Question about Dark Matter

[MeteorWayne]

"A word salad is a mixture of abstruse words and wording that appears to be meaningful but signifies nothing. The phrase is used pejoratively to describe bad writing and can be mimicked by computer programs applying word selection at random within defined sentence construction guideline"

 

[TheJackel]

"A word salad is a mixture of abstruse words and wording that appears to be meaningful but signifies nothing. The phrase is used pejoratively to describe bad writing and can be mimicked by computer programs applying word selection at random within defined sentence construction guideline"

What exactly was signified as nothing? .. So basically if you don't speak in pure fact that anything you say is a word salad... Pretty much sums up any scientific theory or philosophical standing until such theory is or philosophy is proven... Thus to have significance one must only speak in fact... Thus any facts you think you have are pseudo-science until proven to be actual facts...

1) existence is a fact... I don't think we have to try and prove this as a significant value... Otherwise provide an example of non-existence as a person, place, or thing of existence.. Scientifically, non-existence doesn't exist..

2) the answer to existence has to be a Universal set and solve infinite regress... I don't think you can even argue otherwise

 

[MeteorWayne]

What the heck does any of that have to do with the subject of this discussion, which is dark matter?

Hence the word salad sobriquet...

 

[YKhan]

Has anyone found evidence of dark matter within galaxies? Or is this strictly a "Halo" thing?

Star

Let's not forget that Dark Matter isn't the only possible theory to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. There is a theory called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) which is the parent of a class of theories that attempt to explain this by modifying the laws of gravity to work differently at low acceleration levels. The idea is that there's no mystery matter in the universe, just that the laws of gravity don't work as simply as they do on Earth, once we get into the wide emptiness of intergalactic space.

MOND has been more successful than , to ellipticals. It's also more successful at explaining the distribution of dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way galaxy. Where it isn't as successful is in explaining the dynamics within galaxy clusters (where many galaxies interact with each other), and in explaining the gravitational lensing effect of light going through galaxies and galaxy clusters. There is a successor to MOND though, called TeVeS (Tensor-Vector-Scalar) gravity, which is better at explaining the gravitational lensing and cluster dynamics than MOND has been.

 

[TheJackel]

What the heck does any of that have to do with the subject of this discussion, which is dark matter?

Hence the word salad sobriquet...

it has everything to do with the subject... You are trying to better understand the Big Bang theory, our universe and what can possibly be this mysterious Dark Matter... Hence you can not quantify or prove either into a fact without first realizing that a place of existence or space it's self is of substance it's self.. If something exists it has to be of substance even if it has no mass.. Hence, can a form of energy have no mass.. A base substance to all things... And it is that you are going to have to solve before you can verify the big bang or dark matter...

For example:
Information can be in both solid and in energy form and So can existence (in theory).. The problem is that we assume energy is of a specific concept to only what we can detect with scientific instruments... They are not considering existence as a whole... A possible Universal unquantifiable energy... Has anyone asked what empty space is made of? So we can only give existence an accurate description as a whole.. We just can't quantify exactly what it's comprised of or how it exactly works..

So does energy go from no-mass to mass to matter?.Does gravity have an opposite polarity?.. Hence, is energy as we know it the solid form of energy compared to what would make up existence it's self?.. It is likely we could never fully quantify existence or the base substance of existence... Thus the big bang theory or any theory for that matter remains as such... A tossed salad of words...

As far as dark matter is concerned I did post a optional solution that would be similar to the casimir-effect...

 

[R1]

Gravity does seem to have an opposite, by the way.
Dark energy, at least behaviorally, seems to present antigravity.

 

[FlatEarth]

Has anyone found evidence of dark matter within galaxies? Or is this strictly a "Halo" thing?

Star

Let's not forget that Dark Matter isn't the only possible theory to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. There is a theory called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) which is the parent of a class of theories that attempt to explain this by modifying the laws of gravity to work differently at low acceleration levels. The idea is that there's no mystery matter in the universe, just that the laws of gravity don't work as simply as they do on Earth, once we get into the wide emptiness of intergalactic space.

MOND has been more successful than , to ellipticals. It's also more successful at explaining the distribution of dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way galaxy. Where it isn't as successful is in explaining the dynamics within galaxy clusters (where many galaxies interact with each other), and in explaining the gravitational lensing effect of light going through galaxies and galaxy clusters. There is a successor to MOND though, called TeVeS (Tensor-Vector-Scalar) gravity, which is better at explaining the gravitational lensing and cluster dynamics than MOND has been.

Good point. IMO, the explanation for the unexplained observations is probably a combination of MOND/TeVeS, normal undetected matter, and exotic subatomic particles.

 

[TheJackel]

Gravity does seem to have an opposite, by the way.
Dark energy, at least behaviorally, seems to present antigravity.

This would suggest that Gravity or PULL does not make up the significant bulk of intergalactic space. It could be that gravity's or things of matter give off a much more abundant force of Push... But a much weaker force.. So can you test the theory that the BULK represents PUSH (anti-gravity) ? This could also mean that the our Bubble or Universe may be a Bubble of dense gravitational pull slowly decaying from the inside out and the out side in... Thus making it difficult to test anti-gravity.. This might even apply to this interesting point

"Good point. IMO, the explanation for the unexplained observations is probably a combination of MOND/TeVeS, normal undetected matter, and exotic subatomic particles."

The casimir-effect was only tested on a small scale and it may not be testable on a large scale to determine how much push any given object of large mass or density might give off..

This might also explain the process of decay a little better... To where all matter contains Push or trapped push... Is the bend in space time the well created by gravity's indentation of it's polar opposite? (should it have one)..

The implications of this are significant.. If anti-gravity is proven can it be harnessed or compressed to use as a means of propulsion?

 

[FlatEarth]

Gravity does seem to have an opposite, by the way.
Dark energy, at least behaviorally, seems to present antigravity.

I know many believe this to be the case, but I don't think expansion is caused by a push effect or negative energy. It seems more likely to me that it's caused by the expansion of space, which is happening everywhere. This is based on the idea in quantum physics that the universe came from nothing, and that space is something, with virtual particles popping in and out of existence. This process seems to be creating more space.

 

[TheJackel]

Gravity does seem to have an opposite, by the way.
Dark energy, at least behaviorally, seems to present antigravity.

I know many believe this to be the case, but I don't think expansion is caused by a push effect or negative energy. It seems more likely to me that it's caused by the expansion of space, which is happening everywhere. This is based on the idea in quantum physics that the universe came from nothing, and that space is something, with virtual particles popping in and out of existence. This process seems to be creating more space.

If existence is infinite or the reaches of space are so vast how can you even remotely suggest that space it's self is expanding vs just moving... I find the concept of coming from nothing foolish... it's basically trying to state non-existence exists... I find that unlikely possible... The nothing quantum physics tries to explain is of an unknown substance or base to existence.. Zero can only represent a base... There is no such thing as a negative existence..

This nothing is just something you can't yet or ever quantify.. Nothing can not be nothing in the literal sense when concerning a person place or thing of existence..

 

[FlatEarth]

The casimir-effect was only tested on a small scale and it may not be testable on a large scale to determine how much push any given object of large mass or density might give off..

This might also explain the process of decay a little better... To where all matter contains Push or trapped push... Is the bend in space time the well created by gravity's indentation of it's polar opposite? (should it have one)..

The implications of this are significant.. If anti-gravity is proven can it be harnessed or compressed to use as a means of propulsion?

The reason I doubt there is such an effect is that a push would be from all directions, resulting in no movement, and we know that the only way distant galaxies can be moving away from us at superluminal velocities is through the expansion of space.

 

[YKhan]

I was just wondering because Galaxies seem to act like solids. Combine that much dark matter mass and regular matter mass all in the same place and perhaps it acts like a solid.

The states of matter such as solids, liquids, or gases are as a result of the electromagnetic force, rather than gravity. Namely objects are considered solid when the molecules form up into into highly ordered grids called a crystal, much like a military marching band where individuals move in unison. In a liquid, the electromagnetic force is much less, and the molecules don't really move around in lock step with each other, however they do want to cling together in an overall grouping, such as drops of water; this is an effect called surface tension, which is an electromagnetic effect. In a gas, there's even less structure, and really one can say that the electromagnetic force is exerting nearly no force at all on the molecules of a gas, individual molecules of gas would fly randomly off to all corners of space if it weren't for a secondary force like gravity holding them together.

Most would consider a galaxy is closer to the gas model than the solid model. But some may argue that a galaxy is closer to the liquid model than the gas model. Individual molecules of a galaxy (stars) like to tend cling together in an overall grouping, much like water droplets. Of course at these scales, it's not the electromagnetic force that's responsible for holding them together, but gravity. So it's possible that there's a gravity-based surface tension effect on the stars of a galaxy.

There was an alternative theory to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and MOND, called Dark Fluid, which modeled the universe like a fluid. Specifically it treated the universe like a weather system on Earth, where you have calm areas and hurricanes (galaxies) spinning up and their spin actually binds them together more tightly.

 

[TheJackel]

The casimir-effect was only tested on a small scale and it may not be testable on a large scale to determine how much push any given object of large mass or density might give off..

This might also explain the process of decay a little better... To where all matter contains Push or trapped push... Is the bend in space time the well created by gravity's indentation of it's polar opposite? (should it have one)..

The implications of this are significant.. If anti-gravity is proven can it be harnessed or compressed to use as a means of propulsion?

The reason I doubt there is such an effect is that a push would be from all directions, resulting in no movement, and we know that the only way distant galaxies can be moving away from us at superluminal velocities is through the expansion of space.

Think of the VOID of a mass mixture of gravity and anti-gravity... As in lets say the representation of parts per million as if you were to check the acidity level in a liquid... Push = water and pull = sanitizer.. when pull builds on a singularity it strips the surrounding water of it's sanitizer.. Much like placing a sponge in the bucket that attracts and absorbs all the sanitizer.. when the singularity explodes into a dense bubble of pull gravity what happens to the surrounding water? it begins to push it apart from the inside out and the outside in breaking it down and re-absorbing it... Giving it the effect of expansion... Hence the expansions of space could be the dilution of our gravitational bubble expanding back into void it left from the time just before the big bang

And since the void it left did not absorb all the gravitation pull from existence or intergalactic space you can assume that a vacuum effect can take place to where it's also being pulled apart as well as pushed apart...

 

[TheJackel]

I was just wondering because Galaxies seem to act like solids. Combine that much dark matter mass and regular matter mass all in the same place and perhaps it acts like a solid.

The states of matter such as solids, liquids, or gases are as a result of the electromagnetic force, rather than gravity. Namely objects are considered solid when the molecules form up into into highly ordered grids called a crystal, much like a military marching band where individuals move in unison. In a liquid, the electromagnetic force is much less, and the molecules don't really move around in lock step with each other, however they do want to cling together in an overall grouping, such as drops of water; this is an effect called surface tension, which is an electromagnetic effect. In a gas, there's even less structure, and really one can say that the electromagnetic force is exerting nearly no force at all on the molecules of a gas, individual molecules of gas would fly randomly off to all corners of space if it weren't for a secondary force like gravity holding them together.

Most would consider a galaxy is closer to the gas model than the solid model. But some may argue that a galaxy is closer to the liquid model than the gas model. Individual molecules of a galaxy (stars) like to tend cling together in an overall grouping, much like water droplets. Of course at these scales, it's not the electromagnetic force that's responsible for holding them together, but gravity. So it's possible that there's a gravity-based surface tension effect on the stars of a galaxy.

There was an alternative theory to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and MOND, called Dark Fluid, which modeled the universe like a fluid. Specifically it treated the universe like a weather system on Earth, where you have calm areas and hurricanes (galaxies) spinning up and their spin actually binds them together more tightly.

Could it be a combination of both or all... A variance of densities? Vapor, steam, liquid?

 

[HumptyDumptywaspushed]

“Nothing is more discouraging than unappreciated sarcasm.” - Anonymous

 

[HumptyDumptywaspushed]

Plasma is also a state of matter and has properties and behaviour that differ from the more familiar states of liquid, solid, and gas.

 

[SpeedFreek]

The casimir-effect was only tested on a small scale and it may not be testable on a large scale to determine how much push any given object of large mass or density might give off..

The Casimir effect is not about the objects themselves, it is about the space in between the objects. It is closer in concept to dark energy than it is to dark matter.

See the link below for more info:

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

 

[TheJackel]

The casimir-effect was only tested on a small scale and it may not be testable on a large scale to determine how much push any given object of large mass or density might give off..

The Casimir effect is not about the objects themselves, it is about the space in between the objects. It is closer in concept to dark energy than it is to dark matter.

See the link below for more info:

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

This is exactly why it's relevant.. You still don't know if dark matter is actually matter.. Though I tend to agree that the dark matter is just undetectable objects to small to see in space. but as for the rest it at least makes a good discussion

 

[FlatEarth]

If existence is infinite or the reaches of space are so vast how can you even remotely suggest that space it's self is expanding vs just moving... I find the concept of coming from nothing foolish... it's basically trying to state non-existence exists... I find that unlikely possible... The nothing quantum physics tries to explain is of an unknown substance or base to existence.. Zero can only represent a base... There is no such thing as a negative existence..

This nothing is just something you can't yet or ever quantify.. Nothing can not be nothing in the literal sense when concerning a person place or thing of existence..

I didn't come up with the theory that space is expanding. It's based on observations made by astronomers over several decades, and now that we have better instruments, it's clear that space is expanding at an accelerating rate, not simply moving. This is occurring in every direction we look, at basically the same rate. This is fact.

As for QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics), it has been proven mathematically and experimentally to be the most accurate theory ever developed. The Universe is way stranger than we can imagine, and part of that strangeness is that maybe it didn't always exist.

Enjoy the video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE[/youtube]

 

[TheJackel]

If existence is infinite or the reaches of space are so vast how can you even remotely suggest that space it's self is expanding vs just moving... I find the concept of coming from nothing foolish... it's basically trying to state non-existence exists... I find that unlikely possible... The nothing quantum physics tries to explain is of an unknown substance or base to existence.. Zero can only represent a base... There is no such thing as a negative existence..

This nothing is just something you can't yet or ever quantify..Nothing can not be nothing in the literal sense when concerning a person place or thing of existence..
I didn't come up with the theory that space is expanding. It's based on observations made by astronomers over several decades, and now that we have better instruments, it's clear that space is expanding at an accelerating rate, not simply moving. This is occurring in every direction we look, at basically the same rate. This is fact.

As for QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics), it has been proven mathematically and experimentally to be the most accurate theory ever developed. The Universe is way stranger than we can imagine, and part of that strangeness is that maybe it didn't always exist.

Enjoy the video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE[/youtube]

A more simpler explanation can be found in an old bar trick to explain the rate of expansion... Remember my example above when you read this example...

you can take a white plate (represents existence) (white represents anti gravity).. You can take a liquid and poor it on to the plate.. We will use a blue liquid in this case to represent gravity... we then place a lit candle in the center of the plate (this represents the singularity)... If we place a glass on the plate over the candle (this cup represents the rest of intergalactic space in all other directions) the liquid will be sucked into the glass leaving the white plate bare of blue liquid.. Thus leaving an all white plate (anit-gravity)... If the cup were to be removed (the big bang) all the liquid would come poring out in all directions at the same rate to fill the void it had left giving the impression of expansion....

Only in this case the representation is in 2D vs 4D or how ever many dimensions there are...


On his actual theory or the video's representation

Just because you can make a mathematical representation does not mean it's actually 100 percent relevant or possible... Because you can't give a mathematical equation to something that doesn't exist... At best he math is only suggesting an unknown source or universal set...


Also it is not possible for him to actually measure every source of matter to determine if all things are moving out wards at the same rate.... And if true, this may simply be due to equal resistance from all directions from the applied force of the big bang.. A perfect spherical explosion of force in all directions.. It's not like there is a whole lot of Drag out there in the void.. especially if gravity is weak or absent from the surrounding space after being stripped and sucked into the singularity.. We know very little about the out galactic space outside our Bubble we call our universe..

What he hasn't done is prove non-existence exists... So his theory is very questionable but interesting as far as mathematics and physics is concerned... Just remember even E=MC2 can be broken or defied.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZYT9fFmWG4

But is really interesting is that it supports the idea that existence has a universal set.. A 0 representation or 0 dimension.. This 0 dimension represents the loop from where particles and anti-particles spawn from.. This is where I can suggest that his theory is wrong on the account of the average... This just means by his own words "even I don't understand it"... He hasn't yet quantified the base of existence known as the Zero or 0dimension.. This interaction suggests the "Loop" to where non-existence is impossible.. Things passing in an out of 0D but never into -1D... Since we can't observe or study what goes on in the 0Dimensional plane we can't actually ever understand or quantify it..

But I think his theory point's more into the direction of my theory on existence.. Which is fascinating to find a quantum physics representation of existence as a whole...

This only means we can't quantify a 0dimensional plane or reality...

 

[YKhan]

There was an alternative theory to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and MOND, called Dark Fluid, which modeled the universe like a fluid. Specifically it treated the universe like a weather system on Earth, where you have calm areas and hurricanes (galaxies) spinning up and their spin actually binds them together more tightly.

Could it be a combination of both or all... A variance of densities? Vapor, steam, liquid?

I'm not saying that the universe is actually a fluid, it's just that it can be modeled as one. Perhaps deep down the analogy is not just a coincidence but might be quite apt, because maybe the reason actual fluids act the way they do is because those are the properties they get from being part of the universe? The universe acts this way, so things in this universe act this way too.

Next generation quantum-gravity theories, such as the Superstring or the Loop-Quantum Gravity theories, seem to embrace a common idea: that all of the matter and energy in the universe are really emergent properties of space-time. That is to say that space-time itself is a thing, and matter and energy are just specific kinds of noise that emerge out of the random froth of space-time. But they are made of the same "material" as space-time. It's like when you have an iceberg floating by on the ocean. The water and ice are really the same material, H2O, but in slightly different form.

 

[FlatEarth]

A more simpler explanation can be found in an old bar trick to explain the rate of expansion... Remember my example above when you read this example...

you can take a white plate (represents existence) (white represents anti gravity).. You can take a liquid and poor it on to the plate.. We will use a blue liquid in this case to represent gravity... we then place a lit candle in the center of the plate (this represents the singularity)... If we place a glass on the plate over the candle (this cup represents the rest of intergalactic space in all other directions) the liquid will be sucked into the glass leaving the white plate bare of blue liquid.. Thus leaving an all white plate (anit-gravity)... If the cup were to be removed (the big bang) all the liquid would come poring out in all directions at the same rate to fill the void it had left giving the impression of expansion....

This example does not match observations. A flow of spacetime would not produce the homogeneous expansion that we are seeing.

On his actual theory or the video's representation

Just because you can make a mathematical representation does not mean it's actually 100 percent relevant or possible... Because you can't give a mathematical equation to something that doesn't exist... At best he math is only suggesting an unknown source or universal set...

QED is a theory, but it has been proven to be correct time and again. It's silly for you to question it.

Also it is not possible for him to actually measure every source of matter to determine if all things are moving out wards at the same rate.... And if true, this may simply be due to equal resistance from all directions from the applied force of the big bang.. A perfect spherical explosion of force in all directions.. It's not like there is a whole lot of Drag out there in the void.. especially if gravity is weak or absent from the surrounding space after being stripped and sucked into the singularity.. We know very little about the out galactic space outside our Bubble we call our universe..

Richard Feynman specialized in QED, not cosmology. However, numerous astronomers have devoted their lives to decoding the clues that we can observe and measure, and they have observed that everything is receding from our Local Group, and presently the pace of expansion is accelerating. Please study the theory so that you can understand it was not an explosion from a single point sending matter in all directions. This is a misconception.

What he hasn't done is prove non-existence exists... So his theory is very questionable but interesting as far as mathematics and physics is concerned... Just remember even E=MC2 can be broken or defied.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZYT9fFmWG4

Actually Feynman's equations do prove everything comes from nothing. That's as close as we can come to proving the non-existence of the Universe.
E=MC2 has not been violated, as you claim. The video is only a portion of a program that leads to the discovery of what causes gamma ray bursts. They are extremely large stars collapsing into black holes, emitting powerful gamma rays from the poles as matter is accelerated to near light speed as it enters the black hole.

But is really interesting is that it supports the idea that existence has a universal set.. A 0 representation or 0 dimension.. This 0 dimension represents the loop from where particles and anti-particles spawn from.. This is where I can suggest that his theory is wrong on the account of the average... This just means by his own words "even I don't understand it"... He hasn't yet quantified the base of existence known as the Zero or 0dimension.. This interaction suggests the "Loop" to where non-existence is impossible.. Things passing in an out of 0D but never into -1D... Since we can't observe or study what goes on in the 0Dimensional plane we can't actually ever understand or quantify it..

But I think his theory point's more into the direction of my theory on existence.. Which is fascinating to find a quantum physics representation of existence as a whole...

This only means we can't quantify a 0dimensional plane or reality...

As MeteorWayne said, this is not science, it is unsupported speculation. If you believe this, it is your right, but if you decide to study real science, I think you'll find it extremely interesting and rewarding. There's still a lot to be discovered and proven, as evidenced by the dark matter and dark energy question, so there's plenty of room to question theories and propose ideas. There just needs to be a measure of supported evidence behind them to make a credible case.

 

[TheJackel]

A more simpler explanation can be found in an old bar trick to explain the rate of expansion... Remember my example above when you read this example...

you can take a white plate (represents existence) (white represents anti gravity).. You can take a liquid and poor it on to the plate.. We will use a blue liquid in this case to represent gravity... we then place a lit candle in the center of the plate (this represents the singularity)... If we place a glass on the plate over the candle (this cup represents the rest of intergalactic space in all other directions) the liquid will be sucked into the glass leaving the white plate bare of blue liquid.. Thus leaving an all white plate (anit-gravity)... If the cup were to be removed (the big bang) all the liquid would come poring out in all directions at the same rate to fill the void it had left giving the impression of expansion....

This example does not match observations. A flow of spacetime would not produce the homogeneous expansion that we are seeing.

On his actual theory or the video's representation

Just because you can make a mathematical representation does not mean it's actually 100 percent relevant or possible... Because you can't give a mathematical equation to something that doesn't exist... At best he math is only suggesting an unknown source or universal set...

QED is a theory, but it has been proven to be correct time and again. It's silly for you to question it.

Also it is not possible for him to actually measure every source of matter to determine if all things are moving out wards at the same rate.... And if true, this may simply be due to equal resistance from all directions from the applied force of the big bang.. A perfect spherical explosion of force in all directions.. It's not like there is a whole lot of Drag out there in the void.. especially if gravity is weak or absent from the surrounding space after being stripped and sucked into the singularity.. We know very little about the out galactic space outside our Bubble we call our universe..

Richard Feynman specialized in QED, not cosmology. However, numerous astronomers have devoted their lives to decoding the clues that we can observe and measure, and they have observed that everything is receding from our Local Group, and presently the pace of expansion is accelerating. Please study the theory so that you can understand it was not an explosion from a single point sending matter in all directions. This is a misconception.

What he hasn't done is prove non-existence exists... So his theory is very questionable but interesting as far as mathematics and physics is concerned... Just remember even E=MC2 can be broken or defied.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZYT9fFmWG4

Actually Feynman's equations do prove everything comes from nothing. That's as close as we can come to proving the non-existence of the Universe.
E=MC2 has not been violated, as you claim. The video is only a portion of a program that leads to the discovery of what causes gamma ray bursts. They are extremely large stars collapsing into black holes, emitting powerful gamma rays from the poles as matter is accelerated to near light speed as it enters the black hole.

But is really interesting is that it supports the idea that existence has a universal set.. A 0 representation or 0 dimension.. This 0 dimension represents the loop from where particles and anti-particles spawn from.. This is where I can suggest that his theory is wrong on the account of the average... This just means by his own words "even I don't understand it"... He hasn't yet quantified the base of existence known as the Zero or 0dimension.. This interaction suggests the "Loop" to where non-existence is impossible.. Things passing in an out of 0D but never into -1D... Since we can't observe or study what goes on in the 0Dimensional plane we can't actually ever understand or quantify it..

But I think his theory point's more into the direction of my theory on existence.. Which is fascinating to find a quantum physics representation of existence as a whole...

This only means we can't quantify a 0dimensional plane or reality...

As MeteorWayne said, this is not science, it is unsupported speculation. If you believe this, it is your right, but if you decide to study real science, I think you'll find it extremely interesting and rewarding. There's still a lot to be discovered and proven, as evidenced by the dark matter and dark energy question, so there's plenty of room to question theories and propose ideas. There just needs to be a measure of supported evidence behind them to make a credible case.

First off Quantum Physics is not established... It's still in it's infancy.. There are still large gaps in the mathematics and one of those gaps has to do with giving "nothingness" or "non-existence" a mathematical representation... The flaw in that is that it's not actually nothing if it has a pattern or any kind of representation... You can not give absolute nothing representation... This means there is still data or information or at the very least a pattern of a equilibrium there for you to give representation to... They commonly state nothing as 0 or 0dimensional.. Or some call it non-dimensional... The problem with quantum physics is that they have not yet quantified what nothing actually is... They are still calling it a thing or something that exists.. And thus the term Nothing is a contradiction to it's self. It would be better to name this an unknown something..

And all I am saying is that Quantum Electromagnetic Theory is suggesting an interaction between 0D and 1D,2D,3D ..

And I am curious.. When someone states our space is expanding it's logical to ask what is it expanding into... Where is it expanding to... This is another question that has been speculated for a long time... So even if our space is expanding it can only expand if there is more space to expand into or another place larger than it as a container to it.... So quantum physics has a long way to go...

And on evidence.. No evidence is valid until what it is trying to prove is proven... Evidence is merely a pile of data that can prove to be right or wrong... This is why you have so many theories out there..