dark matter/energy and m-theory

I'm not sure if this belongs here in Space Exploration, or in another thread...but here we go.

Why I Posted
I just finished watching a show dealing with M-Theory on the Science Channel ("Parallel Universes"), and one called "Most of our Universe is missing" (dealing with Dark Matter and Dark Energy).

Overview
Supposedly, our Universe (out of an infinite amount within the 11th Dimension) contains only 4-5% physical testable substances (atoms and the like), 20-21% Dark Matter, and 75% Dark Energy. Now, Dark Matter is said to be the substance that makes the flat line speed of stars in a galaxy (why the outer stars of a Galaxy spinjust as fast as the inner stars near the Black Holes that gave life to the Galaxy), and Dark Energy is what keeps our Universe expanding, even though it should be slowing down (if not for this amount of mysterious energy).

Back to M-Theory, every Membrane (an infinite amount of Parallel Universes) has their own physical laws (where different matter exists and even the matter we know as familiar might behave differently due to different string vibration), and tend to bump into each other now and again. This is where gravity comes into play.

Some speculate that Gravity is so weak in our Universe, because the gravitons are leaving, while others believe that bits of gravitons are actually making it here, into our own Membrane.

Conclusion

Following the second camp of graviton thought (that they slip here from differe Membranes in the 11th Dimension), is it not possible that both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just other particles (or substance as of yet unknown) coming into our Universe from other Membranes...

Finally

I postulate that their is neither Dark Matter, nor Dark Energy, only that we only know what 4-5% of our Universal Membrane is made of, and the Dark Matter and Dark Energy referred to is actually just MANY MANY MANY types of substances that control and balance our Universal Membrane as we see it today.

I feel that this is our new goal. To find out what these substances are, where they came from, and how they got here.

edit: spelling


[edit on 6/14/2006 by Arcane Demesne]

Dark matter can't be explained because technically it doesn't exist

Now if you really want a mind boggler read this story. news.bbc.co.uk...
Why is it flat? theory

I personally don't think they exist either as far as I can tell scientists just made them up to make their "religion friendly" Big Bang theory work because the theory won't work without them.

I have little doubt some people will read this and think I'm crazy how can I not believe in the Big Bang it's more a case of I have an open mind on it but the observable evidence is speculative at best in my opinion and just as much evidence hint's at it being wrong (coincidently that stuff is mainly ignored).

Oh I'll just point out I'm not religious or a believer of things like creationalism etc in case this post brackets me as anti science although I do think some theorys have become almost a religion to
certain circles and to think outside the accepted norm is to put it lightly frowned upon.

I'll just wait and see.

Techsnow

From the secon link you gave me:

Before the Big Bang, there was no space or time. So, there is nothing "outside" the Big Bang. The Universe simply expanded from a very small volume into a huge volume, and this expansion is occuring even today.

Doesn't that go against modern M-Theory? Does that guy have the math to back up his claims?
I wish I was a physicist, this tuff always excists me!

Originally posted by Teknikal
I personally don't think they exist either as far as I can tell scientists just made them up to make their "religion friendly" Big Bang theory work because the theory won't work without them.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy wasn't made up. In order for the things we see in our Universe to make sense in mathematical forms, you need certain amounts of energy, and certain amounts of mass (math doesn't lie). Where the problem lies, is that when we count all the mass and energy in the known Universe, it only comes to about 4-5% of what is needed for everything to behave the way it is behaving. The know that something else DOES exist, they just don't know what it is.

But this thread isn't a debate on the existance of Dark Matter/Energy, or it's mathematics.

This thread is try try and determine where, how, and why it got here in the first place.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Dark Matter and Dark Energy wasn't made up. In order for the things we see in our Universe to make sense in mathematical forms, you need certain amounts of energy, and certain amounts of mass (math doesn't lie). Where the problem lies, is that when we count all the mass and energy in the known Universe, it only comes to about 4-5% of what is needed for everything to behave the way it is behaving. The know that something else DOES exist, they just don't know what it is.
But this thread isn't a debate on the existance of Dark Matter/Energy, or it's mathematics.
This thread is try try and determine where, how, and why it got here in the first place.

On the contrary they need something else to exist so their pet theorys don't break and they all lose their influence.

The 4 to 5 % number you mention is only needed if the big bang theory is right.
The rest (Darkmatter) is meant to explain how superclusters are so huge because the big bang theory say's they shouldn't be the universe has not been here long enough.

Anyway i don't want to take this discussion in a direction you were not intending so I will leave it at that it's just my opinion on darkmatter.

Edited for Spelling


[edit on 14-6-2006 by Teknikal]

Interesting theory and right now theres as much evidence to back your theory as there is that Dark matter or Dark energy even exist. The word Dark in both those terms should be called our ignorance because thats what it is when dealing with this effect of extra gravity we see in the universe.

The whole concept of other dimensions is iffy IMO because we have absolutely no way to observe or test that even they exist. Pretty much the same boat as we are in with string theory. Its all very interesting but severly lacking in the concrete evidence department.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

The whole concept of other dimensions is iffy IMO because we have absolutely no way to observe or test that even they exist. Pretty much the same boat as we are in with string theory. Its all very interesting but severly lacking in the concrete evidence department.

Actually if you compare an atom to the universe and if an atom WERE the universe then alternate dimmensions would only make sence. Our universe would be one wring out of MANY. It would also explain why our universe is only 4-5% matter. Thats b/c were not counting the other dimmensions... maybe.

I dont see how we could ever run any test that could prove the existence of these other dimensions. Im sure we could make mathematical formulas that show they should exist but people can make mathematical formula's that show that a bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly either.

In a way Parallel Universes almost seem like a copout because there can exist a parallel universe to fix the problems in any equation. For example we dont really know what gravity is or why its so weak compared to the other forces. But if we add in extra dimensions (which by the way we cant prove or disprove) we make ways where it works.

Ya but thing about this is it would ALSO explain why our visible universe is being found out to be flat (einstein thought it was overall flat with waves). I put links up about that on my first post.

Also in order to create a wormhole the universe would have to be flat overall. But if its flat it DOESN'T make sence. So then comes the theory of alt dimensions.

Personally, I believe in dark matter and dark energy for the simple reason that we should not trust our 5 earthly senses when dealing with the realities of space. Are we so blind in foresight as to not realize that we will not be able to see/comprehend all of space and its components until we actually study it up close. This I would compare to a cave man attempting to differentiate components of a car after seeing one for the first time.

They say that perception is reality and if that is true maybe our reality of space is only incomplete because of our perception to it.

This should be the big question of this millennium, what is the other 94% of our universe and how can we make use of it.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Supposedly, our Universe (out of an infinite amount within the 11th Dimension) contains only 4-5% physical testable substances (atoms and the like), 20-21% Dark Matter, and 75% Dark Energy. Now, Dark Matter is said to be the substance that makes the flat line speed of stars in a galaxy (why the outer stars of a Galaxy spinjust as fast as the inner stars near the Black Holes that gave life to the Galaxy), and Dark Energy is what keeps our Universe expanding, even though it should be slowing down (if not for this amount of mysterious energy).

I'll look up some answers for you, but please realize that they REALLY glossed over the theory. It's kind of like saying "cars run because their engines use gasoline." That's true, but it doesn't give you enough backgound to be able to discuss engine design options.

That's how little information these shows give.

Back to M-Theory, every Membrane (an infinite amount of Parallel Universes) has their own physical laws (where different matter exists and even the matter we know as familiar might behave differently due to different string vibration), and tend to bump into each other now and again. This is where gravity comes into play.

Actually, it's "m-branes" (I got that wrong the first few times, which is how I know it.) If you google for "branes" you get more information.

Some speculate that Gravity is so weak in our Universe, because the gravitons are leaving, while others believe that bits of gravitons are actually making it here, into our own Membrane.

I'll check on the papers and see what it is that they're saying. (ohboy. math. ohboy. oh dear.)

Following the second camp of graviton thought (that they slip here from differe Membranes in the 11th Dimension), is it not possible that both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just other particles (or substance as of yet unknown) coming into our Universe from other Membranes...

Uhm... I'm pretty sure they haven't named a dimension in this process.

I postulate that their is neither Dark Matter, nor Dark Energy, only that we only know what 4-5% of our Universal Membrane is made of, and the Dark Matter and Dark Energy referred to is actually just MANY MANY MANY types of substances that control and balance our Universal Membrane as we see it today.

Let me look up more on the branes for you. However, for your postulate to work, it has to integrate with the things we've observed (such as the speed of gravity here on Earth) and it has to be able to predict new phenomina or phenomina that we can't explain yet.

So if you have these "new substances" you have to have rules about how you know a new substance when you trip across it and what its chemical and physical properties will be.

...and it has to be testable. So you can't say "giant invisible frogs cause it". There has to be a test to prove whether it's a giant invisible frog or a giant invisible poodle or angels dancing on the head of a pin or whether it's caused by particle interaction at a distance.

Watch this next.

The Elegant Universe(Online Edition: Needs Quicktime to play)

3 hours of Nova goodness.

Byrd

As always, I enjoyed your post and welcome your comments. I guess they wouldn't divulge much of the inner workings of the mathematics or theories on a tv show...that was my mistake, assuming they would give me a well-rounded informative educational show. It is ratings afterall....I'll have to do some more digging, and keep practicing my Calculus . I'll eventually get there.

sardion2000
That's an amazing video (I own it) . But it doesn't explain (or even go into) the theories of dark matter/energy. I guess this sorta thing is still too new, and too complicated for the pro scientists, let alone feable-minded art students like myself. No sarcasm there, I really don't think I could handle the math

I still go for it though, as I've always been interested in astronomy, cosmology and astrophysics.

Okay! Got some stuff for you to look at -- and the branes really ARE a fascinating subject! I confess I hadn't done much reading on them; my husband is the one who had been following this. Anyhoo...girding up the ol' loins and seeing what's readable...

Turns out that this is a VERY new theory (within the past 6-8 years or so) and after some initial skepticism, turns out to be a reasonable model after all.

This Science News article actually goes into some basic and interesting detail that the show skipped over -- such as how branes relate to the Big Bang theory:
www.sciencenews.org...

The "Fix Needed?" section was particularly interesting, I thought. It starts out:

The classical Big Bang picture was first proposed in the late 1920s. Two decades ago, researchers realized that the scenario needed to be modified.

In its original form, the model would lead to a universe vastly different from the one we live in. For instance, the theory doesn't provide a way for stars, galaxies, and larger structures to arise, notes Steinhardt. Moreover, the Big Bang model would tend to produce a cosmos whose composition and density would vary widely from place to place and whose overall geometry would be warped or curved.
www.sciencenews.org...

The article has links to other articles (I'm working my way through them) -- and makes for a reasonably good grounding on the very basics of the theory. Wikipedia also has an excellent "Readers' Digest" version with a good set of links.
www.sciencenews.org...

That "light reading" ought to put us to the point where we can start reading the current research (prepare for math!) and looking at what researchers are proposing.

I think that taking a look at the section of theory that says gravity can travel between the universes is an interesting direction.



P.S.: Oh... yes... now I see where the 11 dimensions came from! Makes sense. I'd forgotten about that aspect of it because I spend more time with my nose in Ancient Cultures than in Modern Space-time theory! That can change.

Byrd

Thanks for the great links!

Yeah, it's a fairly new subject, especially for guys like me I guess.

I'll read up on it a bit more. But I do think that the rest of the Universe that isn't accounted for, is just 'stuff' coming in and out of other Universes, or even this 'stuff' maybe just behaves differently once in another dimension (curled in on itself and what have you) within our own Universe. Since Scientists don't know what it is, thought I'd give my two cents to help brainstorm.

The concepts are simple enough, it's the math that I'm gonna have to learn to go any farther with 'theories' of my own.

Thanks again.

edit:

Just read the article. Amazing.

So, all Universes are inter-twined within the 5th dimension? Neat.
"Ekpyrotic Theory", now that's a mouth-full.

I can't wait to see where this develops!

[edit on 6/17/2006 by Arcane Demesne]

How about the possibillity that the missing mass exists within the singularities of supermassive black holes (or that the space-time rupturing effect caused by the presence of these supermassive black holes provides and entry point for this materia to enter from the supposed "11th dimension"

As you can probably tell, i saw the same shows you did :-)

I have always belived that there are an infinite number of dimensions in the "universe", each one being the spatial anti-derivative of the previous one, that is to say that what we percieve as time from a 3-dimensional perspective is merely the missing vector of space that would then describe the universe in 4 dimensions. Because we view the universe in 3 dimensions, we see only a series of changing "cross-sections" of this multi-dimensional space. If we could percieve space in 4 vectors, we would still experience what we might call time, but that would be the changing 4th dimensional cross-sections of 5th dimensional perspective and so on into infinity. I realize that this is a speculative point of view and I dont pretend to call myself a scientist, just a fan of science and philosophy. This concept of mine just feels right to me.

Originally posted by vortexchronicles
How about the possibillity that the missing mass exists within the singularities of supermassive black holes (or that the space-time rupturing effect caused by the presence of these supermassive black holes provides and entry point for this materia to enter from the supposed "11th dimension"

I dont think we are close to knowning exactly how many blackholes are really out there, So that could account for some of the missing mass. Though I cant say if its every been suggested that there is enough of them out there to account for all the missing matter.

As for singularities punching holes into other dimensions I dont think anyone can really answer that since even the best minds dont fully understand what is going on at the point. If anything can punch into other dimension I would put my money on a blackhole.