DARK MATTER, 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 logic will help before linear logic does.

The case of Dark Matter is telling: this increasingly irritating elephant in the bathroom has been in evidence for 80 years, lumbering about. As the encumbering beast did not fit existing science, it was long religiously ignored by the faithful, as a subject not worthy of serious 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 was a fraud, snake oil, because main stream physics celebrities crowed about TOE, while knowing perfectly well that Dark Matter dwarfed standard matter, and was 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 (some have rhyme, a symmetry, a mathematical group such as SU3 acting upon them; symmetries revealed new particles, sometimes). 

Bullet Cluster, 100 Million Years Old. Two Galaxies Colliding. The Dark Matter, In Blue, Is Physically Separated From the Hot, Standard Matter Gas, in Red.

Bullet Cluster, 100 Million Years Old. Two Galaxies Colliding. The Dark Matter, In Blue, Is Physically Separated From the Hot, Standard Matter Gas, in Red.

[This sort of pictures is most of what we presently have to guess what Dark Matter could be; the physical separation of DM and SM is most telling to me: it seems to indicate that SM and DM do not respond to the same forces, something that my Quantum theory predicts; it’s known that Dark Matter causes gravitational lensing, as one would expect, as it was first found by its gravitational effects, in the 1930s…]

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 from a completely new law in physics.

This is the quandary about finding truly completely new science. It can never be deduced from ruling paradigms, and may actually overthrow them. What should then be the method to use? Can Descartes and Sherlock Holmes help? The paradigm presented by Quantum Physics helps. The Quantum looks everywhere in space to find solutions: this is where its (“weird”) nonlocality comes in. Nonlocality is crucial for interference patterns and for finding lowest energy solutions, as in the chlorophyll molecule. This suggests that our minds should go nonlocal too, and we should look outside of a more extensive particle zoo to find what Dark Matter is.

In general, searching for new science should be by looking everywhere, not hesitating to possibly contradict what is more traditional than well established.

An obvious possibility is, precisely, that Quantum Physics is itself incomplete, and generating Dark Matter in places where said incompleteness would be most blatant. 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”).

The more one does find a conventional explanation (namely a new type of particle) for Dark Matter, the more likely my style of explanation is likely. How could one demonstrate it? Not by looking for new particles, but by conducting new and more refined experiments in the foundations of Quantum Physics.

If this guess is correct, whatever is found askew in the axioms of present Quantum Physics could actually help future Quantum Computer technology (because the latter works with Quantum foundations directly, whereas conventional high energy physics tend to eschew the wave aspects, due to the high frequencies involved).

Going on a tangent is what happens when the central, attractive force, is let go. A direct effect of freedom. Free thinking is tangential. We have to learn to produce tangential thinking.

René Descartes tried to doubt the truth of all his beliefs to determine which beliefs he could be certain were true. However, at the end of “The Meditations” he hastily conclude that we can distinguish between dream and reality. It is not that simple. The logic found in dreams is all too similar to the logic used by full-grown individuals in society.

Proof? Back to Quantum Physics. On the face of it, the axioms of Quantum Physics have a dream like quality (there is no “here”, nor “there”, “now” is everywhere, and, mysteriously, the experiment is Quantum, whereas the “apparatus” is “classical”). Still, most physicists, after insinuating they have figured out the universe, eschew the subject carefully.  The specialists of Foundations are thoroughly confused: see Sean Carroll, http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

However unbelievable Quantum Physics, however dream-like it is, physicists believe in it, and don’t question it anymore than cardinals would Jesus. Actually, it’s this dream-like nature which, shared by all, defines the community of physicists. Cartesian doubt, pushed further than Descartes did, will question not just the facts, the allegations, but the logic itself. And even the mood behind it.

Certainly, in the case of Dark Matter, some of the questions civilization has to ask should be:

  1. How sure are we of the Foundations of Quantum Physics? (Answer: very sure, all too sure!)
  2. Could not it be that Dark Matter is a cosmic size experiment in the Foundations of Quantum Physics?

Physics, properly done, does not just question the nature of nature. Physics, properly done, questions the nature of how we find out the nature of anything. Physics, properly done, even questions the nature of why we feel the way we do. And the way we did. About anything, even poetry. In the end, indeed, even the toughest logic is a form of poetry, hanging out there, justified by its own beauty, and nothing else. Don’t underestimate moods: they call what beauty is.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

10 Responses to “DARK MATTER, Or How Inquiry Proceeds”

  1. Kathleen Hawes Watkins Says:

    ‘Going on a tangent is what happens when the central, attractive force, is let go. A direct effect of freedom. Free thinking is tangential.’

    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
    Partha.

  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

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: