Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

# Spinning Universe?

## Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Is the Universe rotating?

Since we cannot see it's center or objects beyond it how can we say it is not itself rotating as most everything in it that we know of is?

So really four questions, is it? and how we might know? And what other means are there to make measure it is not or is if indeed we can determin it is not or is and how those conclusions might be made?

I know this question has been asked before so in this post I ask more than just the basic question...

Edited by SIDO

##### Share on other sites

Are you asking if everything in the universe is rotating around its centre (whatever that might be) or if it is intrinsically rotating irrespective of its contents?

If the former, my guess is that it probably is, in the same way that separated galaxies will rotate around each other. Why would superclusters (or super-dooper clusters of superclusters) of galaxies do so as well? The problem would be determining where its centre is?

If the latter, I suspect this is a question that has no meaning. If there were only a single particle in the universe, could it be said to be rotating or not? Rotation is in relation to something else.

##### Share on other sites

There is no evidence that it is rotating.  If it were there would be a preferred direction defined by the axis of rotation which would show in the CMB and none is seen.

Regards Andrew

##### Share on other sites

Hmmm, my own thoughts:

1) Does it have a centre? Universes are not like most other things in that they don't have to have centres. The surface of a sphere has no centre. (The sphere does, but not its surface. No point on the surface is more 'central' than any other.)

2) If there are objects beyond it, it isn't the universe. (To be more precise, if there are objects beyond it which share its system of dimensions then it isn't the universe. If 'beyond' means outside its system of dimensions then 'rotate' has no meaning since 'rotation' must be specific to one set of dimensions.)

3) If it is the universe and there is nothing beyond it (as defined above) then relative to what would it be rotating? Can something rotate relative to nothing? Imagine a universe containing nothing but a single particle. Can it move? Can it rotate? For Newton it could move relative to a space he considered to be absolute but in general relativity there is no absolute space. This brings us to Mach's principle. Go there if you dare! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle

ly

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, andrew s said:

There is no evidence that it is rotating.  If it were there would be a preferred direction defined by the axis of rotation which would show in the CMB and none is seen.

Regards Andrew

I tend to agree with Andrew on this, if the universe were spinning it would do so on a particular axis and this would impart a tell tale pattern on the CMB.  There has been various studies which have searched for such patterns and none have been found; the cmb appears stubbornly uniform.   So it looks like our universe is not spinning.  We can stop holding on tightly now

ps Lovely question SIDO

Jim

Edited by saac

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I got interested in these questions while out doing static eaa with my daughter, we were hitting galaxies in Ursa Major and Canes Venatici and when we got to M63 I decided to do multiple passes on the chip to show her more of the galaxy's details  and she said "wow...amazing that a black hole drives all that motion and holds all those stars in place around it" letting the statement go  by just saying "yes it is isent it" but it's not that simple really and the black hole is not working alone as the central mass of the galaxy adds to the mass of the black hole thus it's not just the black holes gravity but the combined mass and the matter location densities of galaxies that play a large part in consert with their black holes gravity. So after some thought and a little reading I began thinking like Demonperformer were gravity might play a much larger roll on a universal scale as the central core of the Universe does not need to be a solid object but only a more compacted arrangement of objects and if this is the case then there must be rotation as with out it a Universe like this would collapse in on itself.

So might we not see rotation in the CMB just because we are looking at an ultra tiny section of the Universe and to see it might need measurement on larger distance scales which can't be done because we only can measure what can be seen?

With nothing relative outside or inside the Universe to gauge motion we might simply never know and with no eventual consequences to this motion or an awareness of it relativity does not exist in this regard either.

As usual I have more questions than answers...

Edited by SIDO

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Demonperformer said:

If the former, my guess is that it probably is, in the same way that separated galaxies will rotate around each other. Why would superclusters (or super-dooper clusters of superclusters) of galaxies do so as well? The problem would be determining where its centre is?

Well said, the problem is we can only look back to the beginning of the Universe So time itself is the barrier that shrouds everything beyond or the rest of the Universe, I could blame it on the slow speed of light too I guess...

Edited by SIDO

##### Share on other sites
22 hours ago, andrew s said:

If it were there would be a preferred direction defined by the axis of rotation which would show in the CMB and none is seen.

Valid point. The only thing I would wonder about is: the further from the centre of rotation, the slower the speed of rotation (the earth revolves around the sun at roughly 110000 km/hr, Neptune only at about 20000). Is the rate of rotation so slow by the time we get to cmb that we do not have the means of measuring such an amount at such a distance? I should emphasize that I know of absolutely no evidence to support this thought.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SIDO said:

So might we not see rotation in the CMB just because we are looking at an ultra tiny section of the Universe and to see it might need measurement on larger distance scales which can't be done because we only can measure what can be seen?

This.

I'll have to find another cause for my dizziness...

...cheers

Paul

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, clarkpm4242 said:

This.

I'll have to find another cause for my dizziness...

...cheers

Paul

That wasent the puzzle piece I was looking for nor was it an "answer" regarding the CMB, neither a link not a lead not even logic but comedic and sarcastic...Ideals left aside

Nice to meet you Paul...

Freddie.

Edited by SIDO

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

See arXiv:1605.07178v2 for a  more up to date paper which increase the constraint on rotation by an additional order of magnitude.

Regards Andrew

Edited by andrew s
• 1
• 1

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×

• ### Similar Content

• Rotation of the whole universe around the common center of mass.
It is possible to detect when observing galactic accumulations. Such clusters, which are more shaped in the shape of a plutonium, move in orbit around the center of mass. Those that are irregular; fall in the center or additionally have one more motion vector parallel to the axis of rotation.
For falling, you can determine the diameter of this "megascope".
Accidentally came to such a marijuana.
P.S. I do not know much English yet, so the translator

• By Nigele2
Hi all.  I wonder if anyone can help me with our little dilemma.
The universe is expanding by stretching so everything is moving apart.  So how come Andromeda is moving towards us (relative to our perspective)?
Any thoughts very welcome because we have exhausted our brains on this one. Cheers

• I would like to know what type of telescope should I buy to begin with. I'm not a professional astronomer, but i'd like to get into the subject further. Even started to get involved in chemistry and physics. lol.. please help.
thanks
• By Rionaku
I was thinking about this a few moments ago in reference to the hologram theory, and I just wonder if anyone thought this idea is actually feasible: presume the universe is a continuous hologram/program, set up and coded to form in a grid format. That grid would be what we call the "Fabric" of space. A black hole is a tear in that space (a temporary error in the scripting for that area of space.), caused by the over abundance of information (gravity) applied to the fabric. The script (being a continuously active script) later has to rewrite itself to fix the error (hawking radiation), causing the black hole to evaporate. If there happens to be more information applied to the area of the error (such as a star or gas), the error increases due to the excessive amount of information being applied to the script as it is attempting to rewrite itself to fix said error, thus increasing the size and mass of the black hole. The idea that there was too much information applied to the script and an error formed would imply that the universe is not perfect but is programmed to and capable of fixing itself (Or the creator is fixing it). It could also imply that the universe is actually infinite as well as there being similar versions of the universe (parallels).

I was wondering if you think this idea could be possible...
obviously I think too much...
I'm just a regular guy that loves this stuff and reads articles.
×
×
• Create New...