Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 318 posts

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#151

Post by eightysixfour »

nashashmi wrote: post #80
thunder-blue-3 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been following this news for the past couple of weeks-- in essence your statement is what they are hypothesizing, and that the "something at the center that unites the two poles" might be that we are within a black hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology for the curious.

“The universe is an orb and that orb is rotating causing all the other stuff to spiral.” This was a long held theory of mine because I could not understand why a galaxy would spiral. I think there is a men in black scene, where an alien is rotating the universe globe like a toy they are playing.

Doesn’t it have to spiral? Think of the gravity well, anything not orbiting is just falling. The only things not racing towards the black hole at the center of the galaxy are the ones that are orbiting.

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#152

Post by hnuser123456 »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #147

Spin a coin on top of a glass table. Observe it from the top, and it spins either clockwise or anticlockwise. Observe it from the bottom and it's the opposite. There are no tables in space. Objects tumble while rotating. It seems we are measuring rotations using a fixed perspective when there is no reason to do so https://www.comsol.com/blogs/why-do-tennis-rackets-tumble-th...

If there were 10 pennies and 7 of them were spinning the same direction, you might say one direction appears to be favored.

Spiral galaxies spin, they do not tumble unless hit by another galaxy.

Elliptical galaxies are like gravitational convection and don't really have cohesive "rotation", however.

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#153

Post by jon_richards »

Contax wrote: post #135
vlovich123 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the universe isn’t spherical. I’m not sure I understand this hypothesis as explained.

This along blows my mind: I picture this bin bang and everything expanding from that point and... that everything is now a sphere. In my mind. But it isn't? Yes, I know next to nothing but love thinking about all of this.

Picture an infinitely long piece of elastic. Now stretch that elastic.

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#154

Post by weberer »

ziofill wrote: post #121
permo-w wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe this is a stupid question, but is it possible that the big bang simply had some kind of clockwise angular momentum to it? how different is that idea from the black hole cosmology concept? I don't really understand how the two fit together

It’s different because it’s simpler to assume that the total angular momentum of the universe is zero. If one black hole is rotating one way there must be other stuff rotating the other way to counterbalance. If you assume instead that the whole universe has angular momentum, well, where did that come from?

>If you assume instead that the whole universe has angular momentum, well, where did that come from?

You can say the exact same thing about mass. Obviously it came from somewhere. And it could have taken angular momentum with it.

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#155

Post by metalman »

must be something left out, because a galaxies r/l rotation is dependent on which side it is bieng viewed from, and since the are unlabled as to face and back, what is the basis for the handedness of something spinning in the void, with presumably most of the galaxies tilted at every angle and orientation possible other than aligned with ours. and 263* galaxies is zero galaxies when divided by the minimum number of galaxies, it's not a significant sample * number in study

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#156

Post by btilly »

albertzeyer wrote: post #44
over_bridge wrote: post #35

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?

In all known physical processes, the baryon number is conserved. Particles with a positive baryon number are the heavy particles in matter. Think protons, neutrons, and so on. Particles with a negative number are antimatter. Think antiprotons, and antineutrons. And particles with a 0 baryon number are not made of quarks. Think leptons like electrons and neutrinos, or bosons like photons and the Higgs boson.

This means that all known ways to create or destroy matter, also creates or destroys an equal amount of antimatter.

It turns out that most attempts to extend the Standard Model allow violations of baryon conservation. This could explain the dominance of matter in our universe. However none of those attempts have been able to make any predictions that matched experiment. And so it remains true that all known physical processes perfectly conserve the baryon number.

(It is also possible that baryon number really is conserved, and dark matter is actually dark antimatter. But we lack a theory of what dark matter could be that predicts this.)

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#157

Post by kevinb9n »

rob74 wrote: post #105
vincnetas wrote: post #67

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?

It just occured to me that "rotation direction" is a pretty coarse measurement. Actually, you could look at the angle of a galaxy relative to ours, where (let's say) 0° is viewed exactly from "above" (rotating clockwise), 180° is viewed exactly from "below" (rotating counterclockwise), 90°/270° is viewed side-on etc. How about some stats based on this parameter?

This was my thought too

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#158

Post by nashashmi »

eightysixfour wrote: post #151
nashashmi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The universe is an orb and that orb is rotating causing all the other stuff to spiral.” This was a long held theory of mine because I could not understand why a galaxy would spiral. I think there is a men in black scene, where an alien is rotating the universe globe like a toy they are playing.

Doesn’t it have to spiral? Think of the gravity well, anything not orbiting is just falling. The only things not racing towards the black hole at the center of the galaxy are the ones that are orbiting.

It can be directly sucked into the center. A spiral implies a lateral movement plus a centripetal force

Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise

#159

Post by adrian_b »

btilly wrote: post #156
albertzeyer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In all known physical processes, the baryon number is conserved. Particles with a positive baryon number are the heavy particles in matter. Think protons, neutrons, and so on. Particles with a negative number are antimatter. Think antiprotons, and antineutrons. And particles with a 0 baryon number are not made of quarks. Think leptons like electrons and neutrinos, or bosons like photons and the Higgs boson. This mean…

Even if in the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions the baryon number is conserved, there is the interesting fact that for the 8 particle set composed of the 3 kinds of u quarks, 3 kinds of d quarks, 1 electron and 1 neutrino, the sum of all kinds of quantities that are expected to be conserved, like electric charge, color charges and spin sum to zero. This set of 8 particles is also equivalent with the set of the components of one proton, one neutron, one electron and one neutrino.

This property of this set of 8 particles is analogous to the similar property of the set of 2 particles composed of a particle and its anti-particle, and to the similar property of the sets of 4 particles that can be involved in a weak interaction (the intermediate weak bosons convert one 4-particle interaction into a couple of 3-particle interactions, but when looking at the overall inputs and outputs, all the weak interactions are 4-particle interactions), which ensure the conservation of various quantities over such interactions.

This means that it is possible to conceive an additional kind of interaction, which unlike electromagnetic interactions between 2 particles and weak interactions between 4 particles, involves 8 particles, so it has a much smaller probability of occurring, i.e. it is a much weaker interaction than the weak interaction, and through which, when provided with enough energy, quarks + electrons + neutrinos could be generated simultaneously without generating anti-matter.

While there is no evidence yet for such an interaction, it is conceivable that at least during the circumstances of the Big Bang, such an interaction could have existed, so all the quarks and leptons could have been generated from some unknown bosons, just with enough initial energy and with conservation of all quantities for which there are solid reasons to believe that they must always be conserved, like energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, electric charge and color charges. (Unlike for the baryon number, for which there is no other reason to believe that it must be conserved, except that the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions happen to have this behavior.)

Post reply on HN