Slashdot Mirror


Analysis of Galaxy Spin Reveals Universe Might Be Left-Handed

Taco Cowboy writes "Someone from US is claiming that the universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis." The full paper has more details. The researchers measured the spin of a number of galaxies in the northern hemisphere; the data indicated a distinct bias toward left-handed spins. "Longo says that the chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million. 'If galaxies tend to spin in a certain direction, it means that the overall universe should have a rather large net angular momentum. Since angular momentum is conserved, it seems it [the universe] must have been "born" spinning.'" Naturally, there is some skepticism: "Neta Bahcall, an astrophysicist at Princeton University in the US, feels that there is no solid evidence for a rotating universe. 'The directional spin of spiral galaxies may be impacted by other local gravitational effects,' she said. She believes that this could result in small correlations in spin rotation over distances less than about 200 Mpc – whereas the observable universe is about 14 Gpc in size."

110 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. North of the equator? by Bardwick · · Score: 3, Funny

    That would explain it.

    1. Re:North of the equator? by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 5, Funny

      No it doesn't. You're looking at it from the wrong side.

    2. Re:North of the equator? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      When you hold a map up in front of your face, north is physically above south.

    3. Re:North of the equator? by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1
    4. Re:North of the equator? by McFortner · · Score: 1

      Just wait until the nuns get a hold of it. They will force it to be right handed if they have to break all the universe's rulers over their knuckles to make it so!

      --
      Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    5. Re:North of the equator? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Because Polaris.

  2. If the universe spins... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    If the universe spins... what is it spinning in? "Space"?

    Does space therefore exist outside the universe (other than in some theoretical brane)?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:If the universe spins... by Sprogga · · Score: 1

      I was going to ask that too. As of now, my head is spinning trying to understand how you could be spinning in nothing.

    2. Re:If the universe spins... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      No. Spinning is not linear motion, and thus, is not relative. Someone on/in a spinning object and measure the amount of spin absolutely and without reference to any outside objects.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:If the universe spins... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      *can* measure, that should read...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:If the universe spins... by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it is still relative, but only using general relativity, which universalizes relativity to include accelerations such as that from either gravitational fields or rotational motion. So, the universes spinning can be generalized as a gravitational field with centrifugal force. No, I don't really understand it myself, but Einstein specifically mentions the spinning disc case in explaining general relativity, so my guess is it would apply here too.

      So we still can't say objectively that the universe is spinning. Although, this outwards acceleration could possibly explain the expansion of the universe (instead of "dark energy"). But now I'm completely guessing.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:If the universe spins... by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was going to ask that too. As of now, my head is spinning trying to understand how you could be spinning in nothing.

      That's easy to wrap your head around, given that spin is relative to your center, not to any outside object. Even if you were the only object in the universe, and thus could not see things spinning around you, you could easily feel the pull of your limbs away from your center if you're spinning, or the complete lack of such if you weren't. If there were two disks in the universe, me on one and you on another, and you looked at mine and I looked at yours and each seemed to be spinning relative to the other, you might be confused as to which of us was actually spinning, and which isn't (assuming one isn't), but if we both step away from the center of our disks, one of us will feel pulled towards the edge and one won't, and this won't be relative. We won't each see the other being flung off their disks while we remain unaffected, which would be absurd, rather, we'll both observe one of us fine and the other flung into space. Or possibly we both will be, if both are disks are rotating. In any case, the rate and which we are or aren't flung off will depend entirely on the actual spin of our disks, which are relative to their own centers, and be entirely unrelated to their relative spin to each other. Trying to look at spin from an outside frame of reference will just confuse you, as spin is not, ultimately, a relative measurement, unlike linear motion which is.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    6. Re:If the universe spins... by BradleyUffner · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the universe spins... what is it spinning in? "Space"?

      Does space therefore exist outside the universe (other than in some theoretical brane)?

