Rotating universe
7 Sep 2007 14:31:00 UTC
Topic 193116
(moderation:
I have recently discovered that in 1949, Kurt Gödel proposed a cosmological model that is very similar to a pet theory of mine; that of a rotating universe. I have read that no one has ever found any errors in the physics involved in Gödel’s rotating universe. Is that because few have tried or because it is correct?
It seems to me that a closed, rotating universe (containing local disturbances caused by gravity) would explain a number of the anomalies currently being studied in the realms of cosmology, physics and astronomy.
Namely, the centrifugal force experienced by objects inside a rotating body could explain the so-called “expansion� of the universe, with no need for dark matter or dark energy. The fact that all the galaxies are supposedly moving away from us and each other does not necessarily mean that the universe is expanding. Perhaps all matter is being pulled towards the boundaries of the universe. There would be no need for dark matter or dark energy, as the underlying movement would not be dependent upon gravity, but rather upon the centrifugal force.
A rotating universe could explain the creation of galaxies and stars without the need for the Big Bang and its singularity: the gases distributed (uniformly or not) throughout the universe would begin to gravitationally coalesce when the rotation began.
The centrifugal force offers an explanation of the Cosmic Microwave Background, in that the matter contained in the universe must eventually be thrown against the boundary or “walls� that contain it, be decimated and release radiation. What we currently accept to be the radiation left over from the Big Bang could actually be radiation emitted by matter absorbed by the boundaries of the universe.
This all-encompassing centrifugal force could also explain why the outer stars in a galaxy can move faster than the inner stars, as well as the shapes of the galaxies themselves.
Colliding galaxies seem to me to be much more logical occurrences in a rotating galaxy than in an expanding one, where they should be rarities.
The recent discovery of what is believed to be a large “hole� in the universe has fueled my enthusiasm for this subject. That discovery, coupled with the possibility that the universe may have poles, makes me wonder if the “cosmic axis� coincides with the WMAP cold spot in Eridanus (I have been unable to find information on this). As I understand it, the WMAP quadrupole passes through the constellation Sextans. I wonder if that southern constellation is opposite Eridanus. In any case, I predict that another “hole� may be found in the opposite direction from Eridanus. It would make perfect sense that there would be poles in a rotating universe (I am open to both the ideas of a randomly rotational universe -creating various poles over time- and that of a consistently rotating universe, creating only two poles). There would be less (or no) matter or energy at these poles, as they would represent the current “top� and “bottom� of the universe, and the centrifugal force would carry the matter flung against the boundaries further “south� and “north�, respectively.
The Great Walls of galaxies also fit quite well within this framework and I predict that it will be discovered that those of the northern and southern hemispheres are actually the same structures.
Is there anything fundamentally wrong with this idea? I’d be interested in hearing other people’s thoughts.
Rotating universe
)
I am by no means a physist. But when ever I hear "centrifugal" I become suspect.
This is a quote from from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
Nevertheless, many popular discussions of forces do use the term "centrifugal", without pointing out that it is fictitious, and assume the reader is knowledgeable of the true inertial character of the force, leading to misconceptions and bad use of the term.
I think the "centrifugal" force is a reaction force to the force of being "thrown" towards the center. You state it is a force that throws things outward. That is not really the case. The "throwing" is being done "inwards".
I just had to throw in my 2 cents on the subject while carousing through the board.
RE: I have recently
)
Rotating with respect to what?
Yaaaay armchair physics! My favorite!
"Well if I assume this old, over-looked model it will COMPLETELY FIX all the maladies of modern physics, whether the problems I believe exist actually exist or not."
1) No, it can't. The "so-called expansion" is an observational fact that you would do well to get acquainted with since it isn't going away.
2) No, it can't. Dark matter has been observed indirectly through weak gravitational lensing and dark energy explains the large scale structure of the universe too nicely.
3) No, it can't. You don't know what you are talking about.
Oh, lovely. So the universe didn't /start/ with rotation but something *SPUN IT UP*. Is god as amused by a gyroscope as I am? I'd love to see the moment arm required to get the universe going.
I'd love to see how rotation give a stringy shape to the universe, but hey I'm just a guy who reads about physics and maybe even researches cosmology.
Do be sure to explain why the background radiation a) exists, b) is isotropic to an asinine degree and c) exists.
I wonder if this message will get deleted if I call this idiocy what it is: obvious crank swill that was created by a mind that clearly hasn't read anything written about cosmology in fifty years or about physics since the discipline was invented.
Just in case, I'll pad it with saying that the CMBR would be most definitely anisotropic if it was formed by backscatter from impacting a wall or anything else for that matter of such nature.
Not even wrong. You would be better served by understanding the exact nature of the rotational anomaly in galactic rotation curves. That understanding would then be well-complemented by weak lensing observations of the Bullet cluster though Abell 520 confuses the issue slightly.
I won't discuss the remaining because I don't have nice things to say.
The only thing that is fundamentally wrong is your complete and utter ignorance of all observational astronomy done within the last thirty years as well as every theoretical result obtained in the last fifty years. This, coupled with your complete ignorance of even the simplest consequences of your theory makes it not only dead on arrival but makes me want to bill you for the time I wasted reading it.
Hi, Peanut, Thank you for
)
Hi, Peanut,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your concerns regarding the concept of centrifugal force, but I like to think that my idea addresses them correctly, albeit with defective terminology.
The idea is that once the universe begins rotating, the gases contained within begin to gravitationally coalesce. Everything begins to move in a straight line and some of the matter is trapped by the gravitational force of other matter and eventually made to orbit a gravitational center. The matter that is not trapped by gravitational force continues in its trajectory until it hits the boundaries of the universe, where it is absorbed (for lack of a better word) and lets off radiation.
The matter that does combine to form gravitational centers also continues in its original inertial direction and the idea is that, eventually, the galaxies themselves will hit the boundaries of the universe, adding to the CMB.
Hello iowr, Thank you for
)
Hello iowr,
Thank you for your repsonse. And although I was hoping for a more informative one, rather than an emotional one, I accept your ridicule.
If you are someone who believes that Science is Truth, rather than science being a man-made interpretation of the observations of the world around us, then we're going to have great difficulty communicating. However, I'd like to give it a shot (providing you're willing to concede that everyone has a right to express their opinions regardless of whether you find them idiotic or not).
First and foremost, know that I'm quite willing to accept that this idea is not feasible. You are correct in assuming that I am ignorant "of even the simplest consequences" of my idea. But I would like to know. That's why I wrote to this forum, in the hopes that someone knowledgable will take the time to respond. I'm afraid your response wasn't very helpful.
You make the comment that "The 'so-called expansion' is an observational fact". My question to you is, what differences would we perceive between an expanding universe and a rotating one? In both cases, the galaxies would appear to be moving away from one another, wouldn't they?
You also state that "Dark matter has been observed indirectly through weak gravitational lensing and dark energy explains the large scale structure of the universe too nicely." I never said that dark matter and dark energy don't exist. I'm saying that the inherent movement in a rotating universe should be sufficient to explain the shapes of the galaxies and their apparent "outward" movement, without having to add dark matter and dark energy to the equation.
From your message, it seems to me that you are confusing fact with theory in some cases. That the galaxies are moving away from us and each other is an observational fact. The idea that the universe is expanding is a theory, as is the existence of dark matter/energy and the stringy shape of the universe.
You did make one useful comment, namely that "...the CMBR would be most definitely anisotropic if it was formed by backscatter from impacting a wall or anything else for that matter of such nature."
I agree with this observation, but only after large objects begin to reach the boundaries. The isotropic nature of the CMB could be explained by the fact that what we are "seeing" is the result of the first gases absorbed by the boundaries (which would be fairly uniform at that time). The radiation we are receiving would have been created at the beginning of the rotation, before any larger objects had been created or before those objects had reached the boundaries.
Looking at things from another perspective is a necessary part of science and life itself, to keep from becoming stagnant. Even if what you come up with is wrong, it's an important exercise without which we would still be living on a flat Earth at the center of the universe.
I came here for discussion, and hope someone (including you) will take me up on it.
Good questions, interesting
)
Good questions, interesting ideas, kalei...
But regarding the cosmological interpretation, this kind of model of a rotating universe actually does not exhibit the Hubble expansion (see Wikipedia page on Godel metric, and see also the link to 'Hubble expansion' in the Cosmological Interpretation section)
Although if you can add a term for a cosmological constant, maybe the same can be done for the Godel metric by introducing an expansion term proportional to that metric...? Still learning about the many models, maths, and physics myself (wouldn't surprise me if there's a model like this already...)
RE: Good questions,
)
A very interesting idea there.
Everything else in our universe appears to rotate in some way across a vast range of scales... So why not the universe itself?
Just as Einstein's general relativity does not give the full story, nor QED, perhaps the Godel metric is likewise a partial solution. It certainly has a collection of "mathematically interesting" consequences.
So...
Any observations to confirm the idea? (Excluding the glib arrogant ignorance shown by an earlier poster.)
What observations completely refute the idea?
For example, can the apparent Hubble constant be accommodated with a "few tweaks"?
Or is there yet something fundamental we yet do not know?
Are there 'preferred' axis of spin for the observed galaxies?
Is any optical correction required to allow for any lensing effects by the (mass of the) universe itself? (Or by how it has changed over the timescale of the travel of the observed light?)
OK, more questions than suggestions!
Keep searchin',
Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
One of the consequences of
)
One of the consequences of Relativity is the idea that there is no privileged point of observation. In the realm of Inflation theory, there is no "center of the universe" around which the universe might be said to revolve.
Thus, the first sentence from jowr says it all: "Rotating with respect to what?"
Einstein postulated that the universe was fininte in size, but unbounded; it has no "outer edge" at all. Thus, again, it cannot be said to be rotating with respect to things "outside" of the universe; such things do not exist (per Einstein's Relativity, anyway).
With no center and no outer edge, it is difficult to conceive of how the universe could be said to be rotating so as to produce a "centrifugal force" which might be said to account for the expansion of the universe, etc. After all, the Earth rotates around the Sun in a fairly stable orbit and does not fly off into space. There is more at work than just the forces associated with circular motion. There is also the gravitational tug of the Sun back towards the center of the solar system.
But in the context of a universe with no center and no edge, neither of the forces we understand to create stable orbits can be said to truly exist on a universal scale.
Anyway, I haven't studied the Godel model at all. It may be an interesting idea which has no basis in fact to make it worthy of further study. Or, it may be an idea that is sitting on the shelf, much as the Kaluza-Klein idea did, waiting for a change in our factual understanding to breathe new life into an old idea.
I don't think it is a good idea to make fun of currently-unpopular theories. You never know when they might be dusted off and revived. On the other hand, if you are looking for millions of dollars of research funding, you go with the consensus and pooh-pooh the alternatives. That is just a fact of life.
== Bill
RE: I don't think it is a
)
I agree with you. When I was studying physics in the Sixties general relativity was considered "old stuff" by most Italian physicists and the leading edge of physics was S-matrix theory. Now the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare finances and staffs the VIRGO interferometer. Things change.
Tullio
Hi, Chipper Q, Thanks for
)
Hi, Chipper Q,
Thanks for the link! You've given me a great starting point to continue reading about this. I was able to find very little on my own using the search terms "Gödel+universe". However, "Gödel+metric" turns up lots of interesting results.
The Wikipedia article was interesting, as well. What I can understand of it, anyway. I'm definitely going to try and get my hands on the book, Homogeneous Relativistic Cosmologies, mentioned at the end of the page.
Lots of reading to do!
Hi, AgnosticPope, Thanks
)
Hi, AgnosticPope,
Thanks for your input. You make some very important points.
Mathematics is an alien world for me (on a given day, I get varying results for 2+2), so I depend completely on others' interpretations of the equations I read about.
From what I've been able to read so far from the links I got from Chipper Q, it's becoming obvious that the only thing my universe and Gödel's share in common is the word "rotating". In his theory, all matter rotates around all other matter -there's your reference. That also explains why there would be no observable Hubble constant. I haven't yet discovered if his entire universe is rotating (which I now doubt), or just the matter in it. I have lots of reading to do.
My universe rotates with respect to...
I don't believe God plays with dice, so it would be unfair on my part to give him a gyroscope. I'm also disinclined to fly in the face of General Relativity. But I'm not giving up yet. I'll be back when I'm a little better informed.