Dark Matter and You
OK, most school starts next week so I think the (relative) summer hiatus of BT is over. As the science contributer I ought mention the biggest news of the week. No, not that Pluto was demoted from planet to dwarf planet. Not even that the Poincare Conjecture proof was confirmed. No, the big news by my book was the result that dark matter exists.
I’d originally written “proof”, but there’s still a bit of wiggle room for MOND (basically an alternative to dark matter). For those really interested check out John Baez’ post about dark matter. Yeah, it’s a bit more technical but has cool pictures. Also check out Cosmic Variance’s follow up which has some interesting thoughts. Also check out this primer on Dark Matter if you’re not quite sure what it is.
Here’s where the LDS connection comes in.
Now in advance, let me say that I’m very skeptical of most theoretical physics – Mormon theology ties. A few I find interesting due to theological necessity. (i.e. the requirement of an infinite past or an infinite number of individuals which clearly means we need multiple universes ala Linde’s expansion theory or brane theory within string theory or something similar) I blogged about that over at the old BT but can’t find the link at the moment. However Dark Matter seems less useful. The claim that that some make that Dark Matter is the realm of spirit matter seems dubious at best.
Still, Mark’s post at Cosmic Variance has a few speculations that are of interest. Particularly the idea that there is an ultimate stable particle of dark matter. (Yeah, I’ll stop capitalizing it now) This particle is electrically neutral. (Which is why we can’t see it) Of course there are other candidates, such as the axion. The question is what ultimately will the properties of dark matter as a particle be? Will they be too energetic to be of much use, even in the kind of speculations some LDS bloggers like? Perhaps. But it pays to remain skeptical.
Count me as highly sceptical of any theory tying dark matter into a gospel metaphysic. That counts for theories I haven’t heard of, no matter how cleverly devised. I remember reading Widstoe’s “Joseph Smith as Scientist” and “learning” that the universal ether is actually the light of Christ. I’m not dying to re-live that experience.
Besides, I have always hated dark matter. Even if it turns out that it is real, that doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it.
Comment by Jacob — August 29, 2006 @ 2:13 am
It is my understanding that dark matter does not interact with ordinary (baryonic) matter in any way other than by gravity. That would seem to pose a problem for any spirit-body connection. So yeah, I think we should be skeptical.
Comment by Jared — August 29, 2006 @ 9:13 am
Would this be the post you were thinking about, Clark?
So, I have read just enough to say something stupid, but I am not afriad. Clark, it is my understanding that in brane theory, gravity is not kept withing the brane and seaps onto other branes. Is it possible that dark matter is is just part of that gravitational seppage, like from black hole on another brane?
Comment by J. Stapley — August 29, 2006 @ 11:07 am
BTW, There was a recent article in Dialogue on the various multiverse theories and Mormonism. I thought your treatments over the years were far superiour, but also quite disperse. You ought to either do a review of the article or write one yourself (grin) as I would be very interested in your treatment.
Comment by J. Stapley — August 29, 2006 @ 11:13 am
Thanks for the link, but no that wasn’t the post. It was on the old BT but obviously the links to that don’t work. I thought I’d reposted it here.
The issue of brane theory and gravity isn’t such that it could really explain dark matter. MOND was the big attempt and while it’s not completely out, the ref is definitely giving the count. I think the evidence from NASA was compelling enough that dark matter is here to stay. The big issue now is over what, exactly, dark matter is.
Jared, dark matter weakly interacts but I don’t think one can say it only interacts gravitationally. There are a bunch of experiments people are coming up with to look for it, some using particle accelerators. We’ll see. I think the properties at this stage are vague enough that experiments will be difficult, beyond long range telescope observations of galaxies. Which are limited in what they can tell us. (Although someone may get creative. . .)
The biggest problem is that outside a few odd things our theoretical physics doesn’t account for dark matter. We need to expand the standard model but it isn’t clear how to do that. Although at this stage I’d bet loop theory has a better shot than string theory. String theory simply explains too much whereas loop theory is starting to make predictions about the standard model starting just with GR. (Plus I’m a GR guy so I don’t like the ways space and time are handled in string theory – although GR approaches pose difficulties to Libertarian free will proponents like Blake Ostler)
Comment by Clark Goble — August 29, 2006 @ 11:26 am
I do not think LDS theology strictly requires an infinite number of individuals, and definitely not an infinite individual density. The number one physical problem with A/G is the fan out factor of 100 billion or so (if not millions of times more than that). It wouldn’t take long at all to saturate the known universe at that rate.
While it seems that in practice on a Abrahamic sort of exaltation that the exalted will preside in part over a virtually endless lineal and adopted posterity, it also seems to be part of the Lord’s long term plan to not only save, but exalt as many as possible. And if the personal intelligence density in the universe is finite, that strictly precludes a technically infinite posterity, in favor of an end game far more egalitarian, much more like the classic ideal of a Zion society, where we are equal not only in earthly things, but heavenly things as well.
Remember that in the D&C our relationship with God starts out as children, then we become servants, and finally friends. It seems to be that the long term horizon for exaltation is indeed a society of friends, and not creating an infinite number of children out of next to nothing, as Brigham Young had it.
Rather, I suggest a model of parallel progression where all the personal intelligences throughout eternity are within one “estate” or soteriological era of each other. It seems most likely to me that all the intelligences in existence have passed through their first estate and are now about to enter the second estate, in the second estate, or have just passed from the second estate – extending the second estate to include the post mortal spirit world and the Millennial terrestrial era.
After we have reached the last day of this soteriological era, presumably at the end of the Millennium, then the plans for the third estate implied in D&C 130 can begin in earnest. I can’t imagine why it is a good thing to keep photocopying the plans for the second estate over and over again, when it would make so much more sense to for the whole host of heaven to progress as individuals, as a society, and as a civilization, in rough parallel.
Comment by Mark Butler — August 30, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Note that this isn’t just a problem with A/G. Rather it is part and parcel of a problem with the notion of “worlds without number” but especially a problem with the notion of the King Follet Discourse. However that “worlds without numbers” and “no beginning” entails a lot theologically. One can attempt to deal with it and posit a finite creation. But not without rejecting a lot of key texts (IMO).
But you are perhaps right that I ought say “mainstream LDS theology” rather than LDS theology proper.
Clearly though I feel that LDS theology entails the existence of actual infinities.
Comment by Clark Goble — August 31, 2006 @ 3:37 pm