Dark energy/dark mass: the silent truth

The LHC (Large Hardon Collider) is ready for its Run 2, and there are a lot of talks in the media about the LHC mission as discovering the dark matter.

Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler: “Dark matter… it’s actually extremely difficult to detect, … the most elusive of the known particles. The only way we’ve been able to detect dark matter so far is through the pull it exerts via gravity, which is big only because there’s so much dark matter out there, and because it has slow but inexorable and remarkable effects on things that we can see, such as stars, interstellar gas, and even light itself.

The question for today is this: since dark matter barely interacts with ordinary matter, how can scientists at an LHC experiment like ATLAS or CMS, which is made from the ordinary matter, of course, have any hope of figuring out that they’ve made dark matter particles?  (http://profmattstrassler.com/2015/04/13/dark-matter-how-could-the-large-hadron-collider-discover-it/ )”

Matt Strassler: “But if it [dark matter] is something about space itself, I would say that that effect isn’t what we would call dark matter. Rather, it’s an alternative explanation for what we observe.

However, at some point, this answer could devolve into a discussion about semantics. The only interesting thing, in the end, is explaining what we see, not precisely what we call it.

Until someone has a definite proposal, with a set of equations we can analyze, I’m afraid there’s not really anything we can discuss. (http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/dark-matter/searching-for-dark-matter-at-the-lhc/ )”.

Matt is right if and only if the dark matter is made of ‘particles’ which is a preconceived notion, total speculation. The dark matter is inferred from the galaxies gravitation data and the CMB (Cosmic microwave background) data analysis. That is, all that we are certain is about the dark mass, not dark matter, let alone to say about the dark ‘particle’.

Today, two things about dark mass are certain:

One, the Planck CMB data 1: (dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82), see note 5 for the detailed data.



Two, Planck data 2: it also rules out DM models with particles that are not completely stable over time (10^17 years is the minimum mean lifetime). By comparison, the age of the universe is roughly 1.38 * 10^9 years. This means that dark matter (if it exists) is at least as stable as anything other than a proton, at least 10^33 years.”

And, there is Planck data 3: Neff = 3.04 +/- …

Thus, any DM model which cannot derive the Planck Data 1 cannot be the right theory. That is, any DM model which does not encompass the dark energy and the amount the visible mass cannot be correct. The following is the derivation (theoretically) for the entire Planck Data 1, 2 and 3.

{Among 48 quarks and leptons, only 7 of them are visible.

[Note: There are three generations of quarks and leptons.

The two quarks in each generation have three color verities = 6 quarks.

In one generation, (6 quarks + 2 leptons) = 8

Three generations = (8 x 3) = 24

There are matter and anti-matter, thus, (24 x 2) = 48

Yet, only first generation quarks and leptons (that is, 8) produce visible matter while the electron-neutrino is a warm dark matter (not visible). So, 8 – 1 = 7. 48 – 7 = 41.]

This is amphitheater model:

Seven (7) G1 strings are the actors on stages, visible mass.

The e-neutrino, G2, G3 strings (total 17) are audients, dark mass 1.

The anti-matter (total 24) are on the backstage, dark mass 2.

See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/06/g-string-final-nail-seals-higgs-coffin.html  and note 4 below for details.}


So, the d/v (dark/visible ratio) = [41 (100 – W) % / 7]

When, W = 9 % (a prediction of this G-string model),  d/v = 5.33

In this scheme, the space, time and mass form an *iceberg model*.

Space = X

Time = Y

Total mass (universe) = Z

And X = Y = Z

In an iceberg model (ice, ocean, sky), Z is ice while the (X + Y) is the ocean and sky, the energy ocean (or the dark energy). Yet, the ice (Z) will melt into the ocean (X + Y) with a ratio W.

When W = 9%,

[(Z – V) x (100 – W) %] /5.33 = V, V is visible mass of this universe.

[(33.33 –V) x .91]/5.33 = V

V= 5.69048 / 1.17073 = 4.86   (while the Planck data is 4.82),

D (Dark mass) = [(Z – 4.86) x (100 – W) %] = [(33.33 -4.86) x .91] = 25.90 (while the Planck data = 25.8)

So, the total dark energy = (X + Y) + [(Z – 4.86) x W %)] = 66.66 + (28.47 x 0.09) = 69.22 (while the Planck data is 69.2)

Except the ‘W’ is a free parameter (testable), the above calculation is *purely* theoretical, and it matches the data to an amazing degree.

This calculation shows that the dark matter is all about the STRUCTURE of the universe; that is, it must have a longer lifetime than the AGE and the COMPONENT (such as proton) of this universe.

The above calculations have six points.

First, there is dark mass (not dark matter nor dark particles) which is part of the STRUCTURE of this universe.

Second, all three parts of this universe (dark energy, dark mass, and visible mass) are precisely calculated.

Third, W (the energy transfer rate from dark mass to dark energy) is the only free parameter which is testable. [Note 1: in an article “Dark section interaction” by Jussi Valiviita, Elina Palmgren (http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02464 ) indicates that W = 10% is a good fit with {CMB+BAO (baryon acoustic oscillation) + lensing} data for energy transfer from dark matter to dark energy. The non-interacting model lied outside of the 95% CL interval.]

[Note 2 (add on June 6, 2016): The recent (2016) study done by (Adam G. Riess, Lucas M. Macri, Samantha L. Hoffmann, Dan Scolnic, etc.) shows that the Local value of the Hubble Constant is about 9% higher than the Planck CMB data (2015) estimation.






See, http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/06/02/universe-expanding-faster-than-expected/ ]




Fourth, {((48/2)/8) = 3}. That is, the Neff = 3 exactly, no more nor less. There is no 4th generations nor any sterile neutrino.

Fifth, this calculation shows that the anti-matter is a solid part of this universe while it does not show up as visible. That is, there is no BaryonGenesis issue (more detail, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/12/baryongenesis-master-key-of-all.html ).

Sixth, this calculation shows that the red-up-quark and the blue-up-quark are totally different particles. That is, the quark color charge is fundamental, and there are 36 quarks and 12 leptons. Every quark or lepton carries identical mass-charge while their apparent mass is just a tag (name tag or pimple) for their differences (more detail, see Pimple model, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/ and,

http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/16/a-quantum-gravity-cosmology-conference/#comment-86056 ). Furthermore, those 41 not shinning particles do have the mass-land RIGHT the same as the shinning particles. For the detail of this mass-land-RIGHT, see http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/07/31/a-few-stories-worth-a-comment/#comment-71962 , and

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-return-of-radical-empiricism/comment-page-4/#comment-6918 .

The recent AMS2 data does not show any sharp structure on its curve; that is, no hidden particles annihilation occurs in its data, while there is definitely dark section INTERACTION. Yet, AMS and media are trying to hype the data as some great hints for the dark ‘particles’. Fortunately, some level-headed prominent physicists made comments on it as below.

Matt Strassler: “The only problem is that they [AMS experiment] have made the discovery seem very exciting and dramatic by comparing their work to expectations from a model that is out of date and that no one seems to believe. (http://profmattstrassler.com/2015/04/20/completed-final-section-of-article-on-dark-matter-and-lhc/ )”.

Résonaances (Jester): “The new data from the AMS-02 detector extend the previous measurements from PAMELA up to 450 GeV and significantly reduce experimental errors at high energies. Now, if you look at the promotional material, you may get an impression that a clear signal of dark matter has been observed. However, experts unanimously agree that the brown smudge in the plot above is just shit, rather than a range of predictions from the secondary production. At this point, there is certainly no serious hints for dark matter contribution to the antiproton flux. … Thus, there is currently no hint of dark matter detection. … given the uncertainties,  it’s unlikely to ever be a smoking gun. (Friday, 17 April 2015, http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2015/04/antiprotons-from-ams.html )”.

See note 3.


The Planck data 1 has only some pure numbers, and every number can always be reached by zillion different numerological formulas. But, a single numerological scheme cannot normally reach two different numbers, let alone for three different numbers. Furthermore, being right once could be just happenstance. Being right every time at every point, it cannot be a coincidence. The scheme for deriving the Planck data 1 is also the base for all other fundamental physics issues.

The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics has done a great job to describe the foundation of Nature. It discovered many nature constants {such as, the Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, the Alpha (fine structure constant), etc.}. However, there are two key points for all those nature constants.

One, they are ‘free parameters’ and cannot be derived theoretically in SM.

Two, any deviation from those ‘values’, this universe cannot produce an environment to support life. That is, for supporting life, those values must be ‘fine-tuned’, and this could become the supporting evidence for an ‘intelligent design’ by an intelligent super being. This is called ‘Naturalness’ issue in physics.

In order to resolve these two issues, there comes up an idea of multiverse: there are zillions of universes with all ‘different’ nature constants. So,

First, the nature constants of this (our) universe is only one of those zillions which are happened ‘randomly’. That is, they cannot be calculated or derived.

Second, there is no fine-tuning issue as the nature constants of this universe just a happenstance, result of a Boltzmann monkey.

The best way to show that the mainstream physics is wrong is by simply showing the way of calculating (deriving) those nature constants.

Let     A (0) = {(360/2pi) * [(pi/64 + (pi/64) ^ 2 + (pi/64)^3  + … ] /2]}

= 1.4788413 degrees.

With A(0), we can get A(1),

A(1) = [360 – 24 * A(0)]/24 = 13.521159 degrees.

Note: Cabibbo angle (θc  about 13 degrees)

With A (1), we get A(2),

A(2) = (2 * [360 – A(1) – A(0)]/24) = 28.75 degree.

Note: Weinberg angle (θW, range from 28 to 30 degrees)

Then, there is the calculation (derivation) of Alpha:

Beta = 1/Alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing)


= 137.0359 …

A(2) is the sharing angle, A(2) = 28.743 degree


= .00065737 + …

The entire calculations are based on three numbers {pi, 64, 48 (24 x 2)}. Why? It is discussed in detail in the book “Super Unified Theory” (US copyright # TX 1-323-231).

This same scheme gives rise to G-string language which DESCRIBES fermions (quarks and leptons) with a set of theoretical lexicons, as follow:




String 7 = (A, A, A 1) = {1st, white (colorless), 1 e, ½ ħ} = +e (positron).

String 8 = (V, V, V 1) = {1st, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = +e-neutrino.

String 9 = (V, A, A 2) = {2nd, red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red charm quark.

String 48 = -(V, V, V 3) = – {3rd, white, 0 e, ½ ħ} = anti-tau-neutrino. (See http://putnamphil.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-final-post-for-now-on-whether-quine.html?showComment=1403375810880#c249913231636084948 ).

The intelligence is a fact in human, and its necessary condition is having a counting device (counting straws, abacus or a Turing computer). With this G-string language, both proton and neutron are glider (of Life game) which is the base for Turing computer (see http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm ). Only this G-string language is able to provide a base for intelligence.

Then, it also gives rise to {force F (dark energy) = ħ/ (delta S x delta T) to (delta P x delta S > =ħ}, (See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html ). So, the {delta P x delta S > =ħ} is not fundamental but is emergent. Furthermore, the essence of dark energy is also understood in addition to the simple calculation of its value.

Yet, the most important of all is the newly discovered 125 Gev boson. Before its discovery, no mainstream physics theory is able to predict its mass; so the search was from 104 Gev all the way to about 800 Gev.  Six months before the official announcement, Gordon Kane and collaborators were obviously got some inside info and using some special assumptions to get the Higgs mass to be between 105 and 129 GeV.

In fact, there should be a vacuum boson {as vacuum [d (blue), -d (-yellow)] quark pair} transformed into vacuum {u (yellow), -u (-blue)}, according to the G-string language, see http://www.prequark.org/pq11.htm .

This vacuum boson’s mass should be:

{Vacuum energy (vev) divided by 2} + {a push over energy (vacuum fluctuation}

The observed vev = 246 Gev.

If the vf  (vacuum fluctuation) is about 1% of vev, then

The Vacuum Boson mass = 246/2 + 2.46 = 125.46 Gev.

The above calculation has only two parameters: the vacuum energy and its fluctuation. As a vacuum boson, its key feature is having a zero (0) spin. This is not prediction nor postdiction; it is the direct consequence of the G-string language.

Dark energy and dark mass are the truths sit here silently in this universe, blocking all detour attempts. No one can go over, go under or go around it. There is no other way to derive the above nature constants.

The more detailed discussion on this dark energy/dark mass calculation was also available at the following places.









More about dark mass vs dark matter is available at





Note 3, added on June 7, 2016: {On 6 JUN 2016, the cosmosmagazine published an article [ The dark side of the universe (https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/dark-side-universe-primer ): Over the past 40 years astronomers have realized that everything we can see – all the stars, planets and galaxies – make up less than 5% of the entire universe. What is the rest? The short answer is, we have no idea.

What we do know is there are two gaping holes in our understanding of our universe. As a placeholder, physicists call them dark matter and dark energy.

In a nutshell, dark matter is the invisible stuff which we can only detect from the way its immense gravity moves stars and galaxies.

Dark energy, on the other hand, is the mysterious something causing the universe to expand with ever increasing speed.

We don’t know if dark matter and dark energy are related – in fact, they’re probably two completely different phenomena, both called “dark” just because we can’t see them.]

That is, up to this moment (June 7, 2016), the mainstream physics still has no idea about what the dark energy and dark matter are all about.}


Note 4: the amphitheater model,






Note 5:





Copyright © of Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong



38 thoughts on “Dark energy/dark mass: the silent truth

  1. Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

    ‘Was the universe born spinning?’

    “The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis”

    Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

    ‘Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper into Universe’


    The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.

    It’s not the Big Bang; it’s the Big Ongoing.

    Dark energy is dark mass continuously emitted into the Universal jet.

  2. I see. So X + Y + Z = 1
    Very elegant. So everything that exists in the universe can be calculated as a sum of ratios adding up to unity.

    Planck CMB data:
    69.2 dark energy
    25.8 dark matter
    4.82 visible matter
    Sum: 99.82
    So .18 is missing according to the data

    Your calculations:
    69.22 dark energy
    25.9 dark mass
    4.86 visible mass
    Sum: 99.98, with only .02 missing

    .18/.02 = 9
    So the observed discrepancy is 9 times bigger than your calculations.

    I like how you use an iceberg analogy. I use an iceberg analogy myself to imply that the big bang singularity is really just the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of the initial size of the universe, and that all the matter/energy in the universe was simply pulled up and compressed into the tip of a massive tent volume that was then released onto a planar slice of the vacuum.

    Space appears to be expanding roughly evenly at this point, but my model indicates that at some point, planar expansion will become dominant. The universe is depressing along a vertical axis (perpendicular to the plane) as it expands and cools, and will eventually be squished flat onto the vacuum. We think space is getting bigger, but really galaxies are spreading out more and more as they approach the vacuum plane. The approach towards the plane is logarithmic, that is it started out fast (at the big bang) and is slowing down as time progresses. I could be totally wrong, but that’s part of what I’ve been working on developing.

  3. ‘Empty’ space has mass.

    ‘Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids’

    “Dark matter … permeate[s] all the way to the center of the voids.”

    ‘No Empty Space in the Universe –Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space’

    “A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter.”

    Dark matter which fills ’empty’ space is otherwise known as the dark mass. The dark mass physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it, including ‘particles’ as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.

    The Milky Way’s halo is not a clump of dark matter anchored to the Milky Way.

    The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.

    The Milky Way moves through and displacing the dark mass.


    The state of displacement of the dark mass is curved spacetime.

    The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.

    There is plenty of evidence particles of matter move through and displace the dark mass, including every time a double slit experiment is performed.

    In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment. In the first article the aether has mass. In other words, it is the dark mass that waves in a double slit experiment.
    ‘From the Newton’s laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others’

    “This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it” …

    … and displace it.

    ‘EPR program: a local interpretation of QM’

    “Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther).”

    ‘The Milky Way’s dark matter halo appears to be lopsided’



    What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the dark mass.

    Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the dark mass.

    Dark mass displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.


      “Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”

      The “subquantic medium” is the dark mass.

      ‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’

      “The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”

      A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the dark mass.

      ‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’


      What waves in a double slit experiment is the dark mass.

  4. Pingback: Quora
  5. Pingback: Paul Steinhardt’s remorse, Popperianism and Beauty-Contest | The Great Vindications
  6. Pingback: Quora
  7. Pingback: Quora
  8. Pingback: Quora
  9. Pingback: Quora
  10. Pingback: Quora
  11. Pingback: Quora
  12. Pingback: The final TOE (Theory of Everything) | The Great Vindications
  13. Pingback: The *Certainty Principle*! | The Great Vindications
  14. Pingback: LIGO story, exciting? Yes and No | The Great Vindications
  15. Pingback: Deaths of two Gods | The Great Vindications
  16. Pingback: Entropy: Quantum Gravity: Cosmology Constant | The Great Vindications
  17. Pingback: Creation of Life | The Great Vindications
  18. Pingback: Alice/Bob paradox = Sum {wrong (i)} | The Great Vindications
  19. Pingback: The Final Total TOE (theory of everything) | The Great Vindications
  20. Pingback: Can a new LHC bump rescue the {Higgs Nonsense}? | The Great Vindications
  21. Pingback: Mainstream physics: rescued from the Hellfire dungeon | The Great Vindications
  22. Pingback: Dark Matters
  23. Pingback: Vision eulogy: the Post Checkmate Temper Tantrum fit | The Great Vindications
  24. Pingback: Quantum Gravity: From here to Eternity | The Great Vindications
  25. Pingback: Nature’s manifesto on physics | The Great Vindications
  26. Pingback: Nature’s Manifesto on physics | The Great Vindications
  27. Pingback: Comment on Adam Riess’ talk | The Great Vindications
  28. Pingback: Guth and Gefter, welcome for quoting the G-theory | The Great Vindications
  29. Pingback: Nowhere to run!!! | The Great Vindications
  30. Pingback: The End of the “Inflation-War” | The Great Vindications
  31. Pingback: God did, you say | The Great Vindications
  32. Pingback: Science is not some eye catching headlines | The Great Vindications
  33. Pingback: The Angel and demons in the 100 years of physics nightmare | The Great Vindications
  34. Pingback: Heavenly Father and his artistic baby | The Great Vindications
  35. Pingback: Nature’s master-key cuts out SUSY the undead | The Great Vindications
  36. Pingback: Why is there something rather than nothing? | The Great Vindications

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s