Tag Archives: dark matter

Microscopic view of a network of blue fluorescent neurons or cells interconnected by fine filaments.

What the Difference Between Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

Dark matter plus dark energy makes up over 90% of the matter in the universe, and science doesn’t understand the nature or either of them. Normal matter, the stuff we can typically see and touch, makes up only 5-10% of the matter of the universe. That means that science does not understand over 90% of what makes up the universe. In this article, I will confine my discussion to the 90% we don’t understand, dark matter/energy.

The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle. It travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. It neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible. However, its effects are detectable, as I will explain below. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle). Dark matter has a long history, that goes back to 1993. For purposes of brevity, I won’t delineate the history here. However, I want to point out that modern science believes that dark matter is the invisible glue that holds galaxies, like our Milky Way, together. It is an experimentally observed fact that the outer most stars in our galaxy are orbiting at the rate at the inner most stars. If the galaxies followed Newton’s law of gravity, the outermost stars would be thrown into space. This implies that either Newton’s laws do not apply, or that most of the mass of galaxies is invisible, hence the name dark matter. Even in the face of conflicting theories that attempt to explain the phenomena, most scientists believe dark matter is real. None of the conflicting theories (which typically attempted to modify how gravity behaves on the cosmic scale) is able to explain all the observed evidence, especially gravitational lensing (the way gravity bends light).

Currently, the scientific community believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe. However, dark matter is still a mystery. For years, scientists have been working to find the WIMP particle to confirm dark matter’s existence. All efforts have been either unsuccessful or inconclusive.

The above is a brief thumbnail sketch of dark matter. Now, let’s discuss dark energy.

Mainstream science widely accepts the Big Bang as giving birth to our universe. Scientists knew from Hubble’s discovery in 1929 that the universe was expanding. Prior to 1998, scientific wisdom was that the expansion of the universe would gradually slow down, due to the force of gravity. However, in 1998, the High-z Supernova Search Team (an international cosmology collaboration) published a paper that shocked the scientific community. The paper was: Adam G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team) (1998). “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant.” Astronomical J. 116 (3). They reported that the universe was doing the unthinkable. The expansion of the universe was not slowing down—in fact, it was accelerating.

Almost all scientists hold the paradigm of “cause and effect.” If it happens, something is causing it to happen. Things do not simply happen. They have a cause. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to believe something is countering the force of gravity, and causing the expansion to accelerate. What is it? No one knows. Science calls it “dark energy.”

That is the state of science as I write this article in April 2015. Galaxies should be flying apart, but they don’t. Science postulates that a slow-moving particle traveling up to a tenth of the speed of light that neither emits nor scatters light is responsible, and they call that particle “dark matter.” However, there is no solid theoretical or experimental evidence to support its existence. The universe’s expansion should be slowing down due to gravitational attraction, but instead it is accelerating. No one knows why. Scientists reason there must be a cause countering the pull of gravity. They name that cause “dark energy.”

Dark matter and dark energy have two things in common. They both have the word “dark” in their name and they are both a mystery to modern science.

 

 

 

A colorful simulation of cosmic web structure showing galaxies and dark matter distribution in the universe.

A New Theory of Dark Matter

In my last post, “What Is Dark Matter,” I mentioned that most of the scientific community accepts the experimental evidence confirming the existence of dark matter. Rightly so, since the experimental evidence of its existence is incontrovertible. Here are the salient facts that experimentally indicate the existence and location of dark matter:

  • The rotation of stars, planets, and other celestial masses orbit galaxies, like ours, too rapidly relative to their mass and the gravitational pull exerted on them in the galaxy. For example, an outermost star should be orbiting slower than a similar-size star closer to the center of the galaxy, but we observe they are orbiting at the same rate. Based on this observation, the scientific community asserts there is more mass in the galaxy than we are able to observe. The call this mass dark matter.
  • We can see the effect dark matter has on light. It will bend light the same way ordinary matter bends light. This effect is gravitational lensing. The visible mass is insufficient to account for the gravitational lensing effects we observe. Once again, this suggests more mass than what we can see.
  • We are able to use the phenomena of gravitational lensing to determine where the missing mass (dark matter) is, and we find it is throughout galaxies. It is as though each galaxy in our universe has an aura of dark matter associated with it. We do not find any dark matter between galaxies.

While it is true that all evidence has led the scientific community to believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe, its true nature is still a mystery. The current theory among the scientific community is that dark matter is  a slow-moving particle that travels up to a tenth of the speed of light, and neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible.  Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle).

For years, scientists have been working to find the WIMP particle to confirm dark matter’s existence. All efforts have been either unsuccessful or inconclusive. This raises a significant question. Are we on the right track? Is there a WIMP particle? To address this question, let’s consider the experimental evidence:

  1. The Standard Model of particle physics does not predict a WIMP particle. The Standard Model, refined to its current formulation in the mid-1970s, is one of science’s greatest theories. It successfully predicted bottom and top quarks prior to their experimental confirmation in 1977 and 1995, respectively. It predicted the tau neutrino prior to its experimental confirmation in 2000, and the Higgs boson prior to its experimental confirmation in 2012. Modern science holds the Standard Model in such high regard that a number of scientists believe it is a candidate for the theory of everything. Therefore, it is not a little “hiccup” when the Standard Model does not predict the existence of a particle. It is significant, and it might mean that the particle does not exist.
  2. No evidence of the WIMP particle has surfaced from particle accelerator data, including data gather from experiments using the the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This is particularly concerning since super colliders have successfully given us a glimpse into the early universe, the time frame from which most of the scientific community believes dark matter originated.
  3. To sum it up, all experiments to detect the WIMP particle have to date been unsuccessful, including considerable effort by Stanford University, University of Minnesota and Fermilab.

That is all the experimental evidence we have. Where does this leave us? The evidence is telling us the WIMP particle might not exist. We have spent over a decade, and unknown millions of dollars, which so far leads to a dead end. This appears to beg a new approach.

To kick off the new approach, consider the hypothesis that dark matter is a new form of energy. We know from Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation (E = mc2), that mass always implies energy, and energy always implies mass. For example, photons are massless energy particles. Yet, gravitational fields influence them, even though they have no mass. That is because they have energy, and energy, in effect, acts as a virtual mass.

