Expert: James Gort - 4/29/2010

Question
Dear Sir, i thought you answered my last question informatively without being belittling so i wondered if you could give me your thoughts on the following somewhat speculative ideas. I have a big interest in cosmology and understand the concepts/theories fairly well but alas not the maths that lead to these concepts. My pet theory,and im sure youve heard a few, is that the big bang was not an explosive force but a rotational force. I am aware of the CMBR-does this really need an 'explosive' phenomenon? Everything in the universe rotates about its axis or/and about other bodies. I have not seen any literature that proposes the universe itself rotating, which surprises me. We,of course, would not notice this. My thoughts are that the universe is rotating..and about all its axes!,these being an infinite amount of axes. The expansion of the universe could be due to an outward force as a result of the universe itself spinning-could this idea still fit in with what we know about the CMBR? This would give us our cosmological constant and could explain some of what we see and dont understand.
Dark Energy-the universe expansion is accelerating. I use analogies' for my benefit not yours! People at the edge of a carousel will feel an outward force greater than those in the centre. So,caused by the universe rotating, the 'edge' of the universe feels a greater outward force it 'pushing' the expansion. The universe is then larger and so the 'edge' then feels a greater outward force and so on. To my mind,this could be a cause of expansion accelerating.
Dark Matter-rotation curves of galaxies is not a curve at all. The outermost stars travel as quick as the innermost.  If we imagine water in a container being rotated it would create whirlpool-type structures or eddies. Could this not explain galactic structure-a galaxy, or group of galaxies, are in some sort of local 'eddy'. Gravity is negligible over short distances,overwhelmed by the other 3 forces. I tend to think gravity may be negligible over large scale distances too,overwhelmed by a universal (rotational) force and local 'eddy'-type forces. It may be that gravity is only a big factor in mid scales-planetary or solar system distances. Whatever,i cant help but think the attempts to measure universe mass against expansion to see the future of the universe is wrong. I think if the universe was stuffed with matter the universe would still not contract! Gravity could be a negligble force at both extreme distance scales (very small and very large).
A newly proposed dark flow- a newly observed phenomenom concerning unexplainable galactic cluster movements. I believe the above would explain this too-im guessing this would be expected even. The water analogy ive used above would also show ares of flow within the overall 'picture'. It might even help explain what we observe on the very large scale
Something i have not understood too well is the unevenness in the CMBR. It seems to me that 'we' have found the unevenness by looking for it with great 'magnification'. If we were to make the most even of surfaces and then magnify with optical instruments,at some point it would appear uneven,no matter how smooth we made it. Is this not what 'we' have done-magnify and then say aha we've found it! Or is there something special about the point of magnification where we have found it?
This brings me to my last point. I am in no way qualified to question inflation,however i will!! If im correct, inflation was a way of explaining the uniformity of the universe. This rotational-supplied outward force about all axes of the universe would lead to a a very uniform universe. If, in the water analogy ive used, we placed coloured grains and spun it in certain ways, we could get the grains, and overall look of the water-body, to look uniform. We could possibly find areas where the grains form similar structures to what we see in the universe, where the grains are reacting to the spin of the whole body of water and local eddy type areas in that water-a mini universe in a bucket!!!
As you may have noticed, this 'theory' of mine will be very hard to let go of! Everything is rotating!! The universe MUST be too!!!! If it just doesnt stand up to what 'we' know could you please tell me (perhaps without too much maths!). Im just a decorator with an interest in the subject so please forgive me if this is just all too much speculation for you-i woud still appreciate your thoughts. Thankyou very very much for your time, and your previous answers. Kind Regards Richard.

Answer
Hi Richard,

That's actually an interesting idea, but maybe I can suggest a few things to help it along.

First, the concept of a rotating universe is interesting, but I would have to ask "rotating in reference to what"?  Rotation always refers to a "rotating frame of reference" and a "fixed frame of reference".  For instance, a carousel rotates in reference to the earth (which we take as "fixed" for simplicity).  The earth rotates in reference to the distant stars (which we take as fixed for simplicity).  The Milky Way Galaxy rotates in reference to the universe of galaxies (which we take as fixed for simplicity).  Can the universe itself rotate?  Why not!  Interesting idea.  But that begs the question that we would have to define "something else" that it's rotating in reference to.  Of course, it doesn't have to be rotating in just three dimensions.  It could be rotating in 4 or more dimensions.  More difficult to imagine, but that could be the origin for the "apparent" expansion of the universe and even the gravitational force.

Now to the subject of forces.  As you probably know, a rotating object (like a carousel) produces a fictitious "centrifugal force".  It's not a "real" force, because no force exists in the fixed frame of reference (standing on the ground).  When you're on the carousel, a force is felt because the carousel is rotating (producing an outward acceleration, and Newton showed that accelerations cause force -> Force = mass * acceleration).  The force we feel on the carousel is because the base of the carousel is actually moving away from our feet!  It's not a real force, but it sure feels like one.

Could gravity be a similar fictional force?  It's "real" because we "feel" it, but if we were outside of our accelerating reference frame, it may not exist.  That, to me, is interesting.  The accelerating (or, as you say, rotating) universe may cause this force through its rotation (in perhaps multiple dimensions).

I'm not going to say that your idea is impossible.  In fact, it sounds more plausible to me than some cosmological theories which add "inflation" merely to have an "explanation" for observations.  I think it even should be the subject of some research into the observational consequences to lend credence to it (or even disprove it).   It certainly deserves further study.

I'm impressed by your thoughts about this subject.  And don't worry whether you have a mastery of mathematics or not.  The "basic idea" of a theory is the hardest part - and that usually doesn't require much math.  To really get the predictions of the theory is where mathematics comes in handy.  But others can do that!

Thanks for some great food for thought.  I'll really keep it in mind, and see whether there are some predictions that can be made from your theory.

Prof. James Gort