Is the Galactic Coriolis Effect Debunked or Proven?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of the Galactic Coriolis Effect, questioning whether stars and planets in different hemispheres of a galaxy rotate in opposite directions. Participants unanimously agree that the Coriolis effect is a fictitious force that arises from a rotating reference frame and is not applicable to galactic scales. The Coriolis effect is too weak to influence the rotation of celestial bodies, which are subject to gravitational forces rather than the fictitious forces observed on Earth. Ultimately, the consensus is that while the Coriolis effect can be observed in large systems like hurricanes, it does not manifest in the dynamics of galaxies.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Coriolis effect and its implications in physics.
  • Familiarity with reference frames in physics, particularly rotating versus inertial frames.
  • Basic knowledge of celestial mechanics and gravitational interactions.
  • Awareness of the structure and dynamics of spiral galaxies.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Coriolis effect in fluid dynamics and its applications in meteorology.
  • Study the principles of angular momentum conservation in astrophysics.
  • Explore the differences between rotating and inertial reference frames in physics.
  • Investigate the dynamics of spiral galaxies and the forces acting on celestial bodies within them.
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, students of physics, and anyone interested in the dynamics of celestial bodies and the application of the Coriolis effect in various contexts.

  • #31
TrickyDicky said:
can that be done in practice? I mean determine the rotation direction of distant stars?
I think there is one exoplanet that has actually been optically resolved (separately from the observation of its star wobbling back and forth from us), so we must at least be beginning to have the capability to tell whether other planetary systems do rotate in the same sense as the galaxy. (I'd also expect, if we can resolve a planet, then we can easily take spectra from opposite edges of the star.) But I haven't done the literature search yet myself.. :wink: Not convinced it would be a priority use of telescope time though, unless you were expecting it to give more information about galactic dynamics perhaps...
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
cesiumfrog said:
I think there is one exoplanet that has actually been optically resolved (separately from the observation of its star wobbling back and forth from us), so we must at least be beginning to have the capability to tell whether other planetary systems do rotate in the same sense as the galaxy. (I'd also expect, if we can resolve a planet, then we can easily take spectra from opposite edges of the star.) But I haven't done the literature search yet myself.. :wink: Not convinced it would be a priority use of telescope time though, unless you were expecting it to give more information about galactic dynamics perhaps...
Yup, I'm not convinced either, but faenor suggested it could (give info about galactic dynamics) , thus my question about in which way exactly?
 
  • #33
faenor said:
If your correct, Janus, then there should be observational data to support your statement. If your are using observational data could you provide it, thank you?

I was merely pointing out that if galactic rotation effected stellar system rotation, that you would not see any difference between the two sides of the galactic equator. That "if" in my mind is very unlikely. For one, we know that for instance, the rotation of the Earth effects on systems is too weak to effect something even a meter across. A stellar system is many times smaller than that compared to the galaxy. Not only that, but the Earth rotates in one day, compared to the 250 million years it takes for the solar system to make one trip around the galaxy.

I just don't see galactic rotation having any major effect on the rotation of stellar systems. Our own solar system appears to belie that idea. it rotates at a 60 degree angle to the galactic equator.
 
  • #34
Janus said:
I was merely pointing out that if galactic rotation effected stellar system rotation, that you would not see any difference between the two sides of the galactic equator. That "if" in my mind is very unlikely. For one, we know that for instance, the rotation of the Earth effects on systems is too weak to effect something even a meter across. A stellar system is many times smaller than that compared to the galaxy. Not only that, but the Earth rotates in one day, compared to the 250 million years it takes for the solar system to make one trip around the galaxy.

I just don't see galactic rotation having any major effect on the rotation of stellar systems. Our own solar system appears to belie that idea. it rotates at a 60 degree angle to the galactic equator.

Ofcourse Janus, your Logic is sound. Unfortunately I am woefully ignorant regarding macroscopic astronomical effects, hence my inquary.

I have posted something in an astronomy forum to hopefully bring some observational data to this discussion.

Here is a link for those who wish to follow up

http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/p/47869/452318.aspx#452318"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Janus said:
I was merely pointing out that if galactic rotation effected stellar system rotation, that you would not see any difference between the two sides of the galactic equator. That "if" in my mind is very unlikely. For one, we know that for instance, the rotation of the Earth effects on systems is too weak to effect something even a meter across. A stellar system is many times smaller than that compared to the galaxy. Not only that, but the Earth rotates in one day, compared to the 250 million years it takes for the solar system to make one trip around the galaxy.


I think your statement is too strong. Examples: small Foucault pendula; precision water basins.

Sure, in a typical washbasin the Coriolis effect is swamped by small external forces, but what external forces exist to reverse the rotation of collapsing pockets of galactic gas?
 
  • #36
Janus said:
I was merely pointing out that if galactic rotation effected stellar system rotation, that you would not see any difference between the two sides of the galactic equator. That "if" in my mind is very unlikely. For one, we know that for instance, the rotation of the Earth effects on systems is too weak to effect something even a meter across. A stellar system is many times smaller than that compared to the galaxy. Not only that, but the Earth rotates in one day, compared to the 250 million years it takes for the solar system to make one trip around the galaxy.

Actuallly star systems aren't much smaller compared to the size of the galaxy than 1 meter compared to the size of the earth, about 10^(-7).
They are however formed by contraction of gas clouds that can start out much larger, and can also take millions of years to collapse, so I'm not sure the influence of the galactic rotation is completely unimportant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
311
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K