345
Scientists Propose We Live in a Slowly Rotating Universe That Completes One Rotation Every 500 Billion Years
(www.labrujulaverde.com)
Weeeee!
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
345 points (99.4% liked)
science
18326 readers
279 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't like your username, but I like your message.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
It's just pocket universes all the way down.
And up maybe too.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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...
I remember that too now. Pretty neat stuff.
load more comments
(16 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
You might be onto something.
"It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving!"
load more comments
(3 replies)
Wow, so maybe the universe really is centered around me after all. Take that, 1st grade teacher! j/k.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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?
spiral ever increasing outward, wouldnt the center represent the big bang
Because time isn't linear or whatever and its still expanding (I have no idea what im talking about)
If it's flat, and not curved, I think the center would be everywhere?
I can't find any flaw in this. I was trying to think of it in any way other than having an actual center somewhere. This can be my model till I understand it better.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Scientists propose a lot of stuff. A lot of these proposals are contradictory to each other.
Still cool.
So it's about 3 universe months old? Pfffft, baby.
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?
We're just circling a big drain
load more comments
(4 replies)
How does this manage to bypass the need for a center to the Universe?
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.
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.
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)
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 🤔)
A center in two dimensions, in three dimensions an axis, in more dimensions...
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
Actually it's just toilet water. Slow motion flushing.
It's toilets all the way down!
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
I like the one where we live inside of a black hole, and a black hole is a gateway to another universe
Not the most useful of gateways though if you have to be smushed to go through it.
I believe the correct term is "spaghettification" and it's not your ordinary everyday spaghettification, but one that happens at an atomic level.
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)
Think of the weight loss bro better than any diet
load more comments
(6 replies)
Science is cool.
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›