Dwarf Galaxies Contradict Standard Cosmology, BUT NOT SQPR!

Standard Cosmology Threatened, SQPR Proven?

Cosmology matters, it has always mattered, ever since there are reasons, and we humans try to refine them. Cosmology is the laboratory of pure reason.

The standard cosmological model is called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model. “Lambda” is for the Cosmological Constant, an invention of Albert Einstein (hey, you see, Albert invented a few things, on his own, contrarily to what he claimed in self-derision…). Lambda basically says that space, spacetime itself, could have an energy independent of the mass-energy tensor (the energy of all and any particles). Dark Matter, in that model, is assumed to be some, so far mysterious, thing, spread all about, right from the start. A type of particle, so far undiscovered (standard physicists would guess).

After the Big Bang, in the ΛCDM, the universe expands: light takes ever longer to go between the developing clumps of matter which will end up as galactic clusters. In these clumps, Dark Matter concentrates, like the rest. Dark Matter reacting only to gravity, it ends up forming the next generation, more concentrated clumps (it’s not held back by radiation pressure from lighting stars, ect.). These Dark Matter kernels in turn attract material which ends up more or less rotating (the bigger, the more rotation), and we call that galaxies. Dwarf galaxies stay irregular and often don’t rotate as flat disks. Giant galaxies such as the Milky Way, Andromeda and Centaurus A, rotate mightily, and find themselves with dozens of smaller galaxies as satellites.

Centaurus A (NGC 5128) is an unusual giant elliptical galaxy crossed by a dust lane. The yellow halo is made of billions of yellow stars. It is ten billion light years away (5 times further than Andromeda, and is the largest closest giant galaxy we can see, after Andromeda (others may be hidden by dust). It is accompanied by 16 Dwarf Galaxies rotating in the same plane as Centaurus A itself. Something absolutely not predicted by ΛCDM. Width of the picture is 16 arc minutes, half of the full moon (which 30 arc minutes, half a degree).


The ΛCDM model is, at first sight, impressive. Computer simulations of the model with observations are considered to be very successful on very large scales (larger than galactic clusters, up to the observable horizon). But  it has a “small scale crisis”:  too many dwarf galaxies, too much dark matter in the innermost regions of galaxies, too much Dark Matter halos (which are not observed). These small scales are harder to resolve in computer simulations, so it is not yet clear whether the problem is the simulations, non-standard properties of dark matter, or a more radical error in the model.

However, worse is now surfacing: the distribution of dwarf galaxies in a flat disk around their mother galaxy is absolutely not predicted by the ΛCDM paradigm.

ΛCDM predicts Dwarf Galaxies around a giant galaxy, but also predicts their orbits should be left to chance, there is not enough time since the Big bang to develop a huge rotation of the supergalactic cloud. ΛCDM says galaxies formed nearly instantaneously, after being torn on the outskirts by Dark Matter clumps which then make Dwarf Galaxies.

An international team of astronomers has determined that Centaurus A, a massive elliptical galaxy 13 million light-years from Earth, is accompanied by a number of dwarf satellite galaxies orbiting the main body in a narrow disk. This is the first time such a galactic arrangement has been observed outside the Local Group, home to the Milky Way, and anchored by it, Andromeda and the much smaller Triangulum galaxy. (By the way, it turns out that Andromeda is roughly the same size as the giant Milky Way, and not larger, as previously thought. The error came from overestimation of the Dark Matter in Andromeda, from too gross an application of the Virial Theorem. All this may have consequences for life in the universe, as it is easy to find reasons for zones in giant galaxies more hospitable for life, which less organized galaxies won’t have… But I digress.)


Dwarf galaxies move in unexpected ways in Milky Way, Andromeda and Centaurus A. This contradicts Standard Cosmology:

Giant galaxies like our Milky Way are orbited by satellite dwarf galaxies. Standard cosmological simulations of galaxy formation predict that these satellites should move randomly around their host. Müller et al. examined the satellites of the nearby elliptical galaxy Centaurus A. They found that the satellites are distributed in a planar arrangement, and 14 members of the plane (out of 16) are demonstrably orbiting in the same direction. This is inconsistent with more than 99.5% of comparable galaxies in simulations. Centaurus A, the Milky Way, and Andromeda all have highly statistically unlikely satellite systems. This observational evidence suggests that something is wrong with standard cosmological simulations.

In other words, ΛCDM predicts that there should be a halo of Dark matter and Dwarf Galaxies. There is not. (Whereas SQPR predicts planar structures, see below!)

“The significance of this finding is that it calls into question the validity of certain cosmological models and simulations as explanations for the distribution of host and satellite galaxies in the universe,” said co-author Marcel Pawlowski, “Hubble Fellow” in the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the University of California, Irvine.

He said that under the lambda cold dark matter model, smaller systems of stars should be more or less randomly scattered around their anchoring galaxies and should move in all directions. Yet Centaurus A is the third documented example, behind the Milky Way and Andromeda, of a “vast polar structure” in which satellite dwarves co-rotate around a central galactic mass in what Pawlowski calls “preferentially oriented alignment.

The difficulty of studying the movements of dwarf satellites around their hosts varies according to the target galaxy group. It’s relatively easy for the Milky Way. “You get proper motions,” Pawlowski said. “You take a picture now, wait three years or more, and then take another picture to see how the stars have moved; that gives you the tangential velocity.”

Using this technique, scientists have measurements for 11 Milky Way satellite galaxies, eight of which are orbiting in a tight disk perpendicular (!) to the spiral galaxy’s plane. There are probably other satellites in the system that can’t be seen from Earth because they’re blocked by the Milky Way’s dusty disk.



To avoid the concept of Dark Matter, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) have been suggested. It seems to me clear that they don’t work. Moreover, MOND is an ad hoc explanation: have problem, invent specific axiomatics to solve problem. Besides solving what looks like Dark Matter, without Dark Matter, and this, only around galaxies, not during collisions, MOND has no reason for being. The more evidence piles up, the less plausible it looks.

My own theory, SQPR is quite the opposite. It is a MODIFIED Quantum Dynamics (MOQD): it predicts a Sub Quantum Reality, to make Quantum Mechanics logically complete, and causal, with a nonlocality that will not be as “spooky” (to use Einstein’s bon mot). SQPR predicts Dark Matter, and it predicts that Dark Matter is CREATED inside giant galaxies, just the same as Black Holes are created inside giant galaxies (at ten times the rate of growth inside smaller galaxies). So, with me, Dark matter becomes a Quantum effect. The exact predictions are these:

Young giant galaxies will have little Dark Matter. Dark Matter is emergent.

Dark Matter will form in disks… And Dwarf Galaxies too.

SQPRs predictions are completely different. But fit observations…

My scenario is this: giant gas clouds, galactic size, of normal matter, coalesce first from the pull of gravity. As they do, conservation of angular momentum will augment the rotation speed (there always will be some rotation to start with, it’s nearly the same phenomenon as in cyclones formation). Implosion of the galactic size cloud, in conjunction with the rise of angular speed, creates a flat disk. This disk will contain lumps in the outer zone: dwarf galaxies, similar to planet formation in a solar system. Meanwhile, the Quantum Interaction, at cosmological distance, will churn out Dark Matter.

So we will typically end up with a flat disk of Dwarf Galaxies rotating in the same plane as the growing disk of Dark Matter of the giant galaxy. (Notice that I predict Dwarf Galaxies will have less Dark Matter, in the typical case).

Objectors may brandish the fact that the Dwarf Galaxy disk of the Milky Way is perpendicular, a glaring contradiction with my model. Well, my retort to that: something happened which yanked one relative to the other. The local group contains more than 54 galaxies, and it’s not even clear the large ones have all been found out, because of Milky Way dust: so a large galaxy passing by could have disrupted the dynamics of the Milky Way with its Dwarf Galaxy disk. There are plenty of observations such vast distortions between galaxies (and in the Solar System, Uranus can be contemplated, whose rotation axis is perpendicular to that of all the other planets, and where common sense would put it, perpendicular to ecliptic: clearly something big and weird happened which rotated the rotation axis spectacularly; by the way, Mars rotation axis also wobble spectacularly, although it’s coincidentally the exact same angle on the elliptic as Earth’s, right now, another spectacular coincidence (strange occurrences are not a proof of the existence of gods; however the case of Dwarf Galaxies, considered here, is 3/3… And actually more, and it becomes very statistically significant, if we look at the set of all Dwarf Galaxies around MW, A, Centaurus A).


Mavericks, such as yours truly argue that, like much modern physics, and related to that, the ΛCDM model is built upon an intricate foundation of conventionalist stratagems, rendering it unfalsifiable in the sense promoted by Karl Popper. Mavericks have to be taken seriously: several experts howled, for many decades, that there was Dark Matter. They were viewed as having fallen to the Dark Side (naturally enough). Then a serious mathematician called Segal pointed out that there was a Dark Energy problem: the cosmic acceleration itself accelerated, he insisted, and wrote an entire very serious book about it. In spite, or because of, these graves accusations, the entire field was ignored for more than 50 years (entire books about Dark Matter and the accelerating acceleration of the universe, were discarded as cranks): governments prefered to finance militarily useful physics (“high energy” physics) rather than potentially revolutionary physics.   

Anyway, things are quickly coming to a head. Astronomy is finally getting financed much more than it used to be. Astronomy, experimentation contemplated, on the largest scale, is shattering physics. Noble high energy physicists were studying only 5% of the universe, says astronomy…

ΛCDM says Dark Matter was always there. I suggest instead that it was created, by standard Mass-Energy and how (as Black Holes were created, albeit from a Quantum, not gravitational, mechanism). We will see. First we see, then we think.

Patrice Aymé

Tags: , ,

18 Responses to “Dwarf Galaxies Contradict Standard Cosmology, BUT NOT SQPR!”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Calculate type physicists will ask where the equations are. What say you?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Garbage in, garbage out. Before getting the right equation, one needs the right idea… Today’s physicists, even mathematicians, often let computers do the computations, so we can start to move away from equation slavery. In my theory, rotation occurs before Dark Matter. In theirs, DM comes first. That’s the main difference.


  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Sabine H]

    Can MOND handle collisions such as the Bullet Cluster? And do we have proof there was Dark Matter, ten billions years ago? If the answer is no to both, a sort of drastic remedy, similar to the remedy for the epicycle remedy may be in order, “MOND” tries to modify gravity (at cosmological distance). Why not modify Quantum mechanics, at cosmological distances, instead?

    That would imply a mechanism where “Dark Matter” is emergent, and not really matter.

    Epicycle theory was partly a consequence of a non material Zeitgeist caused by the obviously false Aristotelian physics. When Buridan, around 1350 CE, got the physics right with his “IMPETUS” theory (first and second laws of mechanics combined), the heliocentric theory came right out (Buridan was put at the Index 120 years later, but Copernic learned his science, including heliocentrism, at the university in Cracow, it was mandatory, then and there, as Eastern Europe hated the Vatican, because of the treacherous burning alive of professor, dean and rector Jan Hus!)

    We may have a similar situation now: it is NOT gravity which is wrong (wit its connection with inertia, thus Buridan. Disjointing gravity from inertia, as MOND does, is a bridge too far!) Instead of accusing gravity-inertia, as MOND does, one should rather guess that Quantum Mechanics is, slightly, wrong (at cosmological scales). Indeed Quantum Mechanics, Copenhagen Interpretation, assumes an extraneous element, collapse, just as Aristotelian physics assumed an extraneous element, namely a force to create inertia…


  3. Gregorio Baquero Says:



  4. Jeh Tween Says:

    Jeh Tween

    Replying to @Tyranosopher
    For, why is there something rather than nothing?
    {Denying an (any) question, as Carroll did } can never be a part of science, philosophy or religion.
    {Something (in appearance)} = {nothing (in essence)}
    See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I don’t know how to answer this. I just thought about the nature of mass-energy, duality, and ended with a peculiarly simple hypothesis: the Quantum Interaction (as I call it). I have other hypotheses which are related, but they are fuzzier… The QI brings the creation of DM!


  5. ianmillerblog Says:

    I must confess I am a bit confused about dark matter. The problem is, a lot of statements come out, but it is hard to get my head around how much is real data, and how much is discrepancies from someone’s pet theory. Since we don’t know what dark matter is, I am not convinced we can predict what it will do.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed. And it’s worse with Dark Energy. SQPR, my own taking-the-“Quantum-Interaction”-aka-“Collapse”-seriously theory, PREDICTS Dark Matter and its (rough) behavior-so-far-observed explicitly, Hence my extreme interest in it: it is a a cosmic proof of (QUANTUM) concept… So I predict exactly what it will do, and the predictions which have come true in the last 12 months baffle completely the physics establishment, as I also predicted, because Dark Matter is not really matter, something the naughty ones still do not expect, hahahaha… (Although they have got to be aware of my position now, some of them are…)


  6. Maurice Carid Says:

    Subject: your comment on backreaction

    Hi Patrice,

    I must make my comment via e-mail because
    Sabine has put my comments on a blacklist
    (they are not published in principle) because
    my past comments were to critical (I made it a hobby
    to politely and respectfully explain whenI noticed an explanation in her blog
    entries was incorrect, which happens frequently unfortunately).

    Her answer to your question

    >Yes, modified gravity (not MOND!) can handle the Bullet Cluster.

    seems dubious. Which theory of modified gravity exactly Sabine?

    I had an e-mail exchange with Ethan Siegel and Sabine last Nov. in
    which I pointed out to him that a blog entry Ethan made in which he
    claims a modified
    gravity theory of Moffatt explains the bullett cluster is wrong. Moffatt says it
    explains the bc, but if you inspect his paper one sees that it does
    not. Sabine agreed
    on this and told us a theory of Mashhoon does explain the bullett
    cluster, but neither does it. I told her and asked for comment, but
    she did not answer.

    Sabine, as you are spreading this information again: which modified
    gravity theory are you referring to and where exactly do we find
    a treatment of the bullett cluster with this theory?

    PS I sent this e-mail previously with Sabine on cc.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Maurice!
      Just saw your email. Sorry you were blacklisted. The New York Times blacklisted me for years (as far as I can tell it’s not because I am too right wing, too racist, or too left wing, or too rebellious, but, just, well, maybe they actually fear I am too… interesting! Not to flatter myself too much, but it’s the only logical conclusion…)

      I didn’t know Sabine had (FINALLY!) published ny comment (I had spilled some venom on the Internet about censorship in the meantime…)
      So I learned this from you! Generally censorship destroys debate… I am actually in the process of finishing an essay on censorship on the Internet, to be published within an hour, and were I brandished censorship on backreaction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Now I have to rewrite that… She sat on my comment for such a very long time…)

      My basic idea is that it should be MANDATORY for sites declared of PUBLIC UTILITY to NOT have censorship (I would apply to such a label; others like Facebook, Google, GAFA, would be FORCED into it! So no more censorship at New York Times…)

      I don’t see how MOND can handle BC, but I see how it handles BS quite well… ;-)!
      Ethan Siegel seems to have been quite fair. Although he came from the Many Worlds/Multiverse side, he seems to be neither dismissive, nor obstinate, I seem to perceive he is veering towards reason…
      Anyway more later

      BTW, after a delay for the first comment, my site doesn’t censor…. (It is a general site…)



  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Sean Carroll pondering why early universe seems colder than expected according to an Australian exp.]
    Patrice Ayme says:
    February 28, 2018 at 4:18 pm
    Aside from this newest speculation, that Cold Dark Matter, just out of the fridge, presumably, cooled down the universe, do we have any proof that there was Dark Matter then? (And thus that Dark Matter is not emergent?)


  8. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Quanta Magazine]
    That Berkeley study from European satellite data, just shoots down a sensationalist book claiming Dark Matter killed dinosaurs (something easy to debunk independently on climate grounds).

    I favor a Dark Matter RING. It doesn’t have to be much thinner than the galactic disk. It is a consequence of Sub Quantum Mechanics/Modified Quantum Mechanics (MOQ)… Which is somewhat related to De Broglie’s Double Solution, and makes wildly different predictions from the ruling Lambda Cold Dark Matter model:



  9. Galaxy Without Dark Matter Found: Another Proof of New Physics? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] SQPR, Sub Quantum Patrice Reality Shines, Once Again: […]


  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Quanta, May 1, 2018, reacting to article burying MOND theories…]

    Killing theories which are wrong is necessary. Imagining the correct theory, even better.
    It has been suggested that both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are consequences of the effects of transgalactic distances on Quantum “nonlocality”. In this theory Quantum nonlocality is assumed to fail slightly at such a distance: the Quantum debris left is Dark Matter.
    In other words, MOdified Quantum, not MOdified Newtonian Dynamics!


  11. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Reddit/Sean Carroll, May 1, 2018]

    The crucial question: is there a hidden thermodynamics of the isolated Quantum process? If there is, therein the irreversibility of time. Apparently this is not the question (SC: “given WHAT we currently know about physics”). Yet, maybe the irreversibility of Quantum physics is looking at us darkly, already, for all to see, with Dark Matter itself:


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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: