A team of scientists has proposed a revolutionary idea to explain one of the greatest contradictions in our understanding of the universe: the discrepancy in measuring its rate of expansion, known as the Hubble Tension. According to a study published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro
If that is true maybe that means that it actually is finite and has a center. And the rotation and light speed put an upper bound on its size.
Then again the expansion of space doesn’t care about such mundane things as a cosmic speed limit so the universe rotation probably won’t either. Or the extents just slow down.
Actually no, that would only be true if the universe was two-dimensional. The universe essentially curves back on itself. Kurzgesagt explained the two options of finite and infinity universes and this timestamp explaines the curving back: https://youtu.be/isdLel273rQ?t=120
Kurzgesagt really like to present scientific speculations as fact.
We simply do not know whether the universe is finite or infinite. And so far no curvature has been observed. As far as we are aware it is flat.
I think that if space itself is what is rotating, then speed of light limit does not apply. But if it’s everything in the universe orbiting, as it were, a central point, then it would.
But if it is space itself rotating, then that would suggest some objective frame of reference outside the universe. Wouldn’t it?
Not necessarily. Just like space is growing without the need for an objective outside frame of reference, it could be rotating - the rotation is just relative to itself.
I don’t think something can rotate relevant to itself. If all of reality was the earth, and nothing else, how can you tell if it’s spinning or not?
Please use small words if you try to answer this. I know a decent bit of applied physics, but once it turns to pure math, my head starts to swim.
Stuff could move around differently. Rotations have many effects, e.g. rotation curves (the closer you are to the center of the rotation, the faster you go). We could still figure out that the earth is rotating by measuring the effects a rotation has.
You might be onto something.
“It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving!”
And if everything is rotating, and most is rotating in the same direction, it means we’re probably in a black hole.
Science is going to be interesting during the next twenty years.
Why would it mean that? And how can we be inside a black hole when we are not spaghettified?
Black hole cosmology makes the most sense to me. But what do I know, I’m just a burnt out stoner.
If we’re a “white hole” I guess it must’ve been one insanely gigantic object that collapsed with no other matter around it rendering it dormant.
Unless somebody knows why we wouldn’t see new violently hot matter the higher universe black hole is consuming spewing out into our universe if it were still active.
Where would it spew? There’s no center as I understand? Psyduck holding head
It may have started consuming more matter billions of years later and the light hasn’t reached us yet/will never reach us
Why would it mean that?
I’m honestly curious.
I’m completely a layman, so don’t take my word as fact. But currently there’s a trend in thinking that because more than half of the galaxies they’ve been measured all rotate the same direction (as opposed to all random directions that a uniform static bang should result in) then the universe started out spinning in that direction.
What starts from a very small condensed state, and expands rapidly while spinning in one direction? Black holes.
Black holes also go through a life cycle that’s pretty close to what we expect or universe to go through.
It’s a new thought, I’m not even sure how much evidence there is past the galaxyspinning evidence. But it’s interesting and has scientists thinking.
It also takes care of any “multiverse” questions, since black holes are already in a universe. Some of the holes could be pocket universes, and we could be in one, with black hole pocket universes of our own.
The observable universe is also way denser than a black hole of equivelent radius (black holes get lower in density the bigger they get) so one way or another we are in a black hole in the sense that somewhere out there is an event horizon through which you can never leave, just not in the traditional understanding which only really applies to ‘small’ (every single other) black holes.
It’s just pocket universes all the way down.
And up maybe too.
There was another article posted recently I can’t find now, that talked about the discrepancy between the age of the universe based on the Hubble constant, and what’s observed of the CMB, or something like that. Apparently that discrepancy can be resolved if the universe itself is rotating.
Really hoping someone can track it down and post up a link, I’m probably making hash of the actual article…
I remember that too now. Pretty neat stuff.
I’m a layman, too, so take everything with a grain of salt.
As for evidence, if I both understood and remember correctly, the maximum distance we can actually see something (Hubble radius) just happens to align quite nicely with the Schwarzschild radius, a parameter based on the mass of a black hole, which correlates to its radius. They have to be identical for this theory to be true. Them almost being so could be a coincidence, though.
In addition, from our perspective, there’s no real difference between an expanding universe and one with shrinking particles. If the planck length actually shrinks, to us, it will seem like everything else will move away. Within the last 100 years, multiple people created some models for that, proving how it could work while leaving physics as we observe them intact.
A proof could be found by observing a white hole, the opposite of a black hole. A space you cannot possibly enter, ejecting energy. Think of it as the stuff entering the black hole from the outside, as oberserved from the inside. They are just a theory for now.
Once again, I’ve got not actual clue and you might want to dive into that rabbit hole yourself. It’s fun in here.
Now that you mention it, i forgot about the radius possibility. Thanks for the follow-up!
Ive never heard of black holes suddenly expanding. Everything ive read js that they just very, very, very slowly dissipate through Schwartzchild radiation.
They expand if they have matter falling into them.
What’s the “they” that you mean? The event horizon, the transition point where light can’t escape?
That doesn’t sound like what they were saying. The actual “hole” supposedly remains infinitely small. And the event horizon radius would expand at a pretty slow rate as matter fell into the black hole. Exponentially smaller as it gains mass.
So I’m still trying to understand in what case a black hole ever “expands rapidly”.
Would our universe need to behave like anything inside our universe though? It could be a rotating expanding universe without being a black hole
The goal here is to make probable inferences, not to avoid being wrong at any cost. There’s always more possibilities, but we should try to eliminate the likely-seeming ones before chasing down less-likely ones. Know what I mean?
The possibilities are as vast as our ignorance: greater than we have the means to measure by some indescribably large margin.
Well said
Thanks.
Science means a lot to me
Smarty pants. I don’t find any issues with your thought
prices, process but I’m a layperson.My thoughts are only worth a penny. Or so I’ve been told.
Rofl. Corrected autocorrect.
I believe just the observable part is. Could be more.
Wow, so maybe the universe really is centered around me after all. Take that, 1st grade teacher! j/k.
I thought the general consensus was that it IS finite and has a relative center point?
No, the general consensus is that it seems to be infinite and has no relative center point.
Nah in the past it looked like a pretty homogeneous mass when zoomed out enough. I assume this center of rotation is no more of a “pure center of the universe” than our sun is.
I’d imagine its just a local maximum for gravity.