Talk:Dark energy

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Cosmology Top‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cosmology task force.

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

The total amount of dark energy increases as space expands. Doesn't that violate conservation of energy?

Conservation of energy is not well-defined in curved spacetime, since the stress-energy tensor does not transform cleanly under change of coordinates.^{[FAQ 1]}

References

1. ^ Michael Weiss; John Baez (2017). "Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?". math.ucr.edu. Retrieved 16 December 2021.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 120 days are automatically archived by .

Introduction

A more updated review on dark energy should be cited in the introduction. I suggest the book ^[1]

^ Amendola, Luca; Tsujikawa, Shinji (2010). Dark Energy. Theory and Observations. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521516006.

It could also serve as citation for several of the "citation needed", e.g. the possible failure of general relativity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.246.99.116 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Observational skepticism section

IMO this should be its own section instead of a subsection of Theories of Dark Energy. Most articles of scientific theory for theories not already well-established have their contravened sections more conspicuous. It could probably use more content too but we've at least touched on the first of the Sarkar papers. We should probably expand the section with the V3 of their latest paper, "Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration" - https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597

Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?

Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed"^[1] - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all^[2]^[3] - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant^[4] - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Dark Energy" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think dark energy will go the way of “the aether.” Far more believable is that expansion is due to the merger of universes. 174.205.98.225 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect of this is that I think that this article's writing in regards to dark energy's existence could use a lot of work, both where it is explicitly discussed and especially where dark energy is implicitly assumed to exist. The first sentence of the article says that dark energy is a proposed form of energy. A reader might reasonably take this to mean that, as a theory, dark energy is not as well as accepted and not as foundationally solid as, say, quantum mechanics. Very soon after this, the article starts talking about explanations for dark energy as though it is a thing that is known to exist. Then somewhat later in the article we're back to talking about whether it exists. I understand that it is cumbersome to say "(if it exists)" everywhere. Maybe what's needed is to say this clearly a few times, and then state explicitly in what parts of the article this assumption is made, and why. - ATBS 2601:600:877F:4660:58DB:7E6B:FE39:B762 (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A related discussion has been centralized on "physics Wikiproject", and can be found at the following link => "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2024#Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Overbye, Dennis (4 April 2024). "A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 April 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
^ McRae, Mike (18 March 2024). "Physicist Claims Universe Has No Dark Matter And Is 27 Billion Years Old". ScienceAlert. Retrieved 5 April 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
^ Gupta, Rajendia P. (15 March 2024). "Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Observed Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Features". The Astrophysical Journal. 964 (55): 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6.
^ Bogdan, Dennis (4 April 2024). "Comment - A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 April 2024. Retrieved 8 April 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new study lends credence to this idea. See here: [1] 104.171.53.110 (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t quotation marks be put around “dark energy”, until they prove it is actually energy? There is no theory, it’s just an observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C684:8710:20F2:FDBF:B31A:DAF2 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong -- dark energy is a well defined thing within the context of established theory, as explained by the article. Aseyhe (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Studies presenting alternative models

We shouldn't be adding in competing theories right as they're published. Dark Enrgy as a thing is well established in cosmology and any countering papers are going to need to cross WP:ECREE thresholds. Certainly they may, but that's why WP:TOOSOON is a situation in this case. There are plenty of studies every year that come out proposing alternative models, there's no reason to include all of them as they arise when that's both against the consensus and the academic community hasn't even had time to weigh in yet. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article concerns and classification

Reassess article to C-class.

The article is in the following categories:

Articles with unsourced statements from July 2021,
Articles with unsourced statements from June 2022,
Articles with unsourced statements from September 2023.

The first paragraph of the "Cosmological constant" and "Quintessence" subsections are unsourced, and there are several instances when material is dangling after a source.

The B-class criteria #1 states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Michael Weiss; John Baez (2017). "Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?". math.ucr.edu. Retrieved 16 December 2021.

[2] Amendola, Luca; Tsujikawa, Shinji (2010). Dark Energy. Theory and Observations. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521516006.

[NYT-20240404do-3] Overbye, Dennis (4 April 2024). "A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 April 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

[SA-20240318-4] McRae, Mike (18 March 2024). "Physicist Claims Universe Has No Dark Matter And Is 27 Billion Years Old". ScienceAlert. Retrieved 5 April 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

[ApJ-20240315-5] Gupta, Rajendia P. (15 March 2024). "Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Observed Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Features". The Astrophysical Journal. 964 (55): 55. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6.

[NYT-20240404-6] Bogdan, Dennis (4 April 2024). "Comment - A Tantalizing 'Hint' That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong - Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the universe". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 April 2024. Retrieved 8 April 2024.

[FAQ 1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]