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 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.

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.

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.

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?

Dimensionisation

All hinges on the definition of dimensions in the model and the real world. The ant walking around the orange may know about its local up and down, without realising that the straight line it is walking is not really straight but is curving gently forever downwards. It is too busy not veering to left or right to wonder about the meaning of its horizon. But the local 'down' and the horizon 'down' are the same dimension, the 3rd after#1) left-right and #2) front-back.

So as with our toroid, its invention by taking the cylinder of the rotating rubber belt, and joining the ends of its axis, is just the macro version of a dimension in which a piece of the cylinder exists in.

This is a trick, because the premise of discovering the 3rd dimension was that the ant lives in a 2D world, we have a "number of dimensions" ambiguity.

Having scotched pseudoscience, alchemy (sorry Sir Isaac), astrology and general expedient guessing, I still have to mention barmy ideas because they are the origins of out-of-the-box thinking. They include:

- Our development of logic has to put things in neat boxes, eg each dimension is distinct, whereas in reality the edges between one dimension and the next may be blurred. After all, matter and energy are connected by the shady wave-particle duality. And the computers of our brains are soft and sludgy, not a set of straight lines and switch nodes as our computers still are.

- Space as a medium, or "ether" was disproved by Newton and many after him, yet energy travels through 'something', and masses interact at a distance through nothing but space. The basis of my wondering about the shape of the universe is the dual impossibility of existence, and non-existence, and my barmy thought of the month (May 2009 AD) is that space is the realisation of the tension (I will think of a better word) between these two impossible conditions. (I keep recalling thhgttu "Improbability Drive" but I consider that to be more humour than sense, and my 'reconciliation of impossibilities' concept is independent and unconnected to good old Douglas Adams, bless him.)

- The rotation of space creating its distortion by the masses it is constantly accelerating, relates directly to the dimension of time. What a huge conundrum though, to our linear minds, to grasp the start and end of time as the same thing.

Yes these are pseudoscience (if that!), but alchemy led Newton towards real science so we shouldn't be knocking things out of court too soon.

I came to the toroid shape without knowing how cosmologists got to theirs. If the amateur model works in this case, maybe it can work in others. I need to find what cosmologists think space is - in terms that I might understand. But time - I don't expect anyone to have worked that out. It will have to wait till June . . .

Jump to a familiar shape

The rubber belt or cylinder is a useful model to show how masses can appear to attract one another even though they don't. With the cylinder at rest and the masses scattered randomly around the inner surface, nothing attracts anything. But if the whole lot is spinning around the axis of the cylinder, then the masses, which as Newton found want to keep moving in a straight line, are being constantly forced by the elastic surface to follow its circular path, and because it is elastic, the surface is distorted, ie each mass makes its own bump in the sheet. Masses nearby each other have their own local bump, but there is also a combined effect where the place between their bumps is lower than the area outside them, and so they are pushed towards each other by the "outside" gradient being larger than the "inside" gradient. This can easily be understood whether the masses are similar or very different.

Newton found that the force of "attraction" followed the inverse square law, and it will be interesting to calculate how the bump gradients of the distorted elastic medium match up to the inverse square law.

The cylinder needs developing because (a) I think the total angular momentum should equal zero (b) the cylinder has an axis, presently a straight line (c) don't forget the 2D surface is our model of 3D space. We have to park (c) while we work on the others.

By joining the ends of the axis together it becomes finite but unbounded (necessary to avoid the impossibility of real infinity) though in so doing we have invented a new dimension (it is not the same dimension as the one we add to the 2D surface to restore 3D space). But joining the axis gives another possible benefit - is it possible that the resulting toroid, its surface rotating in the direction through its hole, has zero net angular momentum? Actually I doubt it, I need to get into toroids. Fascinating that the area of a torus (surface area of the toroid) is the same as the area of cylinder of same r and length equal to the large circumference.

Although I knew that cosmologists say the universe could be toroidal, I didn't know why, so this little discussion, with its convenient jumps, gives some ideas of how this shape can be arrived at.

Using some obviology we can put a boundary to one problem of the torus. The major axis of the torus (the line through the hole) is not relevant. This is because, if it was, we would have to join its ends (to avoid real infinity) but in a new dimension, creating a new torus, with its own major axis - we are back to "turtles all the way down". For my simple mind, one torus is all it takes. We don't have to worry about "what's outside the torus" - that is taken care of by the fact that the torus is only a 2D model, it represents 3D space.

So if we come back to the world we can see, progressing through time with the three familiar dimensions forward-back, left-right and head-feet, we can say that real space is finite but unbounded ie looking in any direction with our ultra-powerful telescope and waiting long enough we will see the back of our own head. The space we are looking through is not emptiness but has elastic properties like a rubber sheet, which is bent by resisting masses and is rotating in a way which puts a constant force on all masses yet conserves angular momentum.

I'd like to suggest that the missing "dark energy" is related to the net angular momentum of the universe system, and the associated work being done to accelerate all masses, of which the work done in gravitational attraction between masses is just a tiny fraction. Well, suggesting is easy . .