      Angular momentum can be measured relative to it's self. Objects closer to the center revolve around the axis faster than those at the outside, the different can be measures, and a direction and speed determined.

    7. Re:If the universe spins... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      tl;dr version: You don't spin "in" anything, you spin around your own axis.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    8. Re:If the universe spins... by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing too, but wouldn't acceleration due to centrifugal force decrease as the universe expands over time? Similar to an ice skater that holds out her arms to slow a spin. My understanding is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating over time.

      Also, if the universe is spinning, wouldn't it collapse into a disk?

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    9. Re:If the universe spins... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be "spinning" per se, it would have angular momentum. Like an electron has spin, i.e. angular momentum, but is not spinning in a classical sense.

    10. Re:If the universe spins... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The accelerating expansion of the universe doesn't show a strong preference for any particular direction. If your conjecture were true, expansion would be accelerating along the equator of the universe and decelerating towards the poles.

    11. Re:If the universe spins... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, true. I was hoping to avoid dragging general relativity into it. My understanding, though, is that there is still a difference -- gravity and uniform acceleration are not distinguishable without outside reference -- but rotational acceleration is different as it's not uniform (your head and feet experience different acceleration, unlike the situation were you standing on the floor in a uniformly accelerating rocket, or the same rocket stationary but sitting on the surface of a planet with gravity). Possibly its still relative, but not in the straightforward way uniform acceleration is. Alas, this is where my understanding of general relativity comes to an end...

      In any case, the team of physicists at U.Mich most certainly understand it better than I do. If they say you can say that objective, and I say you can't, I'm almost certainly wrong... I'll take the expert's word for it here.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    12. Re:If the universe spins... by mikael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BBC had a really cool animation of all the galaxies orbiting each other in the known universe. Each spiral arm galaxy has the stars orbiting the central black hole. In turn all the centre of every galaxies are trying to move in straight lines, but end up colliding, merging as well as being deflected.

      The research here measures the spin axis of each galaxy through doppler shift measurements. The side spinning towards the observer will have an opposite red-shift to the side-spinning away from the observer. From the shape of the galaxy on the camera plane, they can determine the tilt and rotation towards the camera.

      What I don't understand is how they define the top and the bottom of the galaxy (or positive axis/negative axis), in order to determine clockwise/anti-clockwise rotation. Otherwise everything is going to be spinning in one direction or the other.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    13. Re:If the universe spins... by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Yes, good point. Interestingly, there are various ways our universe "prefers" certain directions to others. TFA points out that amino acids tend to form left-handed. AFAIK no one really knows why. And of course there is the whole matter-antimatter thing (there should, by symmetry, be equal amounts of both. There isn't, as far was we can tell.)

      As far as saying whether the universe is objectively spinning, I think you still can under relativity (we can, for instance, say without doubt that the Earth is spinning), but even for such spinning points the generalized laws of the universe still hold valid. They don't under Newtonian physics or special relativity for that matter. The essential statement of the general theory is that the laws of motion are equally valid in all Guassian coordinate systems, however we can still say that certain objects are in a gravitational field of some sort and distinguish the kind with some effort (rotational, massive, or uniform accelerative). So come to think of it, you were actually right about the objectivity (I think), I was just nitpicking. Sorry :).

      To nitpick further: your head and feet do experience different accelerations in a gravitational field. Gravity is 1/R^2, remember? You just don't notice it because of the size involved. You wouldn't on a sufficiently large disc (such as the universe) either.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    14. Re:If the universe spins... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Some people say it would be impossible for something to spin in an otherwise empty space. Even centrifugal forces would somehow depend on the other matter in the universe, and would disappear if the universe were empty. It's called Mach's principle. I personally don't buy that theory, but quite a few well known physicists do.

    15. Re:If the universe spins... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      That's not even the worst of the problems. What is it spinning around? An axis? Which axis? The axis through the middle?

      What middle?

      Oooo, head hurts...

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    16. Re:If the universe spins... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is how they define the top and the bottom of the galaxy (or positive axis/negative axis), in order to determine clockwise/anti-clockwise rotation. Otherwise everything is going to be spinning in one direction or the other.

      Does that matter? If you define the axis one way you get a positive angular momentum, define it the other way you get a negative angular momentum.

      I thought the implication of this study was that if you summed all the angular momentum vectors for the galaxies in question you ended up getting a vector with significant magnitude, i.e. the angular momentums of all the galaxies don't cancel out, they aren't essentially random as one would expect if there was no net angular momentum in the universe, and there is a preferred axis of rotation.

      At that point it wouldn't matter which way you defined 'up' or 'down' with respect to that axis. It would just be a convention.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:If the universe spins... by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      I hate to nitpick, but I had to clarify this: amino acids tend to form in roughly equal quantities of left- and right-handed isomers when synthesized by non-biological processes, but life forms use and manufacture left-handed amino acids almost exclusively.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    18. Re:If the universe spins... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      If the universe spins... what is it spinning in? "Space"?

      Does space therefore exist outside the universe (other than in some theoretical brane)?

      http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506988

    19. Re:If the universe spins... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      So we still can't say objectively that the universe is spinning.

      No, if this result is correct then we can say the universe is spinning. FAQ

      Although, this outwards acceleration could possibly explain the expansion of the universe (instead of "dark energy").

      The upper bounds on the universe's rate of rotation are such that it cannot have any significant contribution to the universe's expansion. (See the references in the FAQ link above.)

  3. Ludicrous by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    So if I have a spinning top sitting on my desk that is not currently spinning, its angular momentum is determined by the spin of its electrons? I guess this is bad astronomy week on slashdot huh.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Ludicrous by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Wow - that is remarkably...I don't know what!

    2. Re:Ludicrous by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Informative

      So if I have a spinning top sitting on my desk that is not currently spinning, its angular momentum is determined by the spin of its electrons? I guess this is bad astronomy week on slashdot huh.

      Yes, and you can tell its color by summing up the colors of its quarks, too. /sarcasm

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Ludicrous by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Yes. The angular momentum of a top is the sum of the angular momentum of all of the atoms that make it up. That's their motion around an axis, plus the orbital momentum of the electrons, plus the spins of the electrons and quarks. Since (as far as I know) you can't transform subatomic spin into motion through space, it's usually completely ignored. But, spin and angular momentum are nevertheless considered to be the same thing still. They should average out to zero in any object of interest, so it doesn't really matter at all. Same thing here. The momentum of our galaxy is the rotation of the stars around the center of the galaxy, plus the rotation of the stars themselves. But the stars rotation is pretty minor compared to the total, so it's not important. Since there isn't really a "center" of the universe, then there's no term to "dominate" the rotation of the galaxies, so the "angular momentum" of the universe is the sum of that of the galaxies.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    4. Re:Ludicrous by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Since (as far as I know) you can't transform subatomic spin into motion through space

      You mean, like you just did?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Ludicrous by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Consider.

      You push an oar through water. On each side of the oar there are 2 eddy currents, one clockwise, the other anti-clockwise. Now remove the oar and just look at the currents. You can determine that the force that created them was moving linearly, as the sum of the momentums of each eddy current = 0.

      If you were to see a pattern where the sum of eddy currents was uneven, with a bias to the left or right, then you can determine that the action that created them was itself spinning in that direction at the time it created them.

      This is what is happening here. You are not looking at the sum of momentums in a static system, but a dynamic one.

  4. reference frame? by Speare · · Score: 1

    Okay, so what is the reference frame for the universe, in which you can measure angular momentum, spin, or even velocity (or even origin)? We measure the sphere of "the observable universe" as the sphere where light could have reached us since the universe began, but we can't assume that we're the center of the WHOLE universe. Presumably since the Big Bang, all stars have been moving outward from one point, but from our vantage point (or any vantage point), all other stars are generally moving away from us. I guess I haven't come to understand how you can work backwards to determine an X Y Z of the Big Bang, nevermind additional spin or momentum.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:reference frame? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Rotational motion is not linear motion. It can be measured absolutely, or if you prefer, relative to itself. There is no need to reference an outside object to determine spin, it can be measured without.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:reference frame? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Okay, so what is the reference frame for the universe, in which you can measure angular momentum, spin, or even velocity (or even origin)?

      General relativity doesn't have global frames of reference like the ones in Newtonian mechanics. It only has local ones.

      If this result is correct, then there is a uniform vector field that exists throughout space, and objects have a tendency to align with this field.

    3. Re:reference frame? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Pick any point in space you want. The universe has a certain angular momentum around that point, which is conserved. It is unnecessary to find, or define, the "center" of the thing to measure its angular momentum -- just pick a point. The particular value you get depends on what point you choose, but it is always conserved.

      Furthermore, rotation is not a linear motion, therefore can always be detected in an inertial frame. The only way you could fail to notice the rotation of an object is if you were also rotating with it, and if that were the case you would detect the presence of internal forces (the forces necessary to maintain the rotational motion).

  5. Compare the Galaxy Zoo paper from '08 by matthiasr · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388.1686L They measured the spin of a few 100000 galaxies in both hemispheres. At first they found the _same_ preferred spin in any direction, then they started mirroring half of the galaxies before showing them to people and the effect vanished. They found no dipole.

    1. Re:Compare the Galaxy Zoo paper from '08 by matthiasr · · Score: 2

      Sorry, should have re-read first. It was only ~37000 galaxies.

    2. Re:Compare the Galaxy Zoo paper from '08 by KrizDog · · Score: 1

      From their paper: "In addition, half the galaxies were randomly mirrored during scanning with no visual cues as to the mirroring, and precautions against left-right bias were taken in the web interface used by the scanners. "

  6. So, if the universe is left-handed... by DangerOnTheRanger · · Score: 1

    ...what does that say about all us right-handed people?

    1. Re:So, if the universe is left-handed... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      They are all wrong. I knew it. I knew it. The universe is like me. It is left handed and it has not much substance ...

  7. Does this mean that we're in a by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Godel Universe, and that closed timelike loops are possible?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Does this mean that we're in a by itchythebear · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting thought, but the Godel Universe also doesn't have "Hubble Expansion" and so technically still doesn't fit with what we have observed of our universe.

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
    2. Re:Does this mean that we're in a by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that we're in a Godel Universe, and that closed timelike loops are possible?

      No. The Godel metric has rotation and closed timelike curves, but not all cosmological solutions that have rotation have CTCs. The Godel universe is not consistent with observation. For descriptions of some cosmological models that have rotation but no CTCs, see the references here: http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506988

    3. Re:Does this mean that we're in a by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Since when do physicists care about observation?

      Since the beginning of physics, actually.

      Observations are so 19th century.

      Yeah, that must be the reason why we invest large amounts of money into big machines whose only purpose it observation, like all those big accelerators and telescopes.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  8. Universal North by RichMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    SciFi ...
    So does this explain why, when two spaceships meet in deep space they always seem to share the same vertical orientation ?
    No matter what species and innate architetural design sense.

    1. Re:Universal North by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      No, but it does explain why the best captains are left-handed.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Universal North by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, this is mostly done for television/movies where it would be confusing to the viewer to have some aliens upside down. On the other hand, it would be nice if they tried to be realistic. But on the gripping hand, the Moties didn't start doing this until they realized that humans were confused and intentionally aligned themselves to our axis even though it was not in their nature to do so...

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:Universal North by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      Funny story:

      Do you remember the USS Reliant from Star Trek 2? It was unusual for it's time because the engines were on the bottom. They weren't supposed to be. The original design had everything the other way around, but when the model makers got the sketches "up" was mis-labled. They built the ship upside-down and the director decided to just go with it.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Universal North by rossdee · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why when there is a group of ships (of the same species) moving in formation are all at the same orientation. You would think that they would be better tactically aligned in different ways so that all directions are covered by their weapons.

    5. Re:Universal North by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      As you can see in DS9, big armadas form a ribbon like structure which is aligned with the opposing armada. And the ribbon cannot be evaded by flying over it or below it, you have to go left or right or through it.

    6. Re:Universal North by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      I like how Star Trek II specifically broke the mold: "His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

  9. ...and what is the axis upon which it spins? by StandardCell · · Score: 1

    Have we found a "center" of the universe?

  10. One in a Million by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

    Chances of "One in a Million" :

    "According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe." (http://www.physics.org/facts/sand-galaxies.asp)

    "This study uses 15158 spiral galaxies with redshifts 0.085 from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey." (http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2815)

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    1. Re:One in a Million by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      Apparently you've never taken a statistics course. As such, it's not easy to explain to you why, but as a matter of fact, the chances of some conclusion being right or wrong based on a random sampling depends only on the size of the random sample, not on the size of the population the sample was taken from. The same odds apply regardless of whether it's 15158 out of a million, a hundred billion, or a trillion trillion. This, however, does assume it is a truly random sample. The criticism of this result is not that it's such a small portion of the hundred billion galaxies, but that it's not truly random selection from across all hundred billion, and thus, might bring in a local bias.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:One in a Million by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's one in a million universes, not one in a million galaxies.

    3. Re:One in a Million by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

      I was just quoting. (But about your comment, if there were only 15,160 galaxies altogether, or two more than in the sample, surely the chance of error would be smaller)

      --
      http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
  11. Could be tested by Hentes · · Score: 1

    If this is true, and the Universe is spinning, wouldn't galaxies in a direction diverge from us faster?

  12. Re:Smartphone by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

    I thought the same thing, glad to know i'm not the only one with android on the mind ! :D

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  13. Diddly by Jimmy+Avalanche · · Score: 1

    Ned Flanders will be thrilled.

  14. Probably spins the other way by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    It probably spins the other way south of the galactic equator.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  15. Whose Left? by dmomo · · Score: 1

    Maybe we've just been looking at it upside-down?

    1. Re:Whose Left? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Yep, and to a rotating observer, the universe stands still ;)

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  16. Observation error? by StripedCow · · Score: 2

    IANAP, but I guess a single proton spinning with an enormous speed in the opposite direction may null the angular momentum.

    Perhaps he just missed that one proton.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Observation error? by bishopBelloc · · Score: 1

      Also, not a physicist, but since things with mass still have a maximum speed I don't think this is a problem.

    2. Re:Observation error? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Is the "spin" of an atomic particle actually conserved with conventional angular momentum?

      If I put a bunch of protons in a magnet to create an excess of spins in one direction, and then hit them with photons to flip them, does the container they are stored in experience torque?

      My understanding is that we use terms like "spin" and "angular momentum" with particles because the math is similar, but that these are just physical properties of the particle and not the same as conventional angular momentum. In the same way, a "green" quark doesn't interact with visible light of the appropriate wavelength differently...

    3. Re:Observation error? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlike quark "color," particle "spin" actually is a "real" angular momentum and not just a similar mathematical system. Particle spin can interact / be traded off with orbital angular momentum, the quantum-mechanical angular momentum of bound particles "orbiting" each other, which in the large-number limit makes up classical angular momentum; the total angular momentum of a system (spin + orbital) is the conserved quantity that one is familiar with in the classical limit. A block of material with an excess of polarized protons in it does indeed have angular momentum, just like a box with a gyroscope in it, though the amount is far too small to be practically observable.http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/182207/analysis-of-galaxy-spin-reveals-universe-might-be-left-handed#

  17. Blackholes, Whiteholes and Wormholes... by Genda · · Score: 1

    There is a growing school of thought that suggests the Big Bang was the "Whitehole" side of a Blackhole forming in our parent universe. If our universe has angular momentum that would correlate to the angular momentum of the collapsing star when it reached singularity. This would be indicative of at least a precipitating event that lead to the Big Bang precipitating our universe.

    Unfortunately, there are so many things that determine chirality (handedness) including the angular momentum of super-massive hot hydrogen clouds, galaxy clusters and super clusters, even the angular momentum caused by the gravitational effects of universal superstructures. Its hard to determine what is a result of the natural evolution of the universe and what might be a contributing factor in the for of an angular momentum. One would have to look at a huge sample of the 100,000,000,000 or more galaxies in the visible universe and see if there is a net angular momentum of their collective rotation. However in building such an explicit model of such an important universal trait, the things we would then know or could at least derive about the large and small grain structures in the universe would be nothing less than incredible.

    1. Re:Blackholes, Whiteholes and Wormholes... by mikael · · Score: 1

      And if every universe has black holes, each black hole becomes a connection to a white-hole/smaller universe. So we end up with a fractal multiverse.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Blackholes, Whiteholes and Wormholes... by oreaq · · Score: 1

      If our universe has angular momentum that would correlate to the angular momentum of the collapsing star when it reached singularity

      White holes are not formed by gravitational collapse but are "only" the "other side" of eternal black holes. At least in theory ...

  18. Wait by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does "left-handed spin" even mean when there is no "up"?

    If we see a galaxy spinning clockwise, then someone looking at it from the other side (facing us) will see it rotating the other way. If they're all spinning the same way when viewed from our perspective, does that also mean we are at the center of the universe?

    1. Re:Wait by Frenzied+Apathy · · Score: 1

      ^^ This

      There is no "top" or "bottom" of a galaxy - such directions (or positions?) are subjective when you're looking from the outside of a galaxy.

      --
      The cake is a lie.
    2. Re:Wait by CityZen · · Score: 1

      Fails to answer the question. Yes, once a coordinate system is assigned, then you can label a spin. But how do you decide which way any axis should go in the first place?

    3. Re:Wait by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      There is an up. There is what we call the north pole of the Milky Way galaxy. Basically, what they are asking is if other galaxies are generally spinning in the same direction as the MWG. They look up (toward where the galactic "north pole" is pointing) and see which ones are spinning the same way and then look down toward where the south galactic pole is pointing for the same. What they found is that in general, the ones above us tend to rotate counterclockwise and the ones below us tend to rotate clockwise. Indicating that more are spinning in one direction than the other.

      Here is an answer I found on another article on the same topic:

      Hi Dave, this was one of the things we explained a lot to people on Galaxy Zoo when we did this. Basically, you're right - clockwise or counterclockwise is not an intrinsic property of the galaxy itself. But even so, if there seems to be a preferred direction (whichever it is) from one point of view, then something weird is going on. If we looked and found more counterclockwise in the northern sky, and more clockwise in the southern sky, then we'd be seeing a general bias across the universe. If we looked out in every direction and saw an excess, that would be about as worrying as looking around in the street and seeing that all people were facing left from your point of view - you would wonder what on earth was going on! Hope that makes some sense.

    4. Re:Wait by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Probably the same way we determined the North Pole as being the top of our planet. All the important people were in the Northern Hemisphere, and we really like being on top.

    5. Re:Wait by lostdistance · · Score: 1

      What does "universe spin" mean when there is no fixed reference point within it and nothing beyond it?

    6. Re:Wait by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The right hand rule of the Cartesian coordinate system does not justify the idea of an absolute left-handed spin regardless of the frame of reference of the observer. If you observe the rotation of a galaxy from one side of the galactic plane it will seem like a clockwise spin and from the other side it will seem counter-clockwise. You can say, for instance, that all galaxies are rotating in the same direction but you cannot say which direction that is.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  19. From what perspective? by Frenzied+Apathy · · Score: 1

    How do you know what side you are looking at (top or bottom) to determine correctly in which direction it is spinning? IS there a top or bottom? I highly doubt it...

    --
    The cake is a lie.
  20. Because I know something you don't know... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2

    The universe only seems left handed. If it ever gets into a sword fight with another universe, it will wait for a dramatically opportune time and then announce, "I am not left handed!" (You'll know this has happened when suddenly you are inside-out.)

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    1. Re:Because I know something you don't know... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The universe only seems left handed. If it ever gets into a sword fight with another universe, it will wait for a dramatically opportune time and then announce, "I am not left handed!" (You'll know this has happened when suddenly you are inside-out.)

      How do we know it hasn't happened already?!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Because I know something you don't know... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, you are not left handed either?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  21. Re:Smartphone by eepok · · Score: 1

    Same here!

  22. Still don't get it by Frenzied+Apathy · · Score: 1

    I read the pdf linked from the /. link. Despite the fact that the paper is full of technical jargon, I tried to sift through and glean some sense out of it, but I just can't figure out how they can reason that a galaxy has a "left" or "right" spin when such a determination is dependent on the observer's position relative to the galaxy.

    --
    The cake is a lie.
    1. Re:Still don't get it by danlip · · Score: 1

      I think left and right are arbitrary (as is positive and negative for charge and north and south for magnetism). But if the universe has no net spin you would expect a 1:1 distribution, and they are saying there is a bias.

  23. Fine by eyenot · · Score: 1

    More evidence that our observable, perceivable universe even to its furthest reaches is not "all there is". You cannot find context for sidedness within a unary axiom.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  24. Nope... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    The Universe Might Be Left-Handed?
    I think it's just using it's left hand for a different sensation...
    cumming soon, new galaxies spurting into existance!

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  25. Explains the lack of gravity? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    Now won't that negate a bit of gravity and be the source of the cosmological constant?

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  26. So, it IS an accident? by Genrou · · Score: 1

    "Longo says that the chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million.

    So, it IS an accident?

  27. I've always had a similar theory. by jrh62520 · · Score: 1

    I'm no scientist, but electrons spin around neutrons, moons spin around planets, planets spin around stars, stars spin around black holes, why is it outrageous to thing the galaxies are spinning around something?.. there is stuff out there that humans can't comprehend. If there were more universes revolving around something even larger, we would NEVER know!

    1. Re:I've always had a similar theory. by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I'm no scientist

      Yes. The rest of your post makes that abundantly clear.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  28. On the micro scale by elewton · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know whether this is likely to have an effect on scales other than the galactic?

    For instance, on small chaotic systems.

  29. Re:Speaking as a Leftie by smelch · · Score: 1

    Therefore, some of the greatest minds the world has ever known were right handed.

    --
    If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  30. Inside a black hole? by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

    I have often wondered if the Universe might be the single particle at the center of a black hole, which are always created with a high spin. I understand that this particle takes the shape of a disk due to its rotation, rather than collapsing to a single point. It would explain why galaxies are spreading apart rather than joining together - somehow the stretching of the black hole translates into a 3D effect on the 'inside'. If the black hole were not spinning, I would expect matter in the universe to condense to a black hole, and there would be no 'inside' or 'outside', only a black hole regardless of how you look at it.

    To me, this makes sense as energy seems to flow into the patterns of matter - subatomic particles and atoms - like jelly into a mold. There are some hidden rules at play that make matter the way it is, and not some other way. No matter how you convert energy to matter, you end up with it forming these elementary particles. I would expect that to be true for the mass inside of a black hole, in the same way it's true for matter on the outside. The black hole, viewed from the outside, would have the same mass as our Universe.

    Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to test this hypothesis, though it might be interesting to the compute the spin of such a black hole, and see if we can correlate it to any phenomenon we can observe.

    1. Re:Inside a black hole? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to test this hypothesis

      To test the nature of an entire universe from a frame of reference outside of that universe? No, I should think not.

      I was under the impression that not all black holes rotated, at least at speeds great enough to flatten a singularity into a disk. Are you sure you are not thinking of a wormhole?

      As for the rest of your speculation. I admit that the idea of the entire universe being one supermassive black whole is tantalizing in a way. After all, we believe that every galaxy has a massive black whole at its center. If we choose to believe that a group of galaxies also has a center it would seem natural for a supermassive black hole to be at the center of that as well. The problem is that a black hole is a theoretical beast and I don't think the theory really allows for what you are describing. Any matter inside of a black hole would be of the exotic variety. It wouldn't be matter as we know it. It would be matter that was crushed out of all recognition by gravity. Even subatomic particles as we know them would cease to exist. You would be left with a 'naked singularity', a theoretical particle of infinite density. If a particle truly had infinite density then there would certainly be no empty space inside of it for things like tiny stars and planets and galaxies. After all, our observable universe is mostly empty space.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  31. Triumph of the new media. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    They're always trying to put their spin on everything. Well, they succeeded.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  32. Tea Party et al by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    there was an excess of left... rotating spiral galaxies in the part of the sky toward the north pole of the Milky Way

    I wonder what the Tea Party will make of this. Oh sorry I forgot, they don't even like reading newspapers. Science won't even make their radar.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  33. Whorls by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Big whorls have little whorls
          That feed on their velocity,
      And little whorls have lesser whorls
          And so on to viscosity.

    So now we know how big a big whorl is.

  34. parsec != light years by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    The radius of the observable universe is about 14Gly, not 14Gpc; only off by a factor of Pi (not exact, but a handy mnemonic), but still, like the old saying goes "Off by a factor of Pi is still wrong."

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:parsec != light years by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      The radius of the observable universe is about 14Gly, not 14Gpc

      The radius of the observable universe is about 46 Gly. http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506987

  35. paper and FAQ by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    The actual paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2815

    Here is a FAQ entry about rotation of the universe and how general relativity would describe it: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506988

    There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea. It's perfectly consistent with all the known laws of physics. There is in fact no well-established physical principle that should make non-rotation any more likely than rotation. There are other techniques for detecting rotation of the universe (see the references in the FAQ entry); their claim would become much more convincing if it could be confirmed by one of those techniques. If it's right, then it probably implies that inflation was an incorrect theory; I believe that in cosmological models that include both rotation and inflation, the angular velocity dies out exponentially, so it should be unobservably small today.

  36. Colbert already knew this, just from his gut! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    Why else would he have said to a room of politicians including then-president Bush "Reality clearly has a liberal bias."? Yup, the universe spins left. He called it.

  37. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's something sinister about these findings.

  38. In Soviet Russi by Roachie · · Score: 1

    YOU spin around universe!

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  39. Re:The universe doesn't have hands to be lefthande by PPH · · Score: 1

    made an ass out of yourself with your pompous posting.

    Is Slashdot up to 8 digit UIDs already?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  40. You insensitive clod! by PPH · · Score: 1

    What is this "hand" of which you speak? The vast majority of the inhabitants of the universe have tentacles!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  41. Parsec? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    I thought "parsec" was a unit of time?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Parsec? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I thought "parsec" was a unit of time?

      Then you thought wrong. A parsec is the distance from which the parallax of the earth's orbit around the sun, i.e. the angle at which it would be seen from there, is one arc second, i.e. 1/3600 of a degree (or 1/1296000 of a full circle).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  42. Cosmic Microwave Background dipole by mangu · · Score: 1

    There is a similar effect regarding translation in the Cosmic Microwave Background.

    You can detect movement with relation to an absolute reference frame, indicated by the cosmic background. The observer who's moving will observe a blue-shifted cosmic radiation towards one side and red-shifted to the opposite side.

    Linear motion isn't relative either.

  43. Sinister by skine · · Score: 1

    I always knew that the Universe was a sinister place.

  44. Duh... by kkwst2 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else click on the link thinking this was regarding a new Samsung phone?