A discussion of why Doesn’t Matter is a more accurate and positive view on Matter and Dark matter.
Why this should matter
For those amongst us who find the new age of physics an exciting and interesting time, the hitherto hidden realm of theoretical physics is now more accessible than ever before. The incredibly intelligent and rare power thinkers that become nuclear physicists or astrophysicists have each the potential to change forever the way mankind views the universe, in the manner that Galileo, Newton, Zwicky, Hubble, Feynman, Guth, and most remarkably Einstein - to name but a few - have so powerfully demonstrated.
That these thinkers have the ability to imagine, let alone prove, that the substance of our universe is so far removed from our common concept of time and space is in itself beyond almost all of us, and it is within these surreal yet bizarrely accurate tales that we find ourselves captured, imaginations ablaze, as the far-flung science once trapped in books of fiction used to do. In a realm where anything is not just possible but indeed probable, writers such as Asimov, Sagan and Clarke could use this lofty world to weave stories of fascination unhindered by a common-sense view of the nature of our existence.
In the modern age of instant global communication and accelerated fame, the vague and mysterious intellectual domain is now nothing more than a headline from a blog. CERN found the Higgs and now they’re cranking up the juice in their quest to find more, or perhaps momentarily borrow all of Europe’s electricity. The quest for a unified theory has constantly uncovered, in both quantum and universal scales, simply more mind-blowing and counter-intuitive puzzles, ever taxing the greatest minds in the history of our species. Sensory technology is, for the most part, capable and ready to detect or disprove any theory bound to our dimensions, yet even so falls far short of shedding light on ideas now decades old.
 |
| looking back you need a powerful light |
|
What’s the matter?
To understand the essence of this quest, it may be advantageous to understand human nature and its relationship with the accumulation of scientific knowledge. Man is somewhat predisposed to adventure, exploration, expedition and discovery. Aside from the vast realm of the ocean’s floors, which are expensive to explore and offer up few answers to large questions, we have pretty much explored and discovered all our planet has to offer. However, the desire to explain the universe on the tiniest and largest scales we can imagine pulls us irresistibly toward this aspect of our nature. Add to that the surreal forces these discoveries are revealing and you have a recipe for a truly engaging and fascinating journey.
Anyone following the history of our discoveries knows that we seem to have four fundamental aspects to the questions. One aspect, space/time, we seem to have a fairly good grip on. The other three are matter, energy, and something else. The term for the something else is ‘dark’, and since our frame of reference doesn’t predict what this may be, we relate to it in the interim as either dark matter or dark energy, depending on our detection of the influence of gravity on the stuff our sensory arrays are unable to detect, yet the theories predict must be there.
That’s a lot of faith in theory, and this owes itself to the history of theory where solid mathematics may predict future observations with unnerving accuracy. And so far, so good, we are certainly predicting, as we have before, outcomes we are currently unable to observe. However, those sensitive to the mood and subtext that has historically marked the rivalries between leading scientists may have detected that there is a general feeling that this is as far as we can go. As we progress, as we discover, things are starting to unravel. The more we find, there becomes exponentially more to find. Continue on that path and logic dictates that a point is reached where the mysteries compound on such a scale or with such complexity that it is probable even millennia of accumulated discovery and knowledge will not reveal the fundamental truths.
Given that scenario, it may come to pass that the overall consensus is that there is no fundamental truth. It is, if you think about it, considerably more plausible than accepted theory. Everyone agrees with Einstein, that nothing can travel faster than light, just as everyone accepts Guth’s assertion that the universe did exactly that, for a good several hundred thousand years. The reason such dichotomous theories can co-exist, of course, is that the nature of physics then and now are unrelated, despite existing as they do in our realm, within our dimensions - at least partially- and within the lifetime of our universe. So both these ideas hold ground, yet the quest for the fundamental truths persists as if it was plausible to imagine such a notion exists. The further from intuition the theories evolve, the more fascinating the story and the less likely an end result may be attained. Still, it’s a fascinating story, and like any gripping series, we delight in the tale unfolding, not knowing how - or if - it ends.
The matter with matter
In considering the nature of matter and its relationship with energy and light, existing in space/time as it does, we must first shelve the idea that the term does not include the concept of patter. Our concept of lineage includes the role of patter, as Guth would argue, merely as a precursor to matter, and matter as we conceptually define in this age, from our perspective, holds no relationship with patter. It makes sense then that patter doesn’t matter, because patter, obviously, isn’t matter.
Another strange notion accepted widely, owing to clear mathematic models, is the former existence of anti-matter. Following Einstein, anti-matter must also be anti-energy, albeit energy multiplied by the square of the speed of light. So one anti-matter, in the mutual annihilation of one other matter, may also be referred to as one anti-gargantuan shunt of energy annihilating one gargantuan shunt of energy. The result in both cases is a silent and undetectable quantum blip, which is a little disappointing considering the massive energies involved.
In both cases, regardless of the quantities involved or the state of those quantities, neither matter nor the enormous energies are of any consequence. Anti-matter and matter, proximate to each other, effectively don’t matter. Anti-matter and matter distanced such that they do not mutually annihilate, will sooner or later become proximate and the outcome is the same. Our conclusion then is that all anti-matter and all matter don’t matter.
Not wishing to leave Einstein’s famous equation out of the mix, it should be noted that it follows the same holds true for energy, the larger proportion of which, mutually proportionate as it is, also doesn’t matter.
Of course, physicists will acknowledge these statements are true, it being a long held assertion that the discrepancy between matter and anti-matter, that being something like one part in a billion, accounts for all the atoms in the universe today. So the universe, multiplied by a billion, evaporated without so much as a squeak. If it weren’t for the fact that God’s scientific calculator could only handle seventeen digits either side of the decimal point, the universe would have annihilated itself the instant it sprang into existence. Guth would agree. There may have been billions of non-starters in his multi-dimensional multiverse argument. Or none. It’s a theory that cannot be proven, and would make little difference if it could, so it too doesn’t matter.
At some point, should the funding be acquired, it may be possible to prove that our billion-fold universe did actually squeak. If all matter was at that point a superheated super-dense hyper-inflating mass of electrons too dense to form atoms, then atoms were not capable of transmitting the squeak. However, if one accepts that sound requires a medium in which to transmit, and that the transmission of the sound becomes more efficient as the density of the material carrying that transmission increases, it may be equally plausible that the entire universe did emit a rather loud squeak the moment practically all of it vanished.
Or so it seemed. By all appearances, it didn’t actually vanish, it simply vanished from us. The label ‘dark matter’ is only dark because it is hidden from us, but it is there, it does exist. What it isn’t, of course, is matter, because matter, by its very nature, once proven to exist, exists. Guth is gleefully rubbing his hands here, as the nature of this form of matter, in his view, is conceivably matter smashed into another dimension in the process of this theoretical mutual annihilation. Hence detection without observation.
My argument is a little different. Whether or not it simply squeaked out of existence, rendering pointless the process of existence in the first place, or dumped into a dimension we are prevented from experiencing, the result is that it frankly doesn’t matter. That’s what dark matter actually is. It’s doesn’t matter. What physicists call dark matter is simply a label for their own inability to grasp the concept. In my view, the technical term is doesn’t matter, which is different, because it demonstrably does exist in this dimension, at this time, and it is widely known amongst humanity in the form of common sense. Dark matter is ‘we don’t know’, doesn’t matter is ‘we do know’ - besides this key difference, the physical and theoretical properties of the phenomenon are identical.
Conclusion
It therefore follows, thanks to our friend Einstein, that dark energy is also doesn’t matter, just potentially lots more of it. No great leap there. If Einstein were alive today, he’d be overjoyed that he has proven conclusively that energy, dark energy, dark matter and, as mentioned before, matter… are all, besides being the very fabric of this universe, doesn’t matter. This, in turn, means Einstein doesn’t matter, and the circle is complete. Thus the theory proves itself. Q.E.D.1
I was watching Professor Jim Al-Khalili's documentary series 'Atom' recently when I became aware of the repeated phrases centred on the notion of 'Counter-intuitive', and the history of science is presented as one enormous uphill battle against common sense - or, indeed, deductive reasoning This is the nature of advanced mathematics.
When he summarizes the series, Jim points out how each leap in thinking was at the hands of someone who 'flew against the prevailing wisdom of the day' (most notable are the conflicts between some scientists) and, more remarkably (in the case of Richard Feynman) sometimes didn't know what the equations actually meant. Jim says, "If the inventor of the theory doesn't understand it, what chance do we have?
He does neglect to mention that our dimension needn't apply in certain conditions- and hence we are compelled to consider that everything we take for granted may not necessarily be true. We've simply reached a point where theoretical physics now bears little relation to our dimension or plane of existence, IMHO..
Theoretical predication
Any solid theory should accurately predict observational data. As such, I’d like to go on record as stating, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, that even though it doesn’t matter, I would gratefully and with joy accept the Nobel Prize for Physics. Just because my acceptance speech would ipso facto include the notion that it doesn’t matter should not preclude either my nomination or acceptance. No physicist is bound to believe his own theory, nor, like Penzias/Wilson, actually have any idea what they're talking about, I mean if they can scoop the prize... anyway, as I have claimed here may have been proven ( by logic or accidentally thru sheer good luck), it doesn’t matter.
 |
| dark energy being mysterious, yet energetic |
Epilogue: Nothing matters
In the evidence for existence we turn to Descartes, who pondered how we might know if what we experience is real, or if it’s a dream. His conclusion hinged on independent thought, arguing ‘I think, therefore I am’. If I am capable of independent thought, I must exist within a dimensional plane, wherever that may be. If it’s a dream or it’s a reality verified by shared experience, in either case I nonetheless exist. Sentience must require existence.
No mention is made of the human tendency to think in language - the quality of our language determines the quality of our thoughts* - so by this measure sentience and language are linked and this is not necessarily true. But I digress.
* see Terence McKenna's endnote
There is, however, a potential flaw to his hypothesis, one that falls in with Guth’s notion of random physical laws governing each universe. Mankind’s reliance on mathematics, in the absolute world of numbers, may not be quite so absolute.
Logic, as far as we know, is a human construct and so far it has borne out with our observations. However, in a number of critical areas, it has broken down. The closer logic brings us to the big questions... where the universe came from, what is an elementary particle, are these dimensions all that exist, is this universe the only to exist, how does random seeding account for the precision of physical laws, how come life arrived so soon after our planet formed, why is it so tenacious here and, so far, nowhere else.... how is our existence hinged on a series of coincidental and wildly improbable events, why did we not find evidence of life on mars given her former atmosphere, oceans and proximity to seed, what happens at an event horizon, why do the answers recede faster than our approach, if inflation explains why the universe is larger, in light years, than it is old, does it not also point to the pliability of what we consider absolute, how do we know that mathematical logic is absolute, if other dimensions exist, why are they hidden and are we equally inaccessible to them and finally... why, when all our accumulated knowledge and mastery of numbers explains so much around us, do we call something a ‘singularity’ when the natural laws no longer apply? Surely, if natural laws don't apply, they're not natural laws but rather temporary states?
It’s not a singularity. It’s the failure of human logic to extend to such extremes. Back with Descartes, ‘I think therefore I am’... the term ‘therefore’ hinges on the same broken logic we assume is sound, whilst simultaneously discovering that the closer to the truth we get, the further from our domain we find ourselves. The big questions have answers, and so far the answers we’re getting is that what we think we know is wrong. It may not follow that the human logical construct ‘therefore’ has any more meaning than the term ‘coincidence’ explains how we got here. The first two words of Descartes’ treatise, ‘I think’ is the only aspect we may consider to be absolute, because this matches our experience. But as we get closer to the big bang and the nature of particles, the more we doubt the validity of ‘therefore’.
Albert Camus had this on his mind when he randomly walked up to an Arab on the beach and shot him in the head. He said he was 'overcome by the sun' but he did it to test his principal philosophy. While he was in prison serving time for the deed, he wrote ‘The Stranger’, which hinged on the principle of 'nothing matters'. And he was right, for in the universal scheme of things, his actions made no difference at all.
‘Killing an Arab’ from the album 'Standing on a Beach' by The Cure has lyrics I can recite from memory... I hope!
Standing on a beach with a gun in my hand
Staring at the sea, staring at the sand
Staring at myself reflected in the eyes
Of the dead man on the beach
I’m alive
I’m dead
I’m a stranger
Killing an Arab
I can turn and walk away or I can fire the gun
Staring at the sky, staring at the sun
Whichever I choose it amounts to the same
Absolutely nothing
 |
| Notice the title. Familiar? |
 |
| This is 'Standing on a Beach', the one we know ;] |
Terence McKenna - 'Language'
Terence McKenna discussing the relationship between perceived reality and language... “… and we worry about quarks and electromagnetic radiation…
All of this is entirely a fiction, none of this stuff exists. All that exists… are words.
We all here, I suppose, give great credence to quantum physics.
Is there anyone here who would care to explain to the group, several of the core doctrines of quantum physics? Or any core doctrine? And by ‘explain’ I don’t mean the verbal gloss, give me the hardcore stuff.
No-one’s coming forward and yet this is our truth. How crazy are you if your truth is something you can’t even understand? Who of them can explain what reality even is? Well, this is a head full of shit, this kind of thinking.
What we are dealing with is what Lichtenstein called ‘The Present at Hand’ Good phrase, it implies that only ‘that which can be grasped’ matters. And the quantum cannot be grasped, the boson, electromagnetic field… cannot be grasped. These are little shingles we’ve expoxied onto the face of the universal mystery, and you can’t see the face of the mystery any more, and they call that an explanation.”
Edit: 09 August 2015
The Awesomer posted this gem today:
 |
| Awesomer stuff is usually awesome. |
So 'science' is the new religion, then. Bet Dawkins is chuffed.
