Is General Relativity Incomplete Without Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of dark matter and dark energy in general relativity, questioning whether these concepts are necessary components of the theory or merely adjustments to address discrepancies in observations. Participants explore the implications of these ideas on the completeness of general relativity as a framework for understanding the cosmos.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that dark matter and dark energy are merely "fudge factors" introduced to resolve issues in general relativity, such as unexplained mass and drag.
  • Others suggest that general relativity remains a valid and useful theory, as all measurable experiments have confirmed its predictions, and scientists seek explanations for discrepancies rather than discarding the theory.
  • A participant notes that no alternative models currently exist that account for all data without including dark matter and dark energy, although speculative models exist that only explain some data.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of scientific theories, with some participants emphasizing that theories often require parameters to be established through experimentation, which is part of the scientific process rather than an indication of "fudging."
  • Some participants question the assumption that all matter must be luminous, pointing out that this is not stated in the Einstein Field Equations.
  • Comparisons are made to historical discoveries, such as the neutrino and Neptune, suggesting that these instances were based on the plausibility of existence rather than the failure of existing theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and interpretation of dark matter and dark energy within general relativity. There is no consensus on whether these concepts are essential or merely adjustments to the theory.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on the definitions of terms like "fudge factors" and the interpretation of general relativity's predictions. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties and the evolving nature of theoretical physics.

mustang19
Messages
75
Reaction score
4
Dark matter and dark energy are fudge factors to solve problems in general relativity such as unexplained mass and drag. Is this correct or am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The evolution of physics is that we develop theories that explain the things we can measure and then we continue to explore new areas and continue to apply the theory. When a given theory doesn't seem to work we check if our understanding is correct or that there is some hidden cause for the discrepancy before we decide to sack the theory and look for a new one.

In the case,of General Relativity every measureable experiment has confirmed that is still a valid and useful theory to explore the cosmos. It is because of its predictive accuracy that we have discovered the effects that we now say are due to dark matter and dark energy. It's natural then that scientists seek something to explain the discrepancies in measurements rather than scrap General Relativity.

If someone were to come along with a new theory that explained all of General Relativity's results, together with dark energy and dark matter anomalies then it could be a contender but we've not seen such a theory yet.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mustang19 and berkeman
In the case,of General Relativity every measureable experiment has confirmed that is still a valid and useful theory to explore the cosmos.

Besides the cases I mentioned
 
mustang19 said:
Is this correct or am I missing something?

You're missing something. What you're missing is that there are no other models currently known that account for all the data and do not have dark matter and dark energy in them. There are speculative models that do not include dark matter and dark energy, but they only account for some of the data, not all of it.

mustang19 said:
Besides the cases I mentioned

The cases you mention don't disconfirm GR, since we have a valid GR model that accounts for that data. So your claim here is false.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mustang19
mustang19 said:
Dark matter and dark energy are fudge factors to solve problems in general relativity such as unexplained mass and drag. Is this correct or am I missing something?
How would you characterize the discovery of the neutrino, or the planet Neptune? Both were predicted because it was more plausible that they existed and explained the discrepancy between theory and observation than that the theory was wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mustang19
I'm sorry - where in the Einstein Field Equations does it say "all matter must be luminous"? I'm having a hard time finding it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and mustang19
mustang19 said:
Dark matter and dark energy are fudge factors to solve problems in general relativity such as unexplained mass and drag. Is this correct or am I missing something?
Mass density of the universe is a parameter of our GR models. The "cosmological constant" is a parameter of the same models. Neither is known a priori, so both need to be established by experiment. That called is doing science, not fudging.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu and Vanadium 50
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm sorry - where in the Einstein Field Equations does it say "all matter must be luminous"? I'm having a hard time finding it.
Exactly what I told the judge after running over the dog:cry:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K