An Overview of my Work: Part One
Spinning into Reality
This is a quick article on the subject of my studies, for almost 20 years. I have been obsessed with a theory of reality which states that we live in a rotating universe. Mathematician Kurt Godel was the first to propose that maybe the universe possessed an angular momentum, but various questions arose, such as, if it is spinning, what is it spinning with respect to? If the universe spins, why is there no axis of rotation? These are questions not lightly answered, however, one can attempt to.
In my universe, rotation and thus torsion will have significant effects in the universe. Everything almost contains a spin, right down to the elementary particle, right up to the cosmological bodies of the heavens: rotation is part of what is called the full Poincare group of spatial symmetries, so rotation might be something we should expect for a universe at large because it is a part of nature itself.
We have some evidence actually for this universal rotation: Dark Flow is a ''pull'' on the observable galaxies all in one common direction, which could be an artifact of a universe dragging its internal dust with its spin. We can assume that for some reason, today, the rotation is barely happening and there may be some real physical reasons this is happening.
A spin for a universe, was shown by Hoyle and Narlikar would eventually exponentially decay. I ventured to find a reason for this and according to work by Chenkov a rotation actually lowers the Friedmann energy levels of a universe. You see, it takes energy to rotate a thing, even a universe. And so, any primordial rotation would have naturally required energy to do so equally: A large spin even results in a large torsion term which, if you take a look at the picture, we have a Friedmann equation with torsion in the effective density part of the equation.
Such a large torsion, as it has been shown by Arun and Sivaram, can actually cancel out large energies in the cosmological constant because it is negative and the cosmological constant is positive: the cosmological constant (or shortened to CC by some authors) needs to be very small and positive, so this may be the step in the right direction to find a non-anthropic reason for such a small cosmological constant.
Based on all of this, it is possible then the universe came into existence with a very large spin but this exponentially decays as it gets larger and so, energy is required to go towards this and will explain maybe the missing vacuum energy known as the cosmological constant problem. For instance, according to calculations, the vacuum energy has a massive discrepancy, the observed value is around 10^112 orders too small than what is predicted from the equations!!
There simply should be loads of energy out there, but there isn't. Is it possible the energy has gone towards something else, namely a spin to the universe? Let's be clear, there are way more benefits to be spoke about from the equations. For instance, a rotation to a universe can explain dark energy in the most novel way, by noticing that an internal centrifugal force would push the universe outwards, imitating dark energy with excellent degree.
It can also answer why most galaxies in the universe have a preferred spin, called a ''handedness'' because cosmological bodies will have tended to align with the spin of a universe with presence of primordial magnetic fields, similar to how electrons align to magnetic fields in a Stern-Gerlach experiment.
So yes, there is evidence that we live in some kind of gyroscopic universe and there are scientists who are actively working in the field to find definitive evidence of some sort of this large scale structure. One process is find more detailed information about dark flow from careful studies. What the investigation does show, is that concepts like spin and energy may be intimately linked with how we understand the evolution of a universe, to the point, both may be essential - you might also think it is weird that we may even consider a universe with zero energy, but this is exactly the zero energy theories that were circling 20 and even more years back and still today.
I don't believe our universe has zero energy; I believe it has an energy. I believe the universe doesn't even conserve the energy. And, it is this theory in which I believe will ultimately force us to deviate away from de Sitter space (conventional cosmology) and into the new cosmological physics. We will retain homogeneity and isotropy of a Friedmann universe, but there is no reason to think energy remains the same: in fact, if we take current general relativity theory seriously, this is the most natural approach because there is no conservation principle in relativity. Some consider the Friedmann equation as a conservation principle, but rest assured, its the only one of its kind where Friedmann made the unfounded assumption that energy remains the same throughout the evolution of a universe.
I say unfounded, but it probably wasn't unfounded back then, because the universe was universally accepted to be an adiabatic system (a system in which no energy or in terms of thermodynamics, no heat can transfer into or out of the system) ... because the universe is assumed to be closed.
However, in the advent of quantum mechanics and field theory, we don't need energy to leave or enter the system to actually change the energy content of a universe. Assuming the universe is truly expanding, then this will equally mean the presence of new spacetime is constantly coming into existence and with it, the existence of what scientists call, a zero point energy field. Without getting into the complexities of this too much, basically spacetime is not empty as was the thinking back in the days of Newton. Space is filled with particles that are constantly coming into existence - in other words, field theory is essentially about how energy is not conserved!! Spacetime is not Newtonian, spacetime has a temperature, even in a vacuum. In Newtons world, a vacuum would have been totally devoid of energy, we now know this is not the case.
So with expansion, must come energy... and with new energy, must come with it conservation breakdown; but its a valuable breakdown - it is in fact, just the kind I believe we need to answer vital questions in other parts of physics, such as, ''the problem of time,'' and why the Wheeler de Witt equation will ultimately show itself to be a false representation of reality. What is the Wheeler de Witt equation? We'll come back to this in a moment, but first of all, I want to be clear about how we view energy conservation.
What does the physicist mean when they talk about energy conservation? In regards to general relativity, this may be discussed in quite a number of ways, one of the most popular explanations of conservation principles, comes from Noether's theorem. Neother's theorem is about continuous translations over spacetime: To do this with energy, however, to see how it conserves, requires its conjugate of time. Now this is a big issue for cosmology, because... there is no global time in general relativity.
See, the way in which evolution happens in general relativity, is not actually generated by a time variable. Such an evolution, actually depends on difficult mathematics called diffeomorphism invariance which in a way, attempt to shuffle space coordinates freely. Thus, physicists say, motion is generated by a symmetry of the theory, it isn't actually a true time evolution. We will come back to this: The absence of time is taken on as a special feature of a quantum gravity equation known as the Wheeler deWitt equation; the time variable vanishes effectively from Einsteins equations when the field equations have been quantized using path integrals.
This brings me back to the Wheeler deWitt equation (WDW) because in many ways, the resulting quantum gravity equation which Wheeler needed help quantizing back in the 60's, is a type of statement about conservation as well. It is no surprise, a universe with no internal changes would give rise to a static equation such as the WDW equation. You can only get change (and thus) perhaps a sense of time, if there was in fact some kind of conservation breakdown in a universe, such as an energy conservation breakdown.
This post was meant to be an overview of my work over the last few years, but its came as more or less a full explanation of my investigations. So there we have it: In ''my'' theory we have
1) The universe rotates and exponentially decayed leaving the residual dark flow phenomenon and so, can explain dark flow naturally
2) It explains the common handedness of galaxies
3) It can explain why we have a small cosmological constant and why there is not more observable energy in the universe
4) The torsion makes the universe part of the full Poincare group, which is itself a mixture of the Lorentz group and the group of translations.
5) Can explain dark energy naturally, by introducing a natural centrifugal force field that will arise in a universe that has a spin