Center of Universe not center of expansion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtonian

Guest
Since scientists have postulated that dark energy could be involved in the cause of the origin of the expansion, and acceleration of expansion, of our universe:<br /><br />If dark energy is not caused specifically by mass, then couldn't the center of expansion be different that the center of gravity of our universe?<br /><br />Especially since expansion seems somewhat independent of gravity?<br /><br />If, btw, either actually has a 3-d center (it certainly has a 4-d center, with time as the 4th dimension).
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
The universe can have a spin, which has transferred angular momentum to the rotation of galaxies. But space is unbounded, and there is no physical location corresponding to 'the center of the universe.' As the end of your post suggests, if there is a center at all, it should be viewed in terms of time, when the inflationary epoch began. One implication of global rotation is the existence of other space-times, other 'universes.'<br /><br />For a good starting place, I recommend: citebase Search - oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/9703082.<br /><br />From the looks of it, Carneiro's your boy. But there are also some others out there:<br /><br />The Pioneer Anomaly and a Machian Universe (pdf) by Marcelo Samuel Berman<br /><br />The Scaled Universe (pdf) by B.G. Sidharth<br /><br />Quantum gyroscope could reveal Universe's spin by Eugenie Samuel (New Scientist)
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Serak_the_Preparer - Thank you for your research and links.<br /><br />Are you referring to other universes within ours sort of but in differing dimensions, as in String theory?<br /><br />Or are you referring to other universes beyond our universe?<br /><br />I feel it likely other universes exist, btw. You probably remember some of my reasons.<br /><br />Leave it to me to start with the last link. That is an interesting article in New Scientist, and I did not realize my question (thought of independently) was actually already being researched to that extent!<br /><br />That is exciting - i.e. that we might actually be able to measure universal spin with a super accurate quantum gyroscope!<br /><br />I'll post on those other links later.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Serak - that will take some time for me to study, as I am not a student of calculus - though they did simplify enough that I will be able to follow it given enough time.<br /><br />It sounds like this is really important to understanding how our universe, and also the microscopic world including quantum mechanics and effects, works!<br /><br />And that, in turn, should help us understand how our universe was created.<br /><br />Can you translate the spin rate of our universe which is determined in the links?<br /><br />Sounds like it is consistent with the spin rate of electrons, hence lilkely consistent with the spin rate of the origin of our universe.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
As to the Universe having "Spin" - has Godel been discounted then? Because a spin condition for the universe raises some nasty problems involving causality, IIRC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
To paraphrase Paul Reiser, I'm just sayin'.<br /><br />Actually, Carneiro hasn't ignored such objections. See, for instance, A Gödel-Friedman cosmology? by Paulo Carneiro (Citebase). From the abstract:<br /><br /><i>Based on the mathematical similarity between the Friedman open metric and Godel's metric in the case of nearby distances, we investigate a new scenario for the Universe's evolution, where the present Friedman universe originates from a primordial Godel universe by a phase transition during which the cosmological constant vanishes. Using Hubble's constant and the present matter density as input, we show that the radius and density of the primordial Godel universe are close, in order of magnitude, to the present values, and that the time of expansion coincides with the age of the Universe in the standard Friedman model. In addition, the conservation of angular momentum provides, in this context, a possible origin for the rotation of galaxies, leading to a relation between the masses and spins corroborated by observational data.</i><br /><br />But Carneiro isn't carrying the ball all by himself. See the other items farther down that page.<br /><br />I'm not so sure spin for the universe means what we think it means when we talk about, say, either a dreidel or Bill O'Reilly. So you would seem to be demonstrating very good insight by putting the word in quotes.<br /><br />From another angle, it seems like it's okay for space-time to expand faster-than-light during inflation; it's just matter and energy which are constrained by that speed limit. Again, I don't think it means the same thing for a universe to 'spin' as it does when something like a planet rotates. And by 'planet,' of course, I mean only those large spherical bodies orbiting stars which dynamicists agree are not Pluto. : )<br /><br />These definitions sure can get tricky sometimes...
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
Newtonian, I'm referring to other regions of space-time lying beyond our own.<br /><br />Where this subject is concerned I am a rank amateur. But my take is that the connection to the spin rate of electrons is summed up well enough by you when you write: '<i>It sounds like this is really important to understanding how our universe, and also the microscopic world including quantum mechanics and effects, works!</i>' The universe as a whole possesses quantum features and behaves more like a subatomic particle than a solid macroscopic object.<br /><br />But don't go by me. There are plenty of links on this. Good luck unraveling the mystery. The world's best physicists are having a bit of trouble with it themselves, and could use the help.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
