Skip to content
BackGOD PLAYS DICE™Big questions, honest answers
Ask the Architect

GOD PLAYS DICE™

Dark matter & energy

In one minute

Author’s hypothesis

Test design and software checkpoint (v0.9.20, 5 September 2026); the record says the full early-universe calculation is still pending.

Status reviewed 30 September 2026. This page describes proposed research by the site’s author. It is not established science, and a public repository record is not peer review.

On this page

What could the dark side of the universe be made of?

What the idea proposes

Author’s hypothesis. Cosmologists measure dark matter and dark energy only through their effects on what we can see. Ricardo’s DMDE working hypothesis is one attempt to say what they are. A May 2026 version put the idea in plain words: DMDE asks whether dark matter and dark energy “might be connected through a small hidden ‘dark sector’ of particles.” The current public record does not describe the full idea. It focuses on one test, and its record page does not explain how that test would show what dark matter or dark energy are.

That test looks at the first few minutes after the Big Bang, when the first light elements (helium and deuterium, a heavy form of hydrogen) were made. Two fixed scenarios add extra particles to that early soup. The question is whether the element amounts would change in a way we could check.

Version 0.9.20 (published 5 September 2026) repairs the checking software. An earlier version (0.9.19, not among the versions posted on Zenodo) could “pass” a fake result that skipped two important reactions. The release reports this weakness openly. The new checks cover each of the five reactions the software tracks, and the record notes that one more reaction is not tracked separately. The record does not yet contain the actual helium, deuterium or neutrino-count results. It says the full calculation is still pending.

What it claims, and what it does not

What it claims: a stricter, more reliable way to check a future calculation.

  • It does not contain any production prediction for helium, deuterium or extra radiation.
  • It does not show what dark matter or dark energy are. The record says no confirmation of DMDE, or of a unified theory, follows from these checks. It says the checks do not yet show that the idea explains dark matter, dark energy or “a unified theory of everything.”
  • It does not claim to have detected any new particle, and the record says it is not peer reviewed.
  • It works out how closely the two scenarios are matched and how precise a future calculation must be to compare them. That is math inside the author’s model, not evidence about nature. It does not say whether helium or deuterium would go up or down, or by how much.
  • Passing the checker cannot show that a returned result is genuine, or that all the needed physics is included. The record says independent replay and physical review are still needed.
  • It does not claim to replace the standard model of the universe. The May 2026 version called its target “not a large deviation from standard cosmology.”
  • DMDE is separate from the main hypothesis of Ricardo’s book, God Plays Dice, Volume One. The book says side projects like DMDE are not evidence for its main idea and “are not needed for Volume One.” This page does not treat Ricardo’s other research programs as support for DMDE, or DMDE as support for them.

The strongest challenge

The standard model of the universe already fits the evidence very well. The Planck satellite found “no compelling evidence” for changes to it. Planck also measured Neff, which counts, roughly, how many kinds of light, fast-moving particles, such as neutrinos, filled the early universe. Combined with other data, it found 2.99 ± 0.17, in line with the standard picture. A March 2026 study found 2.990 ± 0.070, the tightest result to date, according to its authors. That leaves even less room for extra particles to shift Neff. The study is a preprint, a paper posted before it appears in a journal. The hot Big Bang model also matches the amounts of helium and deuterium we see. So any extra particles added early on must have very small effects. A new idea must match these numbers before it can claim to explain anything.

What would rule it out

  • When the full calculation is run, if a scenario predicts helium, deuterium or Neff values outside what is measured, that scenario fails.
  • The current test (September 2026) has no dated prediction yet. Its record page gives no predicted values and no pass or fail ranges for helium, deuterium or Neff. The test is “blinded”: the people who run the calculation are not shown how it will be scored, and the scoring material is kept private. A test is fully public only when its pass or fail rules are posted before the results come in.

An earlier target (May 2026). The May 2026 version called itself a “public preregistration checkpoint.” Preregistration means posting a test plan before running it. It named a target: a small shift to a slightly lower Neff, “roughly around Neff ≈ 2.99.” Its record page gave no predicted values for helium or deuterium, and it kept its pass or fail material private. The record says the target was “motivated by” recent measurements near 2.99. Planck reported 2.99 in 2018, and the March 2026 study, which the May record cites, reported 2.990. The Test Ledger’s rule is that “A fit to existing data is not a successful prediction.” So a calculated value near 2.99 would not, by itself, count as a successful prediction. An idea can also fit a measurement without being the only explanation for it. The September 2026 record calls the May version “the historical preregistration checkpoint,” but it does not say whether the target still stands. Because a dated public record fixed this target and no public record has withdrawn it, the Test Ledger lists it as “Committed — awaiting data.”

One branch, not the whole idea. A branch is one version of the idea. The May 2026 record said that if its frozen scenarios could not pass a real calculation of helium, deuterium and Neff, “this branch should be rejected or rebuilt.” None of the five DMDE record pages says what result would count against DMDE as a whole. The January and February 2026 records also list files about how the idea could fail. This page is based only on the public text of each record page, not on those files.

Corrections
  • 2 and 6 January 2026 · What changed since earlier versions — Zenodo records 18135952 (v0.2) and 18165708 (v0.7): These first versions used a “mass ladder.” It is a pattern of possible particle masses, built on powers of one number, about 0.244. That number is worked out from the measured masses of two particles, the muon and the tau. Ricardo’s separate Unification research starts from the same number. Several programs start from the same measured number; a shared number is not shared evidence.
  • 14 May 2026 · What changed since earlier versions — Zenodo record 20187862 (v0.9.0): The record said earlier versions asked whether one proposed force-carrying particle could “do several jobs at once.” That picture “faced serious pressure” from checks on exploding stars, on the oldest light in the universe, and on dark matter that collides with itself. It was “narrowed and rebuilt.” This version called itself a “public preregistration checkpoint.” It named a target for Neff (see “What would rule it out”).
  • 5 September 2026 · What changed since earlier versions — Zenodo record 22399940 (v0.9.20; source release 17 August 2026): This version fixes a false pass in version 0.9.19. A made-up test result that left out two important reactions still passed the old checker. Version 0.9.19 is not among the versions posted on Zenodo. The record calls the May 2026 version “the historical preregistration checkpoint.” It calls its own two-scenario test the “later” protocol. It does not say which ideas or targets from the older versions still apply. It also does not say whether its two scenarios still use the January number pattern.
  • 30 September 2026 · This page (the status and every section above): Until this date, this page described only the September 2026 DMDE record. It now also describes the May 2026 target and the earlier versions listed above. It uses only the public text of the record pages. The status line used to say the results “have not been produced.” It now repeats what the record says: the full calculation is still pending.

Member explainers

Author’s hypothesis · Status: Test design and software checkpoint (v0.9.20, 5 September 2026); the record says the full early-universe calculation is still pending.

Author’s hypothesis. Cosmologists measure dark matter and dark energy only through their effects on what we can see. Ricardo’s DMDE working hypothesis is one attempt to say what they are. A May 2026 version put the idea in plain words: DMDE asks whether dark matter and dark energy “might be connected through a small hidden ‘dark sector’ of particles.” The current public record does not describe the full idea. It focuses on one test, and its record page does not explain how that test would show what dark matter or dark energy are.

Has DMDE Solved Dark Matter and Dark Energy? · Holy Grail collection, for All Access readers.

Sources

See every committed prediction in one place: the Test Ledger. Back to the Research Desk. See a mistake? Report a problem; corrections are made openly.

The Architect AI companion · All Access

Your next question can go further.

Included with All Access →Up to 5 questions a day while available.

Put God Plays Dice on your Home Screen

On iPhone: tap Share (on iOS 26, tap ••• first), then Add to Home Screen, then Add.

On Android: In Chrome, you can also open the ⋮ menu and choose Add to Home screen or Install.

The Home Screen version keeps its own memory on iPhone, so your nights and saved answers start fresh there.

Search the Question Library

149 answers to read · 0 questions awaiting answers Your search runs on your device.

Answers about death, grief and crisis are always free, in full. If a question is personal right now →