This is a computer simulation demo of the centrifugal force, which I claim is what is responsible for the so-called "dark energy."

# Big Spin, not Big Bang!

## Monday, March 20, 2017

### Coriolis effect demo

Here is an impressive demonstration of the Coriolis effect, which I claim is responsible for—together with the cosmic centrifugal force—the so-called "dark matter."

## Wednesday, June 1, 2016

### 19 reasons as to why it was a Big Spin, not a Big Bang

For the details, please read my "Dark Energy and Dark matter as Inertial Effects" paper on arxiv.org.

## Friday, May 13, 2016

### Dark Energy and Dark Matter are Cosmic Centrifugal and Coriolis Forces

###
*Below is my attempt at explaining the problems of dark energy and dark matter that I developed in 2010.*

The two most outstanding unsolved problems of modern cosmology today are the problems of dark energy and dark matter. Together these two problems imply that about a whopping 96% of the energy content of the universe is simply unaccounted for within the reigning paradigm of modern cosmology.

The dark energy problem has been around only for about two decades, while the dark matter problem has gone unsolved for about 90 years. Various ideas have been put forward, including some fantastic ones such as the presence of ghostly fields and particles. Some ideas even suggest the breakdown of the standard Newton-Einstein gravity for the relevant scales.

Although some progress has been made particularly in the area of dark matter with the nonstandard gravity theories, the problems still stand unresolved.

In this article, I propose a globally rotating universe (that is, the spacetime background is rotating). My motivation is simple: when we observe mysterious effects in our universe, whose supposed causes we cannot seem to be detecting, our first reaction should not be to hypothesize undetectable ghostly particles or modify our standard and normally very successful laws of physics. Rather, the common sense would require that we first explore whether we are living in a non-inertial universe. This is especially so since the properties of dark energy and dark matter are so “mysteriously” gravity-like. What better gravity-like effects than inertial effects such as the good old centrifugal and Coriolis forces? Indeed, the equivalence principle teaches us the equivalence of gravitational and inertial effects.

My calculations are not based on recondite mathematical physics theories, and will perhaps be viewed by the “experts” in the field as simplistic and naïve. My point, however, in writing this article is to present yet another candidate, if for nothing else than just brain storming on cosmology and relativity, for explaining the two mysteries of modern cosmology, especially given the fact that no one has any answer as to how to explain the missing 96% of the universe.

My humble calculations in this model do produce---in one stroke and, for me, in a fine display of

__unification__---the main parameters of both dark energy and dark matter with a stunning degree of precision, and thus give a strong support for the rotary paradigm to resolve the two most outstanding problems of modern cosmology. In other words, this model does naturally__unify__these two seemingly unrelated phenomena.
Proleptically, and right at the outset, I would like to point out that the presented model is patently at odds with the cosmological principle. To this end, I suggest that the reader keep in mind two considerations: first, the rotation proposed does not have to be around a fixed axis: the axis of rotation itself might be rotating, which carried more significance in the early days of the universe when the rotation speed (the Hubble parameter) was, by the conservation of angular momentum, very large, and hence a homogeneous-looking universe. Second, my model posits a cosmic rotation with an angular speed that is currently equal to the Hubble constant, and so it is a bit less than 10^-10 rad/year, which is very very slow. Our current observational techniques cannot yet detect such a small global rotation. However, there are observations done by astronomers such as Michael Longo suggesting a spinning universe, potentially supporting my hypothesis.

For details, I will have to direct you to the arxiv.org website for two of my papers on this topic:

Serkan Zorba

### What is the Origin of Intrinsic Quantum Spin?

Spin quantum number is the fourth parameter needed to uniquely describe the quantum state of a, say, fermion such as an electron. It was originally postulated by the brilliant, albeit caustic, Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Shortly afterwards some physicists interpreted it as self-rotation. Pauli himself was not happy with this interpretation because a quick calculation shows that such a mechanical supposition requires a superluminal rotation of the electron's "surface," which goes counter to the dictates of the special theory of relativity.

So how is quantum spin explained then? Is there a physical model for it?

The standard answer to these questions is that we are supposed to think of quantum spin as a two-valued intrinsic quantum degree of freedom, corresponding to an "intrinsic" angular momentum, with

When self-rotation so neatly explains the two-valuedness (clockwise-counterclockwise), and the angular momentum aspect of this phenomenon that I do question the validity of Pauli's (and others') concern about the faster-than-light rotation. The special theory of relativity puts a speed limit only on the propagation of causal information. I don't think electron's spinning faster-than-light can be harnessed to breach that limit. After all, we are familiar with many superluminal but non-causal events: Isn't it true, for example, that quantum entanglement can travel faster than light? Or that there are galaxies in our universe that are receding from us superluminally? Or that the early universe expanded exponentially with faster-than-light speeds, according to the cosmic inflation theory?

Having presented my perspective on quantum spin, I would like to now go one step further and ask what the primal origin, the cause or the source of this, fundamentally two-valued, spin is, which, one has to note, is possessed

Again, why is it that it will be either parallel or antiparallel to a given measurement axis? How is possible that all the fundamental particles have the same property, which never dissipates?

My answer to these questions is to do with my cosmological model that unifies and explains, in one stroke, both the dark energy and dark matter, namely the Big Spin. As those of you who have read my two papers (see arXiv.org) on the topic, and a blog post here, will recall that I have proposed a globally rotating space-time model, that I call the Big Spin, which is a natural cause of the early cosmic inflation, and the relatively recent accelerated expansion of the universe and the galaxy rotation curve anomalies.

I hereby do posit that, in addition to being a strong and natural candidate to explain our outstanding dark energy and dark matter dual problems, a Big-Spin model does also naturally explain the origin of "intrinsic" angular momentum of elementary particles. That is because these particles at the initial singularity started to spin with a gargantuan primordial angular momentum of the Big Spin, not Big Bang!, with superluminal rotation speeds. As the universe expanded, the spin orientations got thermalized and hence the current two-valued, clockwise-counterclockwise characteristics.

So how is quantum spin explained then? Is there a physical model for it?

The standard answer to these questions is that we are supposed to think of quantum spin as a two-valued intrinsic quantum degree of freedom, corresponding to an "intrinsic" angular momentum, with

*no classical analog*. And the majority of physicists follow this catechism.*But I don't!*When self-rotation so neatly explains the two-valuedness (clockwise-counterclockwise), and the angular momentum aspect of this phenomenon that I do question the validity of Pauli's (and others') concern about the faster-than-light rotation. The special theory of relativity puts a speed limit only on the propagation of causal information. I don't think electron's spinning faster-than-light can be harnessed to breach that limit. After all, we are familiar with many superluminal but non-causal events: Isn't it true, for example, that quantum entanglement can travel faster than light? Or that there are galaxies in our universe that are receding from us superluminally? Or that the early universe expanded exponentially with faster-than-light speeds, according to the cosmic inflation theory?

Having presented my perspective on quantum spin, I would like to now go one step further and ask what the primal origin, the cause or the source of this, fundamentally two-valued, spin is, which, one has to note, is possessed

*universally*by all elementary particles.Again, why is it that it will be either parallel or antiparallel to a given measurement axis? How is possible that all the fundamental particles have the same property, which never dissipates?

My answer to these questions is to do with my cosmological model that unifies and explains, in one stroke, both the dark energy and dark matter, namely the Big Spin. As those of you who have read my two papers (see arXiv.org) on the topic, and a blog post here, will recall that I have proposed a globally rotating space-time model, that I call the Big Spin, which is a natural cause of the early cosmic inflation, and the relatively recent accelerated expansion of the universe and the galaxy rotation curve anomalies.

I hereby do posit that, in addition to being a strong and natural candidate to explain our outstanding dark energy and dark matter dual problems, a Big-Spin model does also naturally explain the origin of "intrinsic" angular momentum of elementary particles. That is because these particles at the initial singularity started to spin with a gargantuan primordial angular momentum of the Big Spin, not Big Bang!, with superluminal rotation speeds. As the universe expanded, the spin orientations got thermalized and hence the current two-valued, clockwise-counterclockwise characteristics.

### Big Spin, Not Big Bang!

My spacetime-rotation model of the universe (see my papers in arXiv and blog posts here) proposes, effectively, to replace Big Bang with a more "natural" Big Spin which, although its own origin needs to be dealt with, does capably

Here I would like to share with you something very exciting that I came across very recently about one of the founding theoreticians of the Big Bang theory: George Gamow.

After I came up with my rotary model of the universe, without any prior knowledge of the literature, in October 2010, I learned from Wikipedia that Kurt Godel had (in 1949) a rotary model of the universe that, although useful as an exercise in general relativity, goes counter to our daily experiences due to its infamous closed timelike curves, allowing time travel into the past and a disturbing possibility of messing up with the causal chain of events, which we don't seem to experience. Furthermore, Godel's model, in general, does not result in an expanding universe, and hence the issues of dark energy and dark matter are absent.

That is because Godel's universal rotation is the rigid rotation of matter, whereas my model proposes a

Anyways, at the beginning of this year, I read somewhere online that there is a possibility that Kurt Godel got his cue about a rotational cosmic model from a letter sent to the editors of Nature magazine a few years earlier, in 1946, by the brilliant George Gamow about the possibility of a rotating universe.

I immediately ordered a copy of this paper through our interlibrary loan service. Below I will paste it as a picture. Please take a look at it, and note how my "Dark energy and Dark matter as Inertial Effects" paper does point out the same thing as Gamow mentions, particularly, about the shapes of galaxies and how a rotational universe would naturally explain them. I found this to be very interesting and exciting, and more important, profoundly encouraging.

__unify,__and__naturally__and__physically__explain many seemingly unrelated and confusing outstanding cosmological problems: the cosmic inflation, dark energy, dark matter, and the "mysterious" intrinsic spin (angular momentum) of elementary particles. I refer you to my relevant writings on that.Here I would like to share with you something very exciting that I came across very recently about one of the founding theoreticians of the Big Bang theory: George Gamow.

After I came up with my rotary model of the universe, without any prior knowledge of the literature, in October 2010, I learned from Wikipedia that Kurt Godel had (in 1949) a rotary model of the universe that, although useful as an exercise in general relativity, goes counter to our daily experiences due to its infamous closed timelike curves, allowing time travel into the past and a disturbing possibility of messing up with the causal chain of events, which we don't seem to experience. Furthermore, Godel's model, in general, does not result in an expanding universe, and hence the issues of dark energy and dark matter are absent.

That is because Godel's universal rotation is the rigid rotation of matter, whereas my model proposes a

__rotating space-time__, which naturally produces inertial effects that we, unknowingly, call dark energy and dark matter.Anyways, at the beginning of this year, I read somewhere online that there is a possibility that Kurt Godel got his cue about a rotational cosmic model from a letter sent to the editors of Nature magazine a few years earlier, in 1946, by the brilliant George Gamow about the possibility of a rotating universe.

I immediately ordered a copy of this paper through our interlibrary loan service. Below I will paste it as a picture. Please take a look at it, and note how my "Dark energy and Dark matter as Inertial Effects" paper does point out the same thing as Gamow mentions, particularly, about the shapes of galaxies and how a rotational universe would naturally explain them. I found this to be very interesting and exciting, and more important, profoundly encouraging.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)