A theory holds that dark matter could be involved in a mirror universe and that runs backwards before the Big Bang. A theory holds that dark matter could be involved in a mirror universe and that runs backwards before the Big Bang. © Getty Images Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story: A backward, mirror universe could explain the existence of dark matter. If an anti-universe exists, it would run backward in time, before the Big Bang. Dark matter, then, could be right-handed neutrinos implied by the mirror universe. Scientists believe there could be an “anti-universe” somewhere out there that looks like the mirror image of our own universe, reciprocating almost everything we do. If this theory holds true, it could explain the presence of dark matter. Byzantine Crucifix With Angel, Holy Eucharist, The Holy Spirit - Handcrafted In Italy 1-7/8" Long Ad Byzantine Crucifix With Angel, Holy Eucharist, The Holy Spirit - Handcrafted In Italy 1-7/8" Long Etsy call to action icon First, some background: the “Big Bang” is a collective term that includes a variety of theories studied by cosmologists, the scientists who try to rewind the clock as close to the very beginning of the universe as possible. Most agree that matter exploded forth, but there are different opinions on, for example, whether the temperature was extremely hot or absolute-zero cold at that initial moment. There are also disagreements about what may have happened prior to the bang itself. Could it be that what we call the Big Bang was the inflection point of an even bigger bounce in progress? Think of the point when you bounce on the trampoline and your feet almost touch the ground beneath—then imagine only seeing the subsequent bounce upward; it’s meaningless without the first, downward half of the bounce! Dark matter is, if such a thing exists, maybe even more perplexing to scientists than the Big Bang. That’s because dark matter is a key piece that helps to complete an unclear puzzle— the question of what forms the universe around us today, not billions of years ago. Dark matter forms the bulk of the matter in the universe, but we’ve never been able to see it anywhere. Related video: Black Holes & Dark Matter (Isaac Arthur) Probably two of the most common and important questions in Isaac Arthur Black Holes & Dark Matter How is dark matter hidden in plain sight, and what are its qualities? These are huge mysteries upon which a ton of other ideas must rest. For the time being, one way to describe dark matter is very literal: by “dark,” we mean that it is not luminous, which is the technical term for matter that doesn’t reflect or emit any photons in a way we can identify. But we can measure the physical (not visual) effects of dark matter in things like gravitational waves. Now we arrive back at the theory. Could it be that an “anti-universe” might run parallel to our own universe, but backward in time? If so, it would essentially spread out “backward” in time, prior to the Big Bang, in the same way our universe progressed “forward” in time. In a paper published in 2018 in the journal Annals of Physics, researchers from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada, suggest that the Big Bang might have been smaller and more symmetrical than we think. Ask a Pro: "How Should I Start to Plan for RMD Taxes Once I Turn 65?" Ad Ask a Pro: "How Should I Start to Plan for RMD Taxes Once I Turn 65?" SmartAsset call to action icon “Among other things, we shall describe in detail a remarkable consequence of this hypothesis, namely a highly economical new explanation for the cosmological dark matter,” the researchers write. One cool thing about this model of the Big Bang is that it removes the need for what scientists call “inflation,” a period of time in which the universe massively expanded in order to account for its size soon after birth. Instead, the matter could have naturally expanded over time in a less forceful way, which could simplify our explanation for what happened. And in order for these two before-and-after universes to be truly symmetrical, we would need to add a particle to our existing understanding of the universe around us. Today, we know about neutrinos, extra-tiny mysterious particles involved in gravity and weak interaction only. If our universe is mirrored by a similar universe running backward in time from the Big Bang, then what we call dark matter could actually be a version of a neutrino that is “right-handed,” a term that refers to the direction of motion in the neutrino. It would be the natural opposite of the left-handed neutrinos in the other universe. 50% Off Unlimited Plan Ad 50% Off Unlimited Plan Mint Mobile call to action icon If this sounds like wild and heady stuff, you’re absolutely right. But iteration using this kind of new theory is a critical part of cosmology, because scientists must have existing, published theories in order to study them and decide what their next theoretical step is. It’s so much easier to do that by responding publicly using your own observations and measurements, and that leaves a beautiful trail of ideas over time as we refine our understanding and develop more sophisticated ways to observe the universe.
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment