Do others see a parallel between epicycles and dark matter/energy?

Question

The pre-Copernican geocentrists kept inventing more epicycles to try to explain how everything orbited around the Earth. I get the same gut feeling w/ dark matter and now dark energy: are theorists going in the wrong direction, scrambling for ever more complex and improbable explanations to support a theory, when maybe they should go back to square one like Copernicus did and find an alternative theory? I'm not saying I have one, btw.

Answer 1

Actually, it *is* possible to chart the distribution of Dark Matter by using gravitational lenses. Usually, the Dark Matter and ordinary matter have roughly the same distribution, but not always. The remarkable thing is that the amount of Dark matter needed to explain the velocity profiles of galaxies is the same as the amount needed to explain the lensing effects.

People have tried to modify the equations for gravity so that Dark Matter would not be needed to explain our observations. So far, they haven't succeeded and the fact that the computed distribution of Dark and ordinary matter based on our present theories are not always the same would make it hideously difficult to do so.

Dark energy was a surprise. Originally, it appeared as an extra term in Einstein's theory of gravity. He put it in to allow for a static universe (as opposed to an expanding or contracting one). When it was found that the universe does expand, that term was dropped. Now it appears to be required to agree with observations although the actual size of the extra term is different than Einstein needed for a static universe.

The real question for both Dark matter and Dark energy is what they are 'made of'. Particle physicists have some guesses for Dark matter, but Dark energy seems to be more a property of space itself.

Anyway, if you have another idea, please let people know. It has to agree with actual observations and be able to make new predictions, but that is how science works. Be my guest!

Answer 2

How about a different theory altogether? Currently dark matter and dark energy are both terms invented to theorize entities that are the "Absence" of knowledge or proof. I suggest that it is not either of those things that account for the missing mass in the universe. I think the missing mass is here, now all around us in the form of the light from the stars. E=mc2 can be solved for the different variables but the bottom line is that energy convers to mass and back again in this ratio. Well, the energy of all light emitted by a star(all stars) began existence and continues existing and radiadting spherically away from the star, but it all still exists as light energy as it continues to transit and fill space. Now consider all the light from all the stars that have ever existed is still coursing throughout space, this light energy, when converted back to mass using the above equation equals the "missing" mass in the universe. At least, that's a theory of mine.

Thanks for allowing me to air my theory.
Tom

Answer 3

There is no way of charting the dark matter in the universe at this point, so there is no way to make that correlation at this point.

Answer 4

I agree, it is so contrived. We need a Copernicus and Kepler of cosmology to simplify things.

Answer 5

no, none at all