Web of Dark Shadows

Cold Dark Matter (CDM) comprises approximately 27% of the universe, yet its true nature remains unknown. Add that to the 68% of the universe made up of dark energy, an even greater mystery, and we arrive at an unsettling realization: 95% of the cosmos remains unexplained.

Socrates famously said, “The only thing I know is that I know nothing.” Over two millennia later, physicists might agree. But two researchers from Dartmouth propose a compelling possibility: perhaps early energetic radiation, such as photons, expanded and cooled into massive fermions, which later condensed into cold dark matter, the invisible force holding galaxies together. Over billions of years, this dark matter may be decomposing into dark energy, the force accelerating cosmic expansion.

Their theory centers on super-heavy fermions, particles a million times heavier than electrons, which behave in an unexpected way due to chiral symmetry breaking: where mirror-image particles become unequally distributed, favoring one over the other. Rather than invoking exotic physics, their model works within the framework of the Standard Model but takes it in an unexpected direction.

In the early universe, these massive fermions behaved like radiation, freely moving through space. However, as the cosmos expanded and cooled, they reached a critical threshold, undergoing a phase transition, much like how matter shifts between liquid, solid, and gas.

During this transformation, fermion-antifermion pairs condensed—similar to how electrons form Cooper pairs in superconductors, creating a stable, cold substance with minimal pressure and heat. This condensate became diffuse dark matter, shaping galaxies through its gravitational influence, acting as an invisible web counteracting their rotation and ensuring they don’t fly apart.

However, dark matter may not be as stable as once thought. The researchers propose that this condensate is slowly decaying, faster than standard cosmological models predict. This gradual decomposition feeds a long-lived energy source, possibly contributing to dark energy, the force responsible for the universe’s accelerated expansion.

A more radical interpretation, mine not the researchers, suggests that dark matter is not merely decaying, but evolving into dark energy, just as energetic fermion radiation once transitioned into dark matter. If this is true, dark matter and dark energy may be two phases of the same cosmic entity rather than separate forces.

If these hypothesis hold, we should be able to detect, as the researchers suggest, traces of this dark matter-to-dark energy transformation in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Variations in density fluctuations and large-scale structures might reveal whether dark matter has been steadily shifting into dark energy, linking two of cosmology’s biggest unknowns into a single process.

Over billions of years, as dark matter transitions into dark energy, galaxies may slowly lose their gravitational cage and begin drifting apart. With dark energy accelerating the expansion, the universe may eventually reach a state where galaxies unravel completely, leaving only isolated stars in an endless void.

If dark matter started as a fine cosmic web, stabilizing galaxies, then over time, it may fade away completely, leaving behind only the accelerating force of dark energy. Instead of opposing forces locked in conflict, what if radiation, dark matter, and dark energy were simply different expressions of the same evolving entity?

A tetrahedron could symbolize this transformation:

  • Radiation (Energetic Era) – The expansive force that shaped the early universe.
  • Dark Matter (Structural Phase) – The stabilizing gravitational web forming galaxies.
  • Dark Energy (Expansion Phase) – The force accelerating cosmic evolution.
  • Time (Governing Force) – The missing element driving transitions between states.

Rather than the universe being torn apart by clashing forces, it might be engaged in a single, continuous transformation, a cosmic dance shaping the future of space.

Source: CDM Analogous to Superconductivity by Liang and Caldwell, May 2025, APS.org. Graphic: Galaxy and Spiderweb by Copilot.

Water Everywhere

Two recent Earth science studies by Barrett et al. and Bermingham et al. explore the origins of Earth’s water and indirectly, organic matter, key prerequisites for the development of intelligent life. Their findings support the early delivery of needed chemicals to form water and carbon molecules by inner and outer solar system planetesimals such as asteroids and comets.

