One of our Dinosaurs, or is that Universes, is missing?

Like the accolade to Disney in its heyday with the great comedic British Actor… I feel a certain sense of nostalgia to the missing Universe debate; an article published at http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/6/5/1 discusses how “dark matter” is still nowhere to be found.

If astronomers are correct in that only 4% of the known visible universe is made up of ordinary matter, with the rest being made up of dark matter and or dark energy {which is responsible for the universe’s expansion}, then one might sensibly ask, where is the rest of the missing matter? Or is it missing?

It is good to debate, discuss and form hypothesis, as this keeps people thinking; though to describe dark matter in scientific journals as though it was “real” as normal matter that we can see and touch, is stretching it a bit. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for debates, discussions and hypothesis, but also, there is nothing wrong in saying: “we don’t know” where the rest of the missing matter is.

So is the current models that describe the Universe, from quantum mechanics through to general relativity missing something? Some scientists currently believe that general relativity is not currently complete as it does not encompass all aspects of quantum mechanics.

As scientists discovered, Newton’s predictions of gravity have a limited accuracy. Einstein’s general relativity expanded on this and can describe galaxies and  cluster of galaxies within the cosmos, but this too has its limits, such as with the theoretically predicted black holes.

With our current boundary limit of knowledge, now that we can peek further “back in time” into the depths of the great expanse of the universe that seems to keep going on, we are learning that it is approximately 28 billion light years across and about 14 billion years old.

Membrane theory has made some inroads into unifying a few elements of quantum mechanics with general relativity, however the picture is still incomplete within membrane theory {a predecessor of string theory}.

Could it not be the case then that the “multi-verse” might exist, similar to membrane theory but not the same as described within, where other “branched versions of universes”, are not just bumping next to one another, but existing in similar space and time; not the same, but similar. The universes could all co-exist in the same space and be made of the same or similar fabric, but be phased out from one another, like one of the other bane explanations which accounts for neutrinos. Or is space-time folding back on itself and the different objects we see are the same, like the weird properties {information} of a photon being entangled in two different places at once? As Bishop Berkeley {Berkeley, George (1685–1753), Irish philosopher and bishop who argued that material objects exist only by being perceived} philosophised, reality is not all it seems!

An article published in New Scientist, “Is space-time actually a superfluid?” 09 June 2006, Marcus Chown, Magazine issue 2555, discusses the possibility of space-time being a super-fluid. Reading this article, it reminded me of “luminiferous aether“; I wonder if there is another Michelson-Morley experiment waiting in the wings to force a new hypothesis to describe the fabric of space-time? Or is a super-fluid model of space-time a step in the right direction? Once thing is for certain, to continually debate, discuss and hypothesise is crucial to avoid dogmatic ideologies from setting in. Science is about the search for truth, and we can never know enough.

Advertisements

Comments Off on One of our Dinosaurs, or is that Universes, is missing?

Filed under NatSci

Comments are closed.