1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have always had a similar question of what makes the planets go around their suns in the direction they go instead of the opposite way, what makes planets rotate the way they do instead of the opposite way, etc. It seems like our current conservation laws require there to have been an push from "outside." The asymmetric coalescence of the matter that resulted from the expansion from a symmetrical singularity, is curious to me.
Of course, the question is why there is a winner in the first place. CP violation is a way to explain this, though it is not very well-understood.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357
I have always had a similar question of what makes the planets go around their suns in the direction they go instead of the opposite way, what makes planets rotate the way they do instead of the opposite way, etc. It seems like our current conservation laws require there to have been an push from "outside." The asymmetric coalescence of the matter that resulted from the expansion from a symmetrical singularity, is curious to me.
I have always had a similar question of what makes the planets go around their suns in the direction they go instead of the opposite way, what makes planets rotate the way they do instead of the opposite way
the planets all rotate the same way around the sun because the disk of dust around the early sun and formed our planets rotated that way around but I think what you meant was why would any star or dust disc etc rotate at all if everything was expanded evenly from the singularity and I believe the assumed answer to that is that random quantum fluctuations back then would have made that expansion not perfectly even thus later localised large-scale rotations became possible and so no need for there to be a 'push' from 'outside' the singularity or big bang for that to work. That, of course, still leaves us with the matter-anti-matter imbalance mystery.
Originally posted by JS357Not if there was another solar system going the other way somewhere to balance it out - or maybe the singularity was spinning!
I have always had a similar question of what makes the planets go around their suns in the direction they go instead of the opposite way, what makes planets rotate the way they do instead of the opposite way, etc. It seems like our current conservation laws require there to have been an push from "outside." The asymmetric coalescence of the matter that resulted from the expansion from a symmetrical singularity, is curious to me.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by JS357If you mean what makes them all go in the same direction, well, that's because they all formed from the same accretion disc. That disc was already turning; the system inherited that revolution. All of the planets inherited the same revolution, so they all revolve the same way.
I have always had a similar question of what makes the planets go around their suns in the direction they go instead of the opposite way, what makes planets rotate the way they do instead of the opposite way, etc. It seems like our current conservation laws require there to have been an push from "outside." The asymmetric coalescence of the matter that resulted from the expansion from a symmetrical singularity, is curious to me.
If you mean what makes them all go turnwise rather than withershins, erm... there's no difference. The system is symmetric (more or less) in the plane of revolution. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they all went the other way.
Richard
Originally posted by JS357I think you are confusing the universe with individual galaxies/planetary systems/planets. There is no evidence that the universe as a whole is rotating - and there probably would be no easy way to measure it anyway.
It seems like our current conservation laws require there to have been an push from "outside." The asymmetric coalescence of the matter that resulted from the expansion from a symmetrical singularity, is curious to me.
So, no evidence of a push from "outside".
Within the universe, the laws of conservation of momentum mean that as matter coalesces into denser patches, it has to move faster to compensate. Even if the universe started off as a perfectly uniform gas of hydrogen, the random movement of particles would fairly soon result in clumping, then star formation and galaxies, all rotating in various directions.
Originally posted by twhiteheadUniverse was a plasma, that is why there is a "wall" we can't see beyond.
I think you are confusing the universe with individual galaxies/planetary systems/planets. There is no evidence that the universe as a whole is rotating - and there probably would be no easy way to measure it anyway.
So, no evidence of a push from "outside".
Within the universe, the laws of conservation of momentum mean that as matter coalesces into ...[text shortened]... soon result in clumping, then star formation and galaxies, all rotating in various directions.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is some evidence of a spinning universe which has profound implications for the beginning of the universe:
I think you are confusing the universe with individual galaxies/planetary systems/planets. There is no evidence that the universe as a whole is rotating - and there probably would be no easy way to measure it anyway.
So, no evidence of a push from "outside".
Within the universe, the laws of conservation of momentum mean that as matter coalesces into ...[text shortened]... soon result in clumping, then star formation and galaxies, all rotating in various directions.
http://phys.org/news/2011-07-universe-born-symmetry-cosmos.html
Also, there is some evidence our universe 'bumped' into another one:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/06/image-of-the-day-evidence-of-a-past-universe-circular-paterns-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background-.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOK so far I like this answer best. It makes me wonder why I insist on there being a conservation of spin law in place. The world is the way it is, and it doesn't have to fit our ideas about it. Quite the opposite.
Not if there was another solar system going the other way somewhere to balance it out - or maybe the singularity was spinning!
Originally posted by JS357The answer may be to your liking but there wasn't a singularity. Science uses one as a convention or convenience. Look at it this way, if the universe is "infinite" in size, so was the so called singularity. The term is a bad one since it tends to create nothing but confusion among most people.
OK so far I like this answer best. It makes me wonder why I insist on there being a conservation of spin law in place. The world is the way it is, and it doesn't have to fit our ideas about it. Quite the opposite.
Originally posted by JS357The conservation of angular momentum only really applies to a closed system that is spinning. It is not required to have something spin the other way in order to get something spinning. In fact, it would be trivial to set up a system whereby you start from rest and end up with two entities spinning in the same direction without violating the conservation of momentum law. The key fact to notice is that they are spinning around different points in space, and the conservation of spin law only applies to one given point at a time. If this were not the case, surely cars wouldn't work very well without a set of wheels spinning backwards?
OK so far I like this answer best. It makes me wonder why I insist on there being a conservation of spin law in place. The world is the way it is, and it doesn't have to fit our ideas about it. Quite the opposite.
Originally posted by JS357The answer might be some other imbalance in another dimension we can not see. Maybe the fact there is more matter than antimatter is a small window into this dimension.
"If matter and antimatter are exactly equal but opposite, then why is there so much more matter in the universe than antimatter? Why did matter "win" instead of antimatter? , or vice versa? "
Whichever lost would be called the anti-whatthewinnerwascalled.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe trick, I believe, is to get the Earth spinning very slightly in the opposite direction. Of course, due to the massive amount of spin the Earth already has, that slight extra amount in a random direction cannot possibly be measured, even less so because other objects are simultaneously trying to make it spin very slightly in all other directions as well.
The key fact to notice is that they are spinning around different points in space, and the conservation of spin law only applies to one given point at a time. If this were not the case, surely cars wouldn't work very well without a set of wheels spinning backwards?
Richard
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAgreed... as in that there must be northern/southern universes, or even eastern/western as the point of fact as our knowledge is unknown.
Not if there was another solar system going the other way somewhere to balance it out - or maybe the singularity was spinning!
An example of spin would be water going into a bath plug-hole - spins in different directions pending north or south of a line. In our universe everything spins in the same direction....... so where's the other bath line that does indeed level the spin? 😉
-m.