I Angular momentum of the Universe

[rootone]

It explains very well many aspects of the Universe.
Why should there be any angular momentum though?
The idea that the Universe is itself intrisically rotating doesn't make sense.

 

[phinds]

The idea that the Universe is itself intrisically rotating doesn't make sense.

Right. Because it isn't. What made you think it is? If it were rotating then it would have a center and thus a preferred frame of reference. You are certainly right that this doesn't make sense (goes against evidence)

 

[PeterDonis]

The idea that the Universe is itself intrisically rotating

Where did you encounter this idea?

 

[rootone]

Tbh, I don't recall where I first heard of the notation that the Universe as a whole has angular momentum.
It isn't something I made up though, and I rejected that for the same reasons as pointed out by Phinds.
It might have been better not to have mentioned a proposal I had already dismissed.

However having dismissed that, the question still remains.
Why does rotation of massive bodies exist at all?, and not just exist but is a fundamental feature of massive bodies.
Isn't the implication of this that at a very early time the evolution of the Universe would have to be asymmetric,
(As in being not isotropic)Edit: (So you know I didn't pull the idea of thin air before rejecting it)
Here is a reference to a rotating universe model, though it isn't where I heard of the idea originally.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0601/0601659.pdf

 

[PeterDonis]

Isn't the implication of this that at a very early time the evolution of the Universe would have to be asymmetric

No. Individual systems within the universe can have nonzero angular momentum even if the total angular momentum of the universe is zero. (More precisely, the concept of "total angular momentum of the universe" isn't even well-defined, but heuristically, the angular momenta of all the individual systems should "average out" to zero in some suitable sense.)

 

[PeterDonis]

Here is a reference to a rotating universe model

I know it's on arxiv, but there is no sign that it's been looked at by anyone except the author. I haven't had time to read through the paper in detail, and I'm not sure it's worth it; I would just point out that whatever model is described in the paper might not be a valid one, and I would not rely on it as a source.

 

[jerromyjon]

I have heard of this as well, not that my two cents is worth much, but I have read that it has been constrained to a small amount of rotation. As per arXiv:1207.6640v1

"Cosmological Birefringence (CB), a rotation of the polarization plane of radiation coming to us from distant astrophysical sources, may reveal parity violation in either the electromagnetic or gravitational sectors of the fundamental interactions in nature. Until only recently this phenomenon could be probed with only radio observations or observations at UV wavelengths. Recently, there is a substantial effort to constrain such non-standard models using observations of the rotation of the polarization plane of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. This can be done via measurements of the B-modes of the CMB or by measuring its TB and EB correlations which vanish in the standard model. In this paper we show that EBcorrelations-based estimator is the best for upcoming polarization experiments. The EB based estimator surpasses other estimators because it has the smallest noise and of all the estimators is least affected by systematics. Current polarimeters are optimized for the detection of B-mode polarization from either primordial gravitational waves or by large scale structure via gravitational lensing. In the paper we also study optimization of CMB experiments for the detection of cosmological birefringence, in the presence of instrumental systematics, which by themselves are capable of producing EB correlations; potentially mimicking CB."

I would think it is about as important as redshift, since if everything is rotating as the metric is expanding... I imagine you get my drift.

Small edit to clarify what is quoted.

 

[Laurie K]

I would just point out that whatever model is described in the paper might not be a valid one, and I would not rely on it as a source.

I have heard of this as well, not that my two cents is worth much, but I have read that it has been constrained to a small amount of rotation.

Regarding validity, any model that produces similar results to Lambda CDM, where the ratio of all universal matter to ordinary universal matter is 2 * Pi +/- 1%, can be considered just as valid as the Lambda CDM model.

 

[PeterDonis]

any model that produces similar results to Lambda CDM, where the ratio of all universal matter to ordinary universal matter is 2 * Pi +/- 1%, can be considered just as valid as the Lambda CDM model.

I don't know what you mean by "all universal matter" and "ordinary universal matter". Nor do I know where you're getting the ratio of $2 \pi$ from.

In any case, a model can be considered "just as valid" as the Lambda CDM model only if it matches all of the confirmed predictions of the Lamda CDM model, which predicts a lot more than just the ratios of dark energy/dark matter/ordinary matter. If you know of such a model, please give a reference.

 

[rootone]

So far so good, I think we mostly agree that the idea of the Universe as a whole having angular momentum doesn't make sense.
I do appreciate the math efforts of those who think it could be possible though, it's well above my level of math.
OK, so if the Universe after the big bang event is perfectly isotropic, then why do things rotate, they shouldn't do that.

 

[PeterDonis]

if the Universe after the big bang event is perfectly isotropic

It isn't. Perfect isotropy is an idealization.

 

[rootone]

It isn't. Perfect isotropy is an idealization.

Aha!, quantum scale randomness then?
Brownion motion?

 

[PeterDonis]

quantum scale randomness then?

In inflationary cosmology, the deviations from perfect isotropy in the early universe are ultimately due to quantum fluctuations being amplified during the inflationary era. But perfect isotropy is an idealization in any context, just from ordinary classical randomness.