If dark matter is energy, where is it and what is it? Consider these properties of dark-matter energy:

  • It is not in the visible spectrum, or we would see it.
  • It does not strongly interact with other forms of energy or matter.
  • It does exhibit gravitational effects, but does not absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation.

Based on these properties, we should consider M-theory (the unification of all string theories that mathematically suggests there may be ten spacial dimensions, not three, as well as a time dimension). Several prominent physicists, including one of the founders of string theory, Michio Kaku, suggest there may be a solution to M-theory that quantitatively describes dark matter and cosmic inflation. If M-theory can yield a superstring solution, it would go a long way to solving the dark-matter mystery. I know this is like the familiar cartoon of a scientist solving an equation where the caption reads, “then a miracle happens.” However, it is not quite that grim. What I am suggesting is a new line of research and theoretical enquiry. I think the theoretical understanding of dark matter lies in M-theory. The empirical understanding lies in missing-matter experiments.

What is a missing-matter experiment? Scientists are performing missing-matter experiments as I write this book. They involve high-energy particle collisions. By accelerating particles close to the speed of light, and causing particle collisions at those speeds, they account for all the energy and mass pre- and post-collision. If any energy or mass is missing post-collision, the assumption would be it is in one of non-spatial dimensions predicted by M-theory.

Why would this work? M-theory has the potential to give us a theoretical model of dark matter, which we do not have now. Postulating we are dealing with energy, and not particles, would explain why we have not found the WIMP particle. It would also explain why the Standard Model of particle physics doesn’t predict a WIMP particle. Postulating that the energy resides in the non-spatial dimensions of M-theory would explain why we cannot see or detect it, except for its gravitational effects. Why is dark matter able to exhibit gravity,, especially from a hidden dimension? That is still a mystery, as is gravity itself. We have not been able to find the “graviton,” the mysterious particle of gravity that numerous particle physicists believe exists. Yet, we know gravity is real. It is theoretically possible that dark matter (perhaps a new form of energy) and gravity (another form of energy) are both in a different dimension. This framework provides an experimental path to verify both M-theory and the existence of dark matter (via high-energy particle collisions).

This is a conceptual framework, but fits the observations. I am not suggesting we abandon our search for the WIMP particle. However, I suggest we widen our search to include the possibility that dark matter is not a particle, but a new form of energy.

 

Microscopic view of a network of blue fluorescent neurons or cells interconnected by fine filaments.

What Is Dark Matter?

Dark matter is real, mysterious, and necessary for our existence. Without it, we would not have a universe. It is a good thing with an ominous-sounding name. So, what is dark matter?

The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle. It travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. It neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible. However, its effects are detectable, as I will explain below. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle).

In 1933, Fritz Zwicky (California Institute of Technology) made a crucial observation. He discovered the orbital velocities of galaxies were not following Newton’s law of gravitation (every mass in the universe attracts every other mass with a force inversely proportional to the square of the difference between them). They were orbiting too fast for the visible mass to be held together by gravity. If the galaxies followed Newton’s law of gravity, the outermost stars would be thrown into space. He reasoned there had to be more mass than the eye could see, essentially an unknown and invisible form of mass that was allowing gravity to hold the galaxies together. Zwicky’s calculations revealed that there had to be 400 times more mass in the galaxy clusters than what was visible. This is the mysterious “missing-mass problem.” It is normal to think that this discovery would turn the scientific world on its ear. However, as profound as the discovery turned out to be, progress in understanding the missing mass lags until the 1970s.

In 1975, Vera Rubin and fellow staff member Kent Ford, astronomers at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, presented findings that reenergized Zwicky’s earlier claim of missing matter. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, they announced the finding that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. They made this discovery using a new, sensitive spectrograph (a device that separates an incoming wave into a frequency spectrum). The new spectrograph accurately measured the velocity curve of spiral galaxies. Like Zwicky, they found the spiral velocity of the galaxies was too fast to hold all the stars in place. Using Newton’s law of gravity, the galaxies should be flying apart, but they were not. Presented with this new evidence, the scientific community finally took notice. Their first reaction was to call into question the findings, essentially casting doubt on what Rubin and Ford reported. This is a common and appropriate reaction, until the amount of evidence (typically independent verification) becomes convincing.

In 1980, Rubin and her colleagues published their findings (V. Rubin, N. Thonnard, W. K. Ford, Jr, (1980). “Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc).” Astrophysical Journal 238: 471.). It implied that either Newton’s laws do not apply, or that more than 50% of the mass of galaxies is invisible. Although skepticism abounded, eventually other astronomers confirmed their findings. The experimental evidence had become convincing. “Dark matter,” the invisible mass, dominates most galaxies. Even in the face of conflicting theories that attempt to explain the phenomena observed by Zwicky and Rubin, most scientists believe dark matter is real. None of the conflicting theories (which typically attempted to modify how gravity behaved on the cosmic scale) was able to explain all the observed evidence, especially gravitational lensing (the way gravity bends light).

Currently, the scientific community believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe. However, dark matter is still a mystery. For years, scientists have been working to find the WIMP particle to confirm dark matter’s existence. All efforts have been either unsuccessful or inconclusive.

The Department of Energy Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) experiment is ongoing, in an abandoned iron mine about a half mile below the surface, in Soudan, Minnesota. The Fermilab is a half mile under the earth’s surface to filter cosmic rays so the instruments are able to detect elementary particles without the background noise of cosmic rays. In 2009, they reported detecting two events that have characteristics consistent with the particles that physicists believe make up dark matter. They may have detected the WIMP particle. However, they are not making that claim at the time of this writing. The Fermilab stopped short of claiming they had detected dark matter because of the strict criteria that they have self-imposed, specifically there must be less than one chance in a thousand that the event detected was due to a background particle. The two events, although consistent with the detection of dark matter, do not pass that test.

From an article written in Fermilab Today (December 13, 2009), the Fermilab Director Pier Oddone said, “While this result is consistent with dark matter, it is also consistent with backgrounds. In 2010, the collaboration is installing an upgraded detector (SuperCDMS) at Soudan with three times the mass and lower backgrounds than the present detectors. If these two events are indeed a dark matter signal, then the upgraded detector will be able to tell us definitively that we have found a dark matter particle.” As of this writing, Fermilab and other laboratories maintain their quest to find the WIMP particle. To date, we are without conclusive evidence that the WIMP exists.

If it exists, there is a reasonable probability that the WIMP particle can be “created” via experiments involving super colliders (such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) over a ten-year period from 1998 to 2008). Super colliders have successfully given us a glimpse into the early universe. Since most scientists believe that dark matter exists as part of creation at the instant of the Big Bang, super colliders may provide a reasonable methodology of directly creating dark matter. As of this writing, scientists using the Large Hadron Collider are attempting to create WIMP particles via high-energy proton collisions.

Are we on the right track? Is there a WIMP particle or is dark matter related to something else? We’ll explore the nature of dark matter in more depth in my next post?

A visualization of cosmic web structure showing interconnected filaments and dense clusters of galaxies in space.

Why Most of the Universe Is Missing?

In 1933, Fritz Zwicky (California Institute of Technology) made a crucial observation. He discovered the orbital velocities of galaxies were not following Newton’s law of gravitation (every mass in the universe attracts every other mass with a force inversely proportional to the square of the difference between them). They were orbiting too fast for the visible mass to be held together by gravity. If the galaxies followed Newton’s law of gravity, the outermost stars would be thrown into space. He reasoned there had to be more mass than the eye could see, essentially an unknown and invisible form of mass that was allowing gravity to hold the galaxies together. Zwicky’s calculations revealed that there had to be 400 times more mass in the galaxy clusters than what was visible. This is the mysterious “missing-mass problem.” It is normal to think that this discovery would turn the scientific world on its ear. However, as profound as the discovery turned out to be, progress in understanding the missing mass lags until the 1970s.

In 1975, Vera Rubin and fellow staff member Kent Ford, astronomers at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, presented findings that reenergized Zwicky’s earlier claim of missing matter. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, they announced the finding that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. They made this discovery using a new, sensitive spectrograph (a device that separates an incoming wave into a frequency spectrum). The new spectrograph accurately measured the velocity curve of spiral galaxies. Like Zwicky, they found the spiral velocity of the galaxies was too fast to hold all the stars in place. Using Newton’s law of gravity, the galaxies should be flying apart, but they were not. Presented with this new evidence, the scientific community finally took notice. Their first reaction was to call into question the findings, essentially casting doubt on what Rubin and Ford reported. This is a common and appropriate reaction, until the amount of evidence (typically independent verification) becomes convincing.

In 1980, Rubin and her colleagues published their findings (V. Rubin, N. Thonnard, W. K. Ford, Jr, (1980). “Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc).” Astrophysical Journal 238: 471.). It implied that either Newton’s laws do not apply, or that more than 50% of the mass of galaxies is invisible. Although skepticism abounded, eventually other astronomers confirmed their findings. The experimental evidence had become convincing. “Dark matter,” the invisible mass, dominates most galaxies. Even in the face of conflicting theories that attempt to explain the phenomena observed by Zwicky and Rubin, most scientists believe dark matter is real. None of the conflicting theories (which typically attempted to modify how gravity behaved on the cosmic scale) was able to explain all the observed evidence, especially gravitational lensing (the way gravity bends light).

Currently, the scientific community believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe. However, dark matter is still a mystery. The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle. It travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. It neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle). However, the WIMP particle is speculative and to date has not been proven to exist. In addition, it is not predicted by the standard model of particle physics. (Some physicists have performed reformulations of the standard model to have it predict the WIMP and other particles. However, none of the particles predicted by the reformulated standard model have ever been verified.)

There is little doubt, though, that dark matter is real. There experimental evidence is solid. The rotation of stars, planets, and other celestial masses orbit galaxies, like ours, too rapidly relative to their mass and the gravitational pull exerted on them in the galaxy. For example, an outermost star should be orbiting slower than a similar-size star closer to the center of the galaxy, but we observe they are orbiting at the same rate. This means they are not obeying Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein’s general theory of relativity. This faster orbit of the outermost stars suggests more mass is associated with the stars than we are able to see. If not, the stars would fly free of their orbits, into outer space.
We can see the effect dark matter has on light. It will bend light the same way ordinary matter bends light. This effect is gravitational lensing. The visible mass is insufficient to account for the gravitational lensing effects we observe. Once again, this suggests more mass than what we can see.

We are able to use the phenomena of gravitational lensing to determine where the missing mass (dark matter) is, and we find it is throughout galaxies. It is as though each galaxy in our universe has an aura of dark matter associated with it. We do not find any dark matter between galaxies.

While there is no doubt that dark matter is real, its nature remains a mystery. Is it a particle? Is it a new form of energy? All effort to detect the WIMP particle over the last decade or so have been unsuccessful, including considerable effort by Stanford University, University of Minnesota, and Fermilab. Where does this leave us? The evidence is telling us the WIMP particle might not exist. We have spent about ten years, and unknown millions of dollars, which so far leads to a dead end. This appears to beg a new approach.

To kick off the new approach, consider the hypothesis that dark matter is a new form of energy. We know from Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation (E = mc2), that mass always implies energy, and energy always implies mass. For example, photons are massless energy particles. Yet, gravitational fields influence them, even though they have no mass. That is because they have energy, and energy, in effect, acts as a virtual mass.

In my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, I suggested an approach to test the hypothesis that dark matter may be a new form of energy. Because of the length of discussion necessary to describe my suggested approach, I will not go into it in this post. My main point in this post is to suggest we widen our investigation into the nature of dark matter to include the hypothesis that it may be a new form of energy. As a scientist, I think we have to broaden our search. I acknowledge it is possible that dark matter may be a WIMP particle, but we have no conclusive evidence after over ten years of research. Therefore, we should widen our search to include the hypothesis that it is a new form of energy.

A deep space image showing numerous galaxies and stars scattered across the dark universe.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Part 4/4 (Conclusion)

In the last post (part 3), I put forward a hypothesis why the space between galaxies expands. In summary, the galaxies drain energy from the vacuums of space to sustain their (i.e., the galaxies) existence. As energy is removed from the vacuums of space, so is mass (based on Einstein’s mass energy equivalence formula E = mc^2). With less energy/mass in the vacuums, the gravitational force defining the vacuum is diminished, which in turn causes the vacuum to expand.

The above hypothesis would explain the expansion of space between galaxies, but does not explicitly address the question: Why do the galaxies furthest from us appear to be moving away from us the fastest, even to the point of exceeding the speed of light?

