Log in

The Theory of 'Most Things' (Revised introduction to my theory of Dark Matter)

Jan. 6th, 2013 | 07:27 pm


(Image credit here.)

For many years, the String Theory has been a popular topic amongst quantum physicists. It explains the beauty of how our universe is interconnected, breaking from the Standard Model that represents atoms as singular, focused points.

Unfortunately, there are several problems with this structure. For one, there is nothing to prove or explain why protons, electrons and neutrons should be confined into a limiting shape of a sphere. For another, it does not efficiently combine quantum mechanics with General Relativity.

A ‘string’ is theorised to be several billionths smaller than the size of an atom. As the name suggests, these strings are in the form of a thread or a loop. It vibrates in varying degrees, and each vibration is unique to another. The way the string vibrates is vital to determine what it will create. Say, the strings that make up an electron will vibrate one way, and the strings that make up a proton will vibrate the other.

The String Theory allows fluidity to the Universe’s structure, and has managed to branch into many other ambitious theories such as the Membrane Theory, Parallel Universes and the Eleven Dimensions, hence why the String Theory has been renowned, cheekily, to be the ‘Theory of Everything’.

Now that sounds like a bizarre claim, and even more bizarre yet is what the theory told us. The idea of having a parallel universe sounds outrageous, incomprehensible to many. But for most theoretical scientists, parallel dimensions was like the perfect key to the lock. How did scientists come to think of the existence of parallel dimensions? Taking the structure of the string into account, the string needs enough room to oscillate and it cannot be restricted to the simple three dimensions. See it like the violin string, as you pluck it, the string appears to be in several places at once. This is what the string theory theory suggests, that the very atoms that make us up can be in several places at once.

Frankly I’m not about to go too in depth with this as there are several other things that I want to cover as well. Recently I’ve managed to formulate a theoretical hypothesis that would combine most, if not all, of the existing theories man has offered to date. This theory in particular focuses a lot on Dark Matter, one of the most puzzling phenomenons in modern science.

What do people know already about Dark Matter?

Essentially, there has been evidence of its presence. Taking a look around you now, the mass that you see, say the table or the chair that you’re sitting on, is what scientists call ‘baryonic matter’. Baryonic matter, astoundingly, only accounts for 5% of the mass in our Universe. Without Dark Matter, we’ll be unable to explain almost 95% of the remaining mass.

This is because of one huge problem, that in fact Dark Matter is ineffectively intangible. It does not reflect light so we are unable to see it, the only way we can identify it is by its gravitational forces.

So what is Dark Matter, really? Is it simply some form of matter that science has not discovered yet? A lot of theories speculate this; some notable candidates are the hypothetical particle WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and gravitons, the hypothetical particle that explains gravity. I am not dismissing these theories, but there are many flaws in them. The one that I have not only explains the missing mass, but also the increasing rapid expansion rate of the Universe while keeping true to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

Last year, OPERA announced the ground-breaking results of neutrinos measured to be faster than the speed of light. A documentary soon followed that, and one theory that struck me was Michael Duff’s connection to M-theory. The M-theory explains that our Universe is in a shape of a membrane, this is drawn from the model of the string and how these connect to create a ‘cloth-like’ structure. In the experiment with OPERA, protons were fired and then split into the fundamental particles. The force needed to split a proton is immense, and therefore throwing the neutrino temporarily out of our dimension into the ‘bulk’, the void between dimensional membranes.

Objects with mass can, theoretically, travel without limitations in the 'bulk', seeing as it a giant vacuum and Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not apply. Along with this the wall of the membrane of our universe was curved, allowing objects to cut across from one end to another, much like a wormhole.

So how does this relate to my theory of Dark Matter?

Well, the general idea of it is that dark matter is simply matter borrowed from other universes, intangible, on another plane from our dimension. It correlates with theory of supergravity, where it suggests that the force of gravity is borrowed from other dimensions, which would explain why it is so weak in comparison to other forces. The theoretical particle, 'graviton' has a spin of 2, and that it is detached from a dimensional plane, allowing it to seep through without binding to it.

Now consider the Big Bang where, at one point in spacetime, was a massive explosion that propels mass out of nothing and causing it to expand across our plane. Where did this mass come from? Stephen Hawking states that mass cannot come from nothing, it is mathematically impossible. The most plausible of answer is that mass had come from other dimensions, likely from the collision of two super-universes, in result of the explosion I believe we are merely debris cast aside from that


(Image credit by me)

What makes me so certain that we are but debris of two super-giants? For one, it takes a lot of mass to expel mass, and also taking the fact that the mass of black holes contain considerably more than the amount of mass of the star that was present before it. When a star explodes, the same process happens just as a hadron collider does when smashing two protons together. It creates a rip in our dimension. However, the force of a star exploding is obviously much greater than the force of splitting a proton, and the hole created cannot be reversed as easily as it is being slowly pulled in to the other universe, unlike the neutrino that was thrown out of our universe yet still bound to us as it wasn't thrown that far.

