Is the universe really expanding?

[Drakkith]

You are wrong because to be spinning, it has to be spinning AROUND something. There has to be a center or an axis, and that implies a preferred frame of reference which there absolutely is not.

Per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame

In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames.
In theories that apply the principle of relativity to inertial motion, physics is the same in all inertial frames, and is even the same in all frames under the general principle of relativity.

I don't quite see how your post meets the definition of a preferred frame of reference.

In any case, a non-rotating expanding universe is currently the simplest, most accurate theory we have. Other explanations are possible, but observations don't support them.

 

[Cosmobrain]

You are wrong because to be spinning, it has to be spinning AROUND something. There has to be a center or an axis, and that implies a preferred frame of reference which there absolutely is not.

Sorry Chronos, but I have to reply to this.

There are several theories nowadays that support the Multiverse hypothesis. If our Universe is one of many, then it makes sense to say that it is spinning. It is spinning in relation to other universes or the hyperspace, as if it was a bubble, as Michio Kaku likes to call it. The difference is that a bubble has air in it and the Universe has space in it (and it is also much much bigger, needless to say)

 

[phinds]

Sorry Chronos, but I have to reply to this.

There are several theories nowadays that support the Multiverse hypothesis. If our Universe is one of many, then it makes sense to say that it is spinning. It is spinning in relation to other universes or the hyperspace, as if it was a bubble, as Michio Kaku likes to call it. The difference is that a bubble has air in it and the Universe has space in it (and it is also much much bigger, needless to say)

If you are getting your physics from Kaku, you are in deep trouble.

 

[julcab12]

Sorry Chronos, but I have to reply to this.

There are several theories nowadays that support the Multiverse hypothesis. If our Universe is one of many, then it makes sense to say that it is spinning. It is spinning in relation to other universes or the hyperspace, as if it was a bubble, as Michio Kaku likes to call it. The difference is that a bubble has air in it and the Universe has space in it (and it is also much much bigger, needless to say)

... We should be careful of making assumption on top of assumptions. Even with the discovery of 'b-mode pola' doesn't guarantee a multiverse (just a considerate case). Besides, Even if we extend the math it can't possibly have any spin or rotating behavior heck we can't predict that much on the dynamic of that inflation field. Speaking of which. Here are some cool CG possible fields (well according to Linde's interpretation of multiverse). ^^

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/golden.gif

Here is an artist intepretation (Kandinsky universe)

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/kandin.gif

Edit: Shown above is the INFINITE version^^. Here is the one with ADc bounce "FINITE!" in a Coleman de Luccia bubbles.
http://inspirehep.net/record/1253711/plots

 

[No-where-man]

Sorry Chronos, but I have to reply to this.

There are several theories nowadays that support the Multiverse hypothesis. If our Universe is one of many, then it makes sense to say that it is spinning. It is spinning in relation to other universes or the hyperspace, as if it was a bubble, as Michio Kaku likes to call it. The difference is that a bubble has air in it and the Universe has space in it (and it is also much much bigger, needless to say)

Yes, if our universe is one of many than yes, it makes sense that it is spinning in relation to other universes.

 

[phinds]

... as Michio Kaku likes to call it ...

Just so you are aware, there are numerous threads on this forum which point out that Kaku is a basically full of kaka when it comes to this stuff. He is a popularize of the worst sort and will say anything to sell books. He USED to be a real physicist but that ended years ago.

 

[phinds]

Yes, if our universe is one of many than yes, it makes sense that it is spinning in relation to other universes.

And just what do you think that MEANS? Even if there ARE other universes (an idea that I think is nonsense but I know it is believed to be possible by some serious physicists) and even IF our universe were in some sense rotating about other "bubbles" (again, almost certainly a nonsensical metaphor even if there ARE other universes), it is irrelevant to the OP's question because it obviously has not effect in our universe. If it did there would be a preferred frame of reference in our universe and there is not.

Do you not understand this concept of no preferred frame?

 

[phinds]

Sorry Chronos, but I have to reply to this.

There are several theories nowadays that support the Multiverse hypothesis. If our Universe is one of many, then it makes sense to say that it is spinning. It is spinning in relation to other universes or the hyperspace, as if it was a bubble, as Michio Kaku likes to call it. The difference is that a bubble has air in it and the Universe has space in it (and it is also much much bigger, needless to say)

See the post directly above.

 

[Stuart]

We can't be certain. There are many ways to interpret what we've observed. It's assumed that space-time itself and the laws of physics are generally consistent throughout the universe. If that's true then our observations support expansion. That doesn't make expansion true. In fact, it's certainly not the entire truth. Simply thinking about expansion may give you some sense of how much of the truth we still need to work out. Our data does give us great confidence though.

If the universe is not generally consistent things get interesting. That possibility is very upsetting to many people. Change is always upsetting.

Personally, I think it's typically egocentrics of us to assume that the entire universe is the same as the bit we live in. I guess well have to wait and see. In the mean time, here's a paper with a fun thought experiment which is reasonably approachable.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4630.pdf