.
As Colonel Hannibal Smith of A-Team fame was wont to say, “I love it when a plan comes together.” You see, for years now I have been aware that my whole “Chord Theory/Universal Resonance explanation of the universe and existence” notion often foundered on the shoals of lack of pragmatic evidence. When the whole construction rests on interactions too small to be measured – the behavior of strings – well, eyebrows tend to be raised, chortles are stifled, or not.
New paths show promise in countering those reactions. First, evidence that the status quo is flawed opens the door to alternative explanations, such as those I propose. And, the more humongous the previous errors, the greater the wiggle-room provided. Second, testable hypotheses generated by the alternative explanation are presenting themselves.
I am now willing to assert that the now widely-accepted notion that some 96% of the universe made up of dark matter and energy had escaped the observational efforts of the scientific community, qualifies as a humongous error. [See link.]
And now even more recent data from the Kepler mission points to yet another elephantine oversight. The May 20th issue of Science News carries an article entitled: Stellar Oddballs, in which Geoff Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley says, “There are so many stars that show bizarre, utterly unexplainable brightness variations that I don’t know where to begin. These phenomena have never been seen before, or never with such clarity.” Or in other words – “Oops, our bad.” [See link.]
The point is not so much that “they got it wrong,” as it is that everything we were sure of yesterday can change tomorrow. Certainty isn’t; which gives greater rein to hypothesizing about the uncertain. Hence, this hypothesis:
As I understand it, little of what we know about the cosmos – or thought we knew – is based upon actually looking at a phenomenon. That’s very old school, very Galileo. Today, we measure the results of interactions or shifts in interactions and then define and identify the phenomenon by interpreting the interactions. We don’t “see” particles collide in the Large Hadron Collider [LHC], rather reactions are “detected” that are consistent with what theory asserts should occur when specific particles collide – the actual collision is inferred, not observed. That oblique ascertainment of “reality” applies in our everyday life as well. I am looking at a pen that is blue. But blue is actually the color that the pen is not. The pen absorbs – takes into itself - all the other color wavelengths and reflects back those that are not “of it” – blue. We see, and name the object’s color, by the reflected wavelength, by the characteristic it does not possess, blue. Hence, Picasso’s blue period was really his “every color but blue period.”
The objective of the foregoing is not a semantic game, rather it is an attempt to demonstrate how we might have missed most of the universe, and further, how we misunderstood much of that which we thought we had observed. The issue is important since the data – as far as we can trust them – now seem to assert that our portion of the universe, the 4% we imperfectly observe, is different from the other 96% that we have not observed. [A cautionary note seems important here. There is no reason that I can see, to assume that the other 96% is made up of uniform “otherness.” There may be a wide variety of “othernesses” in play. But let us leave that for another time.]
The observational imperative of the 4/96 split would seem to be that we avoid attempting to observe the hidden 96% of the universe using the norms we have ascertained here in our 4%. To do so is to become, once again, the midnight drunk searching for the car keys only where the light is best; searching using the flashlight of theories that now seem, at least, incomplete.
Chord theory, universal resonance, suggests a different observational strategy. Our 4% solution rests on the observations of reactions, of collisions, of resistance. The observation of discord, not harmony. Universal resonance asserts a wider universe in which harmony is the norm and resistance the aberration. So, perhaps we should ask ourselves, what is the observable opposite of resistance? What phenomenon might reveal a universe of harmonic normalcy? Conductivity seems to raise a hand. And superconductivity – that state when resistance disappears completely, when there are no collisions or reactions, defining a universe where harmony reigns, but is, to us, invisible.
That is, of course, the nature of the ultimately harmonic universe posited by universal resonance. The question remains: What does that universe “look like”? What lampposts shed light on the other 96%? I would hypothesize that the other 96% - or at least significant portions of it – are cloaked by superconductivity, perhaps even hyper-conductivity that would allow more than one object to commonly occupy the same space at the same time. Yes, yes, we know that is wrong – at least so it seemed yesterday. But continued “head-stuck-in-the-4-percent” attempts to prove such bizarre notions impossible, simply impede progress toward discovering how we might observe them once they rudely assert their reality.
A more fruitful path would be for those with the appropriate skill sets to seek for “cosmic background superconductivity,” as they have previously sought cosmic microwave background radiation. How? I haven’t the slightest idea. But there are some wickedly brilliant people out there who can probably get their heads around it. I look forward to their work!
.
No comments:
Post a Comment