Skip to main content

5) Dark Matter: The Big Bang

Once we begin considering the possibility that galactic gravity wells could somehow be independent of the matter within them, a few more questions immediately surface.
  1. Could gravity wells predate the matter within them?
  2. Why does matter seem to always live in these gravity wells rather than more evenly cover the emptiness of intergalactic space?
  3. Why do they rotate?
  4. And of course, what causes them?
Surprisingly, none of these questions are difficult to answer within the context of our current line of reasoning. There are in fact, agreeable, and what seem to be quite plausible answers to all of them. Note that I will not get to all of these questions within this particular post, but will eventually address each of them within this Dark Matter series.

In terms of the Big Bang, all the matter in the Universe is nothing more than a debris field. On first glance, this debris appears to be remarkably evenly distributed. But on closer inspection we find that although the galaxies that constitute the observable Universe are somewhat evenly distributed, matter on the whole is not. Matter seems to coalesce into galaxies, it does not evenly blanket the emptiness of space.

This seems odd. Without enough matter to account for the gravity within galaxies, why would matter coalesce at all? If all matter did indeed originate from the Big Bang, then it seems that the Universe should appear to be more splotchy that it is; that we should expect to see vast intergalactic regions of space filled with matter (probably hydrogen), interrupted by the presence of an occasional galaxy, which will have swept the immediately-surrounding area clear of debris during its own formation. But we don't; intergalactic space appears to be quite clean.

Perhaps we should take a step back.

If we accept the notion that all matter in the Universe could have begun as a single theoretical point, a singularity (as Big Bang theory suggests), and that everything we see today, at one time existed in this condensed, ethereal state, then we have demonstrated a tremendous ability to accept the extraordinary.

I call hypotheses and theories such as this, Cold Water Theories; meaning, on first exposure to them they are somewhat shocking, but after a while we adjust to them and begin to feel as though they are far less extraordinary than they actually are. This is like diving into a pool of cool water. At first, the experience is quite shocking, but in a matter of only a few minutes we adjust to the temperature and feel quite comfortable.

The notion that all of the matter in the Universe originated from a singularity is an extraordinary concept, to say the very least. It is a Cold Water Theory. It is probably the best explanation so far for how the Universe could have evolved to its current state, especially in light of its phenomenal rate of expansion. And, there certainly are more than a few observations that appear to substantiate the notion of a Big Bang. Things such as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), the CMB Dipole Anisotropy, the blackbody Spectral Energy Distribution (SED), and so on (I will eventually address each of these and a few others). The question is, is there any value in refuting such a firmly entrenched theory? And if so, what motivation could there be for doing so?

Indeed, there is only one. If Big Bang theory were correct, then I would be perfectly willing to accept it. But the Big Bang is not some random theory, chosen as an arbitrary target from a field of candidate theories to attack; any more than any reasonable person would attack the theories of Gravitation or the Germ Theory of Disease. The problem is that the Big Bang explains some things quite well, but completely misses on many other things - too many things to ignore.

My assertion is that there may be a better explanation; one that raises fewer exceptions than the Big Bang. The Big Bang was a good start, and although it does answer certain questions quite well, there are too many others that it cannot, which cannot be ignored.

Could there be another explanation that plausibly answers these same questions, but also moves us further down the road towards answering some of the questions that Big Bang theory cannot?

I believe there is.
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

15) Dark Matter: Spacetime Cavitation

All prior posts in this Dark Matter series are summarized as follows: Spacetime Cavitation Summary Galaxies begin as regions of  Spacetime Cavitation  resulting from Universal Expansion, often taking on whirlpool-like shapes, which reflect the underlying curvature and motions of Spacetime itself, upon and within which they are formed (see image below). Matter has a counterpart within the realm of non-material Spacetime. When subjected to extreme cavitation, an applicable unit of Spacetime is converted into its material counterpart (mass and/or energy). Said another way:  Matter is a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation . This counterpart is almost always hydrogen and/or radiation. With respect to galaxy formation, hydrogen produced as a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation, which generally lacks sufficient mass to coalesce into stars by reason of its own gravitation when sparsely distributed, instead reacts to the Gravity Well within which it was produced, spiraling and c...
Read more

4) Dark Matter: Another Catalyst

To this point we have not discussed anything new; only clarified the importance of thinking of gravity in the correct context. Rather than visualizing gravity as the attraction of two bodies, we are now thinking of bodies such as stars and planets traveling along the inside of Gravity Wells - a well-known concept. This means, we have only restated the problem in less abstract, less obscure terms. It turns out that this analogy holds up remarkably well; like rolling a marble along the inner surface of a physical bowl, it will travel around the bowl until it eventually loses momentum and settles to the bottom, or if it is tossed too hard, roll over the edge of the bowl and escape it altogether. If the marble could somehow be rolled with just the right force (momentarily overlooking friction), it could settle into a point of equilibrium, having just the right amount of angular velocity to maintain a constant distance from the bottom of the bowl and its outer edge. This perfect velocit...
Read more

3) Dark Matter: Gravity Wells

These depressions in space (gravity wells) express the classical understanding of gravitation (Relativistic, not Newtonian), which suggests that gravity is not a measure of the force of attraction between two bodies, it is instead a measure of the force with which two bodies fall into the larger gravity well produced by the overlapping of their two individual gravity wells. This means that we could essentially describe the riddle of Dark Matter in another way, by simply saying that we cannot explain how the gravity depressions in which galaxies exist can be deep enough to prevent the spinning matter within them from over-spilling their boundaries. So, before tackling the question of how these depressions can exist at all, we should first ask an even more basic question. If we concede that such depressions  do  exist, then perhaps we can first attempt to understand whether the matter within galaxies behaves according to our understanding of gravitation. In other words, start ...
Read more