DARK GALAXY (Explained?)

A giant galaxy made nearly entirely of Dark Matter has been discovered. Theories of Dark Matter proposed by people salaried for professing physics cannot explain (easily, if at all!) why there would be so much Dark Matter in one galaxy. I can. In my own theory, Dark Matter is not really matter, although matter gives birth to it, under some particular geometrical conditions. In my theory, in some geometrodynamic situations, a galaxy will churn inordinate amounts of Dark Matter quickly. So I was not surprised by the find.

There are many potential theories of Dark Matter. Most are fairly conventional. They typically hypothesize new particles (some of these new particles could come from new symmetries, such as supersymmetry). I do not see how they can predict why these particular particles appear in some places, and not others. However, the importance of location, of geometry, is a crucial feature of my own theory.

I predicate that the Quantum Interaction (copyright myself) does not have infinite range. Thus, quantum interactions, in some conditions of low mass-energy density, leave behind part of the Quantum Wave. Such debris have mass-energy, so they exert gravitational pull, but they have little else besides (most of the characteristics of the particles they were part of concentrate somewhere else).

I Can Explain This Dark Galaxy, By Changing The Foundations Of Physics. No Less.

I Can Explain This Dark Galaxy, By Changing The Foundations Of Physics. No Less.

[From the Hawaiian Gemini telescope.]

In my own theory, one can imagine that the geometry of a galaxy is, at some point extremely favorable to the creation of Dark Matter: it is just a question of dispersing the matter just so. The Dark Galaxy has 1% of the stars of our Milky Way, or less. In my theory, once Dark Matter has formed, it does not seem possible to make visible matter again with it (broken Quantum Wave debris float around like a cosmic fog).

All past science started as a mix of philosophy and science-fiction (Aristarchus, Lucretius, Giordano Bruno, Immanuel Kant, Lamarck are examples). One can only surmise it will be the same in the future, and this is supported by very good logic: guessing comes always before knowing. Those who claim that science will never be born again from philosophy and fantasy are saying that really new science will never happen again. They say that all the foundations of science are known already. So they are into predication, just like religious fanatics.

It was fashionable to say so, among physicists in the 1990s, the times of the fable known as TOE, the so-called Theory Of Everything. Shortly after this orgasm of self-satisfaction by self-appointed pontiffs, the evidence became clear that the universe’s mass-energy was mostly Dark Energy, and Dark Matter.

This is an interesting case of meta-mood shared: also in the 1990s, clever idiots (Fukuyama, etc.) claimed history had ended: a similar claim from the same period, permeating the same mood of stunted imagination. The advantage, while those who pontificated that way? They could claim they knew everything: they had become gods, living gods.

I had known about Dark Matter all along (the problem surfaced nearly a century ago). I considered it a huge problem: It held galaxies and galactic clusters, together. But maybe something had been overlooked. Meanwhile Main Stream Physics (MSP) dutifully, studiously, ignored it. For decades. Speaking of Dark matter made one despicable, a conspiracy theorist.

Another thing MSP ignored was the foundations of physics. Only the most prestigious physicists, such as Richard Feynman, could afford to repeat Einstein’s famous opinion that “nobody understands Quantum Mechanics”. I gave my intellectual life’s main axis of reflection in trying to understand what nobody wanted to understand, that nobody thought they could afford to understand, the real foundations of physics. (So doing I was forced to reflect on why it is that people do not want to understand the most fundamental things, even while professing they do. It is particularly blatant in, say, economics.)

I have long discovered that the real foundations of physics are entangled with those of mathematics (it is not just that physics, nature, is written with mathematics, as Galileo wrote; there is a dialogue between the mathematics that we invent, and the universe that we discover, they lead to each other). For example whether the infinity axiom is allowed in mathematics change the physics radically (the normalization problem of physics is solved if one removes the infinity axiom).

Right now, research at the foundations of (proper) physics is hindered by our lack of nonlinear mathematics: Quantum mechanics, as it is, is linear (waves add up in the simplest way). However the “collapse of the wave packet” is obviously nonlinear (this is why it’s outside of existing physics, from lack of math). From that Quantum collapse, when incomplete from great distances involved, comes Dark Matter. At least, so I propose. 

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , ,

12 Responses to “DARK GALAXY (Explained?)”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    BBC Radio 4 have just finished a series of 10 quarter-hour broadcasts by Professor Adrian Moore entitled A History of the Infinite. It has been compelling listening! On Monday I’m publishing a post that includes episode eight: The Cosmos. There will be a link to the full series that may include episodes of interest to your goodself.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Very good Paul. Remind me to read your work (I tend to forget, too busy!). Please remember this, though: whatever the paid physicists pontificate about, they have theories only about 4% of the universe’s mass-energy, at this point. They can sound smart, and all that, yet, never in the history of science has there been such a huge gap between what we think we understand, and what we ought to understand. By this I mean that, in Aristotle, or Newton’s, or Lord Kelvin, or Einstein (early) time 100% of physics, or close to it, seemed to be understood. Now, just 4%…


  2. 1truegarcol Says:

    How does ‘a part of the quantum wave’ contribute a massive amount of mass without collapsing or just vanishing? Dragonfly 44 is apparently one of hundreds of similar dark-matter galaxies. Are these locations like tunable receivers with standing waves of dark matter?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The idea is this: 1) A Quantum Wave X (QWX) spreads to cosmological distances, say of the order of many light years. Why? Because there are not enough “particles” around to generate collapse (by encountering such another “particle”). So this non-interaction can happen only in a low density region.

      2) Then a particle Y is finally encountered near the core of QWX. That launches the Quantum collapse, which propagates at very high speed (well in excess of 10^10 C).

      3) However, in the case that QWX will produce Dark Matter, far-out regions of QWX cannot reassemble near the singularizing core, fast enough, because they are too far.

      4) The resulting singularized core is a particle with the same characteristics as the one which launched QWX (this just assumes that the geometrical, and, or topological features that defined said quantum numbers are defined only towards the core, where QWX is highly non-linear. The fact that outer regions of QWX are linear is at the axiomatic heart of the present Quantum Theory; I am NOT touching that well-established science).

      5) However, some of the linear, far-out part of QWX has been lost (during 3)). So the particle which has singularized has lost some of its mass energy. Reciprocally, some of the linear far-out part of the ex-QWX floats around in the low density region. Why? Because it has little intrinsic momentum left (“particle” Y has transmitted nothing to the far-out linear debris, because the latter is too far from the interacting core).

      In a high density region (such as the Local Arm in which Sol is found). Such a tearing of QWX is much more unlikely than in particular far-out areas of a giant galaxy (giant like Dragonfly 44, or the Milky Way). Most QWX are not spread out enough to not reconvene entirely at the singularization (= collapse) point.

      My theory is serious sci-fi relative to the conventional solutions so far hypothesized. However, it gives the connection between Dark Matter and particular regions right away (which I cannot imagine conventional theories doing). It also has obvious consequences on cosmological gravitons, weakening them, and thus giving a Dark Energy-like effect…

      Killing all the birds with one stone? OK, just three birds (Foundations QM, DM, DE…)


  3. pshakkottai Says:

    If QM has a missing non-linearity, what form should it take? Would the missing term have a tiny multiplier like ~ 1/10^10.c ,
    suitably non dimensionalized?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Partha: I am thinking about an answer. (I do have an answer, from what I know about nonlinear waves.) But the answer is so broad, I had no time to write it down.
      Equations were discovered around 5 centuries ago, formally (earlier by 2 centuries if one goes to Buridan’s F = ma, which is implicit in what he wrote). We may need to discover something more general than equations (nonlinear Quantum equations already exist, have been tantalizing, but of little help…)


  4. ianmillerblog Says:

    The first question I would ask is, what do you thing the quantal matter wave is? Standard theory seems to consider it as a probability function, which means it is a field of numbers, which shouldn’t generate gravity. Not that i think standard theory is engraved on stone. But, what is your opinion on this?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am not ignoring your comment, dear Ian, I am thinking about it. I am thinking to write a little essay about it. You put your fingers exactly where the problem is, and the cosmic grand canyon which separates me from normal physicists. The specific points you are making are worth answering directly, in the mood they are in, and I will do this (using the spin EPR a la Bohm-Bell; I know you have reservations about it). Meanwhile maybe those two help:

      The connection with my fierce attacks against Socrates-Plato-Aristotle are made explicit in:

      Non-Aristotelian thinking is needed!


      • ianmillerblog Says:

        I look forward to our thoughts. As you may know, I have my interpretation as well, in which the wave is definitely real, but for a particle not in a stationary state it has a somewhat limited spatial range. I know – nobody really believes that, but that has been my life. I must write an essay about some of the other failings of modern science that have simply been swept under the carpet. The real spirit of trying to understand science is actually somewhat moribund at present.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Ian: How can the particle’s wave be limited, when, say, a photon goes around a galaxy? That’s the question of how big the wave can be before something happens. My answer is that what happens, when it gets too big just so, is Dark Matter. And when it gets even bigger, a weakening of gravitons, hence Dark Energy. One stone, Two birds.

          To find really new science, one needs to be able to make and check, wild guesses. Same in all bold thinking and art or poetry, and all real creativity.


          • ianmillerblog Says:

            My concept is that by limited, I mean limited to where the photon is. Obviously, if the photon goes out as far as x, so does the wave, BUT, the wave is listed to a distance from the energy centre of the photon. What that distance is is more interesting. The reason for this is as follows. If the wave is “something”, conservation laws means there can only be so much “something”, and hence as the particle/photon moves into new territory, where it has been the “something” has to decay. I believe the “something” is an energy field, largely because if the phase velocity equals the particle velocity, then there has to be something else equals to the kinetic energy. (That applies more to particles than photons, which, arguably, do not have kinetic energy.)


  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Aeon, Nov 25, 2016.]

    In my theory, Dark Matter is caused by Quantum leakage (so to speak) over cosmic distances. Thus Dark Matter is explained by SUB-Quantum Theory. Matter waves, when they collapse over distances of the order of 10,000 light years, leave some of themselves behind: Dark Matter. The same effect could cause “fuel-less” propulsion. (And also Dark Energy.)



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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: