• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 minutes ago

    If it indeed rotates, this raises another question: What does it rotate around, i.e. where is the center of the universe? How does our position in the universe relate to this center, or which (known) structures have we observed there. Could it be the Great Attractor?

  • Headofthebored @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    If you drink enough it won’t take 500 billion years to rotate. In fact, you’ll have to hold onto the grass to keep from falling off the planet.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Scientists propose a lot of stuff. A lot of these proposals are contradictory to each other.

    Still cool.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Obviously it’s spinning in four dimension space. Like living on the 2D surface of an inflating balloon that is rotating, there is no “center” from the perspective of us lower dimensional scrubs.

      • voodooattack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Ok. So hear me out. What if said 2D universe is spread out on the inside of said balloon and the spinning is happening on two axis? Wouldn’t that make gravity the result of centrifugal force? And what if the balloon is actually flexible, so that the heavier stuff stretches its surface outwards (thus warping time and space around it)?

        I’m no scientist but that’s how I’ve often imagined it. Although it’d have to be in an even higher dimension for more degrees of freedom on rotation? No clue there.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          No clue haha but that is a neat idea. Also my explanation probably wouldn’t really explain centrifugal force to offset the hubble tension.

          There was also a scishow or spacetime video about how gravity can be seen as an emergent property of “time / causality is slower the nearer the gravity well”, and that is how gravity works. To truly understand it you have to understand the math and how to solve it, afaik our explanations are all rather imaginary. So you could probably interpret the math to mean that this “spacetime bulging” is the result of a spinning universe.

          The bigger question is: Where is the rest of the matter that spins in the other direction? It should have perfectly canceld each other out! (like matter and antimatter also didn’t)

    • corvus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      A center in two dimensions, in three dimensions an axis, in more dimensions…

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Forgive me for strawmanning but you know some idiot is going to say this contradicts “scientists’” claim that the universe is 13.8 billion years old

  • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    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.

    • simsalabim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      35 minutes ago

      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.

      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

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 minutes ago

        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.

    • SaltSong@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      17 hours ago

      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?

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      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.

        • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          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

          • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            13 hours ago

            It may have started consuming more matter billions of years later and the light hasn’t reached us yet/will never reach us

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          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.

          • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            43 minutes ago

            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.

          • 5too@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I’m not even sure how much evidence there is past the galaxyspinning evidence

            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…

          • De_Narm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            17 hours ago

            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.

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Now that you mention it, i forgot about the radius possibility. Thanks for the follow-up!

          • ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Ive never heard of black holes suddenly expanding. Everything ive read js that they just very, very, very slowly dissipate through Schwartzchild radiation.

              • ripcord@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 hours ago

                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”.

          • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Would our universe need to behave like anything inside our universe though? It could be a rotating expanding universe without being a black hole

            • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              17 hours ago

              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.

          • Maeve@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Smarty pants. I don’t find any issues with your thought prices, process but I’m a layperson.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Wow, so maybe the universe really is centered around me after all. Take that, 1st grade teacher! j/k.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I thought the general consensus was that it IS finite and has a relative center point?

      • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        14 hours ago

        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.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Not the most useful of gateways though if you have to be smushed to go through it.

      • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        I believe the correct term is “spaghettification” and it’s not your ordinary everyday spaghettification, but one that happens at an atomic level.

        • rothaine@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 hours ago

          As long as you find a black hole that leads to the spaghetti universe, it would be fine

      • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        It’s this theory here:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#Big_Bang/Supermassive_White_Hole

        edit: While I do like the idea I hadn’t begun to take it seriously until this news about our Universe possibly spinning. It’s one of the few properties of a black hole. The only other possibly persuasive bit of info I’ve personally heard about is that heat death seems awful similar to how black holes evaporate (Hawking Radiation) somehow apparently. I won’t pretend to understand that one. But! To my mind, that would mean this universe is a one and done deal. No infinite cycle.

          • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            If it ever turns out to be true (I’ll be long dead) that might start to answer my previous question here about what would happen if our black hole was actively or suddenly started consuming matter in the universe or whatever above ours. Still not comforting is the idea of our black hole merging with another.

            • But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              The mass has to go somewhere by logic but I don’t know enough about it, but it would make sense for all that mass to be taken elsewhere

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    The headline sounds like scientists are telling us to go live in a slow rotating universe. Jokes aside, what’s in the center? A super super massive blackhole?

    • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Another kinda wild theory that some scientists think may be valid is that we’re inside a gravistar. If so, maybe the gravistar is spinning, like many black holes do

    • Lag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      It could be like our galaxy for example where most of the mass is rotating around the center of gravity of the other mass, and not the black hole in the center which isn’t as massive in comparison.

  • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Cool theory. But should not work if the universe is much larger than what can be seen though? Unless it’s just our visible part of the universe is rotating in a mind boggling large structure? And why not? All matter clumps, and a huge universe should have countless structures that are the size of all we know

    • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I think as telescopes get better we just keep noticing bigger structures. Maybe this is just the biggest one we know right now.

      I feel like it’d take some amazing statistics and millions of years of data to detail out structures larger than our observable universe.