The fascinating topic of exotic matter as dark matter, and why it matters!

[LifeIsStrange]

"Alternative" cosmologists, as we find e.g. on this forum, usually tend to distance themselves from dark energy and from dark matter.
I find this a bit ironic since those two concepts are independent of the standard model or even of other expansionist model, meaning they can be reused in static cosmologies (yes as a reminder there are other expansionist model than LCDM, such as coasting universes and RH=CT).

A reason to avoid those concepts, is the fact they presumably incurs a significant epistemological cost, basically each stating that the vast majority of energy AND of matter (mass) is present in non baryonic matter and/or non classical force(s). It's hard to make an idea less parcimonous than that, it is extremely costly regarding ockham razor, however it is often underappreciated that many alternative explanations such as MOND as not necessarilly more parcimonous. Moreover static cosmologies have implicit, unstated concepts that are relatively comparably as unparcimonous (how do you stabilize a static universe (attraction versus repulsion, how do you recycle back energy to matter if the universe is homeostatic (past eternal)?).

As is well known, Einstein paper on general relativity presents a static universe. It was latter shown to be unstable, which led Einstein to invent the cosmological constant, as a "hack" to stabilize the universe and counterbalance gravity.
.There might be some theories of gravity that allows stable static solutions, a candidate being einstein-cartan. I'm not sure wether scalar gravity or lesagian gravity have been calculated to be stable, though the mechanism and gravitational shielding are intriguing regarding this question.

Dark energy is currently represented via the cosmological constant (although probably not the same value as einstein static value (which is ??). Many if not most alternative cosmologists seems to plainly skip the essential question of the stability of their universe, if they didn't they would realize the need for an equivalent to dark energy (albeit not with the same value and therefore not with the same empirical evidence) even though as quoted for einstein cartan, there are other ways, considerably lesser known, to stabilize a universe.
Related is the schrodinger Classical unified field theory in which the cosmological constant somehow emerge "naturally"
and here and here

Anyway enough talk about the merits of dark energy for a static universe, let's talk about dark matter.
Dark matter has a lot of empirical evidence for it, and a lot of empirical evidence against it, overall MOND very significantly outperforms dark matter (albeit not necessarilly extensions of dark matter) however a few important metrics significantly favor DM over MOND.
Both are useful btw in a non eternal universe, in order to catalyze the growth speed formation of galaxies.
Most exhaustive review ever: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936 see page 69

While it is true that MOND seems to win and that we will have a definite proof of MOND in 2026, it should not be dismissed than while a bit non parcimonous, both MOND and dark matter could simultaneously exist to some extent. More finetuned would be that MOND is an effect of dark matter. Most importantly even if MOND were proven to take all the apparent missing gravity, dark matter, in an altered definition, could still exists, as non abundant massive particles, or as abundant light or non gravitational particles.

Moreover, there is a record high number of anomalies, both in astrophysics (galactic center excess, optical excess, etc) and in particle physics (grav anomalies, X17 particle, etc..) that screams that there exists multiple distincts non standard model particles and or new forces or forces extensions. They will almost all be definitely proven arround 2026-2028 (via Nica, eXTP, etc).

So here we go with a relaxed definition of dark matter, being whatever that generates "new physics", where new physics might actually derive from the standard model (such as the recently proven Zeldovich radiation), where the particle might actually exist in the standard model (or not) and wether it generates the missing gravity, is optional.

The fascinating topic of exotic matter as dark matter, and why it matters!

Something a bit funny for what is supposed to be the most studied phenomena in mainstream cosmology, Dark matter, is that it isn't much studied actually.
I mean there are countless papers about cosmological constraints, and about the whole spectrum of allowed size and mass/energy per particle. What is dark matter?
It is generally outlined by this diagram:

Which include, but not only, dark photons, axions and WIMP and MACHOS.
Basically, from the smallest, to the largest.

Something that I have always taken for granted, is that dark matter must be explained by a new, non standard particle.
But the evidence for this claims is a bit limited it seems, firstly against it goes the RAR relation.
Secondly as explained:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/26779

Interpretation is weak/CMB dependent. Or is indicative of the observational requirement that the matter must be radiatively obscure or very faint. He says it must also be small, but I don't see how the size is constrained via lensing, assuming ultra faintness.
Indeed most matter, at least for hot, ionized media, is bright (except selective dust obscuration is a thing).

So it seems, actually, if we can explain the faintness is a ionized medium, that dark matter could be constituted of standard baryons or of leptons, and would be simply an observational limit of our instruments, the same way, historically galaxies were thought to be nebulae, and the same way the missing dwarf galaxies problem recently became an excess dwarf galaxies problem (cf paper about the "unseen world")
It has to be thought in relation with the already known problems of dust attenuation laws, and with extreme known problems such as the absolutely hilarious 100% excess in photon count https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11236 (question in optics about resolved vs diffuse source sensitivity here)
BTW significant advance in the ultra faint world should be possible with this planned mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARRAKIHS

Another way to constrain the baryonic fraction of dark matter, would be via estimate of the total abundance of baryonic matter infered via the successful BBN (primordial nucleosynthesis), which might have been done for MACHOS , basically what is the ratio of observed hydrogen versus the predicted hydrogen abundance of the big bang.

MACHOs are the only popular DM model made of standard particles, and denotes large macroscopic objects (planets, brown dwarfs, etc). It also denotes black holes dark matter, especially primordial black holes (which are very small (sub asteroid sized) and abundant).
Related to MACHOS are exotic compact objects (gravastars, etc) https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07728

And so, we have two school of thought, one that defend MACHOs, made of regular matter, with increasingly stringent constraints, and one, much more popular that requires non standard model particles (axions, WIMPs, etc).

But how could researchers, give so little attention, to the most obvious candidates, the third possibility, neither MACHOs, nor non standard particles!
The third, underlooked possibility, is called Exotic matter
And Exotic matter is IMHO a misnomer since exotic make it feels non standard, or "fringe", but actually Exotic matter is matter predicted to exist by the standard model, and for most instances, proven to exist in labs. It should have been called special matter.
Anyway Exotic matter, is a broad term that denotes either particles or atoms that are not naturally easily found on earth and that are produced, or stable, in special physical conditions. Contrary to dark matter candidates, exotic matter is proven to exist, and has a vast array of "surprising properties" that are conducive to new physics, which is ironic for things that are technically, at least partly, predicted by the standard model. In that sense, there are many "Beyond the standard model physics" that are simply currently unknown deductions from the standard model, a highly underatted observation.
Exotic matter is a treasure trove for alternative cosmologists that aims to find new physical effects or candidates for said effects.

So let's review the different kinds of exotic matter:
Firstly the exotic particles:
A major candidates for DM are sterile or majorana neutrinos. While sterile neutrinos are allowed by the standard model, there is no necessity for their existence (besides maybe solving neutrinos anomalies and the mass ordering problem).
There is also the graviton, whatever it is.
But it is extremely underappreciated that there IS one major (composite) particle that the standard model predicts to exist and that hasn't been directly measured, in that sense, it is the last big remaining prediction of the standard model. It has not been observed because it mimicks regular gluons. I am talking about the glueball, the grouping of gluons via the strong force.
Glueballs not only is the most interesting new particle candidate because it is predicted to exist, but also because it is predicted to be abundant, to be massive and to be stable. That makes it actually the most promising DM candidate:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09510
https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2408.14245
BTW there is candidate detection in lab
Note that it requires the implicit assumption that gluons actually exists which might not be the case in the sakata model

here is also no need to introduce ”hidden” degrees of freedom,
such as color and gluons

Another prediction of exotic mesons are hybrid mesons:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.07276
and tetraquarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraquark
The latter have very short half lives, and indeed this is the most frequent critique to Exotic matter as Dark Matter, many (but not all) exotic matter have very short half lives, meaning they cannot impact cosmology unless continuously produced in a steady state.
There is still a tetraquark DM paper though
One tetraquark has been found to only decay via the weak interaction though It's half life is not known?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-half-life-of-the-newly-discovered-Tcc-tetraquark-I-keep-reading-everywhere-that-it-is-long-lived-but-they-never-mention-the-actual-lifetime

Then we go to the other family of particles, exotic hadrons,
which are made of pentaquarks or hexaquarks, (higher state than hexaquarks are allowed but are very hard to produce and are probably short live)
Here is an example of a predicted "stable" candidate Sexaquark, which is a new DM candidate
I find no papers about DM as pentaquarks, probably because of their too short half lives.
Recently hexaquarks have been produced in lab, though with an extremely short half live. But it could actually be a dark matter candidate. There is the very interesting topic about what makes a particle or composite stable cf neutrons, which is explained in this blog
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/03/14/ask-ethan-its-absurd-to-think-dark-matter-might-be-made-of-hexaquarks-right/
There exists as an analogy to the island of stability ways to make neutrons arrangements eternally stable. Moreover composite particles, because of decay, can weight less than their individual parts, this observations led to the brilliant insight that what we consider as primitive particles might actually be the other way arround and be composite particles of what we consider as composite, and what we consider as composite would be the primitives. This genius idea is the so called Sakata model and apparently might not be ruled out !! which is mind blowing.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6471/ab67e8
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dark-matter-in-the-standard-model-Gross-Polosa/8510e153c0f421d373b4f966dc2c2728572ceca8

Now we have finished with exotic standard model particles as dark matter, there is also the topic of
strange quarks as DM https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12094
Which includes the strangelet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelet
It is predicted to exist by the standard model, and just like the hexaquark DM, they are stable, but only under a condensed state (e.g. bose-einstein).

Honorable mention for other particles candidates unrelated to DM: the carriers of magnetic monopoles, millicharge particles, vectors, leptoquarks (viable higgs boson alternatives) and the empirical evidence for a higgs doublet/triplet and for 5 distinct neutrinos masses.
There is also the topic of non exotic standard particles, such as hyperons, pions, kaons, etc but most are unstable.

If you are still reading, great because that's where the most interesting part starts

As I previously stated, exotic matter is not just exotic particles, or exotic composite particles (atoms are just one well behaved kind of composite particles)
The topic is more broad and include two main others categories:
Exotic atoms, and exotic phase of matters (gasous, liquid, solid and plasma are the classical phases but there are many others!)

High pressure can violate classical chemistry:
http://www.gizmag.com/scientists-create-forbidden-compounds-table-salt/30520/

Exotic atoms:
An exotic atom is an atom where one or more subparticles are replaced with another particle of the same charge. I won't cover them all as there are many possibilities, and very few have been studied in labs, however an important one is muonic hydrogen that is a short lived and denser form of hydrogen. The fact the orbits a denser means that it is extremely insightful in particle physics to derives constraints on dark matter. Muonic hydrogen has allowed to violate the standard model and calculate a smaller radius for the proton (which was predicted by this new quantum theory).
Another kind of exotic atom is onium, which are atoms made of matter AND antimatter, that are surprisingly stable albeit short lived.

Phases of matter:
There is a large number of special states of matter (supercritical, superconducting, superfluid, superAnything), and also ultra condensed forms of matter (bose-einstein, Quark Gluon plasma, solid electrons, solid light, slow light, time crystals, etc)
Special states of matter are associated with subtle new physics, and with anomalous "fifth forces" or gravitational shielding,
Including the incredible work of Elio Porcelli that single handledly found more anomalies than the totality of researchers working in particle physics.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elio-Porcelli

Today's real topic: Rydberg Matter as a cosmologist dream come true

As I said, there are just too many special phases of matter to cover them and the scientific litterature, therefore I will focus on the most interesting exotic phase of matter: Rydberg Matter, but first let's talk about why we need Rydberg Matter and how we know it is abundant in the universe:

As you know, I am deeply interested in physical and astrophysical anomalies, because their are literally empirical evidence of new physics, they are the frontier of experimentalism and of our knowledge. They are the benchmark against truth.
They simultaneously open the frontiers on what is possible (when magic becomes science) and close the uncertainties and doubts about said new possibilities.
Despite the scientific value primacy of physical anomalies, there isn't a single paper that exhaustively list them, far from it, actually it is very rare to find papers that list more than a few. As such, and because scientists prefer to write new papers than to read the ocean of papers, anomalies are insultingly little known, and despite considerable work I still regularly keep discovering new anomalies in the litterature, sometimes old discoveries and often with a low citation rate.
One entire class of astrophysical anomalies I recently stumbled upon are the spectroscopic anomalies.
Basically, cosmologists almost only way to study the universe is by studying light, photometrically, spectroscopically and also its polarization.
After all the thing that started it all, the redshift, is a light anomaly. Same for cosmic time dilation.
And yet I wasn't aware we have countless spectral anomalies in astrophysics. A spectral band represent an atomic orbital and it is what defines the reflective color of objects arround us.
Here is a recent review of the different spectral anomalies found in astrophysics:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07571 (note that there are unrelated anomalies in lab too https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14385
)
Among them, the most important ones are:
The diffuse interstellar bands
The unidentified infrared emission bands
and the extended red emissions

There are more than 500 distinct diffuse emission bands.
All those spectral anomalies have in common that 1) they are abundant in the universe (based on signal intensity) and 2) no known atom or molecule can reproduce their spectra
Their diversity means that we receive more spectra from unknown molecules than from known molecules and atoms! This is crazy.
Now you might say, the universe might simply catalyze the production of molecules not found on earth and while this is a possibility, their spectra indicates that the molecules must be very large and their abundance limits their composition mostly to a very limited number of atoms, the prime candidate being carbon.
The larger a molecule the lower the yields so..
Of course the mainstream theory for the unidentified phenomena are a component of cosmic dust, the PAH which are dense carbon molecules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon but there are other carbon candidates (including abiotic generation of petroleum!)

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are expected to be the most abundant class of organic molecules in space.

There is indeed a lot of evidence for the abundance of PAHs
It was spectroscopically discoverred for the first time last month (the perks of exhaustively reading the literature I guess) a precise molecule being a component of PAH: Pyrene
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00657

Anyway, PAH is mostly a failed theory, not that it isn't abundant, but apparently it doesn't explain the anomalous spectra.
Of the 500 DIHs, probably a subset are explained by complex carbon molecules though, for the first time, 2 bands have been identified as corresponding to variants of fullerene

So mainstream science has explained 2/500 of DIHs and 0/X of the other bands.
Here comes Rydberg matter
Leif Holmid is one of the most prolific researcher in Rydberg matter, in 2011, he has shown that the spectra of rydberg matter can explain 260 of the 300 known bands at the time!!!
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3179
If his research is correct, that means he has 1) singlehandedly solved one of the biggest anomalies in astrophysics and 2) proven the extreme abundance of rydberg matter in the universe.

He has latter shown it can explains the Unidentified Infrared Emissions too.

Moreover he has claimed to have created the densest possible configuration of Hydrogen (via but not only, Rydberg matter), denoted H(0)
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ultra-dense-hydrogen-H(0)-as-dark-matter-in-the-new-Holmlid/6899b3cf90fa3b559d5856c7460af1addbf97061
He claims that:
H(0) is one of the densests materials, making it a new source of nuclear fuel/energy/storage (vs petroleum or uranium)
Is an automatic dark matter replacement.
That H(0) naturally thermalize to the CMB radiation, making it "the simplest explanation)
That H(0) explains the other anomaly, the extended red emission.
Most importantly he claims that H(0) explains cosmological redshift

He then develop on a topic I already thought about and that is highly promising, an answer to the Drake equation of where are the aliens, by stating that the interstellar medium is much more destructive to spaceships than expected, here via Rydberg matter
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Nuclear-Processes-in-Dark-Interstellar-Matter-of-of-Holmlid/bb5d106681c56bf934e4a7486fd08e8238304842 and that "interstellar highways" where aliens would try to clear space from the toxic exotic molecules would be an astronomically observable biosignature, by showing an absence of Diffuse Interstellar Emissions.

Leif Holmid and his research group have it all, they solve everything and their findings might simply be true. After all their research and maths are public sadly I am not math literate enough to assess their verisimilitude. Fraud or Genius? The scientific "community" is far too mediocre to review their papers (though there has been a limited number of reviews I should myself review)
Regardless, of wether all their findings are real, Rydberg Matter is real and it is real that is has unique physical properties, as there is an extensive body of research that is anterior to the work of Leif Holmid.

So, firstly what is Rydberg Matter?
Rydberg Matter is a condensed form of rydberg atoms.
What are Rydberg atoms?

A Rydberg atom is an excited atom with one or more electrons that have a very high principal quantum number, n.[1][2] The higher the value of n, the farther the electron is from the nucleus, on average. Rydberg atoms have a number of peculiar properties including an exaggerated response to electric and magnetic fields,[3] long decay periods and electron wavefunctions that approximate, under some conditions, classical orbits of electrons about the nuclei.[4] The core electrons shield the outer electron from the electric field of the nucleus such that, from a distance, the electric potential looks identical to that experienced by the electron in a hydrogen atom.[5]

Well basically those are atoms with electrons with atypically far orbits from the nucleus. I have seen described as "giant hydrogen atoms"
While they are often mentioned in condensed matter physics, ironically, rydberg atoms are atoms that are maximally underdense.
Moreover they have atypical behaviours and are the largest atoms in the universe. There is no known limit to their size (quantum number) and we know that given enough size and conditions, they behave with classical orbits, which makes them a unique and underappreciated probe of the classical/quantum limit, and a possible falsification of quantum mechanics.
They are proven to exist and are created in labs.
Another thing that makes them unique, besides the behaviour of their outer electrons, is that they are resilient to radiation and have extremely slow decay times, it is one of the most stable form of exotic matter, with a quantum number >90 their half life is > to the age of the universe!!

the electron's orbit resembles the orbit of planets inside a solar system, similar to what was seen in the obsolete but visually useful Bohr and Rutherford models of the atom.

As diamagnetic effects scale with the area of the orbit it follows Rydberg atoms in space could have extreme diamagnetism.
It also allows with extreme efficiency the absorbtion of some radiation bands cf > https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/a-new-antenna-using-single-atoms-could-usher-in-the-age-of-atomic-radio/?mbid=synd_digg and also this
Hence this corroborate a possible effect on the CMB and on diffuse bands.

Independently of Leif Holmid, Rydberg atoms are known to be abundant in space:

Rydberg atoms occur in space due to the dynamic equilibrium between photoionization by hot stars and recombination with electrons, which at these very low densities usually proceeds via the electron re-joining the atom in a very high n state, and then gradually dropping through the energy levels to the ground state, giving rise to a sequence of recombination spectral lines spread across the electromagnetic spectrum. The very small differences in energy between Rydberg states differing in n by one or a few means that photons emitted in transitions between such states have low frequencies and long wavelengths, even up to radio waves.

Indeed Rydberg atoms are the main (and only?) source of another spectral phenomena, radio recombination lines

The discovery of lines with n > 100 was surprising, as even in the very low densities of interstellar space, many orders of magnitude lower than the best laboratory vacuums attainable on Earth, it had been expected that such highly-excited atoms would be frequently destroyed by collisions, rendering the lines unobservable.

Since n> 100 is detected, it means we have proven there are rydberg atoms in space with a half life longer than the universe (unless destructed by external collisions).
Some have been observed with a size of 57 microns, meaning this single rydberg atom occupy the volume of more than 57000 hydrogen atoms!!
https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2516

Independently of Holmid, there are many papers showing that indeed rydberg atom have atypical interactions with light
https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.107.133602

Now many findings of Holmid are about Rydberg matter, which is a condensed for of rydberg atoms, that is known to form in stars, nebulaes and even on the magnetosphere of planets, including, possibly, Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_matter

Now are you ready for the ultimate, most exotic particle?
We have exotic atoms: Rydberg atoms. We condense them into an exotic phase of matter: Rydberg matter.
We also condense regular hydrogen into an exotic phase of matter: A bose einstein condensate
Then somehow, we inject the bose einstein condensate into the giant condensed rydberg atoms.
And it works, we have create the mind blowing concept that is the Rydberg Polaron, a condensed state of matter made of rydberg atoms that contains condensed hydrogen atoms. Meaning we have created atoms that containts other atoms, actually they are so large that we can make atoms that contains hundreds of atoms of hydrogen!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_polaron
While rydberg atoms are underdense, the rydberg polaron can reach very high energy density by "trapping" the hydrogen.
This isn't theoretical, this has been experimentally confirmed!
BTW this has uncovered a new physical anomaly it seems
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.265301

I shall review Leif Holmid papers another time but undeniably Rydberg matter has real potential for new physics, is proven to be abundant and has credible stability, this makes it one of the best candidate for dark matter and possibly a unique explanation to redshift and to the CMB, and as show to the multiple spectral anomalies.

Another candidate for the formation of rydberg matter that has empirical astronomical evidence is via abundant nanocluster of ice formation,
It explains dark matter, and uniquely, cosmic birefringence
https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.10908
From the same author:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.12079
He argues that it could catalyze polymer creation and therefore be an explanation for the origin of life !!

Regarding the Sakata model, the 2020 paper shows that if signal for the new matter state baryonium is confirmed then it would be empirical evidence for the sakata model. Moreover hybrid quark sakata models might be viable.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10751-015-1150-z
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sakata-Model-Revisited%3A-Hadrons%2C-Nuclei-and-Stefanovich/2b49b07cd8a0b82bbbfff2e5bbeb134721b3a9df

bonus anomaly:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1648 violation of the Schwarzschild radius.
A novel way to represent the interior of the sun:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Forty-Lines-of-Evidence-for-Condensed-Matter-%E2%80%94-The-Robitaille/b77092e1be51b4118bb9a15c60244917d0e04958#citing-papers

The concept of superspinars

https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1648

Also multiple theories of exotic matter as DM have catalyzed production in neutron stars, meaning than upcoming Xray telescopes like Axis and Lynx could give definitive constraints via studies on mass and neutron star radius.

Honorable mention to this new alternative to DM and MOND: scale invariance?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21379
And also to weyl fermions, the third hypothetical formalism, and the proven existence of quasiparticles semimetals that behave like it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_semimetal

Off topic but incredible paper showing that MOND is a natural phenomenon of lesagian gravity considering that galaxies are roughly flat
https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-03841151v1/document

One topic I have not talked about are the prospects of new physics in quasiparticles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinon

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Does-Pizzella%E2%80%99s-experiment-violate-causality-Stefanovich/7f6ebef78140ff8c9fc084f8901d325f3822af93

[HanDeBruijn]

how do you stabilize a static universe (attraction versus repulsion)

Does the solar ystem collapse? No! The attraction is gravity. But repulsion is the acceleration (centrifugal force) on matter in orbits. The eternal movement of matter ( παντα ρει και ουδεν μενει by Heraclitus ) simply makes Dark Energy redundant for the purpose. Problem is that mass in the cosmos is modeled mathematically as sort of uniform mass density and the whole idea of movement is lost by employing this abstraction.

how do you recycle back energy to matter

A related question is the following. Nuclear fusion in stars makes heavier elements from lighter elements. Does there exists a mechanism in cosmic space that does the reverse: make lighter elements from heavier elements? Such a mechanism anyway exists on earth and technically nuclear fission is easier to accomplish than nuclear fusion.

While it is true that MOND seems to win

Yes, because nobody is taking a look at the alternative based upon (our version of) the Variable Mass Theory (VMT). An issue pending is that a webpage still does not count as publication, it is not an old-fashioned peer-reviewed "paper" in a copyrighted journal. Mea culpa!

The fascinating topic of exotic matter as dark matter, and why it matters!

The VMT is why it does NOT matter !! [ Rest of your Particle Fever skipped, except ]

Here comes Rydberg matter

Yes, it deserves my eyes (emoi) looking at it.

this makes it one of the best candidate for dark matter and possibly a unique explanation to redshift and to the CMB

Yeah, sure .. Please don't exaggerate though ! In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister ( Goethe ).

[budrap00]

Dark matter has a lot of empirical evidence for it...

That is a false statement. All the evidence for DM is inferential and requires a belief that the gravitational models of Newton and Einstein, derived in the context of the Solar System, are Universal Laws. That belief is untenable given that the models do not work on larger and more complex systems like galaxies without the ad hoc addition to empirical reality of the empirically baseless DM.

The unscientific belief in DM is just another example of the uselessness of the mathematicist philosophy in which math models supersede the evidence of our lying eyes and instruments. DM is not there - that's what the empirical evidence says. If you believe otherwise that's fine but it's not science. Science doesn't care what you believe. Science is the study of the things that are there; it is not the study of some hot house beliefs that only exist in the febrile imaginations of mathematicists for whom physical reality is an afterthought. Discussions of DM belong in the Metaphysics and Philosophy section.

[LifeIsStrange]

@ExpEarth thanks for the typo :) I used c because I am french 🥖

[LifeIsStrange]

As I already said, independently of the diverse empirical evidence, it is a striking irony for cosmologists often assuming the universe is eternal and homeostatic to not want the existence of new particles.
An eternal universe requires a mechanism that breaks the conservation of energy or that catalyze energy to matter reconversion.
A static short lived universe (13 billions years) requires too a mechanism that catalyze the growth of matter over short timescales.
The MONDian phenomena does not answer the energy matter conversion need.
Also many alternative models of gravity (lesage, quantum, etc), require the existence of the graviton.

[HanDeBruijn]

@budrap00 .

Did you ever get around to figuring out that physical reality only approximates mathematical idealizations?

Ad nauseam, but you don't listen: Back to the Roots .

The complete sentence:
and $4/3 \times 10^{-12}$ is the dimensional ratio properly scaled and assigned appropriate units.
Now it is clear that you are willing to engage in unethical and dishonest behavior - but for what purpose?

For what purpose? I'm just disregarding an addition that has already become completely uninteresting.
This can easily be shown by choosing other units than the "standard" (I hope so) ones, for example:
1 m(eter) = 39.3700787402 inch, 1 year = 31556926 s(econds), 1 ounce = 0.0283495231 kg.

m := 39.3700787402; # inch
s := 1/31556926; # year
kg := 1/0.0283495231; # ounce
c := 299792458*m/s;
G := 6.6743*10^(-11)*m^3/kg/s^2;
sqrt(4*10^(-12)/(3*c));

The outcome is that $G = 0.1149846094 \times 10^9$ while your square root formula gives $0.1892032227 \times 10^{-14}$ .
In what units is unclear because dimensionality is not obeyed. Anyway The 4/3 Dimensional Ratio is shredded.

What is temperature and how do you measure it ?

Answer the question.

[budrap00]

What is temperature and how do you measure it ?

Answer the question.

Han, If you need help with your homework, hire a tutor.

As far as your math goes, show your work otherwise don't waste everybody's time.

[HanDeBruijn]

@ExpEarth .

We are all just incredibly stubborn in backing our own theories and not anyone else's!

The generalization is on your part. Not all of us are acting in this way. An example of the contrary is
Looking for feedback on metric for the universe, with time dilation but no expansion .