[zmgsabst]

There’s a debate over if the whole universe is rotating, called rotational anisotropy.

At every scale below that you’re definitely rotating: cosmic filaments, clusters, and galaxies are all observed to rotate.

As the theory goes, we’re seeing the small perturbations/rotations from when the universe was tiny inflated to cosmic scale.

[raattgift]

> debate over if the whole universe is rotating

Wait, debate ? Or am I failing to understand what you mean ?

\Lambda-CDM at the linear level requires the decay of vector-mode perturbations associated with vorticity; at the very least, the small scalar perturbations must totally dominate. This motivated a couple decades of searches for vector (and tensor) perturbations encoded in the CMB. Post-WMAP/Planck polarization data, aren't vector modes dead as a doornail in the linear theory ? (e.g. <https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11...> | <https://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.131302> aka astro-ph/1605.07178 which kills off early-time vorticity imho, conflicting with your final paragraph.)

I also know of some work on late-time vorticity, proposing studies of CMB lensing curl, kinetic SZ and moving-lens tomography, galaxy rotation planes and so forth, but isn't practically all of this work explicitly generating null-tests of \Lambda-CDM, rather than a cosmology where "the whole universe is rotating", Bianchi or otherwise ?

Finally, I also know of some work trying to use large N-body simulations to look at scales where predictions from the linear theory become unreliable (~ Mpc). However, I don't think this is what you mean.

If there is a published review of "a debate over if the whole universe is rotating" that you could direct me to, I would be grateful. I got nowhere with "rotational anisotropy" as a search term, and seem to lack the capacity to imagine possible synonyms other than as above. Don't spare me, I'm prepared to admit and embrace the consequences of my ignorance.

[zmgsabst]

I searched for “rotation anisotropy universe” and got this as the first result:

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/s103

And the second:

https://www.scirp.org/html/12-7501435_36098.htm

And the fourth:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/new-anomaly-universe...

This one is about the preferred rotation of galaxies:

https://news.umich.edu/the-universe-may-have-been-born-spinn...

[raattgift]

I'm sorry to say that none of these is close to the review I asked for, and afaics your first result explicitly quotes from and your fourth is preceded by an image taken from the PRL letter (Sadeeh et al) I supplied in my comment's second paragraph. The former is a summary of Sadeeh et al's results: the constraints on vorticity are unforgivingly strong and vanishingly small. The latter does not even discuss vorticity or rotation or spin outside the caption of said image. Search-fu failure. That the bigthink article is simply pop-sci (Ethan Siegel is very well known) and not a literature review is something I think you should have noticed.

As to your last link, the conjecture about a preferred handedness of spiral galaxies went nowhere (you found a link from more than a decade ago; the preprint (and a visit to google scholar and citeseerx) does not match a peer-reviewed publication <https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3437>), and additionally says nothing about galaxy clusters, ellipticals, and so forth. Even more importantly it's only for z < 0.085 which is in the region where the linear theory of cosmology is not expected by anyone to apply, c.f. my comment's penultimate paragraph.

Finally, your second result to a 2013 paper is different and interesting, and at last has evidence of engagement by other authors <https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=10702549710128965...> however considerably more than half of those are by U V Satya Seshavathram et al talking about their very non-standard hypotheses in many fields <https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/U-V-S-...> (note the cold fusion stuff, and the at least four very different rotating cosmologies, quantum and not, dark foam and not). Also, the first (by GS ordering at the link above) citation of the 2011 paper you found, amusingly, is a self-citation (Chechin, Astronomy Reports 2016). Another Chechin self-cite, in a 2014 paper, also looks interesting (although it's only cited twice).

So it's pretty clear on your supplied evidence that there is no debate about the rotation of the universe. That's not too surprising, even BOOMERaNG data fails to support (and even somewhat undermines) early-time (pre-CMB) relevance of anything but scalar perturbations.

Thanks anyway. I'll enjoy reading these two wild Kazakh ideas I didn't see when they were fresh last decade, so your efforts weren't wasted.

(ETA: to be clear, Chechin and his coauthors are doing physics. Their math is sensible, their argument based on physical principles. They demonstrate professional familiarity with the standard cosmology. They advance a hypothesis (well a couple hypotheses, they too have multiple spinning universe models; their Generalized Jeans one is the most interesting) which is probably in conflict with observations available not long after publication date. They aren't pretending to be physicists, and they're not cranks. But the idea that there is an angular velocity proportional to the square root of the (dark) energy density is ... pretty wild! As in nobody's put it in a zoo of models.)