Post by tjaman on Feb 8, 2007 23:23:33 GMT -5
Physics. Physics, physics, physics. Physics. Phyzziphyzziphyzziphyzziphyzziphyzziphyzziphyzziphyzzi Fizzzzzz-iks. I do hope someone's taking all this down.
-- Dr. Who, "School Reunion"
Dr. Draza Markovic explains how stellar movement makes perfect sense when dark matter is factored into the equation.
Cosmology Without Cosmetics
Why a Blemish on the Face of the
Universe Need Not Be a Bad Thing
Tonight Dr. Draza Markovic, associate professor of physics and astronomy at Minot State University -- I know! Who knew we even had an astronomy department? -- although we do have a tiny observatory north of the football field, so it sort of makes sense -- delivered a heavily accented 1-1/2 hour discussion on current cosmological mysteries in complete and total darkness. After supper.
I fought very hard to not nod off.
See, I love cosmology, despite being entirely unproficient in math. It stems from the same interest I have in theology. The nature of existence is a topic of endless fascination for me. But because "Grey's Anatomy" is on on Thursday nights I was trying to unload the conference on my education writer, who very sensibly told me that it didn't sound even a little bit interesting to her.
Fair enough. My VCR works just fine and while I can watch "Grey's" later, I'll have less control over the lecture to rewind or fast forward.
Sadly, as it turns out.
See, it was all terribly interesting. I'm sure. If you had better math than I have. And a weensy bit more patience with accents. Fortunately for me I'd chosen a seat way down in front because on top of everything else, the man refused to use a microphone and spent a good portion of the lecture facing the screen.
It was a smallish but increasingly less enthusiastic crowd -- he only got a couple questions at the end of the lecture, which was a good three times longer than it really should've been. I'd say there were probably about three dozen folks in attendance and I'm including the organizers.
But this is what we learned: The universe has been expanding for some time, powered by forces we don't understand.
I think the coolest thing we saw was a frame taken by the Hubble over the course of 11 days. It was a crystal clear shot of hundreds and hundreds of galaxies. He showed that to us right at the beginning where he explained they're all moving away from each other and we've been observing this since 1910.
What we've noticed in the past decade or so is that they're moving away from each other faster than the pull of gravity is attracting them. They've attributed this inflationary force to dark energy.
Also, we've observed in the movement of stars in the galaxies a force like gravity that cannot be attributed to anything. This has been attributed to dark matter.
And through powerful calculations, astrophysicists have determined that all the matter we can observe conventionally accounts for about 4 percent of the knowable universe. 73 percent of what we cannot observe may be attributed to dark energy -- in other words, the energy responsible for pushing the galaxies away from one another -- and stellar motion makes perfect sense if the universe is 23 percent dark matter -- that is, matter we cannot see and which does not itself in any way impede our view.
I am not going to say "Rubbish!" at this point.
He summed up by saying we three dozen or so needed to call our congressmen and demand millions of dollars to research these phenomena.
OK -- this is the point at which I'm going to say "Rubbish!"
He opened with a picture of the universe -- the best I've ever seen. It was glorious, and theoretical mathematicians could spend lifetimes exploring patterns in that jumble of fun.
It stands to reason that if 23 percent of the universe is dark matter, we're either going to have observed it already with what we've already spent, or it's not going to be observed at all.
Hell, 73 percent of intergalactic kinetics isn't attributable to anything.
What I've noticed in all of my reading is that as we've taken harder and harder peeps at subatomic particles, we reach a threshhold at which we can't actually observe anything. We learn that the atom is mostly empty space. And we assign "strong" and "weak" labels to forces that make no sense.
For example, in the nucleus of a carbon atom, there are six protons, all of them with a positive charge. Presumably some of the energy of an ancient supernova was absorbed in forcing these positive charges together in a stable gestalt because out here in the macroworld, like charges repel. Similarly, with electrons, every blessed one of them with a negative charge, even zipping around at endless speeds, in a few billion years, they'd have hit a nucleus at some point and stuck like glue because opposite charges attract out here in macroland.
And these are apparently called neutrons, but why isn't everything a neutron? How can nuclei exist with charges any greater than one? Our sun turns hydrogen into helium all the time in an ongoing fusion reaction and no one has ever explained to my satisfaction how that happens beyond there being pressures at work. Attempts to recreate the process in the lab have been disappointing.
So back to the lecture: If 73 percent of the forces at work in the universe can't be attributed usefully to anything, it stands to reason that it'd be going on in our own backyard as well. If 23 percent of what makes up the universe behaves like matter except for the fact that it cannot be observed in any way, it makes sense that when for every particle of conventionally observable matter there are six particles of unconventional matter, we'd have encountered some here.
I'm growing dissatisfied with the suggestion that it's extradimensional, although in the end that may be what's going on. If string theory won't work properly in anything less than 11 dimensions -- and mathematicians seem to want them rolled up subatomically -- then there probably are 11 dimensions if it explains everything else.
And I don't know that we can encounter some of them, because frankly, at the magnitudes we're discussing, everything we can observe is probably part of what's rolled up in something else.
I feel comfortable suggesting there's an exterior view of what's going on all around us. I've personally been a little unhappy with the notion that all the galaxies are moving away from one another as observed from any given one, because some of them must be moving away even faster from our perspective or there'd be more of them colliding with one another out there.
This is where things get dangerously theological. If there's an intelligence guiding all of this, it seems to have its hands full directing traffic. I'm all for the windup universe, myself.
It breaks down to this: If 96 percent of the universe hasn't been observed, I don't think it will be. Not with better telescopes, certainly not with better microscopes and not in anyone's lab.
It's hard to get a sense of exactly how it would be experienced, but I don't think it will be seen or felt. I don't think additional funding is going to get us there. At some point, observation becomes a blind alley, an instrument too blunt to aid in perception. After all of our observation, the nature of these forces are clearly unknowable in any conventional way.
The next breakthrough will have to be entirely unconventional, and I'll be intrigued to learn what it uncovers.
Darkened rooms and after-dinner speakers notwithstanding.
