7 ms·

The edge of human understanding of the universe is a vague and scary place. When we dug deep below the atom level everything we took for granted fell apart. We

The edge of human understanding of the universe is a vague and scary place. When we dug deep below the atom level everything we took for granted fell apart. We had to invent an entirely new model of physics to make sense of our observations, which is complex and counter-intuitive (quantum mechanics) Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the super-galactical? Could the rules at such scales necessitate a new form of physics that we have yet to derive because of the difficulty of observation? I ask this because "dark matter" and "dark energy" always make me think of past primitive attempts to align unexpected data to existing models of understanding. Is it possible that they are just "echoes" or "shadows" of concepts that exceed the very nature of "matter" and "energy"?

golergka 11y ago
> Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the super-galactical? Isn't special relativity complex and counter-intuitive enough?
- fengwick3 11y ago
  I don't think special relativity is quite on the same level of strangeness (no pun intended) of quantum physics. For one, the axioms of special relativity are actually pretty believable, not to mention the incredible elegance of its integration with classical electromagnetism.
  - wlievens 11y ago
    And the metaphors for relativity hold up longer than a few seconds once you start asking questions.
jacquesm 11y ago
In a way relativity theory was such a new model, classical theory (Newton) worked well at all Earth scale observations of the time, it took quite few years after the theory was formulated before the first experimental evidence came in and relativistic effects are far more visible to us on a larger scale (but they're there on a smaller scale too, just harder to quantify). Who knows, there may be yet another theory that explains things on a larger scale even better than our current understanding. This may also increase or change our understanding of what happens at the smallest scales. Laws of physics trend towards unification, a single model to explain all scales at once.
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  That's right. Things in this Universe are not scale-invariant. We are so enmeshed in the human-scale models, that anything beyond (above, below, far away from) this scale look alien. Growing up and bumping your head, as a toddler, into the kitchen table, you learn about a Universe that follows newtonian physics, euclidean geometry, and boolean logic. But then you look at vastly different scales and you learn that all these are human-scale approximations. The universe is post-newtonian and non-euclidean; and deep in the science of complexity boolean models are challenged by fuzzy logic. The newtonian/euclidean/boolean model we carry in our heads is just our little insular view of the universe.
poelzi 11y ago
That is exactly which brought me to the BSM-SG model. When nothing seems to fit well and the physics appear stranger and stranger, you should ask yourself: did we do everything right ? Did we do some mistakes in measurements ? Do we have some some wrong assumptions ? Turns out: yes. If you remove those wrong assumptions, you end up with a classic logical model that makes sense in very aspect. QM is just to raw for explaining the quantum world. Things seen as fundamental particles that are huge, huge structures. Even to look only at energy and ignore form and geometry (by definition), becomes absurd with deeper understanding.
- lmm 11y ago
  What are you talking about? QM is the most elegant, beautiful, and empirically verified theory ever. What does your "classical logical model" say about the Bell inequalities?
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  When googling "BSM-SG", the top result is a thread (by poelzi) on a cold fusion forum... Which contains this nugget: "If Quantum Mechanics describes the Atom, why does it not provide the angles atom create for chemical bindings, every chemistry student has to learn?" Really? You couldn't be bothered to sit down with an organic chemistry textbook and discover that QM is the basis for our entire understanding of how atoms form chemical bonds? You've never heard of sp3 hybridisation? E.g. Paula Bruice's book "Organic Chemistry" starts with QM as the most fundamental piece and builds everything from that. Read it.
  - poelzi 11y ago
    Search for Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory then, its by Dr. Stoyan Sarg QM is a theory. There are facts and theories and they should not be confused. Who we think the universe is governed is based on theories that are derived from facts. But for nearly all facts, you can find different explanations. It is not that the BSM-SG theory will not provide you with equations that are similar to QM equations, but then they differ in the interpretation for example. Compare the Atlas of BSM-SG model with what QM provides and you will see, that the angles of the BSM-SG model are much more precise what complex chemical structures look like. Then, you have many different theories in condensed matter physics, there are models that have no free electrons at all, and they work for their field also extremely well. i know the spdf hybridisation model, had it @university, still it's a theory not a fact.
Steuard 11y ago
Possible! There certainly is a lot that feels inelegant in the dominant model, and nobody has yet proposed a reason that so much of the universe would be so oddly invisible to us. But (as I just noted in some detail in a different comment here) the "Lambda-CDM" model of a universe evolving in the presence of a cosmological constant and cold dark matter has proven to be quite remarkably consistent under a wide variety of very different observational tests. Everything from supernova data to the cosmic microwave background to large-scale cosmological structure/cluster formation is not just in agreement with the general outline of that model but even gives consistent (and increasingly precise) values for the parameters of the model. (They all lead to pretty much the same value for the percentage of dark matter in the universe, for example. Here's a typical graph from 2003 that I found from a Google image search: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept09/Einasto/Figures/figure17.jpg https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept09/Einasto/Figures/f... The different-colored ovals near the middle-left represent entirely different observational data.) So I would love to learn someday that all these weird phenomena are manifestations of some deeper, more elegant truth. (I've done some limited research vaguely connected to the area myself, though that was long ago and my current focus is much less directly relevant to this topic.) But whatever that deeper truth turns out to be, we can have a whole lot of confidence that it will manifest in a way that behaves an awful lot like the dark matter and dark energy models that are being studied today.
- chriswarbo 11y ago
  > nobody has yet proposed a reason that so much of the universe would be so oddly invisible to us. Whilst I don't claim to have an answer to this question, I still wouldn't call it "odd". We know of four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational) and we know that some particles are unaffected by some of these; e.g. leptons don't feel the strong force and neutrinos don't feel the electromagnetic force. I would say the odd part is our assumption that matter should be visible (AKA electromagnetically interacting). (Note: I'm only talking about dark matter here; dark energy is odd ;) )
- blincoln 11y ago
  > nobody has yet proposed a reason that so much of the universe would be so oddly invisible to us. IANAP, but it seems pretty consistent with the brane element of M-theory to me. If you have a bunch of 3-dimensional branes sitting next to each other in a hyperdimensional bulk, and gravity is the only force which can pass between them, then of course you're going to end up with what appears to be invisible matter. It's the aggregate mass that has clumped together in the respective 3D branes, as close as is possible to the adjacent branes. E.g. dropping one dimension, stack some glass sheets and magnets, with the two interleaved. The magnets on one level will be affected by the fields on other levels, but any 2D flatlanders on any given level will be unable to actually see those other magnets. It will be as if some ghostly "dark magnets" are passing right through their own.
lmm 11y ago
The point I always make when this comes up is: epicycles, negative-mass phlogiston, æther and all the rest were good physics at the time. People who used them made more accurate predictions than any alternatives. So yes, dark matter and dark energy are probably not the full story. But they are the best model we currently have, and it's very easy to criticize and much harder to offer a positive counterproposal.
- mjburgess 11y ago
  phlogiston was actually better than the theory which immediately replaced it (oxidation, etc.) - they were close to discovering electrons ... but by involving oxygen delayed that realization for quite awhile
- musgravepeter 11y ago
  A great book on good physics which did not pan out is http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Speculations-Theories-Revolutions-Cosmology/dp/0198726376/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448456171&sr=8-1&keywords=higher+speculations http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Speculations-Theories-Revolutio... Vortex theory was very cool, but not how the world worked.
- wlievens 11y ago
  True, but we've come to seek more than just predictive models, we want understanding and "truth".
  - lmm 11y ago
    I'd say the opposite; we've come to realise that accurate predictions are the truest benchmark and notions of understanding can often be misleading. But supposing you're right, so what? Unless you'd prefer a more understandable but inaccurate model, there's still no better alternative to dark matter or dark energy.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      You need deep understanding to develop the next set of accurate models and - perhaps - turn them into useful technology.
jahnu 11y ago
Perhaps we don't have the capacity to understand how the universe works? I can't remember where I read it but someone made the point that no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French.
- trhway 11y ago
  >no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French. humans couldn't so far teach mouse a human language. That doesn't mean that mouse doesn't have something like several thousands or tens of thousands of basic sounds and combinations of them into meaningful (for mouse) sequences. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/catch-the-wave-decoding-the-prairie-doge28099s-contagious-jump-yips/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/catch-the... After all as a mouse says to another mouse - "no matter how hard you try you can never teach a human to understand mouse language". The same is through the history of physics/mathematics. It takes a change in fundamental point of view. The notion of derivative took decades of work to develop by geniuses of that time. Imagine how physics/mathematics looked without it. When i look at strings theory of today i see epicycles, a very intricate and complex system of epicycles in 11 dimensions :) We need a genius like Newton or Einstein to again see and tell us what is behind that apparent complexity.
  - jstanley 11y ago
    No but the point is a mouse simply does not have the capacity to understand French. Maybe humans do not have the capacity to understand the complete workings of physics.
    - trhway 11y ago
      >a mouse simply does not have the capacity to understand French. we don't really know what capacity is required to do it. 1PFlops? 1P neuron synapse transfers/minute? What capacity and in what units mouse brain is? Our human brain evolution has abused low efficiency size increase approach. As result we're using only like 10% of capacity of our brain. This dog knows 1000 words in human language. That's more than i know in Chinese, and the task of learning a 1000 Chinese hieroglyphs scares the hell out of me: https://www.thedodo.com/worlds-smartest-dog-chaser-752002926.html https://www.thedodo.com/worlds-smartest-dog-chaser-752002926... >Maybe humans do not have the capacity to understand the complete workings of physics. why would it be so? So far the physics has been pretty simple (any abnormal complexity has been usually an indication of our lack of understanding and has been successfully cleared with time) , and even several orders of magnitude complexity increase will fit into our brain. Edit: to the comment below on 10% - there is a difference between 10% capacity and 10% neurons. The fact that most of our brain is physiologically participating while producing that little capacity most of the time in most of the people is exactly the low efficiency i was talking about.
RobertoG 11y ago
"Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the super-galactical?" I suspect that its what we don't understand about quantum mechanics what finally will explain the macro observations that we don't understand. After all, macro observations have to derive from the fundamentals and it seems that the fundamentals are in the quantum realm.
wlievens 11y ago
I have a similar sentiment. I know nothing's of physics beyond high school stuff and popsci, but to me Dark Matter feels like "aether 2.0". I'm probably wrong.
Balgair 11y ago
Interesting point. Also, if you look at the time scales, QM wasn't really discovered until we could get tech to go that fast. We had to 'see' it at the 'speed' it was going, otherwise it just blurred out (not just speed but distance and many other units had to be very very finely tuned). Perhaps with the super large, everything seems to be more static than we'd like it to be. To get a good sense of the systems, we need to let it happen for longer than we have thus far. Dark Matter is an example. We had to watch the stars to figure out they were not spinning at the right rates, and that took a long time to be certain of. There is a balance here though. With QM it was just a few things, with astro, it is a universe of things and that takes a lot more 'eyes' to be certain of stuff. I leave out black holes and the interface of QM and GR, because that is a hell of a lot of stuff happening really fast at really small sizes. Granted, it's the interesting stuff, but I feel we have to get real experiments going first before it is prudent to look at. That means some really big telescopes looking for really tiny variations for a really long time. Something funding bodies are not able to justify as of yet.

golergka 11y ago

> Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the super-galactical? Isn't special relativity complex and counter-intuitive enough?

fengwick3 11y ago
I don't think special relativity is quite on the same level of strangeness (no pun intended) of quantum physics. For one, the axioms of special relativity are actually pretty believable, not to mention the incredible elegance of its integration with classical electromagnetism.
- wlievens 11y ago
  And the metaphors for relativity hold up longer than a few seconds once you start asking questions.

jacquesm 11y ago

In a way relativity theory was such a new model, classical theory (Newton) worked well at all Earth scale observations of the time, it took quite few years after the theory was formulated before the first experimental evidence came in and relativistic effects are far more visible to us on a larger scale (but they're there on a smaller scale too, just harder to quantify). Who knows, there may be yet another theory that explains things on a larger scale even better than our current understanding. This may also increase or change our understanding of what happens at the smallest scales. Laws of physics trend towards unification, a single model to explain all scales at once.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago
That's right. Things in this Universe are not scale-invariant. We are so enmeshed in the human-scale models, that anything beyond (above, below, far away from) this scale look alien. Growing up and bumping your head, as a toddler, into the kitchen table, you learn about a Universe that follows newtonian physics, euclidean geometry, and boolean logic. But then you look at vastly different scales and you learn that all these are human-scale approximations. The universe is post-newtonian and non-euclidean; and deep in the science of complexity boolean models are challenged by fuzzy logic. The newtonian/euclidean/boolean model we carry in our heads is just our little insular view of the universe.

poelzi 11y ago

That is exactly which brought me to the BSM-SG model. When nothing seems to fit well and the physics appear stranger and stranger, you should ask yourself: did we do everything right ? Did we do some mistakes in measurements ? Do we have some some wrong assumptions ? Turns out: yes. If you remove those wrong assumptions, you end up with a classic logical model that makes sense in very aspect. QM is just to raw for explaining the quantum world. Things seen as fundamental particles that are huge, huge structures. Even to look only at energy and ignore form and geometry (by definition), becomes absurd with deeper understanding.

lmm 11y ago
What are you talking about? QM is the most elegant, beautiful, and empirically verified theory ever. What does your "classical logical model" say about the Bell inequalities?
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
When googling "BSM-SG", the top result is a thread (by poelzi) on a cold fusion forum... Which contains this nugget: "If Quantum Mechanics describes the Atom, why does it not provide the angles atom create for chemical bindings, every chemistry student has to learn?" Really? You couldn't be bothered to sit down with an organic chemistry textbook and discover that QM is the basis for our entire understanding of how atoms form chemical bonds? You've never heard of sp3 hybridisation? E.g. Paula Bruice's book "Organic Chemistry" starts with QM as the most fundamental piece and builds everything from that. Read it.
- poelzi 11y ago
  Search for Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory then, its by Dr. Stoyan Sarg QM is a theory. There are facts and theories and they should not be confused. Who we think the universe is governed is based on theories that are derived from facts. But for nearly all facts, you can find different explanations. It is not that the BSM-SG theory will not provide you with equations that are similar to QM equations, but then they differ in the interpretation for example. Compare the Atlas of BSM-SG model with what QM provides and you will see, that the angles of the BSM-SG model are much more precise what complex chemical structures look like. Then, you have many different theories in condensed matter physics, there are models that have no free electrons at all, and they work for their field also extremely well. i know the spdf hybridisation model, had it @university, still it's a theory not a fact.

Steuard 11y ago

Possible! There certainly is a lot that feels inelegant in the dominant model, and nobody has yet proposed a reason that so much of the universe would be so oddly invisible to us. But (as I just noted in some detail in a different comment here) the "Lambda-CDM" model of a universe evolving in the presence of a cosmological constant and cold dark matter has proven to be quite remarkably consistent under a wide variety of very different observational tests. Everything from supernova data to the cosmic microwave background to large-scale cosmological structure/cluster formation is not just in agreement with the general outline of that model but even gives consistent (and increasingly precise) values for the parameters of the model. (They all lead to pretty much the same value for the percentage of dark matter in the universe, for example. Here's a typical graph from 2003 that I found from a Google image search: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept09/Einasto/Figures/figure17.jpg https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept09/Einasto/Figures/f... The different-colored ovals near the middle-left represent entirely different observational data.) So I would love to learn someday that all these weird phenomena are manifestations of some deeper, more elegant truth. (I've done some limited research vaguely connected to the area myself, though that was long ago and my current focus is much less directly relevant to this topic.) But whatever that deeper truth turns out to be, we can have a whole lot of confidence that it will manifest in a way that behaves an awful lot like the dark matter and dark energy models that are being studied today.

chriswarbo 11y ago
> nobody has yet proposed a reason that so much of the universe would be so oddly invisible to us. Whilst I don't claim to have an answer to this question, I still wouldn't call it "odd". We know of four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational) and we know that some particles are unaffected by some of these; e.g. leptons don't feel the strong force and neutrinos don't feel the electromagnetic force. I would say the odd part is our assumption that matter should be visible (AKA electromagnetically interacting). (Note: I'm only talking about dark matter here; dark energy is odd ;) )
blincoln 11y ago
> nobody has yet proposed a reason that so much of the universe would be so oddly invisible to us. IANAP, but it seems pretty consistent with the brane element of M-theory to me. If you have a bunch of 3-dimensional branes sitting next to each other in a hyperdimensional bulk, and gravity is the only force which can pass between them, then of course you're going to end up with what appears to be invisible matter. It's the aggregate mass that has clumped together in the respective 3D branes, as close as is possible to the adjacent branes. E.g. dropping one dimension, stack some glass sheets and magnets, with the two interleaved. The magnets on one level will be affected by the fields on other levels, but any 2D flatlanders on any given level will be unable to actually see those other magnets. It will be as if some ghostly "dark magnets" are passing right through their own.

lmm 11y ago

The point I always make when this comes up is: epicycles, negative-mass phlogiston, æther and all the rest were good physics at the time. People who used them made more accurate predictions than any alternatives. So yes, dark matter and dark energy are probably not the full story. But they are the best model we currently have, and it's very easy to criticize and much harder to offer a positive counterproposal.

mjburgess 11y ago
phlogiston was actually better than the theory which immediately replaced it (oxidation, etc.) - they were close to discovering electrons ... but by involving oxygen delayed that realization for quite awhile
musgravepeter 11y ago
A great book on good physics which did not pan out is http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Speculations-Theories-Revolutions-Cosmology/dp/0198726376/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448456171&sr=8-1&keywords=higher+speculations http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Speculations-Theories-Revolutio... Vortex theory was very cool, but not how the world worked.
wlievens 11y ago
True, but we've come to seek more than just predictive models, we want understanding and "truth".
- lmm 11y ago
  I'd say the opposite; we've come to realise that accurate predictions are the truest benchmark and notions of understanding can often be misleading. But supposing you're right, so what? Unless you'd prefer a more understandable but inaccurate model, there's still no better alternative to dark matter or dark energy.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    You need deep understanding to develop the next set of accurate models and - perhaps - turn them into useful technology.

jahnu 11y ago

Perhaps we don't have the capacity to understand how the universe works? I can't remember where I read it but someone made the point that no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French.

trhway 11y ago
>no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French. humans couldn't so far teach mouse a human language. That doesn't mean that mouse doesn't have something like several thousands or tens of thousands of basic sounds and combinations of them into meaningful (for mouse) sequences. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/catch-the-wave-decoding-the-prairie-doge28099s-contagious-jump-yips/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/catch-the... After all as a mouse says to another mouse - "no matter how hard you try you can never teach a human to understand mouse language". The same is through the history of physics/mathematics. It takes a change in fundamental point of view. The notion of derivative took decades of work to develop by geniuses of that time. Imagine how physics/mathematics looked without it. When i look at strings theory of today i see epicycles, a very intricate and complex system of epicycles in 11 dimensions :) We need a genius like Newton or Einstein to again see and tell us what is behind that apparent complexity.
- jstanley 11y ago
  No but the point is a mouse simply does not have the capacity to understand French. Maybe humans do not have the capacity to understand the complete workings of physics.
  - trhway 11y ago
    >a mouse simply does not have the capacity to understand French. we don't really know what capacity is required to do it. 1PFlops? 1P neuron synapse transfers/minute? What capacity and in what units mouse brain is? Our human brain evolution has abused low efficiency size increase approach. As result we're using only like 10% of capacity of our brain. This dog knows 1000 words in human language. That's more than i know in Chinese, and the task of learning a 1000 Chinese hieroglyphs scares the hell out of me: https://www.thedodo.com/worlds-smartest-dog-chaser-752002926.html https://www.thedodo.com/worlds-smartest-dog-chaser-752002926... >Maybe humans do not have the capacity to understand the complete workings of physics. why would it be so? So far the physics has been pretty simple (any abnormal complexity has been usually an indication of our lack of understanding and has been successfully cleared with time) , and even several orders of magnitude complexity increase will fit into our brain. Edit: to the comment below on 10% - there is a difference between 10% capacity and 10% neurons. The fact that most of our brain is physiologically participating while producing that little capacity most of the time in most of the people is exactly the low efficiency i was talking about.

RobertoG 11y ago

"Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the super-galactical?" I suspect that its what we don't understand about quantum mechanics what finally will explain the macro observations that we don't understand. After all, macro observations have to derive from the fundamentals and it seems that the fundamentals are in the quantum realm.

wlievens 11y ago

I have a similar sentiment. I know nothing's of physics beyond high school stuff and popsci, but to me Dark Matter feels like "aether 2.0". I'm probably wrong.

Balgair 11y ago

Interesting point. Also, if you look at the time scales, QM wasn't really discovered until we could get tech to go that fast. We had to 'see' it at the 'speed' it was going, otherwise it just blurred out (not just speed but distance and many other units had to be very very finely tuned). Perhaps with the super large, everything seems to be more static than we'd like it to be. To get a good sense of the systems, we need to let it happen for longer than we have thus far. Dark Matter is an example. We had to watch the stars to figure out they were not spinning at the right rates, and that took a long time to be certain of. There is a balance here though. With QM it was just a few things, with astro, it is a universe of things and that takes a lot more 'eyes' to be certain of stuff. I leave out black holes and the interface of QM and GR, because that is a hell of a lot of stuff happening really fast at really small sizes. Granted, it's the interesting stuff, but I feel we have to get real experiments going first before it is prudent to look at. That means some really big telescopes looking for really tiny variations for a really long time. Something funding bodies are not able to justify as of yet.