Tom_Kakes wrote:
b9 wrote:
it is difficult for me to believe that the universe contains 83% dark matter.
if that were the case, then there would be many areas that would be occluded to our eyes in the sky.
we can see without obstruction in all directions for many quadrillions of miles, so i guess "dark" energy is more a concept than a reality.
Well as the name suggests, we can't directly see dark matter but well never directly see a quark or even an electron for that matter. That doesn't mean they don't exist. We can measure dark matters effects so it *could* exist.
o
i understand. i have not considered the situation in detail, but i see it like this:
dark matter is "matter" that is not directly detectable, and it is only believed to exist because it "explains" the anomalies in gravitational formulae primarily related to the expansion rate of the universe.
i know it is also used to account for other mysterious and unexpected measurements of galactic interaction etc.
i think that dark matter is like a particle soup. like particles that are unbound into atomic structures due to the lack of application of "energy".
particles are comprised of "protoparticles" (not a real word) in my mind. all "protoparticles" are identical. even quarks are not "protoparticles".
"protoparticles" themselves are "points" (LxWxH=0) of infinitely bound energy, but they are static until their entities enter a region of significant gravitational influence that will force them into a compression spiral that eventually reduces their distances from each other until they are within an "atoms" (yeah whatever) distance from each other, which "causes" them to enter each others gravitational fields, which in turn binds them into true particles that themselves recognize each other and "fall" into atomic orbits to produce atomic matter (non dark matter).
the problem i have with that idea is that i believe every "entity" in the universe also has some measure of gravity. things are destined to come together at an ever increasing velocity as the mass at the center of the universe increases during the "big crunch" process.
(just an unrelated thought "2 pin heads separated by a hundred quadrillion light years of distance in an otherwise empty universe will eventually collide").
but all evidence suggests that the "universe" is expanding at an accelerating rate which defies expectation. the idea of "dark energy" or in other words "unaccounted for mass" is currently being used to explain the anomalies, but "dark matter" itself is simply a theory.
i can suggest another theory.
the "big bang" was an explosion.
the pressure wave (energy expulsion density) was a universal amount of energy in almost no time at all.
in all explosions, the bulk of the pressure is released at the beginning of the event, and the pressure trails off after a very short amount of time.
if one could see the big bang happening from a distance in very slow motion, one would (probably) see an intense spherical field of light that radiates from a location. it is brightest at the very beginning, and dimmest after a few microseconds.
there would be an expanding "bubble" of dense energy (eventually coalescing into matter) followed by an ever decreasing intensity of energy that results in fewer physical manifestations.
the central portion of the universe that i believe we are in, has much less mass than the earlier departing zones from the big bang, and since there is no mass where the big bang happened any more (obviously that would be the case), we are attracted toward the outer perimeter where most of the mass is. that is like the surface of a bubble, and things on the same "y plane" (the surface of the bubble) exert lateral gravitational influences on each other like "sphincters", and they contract the surface of the sphere, and that then becomes a perpetual spiral back into another eventual big bang.
i do not know. i have not thought about it much.
even though i am probably wrong, i still will post my wild and wooly speculation.
An interesting (and very human) theory but using the current model there is just too much mass/energy missing for that to be true. If you are interested I would definitely recommend reading "the grand design" by S Hawking, its a great book.
28 Aug 2011, 10:59 am
