Is it possible that Milgrom's acceleration law is wrong? No, because Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski have elaborated too much empirical evidence in its favor. There are only 2 possibilities: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be significantly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational really is slightly wrong. How might alternative (1) be a physical reality in terms of string theory and supersymmetry?

"I think few people appreciate that the main difficulty for DM is that the host of regularities pointed out by MOND, if taken as just a summary of how DM behaves and interacts with normal matter, suggests that these two matter components are coupled and correlated very strongly in many ways." -- M. Milgrom

"Dark-Matter Heretic", interview of Mordehai Milgrom by Michael Szpir, Jan-Feb 2003, American Scientist

Can string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and with supersymmetry explain MOND? I think that the answer is 'yes', but the explanation is mathematically awkward. Assume that MOND-chameleon particles exist. These hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. Assume that some of the superpartners of ordinary particles can yield WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles. How might such WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles mimic a violation of the conservation of gravitational energy? In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 dark-matter-compensation-function, where this function depends upon unknown parameters. In the Newtonian approximation to Einstein's field equations, chop up gravitational acceleration into zones where the gravitational acceleration is approximately constant. If the dark-matter-compensation-function is approximately constant in the approximation range where MOND applies, then we get an approximation to MOND. Also, the false assumption that the WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles DO NOT have variable effective mass would lead to the false impression that the "dark-matter-compensation-function" is REAL. However, the "dark-matter-compensation-function would be an invalid assumption which IS APPARENTLY CORRECT under the false assumption made concerning the WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles (the false assumption being that these hypothetical particles DO NOT have variable effective mass). How might MOND-chameleon particles be explained? Some of the superpartners of ordinary particles might have a weird, unknown correlation with Einstein's curvature scalar R. Such a weird correlation might arise from a D-brane charge that shows its effects upon MOND-chameleon particles but not other particles. The weird correlation might arise from a Higgs-MOND-chamelon field -- in other words, there might be two Higgs fields -- one that has been discovered and an undiscovered Higgs-MOND-chameleon-field that interacts only with MOND-chameleon particles.

Hi David,

You do go on and on....Not that this is not an interesting shotgun approach to what is the most interesting stuff. And I like it a lot. Thus my boosting your score. Please allow me to add a pellet to your shotgun blast.

I have a theory that is related to MOND and comes to the conclusion that Newtonian gravity and a modified idea of what constitutes a graviton can explain curved space-time and dark energy-dark matter (and not directly contradict GR). Yah, Yah, me and every crackpot on the planet. But, do check out my website, and the paper "A Quantum Mechanical View of the Precession of Mercury's Orbit".

e-mail me at don.limuti@gmail.com and I'll forward a copy.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

    Consider 2 ideas: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) Any empirically valid explanation of dark matter should derive MOND.

    Pavel Kroupa - The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda, YouTube, 2013

    Consider 5 conjectures: (1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group. (2) Space exists because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group. (3) Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for understanding the physical reason that 11^2 divides the order of the monster group. (4) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (5) If the Gravity Probe science team is correct about the malfunction of their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes then David Brown is a crackpot.

    Should string theorists consider the following possibility? String theory might consist of 2 different forms of strings: ordinary strings and MOND-chameleon strings. The MOND-chameleon strings might be involved in maintaining the structure of the string landscape and might have superpositions among alternate universes.

    Hi David,

    I enjoyed your essay. I appreciate that you seem to have a great reverence for questions, as opposed to just answers:)

    If you're interested in Fredkin and Wolfram's work, please check out my essay, but more importantly, please check out my film "Digital Physics", which is available on iTunes, Amazon Prime, and Vimeo. I'm trying to get the film seen by a wider audience than just friends and family, so any support you can offer is very appreciated:) Thanks!

    Jon

      Dear David Brown!

      I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

      I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

      I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

      The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

      New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

      Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.

      Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.

      Sincerely,

      Dizhechko Boris

        My guess is that Fredkin is correct in conjecturing that nature contains neither complete infinities nor potential infinities. My guess is that Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" is one of the greatest books ever written -- however, it might not be. My guess is that nature is finite and digital if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis can prove itself superior to string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. It seems to me that the empirical evidence convincingly demonstrates that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. However, string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis might be able to explain Milgrom's MOND in terms of MOND-chameleon particles or in some other way. Your 2015 FQXI essay ... "Digital Physics": An Essay That Uses Poetic License to Discuss A Few Theories in the Movie ... has important questions (1-9, A-F, & 10-13) at the end. Question 2) "Can we logically prove things about our universe without having the technology to probe the very small and very large scales of it?" seems to me to be particularly interesting. My guess it that experts on the foundations of physics might ultimately split into 5 main groups: (1) string theorists who favor the string landscape in some form; (2) string theorists who favor Wolfram's automaton with a multiverse; (3) string theorists who favor Wolfram's automaton without a multiverse; (4) other string theorists; (5) ultra-skeptics concerning string theory. Can the big bang and black holes really be thoroughly understood beyond extremely serious doubts? I doubt that there will ever be enough empirical evidence to pin down the big bang and black holes. It seems to me that there is an extremely important question in your FQXI essay Digital Physics: "Take the World from Another Point of View" at the end "One last question: Do you think that the Kolmogorov Complexity of the Universe up until this point is relatively high or low?" -- this question seems to me to be particularly important. It seems to me that the idea that Kolmogorov complexity can be defined for any mathematical sequence might be somewhat problematic if extrapolated to nature itself. Is Wolfram's principle of computational equivalence empirically valid? The answer to the preceding question seems unclear at this stage of knowledge in physics. In terms of a publicity battle, it seems to me that your film "Digital Physics" is important. You might consider an attempt to create a company that sells stock online for corporate enterprises that create similar films, advertising ventures, or other corporate ventures in areas that interest you. My guess is that my own particular theory of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is guaranteed fail unless Milgrom's MOND, Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections, and the Koide formula are all successes. The Koide formula might be a success even if my theory fails. Square-root(mass) might be somehow interpreted as area but in a way compatible with Guth's inflation. The interpretation might be in terms of how the "negative pressure" of dark energy acts upon the quantum vacuum. In any, good luck with your cinematic ventures.

        What does dark energy imply for the foundations of physics? I want to make a few more points concerning string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis versus string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured that dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy -- and also that Einstein's field equations need 3 modifications in connection with my conjectural epistemology. Let us assume that my "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong. In that case, the Koide formula might be essential for understanding the foundations of physics but for a different reason than I have conjectured. Square-root(mass) might have some interpretation in terms of area, but for reasons involving supersymmetry and virtual particles involved in the explanation of how dark energy works in terms of the details of quantum gravity.

        www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-dark-energy-and-virtual-particle-production-Can-the-expansion-of-the-universe-be-attributed-to-an-increase-in-the-number-of-virtual-particles

        If the "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong, then I guess that the space roar might be explained in terms of the decay of unknown particles somehow related to supersymmetry.

        Seiffert, M., Fixsen, D.J., Kogut, A., Levin, S.M., Limon, M., Lubin, P.M., Mirel, P., Singal, J., Villela, T., Wollack, E. and Wuensche, C.A., 2011. Interpretation of the ARCADE 2 absolute sky brightness measurement. The Astrophysical Journal, 734(1), p.6.

        If the "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong, then I guess that Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might have a multiverse explanation with string theory and supersymmetry.

        "What Are the Implications of Lestone's Heuristic String Theory?"

        Can string theory with supersymmetry be empirically refuted? I don't think so -- D-brane adjustments might provide explanations for any imaginable empirical findings. I doubt that MOND-chameleon particles can be empirically refuted -- the MOND-chameleon particles might cluster around the McGaugh correlation according to bizarre concoctions by clever string theorists. However, in my basic theory, Witten's 11-dimensional model would probably be essential for making the Wolfram automaton pay off. Why does 11^2 divide the order of the monster group?

        David,

        It is said that the most important word in poetry is "like". Your essay is the closest thing to a poem I have seen in this contest. This work is a complex network of similes. I hope you do well in the contest and it was interesting and enjoyable reading your work.

        Sincerely,

        Jeff

          Dear David Brown,

          I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

          I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

          For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

          Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

          With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

          Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

          Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

          Best wishes to your essay.

          For your blessings please................

          =snp. gupta

          Thank you for your interest in my ideas. Your remark "... Those MOND-chameleon particles sound fun and I hope you are correct about them ..." from the thread on your essay is not really a good hope from my viewpoint. My basic theory is an interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I say that the 3 main predictions of my theory are: the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, the Space Roar Profile Prediction and the "64 Particles Hypothesis". There are various threats to the empirical validity of my basic theory -- among these threats are physical evidence for supersymmetry, the existence of magnetic monopoles (in free space), and/or the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. The MOND-chameleon particles would indicate that Milgrom's MOND is an APPARENT phenomenon (somewhat like Coriolis forces or other inertial forces) -- in other words, Milgrom's acceleration law might be a result of ignoring the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. My basic theory implies that MOND is a REAL phenomenon (which occurs as one of the consequences of some gravitons escaping from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse). However, my basic theory is somewhat philosophically distasteful to me (because the theory implies that it is impossible to change the future). Consider 3 questions: Is there a maximum wavelength in the physical universe? Can energy, spacetime, and quantum information be explained in terms of Fredkin-Wolfram underlying the Planck scale? Who is the world's greatest living theoretical physicist?

          Is Ed Witten really the world's greatest living theoretical physicist? -- quora.com

          Who are some of the world's leading nuclear, particle and high energy physicists alive today?-- quota.com

          I think that the world's greatest living theoretical physicist might be Witten or Weinberg -- it's difficult to say. My guess is that Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for formulating Wolfram's automaton and establishing the empirical validity of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

          Hi David

          There were a number of aha moments for me when I read your essay - hierarchy of experimental physics trumping all other fields going all the way down to philosophy, as well as the delightful quotes from distinguished people like Witten, Wolfram and Crick. I must confess I have a real soft spot for quotes since I too have used them extensively in my essay. The reading list was quite a nice touch too. I have rated your essay accordingly.

          I would also include in the reading list some titles from the fields of Constitutional Law and Economics. This is because I think the intelligence of systems can be understood from the extrinsic side (Constitutional nation state) as well, if the direct route to it through consciousness should prove too arduous. Admittedly, the concept of consciousness cannot even begin to be compared to the phenomenon of Constitutional Government, but we may be able to make progress on understanding some other aspects of the mind (like intelligence) by approaching it from the extrinsic side. At least, my essay is premised on it.

          Looking forward to read some of the titles in your list!

          Regards, Willy

            "... soft spot for quotes ..." Many quotations are valuable guides that point out the good way to follow and/or the bad way to avoid. Consider the following quote from Crick's "What Mad Pursuit":

            "Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long."

            "What Mad Pursuit" by Francis Crick, page 141

            David,

            Wow, you referenced my response to your thread! Your work is a complex work of art. I like to start simple and not travel far afield. If you think of time as a function of entropy then things get simple. Take the Coriolis force, it is non-conservative, but only exists because one is unknowingly in a rotating reference frame. A point charge in a magnetic field is in such rotating reference frame. Charge is gage invariant, but magnetic field is not, so your magnetic mono-pole would disappear in some reference frames. The spin of an electron, which is related to magnetic fields is invariant. If we look at type I superconductors, they produce a magnetic field due to current flow, yet do not have heat flow due to electrons. If we think of a state that is not changing in entropy as being undefined in time (because time is a function of entropy) then we can have momentum and the magnetic field due to momentum without the particles "moving". A spin state could be the same non-moving, time undefined, angular momentum.

            Jeff

            Dear Mr. Brown

            About your ideas:

            (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provide the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

            I think that MOND is better aproach than solution with dark matter. But, Milgrom will be Kepler of the of contemporary cosmology when he find some predictive formulas in Cosmology.

            (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

            About The Koide formula you can find solution here: viXra:1509.0135 or here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/5605

            Regards,

            Branko

            Consider 4 hypotheses: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) My "dark-matter-compensation-constant" idea is wrong. If my basic theory is wrong, then how would I guess? Given the empirical successes of MOND, consider Newton's 3 laws of motion: (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and - means false. Is string theory the only plausible way to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory? Let us assume that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is correct, Einstein's equivalence principle is 100% correct for dark matter, and the conventional wisdom is correct in endorsing (+ 1st law, + 2nd law, + 3rd law).

            In calculating quark masses, the issue of pole mass versus running mass is important.

            "Charm Production: Pole Mass or Running Mass?" by Richard D. Ball, 2016

            The Higgs field enables the stability of quantum fields.

            "How the Higgs Field Works (with math)", profmattstrassler.com

            Dark matter particles might have their mass explained in some profoundly new way, such as by a MOND-chameleon-Higgs field. MOND-chameleon particles would, by definition, have variable effective masses depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration, and the MOND-chameleon-Higgs field would, presumably, share this feature of the hypothetical MOND-chameleon particles. The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might have some role in maintaining the structure of the multiverse. The Koide formula might have an explanation with square-root(mass) somehow interpreted as area, but with the explanation involving how dark energy interacts with the quantum vacuum. Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might have an explanation involving interchange of virtual mass-energy among alternate universes, but with conservation of gravitational energy in each alternate universe; Lestone's virtual cross sections might be hidden in the multiverse interstitium. The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might be somehow related to the multiverse interstitium and might serve as some kind of conduit for the interchange of virtual mass-energy among alternate universes.

            15 days later

            David,

            I agree we have inadequate evidence for most assumptions we DO make let alone for any others.

            I tend to agree with Gates, Hawking (for a change) and Musk that AI is increasingly dangerous to mankind, probably lethal. That's one reason we need to self-evolve our OWN intelligence somewhat. Look how few have even comprehended the classical derivation of QM in my essay and video! (did you?) It doesn't bode well for us.

            Nonetheless I feel your score is way too low and I'm applying mine now to correct it somewhat.

            Best of luck

            Peter

            • [deleted]

            • Post #63

            Dear David

            Well, indeed an interesting reading! Your essay is a defy, a program for lifetime research. As they say, putting the correct questions is halfway to the solution; and you are very good on doing it.

            There is a question I do not even try to answer: what is consciousness? The feeling of oneself, where does it come from? Of course that I wander about it, I collect information, experiences, data, but what I have now is far from enough to even try an answer. Trying to put it as a consequence of evolution, or of the size of the brain, is irrelevant - or of the size of a program... although indeed sometimes I think that my computers with windows do have consciousness... free will... and a bad temper too...

            You say that complex functions are obtainable by simple programs; and I do agree with you! Indeed, it's because of it that I think that we can understand the universe, because all its apparent complexity has always shown to be the result of processes as simple as possible - and that is my line of research, always to look for the simplest explanations, no matter how unlike they may seem at first. Complex, transcendental explanations and theories are mostly the fruit of our ignorance, although usually a necessary step in the discovery process - so I think.

            My essay presents answers; indeed, no other essay in this contest presents so many answers - in this aspect we complement each other: your essay holds the record of questions (good questions, not whatever question) and mine the record of answers (sound answers, not speculative ones). I think that you would like to see it - at least I would like to know your opinion.

            I have seen many essays but so far only a few captured my interest and yours is one of them - this does not mean that they are bad, it is just a matter of fields of interests and of style. I am not a judge, but as I have to vote, I vote in accordance with the interest an essay in me arouses.

            All the best,

            Alfredo

              David, the precedent commentary was made by me, but I was not logged in, sorry

              Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira

              Consider some speculators on pole masses, running masses, the string landscape, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections.

              Depending on the renormalization scheme, running masses differ from pole masses. I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

              (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

              "The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new paradigm" by Kroupa, Pawlowski & Milgrom, 2013

              (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

              Koide formula, Wikipedia

              (3) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

              "Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant, Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121" by J. P. Lestone, 2016

              Is there a way of explaining the 3 preceding ideas in terms of the string landscape?

              Assume that Einstein's field equations are correct in terms of quantum averaging over the string landscape. Under the preceding assumption, Milgrom's MOND might be an apparent effect. Assume that the apparent effect of MOND is entirely due to a quantum scalar field with an associated scalar boson with a variable effective mass depending on the nearby gravitational acceleration. Call this field the MOND-chameleon field. In other words, the MOND-concept that there is a problem with Newton's 2nd law of motion results from the (possibly false) assumption that MOND-chameleon particles do not exist. In Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 MOND-chameleon-tracking-function. If the MOND-chameleon-tracking-function is roughly constant for the range of gravitational accelerations of MOND-validity, then MOND is recovered. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has a renormalization scheme. Quantum gravitational theory might have a renormalization scheme in which some particles have a variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration and/or the nearby energy density. (The reason might be that quantum gravitational effects are physically manifested when gravitational acceleration is immensely high and/or energy density is immensely high.) Assume that MOND-chameleon particles and MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chamelon particles exist. By definition, MOND-Khoury-Weltman particles have variable effective mass depending upon both the nearby gravitational acceleration and the nearby energy density. If Guth inflation can occur in one universe with a specific value CC1 for the cosmological constant and give rise to another universe with a different specific value CC2 for the cosmological constant, then MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon particles might be needed to explain in terms of the string landscape how the variation from CC1 to CC2 took place. How might square-root(mass) be assigned a physical meaning? At the Planck scale there could be tiny shock waves that trade virtual energy among alternate universes in the string landscape. The mass-energy of such a shock wave could be associated with a volume of spacetime depending upon the renormalization scheme for quantum gravity. Thus, square-root(mass) might be associated with area. How might Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections be explained in terms of the string landscape? The alternate universes of the string landscape might be networked together with an interstitium among the alternate universes. The tiny shock waves associated with square-root(mass) might create a higher-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium. Lestone's virtual cross sections might be associated with tiny higher-dimensional bubbles within the interstitium of the string landscape. MOND-chameleon bosons and MOND-Khoury-Weltman bosons might be empirical evidence for the hypothesis that tiny shock waves trade virtual energy among alternate universes in the string landscape and thereby create a higher-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium within the string landscape. In other words, the effects of the tiny shock waves might be physically manifested in the MOND-chameleon field and the MOND-Khoury-Weltman-chameleon field but not directly in the Higgs field or the other quantum fields associated with ordinary matter.