1: \documentstyle[]{article}
2: \linespread{1.6}
3: \textwidth27pc
4:
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Rotation of the Universe and the angular momenta of celestial bodies}
9: \bigskip
10:
11: \author{
12: W{\l}odzimierz God{\l}owski${^1}$
13: Marek Szyd{\l}owski ${^1}$ \\ Piotr Flin $^{2,3}$
14: Monika Biernacka${^2}$
}
15:
16: \maketitle
17:
18: 1. Astronomical Observatory of the Jagiellonian University, 30-244
19: Krakow, ul. Orla 171, Poland e-mail: godlows@oa.uj.edu.pl
20:
21: 2. Pedagogical University, Institute of Physics, 25-406 Kielce, ul.
22: Swietokrzyska 15, Poland e-mail: sfflin@cyf-kr.edu.pl
23:
24: 3. Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for
25: Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow Region 141980, Russia
26: \bigskip
27:
28:
29: \section*{Abstract}
30: \medskip
31: We discuss the equation of motion of the rotating homogenous and
32: isotropic model of the Universe. We show that the model
33: predicts the presence of a minimum in the relation between the mass
34: of an astronomical object and its angular momentum. We show that this
35: relation appears to be universal, and we predict the masses of
36: structures with minimal angular momenta in agreement with observations.
37: In such a manner we suggest the possibility at acquirement of angular momenta
38: of celestial bodies during their formation from the global rotation of the
39: Universe.
40:
41: {\bf keywords}
42: angular momenta, Universe rotation
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46:
47:
48: The pioneering idea of the rotation of the Universe
49: should be attributed to G. Gamow \cite{Gamow46},
50: who expressed the opinion that the rotation of galaxies is due
51: to the turbulent motion of masses in the Universe, and ``we can ask
52: ourselves whether it is not possible to assume that {\it all matter in
53: the visible universe is in a status of general rotation around some
54: centre located far beyond the reach of our telescopes?}". The idea of
55: turbulence as a source of the rotation of galaxies was afterwards
56: developed by C.F. von Weizsaeker \cite{Weizsaeker51},
57: Ozernoy and Chernin \cite{Ozernoy68}, Ozernoy \cite{Ozernoy78}, but presently
58: is only of historical value.
59: [If the angular momenta of galaxies had orginated in such a way, their
60: spins should be perpendicular to the main protostructure plane
61: \cite{Szandarin74}, which is not observed.]
62: The exact solution of the Einstein equation for the model of a homogeneous
63: universe with rotation and spatial expansion was proposed by Goedel
64: \cite{Goedel49, Goedel52}.
65: The observational evidence of global rotation of the Universe was
66: presented by Birch \cite{Birch82}. He investigated the
67: position angles and polarisation of classical high-luminosity double
68: radio sources, finding that the difference between the position angle of
69: the source elongation and of the polarisation are correlated with the
70: source position in the sky. Immediately there appeared
71: a paper by Phinney and Webster \cite{Phinney83} concluding
72: that ``the data are unsufficient to substantiate the claim" and the statistics
73: are applied incorrectly. Answering, Birch \cite{Birch83}
74: pointed out the difference in the quantity investigated by him and that by
75: Phinney and Webster, showing that their data exhibit the such effect.
76: At the request ofBirch, Phinney and Webster \cite{Phinney84} reanalysed the
77: data, introducting new ``indirectional statistics" and taking into account
78: possible observational uncertainties. They concluded ``that the
79: reported effect ({\it whatever may be its origin}) is strongly supported
80: by the observations".
81: Bietenholz and Kronberg \cite{Bietenholz84}
82: repeated the analysis for a larger sample of objects, finding no effect
83: of the Birch type.
84: New statistical tests were later applied to the data \cite{Bietenholz86}.
85:
86: Nodland and Ralston \cite{Nodland97a}
87: studied the correlation between the direction and distance to a
88: galaxy and the angle $\beta$ between the polarisation direction and the
89: major galaxy axis. They found an effect of a systematic rotation of the
90: plane of polarisation of electromagnetic radiation, which depends on redshifts.
91: As usually, the result was attacked for the point of incorrectly applied
92: statistics
93: \cite{Carrol97, Loredo97, Eisenstein97}
94: see the reply \cite{Nodland97b}
95: with a claim that the new, better data do not support the
96: existence of the effect \cite{Wardle97}.
97:
98:
99: The problem of the rotation of the whole Universe has attracted the attention
100: of several scientists.
101: It was shown that the reported rotation values are too big when compared with
102: the CMB anisotropy.
103: Silk \cite{Silk70} pointed out that the dynamical effects
104: of a general rotation of the Universe are presently unimportant, contrary
105: to the the early Universe, when angular velocity $\Omega \ge 10^{-13}
106: rad/yr$. He stressed that now the period of rotation must be greater than
107: the Hubble time, which is a simple consequence of the CMB isotropy.
108: Barrow, Juszkiewicz and Sonoda \cite{Barrow85} also addressed
109: this question. They showed that cosmic vorticity depends strongly on
110: the cosmological models and assumptions connected with linearisation
111: of homogeneous, anistropic cosmological models over the isotropic
112: Friedmann Universe. For the flat universe, the value is ${\omega\over H_0}
113: \sim 2 \cdot 10^{-5}$.
114:
115:
116: Another interesting problem was the discussions on the empirical relation
117: between the angular momentum and mass of celestial bodies $J\sim M^{5/3}$
118: \cite{Brosche86}.
119: Li-Xin Li \cite{Li98} explained this relation for galaxies as a
120: result of the influence of the global rotation of the Universe on
121: galaxy formation.
122:
123:
124: \section{ Universe and its angular momentum.}
125:
126:
127: Homogeneous and isotropic models of the Universe with matter may not
128: only expand, but also rotate relative to the local gyroscope. The
129: motion of the matter can be described by Raychaudhuri equation. This is
130: a relation between the scalar expansion $\Theta$, the rotation tensor
131: $\omega_{ab}$ and the shear tensor $\sigma_{ab}$ \cite{Hawking69} \cite{Ellis73}.
132: The perfect fluid has the stress-energy tensor:
133: $T_{ab}=(\rho+p)u_au_b+pg_{ab}$,
134: where $\rho$ is mass density and $p$ is pressure. The Raychaudhuri
135: equation can be written as:
136: $$
137: -\nabla_a A^a+\dot{\Theta}+{1\over3}\Theta^2+2(\sigma^2-\omega^2)=
138: -4\pi G(\rho+3p), \eqno(1)
139: $$
140: where
141: $A^a=u^b\nabla_bu^a$ is the acceleration vector (vanishing in our case), while
142: $\omega^2\equiv\omega_{ab}\omega^{ab}/2$ and
143: $\sigma^2\equiv\sigma^{ab}\sigma_{ab}/2$ are rotation and sheer scalar
144: respectively, $\Theta$ is scalar expansion.
145:
146:
147:
148:
149: It has been shown that the spatial homogeneous, rotating and expanding
150: universe filled with perfect fluid must have non-vanishing shear
151: \cite{King73}.
152:
153: Because $\sigma$ falls off more rapidly than the rotation $\omega$ as
154: the universes expand it is reasonable to consider such generalization of
155: Friedmann equation in which only the ``centrifugal" term is present i.e.
156: $$
157: {\dot{a} ^2\over 2} +{\omega^2a^2\over 2} -{4\pi Ga^2\over 3c^2}\epsilon=
158: - {kc^2\over 2}, \eqno(2)
159: $$
160: where $\epsilon=\rho c^2$ is energy density, $k$ is curvature constant,
161: $a$ is scalar factor and $\dot{a} \equiv {d\over dt} a$
162: (or $^{\dot{}}\equiv {d\over dt}$ ).
163: Equation (2) should be completed with the principle of conservation energy
164: momentum (tensor) and that of angular momentum:
165: $$
166: \dot{\epsilon}=-(\epsilon +p)\Theta, \qquad \Theta\equiv 3{\dot{a} \over a} \eqno(3)
167: $$
168: $$
169: {p+\epsilon \over c^2} a^5 \omega =J. \eqno(4)
170: $$
171: From that we can observe that if $p=0$ (dust) then $\rho\propto a^{-3}$
172: and $\omega\propto a^{-2}$, while in general $\sigma$ falls as $a^{-3}$
173: \cite{Hawking69}.
174: The momentum conservation law should
175: be satisfed for each kind of matter, and consequently the angular velocity of
176: the universe will evolve according to different laws in different epochs.
177: Before
178: decoupling ($z=1000$), matter and radiation interact but after decoupling
179: dust and radiation evolve separately with their own angular
180: velocities $\omega_d$ and $\omega_r$. Quantities $\omega$ and $\rho$ can be
181: written as $\omega=\omega_0 (1+z)^2$,
182: $\rho=\rho_{d0} (1+z)^3 +\rho_{r0}(1+z)^4$
183: the total mass density of matter and radiation.
184:
185:
186: The conservation of the angular momentum of a galaxy
187: relative to the gyroscopic frames in dust epochs gives \cite{Li98}:
188: $$
189: J=kM^{5/3} -lM, \eqno(5)
190: $$
191: where $k={2\over5}\left({3\over 4\pi\rho_{d0}}\right)^{2/3}\omega_0$,
192: $\rho_{do}$ is the density of matter in the present epoch,
193: $l=\beta r_f^2(1+z_f)^2\omega_0$, $r_f$ is galaxy radius, and
194: $\beta$ is a parameter determined by the distribution of mass in
195: the galaxy.
196:
197: In \cite{Li98} the (present) value of the angular velocity of the Universe
198: is estimated. A suitable value for $k$ is 0.4 (in CGS Units). Taking
199: $\rho_{d0}= 1.88\cdot 10^{-29} \Omega h^2g\, cm^{-3}$
200: and $h=0.75$, $\Omega=0.01$
201: (Peebles \cite{Peebles93} for rich clusters of galaxies, see also
202: \cite{Peebles02, Lahav02}), we obtain
203: $\omega_0\simeq 6\cdot 10^{-21}rad\, s^{-1} \simeq 2\cdot 10^{-13}rad\, yr^{-1}$
204:
205: It is interesting to note that there are the minimal values of $J_{min}$,
206: corresponding to same $M_{min}$.
207:
208: From the analysis of relation $J(M)$ [eq(5)], we obtain the presence of the
209: global minimum at
210: $$
211: M_{min}=\left({3l\over 5k}\right)^{3/2}=1.95 r_f^3 (1+z_f)^3 \rho_{d0}, \eqno(6a)
212: $$
213: $$
214: J_{min}=-{6\sqrt{3}\over 25\sqrt{5}} {l^{5/2}\over k^{3/2}}, \eqno(6b)
215: $$
216:
217:
218: For us it is important that $J$ grows as a function of $M$ after the
219: minimal value of $M$.
220: It should be stressed that the value of $M_{min}$ {\it does not depend} on the
221: value of $\omega$, i.e. the value of the rotation of the Universe.
222:
223:
224: Li-Xin Li \cite{Li98} considered the way an object of the size of our
225: Galaxy is gaining angular momentum. It is an interesting approach to
226: the cosmogonical problem. Following the considerations
227: of Li-Xin Li \cite{Li98} by accepting $\Omega_m=0.01$, $z_f$
228: between 1 and 3, $r_f=30Kpc \approx 10^{23}cm $, and assuming the value of
229: $\beta$ $0.5$ or $0.4$ as the coefficient of the inertia momenta in the
230: equation for a celestial object (i.e assuming disk like spherical shapes)
231: we obtain the value of $M_{min} \sim 5 \cdot 10^{39} g \sim 2.5\cdot 10^{3}
232: {\cal M}_{\odot}$. Fig. 1 shows dependence of $J(M)$ in that case.
233:
234: \begin{figure}
235: \vskip 6cm
236: \special{psfile=fig1.eps hscale=100.0 vscale=90.0 hoffset=60 voffset=-5}
237: \caption{The relation between angular momentum $J$ (in CGS units devided
238: by $10^{60}$) and M (in ${\cal M}_{\odot}$) of the astronomical object for
239: the galaxy-like protostructure.}
240: \end{figure}
241:
242:
243: From the observational point of view, only absolute values of $J$ in
244: relation (5) are important. Due to this fact, the minimum value of $|J|$
245: is easily observed. From Equation (5) and (6a) it is seen
246: that this value equals 0 for:
247: $$
248: M_{0}=\left({l\over k}\right)^{3/2} \approx 2.15 M_{min}. \eqno(7)
249: $$
250: In the considered case $M_0 \approx 5\cdot 10^3$ ${\cal M}_{\odot}$.
251: This is sub-globular cluster mass. It seems to be accepted that such
252: structures are not rotating.
253:
254: Because $M_{min}$ as well as $M_0$ do not depend on $\omega$, it is possible
255: to consider relation (6a) as a universal one for any collapsing-dust
256: proto-structure.
257:
258: Let us consider a proto-solar cloud with a diameter of about $1$ $ps$. Because
259: the formation time of the solar system is certainly shorter than that of the
260: galaxy formation, equation (7) gives $M_{0} \approx 10^{24} g$.
261: Such are the masses of giant satellites in the Solar System. Disregarding
262: the Moon, their angular momenta are smaller than those of planets and
263: asteroids \cite{Wesson80}. Thus, the mass
264: corresponding to the minimal
265: momentum of a celestial body shows correctly those structures which in
266: reality have the minimal value of angular momenta.
267:
268: \begin{figure}
269: \vskip 5cm
270: \special{psfile=fig2.eps hscale=90.0 vscale=90.0 hoffset=-20 voffset=-30}
271: \caption{The dependence beetween the value of $\log M_0$ (in ${\cal M}_\odot $),
272: logarithm the protostructure radius $r_f$ (in $cm$) and redshift formation $z_f$.}
273: \end{figure}
274:
275: Numerical simulations with dark matter taken into account show that
276: primordial picture of large scale structure formation
277: consists of a network of filaments. During gravitational
278: collapse, clusters of galaxies are formed at the intersections of filaments.
279: The question arises: how great $M_{0}$ (for dust) should be.
280: Assuming the radius of the proto-structure to be of the order of 30 Mpc,
281: which is consistent with the Perseus-Pisces and Hydra-Centaurus superclusters
282: \cite{Giovanelli88} and $z_f=6$ then we obtain
283: $M_0 \approx 5\cdot 10^{13} {\cal M}_{\odot}$. Taking into account that this is the
284: mass of dust, it corresponds to the total mass of galaxy cluster
285: of the order of $10^{14}$ to $10^{15} {\cal M}_{\odot}$.
286: These contributions are consistent with observations under the assumption
287: that the evolution of dark matter density follows that of dust density.
288: We point out that presently there is no evidence of rotation of cluster of
289: galaxies.
290: In other words, our considerations show that the predicted masses of
291: structures having minimal angular momenta are in agreement with observations.
292: Assuming that the density, in which the proto-structure is formed is equal
293: to the dust density of the Universe, the radius of the proto-structure
294: together with the redshift formation univocaly determines the mass $M_0$
295: for which the absolute value of the angular momentum of the structure is
296: minimal. This relation is schematicaly presented in the Fig.2.
297: In such a manner it is possible to consider a universal mechanism
298: of structure rotation.
299:
300:
301:
302:
303: \begin{thebibliography}{}
304: \bibitem {Gamow46}
305: Gamow, G. 1946 Nature 158, No 4016, 549 (1946)
306: \bibitem {Weizsaeker51}
307: von Weizsaeker, C.F., ApJ 114, 165, (1951)
308: \bibitem {Ozernoy68}
309: Ozernoy, L.M., Chernin, A.D., Astr. Zh., 45, 1137 (1968)
310: \bibitem {Ozernoy78}
311: Ozernoy, L.M., 1978 in : Origin and Evolution of Galaxies and Stars (ed
312: Pikelner, S.B.,) 105, Nauka, Moscow (1978)
313: \bibitem {Szandarin74}
314: Shandarin, S.F., Sov. Astr. 18, 392 (1974)
315: \bibitem {Goedel49}
316: Goedel K., Rev. Mod.Phys 21, 447 (1949); GRG 32,1409 (2000),
317: \bibitem {Goedel52}
318: Goedel K., In: Int. Cong. Math. ed L.M. Graves et al (1952); GRG 32, 1419 (2000).
319: \bibitem {Birch82}
320: Birch P., Nature 298, 451 (1982)
321: \bibitem {Phinney83}
322: Phinney E.S., Webster R.L., Nature 301, 735 (1983)
323: \bibitem {Birch83}
324: Birch P., Nature 301, 736 (1983)
325: \bibitem {Phinney84}
326: Phinney E.S., Webster R.L, Kendall D.G., Young G.A.,(1984) MNRAS 207, 637, (1984)
327: \bibitem {Bietenholz84}
328: Bietenholz M.F., Kronberg, ApJ 287, L1 (1984)
329: \bibitem {Bietenholz86}
330: Bietenholz, M.F., AJ 91, 1249 (1986)
331: \bibitem {Nodland97a}
332: Nodland, B., Ralston, J.P., Phys Rev Lett. 78, 3043 (1997)
333: \bibitem {Carrol97}
334: Carrol, S.M., Field, G.B., Phys.Rev.Lett 79,2394, (1997)
335: \bibitem {Loredo97}
336: Loredo, T.J., Flanganan, Wasserman, I.M., Phys.Rev.Lett D56, 7507 (1997)
337: \bibitem {Eisenstein97}
338: Eisenstein, D.J., Bunn, E.F., Phys.Rev.Lett. 79, 1957 (1997)
339: \bibitem {Nodland97b}
340: Nodlan, B., Ralston, J.P., Phys. Rev.Lett. 79, 1958 (1997)
341: \bibitem {Wardle97}
342: Wardle J.F.C., Perley R.A., Cohen M.H., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1801 (1997)
343: \bibitem {Silk70}
344: Silk J., MNRAS 147, 13 (1970)
345: \bibitem {Barrow85}
346: Barrow,J.D., Juszkiewicz, R., Sonoda, D.H., MNRAS 213, 917, (1985)
347: \bibitem {Brosche86}
348: Brosche, P., Comm.Astroph. 11, 213 (1986).
349: \bibitem {Li98}
350: Li-Xin Li., GRG 30, 497 (1998)
351: \bibitem {Hawking69}
352: Hawking, S.W., MNRAS 142, 129 (1969)
353: \bibitem {Ellis73}
354: Ellis, G.F.R., in Carges Lecture in Physics Vol 6 (ed. Schatzman E.) 1, New
355: York Gordon and Brach Science Publishers (1973)
356: \bibitem {King73}
357: King, A.R., Ellis G.F.R., 1973 Commun Math Phys 31 209 (1973)
358: \bibitem {Peebles93}
359: Peebles, P.J.E., Principles of Physical Cosmology, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1993)
360: \bibitem {Peebles02}
361: Peebles, P.J.E., Ratra, B., astro-ph/0207347 (2002)
362: \bibitem {Lahav02}
363: Lahav, O., astro-ph/0208297 (1997)
364: \bibitem {Wesson80}
365: Wesson, P.S., Astr. Astroph. 80, 296, (1980)
366: \bibitem {Giovanelli88}
367: Giovanelli,R. Haynes M.P. in Large Scale Motions in the Universe
368: Princeton University Press, (eds V.C.Rubin G.V. Coyne), 31, Princeton (1988)
369: \end{thebibliography}
370:
371: {\bf Correspondence} should be addresed to W.Godlowski OA UJ Orla 171 Krakow
372: e-mail godlows@oa.uj.edu.pl fax 48-12-4251318
373:
374: \end{document}
375:
376:
377: \end{document}
378:
379: \edoc
380:
381:
382: