The Dark Universe

avatar

fantasy-g72bc51f7f_1920.jpg
Source

We probably might have heard of concepts/entities such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy and maybe some other dark concepts/entities which i may not be aware of. These entities are of course found in our observable universe and they all seem to have something very much in common. They keep us mostly in the dark (knowledge-wise) by withholding important informations about themselves, especially with the fact that they don't reflect or emit radiations.

In our observable universe, when an observer - like us, and an object are far apart from each other in vacuum - no matter, to tell if that object exists, we need to gain physical informations from it, especially the objects physical properties. To gain these informations, there are two possibilities, which are, moving closer to the object or employing a messenger (something that carries information about the object and from the object to the observer), the latter being helpful when the observer and object are astronomically far apart from each other and greater speed is needed.

Have you ever wondered how it's possible that we have knowledge of what lies and happens beyond our planet, solar system and galaxy ? - despite the fact that we haven't visited those places. Yes, it's true that we have theories but for those theories to be accepted as facts, they need to be verified experimentally - as per the requirement of true science. So, how then do we confirm these theories, if we don't visit those places ?

It's very simple, we make use of messengers and one the most useful messenger, if not the most useful is radiation. Electromagnetic waves of which visible light is a part of happens to be the fastest thing in our universe. Mind you, even when we are closer to the object, we still need radiation like visible light to gain information from the object and it's because we have "eyes".

Every macroscopic object and most activities either emits or reflects radiations in vacuum, these radiations do actually carry informations about the object or activity. It is by this principle that experimental cosmology survives.

If an activity or object outside our planet doesn't emit/reflect any form of radiation, cosmologist give them weird names either containing words such as "black" or "dark".

For black holes, nobody knows exactly the kind of activities that goes on inside of it and it is because for now it's inside doesn't seem to emit or reflect any radiation, especially light/electromagnetic waves. As a matter of fact, if a radiation is to be observed from the inside of a black hole, then it would have to be moving at superluminal speed (speed greater than the cosmic speed limit a.k.a the vacuum speed of light). Black holes seem black on the inside with respect to an outside observer and it's why it's called a "black hole".

For dark matter - responsible for the weird motion (rotation) of galaxies, they also seem not to emit/reflect radiations. The only information cosmologists/physicists knows about them is that they only interact with normal matter gravitationally, other informations like it's physical description/properties (which includes whether it's a particle or not) is not yet known and it's because they don't reflect/emit radiations.

Dark energy - responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe/space has almost similar problems as that of dark matter. Because in our everyday experience, the presence of light gives us the opportunity to gain information about an object and in the dark (absence of light) we get otherwise, we therefore have the word "dark" in dark matter and dark energy.

In our previous article, we discussed about how very important motion is in our universe, we showed that everything from subatomic to galactic scale is constantly in motion and that motion is responsible for the existence of almost everything in our universe, we also showed that rest is a relative concept - we need motion to define it. Before rounding up in the article, a question was raised and it was that, If we assumed we existed in a multiverse - universes with infinite possibilities, can there exist a universe where the reverse of motion - rest, was the main ingredient of existence ?

Well, the question is more difficult than it seems and i like the comment made by our honorable member, who happens to be a founder/co-founder of this community - stemsocial, and also a physicist - particle physicist, he is none other than @lemouth, and i quote

That is an interesting question. I am tempted to say no, because I cannot imagine how this would work as I cannot see well how any composite system could form. But maybe this is my imagination that is too limited... ;)

Personally, i don't think anybody's imagination is limited, it's just that our universe to some extent made it seem that way (limited imagination) and it's probably because we reside in and constantly interact with it - our universe. The problem is somewhat similar to the problem of trying to visualize a higher than three spatial dimensions of space, it would be difficult because we are used to our common 3D space, which however is what our universe seems to be. Because it's difficult to visualize or that we don't observe it doesn't mean it can't be visualized.

Because motion seems to be fundamental for the existence of our universe, it can be considered a fundamental law of our universe. In a multiversal setting, the fundamental laws of different universes can be different - theoretically. While we can't tell if such a universe (universe with rest as main ingredient for existence) is certain to exist, what we can do at least is to extrapolate how such universe could look like. To do this, we would need another assumption and it's that our current understanding of motion, especially it's definition (given in our previous article) is not a universal concept but a multiversal one. Having established this, we then proceed and below are the very interesting properties of a universe with rest as main ingredient for existence.

Absence of time

In our universe, even though time is considered a dimension like that of space, it still fundamentally defines change and changes always takes place in our physical spacetime, which implies the constant existence of motion (especially of different kinds). In a universe where rest (no motion) is dominant, time can be thought of to be frozen or non-existent. In such a universe, there can be no such thing as past and future. If at all there are going to be activities, then these activities are happening simultaneously - in the present.

Ageless

In @lemouth's comment, he said and i quote

I cannot see well how any composite system could form.

By composite systems, he means macroscopic objects like your pen, biological systems, galaxies, planets, solar systems, e.t.c.

Well, if there are going to exist composite systems, then formation isn't necessary, as formation requires motion and time. In such a universe - where rest is dominant, it could be that composite systems had no beginning or were never formed, that is, they had been and would continue to be in existence. From an overall perspective, this universe can be considered to be in a state of it's beginning and end simultaneously. Everything in it (if at all there are things in it) are either ageless or possesses an age that is undefined, all i'm trying to say is that such universe is eternal.

Also, the constituents of this universe may be exotic - made up of things that can "only exist" in this kind of universe.

Motion Mimicking (Relativity)

In our universe, it was once believed here on Earth (in the past) that it was our sun that revolved around the our planet (Earth) instead of otherwise, why was it so ?

To understand why, let's use a common scenario, we all must have been in a moving vehicle before, in that moving vehicle when you look through the window, you notice that stationary objects like a tree is moving but in the opposite direction to that of your moving vehicle. This effect is due to relative motion but do you know that if you happened to have just come into existence inside the moving vehicle without the knowledge of relative motion, you would swear with your life that the tree was actually moving, this was what happened in the past.

This same phenomenon due relative motion can affect how we observe the universe dominant with rest, this is if such universe is observable. If we observe a universe dominant with rest from our universe that is dominant with motion, we can have a false belief that there's motion in the universe dominant with rest. As matter of fact, the universe dominant with rest can falsely mimic the motion of any moving body but in the opposite direction.

Darkness

Around the beginning of this article we discussed about radiations and how important they are, especially when trying to gain information from the object emitting/reflecting it, we explored it (radiations) to better understand this part of the article. In a universe where rest is dominant, radiation cannot move, even if it exists and so gaining information about what happens in such a universe from outside is "impossible". Even if you go inside, you would get destroyed into nothingness because you need motion to exist, likewise every other object that depends on motion for it's existence. This property of this universe is somewhat analogous to that of black holes, dark matter and dark energy and so therefore, this kind of universe can be considered a dark universe. This universe seems more deadlier than a black hole - objects from outside can get destroyed into nothingness.

What a dark and interesting universe, i hope you guys enjoyed it. As a sci-fi movie lover, i would love to see this kind of universe portrayed in a movie, if you happened to know a sci-fi movie that portrays this kind of universe you can refer me to it. Also, if you have any questions or things to add with regards to this article you are always welcome.

We thus conclude this article at this point, have a thoughtful day and see you next time.

For further reading

Black hole

Dark energy

Dark matter

Galilean invariance

Thank you all once again for stopping by to read my jargons and also thank you @juecoree, @lemouth and the @Steemstem team for your valuable supports.

1638968149085.png
Source

Lastly, please don't forget to do the needful
Upvote
Comment
Reblog
If you enjoyed my jargons.

1624295563136_3.png



0
0
0.000
15 comments
avatar

Interesting blog, to which I have a couple of comments. But before, please let me come back to and clarify one point.

By composite systems, he means macroscopic objects like your pen, biological systems, galaxies, planets, solar systems, e.t.c.

Actually, I was not necessarily referring to macroscopic objects. Any composite objects, including subatomic ones.

And now please let me discuss the items with which I am getting in troubles in the reasoning:

Everything in it (if at all there are things in it) are either ageless or possesses an age that is undefined, all i'm trying to say is that such universe is eternal.

Is the universe supposed to be born as such, i.e. no big bang, no expansion, etc. Of course, we can just say "it just is" as there is no time, thus no history. And of course no physics as we know it too. I am therefore teasing you by asking about the purpose of such a universe description, as it would not describe nature or anything.

If we observe a universe dominant with rest from our universe that is dominant with motion, we can have a false belief that there's motion in the universe dominant with rest.

This is weird. How to observe it at all, go inside, or anything?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Actually, I was not necessarily referring to macroscopic objects. Any composite objects, including subatomic ones.

I understood and maybe i didn't put it well. The original intention was to give a clearer picture of what you were talking about, especially to non-physicists.

I am therefore teasing you by asking about the purpose of such a universe description, as it would not describe nature or anything.

Fortunately, this is an interesting teaser question. I don't know for sure but what if it's partly the reason for the expansion of the "multiverse", that is, to avoid any universe and it's inhabitants, especially those that depends on motion for their existence from getting in contact with such a universe. Or it could be that the king of death - death of everything, resides there - I'm teasing you here 😂.

This is weird. How to observe it at all, go inside, or anything?

It's indeed very weird, part of the reasons why i would call it a dark universe. I'm afraid that anything requiring motion for it's existence (including you and i) would not live to tell the story. Such entities are more likely to vanish into nothingness when they get inside, though from our reference frame. Or maybe @lemouth if you happened to come across such a universe, you could try and go inside, who knows the kind of superpowers you may possess there - probably the power to manipulate fundamental laws. 😉

0
0
0.000
avatar

Haha! Thanks for coming back to me. At the end the problem you rose with this post is a very good food for thoughts. That is the least we can tell (I am still thinking and don't know). I am still very uncomfortable with several of the points you made, but I have no good argument to bring in the discussion too.

Or it could be that the king of death - death of everything, resides there - I'm teasing you here

I actually prefer pink unicorns... ;)

Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

You kinda remind me of Einstein

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!

Please consider delegating to the @stemsocial account (85% of the curation rewards are returned).

You may also include @stemsocial as a beneficiary of the rewards of this post to get a stronger support. 
 

0
0
0.000
avatar

I always find this connection between motion and time quite intriguing. Kant himself reasoned to the existence of time like so: "Changes are real. Changes are only possible in time. Therefore time must be something real." So, again, he based it on changes, on motion.

But that sometimes feels like saying that if we didn't have centimeters, distance wouldn't exist. It feels like time must exist whether or not something is moving or changing. I mean, consider the following: something moves in the universe (so now time exists) and then it stops (so now time doesn't exist). Then, after a while (during which time time didn't exist), something moves again. So, if time doesn't exist unless something moves, it means that there was no pause between the first move and the second move. So, for all we know, what I did a second ago could've happened a billion years ago, because if it did happen a billion years ago, and then everything stopped, and then resumed, time wouldn't exist during those billion years, because there was no motion. So, in a way, it's impossible for motion to stop completely, because we'd have no way of knowing it. Non-motion could only happen in non-time, i.e. never! Hope this thought experiment makes sense!

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Your thought experiment is flawed, in that it fails to take into account important factors, such as the observers reference frame, memory and volition - for we the conscious beings/observers, and others. As a matter of fact, your understanding of time is to some extent in line with the kind that was believed in before the advent Einstein's theories of relativity and it was greatly advocated by Isaac Newton. That kind of time is referred to as Newtonian time, where time is considered to be absolute - the same for all observers and independent - it exists without dependency on anything including motion. Although before Newton, Galileo had discovered that time just like motion can be relative - not absolute, his theory is now referred to as Galilean invariance/relativity. Galilean invariance is an extension of Newtonian mechanics without regards to the speed of light in vacuum and Einstein's theories of relativity are extensions of Galilean invariance - taking into account the vacuum speed of light as maximum speed limit.

Now back to your thought experiment.

something moves in the universe (so now time exists)

First of all, this is from the perspective of an observer "outside" the moving object. If the something is moving in uniform motion (technically uniform velocity), an observer "inside" the moving something cannot tell if he's in motion or not, in most cases he says he is not in motion, this is due to Galilean invariance and it's why despite the fact that our planet is in motion we still don't notice it. So therefore, it's only an observer "outside" of the something moving uniformly that can say with certainty that the something is moving. If in our reference (on Earth) we are at rest and time only exist when there's motion, then how do we still observe time ?

It basically has to do with the changes (motion) happening around us, note that we are not inside those things that are changing - we are outside them. With respect to time of the day (the one your wall clock reads), it's because "relatively" our sun is moving around our planet - your wall clocks are basically cliberated based on this motion (sun and Earth). Other types of time we observe are different from the time of the day, they are either called duration or interval and it's because they mostly exist for a limited period, e.g the time it takes when you move from your house to your work place. But that doesn't mean that because we exist inside a moving object we can't tell if it's in motion, we can tell if such object was accelerating - not moving uniformly.

then it stops (so now time doesn't exist).

Time doesn't exist to an observer that just came into existence after the motion (when motion stops). Here such observer wasn't aware/lacks memory that there was motion initially, in this state (no motion) he doesn't observe any change and can't tell time exists.

Then, after a while (during which time time didn't exist), something moves again. So, if time doesn't exist unless something moves, it means that there was no pause between the first move and the second move.

Here, it's still the same observer at first motion, no motion and second motion. For the observer to tell if there's no motion, he originally had knowledge of the first event (first motion) that happened, to tell if changes had occurred there must be something new which are the no motion state and second motion otherwise the observer cannot tell the difference between first motion, no motion and second motion. In this case, the memory of the observer has a role to play, if not for his memory, he can't distinguish between different events. Also there's what is called volition - the belief that whatever you do today affects tomorrow, this volition began a long time ago when man first started keeping track of time, especially time of the day and it has been a belief to this day, remember that the time of the day is on the other hand due to the relative "motion" of our planet and our sun. Memory and volition, especially for "the same" observer have roles to play and that's why there never appears to be a pause between the first motion and second motion in your thought experiment. Your thought experiment seems to be mostly based on your own experience in our universe, it's not really an ideal thought experiment to probe time and motion, plus you seem to be lacking in your knowledge of modern physics, especially relativity .

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes my thought experiment was like an 'everyman's' thought experiment. Of course I know that in modern physics time and the other 3 dimensions are entangled (space-time), but I still preferred to base my thoughts on 'intuitions'. I also realized that the observer was always presupposed in the thought experiment, and if there's an observer then there necessarily is motion (like his eyes, his brain neurons, etc.), but it's probably impossible to make any thought experiment without an observer!

I think I understand most of your responses, but I don't know if I'm entirely clear on your reply to the 'stop-start universe' let's call it. Let's say that in our universe now, the one you and I inhabit, absolutely everything stopped moving right now. And then, after some 'time', everything started moving again. In fact, let's say that this happens to our universe every single second. For every second of motion, there are 'billions of years' of non-motion. There's no way, it seems to me, for us to know that this is not happening. We could be living in such a universe and not know it. Of course, I can't imagine such a universe without an external observer, because I am that observer! And how do I know those billions of years exist? Because there's motion in my head, I'm thinking consecutive thoughts, I'm maybe restless and jittery because I'm waiting for billions of years for this universe to start again, etc. But I don't know what this means exactly. Does it mean that, if we remove the observer, then those billions of years simply cannot exist, because time cannot exist without motion? On the one hand I can imagine everything just stopping, I don't feel there is anything logically contradictory in everything stopping, and remaining like that for a long 'time', but on the other hand I understand that we, as observers, can't detect time without motion, so if everything stopped, including us, then started again, there would in fact be no pause: if everything stops at the same time, there is no stop. In other words, it is impossible for the whole universe to stop. Things can only stop in relation to something that remains moving, because if nothing remains moving, then time does not exist for something to be stopped during that time. Therefore motion will always exist. There is no time during which there will be no motion anywhere. Therefore, the universe will always exist, and has always existed.

Thank you for your always detailed replies, and awaiting your next one.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I don't quite get the purpose of your thought experiment, is it meant to show that time depends on motion or not?

From what i can observe from your thought experiment and your conclusions, time depends on motion.

Let's say that in our universe now, the one you and I inhabit, absolutely everything stopped moving right now. And then, after some 'time', everything started moving again.

If everything stops moving in our universe, nothing would exist including you and I. If the universe comes back into motion and we are to exist again, then the universe would have to start all over from the beginning - big bang, and our memories would be reset. Who then is making the measurement of time throughout the whole event?, Is it an observer outside our universe or we in a reset universe ?

In fact, let's say that this happens to our universe every single second. For every second of motion, there are 'billions of years' of non-motion.

I would assume, the one second observed in our universe is with respect to an observer outside of our universe, the question now is, the billions of years you speak of, is with respect to what observer ?

so if everything stopped, including us, then started again, there would in fact be no pause

There would be no pause with respect to the observer outside our universe because of his memory and volition, with those properties, he can combine all the events (before and after reset) and it would appear continuous - no pause. But for we in the universe, there would be pause because our memories have been reset (memory of the first motion is lost) when the universe started again.

Therefore motion will always exist. There is no time during which there will be no motion anywhere. Therefore, the universe will always exist, and has always existed.

The last time I checked, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old and it started with the big bang, it indeed had a beginning and it may have an end, it has not always being in existence. Now, you can see that your flawed thought experiment has led to a false conclusion. As at the moments of existence of our universe, motion is very necessary, that is, no motion, no existence (including our time : not including the time of an observer outside of our universe) but that doesn't mean our universe never had a beginning or would never have an end.

Like I said before you seem to be lacking in your knowledge of physics. If you still don't understand everything I've said here, then there's nothing much i can do and as consequence, i may not reply your next comment regarding this same issue - your thought experiment.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't quite get the purpose of your thought experiment, is it meant to show that time depends on motion or not?

The purpose of the thought experiment was for me to try and understand things better, for example by asking whether something strange would follow from assuming that 'time does not exist if there's no motion'. So I asked you, since you seem to know more about this than I do.

Another question that I forgot to ask: why do you say that we would have no memory? If all the neurons etc. are in place, why won't starting them up again revamp all the memories that are encoded in the brain?

My knowledge of physics is indeed very superficial. But, strangely, it often turns out that my superficial knowledge is much deeper than the 'deep knowledge' others have. I'm not saying this is true in this case, just speaking generally.

Also, one doesn't need to know anything about physics to understand time. Once, a mathematician told me that the circle has been squared. I asked for details, and he gave me taxicab geometry. I said that the taxicab geometry 'proof' could just as easily be construed as a proof that something about the definition of 'circle' is lacking. It's a decision, and mathematicians and scientists do it all the time. For example if there are 2 good solutions to a problem, but one solution leads to a dead end, and another solution leads to opening many further research opportunities, mathematicians and scientists will always prefer the latter. No one knows what physicists will think about time in 100 years. But the important thing is that 'circle' is not something that belongs only to mathematicians, they are not the only ones who have the right to define 'circle'. The same is true of time: we all experience it, it belongs to all of us, we can use logic to think about it, we don't need to know anything about physics, just as Darwin didn't need to know anything about genes to know that natural selection was real. I think you will agree with me that the circle definitely has not been squared, nor can it ever be squared, because that would just be ridiculous (illogical). That is true despite the fact that my knowledge of mathematics is very superficial.

To see if I understand your conclusion: are you saying there was a time when the universe didn't exist? And are you saying there will be a time when then universe won't exist?

I appreciate your time and your effort at explaining things to me. It's okay if you don't reply to this.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Maybe another way to phrase my last question is like so:

Does the question "Did the universe exist 14 billion years ago?" have any meaning? Is it possible to answer such a question? Do physicists have an answer to that question?

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

For now, our universe seems to have no information about it's existence beyond 13.8 billion years ago. So yes, the universe existing 14 billion years ago is meaningless for us inside of it, "for now".

I don't totally blame us for having different perceptions of the same things and still call them facts, after all, why do we have subjective consciousness. Anyways, good luck with your "superficial knowledge", who knows the kind of discoveries you may make.
0
0
0.000