Spinning Universe... A Hypothesis: Written between 1998-2000


Responses From


All ‘free’ matter in the universe has a tendency to spin. This applies to the fundamental building blocks, the electrons and nucleus of atoms as well as matter at the grandest scale, the galaxies, stars and their satellites. In this article I propose that this spin is as fundamental to the make up of the universe as those of electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces and gravity. I also propose that gravity and the spin are mutually complimentary and represent the two forces that unify the infinitely small and the very large elements of the universe. When one considers the pivotal role the spin plays in magnetizing the molten iron core of all celestial bodies, as will be discussed in this paper, its central role in bringing order to the universe will become clear. It also helps explain many of the phenomena in the universe and the vexing problems in cosmology that scientists have been grappling with for some time. Many of the long-held beliefs in cosmology such as the “Big Bang theory” and black holes and some more recent conjectures such as ‘cold dark matter with negative pressure’ and ‘vacuum energy’ and ‘quintessence’ may need revision.


The modern concept of cosmic expansion was put forward by Edwin Hubble (1). This “Big Bang Theory” of creation of the universe was suggested by spectroscopic analysis of light from the distant galaxies. Einstein embraced this idea (2) in favor of his own suggestion of ‘cosmological constant’ (or ‘lambda’) as it appeared to offer a credible explanation for the existence of a force opposing the incessant pull of gravity . In this view of the origin of the universe, all galaxies are thought to recede from one another in a process that involves the formation of space itself. This has also been used to calculate the age of the universe, as the ‘clock’ can be turned back to the instant when the ‘Big Bang’ occurred. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation has been considered to be the remnant of this Big Bang and offered as a proof of its occurrence (3).

This ‘standard’ model of the universe has many flaws. The initial assumption that the universe contains only ordinary ‘baryonic’ matter and radiation, fails to explain the apparent acceleration of the motion of galaxies in clusters (4) and other observations and is thought to suggest that most of the mass in the universe is ‘dark’ and does not emit or absorb light (5). The concept of ‘inflationary universe’ was proposed in 1981 to explain the events during the first 10-30 s after the Big Bang (6). In this concept, during this tiny fraction of a second, the universe had an extraordinarily rapid expansion, increasing some 1025 times the diameter. Thus, all the matter and energy were created from nothing. The hope was that this would explain many of the other inconsistencies in cosmology such as why the universe is so homogeneous and isotropic; why the curvature of space so insignificant and some other puzzles appropriately called ‘flatness problem’, the ‘horizon problem’, the ‘energy density problem’ etc. The latest twist in this saga is the suggestion that the dark matter also has ‘negative pressure’ (7,8) (meaning that it resists gravitational collapse) and excludes all the usual candidates such as neutrinos, radiation and even ‘cold dark matter’. Thus, as observers offer new explanations, new problems arise that demand more ‘theories’. I cannot escape the conclusion that the fault lies in the original assumptions…the “Big Bang Theory’ and the subsequent ‘inflationary universe’. They are flawed and no amount of new revisions and equations will fix the problem!

I will now add my own doubts about the current teaching in cosmology: The calculations of the age of the universe is at variance with measured age of some of the galaxies and stars, sometimes by billions of years (9,10). If the red shift indicates that all galaxies are receding from one another, why do we not see some galaxies and stars blue-shifted? After all, our star, the sun is situated at the outskirts of the Milky Way galaxy, the galaxy itself is spinning in one direction and we know that we are not at the center of the universe. Some stars proximal to the sun should be approaching us as should billions of other galaxies. If the galaxies and the space itself are being created by the process of “Big Bang” and the “inflationary universe”, why do galaxies collide into one another, as they often do? Even our milky way galaxy is in the process of absorbing a couple of dwarf galaxies and our galactic neighbor Andromeda galaxy is expected to merge with our own galaxy in a billion or so years (11). How does one conclude that the CMB represents what obtains all over the universe, when the measurements were actually made here on earth and not even a few light years away? Why are the vast majority of galaxies either elliptical or disk shaped and sport spiral arms? Why do planets orbit around the stars at the equator? This pattern applies to the satellites and even the rings of planets. Why does everything spin? This phenomenon is exemplified by the rapid spin of the neutron stars (sometimes up to hundreds of times a second!). How is magnetism made in the stars as well as the planets and their satellites? What is the purpose of this magnetism? Some types of “Black holes” are thought to represent the end stage of very large stars. They are purported to have immense gravity although they have shed much of their mass. How does an object with reduced mass have increased gravity and why, if this gravity stops even light from escaping, are there vast outbursts of energy such as gamma rays coming from black holes? Einstein’s postulate that ‘spacetime’ warping around large bodies make the satellites go around these bodies ‘along the shortest path’ is flawed. The equatorial region is not the shortest path… it is in fact the longest. Also, the satellites go around the parent in an orderly manner, instead of all falling into the parent. The orderly spin of moon in synchrony with the earth, while also orbiting the latter, implies a distinct pull from the earth, rather than any ‘warping effect’ around the earth. All these questions beg for answers; the confluence of the spin, gravity and magnetism help explain or are at least in agreement with most of the above phenomena.



Ever since the discovery of subatomic particles, an ‘electron cloud’ has been recognized as orbiting around the nucleus of an atom. This motion has been depicted as orbits in all directions and no one seems to question why the electrons behave in this fashion. What is the purpose of such constant motion? While it may be hard to answer this question, one can easily make the statement that even at this level of matter, spinning is a fundamental property (just as the weak and strong nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism). It is also likely that the electrons actually spin around perpendicular to the ‘axis’ of the nucleus, while the latter also spins on its ‘axis’. Recently, neutrinos have been found to “oscillate” (12). I suspect this is once again a case of ‘spin’ even at the unimaginable nano size of neutrinos. The same assertions can be made about large bodies in the universe …be it a planet and its satellites or planets orbiting their parent star or indeed stars orbiting the center of the galaxy. All these bodies also spin on their own axes. It is as if the two motions are fundamental to the make up of the universe. Therefore, by extrapolation it is not hard to guess that matter in the whole universe itself undergoes such ‘spin’. It is harder to argue that only for the universe at its grand scale is motion outward, in (presumably) a straight line of expansion as hypothesized in the notion of “Big Bang”.


In our solar system the orbits of all planets and their satellites fall in the same plane. Even ‘mini-satellites’, the rings of planets line up neatly along the equator of the parent. Witness the rings of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. If this system applies to other stars and their planetary systems, one could assume that this is a fundamental phenomenon. The fact that the vast majority of galaxies are disk shaped probably suggests that the stars also orbit around the center of the galaxies, along their ‘equator’. Some simple observations provide tantalizing evidence for both of the above statements. The fact that both north and south poles of the earth are colder than the rest of the globe means that the rays of sun are tangentially directed there. Reason…earth is orbiting at the equator of the sun so that the direct rays warm the middle regions of the planet much more. In the case of our galaxy, as it can be best viewed from the equatorial regions of the earth,(13) one can infer that the earth (and of course, the other planets and the sun) are in the same plane as well. These observations suggest that there is something unique and/or important about the equatorial plane of all celestial bodies. There are at least two candidates for making this plane unique. One, an augmentation of the gravity around the equator. If so, why? Is it because the equator is the widest part of the globe so that for each degree of turn the surface has to sweep larger areas than the other parts? If such augmentation is true, one should find indirect evidence of this on the flora and fauna around these regions. The stronger gravity should make both of them smaller in stature. To the uninitiated, this statement may sound far -fetched. However, when one considers the fact that astronauts who have spent some time in the space ‘grow’ 3-4 inches and that all of us are around 1cm taller in the morning, it is by no means surprising or improbable. These are truly spectacular effects of gravity even in the short term. Indeed, the smallest of the species of many animals that are widely distributed in the world are generally in the equator. Examples are the Sun bear of Malaysia, pygmies, chimpanzees and the pigmy elephants. In striking contrast are the largest bears, the grizzlies, the Kodiaks and the polar bears and even the taller humans. A careful study may uncover more examples of this phenomenon. Among the flora, the equatorial trees tend to be low, with branches spreading widely. The tallest trees are the sequoia and these are found in the temperate forests of North America. If this effect of gravity is real, one could expect its impact on the earth itself, as well as its satellite, the moon. I speculate here that the oceans will be deepest around the equator (due to the inward pull of augmented gravity) and the molten iron core is pushed in so as to assume a dumbbell shape. The effect on the moon might keep it tethered, so as to keep it in orbit as well as to continuously turn it, in synchrony with earth’s rotation. This latter effect is suggested by the fact that we always see only one face of the moon. Since the moon turns on its axis while at the same time orbits the earth, no other explanation appears satisfactory. It is not known if this special relationship is unique to our moon (due to orbit at a particular distance from the earth) or it applies to all satellites. Another, equally tantalizing evidence for the combination of gravity and the spin of the earth on the objects in its sphere of influence is what the man-made satellites do once they are left in an area of equivalent gravity of earth and sun. The very fact that they remain in that location but follows an orbit around the earth is proof that these influences are real! I contend that this (purposeful) influence from earth is the real reason for this effect rather than the Newtonian 1st law of motion in action, as at this location, the space is definitely not devoid of all friction. Certainly there are gravitational influences from the earth, moon, sun and our other neighbors, which will stop the “uniform motion in a straight line “ as contended by Newton.