To address the above question, let us assume we are located in the Milky Way galaxy, which is true, and we measuring the speed that another galaxy is moving away from us. Let us call our galaxy #1 (Milky Way) and the galaxy we are observing #2. From our point of reference, galaxy #2 is moving away from us, galaxy #1. However, what is really happening? Both galaxies, #1 and #2, are moving away from each other due to the expansion of space between them. Because we are considering our position in galaxy #1 fixed, it appears only galaxy #2 is moving away. For the sake of this example, let assume the velocity we measure for  galaxy #2 as it appears to be moving away from us is V1.

Next, let’s consider another galaxy, galaxy #3, that is more distant from us than galaxy #2. If we were on galaxy #2, we could measure the apparent velocity of galaxy #3 moving away from galaxy #2. Again, for the sake of this example, let us assume we measure it and its value is V2. However, from our position on galaxy #1, galaxy #2 is moving away from us at a velocity of V1 and galaxy #3 is moving away from us at the combine velocity of V1 +V2. Let assume the sum of V1 + V2 = V3. The observation of the velocity of galaxies moving away from us  will appear greater for galaxies further away from us. However, this is actually not true. If we were on galaxy #2,  we would measure galaxy #1 (Milky Way) moving away from us at the rate of V1 and galaxy #3 at the rate of V2. However, since we consider galaxy #1 (Milky Way) our fixed point of reference, we measure galaxy #2 moving away from us at a velocity of V1 and galaxy #3 moving away at a velocity of V3 (V1 + V2).  Using this simple example, we can argue that as the space between galaxies expands, from any fixed measuring point on any galaxy, the speed of galaxies moving away from our fixed measuring point will increase the further a galaxy is from our fixed measuring point.

If we consider the vastness of space and the billions (essentially uncountable) galaxies, from our fixed measuring point within the Milky Way galaxy, all galaxies will appear to be moving away from us (as the space between our galaxies expands) and the more distance a galaxy is from us, the faster it will appear to be moving away from us. The important word is the last sentence is “appear.” In reality all galaxies are moving away from each other at a velocity proportional to the expansion of space between the galaxies. However, from a fixed measuring point, the furthest galaxy from our measuring point would appear to be moving at sum of all galaxies we measure between us and the galaxy we measure  moving “away” from us. If there are billions of galaxies between us and the furthest galaxy, the sum of velocities could appear to exceed the speed of light, which would violate Einstein’s theory of special relativity.

Einstein’s theory of relativity is considered the “gold standard” among theories. It has stood scientific scrutiny for over one hundred years. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, no mass (for example a galaxy) can move faster than the speed of light. To get around this, current cosmology theories argue that it is the space between these distance galaxies that is expanding faster than the speed of light. However, they offer no reason why we should accept this hypothesis. In fact, it is illogical to argue that as we look at more distant galaxies, the space of those galaxies is expanding faster in proportion to the distance from our measuring point. My explanation above, removes this illogical premise and provides a relatively simple way to understand the phenomena.

As far as I know, this series of posts (parts 1-4), is the only body of work that explains and ties together the role of dark matter, the nature of dark energy and the accelerating universe. It is completely consistent with all observed phenomena and does not violate any known physical laws.

 

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Part 3/4

In the last two posts, we established five facts.  First,  the universe is expanding (i.e., the space between galaxies) and the expansion is accelerating. Second, there is no expansion of space within a galaxy. Third, science believes that the accelerating expansion of the universe is caused by a mysterious new force, dark energy. Fourth, it appears galaxies are glued together via another mysterious entity, dark matter. Lastly, dark matter only exists within a galaxy and not between galaxies. These facts have been confirmed and are widely accepted in the scientific community.

In the last post (part 2), I suggested that  a galaxy on a cosmic level acts essentially like a particle. This view of a galaxy as a particle is based on the observation that dark matter, which makes up over 90% of the matter of a galaxy, acts like a “glue” holding all the celestial bodies (stars, planets, etc.) in place. As odd as this may sound, most cosmologists accept this view of dark matter.  

Lastly, we asked the key question. What is really causing the space between these “particles” (i.e., galaxies) to expand. In other words, we are back to the question: What is dark energy? This post will endeavor to address that question. However, while the first two posts provided factual information, the nature of dark energy is speculative. This post will delineate my view, which has been published in my first book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, and in an article for the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-a-del-monte/dark-energy-explained_b_2853962.html). However, let me emphasize that this is my view (i.e., theory). While it has been published in both my books and in the Huffington Post, it has not be adequately peer reviewed. Therefore, you should treat this as a conjecture (i.e., an opinion). To delineate my view, I will quote (in part) from the article I published in the Huffington Post: 

In my book, I put forward a new theory that explains both the fundamental cause of time dilation and accelerating universe. I name the theory “The Existence Equation Conjecture.”

What is the Existence Equation Conjecture? It is a mathematical equation I derived using Einstein’s special theory of relativity and Minkowski space-time coordinates. It delineates the energy required for a mass to move in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space. Unfortunately, this sounds more like science fiction than science fact. In addition, all the scientific jargon tends to confuse the explanation. Rather than going through the derivation and experimental verification, which are in the appendices of my book, let me just get to the punch line. Here is the Existence Equation Conjecture:

KEX4 = -.3mc^2

Where KEX4 is the kinetic energy associated with an object’s movement in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space, m is the rest mass of an object, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

What does all this mean? The interpretation is speculative. With this caveat, I interpret the equation to imply that a mass requires energy to move in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space. Although, Einstein never called the fourth dimension time, it includes a time component, and I interpret the mass’ movement in the fourth dimension to equate to its existence. The equation is dimensionally correct (expressible in units of energy), but highly unusual from two standpoints. First, the kinetic energy is negative, which suggests a mass requires energy to move in the fourth dimension. Second, the amount of negative kinetic energy suggested by the equation is enormous. Although, the equation’s roots extend to special relativity, and it correlates well with experimental time dilation data, I termed it a conjecture. It requires further peer review and additional experimental verification.

If the Existence Equation Conjecture actually models the energy a mass needs to exist, how does this explain the accelerating universe? If correct, the amount of energy required for existence is enormous, and it has to come from somewhere. I looked at a number of potential candidates. In the end, I concluded the most likely candidate is the vacuum of space. We know from our experiments with vacuums in the laboratory that vacuums contain energy. An example of this is virtual particle production, which gives rise to the Casimir effect, where two closely spaced electrically neutral plates are pushed together in a vacuum. Although counter intuitive, a laundry list of effects demonstrates vacuums contain energy.

