Dark Matter Comment Draws Arrogant Reply

Sabine Hossenfelder, whose blog Backreaction is one of my favorites, has contributed a post on Ethan Siegel’s blog Starts With A Bang. It’s called “Ten Facts Everyone Should Know About Dark Matter.” I noticed that when she discussed some potential explanations for dark matter, she left out the one we know is correct, that is, dark matter is a result of incomplete decay of the oscillatory energy that appears at the end of the inflationary period and decays to form normal matter. My comment was:

Some researchers have suggested that dark matter could be a result of incomplete decay to ordinary matter of the oscillatory energy at the end of inflation. This seems reasonable. What has become of this idea? You don’t even mention it.

Here is the reply I received, author identified only as “Wow”:

No mechanism, no reason to need it to happen. Conjecture only, and unsupported. This is why it isn’t even mentioned. Because it’s not worth mentioning.

Does “Wow” know that at least ten papers on this idea have been published? Here’s one example. This idea is no more a conjecture than any other dark matter theory. Not only that, it’s the right one! I’m told there’s no mechanism because “Wow” finds it incomprehensible that spacetime has a structure that’s completely unknown to physicists.

Right now physicists looking for truth are like people stumbling around in a pitch-black room looking for a pitch-black cat. Worse than that, when they touch the cat, they think it’s a skunk and recoil from it. Sad.