Dark Matter Proves Quantum Mechanics Wrong, SQPR Right

We live in barbarian times when oligarchs block intelligent discourse to the masses. As in the past, even intelligent physics gets blocked. The NYT has 6 million subscribers (including me, and blocked the following comment to an article on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics)

What if the proof of SQPR (Sub Quantum Physical Reality) was already cosmically in full sight? Let me explain. Each Quantum process comes with a (Hilbert) space. Within it, the wave one computes probability with, the Quantum Wave, evolves with time as a one parameter group. Time is not treated like space [1]. The Quantum Wave collapses suddenly, all over, when a probability is extracted from it. Multiverse theory claims that each outcome is its own universe (that means zillions of universes inside a proton). A potential way out is instead to assign a reality to the Quantum Wave. That means attributing to the QW some mass-energy (however minute), wherever it is to be found, and an objective collapse propagation speed to the QW (it has to be greater than 10^23 c).

Rotation of curve of Spiral galaxy Messier 33 (Triangulum, the third largest galaxy of the local group after Andromeda and the Milky Way). The galaxy rotates as if it were an increasingly denser plate the more one gets away from the center…

The full SQPR is nonlocal (in the sense of that experimentally demonstrated superluminal entanglement). An immediate consequence of this picture is that, in some large geometrical situation, a mass-energy residue will form …which will behave exactly like Dark Matter; so Dark Matter would be a proof of the objective collapse theories! The difference between this and the De Broglie guiding wave theories is that the assignment of (minute) mass energy to the guiding linear wave… and making the “particle” into the central nonlinear part of the QW. 

We need a SQPR (Sub Quantum Physical Reality). Yale’s Devoret and Minev found that some Quantum Jumps are preceded by a preparation phase which can be reversed, thus demonstrating SQPR [2]. 

Patrice Ayme


The New York Times censored the preceding comment (while accepting six hundred eighty-five other comments). 

Probably checking out with Harvard, Columbia and Princeton, all plutocratic universities, to see if somebody there can get the Nobel for the idea, instead of yours truly.



[1] Time and space are not treated the same in Relativity either (their signature is different). However, in Quantum Mechanical formalism, the situation is worse; time is a one parameter group, not at all like space…


[2] That is if the “Quantum Trajectories” approach is fully validated…


PP/S: oops, immediately after this was published, New York Times published my comment.

Tags: ,

9 Responses to “Dark Matter Proves Quantum Mechanics Wrong, SQPR Right”

  1. pshakkottai Says:

    Where does the number 10^23 c come from?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Computation and observation. Actually, we have a number of theories, and a number of observations. QM assumes collapse goes at speed infinity. But all we have experimentally is a lower bound. More later, time tight right now.


  2. Gmax Says:

    It’s going to be fascinating how it all turns out. Looks like these Yale guys are on your side


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yeap, but what they found is local. The entanglement/collapse at a distance is not a factor, in their set-up. it has the merit of working on one aspect of the ridiculous CIQ/Multiverse, and demolishing both.


  3. ianmillerblog Says:

    hmm – you wrote: The difference between this and the De Broglie guiding wave theories is that the assignment of (minute) mass energy to the guiding linear wave

    Not necessarily. Take my second difference between the pilot wave and my guidance wave. Since the particle and the wave pulse have to arrive at the slits at the same time, the wave has an energy (a proper value for the Bohmian quantum potential) so that too has a minute mass-energy.

    Incidentally, Burchardt Heim predicted the mass and life of a number of elementary particles, and included a “neutral electron” – i.e. no charge and slightly heavier. Not only would that satisfy dark matter, (well, maybe) but also being a fermion, and if energy levels applied, it would explain why the particles are most concentrated in a band in the outer reaches of the galaxy.

    There are options. More work required 🙂


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the debate Ian!
      I wrote that little thingie hyper fast, initially for NYT which censored it, then allowed it much later… Generally people speak of “De Broglie-Bohm” theory. I am no specialist, but I have the impression De Broglie (whom I met, nota bene, one of the most treasured moments of my life) had at least two potential theories.
      The first bottom line is this: is there a “particle” or not. Seems to me the basic DB idea is particle with guidance. My problem is conceptual multiplicity: if we have a particle, but also a guidance wave, what is guidance wave made of? OK, the multiversists claim maximal conceptual multiplicity, a universe for any occasion, so I excoriate them very much. That’s not as bad, to have a particle and then a guidance wave, but a philosophical problem anyway.

      SQPR does away with this, because the guidance wave and the “particle” are the same nonlinear wavy blob. The blobs tear only when the collapse speed is overwhelmed by three dimensional distance (Dark Matter formation).
      Now the “waves” we know are all LINEAR by definition. They are all of type: df/dt = F(df/dx)… where F is some linear operator (it could be multiplication by i(1/dx + A) as in Schrodinger, meaning basically that df/dt = energy along x axis…, so the function varies in times basically as its energy does in space, something all waves do…

      Real waves on the sea shore, the river and lake, are not linear. A cop-out is to evoke “wave packets”. The reality is that we do not have an equation. That would have to vary from place to place.

      One thing we know is that nonlinear waves disperse or singularize… Exactly the Quantum set-up… Penrose has collapse due to gravitation, because he believes particles duplicate themselves (the multiverse of the poor). I have collapse due to MASS (at short range, and this is how objects come to be), or to distant haphazard fluctuations in the MATTER FIELD (the field made of guidance waves streaking about).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Never heard of this Heim. Sad, yet interesting life. Another victim of Nazism… there are lots of theories out there predicting lots of the same usual stuff (for example Connes predicted all sorts of particle with his version of anti-commutative geometry… A field I studied my way, sort o orthogonal and anti-Connes…)
      Dark Matter theories (forget MOND it’s wrong) have to explain why some galaxies are full of DM and others have none. SQPR does this easily, as DM production from SQPR depends upon the density mass of the galaxy. If, basically, a galaxy has homogenous mass distribution, it will produce little DM…


  4. ianmillerblog Says:

    It is true the guidance wave has the problem of requiring something else being present to support the oscillation, but I believe all theories of QM have a dead rat lurking somewhere within. The blob idea has the problem of what causes the collapse, and sooner or later, the measurement problem.

    I find the question of why some galaxies have dark matter and others don’t to be important for dark matter, and more or less falsify MOND. The point is that when gravity collapses matter to form galaxies, the amount of dark matter should depend on the local concentration of it, and the dispersion of gas (needed to provide the collisions to cool the DM). Of course that still leaves an issue because you cannot quantify it because you have no means of knowing how lumpy the gas concentrations were.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The various geometries of Dark Matter, at the same distance, indeed disqualify MONDs… All of them.

      In SQPR, Dark Matter is generated by the Quantum Interaction (“Entanglement”). That is exactly the opposite of Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) Big Bang model, which has the Dark Matter there from the beginning, and used to generate galaxies…

      In SQPR, the collapse generate, under some particular geometric configurations, Dark Matter. So, depending upon the exact geometry of a galaxy, Dark Matter would be generated, more or less, or not. In general, if a galaxy has a matter density with a very small gradient, it will NOT generate Dark Matter, according to SQPR… whereas those with sharp matter density gradients (barred spirals?) will generate plenty.

      I should look into it more deeply, but I seem a bit COVIDized, not to say confused, these days…


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: