Paper detail

A conventional approach to the dark-energy concept

Motivated by results implying that the constituents of dark matter (DM) might be collisional, we consider a cosmological (toy-) model, in which the DM itself possesses some sort of thermodynamic properties. In this case, not only can the matter content of the Universe be treated as a classical gravitating fluid of positive pressure, but, together with all its other physical characteristics, the energy of this fluid's internal motions should be taken into account as a source of the universal gravitational field. This form of energy can compensate for the extra (dark) energy, needed to compromise spatial flatness, while the post-recombination Universe remains ever-decelerating. At the same time (i.e., in the context of the collisional-DM approach), the theoretical curve representing the distance modulus as a function of the cosmological redshift, μ(z), fits the Hubble diagram of a multi-used sample of supernova Ia events quite accurately. A cosmological model filled with collisional DM could accommodate the majority of the currently-available observational data (including, also, those from baryon acoustic oscillations), without the need for either any dark energy (DE) or the cosmological constant. However, as we demonstrate, this is not the case for someone who, although living in a Universe filled with self-interacting DM, insists on adopting the traditional, collisionless-DM approach. From the point of view of this observer, the cosmologically-distant light-emitting sources seem to lie farther (i.e., they appear to be dimmer) than expected, while the Universe appears to be either accelerating or decelerating, depending on the value of the cosmological redshift. This picture, which, nowadays, represents the common perception in observational cosmology, acquires a more conventional interpretation within the context of the collisional-DM approach.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.