If the Universe Spun

If the Universe Spun

I have been reading Michio Kaku's new book, Parallel Worlds and he mentions something that I never came across before.

He points out that many things around us spin from tops, to hurricanes, planets, galaxies and quasars. but the universe itself does NOT spin.
"When we look at the galaxies in the heavens, their total spin cancels out to zero. (This is quite fortunate, because, as we see in chapter 5, if the universe did spin, then time travel would become commonplace and history would be impossible to write.)" P. 95.

Can't wait to get to chapter 5.

Re: If the Universe Spun

No kidding Denbo. Let us know if Chapter 5 has anything revolutionary.

Cary

Re: If the Universe Spun

Since the universe does not spin, the question is, if time travel CAN occur in a spinning universe, can it occur within smaller systems such as solar systems or galaxies that DO spin?

Re: If the Universe Spun

Did they mean to say that the milkyway Galaxy does not spin?? Damn near every representation that I have seen shows it as spinning, much the same as a drain looks as the water just about empties from a sink...

Re: If the Universe Spun

Starlord,
Like I said, "..hurricanes, planets, GALAXIES and quasars" spin, but the net effect when all are totaled up is zero; its a wash. So the universe expands, but does not spin.
I just finished chapter 5 of Parallel Worlds and was disappointed by it. Basically, it lays out how Einstein's theory linking space and time into an inseparable unity and provides solutions various people have proposed to parts of Einstein's theory. "As a result, any wormhole that connects two distant points in space might also connect two distant points in time. In other words, Einstein's theory allows for the possibility of time travel". But Einstein was worried about the possibility of the "river of time" bending back on itself.

Two of several solutions Kaku discusses to Einstein's equations that permitted time travel: The first was W.J. Van Stocum's "spinning cylinder". "It would drag the fabric of space-time along with it, much like molasses is dragged along with the blades of a blender". As you made a complete trip around the cylinder, you could actually go back in time, returning before you left.

Then he discusses Kurt Godel's solution to Einsteins equations.
"He (Godel) assumed that the entire universe was rotating" (Which we know it doesn't so I don't see the validity to his theory). But if it did, "..every event in any time period can be visited, no matter how distant in the past. Because of gravity, there is a tendency for Godel's universe to collapse on itself. Hence, the centrifigal force of rotation must balance this gravitational force. In other words, the universe must spin above a certain speed. For a universe our size, Godel calculated that it would have to rotate once every 70 billion years, and the minimum radius for time travel would be 16 billion light-years. To travel back in time, however you would have to travel just below the speed of light".

So as I see it, if time travel is possible only in a spinning universe, and the universe is not spinning, either time travel is not possible or something else equally as massive is spinning around it, like "Dark Matter" to cause this effect that we calculate/theorize in a spinning universe. An analogy might be an amusement park ride where you are spun around the perimeter of the ride and feel the centrifigal force. But imagine a ride where you are stationary but the perimeter spins instead. The force is still there but you are not positioned to feel it's effects. The dark matter, would be the perimeter mass. Could it cause the time travel effect as the spinning universe?

Re: If the Universe Spun

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"denbo88\")</div>

The universe is made of spacetime, not matter. A spinning universe implies a spin in a seperate dimension, otherwise the spin would define the universe's center, and we know that there is no such thing as the center of the universe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"denbo88\")</div>

The flaw here is in the first statement. You have presented no evidence or argument that time travel is possible only in a spinning universe. You have merely said that time travel is possible in a spinning universe. If I say "Men have hair" and "George is bald" it does not follow that George is not a man.

Harte

Re: If the Universe Spun

I don't see why the spin effect cannot be in the same dimension? Einstein was troubled by what his theory allowed: the possibility of "whirlpools and eddies" in the "river of time", where it would bend back on itself. A whirlpool would not define the center of the universe, only the center of a localized effect of space-time. It has made me wonder if time travel could be localized within these whirlpool/eddy zones which correlate to solar systems and galaxies?

You are right, I have not presented any arguement supporting the theory of time travel. I was only pointing out that quantam physics has shown that time travel is theoretically possible. That much is an established fact. Doing it is another matter.
I don't even know why Godel bothered with his theory when he knew the universe did not spin anyway, which would make time travel impossible. So if it does occur, something would negate the effect of a non-spinning universe. It would have to be a huge force/energy that permeates the universe. "Dark matter" came to mind.

Re: If the Universe Spun

Hmmmm, By definition the Universe is: All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

However, since we can't see the edges and the only center of the universe I know of is "Me", I can't tell if we are spinning or not. I know sometimes feel like the universe is spinning.

Perhaps we spin so fast it feels like we are standing still.


Bubbu

________________________________________

Re: If the Universe Spun

Bubbu, how about this, All the Dark Matter is spinning, each Galaxy going along it's merry way is spinning. Physicists know there is Dark Matter but just don't have the equipment yet to measure that which is just a hair span out side of the 4 dimensions, yet some math points to it's existence.

On a Quantum level, that which takes place a foot away from us affects the Universe all the way to it's edges.

Each and every atom in our body is spinning. Hmmm maybe that's what keeps us awake and sane amidst all this helterskelter hurry to nowhere and the bubbles in our brew to rise instead of sink.

