this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
324 points (99.4% liked)

science

18200 readers
225 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 11 points 12 hours ago

considers things moving at very close to the speed of light uses Newtonian mechanics

It’s an interesting idea but this is a pretty massive oversight.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

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?

[–] 3dmvr@lemm.ee 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

spiral ever increasing outward, wouldnt the center represent the big bang

[–] 3dmvr@lemm.ee 2 points 9 hours ago

Because time isn't linear or whatever and its still expanding (I have no idea what im talking about)

[–] zenforyen@feddit.org 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Is this maybe related to spin of particles that was considered to be "a kind of rotation momentum how it behaves mathematically but for all we know it does not literally represent any kind of rotation"...and it turns out it does in fact represent the fundamental rotation of the universe ?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

If it's flat, and not curved, I think the center would be everywhere?

[–] Headofthebored@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours 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 12 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

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

Still cool.

[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I don't like your username, but I like your message.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How does this manage to bypass the need for a center to the Universe?

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 16 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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)

[–] voodooattack@lemmy.world 1 points 4 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.

I think Hubble tension could fit into this if the sphere/balloon is also expanding/growing/stretching away from the centre. In this case it would be the fabric of space being stretched though. So not sure how that’d fit into this model exactly.

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.

Yeah. I think so too.

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)

Dunno tbh. Maybe it’s double-sided and it’s on the other side of the balloon/membrane?

(And for some reason my brain associates this spinning sphere analogy with gravastars 🤔)

[–] corvus@lemmy.ml 5 points 21 hours ago

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

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day 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

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

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.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago (25 children)

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.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Why would it mean that? And how can we be inside a black hole when we are not spaghettified?

[–] sittinonatoilet@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Black hole cosmology makes the most sense to me. But what do I know, I’m just a burnt out stoner.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] simsalabim@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 4 points 13 hours 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

So it's about 3 universe months old? Pfffft, baby.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 17 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] peteyestee@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Actually it's just toilet water. Slow motion flushing.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (7 children)

I like the one where we live inside of a black hole, and a black hole is a gateway to another universe

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Think of the weight loss bro better than any diet

[–] SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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

[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

As I understand it, spaghettification only happens falling into a "small" black hole, the difference in gravity is huge over a small enough distance to stretch you into meat goop as your corpse fall towards the singularity.

A supermassive black hole like in our and most galaxy centers, you'd cross the event horizon without noticing anything different besides tunnel vision. But yeah. It'll end with total obliteration.

Makes sense tho, there's not much complexity to the material expanding from the big bang initially. Squished into almost nothing and squirted out the other end completely unmade is not great sci-fi :(

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›