ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Life, Unbounded

Life, Unbounded


Discussion and news about planets, exoplanets, and astrobiology
Life, Unbounded Home

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



You may experience some temporary disillusionment

In recent days I’ve had some interesting conversations. There’s a giddiness going around, related to an outpouring of science love – the kind you get from President Obama introducing TV science shows, the kind that has wonderful visuals, but is, well, a wee bit simplistic (a sin that none of us could ever, ever be accused of, naturally). It’s all very positive, commendable, and perfectly reasonable. But it leaves me feeling a little askew. You see, the thing is, it’s relatively easy to focus on what we know, yet to me the wonder of the cosmos, the awesomeness, is never greater than when we contemplate all that we don’t know.

It’s true that when we take note of the impossibly brief sliver of time that our entire species has inhabited compared to the billions of years before, and the untold billions ahead, one can feel refreshingly small. Or, if we contemplate the billions of trillions of other worlds that must exist across the observable universe, we can grasp momentarily at just how tiny our daily existence is. But for me nothing compares to the perspective, the shock, or the excitement, of being reminded of what we don’t know.

We don’t know why the universe exists: This is really quite unfair, and could be grounds for doubting that the cosmos knows what its doing. But in terms of physics, although there are some really very appealing, very promising, theoretical frameworks that begin to answer the question, the simple truth is that we’re not sure which might be right. It may be that the universe springs from an inherently unstable ‘nothingness’. The most void-like void, prone to spontaneous generation of matter and energy in proportions that always balance out to zero (yep, really, read Lawrence Krauss’s great book on this). Furthermore, this may not be the only universe (a terrible linguistic fail, I know), but rather one of a vast array, part of a multiverse of more than 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 16 distinguishable realities. But a big piece of the problem is that we’re still waiting for the next generation of cosmic measurements to chip away at the models, and we’re still waiting for theories that provide more readily testable hypotheses, not just mathematical elegance. So we don’t know why the heck all of this exists. Sorry.

We don’t know what dark matter, or dark energy, is: Big problem, honking big problem. Normal matter, the stuff of you, the stuff of me, planets, stars, and cheese sandwiches, amounts to only about 4.9% of the total matter and energy content of the universe. 26.8% of matter is ‘dark’, we know it’s there because on large, cosmic, scales stuff moves around faster than it should and because the way that galaxies strew themselves across space is consistent with the existence of vast amounts of slow-moving gravitating ‘stuff’ that never turns into stars or planets or anything, just stays as diffuse, invisible, incredibly antisocial particles. Except we really have no idea what these particles truly are – a situation beautifully summarized recently by Mario Livio and Joe Silk. That’s nasty, but perhaps nastier is dark energy. Something is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. It didn’t used to. Until about 5 or 6 billion years ago the stretching of space following the Big Bang was in decline, but then something started to counter that, another unseen component, perhaps a type of vacuum energy density that fills up space as space itself grows. What exactly is it? We do not know. We have lots of ideas though, which is great, always good to have ideas about 68.3% of the universe.

We don’t know whether life exists anywhere else: This one is close to my heart. Here we are, sentient beings on a planet seething with life (although perhaps not as seething as it could be) that’s been busy sculpting and re-sculpting the physical and chemical environment for much of the past 5 billion years. And now we’re confident that there are lots of planets out there, and that many of them could have an equal shot at playing host to life. But we still don’t know whether or not we’re alone. No clue. That’s quite a problem. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good problem, a juicy problem, one of the best. But even when the President of the United States introduces a lovely glossy TV series all about science, science that addresses the question of life in the universe, that doesn’t mean that governments or industry give a fig about paying to solve the problem. As Lee Billings writes in his recent, wonderful, book, the lack of a sense of urgency is a little bewildering. So we continue to bumble along in splendid isolation, with only our towels for comfort.

We probably haven’t really figured out the quantum world: What!? While it’s true that our present mathematical framework of quantum mechanics can do wonders, from describing atoms and molecules to the bizarre nature of entanglement and qubits, that doesn’t mean that we’ve nailed the case shut. Quite the contrary. One need only cast a look over the literature to see that the most fundamental aspects of the quantum nature of the universe are still causing headaches and disagreements. People are still reformulating the ways in which we cope with the quantum nature of reality (yes, they are) so it’s clearly too soon to call this fully understood. Not only that, but the possibility of pure quantum effects reaching into the realm of soft, wet, and warm biology has also raised its head (although admittedly it depends on who’s talking) – a rather unnerving notion. . Oh, and don’t get me started on black holes and quantum firewalls

We don’t understand our own biology: It’s not too radical to say this, after all, if we did understand every detail of how we worked we’d presumably be able to eliminate disease (assuming that’s actually better for us, which it clearly is individually, but perhaps not as a species). We’d also be able to customize ourselves by reaching into to those 3 billion or so nucleic acids in our DNA and doing a spot of molecular engineering, getting those purple earlobes we’ve always wanted. But we’re not close to doing this any better than we can come up with ‘engineered’ crops -  lots of misses and a few hits. Want a good example of our pitiful lack of knowledge? It’s the microbiome. Our ten trillion human cells are augmented, exploited, nurtured, by a hundred trillion microbial cells – a couple of pounds of bacteria and archaea that we all carry around and can’t live without. They’re in our guts, our lungs, up our noses and in every other dank corner. We’re just cruise ships for the ultimate microbial Club-Med, and we simply don’t know what that all means.

We don’t know how the Earth works: Let’s lurch back to a grander scale. No human, or robot, has ever physically traveled deeper than a few miles into the Earth’s crust, everything else is extrapolation and interpolation from ‘remote sensing’ and clever physical analyses. It took us a ridiculously long time to figure out that the outer planetary skin is moving and sliding around; plate tectonics was not generally accepted until the mid-20th century! We’re still not sure exactly how the inner dynamo works, how rolls of convecting, conducting material in the outer core generate our planetary magnetic field. There’s also so much mess after 4.5 billion years of geophysics that some of our best information about the planet’s origins come from meteorites and the cratering of other worlds – outsourced. Speaking of other worlds, we’re not even sure we understand where the Moon came from, maybe it was a giant impact, maybe not. For an allegedly clever species on a small rocky planet this is a bit of an epic fail.

We can’t prove or solve many of our own mathematical conjectures and problems: Ouch. Lest mathematics thinks it can escape this festival of ignorance, just remind yourself that there’s a long list of unproven, unsolved problems and unproven conjectures. Here, take a look. All in all, best kept firmly brushed under the carpet. Another glass of sherry professor?

We don’t know how to make an artificial intelligence: I’m putting this here because it’s a perennial problem, and one that speaks to both our desire to understand ourselves (if you can make an artificial being you may find the secret sauce behind your own intelligence, even if ultimately it’s just an emergent phenomenon) as well as to understand what might be ‘out there’ in the vastness of the cosmos, wrought by billions of years of alien evolution, and really quite depressed by it all. Although we’ve come a long way with our machines, it’s not clear that predictive text or automated suggestions for shopping and movie streaming are really assembling information in any way that resembles how our minds generate ideas. This is truly a frontier.

The conclusion? There’s an awful lot we don’t know (far more than just the examples here). But the point is not to get despondent, because this ignorance is a beautiful thing. It’s what ultimately drives science, and it’s what makes the universe truly awe-inspiring. After the hundreds of thousands of years that Homo sapiens has loped around, the cosmos can still elude our fidgety, inquisitive minds, easily outracing our considerable imaginations. How wonderful.

Caleb A. Scharf About the Author: Caleb Scharf is the director of Columbia University's multidisciplinary Astrobiology Center. He has worked in the fields of observational cosmology, X-ray astronomy, and more recently exoplanetary science. His books include Gravity's Engines (2012) and The Copernicus Complex (2014) (both from Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux.) Follow on Twitter @caleb_scharf.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 22 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. countryend 9:31 am 03/12/2014

    About life questions, isn’t the emergence and maintenance of life a process of radical contingency? That is, is a unique and unrepeatable past totally necessary? Or does life emerge through space like mushrooms when some conditions are present? So, how many conditions are necessary: three, four, trillions, infinite? Only one, water or any sort of God? Is God the word that means infinite conditions, absolute necessity? Anyway, how did the life that emerge in a given conditions resist when switching to a different moment? How does life resist time itself, the effects of entropy? But, is it possible for human beings to recognise a simpler life than their own brain only? On the other hand, beyond likeness, is it possible to recognise a complex life than their brain, is this the extra-terrestrial life that some people are searching unsuccessfully? However, is there an origin of life or would it be as finding a cut in the material history of the universe, an infinite void that human language patches now? Along these lines, there is a peculiar book, a short preview in http://goo.gl/rfVqw6 Just another suggestion, far away from dogmas or axioms.

    Link to this
  2. 2. rloldershaw 9:50 am 03/12/2014

    It is quite true that there is very much that we do not know, and I agree with all of your bullet-points EXCEPT the first one.

    Can “nothing” be unstable? Not by any scientific logic.

    Absolute “nothingness” would be absolutely stable. To any sane natural philosopher it is a fairly ridiculous concept.

    If Krauss is generating “something” from “nothing” or “nothingness”, then the term “nothing” is highly misleading and does not really mean literally NOTHING.

    Sigh, have we not had enough of this type of postmodern pseudo-science?

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

    Link to this
  3. 3. gmartfin 12:51 pm 03/12/2014

    Quote”We have lots of ideas though, which is great, always good to have ideas about 68.3% of the universe.”

    Got a great chuckle out of that one. Always good to start the morning with a laugh :-)

    G.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Disturbance 8:19 am 03/13/2014

    The first of “What We Don’t Know About The Universe” seems to have nothing to do with what we don’t know about the universe. ‘Why’ is a made-up question; it is a pretense, a human flaw in wanting to understand a cause and effect. With science, proper science, ‘how’ is all the ‘why’ that is needed. Krauss’s subtitle should have been “How There Is Something Rather than Nothing.” And, rloldershaw is right about ‘nothing.’ But Krauss redefines ‘nothing,’ so as to have quantum fluctuations be nothing.

    Link to this
  5. 5. momofickthis 10:08 am 03/13/2014

    A fine post. To visualize our state of knowledge, imagine a vast hall with a table that stretches on and on. The table is filled with jigsaw pieces. At one end of the table is a man, who has put together only a few of the jigsaw pieces. The table filled with jigsaw pieces represents the mysteries of the universe, and the man who has just started to assemble the pieces in the puzzle is mankind.

    Which mysteries are we likely to solve in the next 50 years? That’s discussed below.

    http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2014/02/which-great-scientific-mysteries-are.html

    Link to this
  6. 6. vagnry 12:55 pm 03/13/2014

    I miss two questions!

    What was before the big bang?

    What happens after the present uni-multiverse?

    Link to this
  7. 7. David Cummings 1:29 pm 03/13/2014

    Excellent list. And I’m taking your advice. I just bought “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”

    Link to this
  8. 8. M Tucker 6:38 pm 03/13/2014

    “We don’t know how the Earth works”

    But we don’t have to send a man down to find out! But it would be nice to get samples.
    The deepest borehole is just over 7 miles. Drilling attempts to reach the mantle are still dreamed of.

    Plate Tectonics from the USGS:
    “We know that forces at work deep within the Earth’s interior drive plate motion, but we may never fully understand the details. At present, NONE OF THE PROPOSED MECHANISMS CAN EXPLAIN ALL THE FACETS OF PLATE MOVEMENT [my emphasis]; because these forces are buried so deeply, no mechanism can be tested directly and proven beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the tectonic plates have moved in the past and are still moving today is beyond dispute, but the details of why and how they move will continue to challenge scientists far into the future.”

    And yes, we do not really know how Earth’s magnetic field is generated but it certainly is not “rolls of convecting magma.”

    Link to this
  9. 9. Caleb A. Scharf in reply to Caleb A. Scharf 7:29 pm 03/13/2014

    mea culpa,

    I tweaked the text – ‘magma’ was incorrect, current best bet models are iron-rich conductive fluids in the outer core (i.e. around the more solid inner core), but convection will make ‘rolling’, tubular like dynamos in that material….

    Link to this
  10. 10. Carlyle 3:27 am 03/14/2014

    WONDERfull

    Link to this
  11. 11. Edgod1 7:35 am 03/14/2014

    With regard to Dark Energy, I have a theory. In some shopping malls they have round tables that curve down to a hole in the centre. A sign says that this emulates how bodies like the Earth orbit the Sun. Patrons can roll a coin perpendicular to the centre and watch it ‘orbit’ the table until friction progressively slows it down into smaller and smaller circles, finally disappearing into the hole. It is a good model for how gravity works. However, orbits are more or less confined to a two-dimensional plane, while in reality objects in orbit can move through three dimensions. In the model it is assumed that gravity acts towards the centre. But if we looked at the table in cross section, gravity from the Earth acts in a perpendicular direction to the table. The table has a reactive force on the coin, but because the table is sloped these forces are not in equilibrium. The slope increases more towards the centre, until it becomes nearly vertical. At this point the reactive force is at a minimum and gravity has its full effect. The force of gravity acting perpendicularly through the table is the same throughout its surface, but the reactive force gives us the appearance it is acting from the centre, with increasing force towards the centre. But the force of gravity has stayed constant. There is a ‘gravity’ that is external to the system, an ultragravity.
    When gravity acts on something, we consider it falling ‘down’ or ‘into’ the source. When I was a toddler I used to lie on my back looking up at the clouds scudding across the blue sky, and imagine myself falling eternally ‘upwards’ into the sky. We look at the Sun and consider it to be ‘up’ in the sky, but if the Earth were to suddenly lose its orbital velocity, it would start falling ‘downwards’ into the Sun. Now consider the expansion of the universe. Its expansion is accelerating. This suggests it is ‘falling’. Rather than have a dark energy forcing the Universe apart, it may be subject to some ultragravity and be falling towards or ‘into’ something, but giving the appearance it is expanding outwards.
    As for dark matter, consider other galaxies whose arrow of time is not pointing in the same direction as ours. To get this concept imagine you are in H.G.Wells’ time machine and you can push the lever to go forward or backward in time, or just slow down time until it comes to a dead stop relative to the traveller’s time. The traveller can spend, say an hour here and read a book. At this point his arrow of time is perpendicular or 90º to ours. If he slowed time by half his arrow is at 45. If he starts going beyond 90º he starts going backward. You are familiar with transistor radios, how if you rotate them the signal fades in and out. So if distant matter had its time arrow ‘polarised’ differently from ours its visibility and gravitational effects would fade to varying degrees. Maybe there are a number of ‘multiverses’ co-existing in the same universe as ours, but following different time arrows, and their cumulative effect is what we perceive as dark matter.

    Link to this
  12. 12. hungry doggy 4:25 pm 03/14/2014

    Nice piece. But you missed another biggie. We haven’t solved the fine tuning problem. Why are the constants in nature such that they permit a stable life friendly universe?

    Also the problem of why is there something instead of nothing is an enormous problem. Start out with basic laws and almost nothing and you can build a universe. But how do you go from absolute nothing to basic laws and to a speck of something? The universe shouldn’t even exist.

    And then don’t forget the problem of consciousness and free will. Neither one ought to exist, and yet there they are.

    But the piece is a good reminder about how little we know.

    Link to this
  13. 13. rloldershaw 5:40 pm 03/14/2014

    Go out on an interstate highway and take a picture of the first car that goes by. What is the probability that a car with that exact licence plate would go by just when you took the picture.

    Is the universe “fine-tuned” to favor that licence plate?

    This rough example of POST FACTO probability assessment should show the very shaky ground that all “fine tuning arguments are based on.

    Don’t but into it. It is pseudo-science.

    RLO
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

    Link to this
  14. 14. rloldershaw 5:41 pm 03/14/2014

    oops.

    Don’t BUY into it!

    Link to this
  15. 15. jtdwyer 7:28 pm 03/14/2014

    Nicely done, but I have to question dark matter and dark energy – I’ll try to do so as briefly as I can!

    What we do know about dark matter is that it’s primarily inferred from discrepancies between the gravitational effects we project from our estimations of mass concentrations – and the gravitational effects we derive from observations. There’s nothing simple about the processes used to infer the existence of dark matter, but the simplest case is the perceived galaxy rotation problem.
    - Before I get to that, however, it should be noted that there are no cases where gravitational discrepancies have been identified for interactions between discreet, roughly spherical objects – dark matter only seems to appear when we evaluate the gravitation of compound, large scale objects – aggregations of billions of discretely interacting objects spanning tens and hundreds of light years – and even more – particularly those singularly considered as discrete compound objects that do not approximate spherical symmetry, such as disk galaxies and irregular structures.
    - Several physicists guessed that the scale factor indicated simply that (the equations of) gravity worked differently at large scales, and proposed MOND and other modified gravity theories to address the problem. IMO, however, these do not address the root cause of gravitational evaluation discrepancies – whether fudging your results by adding undetected mass or changing the equations of gravitation, you’re simply compensating for the fundamental source of error.
    - The fundamental cause of the galaxy rotation problem (that spiral galaxies’ rotational velocities do not diminish as a function of radial distance – like planets) is very simply that galaxies are not planetary systems! For additional info please see my brief, informal essay http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Dwyer_FQXi_2012__Questionin_1.pdf. For another very accessible explanation of the problem from the perspective of General Relativity theorists, please read the brief introduction to “General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224.

    Regarding dark energy and the apparent acceleration of universal expansion, I must point out that there continue to be several intractable problems with the current standard model of cosmology – the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model. Those include ‘the small scale structure problem’, ‘the missing satellite problem’ and the ‘cuspy halo problem’ – see Wikipedia for additional information.
    - Moreover, while the ‘Lambda’ term refers to a positive cosmological constant parameter (which mathematically produces a ‘negative pressure’ effect within the model) – there is no other evidence for any such physically accelerating force effect. As I recently commented elsewhere:
    “IMO, that a positive cosmological constant (and a negative deceleration parameter) were used was used (by the researchers that originally identified universal expansion in the late 1990′s) to fit then standard cosmological models’ distance estimates derived from host galaxy redshift to distance estimates derived from type Ia SNe luminosities was more a matter of parametric fine-tuning than a discovery of evidence for any accelerating force.
    “IMO, negative pressure is presumed to be produced by the cosmological constant parameter – but that has not physically been established as the cause for the apparent acceleration of expansion. The simplifying underlying assumption of Friedman and cosmology in general is that the universe is homogeneous. The temporal development of ‘large scale structure’ (at smaller than universal scales) conflicts with that assumption and may affect temporally developing universal dynamics – especially the acceleration of expansion. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2314 and especially http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.3787. Temporal development of included large voided regions seems likely to require that the rate of universal expansion increase, as the density of voided regions can be much lower than the universal average density.”
    - In simple terms, when ‘large scale structure’ composed of compacted material filaments and growing voids developed – ‘coincidentally’ about the same time that universal expansion began to accelerate – the inherently low density of voided regions necessitates a high rate of expansion – greater than the universal average. To the extent that universal spacetime is increasingly composed of large scale voids, their high expansion rates increasingly contributes to the universal average – accelerating the universal expansion of spacetime. No mysterious separate force is necessary – only the restructuring of universal mass-energy density distribution!

    Link to this
  16. 16. CarolynKay 10:20 am 03/15/2014

    Is it not possible that dark matter and dark energy could be explained by varying unfoldings of 11-dimensional strings?

    If string theory is correct, and there are 11 dimensions, shouldn’t there be 11! possible combinations of unfoldings—or more, if unfoldings can be partial? If so, most of the combinations would be normally undetectable because we are trapped in our limited set of unfoldings. The undetectable combinations could be what we call dark matter and/or dark energy.

    As to hungry doggie’s question, “Why are the constants in nature such that they permit a stable life friendly universe?”

    Because the constants we’re able to measure are those that apply to the part of the universe we live in and can observe.

    Link to this
  17. 17. rloldershaw 6:20 pm 03/15/2014

    String Theory: 44 years and not even one decent definitive prediction!

    Link to this
  18. 18. PLOTCH 2:31 pm 03/17/2014

    Since we do not know everything there is to know, this fact leaves everything possible. It truly is one centuries old puzzle of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Well written article and thanks for it!

    Link to this
  19. 19. Crasher 8:32 pm 03/18/2014

    I think I can make a prediction here…..”There will always be more to know that what we currently think we know” That in itself is not a bad thing.

    Oh and I tend to agree with Stephen Hawking on the search for Alien life….be very careful. Given the human history of what we do when we find someone/thing that we class as inferior, I don’t what to be considered a food/labour/resource source for something else. Lets hope we only find species that are only or less advanced than us….highly unlikely given our brief history.

    Then again perhaps a species that gets too smart ends up trashing itself, a path us humans are well on the way with.

    Link to this
  20. 20. boontee 9:29 pm 03/20/2014

    Chinese ancient sage Lao Tzu believed that the universe emerged from a great void, and something eventually came out of nothing. He might be right after all.
    There are many questions that have no answers, especially those related to why.
    First the God particle, now the Holy Grail gravitational wave. Just wonder how near infinite numbers of protons and neutrons could appear from a relatively tiny singularity after the Big Bang.

    Link to this
  21. 21. verdai 4:04 pm 05/3/2014

    will ya’ll quit with these math tortures?

    Link to this
  22. 22. Whizzkid 9:44 pm 06/27/2014

    So the top physist in the world are trying to find out what dark energy and

    dark matter is. It’s everywhere, Both is equeled to 96% of our universe.

    4 percent is matter( matter we can see with our eyse) …. so how did this happen? Well im going to observe around me.

    I see a major percent of the top scientist believing in string theory. And the rest beliveing in religion.

    I see how galaxys form, how solar systems form, HOW THE MOON GOES AROUND THE EARTH AND THE EARTH GOES AROUND THE SUN.

    Then string theory comes… Lets take the universe and split it in half. Then take that and split it in half.

    Then keep going and soon you will be at size of galaxys, keep on going and you will have the size of solar systems.

    keep going you will be the size of planets, to mountains, to rocks, to atoms, to particles to….String theory. Well

    im just going to say Yes!!! I am a true believer but? Lets be rock stars! KEEP GOING! TO NOTHING RIGHT? I accept string theory,

    but lets break that down to infinity. say u cant. i say u can. eventually you will have nothing. i can see it but i cant. A bread crumb

    falls off my bread and i step on it and i just try to sweep it and thats not event close to what string theory is and string theory is

    real. But when u get to nothing you know what happens… its easy. Just like around us we see the earth rotate around the sun. well break

    string theory up and thats what youll find. Galaxys of nothing. Maybe Universes of nothing.. depending how small it truely is and how you interpret it buts its All connected.

    Nothing to infinity comes from a core and where all conected to infinity no matter what.. even if we go back to nothing.

    So in the begining you can say you have nothing. Well nothing is really just broken down string theory. you say u cant. well

    do it. cuz black holes are infinite. shouldnt we live in a infinite space………..of nothing. So what is nothing, It truely is everything.

    Here is the equation. Nothing times infinity equals infity. Wait if you times anything you get 0, thats a very differnt 0. That zeroe is infinity.

    YOu did the math and witnessed it yourself. In the begining you will have nothing everywhere. There nothing particles. IN A ENDLESS AMOUNT OF

    NOTHING. So visualize the earth and moon rotation along will the sun and earth rotation and you can visualize the first nothing particle to rotate around the

    another. Thats right theres the start of time. Along with a endless amount of nothing particles rotating around a core of nothing particles sucking it in like

    a black hole (we can see, just on a giant scale. It does have a infinite amount of gravity.) Back to dark matter and energy. Dark matter is the matter we cant

    see. Well not anymore. I can visualize it very clear. Break down string theory you will see a infinite amount of nothing particles going into the core of a seed. a seed to the universe? multiverse? everthing?

    In the pie chart of everthing in the universe 59 percent is dark energy. 34 percent is dark matter. and 4 percent is actual matter we can see………WEll when you go to nothing you can see

    how you get something because where here. we witnessed and observed it. dark matter is the core to this seed and dark matter is the outside of the seed. When you have nothing going to the core you have nothing going into this seed while where it once was more nothing comes

    and that my friends is the fabric of the nothing world. its dark matter. when you times that by

    infinity i can see how you get 4% matter because once nothing starts turning into matter it would BIG BANG quick in NOTHING TIME. Like we observe. So everything everwhere is connected even to the farthest lengths you

    or anyone can come up with times any number and Dark matter is the core to this nothing and dark energy is the space where nothing is heading towards nothing and more nothing

    is taking it’s place. That is why space is expanding. Is because nothing was stacking on nothing making something, more nothing kept coming forever until it made 4% of matter

    AND IT BIG BANGED. now the dark matter and energy now might fool you. the dark energy and matter we have are at massive scales we can observe. What will happen. scientist say the

    end of time for this 3 dimension reality. Maybe dark matter and dark energy (a lot of nothing) are still going on inside of something (our universe). Or maybe when it big banged and created the

    universe where in where stuck with the 4$ of matter 59% of dark energy and 33% dark matter. Time should tell.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Give a Gift &
Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now! >

X

Email this Article

X