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

241–250 of 318 posts

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

#241

Post by smeej »

nuccy wrote: post #228
smeej wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the dumb question I came here to ask. So now I wait with you for a less dumb person to reply. My clock certainly seems to tick in the opposite direction when I look at it from behind.

Answering to your and original question above: there are no poles (or axes of rotation) in the Universe. On large scales (think distances to include thousands and millions of galaxies each with billions of stars with even more planets) the Universe is uniform - isotropic and homogeneous [1]. It is expanding with acceleration in all direction in each and every point of its space, so there is no preferred direction thu…

So it makes about as much sense to ask why 2/3rds of the galaxies are "upside-down" from our vantage point, because there's no clear reason it should be something other than 50% in a sample size this large?

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

#242

Post by prawn »

nuccy wrote: post #228
smeej wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the dumb question I came here to ask. So now I wait with you for a less dumb person to reply. My clock certainly seems to tick in the opposite direction when I look at it from behind.

Answering to your and original question above: there are no poles (or axes of rotation) in the Universe. On large scales (think distances to include thousands and millions of galaxies each with billions of stars with even more planets) the Universe is uniform - isotropic and homogeneous [1]. It is expanding with acceleration in all direction in each and every point of its space, so there is no preferred direction thu…

Dumb question time continues: The majority of the solar planets rotate in the same way, and the majority of the large moons rotate in the same direction as their planets. I assume this is influenced by the rotation of the relevant accretion disks. And I assume this is common for stars within a galaxy?

I don't think the universe is considered to have any significant rotation, however. Is this due to scale for us to measure, and/or having nothing external to compare against?

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

#243

Post by jfengel »

prawn wrote: post #242
nuccy wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answering to your and original question above: there are no poles (or axes of rotation) in the Universe. On large scales (think distances to include thousands and millions of galaxies each with billions of stars with even more planets) the Universe is uniform - isotropic and homogeneous [1]. It is expanding with acceleration in all direction in each and every point of its space, so there is no preferred direction thu…

Dumb question time continues: The majority of the solar planets rotate in the same way, and the majority of the large moons rotate in the same direction as their planets. I assume this is influenced by the rotation of the relevant accretion disks. And I assume this is common for stars within a galaxy? I don't think the universe is considered to have any significant rotation, however. Is this due to scale for us to me…

That's exactly it. Solar systems and galaxies have net rotation, and maybe even galactic clusters.

But there is no reason to think that the universe has a net rotation. It could have one; you don't need a frame of reference to detect rotation. (The same way you feel centrifugal force.)

It would be huge if it were shown to have a net rotation. So huge that I take this claim with skepticism until heavily confirmed.

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

#244

Post by twothreeone »

khazhoux wrote: post #239
twothreeone wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow and not even 24 hours after Trump takes aim at the Smithsonian. *) The article is from March 17.

Is this just word association, or you saying there’s some notable connection here?

If I was an editor at the Smithsonian, I'd be worried about peddling bogus theories for clicks at a time my employer is under scrutiny from the government. Apparently, they are not worried though, which astonishes me, hence my comment.

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

#245

Post by brookst »

twothreeone wrote: post #244
khazhoux wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this just word association, or you saying there’s some notable connection here?

If I was an editor at the Smithsonian, I'd be worried about peddling bogus theories for clicks at a time my employer is under scrutiny from the government. Apparently, they are not worried though, which astonishes me, hence my comment.

Out of all of the things, this government is scrutinizing, factual, accuracy, and quality of reasoning don’t seem to be of particular importance.

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

#246

Post by MoonGhost »

kmoser wrote: post #201
keyle wrote: post #9

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?

Dumber question: would a galaxy that appears to spin clockwise appear to spin counter-clockwise when viewed from the other side? Does this imply that the real question is why galaxies' relative orientations seem to favor more spinning in one direction than the other?

> when viewed from the other side?

Nobody has done it so far. We have only theories and hypothesis.

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

#247

Post by paulrouget »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #136
vlovich123 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How do you know?

Because measurements confirm a homogeneous and isotopic universe. A spherical universe would imply a special point, the center, which would go against these cosmological principals.

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

#248

Post by bbor »

MoonGhost wrote: post #246
kmoser wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumber question: would a galaxy that appears to spin clockwise appear to spin counter-clockwise when viewed from the other side? Does this imply that the real question is why galaxies' relative orientations seem to favor more spinning in one direction than the other?

> when viewed from the other side? Nobody has done it so far. We have only theories and hypothesis.

I'm not sure I understand this response -- basically all of cosmology involves theories based only on somewhat subjective interpretations of sensor data targeting far-off objects. So I don't necessarily disagree.

But what could possibly happen other than they act like all other physical objects do? It boggles the mind to think how broken physics would have to be to accommodate a second correspondence principle for the big-but-not-too-big scale...

I feel like maybe I'm misunderstanding your sentiment, because this seems like a basic shared fact: a clock anywhere in the universe is still a clock.

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

#249

Post by paulrouget »

weberer wrote: post #154
ziofill wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It split. The counter part is antimatter. And there’s more matter than antimatter.

So it’s a similar question. Where does this asymmetry come from.

Post reply on HN