Kyle,

Thank you a most appreciative reply.
I gather that you know much more about what's going on in the realm of high energy physics than I. I do not even have the credentials to publish there. But I think that, and you have now corroborated, that I have good ideas. So I put them out on forums like this one in the hope that someone like yourself will get intrigued and develop them further. I do not have any feelings of ownership where they are concerned.

Regarding dark energy. I like the 26-d approach because it allows for the compacxtification of an entire universe inside the singularity of a massive black hole- using a kind of conservation of phase space concept. That allows for connection to Smollen's 'evolution of universes to max black hole production' hypothesis.

Regarding the release of dark energy- I happened to talk to Guth about this in a lunch line in Kendall Square one day. I proposed the the ratio of dark matter and energy omegas was given by the ratios 16/26 and 10/26, suggesting that the omegas were in the mix at the beginning.

However, he destroyed this idea by pointing out that dark energy is proportional to the volume of the universe, [assuming it's finite, I guess], and that in the beginning of the big bang the universe was so much smaller than it is now that the amount of dark energy was negligible.

But then again, I think that may answer your question. In the beginning there was essentially no dark energy to be released. Somehow that energy accumulates as the universe expands. That might be derivable from the extra 16 dimensions.

Anyway, as I was writing the above response to your original posting, I did notice that I had thrown in the 16 dimensions ad hoc. They really are incidental to the central ideas of the model.

You did draw a line in the sand- the line of what is testable and what probably is not. So in a way that is the line between physics and metaphysics. But I am pleased that you did not think I went off the deep end creating quantities or qualities that do not exist in science.

The model does not have to be correct, especially if it is not testable. It may as well not be unique. There may be other ways to approach the supernatural using quantities known to science. I think the value of the model is that it allows for a discussion of what the supernatural could possibly be based on known quantities.

For example, if dark matter is primarily bosonic, then what stops it from accumulating into dark matter black holes. The axions apparently do not have enuogh velocity to prevent it from happening. So I expect that axions have a fermionic-like property based on some mechanism, analogous to spin, that invokes the exclusion principle for axions.

Then axions alone are an entirely passive media. In order for dark matter to support intelligence, there must be other particles and mechanisms that we cannot detect at work in that medium. So one next step is to list to necessary mechanisms for intelligence. A good physicist could probably do this off the top of his or her head. But not I.

Anyway, thanks for such a positive response. Hopefully some day some of these ideas will percolate through the physics community.

Richard