If we think of galaxies as masses, we can postulate to exist they are removing energy from the vacuums that surround them. We know from Einstein’s famous mass energy equivalence (E = mc^2), that removing energy is equivalent to removing mass. This suggests that as the mass/energy density decreases, the gravitational attraction within the vacuum decreases, which in turn causes the vacuum to expand.

While the Existence Equation Conjecture does mathematically express the energy required for a mass to move in time, how do we know it is correct? Here are some facts for consideration:

1. The derivation of the equation follows from Einstein’s special theory of relativity and its expression in Minkowski’s vector space. The derivation was first delineated in Appendix 1 of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), and further refined in Appendix 2 of my book, How to Time Travel (2013).

2. Verification of the equation to accurately predict experimental time dilation results was provided in Appendix 2 of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), and further discussed in Appendix 3 of my book, How to Time Travel (2013).

If you accept that the Existence Equation Conjecture is correct, it implies that existence, movement in time, continually requires energy. In a sense, this should not surprise us. Elementary physics teaches that a mass moving in three-dimensional space has kinetic energy. The energy to start the mass moving results in its kinetic energy. Intuitively, we should expect a mass moving in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space to also require energy. We already know from numerous time dilation experiments that adding significant kinetic energy to a mass. such as a muon (i.e., an unstable subatomic particle of the same class as an electron, but with a mass around 200 times greater), increases its decay time by more than an factor of ten (i.e., an order of magnitude). Many books on special and general relativity provide time dilation formulas, but do not explain the fundamental scientific mechanism. I judge, based on this work, that the fundamental mechanism is that existence requires energy and supplying energy to a mass will extend it life (i.e., dilate time).

The above discussion provides a theory why the space between galaxies expands. In summary, the galaxies drain energy from the vacuums of space to sustain their (i.e., the galaxies) existence. As energy is removed from the vacuums of space, so is mass (based on Einstein’s mass energy equivalence formula E = mc^2). With less energy/mass in the vacuums, the gravitational force defining the vacuum is diminished, which in turn causes the vacuum to expand.

As I said at the beginning of this post, the above is the result of my original research, published in my books and the Huffington Post. I welcome peer reviewed. However, until the Existence Equation Conjecture gains widespread scientific acceptance, I will continue to label it a conjecture (i.e., an opinion). In the next post, concluding this series, I will explain (my view) why galaxies more distant from us appear to be moving away from us the fastest.

dark matter

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Part 2/4

In the last post (part 1), we discussed the phenomenon of the accelerating universe, namely  that the universe is expanding and all galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies. Based on the paradigm of “cause and effect,” mainstream science argued a mysterious new force was causing the expansion. The force was named dark energy.

We also noted, that the accelerating universe was characterized by two unusual features:

1. The more distant a galaxy, the faster it is accelerating away from us.

2. There is no expansion of space occurring within a galaxy.

We ended the last post with questions: Why was there no expansion of space within a galaxy? Was the space between stars and other celestial bodies within our galaxy somehow different than the space between galaxies? In this post we will address those questions. Let’s start at the beginning.

In 1933, Fritz Zwicky (California Institute of Technology) made a crucial observation. He discovered the orbital velocities of galaxies were not following Newton’s law of gravitation (every mass in the universe attracts every other mass with a force inversely proportional to the square of the difference between them). They were orbiting too fast for the visible mass to be held together by gravity. If the galaxies followed Newton’s law of gravity, the outermost stars would be thrown into space. He reasoned there had to be more mass than the eye could see, essentially an unknown and invisible form of mass that was allowing gravity to hold the galaxies together. Zwicky’s calculations revealed that there had to be 400 times more mass in the galaxy clusters than what was visible. This is the mysterious “missing-mass problem.” It is normal to think that this discovery would turn the scientific world on its ear. However, as profound as the discovery turned out to be, progress in understanding the missing mass lags until the 1970s.

In 1975, Vera Rubin and fellow staff member Kent Ford, astronomers at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, presented findings that re-energized Zwicky’s earlier claim of missing matter. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, they announced the finding that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. They made this discovery using a new, sensitive spectrograph (a device that separates an incoming wave into a frequency spectrum). The new spectrograph accurately measured the velocity curve of spiral galaxies. Like Zwicky, they found the spiral velocity of the galaxies was too fast to hold all the stars in place. Using Newton’s law of gravity, the galaxies should be flying apart, but they were not. Presented with this new evidence, the scientific community finally took notice. Their first reaction was to call into question the findings, essentially casting doubt on what Rubin and Ford reported. This is a common and appropriate reaction, until the amount of evidence (typically independent verification) becomes convincing.

In 1980, Rubin and her colleagues published their findings (V. Rubin, N. Thonnard, W. K. Ford, Jr, (1980). “Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc).” Astrophysical Journal 238: 471.). It implied that either Newton’s laws do not apply, or that more than 50% of the mass of galaxies is invisible. Although skepticism abounded, eventually other astronomers confirmed their findings. The experimental evidence had become convincing. “Dark matter,” the invisible mass, dominates most galaxies. Even in the face of conflicting theories that attempt to explain the phenomena observed by Zwicky and Rubin, most scientists believe dark matter is real. None of the conflicting theories (which typically attempted to modify how gravity behaved on the cosmic scale) was able to explain all the observed evidence, especially gravitational lensing (the way gravity bends light).

Currently, the scientific community believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe. However, the nature of dark matter itself is still a mystery. Just what is this mysterious substance that appears to glue a galaxy together?

The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle. It travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. It neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible. However, its effects are detectable, as I will explain below. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle).

For years, scientists have been working to find the WIMP particle to confirm dark matter’s existence. All efforts have been either unsuccessful or inconclusive. The Department of Energy Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) experiment is ongoing, in an abandoned iron mine about a half mile below the surface, in Soudan, Minnesota. The Fermilab is a half mile under the earth’s surface to filter cosmic rays so the instruments are able to detect elementary particles without the background noise of cosmic rays. In 2009, they reported detecting two events that have characteristics consistent with the particles that physicists believe make up dark matter. They may have detected the WIMP particle. However, they are not making that claim at the time of this writing. The Fermilab stopped short of claiming they had detected dark matter because of the strict criteria that they have self-imposed, specifically there must be less than one chance in a thousand that the event detected was due to a background particle. The two events, although consistent with the detection of dark matter, do not pass that test. Where does that leave us? To date, we are without conclusive evidence that the WIMP exists.

Does the WIMP particle exist? Consider the facts.

1)   The Standard Model of particle physics does not predict a WIMP particle. The Standard Model, refined to its current formulation in the mid-1970s, is one of science’s greatest theories. It successfully predicted bottom and top quarks prior to their experimental confirmation in 1977 and 1995, respectively. It predicted the tau neutrino prior to its experimental confirmation in 2000, and the Higgs boson prior to its experimental confirmation in 2012. Modern science holds the Standard Model in such high regard that a number of scientists believe it is a candidate for the theory of everything. Therefore, it is not a little “hiccup” when the Standard Model does not predict the existence of a particle. It is significant, and it might mean that the particle does not exist. However, to be totally fair, the Standard Model has other issues. For example, it doesn’t explain gravity. Because of these issues, numerous variations of the Standard Model have been proposed, but none have gained wide acceptance.

2)   All experiments to detect the WIMP particle have to date been unsuccessful, including considerable effort by Stanford University, University of Minnesota, and Fermilab.

That is all the evidence we have. Where does this leave us? The evidence is telling us the WIMP particle might not exist. We have spent about ten years, and unknown millions of dollars, which so far leads to a dead end. This appears to beg a new approach.

To kick off the new approach, consider the hypothesis that dark matter is a new form of energy. We know from Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation (E = mc2), that mass always implies energy, and energy always implies mass. For example, photons are massless energy particles. Yet, gravitational fields influence them, even though they have no mass. That is because they have energy, and energy, in effect, acts as a virtual mass.

If dark matter is energy, where is it and what is it? Consider these properties of dark-matter energy:

  • It is not in the visible spectrum, or we would see it.
  • It does not strongly interact with other forms of energy or matter.
  • It does exhibit gravitational effects, but does not absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation.

Based on these properties, we should consider M-theory (the unification of string theories discussed in previous posts). Several prominent physicists, including one of the founders of string theory, Michio Kaku, suggest there may be a solution to M-theory that quantitatively describes dark matter and cosmic inflation. If M-theory can yield a superstring solution, it would go a long way to solving the dark-matter mystery. I know this is like the familiar cartoon of a scientist solving an equation where the caption reads, “then a miracle happens.” However, it is not quite that grim. What I am suggesting is a new line of research and theoretical enquiry. I think the theoretical understanding of dark matter lies in M-theory. The empirical understanding lies in missing-matter experiments.

What is a missing-matter experiment? Scientists are performing missing-matter experiments as you read this post. They involve high-energy particle collisions. By accelerating particles close to the speed of light, and causing particle collisions at those speeds, they account for all the energy and mass pre- and post-collision. If any energy or mass is missing post-collision, the assumption would be it is in one of non-spatial dimensions predicted by M-theory.

Why would this work? M-theory has the potential to give us a theoretical model of dark matter, which we do not have now. Postulating we are dealing with new unknown form of energy would explain why we have not found the WIMP particle. Postulating that the energy resides in the non-spatial dimensions of M-theory would explain why we cannot see or detect it. Real-world phenomena take place in the typical three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. If dark matter is in a different dimension, it cannot interact with “real”-world phenomena, except to exhibit gravity. Why is dark matter able to exhibit gravity? That is still a mystery, as is gravity itself. We have not been able to find the “graviton,” the mysterious particle of gravity that numerous particle physicists believe exists. Yet, we know gravity is real. It is theoretically possible that dark matter (perhaps a new form of energy) and gravity (another form of energy) are both in a different dimension. This framework provides an experimental path to verify some of the aspects of M-theory and the existence of dark matter (via high-energy particle collisions).

Although dark matter is a mystery, we know from scientific observation it is real. Without dark matter our galaxy would fly apart. In fact, dark matter makes up most of the mass of a galaxy, over 90%. In a sense, you can think of a galaxy similar to the way we think of an atom. An atom can act like a single particle, an entity unto itself. However, we know the atom is composed of subatomic particles, like electrons, protons and neutrons. We also know that some of those particles are composed of other subatomic particles, which I will not go into detail here. The point is a galaxy may act on a cosmic scale as though it is particle, similar to an atom, with subatomic particles we call stars, planets and other celestial bodies. I know this is mind boggling, but it fits the observable evidence. It provides insight into the difference regarding space between galaxies and the space within a galaxy. It is consistent with our observations of the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Let us summaries our understanding from the first two post. First, the universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. Second, there is no expansion of space within a galaxy. Third, science believes that the accelerating expansion of the universe is caused by a mysterious new force, dark energy. Fourth, it appears galaxies are glued together via another mysterious entity, dark matter. Lastly, dark matter only exists within a galaxy and not between galaxies.

If we are willing to accept that a galaxy on a cosmic level acts essentially like a particle, as discuss above, we are still left with a mystery. What is really causing the space between these “particles” (i.e., galaxies) to expand. In other words, we are back to the question: What is dark energy? In the next post we will discuss a new theory, first proposed in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, that seeks to explain the fundamental nature of dark energy.

Abstract fractal pattern resembling a cosmic or underwater scene with glowing blue and white textures.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Part 1/4

In this series of posts I will explain the fundamental nature of dark matter, dark energy and their relationship to the accelerating universe. Much of what I will discuss comes from my original research delineated in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012). However, this article (i.e., the series of posts taken as a whole) will go beyond what was explained in the book and provides for the first time, to my knowledge, a comprehensive theory of the aforementioned phenomena.

Let us start by understanding the phenomenon we are going to explain, namely the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Mainstream science widely accepts the Big Bang as giving birth to our universe. Scientists knew from Hubble’s discovery in 1929 that the universe was expanding. However, prior to 1998, scientific wisdom was that the expansion of the universe would gradually slow down, due to the force of gravity. We were so sure, so we decided to confirm our theory by measuring it. Can you imagine our reaction when our first measurement did not confirm our paradigm, namely that the expansion of the universe should be slowing down?

What happened in 1998? The High-z Supernova Search Team (an international cosmology collaboration) published a paper that shocked the scientific community. The paper was: Adam G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team) (1998). “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant.” Astronomical J. 116 (3). They reported that the universe was doing the unthinkable. The expansion of the universe was not slowing down—in fact, it was accelerating. Of course, this caused a significant ripple in the scientific community. Scientists went back to Einstein’s general theory of relativity and resurrected the “cosmological constant,” which Einstein had arbitrarily added to his equations to prove the universe was eternal and not expanding. Previous chapters noted that Einstein considered the cosmological constant his “greatest blunder” when Edwin Hubble, in 1929, proved the universe was expanding.

Through high school-level mathematical manipulation, scientists moved Einstein’s cosmological constant from one side of the equation to the other. With this change, the cosmological constant no longer acted to keep expansion in balance to result in a static universe. In this new formulation, Einstein’s “greatest blunder,” the cosmological constant, mathematically models the acceleration of the universe. Mathematically this may work, and model the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, it does not give us insight into what is causing the expansion.

The one thing that you need to know is that almost all scientists hold the paradigm of “cause and effect.” If it happens, something is causing it to happen. Things do not simply happen. They have a cause. That means every bubble in the ocean has a cause. It would be a fool’s errand to attempt to find the cause for each bubble. Yet, I believe, as do almost all of my colleagues, each bubble has a cause. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to believe something is countering the force of gravity, and causing the expansion to accelerate. What is it? No one knows. Science calls it “dark energy.”

That is the state of science as we know it today. The universe’s expansion is accelerating. No one knows why. Scientists reason there must be a cause countering the pull of gravity. They name that cause “dark energy.” Scientists mathematically manipulate Einstein’s self-admitted “greatest blunder,” the “cosmological constant,” to model the accelerated expansion of the universe.

The accelerated expansion of the universe suggests, in time, we will be entirely alone in the galaxy. The accelerated expansion of space will cause all other galaxies to move beyond our cosmological horizon. When this happens, our universe will consist of the Milky Way. The Milky Way galaxy will continue to exist, but as far out as our best telescopes will be able to observe, no other galaxies will be visible to us. What they taught our grandparents will have come true. The universe will be the Milky Way and nothing else. All evidence of the Big Bang will be gone. All evidence of dark energy will be gone. Space will grow colder, almost devoid of all heat, as the rest of the universe moves beyond our cosmological horizon. The entire Milky Way galaxy will grow cold. Our planet, if it still exists, will end in ice.

There are currently two principal schools of thought regarding the theory of dark energy. I already mentioned the “cosmological constant” group. The second is “quintessence.”

The quintessence model attributes the universe’s acceleration to a fifth fundamental force that changes over time. The quintessence school of thought has its own equation. It differs from the cosmological constant equation by allowing the equation itself to change over time. In brief, the cosmological constant is a constant, and does not vary with time. The quintessence equation varies with time.

In my opinion, neither theory (i.e., schools of thought) explains the nature of the accelerated expansion. The theories simply mathematically model the accelerated expansion.

Here is another important piece of the puzzle. From confirmed observation, entire galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it is accelerating away from us. However, here is another piece of the puzzle. The galaxies themselves are not expanding. This is a scientific fact. Our Milky Way galaxy is behaving exactly as we would expect, with no expansion of the space between stars within the galaxy. The question becomes why. Is space between stars equal to space between galaxies? No, it is not. The space between stars and other celestial bodies within our galaxy appears glued together with dark matter. Dark matter does not exist between galaxies. Gravitational attraction exists between galaxies, but no dark matter connects one galaxy to another.

In the next post, we will understand more about the nature of dark matter and the role it plays in this new theory of the accelerating universe.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte

Introdution to Unraveling the Universe's Mysteries Book

Original Theories & Concepts Introduced In “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries”

In this post, I delineate original theories and concepts, which I first delineated in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012).  The theories and concepts are the result of original research. To the best of my knowledge, they do not appear in any prior book or scientific paper. However, I acknowledge that it is possible that other authors may have expressed similar theories and concepts. I offer them for your consideration. If there are any scientific terms used, which are unfamiliar to you, please consult the “Glossary of Terms” under the “About” section found at the bottom of this website.

1. The Big Bang Duality theory

Rationale of importance:

The Big Bang Duality theory explains the origin of the Big Bang. It postulates the Big Bang is due to the collision of infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particles in the Bulk (super-universe). In addition, it suggests that the physical laws of our universe originate in the Bulk. Lastly, the Big Bang Duality theory explains the absence of antimatter in our universe, without requiring a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws.

Discussion:

It is reasonable to consider that a quantum fluctuation in the Bulk resulted in an infinitely energy-dense particle-antiparticle pair, not a single infinitely energy-dense particle. This equates to an energy neutral system, and aligns with the conservation-of-energy law.

If the quantum fluctuation theory is correct, it makes a strong case that the scientific laws of our universe are the scientific laws of the Bulk. This implies the physical laws of the universe pre-date the Big Bang, and that if there were other universes created via quantum fluctuations, they too would follow the laws of the Bulk.

Lastly, by postulating a spontaneous creation of infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particle pairs that collide in the Bulk to create what is commonly referred to as the Big Bang, we are able to explain the absence of antimatter in our universe. In effect, it was consumed during the initial matter-antimatter particle collision and the subsequent interactions. This model, unlike other models of the Big Bang, does not require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws.

2. Minimum Energy Principle

Rationale of importance:

The Minimum Energy Principle states: Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source. This implies the Big Bang went “bang” at the instant it came to exist.

Discussion:

The Minimum Energy Principle is a generalized statement of similar laws in the physical sciences. In its current formulation, it is independent of the scientific context.

3. Consider dark matter a form of energy, not a particle.

Rationale of importance:

This provides a new thrust for research, and explains why the Standard Model of particle physics does not predict the dark matter particle—WIMP (weakly interactive massive particle). In addition, it explains why efforts to detect it have been unsuccessful.

Discussion:

The existence of dark matter is not in dispute. However, serious efforts to prove that dark matter is a particle—WIMP (weakly interactive massive particle) —have been unsuccessful. In fact, The Standard Model of particle physics does not predict a WIMP particle. The Standard Model of particle physics, refined to its current formulation in the mid-1970s, is one of science’s greatest theories. If the Standard Model does not predict a WIMP particle, it raises serious doubt about the particle’s existence. All experiments to detect the WIMP particle have, to date, been unsuccessful. Major effort has been put forth by Stanford University, University of Minnesota, Fermilab, and others to detect the WIMP particle. Millions of dollars have been spent over last decade to find the WIMP particle. Despite all effort and funding, there has been no definitive evidence of its existence. This appears to beg expanding our research scope. One approach suggested is that science attempt to model dark matter using M-theory.

