Having recently completed a 2nd-year higher–ed module in astronomy and cosmology, awaiting my score with eagerness but little confidence, I have a much better understanding of the big things in the universe (from stars upwards) – how they are born, live and die, interact with each other, and are used to learn more about the big picture. I have also covered special and general relativity, scaling, the event history of the big bang and various models of the expansion and the likely outcome of the universe. But I can’t say I have yet understood much of that part. The algebra at this level is linear and straightforward – (1/Hubble constant) gives the age of the universe. The next level requires much more maths, so to me it means that the study is moving away from an intuitive understanding, and more an interpretation of the algebra.
It is as if some cosmologists live in the real world (the ones who don’t “do” dimensions) and others manipulate maths in an attempt to explain the so-far inexplicable.
The most interesting outcome of the module for me was the summary of ongoing mysteries. The nature of dark energy and dark matter; why, after the big bang and the annihilation of matter with antimatter, was some matter left over; the process of inflation in which the universe expanded many orders of magnitude in a minute space of time, in order to explain the horizon problem; and the failure to reconcile gravity with the other fundamental forces (there were more, I am writing this from memory). Another is the ‘pressure waves’ which cause galactic spiral arms to ‘orbit’ the centre in an unexplained way.
I have also read Prof Hawking’s book The Grand Design, very illuminating and from which I took two key points. The first is the credibility he gives to the possibility of 10^500 universes being created each with different laws, those that survive any length of time being the ones whose laws of physics are mutually sustainable. The figure of 10^500 is as near infinity without saying infinity. One feature of a good theory is elegance, but this is as elegant as a blunderbus (in my respectful opinion). Come back God, all is forgiven! (That will be a prayer, then . .)
The second is his sudden diversion to explain that there are only four big dimensions, three in space and one in time (3s+t) – there cannot be a fifth (4s+t), otherwise gravity would exert a smaller pull than it does (instead of the inverse square law, the inverse cube law would apply). This is where I feel that, in my present naivety, I can make a challenge. I think:
- General relatively says that there is a fifth large dimension (total 4s+t) in the observation of the curvature of space-time. Just like the bobbles on the surface of an orange may suggest to an ant walking on it that there may be an up-down dimension to add to forward back and left-right. And its infinite surface is not so infinite after all
- Dimensions can depend on scale. Not just their perception/measurement, but their existence, depends on size
- The discovery of dark matter on the galactic scale (some 90% of the mass of a large galaxy like our own as measured by its gravitational effects on its own stars and neighbouring galaxies is dark, ie unexplained, matter) suggests that, instead, there is a phenomenon that known matter on the galactic scale exerts less force than the 3s+t model allows
- The discovery of dark or “missing” energy looks to me like the kind of balanced rotation (in the 4s+t toroid concept) that is continuously accelerating all masses in the ‘medium’ of space, and giving the observed mutual attraction of gravity.
So I think I have made some progress in 2010, but have yet to find out how much.
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
As a matter of fact, it's all dark . . .
Just a fill-in update, I realise these posts are very idiosyncratic and apparently disjointed. As might be expected from an amateur's attempt to make sense of an apparently intractable problem.
In fact it is as if every attempt to find a simple core to the answer results in the exposure of another layer of complexity. Having got a good handle on the nature of matter, the normal or baryonic kind, it turns out that 90% of it, including our own Galaxy, comprises dark matter. It can't be detected directly at any wavelength, the only evidence for it is the gravitational effect it has on observed galactic dynamics.
As if the suspected black hole at the centre of each galaxy is a lot more massive than thought. But the unseen mass is distributed in an oblate (80%) spheroid encompassing the visible and detectable material. It "is" all around us.
Plenty of scope for surmising that the mystery of dark matter is a feature of gravitation. Just as a mass distorts local space causing other masses nearby moving or being moved through it to appear to attract each other, a large accumulation of mass (as a galaxy) further significantly distorts the space it occupies with the effect of making it seem 10 times more massive than its baryonic material.
My surmise is to do with the relationship between the size/dimension of galaxies compared with the universe as a whole - galaxies are macro scale. In what sense is the gravitational constant a variable after all?
I always had an intuitive problem with the big bang, preferring a continuum to be more elegant, but realise the evidence for the big bang is irrefutable. Well I am also sceptical about the existence of dark matter, and will be betting the solution lies in the measurement method and theory rather than in some new and totally undetectable form of matter.
Why does nature have to be so intractably complicated? At what point in human investigation will it start to become simpler? Answers on a postcard please . .
In fact it is as if every attempt to find a simple core to the answer results in the exposure of another layer of complexity. Having got a good handle on the nature of matter, the normal or baryonic kind, it turns out that 90% of it, including our own Galaxy, comprises dark matter. It can't be detected directly at any wavelength, the only evidence for it is the gravitational effect it has on observed galactic dynamics.
As if the suspected black hole at the centre of each galaxy is a lot more massive than thought. But the unseen mass is distributed in an oblate (80%) spheroid encompassing the visible and detectable material. It "is" all around us.
Plenty of scope for surmising that the mystery of dark matter is a feature of gravitation. Just as a mass distorts local space causing other masses nearby moving or being moved through it to appear to attract each other, a large accumulation of mass (as a galaxy) further significantly distorts the space it occupies with the effect of making it seem 10 times more massive than its baryonic material.
My surmise is to do with the relationship between the size/dimension of galaxies compared with the universe as a whole - galaxies are macro scale. In what sense is the gravitational constant a variable after all?
I always had an intuitive problem with the big bang, preferring a continuum to be more elegant, but realise the evidence for the big bang is irrefutable. Well I am also sceptical about the existence of dark matter, and will be betting the solution lies in the measurement method and theory rather than in some new and totally undetectable form of matter.
Why does nature have to be so intractably complicated? At what point in human investigation will it start to become simpler? Answers on a postcard please . .
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
In the beginning . .
Not the beginning of time, we have to get away from the flat or linear concept. Rather, the conditions that simply are. I am convinced, to the extent that I know, that the universe is finite. Infinity is just a mathematical symbol, an expression of 1/0, where zero really is zero in context.
Similarly, there can be no real nothing, from the evidence that we are here and we can see a universe with properties at the minutest level everywhere. However, the sum total of the universe must be zero. The term "sum" being defined as the process to add everything there is resulting in the answer zero. Yes it is a circular argument and illogical, but where to start is a fundamental part of the problem, it is what we are trying to find.
Whatever there is, is the reconciliation of two intractable and contradictory conditions, namely (a) the sum of everything is nothing, and (b) there can't be nothing. And what we see with our developing intelligence, scientific data and analysis, is a universe which is pretty much all positive (where is the antimatter?), with a significant part comprising the same stuff as us (hadrons) but a greater proportion is dark and non-hadron. Its matter is stuck together by a few fundamental forces, the weakest of which (gravity) amounts to a constant acceleration imparted to all matter, which I can only explain by assuming that the medium is spinning. This forces matter to clump together in masses which get so hot and dense that they spontaneously combust in a continuous hydrogen bomb, and lead to creation of other elements, and emission of energy which eventually allows life, and intelligence. Through us the universe becomes aware of itself.
Don't know where to go next, but sometimes you just have to summarise the story so far.
Similarly, there can be no real nothing, from the evidence that we are here and we can see a universe with properties at the minutest level everywhere. However, the sum total of the universe must be zero. The term "sum" being defined as the process to add everything there is resulting in the answer zero. Yes it is a circular argument and illogical, but where to start is a fundamental part of the problem, it is what we are trying to find.
Whatever there is, is the reconciliation of two intractable and contradictory conditions, namely (a) the sum of everything is nothing, and (b) there can't be nothing. And what we see with our developing intelligence, scientific data and analysis, is a universe which is pretty much all positive (where is the antimatter?), with a significant part comprising the same stuff as us (hadrons) but a greater proportion is dark and non-hadron. Its matter is stuck together by a few fundamental forces, the weakest of which (gravity) amounts to a constant acceleration imparted to all matter, which I can only explain by assuming that the medium is spinning. This forces matter to clump together in masses which get so hot and dense that they spontaneously combust in a continuous hydrogen bomb, and lead to creation of other elements, and emission of energy which eventually allows life, and intelligence. Through us the universe becomes aware of itself.
Don't know where to go next, but sometimes you just have to summarise the story so far.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
It's not infinite
A recent UK TV programme discussed the possibility that the Universe is infinite, and visualised scenarios where there are copies of ourselves doing what we are doing. Yes this is what there would be, alongside every other possibility as well. And the moon is made of green cheese.
Infinity is a word bandied about as if it were a real value, but it is not. It is just a mathematical expression of 1/0, or the distance at which two parallel lines intersect. Well the expression would need a real value of zero, and there can be no reality to parallel bars extending to infinity.
Infinity is a convenient expression for those who can't imagine the boundary (if it's not infinite, then where is the edge - and what is beyond the edge?) It is a cop-out of course, but in fact the existence of real infinity is far harder to contemplate than the alternative(s). I can explain why an infinite universe is impossible, it is tedious, but I expect I will have to.
We know the surface of an orange is finite but unbounded, same for any real object in our three-dimensional world. You can trace a path in the same direction all around it, get back to the starting point, and there is nothing stop this journey continuing on. I don't see any reason why this model should not be applied to the universe in communication to the general public by scientists and the media. (It is usually only expressed in the terms "scientists believe . . ")
I agree there is glibness in the assertion that the universe is finite but unbounded. The surface of an orange is flat in its local two-dimensional world (forward-back and left-right). Up-down exists locally, but it is only the larger view of the third dimension that reveals the solid object of the orange. (Replace 'orange' with 'earth' to see the dilemma of our ancient forebears.)
But if the third dimension is also curved in the larger view, in the fourth dimension, then is the fourth dimension also flat locally but curved in a fifth? This has to stop somewhere to retain finiteness. We understand the fourth dimension to be time, and the model has to work for no more dimensions. I think a key to this is the concept of half-dimensions, ie the ant on the orange is aware of up-down but not the curvature to the orange's horizon. Identify and solve the equation whereby each dimension comes in two parts, but the expression for the third-and-a-half dimension is equal to that for the fourth.
Infinity is a word bandied about as if it were a real value, but it is not. It is just a mathematical expression of 1/0, or the distance at which two parallel lines intersect. Well the expression would need a real value of zero, and there can be no reality to parallel bars extending to infinity.
Infinity is a convenient expression for those who can't imagine the boundary (if it's not infinite, then where is the edge - and what is beyond the edge?) It is a cop-out of course, but in fact the existence of real infinity is far harder to contemplate than the alternative(s). I can explain why an infinite universe is impossible, it is tedious, but I expect I will have to.
We know the surface of an orange is finite but unbounded, same for any real object in our three-dimensional world. You can trace a path in the same direction all around it, get back to the starting point, and there is nothing stop this journey continuing on. I don't see any reason why this model should not be applied to the universe in communication to the general public by scientists and the media. (It is usually only expressed in the terms "scientists believe . . ")
I agree there is glibness in the assertion that the universe is finite but unbounded. The surface of an orange is flat in its local two-dimensional world (forward-back and left-right). Up-down exists locally, but it is only the larger view of the third dimension that reveals the solid object of the orange. (Replace 'orange' with 'earth' to see the dilemma of our ancient forebears.)
But if the third dimension is also curved in the larger view, in the fourth dimension, then is the fourth dimension also flat locally but curved in a fifth? This has to stop somewhere to retain finiteness. We understand the fourth dimension to be time, and the model has to work for no more dimensions. I think a key to this is the concept of half-dimensions, ie the ant on the orange is aware of up-down but not the curvature to the orange's horizon. Identify and solve the equation whereby each dimension comes in two parts, but the expression for the third-and-a-half dimension is equal to that for the fourth.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
In 6.7bn people, who is closest to the answer?
I think its fair to say that most natural science discoveries have been made by scientists and mathematicians. They seem to be struggling with progress on the big questions, but this is an area where our imagination could also play a part. If the imaginations of untrained as well as trained people could have a value, there could be a lot of people on the right lines, and someone quite unexpected who is close to the answer. They would not be sure, and would be reluctant to try and explain.
The challenge is to find a way to tease out constructive ideas from a large number of people who have them.
To summarise mine so far:
- we can't get away from the concept of an 'origination', though it is not necesarily the "beginning of time" (which may well be continuous), more a convenient point to add up the sum total of the universe
- the sum total must be zero. This is a (too) simple arithmetical value, we need a geometric and probably multi-dimensional statement equivalent to the same thing - the universe is a function of nothing
- a logical model for gravity shows that this force which apparently attracts masses to each other is external to them. The mutual attraction is a symptom of them being nearby each other in a field comprising an elastic medium in which they are being accelerated (ie forced upon)
- the energy of this constant acceleration is very much larger than the energy apparent from adjacent masses' mutual attraction, and represents an enormous amount of "dark energy"
- this can possibly be explained by a toroidal shape to the universe, in which spin through the direction of the hole allows the "dark energy" force to be centrifugal/centripital, but may total zero (simple maths once I get down to it)
- the universe is now known to contain huge amounts of dark matter of a non-hadron ("non-atomic") nature. Is this matter to be considered separate from dark energy? It seems unnecessary to shackle ourselves when we know energy and matter are different forms of the same thing.
The challenge is to find a way to tease out constructive ideas from a large number of people who have them.
To summarise mine so far:
- we can't get away from the concept of an 'origination', though it is not necesarily the "beginning of time" (which may well be continuous), more a convenient point to add up the sum total of the universe
- the sum total must be zero. This is a (too) simple arithmetical value, we need a geometric and probably multi-dimensional statement equivalent to the same thing - the universe is a function of nothing
- a logical model for gravity shows that this force which apparently attracts masses to each other is external to them. The mutual attraction is a symptom of them being nearby each other in a field comprising an elastic medium in which they are being accelerated (ie forced upon)
- the energy of this constant acceleration is very much larger than the energy apparent from adjacent masses' mutual attraction, and represents an enormous amount of "dark energy"
- this can possibly be explained by a toroidal shape to the universe, in which spin through the direction of the hole allows the "dark energy" force to be centrifugal/centripital, but may total zero (simple maths once I get down to it)
- the universe is now known to contain huge amounts of dark matter of a non-hadron ("non-atomic") nature. Is this matter to be considered separate from dark energy? It seems unnecessary to shackle ourselves when we know energy and matter are different forms of the same thing.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
8-month review Jan 2010
I've not been active on here for eight months, notice the hit counter shows nearly 12,000 hits, but with no comments or followers conclude that there is an error with the hit counter. I am slightly relieved at the lack of input, I have had neither time nor expertise to engage in full discussion.
In the meantime I have taken a short observation course, a highlight of which was a lecture from a distinguished cosmologist who declared at the start his experience and expertise at distant object observation, but "all that dimension stuff" left him cold (I guess about 4K) . I have enrolled on a basic astonomy course to run through this year, leading hopefully to further study in cosmology.
During the last eight months I have made no progress on my model of the universe characterised in two dimensions as a toroid (surface of a torus) spinning in the direction through its "hole", the main barrier being the reinsertion of the third dimension. It obviously needs the application of maths and some observed data, with which I hope my studies will help. My model has addressed the issue of the huge amount of energy (dark energy?) accelerating masses, of which the energy of their mutual gravitational attraction is just a symptom, a trace sample. I can put this alongside recent discussions about dark matter, which I had not realised till recently is of a non-atomic nature. Mysterious energy and mysterious matter - maybe there is a connection here !
Another event of note was a Horizon TV programme in which a senior cosmologist expressed despair at the failure of his profession to make any headway on reconciling gravity with the other three major forces.
However obscure or odd you find my musings, any constructive or empathetic comments would be interesting to see whether I have shed any light, and how others make progress in your own minds in this "impossible" subject. And is there a fundamental reason why it has to be impossible?
In the meantime I have taken a short observation course, a highlight of which was a lecture from a distinguished cosmologist who declared at the start his experience and expertise at distant object observation, but "all that dimension stuff" left him cold (I guess about 4K) . I have enrolled on a basic astonomy course to run through this year, leading hopefully to further study in cosmology.
During the last eight months I have made no progress on my model of the universe characterised in two dimensions as a toroid (surface of a torus) spinning in the direction through its "hole", the main barrier being the reinsertion of the third dimension. It obviously needs the application of maths and some observed data, with which I hope my studies will help. My model has addressed the issue of the huge amount of energy (dark energy?) accelerating masses, of which the energy of their mutual gravitational attraction is just a symptom, a trace sample. I can put this alongside recent discussions about dark matter, which I had not realised till recently is of a non-atomic nature. Mysterious energy and mysterious matter - maybe there is a connection here !
Another event of note was a Horizon TV programme in which a senior cosmologist expressed despair at the failure of his profession to make any headway on reconciling gravity with the other three major forces.
However obscure or odd you find my musings, any constructive or empathetic comments would be interesting to see whether I have shed any light, and how others make progress in your own minds in this "impossible" subject. And is there a fundamental reason why it has to be impossible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
