Is Dark Matter Just a Reflection of Our Flawed Theories?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DecayProduct
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on skepticism regarding the existence of dark matter, questioning whether it is a necessary construct to explain observations in the universe or a reflection of flawed theories. Participants argue that the need for dark matter arises when established gravitational theories fail to account for observed cosmic phenomena, suggesting that either the observations or the theories themselves may be flawed. The conversation touches on the challenges of testing dark matter hypotheses and the increasing complexity of proposed solutions, which some find unscientific. Additionally, there is debate over the nature of dark energy and its role in cosmic expansion, with some suggesting that alternative explanations for gravitational effects may be overlooked. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects a broader inquiry into the validity of current cosmological models and the quest for a more straightforward understanding of the universe.
  • #31
Jules18 said:
But for lack of a better way of saying it in my limited vocabulary - Seriously? Dark matter? Come on.
Please come up with something better. I assure you, everybody tries, but it's not like dark matter has been an easy guess.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Dark matter is a drop dead easy answer. It's the only solution that makes sense without throwing theoretical physics, as we know it, out on its head. It's possible all our theories of physics are fundamentally flawed, but, unlikely.
 
  • #33
Chronos said:
Dark matter is a drop dead easy answer.
Technically maybe. But I meant it was not easily accepted historically.
 
  • #34
There was a time where these additions to gravity were attributed to the local nature of space. Recall \Lambda, Einstein's cosomological constant. Then it became thought ambiguous. Now it seems wholly attributed to something of particle nature. Is this correct, or is

R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu} + D_{\mu \nu} = 8 \pi G T_{\mu \nu}

still an option, where D is a attribute of the vacuum?
 

Similar threads

Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
73
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K