Here is a theory. It may be lunacy, but I would like to know what you think.
The Superuniverse Theory: Instead of dark matter and dark energy constituting 95.1% of matter in the universe, matter in the observable universe is affected gravitationally by matter beyond the light cone.
Both dark matter and dark energy are unknown and undetected, yet we know they exist because of their effect on the universe. The superuniverse theory states that their effects are instead due to more matter in a universe. In this cosmology, the big bang would be more like a black hole containing 4.9% of the energy in a universe containing much more 'ordinary matter' that previously thought. We do not know how a black hole this size would react, but let us say for the sake of an interesting theory that it goes 'big bang'.
Obviously, I need a physicist and/or mathemetician to know anything about this theory. I understand that it is almost certainly not real and is just an idea. But if anyone is willing to tell me about physics, I have a questions:
Could this scenario line up with our understanding of phases in the early universe? Maybe the 'bang' happened with such force that the matter invovled initially was not subject to the gravitational attraction of the rest (95.1%) of the universe in this theory. Or that the surrounding matter was pushed so far that it ititially had no gravitational pull on 'our' universe. At some point, the superuniverse begins to pull increasingly and we enter the phase of accelerated expansion.
>big bang would be more like a black hole containing 4.9% of the energy in a universe containing much more 'ordinary matter' what i meant to say is that the initial singularity that spawned our universe contained 4.9% of the energy in a greater superuniverse. i am assuming the ratios would be the same but i know basically nothing.
Joseph Adams
Because dark matter and energy don't exist. They're mathematical substitutes for unobserved (rather than unobservable) matter and energy.
Ayden Thomas
So you are saying that it is possible that dark matter and dark energy could be unobserved ordinary matter?
Brandon Clark
I think one of the major problems with this theory and getting anywhere is that I am basically setting myself up for a philosophical argument. I cannot prove anything beyond the light cone, or anything at all given that I don't math.
What I don't think is crazy is the idea that the initial singularity was contained within a much larger universe, and I think there is at least some evidence if you look up dark flow.
Zachary King
Dark flow is generally used (in news media) as possible evidence of a 'multiverse'. I see this theory as a much more reasonable explanation of (possible) dark flow.
Zachary Rogers
Gravitational waves propagate at c, so if matter is outside the lightcone, it cannot affect us.
Benjamin Hill
This is an excellent point. Thank you.
Joshua Wood
Might a quantum theory of gravity might change our views on this some day?
Kayden Ramirez
No. The quantum theory will still reduce to the classical result for large enough scales.
Besides, there was an article published that dark matter has been observed as cold baryonic matter.
Dark energy is seen as the metric expansion of space.
I'm not saying that it can't be something else, but we'd need a reason for it.
Josiah Baker
Ok. Thanks. Another question if you have a second: is t he law of conservation of energy upheld at the scale of the universe? is there any evidence for infinity (and randomness) being more than a human concept?
Xavier Price
>is the law of conservation of energy upheld at the scale of the universe?
Yes
>is there any evidence for infinity (and randomness) being more than a human concept?
Those are mathematical and therefore also physical concepts used to explain specifics of the universe.
Infinity can be used as an approximation system for real physical concepts, such as singularities where physical processes reach a limit towards infinity. In mathematical terms you can "easily see" infinity by looking at irrational numbers or even a repeating fraction such as 5/3.
I strongly advice you to check PBS Spacetime (don't hop on one subject, start with the initial videos)
>mathematical and therefore also physical concepts This I do not understand. I get that you can successfully use infinities in mathematics, yet how does that make it a 'physical reality'? If the law of conservation of energy is upheld, then there exists now the same amount of energy that was contained in the initial singularity, right? An important variable that we will never possess.
As to random, is there not controversy as to whether it truly exists? We may never know enough to parse quantum fluctuations (see above), so doesn't it seem a tiny bit childish (wrong word) to jump to the conclusion that they are random? Is it possible that quantum mechanics are deterministic?
Isaac Flores
Might the amount of energy in the universe be a "hidden variable"?
Matthew Anderson
Also, is superdeterminism and hidden variable theory just too depressing for scientists? It is basically saying that we will never have the information for a ToE. The theory itself is unprovable and essentially in the realm of philosophy, but it very well may be.
Jacob Moore
>just too depressing for scientists Sort of like how static interpretations of time are rejected more for psychological reasons than because it has been disproven.
Hudson Evans
With singularities i meant black hole singularities where mass is compressed towards in "infinitely" density point, distorting spacetime towards infinity if we look at the Einstein equations.
In reality there are physical processes such as the Pauli exclusion principle (different particles with an non-integer spin, such as electrons, cannot exist at the same physical location) that prohibit the singularity system to fall into an infinite density point.
We cannot observe what happens within the black hole the same way we cannot observe the expanding universe as the physical limitations on information, eg. the speed to which information travels (gravity waves, light particles, ..., limits us to observe these phenomenon towards a certain threshold.
Hence we don't "know" what happens in these physical systems. We can however approximate/describe these systems by using infinity as a concept. In that sense infinity can be used as a descriptor for physical systems.
The big bang singularity would have an enormously, but not infinitely, large value of energy.
>Might the amount of energy in the universe be a "hidden variable"? No, we describe the universe through the physical laws that we currently have. The amount of energy would just describe the scale of the universe, not the mechanics of it.
Having said that, the exact total amount of energy in the universe would be a very helpful variable.
