Should dark matter and dark energy have completely different models from ordinary matter?

[Sheldon Cooper]

Hey guys,

I was wandering that, if dark matter and dark energy makes up 68 and 27 percentage of the the universe, then is it justifiable to study these in terms of models of the known parts of the universe which comprises of less than 5 percentage of the universe, also it is clearly evident that nature prefers dark matter and dark energies to the rest, so should there not be a completely different model to describe it altogether?
I admit that this is a highly non-technical question, and may even sound absurd to some of you, but I found it to be interesting to think about, and would love to hear your personal views about it.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Chalnoth]

Hey guys,

I was wandering that, if dark matter and dark energy makes up 68 and 27 percentage of the the universe, then is it justifiable to study these in terms of models of the known parts of the universe which comprises of less than 5 percentage of the universe, also it is clearly evident that nature prefers dark matter and dark energies to the rest, so should there not be a completely different model to describe it altogether?

We don't study these in terms of models of the normal matter. Dark matter and dark energy have different models. These models are informed by our models of normal matter, but they are distinct.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

The models now are based largely on energy, not matter. General relativity only cares about energy, it doesn't matter to the equations whether it's matter or dark matter or even a black hole. QM also deals with energy, particles are just waves in energy fields. So neither are really a model of matter.

It also makes sense because we used those models to discover them in the first place. The only reason we know the dark matter is there at all is because our observations don't match predictions.