Dark Matter Theories Enlighten Obscure Concept of Explanation

I have struggled with the Foundations of Quantum Physics for decades. Yes, struggle is the meaning of life, as our irascible friend the close-minded Jihadist said, and Albert Camus, too, maybe stimulated by the former, among his colleagues, the Natives of Algeria. I did the deepest studies, I could imagine, plunging in esoteric fields, so deep, I was laughed at, by those who prefer the shallows. Long ago. For example, I thought Category Theory (referred by its critics, then, as “Abstract Nonsense“) should be useful. Then even mathematicians would veil their faces, when Category Theory was evoked. Now, Category Theory is very useful, both in pure mathematics and physics.

The deepest mystery in physics is to understand the Quantum.

Some have sneered:’oh, you lunatic, there is nothing to understand.’ Let them sneer, they are amusing, in their obscurantism. This was always the answer of those who wanted to understand nothing new, in the last ten million years. But the rise of advanced animals is the rise of under-standing. Standing under the appearances of the universe. It is a case where we have to understand what understanding means. 

Giant Galaxy, 1,000 times brighter than Milky Way, ten billion year old, discovered July 2017. It is seen as portions of ring from gravitational lensing by (I suppose) a galactic cluster in between…)

An incontrovertible mystery in physics is Dark Matter. Since the 1930s, we know that there is a massive contradiction between galaxies and gravity. (Between rotations and motions  of galaxies and the theory of gravity, more exactly; be it Newtonian, or its slight modification, Einsteinian gravity.)

So far, physicists have trained less and less conventional explanations of Dark Matter. My own SQPR (SubQuantum Patrice Reality), built to explain the Quantum, provides readily with an explanation of Dark Matter.  It’s completely out of the plane of conventional physics (if you condescend to consider Quantum Field Theory conventional…)

The Superfluid-Anyon model of Dark Matter (“SAD”) supposes that there is a type of particle (anyon) with a strong self-interaction, making a superfluid. In my own theory, SQPR, none of this is supposed.

Some will sneer that I suppose the existence of some properties which give rise to Quantum Physics, and this is what SQPR is. Didn’t Newton, assuredly a greater creature, proclaimed he didn’t make up hypotheses? Right. (Actually the Universal Attraction law was not hypothesized by Newton but by French astronomer Ishmael Bullialdus. So easy for Newton to say; Newton also hypothesized that light consisted of particles, and that he had proven strict equivalence between Kepler’s law and mechanics plus gravity…)

However, to under-stand Quantum Physics, to stand under it, one will have to suppose new, underlying hypotheses explaining the physics of the Quantum. If fundamental, paradigm shifting progress in physics is possible, this is how it will happen.

The leaner those hypotheses, the better. The heliocentric theory of planets’ orbits made FEWER hypotheses than those who believe “heavenly bodies” were special. Why so special? How special? The natural thing

An enormous meteorite, streaked through the skies in a fiery manner, and landed in Northern Greece. It was visited for centuries. Clearly space was full of rocks, no crystal balls…  

Considering other evidences (distance of the sun, computed to be large, thus the sun, enormous), the heliocentric theory was most natural.

Dark Matter may well be the equivalent of that theory. My own SQPR predicts a slow apparition, and built-up of Dark Matter. The latest observations (2017) of Dark Matter and ancient galaxies show no Dark Matter say ten billion years ago.

SAD does not predict that: it predicts Super Fluid Anyon Dark Matter was always there.

Science does not just teach facts and how to organize them in theories. I also teaches what explanations are.

Ex-planation is generally viewed as meaning to spread out. But there is a more striking etymology: An explanation is how to get out (ex) of a plane. In other words, acquiring a further logical dimension.

There is no fundamental new dimension, logically speaking, by supposing one more type of elementary particle. But deducing observed facts from effects which go beyond Quantum Physics would be really a new dimension of logic.

I make hypotheses, but fewer. And they are more natural. That’s the key. When one thinks about it, it was more natural to suppose that, out there in the heavens, matter was as we knew it. Similarly, out there in the Quantum, it is more natural that interactions are as we know them: at finite speed, to preserve causality. This is the most fundamental intuition of SQPR: it supposes that the Quantum Interaction (because spooky action at a distance is still an interaction of some sort) has preserved that fundamental property we observe in all interactions…

By the way, some of the skeptical ones come around, and they sneer that all this science is a wild goose chase after a goose which does not exist. They are mistaken: we are chasing after ourselves. We are chasing after how we explain things.

Even attempted scientific explanation are real, and fruitful. Because scientific activity, even when mistaken, consists in chasing after how we could explain things.

Patrice Ayme’


Technical description of SAD from Theory of Dark Matter Superfluidity:

…”a novel theory of DM superfluidity that reconciles the stunning success of MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) on galactic scales with the triumph of the ΛCDM (Cold Dark Matter) model on cosmological scales (where MOND fails miserably: MOND modifies gravity at some specific distance, way too small for galactic clusters; whereas ΛCDM leaves gravity alone, just adding mass, lots of mass, mass by a factor of ten…).

In the SAD model, the Dark Matter component consists of self-interacting axion-like particles which are generated out-of-equilibrium and remain decoupled from baryons throughout the history of the universe. Provided that its mass is sufficiently light and its self-interactions sufficiently strong, the DM can thermalize and form a superfluid in galaxies, with critical temperature of order ∼mK. The superfluid phonon excitations are assumed to be described by a MOND-like action and mediate a MONDian acceleration on baryonic matter. Superfluidity only occurs at sufficiently low temperature, or equivalently within sufficiently low-mass objects…



Tags: , , ,

10 Responses to “Dark Matter Theories Enlighten Obscure Concept of Explanation”

  1. jacques lcvl Says:

    “Ex-planation is generally viewed as meaning to spread out. But there is a more striking etymology: An explanation is how to get out (ex) of a plane. In other words, acquiring a further logical dimension.”

    Fascinating. How this notion of explanation would be any different from existing String Theories and multiverses, or collissioning branes? I mean, they also play around with the notions of hidden ‘folds’ and 10 or 11 extra-dimensions. (Brian Greene’s Elegant Universe et all)

    In my field, ‘explanation’ would perhaps closely relate to the notion of semantic assemblages of diverse narratives, say, the language tropes, in the form of metonymies and synechdoches, that move along the diachronic traversing of language and thus create new meaning (meh, someone else could compare this with the manipulation of ‘language games’). Thus, I’d presume, we need you more in Philosophy than in your current field of action. Cheers

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for finding this “fascinating”, Jacques! The problem with (super)strings and the like (which I have studied with hope for all too long) is that they are complicated attempted ways out of complications which may be incorrect. I have written many essays critical of the chronology (or even idea) of the Big Bang, which ultimately led to the multiverse, etc. Similarly, the refusal to consider incompleteness at the root of the Quantum has led to the many World Interpretation. In all these cases, imagination laziness has brought extreme complications. More careful attention to the philosophical foundations before rushing mathematical complications is what I recommend…

      What’s your field? Philosophy?

      • jacques lcvl Says:

        jacques lcvl
        haha, how could it be otherwise? scientific-‘Hope’, complications out of complications, ‘imagination laziness’….Precisely, this is what I am doing as a philoospher. I am also a trained psychoanalyst, thus I am not ‘forced to make a living through attaining academic tenure’ and so I can keep a couple of interests and academic concentrations in both analytic and continental philosophies, such as cosmology, physics, the mind, language, semiotics, the nature of time, of math, and of course, phenomenology and metaphysics. I always rejected to begin psych training with ‘real subjects’ without first studying and becoming fully aware of the philosophical implications at the core of any of these issues, and especially theories of the subject (badiou, lacan, nietszche, derrida and others). Thus we fully agree on this last point.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Very interesting. Verily, to understand physics, it’s not enough to know math and physics, but also psychoanalysis… Of the four you listed, I take only Nietzsche really seriously (but maybe I am wrong because I never succeeded to read Derrida, and I shut down once Lacan told me ‘la femme n’existe pas’…). Badiou said something about math, a whole study actually, which made many scientists scream, but I saw he was trying to say something I said myself long before (I am a trained mathematician…)

  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    A computational model was published that overcomes some of the problems of the anyon superfluid MOND Dark Matter: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/29/dark-matter-theory-triumphs-in-sweeping-new-study/#71c18d0952d8

    • jacques lcvl Says:

      jacques lcvl
      I wonder who reads this highly-complex and sophisticated material on Forbes, which displays a sad array of one-dimensional, concrete readership. It would be similar to saying that some readers used to read Playboy mag because of the quality of the articles…cheers

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel writes a daily essay in Forbes (expanding from his site). Not all trivial…
        I read playboy just once, long ago, because there was a long (not quite cover!) article on the mountaineer Reinhold Messner

        • jacques lcvl Says:

          Yes! I remember that issue very well! Messner, that guy who was sponsored by Rolex, posing atop the Everest while wearing an Omega Speedmaster? (the one that astronauts used on the moon through the Apollo missions, as you’re surely aware). Of course, of course, the rest of the articles on Kissinger et all were so interesting, I could not stop reading this instructive and intellectually-driven publication. I had to share my interests between this mag and OMNI mag.

  3. ianmillerblog Says:

    Needless to say, I seem to find myself going off in a direction different from everyone else. My view is there is a wave (as with de Broglie and Bohm) and it is described mathematically by the usual exponential form. Where I differ from everyone else is they say the wave function is complex; my argument is that if you apply Euler’s complex number theory, it has to become real only at the precise two antinodes (crest and trough). My argument is, when the wave becomes real, it also becomes physically significant. The difference between two crest antinodes defines the quantum of action h, so that is my interpretation of what the quantum is.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmm…. I have no problem with complex numbers being real, if you forgive the pun. Why? Look at photon: complex wave, but ready physical interpretation: complex integrate spin (= photon polarization). There is nothing weird about square root of minus one… As long as one has the geometric picture of complex numbers. Now Penrose got TWISTOR theory out of it (I don’t know it).
      So for me (“complex”) Quantum Waves in physical or “configuration” space are real, and actually define space…

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: