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 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 are 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)



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-matters (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.

The Local Value of the Hubble Constant: H0 (now, later universe) = 73.24 ± 1.74 km s−1 Mpc−1

The Planck CMB data (Using ΛCDM with Neff = 3) estimation: H0 (early universe) = 66.93 ± 0.62 km s−1 Mpc−1

The ratio {H0 (now)/H0 (old, CMB)} = {73.24/66.93} = 1.0942

So, H0 (now) is 9.4% higher than the H0 (old, at CMB).

This result implies that there is a ‘dark radiation’ (or Neff = 3.4) becoming dark energy and making the universe expanding faster than the CMB period.

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


Dark energy 1 = X; dark energy 2 = Y; Mass (visible + dark) = Z; Dark radiation (dark mass melting into dark energy ratio): W = 9%


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 are 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 no 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)

= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)

= 137.0359 …

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

The sum of the higher order sharing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…]

= .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 1 = (V, A, A 1) = {1st, red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.

String 2 = (-A, V, V 1) = {1st, red, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red down quark.

String 3 = (A, A, V 1) = {1st, blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.

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 about 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,


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-matters (total 24) are on the backstage, dark mass 2.


Copyright © of Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong