So everyone in the comments doesnt mix these up, dark matter is the invisible gravitational glue that clumps around galaxies and clusters and holds them together we infer it from rotation curves, lensing, and structure while dark energy is the smooth, negative-pressure something that makes the universe’s expansion accelerate, inferred from distant supernovae and the CMB; dark matter attracts, dark energy accelerates/repels on cosmic scales, and the only thing they share is the word “dark,” so one is missing mass and the other is missing energy driving expansion.
Thanks for filling me in on the word “dark” being defined as an unknown. I know the difference between the two but never made the connection with the word being in that context!
“Dark” also means that they don’t absorb, emit, or reflect photons, which means that the only way that we can detect Dark Matter and Dark Energy with telescopes is through gravitational lensing of light passing through them.
And anti matter is particles with the same mass as traditional particles but that have opposite charges and magnetic moments (I confuse it some times with dark matter)
No. It can only be created by offering and losing enough energy to sponataneously form a matter/antimatter pair. Exactly the energy you would get back from their annihalation to be precise.
There have been some hypotheticals about using anti matter batteries for extremely powerful spaceship drives for interstellar travel though. That would be feasable. Although noone knows how one would even approach the engineering challenge for it to become a relevant option.
So, for certain definitions of "viable" it absolutely could be.
The problem is that, unless and until we find some way to mine naturally-occurring antimatter in large quantities — which we have no reason to believe exists anywhere in the universe — then we will have to make our own antimatter. And that creates problems because synthesizing antimatter is generally going to consume more energy than the antimatter generates in a reactor.
So we might find it useful to generate a bunch and then use it as fuel in specialized applications where mass and volume are at a premium. In that sense we could say it is is viable.
But I doubt it will ever be used for primary energy production.
You're welcome! I think of antimatter as a bit like jet fuel. Even when we have completely defossilized our energy economy, we may still use kerosene jet fuel, due to its high power density as a fuel. We may find ourselves synthesizing it specially for that very purpose. In fact we are already experimenting with that.
Antimatter could easily end up working the same way.
In the broadest sense they must be related, in the same way that all of physics is related. There is presumably some theory or model, that we just don't have yet, that would encompass both phenomena plus also all the other more conventional mater and energy as we understand it.
But of course we have no idea (yet) what that will actually look like. They could be completely off in different parts of such a model, or they could be closely coupled. I don't think we have any basis at all for even guessing right now.
You would think they would drive the same mechanism like matter is made of energy so you would think by the naming convention that dark matter would be made of dark energy. But it sounds like they are two unrelated things.
Sounds like dark energy might be related to negative energy and negative mass so this would be one of the missing pieces to warp drive and other sci-fi tech. Where dark matter seems more like normal matter that you just can’t detect except by effects.
No, we mostly have evidence that the maths don't add up. With what we're seeing, galaxy should fly apart and the universe should not accelerate its expansion.
The "easy" solution is to add dark energy and dark matter into the equations so that the maths align with the observations. But that doesn't tell us if those things exist or what they are.
For dark matter, there are a few theories that try to rewrite the equations instead of adding a new type of matter (so far, unsuccessfully).
This article is about how dark energy may not exist.
Dark energy is a stand in for the difference we see between what we predict should happen and what is happening.
Dark energy, or more precisely the difference is there. The question is why do we see the difference.
We made a mistake when doing the math.(least likely to be true.)
We have an incomplete model of the universe, and it needs an update.
There is something causing the difference we cant see. ( what people think of when they hear dark energy.)
Its one or more of these three. We just don't know what it is yet. Physicist all know this, and just have different opinions on what one of the three it is.
Is easy you can fit the math to anything you want, and there are many candidates that do just that. The problem is those models need to actually make predictions to things we haven't seen yet, or they are useless. So be weary of anyone telling you their new model is so much better than the standard model blah blah blah. Sure it is, but when it also predicts something new let me know.
But..if dark energy is a term for the stuff we don't know about then finding out what it is isn't disproving it, right? So how could it possibly not exist?
The article talks about it being more of a flaw in the way we measure as opposed to it being a new thing all together, but I would still think that if that's true then the definition of dark energy becomes "the thing that happens when you mess up" and still continues to exist
What? That's not what dark energy is at all. It's the energy required for the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe, that we observe pretty much every time we look.
We don't know where that energy is coming from, hence "dark" energy.
Yes it is. It's a thing they don't know how to account for. It could just be that we're measuring things all wrong and the thing we made up called math is wrong in some areas
Sure, it's possible ever measurement we've ever made is wrong. However, you've got worse odds than the lottery of that being the case. The disagreements in models aren't about whether or not the universe is expanding, but rather by how much.
It's much more likely that there's something about how the universe expands that we simply don't understand yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't require energy to do, it just doesn't answer where that energy comes from.
What the scientist is saying as far as I understand it's more like we didn't take every factor into account and that's what's creating the difference in results. Specifically she's saying that we didn't take into account the difference in time distortion between different areas of space.
Someone with a bit more than an interest in astrophysics here...
The article is a pretty big bastardisation of the work of the people referenced. Not that its incorrect per say, but Dr Macpherson works on numerical relativity simulations. Saying they "dont like the assumptions of cosmology" is like claiming an F1 mechanic thinks we could make cars faster if we made the wheels "more round"; theres probably a bit more nuance to their opionion.
For context, general relativity is a mathematical continuous theory. Computers are inherently discrete and if we want to run big, complex GR simulations (like she is doing) you effectively have to learn an entire field of physics and maths beyond GR to do that.
But the whole basis for that acceleration is the theory that super novae have a specific maximum brightness. And that the light absorbed relative to that brightness, how much it has dimmed in the interval, can be used to calculate its distance accurately when that light reaches earth. There are worlds full of assumptions in those statements.
You're talking about the use of Type 1A supernovae as standard candles, but don't seem to grasp the concept.
One: they're just one of the rungs on the cosmic ladder - we don't use it to measure every single distance in the universe.
Two: we didn't assume that type 1a supernovae have a fairly consistent luminosity... we observed it. Then we started using that observation as a standard candle to measure distance via redshift. Again, this is an observation, not a theory.
Three: since we use several distance techniques to measure distance in the universe, we can use some techniques to check others.
Four: you're not even looking at the assumptions that physicists are actually concerned might not be correct. Which are: the comsological constant (there's a tiny chance it's actually variable) and the Copernican Principle (which says that the universe at large is uniform, it's possible, but again unlikely that it's not the case).
What you are referencing here is the Philips relation which is an observationally (but theoretically backed) determined law we found about the brightness curves of Type Ia supernovae (not just their maximum brightness. I believe you might mean their maximum mass due to being supported by electron degeneracy pressure?).
As the other user mentioned, we also have alternative methods to measuring distances. Cephied variables are a type of object with periodically changing brightness based on their other properties.
Active galactic Nuclei (AGN) can be used as standard candles due to observed relations we see.
There are nuances around these observations but these are frontiers of astrophysics research nuances and are not necessarily cauing problems at this level of assumption here.
We also measure expansion through measurements of the CMB which does not need a distance measure and has its own constraints entirely.
“Finding out what it is” means, in this case, finding out what mistakes were made in our thinking decades ago that required a dark energy term to satisfy our equations.
If you're still browsing the internet without some form of adblock/scriptblock+cookie block, here in the futuristic year of 2026, that's on you. There have been tools to get around all that nonsense for a long, long time. I highly recommend uMatrix, and uBlock Origin (browser extensions). Highly recommend Firefox browser, or at least Opera (has some built-in stuff).
Probably not because luminous aether is a very specific and wrong idea while dark energy is a placeholder and no mechanism of action is described for it.
They are talking about timescape cosmology or inhomogeneous cosmology where you don't need unknown (dark) matter or energy to make the universe fit Einstein's equations.
The reason astrophysicists believe dark matter likely exists is because there is so much evidence for it. The idea that it is an ad-hoc slap on to fix galaxy rotation curves is what psuedoscience grifters claim to doscredit science, hoping you will never go away and look at the evidence yourself.
Direct detections of dark matter is very difficult as, unlike baryonic matter, dark matter collects in halos where most of it is not distributed in the plane of galaxy. Its effects can only be detected on galactic scales too, meaning it is very diffuse.
As a result, detecting directly like we do, for example neutrino which are very weakly interacting but abundant from solar fusion, is very difficult.
There was however a recent statistically significant gamma ray detection from possible, theoretically predicted dark matter annihilation:
Additionally, we have observational evidence of dark matter behaviour, such as bullet cluster merger dynamics, CMB lensing, rotation curves of galaxies, cosmic filamentary structure, etc.
The idea that dark matter arises from the fact there appears to be more mass within a galaxy that can be accounted for, is false and usually pushed by psuedoscience groups to discredit dark matter, pretending it is some ad hoc slap on fix. This is not the case. It is a piece of evidence for dark matter, not the whole story. I.e. this+lensing+sims+etc all converge to suggesting dark matter.
We also perform N-body dark matter simulations such as the Millenium simulation and I believe MagneticumTNG. Here we set up the initial distribution of dark matter in the universe, informed by observations, model dark matter as we think it behaves and compare outcomes to our observations. These simulations produce quantitatively very similar structures to what we observe.
The same goes for our hydrodynamical and magnetohydrodynamical cosmological simualtions (SWIFT-EAGLE, TNG, SIMBA, COLIBRE, HORIZON-AGN) which all include dark matter and produce realistic statical properties of the universe.
We also performed an experiment called the MACHOs experiment where we looked for gravitational lensing caused by Massive Compact Halo Objects e.g rogue planets and dim brown dwarfs. This experiment (again very statistics heavy) let us place upper limits on the number of these and constrain a small percentage of "dark matter" is.
This is a large collection of separate, independent pieces of evidence which all converge in the same non-baryonic, gravitationally interacting matter from a range of different dynamical scales. From galaxies to cosmic structure.
Everything I mentioned above is quantitative evidence of dark matter. Saying dark matter has no evidence requires you to actively ignore science.
E.g. This is an overview paper on our cosmological simulations of dark matter.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12393
This also came out the other day:
https://arxiv.org/html/2606.28482v1
Another example of evidence of dark matter:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ASPC..543...73T/abstract
Again, they tackle dark matter from different angles than just galaxy rotation.
I lean towards the idea that perhaps we aren't accounting for changes in time because of gravity differences somehow. My intuition is that the math would say matter and energy density extend to infinities somewhere someway. Whatever the case may be, I certainly think we should continue to review all of the math for a better explanation, and hopefully new technologies allow us to make better measurements and models.
The current model, generally, is really not as solid as people think. We've built up such a nice narrative around it though that people, and especially institutions, are loathed to even consider the idea we've made a series of colossal errors.
This is just not true at all. This is typical psuedoscience grifters rhetoric to instill distrust in institutions so that you will not go and look for information yourself, instead just believing whatever you are told by the grifter.
There are many academics who's job it is (their entire career) around finding inconsistencies in our current understanding. You can find these for yourself.
All new telescopes being launched are challenging our understanding of the universe in the regions we couldnt previously see. We are not ignoring observations. You be told we are by psuedoscientists, but its not true.
Im more than happy to debunks some of these "colossal errors" you think we have made along the way.
Ambitious-Pirate-505 | a day ago
So everyone in the comments doesnt mix these up, dark matter is the invisible gravitational glue that clumps around galaxies and clusters and holds them together we infer it from rotation curves, lensing, and structure while dark energy is the smooth, negative-pressure something that makes the universe’s expansion accelerate, inferred from distant supernovae and the CMB; dark matter attracts, dark energy accelerates/repels on cosmic scales, and the only thing they share is the word “dark,” so one is missing mass and the other is missing energy driving expansion.
[OP] reflibman | a day ago
Thanks for filling me in on the word “dark” being defined as an unknown. I know the difference between the two but never made the connection with the word being in that context!
Practical-Owl-9358 | a day ago
He didn’t want to leave you in the dark…
Ambitious-Pirate-505 | 16 hours ago
r/AngryUpvote
Epic_Tea | a day ago
That's why he's called the dark night
ijuinkun | 15 hours ago
“Dark” also means that they don’t absorb, emit, or reflect photons, which means that the only way that we can detect Dark Matter and Dark Energy with telescopes is through gravitational lensing of light passing through them.
lobonmc | a day ago
And anti matter is particles with the same mass as traditional particles but that have opposite charges and magnetic moments (I confuse it some times with dark matter)
Thrilling1031 | 21 hours ago
Thanks for this clarification! I was like “I’m pretty sure they’ve made some? But maybe that was just the John Brown book.”
RedbullZombie | 21 hours ago
https://home.cern/base-experiment-cern-succeeds-transporting-antimatter/
amitym | 10 hours ago
Making antimatter is easy. We use it all the time in medical devices now.
Storing it is the challenge. Assuming you want to store antimatter for some reason.
Thrilling1031 | 9 hours ago
Damn is it ever going to be a viable power source?
UmdieEcke2 | 9 hours ago
No. It can only be created by offering and losing enough energy to sponataneously form a matter/antimatter pair. Exactly the energy you would get back from their annihalation to be precise.
There have been some hypotheticals about using anti matter batteries for extremely powerful spaceship drives for interstellar travel though. That would be feasable. Although noone knows how one would even approach the engineering challenge for it to become a relevant option.
Thrilling1031 | 7 hours ago
Dope answer, thanks
amitym | 8 hours ago
So, for certain definitions of "viable" it absolutely could be.
The problem is that, unless and until we find some way to mine naturally-occurring antimatter in large quantities — which we have no reason to believe exists anywhere in the universe — then we will have to make our own antimatter. And that creates problems because synthesizing antimatter is generally going to consume more energy than the antimatter generates in a reactor.
So we might find it useful to generate a bunch and then use it as fuel in specialized applications where mass and volume are at a premium. In that sense we could say it is is viable.
But I doubt it will ever be used for primary energy production.
Thrilling1031 | 7 hours ago
Thanks for that detailed breakdown
amitym | 5 hours ago
You're welcome! I think of antimatter as a bit like jet fuel. Even when we have completely defossilized our energy economy, we may still use kerosene jet fuel, due to its high power density as a fuel. We may find ourselves synthesizing it specially for that very purpose. In fact we are already experimenting with that.
Antimatter could easily end up working the same way.
psichodrome | 22 hours ago
Whats the chance they are related. Both unknowns affecting celestial objects in a "big gravity/energy" kinda way. Surely its not implausible.
Aggravating-Dot132 | 15 hours ago
They are both dark because we can't see them. It's something that does things, but without the way to see or measure them.
They aren't related. At least in their name.
Local_Wave4618 | 19 hours ago
The word "dark" doesn't imply any relationship when talking about dark energy and dark matter. In this context "dark" implies unknown.
amitym | 10 hours ago
In the broadest sense they must be related, in the same way that all of physics is related. There is presumably some theory or model, that we just don't have yet, that would encompass both phenomena plus also all the other more conventional mater and energy as we understand it.
But of course we have no idea (yet) what that will actually look like. They could be completely off in different parts of such a model, or they could be closely coupled. I don't think we have any basis at all for even guessing right now.
Evilsushione | 20 hours ago
You would think they would drive the same mechanism like matter is made of energy so you would think by the naming convention that dark matter would be made of dark energy. But it sounds like they are two unrelated things.
Sounds like dark energy might be related to negative energy and negative mass so this would be one of the missing pieces to warp drive and other sci-fi tech. Where dark matter seems more like normal matter that you just can’t detect except by effects.
sonnet666 | 19 hours ago
“Dark” is just science talk for “We don’t know what it is.”
We have no evidence it exists, but the math says we’re missing something. Therefore, what we’re missing is “dark”.
frostfofjdjsiksndjd | 14 hours ago
I thought we had plenty of evidence? Like two posts up?
Djaaf | 13 hours ago
No, we mostly have evidence that the maths don't add up. With what we're seeing, galaxy should fly apart and the universe should not accelerate its expansion.
The "easy" solution is to add dark energy and dark matter into the equations so that the maths align with the observations. But that doesn't tell us if those things exist or what they are.
For dark matter, there are a few theories that try to rewrite the equations instead of adding a new type of matter (so far, unsuccessfully).
This article is about how dark energy may not exist.
Moemangooo | 10 hours ago
Magical matter and magical energy.
Anyone against?
Void matter and inverse void energy would work too
GlassFamiliar42 | 10 hours ago
Rule of cool says no , void is a maybe
IcyGarage5767 | 13 hours ago
Honestly if someone mixes up the two it’s probably best to just sideline their opinion on the topic.
Goleeb | a day ago
Dark energy is a stand in for the difference we see between what we predict should happen and what is happening.
Dark energy, or more precisely the difference is there. The question is why do we see the difference.
We made a mistake when doing the math.(least likely to be true.)
We have an incomplete model of the universe, and it needs an update.
There is something causing the difference we cant see. ( what people think of when they hear dark energy.)
Its one or more of these three. We just don't know what it is yet. Physicist all know this, and just have different opinions on what one of the three it is.
CryptoAteMyHamster | 23 hours ago
It’s just a bug where empty geometry keeps spawning from matter. I’m sure it’s gonna get patched eventually.
patoezequiel | 20 hours ago
r/outside
redditsuckbutt696969 | a day ago
But..if dark energy is a term for the stuff we don't know about then finding out what it is isn't disproving it, right? So how could it possibly not exist?
cervicalgrdle | a day ago
I think it has specific mathematical structure to it and specific definitions more than “placeholder”
redditsuckbutt696969 | a day ago
The article talks about it being more of a flaw in the way we measure as opposed to it being a new thing all together, but I would still think that if that's true then the definition of dark energy becomes "the thing that happens when you mess up" and still continues to exist
fractalife | a day ago
What? That's not what dark energy is at all. It's the energy required for the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe, that we observe pretty much every time we look.
We don't know where that energy is coming from, hence "dark" energy.
vom-IT-coffin | a day ago
Yes it is. It's a thing they don't know how to account for. It could just be that we're measuring things all wrong and the thing we made up called math is wrong in some areas
fractalife | a day ago
Sure, it's possible ever measurement we've ever made is wrong. However, you've got worse odds than the lottery of that being the case. The disagreements in models aren't about whether or not the universe is expanding, but rather by how much.
It's much more likely that there's something about how the universe expands that we simply don't understand yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't require energy to do, it just doesn't answer where that energy comes from.
lobonmc | a day ago
What the scientist is saying as far as I understand it's more like we didn't take every factor into account and that's what's creating the difference in results. Specifically she's saying that we didn't take into account the difference in time distortion between different areas of space.
Embarrassed_Camp_291 | 7 hours ago
Someone with a bit more than an interest in astrophysics here...
The article is a pretty big bastardisation of the work of the people referenced. Not that its incorrect per say, but Dr Macpherson works on numerical relativity simulations. Saying they "dont like the assumptions of cosmology" is like claiming an F1 mechanic thinks we could make cars faster if we made the wheels "more round"; theres probably a bit more nuance to their opionion.
For context, general relativity is a mathematical continuous theory. Computers are inherently discrete and if we want to run big, complex GR simulations (like she is doing) you effectively have to learn an entire field of physics and maths beyond GR to do that.
fractalife | a day ago
The article was written by a journalist not a scientist.
vom-IT-coffin | a day ago
Or our measurement of certain things are off that at scale, they become exponentially off. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
ZealousIdeal476 | 22 hours ago
But the whole basis for that acceleration is the theory that super novae have a specific maximum brightness. And that the light absorbed relative to that brightness, how much it has dimmed in the interval, can be used to calculate its distance accurately when that light reaches earth. There are worlds full of assumptions in those statements.
fractalife | 22 hours ago
You're talking about the use of Type 1A supernovae as standard candles, but don't seem to grasp the concept.
One: they're just one of the rungs on the cosmic ladder - we don't use it to measure every single distance in the universe.
Two: we didn't assume that type 1a supernovae have a fairly consistent luminosity... we observed it. Then we started using that observation as a standard candle to measure distance via redshift. Again, this is an observation, not a theory.
Three: since we use several distance techniques to measure distance in the universe, we can use some techniques to check others.
Four: you're not even looking at the assumptions that physicists are actually concerned might not be correct. Which are: the comsological constant (there's a tiny chance it's actually variable) and the Copernican Principle (which says that the universe at large is uniform, it's possible, but again unlikely that it's not the case).
Embarrassed_Camp_291 | 7 hours ago
What you are referencing here is the Philips relation which is an observationally (but theoretically backed) determined law we found about the brightness curves of Type Ia supernovae (not just their maximum brightness. I believe you might mean their maximum mass due to being supported by electron degeneracy pressure?).
As the other user mentioned, we also have alternative methods to measuring distances. Cephied variables are a type of object with periodically changing brightness based on their other properties.
Active galactic Nuclei (AGN) can be used as standard candles due to observed relations we see.
There are nuances around these observations but these are frontiers of astrophysics research nuances and are not necessarily cauing problems at this level of assumption here.
We also measure expansion through measurements of the CMB which does not need a distance measure and has its own constraints entirely.
LevoiHook | a day ago
Because they claim the measurement that is behind the need for something like dark energy is wrong.
PhD_Pwnology | a day ago
Probably they are taking about in a grand unified physics model
cedg32 | 13 hours ago
“Finding out what it is” means, in this case, finding out what mistakes were made in our thinking decades ago that required a dark energy term to satisfy our equations.
htownlifer | a day ago
That website is gonna give me a seizure
Internet-Expert42069 | 23 hours ago
I am unable to scroll past the ads
Drewdrops79 | 10 hours ago
If you're still browsing the internet without some form of adblock/scriptblock+cookie block, here in the futuristic year of 2026, that's on you. There have been tools to get around all that nonsense for a long, long time. I highly recommend uMatrix, and uBlock Origin (browser extensions). Highly recommend Firefox browser, or at least Opera (has some built-in stuff).
Jazzlike_Song_4230 | a day ago
Wonder if dark energy will be viewed the same as the luminiferous aether
No_Parsley_2838 | 18 hours ago
Probably not because luminous aether is a very specific and wrong idea while dark energy is a placeholder and no mechanism of action is described for it.
k-h | 23 hours ago
They are talking about timescape cosmology or inhomogeneous cosmology where you don't need unknown (dark) matter or energy to make the universe fit Einstein's equations.
sectorboss88 | 16 hours ago
Timescape was fun :) those were the days.
Embarrassed_Camp_291 | 7 hours ago
The reason astrophysicists believe dark matter likely exists is because there is so much evidence for it. The idea that it is an ad-hoc slap on to fix galaxy rotation curves is what psuedoscience grifters claim to doscredit science, hoping you will never go away and look at the evidence yourself.
Direct detections of dark matter is very difficult as, unlike baryonic matter, dark matter collects in halos where most of it is not distributed in the plane of galaxy. Its effects can only be detected on galactic scales too, meaning it is very diffuse. As a result, detecting directly like we do, for example neutrino which are very weakly interacting but abundant from solar fusion, is very difficult.
There was however a recent statistically significant gamma ray detection from possible, theoretically predicted dark matter annihilation:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250707209T/abstract
Additionally, we have observational evidence of dark matter behaviour, such as bullet cluster merger dynamics, CMB lensing, rotation curves of galaxies, cosmic filamentary structure, etc.
The idea that dark matter arises from the fact there appears to be more mass within a galaxy that can be accounted for, is false and usually pushed by psuedoscience groups to discredit dark matter, pretending it is some ad hoc slap on fix. This is not the case. It is a piece of evidence for dark matter, not the whole story. I.e. this+lensing+sims+etc all converge to suggesting dark matter.
We also perform N-body dark matter simulations such as the Millenium simulation and I believe MagneticumTNG. Here we set up the initial distribution of dark matter in the universe, informed by observations, model dark matter as we think it behaves and compare outcomes to our observations. These simulations produce quantitatively very similar structures to what we observe. The same goes for our hydrodynamical and magnetohydrodynamical cosmological simualtions (SWIFT-EAGLE, TNG, SIMBA, COLIBRE, HORIZON-AGN) which all include dark matter and produce realistic statical properties of the universe.
We also performed an experiment called the MACHOs experiment where we looked for gravitational lensing caused by Massive Compact Halo Objects e.g rogue planets and dim brown dwarfs. This experiment (again very statistics heavy) let us place upper limits on the number of these and constrain a small percentage of "dark matter" is.
This is a large collection of separate, independent pieces of evidence which all converge in the same non-baryonic, gravitationally interacting matter from a range of different dynamical scales. From galaxies to cosmic structure.
Everything I mentioned above is quantitative evidence of dark matter. Saying dark matter has no evidence requires you to actively ignore science.
E.g. This is an overview paper on our cosmological simulations of dark matter. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12393
This also came out the other day: https://arxiv.org/html/2606.28482v1
Another example of evidence of dark matter: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ASPC..543...73T/abstract
Again, they tackle dark matter from different angles than just galaxy rotation.
Always more than happy to talk astrophysics!
dodgyhashbrown | 5 hours ago
Doesn't the OP say that Dark Energy's existence is being challenged, rather than Dark Matter?
ThatsQuiteImpossible | 5 hours ago
Which is all great, and this is about dark energy, not dark matter.
Sad-Excitement9295 | 23 hours ago
I lean towards the idea that perhaps we aren't accounting for changes in time because of gravity differences somehow. My intuition is that the math would say matter and energy density extend to infinities somewhere someway. Whatever the case may be, I certainly think we should continue to review all of the math for a better explanation, and hopefully new technologies allow us to make better measurements and models.
snowflake37wao | 13 hours ago
The universe is just spinning. Next question?
QuirkyAssociate1793 | 23 hours ago
The current model, generally, is really not as solid as people think. We've built up such a nice narrative around it though that people, and especially institutions, are loathed to even consider the idea we've made a series of colossal errors.
Embarrassed_Camp_291 | 7 hours ago
This is just not true at all. This is typical psuedoscience grifters rhetoric to instill distrust in institutions so that you will not go and look for information yourself, instead just believing whatever you are told by the grifter.
There are many academics who's job it is (their entire career) around finding inconsistencies in our current understanding. You can find these for yourself.
All new telescopes being launched are challenging our understanding of the universe in the regions we couldnt previously see. We are not ignoring observations. You be told we are by psuedoscientists, but its not true.
Im more than happy to debunks some of these "colossal errors" you think we have made along the way.
QuirkyAssociate1793 | 5 hours ago
Dark matter and dark energy are requirements to keep the maths balanced, yet can't be observed directly..
Even a 12 year old could tell you why those concepts are probably 99.99% made up bullshit.
UnpluggedUnfettered | 23 hours ago
The article itself admits that the evidence so far doesn't support the claim.
Science jouranlism, once again, is all headlines no cattle.
j4_jjjj | a day ago
Dark energy is just surf juice for photons
Next.