DARK MATTER-ENERGY, Or How Inquiry Proceeds

How to find really new knowledge? How do you find really new science? Not by knowing the result: this is what we don’t have yet. Any really new science will not be deduced from pre-existing science. Any really new knowledge will come out of the blue. Poetical, and, or, emotional logic will help before linear logic does.

A top lawyer, admitted to the US Supreme Court, and several countries. told me that the best judges know, emotionally, where they want to go, and then build a logical case for it.

The case of Dark Matter is telling: this increasingly irritating elephant in the bathroom has been in evidence for 80 years, lumbering about, smashing the most basic concepts of physics. As the encumbering beast did not fit existing science, it was long religiously ignored by the faithful of the church of standard physics, as a subject not worthy of deep inquiry by very serious physicists. Now Dark Matter, five times more massive than Standard Model matter, is clearly sitting heavily outside of the Standard Model, threatening to crush it into irrelevance. Dark matter obscures the lofty pretense of known physics to explain everything (remember the grandly named TOE, the so-called “Theory Of Everything“? That TOE was a fraud, snake oil, because mainstream physics celebrities crowed about TOE, while knowing perfectly well that Dark Matter dwarfed standard matter, and while being completely outside of the Standard Model).

Physicists are presently looking for Dark Matter, knowing what they know, namely that nature has offered them a vast zoo of particles, many of them without rhyme or reason. or symmetries to “explain” (indeed, some have rhyme, a symmetry, a mathematical group such as SU3 acting upon them; symmetries have revealed new particles, sometimes). 




However, remember: a truly completely new (piece of) science cannot be deduced from pre-existing paradigm. Thus, if Dark Matter was really about finding a new particle type, it would be interesting, but not as interesting as it would be, if it were not, after all, a new particle type, but instead, a consequence from a completely new law in physics.



An obvious possibility to explain Dark Matter is, precisely, that Quantum Physics is itself incomplete, and generating Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in places where said incompleteness (of the present Quantum theory) would be most blatant: large cosmic distances.

More precisely, Quantum processes, stretched over cosmic distances, instead of being perfectly efficient and nonlocal over gigantically cosmic locales, could leave a Quantum mass-energy residue, precisely in the places where extravagant cosmic stretching of Quanta occurs (before “collapse”, aka “decoherence”). (I call this theory of mine SQPR, Sub Quantum Patrice Reality.)

This would happen if what one should call the “Quantum Interaction” proceeds at a finite speed (much faster than c, by a factor of at least 10^23…). It’s enough.








  1. How sure are we of the Foundations of Quantum Physics? Answer: very sure, all too sure!


Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

12 Responses to “DARK MATTER-ENERGY, Or How Inquiry Proceeds”

  1. Kathleen Hawes Watkins Says:


    Profound. Well said!


  2. pshakkottai Says:

    The song of creation says this. (Upanishads)

    Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
    There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
    What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
    Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

    Then there was neither death nor immortality
    nor was there then the torch of night and day.
    The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
    There was that One then, and there was no other.

    At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
    All this was only unillumined water.
    That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
    arose at last, born of the power of heat.

    In the beginning desire descended on it –
    that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
    The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
    know that which is kin to that which is not.

    And they have stretched their cord across the void,
    and know what was above, and what below.
    Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
    Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

    But, after all, who knows, and who can say
    Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
    the gods themselves are later than creation,
    so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

    Whence all creation had its origin,
    he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
    he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
    he knows – or maybe even he does not know.[11]

    —Translated by A. L. Basham


  3. SDM Says:

    Does quantum theory undo the premise of the big bang theory? The Big bang never seems to be adequately explained or convincing as a true beginning of the universe, or perhaps more broadly, “existence”- time and space.
    Can all matter as we know it truly be dated or is it more likely that it has always existed in some form, such as perhaps the curious dark matter may be a clue to this. Is there some sort of recycling or transformation process at work? Until we have some knowledge of the nature of dark energy and dark matter, perhaps the big bang theory should be set aside or at least have a disclaimer attached.


  4. ianmillerblog Says:

    I hav little doubt that we don’t know everything, and I also think that in many cases, we may have gone down a somewhat wrong path. After all, the first one to come up with an idea is guessing and then trying to make sense of it. I find the Sean carroll poll quite interesting – ALL physicists, according to that, are convinced there is no wave, and wave characteristics occur essentially by magic. I think that says something.

    One of the interesting things I have seen is a proposal by Heim. This is totally disregarded – and maybe with good cause, but if so that cause is never stated. What he did was calculate the energies of a number of elementary particles from quantum-type arguments, except G also turns up in the equations, and the quantum numbers seem to be an odd assortment of prime numbers, and I have no idea why. Interestingly, his equations lead to a neutral electron, marginally heavier that the electron. Now, if such particles condensed out of an energy plasma, and matter and antimatter depended on charge, and they almost annihilated each other but the neutral electron did not, then you could reasonably end up with the dark matter levels www have. Is that right? Who knows, but if dark matter was predicted surely the prediction should be analysed and either shown to be wrong, or be placed in the list of possibilities. Just to ignore it is wrong. But then again, if you do anything against the standard thinking, you get ignored. Check the pilot wave.


  5. Gmax Says:

    You should make your dark matter quantum theory more explicit. Drawing, please.

    You invite stealing by smart assessment by not telling more



    […] twisted deformation of gravity (such as MOND) that would mimic Dark Matter behavior, in some, only some, cases, and not in cases such as the Bullet Cluster —would contradict the religion of LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) and the sect of MOND, in other […]


  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to below]

    Maybe only a stroke of genius on the grandest scale, could throw a light on all this dark! Bring in the Quantum, and its incompleteness!




WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
