Archive for the ‘Foundations Of Physics’ Category

LEARN TO LEARN: Henri Poincaré, Not Einstein, Discovered Gravitational Waves, 111 years Ago

October 3, 2017

Physics Nobel Committee Should Learn Physics! And the notion of truth!

The truth shall not just make us free, but also safe, and moral. Teaching thinking is to teach truth and how to get to it. One should start by not deliberately lying. And understanding when it is that humanity started to understand something.

Intellectuals should revere the truth. If Satan speaks the truth, intellectuals should quote him approvingly.Why? Because ethics is truth! The Nobel in Physics was given to screwdriver turners for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”

However the rest of the press release from the Nobel committee on physics is a lie: it attributes the original idea of gravitational waves to a German. Surely the physicists who sit on the Nobel Committee are knowledgeable enough to know this is a lie. That sort of lies may sounds innocuous, it’s not: it’s anti-scientific, and proto-Nazi. It teaches the youth wrong. It teaches present day Nazis wrong.

The generation of waves by a central source field is easy to understand in primary school.

It’s because of these sorts of nationalistic distortions that Germans, a century ago, got so full of hubris that they went mad: everybody told them they invented everything! Everybody told Germans they were the superior race! And Max Planck was one of the prophets of this German superiority. ! And the hated French, were nothing, because that “inferior race” had invented nothing! Thus, naturally enough, since they were told from everywhere that they were so smart, the Germans decided to subjugate the rest of humanity, be it only to enlighten it (that was the idea of Keynes in “The Economic Consequence of Peace”).

Actually, it’s not a German who discovered, and named, “Relativity”, but a Frenchman.    

In press releases announcing the detection of gravitational waves, the collaborations LIGO and VIRGO, as well as the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, France), explicitly (and WRONGLY) attributed to the German Albert Einstein the original prediction of the existence of gravitational waves in 1916. A similar comment is made in the Physical Review Letters article by LIGO and VIRGO.

But actually, gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light, were clearly predicted by Henri Poincaré on June 5, 1905, as a relativistic requirement. Poincaré made this requirement explicit in his academic note Sur la dynamique de l’électron (On electron dynamics, June 5, 1905) published by the French Académie des Sciences.

At the time, Poincaré was already world famous, and Einstein, nothing. Planck, a German nationalist, would make Einstein everything by allowing Einstein to publish articles without any reference on preceding he knew about, and parroted. This was sheer propaganda.

After explicitly formulating special relativity in this fundamental article, Poincaré further develops the requirement suggested by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz that the new space-time transformation leading to special relativity should apply to all existing forces and not just to the electromagnetic interaction. (At the insistence of Poincaré, Lorentz got the Nobel for Relativity in 1902)

Henri Poincaré concludes that, as a consequence of the new space-time geometry, gravitation must generate waves traveling at the speed of light in a similar way to electromagnetism.

Following the pre-Nazi German nationalistic propaganda contained in the press releases of scientific collaborations and institutions, almost all medias attribute to Albert Einstein the original prediction of gravitational waves.

The Physical Review Letters article by LIGO and VIRGO Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,  PRL 116, 061102 (11 February 2016), explicitly sates : “In 1916, the year after the final formulation of the field equations of general relativity, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves”. What, then, about the work done by Henri Poincaré 11 years before the Einstein finding ?

Actually, the situation seems quite clear. In his short article of 5 June 1905 Sur la dynamique de l’électron, C.R. T.140 (1905) 1504-1508 (Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, France), , the French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré explicitly formulated special relativity upgrading the space-time transformations that he called “Lorentz transformations” and to which he referred as the “Lorentz group”. After having worked out and discussed the new space-time geometry, Poincaré writes:

… Mais ce n’est pas tout: Lorentz, dans l’Ouvrage cité, a jugé nécessaire de compléter son hypothèse en supposant que toutes les forces, quelle qu’en soit l’origine, soient affectées, par une translation [a change of inertial frame in Poincaré’s language], de la même manière que les forces électromagnétiques, et que, par conséquent, l’effet produit sur leurs composantes par la transformation de Lorentz est encore défini par les équations (4).

Il importait d’examiner cette hypothèse de plus près et en particulier de rechercher quelles modifications elle nous obligerait à apporter aux lois de la gravitation [HOW TO MODIFY GRAVITATION]. C’est ce que j’ai cherché à déterminer; j’ai été d’abord conduit à supposer que la propagation de la gravitation n’est pas instantanée, mais se fait avec la vitesse de la lumière. (…)

Quand nous parlerons donc de la position ou de la vitesse du corps attirant, il s’agira de cette position ou de cette vitesse à l’instant où l’onde gravifique [GRAVITATIONAL WAVE] est partie de ce corps; quand nous parlerons de la position ou de la vitesse du corps attiré, il s’agira de cette position ou de cette vitesse à l’instant où ce corps attiré a été atteint par l’onde gravifique émanée de l’autre corps; il est clair que le premier instant est antérieur au second… [End of quote]

Gravitational waves were thus explicitly predicted by Henri Poincaré in his 5 june 1905 article formulating special relativity. All of these ideas got incorporated in the gravitational wave equation of Einstein (who worked closely, day by day, with a number of top mathematicians at the time, including crack mathematician David Hilbert, who found a different approach).

In special relativity, such as already defined explicitly, with all its equations, by Poincaré and Lorentz, the speed of light c is not just the speed of a specific object (light) but a universal constant defining (local) space-time geometry. As a consequence, no physical object, signal, or correlation can travel faster than c. Poincaré explained in extreme details the philosophy behind it (if something is always true, it’s a law of nature), in a book which Einstein and his student friends studied in thorough detail (although Einstein didn’t quote Poincaré in his famous 1905 parrot work, naturally enough for a nationalistic parrot (later Einstein would have a fall-out with another French Nobel, Bergson, about Relativity).

According to Poincaré in his article of 5 June 1905, the requirement of a universal space-time geometry with the speed of light c as the critical speed implies that the gravitational force must be propagated by gravitational waves with a speed equal to c , just as electromagnetic waves carry the electromagnetic interaction.

As Henri Poincaré explicitly underlines, the space-time geometry defined by Lorentz tranformations applies to all existing forces including the gravitational ones. Thus, gravitation cannot propagate instantaneously and must instead propagate at the speed of light. The same argument clearly applies to any object associated to gravitation.

Considering as a simple example the gravitational interaction between two bodies, Poincaré introduces a “gravific wave” leaving the first body, traveling at the speed of light and reaching the second body at a later time. This was the original formulation of the prediction of gravitational waves in a context where its general scope was obvious. Poincaré had been working for years on electromagnetism, and knew perfectly well that more sophisticated scenarios than the example he was providing could be imagined without altering the role of c as the critical speed.

A decade later, with general relativity, Albert Einstein considered in detail more involved scenarios than the one made explicit by Poincaré, incorporating in particular an effective space-time curvature generated by gravitation in a static universe. But this does not invalidate the basic principle discovered and formulated by Henri Poincaré in 1905.

In his article, Poincaré also refers to the previous work by Pierre-Simon de Laplace, Count of Laplace (1749-1827), one of the main French scientists of the period of Napoléon Bonaparte. Laplace had already considered the possibility that gravitation propagates at some finite speed, but he did not question the basic space-time geometry.

Poincaré had demonstrated and published E = m c^2… in 1900, more than 5 years before Einstein plagiarized it.

I have talked about this for years. I am happy that Science 2.0 picked up the notion in “Henri Poincaré Predicted The Existence Of Gravitational Waves As Early As June 5, 1905”

Correct attribution of civilization defining discoveries is fundamental. Example: India discovered numbers & zero as used today.

The chronological hierarchy of discoveries reflects, in general, the logical hierarchy of evidence supporting these discoveries. Whether in science, or in global thinking. Thus who discovered what, when, how and why, is not just anecdotal. it’s logical, according to the most natural logic.

As it turns out, few places in spacetime made most civilization defining discoveries, and then they made plenty of them, and that was related to political processes: a few Greek city-states, especially Ionian cities and Athens and Paris and its satellites are obvious examples.

One can learn to learn better, one can learn to think better, this is what the existence of concentrations of civilizational genesis, show.

It’s crucially important to understand what made these places tick and how, with the aim of reproducing such circumstances. Paris was the pioneering place in science, worldwide, for around a millennium, and this was the core mental skeleton of Europe, and even civilization. Buridan discovered in particular the inertia, thus the heliocentric system (attributed to Copernicus, well after the Catholic Church made studying Buridan into a capital crime!), Lamarck, evolution (taught in Paris while forbidden in England, etc… The same crowd probably wants us to believe in Donald Trump and Neo Liberalism, as no good idea could possibly come from anywhere else not Germanoido-Anglo-Saxon. The Nobel Committee is dominated by US physicists anxious to demonstrate US superiority and, in particular, the superiority of US universities, because there is beaucoup money in it, and it could please their sponsors (the tax-free plutocrats).

It’s also important to make correct attributions, because the original authors are always clearer about their reasonings, and how they got there. Plagiarists tend to be more obscure, because they hide their tracks.

Re-attributing the correct discoveries can be shattering, and teaches us how obscurantism proceeds to eradicate knowledge. The disappearance, for two millennia, of non-Euclidean geometry, is a case in point. So is that of atomism, and “Brownian” motion. The suppression of Buridan and the heliocentric system, by the Christian church is a particularly sinister instance: it was vicious, deliberate, and motivated by the hatred for thinking..

So let’s celebrate the discovery of gravitational waves. My little drawing above shows that one does not need even relativity to make waves. A big motion of the source will do, as anybody watching a tsunami on TV knows.

The gravitational wave detectors inaugurate a new sort of measuring instrument. However, the idea is at least as old as the Michelson and Morley interferometer of the Nineteenth Century. There is nothing new to it. (That’s why I called the laureates “screwdriver turners.)

And what of Planck, Einstein’s unhinged sponsor? Planck signed a disgusting message in World War One denying Germany had committed war crimes (he later denounced it, when the war was over). The French made one of Planck’s sons prisoner in World War One, and the other son was caged and executed by Hitler. That Hitler interlocutor, Max Planck, got, unfortunately, not just for him, but all humanity, his just deserts. But let’s not keep on having them now. Want Relativity? Think Henri Poincaré, forget about his parrots!

Planck enabled Einstein to post in the Annalen der Physik, the oldest journal in physics (1799), WITHOUT any reference, on the three most famous subjects in physics at the time. It was vicious and deliberate, to serve the satanic god of hyper-nationalism of the racist type. Playing with hyper-nationalism, Planck ended up losing, and Einstein, and the German Jews, became double losers (they lost as Germans and as Jews). So here is a case of the losers writing history… German hyper nationalism was encouraged by Einstein and Planck, with a false flag attribution, and they, and their kind, lost twice.

Truth is not seen just with the eyes. Truth is seen through the mind of a thorough debate.

Patrice Ayme’




September 23, 2017


Einstein claimed that a “particle” was a lump of energy, even while in translation. He had no proof of this assertion, and it underlays all modern fundamental physics, and I believe it’s false. As I see it, this error, duplicated by 99.99% of 20 C theoretical physicists, led the search for the foundations of physics astray in the Twentieth Century. How could one prove my idea, and disprove Einstein?

What Einstein wrote is this, in what is perhaps his most famous work (1905 CE): “Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta LOCALIZED AT POINTS IN SPACE, MOVING WITHOUT DIVIDING…” [What’s in capital letters, I view as extremely probably false. Einstein then added nine words, four of which explaining the photoelectric effect, and for which he got the Nobel Prize. Those nine words were entirely correct, but physically independent of the preceding quote!]

If those “energy quanta” are “localized at points in space“, they concentrate onto themselves all the mass-energy.

It’s simple. According to me, the particle disperses while it is in translation (roughly following, and becoming a nonlinear variant of its De Broglie/Matter Wave dispersion, the bedrock of Quantum Physics as everybody knows it). That means its mass-energy disperses. According to Einstein, it doesn’t.

However, a gravitational field can be measured. In my theory, SQPR, the matter waves are real. What can “real” mean, in its simplest imaginable form? Something is real if that something has mass-energy-momentum. So one can then do a thought experiment. Take the traditional Double Slit experiment, and install a gravitational needle (two masses linked by a rigid rod, like a hydrogen molecule at absolute zero) in the middle of the usual interference screen.

Sub Quantum Patrice Reality Is Experimentally Discernible From Einstein’s Version of Quantum Physics! Notice in passing that none of the physics super minds of the Twentieth Century seem to have noticed Einstein’s Axiom, which is ubiquitously used all over Quantum Physics and QFT!

According to Einstein, the gravitational needle will move before the process of interference is finished, and the self-interfering particle hit the screen (some may object that, because photons travel at c, and so do gravitons, one can’t really gravitationally point at the photon; however, that’s not correct, there should be a delayed field moving the needle).

According to me, the particle is dispersed during the self-interfering process: it’s nowhere in particular. Thus the mass-energy is dispersed before the collapse/singularization. Thus a gravitational field from the self-interfering particle can’t be measured from inside the self-interfering geometry.

Could the experiment be done?

Yes. But it won’t be easy.

Molecules constituted  of 5000 protons, 5000 neutrons and 5000 electrons have exhibited double slit behavior.  That’s plenty enough mass to turn a gravitational needle made of two hydrogen atoms. However, with such a large object, my theory may well fail to be experimentally checked (the molecule probably re-localizes continually, thus the needle will move before impact). Ideally, one should best check this Sub Quantum Reality with a simple unique particle, such as a photon, or an electron.

Why did I long believe Einstein was wrong on this point, what I called “Einstein’s Axiom” above?

First, he had no proof of what he said. Allure can’t replace reason

Second, localization into a point is contrary to the philosophical spirit, so to speak, of Quantum Physics. The basic idea of Quantum Physics is that one can’t localize physics into points in space… or into points in energy (this was Planck’s gist). Both space and energy come in LUMPS. For example, an electron delocalizes around a proton, creating an atom of hydrogen.

The lump thing for emissions of energy is Planck’s great discovery (a blackbody sends energy packets hf, where f is the frequency and h, Planck’s constant). The non-relevance of points is De Broglie’s great intuition: De Broglie’s introduced the axiom that one can compute everything about the translation behavior of an object from the waves associated to the energy-momentum of said object.

So Einstein was wrong on the philosophy, as he himself concluded thirty years of thinking hard about Quantum Physics, as one of its two founders, with his discovery of what he called “Spooky Interaction At A Distance” (the “EPR”, which has turned from thought experiment to real experiment, checked now in hundreds of different experiments). If “elements of reality” (to use the Einstein EPR language), are spooky action at a distance” why not so when the particle is in flight, which is precisely the gist of the EPR… (After I thought of this, I found a paper by Zurek and Al. who seem to draw a similar conclusion.)

The philosophy of Quantum Physics in one sentence: small is big, or even, everywhere.

Third, Einstein’s hypothesis of points particles being always localized has led to lots of problems, including the so-called “Multiverse” or the “Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” (at least, according to yours truly…).

Fourth, the development of Twentieth Century physics according to Einstein’s roadmap, has led to theories on 5% or so of known mass-energy, at most: an epic failure. Whereas my own Sub Quantum Reality readily predicts the apparition of Dark Matter and the joint apparition of Dark Energy, as observed.

Fifth: If Einstein were right, the which-path information in the 2-slit experiment would be readily available, at least as a thought experiment, and that can’t work. The entire subject is still highly controversial: contemplate the massive paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Finally making sense of the double-slit experiment”, March 20, 2017, whose lead author is Yakir Aharonov, from the extremely famous and important Aharonov-Bohm effect. The Aharonov-Bohm effect pointed out that the potentials, not the fields themselves, were the crucial inputs of Quantum Physics. That should have been obvious to all and any who studied Quantum Physics. Yet it was overlooked by all the super minds for nearly 40 years!

Sixth: This is technical, so I won’t give the details (which are not deep). One can modify Einstein’s original EPR experiment (Which had to do with pairs of particles in general, not just photon polarization a la Bohm-Bell). One can introduce in the EPR 1935 set-up, an ideal gravity detector. If Einstein was right about the particle being always localized, determinism would be always true on particle A of an {A,B} interaction pair. Thus particle A could be tracked, gravitationally, always. But that would grossly violated the free arbiter of a lab experimenter deciding to tinker with B’s path, through an experiment of her choosing. (How do large particles do it, then? Well they tend to partly localize continually thanks to their own size, and random singularizations.)

The naked truth can be in full view, yet, precisely because it’s naked, nobody dares to see it!

Richard Feynman famously said that the double slit experiment was central to physics, and that no one understood it. He considered it carefully. Gravitation should stand under it, though! The preceding proposed experiment is one which it was obvious to propose. Yet, no one proposed it, because they just couldn’t seriously envision Quantum Collapse, and thus its impact on gravitation. Yet, I do! And therein the connection between Quantum Physics and Gravitation, the quest for the Graal of modern physicists… 

So let’s have an experiment, Mr. Einstein!

Patrice Ayme’

Relativistic Philosophy Beyond Consensus

August 4, 2017

It’s good to focus on “General Relativity” and Cosmology without the cloak of mathematics gone wild and unsupervised, indeed.

Anything having to do with “General Relativity” has a lot of extremely debatable philosophy hidden below a thick carpet of computations. Abuse of philosophically unsupervised spacetime leads one to believe in time machines, wormholes, and similar absurdities. A recent discovery such as Dark Energy (ever expanding space faster than previously anticipated), and a not so recent one, Dark Matter, show one has to be extremely careful.

Einstein equation of “General Relativity” (GR) is basically Curvature = Mass-Energy. Einstein long observed that the left hand side of the equation was built of mathematical beauty, and the right hand side of a murky mud of a mess. The discovery of Dark Matter proved him prophetic about that. (BTW, I know perfectly well that, stricto sensu, it’s the Ricci tensor, derived from the full Curvature tensor on the left…)

First a philosophical trap: “General Relativity” (GR) is a misnomer. It’s not clear what’s being generalized. GR is certainly a theory of the relationship between gravity and local space-times (the Theory of Relativity of space and time which Poincaré named that way in 1904).

Einstein was initially motivated to explain inertia according to the Newton-Mach observation that the distant stars seemed to endow matter with inertia (because if matter rotates relative to distant stars, a centrifugal force appears).

That way, he failed, as Kurt Goedel produced spacetime models which rotated wildly without local consequences. Frame dragging exists nevertheless, and is crucial to GPS. So GR has local consequences.

Neither Poincaré nor Einstein liked the concept of “spacetime”.

There are massive galaxy cluster, such as Abell 370 (shown here). They can be made up of thousands of Milky Way-sized galaxies. This is beyond anything we can presently have a feeling for. The space inside this cluster is not expanding, that’s a fact, but the space between this cluster and other, unbound, galaxies and clusters, is viewed by today’s Main Stream Cosmology, as expanding. I’m robustly skeptical. Image credit: NASA, ESA/Hubble, HST Frontier Fields.

A question has naturally come up: if space expands, how come we don’t? An answer to this has been the raisin bread model of the expanding universe.

As Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist in Quantum Gravity and High energy physics  puts it: “In cosmology, too, it helps to first clarify what it is we measure. We don’t measure the size of space between galaxies — how would we do that? We measure the light that comes from distant galaxies. And it turns out to be systematically red-shifted regardless of where we look. A simple way to describe this — a space-time slicing that makes calculations and interpretations easy — is that space between the galaxies expands.”

However, the entire area is contentious. The usual snap-back of haughty physicist keen to deny any brains worth noticing to the Commons, is to say that all those who don’t understand the mathematics at hand should shut up.

That’s a disingenuous answer, as NOBODY understands fully the mathematics at hand (those with snappy rejoinders know this, but they enjoy their power maliciously).

An example of the non-universality of the notion of expanding space is the following exact quote from Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, author, among many other things, such as the Weinberg-Salam model of the electroweak interaction, of the most famous textbook on the subject, “Gravitation and Cosmology”: “…how is it possible for space, which is utterly empty, to expand? How can nothing expand? The answer is: space does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space, but they should know better”

Well, they don’t.


Personally, I think that both space and time are local concepts (as long as one does not add to consideration the Quantum theory, as it was created, post 1923, by De Broglie, and after 1924, by the Copenhagen School). Local space and local time are united by the speed of light, c, through naturally ubiquitous light clocks. Space and time are measured locally (although Poincaré proposed a slow motion to move synchronized clocks around, and Einstein copied and published that mechanism, verbatim, as he had with E = m c²).

It has been proposed that the redshift of cosmological photons, and its attribution, 100%, to the expansion of spacetime, is a proof of the expanding “spacetime”. One must say that this statement is the core of present cosmology. And anybody looking down on the idea will not be viewed as serious by famous physicists. However just saying something does not prove it. Especially when the conclusion seems to be the hypothesis.

Lorentz- Poincaré Local Space and Time theory was experimentally provable (electromagnetism proved it).

But where is the proof that the universe is like an expanding dough, spacetime, with galactic raisin grains in it? Just waving the notion that the atomic force is 10⁴⁰ the gravitation force at a small scale does not seem compelling to me. It’s rather a question of range: gravitation is much longer range, although, much weaker. Thus the geodesic deviations due to gravitation show up at a very great distance, whereas those due to atomic and molecular force cause enormous geodesic deviations, but only at very short range. We are these enormous local deviations, larger by 10⁴⁰ locally.

Yet, even this more precise argument smacks of hand waving.  Why? Because a theory of local forces as curvatures, although posited by Riemann in 1865, and the foundation of GR, still does not exist (that’s one thing string theory was trying to achieve, and failed). Gravitation remains the only force that is tautologically equivalent to a curved space theory.

Quantum Physics has provided that theoretical spacetime with a nonlocal causal architecture (through Quantum Entanglement). However that “causality” although geometric, is non metric (and thus manifests itself with no geodesic deviation, no force).

Einstein, after a debate on nonlocality imparted by the Quantum, with the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, attracted the world’s attention on that problem in 1935, with his famous EPR paper. There Einstein denounced the way the “spooky action at a distance” affected distant “elements of reality”. Since then, the spookiness at a distance has been amply confirmed (and enables to encrypt space communications while knowing 100% whether they have been breached, as a Chinese satellite recently showed). Nonlocal effects show unambiguously that the metric (of “spacetime”) does not capture all the geometry (an notion which may surprise physicists, but not those mathematicians who have studied the foundations of their field).

This Quantum architecture has led, so far, to no prophecy, let alone theory, by established physicist. Entangled Quantum architecture is actually not part of the General Relativistic raisin cake model (or any GR model). However, I will venture to say one can view it as predicting Dark matter, at the very least. It’s just a question of baking something more sophisticated than raisin bread.

Patrice Ayme


May 19, 2017

Through Wave Collapse and the ensuing Entanglements it sometimes brings, QUANTUM PHYSICS CREATES A CAUSAL STRUCTURE, THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE, THUS, AN ARROW OF TIME.

Actually it’s more than a simple causal structure: it is an existential structure, as localization creates materialization, in the (Sub-)Quantum Theory I advocate. (It’s a theory where there are no dead-and-alive cats, but particles in flight are not particles… Contrarily to what Einstein thought, but more along the lines of Niels Bohr, horror of horrors…) It also means that time, at the smallest scale, is a nonlocal entanglement. This is not a weird new age poetry, but pretty much what the raw formalism of Quantum Physics say. I throw the challenge to any physicist to contradict this in any way. It’s completely obvious on the face of it.

You read it here first, as they say (although I may have said it before). Is time absolute? How could time be absolute? Where does the Arrow Of Time (Eddington) come from? Is there something else which grows with time?

The old answer is entropy, traditionally denoted by S.

Boltzmann’s equation S = k log P says that entropy augments during the evolution of a system. P indicates the number of states accessible by the system. Entropy was a construction from later Nineteenth Century physics, a successful attempt to understand the basic laws of thermodynamics (mostly due to Carnot).

A big problem for classical thermodynamics: what’s a state? That’s not clear.

However Quantum Physics define states, very precisely. However, very specifically: a situation, defined in space-time, what Bohr and Al. called an “experiment” (rightly so!) defines a number of possible outcomes: the latter become the “states”, a basis for the Hilbert Space the “experiment” defines.

Classical statistical mechanics does not enjoy such precisely defined states. So why not to use the states of Quantum Physics? Some could object that Quantum “experiments” are set-up by people. However Quantum Interactions happen all the time, independently of people. As in the Quantum experiments set-up by people, those Quantum Interactions grow something: Quantum Entanglement. ( Self-described “Quantum Mechanic” Seth Lloyd from MIT has also mentioned that entanglement and the arrow of time could be related.)

Quantum Entanglement has a direction: from where singularization (= localization = the collapse of the Quantum wave packet) happened first, to the distant place it creates the geometry of (yes, entanglement creates geometry, that’s why it’s so baffling to specialists!) 

Quantum Physics, Or, More Precisely, What I call QUANTUM INTERACTIONS are irreversible processes. Hence the Arrow Of Time

So we have two things which grow, and can’t be reversed: Time and Wave Collapse/Quantum Entanglement. I propose to identify them. (After all, Maxwell proposed to identify electromagnetic waves and light, just because they are both waves and went at the same speed; it turned out to be a magnificent insight.)

Quantum Wave function collapse is time irreversible (actually, the entire Quantum Wave deployment is time irreversible, because it depends only upon the geometry it’s deployed in). The mechanism of wave function collapse is philosophically a matter of often obscure interpretations, and arguably the greatest problem in physics and philosophy.

My position here is perfectly coherent: I believe the Quantum Waves are real. (So I do not believe the waves are waves of ignorance, and an artefact, as some partisans of Quantum decoherence have it). Those objective waves are real, although not always in one piece (that’s how I generate Cold Dark Matter).

By the way, it is the collapse of the Quantum Wave which “creates” the Quantum Entanglement At least that’s how the mathematics, the description of the theory has it! The picture it creates in one’s mind (first the wave, then the collapse, then the entanglement) makes sense. Actually I am arguing that this is how sense makes sense!

Quantum Entanglement is a proven experimental fact. All physicists have to agree with that. Thus the Quantum Wave has to be real, as it is the cause of the Quantum Entanglement! (I am pointing out here that those, and that’s now nearly all of them, who believe in Entanglement are incoherent if they don’t believe in the wave too!).

Jules Henri Poincaré had seen that time and space were not equivalent. That was meritorious, as Poincaré had proposed the original ideas of “local time” and “local space” theories, which are the fundamental backbones of Special Relativity (they are deduced from the constancy of the speed of light).

Even Einstein publicly frowned on the concept of “spacetime”, which identifies space and time; “spacetime” was proposed by Minkowski, Einstein’s own professor at the EHT… They may not have been friends, as Minkowski compared Einstein to a “lazy dog”; Einstein, of course, respected Poincaré so much, that he grabbed the entire theory of Relativity from him, including its name…

Quantum Physics does not outright treat time as equivalent to space, quite the opposite (although Quantum Field theorists have tried to, and do treat space and “imaginary time” as the same!). In fundamental Quantum Physics, time is a one parameter group of transformation, not really a dimension.

When a glass falls and shatters, Classical Mechanics is at a loss:’Why can’t it reassemble itself, with as little work?” Classical Thermodynamics mumbles:’Because Entropy augments’. (That may be a tenable position, but one will have to count the states of the glass in a Quantum way. Even then, the full energy computation will reveal a lack of symmetry.)

I say, simply:’A glass which has shattered can’t be reassembled, because Quantum Interactions, and ensuing entanglements happen.’ The resulting topology of cause and effect is more complicated than what one started with, and can’t be reversed. Quantum Interactions and ensuing effects at a distance they provide with, create a partial, nonlocal, ordering of the universe. Time. (Once a set has been physically defined, it has been thoroughly interacted with, Quantum Mechanically, and then it becomes a “well ordering”!)

So what’s time? The causal structure of the universe as determined by irreversible, causal Quantum Wave collapse and Quantum Entanglement.

Patrice Ayme’

DARK MATTER EMERGENCE! (If so, is a New Quantum revolution at hand?)

March 31, 2017

Long story short: My own theory of Dark Matter predicts that Dark Matter is EMERGENT. That could be viewed as a huge flaw, easy to disprove, sending me back to a burrow somewhere to pursue my humble subterranean existence of sorts. HOWEVER, big surprise: DARK MATTER EMERGENCE seems to be exactly what was just observed in 2017, at the European Southern Observatory (ESO)!


Anomalies in the behavior of gravitation at a galactic scale, has become the greatest crisis in physics. Ever:

What is the problem? Four centuries of physics possibly standing on its head! (Using the virial theorem,) Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky discovered and named Dark Matter, or, as Zwicky said in German,  “dunkle Materie“, in 1933. Zwicky observed an enormously mysterious gravitational pull.

Zwicky computed that the observed gravitational pull did not correspond to the visible matter, by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, and thus Zwicky assumed that there was plenty of matter that could not be seen. (At the time, physicists scoffed, and went to stuff more interesting to the military, thus, better esteemed and more propitious to glorious splurging and handshakes from political leaders!)

If spiral galaxies were only made up of the matter that we can see, stars at the outer edge should orbit the centre slower than those closer to the center.. But Zwicky  noticed that this was not the case: all the stars in the Andromeda galaxy move at similar speeds, regardless of their distance from the galactic center. (For nationalistic reasons Americans love to attribute DM’s discovery to American astronomers Vera Rubin and Kent Ford .in the 1970s. However great Vera Rubin is, that’s despicable: they worked 40 years after Zwicky.)

Many studies since the 1930s provided evidence for Dark Matter. Such matter doesn’t interact with light, that’s why it is dark. Thus, one can only observe the effects of Dark Matter via its gravitational effects.

Nobel Prizes Were Only Given To the 5% So Far. The 5% Are All What Today’s Official Physics Is About. This Is One Of The Reasons Why I Am Thinking Outside Of Their 5% Box…


How does one compute the mass of a galaxy?

One just look at how many stars it has. (In the Solar System, the sun is a thousand times more massive than all the planets combined; studies on how much stars are moved by the planets around them confirm that most of the mass is in the stars.) And that shows up as the overall light emitted by a galaxy. Summing up the observed light sums up the mass. Or, at least that was the long-standing idea. (More recently, the pull gravitation exerts on light has been used to detect Dark Matter, and it has been used on a… massive scale!) 

At the scale of galaxies, or galactic clusters, the motions of objects is indicating at least ten times the gravitational force that should be there, according to gravitation theory, considering the mass we see (that is the mass of all the stars we see).

Problem: that would mean that he so-called “Standard Model” of physics has no explanation for most of the mass in the galactic clusters.

Reality check: the celebrities of physics are very arrogant, and think they know exactly what the universe had for breakfast, 13.8 billion years ago, and how big it was (never mind that their logic is ridiculously flawed). Up to a few years ago, many were in denial that they were missing most of the mass-energy in the universe with their Standard Model theory. 

However, here they are now, having to admit they missed 95.1&% of the mass-energy in the universe (according to their own latest estimates)!

A low logical cost solution to the riddle of the apparently missing mass, was to decree that all physicists who have studied gravitation since Bullialdus, nearly four centuries ago, got it wrong, and that gravitation is not, after all, an inverse square of the distance law. A problem is that French astronomer Bullaldius’ very elementary reasoning seems still to have kept some validity today. Remember that, in the Quantum Field Theory setting, forces are supposedly due to (virtual) particle exchanges? Well, that was the basic picture Bullialdus had in mind! (Thus those who want to modify so-called “Newtonian Dynamics” wreck the basic particle exchange model!)


Bullialdus’ Inverse Distance Squared Law, Basic to Newton-Eintein:

Ismael Boulliau (aka Bullialdus) a famous astronomer, member of the English Royal Society, proposed the inverse square law for gravity, a generation before Newton. (Bullialdus crater on the Moon, named for Boulliau, would have water, by the way.) Boulliau reasoned that the force would come from particles emitted by the sun, just like light. Here is Bullialdus voice:

“As for the power by which the Sun seizes or holds the planets, and which, being corporeal, functions in the manner of hands, it is emitted in straight lines throughout the whole extent of the world… seeing that it is corporeal, it becomes weaker and attenuated at a greater distance or interval, and the ratio of its decrease in strength is the same as in the case of light, namely, the duplicate proportion, but inversely, of the distances that is, 1/d².”

Why still true today? The carrier of force are particles.If they go to infinite distance (as electromagnetism and gravitation do), then the density of filed carriers (photons, gravitons) will go down, as Bullialdus said, for the reason he gave.

Bullaldius’ observation is the basis of Newton’s gravitation theory, which is itself the first order approximation of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. (Einstein’s gravitaion is a tweak on Newton’s theory; what Einstein did is actually to re-activate Buridan’s inertial theory with advanced mathematics invented by others (Riemann, Ricci, Hilbert, Levi-Civitta)

There is a basic problem here: although Einstein’s theory is a small tweak on Newton’s, MONDs are not. Correcting a theory by a factor of ten, a hundred, or a thousand is no tweak. Moreover: 

The ESO (European Southern Observatory) observation, illustrated above by ESO itself, seems to condemn BOTH of the two known, “official”classes of solutions for the gravitation problem: LCDM Dark Matter and Mond. The only theory left standing is my own Sub Quantic Dark Matter theory, which is fully emergent.


2017 ESO Discovery: Slowly Spinning Old Galaxies:Natascha Förster Schreiber at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany and her colleagues have used the European Very Large Telescope in Chile to make the most detailed observations so far of the movement of six giant galactic discs, 10 billion years ago.

They found that, unlike in (quasi-)contemporary galaxies, the stars at the edges of these galaxies long ago, far away, move more slowly than those closer in.

“This tells us that at early stages of galaxy formation, the relative distribution of the normal matter and the dark matter was significantly different from what it is today,” says Förster Schreiber. (Well, maybe. MY interpretation would be very different! No DM!)

In order to check their unexpected results, the researchers used a “stack” of 101 images of other early galaxies to find an average picture of their rotations. The stacked galaxies matched the rotations of the more rigorously studied ones. “We’re not just looking at six weirdo galaxies – this could be more common,” says Förster Schreiber. “For me, that was the wow moment.”


MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MONDs) Don’t Work:

About 10 billion years ago, there was a peak formation period of galaxies. By looking 10 billion light years away, one can see what was going on then, and have plenty of galaxies to look at. Where was the Dark Matter there? Was there Dark Matter then? One can answer these questions by just looking, because Dark Matter shows up in the way galaxies rotate, or orbit (in galactic cluster).

The result is both completely unexpected and spectacular! I am thrilled by it, because what is observed to happen is exactly the main prediction of MY theory of Dark Matter!

What is found is that, ten billion years ago, the largest star-forming galaxies were dominated by normal matter, not by the dark matter that’s so influential in galaxies today. (I reckon that this result was already indicated by the existence of galaxies which are mostly Dark Matter… at least in my sort of cosmology which differs massively from the standard Lambda Cold Dark Matter, LCDM model.)

MOND theories, relativistic or not, say that gravity is ten times stronger at, say, 30,000 light years away from a mass. If that’s the true law of gravitation in the last few hundreds of millions of years (as observed in presently surrounding galaxies), it should have been the case ten billion years ago. But that’s not what’s observed. So MOND theories can’t be true


LCDM cop-out: Dark Matter makes halos, like around the Virgin Mary’s Head!

On the face of it, the discovery about those ten billion year old galaxies say that the galactic disks then did not contain Dark Matter. That seems to me that it shoots down both MOND theories and the LCDM model (that’s the fancy name for the conventional Big Bang, latest version).

However, conventional scientists, and, in particular, cosmologists, are good at pirouettes, that’s why they are professionals.  There is still a (twisted) logical escape for LCDM model. The differences in early galaxies’ rotations demonstrates that there is very little Dark Matter in towards the middle of their disks, to start with, reason the Cold Dark Matter specialists. Instead, those ancient galaxies’ disks are almost entirely made up of the matter we see as stars and gas. The further away (and thus earlier in cosmic history) the galaxies were, the less dark matter their disks contained.

The specialists suggest that the turbulent gas in early galaxies condensed into the flat, rotating disk shapes we see today more quickly than Dark Matter, which remained in a diffuse  “halo”, which would progressively fall in… but had not started to falling enough, ten billion years ago. (That’s weird, because I thought LCDM mixed normal matter and dark matter, right from the start. In any case, I am not going to make their increasingly fishy case for them!).

Dark Matter gathers – but it takes time. This is exactly what my theory of Dark Matter predicts. In my own theory, Dark Matter is the result, the debris, of Quantum Interactions (entanglement resolutions, singularization) at very large distances. This debris gathering takes time.

My Dark Matter theory predicts that Dark Matter is an Emergent phenomenon. No other theory does that. Studies of more than 100 old giant galaxies support my theory, why making the situation (very) difficult for the conventional Dark Matter theory (“LCDM”) and impossible for the MOND theories.

This progressive build-up  of Dark Matter is NOT predicted by the other two Dark Matter theories. The standard (LCDM) cosmological Dark Matter model does NOT predict a slow gathering of Dark Matter. Nor does the  MOdified Newtonian Dynamics theories (MOND, relativistic or not) predict a slow apparition of Dark Matter.m the center and most of the visible matter.

It has been taken for granted by the Dark Matter advocates that Dark Matter, a sort of non-standard standard matter, was in the universe from its legendary start, the Big Boom, aka, Big Bang,

This is an important step in trying to figure out how galaxies like the Milky Way and larger galaxies must have assembled,” says Mark Swinbank at Durham University. “Having a constraint on how early the gas and stars must have formed the discs and how well-mixed they were with dark matter is important to informing their evolution.”

Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature21685

Right. Or maybe, as I speculate, for plenty of excellent reasons coming from logically far away, this is an indication that not Gravitation Theory, but Quantum Theory, is not correct. Oh, the Standard Model, too, is not correct. But we all already knew this…

Conclusion: If the ESO observation that Dark Matter was not present in large galactic disks, ten billion years ago, is correct, I cannot imagine how MOdified Newtonian Dynamics theories could survive. And I find highly implausible that LCDM would. All what is left standing, is my own theory, the apparent main flaw of which, is now turned into a spectacular prediction! DARK MATTER Appears SLOWLY as predicted by Patrice Ayme’s SUB-QUANTIC Model. (Wow!)

Patrice Ayme’

Consciousness, Nonlocality, Free Will

March 26, 2017

DS asked in Aeon: “Patrice, in what way is consciousness “nonlocal”, and what is the evidence for this?”

DS: Science  and technique progress, and thus so do our visions of the world. Quantum computers are becoming a reality. Quantum computers work in a completely different way from the classical computers we presently have (which, fundamentally are of the same type as those the Greeks had, more than 2,000 years ago!). Present (2017) versions of Quantum computers are primitive relative to what’s coming (Artificial Consciousness computers). And you know what? Full Quantum computers depend crucially upon nonlocality.

Descartes located consciousness (“the soul”) in a tiny part of the brain (the pituitary gland).  I guess because Descartes considered it was the only part of the brain with a unique character, just like the soul is unique to the mind? Now we know the pituitary is just a master neurohormonal center…) 

Philosophers And People of Culture Have to Learn New Words and Especially the Concepts Having to Do With Quantum & Nonlocality. Lest they Become the New Barbarians…

Split brain, and other surgeries have revealed that consciousness can’t be localized that way, inside a tiny organ (whereas short-term memory can be localized, to the hippocampus, fear to the amygdala, vision to 17 areas in the cortex, etc.)

So, in that gross sense, consciousness is non-local.

Next, we are now basically certain that basic biology uses the Quantum (we have a few telling examples already, not just chlorophyll). By this I mean that consciousness uses individual quanta and their nonlocal behavior (for example individual photon, or individual electrons, the latter when, and precisely because, delocalized).

Indeed, what is the most fundamental property of the Quantum? Not just that it is quantified. Nonlocality is the Quantum most important property. The Quantum is quantified because it is nonlocal (Einstein did not understand this his entire life, from 1905 to his death). Nonlocality is the crucial difficulty of Quantum Physics (it shows up as Schrödinger cats, EPR paradox, etc.)

Supposing that the most fundamental thing we know of in the universe, consciousness, can, somehow, avoid the most fundamental physics we have found in the universe, is a form of denial akin to climate denial, or parallel universes. Ignoring Quantum Physics, as a fundamental conceptual tool to understand consciousness can only be explained by prejudice.

What prejudice? Most cultured people have no understanding, let alone feeling, for the Quantum. So they desperately clinging to Classical mechanics, something best suited for artillery shells…

As the Quantum is essentially nonlocal, and fundamental to consciousness, so is consciousness.

And what of the Quantum deniers? Well they miss entirely the immensely rich new logic that Quantum logic has offered beyond Classical logic…

The preceding should not be construed as an endorsement of so-called weirdly named “extrasensory perception”. Instead, I have argued that the sensory system itself is nonlocal (pretty much a physiological evidence, too, as we see with 17 areas…)

A trivial, but telling, case could be called “Free Will and Cosmic Rays”. Cosmic rays, cosmic elementary particles, can be millions of times more energetic than the most powerful elementary particles created by man, at CERN (their origin is obscure, logically speaking). It is known that cosmic rays can change the states of present computers (so even present computers are unpredictable!) Now the scale at which present computers operate is classical (as in classical mechanics), it is hundreds of times larger than the scale at which the inner machinery of cells operate.

That means that the inner machinery of neurons will be put in different states by cosmic rays, just like smartphones. There goes the freedom of Free Will. “Free Will” may feel free, but it may well have, and sometimes surely will have been, directed from a galaxy long ago, far away… This spectacular conclusion is not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of science. And I have not even considered the question of (the extremely nonlocal) Quantum Entanglement. Quantum Entanglement is real and makes matters way worse.

Some will say, that’s fine, we don’t need to know all this stuff, we can be happy, and we can still pontificate about our classical notions of “Free Will” and “Consciousness”. Indeed, those who want to stay primitive, should. Yes. Yet, within bounds. There are limits to barbarity that civilization needs to set-up, as a matter of survival.

Those who want to cling to a more barbarian, less scientific past certainly cannot claim to have the will to moral superiority. They are like those who believe Muhammad rode to Jerusalem on a winged mule. One cannot accept the principle that one can believe in anything, accept that anybody can believe in anything, and civilization will go on. Verily, superior morality, superior smarts.

If anything, Quantum Physics show that much more things are connected in mysterious ways than ever thought possible. Even space and time get entangled in “Quantum Procrastination“, and cease to have any conventional meaning.

To believe that this completely new, immensely more subtle than was ever suspected (Quantum) universe, has nothing to do with the way we perceive it, and conceive of it, would be an astoundingly naive, revoltingly obsolete, lack of introspection, a short step away from those winged mules.

Patrice Ayme’

Free Will Destroys The Holographic Principle

February 12, 2017

Abstract: Many famous physicists promote (themselves and) the “Holographic Universe” (aka the “Holographic Principle”). I show that the Holographic Universe is incompatible with the notion of Free Will.


When studying Advanced Calculus, one discovers situations where the information on the boundary of a locale enables to reconstitute the information inside. From my mathematical philosophy point of view, this phenomenon is a generalization of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. That says that the sum of infinitesimals df is equal to the value of the function f on its boundary.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was discovered by the French lawyer and MP, Fermat, usually rather known for proposing a theorem in Number Theory, which took nearly 400 years to be proven! Fermat actually invented calculus, a bigger fish he landed while Leibniz and Newton’s parents were in diapers.

As Wikipedia puts it, inserting a bit of francophobic fake news for good measure:  Fermat was the first person known to have evaluated the integral of general power functions. With his method, he was able to reduce this evaluation to the sum of geometric series.[10] The resulting formula was helpful to Newton, and then Leibniz, when they independently developed the fundamental theorem of calculus.” (Independently of each other, but not of Fermat; Fermat published his discovery in 1629. Newton and Leibniz were born in 1642 and 1646…)  

Holography is a fascinating technology.  

Basic Setup To Make A Hologram. Once the Object, The Green Star, Has Fallen Inside A Black Hole, It’s Clearly Impossible To Make A Hologram of the Situation, If Free Will Reigns Inside the Green Star.

Basic Setup To Make A Hologram. Once the Object, The Green Star, Has Fallen Inside A Black Hole, It’s Clearly Impossible To Make A Hologram of the Situation, If Free Will Reigns Inside the Green Star.

The objection is similar to that made in Relativity with light: if one goes at the speed of light (supposing one could), and look at a mirror, the light to be reflected could never catch-up with the mirror. Hence, once reaching the speed of light, one could not look oneself into a mirror. Einstein claimed he got this idea when he was 16-year-old (cute, but by then others had long figured out the part off Relativity pertaining to that situation…

My further objection below is going to be a bit more subtle.


Here Is The Holographic Principle As Described In Wikipedia:

The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind[1] who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and Charles Thorn.[1][2] As pointed out by Raphael Bousso,[3] Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon, the event horizon from which information may still be gathered and not lost due to the natural limitations of spacetime supporting a black hole, an observer and a given setting of these specific elements,[clarification needed] such that the three dimensions we observe are an effective description only at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the particle horizon has a non-zero area and grows with time.[4][5]

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects that have fallen into the hole might be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon.


The Superficiality Principle Rules:

I long suspected that physicists and mathematicians are taken by the beauty of the simplification of knowing the inside from the outside. It’s a sort of beauty, fashion model way of looking at the world. It miserably fails with Black Holes.

To figure this out, one needs to know one thing about Black Holes, and another in philosophy of mind.



My reasoning is simple:

  1. Consider a Black Hole so large that a human being can fall into it without been shredded by tidal effects. A few lines of high school computation show that a Milky Way sized volume with the density of air on Earth is a Black Hole: light falling into it, cannot come back. (Newton could have made the computation and Laplace did it.)
  2. So here we have this Human (call her H), falling in the Milky Way Air Black Hole (MWAB).
  3. Once past the boundary of the Black Hole, Human H cannot be communicated with from the outside of the boundary (at least from known physics).
  4. What the Holographic proponent claim is that they can know what is inside the MWAB.
  5. Suppose that Human H decides to have scrambled eggs for breakfast instead of pancakes. The partisans of the Holographic Universe claim that they had the information already. However they stand outside of the MWAB, the giant Black Hole, and cannot communicate with its interior. Nevertheless, Susskind and company claim they knew it all along.

That is obviously grotesque. (Except if you believe Stanford physicists are omniscient, omnipotent gods, violating known laws of physics: that is basically what they claim.)

This is not as ridiculous as the multiverse (the most ridiculous theory ever). But it’s pretty ridiculous too. (Not to say that the questions Free Will lead to in physics are all ridiculous: they are not, especially regarding Quantum Theory!)

By the way, there are other objections against the Holographic Universe having to do with the COSMOLOGICAL Event Horizon (in contradistinction of those generated by Black Holes). Another time…


We Are Hypocrites, So We Live From Fake News:

Tellingly, the men promoting the Holographic Universe are Nobel Laureates, or the like. Such men tend to be very ambitious, full of Free Will, ready to say, or do anything, to dominate (I have met dozens in person). It is revealing that so great their Free Will is, that they are ready to contradict what they are all about, to make everybody talk about themselves, and promote their already colossal glories.

Patrice Ayme’


December 10, 2016

In  Sub-Quantum Patrice’s Reality (SQPR), Matter Waves are real (in Quantum Theory Copenhagen Interpretation (QTCI) the Matter Waves are just probability waves). There has been no direct evidence that Matter Waves were real. So far. But times they are changing as the other one, who got his Nobel today, said.

Both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are consequences of SQPR. So: Observing both Dark Matter and Dark Energy constitute proofs of SQPR.

The prediction of the deviation of light by the Sun was twice with “General Relativity” than the one predicted in Newtonian Mechanics. The effect was minute, and detected only in grazing starlight, during Solar eclipse of 29 May 1919 (by the ultra famous British astronomer and physicist Eddington). Thus, as 95% of the universe matter-energy is from Dark Matter or Dark Energy, my prediction carries more weight.

SPQR also predict “fuel-less” production, in a variant of the effect which produces Dark Matter in SQPR (also called PSQR below): 

Dark Matter Pushes, Patrice Ayme Says. Explaining NASA's Findings?

Dark Matter Pushes, Patrice Ayme Says. Explaining NASA’s Findings?

How does Dark Matter create propulsion? Well, that it does is evident: just look at galactic clusters (more details another day). A Matter Wave will expand, until it singularizes. If it expands enough, it will become so big that it will lose a (smaller) piece of itself during re-singularization. That  piece is the Dark Matter.

Thus visualize this: take a cavity C, and bounce a Matter Wave around it (there is plenty of direct theoretical and experimental evidence that this can be arranged).

Make a hole H in the boundary of C (this is not different from the Black Body oven the consideration of which led Planck to discover the Quantum).

Some Dark Matter then escapes. By the hole. 

However, Dark Matter carries energy momentum (evidence from Galaxies, Galactic Clusters, etc.).

Hence a push. A Dark Matter push.

The (spectacular) effect has been apparently observed by NASA.

Does this violate Newton’s Third Law? (As it has been alleged.)

No. I actually just used Newton’s Third Law, the Action = Reaction law. So SQPR explains the observed effect in combination with the Action= Reaction Law, “proving” both.

How could we prove SQPR? There should be a decrease of energy-momentum after a while, and the decrease should equal the observed push exactly.

Patrice Ayme’


Warning: The preceding considerations are at the edge of plausible physics. (A tiny group of dissenting physicists are even busy making theories where Dark Matter does not exist. The consensus is that Dark Matter exists, but is explained by a variant of the so-called “Standard Model”, using “Supersymmetry”, or “WIMPs”, or “Axions”. My own theory, SQPR is, by far, the most exotic, as it threws Quantum Theory Copenhagen Interpretation, QTCI, through the window.)

Nature Of The Physical Law & Reaction Law

December 5, 2016

Human laws are modelled, in spirit, after physical laws. So it is socially important to realize how physical laws are established, and that they are not immutable. Physical laws are established by observation (some direct, some axiomatic; yes, a paradox). However, if you read the magazine “Wired”, you may feel that physical laws are established, like the Bible or the Qur’an, by the sheer power of a personality cult:

“LAST MONTH, NASA researchers dropped news with potentially huge consequences for space travel and science as a whole: They ran an experiment whose results seem to defy the very laws of physics, and could change how we travel through outer space. Problem is, experts say that it’s incredibly unlikely that Isaac Newton is wrong. Instead, the most likely explanation is the team simply made a mistake somewhere along the way

The team was testing a theory that there’s a new way to propel satellites, instead of using rockets powered by a limited supply of fuel. So they put a radio antenna in a specially designed, sealed container. Turned on, the antenna bounced 935MHz radio waves (similar to those used by some cell phones) around, and the container apparently moved a tiny, tiny bit. This violates Newton’s third law of motion, one of the basic tenets of physics.

Loosely put, Newton taught us that no action can occur without an equal and opposite reaction.”

[WIRED from August 2014:]

Reaction = Action Is An Experimental Fact. Or Was, Until Recently. Does not have to stay that way

Reaction = Action Is An Experimental Fact. Or Was, Until Recently. Does not have to stay that way

Right, the article is from 2014. However, the riddle got more interesting in 2016, when the same tests were conducted in hard vacuum… with the same results (it was initially thought that radiation heated air, which expanded, creating a push; without air, that counter-idea failed).

Who are these “experts”? People who gave the Nobel Prize to each other? Newton did not “teach” us that action = reaction inasmuch as he demonstrated it (thanks to arcane mathematics). Before I explain what I mean, let me mention that Richard Feynman wrote a famous book “The Character of the Physical Law” (which I read). Feynman observes that there is a hierarchy of laws. Here I will observe something even more subtle: there is a hierarchy of how fundamental laws are viewed as fundamental.


Newton ASSUMED this “Third Law”, he made an hypothesis of it (and the law was probably known to cannoneers for centuries). Using in part this action = reaction hypothesis, Newton was able to deduct, from a large axiomatic system, with lots of arcane mathematics, theorems. And some of these theorems had practical consequences which were found, or known, to be true (Kepler laws). So it was reasonably assumed that Newton’s Third Law was correct: it is an axiom the use of which bring the correct theorems. The same sort of reasonings established the First and Second Laws of motion, which were discovered by the stupendous genius Buridan, three centuries BEFORE Newton.  

To my knowledge, the Third Law was first stated by Newton. However, that law was certainly well-known by Roman artillery engineers, who were used to catapult large masses at enormous distances: they knew of the recoil all too well. Roman and European Middle Age artillery enabled to seize cities (armies which were less competent in artillery found seizing cities difficult to do; the Turks used Hungarians engineers to breach the walls of Constantinople with giant guns).

Thus we see there are two sorts of physical laws: those we assume as axioms, and then we certify them, because the mathematical logic they give rise to bring apparently correct results. Other natural laws are observed directly.

For example, the so-called “Standard Model” can be viewed as a sort of giant law. It uses, in its axioms, the so-called Higgs boson, and that was indeed found (sort of).

Thus direct observations can suggest a law (say action = reaction; or gravitation) which then is established through the axiomatic method (heavily used in modern physics). Actually the case of gravitation is even more interesting: observations suggested an attractive force. Then Ismaël Bullialdus, a French priest-astronomer-mathematician found a reasoning why it should be an inverse square law (Bullialdus has a crated named after him on the Moon). Armed with Bullialdus inverse-square law, Isaac Newton used the inverse square law as an axiom to “deduce” Kepler’s laws  (I wrote “deduce”, because, centuries later, it was called into question whether Newton had properly demonstrated Gauss’ law, which reduce, gravitationally speaking, planets to massive points)

Examples of laws observed directly are numerous: they include the classical laws of optics, of forces (depicted by vectors; but one cannot use vector theory to prove how force behave… because vectors are abstracted forces), much of electrical behavior, etc.

Some laws were deduced from axiomatics before being demonstrated experimentally. Newton’s crowning achievement was more or less) demonstrating the equivalence of Kepler Laws with the 1/dd inverse square universal attraction law… given the laws of “Newtonian” Mechanics.

As I said, the laws of mechanics were greatly deduced by Buridan and various engineers, generations before Newton.

Could the same be going on now? Who knows?

It is a question of observation. Ultimately physics, nature, is what is observed, nothing less. It gets to be more than what is observed, because of our imagination, and the fact it needs to use the logics and maths it knows.

Meta-lesson? Politics degenerated in the West, in the last 50 years, because what was really going on was observed only in a fragmentary way. This is in particular the drama of so-called “left”, or progress. We have to stick to what is observed.

In the case of democrats, what was observed is that “Democrats” selected a candidate who was the object of 4 Congressional inquiries (Sanders had none, never had any).

Now they insult us.

Patrice Ayme’

DARK GALAXY (Explained?)

October 1, 2016

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’