What is also notable is the formation of a galaxy, and it is believed that there is a super massive black hole at the centre of one. Understandably so, because it is the pull of the intense gravitational force at the centre that is pulling stars inside. It is also noted that the presence of dark matter is higher around galaxies.

What happens with a black hole is like a process of reverse-osmosis (osmosis being where high water concentration passes through a semi-permeable membrane to low water concentration).


(Image credit here.)

So if dark matter is just the gravitational pull from the higher concentration solution (the universe with greater mass than ours), and without the 'tear' to connect us to that membrane, we cannot 'touch' dark matter because it is not matter on our plane but yet we can still detect its force

Now consider the formation of how our universe is currently expanding:


(Image credit here.)

It is known that our universe, in contrary to initial belief, is actually expanding faster throughout time. Yet this is not understood yet. Take note of the structure.

Consider this: Imagine the ripple of a water droplet falling into a puddle. As you get closer to the point where the water droplet had fallen, the ripples are much more curved and eventually it evens out as you go further away. Now imagine that there are two water surfaces, and these two water surfaces are the membranes of two universes. Where the surfaces' ripples are closer, the greater the gravitational force.


(Image credit by me.)

How does this explain why our universe expansion rate is increasing? Simple enough: As the forces of gravity lessens, so does the quantity of 'dark matter'. It is thought that dark matter was much greater in presence around the time of origin, but a mysterious energy called 'dark energy' is overtaking and is believed to be propelling us further. In my theory, dark matter and dark energy is the same thing, the force of gravity weakening as we move further away from the gravitation pull of the other universe that is keeping our structure stable.


(Image credit here.)

(NOTE: TBC BUT SAVING IT FOR NOW AND DON'T WANT TO LOSE DRAFT. Also Kelly is calling me obsessed so I better stop for the night.)

Link | Leave a comment | Share

My Theory

Nov. 12th, 2011 | 10:42 pm

My Theory on Dark Matter

I want to share my rambles and theories. I don't care if some of you don't understand. Just shut up and deal with it.

(Copy pasted from my earlier ramble)

It may be talked about and discovered already, but I still thought of the idea myself like an epiphany and fuck everyone else who thought it too. So here we go:

So I just thought of this theory of how dark matter came to existence and may explain the properties why it has a large mass, undetectable, and also explain where the energy goes to after the moment of Big Bang. It was theorised with the experiment with the neutrino being faster than light that the neutrino was temporarily thrown into another dimension at the moment the particle split. Being in this separate dimension, it gives the illusion that the neutrinos traveled faster (and obviously indicating the different physical properties that the dimension is made up of). The moment the atom split was like an explosion, very much akin to the Big Bang, just on a much smaller scale. So at the moment the Big Bang happened, if going by the theory of temporary opening to other dimensions, the dark matter might possibly come from another dimension but not this. It also plays on the theory that gravity is merely borrowed from other dimensions, hence explains why it is so weak compared to other forces.

So what if dark matter, this invisible 'substance' that has a mass, has a gravitational pull, is simply gravity borrowed from another universe? It leaks into our universe because of the opening at the moment of the Big Bang, this also explains why the universe is expanding because as the neutrino did in our dimension, skipping from here to the other before returning, the lingering forces of borrowed gravity is doing the same. Having the gravity slowly leaving us throughout the billions of years, there are less gravitational forces and 'mass' to keep the universe together in shape, and hence the planets are expanding faster. This also makes me speculate that the dimension from where the gravity comes from is much denser than ours, indicating that all the parallel universes have different properties. The fact that we have so much of the gravity compared to the regular mass we see here.

So as the gravity returns to the universe, it explains that energy is a cycle, and would explain the continuing event of a Big Bang, It's a cycle, there was no definite beginning.

If going by the parallel universe theory, be it that we're separated into membranes, I see that whatever areas that has the most gravitational influence from the other dimension is where the branes are much closer. That explains why, if we create enough vibrations in the 'strings' from explosions as splitting an atom, then the walls of our brane will briefly interact with the other. This will explain why and how the neutrino escapes into the other dimension very briefly, and oscillates between our membrane to the other, before coming back.

This defines the explanation of energy being recycled. The walls of our membrane is shaken by the Big Bang, but over time it dies down and the gravitational influences from the other brane decreases as the brane walls settles.

GOT THAT OFF MY CHEST. I feel so much better.

Link | Leave a comment {1} | Share

Albert Einstein and MBTI and the Flaws of Society

Nov. 9th, 2011 | 09:29 pm

So, continuing from the previous post, I'm here to talk about my idol.

It might not be for the reason that you think, as people look up to Einstein for his achievements. For me, however, I look up to him for more than that: His lifestyle and history.

Most people see Einstein as the scientific genius, the 'crazy professor' who lived in his own world, and most importantly of all, his well-known 'Theory of Relativity'.

His discovery was supreme and had shaped modern science entirely. For this, people wonder, how did his brain work? Strange that someone who couldn't finish school would think of something like this. What must have he been doing? Was he purposefully failing school? He can't have been that smart, to not even complete standard education that so many of us have.


Intelligence is so much more than how well a person completes school work.

Let's look at the fundamental question: What is school, really?

The Education System

School is a structure. Despite common belief that education and society are becoming more flexible, they really are just as stiff as they were from the start.

Sure, we have more options to choose from now. We can decide what route to take into college, ranging from English, to Art, Drama, Science, Languages, to more specific fields as Engineering, Neuroscience, Games Design, Concept Art, Architecture... there's even a course for Harry Potter!

So why do I say that education is still as inflexible as it was?

The way that we're taught in school does not work for everyone, believe it or not. And no, it's not because we're stupid. It's far from that really.

Conventional intelligence means being able to focus and get the work done. It has little to do with your IQ, not that I'm denying that your IQ has its role, but it's not important as people make it to be. Einstein had an IQ of 160, an average person graduating from university has an IQ of 115 (approximately).

It boils down to the fact that Einstein couldn't fit well into the school system. The way his brain works just cannot cope with the tedious, trivial lay out of education. His mind is constantly bouncing around, bringing more of his subconsciousness into his thought process than other people. How was he supposed to sit through lessons where they taught things that didn't matter?

I have the same thought process as him. I cannot concentrate in school. Yet it has nothing to do with how stupid I am. Should the time come for the deadline, I can do the work fine and usually come out with decent grades without studying. School is boring, easy, and largely unnecessary, in my opinion. Simply by having a different wiring of the brain than most other people means that we cannot live in the conventional way of society. Getting a job requires the same fundamental principle of how well you can concentrate, and hence bringing in your EQ potential instead of IQ.

The worst bit is, some people just cannot see the flaws, and think that everyone who cannot pass school is obviously stupid. Seriously.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Dark Matter/Energy and String Theory

Nov. 9th, 2011 | 09:26 pm

What is Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

It's theorised that dark energy and dark matter were both present at the Big Bang.

Dark matter holds a mass, but that is the only way we can detect its presence. Scientists have only identified its existence from the peculiar patterns of stars and galaxies.  

Mass, as we know, means gravity and pulls objects towards it. Scientists calculated that the mass detected from a star was far greater than their predictions. Through some extensive research, they have concluded that there are other 'invisible' masses at play, and that it would account for the unexplained formation of the universe. Light cannot pass through dark matter, and has been proven so when scientists monitored the frequencies from distant stars. Only, the frequency was distorted, and that the light rays bent itself over an invisible mass.

There is  a great deal more of dark matter/energy than to the physical particles you can see, taking up 95% of the universe and only 5% is what we know. There has been an unexplained phenomenon that the universe is expanding at a faster rate instead of slowing down than initially theorised, if going by the conventional laws of physics. So not only is the mystery of dark matter is in play, but also dark energy; a force that is thought to be pushing our universe faster apart and gaining momentum.

What people think is happening is that right at the beginning at the Big Bang when particles of matter were much closer together, the forces of gravity would have been much greater and thus overpowering the surge of dark energy. As the universe expands, the dark energy begins to overtake the binding force and propels us further into the abyss of space. Now brings up the question: What is the fate of our universe? The Big Crunch or the Big Freeze?

So there's been a recent launch of a global project: The race  to detect dark matter. This basically is as it is, many scientists from all over the world are now on the hunt for dark matter, and to identify its mysterious qualities. Only, I see many things that they're doing wrong. They are taking the same bloody approach to how they executed the experiment before. Yes, so they're launching the operation into space, where there are understandably much less disturbance from things such as radiation as we have on earth. The initial experiment taken part in underground labs where the rocks reduces the disturbances. Tactful of them to relocate to space, but honestly, using almost the exactly the same method as they did before? Come on, guys.

The way they're trying to detect the dark matter is through slim chance. They're using highly dense natural crystals (silicon and germanium) and wait out for any particles that interfere with it. The crystals are cooled, so if any particle was to hit any of the atoms, there would be a heat detection. The problem is, the crystals cannot distinguish what had hit it, be it a background radiation or a WIMP particle.

Long story short: This method is silly. It's like a kid blundering around in the middle of a pitch black football stadium trying to find a single pin.

So instead of walking around blindly, why can't we take another approach, say perhaps, shining some light?

We know that dark matter is currently undetectable, so how are we supposed to be looking for something we simply cannot see? Do wereally need to launch an experiment into space? What if dark matter was closer to earth than we thought? Has scientists even taken into consideration the modern 'myths' or beliefs, like Dr McDougall's experiment which was ceased to continue?

This is the problem with modern science. People take the same approach without broadening their ideas. Yes, theorists such as I are rather unorthodox. Some theories we come up with are outlandishly ridiculous, claiming to have discovered 'The Theory of Everything',  having it turn out to be either a mere stepping stone to the distant truth, or that the idea is just so disastrously wrong. 

We aren't reliable folk, but we do get the odd lucky discoveries. Take my one true idol, for example. Albert Einstein. You probably have heard of him, I'd be surprised if you didn't

Yes, Einstein. He was an odd fellow, wasn't he? You might think so, and many of the public thinks so, but I don't see him as strange at all. I can relate to him in many ways, not I'm saying that I am to compare to his intellect, but in terms of his habits and thinking style.

I think I might have mentioned earlier about String Theory, and if I haven't, then well, have this lovely long rant about it anyway.

One peculiar childhood memory which occurred to me while researching particle physics is that there was this one time when I was about nine years old and I was arguing to a priest who came to my school. His intentions were to try and convert us, young susceptible children, to go into religion and to make us believe that god is real.

And for me, being such a science fanatic, fired back to him saying god isn't real, we were created by the Big Bang. Then he asked me where did the Big Bang come from? And I went into a rant about the M-theory, talking of the eleven dimensions and the membranes that collide with each other, exerting enough force to create the Big Bang. Then he asked me, where did the membranes come from? I had no answer.

Of course, it was naive of me to use theories as a base for my argument (I was still only a baby) and now I realise that the priest and I were both ignorantly opinionated without facts to back us up.

To this day, however, I'm more open to a lot of opinions. Religion, being one of them. I'm not religious myself, but I'm not denying that there is some kind of unexplainable force that we might interpret as 'God'. There are so many things in this world that we don't fully understand, and 'magic' is simply undiscovered science.

My father introduced me to string theory since I was very little, and since then I've been interested in it. A novel that I've read that further inspired me was His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman. Though considered a children's story, I believe it to be a very elaborate piece that involved real scientific theories. The prominent theme of the story touches on the concept of 'Dust'. 'Dust', in Pullman's world, is not the average dust you find lying around, but in fact (SPOILERS!) was actually dark matter. The story plays on the string theory concept a lot, and how there are parallel universes.

A Little Explanation about String Theory

Oops, I forgot to include this, I've been babbling too much about my opinions on it without actually explaining!

So what is String Theory?

Well, take a look around you now at your room, or wherever you are currently. You see everything as these solid objects, things you can touch, many different elements that creates the world around us. Look at all the different colours, the vibrant reds, the sky blues, the greens and yellows. Now try to take this vision into the sub-atomic level. It's now a whole new picture.

Before String Theory was introduced, scientists believe that our world consisted of atoms that were represented in a singular focal point. As we were probably taught in school, the atom was illustrated with the proton and neutron in the core of the structure with electrons orbiting it. This particular structure was created after scientists found that there are 'gaps' in an atom after shooting electrons through it, though there are still some things that are not explained with this model. The 'string' model, however, demonstrates a more flexible approach, with having the atom in a form of a string instead. The string oscillates like a violin string, and the varying vibrations determines the behaviour of the atom. It may vibrate one way, and it becomes an electron, vibrates another, it's a proton.

The history of the string theory is extensive and detailed, being a mere developmental log, I shall simple refer you to sites that contain more information:


The theory gradually extends to parallel universes and the eleven dimensions. 

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Faster than Light

Nov. 9th, 2011 | 09:21 pm

As mostly everyone in the world is aware of now; there has been a recent 'discovery' that neutrinos are seemingly faster than light.

Anyone with some scientific background would know the sheer enormity of this news, and what it might mean to our future. Einstein's Theory of Relativity emphasises and revolves around the belief that the speed of light is the fastest in the universe. Many science fiction stories touches on time-travel, and should neutrinos be indefinitely proven to be faster than light; this fictional fantasy might actually become true.

It's hard to believe, isn't it? Put it this way, say if neutrinos were faster than light, someone in some light years distance away reading my blog could have read and sent a reply to my post before I even posted it. Einstein's Theory of Relativity explains that the faster an object travels, the time - a separate dimension, goes slower for the object. This is limited by the assumed infinite speed of light. Should an object travel faster than the infinite speed, it is assumed that the time will reverse. I'm not here to discuss too much on the scientific theories (as much as I want to), being that this blog is just a log for story ideas, I'll leave the ingenious explanation of discoveries to a particular documentary that I've found quite intriguing.

Getting back to the topic, it's obvious that I'm a theoretical science fan. I have the desire to incorporate science fiction into my story, but I want to steer away from the terrible clichés. Yes, time-travel is fucking brilliant, but it has been done far too many times that something as brilliant as that can get trivially dull.

This comes to my point and introducing one of my passionate interests: Dark Matter. (See next post)

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Logic over Emotions

Nov. 9th, 2011 | 09:18 pm

Transferring some of my analysis over to LJ. Enjoy.

I’ve come across far too many emotional people throughout my life time, and at the same time have experience with a few in particular who think extremely logically. I understand that emotions has its benefits, but to what extent, really?

Having read a book a while ago The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, it explains very well the advantages of having a conscience and how it helped us in evolution. Some of you may have read it already. If you haven’t, I highly recommend it, and it will save me time having to go into too much detail.

At one point, the book touches on the pros and cons of having a conscience, but generally it focused on the long term effects than immediate results.

Being someone who lives in the heat of the moment and a good percentage of my actions are impulsive; I have my fair share of emotions. Be it that they are more instinctive and primary than complex as someone might feel anxious or guilty for an extended period of time. From my experience; emotions are raw, blinding, irrational and potentially dangerous should you lose control.

Luckily for me, logic mostly dominates over these primary emotions and I’m able to carry on a relatively stable life (so to speak…). I have had exceptions where impulses come too strong and I act on things that are not considered ‘acceptable’. But then I don’t feel much guilt afterwards, and it’s possible that I can do the same things again for the sheer thrill. Only the smallest handful of people know what I can do when I’m ridiculously ‘bored’, or what they interpret as ‘depressed’, and at times I don’t trust myself with my instincts. For me, emotions exist as a dangerous distraction. It’s a powerful force which can come at any time and drives you to do things that you might regret.

For other people, emotions exist as a bonding tool. Empathy, the need to care and to be cared for, both are an important element for our survival. I’ll not touch too much on this topic as it has already been reviewed in The Sociopath Next Door, but the purpose for this article is for personal interest.

A lot of times I’ve come across people who have problems in life. They cry, whine and complain about it constantly, and the biggest whiners would be the ones who have mostly emotional friends themselves, and the combination of two emotionally driven people is like a downward spiral as they both feel each other’s pain.

Emotional based decisions/supports are useless, in my experience. Say for example, someone was complaining about deadlines and stressing over that. Their extremely emotional friend would usually say “Aw, I wish I could help you,” or “Oh dear, that’s too bad. Hopefully it will get better soon.”

What exactly are the benefits from saying that? Saying that ‘it’s going to be all right’ isn’t going to get the work done. Saying that you ‘wish you could help them’ isn’t the same as actually helping them and just might earn you the ‘oh you’re useless’ opinion. WHY would you even say that in the first place? Contrary to popular belief; saying these things doesn’t help at all. So why not suggest a practical, logical solution? Give them step by steps, organise their thoughts, highlight the importance of making the deadline or supply them with encouragement. Say perhaps, offering to do something fun after they get the work done.

And if there really isn’t anything that you can do, don’t say things that will dishearten them and only make you appear more pathetic.

Emotions seem to blind a lot of people, even me. There are ways to overcome it, and I know it’s not as easy as I make it sound. But some people have to realise that simply saying these off-hand empathising words isn’t going to do anything. It’s not helpful. It doesn’t make you nicer, it just makes you look lazy and that you don’t really care enough.

I do admit, however, that this post may be quite biased and that I am dominantly logical. I have difficulties empathising with people, but I also have had decent feedback for how I tackle problems in practical terms.

What I’m curious about though is what people actually think when they try to give emotional support? Why do you do it? What does it feel like to get such a response?

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Sherlock Icons

Mar. 26th, 2011 | 08:44 am

 Right so, I'm not usually one to make icons, but after making so many Sherlock ones for my rp account I just thought I share some. I enhanced them a bit because you guys deserve better than me. I also did some John : )

Credit is appreciated, and comments too ^^


See iconsCollapse )

Link | Leave a comment {10} | Share