A new light on dark matter

[PJay_A]

A few weeks ago, an episode of "Into the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman" (a new science series presented by Discovery Channel) aired focused on the subject of "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". From my understanding of the program, there has been some recent discoveries shedding some new "light" on our understanding of "Dark Matter". Specifically, that in our Universe where globs of matter (i.e. clusters of galaxies that form interconnecting filaments) dark matter is present immediately outside (kind of like some "invisible skin" holding the filaments of galaxy clusters together). Also mentioned was an observation of two galaxies in collission and the effects of this collission to the galaxies' respective dark matter elements. The ordinary matter's gravity interacted as modern physics could predict, but the dark matter elements had no interaction with the gravity of the other what so ever - passing through one another like ghosts walking through walls. The program offered no explaination for this otherwise physical behavior anomally on the part of dark matter but did say that physicists and cosmologists are "puzzled".

After taking this in, an explanation to the ghost-like interaction of the two bodies of dark matter of the colliding galaxies is obvious if the theories supporting the idea of a greater reality composed of physical dimensions greater than the known three are correct. Simply put, dark matter is matter existing outside our 3D "hemisphere" (or "brane" - as "M Theory" supporters would call it), which is why we can't see and why we do feel gravity from it. The two galaxies' colliding dark matter may appear to us as if they are passing through one another like ghosts because they share three dimensional coordinates with one another which happen to be the same three dimensions that exists within our dimensional visible “sphere” (or “brane” according to “M Theory”). The dark matter from either galaxy (according to my thinking) would not share the same fourth dimensional coordinates while appearing (to us) to pass through each other like ghosts. The two bodies of dark matter could be separated (on the fourth dimensional plane) so that their distance from one another could explain the lack of gravity interaction between masses of dark matter of the colliding galaxies.

After thinking this, I was curious if “M Theory” explains dark matter similar to my thoughts in the above paragraph. I looked it up. They do have an extra-dimensional explanation for dark matter. But their theory is completely different to what I am proposing and completely outlandish. They’re stand is that dark matter exists in bubble parallel multiverses that are so close to our universe where effects of gravity from these parallel multiverses can be seen and felt on us.

I disagree with “M Theory” on this, specifically the part about bubble parallel multiverses as the containment for dark matter. If “M Theory” was correct (concerning their explanation of dark matter), dark matter would appear rather randomly; it would not have the organization that it is now known to have, an organization and pattern directly related to the Universe’ patterns of filaments of galaxy clusters.

I thought that maybe dark matter is the fourth dimension of all visible matter. But for this to be correct, it would have to occupy the same 3D space as visible matter (it exists “outside” visible matter in 3D). Then it hit me and I think I could explain why this is, but first I have to talk about time.

I often wondered that if time is the fourth dimension (as proposed by Einstein), then why do we not feel the effects of gravity from the past and future on the present? I’ve worked out in my head that time is an effect of invisible dimensions in our 3D world and not a dimension in itself. If it were, then why does it have properties different than the special dimensions? Our 3D space is constantly being replaced with new 3D space at time’s ticking. New 3D space unfolds from invisible dimensions at each replacement (we see this as expansion). The 3D space from the future and the past are always nearby, but are offset four dimensionally (hence, the matter residing from these 3D spaces are not visible to us).

Even if I am wrong with my thinking concerning the concept of time, if the Universe expands then space never is in the same place. Space must move with expansion at the speed of expansion; therefore, the mass from the future will not be the same “place” as the present or past. This explains why gravity from one “time” is interacting with mass from any before or after time.

Future mass will surround current mass because of its movement with space as a result of expansion. It is this future mass in the form of current mass measured 4-dimensionally that I think could be this stuff we call “dark matter”!

 

[csmyth3025]

.... The program offered no explaination for this otherwise physical behavior anomally on the part of dark matter but did say that physicists and cosmologists are "puzzled"....

I often wondered that if time is the fourth dimension (as proposed by Einstein), then why do we not feel the effects of gravity from the past and future on the present? I’ve worked out in my head that time is an effect of invisible dimensions in our 3D world and not a dimension in itself. If it were, then why does it have properties different than the special dimensions? Our 3D space is constantly being replaced with new 3D space at time’s ticking. New 3D space unfolds from invisible dimensions at each replacement (we see this as expansion). The 3D space from the future and the past are always nearby, but are offset four dimensionally (hence, the matter residing from these 3D spaces are not visible to us).

Even if I am wrong with my thinking concerning the concept of time, if the Universe expands then space never is in the same place. Space must move with expansion at the speed of expansion; therefore, the mass from the future will not be the same “place” as the present or past. This explains why gravity from one “time” is interacting with mass from any before or after time.

Future mass will surround current mass because of its movement with space as a result of expansion. It is this future mass in the form of current mass measured 4-dimensionally that I think could be this stuff we call “dark matter”!

I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist, but I'm as puzzled by your proposal as they seem to be by the behavior of dark matter. Most particularly, your thinking that "future mass" influences "current mass" brings to mind the "grandfather paradox" - an explanation of which can be found in the Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox

Chris

 

[PJay_A]

Maybe "future mass" was a poor choice of words on my part. What I was shooting for was an explanation of why the past or future has no influence on gravity (that is - if time is the fourth dimension, as proposed by Einstein and commonly accepted in the scientific community today). My thinking was that if space moves with expansion then the mass at any given locality in space can remain independent of time, as mass is constantly moving into space created at that point in time, where mass had never existed and therefore can not be influence by the gravity of the mass at the the closest "beat" of time. If time is truly the fourth dimension, then it is logical that dark matter is future matter based on present matter's projected location (in 3 of 4 dimensions) in an expanding Universe. But as I said in my post, I think time is an effect of dimensions 4 and above and not an actual dimension. In my point of view, this stuff I call "future matter" is not litterally future matter but from 4 or more spacial dimensions.

.... The program offered no explaination for this otherwise physical behavior anomally on the part of dark matter but did say that physicists and cosmologists are "puzzled"....

I often wondered that if time is the fourth dimension (as proposed by Einstein), then why do we not feel the effects of gravity from the past and future on the present? I’ve worked out in my head that time is an effect of invisible dimensions in our 3D world and not a dimension in itself. If it were, then why does it have properties different than the special dimensions? Our 3D space is constantly being replaced with new 3D space at time’s ticking. New 3D space unfolds from invisible dimensions at each replacement (we see this as expansion). The 3D space from the future and the past are always nearby, but are offset four dimensionally (hence, the matter residing from these 3D spaces are not visible to us).

Even if I am wrong with my thinking concerning the concept of time, if the Universe expands then space never is in the same place. Space must move with expansion at the speed of expansion; therefore, the mass from the future will not be the same “place” as the present or past. This explains why gravity from one “time” is interacting with mass from any before or after time.

Future mass will surround current mass because of its movement with space as a result of expansion. It is this future mass in the form of current mass measured 4-dimensionally that I think could be this stuff we call “dark matter”!

I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist, but I'm as puzzled by your proposal as they seem to be by the behavior of dark matter. Most particularly, your thinking that "future mass" influences "current mass" brings to mind the "grandfather paradox" - an explanation of which can be found in the Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox

Chris

 

[csmyth3025]

I think one of the basic tenets of the Standard Model of cosmology is that the total matter/energy content of the Universe is, always has been, and always will be the same. The expansion of space can be thought of a each tiny bit of space "stretching" over time or, perhaps, as tiny bits of space "popping out" of quantum fluctuations here and there throughout space. In no case does the current model envisage mass as being created along with the expansion of space, as far as I know.

I'm no expert in any of this, but I'm reluctant to accept explanations that rely on dimensions we can't detect unless they are markedly more successful at explaining the universe we can see than is the Standard Model.

Chris

 

[PJay_A]

I think one of the basic tenets of the Standard Model of cosmology is that the total matter/energy content of the Universe is, always has been, and always will be the same. The expansion of space can be thought of a each tiny bit of space "stretching" over time or, perhaps, as tiny bits of space "popping out" of quantum fluctuations here and there throughout space. In no case does the current model envisage mass as being created along with the expansion of space, as far as I know.

I'm no expert in any of this, but I'm reluctant to accept explanations that rely on dimensions we can't detect unless they are markedly more successful at explaining the universe we can see than is the Standard Model.

Chris

Chris, I never said that new matter is being created with expansion. I've understood beforehand the concepts you mentioned. Let me try to explain my idea another way. I'll use a 2D square matrix model example here for simplicity.

Let's say the Universe is a square 50 units wide and 50 units long. Let's say our Milky Way is plotted at the x-y coordinates of 25 and 25 ("in the middle"). Let's say in less than a blink of the eye, our 2D Universe has grown to 100 units by 100 units. Will our galaxy still occupy the space at coordinates 25 by 25?

No. We would now be at the space located at 50 x 50 (the new "center"). Since the matter of our galaxy now resides in a new frontier of space and since every forward tick of time will do this for eternity, the matter of the present could (in my thinking) never "step on" or influence the gravity of matter from the past - and therefore future as well.

 

[ramparts]

PJay, are you suggesting that dark matter exists "parallel" to our universe along a fourth spatial dimension? So, like, if the universe were a 2D Flatland, then the dark matter would be above or below us? That answers a couple of things but I think the biggest question is why we wouldn't then be pulled up or down. If dark matter were on a sort of parallel plane along a new dimension, when you get pulled towards it, you would notice the whole universe disappear. Not good

Let's say the Universe is a square 50 units wide and 50 units long. Let's say our Milky Way is plotted at the x-y coordinates of 25 and 25 ("in the middle"). Let's say in less than a blink of the eye, our 2D Universe has grown to 100 units by 100 units. Will our galaxy still occupy the space at coordinates 25 by 25?

No. We would now be at the space located at 50 x 50 (the new "center"). Since the matter of our galaxy now resides in a new frontier of space and since every forward tick of time will do this for eternity, the matter of the present could (in my thinking) never "step on" or influence the gravity of matter from the past - and therefore future as well.

I'm not sure how this is related to your original post but just wanted to clarify this. You can't make that kind of claim with absolute certainty. A coordinate system is a coordinate system, you can use all sorts of coordinate systems and none is more valid than another. For example, we could very easily put coordinates on the Universe where the Milky Way is located at 25 and 25, or 35 and 40, or whatever, and doesn't move at all, the entire Universe expands around it. You can also use comoving coordinates which don't change with the expansion of the Universe, so any galaxy which has no gravitational interactions with its neighbors (an idealized situation) would sit in the same coordinate for all eternity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_d ... oordinates

There's no absolute location, so you can't say that our galaxy does or doesn't reside in a "new frontier" of space.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Let's say the Universe is a square 50 units wide and 50 units long. Let's say our Milky Way is plotted at the x-y coordinates of 25 and 25 ("in the middle"). Let's say in less than a blink of the eye, our 2D Universe has grown to 100 units by 100 units.

Ok, you are putting the galaxy at the centre of a coordinate grid, and then, rather than having the grid anchored at our location, you are describing a coordinate grid whose origin you have fixed at some distance away from our galaxy. As your space expands, our galaxy's coordinate changes from 25,25 to 50,50.

We would now be at the space located at 50 x 50 (the new "center").

It is a different coordinate in the grid, but it is the same location in space. You just gave that location a new coordinate, as you defined the origin to be somewhere else. You have made a coordinate choice.

Since the matter of our galaxy now resides in a new frontier of space...[SNIP]

Our galaxy did not change its location in space, you just renamed its coordinates! You did this due to the universe now containing more units of space, but you did not anchor your coordinate system to our galaxy.

Your coordinate choice, if anchored to our galaxy, would mean the coordinates of all the other galaxies were changing, but it makes no sense to do this as their locations in space are not changing either. It is the space that is changing, but every galaxy can essentially be considered at rest in relation to the expansion.

The solution is to expand the grid with the space, keep the coordinates the same throughout (the grid is fixed to the galaxies so you can give those locations names that never change), and then use another parameter, let's call it "a", to describe the size of the gaps between the coordinate locations. Then you have the product of "a" increasing with time. We call that the Hubble parameter.

EDIT: I see ramparts has snuck in his reply whilst I was composing mine!

 

[csmyth3025]

...Let's say the Universe is a square 50 units wide and 50 units long. Let's say our Milky Way is plotted at the x-y coordinates of 25 and 25 ("in the middle"). Let's say in less than a blink of the eye, our 2D Universe has grown to 100 units by 100 units. Will our galaxy still occupy the space at coordinates 25 by 25?

No. We would now be at the space located at 50 x 50 (the new "center"). Since the matter of our galaxy now resides in a new frontier of space and since every forward tick of time will do this for eternity, the matter of the present could (in my thinking) never "step on" or influence the gravity of matter from the past - and therefore future as well.

I agree with the latter part of your statement:

...the matter of the present could (in my thinking) never "step on" or influence the gravity of matter from the past - and therefore future as well.

On the question of the first part of your statement:

...We would now be at the space located at 50 x 50 (the new "center"). Since the matter of our galaxy now resides in a new frontier of space...

I believe that gravitationally bound systems - such as our galaxy - do not share in the general expansion of space, but maintain an equilibrium between the relatively small amount of expansion that may possibly occur within the confines of the galaxy and the much greater gravitational attraction of its constituent parts. In short, if the Universe on large scales increses to twice its initial volume, the the volume occupied by the galaxy will remain virtually unchanged.
At least this is my understanding of how it works.

Chris

 

[PJay_A]

PJay, are you suggesting that dark matter exists "parallel" to our universe along a fourth spatial dimension? So, like, if the universe were a 2D Flatland, then the dark matter would be above or below us?

Yes, but more like "above or below us and over to the side".

That answers a couple of things but I think the biggest question is why we wouldn't then be pulled up or down. If dark matter were on a sort of parallel plane along a new dimension, when you get pulled towards it, you would notice the whole universe disappear. Not good

That would be true if it wasn't offset enough to leave that sort of influence on gravity. But its presence is strong enough to hold galaxies together and as such for gravational lensing. Also, don't forget that this fourth axis point could be any length. One "side" could be very close and another could be billions of light years away. Of course the further away it is along this axis, its gravity becomes more and more irrelavant.

 

[captdude]

PJay_A wrote: if the theories supporting the idea of a greater reality composed of physical dimensions greater than the known three are correct. Simply put, dark matter is matter existing outside our 3D "hemisphere" (or "brane" - as "M Theory" supporters would call it), which is why we can't see and why we do feel gravity from it.

Thank you for the post. I so rarely find any evidence supporting the viewpoint I adopted long ago. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I strongly believe that higher dimensions play an important role in our 3-D universe.
I came to embrace this line of thinking ever since I read that some theorists believe that the reason the force of gravity is so weak in comparison to the other three fundamental forces of nature is because gravity extends its influence into higher dimensions - thereby weakening its effects locally in our 3-D space/time.
After reading this I slowly began to ask myself one simple question again and again; if gravity can extend its influence into higher dimensions why couldn’t other energy fields or particles do the same?
Furthermore, why did this mechanism have to be a one way street? Specifically, why couldn’t other forces or particles from higher dimensions extend their influence into our 3-D space/time as well? (Basically the same idea that has been postulated by the author of this post) Just stop for one moment and really think about the implications of that line of reasoning when applied to some of the most basic riddles of quantum physics.

(1) Quantum entanglement: The so called “faster than light” link between the two entangled particles could be explained by the information travelling through a higher “dimensional shortcut.” This would conserve the fundamental speed of light constant in our 3-D space/time.
(2) The dual slit experiment, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, virtual particles in a vacuum and Bose-Einstein condensate: These could all be explained by the quantum particles “flipping” like a coin back and forth between a particle and a waveform depending upon what dimension you are referencing.
(3) The expansion of the universe: What if the net energy sum of our 3-D space/time AND that of higher dimensions equalled zero? If this were the case couldn’t he expansion of the universe be driven by forces from higher dimensions?

In short, I feel that this line of thinking brings what I like to refer to as “answers of elegance” to the questions of quantum physics. I now fully expect to get picked apart in my reasoning - but that’s why I have tried to put forth my beliefs in greater detail than in previous posts.

 

[PJay_A]

Yes, once you figure in those higher dimensions, all mysteries of cosmology and quantum mechanics have explanations that could be answered logically, such as the ones you mentioned. When gravity "warps" space-time, where is it warping to? We need at least another dimension to give space-time "warping room". The gravity of a black hole is so great that it actually "breaks through" the fabric of space-time. Could space-time be our 3D membrane ("brane" as M Theory has theorized) and are higher dimensions involved once it is punctured? Could these higher dimensions be all around us and we just don't know it? Maybe the Universe unfolds from these dimensions, creating what is observed as expansion as well as the mechanisms of time? Could we be seeing higher dimensions in 3D, not knowing where the curve and fold lines are much like a being in 1D world would see himself walking a straight line and not know he was walking around in a circle? Other theories on higher dimension besides M/string theories are taking shape such as one by Garrett Lisi (see http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_o ... thing.html).

PJay_A wrote: if the theories supporting the idea of a greater reality composed of physical dimensions greater than the known three are correct. Simply put, dark matter is matter existing outside our 3D "hemisphere" (or "brane" - as "M Theory" supporters would call it), which is why we can't see and why we do feel gravity from it.

Thank you for the post. I so rarely find any evidence supporting the viewpoint I adopted long ago. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I strongly believe that higher dimensions play an important role in our 3-D universe.
I came to embrace this line of thinking ever since I read that some theorists believe that the reason the force of gravity is so weak in comparison to the other three fundamental forces of nature is because gravity extends its influence into higher dimensions - thereby weakening its effects locally in our 3-D space/time.
After reading this I slowly began to ask myself one simple question again and again; if gravity can extend its influence into higher dimensions why couldn’t other energy fields or particles do the same?
Furthermore, why did this mechanism have to be a one way street? Specifically, why couldn’t other forces or particles from higher dimensions extend their influence into our 3-D space/time as well? (Basically the same idea that has been postulated by the author of this post) Just stop for one moment and really think about the implications of that line of reasoning when applied to some of the most basic riddles of quantum physics.

(1) Quantum entanglement: The so called “faster than light” link between the two entangled particles could be explained by the information travelling through a higher “dimensional shortcut.” This would conserve the fundamental speed of light constant in our 3-D space/time.
(2) The dual slit experiment, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, virtual particles in a vacuum and Bose-Einstein condensate: These could all be explained by the quantum particles “flipping” like a coin back and forth between a particle and a waveform depending upon what dimension you are referencing.
(3) The expansion of the universe: What if the net energy sum of our 3-D space/time AND that of higher dimensions equalled zero? If this were the case couldn’t he expansion of the universe be driven by forces from higher dimensions?

In short, I feel that this line of thinking brings what I like to refer to as “answers of elegance” to the questions of quantum physics. I now fully expect to get picked apart in my reasoning - but that’s why I have tried to put forth my beliefs in greater detail than in previous posts.

 

[captdude]

I wanted to reprint the very end of my post within the thread "A Scientist Takes On Gravity" from July 13th. I think its worth sharing again under this thread as it hits the nail right on the head.


gravity could very well be influenced by energy fields (and possibly their associated particles) within those higher dimensions. I believe our understanding of gravity over vast distances will be re-examined (or something will be discovered) and my distaste for the concept of dark matter will be vindicated.

Finally, just to contradict myself; could particles within those higher dimensions interact through gravity as dark matter?