Rotating Universe: Instant Axis Rotation Proven!

[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/

 

[Lino]

Thanks Bcrowell.

Regards,

Noel.

 

[RichyRich]

1. Would rotation of the universe result in similar effects to rotations observed within the universe? and why?
2. What are the fundamental differences between the concept that the universe may rotate about all points within itself, to the universe may rotate about point(s) outside of itself?
3. Is it possible that theory could play a role in proving/disproving universal rotation?

 

[RichyRich]

Strange as I am the person that started this thread, that my questions are answered least! Are the questions I ask unscientific or are people just replying to points they wish to? I thought this was a discussional forum. I find the lack of conversation startling!

 

[RichyRich]

1. Not necessarily.
2. Dont know.
3. Yes.
That was quite simple.
I will end this thread now and go to a site where people will answer questions they are not 'comfortable' with. I find reciting other peoples work in a robot fashion without discussing the implications of that work unscientific and quite frankly inhuman. Good luck looking for vorticities!

 

[Imax]

RichyRich :

I can see you’ve given this a lot of thought, but without a reference point it could be difficult to establish that the universe is rotating, especially if that reference point lies outside the observable universe. If you believe that the entire universe is rotating, which it could be, then you need to describe experiments which can support your point of view. Is it something like a coriolis effect?

 

[Chronos]

1. Not necessarily.
2. Dont know.
3. Yes.
That was quite simple.
I will end this thread now and go to a site where people will answer questions they are not 'comfortable' with. I find reciting other peoples work in a robot fashion without discussing the implications of that work unscientific and quite frankly inhuman. Good luck looking for vorticities!

I attempt to allow credible, published papers speak for themselves with minimal injection of personal opinion. It's not about comfort, it's about credibility. It's up to you to critique papers we have referenced supporting our views. Citing papers that draw contrary conclusions would be a plus you have studiously avoided thus far.

 

[RichyRich]

Imax, I understand the need for experiment and test. All I can say these are views I get from researching physics. I did ask is it possible to programme a computer to see if a simulation could help-I had no answer. Where is the experiment for p-branes, inflation and many other ideas? Admittedly these ideas are from much more credible sources! Yet, they are ideas. I havnt tried to say the moon is cheese; I came here to see if my views were consistent with current science. I have no wish to detract from science. Personally as I've said before I don't believe the answer will come from observation.
Chronos I have found yourself and bcrowell to be very frustrating. You both clearly are more learned in physics than myself. I don't wish my views to be in ignorance; I wish to learn. The papers you have mentioned I have read. What I understood didnt tell me my views were wrong. However there was much I didnt understand-I did ask for clarification at times but received no such help. Do you ever read something and have questions? That is why I came to a forum where there is feedback. I can't ask a published paper a question! If you look at past posts you will see i have critiqued papers and asked questions. I havnt knowingly avoided anything that goes against my views-I don't see the point in that at all. From what I have seen there are contrary conclusions-all from observation, which I have said, I question anyway. I have stated why I question observation in this matter. I would be grateful if you would summarise the objections you have cited to a rotating universe. i must have missed them. The following questions have not only been unanswered, but ignored!
1 would we expect to observe dynammical effects from rotation if the observable universe were a tiny fraction of the actual universe. I believe not. If I am wrong please tell me. I believe this has been proposed as the reason we have not found any magnetic monopoles.
2. would rotation of the universe illicit similar results as rotations within the universe? again, i think not. i would think this is rotation unlike any rotations we know about.
3. why is theory unlikely to play a part in resolving this issue?
Credible answers to these questions would be welcomed. If you look at past posts, see how many of my specific views or questions have been replied to-hence my frustration. With respect, there is no point posting anything else unless these points are answered in some way. Dare I say it, I feel like I am going in circles, not the universe!

 

[bcrowell]

The papers you have mentioned I have read. What I understood didnt tell me my views were wrong. However there was much I didnt understand-I did ask for clarification at times but received no such help.

It sounds like you need more background in math and physics in order to understand this subject. If you start a new thread in the relativity forum asking for suggestions on how to start a program of self-study in GR, I'm sure you will receive many helpful answers. The answers you've gotten have been the kind of answers you should have expected, given the tone you set starting with your post #1.

 

[RichyRich]

If you read post 23 you see I apologised for the manner of my opening statement, without prompt. I mistakingly thought an abrupt manner would invite more comment/criticism. Also, my sense of humour possibly doesn't travel way. Thankyou for talking to me, and not around me, this time.
I understand what you say about the tone I set and I can only apologise again. I would say , however, that it seems pointless to reply to some points and not others. I self-study as much as I can on physics in general. Unfortunately I am at a level that cannot be raised without feedback and an amount of time I don't have. I do realize that , to a large degree, I am talking from ignorance. I am intelligent enough to realize that! This is why I came here. Its not about not accepting what I don't like. I have genuinely not seen anything here that tells me my ideas MUST be wrong, and/ or they are not consistent with current science. Some objections to my ideas have been raised. I have asked if these objections are valid. Then I get no response. Thats not much of a discussion to me! Id rather not take a course on GR. If, for instance, GR, says scale (observable against actual size of universe) doesn't effect the likelihood of observing dynamical effects, then you could just say that and briefly summarise why. Simplyfying science is not a bad thing, not to be confused with dumbing down science. I am currently reading a book by Stephen Hawking. He has made a number of bets with Roger Penrose. They are both learned men, yet their bets tell me they have different views where some physics will go. Both their views are consistent with current science. Thats all I wanted to find out. Are my views consistent with current science-not necessarily correct. You are correct, I do need more background in math and physics. But this ignorance will not stop me thinking, and I learn what I can. So, I will not start a new thread. I either get the discussion Id like here, or I dont! But each point has to be answered or there is no point in discussion, even if its to inform me of its irrelevance. As I have said, I apologise for my tone. You can either accept my apology and give me the honour of discussing this subject. Or you have no wish to. If your last post was your way of saying you will not discuss anymore because of my lack of knowledge and/or tone that is fine. I would much rather that, then be talked around or ignored.

 

[Imax]

RichyRich:

Maybe this can help you:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.4067.pdf