Rotating universe

peanut
peanut
Joined: 4 May 07
Posts: 162
Credit: 9,644,812
RAC: 0

"The recent discovery of what

"The recent discovery of what is believed to be a large “hole� in the universe has fueled my enthusiasm for this subject"

I was reading a book on the history of the developments leading to the relativity theories. One thing sort of stuck in my mind related to the recent "holes". A part about electrical conductors (wires) said that they are like holes in the electric field. I see parallels (perhaps not real) between electromagnetism and energy-momentum. Both seem to have fields that arise to make further accelerations harder. In the case of matter as things speed up they get heavier, as a charge speeds up the magnetic field increases.

So, my question would be "is there a conductor like thing for mass"? Could there be something "conducting" mass that would be like a conducting sphere where all the charge is pushed to the surface and no charge is detected in the middle of the sphere?

ML1
ML1
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 340
Credit: 75,132,954
RAC: 19,093

OK, for a few 'uneducated

OK, for a few 'uneducated guesses':

It looks like the idea of a rotating universe has been 'dismissed' on the basis that there is 'nothing for our universe to rotate about'...

However, on the scale of our planet, our solar system and of our galaxy, there clearly is rotation...

Is rotation apparent for clusters of galaxies? Is there a preferred plane for galaxy rotation?

Can the rotation of a galaxy be explained by a gravity gradient across that galaxy's space from some greater (distant) mass centre?

Or what does create the galactic swirl if there is no other larger scale rotation?

Or is there 'in effect' a pseudo-gravity gradient due to the expansion of time-space? If so, would not the axis of spin of a galaxy show the direction of expansion experienced across that galaxy?...

Regards,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

AgnosticPope
AgnosticPope
Joined: 12 May 07
Posts: 15
Credit: 35,690
RAC: 0

RE: "The recent discovery

Message 72959 in response to message 72957

Quote:

"The recent discovery of what is believed to be a large “hole� in the universe has fueled my enthusiasm for this subject"

I was reading a book on the history of the developments leading to the relativity theories. One thing sort of stuck in my mind related to the recent "holes". A part about electrical conductors (wires) said that they are like holes in the electric field. I see parallels (perhaps not real) between electromagnetism and energy-momentum. Both seem to have fields that arise to make further accelerations harder. In the case of matter as things speed up they get heavier, as a charge speeds up the magnetic field increases.

So, my question would be "is there a conductor like thing for mass"? Could there be something "conducting" mass that would be like a conducting sphere where all the charge is pushed to the surface and no charge is detected in the middle of the sphere?

When I studied transistor theory (back in the 1960s, so forgive me if it isn't taught this way any longer), we learned that there were two types of material bonded together to make a transistor. The N-Type material had (by nature) extra electrons while the P-Type material had (by nature) a lack of electrons. This state of affairs was caused (so we were told) by the act of joining the two materials together, at which point the N-Type material would attract a few electrons from the P-Type material in order to create an overall electrical equillibrium.

The lack of electrons in the P-Type material was referred to as "holes." And during my classes we were told that it is equally valid to speak of "hole flow" in the opposite direction of "current flow" or "electron flow." But it is more intuitive to the human mind to visualize an actual "thing" (electron) moving, so the teaching of electrical theory to the uneducated masses (us) discusses only the flow of electrons from a source (supply) to a sink (ground, etc.). The concurrent flow of "holes" (molecules which are short an electron) in the opposite direction is never discussed, basically by common agreement.

Of course, electrons themselves have mass (albeit a very small mass). So, the "conductor-like thing for mass" would include any electrical conductor.

And then, of course, there are the recent experiments with quantum teleportation to think about. In those experiments, an extremely tiny mass is made to "jump" from one spot to another, a fairly short distance away.

Whether any of these effects at very small scales have any analogs at larger scales is a matter of some debate.

But what we ought not lose sight of here is the fact that all of these effects (electromagnetic and gravity in particular) are related by the as yet undiscovered Theory of Everything. Given that there is such a theory, it would not be particularly surprising to find that the theory does create similarities between otherwise different things. Thus, I would not be surprised at all to find that there are "parallels ... between electromagnetism and energy-momentum" as you would assert. In fact, it is the very presence of such parallels which gives rise to hope for the eventual discovery of the over-arching Theory of Everything that ties all of this into a common framework. All we need is to understand exactly how gravity relates to the other well-known forces of physical theory (like electromagnitism). Find that out and go directly to Norway to pick up your Nobel Prize.

AgnosticPope
AgnosticPope
Joined: 12 May 07
Posts: 15
Credit: 35,690
RAC: 0

RE: Is rotation apparent

Message 72960 in response to message 72958

Quote:
Is rotation apparent for clusters of galaxies?

Yes. In fact, rotation around a common "center of gravity" is pretty-much the defining attribute of a "cluster of galaxies." Otherwise, you would have those same galaxies moving randomly, which would not make them into a common unit (cluster).

Quote:
Is there a preferred plane for galaxy rotation?

Not to my knowledge. I believe that the plane of rotation is random across those galaxies we can observe.

The analogy to our own Solar System is that there is some preference for a planet to rotate perpindicular to the plane of its orbit. But that is not the only option. The further away from the Sun you get, the more-odd the answers can become (see Uranus; rotation is 98 degress from plane of its orbit), as the effect of the Sun's gravity gets smaller. At galactic scales, the gravity effect is so small as to allow for random results.

Finally, it is known that the angle of the Earth's rotation with respect to its orbital plane has shifted several times during the Earth's history. It is not outside the bounds of possibility that another major shift could happen, although the most-likely cause would be a major collision with another object. This, too, should give you some insight into the relative strength of orbital velocity versus rotational velocity. It would take a much larger collision to affect the Earth's orbit around the Sun in a major way.

Quote:
Can the rotation of a galaxy be explained by a gravity gradient across that galaxy's space from some greater (distant) mass centre?

See the analogy (above) about planetary rotation versus orbital plane. So, my answer is "no."

Quote:
Or what does create the galactic swirl if there is no other larger scale rotation?

We have a picture of our universe within which the positions of galaxies look like strands of DNA. Long strings of galaxies with giant voids between them. The current theory is that this pattern is the result of an initial random state after the "Big Bang" (as studied in the form of cosmic background radiation). Said theory states that the random positioning of particles after the "Big Bang" would cause some of those particles to be close enough to be attracted to each other and thereby create a larger gravity field which would attract more particles, etc. etc. The end result of that process is the random strands of galaxies we can see with astronomy.

YMMV of course.

Quote:
Or is there 'in effect' a pseudo-gravity gradient due to the expansion of time-space?

I believe that present theory holds that there is no gradient and thus no center of the gradient. Present theory is that all points within our universe experience expansion equally. This is why we cannot even hope to measure the location of any "center of the universe."

Quote:
If so, would not the axis of spin of a galaxy show the direction of expansion experienced across that galaxy?...

The observational evidence to date suggests that the axis of spin of a galaxy is random. (see above.)

Of course, one of the objectives of the Galaxy Zoo projects is to better-define this sort of thing. So, the observational evidence is still being accumulated, and we don't have anywhere near a reliable sample size at this point in time. But it will take a bunch of observational evidence to overcome the current theory. (see above.)

ML1
ML1
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 340
Credit: 75,132,954
RAC: 19,093

Thanks for some good answers,

Message 72961 in response to message 72960

Thanks for some good answers, and for generating a few more questions!

Comments/questions inlined:

Quote:
Quote:
Is rotation apparent for clusters of galaxies?

Yes. In fact, rotation around a common "center of gravity" is pretty-much the defining attribute of a "cluster of galaxies." ...

Quote:
Is there a preferred plane for galaxy rotation?

Not to my knowledge. I believe that the plane of rotation is random across those galaxies we can observe. ...

Quote:
Can the rotation of a galaxy be explained by a gravity gradient across that galaxy's space from some greater (distant) mass centre?

See the analogy (above) about planetary rotation versus orbital plane. So, my answer is "no."

Quote:
Or what does create the galactic swirl if there is no other larger scale rotation?

We have a picture of our universe within which the positions of galaxies look like strands of DNA. Long strings of galaxies with giant voids between them. The current theory is that this pattern is the result of an initial random state after the "Big Bang" ...


Taking a look at some of the work done by M R Bate, the assumption there looks to be to take a cloud whereby the particles have a random velocity distribution. Hence overall, the cloud has zero angular momentum?

That then suggests that the coalescing discs of material will have a random spread of orientations, and also that overall the angular momentum of the cloud remains zero...

OK, I can imagine how that can work with local gravitational centres forming...

Quote:
Quote:
Or is there 'in effect' a pseudo-gravity gradient due to the expansion of time-space?

I believe that present theory holds that there is no gradient and thus no center of the gradient. Present theory is that all points within our universe experience expansion equally. This is why we cannot even hope to measure the location of any "center of the universe."


The hard part of the Big Bang theory is that we have space itself expanding as the particle cloud equally expands...

And is/was the initial perturbations truly 'random', or shaped as space(-time?) unevenly expands, or a combination of multiple effects... And what of the galactic magnetic field?

If random, can/do 'god(s)' play dice with the universe?

Quote:
Quote:
If so, would not the axis of spin of a galaxy show the direction of expansion experienced across that galaxy?...

The observational evidence to date suggests that the axis of spin of a galaxy is random. (see above.)

Of course, one of the objectives of the Galaxy Zoo projects is to better-define this sort of thing. So, the observational evidence is still being accumulated, and we don't have anywhere near a reliable sample size at this point in time. ...


Can there be a point out of time?

Or merely a different viewpoint?

The big bang and expanding universe theory certainly gives a plausible fit to what (I know of what) we see so far, and fits your answers.

The repeating features that we see at various scales (fractal-like) is rather tantalizing.

