Rotating Universe: Instant Axis Rotation Proven!

[Chronos]

Richy, your interest is refreshing. I hope you don't find my comments overly critical. I do not believe the universe is rotating. You need an absolute reference frame and I see no credible evidence of such a thing - aside from the CMB rest frame - and it does not support your idea.

 

[Chronos]

A rotating universe would produce anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. WMAP data tightly constrains how much [if any] rotation may be present. After a little digging, I found the paper I had in mind:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575
Is the universe rotating?
Shi-Chun Su, M.-C. Chu

Models of a rotating universe have been studied widely since Godel {1}, who showed an example that is consistent with General Relativity (GR). By now, the possibility of a rotating universe has been discussed comprehensively in the framework of some types of Bianchi's models, such as Type V, VII and IX {2,3}, and different approaches have been proposed to constrain the rotation. Recent discoveries of some non-Gaussian properties of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies (CMBA) {nG1,nG2,nG3,nG4,nG5,nG6,nG7}, such as the suppression of the quadrupole and the alignment of some multipoles draw attention to some Bianchi models with rotation {bi1,bi2}. However, cosmological data, such as those of the CMBA, strongly prefer a homogeneous and isotropic model. Therefore, it is of interest to discuss the rotation of the universe as a perturbation of the Robertson-Walker metric, to constrain the rotating speed by cosmological data and to discuss whether it could be the origin of the non-Gaussian properties of the CMBA mentioned above. Here, we derive the general form of the metric (up to 2nd-order perturbations) which is compatible with the rotation perturbation in a flat Lambda-CDM universe. By comparing the 2nd-order Sachs-Wolfe effect {4,5,6,7,8} due to rotation with the CMBA data, we constrain the angular speed of the rotation to be less than $10^{-9}$ rad yr$^{-1}$ at the last scattering surface. This provides the first constraint on the shear-free rotation of a Lambda-CDM universe.

 

[RichyRich]

I am not offended, critical is what I was after. I have strictly an amateur interest in cosmology, but you can read a lot in 44yrs! From what I can see, there is a lack of evidence to say one thing or another on this matter so we will have to agree to disagree. Aside from whether the universe is rotating, or not, would you say evidence of rotation is evidence of another dimension? If rotation is occurring, it must be in/about a different frame of reference?

 

[Imax]

Aside from whether the universe is rotating, or not, would you say evidence of rotation is evidence of another dimension? If rotation is occurring, it must be in/about a different frame of reference?

Maybe. It’s possible that some equations may work better in 5D space, consisting of 4D spacetime with a fifth dimension of spin. I’m not certain that spin is independent of space and time.

 

[Tanelorn]

Perhaps a rotating universe helps to explain its expansion through centripetal force? Hey everything else we know is rotating around something. Consider electrons in atoms, moons around planets, planets around stars, stars around galaxies, and at the next level, galaxies around... the pillars of creation?

 

[Chronos]

Why do you need extra dimensions to explain current observational evidence? I'm not aware of any compelling reason to add extra dimensions - aside from string theory. And the classical 3d +1 version of reality still seems to make more sense than any version of string theory of which I am aware. PS - I don't think string theory is wrong, merely irrelevant.

 

[Tanelorn]

Chronos thanks I thought I was alone in thinking that!

 

[hadsed]

Perhaps a rotating universe helps to explain its expansion through centripetal force? Hey everything else we know is rotating around something. Consider electrons in atoms, moons around planets, planets around stars, stars around galaxies, and at the next level, galaxies around... the pillars of creation?

That's an interesting idea. I wonder if this is falsifiable, or flat out wrong. Perhaps one of our SA's can shed some light on this.

 

[RichyRich]

I didnt ask about compelling reasons or observational evidence. I am just asking would a universe that rotates in any way, necessitate a further dimension? Forget for a minute whether ours is rotating or not! Just, does one follow the other, as consequence?

 

[bcrowell]

I didnt ask about compelling reasons or observational evidence. I am just asking would a universe that rotates in any way, necessitate a further dimension? Forget for a minute whether ours is rotating or not! Just, does one follow the other, as consequence?

No additional dimensions are required for rotation to exist. All the rotating models that are normally discussed and compared against observation are 3+1-dimensional.

Perhaps a rotating universe helps to explain its expansion through centripetal force? Hey everything else we know is rotating around something. Consider electrons in atoms, moons around planets, planets around stars, stars around galaxies, and at the next level, galaxies around... the pillars of creation?

Rotation would have dynamical effects. That's why it can be tested experimentally. Since current observations can only place an upper limit on the rate of rotation (i.e., they're consistent with zero rotation), no, rotation cannot play any large effect in explaining the observed expansion. I believe you can also have rotation without expansion, e.g., I think the Godel metric rotates but does not expand (it has a timelike Killing vector).

For anyone who actually wants to understand this stuff, the first thing to do would be to read some of the papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985MNRAS.213..917B
http://web.archive.org/web/20070701033428/http://www.ettnet.se/~egils/essay/essay.html

 

[RichyRich]

I do actually want to understand this stuff and have read these papers. Unfortunately, i do not understand quite a lot of it. This is why I originally started this thread-to get more understanding. Unfortunately this site seems to be full of people wishing to show off their knowledge, rather than converse and even teach a little. The reason for my being here is to learn, yet it seems people wish to send me elsewhere to learn. And I do believe its possible to simplify most physics-to get the crunch of the matter, rather than pages of math. I have read a lot about Einstein and Feynman-I tend to think they would have been happy to talk to me in what would be for them, a simplified way. I don't think they would give me an equation and tell me to get lost. All I wanted here was a simplified, scientific criticism (and you can have both) of some of the thoughts I had. Maybe people like me, should know my place.

 

[Imax]

I do actually want to understand this stuff and have read these papers. Unfortunately, i do not understand quite a lot of it.

I don't understand quite a lot of it either. Everything rotates, spin, so its likely that the universe rotates also.

 

[Chronos]

SA's who commented on this thread have tried to explain why your idea is unsound. Acceptance is optional.

 

[RichyRich]

Il try one question at a time.
I believe I am correct in saying we have no idea how large the observable universe is compared to actual size.
Would we expect to observe dynamical effects from rotation, if the observable universe were a tiny fraction of the actual size of the universe?

 

[Lino]

Chronos (and others), in relation to the articles that you have mentioned, is the CMBA data mentioned used as a reference frame against which to scale / put an upper limit on (possible) rotation?

Regards,

Noel.

 

[bcrowell]

Chronos (and others), in relation to the articles that you have mentioned, is the CMBA data mentioned used as a reference frame against which to scale / put an upper limit on (possible) rotation?

Solar system test:
Clemence, C.M. (1957). 'Astronomical Time', Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 29, p. 2

CMB tests:
Hawking, S.W. (1969). 'On the Rotation of the Universe', Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. Vol. 142, p. 529.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985MNRAS.213..917B
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575

 

[Chronos]

The Su paper calculated rotation at the surface of last scattering using CMBA [an aspect of the last scattering surface] in combination with other astrophysical data. I just realized Radrook linked this same paper in post 18 - apologies for the oversight.

 

[Lino]

thanks bcrowell & chronos.

regards,

lino.

 

[RichyRich]

No takers on my last question?

 

[Chronos]

What suggests there is more to the universe than observed? Does an observationally finite universe insist there is more than we can see? If there is more, but, observationally inaccessible, is it scientifically relevant?

 

[RichyRich]

I asked if scale matters when it was stated 'we would expect to be able to observe dynamic effects if the universe were rotating'. So, when i question the relative size of observable to actual universe size, I am question would we really expect to observe dynamical effects? So, my response is relevant. The observable universe could be the dynamical effect within the actual universe, therefore undetectable?

 

[Chronos]

Rotation would affect properties like polarization and, IMO, constitute evidence of something external to the observable universe. An analogous situation is rotation of the earth. Even without relying upon sidereal motion of the stars, It is detectable in a variety of ways [e.g., focault pendulum]. See page 2 of
http://www.uv.es/moralesa/Cosmology/PRD-EvolutionPolarizationCMB-QSO(2007).pdf
for discussion of global rotation effects on polarization.

 

[RichyRich]

I do believe in science; i believe Relativity and Quantum Theory etc. But I am a sceptic, not to be confused with cynic. I don't believe everything I am told just for the sake of it, even if more educated people than myself tell me. I still can't help think we all (not me of course!) look at this matter through 4D eyes. 'We' relate possible rotation of the universe to bodies rotating within it. Why do we assume the results of rotation would be similar? From the start, I said rotation about all axes simultaneously. This would be as familiar to us as a 5th dimension-it is a totally alien concept. The way I view it, I call it rotation because that is the most accurate term we as 4D inhabitants can use. But in reality it is not the same as rotation within the universe. I still do not believe observation of space will prove/disprove this. I believe answers are more likely from theory or atomic science. Einstein changed how we viewed the universe-that will not be the final story. Our view of the universe will be upgraded. The atom used to be thought of as an electon circling a nucleus, now upgraded to a cloud of probabilities. Maybe this will prove to be analagous to the universe itself. To me, everything i have read (with some limited understanding) points to a universe with some intrinsic motion, that plays a part (probably a large part) in its physical properties.

 

[Tanelorn]

Regarding your question about rotation are you meaning that the observable universe is itself rotating on a center point somewhere within it or that the universe is just a small spec relative to the whole which is rotating around the whole like a solar system in a giant spiral galaxy? I suspect you mean the latter.

 

[RichyRich]

Sorry, but I don't really mean either! I am humbly suggesting that the universe (observable and the rest) is rotating about a point not within itself. Call it another dimension or any other name. This is why I suggest it is infinite rotation simultaneously,or instantly. Clearly, infinite rotation within our universe would be problematic. My WHOLE point, from the start, was rotation about a point not within 'our' universe. To my mind, this scenario means observation of space to find 'our' normal consequences of rotation irrelevant. Maybe I am limited in putting what's in my mind into writing, but I am not sure anyone has really grasped what I am saying!

 

[bcrowell]

Regarding your question about rotation are you meaning that the observable universe is itself rotating on a center point somewhere within it or that the universe is just a small spec relative to the whole which is rotating around the whole like a solar system in a giant spiral galaxy? I suspect you mean the latter.

I can't speak for RichyRich, but if you want to know what relativists are actually discussing (i.e., what's consistent with GR and with observations), see the papers referenced in #12 and #13. The models described in those papers do not have a center of rotation. Rotation in GR does not require a center of rotation.

 

[RichyRich]

I have just read fore-mentioned papers. #13 is not a million miles away from what I am saying. This pleases me a great deal as my thoughts come quite independently. Alas, it does reinforce that it is unlikely someone like myself can think of something not already thought of! Whereas the writer assumes rotation about all/any point in space I still lean towards rotation about a point outside our universe. Are these points of view vastly different, or could they actually be the same thing!? I am still confused that we look for vorticity etc as proof of rotation. Surely, we are assuming that rotation of the universe would give effects we are familiar with from rotation of bodies within the universe. For arguments sake, who is to say rotation of the universe wouldn't produce an attractive force?? Because rotation within the universe produces a 'repellant' force, does that mean a universal rotation must?? The writer of that paper stated rotation about all points-surely this would have different effects than 'bog-standard' rotations!? Also, I cannot understand the writer favouring observation above theory. Is it so unlikely that atomic or quantum theory progresses to a point where we come to realize that it would all make much more sense in a rotating universe? ps what I liked about the papers are they are written in English!

 

[Lino]

... Even without relying upon sidereal motion of the stars, It is detectable in a variety of ways [e.g., focault pendulum]. See page 2 of
http://www.uv.es/moralesa/Cosmology/PRD-EvolutionPolarizationCMB-QSO(2007).pdf
for discussion of global rotation effects on polarization.

Chronos (and others contributing to this thread), do you have any other references to articles / papers like this (preferably without too much maths / too many formulas ... please), or do you know of any such items on galactic / cosmologic equivilants to the focault pendulum?

Regards,

Noel.

 

[Lino]

Bcrowell, or anyone that may be able to shed some light on this, the article that you mention in #13 (Hawking, 1969, On the rotation of the universe) mentions (in para 2 of introduction on first page) that an element of the vorticity definition is "... relative to the inertial frame defined by gyroscopes." Do you have any orther references / examples to the use or application of gyroscopes in this type of (cosmic) context?

Regards,

Noel.

 

[bcrowell]

Bcrowell, or anyone that may be able to shed some light on this, the article that you mention in #13 (Hawking, 1969, On the rotation of the universe) mentions (in para 2 of introduction on first page) that an element of the vorticity definition is "... relative to the inertial frame defined by gyroscopes." Do you have any orther references / examples to the use or application of gyroscopes in this type of (cosmic) context?

Relativity is non-Machian in this respect. Linear motion is relative, but rotational motion isn't. You don't need GR to understand this -- it's a concept that's already present in SR. Another example is the Sagnac effect.

Here is a classic paper on this (link says "Original Brans-Dicke paper:"): http://loyno.edu/~brans/ST-history/