Re: If the Universe Spun

This is just a theory, yes ?

Just wondering what their point of reference is that the Universe might spin against, soz if that's been asked, just doing a type-by...

Re: If the Universe Spun

Thenumbersix said:

Yes this is all just theory since there is no way to test anything. I agree that everything spins down to atoms and quarks, I wouldn?t be surprised if the Universe was spinning. I think I saw a good representation at the end of "Men in Black" when the Universe was nothing more than a Marble for some giant space alien. The marbles were definitely spinning. I guess with the new membrane string theories, the Universe just oscillates in waves and might actually just be miniscule distances from parallel universes. Some postulate that if the membrane universes hit each other, that may be the cause of the Big bang. As far as is it spinning? Only the giant space aliens know for sure.

Bubbu
___________________________

Re: If the Universe Spun

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"denbo88\")</div>

The whirlpools you mention here do not correspond to solar systems and galaxies. These eddies correspond to areas of extremely high gravity caused by supermassive hyperdense objects like black holes (though the centers of many galaxies no doubt contain black holes massive enough for the frame dragging effect). The whirlpools are whirls in the fabric of spacetime itself, like the "frame dragging" in W.J. Van Stocum's "spinning cylinder" you spoke of in an earlier post.

This is why I said in my previous post that the universe is made of spacetime, not matter. There exists a fundamental unanswered question about whether the universe would still exist if all the matter were removed. To get around this, let us imagine that all matter in the universe except our solar system was somehow removed. In this case the universe would still exist, it would just be mostly empty. This is what I mean by "the universe is made of spacetime..."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"denbo88\")</div>

What I tried to say in an earlier post is that according to your post, Godel's theory never says that time travel is impossible in a non-spinning universe. According to what you posted, Godel's theory says that time travel is possible in a spinning universe. Are we to assume that this also means it's impossible in a non-spinning universe? You have not said so.

As far as questions about a rotating universe, rotation of the universe means the entire universe. That means the spacetime too must rotate. There is no center to rotate around. Therefore in a rotating universe, no matter from which point in the universe you are observing, it would seem that the entire universe was rotating around you. You would seem to be the center, just as each point observes the rest of the universe rushing away from it's position in an expanding universe.

Re: If the Universe Spun

I don't want to get bogged down with theory when experience tells us clearly that it is possible. I prefer to approach this problem from another angle rather than theory. I guess you could call it the "Existential Approach". A personal experience allowed me briefly to see the future. I did not visit the future physically but I saw it occur 6 hours before it happened, and exactly as I had seen it previously. I posted it in this forum recently. Experience is one thing that people cannot take from you no matter what theories they throw at you.

So since I saw the future, I know personally that at least the information can travel thru time, if not the body. And information is all we really need. With experience, I don't need to get bogged down in theory. In other words, theory must be consistent with my experience; my experience was a manifestation of natural law, so any theory must conform to my experience. I don't care if a non-spinning universe does not allow for time travel. If time travel is true, then the universe DOES spin and contemporary physics is wrong. With a periodicity of 70 billion years, how can they really know, is my question. There are many cases of Pre-cognition and retro-cognition so we know it happens. We see it especially in science, especially archeology where outsiders are shunned because their new theory does not conform to the orthodox views.

All this talk reminds me of the blind man in the bible that Jesus healed. The priests in the temple were skeptical and asked him a lot of questions until he finally said, "I don't know about all that stuff you're saying, but one thing I DO know: Once I was blind but now I see". It may be beyond us to understand HOW it happens, but one thing is clear - it DOES happen.

Re: If the Universe Spun

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"denbo88\")</div>

Denbo 88,

Though I have had no concrete experiences such as yours, it is stories like yours and others that causes me to believe that time travel (at least of information, as you say) from the future into the past is possible. I merely say that it is possible in rotating or nonrotating universes, although the methods used may differ in different types of universes.

Harte

Re: If the Universe Spun

I know of no "provable" experiences that would clearly tell "us" anything. Your personal experiences have great meaning to you, but not to me or anyone else. The fact that you have interpreted your experience as proof of time travel doesn't do much for the rest of us.

I would say that you have interpreted this event to prove that information can travel through time. Pre-cognition doesn't necessarily mean that. I have no rational explanation for the event, but I I'd hesitate to credit TT.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying TT is or is not possible, or that you are wrong. I am only suggesting that this occurrence only raises more questions. I don't think it provides any substantial answers.

Z-

Re: If the Universe Spun

Zoomerz, their wasn't anything to interpret; I saw an event occur 6 hours before it happened. If you see a video at 7:00pm and then that same event occurs at 1:00am, whats to interpret? It's true that it was a personal experience and loses impact to anyone else, but we should be able to benefit from others experiences for what they are worth.

Is it subjective interpretation to perceive that my body did not travel in time, but I accessed information from the future? Personal experiences are very valuable in gaining understanding especially regarding hard to prove subjects that occur infrequently and sporatically. I would rather gather information from personal experiences, mine and others and look for patterns and put together theories, rather than wait until science can prove any of this. I suspect it will be a long wait. A valid theory makes it irrefutable to everyone. Experience makes it irrefutable only to the one who had the experience I guess.
But Experience always trumps theory.

Re: If the Universe Spun

I have said this before, and you perhaps have seen me say this upteen times, there is only the NOW, that is the only moment we can ever experience. However, that does not mean we cannot experience a now in the past as it HAS happened, or a glimpse in the future as it MAY happen.

It has been said that 'all things are written' that concept in and of itself is worth a few weeks of debate. Nevertheless, that concept with the fact that it is ALWAYS NOW , we are at this very 'now' in time, along with the 'now' of reading these words, a fully realized spiritual being on a higher plane of consciousness, i.e. finished with this sand box and long gone from the physical plane. Which means and is supported by instances of people having 'glimpses' of what could be the future.

Re: If the Universe Spun

What I'm saying is, you're "interpreting" the fact that you saw an event occur 6 hours (your "time") before it happened to mean that TT is true, in that the information "travelled through time" to get to you here 6 hours in the past. And I'm trying to say that it's your interpretation of those events, which may or may not be the "what" and "why" that actually happened.

Yes, since there is no scientific explanation available, we cannot assume that our current perception (i.e. "the information travelled through time to get to me") is accurate.

They can just as easily lead you astray if not approached scientifically. Any perception you have of the events should be interpreted through science, not intuition. Since we don't really have any science to deal with many of these "experiential" things, we can only know (for now) that they happened. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. You might be right on the money. We just can't say it yet.

Please explain your use of "valid" here. How does a theory become "valid"? A theory is a theory. It is not a fact until it is proven. All theories are "refutible". That's why they're theories, and not facts. An analogy of your approach here is along the lines of "If it looks like a fish, acts like a fish, and smells like a fish, it's probably a fish" in lieu of scientific "proof". If you're inclined to believe it, that's fine. Just don't use the word "irrefutible".

Agreed, however, it's not the "fact" (as known by the one who experienced it) that it happened. It's the "interpretation" of what it meant, and what actually happened. Your interpretation that "information travelled through time" may or may not be accurate, but certainly (at least to you), the event actually is a fact.

Experience cannot be directly related to theory. You don't "theoretically" experience anything. You either experienced it, or not. Your interpretation of that experience is another matter. You can theorize about it, or you can explain it scientifically. My point is, if there's no science to back up your "interpretation" that information travelled through time, then it's your theory as to what happened, and not fact.

Sorry to be so long-winded!

Z-

Re: If the Universe Spun

Star:

This is my point exactly. We can 'debate' or 'theorize' all we want to, it doesn't mean we are going to arrive at a factual conclusion. We have no scientific methods to evaluate with. We will arrive at one or more theories.

Z-

Re: If the Universe Spun

Wow, where do I start. I see I'm going to be here a while.:dry:

Waiting for scientific methods to catch up with time travel theory seems to me to be asking a lot of it at this point in it's evolution.
Starlord, I'm feeling like a Flatlander who had a glimpse of the 3rd dimension and is trying to explain it in 2 dimensional terms. The NOW is a term from another reality, not mine. My system of thought cannot incorporate it enough to do it justice, but I sense it's value to understanding higher dimensions. Until then, I have to talk in Flatlander talk as much as I can. That is my native reality, my native language.

Zoomerz, "They (experiences) can just as easily lead you astray if not approached scientifically. Any perception you have of the events should be interpreted through science, not intuition."
I have to premise my remarks by saying one thing: I believe that the Creator has determined man's primary learning tool to be thru his experiences through out time. Understanding God's world has to be understandable, revelation has to be revelatory. I believe that experiences are the Creator's way of communicating truths to us. It would facilitate understanding for a man to comprehend by his own mental abilitities and evaluate his experiences. I would not be so quick to dismiss experiences and interpreting them freely, although some us are prone to torturing meaning at times. Science has been notorious in the past for leading people astray too. Today we laugh at much of it. Phrenology comes to mind. Likewise humors, the 7 heavens, blood-letting, etc. The list is as long as your arm. A 1000 years from now, what if we are considered a part of and included in the "pre-scientific era". Imagine that. A thousand years ago they were so sure the world was flat and that they had so much knowledge.

"Please explain your use of "valid" here." Valid as in a tautology; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. I consider experiences to be valid in forming premises. I respect subjective experiences because they were observers of a rare moment when natural law manifested itself uniquely. It reminds me of something A.N. Whitehead once said, "there is no such thing as the Supernatural, only the unique natural." So personal experience is special and I will not dismiss it. Theories provide a set of principles for explaining phenomena. Theories can be validated. Einstein's theory of relativity was validated nowhere as well as at Almagordo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I also will contend that there is no "objective" reality, facts, science. Even the paradigm we take for granted is a reality we all agree to. Everything is subjectively interpreted, it's just some more than others.

So experience can provide principles to help explain phenomena. I'm just saying it's an excellent place to start to look for truth. Experiences lead to philosophy, philosophy leads to theory, theory leads to science. Experiences can point us in the right direction. The scientific method can be helpful at times, but don't make it do to much. It just may be limited to a 4 dimensional world.