• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 20 days ago
cake
Cake day: February 4th, 2026

help-circle






  • The sucky thing is, it could be a modeling issue, but the answer would have to be a model that agrees with all observations. For example, it could be that spacetime can get permanently warped such that gravity-like effects remain, but then how would a model represent that? If the model represents it as a field that is held in effect by some localized particle, then that ‘something’ might still be called “matter” even though it could be nothing more than an artifact of that particular model.

    For a similar happenstance with current models, see the “graviton”. If spacetime ‘changes’ due to the presence of matter (at least, insofar as locality and position itself is real) and nothing more, there might not actually be a graviton to discover, yet that’s what the models demand to become closer to observed reality.


  • “Dark matter” is not its own idea. It is literally the name for the unknown observed effect, NOT an explanation for the effect.

    Most physicists hate the term “dark matter” too, because it sounds like an explanation when it is literally the opposite.

    “Dark matter” could be one or several things at once, because it is the name for the observed phenominon, not an explanation for it.

    We know something is there, we just don’t know what. That je ne sais quoi is what’s called “dark matter”, which again, is not an explanation of anything, but the name of the observed phenomenon.

    It might not even be matter at all, though observations like what’s cited in the OP lean toward it being something that exists as opposed to a difference in the mathematical models, which should apply to all of spacetime in order to be called accurate. Since it is a local effect that we see is different in different areas, that makes it far less likely to be a general disagreement.