While trying to wrap my head around quantum mechanics, the fear of the strange chaotics caused me to seek refuge in the more familiar E=MC². So I began tearing it apart to see what, if anything, might be hidden in there. Very often formulas tell quite an extended story, as they always seem to contain more information than what the casual observer can see.
So I say to myself; Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared. It hits me, why squared? That would mean that energy is two dimensional, right? So where is the other dimension? Oh, I see it now, it's contained in the "Mass Times" part of the equation. But wait, let's see: Mass is detected by weight, so that's a gravity metric function, but it also must include space, since not all masses are equally dense. Well, as Einstein told us, space is really space/time, so volume is gravitational metrics over space/time. Then, not only is gravity and space involved in figuring out how much energy a given mass contains, time somehow enters the equation as well. We don't see it, but it is there.
Well, that got me to thinking about what else might be there that we don't see and why don't we see it? So I thought about how before Einstein revealed space/time, we didn't think that time was a quantity that might have any mass. But, from my readings to date, it certainly seems that time itself is a quantity that may very well have some mass. Oh gee... That leads to a whole new branch of thinking about things.
Starting way back in the past, we learned, quite reflexively, to understand the world by attempting to explain the observations we were able to make. That, initially led to Fire, Air, Water and Earth being our first elements. Of course we were wrong, but it's an understandable mistake (and I might add, one we continue to make even today). This is because of two very obvious reasons; One is that what we are able to observe doesn't always yield quite enough information, and Two, we tend to import mistakes of the past into our future theories by the simple expedient of nomenclature, the art of naming new things using old terminology.
Take, for example Dark Matter. We all know what matter is, thus by naming Dark Mater as matter, we inadvertently import all that we know about what we usually call matter. Could it be that Dark Matter isn't really our normal matter? After all, we were only able to detect it once gravitational calculations about the universe went awry. So, needing a name for it, we simply assigned it the name of Dark Matter, probably because we were looking at it's gravitational influences. Those being the only "observable" properties we could detect.
So now my mind jumps over to particle/wave theory and I begin thinking; what if we've gotten that wrong as well? We detected the electron and thought: Oh, look at this data, we have found another of natures discrete particles. Which is what we thought, long ago, about the atom, as being the indivisible thing from which all the elements were created. But we were wrong again there, atoms, we discovered were made up of even smaller "particles" which, as you may come to guess, are probably not particles at all. But, they are being thought of as such, because of our lack of knowledge and understanding, which causes us to use common assumptions and therefore names that reflect our formerly mistaken ideas and imports all the characteristics we expect discrete particles to have.
Take that electron problem, where it acts like a wave and behaves like a particle, all depending on the methods of observation. Sort of reminds me of that saying that: "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". LOL. So, when you're making a radio or building a generating station, electrons look like particles, but when you're building detectors, the electrons look like waves. So I thought, what if electrons were really just "wavicles"? On the simplistic theory that, if you have only a hammer, then all problems look like nails, but if you have a screwdriver then wouldn't all problems look like screws? (On the assumption that whatever you do to one side of the equation, you must do to the other side to balance it). (Insert peals of laughter as needed). But we know that all problems are neither screws or nails.
Okay, so then I thought, hey, if these particles are actually "wavicles", things that are neither waves nor particles, but look like either, depending only on the properties one is equipped to observe at the time, then it should follow that they are waves in something, but what? Then it hit me, what if they are waves in that Dark Matter? Then Dark Matter isn't really matter at all, but... (and here I'm going to reach back into our past and resurrect an old term, which hopefully, because of it's new meaning, won't import more negative learning (which I doubt because it's fallen out of use for so long). Ether!) What if Dark Matter is really this ether? What if it is the substrate that contains all these wavicles?
Imagine a universe filled with this expanding field of Dark Matter/Ether. Then, in this ether wavicles form and that is the "matter" we see and observe. We can't "see the forest for the trees" sort of thing. We can't see the Dark Matter/Ether, because we can only interact with the waves it carries upon it's "surface". Meanwhile Dark energy appears completely inert and non-interactive, all the while it is pushing everything on it apart. While the "waves" on it's surface are all these wavicles, making up the matter we see. So it could be that Dark Matter is evaporating into Dark Energy, if so then perhaps at some point, the creation of Dark Energy would slow and gravity might then win after all. Of course, it has to be even more complex than that, as you'll probably suspect, if you have any respect for Einstein and his "Within simplicity there is infinite complexity" maxim.
Well here are a few videos that may shed some light on the subject.
