Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: M-Theory & dark matter/dark energy

  1. #1 M-Theory & dark matter/dark energy 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3
    I've been going over a few documentaries about quantum mechanics in general lately, and something's been continually nagging at me which has yet to really be touched on beyond simply stating that it may somehow eventually be looked at. Perhaps there's a scientific paper on the matter that I'm not aware, of, but for now, I'm left with this question:

    Could the existence of M-Theory, in and of itself, provide the explanation for dark matter and energy just using common sense alone?

    Let me try to break my thoughts down a bit here; this will probably be slightly disorganized, as I'm still rolling the concept about in my head, so please bare with me =P



    First off, we have the concept of M-Theory which states a few things, such as how a string could potentially be warped and stretched into a membrane instead. Then, we have the prediction that a graviton is an enclosed string, and not attached to the main membrane that our universe resides upon. After that, we're next met with the problem that gravity is remarkably weak in comparison to the other forces of the universe, and that it's possible to correlate the other forces into a unified theory of sorts... but that gravity always sticks out like a sore thumb.

    These, along with many other questions, lead to a compounding problem where it's predicted that gravity is somehow interacting with other universes and higher dimensions we don't have access to currently.

    Great, no problem, but could that specifically explain things like dark matter and energy?

    If we assume that there are a near infinite-number of universes, that would suggest that, if they were completely equal in their distributions, that we'd see no real shift in the gravity that we experience. It'd be weaker since some of that gravity would bleed out of our universe, but we'd also gain an equal distribution of gravity from all other universes. So long as the other universes are equally diverse, it'd pretty much cancel out into not much of value.

    But here's the thing that bothers me... why would we assume that, even given an infinite number of potential universes, that all these other universes would be distributed evenly? Would it not make more sense that there would be a probability wave of sorts?

    If we have 1,000 universes, just as an example, and we say they all start with the same constants, then they should all produce an identical universe. If there's a small shift in one constant, then it can have a drastic increase on what the resultant universe appears as. However, not all of these constants will have an equal effect, and as a whole, one would assume that, regardless of the distribution and values of these constants, the same amount of matter and energy would be uniform in amount, but only the distribution would change, and more often than not, certain configurations would be more likely than others.

    What this implies to me, is that there would be a small number of universe types which would be abnormally common compared to other types.

    If a given universe has an abnormally high coefficient for gravity, then it would tend to have not expanded very far, meaning that it would clump up pretty hard around the center. This would imply it's a very dense universe, perhaps even just one big quasar. Any universe with a high gravity coefficient would be likely to wind up this way, so long as the coefficient value is exceedingly high. This would imply a very large percentage of all universes happen to be very dense towards the middle.

    In tandem, any given universe with an abnormally low coefficient for gravity would spread out pretty far by default, meaning the vast majority of it's bulk winds up being thrown away from the center of the big bang's point of origin. Due to the limitations of how fast that can occur, this would imply that any universe with a low coefficient for gravity in relation to the other forces present would wind up with the vast majority of it's matter being in roughly a torus shape, spread out far from the center, but unable to go past a certain point. This would suggest there's a lot of mass in a big round ring around the outside of the universe, rather than distributed into planets and such, and that this would also happen very frequently across the distribution of our 1,000 universes we have to work with.

    So... let's say we have maybe 45% of all universes are likely to be dense quasars, and 45% are likely to be rings (just rough examples =P ). It doesn't matter how many universes you add to the mix, as the fact of the matter is, you have a small range of coefficients that don't lead to either extreme, and a wide range of coefficients that do lead to one extreme or the other.

    What this would mean, is that if gravitons are leaving one universe and being equally distributed into other universes, that you'd be stuck with an abnormally large concentration of these in a ring around the outside of our universe, and a dense ball in the middle of our universe, creating "gravity" which affects our universe, but is generated from an infinite number of other universes.

    With our 1,000 universe example, we'd have maybe 450 that are tight balls, and 450 that are rings. This would imply that, as all these universes expanded originally, the initial wave of expansion would leave us much closer to the expanding ones than the ones which mostly stood still, and would have acted closer to surfing a wave, dragging us along with the ones which we were more closely tied to.

    What this would also suggest, is that as the 450 "big" universes expand farther away, we'd be currently in a position where we're closer to them than the middle bulk, and they would have a greater exertion of gravity upon our own universe, causing ours to expand for the moment, but at a slower pace than theirs.

    There's ways to interpret these expansion rates which may suggest that we're an expanding universe right "now", but that as the other universes expand faster than ours, relatively speaking for distance compared to the center's big densely packed universes, their pull on us may eventually lessen until we start to compact again, as we'd be closer to the dense universes than the expansion ones.

    Anyway, that requires a lot of complex math which I simply don't know how to do, so I can't really explore the probability based on our estimations of the amount of dark matter and energy, as to whether we'd be eventually stuck in a collapsing universe, or an eternally expanding one. It depends largely upon how much density is in total in the opposites, and how close we are in relation to both, and if there'll be a point at which the expansion would pull so far away from us that we'd stop feeling its effects as strongly as the dense ones.

    Regardless, my point, I suppose... is what if these are simply all that dark matter and energy is? Lost gravitons from other universes?

    It would mean there's no "magical" dark energy which somehow "pulls" the universe apart faster than gravity pulls it together, it'd just mean it's 100% pure dark matter, and that it just happens to be physically closer to us than the central dark matter is. This would flat out mean that it's all gravity, and the mass which is closer to us, just happens to be expanding faster than our universe is, and therefore it's dragging us along, meaning it's always a pull, never a push. This would mean dark energy doesn't exist, it's just more dark matter, and that the reason for why all this matter is "dark" in the first place, is simply because it happens to be in a different universe that we can't normally interact with, but that our gravitons can, and their gravitons can interact with ours as it's not a one-way-street.

    I dunno, I'm not a physicist, though maybe I should've been. I'm sure there's a thesis paper in here somewhere anyway =P

    What I'm curious about though, is if this even makes the remotest amount of sense to anyone who actually studies this and could give an explanation as to why it's either likely wrong, or point me towards any theories which have already come up with this idea. There has to be some reason I've never heard of this in anything I've ever looked at relating to dark matter and energy, and I'm not sure if it's because no one has ever thought of it, because these are two different areas of studies and no one has fully considered comparing the two together, because I just didn't look in the right places for papers on it, or if it's already been proven false or considered to be unlikely.

    If this idea does have some glimmer of merit, however, who would I discuss it with? If there is some small chance that this is potentially valuable insight, who would I direct it to so they could actually look into it further? I know I'm not cut out to do the physics equations myself, so would there be anyone actually interested in working with the idea further in my stead?

    If anything, this seems like it'd be potentially an ideal bit of evidence towards M-Theory, as it would explain dark matter and energy succinctly, though admittedly it wouldn't be of much use as a prediction as, yet again, it'd be another case of string theory in general explaining something we already knew, rather than predicting it to happen before seeing evidence of such =P

    I dunno, I'm not sure what to do with these little musings. I figure I may as well ask, worst case scenario I'm wrong, or someone can direct me towards another source of neat information I didn't have previously =3


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Could the existence of M-Theory, in and of itself, provide the explanation for dark matter and energy just using common sense alone?
    It might be able to (if M-theory is every shown to be a valid description of the universe). But it certainly won't be by using "common sense". M-theory is a very complex mathematical construct so you would need some very advanced math to demonstrate that dark matter and/or dark energy could be explained by M-theory.


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3
    Neeever mind. I was going to make some arguments, but they're a moot point now =3

    I've since done some extra research and run into a major flaw - I found a map of the rough distribution of dark matter's mass, and it's nowhere even remotely like what I'd imagined, and doesn't fit this idea in the slightest. It would have to have a significant increase towards the central point and an outer ring, with a mess in between, instead it's mostly just a mess in general as a whole.

    Now it's possible, due to the method of measurement, since the map was only made via using red shifts, that it simply can't "see" much except the middle areas which are expected to be sloppy in distribution as it is, and that the extreme values such as towards the center and edge of the universe would be difficult to ascertain proper information for since there'd be no photons generated from these sources to measure any red shift, but that's something I'd have to look into very closely before any further speculation at all.

    In any case, for the math (if that turned out to be the case), technically all one would need to do is generate a vague computer model of how the growth of the universe would occur after about 1/10th of a second after the big bang. That's within reason, though a pain to do. Map out it's course, then re-map it many times with different base variants for the relative strengths of the different forces, and see which appear most common. Make a rough map on a transluscent sheet or layer it in photoshop, drop multiple layers on top of each other, see which areas are most densely packed across all theoretical universes.

    That still hinges upon the assumption that we can only "see" the middleground of dark matter, and that anything on the distant extremes wouldn't show up with our current method of mapping, and it'd also require an awful lot of complex math that's way over my head =P

    The "common sense" part I was referring to, is only from the line of reasoning of "if we're losing gravitons constantly to other universes, then it would imply we're also gaining gravitons constantly as well from other universes, so we should have roughly a net total of about zero change either way, but the distribution of where those gravitons we gain would show up in different areas if the centers of mass are different in other universes".

    Anyway, I have a lot more research to look into on how they came up with map of the distribution before I can suggest anything further at all. Thanks for the reply despite that! ^.^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Now it's possible, due to the method of measurement, since the map was only made via using red shifts, that it simply can't "see" much except the middle areas which are expected to be sloppy in distribution as it is, and that the extreme values such as towards the center and edge of the universe would be difficult to ascertain proper information for since there'd be no photons generated from these sources to measure any red shift, but that's something I'd have to look into very closely before any further speculation at all.
    The other thing you might want to look at is the distribution of dark matter between galaxies and between galaxy clusters. This has been mapped by gravitational lensing.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The other thing you might want to look at is the distribution of dark matter between galaxies and between galaxy clusters. This has been mapped by gravitational lensing.
    Mmm, I'd looked at that, but it suffers from the same problem as measuring via red shifts: it requires that the photons pass through the dark matter to see it via inference. Any dark matter that would exist farther outside of the universe beyond the the farthest point which generates photons, can't be seen by either method.

    If there were a dense ring of dark matter just outside of the observable universe, it'd explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe... but I can't think of any possible way to measure it from our solar system. The closest thing I can think of, would be to try to measure where the various galaxies on the outer edges are bunching up towards, if anywhere in particular, and then try to figure out how much force they should be exerting upon each other, and whether that lines up with what's observed for their actual attraction. If certain galaxies are pulling closer to each other than anticipated, this would imply a large density of dark matter nearby which is drawing them closer together than otherwise should occur. Unfortunately, that may be beyond our capacity to accurately measure at this point, and it only tells us that "something" is drawing them closer together.

    It might be easier to measure by checking towards the center of where we expect the big bang happened though... if there were many dense universes, they'd be clumped up around roughly the same location (assuming all universes we're considering began from the same point of origin). That would at least verify or disprove half of the issue, and things like lensing and red shifts should be more than capable of verifying such an existence or disproving it. If there's no dense center, then it's unlikely there would be a dense outer ring either.

    I'll see if I can pull up any information on that. Thanks for the thought!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    [If there were a dense ring of dark matter just outside of the observable universe, it'd explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe...
    Actually, I don't think it would. Look up Newton's shell theorem. An even distribution of matter outside a sphere, for example, has no gravitational effect inside the sphere.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Black holes, dark matter & dark energy
    By Cuete in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2013, 05:33 PM
  2. Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the Hyperbolic Gravitational Field
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: April 28th, 2013, 03:17 PM
  3. A new look at DARK MATTER & DARK ENERGY
    By danfitz in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 28th, 2013, 03:12 PM
  4. Dark energy, Dark matter, Fine tuning problem,Negative mass!
    By icarus2 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 31st, 2011, 12:12 PM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 14th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •