could this dark energy or matter be biological ?

@north,

so nobody thinks or has an opinon on this ?

interesting

@north,

I do not think there is a dectector for life energy bio energy.
What frequency on the EM scale do you think life or bio energy is?
Mind you, I think there is rational intelligence behind the universe but I do not know of any dectector for it other than comtemplative awe.

@north,

Imo sience look in a totally wrong direction, They should study the Oort cloud more and learn the influence of gravity.

Dark energy and matter sounds silly to me, there has to be simpler explenations.

@HexHammer,

As far as I can tell, bio energy is a nonsense term; any energy we detect from a biological entity ( any entity that fits our current understanding of biology) would necessarily be a more fundamental common energy e.g. thermal. At least according to my limited understanding. Ergo; unlike what has been displayed in the Transformers cartoons, the current body of scientific knowledge does not include any consideration of 'spark' or 'life force'. There is no indication in the realm of scientific thought, beyond wild speculation, that dark matter is 'biological'. Well, at least according to all of those physicist types. Maybe one of them could elaborate.

@Zetetic11235,

The popular science answer is: the idea of dark matter comes from the fact that galactic motion can't be explained using our present models of gravity. In order for these models to work, there would have to be matter out there that we can't see.

At this point, a new model of gravity is emerging. To see how different the new model is.. consider that the gravitational force observed in our universe is actually "leaking" into our universe from another universe... or universes that exist along side ours. In other words, just as we once realized our world is one planet among others... our universe is one among others.

Dark matter can be shelved until the dust settles a little more... which could be decades or more.

@Arjuna,

Dark matter is non-baryonic matter that fails to react in the same way as baryonic matter. However it can and has been detected by seeing the effect its gravity has on light.
The best example of this came with the pictures of the bullet cluster:-

Dark Matter Exists | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

The chances are we will know within the next 30 years alot more about dark matter.

Dark energy is a lot harder to work out.

@Arjuna,

[QUOTE=Arjuna;160175] The popular science answer is: the idea of dark matter comes from the fact that galactic motion can't be explained using our present models of gravity. In order for these models to work, there would have to be matter out there that we can't see. . [/QUOTE] It has been suggested, that gravity (conceived of as the warping of space time) can leak from parallel or alternative universes into our universe. Dark matter could be ordinary matter which is located in an alternative which affects our universe but is not visible to us, since only the gravitational effect can leak into our universe. Some interpretations of both string and quantum theory imply a multi=verse of all possible alternative worlds.

[QUOTE=Arjuna;160175] At this point, a new model of gravity is emerging. To see how different the new model is.. consider that the gravitational force observed in our universe is actually "leaking" into our universe from another universe... or universes that exist along side ours. In other words, just as we once realized our world is one planet among others... our universe is one among others. . [/QUOTE] Both dark matter and dark energy cast doubt on the completeness of our current mathematical models, for our current models can account for and measure neither. Time is pretty much missing from the current models as well. Most of our mathematical expressions are time neutral or reversible whereas in the universe as we know and experience it time does not seem reversible (broken tea cups do not fly back together). One current model of the "big bang" is that it is the result of the collision of two independent universes, some call this the "big splat" theory. Fascinating stuff, best to keep an open mind, it is not all "figured out' yet, probably never will be.

@north,

north;157643 wrote:

perhaps if we adjust the frequency of the electomagnetic detector to that of life energy , bio-energy , then maybe , just maybe , we will detect this " missing " matter in the Universe

thoughts

Dark energy and dark matter are two very different things. The first is a proposed type of energy that is driving the acceleration of the Universe's expansion, while the latter is a proposed type of matter that would explain certain gravitational effects observed on the movement of celestial bodies and passing light.

There isn't such a thing as "life energy". A life form would itself emit radiation on the infrared scale-- what we call heat. Dark energy is "dark" because we can't observe it with detectors of radiation...it is also very spread out, not dense.

@Pangloss,

Is it me or does it appear almost mystical these dark forces and this dark matter. I cant imagine a non scientist years ago proposing an invisible force that is more powerful than any we can see. Its almost like fiction attempting to invade our serenity. Metaphysics becomes main stream, we pretend we know but we shy away from certainty...I love it..Could it be biological ,creeping, invisible, rushing, crushing growing..urrghh.

@xris,

xris;160476 wrote:

Is it me or does it appear almost mystical these dark forces and this dark matter. I cant imagine a non scientist years ago proposing an invisible force that is more powerful than any we can see. Its almost like fiction attempting to invade our serenity. Metaphysics becomes main stream, we pretend we know but we shy away from certainty...I love it..Could it be biological ,creeping, invisible, rushing, crushing growing..urrghh.

Absolutely. When we hypothesise about dark energy, we are definitely entering the "Here be Dragons" world....

@Uplifter,

Who says science is mundane, predictable...Fiction has never kept pace with reality.

@xris,

xris;160476 wrote:

Is it me or does it appear almost mystical these dark forces and this dark matter. I cant imagine a non scientist years ago proposing an invisible force that is more powerful than any we can see. Its almost like fiction attempting to invade our serenity. Metaphysics becomes main stream, we pretend we know but we shy away from certainty...I love it..Could it be biological ,creeping, invisible, rushing, crushing growing..urrghh.

It only feels like that until you totally understand it, then it makes the whole world a bit clearer; at least that's been my experience with learning mathematics and theoretical computer science. I've talked to plenty of physics students who have told me that they continually find themselves thinking about events in their everyday experience through the lens of their discipline. For me, computer science -especially- has helped me in breaking down complex situations into pieces I can quickly analyze and perhaps even more important; in holding those pieces up to mentally compare them to gain a fuller analysis of everyday and less-than-every day situations.

It's a great rush once you start gaining fluidity in some style of thinking required to accomplish one type of task and can extend it's use to very disparate tasks. This, I think, is also one of the many benefits of studying philosophy. Studying and analyzing philosophy allows one to see from multiple perspectives and to question openly and honestly and how to ask good questions and how to pick out clearly wrong answers.

I do want to mention that although it is perhaps fun to go on flights of fancy about the 'mysterious' nature of theoretical physics; the fact of the matter is that it varies from classical mathematical physics only in degree of refinement and it's ability to be tested consistently. Experiments underlie all of the results, and it is all carried out in a very methodically. I will say that there is a great amount of underlying creativity in interpreting the available data to gain an accurate picture of what is going on, as well as in looking at the mathematical framework and conjecturing on possible refinements of the mathematical models used.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;161135 wrote:

It only feels like that until you totally understand it, then it makes the whole world a bit clearer; at least that's been my experience with learning mathematics and theoretical computer science. I've talked to plenty of physics students who have told me that they continually find themselves thinking about events in their everyday experience through the lens of their discipline. For me, computer science -especially- has helped me in breaking down complex situations into pieces I can quickly analyze and perhaps even more important; in holding those pieces up to mentally compare them to gain a fuller analysis of everyday and less-than-every day situations.

It's a great rush once you start gaining fluidity in some style of thinking required to accomplish one type of task and can extend it's use to very disparate tasks. This, I think, is also one of the many benefits of studying philosophy. Studying and analyzing philosophy allows one to see from multiple perspectives and to question openly and honestly and how to ask good questions and how to pick out clearly wrong answers.

I do want to mention that although it is perhaps fun to go on flights of fancy about the 'mysterious' nature of theoretical physics; the fact of the matter is that it varies from classical mathematical physics only in degree of refinement and it's ability to be tested consistently. Experiments underlie all of the results, and it is all carried out in a very methodically. I will say that there is a great amount of underlying creativity in interpreting the available data to gain an accurate picture of what is going on, as well as in looking at the mathematical framework and conjecturing on possible refinements of the mathematical models used.

That would be fine if you or science knew the answers about the dark stuff but they dont and until they do my musing is just as relevant as mathematical measurements. Flights of fancy have created more understanding of our universe than any methodical measuring. Was the idea of black holes imagined or measured. It needed a flight of fancy to recognise the inaccuracies in measurements. No amount of measuring will tell you how the BB became evident...I appreciate science but I dont worship it.

@xris,

xris;161198 wrote:

That would be fine if you or science knew the answers about the dark stuff but they dont and until they do my musing is just as relevant as mathematical measurements. Flights of fancy have created more understanding of our universe than any methodical measuring. Was the idea of black holes imagined or measured. It needed a flight of fancy to recognise the inaccuracies in measurements. No amount of measuring will tell you how the BB became evident...I appreciate science but I dont worship it.

Yeah, but you have to understand that there is a very well tested framework within which you need to view dark matter and dark energy before you can fully understand what they are mathematically, which is the most important aspect of their definition in terms of being able to accurately speculate on reasonable extensions and consequences of the theory. Otherwise it's just shooting the breeze about what you think the universe might be like; it's like feeling around in a dark room when there are guys with flashlights looking around, they've already figured out a big part of what certainly doesn't work, but seems like it would. Without standing on the shoulders of giants, you're just playing around in the same sandbox that has already been played in and discarded for a nicer, larger sandbox.

Stephen Hawking knew the current mathematical model before he could do any of his work; otherwise he would have wasted his time taking potshots in the dark, hoping to get lucky. The truth of the matter is this; you have to understand what the question is, where is came from, what the context of it is in the greater scheme of things etc. etc. etc. There is no way around it, you have to put in the hard work if you want to do anything outside of fun, albeit pointless, speculation.

It is fun to speculate about things that we know little about, myself included, but it is simply self delusion to think that any layman could speculate and get a good solution to a standing problem without fully understanding the context of the question. Only a well trained scientist, or a person like Einstein who really devoted himself to learning the subjects and the mathematics, can proceed in a reasonable fashion. The layman who does not put in the hundreds or thousands of hours of hard work may have fun, but he will get no results. That is my only point.

So no, it is not good to worship science, but it is good to have a healthy outlook about what is reasonable and what is not in terms of how these things are discovered. Flights of fancy can get us going in the right direction, but the simple truth of the matter is; taken alone they make up the vastly small minority of the total work done by science and scientists. Newton was not great because he had many flights of fancy; he was great because he had the discipline and love of his subject to really meticulously test and work out those kernels of his intuition into a mathematical framework on top of having much inspiration and natural ability.

So no, your musings, my musings, are both somewhat irrelevant by virtue of the fact that neither of us fully understand the questions we seek to answer; we haven't put in the requisite work to do so. Now, our musings might help US gain a little bit more consistency in what we believe to be true; if there are any stark problems with consistency we can help each other by pointing such things out. It helps no one if I see fire and claim that it is the essence of wood to contain fire, when we have a working model of combustion. It is nonsense to think that I might have a good idea outside of blind luck striking me. I wouldn't be able to recognize a good idea if I had one because I would be unfamiliar with the context.

These threads are not even philosophy of science, they are idle speculation, and should be declared as such. I would say that if you have a question about physics, go to physicsforums.com or a similar forum in the psuedo-science and debunking area and see if your ideas hold any water after a trained scientist or hardcore enthusiast looks at them and discusses them with you.

@Zetetic11235,

Who said my musing has any scientific value? I would not be so bold but with out imagination no one will ever consider anything other than what is blatantly obvious. Many laymen have designed the most intriguing developments without a degree in science and with the information available we are all allowed to speculate, if it has value is for those with knowledge to analyse its worth.

@north,

Where to draw the line between life and physical?

Philosophy Forum

could this dark energy or matter be biological ?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know