0

I am instinctively skeptical of the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy". Together, they strike me as being analogous to luminiferous aether -- something that was invented to explain a gap in our understanding that was actually due to our physical models being incomplete.

As far as I know, there is no widely-accepted physical model of dark matter/energy. So I don't see how it's very meaningful to even speak of it.

Why is it so normalised that people suppose dark matter/energy exists? Why is the prevalent understanding not something more along the lines of "clearly our equations for gravity are missing another term" (as in: different forces produced by the normal mass that we directly see)?

What is the argument that dark matter/energy is a better explanation than an alteration to our models for gravity involving normal matter?

Qmechanic
  • 220,844
spraff
  • 5,256

3 Answers3

1

People do not just "suppose" those things exist. They actually do try alternate explanations based on modified model equations, but in that way the observations can not be explained.

As for your question why the prevalent opinion is not: "clearly our equations for gravity are missing another term"? Well, that simply is not clear at all! It might just be that those equations are perfectly OK but that there exist dark matter and vacuum energy. Why do you think that "clearly" the latter option needs to be discarded and instead the equations should change?

Jos Bergervoet
  • 6,031
1

So far no modification of the theory has been proposed that can explain the observations. The radical hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy do offer the possibility to explain the phenomena.

my2cts
  • 27,443
-6

Why are dark matter and dark energy favoured over changes to our physical models?

Because people haven't figured out the real explanation for the high-z anomaly, so they impose these 21st-century epicycles.

Space is an expanding sphere. Extreme distances are distorted by an "optical illusion" due to the extra distance from the curvature.

They think they're measuring a straight line, but it's the chord of a circle with circumference 2 pi * 14 billion LY. But the actual distance is an arc along the circumference of the ants' balloon.

As confirmation, if the balloon is expanding into future time, then the radius is its age. The universe's circum is expanding at 2 pi light-secs per sec always.

Just figure the Megaparsec's share of that second's worth of new space, and you get 70.9 Km/Sec/MPc. That's just 1.6% different from the accepted 73.5 ±1.4.

And if you toss in the uncertainty of the universe's age, the difference from the accepted value drops to 0.2%.

I mean, if you're interested. I pointed it out once, but nobody was.

I have a spreadsheet showing all this. I'll post it when I acquire a circular one of these.

Miss Understands
  • 1