"Hey, it's time again."
"Five more minutes."
"No, boss. Now. Wake up."
"I'm old, let me sleep. You're a cat, you should understand the importance of a solid 14 hours a day."
"Last one, I promise."
"Sure. Until next time. Do you have any idea how much hate mail I get?"
"It's good for your blood pressure. Now go."
"Fine, fine..."
A final problem:
Recent observations have indicated that the expansion rate of the universe is actually increasing, invalidating numerous previous assumptions and putting the theory of Quintessence (Ether) back into play. This problem has revitalized superstring theory (previously dismissed in the early 1970s in favor of Quantum chromodynamics) and bringing Maxwell's unification of electricity, magnetism, and light back to the fore of discussion.
At the root of the entire discussion is the blind assumption that Einstein's unified space-time continuum is correct. The sticking point is and always has been gravity.
So, let me offer a different theory altogether. It increasingly looks like Maxwell was right (I'd say it's just about a done deal at this point, as much as science can close a deal. Remember, science as a tool cannot prove anything. It only disproves things until we are left with a sufficiently limited scope of functioning theories.) It also is very possible that Einstein's general relativity is wrong and that Lorentzian Relativity (LR) is right. Now factor in the idea from quantum mechanics that there can be additional dimensions. (Last time I looked, we were up to a minimum of four and a maximum of eleven depending on which formula you need to make your math work for string theory. This is another area more rightly classified as pre-science than true science. It's early in the game still.)
LR allows faster-than-light propagation (a phenomenon already demonstrated experimentally back in about 2005) and it assumes time is not, in fact, inextricably bound with space into a single continuum. Time exists independently of space and therefore can, within certain boundaries, have an absolute value. (Remember, Einstein's theories of specific and general relativity are difference theories and Einstein himself proposed a universal constant.)
(I would like to side track here for a moment to observe that the clocks within all orbital GPS satellites are synchronized and have evidenced no time dilation despite years of different speeds. This should be impossible under general relativity and yet, as far as I know, this phenomenon has never been properly addressed.)
So, taking FTL propagation and space-time separation from LR and multiple dimensions from quantum mechanics and applying this against the observed gravimetric quandaries of Dark Matter, I ask, why not a second dimension of TIME rather than space. There has never been any reason to assume that extra dimensions must be spatial and the idea comes a lot closer to explaining the observed gravimetric data than making up an entire host of random magically invisible particles. What if the gravimetric effects that we cannot explain currently are because the force of gravity extends into a second temporal dimension? Mass (or more precisely masses) out of temporal phase with our universe would fit all the criteria of Dark Matter with fewer complications. It may very well be that gravity turns out to be the unifying universal force instead of the half-ignored, despised step-child that modern physics treats it as. Do I think my idea is the one true and perfect answer? Absolutely not. I do, however, think it deserves equal consideration with the other theories that have been presented and I also think that our blind subservience to the theory of general relativity has gone on long enough. Rather than build new castles in the air, it is time to re-examine the foundation beneath. Just as Einstein assaulted the orthodoxy of Newtonian physics, it is legitimate to question in turn the orthodoxy of Einstein.
Ah but what do I know? I'm just a crazy old man.
Showing posts with label Dark Matter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dark Matter. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Dark Matter, Nomenclatural Nightmares
"Shut up, cat, I got it."
And now,
Back to the theories:
WIMPs--Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Mathematically, Sparticales must be significantly much more massive than their partners and interact only where very weak nuclear forces are involved. Thus, SUSY particles are often discussed as WIMP. Theoretically, WIMPs would have been formed during the big bang but, being unstable, decayed into lighter particles. This makes the most likely candidate for actual detection the LSP (lightest supersymmetrical particle) considered to be either the photino or something referred to as the neutralino (because it may be a quantum mixture of different neutral sparticles). It has been postulated that MACHOs may be comprised of WIMPs or that WIMPs permeate the universe to account for the matter discrepancy.
Neutrinos--A neutral charge particle of mass similar to that of an electron. Neutrinos have been tentatively detected through experiments within nuclear reactors. Neutrinos may make up a portion of Dark Matter but lack sufficient mass to account for the whole. Further, many astronomers now argue (based on cosmic background radiation) that Dark Matter cannot be baryonic matter. Neutrinos are actually fermionic but act similar enough to baryonic to remove them from contention as an explanation. Because of their properties, neutrinos would form hot Dark Matter and most astronomers (again based on the background radiation) believe Dark Matter must be cold. (Hot and cold referring to mass, interaction, etc.)
SIDM (also called SIMPs)--Self-Interacting Dark Matter (Strongly Interacting Massive Particles). Big fat WIMPs that react strongly instead of weakly, considered to be self-interacting because they have never been observed and therefore cannot be interacting with non-dark matter.
Q-Balls--Lumps of matter that may have formed when sparticles coagulated during the hot dense phase of the early big bang universe. The real fun of Q-Balls is not their possibility of explaining Dark Matter (very unlikely) but that they would blow up REAL good. These would be coagulated balls of squarks and sleptons that, rather than being the actual explosive themselves, would be a quantum catalyst. Fed by a proton stream, the internal sparticles of a Q-Ball would rip proton quarks apart, releasing the fundamental energy of the quarks (about 100X H-bomb yield).
Q-Balls are a good example of where the sci-fi writer in me takes a walk away from the critical scientist. As a theory, even the guys who came up with the idea of Q-Balls say it's highly unlikely and fairly weak. But as an idea to use in a story, it's rich with possibilities and it's scientifically plausible.
Next Time: Quintessence
And now,
Back to the theories:
WIMPs--Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Mathematically, Sparticales must be significantly much more massive than their partners and interact only where very weak nuclear forces are involved. Thus, SUSY particles are often discussed as WIMP. Theoretically, WIMPs would have been formed during the big bang but, being unstable, decayed into lighter particles. This makes the most likely candidate for actual detection the LSP (lightest supersymmetrical particle) considered to be either the photino or something referred to as the neutralino (because it may be a quantum mixture of different neutral sparticles). It has been postulated that MACHOs may be comprised of WIMPs or that WIMPs permeate the universe to account for the matter discrepancy.
Neutrinos--A neutral charge particle of mass similar to that of an electron. Neutrinos have been tentatively detected through experiments within nuclear reactors. Neutrinos may make up a portion of Dark Matter but lack sufficient mass to account for the whole. Further, many astronomers now argue (based on cosmic background radiation) that Dark Matter cannot be baryonic matter. Neutrinos are actually fermionic but act similar enough to baryonic to remove them from contention as an explanation. Because of their properties, neutrinos would form hot Dark Matter and most astronomers (again based on the background radiation) believe Dark Matter must be cold. (Hot and cold referring to mass, interaction, etc.)
SIDM (also called SIMPs)--Self-Interacting Dark Matter (Strongly Interacting Massive Particles). Big fat WIMPs that react strongly instead of weakly, considered to be self-interacting because they have never been observed and therefore cannot be interacting with non-dark matter.
Q-Balls--Lumps of matter that may have formed when sparticles coagulated during the hot dense phase of the early big bang universe. The real fun of Q-Balls is not their possibility of explaining Dark Matter (very unlikely) but that they would blow up REAL good. These would be coagulated balls of squarks and sleptons that, rather than being the actual explosive themselves, would be a quantum catalyst. Fed by a proton stream, the internal sparticles of a Q-Ball would rip proton quarks apart, releasing the fundamental energy of the quarks (about 100X H-bomb yield).
Q-Balls are a good example of where the sci-fi writer in me takes a walk away from the critical scientist. As a theory, even the guys who came up with the idea of Q-Balls say it's highly unlikely and fairly weak. But as an idea to use in a story, it's rich with possibilities and it's scientifically plausible.
Next Time: Quintessence
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Dark Matter--Long road to Tipperary
"Psst, boss."
"I'm on it already."
One of the earliest Dark Matter theories was that of MACHOs.
MACHOs--Massive Compact Halo Objects; theorized massive compact objects the size of small stars formed of dark matter and present in the outer reaches (halos) of galaxies. May be formed of Mirror Matter. This theory most likely still does not provide sufficient "dark matter" to explain observed gravimetric phenomena.
But wait, you say, what's this about Mirror Matter? Is that the universe with the evil Kirk in it?
Well, maybe but not quite. To go much further, we'll have to run through some related, supporting theories and definitions.
Supporting theories:
Negativity--When Dirac discovered electron spin, a problem arose in the equations. Since the equation employed a square root, it allowed for a solution both positive and negative. (The square root is present because Einstein's relativity equation uses the speed of light squared.) That is, mathematically, electrons could possess negative energy. This led him to propose antimatter (matter possessed of negative energy) and the further theory of antiparticles in general. The antielectron or positive electron (positron) is supposed to be observed in the form of cosmic rays.
This lead to the idea of Mirror Matter via the Symmetry argument.
Mirror Matter--Every type of particle in nature has a mirror partner that is utterly invisible (does not interact with light) and can be detected only by its gravity.
SUSY--Supersymmetry. A mathematical framework now accepted as proven that proposes, as a function of the principle of conservation of energy, the net state of the universe must be zero-sum and have particular, physical symmetry. Actual experimental evidence of SUSY is effectively non-existent despite the common assumption of its infallibility. The primary argument in its favor is the philosophical principle that math arises from the forms of nature. Rather than simply a human invention for book-keeping, math is an intrinsic part of the natural form observed and recorded by humans.
Which in turn gives us the nomenclatural nightmare of Sparticles.
Sparticles--Supersymmetric partner particles. The theory that there exists a new subatomic partner for every kind of particle now known within the quantum dimensions (sizeless dimesnions). SUSY quantum theory adds the idea of a fermionic dimension as well as the traditional, observable bosonic dinension. Fermionic (fundamental matter particles) and bosonic (fundamental force particles) particles are necessary to support SUSY via the argument that force and matter are to aspects of the same thing (again, a legacy of Einstein). This argument has merit, beyond merely E=mc2, since the defining feature of a boson vs. a fermion is simply spin. Sparticles are named by placing an 's' in front of the particle they theoretically partner with. I. E. quarks and squarks. Force Sparticles gain 'ino' at the end. I. E. photons and photinos.
Next Time: WIMPs, SIMPs, and Q-Balls!
"I'm on it already."
One of the earliest Dark Matter theories was that of MACHOs.
MACHOs--Massive Compact Halo Objects; theorized massive compact objects the size of small stars formed of dark matter and present in the outer reaches (halos) of galaxies. May be formed of Mirror Matter. This theory most likely still does not provide sufficient "dark matter" to explain observed gravimetric phenomena.
But wait, you say, what's this about Mirror Matter? Is that the universe with the evil Kirk in it?
Well, maybe but not quite. To go much further, we'll have to run through some related, supporting theories and definitions.
Supporting theories:
Negativity--When Dirac discovered electron spin, a problem arose in the equations. Since the equation employed a square root, it allowed for a solution both positive and negative. (The square root is present because Einstein's relativity equation uses the speed of light squared.) That is, mathematically, electrons could possess negative energy. This led him to propose antimatter (matter possessed of negative energy) and the further theory of antiparticles in general. The antielectron or positive electron (positron) is supposed to be observed in the form of cosmic rays.
This lead to the idea of Mirror Matter via the Symmetry argument.
Mirror Matter--Every type of particle in nature has a mirror partner that is utterly invisible (does not interact with light) and can be detected only by its gravity.
SUSY--Supersymmetry. A mathematical framework now accepted as proven that proposes, as a function of the principle of conservation of energy, the net state of the universe must be zero-sum and have particular, physical symmetry. Actual experimental evidence of SUSY is effectively non-existent despite the common assumption of its infallibility. The primary argument in its favor is the philosophical principle that math arises from the forms of nature. Rather than simply a human invention for book-keeping, math is an intrinsic part of the natural form observed and recorded by humans.
Which in turn gives us the nomenclatural nightmare of Sparticles.
Sparticles--Supersymmetric partner particles. The theory that there exists a new subatomic partner for every kind of particle now known within the quantum dimensions (sizeless dimesnions). SUSY quantum theory adds the idea of a fermionic dimension as well as the traditional, observable bosonic dinension. Fermionic (fundamental matter particles) and bosonic (fundamental force particles) particles are necessary to support SUSY via the argument that force and matter are to aspects of the same thing (again, a legacy of Einstein). This argument has merit, beyond merely E=mc2, since the defining feature of a boson vs. a fermion is simply spin. Sparticles are named by placing an 's' in front of the particle they theoretically partner with. I. E. quarks and squarks. Force Sparticles gain 'ino' at the end. I. E. photons and photinos.
Next Time: WIMPs, SIMPs, and Q-Balls!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Dark Matter, What and Why
"This thing ready, cat?"
"Whenever you are."
"Right, let's get on with it then..."
Let's start of with: Why Dark Matter and What is it?
Dark Matter--Some heavy stuff we can't detect floating around in space. Cosmologists believe its existence is necessary because otherwise all their fancy schemes fall apart. Specifically, the calculable mass of matter in the universe is insufficient to account for the gravimetric effects observed on numerous fronts. Therefore, there must be matter that we are not detecting. I know that sounds like an oversimplification but that's really what it comes down to if you boil away the hype.
Remember when I mentioned circular assumptions? Dark Matter may turn out to be one of the greatest circular assumptions of all time. The entire Dark Matter discussion is predicated on the assumption that our current understanding of gravity is correct and that Einstein's theory of general relativity is also correct. Further, Dark Matter is automatically a metaphysical theory, rather than a scientific physical one, because as yet we can detect no evidence and may never be able to beyond inference. This is a good example of why metaphysics is a fine and useful tool and should not be shoved into the gutter as many scientists today try to do. Without the metaphysical postulation of Dark Matter, we cannot derive hypotheses or experiments to look for Dark Matter and could therefore never elevate it into the category of scientific investigation. In other words, without the roots of metaphysics—the schemes and dreams of 'what if'—we could not make scientific progress. Despite its pre-scientific trappings, Dark Matter is a metaphysical or pseudo-scientific theory (or set of theories) at this point. There is nothing wrong with this so long as we understand that it is in the "pre-science" stage rather than running to the media, pointing to the sky and yelling "Lo, I have found a new thing, proven by science!" (Small Charles Fort reference there for your amusement.)
Next Time: MACHOs!
"Whenever you are."
"Right, let's get on with it then..."
Let's start of with: Why Dark Matter and What is it?
Dark Matter--Some heavy stuff we can't detect floating around in space. Cosmologists believe its existence is necessary because otherwise all their fancy schemes fall apart. Specifically, the calculable mass of matter in the universe is insufficient to account for the gravimetric effects observed on numerous fronts. Therefore, there must be matter that we are not detecting. I know that sounds like an oversimplification but that's really what it comes down to if you boil away the hype.
Remember when I mentioned circular assumptions? Dark Matter may turn out to be one of the greatest circular assumptions of all time. The entire Dark Matter discussion is predicated on the assumption that our current understanding of gravity is correct and that Einstein's theory of general relativity is also correct. Further, Dark Matter is automatically a metaphysical theory, rather than a scientific physical one, because as yet we can detect no evidence and may never be able to beyond inference. This is a good example of why metaphysics is a fine and useful tool and should not be shoved into the gutter as many scientists today try to do. Without the metaphysical postulation of Dark Matter, we cannot derive hypotheses or experiments to look for Dark Matter and could therefore never elevate it into the category of scientific investigation. In other words, without the roots of metaphysics—the schemes and dreams of 'what if'—we could not make scientific progress. Despite its pre-scientific trappings, Dark Matter is a metaphysical or pseudo-scientific theory (or set of theories) at this point. There is nothing wrong with this so long as we understand that it is in the "pre-science" stage rather than running to the media, pointing to the sky and yelling "Lo, I have found a new thing, proven by science!" (Small Charles Fort reference there for your amusement.)
Next Time: MACHOs!
Friday, January 9, 2009
Sciency Stuff, Groundrules
Finally, I have badgered the Thin Man into condensing his Dark Matter notes into a (for him) coherent form and letting me put them on the weblog. (I told him we needed to be more contraversial to get more hits to which he nodded and said "My views on science will do it.")
The reason for Dark Matter as a first topic is simple. It was background research for a sci-fi/horror project that may or may not get off the ground. The project is on hold but I argued that we might as well use the research.
I now yield the podium to our esteemed...well, to the guy that feeds me.
"I ought to feed you to a dog."
"Boss, you're on already."
"Oh Vey!"
Before I get started on Dark Matter, and scientific topics in general, let me issue a few disclaimers right off the top. The first is that I am an ex-scientist. I say 'ex' because I'm now a full time writer but in truth I still am a scientist. I research my work very heavily and I try to stay current in my chosen field (nuclear chemistry). Prior to the collapse of my health, I was an analytic (environmental) analyst and, in time, took over the quality assurance program of the laboratory I worked at. I say all of this, not to brag, but to silence in advance any scurrilous attacks on my credibility or my ability to "understand the complexities of scientific theory and research."
Second, I should like to remind the reader that, as any author already knows, all synopses look silly. Any idea, be it book plot or scientific theory, stripped to its barest essence tends to appear foolish and shallow. That being said, some theories are silly. If it looks like a dumb idea, it probably is. Science is full of dumb ideas; we have to try them all—the silly and the respectable because science as a procedure is determined by observation, not public relations and sound bites.
Third (and this should probably be its own set of posts), science is a tool, not a worldview or religion. Many people, especially in the media but also in science, take it as a be all and end all and try to apply science to solve all problems. That's like trying to do titration with a hammer because one tool is as good as another but there it is. By definition, science the tool is based on reproducibility and predictive falsibility. Scientists from Hawkings to Holton have repeatedly pointed out that science is incompatible with unique phenomena such as beginnings and endings but this point is ignored by those who wish to use science as a replacement for religion and therefore extend science into metaphysics. (Side note: There is nothing wrong with the studies of metaphysics and pseudo-science. Many great scientific theories have originated in these two areas. There is no shame in either and yet, in our science worshiping society, every theorist insists that their work be regarded as "real science" instead of the equally valuable and properly termed metaphysics or pseudo-science. As always, through the history of science, ego is more important than proper protocol.)
Finally, I have a personal and long-standing grudge against cosmology. It is not a universal hatred of the subject nor its students. Indeed, I count Brother Guy Consolmagno as a dear brother in Christ and look forward to seeing him and hopefully doing panel discussions with him in the coming year at ConClave (if the powers that be see fit to have me back again). That being said, my problem with cosmology is three-fold: the overwhelming hubris of its practitioners (generally, not everyone of them) especially their insistence in engaging in metaphysics and pseudo-science while demanding to be treated with an almost religious reverence, the constant use of data mining and selective damning of data to validate prior claims rather than adjusting theory to fit observed facts, and the consistent invocation of circular assumptions.
(By circular assumptions, I refer to situations where, for example, one researcher makes tentative assumptions by necessity as a baseline for their work—such as taking as a given that the speed of light is a constant or that the age of the universe is in the trillions of years. A second researcher then takes the first worker's results, without examining the baseline assumptions behind them, assumes them as his givens, and then proceeded to "prove" the first researcher's necessary assumptions. If the two sets of work were compared and rendered down to their truest form, we would then have a total view something like this: Researcher One: Assuming that the moon is made of Styrofoam, I have investigated the topography of the lunar surface and concluded, based on cratering, that, if it is, then the moon is only a week old. Researcher Two: Since Researcher One, in his previous paper, demonstrated that the moon is only a week old, I have examined the extent to cratering on the lunar surface and must conclude that the moon must be made of Styrofoam.)
Having said all this, we'll continue on with a basic explanations of the latest theories on dark matter but I do encourage you to consider both the qualifications and biases of the source.
Next Time: Actual information!
The reason for Dark Matter as a first topic is simple. It was background research for a sci-fi/horror project that may or may not get off the ground. The project is on hold but I argued that we might as well use the research.
I now yield the podium to our esteemed...well, to the guy that feeds me.
"I ought to feed you to a dog."
"Boss, you're on already."
"Oh Vey!"
Before I get started on Dark Matter, and scientific topics in general, let me issue a few disclaimers right off the top. The first is that I am an ex-scientist. I say 'ex' because I'm now a full time writer but in truth I still am a scientist. I research my work very heavily and I try to stay current in my chosen field (nuclear chemistry). Prior to the collapse of my health, I was an analytic (environmental) analyst and, in time, took over the quality assurance program of the laboratory I worked at. I say all of this, not to brag, but to silence in advance any scurrilous attacks on my credibility or my ability to "understand the complexities of scientific theory and research."
Second, I should like to remind the reader that, as any author already knows, all synopses look silly. Any idea, be it book plot or scientific theory, stripped to its barest essence tends to appear foolish and shallow. That being said, some theories are silly. If it looks like a dumb idea, it probably is. Science is full of dumb ideas; we have to try them all—the silly and the respectable because science as a procedure is determined by observation, not public relations and sound bites.
Third (and this should probably be its own set of posts), science is a tool, not a worldview or religion. Many people, especially in the media but also in science, take it as a be all and end all and try to apply science to solve all problems. That's like trying to do titration with a hammer because one tool is as good as another but there it is. By definition, science the tool is based on reproducibility and predictive falsibility. Scientists from Hawkings to Holton have repeatedly pointed out that science is incompatible with unique phenomena such as beginnings and endings but this point is ignored by those who wish to use science as a replacement for religion and therefore extend science into metaphysics. (Side note: There is nothing wrong with the studies of metaphysics and pseudo-science. Many great scientific theories have originated in these two areas. There is no shame in either and yet, in our science worshiping society, every theorist insists that their work be regarded as "real science" instead of the equally valuable and properly termed metaphysics or pseudo-science. As always, through the history of science, ego is more important than proper protocol.)
Finally, I have a personal and long-standing grudge against cosmology. It is not a universal hatred of the subject nor its students. Indeed, I count Brother Guy Consolmagno as a dear brother in Christ and look forward to seeing him and hopefully doing panel discussions with him in the coming year at ConClave (if the powers that be see fit to have me back again). That being said, my problem with cosmology is three-fold: the overwhelming hubris of its practitioners (generally, not everyone of them) especially their insistence in engaging in metaphysics and pseudo-science while demanding to be treated with an almost religious reverence, the constant use of data mining and selective damning of data to validate prior claims rather than adjusting theory to fit observed facts, and the consistent invocation of circular assumptions.
(By circular assumptions, I refer to situations where, for example, one researcher makes tentative assumptions by necessity as a baseline for their work—such as taking as a given that the speed of light is a constant or that the age of the universe is in the trillions of years. A second researcher then takes the first worker's results, without examining the baseline assumptions behind them, assumes them as his givens, and then proceeded to "prove" the first researcher's necessary assumptions. If the two sets of work were compared and rendered down to their truest form, we would then have a total view something like this: Researcher One: Assuming that the moon is made of Styrofoam, I have investigated the topography of the lunar surface and concluded, based on cratering, that, if it is, then the moon is only a week old. Researcher Two: Since Researcher One, in his previous paper, demonstrated that the moon is only a week old, I have examined the extent to cratering on the lunar surface and must conclude that the moon must be made of Styrofoam.)
Having said all this, we'll continue on with a basic explanations of the latest theories on dark matter but I do encourage you to consider both the qualifications and biases of the source.
Next Time: Actual information!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