Barrett et al. shows that an inner solar system sourced enstatite chondrite (EC) asteroid found in Antarctica is isotopically similar to Earth material, (not surprisingly, this supports the 270-year-old Nebular Hypothesis) capable of delivering substantial hydrogen during Earth’s accretionary phase (~4.56–4.5 billion years ago). The ECs contain hydrogen as H2S in silicate glass, linked to pyrrhotite, sufficient to account for up to 14 times Earth’s ocean mass. This hydrogen was systematically incorporated in the hot inner solar system via nebular processes, suggesting water was an inherent outcome of Earth’s formation, not a later addition. ECs also contain trace organic matter contributing modestly to Earth’s carbon inventory. Despite the chaotic “billiard table” trajectories of early solar system collisions, the stability of H2S in glass ensured survival during violent accretion. This early delivery of water and organics established a foundational habitable environment, priming the Earth’s prebiotic chemistry for the creation and evolution of intelligent life.

Bermingham et al., taking a different investigative track, analyze molybdenum isotopes in meteorites and Earth’s crust, concluding that water was delivered during the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB: 4.1–3.8 billion years ago) by planetesimals, including inner solar system asteroids and outer solar system comets, as hydrous minerals or brine. This late accretion, post-Moon-forming event (4.5 billion years ago), suggests a stochastic bombardment enriched Earth’s surface volatiles. Comets and carbonaceous chondrites, rich in organic matter, likely delivered significant carbon compounds, enhancing the prebiotic chemical environment. The chaotic early solar system facilitated this influx of outer solar system organics, complementing earlier inputs.

Both studies align with life’s prerequisites by ensuring water and organic delivery to the planet. Barrett et al. provide the bulk water budget and trace organics via ECs, creating an early aqueous environment, while Bermingham et al.’s LHB bombardment added more water and substantial organics, boosting conditions for life’s emergence. They agree on asteroids’ role, possibly including ECs, but differ in timing (early accretion vs. LHB) and outer solar system delivery contributions (minor in Barrett, significant via comets in Bermingham). Barrett et al.’s early delivery of water and organics can be viewed as foundational and Bermingham et al.’s LHB as a surface-enriching supplement, together enabling the chemical and evolutionary path to intelligent life.

Source: Barrett et al, 2025, Icarus. Bermingham et al, 2025, Rutgers. Graphic: Comet Cometh, Grok3.

Cosmic Halo

Galactic halos, consisting of a spherical envelope of dark matter along with sparsely scattered stars, globular clusters, and gas, typically surround most spiral galaxies. Current research is investigating the possibility that some halos may exist solely of dark matter. Discovering halos without stellar matter carries profound implications for our understanding of the universe’s structure, galaxy formation processes, and the conditions required for star formation. More importantly, such a discovery would provide a unique laboratory to study dark matter in isolation, free from interference of normal matter. However, new findings suggest that starless halos may be even rarer than previously thought. This scarcity makes detecting such halos particularly challenging, as they are unlikely to be associated with observable galaxies.

Ethan Nadler, of the University of California San Diego, has demonstrated that molecular hydrogen requires significantly less mass for star formation compared to atomic hydrogen. His research shows that molecular hydrogen can cool sufficiently for gravity to initiate star formation at lower mass thresholds. Specifically, while past studies indicated that dark matter halos need between 100 million to 1 billion solar masses of atomic hydrogen to begin star formation, Nadler has revealed that molecular hydrogen can achieve the same result with as little as 10 million solar masses—a reduction by a factor of 10 to 100. While dark matter halos can theoretically form with masses as low as 10⁻⁶ solar masses, depending on the nature of dark matter, those capable of influencing galaxy formation typically require at least 10⁶ solar masses to enable star formation, further highlighting the challenge of finding starless halos. Detecting these small, starless halos would require identifying subtle perturbations in gravitational fields, a difficult task that may yield little if such halos are as rare as current models suggest.

Source: …Galaxy Formation Threshold, Nadler, AAS, April 2025. Graphic: Dark Matter Halo Simulation by Cosmo0. Public Domain.

Geo Anomalies

NASA has identified the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAA) as a region off the coast of South America, where Earth’s magnetic field is significantly weaker. This weakening reduces magnetic shielding, exposing satellites and spacecraft to higher levels of radiation and posing a risk to their operation. Understanding the causes and implications of the SAA is essential for addressing these LEO challenges.

One hypothesis suggests that irregularities at the core-mantle boundary disrupt the geodynamo, the mechanism generating Earth’s magnetic field. The anomaly’s alignment with submarine volcanic features hints at possible links between mantle-crust interactions and magnetic disturbances. Additionally, a hotspot near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge corresponds to a geomagnetic intensity minimum at the core-mantle boundary, implying that thermal and compositional anomalies in the mantle may affect convection in the molten outer core, creating localized variations in the magnetic field.

Further research using subsurface imaging will help in uncovering the internal processes shaping Earth’s magnetic field and enhancing our understanding of the planet’s protective geodynamo.also assist in predicting magnetic anomalies and their effect on LEO space flight in the future.

Source: NASA. Graphic. Core Geomagnetic Anomaly, NASA.

Black Swans Part II

Last week, we introduced Taleb’s definition of black swans; rare, unpredictable ‘unknown unknowns’ in military terms, with major impacts, exploring historical examples that reshaped society post-event. This week I’m going to introduce a fictional black swan and how to react to them but before that the unpredictable part of Taleb’s definition needs some modifications. True black swans by Taleb definition are not only rare but practically non-existent outside of natural disasters such as earthquakes. To discuss a black swan, I am going to change the definition a bit and say these events are unpredictable to most observers but predictable or at least imaginable to some. Taleb would likely call them grey swans. For instance, Sputnik was known to the Soviets, but an intelligence failure and complete surprise to the rest of the world. Nikola Tesla anticipated the iPhone 81 years ahead of time. 9/11 was known to the perpetrators and was an intelligence failure. Staging a significant part of your naval fleet in Pearl Harbor during a world war and forgetting to surveil the surrounding area is not a black swan, just incompetence.

With that tweak out of the way, we’ll explore in Part II where Taleb discusses strategies to mitigate a black (grey) swan’s major impacts with a fictional example. His strategies can be applied to pre-swan events as well as post-swan. Pre-swan planning in business is called contingency planning, risk management, or, you guessed it, black swan planning. They include prioritizing redundancy, flexibility, robustness, and simplicity, as well as preparing for extremes, fostering experimentation, and embracing antifragility.

Imagine a modern black swan: a relentless AI generated cyberattack cripples the Federal Reserve and banking system, wiping out reserves and assets. Industry and services collapse nationwide and globally as capital evaporates, straining essentials, with recovery decades away if ever. After the shock comes analysis and damage reports, then the rebuilding begins.

The Treasury, with no liquid assets, must renegotiate debt to preserve global trust. Defense capabilities are maintained at a sufficient level, hopefully hardened, to protect national security, while the State Department reimagines the world to effectively bolster domestic production and resource independence while keeping the wolves at bay.

Non-essential programs, from expansive infrastructure projects, research, federal education initiatives, all non-essential services are shelved, shifting priorities and remaining resources to maintaining core social and population safety nets like Social Security and Defense. Emergency measures kick in: targeted taxes on luxury goods and wealth are imposed to boost revenue and redirect resources. Tariffs encourage domestic production and independence.

Federal funding to states and localities is reduced to a trickle. States and municipalities must take ownership of essential public services such as education, water, roads, and public safety. The states are forced to retrench and innovate, turning federal scarcity into local progress.

Looking ahead, resilience becomes the first principle. Diversification takes center stage, with the creation of a sovereign wealth fund based on assets like gold, bitcoin, and commodities, bolstered by states that had stockpiled reserves such as rainy-day funds, ensuring financial stability. Local agriculture, leaner industries and a realigned electrical grid, freed from federal oversight, innovate under pressure, strengthening a recovery. Resilience becomes antifragility, the need to build stronger and better in the face of adversity. And finally, the government must revert to its Lockean and Jeffersonian roots, favoring liberty and growth over control, safety, and stagnation: anti-fragility.

Source: The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2007. Graphic: The Black Swan hardback cover.

Fate of the Universe

Astronomers once observed exploding stars (supernovae) and found the universe expanding, driven by a mysterious force called dark energy. This led to the standard cosmological model of the late 1990s, Lambda-CDM, where “Lambda” represents dark energy, assumed constant, and “Cold Dark Matter” (CDM) explains unseen mass shaping cosmic structure. Evidence for CDM includes steady star rotation speeds in galaxies, cosmic microwave background fluctuations, galaxy clustering, and light bending by gravity. Though successful, Lambda-CDM has faced ongoing scrutiny almost from inception of the theory.

Enter the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) at Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona. With 5,000 robotic fiber-optic sensors, DESI captures light from galaxies and quasars, mapping the universe’s expansion history. A new study, analyzing three years of DESI data, 15 million objects, with plans for 50 million, combines it with cosmic microwave background radiation, supernovae, and weak gravitational lensing data. Fitting all this into Lambda-CDM with a constant dark energy revealed cracks in the model. But if dark energy weakens over time, a “dynamical dark energy“, the model aligns better.

By observing objects up to 11 billion years away, DESI peers deep into cosmic history. Researchers found hints that dark energy’s strength may have peaked around 7 billion years ago, then started weakening, challenging its fixed nature in Lambda-CDM. While not certain, this could rival the 1990s discovery of accelerated expansion, potentially demanding a new model.

The universe’s fate depends on dark energy versus matter. It’s been accelerating, but a weakening dark energy might slow it down, halt it, or, if gravity overtakes sufficiently, trigger a “Big Crunch.” New data from DESI, Europe’s Euclid, NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman, and Chile’s Vera Rubin Observatory could clarify this within five years, possibly nailing dark energy’s role.

Source: “Dark Energy Seems to Be Changing, Rattling Our View of Universe” by Rey and Lawler, Phys.org, March 2025. Graphic: DESI Collaboration Photo of Galaxies.

White Holes, Black Holes, and the Cosmic Cycle

White holes, theoretical counterparts to black holes, might be two sides of a cosmic coin. Black holes devour matter with relentless gravity; white holes expel it, hurling energy, particles, and possibly time into the universe. Both stem from Einstein’s general relativity, which predicts black holes, proven by solid evidence, while white holes remain elusive, perhaps lurking beyond our Earthly senses. 

To see their link, rethink black holes’ strangest feature and flaw: the singularity. General relativity paints it as a point where spacetime crushes so tight that physics breaks, a bug, not a feature. Exotic matter, with odd traits like negative energy, was once the fix. But the University of Barcelona’s Pablo Bueno and team ditched it, tweaking gravity with higher-curvature corrections to erase singularities. This needs extra dimensions beyond our four, turning black holes from traps into dynamic zones. 

The University of Sheffield adds a twist: the event horizon isn’t sharp. Quantum gravity blurs it into a fuzzy gateway where spacetime bends, not breaks. In 4D, black holes are sinkholes, matter vanishes. In higher dimensions, it slips through, heading elsewhere. Sheffield’s take ties this to dark energy, the universe’s expansion driver. Here, it’s the power plant: quantum fluctuations, fueled by dark energy, replace the singularity with a bounce, flipping spacetime to a white hole. 

Enter white holes, Janus-like transitions, Roman god of gates and duality. Black holes vacuum everything; white holes, linked via higher dimensions, spit it out, maybe far off. Picture Sagittarius A*, the Milky Way’s core black hole, channeling matter 25,000 light-years to the Orion Nebula’s arm. Unseen, white holes might hide in dimensions we can’t touch. 

This hints at a cosmic cycle, like Earth’s water cycle: evaporate, rain, repeat. Black holes swallow, dark energy and quantum gravity bounce it through higher dimensions, and white holes release it back. Barcelona and Sheffield suggest no endpoints, just a recycling of cosmic raw materials across realms we’re barely capable of understanding.

Source: Black Hole Singularity, Gielen and Menendez-Pidal, University of Sheffield, 2025. Regular Black Holes…by Bueno, P. et al, Physics Letter B, February 2025. Graphic: Black Hole Rendering.

Gravity and Vanilla Black Holes

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which includes gravity, predicts that black holes have a tricky feature: a singularity. This is a point where space and time are squeezed so tightly that the laws of physics break down—think of it as a cosmic “error message.” To fix this, scientists often turn to exotic matter—hypothetical substances with bizarre properties like negative energy—to smooth things out. However, a team from the University of Barcelona, led by Pablo Bueno, found an alternative. They didn’t need exotic matter at all. Instead, they tweaked Einstein’s gravity by adding an infinite series of extra “rules” (higher-curvature corrections) to the math.

Their solution works in spacetimes with more than four dimensions—beyond our usual height, width, depth, and time. In these higher-dimensional worlds, black holes can exist without singularities. This “smooths out” black holes, making them less mysterious and more like regular objects in spacetime—no weird stuff required.

The presence of extra dimensions doesn’t just fix singularities—it can also change how black holes behave. In higher-dimensional spacetimes, black holes might have different event horizon shapes (the boundary beyond which nothing escapes) or other structural quirks. The Barcelona team’s work shows that these altered properties emerge naturally from gravity in more than four dimensions, offering a fresh perspective on these cosmic giants.

Thinking outside the box, is it possible that these extra dimensions link black holes to “a reality outside regular spacetime,” like wormholes (tunnels through spacetime), braneworlds (parallel universes on higher-dimensional “membranes”), or even gateways to white holes (theoretical opposites of black holes that spit stuff out)? Theories like string theory and braneworld scenarios suggest that extra dimensions might allow such connections. For example, a wormhole could theoretically bridge two distant points in our universe—or even lead to a completely different universe.

While the math of higher dimensions opens the door to these possibilities, it’s all conjecture. The Barcelona team’s work is a major step forward in understanding black holes in higher dimensions, but it doesn’t directly prove connections to other realities.

Source: Grok 3. Regular Black Holes… by Bueno, P. et al., Physics Letter B, February 2025. Graphic: Black Hole Rendering, iStock licensed.

Closer to Zero

“The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is 42” Douglas Adams.

But to the question “Are we alone?”—the answer leans towards likely,”  ElsBob

In a recent systems-thinking thought experiment, researchers from Germany and the U.S. revisited the statistical “Hard Steps” model, originally proposed by Brandon Carter in 1983, which aimed to estimate the probability of intelligent life emerging. Carter’s model focused on rare biological milestones—such as photosynthesis and multicellularity—concluding that intelligent life should be exceedingly rare due to the improbability of these “hard steps.” 

In a February 2025 paper, Mills et al. propose a tweak to this framework. Rather than life’s progression depending on a handful of unlikely biological breakthroughs, they suggest Earth’s environmental evolution—marked by the presence of water, organic compounds, oxygen, and geochemical shifts—created a more gradual pathway toward complexity. They argue that these conditions didn’t so much lower the odds of each step but reframed life’s development as a cumulative process, softening the gauntlet of improbable hurdles envisioned by Carter. 

Is this new? Not entirely. The idea that life’s journey—from planetary formation to advanced neural systems, language, and sociocultural structures—unfolded as a process has roots in the 1950s, with pioneers like Urey and Miller. What’s novel in Mills et al.’s work is their integration of geological timelines and Bayesian reasoning to qualitatively soften the perceived improbability of life’s emergence, rather than delivering a fully quantitative overhaul of the Hard Steps model. Where Carter’s framework likened intelligent life to finding a unicorn, this tweak nudges it from “highly improbable” to “slightly less than highly improbable.” 

Now, the fun part—calculating the odds of a planet fostering life advanced enough for Alan Turing to deem it intelligent. 

The “witch’s cauldron” of variables for simple life might include (though not exhaustively): a planet in the habitable zone, liquid water, organic molecules, self-replicating systems, protocell formation, anaerobic metabolism, photosynthesis, aerobic respiration, multicellularity, geochemical cycles, plate tectonics, ocean currents, atmospheric dynamics, natural radiation, planetary stability, appropriate size and gravity, and a protective magnetic field—plus, perhaps, a partridge in a pear tree. Estimating these probabilities is speculative, but let’s assume a rough combined probability for simple life emerging on a suitable planet. Using reasonable constraints, Grok 3 might estimate this at approximately 1 in 1 billion (10⁻⁹). 

The leap to sentient, intelligent life adds further layers: advanced neural systems, social organization, cultural evolution, time, and a dash of random chance. These additional factors could reduce the odds by another factor of 1,000, shifting the probability to between 1 in 1 trillion (10⁻¹²) and 1 in 1 quadrillion (10⁻¹⁵). These are back-of-the-envelope figures, grounded in the spirit of the thought experiment rather than precise data. 

To make these abstract numbers relatable, let’s scale them to the universe and our galaxy. Current estimates suggest the observable universe contains roughly 100 billion galaxies (10¹¹), each with an average of 100 million stars (10⁸). Assuming 3 planets per star (a conservative guess based on exoplanet studies), that yields approximately 3 × 10¹⁹ planets—30 quintillion—across the universe. In the Milky Way, with 100 billion stars (10¹¹), we might estimate 300 billion planets (3 × 10¹¹). 

Applying the probabilities: 

Simple life in the universe: At 1 in 1 billion (10⁻⁹), roughly 3 × 10¹⁰ planets—30 billion—might host simple life. 

Intelligent life in the universe: At 1 in 1 trillion (10⁻¹²) to 1 in 1 quadrillion (10⁻¹⁵), between 30 million (3 × 10⁷) and 30,000 (3 × 10⁴) planets might harbor intelligent life. 

Simple life in the Milky Way: At 1 in 1 billion (10⁻⁹), about 300 planets (3 × 10²) could sustain simple life. 

Intelligent life in the Milky Way: At 1 in 1 trillion (10⁻¹²) to 1 in 1 quadrillion (10⁻¹⁵), the odds drop to 0.3 (3 × 10⁻¹) to 0.0003 (3 × 10⁻⁴) planets—statistically less than 1.

Across the vast universe, intelligent life seems plausible on millions or thousands of planets, depending on how pessimistic the odds. On a galactic scale, though one planet with intelligent life is statistically improbable meaning that Earth is likely alone in the Milky Way as far as sentient beings are concerned.  Still, these numbers remain speculative, blending science with educated guesswork—and a touch of cosmic whimsy.

Source: …Evolution of Intelligent Life, Mills, et al, Science Advances 2025. Graphic: Grok 3 Drawn DNA.

15 Million Asteroids

How high’s the water, mama?
Two feet high and rising
How high’s the water, papa?
She said is two feet high and rising”
(Johnny Cash Five Feet High and Rising)

The early development of life on Earth relied on two essential building blocks: carbonaceous (carbon) material and water. It has long been postulated that asteroids, comets, and other planetesimals brought these ingredients to our planet. Water in meteorites existed in the form of hydrous minerals and possibly brine.

Researchers from Rutgers University, led by Professor Katherine Bermingham, studied isotopes of molybdenum from meteorites and Earth’s crust. They inferred that water arrived on Earth during its late accretion phase, around 4.1-3.8 billion years ago. The team also suggested that the water was delivered by inner solar system planetesimals such as comets and asteroids.

This is a crucial milestone in Earth’s development timeline, as there are two competing theories about when water was delivered to our planet: the Moon-Forming Event and the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB). The Moon is believed to have formed about 4.5 billion years ago, shortly after Earth formed around 4.56 billion years ago, caused by a large object crashing into Earth. The LHB is a period of intense bombardment by planetesimals on the inner planets, occurring around 4.1-3.8 billion years ago.

An inference from the LHB is that all planets and moons existing at that time either contained or still contain water.

Trivia: Assuming the median size of planetesimals striking Earth during its early formation was around 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) with an average water content of 5% of their total volume, it would take about 15,688,960 hunks of rock to supply the current volume of water on Earth. Dividing that number by the LHB time interval of 300 million years suggests a significant impact every 227 months, or roughly every 19 years.

Source: Life-bearing Water, by Bermingham et al, Rutgers, 2025. Graphic: Comet Cometh, Grok, 2025.