#5
Feb26-08, 04:02 AM
P: 7
Quote Quote by wolram View Post
I think the answer will be , rotating in reference to what.
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear, but I don't know how else to phrase it. My thought is this. If the Universe is expanding from the central point of the Big Bang, would not the Universe also be rotating around that point, so that a galaxy at the edge of the Universe would complete an orbit every gazillion years or so?
cristo
#6
Feb26-08, 04:09 AM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,306
Quote Quote by utek1 View Post
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear, but I don't know how else to phrase it. My thought is this. If the Universe is expanding from the central point of the Big Bang, would not the Universe also be rotating around that point, so that a galaxy at the edge of the Universe would complete an orbit every gazillion years or so?
According to the current cosmological model, there is no centre of the universe. If there were, then this would mean that there is a special reference frame in the universe, which contradicts the cosmological principle. I think your misconceptions come about from thinking of the big bang as an explosion in the usual sense of the word, which one should avoid. See here for more of a discussion.
wolram
#7
Feb26-08, 04:18 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
You are quite clear utek1, i asked this question myself some time ago, the point is if the universe is rotating or not there is no way for any one to observe it, as the universe is every thing there is.
And people on this board will also tell you the universe is not expanding from a central point
rather space is expanding at every point, so there is no center.

Cheers.
Oliver981
#8
Feb26-08, 04:37 AM
P: 6
Hello! This is a very interesting question! I remember that during my cosmology course I wondered if the Hubble flow could be alternatively explained by a rotating Universe theory based on some sort of centrifugal force! That would be amazing! However, a centrifugal force implies a centre, and, actually, there is no one as wolram has just written!
The Big Bang is not a point around which the Universe expands, but it is the Universe "concentrated" in one point (the so-called singularity). Therefore, the Big bang was everywhere (in fact the expansion due to the Hubble flow is identical in every directions and every points of the space)! For the same reason, I think that a rotation around the Big Bang is not possible!
wolram
#9
Feb26-08, 04:44 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
I an not sure, it seems cosmology is telling us that that on large scales things can only move in a prefer ed direction, and that there can be no large scale coupling, i may have this wrong but if frame dragging is a reality why is it not possible for some sort of coupling on the scale of the universe
wolram
#10
Feb26-08, 05:01 AM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,682
As an aside to this question is there a prefer ed direction of rotation for galaxies referenced from our only observation point.
Oliver981
#11
Feb26-08, 05:31 AM
P: 6
Standard cosmology is based on the Robertson-Walker metric, which stems from the cosmological principle and is not rotating because of the homogeneity and isotropy. The cosmological principle seems to be true only on very large scales (over than 200 Mpc). So in this framework rotations are not allowed because they would identify a preferred dierction (that of the rotation axis). But this just a model. Let's think, for example, to the Kerr metric, which indeed is a rotating one! It is a vacuum solution, but perhaps a similar solution of Einstein equations, in presence of a non-zero stress-energy tensor, could exist which could properly describe our Universe.
Ulysees
#12
Feb26-08, 06:19 AM
P: 516
It may be very simple. Any collection of objects has a centre of mass, by definition. Gravity everywhere in the universe should average to point roughly to the centre of mass.

Therefore everything should tend to follow orbits around this centre. Just like if you throw lots of particles in a simulator, gravitationally attracted they tend to form rotating patterns.

(I have to admit though I have not understood some of what has been written, apologies if what I am saying has been said already or proven wrong).
Ulysees
#13
Feb26-08, 06:26 AM
P: 516
Here's a "universe" of particles in a simulator. No surprise the end up as a rotating galaxy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y_SkuI8X_Q8

For rotation to be prevented, everything should move in a straight line from the centre, which of course is not the case in the observed universe.
Wallace
#14
Feb26-08, 06:35 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Quote Quote by Ulysees View Post
It may be very simple. Any collection of objects has a centre of mass, by definition. Gravity everywhere in the universe should average to point roughly to the centre of mass.
As has been said, there is no centre of the Universe and hence no centre of mass. This is an important but hard to grasp concept. The simulation you link to has a bunch of particles in a spherical cloud surrounded by empty space hence there is a net attraction due to gravity in towards the centre of the cloud. Think of a particle on the edge of the cloud, it has a pull on one side due to the rest of the cloud but no pull on the other side, since there is empty space.

The Universe on the other hand consists of space that is full of roughly the same density of material everywhere, there is no edge beyond which there is empty space, so there is no centre to which everything is attracted.
Ulysees
#15
Feb26-08, 08:14 AM
P: 516
Quote Quote by Wallace View Post
The simulation you link to has a bunch of particles in a spherical cloud surrounded by empty space hence there is a net attraction due to gravity in towards the centre of the cloud.
If there was no empty space around the cloud, but there was nothingness, no space, then would the law of gravity not apply between the particles? The simulation shows the law of gravity internally only, the interaction does not change whether there is empty space or "nothingness" around the cloud.

The Universe on the other hand consists of space that is full of roughly the same density of material everywhere, there is no edge beyond which there is empty space, so there is no centre to which everything is attracted.
There's got to be an edge of space, with space on one side, and nothingness on the other, if you follow the big-bang theory.

Of course the big-bang theory is only a theory, theories come and go, so maybe in the future we will be told that the universe is infinite and swelling/contracting only locally in places.
Ulysees
#16
Feb26-08, 08:32 AM
P: 516
In fact there are indications that the shape of the universe is a dodecahedron, based on the harmonics of background radiation according to a recent paper in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...D5C638B91336A3
Ulysees
#17
Feb26-08, 08:40 AM
P: 516
Here's the paper:

Click image for larger version

Name:	Image5.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	148.0 KB
ID:	12813
Ulysees
#18
Feb26-08, 08:43 AM
P: 516
It should be bigger here:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/741/image5ln5.gif


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Rotating Anisotropic universe Astronomy & Astrophysics 6
Origin of the Universe: Created Universe vs Cyclical Universe Astronomy & Astrophysics 9
Godel's rotating universe theory General Physics 4