The interior of all celestial bodies are hot and contain a liquid iron core (14). How is it made and why? The heat is probably generated by gravity and the liquid nature of iron is probably pivotal in the generation of magnetism. Once gravity has liquefied iron, the stage is set for the spin to magnetize it. I explain the phenomenon as follows: the liquid iron will not spin with the spin of the celestial body. This is crucial, for if the iron is solid and spin with the planet (or other body), magnetizing is not possible. The rest of the planet spins around the molten iron core and it is all that matter (with its attendant electrons) that generate the magnetism. This is quite analogous to how an electromagnet is made, by running electricity through a coil wound around an iron bar. So, the gravity and spin work in concert to generate the next great fundamental unit that brings order to the universe. This phenomenon may be testable in a lab, although keeping iron molten inside a spinning sphere of matter may be a daunting task. A ‘dynamo effect’ has been proposed in inducing magnetism in Jupiter’s satellite Io (15). They suggested that an intrinsic magnetic field generated by dynamo action in the molten Fe-FeS core, possibly seeded by the external jovian field was responsible. There are some related explanations such as ‘magnetoconvection’. My explanation described above agree with the ‘dynamo action’ in which a pivotal role is given to the spin in the process of generating magnetism and it offers a complete explanation, independent of any influence from the parent celestial object. I am also proposing that this mechanism is operative in most if not all celestial bodies.


While magnetism is recognized as a fundamental force in the universe, no one has determined why magnetism exists in nature. It is my considered opinion that the role of magnetism in all celestial bodies is to place the satellites in orbit around the equator. How is it done? Well, it is known that the magnetism sweeps around the north and south poles so as to leave a relatively neutral area around the equator. In this neutral area the satellites are kept at their respective places in orbit. Is it like- poles repelling or unlike poles attracting that is responsible for this effect? I suspect the former is operative as the largest satellites with their strong magnetic fields (Jupiter, Saturn etc, in the case of our sun) are farther from the sun’s magnetic poles than the weaker solid planets in inner orbits. This is an excellent example of the pivotal role played by the spin…. in inducing magnetism so that an “appropriate” site for the satellites to occupy during the orbits is created. Because of this special relationship between the magnetic field flow patterns of parent bodies and their satellites, one could easily speculate that their axes will be parallel. There are two related reasons for this to be so. First, the ‘north’ and ‘south’ poles align themselves so as to parallel the other celestial bodies’. Second, the spin of the celestial bodies is around its ‘axis’ which is usually almost parallel to the magnetic poles. This is bound to be so if the magnetism itself is generated by the spin, as hypothesized above. I suspect there will exist odd exceptions to this general rule, around the universe; under extreme conditions these relationships may suffer. Such is the case with Neptune’s magnetic poles, which is apparently tilted much more and one of the poles is embedded deep inside the planet! Extreme cold, by making part of the core solid and therefore unable to be magnetized (as it spins along with the mantle) and perhaps other oddities may be contributing to this.


The most numerous of the galaxies are elliptical and these were once thought to be the early stage of spiral galaxies. However, the current consensus is that the elliptical galaxies are actually older and are the product of collision of spiral galaxies ‘face on’. The confluence of two such galaxies is clearly visible in some elliptical galaxies; a well-recognized example is ‘NGC 5128’ in Centaurus in which, even nebula formation is identifiable where the two galaxies are fusing. If an observer can view such galaxies from either above of below, a spiral configuration may well be revealed. The less common ‘irregular’ and globular galaxies are probably produced by external influences on such smaller galaxies. The dwarf galaxies of the milky way galaxy are good examples of this; they seem to be pulled in and disrupted by our home galaxy. The existence of both elliptical and the irregular galaxies is a sound argument against the ever expanding universe, where all matter and space itself is still being made, as a consequence of the ‘Big Bang’(16). It is hard to explain how galaxies bump into one another in this scenario. Current cosmology teaches that most, if not all galaxies are driven by monstrous ‘black holes’ in the galactic center. ( 17 ). These black holes are characterized as having such gravitational pull that they devour every from of matter and energy they encounter and that nothing escapes their embrace. Some of the phenomena associated with the galaxies and galactic center make me question the above assumptions. For example, despite the monstrous gravity the black holes are purported to have, matter seems to go around the galactic center rather than fall directly into it from every direction as one would expect. Furthermore, such matter revolves around the center in a relatively orderly manner, along an ‘equatorial’ plane, thus helping make up the elliptical or disc form. Another anomaly the current teaching in cosmology ignores is the fact that huge amounts of energy ensue from the galaxies regularly; a phenomenon that is counter-intuitive if “not even light can escape” the grip of the central black hole. A close scrutiny of a typical spiral galaxy (like our own milky way galaxy) reveals some interesting features. First, the spokes of the spirals are curved in (as opposed to a simple flaring out appearance, like in a spinning fire cracker). Second, towards the center of the galaxy there is a steady increase in the number of stars and clusters of stars. Third, the galactic center is always a huge fireball. All these observations can be explained by the interplay of gravity, magnetism and above all, the spin. I view all galaxies as vast islands of matter, splattered across the universe, where such matter has formed clumps. What happens when such congregation of matter occurs is very much similar to what occurs in the stellar nursery, the nebulae; the difference is really one of scale than the physics. This enormous expanse of matter, with its intrinsic gravity leads to a nursery of sorts in the center, spawning a huge central nuclear furnace as well as numerous stellar furnaces close in. The huge central mass of matter also becomes the engine driving the rest of the galaxy by the confluence of gravity, spin and the magnetism. Splattered across the galaxy, nebulae spawn systems of stars that line the ‘spokes’ of the spirals. A useful analogy to explain the unique features of spiral galaxies is that of a thick gluey soup (this special quality is what gravity does to matter) on top of which is splattered some flour. If one churns this mix, the appearance will probably resemble the spiral galaxy, as viewed from above or below. The beauty of this explanation is that the inherent properties of matter (if one will include spin in this equation) adequately explain all of the phenomena grossly observed in most galaxies. Thus it removes the figment of mathematical imagination, the black holes, that are supposed to inhabit the center of galaxies. It also eliminates the need to explain the inconsistencies surrounding this black hole scenario. For example, enormous bursts of energy escaping from the galactic center, which could amount to many millions fold the mass of our sun, is a necessary by-product of the nuclear fusion reactions occurring there. If the galaxies are not receding as predicted by the Big Bang scenario, how does one explain the red shift of light from the galaxies? I think the red shift phenomenon as it applies to the distant galaxies is an artifact induced by the spin of the galaxies; it is detecting the spin away, rather than the flight of the galaxies away from us. Perhaps the spectroscopy is an unreliable technique for analyzing events in these objects so unimaginably distant from us.


Another situation in which ‘Black holes’ are thought to exist is when a massive star dies. The explanation goes as follows: during its life the star burns its fuel (hydrogen) through the process of fusion reaction. This process is initiated and maintained by the star’s own gravity. However, the fusion reaction itself leads to a tendency for the star to expand. Thus, there is an oscillation between the two opposing phenomena and this maintains the form of the star. When very massive stars exhaust their fuel, at the end of their lives, the gravity is unchecked and the star ‘implodes’ and becomes a ‘black hole’ where there is a ‘space time singularity’( 18) I would like to explain the phenomenon this way: when any celestial object (with its inherent gravity ) spins, this spin imparts an effect on the body itself and its neighbors. First, there is an augmentation of the gravity, directed towards the center of the body. Second, at the same time, at the surface of the body, the spin tends to have a shearing effect. Third, the spin influences the neighbors through the gravitational field. The second effect, I believe is operational in keeping the shape of the body, in opposition to the gravity’s incessant inward, crushing pull. By this phenomenon one can predict that the spinning celestial bodies will assume a slightly orange-like shape (wider around the equator). This is true of the earth. In this view of the universe, stars keep their shape through the balancing effect between gravity and the spin. In this scenario, as the fuel becomes spent, so does the intensity of the gravity . However, the spin velocity may increase, as the star becomes less massive. This will then tend to prevent the star from collapsing upon itself. One could even speculate that in most such instances, the ultimate fate might well be a supernova explosion or slow attrition, rather than the highly intensified gravitational state of the ‘black hole’. I find it a contradiction to state that an object that has lost most of its mass will then have enhanced gravity attributed to it. Most of the properties ascribed to a ‘black hole’ can be explained by the combination of gravity and spin. An example is the binary star system; the transfer of matter from one star to the other may simply be a normal phenomenon when highly gravitationally active objects such as stars wander into one another’s territory.


The fate of large stars (those larger than 2-3 sun masses) is one of a catastrophic “supernova explosion” (19). In this force, it is theorized that the outer shell of electrons and the protons fuse to form neutrons, leaving pure neutrons behind. Thus the size of the star is reduced to that of a small city. The most striking feature of this strange object is that it spins around its axis at rates exceeding several times a second and sometimes hundreds of times a second. It also sports extreme gravity, touted to be trillions of KGs/sq inch and to discharge large quantities of neutrinos (20) Of all its strange properties, the rapid spin is of most interest to us. It is the most elegant demonstration of the fundamental nature of spin. I explain the rapidity this way: when a large star sheds its outer layers, commensurate with the reduction in the drag or inertia, its natural spin picks up speed. Thus, when the mass and diameter reach the meager size of a neutron star, the spin approaches dozens of times a second. One has to contend that the spin of the star is unopposed by any source of friction as well; i.e: completely devoid of matter in its immediate vicinity. One is tempted to speculate that the speed of the spin in relation to the neutron star’s diameter will yield a formula that will help us determine the original size of the now ‘dead’ star.


In this article I have proposed a hypothesis of the make up of the universe, based on observations already available in the astronomical literature. It is simple in concept and seems to explain many of the hitherto inexplicable phenomena. It also brings together forces that we know operate at the scale of atoms but apply this to the large bodies that these atoms make up. A further feature of this concept is that observations coupled with some informed logical deductions will offer the explanations and no elaborate mathematical models are needed to prove the hypothesis. Of course, scientific study may be needed to prove some of the assertions before this forms the basis of serious scientific discourse in astronomy. My view of the universe is that of an infinite void we call space, in which are situated all the observable and unobservable matter in constant interplay. All matter is composed of atoms with its subatomic particles, nucleus and the numerous electrons orbiting around it. The strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic forces and gravity are accepted as fundamental properties of the atom. In this article I suggest that “spin” is another fundamental property of matter and along with gravity, one that unifies matter at the very small and the very large scale. I propose that the spin of electrons around the nucleus of an atom generates the electromagnetic force. This may imply also that the electron cloud is in orbit around the nucleus in one direction. In large bodies such as stars and planets gravity and spin work together to bring order to the universe. Gravity is an inherent, attracting force that makes the body spherical and tends to attract every other matter to the parent body. I liken this to a fine web of sticky matter emanating from all bodies and other bodies’ webs are in constant interaction with this web. The spin augments the gravity around the equator of the body and generates the magnetism, which flows from the north and south poles. The spin imparts a centrifugal effect on the satellite while the gravity keeps the satellite tethered. Thus, the two forces work in concert to keep the satellites in orbit, in the equatorial region. The fact that the same face of our moon (and perhaps moons of other planets, as well) is seen at all times means that gravity is not simply tethering the satellite but turning it in concert with the parent’s spin. This also implies that, with the exception of some extreme situations, the satellites spin in the same direction as the parent. Without this spin the universe will be thrown into chaos. The unopposed gravity will tend to draw matter together, into a big crunch. Therefore, I propose that this special property of matter is the most important one for bringing order to the universe. My view of the universe at large is that of all matter (both seen and unseen) spinning as a whole in the infinite void of space. This matter is most likely in the form of a gigantic disk, a galaxy multiplied hundreds of billions-fold. And the disk spins and perhaps completes a turn in several billion years!


1) E. Hubble, Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. U.S.A 15, 168 (1929).
2) A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss, 1917, 142 (1917).
3) A.A. Penzias and R.W. Wilson, Astrophys.J. 142, 1149 (1965).
4) V. Trimble, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 25, 423 (1987).
5) P.Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ (1993).
6) A.H. Guth, Phys.Rev D23:2, 347 (1981).
7) A.D. Linde, Phys.Lett.B 108,389 (1982).
8) A. Albrecht and P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982).
9) Charles H. Line weaver, Science, 284, 1503 (1999).
10) D. Burgarella,, Science 276, 1370 (1997)
11) R.A. Ibata, G. Gilmore and M.J. Irwin, Nature 370, 194 (1994).
12) E. Ma and P. Roy, Am.Phys. Society 80:21, 4637 (1998)
13) Joss Bland-Hawthorn and Ken Freeman, Science 287,79 (2000).
14) T. M. Usselman, Am. J. Science 275, 278 (1975).
15) U. Weinbruch and T. Spohn, Planet. Space Seci. 43, 1045 (1995)
16) A.G. Riess et al, Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)
17) F. Yusef-Zadeh, F. Melia and M. Wardle, Science 287:85, 2000
18) A. Allen, Neutron stars and Black Holes, Chapter 15, p.285, Stars and Galaxies, Michael A. Seeds, Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999
19) W.D. Arnett, J.N. Bahcall, R.P. Kirshner and S. E. Woosley, Supernova 1987A, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 27, 629 (1989).
20) S.D. Tremaison, Astrophys. J. 203, 472 (1976).