A.M. Conservation?

[aguy2]

Angular momentum is conserved within a system. My question is: can the universe be seen as a system in which angular momentum is conserved?

 

aguy2

[insane_alien]

yes as it is a closed system.

[aguy2]

yes as it is a closed system.

 

What was the source of the conserved angular momentum? What form would it have taken at the BB event?

 

aguy2

[□h=-16πT]

Angular momentum is conserved for central systems without external forces. That this results in angular momentum conservation arises from the following relationship between turning moment G and angular momentum J in an analogous manner to the conservation of linear momentum from Newton's second law

 

[math]\vec{G}=\frac{d\vec{J}}{dt}[/math]

[Severian]

Angular momentum is conserved as long as the laws of physics are rotationally symmetric (just as momentum conservation holds if the laws of physics are translationally symmetric).

[swansont]

What was the source of the conserved angular momentum? What form would it have taken at the BB event?

 

aguy2

 

Hve you established that there is any net angular momentum?

[aguy2]

Angular momentum is conserved as long as the laws of physics are rotationally symmetric (just as momentum conservation holds if the laws of physics are translationally symmetric).

 

If a system displays a high degree of angular momentum, and this a.m. were to decrease, would the a.m. be translated to sub-systems within the system?

 

aguy2

[swansont]

If a system displays a high degree of angular momentum' date=' and this a.m. were to decrease, would the a.m. be translated to sub-systems within the system?

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

Yes, that's one thing that could happen to conserve it.

[aguy2]

Yes, that's one thing that could happen to conserve it.

 

Do you think that the angular momentum of a pre-inflationary, rotating BB event could have been translated to the 'spin' of the newly forming sub-atomic particles?

 

aguy2

[swansont]

Do you think that the angular momentum of a pre-inflationary' date=' rotating BB event could have been translated to the 'spin' of the newly forming sub-atomic particles?

 

aguy2[/quote']

The inherent angular momentum, no, but it could conceivably change their state. i.e. not giving an electron its [math](1/2) \hbar[/math] but putting it into a different state

[aguy2]

The inherent angular momentum, no

 

Are you saying 'no' because of the observed differences between the a.m. of sub-atomic particles and the a.m. of macro-structures? Seeing, that at least initially, the pre-inflationary BB event was not composed of particles, might not its form of angular momentum been more akin to that which observe in sub-atomic particles?

 

but it could conceivably change their state. i.e. not giving an electron its [math](1/2) \hbar[/math'] but putting it into a different state

 

I take this to mean that it still might have been possible for the a.m. of the pre-inflationary BB event to be reduced to the extent that it might partially collapse?

 

aguy2

[swansont]

Are you saying 'no' because of the observed differences between the a.m. of sub-atomic particles and the a.m. of macro-structures? Seeing, that at least initially, the pre-inflationary BB event was not composed of particles[/b'], might not its form of angular momentum been more akin to that which observe in sub-atomic particles?

 

I don't know if that's a correct statement, and I'm not the right person to ask to see if it is.

 

I take this to mean that it still might have been possible for the a.m. of the pre-inflationary BB event to be reduced to the extent that it might partially collapse?

 

aguy2

 

All I'm saying is that there should be a mechanism to transfer the angular momentum. But if you have the rotational symmetry, angular momentum will be conserved. This is a consequence of Noether's theorems.

[aguy2]

I don't know if that's a correct statement' date=' and I'm not the right person to ask to see if it is.

 

All I'm saying is that there should be a mechanism to transfer the angular momentum. But if you have the rotational symmetry, angular momentum will be conserved. This is a consequence of Noether's theorems.[/quote']

 

Here is my line of reasoning:

1) at inception the BB event displays a high degree of angular momentum

2) due to its temperature and pressure the universe slowly expands

3) when the lower temperature and pressure permit, the formation of particles and anti-particles begins to slow the rotation till the universe partially collapses

4) during the partial collapse the newly formed particles and anti-particles are forced into contact with one another and most of them are annihilated

5) the resulting explosion is expressed as 2 jets (or pulses) erupting from both poles, this represents the inflationary era

6) one of the jets contains a small remnant of particles and the other a small remnant of anti-particles

7) the particle jet or pulse developes into what we see as the visible universe

8) as it egresses from its point of origin it expands in relation to itself

9) over the next 10 billion or so years the egression and expansion slows till the egression ceases altogether

10) in a process analogous to a collapsing fountain of water, the expansion of the visible universe begins to accelerate while at the same time it is regressing back towards its point of origin

 

What do you think? Am I just another crank or could I be on to something?

 

aguy2

[aguy2]

I don't know if that's a correct statement' date=' and I'm not the right person to ask to see if it is.

 

All I'm saying is that there should be a mechanism to transfer the angular momentum. But if you have the rotational symmetry, angular momentum will be conserved. This is a consequence of Noether's theorems.[/quote']

 

swansont,

Sorry about 'cranking it up a notch'. I realize my 'speculation' concerning the possibility that the possible angular momentum of the early universe could be 'bled' off (transfered) during the process of sub-atomic particle formation is pushing the envelope.

 

The information you gave me concerning the possibility that the a.m. of the system could have been transfered to the new formed sub-atomic particles and anti-particles through the auspices of 'classical mechanics' is at least a partial validation of the possibility that my proposed 'model' might be representative of the actual case.

 

Thank you for your input.

aguy2

[swansont]

Here is my line of reasoning:

1) at inception the BB event displays a high degree of angular momentum

 

 

What is your evidence that this is the case?

[aguy2]

1) at inception the BB event displays a high degree of angular momentum

 

What is your evidence that this is the case?

 

Direct observation of the of the nature of the universe previous to the 'inflationary era' may prove to be impossible. As far as I know the 'cosmic microwave background' is as far back as we can see, and the CMB is likely a post inflationary phenomenon.

 

It may prove possible to determine that the visible particle universe is a result of a 'jet' or 'pulse'; although if the resulting 'conic projection' was sufficently large, it would prove to be very difficult to tell the difference between it and an 'isometric expansion' from a non-rotating source.

 

aguy2

[swansont]

1) at inception the BB event displays a high degree of angular momentum

 

 

 

Direct observation of the of the nature of the universe previous to the 'inflationary era' may prove to be impossible. As far as I know the 'cosmic microwave background' is as far back as we can see' date=' and the CMB is likely a post inflationary phenomenon.

 

It may prove possible to determine that the visible particle universe is a result of a 'jet' or 'pulse'; although if the resulting 'conic projection' was sufficently large, it would prove to be very difficult to tell the difference between it and an 'isometric expansion' from a non-rotating source.

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

 

IOW, there is no evidence that the angular momentum of the big bang was different from zero.

[aguy2]

IOW, there is no evidence that the angular momentum of the big bang was different from zero.

 

Yes. I am presenting no direct evidence of a rotating BB event.

 

A good theory of the BB event must 'accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and must make definite predictions about the results of future observations'. I am contending that in light of these requirements the cosmological models that presume a BB event with zero angular momentum are beginning to break down. They do not answer the question as to why the universe is not half matter and half anti-matter. They do not answer the question of the source of conserved quantum and macro angular momentum. In order to explain the probability that there was such a thing as an inflationary era the models need such things as temporary reversals of gravitational effects, and in order to explains such things as the observations that seem to indicate that the expansion of the universe began to accelerate 3 1/2 billion years ago the models need 'fudge factors' like 'dark energy'. I think I am making a rational contention that these questions can be adequently addressed with an assumption that the pre-inflationary era was rotating.

 

aguy2

[swansont]

They do not answer the question of the source of conserved quantum and macro angular momentum.

 

But as Severian explained, conservation of angular momentum stems from rotational symmetry. It need not be addressed elsewhere.

[aguy2]

"the question of the source of conserved quantum and macro angular momentum"

 

But as Severian explained, conservation of angular momentum stems from rotational symmetry. It need not be addressed elsewhere.

 

Severian's explaination would seem valid if the question only concerned 'macro' or 'cosmolgical' angular momentum. Admittedly I might be the only one asking questions like, "Have we been wasting 80 years of time and resources searching for the connection between quantum and cosmological gravitational effects, when we should have been looking for why the very big and the very small do not seem like direct expressions of one another?", but 1 is enough.

 

The question involved certainly would make a good topic for another thread.

 

aguy2

[s pepperchin]

the angular momentum is defined by the referance frame so at the bing bang the ere is a frame where the angular momentum is zero. This means that the universe as a whole has a net angular momentum of zero constantly. If you chose a frame in which the net angular momentum is not zero than it would still be constant it just wouldn't be zero.