Is not another view that space-time is expanding around us and whatever material is getting dragged along and left behind is a little like wisps of smoke as a vacuum chamber is evacuated...?

What's next beyond the galaxy zoo and looking more closely at the CMB for further answers?

Thanks for provoking a few rambling thoughts,

Regards,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

AgnosticPope
AgnosticPope
Joined: 12 May 07
Posts: 15
Credit: 35,690
RAC: 0

RE: If random, can/do

Quote:
If random, can/do 'god(s)' play dice with the universe?

The remark about dice was representative of Einstein's total rejection of the random nature of quantum mechanics. However, there is no good reason (today) to doubt the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which casts a lot of doubt on Einstein's preferred model of an absolutely certain (computable) universe, provided that the observer(s) could obtain precise-enough data.

That distinction arises again in the philosophical argument over whether there are any true random occurrances or if all observed randomness is in fact merely pseudo-random in nature; if we knew the random number generator algorithm and the random seed, we could predict every outcome in advance.

"Dice" are merely a metaphor for any arbitrary random generator. Is a "white noise" generator truly random in nature? Not really, IMHO. You can implement algorithms to cause results that appear random to humans, but how random are they in reality if they can be reproduced at will? The digital signal generator I helped design decades ago produced "white noise" from a digital algorithm that was programmed into the device. The output was actually quite predictable, but appeared random to observing humans.

But a lack of randomness leads to claims of predictable outcomes and, ultimately, predestination. If we only knew enough, we would know how everything will turn out in the end. That thought is philosophically disturbing to many people. Who really wants to know the exact method and time of their own death? Don't we all prefer to live with the fiction of random things happening to us?

Frankly, to me both options are disturbing. I don't wish to be viewed either as driven by random chance or locked into a rut of predestination.

Or, in Einstein's terms, I don't want God playing dice with me, nor do I care to believe that God presses me forward to my ultimate predestination. Unfortunately, I can't conceive of a rational third alternative. And here, like Einstein, I use the word "God" as a metaphor for the whole of existence.

With that in mind, I will note that I personally favor this quote from “The Lessons of History� (1968), by the great historians, Will and Ariel Durant:

Quote:
The historian will not mourn because he can see no meaning to human existence except that which man puts into it; let it be our pride that we ourselves may put meaning into our lives, and sometimes a significance that transcends death. If a man is fortunate he will, before he dies, gather up as much that he can of his civilized heritage and transmit it to his children. And to his final breath, he will be grateful for this inexhaustible legacy, knowing that it is our nourishing mother and our lasting life.

Scientific research is part and parcel of our "civilized heritage." The ability to transmit and preserve knowledge for future generations is precisely what most distinguishes humans from animals. I make my miniscule contributions to scientific research as part of my self-assumed obligation to create a portion of that heritage for future generations of humans to enjoy.

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 2,087
Credit: 50,598,154
RAC: 22,208

You made a good summary,

You made a good summary, except maybe for any mention of chaos, which exists in both classical and quantum theories, and gives maybe an amount of freedom of choice (e.g. in initial conditions of a system) which has been neglected so far.
Tullio

ML1
ML1
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 340
Credit: 75,132,954
RAC: 19,093

RE: ... chaos, which ...

Message 72964 in response to message 72963

Quote:
... chaos, which ... gives maybe an amount of freedom of choice ...


Is not chaos merely a description of how a system can be very finely sensitive to what the initial conditions are?

Even with chaotic systems, you still have a pre-ordained destiny for exactly known start conditions.

A question could be whether chaos in itself can add a form of randomness... (Psuedo or truely random.)

For example, if the sensitivity of a system due to chaos requires that the start conditions be more finely determined than quantum states can define. I guess you then start getting 'aliasing' effects on a physical scale.

Or might the dice be multidimensional? (And add additional 'nudges' beyond the initial start conditions?)

Regards,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 2,087
Credit: 50,598,154
RAC: 22,208

I think that chaos theory is

I think that chaos theory is very important in climate prediction. Those who maintain that the amount of greenhouse gases we are injecting in the atmosphere is very small compared to the amount of water vapor already contained in it never heard of May's equation or the "butterfly effect".
Regards.
Tullio

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

RE: Frankly, to me both

Quote:

Frankly, to me both options are disturbing. I don't wish to be viewed either as driven by random chance or locked into a rut of predestination.

Or, in Einstein's terms, I don't want God playing dice with me, nor do I care to believe that God presses me forward to my ultimate predestination. Unfortunately, I can't conceive of a rational third alternative. And here, like Einstein, I use the word "God" as a metaphor for the whole of existence.


my 2 cents: I think these are just the extrema in an inherently incalculable function, namely that of a quantum mechanical system possessing self-awareness; then, the “rut� of which you speak becomes that “'groove' in which a seasoned athlete seeks to perform� (for lack of a better analogy)... I don't know if this qualifies as a third alternative, but for me it's less disturbing :)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.