: Can anyone answer me to a question? Why the galaxies are arranged flat like frisbee and and not in spherical shape like a ball?
M: Just think of a ball of dough, start spinning it and tossing it up and down. Next thing you know you’ve got a flat round dough for pizza.
E: Is the accretion disk a sinusoidal wave that shakes the ball vertically and changes the balls shape to be flat or is it the speed of the rotation exceeding the bonding force of the gravitation? Or maybe both? Why should be only one axis to any spin? The earth axis spins in such waves, does the sun and its planets axis do the same? Like this ~~?
A sinusoidal wave (3 cycles). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
E: thanks. I will have to make a research to understand your answer. But i have another question or rather a hypotheses. Is it possible that the Universe itself is spinning and creating an immense eccentric force that causes acceleration of the Universe’s expansion? Is it possible that the dark energy is nothing else but this centrifugal force? Maybe also the big bang was not so much a bang as a enormous spin? If everything else is spinning why “ausgerechnet”, the Universe is not?
J: That is very interesting. It certainly wouldn’t be stranger than current theory’s. Perhaps you would be interest in some of Walter Russell’s science look him up.
E: If you are mathematician or physicist, which i am not, so lets try to figure out together what this idea means. I am ready to go into it with some additional ideas. There is no big chance, anybody can verify or disprove this theory but it can gain lots of grands, just like the string theory.
J:But the universe is expanding in all directions evenly. A spinning object would only account for the expansion of one particular axis. Therefore I’m not sure of this theory
E: What about an ALL AXIS spin? We can’t imagine it but it still my exist as may exists an 11 dimensional universe which is also beyond our perception. Maybe it can be imagined as a rotation around a continuously changing axis where time differences of change of the axis are zero, all in speed of light. I wonder if we could calculate that the universe spins in all direction at speed of light at the same moment, and check if this angular momentum would be enough to support its expansion rate and its acceleration rate. If mathematically it fits it would give some indirect evidence to the theory. Also the limit of speed of light and so the phenomenon of time as changing variable would be explained in this way??? By the way, can anybody calculate what would be the speed of spin of the Universe in this case? Let me guess, more than the speed of light. Obviously with the expansion of Universe this speed would increase and accelerate too.
E; Dear Patrice, You just exposed yourself as a mathematician and i would like to expose to you a naive idea (maybe very childish, since it is not my field of expertise), but i will allow myself to play a child with an idea of alternative theory of creation to big bang. I don’t have the mathematical tools to check what it actually means, and maybe you can easily turn the idea into rubbish.
So here is my hypotheses. Is it possible that the Universe itself is spinning and creating an immense eccentric force that causes acceleration of the Universe’s expansion? Is it possible that the dark energy is nothing else but this centrifugal force? Maybe also the big bang was not so much a big bang but an enormous spin? If everything else is spinning why “ausgerechnet”, the Universe is not?
Since the universe is expanding in all directions evenly, to prevent its expansion in one particular axis, it should be an big number of AXIS spin? It is hard to imagine but mathematically it could work. Of course the spin at the beginning has to be of something bigger than zero, and the number of spin axes has to be smaller than infinitive number. Otherwise, as i can understand couldn’t be the asymmetry between the matter and antimatter, that is essential to the creation. By the way, this could probably explain this asymmetry.
I wonder if the universe spins in velocity of speed of light, what size the first dot of creation should be before it starts to spin and how many axes of spin we need to create enough angular momentum to support the existing expansion rate of the universe at speed of light. Maybe it would even explain the phenomena of increasing acceleration rate of Universe expansion by increased speed of spin.
The limit of speed of light, would be probably caused by the speed of spin. Is it possible that if the spin velocity increases the speed of light increases too or the time shortens?
As to my idea, this spin energy is the energy of creation, translated to energy (spin or spring vibration or any other movement) we can observe in the Universe.
Patrice Ayme Says:August 11, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
Dear Eugen: Most pure research mathematicians know no physics (that’s often how they define purity…). However, I am a mathematical physicist, so I am in my element.
The Big Bang always depended upon enormous accelerating expansion (“cosmological INFLATION”). Now it has gotten worse, because it looks as if the expansion were accelerating. Inflation precludes expansion from angular momentum, as you suggest (although you get a prize for innovation: I have heard a lot, but never that particular one!).
Rotating Black Holes do behave differently from static ones, so your idea is not crazy.
The BB is a theory of expanding SPACEtime. Not just a theory of flung out matter, expanding. Although matter within space cannot go at more than c within a delimited neighborhood inside a local reference frame, SPACEtime is not so limited.
The weakness of the BB is that, although a plausible theory, it supposes lots of things on the way, and one gets very different theories by supposing less outrageous hypotheses…
PA
EugenR Says:
August 11, 2013 at 10:04 pm | Your answer is very encouraging. So let me develop a bit the idea of the Big Spin.
I see in the model several variables that can be played with;1. The speed of spin, which can be at speed of light, below, but maybe even above, since it is beyond the observed universe. Eventually speed of spin can even accelerate, and this would explain the speeding up of the rate of the universe expansion.
2. The size of the dot that had to spin before it inflated. Intuitively seems to me it has to be bigger then 0, otherwise what would spin? What about one Planck’s constant size? would it be sufficient? If yes, maybe this could somehow connect the Big Spin to the quantum theory, i am not sure i can figure out how. But this is just an idea.
3. The number of axises the dot spins. It cant be infinitive, because it would need infinitive energy, and the Universe energy seems to be finite.
4. And then you have the time and speed of light that is the other side of the same coin. Was the time same at the beginning of time as now, and with it the speed of light?If you start with constant spin speed at existing speed of light, and constant dot size to spin of Planck constant, it shouldn’t be hard to calculate the number of axises you need to create all the energy you have in the observed universe. Would its angular momentum be enough to create an all direction expanding universe? If yes, wouldn’t it be a finding with certain value?
The metric expansion of space. The inflationary epoch is the expansion of the metric tensor at left. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
WMAP image of the (extremely tiny) anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Dear Patrice, If
may i to make a summary of your theory just to figure out if i understood you
correctly, You claim, since the observations show us that the Universe
expansion is accelerating, logically should be expected that this acceleration
existed from the beginning of the time, (when the so called Big Bang occurred).
This theory solves the problem of need for inflation, which is not coherent
with the existing paradigms of the science, like speed of light etc. Yet your
theory raises new problems, like how to explain the flatness, homogeneity, and
isotropy of the Universe as that droberts mentioned above.
I want to remain
to you our previous correspondence in the subject where i propose an
alternative theory called the big spin viz;
I am fully aware
of me being very far from understanding the field and the Mathematics of it,
and don’t want to be pretentious to understand to much about the subject. Yet i
take the courage to suggest out of my ignorance an extra universe explanation
to the very existence of all.
My theory says,
“Since everything in the Universe is in movement, and the movement is the basic
bloc to the very existence, why the universe itself shouldn’t be in movement?”.
In the link above i still suggested that the Big Bang should be called a Big Spin, while suggested all started with a Big Multi-axis spin of the universe.
In the link above i still suggested that the Big Bang should be called a Big Spin, while suggested all started with a Big Multi-axis spin of the universe.
You answer to my
ideas was as follows;
Your model would
fit a linear “Hubble” expansion law. Unfortunately, as I said, the usual BB
model has an enormous inflation, to start with, and now apparently we observe
an accelerating inflation.
Another problem is that in a rotation appears a so called “Coriolis force”. On Earth, it causes “Trade Winds”. In space, it would cause something similar, on a larger scale, a systematic Coriolis deviation. an anisotropy of the universe. To my knowledge that has not been observed (although some other features seem present, of unknown origin). it would in particular affect cosmological photons (redder in one direction than in another).
Another problem is that in a rotation appears a so called “Coriolis force”. On Earth, it causes “Trade Winds”. In space, it would cause something similar, on a larger scale, a systematic Coriolis deviation. an anisotropy of the universe. To my knowledge that has not been observed (although some other features seem present, of unknown origin). it would in particular affect cosmological photons (redder in one direction than in another).
Still another
problem would be that the tremendous acceleration necessary initially would
prevent the gathering of matter long present, and observed, as gravity would be
nothing relative to that acceleration.The usual Big Bang is in part here to
convince the public that the “Standard Model” is of some use (that’s my cynical
view of it). Although, personally, I think it’s interesting by itself. It’s
true it provides a neat explanation of the 3K cosmological background
radiation…
——————————————————–
After thinking again as an amateur, i thought, why to stick only to circular movement, there are after all many other forms of movement we know, just to mention some, expansion and contraction, vibration,linear straight movement, etc. All of them could be created/happened at the moment of the very beginning. And if to relate the theory to your model of “100 Billion Year Universe”, if the Universe started its expansion gradually, why couldn’t be that the movement like spin, vibration, etc. started gradually too, and its acceleration continuous to this days?
——————————————————–
After thinking again as an amateur, i thought, why to stick only to circular movement, there are after all many other forms of movement we know, just to mention some, expansion and contraction, vibration,linear straight movement, etc. All of them could be created/happened at the moment of the very beginning. And if to relate the theory to your model of “100 Billion Year Universe”, if the Universe started its expansion gradually, why couldn’t be that the movement like spin, vibration, etc. started gradually too, and its acceleration continuous to this days?
Yet i understand
every mathematical model has to have some anchor presupposition. I would start
with the speed of light, unless even in this phenomena were found some
irregularities, which i don’t know about.
If to continue
with the idea, Mathematically i would try to see what kind of movements of a
Planck scale dot are necessary to explain the expansion of the universe from
one point to the today vastness, and explain all the unexplained phenomenons that
oppose the existing paradigms of the science.
As a supplementary
of my naive theory of everything i would assume that the very creation
happened, when certain type of movement (spin, vibration, etc.) caused the
split of the nothingness at Planck scale to matter and antimatter, while
certain kind of asymmetric movement made the matter more abundant then the
antimatter.
No comments:
Post a Comment