To my recollection (dredging up some dim memories of courses in the ancient past), the problems were severalfold: a lack of anisotropy (clearly not the case as shown by our measurements of the CMBR), the presence of timelike loops, and the simplest question, rotation around what? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
Somewhat off-topic...<br /><br />From what I've read, your recollection is correct. There is a subtle flaw (or flaws) in the assumptions with which physicists and cosmologists are working. While surfing the subject, I have come across items such as Quantum Mechanics and Retrocausality (pdf) by D. Atkinson and Acausality and Retrocausality in Four- and Higher-Dimensional General Relativity by B. Lukacs.<br /><br />If causality is not sacred, then nothing is. Then again, maybe nothing is sacred?<br /><br />Here is a paper I read which I found useful: Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant (pdf) by Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, and Leonard Susskind. The abstract reads:<br /><br /><i>In this paper we consider the implications of a cosmological constant for the evolution of the universe, under a set of assumptions motivated by the holographic and horizon complementarity principles. We discuss the ``causal patch" description of spacetime required by this framework, and present some simple examples of cosmologies described this way. We argue that these assumptions inevitably lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions.</i><br /><br />Though this all kind of misses the topic, in some ways it does tie in. From page 3, in reference to an analogy between the universe and a box of gas molecules, where the molecules are initially so dense as to form a fluid in one corner of the box:<br /><br /><i>Let <b>S</b> be the final thermodynamic entropy of the gas. Then on time scales of order<br /><br /><b>T</b></i>r<i> ~ exp <b>S</b><br /><br />the system will undergo Poincare recurrences. Such a recurrence can bring all the particles back into a corner of the room. On such long time scales the second la</i>
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
Closed timelike curves may be inevitable given current theories. From the abstract for Time, Closed Timelike Curves and Causality by Francisco Lobo and Paulo Crawford:<br /><br /><i>General Relativity is contaminated with non-trivial geometries which generate closed timelike curves. These apparently violate causality, producing time-travel paradoxes. We shall briefly discuss these geometries and analyze some of their physical aspects.</i><br /><br />Only mentioning this to suggest these problems exist with or without global rotation. As for 'rotation around what,' I wouldn't know. The less gravitationally bound portions of the primordial universe around those more gravitationally bound? It may be an anachronistic idea. This rotation may have existed in the universe, say, just prior to inflation (or possibly during), before its momentum was transferred to the matter-energy within?
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
A conundrum it is (Yoda Voice here).<br /><br />Those non-trivial Geometrical anomalies all seem to be unreachable, despite their existence in a mathematical sense. So they are (for lack of a better term) "self-resolving." Rather like Tipler's rotating cylinder with near-infinite gravity. Sure, it appears to be a method for time-travel, but realistically, it's not workable.<br /><br />As far as rotational aspects for the Universe, that's another story entirely. I don't know either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Serak - Briefly, I don't believe causality is ever actually violated, nor do I believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics is ever actually violated.<br /><br />It may seem like that, though.<br /><br />Life, for example, seems to violate entropy, but actually it is getting around it by informational selection and direction which is absent in non-living chemistry.<br /><br />I am not certain our universe has spin, btw. I am simply considering the possibility.<br /><br />Faster than light spin, for example, could cause expansion - I don't think we know enough about faster than light expansion yet to see how such faster than light spin and such FTL expansion could be linked in what could be a far more complex cause and effect mechanism for the origin of our universe.<br /><br />One thing for sure - but I didn't note this point in the links (perhaps because I still need to study them):<br /><br />Expansion should slow spin - and there should be some formula or math ratio related to how expansion would slow spin.<br /><br />Popular models for the universe's origin have the diameter of the universe at creation (=origin, beginning) to be even less than Planck length!<br /><br />The only way I can percieve an origin involving a singularity is if it involved the intersection of colliding (merging) dimensions. Compare collision of branes models for the origin of our universe.<br /><br />Such an interaction could be at a point, roughly like two lines, either straight or curved, can intersect at a point resembling a singularity.<br /><br />I suspect multiple dimension 'branes' could also intersect at a point.<br /><br />They could also intersect at a straight line which may or may not have an end - or a curved line which may or may not meet as in an oval or circle, or may simply coil either with ends or without end.<br /><br />I doubt our universe is infinite in either mass or energy, so therefore there would have to be an end or edge if the intersection lines did not meet.<br /><br />I understand how spin
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Serak - One more point briefly: collision, merging or interaction of branes (dimensions with energy and time) at the origin of our universe - or in fact fine tuned input of plural forms of energy (or both) at the origin point (time, dimesions) could cause spin - even multidimensional spin - depending on the trajectory and speed of the impact (interaction, etc.).
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Yevaud - Hi! <br /><br />Constraints derived from modeling based on my favorite source imply strongly that reverse time travel is absolutely impossible by anyone anywhere.<br /><br />Many scientists agree.<br /><br />The reason may simply be that this was one of the properties incorporated into time when time was created, if time did not always exist btw.<br /><br />[Note: I am not talking about our universe specific space-time, though that is also forward only. I am talking about primordial time (not space-time) during which our universe's space time was created. I do not believe cause and effect can proceed without time, and I do believe our universe, with its space time, was caused.)<br /><br />While FTL travel may seem to violate time's arrow and/or causality, appearances can be deceiving. I do not believe either is actually happening.<br /><br />On the other hand, I do believe faster than light travel is possible - likely not for the matter we observe - but for some forms of energy (perhaps dark energy?; perhaps other forms of energy?, perhaps tachyon matter?). None of these would actually violate causality or time's arrow.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Serak and Yevaud- I haven't read that link about closed timelike curves - note my above post about branes merging (must involve time).<br /><br />On rotation around what - please note that revolution may also be involved.<br /><br />As you have noted other space-times beyond our universe (me too, btw) - clearly revolution would also be possible. And transfer of angular momentum (compare moon and earth rotation plus tidal interactions) could transfer some of the interaction energy into spin.<br /><br />I don't know the math that would describe the transfer of energy if such revolution involved more than 3-d in either space-time brane or universe.<br /><br />BTW - You are aware no doubt that I perceive (again, I am not alone) that our universe is fine tuned for life, such that a mere chance interaction (or set of complex interactions) is not all that is involved. <br /><br />Clearly our universe was created by cause and effect, and my main interest on this thread is HOW our universe was (and perhaps is) being caused to expand or stretch out. [And, specifically, how spin may be involved.]<br /><br />Besides revolution, I am not certain our universe has no 3-d center, or at least a center of gravity even if nothing is actually located at that average (mathematically, by laws of motion) center at this time.<br /><br />Considering other possible shapes besides a singularity at the origin, how would rotation or spin about a 1-d straight or curved line origin be described (and the effects be observed)?<br /><br />And, dare I ask: about multidimensional curved or straight origin?<br /><br />Kind of reminds me the shape of f (= fundemental) orbitals of electrons, which are very hard to represent graphically. <br /><br />And note the cause and effect of 'orbit' of electrons is different.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Serak - From your first link:<br /><br />http://www.citebase.org/search?type=identifier&submitted=Cited+By&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F9703082<br /><br />Dark energy and global rotation of the Universe [ Abstract, 5 Cites, , Cached PDF ]<br />5Godlowski, Wlodzimierz; Szydlowski, Marek (2003-03-12) In General Relativity and Gravitation 35 2171 (2003)<br />We discuss the problem of universe acceleration driven by global rotation. The redshift-magnitude relation is calculated and discussed in the context of SN Ia observation data. It is shown that the dynamics of considered problem is equivalent to the Friedmann model with additional non-interacting fluid ... Comment: RevTeX4, 12 pages, 7 figures<br /><br />Have you read the text in full? <br /><br />From the abstract, sounds like my thought exactly - that the initial expansion of our universe may have been initiated, at least in part, by universal spin.<br /><br />And that acceleration may also be being caused in part by spin rate.<br /><br />I really do need to research the varioius models referenced in the abstracts in your link.<br /><br />That will take time.<br /><br />Do you have a favorite model among those referenced or perhaps one not referenced?
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Serak_the_Preparer - Please see my responses on your links in the Suggestions thread started because my thread on universal spin was locked.<br /><br />I will request the moderators to transfer those posts concerning your links to this thread - but I have no idea if they will accede to my request.<br /><br />Thank you again for your excellent links and your encouragements to me in trying to unravel the mystery - along with all those other scientists, of course!<br /><br />Does the transfer of angular momentum fit the effects on clusters and superclusters of galaxies as one link indicates?<br /><br />Or is this conclusion debated by scientists favoring different models?
 
N

newtonian

Guest
stevehw33 - As my thread on universal spin was locked and the moderators have requested I post on that theme in this thread, I wish to zero in on universal spin on this thread. <br /><br />Please see the Suggestion's thread to see how this situation has evolved (or was created).<br /><br />On thread theme, though, you can have a center of gravity that is not at the center of mass.<br /><br />For example, see Leovinus' past responses on plural <br />Great Attractors which postulates that the center of gravity of the Great Attractor does not have any mass in that precise location as the attraction is coming from multiple sources which combine to appear to come from that location.<br /><br />I do not accept Leovinus' referenced model - though I consider it tenable.<br /><br />I still consider the old model of one Great Attractor at the center of gravity.<br /><br />But I do have an open mind on this, and also on thread theme, and also on universal spin.<br /><br />Note I consider that the center of expansion is not the center of our universe, and that our universe probably only has a 4-d center (including time, hence space-time, e.g.: an origin at a singularity.)<br /><br />There, however, may be a center of expansion different from said singularity.<br /><br />Or, if universal spin is one of the causal mechanisms then indeed there could be the same 4-d center (note segway to universal spin models).<br /><br />However, some models of expansion have more than one cause at more than one time - thus there would be more than one center of expansion - depending on how expansion is propagated.<br /><br />For example, consider dark energy rather than universal spin as the cause for acceleration of expansion.<br /><br />And consider still another cause for the past inflationary epoch - as some scientists have modeled still different causes for this effect.<br /><br />The center of propagation would be the center of the above cause and effect mechanisms.<br /><br />"Center," in some of those cases, is not
 
N

newtonian

Guest
alokmohan - Indeed, a reasonable suggestion which I also consider tenable.<br /><br />However, what of the later inflationary epoch and the still later acceleration of expansion<br /><br />Could they be caused by different sources, such as dark energy?<br /><br />Or could it simply be a chain of causes and effects initially caused by universal spin, whatever caused said spin in the first place (compare whatever caused expansion in the first place.).
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
We are quite in the dark about dark energy.Hubble was suppoed to hunt distant supernova,but Huule is ill.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
alokmohan - Who is ill? Hubble?<br /><br />I am, btw - so signing off for now.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Serak, you all - Telfrow has indicated on the suggestions thread that all future discussion of universal spin should be on this thread.<br /><br />Serak - Please see the suggestions thread for responses prior to this on your excellent links.<br /><br />Further on the last link I posted on there:<br /><br />"Interference pattern<br />These devices fire laser beams in opposite directions around a fibre-optic ring. If a plane is turning, the laser beam travelling with the rotation has to travel further to catch up with its starting point, so it arrives later than the beam travelling against the rotation. When the beams meet, they create an interference pattern from which it is possible to work out the difference in the arrival times of the two beams, and hence the rate of rotation.<br /><br />Shleich points out that the same principle also works with cold atom beams, and because atoms move more slowly than light, the shift is more obvious. This should allow far slower rates of rotation to be measured. <br /><br />The European Space Agency is already planning to launch a cold atom gyro called HYPER into space, with the aim of measuring whether any rotation is associated with the Earth's gravitational field. This will provide the first test of the prediction, which flows from Einstein's general theory, that nearby space should be dragged round by the Earth's spin."<br /><br />That is so exciting!<br /><br />When is that satellite to be launched?<br /><br />[Edit: Oops, forgot this next statement relevant to thread tangent: universal spin:<br /><br />"Quantum beauty<br />In July's New Journal of Physics (vol 4, p 37), Schleich shows that the accuracy of HYPER could be improved by a factor of 10 billion, which should be enough to measure the rotation of the Universe."<br /><br />Truly exciting! Can't wait!<br /><br />Signing off for now, btw.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
Stevehw33 and Rael agree on at least one thing:<br /><br />"There is NO center of the universe."
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
I would have thought from some of your other posts that you think that either the Vatican in Rome or Jeruselam is the center of the universe <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts