61–70 of 318 posts
Potentially a very dumb question, but seeing the difference between cyclones and hurricane on earth (clock-wise, anti-clock-wise)... Does it mean that we are, potentially, on one of two poles(?) of the observable universe, if we're observing most galaxies around us rotating a certain way?
Potentially a very dumb question, but seeing the difference between cyclones and hurricane on earth (clock-wise, anti-clock-wise)... Does it mean that we are, potentially, on one of two poles(?) of the observable universe, if we're observing most galaxies around us rotating a certain way?
How does cyclones/hurricanes relate to being “on one of two ‘poles’”?
Do you mean hemisphere?
Potentially a very dumb question, but seeing the difference between cyclones and hurricane on earth (clock-wise, anti-clock-wise)... Does it mean that we are, potentially, on one of two poles(?) of the observable universe, if we're observing most galaxies around us rotating a certain way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that you’d expect a roughly even distribution of clockwise and counterclockwise spins, not all of them to rotate in the same direction.
why? if you subscribe to big bang then all matter got the same "initial kick". would be easier to assume same spin?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that you’d expect a roughly even distribution of clockwise and counterclockwise spins, not all of them to rotate in the same direction.
why? if you subscribe to big bang then all matter got the same "initial kick". would be easier to assume same spin?
Seems like we've got a few of these imbalances now where you'd expect 50:50 but instead it's skewed to one side where nature had a different idea Matter-antimatter ratio Left vs right handed molecules Now galaxy spin directions Maybe there are others I missed too
For the matter-antimatter ratio, you would not expect 50:50, or would you? Because 50:50 would be a highly unstable system? In any case, you would expect that unstable states would be highly unlikely, and it would converge into a stable state. I'm not sure about the other examples. But maybe it's a similar reason that it is not a 50:50 ratio?
High energy can spontaneously form matter antimatter pairs. In the early universe, the heat of the universe was very high, so this was common, constantly happening.
The problem as always if fine tuning. If the early universe was 60-40, that would be understandable. If the early universe was precisely 50-50, that’s fine too. But the universe was 50.0001-49.9999 or something like that, and then all annihilated. It’s too big a difference to easily be random chance, and too small a difference to be easily explained by a starting condition what wasn’t precisely tuned by some mechanism.
1. Are they really saying "Because we are in a universe with a preferred spin and black holes have spin, we must be inside a black hole?" Tenuous, no? 2. If we are inside a black hole, where is the singularity?
Seems like we've got a few of these imbalances now where you'd expect 50:50 but instead it's skewed to one side where nature had a different idea Matter-antimatter ratio Left vs right handed molecules Now galaxy spin directions Maybe there are others I missed too
For the matter-antimatter ratio, you would not expect 50:50, or would you? Because 50:50 would be a highly unstable system? In any case, you would expect that unstable states would be highly unlikely, and it would converge into a stable state. I'm not sure about the other examples. But maybe it's a similar reason that it is not a 50:50 ratio?
But rotation direction depends on the observer. If i see galaxy spinning clockwise, this means someone observing galaxy from behind it sees it rotating counter clockwise. So are we just located so in the universe that we see 2/3 spinning clockwise and another counter?