Speed of light

[neufer]

How could any BIG BANG Universe be rotating...conservation of angular momentum being what it is?

[The Code]

Most everything else is rotating and round.. Why would our universe not be rotating?

Pretty much every knew discovery in the cosmos is amazing. Unexpected things are never looked for.. How many new finds were unexpected? ( My View is.. pretty much anything is possible in our universe.)

mark

[orin stepanek]

I think it's possible; but I don't know how you would measure it.

Orin

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

If there is a will there is a way.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409073
Dynamics of the Universe with global rotation

Authors: Wlodzimierz Godlowski, Marek Szydlowski
(Submitted on 3 Sep 2004)

Abstract: We analyze dynamics of the FRW models with global rotation in terms of dynamical system methods. We reduce dynamics of these models to the FRW models with some fictitious fluid which scales like radiation matter. This fluid mimics dynamically effects of global rotation. The significance of the global rotation of the Universe for the resolution of the acceleration and horizon problems in cosmology is investigated. It is found that dynamics of the Universe can be reduced to the two-dimensional Hamiltonian dynamical system. Then the construction of the Hamiltonian allows for full classification of evolution paths. On the phase portraits we find the domains of cosmic acceleration for the globally rotating universe as well as the trajectories for which the horizon problem is solved. We show that the FRW models with global rotation are structurally stable. This proves that the universe acceleration is due to the global rotation. It is also shown how global rotation gives a natural explanation of the empirical relation between angular momentum for clusters and superclusters of galaxies. The relation $J \sim M^2$ is obtained as a consequence of self similarity invariance of the dynamics of the FRW model with global rotation. In derivation of this relation we use the Lie group of symmetry analysis of differential equation.

[Chris Peterson]

How could any BIG BANG Universe be rotating...conservation of angular momentum being what it is?

Well, if it's rotating (and note that these papers are careful to define "rotate", and it doesn't mean quite the same thing as its usual usage), it is rotating in a higher dimension, in a "volume" outside our universe, and at a "rate" that may be disconnected from our time. It would be doing so in a hyperuniverse that may operate according to entirely different rules (e.g. conservation of angular momentum may not apply; there's no way of knowing).

The authors of such papers are operating in the realm of purely theoretical physics, which isn't normally observation based. Usually, one makes an observation, figures out the general rule, and tests that rule. These extreme theoreticians say "what if the Universe was constructed in such-and-such a way", play with the math to come up with a theory that could describe this, and then (usually, but not always) predict observations that would support it.

Occasionally the latter approach leads to scientific truths, or at least insights, but generally it has proven disappointing. Science that starts with observation is much more efficient.

[neufer]

How could any BIG BANG Universe be rotating...conservation of angular momentum being what it is?

Well, if it's rotating (and note that these papers are careful to define "rotate", and it doesn't mean quite the same thing as its usual usage), it is rotating in a higher dimension, in a "volume" outside our universe, and at a "rate" that may be disconnected from our time. It would be doing so in a hyperuniverse that may operate according to entirely different rules (e.g. conservation of angular momentum may not apply; there's no way of knowing).

Thanks for answering my question, Chris.

[apodman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_f ... _reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 1217a.html

[Chris Peterson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_f ... _reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

The problem with all these things comes when you try to apply them to a rotating 4D universe. You have to make untested (and possibly untestable) assumptions about how such rotation affects the 3D space that we can readily observe.

A good starting point for thinking about this is to return to the 3D spherical universe analogy. Clearly, in three dimensions, we can set a sphere rotating. So the question becomes, how does a 2D inhabitant of the surface of that sphere figure out this rotation is present? Well, there are will be a Coriolis effect, depending on where you are in this universe. And if you have little 2D galaxies floating on the surface of the universe, perhaps their distribution will be affected. So that seems like something potentially testable in our own universe- and indeed, there are very slight anisotropies that have been observed on a large scale. Even weirder, you have a centrifugal force outwards, in what would probably be considered the direction of increasing time. It also would vary with location in the Universe. How would that manifest in our own 4D universe?

[neufer]

<<As far as we know, the Universe is not rotating. The presence of rotation would induce a type of change in the Cosmic Microwave Background temperature which has not been observed. In addition, the presence of rotation would imply that locations along the axis of the rotation were somehow "special", which violates our understanding of relativity that the Universe appears the same regardless of the location of the observer.>>

---------------------------------------------------------

<<Einstein found an effect which he interpreted as being evidence of Mach's principle. We assume a fixed background for conceptual simplicity, construct a large spherical shell of mass, and set it spinning in that background. The reference frame in the interior of this shell will precess with respect to the fixed background. This effect is known as the Lense-Thirring effect. Einstein was so satisfied with this manifestation of Mach's principle that he wrote a letter to Mach expressing this:

• "it... turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment... If one rotates [a heavy shell of matter] relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell; that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around (with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity)."

The Lense-Thirring effect certainly satisfies the very basic and broad notion that "matter there influences inertia here." The plane of the pendulum would not be dragged around if the shell of matter were not present, or if it were not spinning. As for the statement that "inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies", this too could be interpreted as true in the context of the effect.>>
------------------------------------------------------------

• Detection of Lense-Thirring Effect Due to Earth's Spin
  Authors: I. Ciufolini, D. Lucchesi, F. Vespe, F. Chieppa
  (Submitted on 23 Apr 1997)
  
  Abstract: Rotation of a body, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, generates a "force" on other matter; in Newton's gravitational theory only the mass of a body produces a force. This phenomenon, due to currents of mass, is known as gravitomagnetism owing to its formal analogies with magnetism due to currents of electric charge. Therefore, according to general relativity, Earth's rotation should influence the motion of its orbiting satellites. Indeed, we analysed the laser ranging observations of the orbits of the satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II, using a program developed at NASA/GSFC, and obtained the first direct measurement of the gravitomagnetic orbital perturbation due to the Earth's rotation, known as the Lense-Thirring effect. The accuracy of our measurement is about 25%.

---------------------------------------------------------

Einstein's warp effect measured
Quasar, Nasa/CXC/A.Siemiginowska et al
Frame-dragging was first predicted in 1918
Thursday, 21 October, 2004, 12:58 GMT 13:58 UK

<<"Frame-dragging" is the effect wherein a massive body like Earth drags space-time around with it as it spins. Ignazio Ciufolini and Erricos Pavlis measured frame-dragging by studying the movements of two satellites in Earth orbit over a period of 11 years. The results are published in the latest edition of the academic journal Nature.

In 1959, Leonard Schiff of Stanford University used Einstein's theory of general relativity to calculate that a gyroscope in polar orbit around Earth at 400 miles (643km) should go out of alignment by an angle of 42 milli-arcseconds per year.

In April, Nasa launched Gravity Probe B, which carries precision gyroscopes to measure the effect on its one-year mission.

Ciufolini, from the University of Lecce, Italy, and Erricos Pavlis from the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology in Baltimore, US, analysed millions of laser range-finding signals that are reflected by the satellites Lageos and Lageos 2. These reflected signals are normally used to map variations in the Earth's gravitational field. But the researchers analysed them for evidence that the satellites' orbits were altered by frame-dragging, also known as the Lense-Thirring effect after the Austrian physicists who predicted it in 1918.

Ciufolini and Pavlis say their result is 99% of the value predicted by Einstein's theory, plus or minus 5%. This result has an uncertainty of about 10% say the scientists. Commenting on the research, Neil Ashby of the University of Colorado, US, said the result was "the first reasonably accurate measurement of frame dragging." He added: "Further analysis is anticipated as additional geodesy missions are undertaken to improve our knowledge of Earth's gravity field." The same researchers reported preliminary findings in 1998, which were roundly criticised. But reaction to the latest measurements has been broadly positive. The new work is based on a new gravity map released last year.>>

---------------------------------------------------------

<<Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a satellite-based mission which launched on April 20th, 2004. Its aim is to measure spacetime curvature near Earth, and thereby the stress-energy tensor (the distribution, and especially the motion, of matter) in and near Earth, and thus to test related models in application of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Initial results confirmed the expected geodetic effect to an accuracy of about 1%. The expected frame-dragging effect was similar in magnitude to the current noise level (the noise being dominated by initially unmodeled effects). By August 2008 the uncertainty in the frame-dragging signal had been reduced to 15%, and the December 2008 NASA report indicated that the geodetic effect was confirmed to less than 0.5%

The Gravity Probe B experiment comprises four gyroscopes and a reference telescope sighted on HR8703 (also known as IM Pegasi[9]), a binary star in the constellation Pegasus. In polar orbit, with the gyro spin directions also pointing toward HR8703, the frame-dragging and geodetic effects came out at right angles, each gyroscope measuring both.

The gyroscopes are housed in a dewar of superfluid helium, maintaining a temperature of under 2 kelvins (−271 degrees Celsius, −456 degrees Fahrenheit). Near-absolute zero temperatures are required in order to minimize molecular interference, and enable the lead and niobium components of the gyroscope mechanisms to become superconductive.

At the time, the gyroscopes were the most nearly spherical objects ever made. Approximately the size of ping pong balls, they are perfectly round to within forty atoms (less than 10 nanometers). If scaled to the size of the earth, the tallest mountains would be 2.4 meters (eight feet) high.[10] They are composed of fused quartz and coated with an extremely thin layer of niobium. A primary concern is minimizing any influence on their spin, so the gyroscopes must never touch their containing compartment. They are held suspended with electric fields, spun up using a flow of helium gas, and their spin axes are sensed by monitoring the magnetic field of the superconductive niobium layer with SQUIDs. (A spinning superconductor generates a magnetic field precisely aligned with the rotation axis.)

IM Pegasi was chosen as the guide star for multiple reasons. First, it needed to be bright enough to be usable for sightings. Then it was close to the ideal positions at the equator of the sky coordinates. Also important was its well understood motion in the sky, which was helped by the fact that this star emits relatively strong radio signals. As a preparation for the setup of this mission, astronomers analyzed the radio-based position measurements with respect to far distant quasars taken over the last few years to understand its motion as precisely as needed.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------

<<IM Pegasi is a variable binary star system approximately 329 light-years away in the constellation of Pegasus. With an apparent magnitude of 5.65, it is visible to the naked eye. It was chosen for the Gravity Probe B general relativity experiment because its microwave radio emissions are observable with a large radio telescope network on the ground in such a manner that its precise position can be related by interferometry to distant quasars.

The two components of the binary system includes a K-type giant star and a G-type main sequence star. The primary star is estimated to be 1.8 times as massive and 13 times the diameter of the Sun. The secondary star is estimated to be similar to the Sun in in size and mass. They orbit their common barycenter in a period precisely estimated to be 24.64877 days.>>

---------------------------------------------------------

[bystander]

Nah, that's just your head spinning. Don't close your eyes, that just makes it worse.

[neufer]

Nah, that's just your head spinning. Don't close your eyes, that just makes it worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQLtcEAG9v0
-------------------------------------------------------------------

<<2008 HJ is a small near Earth asteroid orbiting the Sun. It was discovered by astronomer Richard Miles using the Faulkes Telescope South at Siding Spring Observatory, Australia. It measures only 12m by 24m but is very dense, having a mass of about 5,000 tonnes. 2008 HJ has the fastest known rotation period in the solar system, completing one revolution every 42.7 seconds.>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------

<<PSR J1748-2446ad is the fastest-spinning pulsar known, at 716 Hz. (The previous record was held by PSR B1937+21, discovered in 1982, spinning at 642 Hz.) This pulsar was discovered by Jason W. T. Hessels of McGill University on November 10, 2004 and confirmed on January 8, 2005. Hessels speculates that gravitational radiation from the pulsar might be detectable by LIGO.

Scientists' calculation assume that the neutron star contains slightly less than two times the mass of the Sun, which is approximately the same for all neutron stars. Its radius is constrained to be less than 16 km. At its equator it is spinning at approximately 24% of the speed of light, or over 70,000 km per second.

The pulsar is located in a globular cluster of stars called Terzan 5, located approximately 18,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius. It is part of a binary system and undergoes regular eclipses with an eclipse fraction of about 40%. Its orbit is highly circular with a 26 hour period and a radius of 4–5 earth radii. The other object is about 0.14 solar masses, with a radius of 5–6 solar radii. Hessels states that the companion may be a "bloated main-sequence star, possibly still filling its Roche Lobe".>>

Art (a bloated Asterisk star, possibly still filling his Roche Lobe) Neuendorffer

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

This may get interesting.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407122
On the vorticity of the Universe

Authors: D. Palle (Rugjer Boskovic Institute, Zagreb, Croatia)
(Submitted on 7 Jul 2004 (v1), last revised 25 Mar 2005 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Recent analyses of the first-year WMAP data claim large-scale asymmetry and anisotropy of the CMBR fluctuations. We argue that the covariant and gauge invariant treatment of density fluctuations formulated by Ellis and Bruni can explain the asymmetric and anisotropic WMAP data by including the vorticity of the Universe. It appears that the spatial gradients of the density contrast are proportional to the vorticity of the Universe, thus allowing measurements and quantifications of the magnitude and axis of the possible cosmological rotation.

and


http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404371
In Quest of a True Model of the Universe

Authors: R. G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 20 Apr 2004 (v1), last revised 17 Jan 2005 (this version, v3))

Abstract: While many observations support the validity of Einstein's general relativity as the theory of gravity, there are yet many that suggest the presence of new physics. In order to explain the high-redshift supernovae Ia observations together with the recently made precise observations of the CMB anisotropy by WMAP, the standard cosmology has to invoke some hypothetical matter with unnatural properties which is very speculative. This casts doubts upon the foundations of the standard cosmology and suggests that some theoretical concept may still be missing from the theory.
Such a concept might be the rotation of the astronomical objects, which has not been properly taken care of when we claim that a perfect fluid is a good approximation to the real contents of the universe. A crude estimation of the angular kinetic energy of massive galaxies indicates to a possibility to have $\Omega_{\rm total}\approx 1$ without invoking the hypothetical dark matter or dark energy. This picture also appears consistent with the recent observations of a great abundance of old massive galaxies made by Gemini Deep Deep Survey. However, a proper relativistic theory of the rotating objects is still to be investigated. It is expected that the consequences of incorporating rotation in general relativity, and hence in special relativity, would be profound.

[jbailiff]

My question: what conditions permit galaxies to interact gravitationally or collide?...jb

[neufer]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404371
In Quest of a True Model of the Universe

Authors: R. G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 20 Apr 2004 (v1), last revised 17 Jan 2005 (this version, v3))

Abstract: While many observations support the validity of Einstein's general relativity as the theory of gravity, there are yet many that suggest the presence of new physics. In order to explain the high-redshift supernovae Ia observations together with the recently made precise observations of the CMB anisotropy by WMAP, the standard cosmology has to invoke some hypothetical matter with unnatural properties which is very speculative. This casts doubts upon the foundations of the standard cosmology and suggests that some theoretical concept may still be missing from the theory.
Such a concept might be the rotation of the astronomical objects, which has not been properly taken care of when we claim that a perfect fluid is a good approximation to the real contents of the universe. A crude estimation of the angular kinetic energy of massive galaxies indicates to a possibility to have $\Omega_{\rm total}\approx 1$ without invoking the hypothetical dark matter or dark energy. This picture also appears consistent with the recent observations of a great abundance of old massive galaxies made by Gemini Deep Deep Survey. However, a proper relativistic theory of the rotating objects is still to be investigated. It is expected that the consequences of incorporating rotation in general relativity, and hence in special relativity, would be profound.

I can buy into rotation about a 4th spatial dimension causing an outward centrifugal force in all known 3 dimensions but I would hate to abandon the concept of constant angular momentum. Hence, rotation may be partially responsible for the initial inflation stage of the Big Bang but it couldn't IMO have had much of an effect after this early (low moment of inertia) stage.

[harry]

G'day neufer

You are talking as though the BBT is correct.

This link is interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2965
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.
The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.

[aristarchusinexile]

Sit on this and rotate, Universe.

[aristarchusinexile]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I survived the wave, but got caught in a ripp that pulled me out.

Life savers were loking for me, but I was lucky the current dropped me onshore away from the location.

You got to be lucky sometimes.

Washed up like Jonah, eh Harry?

[Chris Peterson]

I can buy into rotation about a 4th spatial dimension causing an outward centrifugal force in all known 3 dimensions but I would hate to abandon the concept of constant angular momentum. Hence, rotation may be partially responsible for the initial inflation stage of the Big Bang but it couldn't IMO have had much of an effect after this early (low moment of inertia) stage.

In the case of the Universe rotating about a 4D point, there wouldn't be any centrifugal forces observed on the three spatial dimensions, but you might have Coriolis forces.

Centrifugal forces would be along the time axis, so it is interesting to speculate if that might be a mechanism for the inflationary period (which as you observe, was at what would correspond to a regime of low moment of inertia).

I'm inclined to write off the Vishwakarma paper without further analysis because of the assertion in the abstract that some sort of matter has "unnatural properties". I would find it very difficult to reserve much academic respect for a scientist making such an absurd statement.

[Chris Peterson]

You are talking as though the BBT is correct.

Which is an entirely reasonable position.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz


Hello Chris
Smile, just knew that you were going to say that.


You have probably read this link before.

If so have you gone into the web pages of the people who are disputing the BBT.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Chris can you give me a list of cosmologists who support the BBT, not side walkers.

[harry]

G'day Aris

I did not see Jonah at the beach, is he a surfer?

Smile

[Chris Peterson]

If so have you gone into the web pages of the people who are disputing the BBT.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Many (most, I think) are cranks. The rest are clearly messed up in some way, as sites and letters like this serve no useful purpose. If they doubt the BB, all they need to do is provide original research arguing for something else. In fact, there are plenty of researchers doing just that.

Chris can you give me a list of cosmologists who support the BBT, not side walkers.

That would be most of them.

BTW, I'm not arguing strictly for or against the BB. I'm only making the observation that no other theory is as well supported by independent lines of evidence, no other theory is as widely supported by the people whose business it is to study cosmology, and as such, it is entirely reasonable in a forum like this to treat it as a given for most areas of discussion.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Chris you mean to tell me you cannot give me any cosmologists who will support the BBT with evidence.

Just a few will do. Thats not a big call.

Just calling people crak pots according to your opinion is a bit out off line being a side walker.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris you mean to tell me you cannot give me any cosmologists who will support the BBT with evidence.
Just a few will do. Thats not a big call.

Alan Guth
Stephen Hawking
Brian Greene
Martin Rees
James Peebles
Kip Thorne
Roger Penrose
Edward Kolb
Michael Turner
Paul Davies

And about 95% of the rest of cosmologists.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Ok, lets pick on Alan Guth

Post me a link that he gives evidence to support the BBT.