Is the Universe Expanding Due to Spinning?

[R0dr1go]

TL;DR

Is the universe spinning? Plus rotational inertia calculations.

Hello all,

I recently did a thought experiment and thought, "what if the universe as a whole is spinning?" This could solve the dark energy problem, as if the universe was spinning, there would be outward pull, and therefore keep the universe expanding. And, I don't know if this means anything, but I did a rotational inertia calculation for the visible universe and came up with the number 6.99*10^63, and the percentage of dark energy in the universe is 69%. This could mean absolutely nothing, as they are two different numbers, but I found that kind of interesting. Any thoughts? Thanks,

Christopher R.

 

[Drakkith]

This could solve the dark energy problem, as if the universe was spinning, there would be outward pull

Why would there be an outward pull?

 

[phinds]

Is the universe spinning?

And just where do you think the center is that it is spinning about?

Your question is asked here several times a year. I suggest a forum search to gain understanding of why it makes no sense.

 

[vela]

And just where do you think the center is that it is spinning about?

Your question is asked here several times a year. I suggest a forum search to gain understanding of why it makes no sense.

I found this old thread where you essentially posted the same thing and were told you were wrong. :)

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-spinning-universe.72186/post-3238600

 

[Drakkith]

Thanks for the link, Vela. I can't remember ever reading about the possibility of rotation being intrinsic in GR before.
@R0dr1go from the other thread:

Because all of the present observation are consistent with zero rotational velocity, it is not possible to attribute any prominent cosmological role to rotation. In particular, centrifugal forces cannot contribute significantly to cosmological expansion.

 

[lomidrevo]

Naively, I would say that "rotating universe" doesn't make any sense unless you embed 4-dimensional universe into higher-dimensional "ambient" spacetime. But that seems to be wrong as I further read about the Goedel metric mentioned in the thread linked by @vela in post #4. The metric looks like a solution to Einstein's equation in regular 4D spacetime.

Anyway, the observations suggest that we are not living in a rotating universe. Few statements from wiki:

Besides rotating, this model exhibits no Hubble expansion, so it is not a realistic model of the universe in which we live, but can be taken as illustrating an alternative universe
...
Less well known solutions of Gödel's exhibit both rotation and Hubble expansion and have other qualities of his first model, but traveling into the past is not possible. According to S. W. Hawking, these models could well be a reasonable description of the universe that we observe, however observational data are compatible only with a very low rate of rotation.

 

[phinds]

I found this old thread where you essentially posted the same thing and were told you were wrong. :)

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-spinning-universe.72186/post-3238600

Ah yes. You are correct. Thanks. I forgot that there IS a math solution that shows rotation with no center. I see @Drakkith has already quoted what I think is the most pertinent observation in that thread (aside from the fact that there can be a solution without a center)

 

[R0dr1go]

Thanks for the feedback! I now see the errors in my question, and why it couldn't be possible. Although this particular thought wasn't the answer to the universe, every question lies an answer, whether as noticeable as the sun or as hidden as quarks. Thanks again!

 

[AndrewWayneHarville]

I mean if you think about it every galaxy would have to be spinning around the same thing for us not to hit each other so as it is a possibility I don't think well ever know I know it's short but that's what I believe.

 

[phinds]

I mean if you think about it every galaxy would have to be spinning around the same thing for us not to hit each other...

I take it you did not read post #7