4. The Existence Equation Conjecture

Rationale of importance:

The Existence Equation Conjecture is, arguably, the most important theory put forward in this book. It relates time, existence, and energy. It explains the physical process related to time dilation. It rests on three pillars:

  1. The fourth dimension, although a spatial coordinate, is associated with existence in time.
  2. Movement in the fourth dimension (existence) requires enormous negative energy as suggested by the Existence Equation Conjecture (KEX4 = -.3mc2).
  3. When we add kinetic energy or gravitational energy to a particle, we reduce the amount of negative energy it requires to exist and, thus, increase its existence.

Discussion:

This equation is dimensionally correct, meaning it can be expressed in units of energy, which is an important test in physics. The equation is highly unusual. First, the kinetic energy is negative. Second, the amount of negative kinetic energy suggested by the equation, even for a small object like an apple, is enormous. The energy, for even a small object, is about equivalent to a nuclear weapon, but negative in value. This led me to postulate that the source of energy to fuel the Existence Equation Conjecture is dark energy. Modern science believes dark energy is a negative (vacuum) form of energy causing space to expand. From the Existence Equation Conjecture, we know existence requires negative energy to fuel existence. Comparing the Existence Equation Conjecture’s need for negative energy seems to suggest existence may be siphoning its required negative energy from the universe. This implies that existence and dark energy may be related.

In summary, we have a more complete picture of time’s nature, namely:

  1. Time is related to change (numerical orders of physical events)
  2. Time is related to energy via its relationship to change, since change requires energy
  3. Time is related to existence, and existence requires negative energy per the Existence Equation Conjecture
  4. The energy to fuel time (existence) may be being acquired from the universe (dark energy), causing the universe to expand (via the negative pressure we describe as dark energy). This aligns conceptually with the form of the equation, and the accelerated change in the universe.
  5. The enormousness changes in entropy (disorder) in the universe may be the price we pay for time. Since entropy increases with change, and time is a measure of change, there may be a time-entropy relationship.

The derivation and experimental verification of the Existence Equation Conjecture can be found in Appendices I and II of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries.

5. The Quantum Universe theory

Rationale of importance:

This theory postulates that all reality, including space, consists of quantized energy.

Discussion:

The majority of experimental and theoretical data argues that the macro world, the universe in which we live, is the sum of all matter and energy quanta from the micro world (quantum level). Recent experiments demonstrate that the micro level and quantum level can influence each other, even to the point they become quantum entangled. In addition, space itself appears quantized, considering the Dirac sea, the particle theory of gravity, and the irreducible Planck length. This allows us conceptually to describe the universe as a Quantum Universe.

6. The existence of God (deity) is not scientifically provable

Rationale of importance:

This debate, God versus Science, is centuries old. It revolves around the question: can science prove or disprove God (deity) exists? The effects of such a proof would be profound.

Discussion:

This debate is essentially unresolvable. The nature of being “God” implies a supernatural being. Science deals with natural phenomena. Logically, it appears irrational to believe that science, which attempts to understand, model, and predict natural phenomena, is extendable to investigate supernatural phenomena. Obviously, if the existence of God were provable, religious leaders would not ask for faith. It is a choice, to believe or not to believe. Conversely, science does not require belief as the final step in the process. Belief plays a role in science, especially as new theories surface, but ultimately scientists seek experimental verification.

All of the above theories and concepts are fully discussed in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries.

dark matter

Dark Matter Explained – Most of the Universe Is Missing!

The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle. It travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. It neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible. However, its effects are detectable, as I will explain below. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle).

In 1933, Fritz Zwicky (California Institute of Technology) made a crucial observation. He discovered the orbital velocities of galaxies were not following Newton’s law of gravitation (every mass in the universe attracts every other mass with a force inversely proportional to the square of the difference between them). They were orbiting too fast for the visible mass to be held together by gravity. If the galaxies followed Newton’s law of gravity, the outermost stars would be thrown into space. He reasoned there had to be more mass than the eye could see, essentially an unknown and invisible form of mass that was allowing gravity to hold the galaxies together. Zwicky’s calculations revealed that there had to be 400 times more mass in the galaxy clusters than what was visible. This is the mysterious “missing-mass problem.” It is normal to think that this discovery would turn the scientific world on its ear. However, as profound as the discovery turned out to be, progress in understanding the missing mass lags until the 1970s.

In 1975, Vera Rubin and fellow staff member Kent Ford, astronomers at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, presented findings that reenergized Zwicky’s earlier claim of missing matter. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, they announced the finding that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. They made this discovery using a new, sensitive spectrograph (a device that separates an incoming wave into a frequency spectrum). The new spectrograph accurately measured the velocity curve of spiral galaxies. Like Zwicky, they found the spiral velocity of the galaxies was too fast to hold all the stars in place. Using Newton’s law of gravity, the galaxies should be flying apart, but they were not. Presented with this new evidence, the scientific community finally took notice. Their first reaction was to call into question the findings, essentially casting doubt on what Rubin and Ford reported. This is a common and appropriate reaction, until the amount of evidence (typically independent verification) becomes convincing.

In 1980, Rubin and her colleagues published their findings (V. Rubin, N. Thonnard, W. K. Ford, Jr, (1980). “Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc).” Astrophysical Journal 238: 471.). It implied that either Newton’s laws do not apply, or that more than 50% of the mass of galaxies is invisible. Although skepticism abounded, eventually other astronomers confirmed their findings. The experimental evidence had become convincing. “Dark matter,” the invisible mass, dominates most galaxies. Even in the face of conflicting theories that attempt to explain the phenomena observed by Zwicky and Rubin, most scientists believe dark matter is real. None of the conflicting theories (which typically attempted to modify how gravity behaved on the cosmic scale) was able to explain all the observed evidence, especially gravitational lensing (the way gravity bends light).

Currently, the scientific community believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe. However, dark matter is still a mystery. For years, scientists have been working to find the WIMP particle to confirm dark matter’s existence. All efforts have been either unsuccessful or inconclusive.

This material is from Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte.