Cosmology

Are dark energy and dark matter the same thing, really?

Spread the love

Asked at Phil Sci Archive:

It is suggested that the apparently disparate cosmological phenomena attributed to so-called ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ arise from the same fundamental physical process: the emergence, from the quantum level, of spacetime itself. This creation of spacetime results in metric expansion around mass points in addition to the usual curvature due to stress-energy sources of the gravitational field. A recent modification of Einstein’s theory of general relativity by Chadwick, Hodgkinson, and McDonald incorporating spacetime expansion around mass points, which accounts well for the observed galactic rotation curves, is adduced in support of the proposal. Recent observational evidence corroborates a prediction of the model that the apparent amount of ‘dark matter’ increases with the age of the universe. In addition, the proposal leads to the same result for the small but nonvanishing cosmological constant, related to ‘dark energy,’ as that of the causet model of Sorkin et al.More.

See also: See also: Take back Nobel prizes for accelerating expansion of universe? Dark energy might be an illusion say some researchers. But we thought only a denialist was allowed to doubt the accelerating expansion of the universe. Rules change?

Expanding space bubbles could doom dark energy? Is it possible that the sheer ability to make up theories without consequence is adding to the confusion?

Dark energy made by black holes? But do we know that dark energy actually exists? Finding some would help us decide whether to cheer on or deprecate the revolution.

String theorists losing bets? Resorting to “denialism”?

3 Replies to “Are dark energy and dark matter the same thing, really?

  1. 1
    ichisan says:

    Phil Sci Archive:

    It is suggested that the apparently disparate cosmological phenomena attributed to so-called ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ arise from the same fundamental physical process: the emergence, from the quantum level, of spacetime itself.

    I have serious problems with this. First off, every time a scientist uses the word “emergence”, get ready to be lied to in some manner. Second, spacetime is a fictitious construct. It does not exist. Just ask yourself, if spacetime exists, where is it and what is it made of?

    Besides, when will physicists finally learn that nothing can move in Einstein’s spacetime? A time dimension makes motion impossible. This is the reason that spacetime is called a block universe and that Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein to the Greek philosopher Parmenides who, along with his more famous student Zeno, maintained that motion and change did not exist. Here’s an excerpt of Popper’s remarks:

    “… Examples are Empedocles’ theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides’ myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein’s block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning).”

    Source: Conjectures and Refutations.

    Physicists rarely talk about the block universe nature of spacetime because they are either not aware of it or it falsifies much of the nonsense coming out of general relativity. They have no clue what causes gravity and yet they feel free to conjure up all sorts of Star Trek physics nonsense based on a theory that explains nothing, a theory that is really no better than Ptolemaic epicycles.

    It’s not just Darwinism that is full of pseudoscience.

  2. 2
    J-Mac says:

    An ostensibly separate phenomenon—the flattening of galactic rotation
    curves with radial distance–is also well known (e.g., Rubin et al 1980). This
    unexpectedly large value of rotational velocities for the outer observable matter in
    galaxies is an anomaly for standard Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitational
    theories, and in order to preserve them, it has been attributed to an invisible
    hypothetical form of matter dubbed ‘dark matter.’ However, rather than postulate
    ‘dark matter,’ some researchers have been exploring modifications of Newtonian
    gravitational theory. One such effort, “Modified Newtonian Dynamics” or MOND,
    was introduced by Milgrom (Milgrom, 1983). MOND has been successful in fitting
    the observed rotation curves, but it has the drawback of being an ad hoc alteration
    to the basic gravitational theory

    In short dark matter is predicted by Newtonian physics and mathematical calculations. If there is not dark matter, the whole physics is garbage…

    In addition, “dark
    energy” may be understood as an artifact of the same emergence process, arising
    from the discreteness of spacetime and its quantum origins.

    The way I see it, this is an attempt to avoid the obvious; the direct influence of an external, transcendent being on the accelerated expansion of the universe…

    So, what’s the conclusion?

    Dark energy and dark matter are the properties of spacetime… Space time emerged somehow and still emerges somehow as the universe expands, so dark energy and dark matter emerge somehow from spacetime. Problem solved! Evidence? Zero.

    Couldn’t read the full text past page 3…

  3. 3
    J-Mac says:

    Recent observational evidence corroborates a prediction of the model that the apparent amount of ‘dark matter’ increases with the age of the universe.

    This is not going to sit well with materialists…

    I’ve said it before and I will say it again; if dark matter increases with the age of the universe and its expansion, where is dark energy coming from? Spacetime? Spacetimes is being created as the universe expands, so if dark matter is the property of spacetime, so where is spacetime emerging from? Is it a property of something we can’t see? How about spacetime being the property of dark energy and dark matter emerging from dark energy; i.e. dark energy being converted to dark matter? I think I have heard about similar process before and an famous equation …

Leave a Reply