SQPR, Sub Quantum Physical Reality, introduces the notion of Quantum Interaction: anything involving Quantum Entanglement rupture is viewed as an interaction. This is a new type of interaction, right. And it’s also not just verbiage: interaction means finite speed. In Quantum Physics, as it presently exists, in its CIQ (Copenhagen) interpretation, QI is instantaneous. So SQPR and CIQ make different prediction: SQPR predicts the universe as observed. CIQ does not.

Why Quantum Physics, so far, does not view Quantum Interactions as interactions is because of prejudice: it assumes nothing changes when entanglement is activated: simply, we can’t do something with it now, so we, 20C Quantum Physics, assume it has no effect. The reason is technical: the arena of a Quantum happenstance is a Hilbert Space representing the experiment at hand… And it’s assumed to be just one place, thus denying space (one of the reason why it’s hard to integrate Quantum and Relativity!)

However, that nothing happens when entanglement is activated is not what the Bell Inequality shows. Bell Inequality shows something changes, because any Classical Hidden Variable models, all of them, give a different result. And something big, thus, indeed, changes from the Quantum Interaction. SQPR says Dark Energy and Dark Matter are macroscopic effects of the Quantum Interaction.  


SQPR assumes that QI has a finite range and propagates at finite velocity (much higher than the speed of light by a factor of at least 10^23). The metric used is phase metric to measure how far QI goes, the number of matter wave wavelengths (so higher frequencies, shorter Euclidean distance, hence effects on QFT). As matter waves have an average wavelength (since matter has an average energy-momentum), it means in practice that the QI range will translate in Euclidean distance.

Beyond that range, some mass-energy gets lost during QI. However, other Quantum characteristics of the particles involved stay the same in the main “particle” part: UP Quark stays UP Quark, etc. The Dark matter part is stripped of everything except energy-momentum. That remnant is what creates Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Before QI, there was an energy-momentum. After QI, same. Thus, when QI ruptures, energy-momentum should be conserved, ergo some of the Dark Matter leaves with momentum, and that momentum will point in the opposite direction of where the matter it separated from is! Hence a repulsive force between matters clumps, Dark Energy!


In Quantum Field Theory, SQPR implies a natural renormalization, since the QI range is inversely proportional to the total number of matter-wave wavelengths.  


New fundamental concepts are the deepest breakthroughs. This is true all over thought, all over science, even in math and physics. Evolution (also found by Ancient Greeks), inertia, momentum (Buridan, 14C), Kepler’s laws (arising from Tycho’s effort), laws of mechanics (established over several centuries by many), electromagnetic field (many contributors over centuries), the Quantum (Planck), plate tectonic (Wegener), are examples….

The idea of a-toms: what can’t be divided, was a fundamental breakthrough. 

Intriguingly, Quantum Physics has stood the idea of atoms on its head: what rules now are waves and fields, Matter Waves, Quantum Fields…. Fields comprise the idea that there is something there, even if we don’t know what it is. Fields are intrinsically nonlocal. Einstein however insisted that the photon was an atom of light: not divisible, and its energy concentrated at a point, thus, local. I view this as a contradiction. QFT implicitly contradicts Einstein, but I propose to go further… by making the matter field divisible, thus atoms, in a sense, divisible… new predictions appear. 

Quantum Physics says there are no points (because all is waves, and waves can’t be just at a point, this is the essence of Quantum Uncertainty). If there are no points, atoms can’t be made of points (indeed QFT looks only at fields, which are intrinsically NOT points). So division of the (quasi) infinitely small is not possible to start with, in the traditional sense, as it would involve points. But rupture of entanglement does not depend upon the locally small, quite the opposite. 

It took around 2,000 years to go from the erroneous Aristotelian physics, to the notions of inertia and momentum (with Buridan, 14C). The switch could have happened right away, because Aristotle made a really trivial mistake (he overlooked resistance to motion obviously caused by the medium in which motion happened).

Hopefully we can learn from this mistake.

It’s pretty obvious that entanglement should have finite range, or a finite interection speed. Newton would have understood this (he thought his gravity theory had the flaw of being instaneous at a distance; Laplace corrected this a century later, simply by introducing an interaction speed, thus making gravitational waves appear; something Poincare then extended to spacetime after another century). Introducing spatial limitations to the Quantum is only natural.

Patrice Ayme


P/S: Early results from the James Webb Space Telescope seem to show monstruous galaxies, very far away, full of new stars… something… which the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model (“Big Bang”) does not predict.. .. But that I was hoping for! SQPR, an axiomatically leaner theory than the LCDM model does predict a much older universe, thus with much more large galaxies at a distance (held by their own matter gravity rather than by DM, as SQPR says that Dark Matter is an emerging quantity and quality).

Tags: , ,

7 Responses to “SQPR GENERATES DARK MATTER, DARK ENERGY (in a nutshell)”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    Wow, Patrice, you are so ahead of my understanding of all things to do with quantum physics. In this month’s Scientific American there are three articles under the general heading of ‘Black Hole Mysteries Solved’ and (I think) it states that there is an information paradox, something to do with “The gravitational, electromagnetic and other quantum fields outside the black hole retain an imprint of whatever falls in.” Whatever that means!
    I really wish I had even a marginal understanding of quantum physics; is there a book or a website you can recommend?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Paul, thanks for the comment. Sorry for the delay, I was incommunicado camping in the Sierra… I have graduate degrees in the… fields in question, so no recent merit sounding learned…
      Well I wrote a lot on the subject, trying to demystify the Quantum… In the hope of understanding it better.. Officially, nobody understands it… The basic point is that everything “is” in some sense “waves”…

      But not just waves of scalar fields as looking at waves in the ocean… waves of fields… (see my answer to Ian Miller)

      SQPR is an attempt to guess what is really going on…

      The “IT FROM BIT” Quantum Information approach is very important technologically, but doesn’t strike me as fundamental…

      “The gravitational, electromagnetic and other quantum fields outside the black hole retain an imprint of whatever falls in.” seems to harbor little smart meaning. The point is this: an object the size of the Milky Way, with the density of air, would be a BLACK HOLE… HOWEVER, falling into it would have no effect to those who fall (that’s well-known), and I can’t see what imprint would be left (problem for those saying this sort of rabbit out of a hat “physics”).

      Lots of people say whatever to sell their books, or reputations… Or then they can be subtle and contemptuous, see the following:

      Today’s biggest picture physics depends upon hypotheses we have no proof of, and often in a cascade!

      Comments, questions, criticism, welcome!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Paul Handover Says:

        Patrice, I thank you for your instructive reply. Science is looking further and further back and, especially the James Webb telescope, is opening our minds to vast distances and extremes. (Well they are to my mind.) But I can still only minutely understand this! Such is life!


  2. ianmillerblog Says:

    A field is usually considered to be an expression whereby you can assign a numerical value to something at a set of coordinates. When you say “Fields are intrinsically non-local” that is true to the expression, but surely it says nothing about the “something” that actually generates the value. Thus it is argued a gravitational effect travels at c, which is local, yet we call it a field for the purpose of calculation.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Ian!
      A field is a function from spacetime to some sort of vector space. The vector space could be one dimensional… That’s called a scalar field. It could be the differential of a one form field such as the electromagnetic potential A: F = dA (d is the exterior derivative)… And that’s a 2-form, in other words a rank 2 tensor…
      So is the Riemann spacetime curvature tensor, aka the gravitational field…

      In general modern math semantics, the fields are sections of an associated bundle E−→πEM over a manifold M with a structure group G…. for example SU(3) in the case of QCD.

      The point I was trying to make is very simple: fields being function from spacetime are intrinsically nonlocal… Especially when they wave…. 😉

      That trivial point means that nonlocality is intrinsic at the most basic level…

      Grav field travels at finite speed was an idea of Laplace (or what is Lagrange…. Lala land…) Energy conservation requires (if I remember my own work correctly) to go at c. Otherwise there would be non conservation of energy difficulties…


  3. D'Ambiallet Says:

    If your theory is true 👍 you will be the Phoenix of thought throughout history. Doesn’t that strike you as unlikely? I guess not. You sound undaunted.

    Well, to look at the other side of the coin, why not? There is a first for everything. On the face of it, your idea of Quantum interaction and limited range sound alluring. So does that interaction give rise to Einstein cosmological constant? How?

    Another objection is that you are basically throwing away much of modern cosmology


  4. Gmax Says:

    This is the tiring of the photon idea you spoke to Feynman you said no?
    So all cosmology is wrong? And the new telescope is supporting that?
    Nobel soon?


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: