Gravity is for losers

As I understand it, there are fundamental discrepancies between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both theories come close to explaining how everything works, but some parts are totally incompatible. A major stumbling block seems to be gravity. Gravity, the force which keeps us comfortably in our recliners and not bouncing our noses against the ceiling, appears not to have any effect on the smallest sub-atomic particles proposed by quantum mechanics. So far, that conundrum has prevented the final iteration of a Theory of Everything.

The effects of gravity are an essential component of both General and Special Relativity, besides keeping our feet firmly planted on the ground. It can't just be tossed aside simply to finalize a universal theory, even though we appear to have proof it does not always apply. That gap between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics has, so far, remained unbridgeable.

But I think I can help out with that.

Consider the water glider, also known as water striders, water skeeters, water scooters, water bugs, pond skaters, water skippers, water skimmers or puddle flies. They walk on water. Literally, in its literal sense. These insects, of some 170 species of the Gerridae family, are light enough that they can distribute their weight to actually walk on the surface of water, taking advantage of its surface tension.

I suspect any competent physicist can see where I'm going with this.

Subatomic particles are known to have even less mass than a water strider, ergo, they have the potential of riding on the gravity wave rather than being drawn into it. I call the theory Quantum Gravity Wave Skating. Thus the paradox between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be resolved.

Done and dusted.

Unfortunately, I will be unable to travel to Stockholm.

[?]

What's the matter?

Seriously, Dark Matter? A mysterious substance that fills much of the universe but no one can find? C.mon, who are you tryin' to kid?

Allow me to establish my credentials in astrophysics: I have undergraduate and graduate degrees, neither of them in mathematics or a physical science. So I'm just spitballin' here.

As I understand it, "Dark Matter" was originally proposed over a century ago as a hypothetical explanation for certain cosmological phenomena that appeared to lack other known causes. And we've been looking for Dark Matter ever since.

But I think the search for Dark Matter may simply represent a failure of imagination. Dark Matter may not exist at all. We need to be looking for something else entirely. It's just that so many scientists are hung up on the laws of physics, as if laws aren't meant to be broken.

Consider seaweed on a beach. A obvious hypothesis for the accumulation of marine plants on sandy stretches of shoreline is that the plants are attracted to the sand, itself. They may be drawn to its comforting warmth, its reassuring stillness, or even its cozy dryness. But how to prove which? One means of encouraging research might be through a cash prize offered by some beach resort's Chamber of Commerce to the first scientist who can provide evidence. And so the stampede begins. However, in reality, we all know that seaweed is actually dragged ashore by crabs for their nests. But see how things can become confused by predetermined parameters?

Dark Matter may simply be a distraction, a metaphor that has taken on a life of its own. There is, in its very name, an allure for the human psyche, which is likely how the term was first established. To my thinking, there is the same element of unscientific science that has made string theory so attractive. In that vein, recent research out of Hawaii suggests that the very inability to discover Dark Matter is further evidence of its existence.

Now consider these possibilities as a first step outside the Dark Matter box:  Perhaps the phenomena under question have multiple causes. Perhaps our Dark Matter exists in a parallel universe. Perhaps we should actually be searching for Dark Antimatter. Or not.

[?]

A man way after midnight

 A dozen or so years ago I discovered the music of ABBA and, wanting to know more about the group whose music I was enjoying, I looked them up on Wikipedia. There I discovered two facts which particularly surprised me.

First, that they were Swedish, yet the songs I enjoyed were in unaccented English. Second, that they had broken up thirty years before I'd even heard of them, nearly twenty years before Wikipedia was even a thing. It wasn't as if their music hadn't been popular everywhere on the planet, including the US. Yet, somehow, I had managed to be conscious for the better part of several decades and not have glommed onto their music. It was a real stranger-in-a-strange-land sensation.

Yet here I am again. Thanks to theoretical physicist and science philosopher,  Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, I find out that string theory, of which I've barely become aware in recent years, has been losing credibility since the mid twenty-teens.

I feel like I've hurried to catch a train only to find the station torn down and the tracks pulled up for scrap.

[?]