International Journal of Astronomy 2014, 3(1): 18-21

DOI: 10.5923/j.astronomy.20140301.02

The Nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Ranku Kalita
6A, Gopal Road, Panbazar, Guwahati, 781001, India

Abstract It is proposed that the accelerating expansion of the universe is due the cosmologicalization of the principle of
equivalence which recognizes momentary equivalence between gravitational force and inertial force in an expanding
spherical distribution of matter, wherein momentary equivalence occurs at a certain radial distance between gravitational
force upon the gravitational mass and inertial force generated by the accelerating frame of reference of spacetime upon the
inertial mass of an object on the surface of the sphere. The principle of equivalence also recognizes momentary equivalence
between a freefalling gravitational mass and the impression of acceleration of an inertial mass in an inertial frame of reference
with respect to an accelerating frame of reference. Since the acceleration of the inertial mass is impressional, it is conceivable
therefore that the inertial mass of the object can be impressional as well. It is proposed that there are objects in nature which
possess impressional inertial mass, and that such objects are the dark matter in the universe.
Keywords Cosmology, Dark energy, Dark matter, Cosmological constant

1. Introduction
Dark energy, which presently constitutes about 72% of
the universe, is accelerating the expansion of the universe
[1-3]. Dark matter, which presently constitutes about 23%
of the universe [3], has so far been only gravitationally
detected. While dark energy and dark matter are generally
viewed as distinct phenomena, the present proposition
considers them as the cosmological manifestations of a
single principle the principle of equivalence.
It is proposed that the antigravitational force that is
accelerating the expansion of the universe exists because
the principle of equivalence which recognizes momentary
equivalence between gravitational force and inertial force
is cosmologicalized in an expanding spherical distribution
of matter, whereby spacetime itself is the antigravitational
accelerating frame of reference that generates inertial force
upon the inertial mass of an object on the surface of the
sphere, and which is momentarily equivalent at a certain
radial distance to the gravitational force experienced by the
gravitational mass of the object.
The principle of equivalence also recognizes momentary
equivalence between a freefalling gravitational mass and
the impression of acceleration of an inertial mass in an
inertial frame of reference with respect to an accelerating
frame of reference. Since the acceleration of the inertial
mass is impressional, it is conceivable therefore that the
inertial mass of the object can be impressional as well. It
* Corresponding author:
[email protected] (Ranku Kalita)
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/astronomy
Copyright 2014 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved

is proposed that there are objects in nature which possess

impressional inertial mass, and that such objects are the
dark matter in the universe.

2. Dark Energy
The accelerating expansion of the spacetime universe,
parametrized by the cosmological constant , involves
acceleration between objects which increases in proportion
to distance between the objects. Because of the low value of

a 0

and because

c2 a 3 (
c 2 8 G , a

while

, as in

is

expansion or scale factor, and c is energy density of

matter) the accelerating expansion of the universe becomes

energy density of

is

evident at late times when

6 109 years ago.

1 2 c 2 , which occurred ~

We have from one of the pair of Friedmann equations:

..
c 2
4 G
a

( 3 P c2 )
,
3
3
a

(1)

which may be re-framed as an equation of motion of an

object of mass m on the surface of a sphere of radius R a
and mass M

R
..

GM c 2
R

3
R2

(2)

[Total 'gravitating mass' M 43 R3 ( 3 P c2 )]

The equation of motion determines the gravitational

International Journal of Astronomy 2014, 3(1): 18-21

acceleration and antigravitational acceleration on a mass m

on the surface of a sphere. The antigravitational acceleration
2
is due to c 3 R .
In an expanding spherical distribution of matter M, at a
certain radial distance, momentary equilibrium occurs
between the gravitational force experienced by the
gravitational mass of the object m, and the antigravitational
force experienced by the object m. Now if we were to
consider the antigravitational acceleration as involving the
inertial mass of object m, then the antigravitational
acceleration would generate inertial force upon the inertial
mass of object m, and which would be directed toward the
centre of the sphere and which would be momentarily
equivalent at a certain radial distance of the expanding
sphere with the gravitational force experienced by the
gravitational mass of the object m. It is proposed that this
constitutes the cosmologicalization of the principle of
equivalence, which recognizes momentary equivalence
between: 1. (a) The gravitational force experienced by the
gravitational mass of an object situated on a gravitational
surface and (b) the inertial force generated on the inertial
mass of an object in a uniformly accelerating frame of
reference.
The inertial mass object in 1(b) is in an accelerating frame
of reference with respect to the background spacetime, and
the acceleration of the object has to be imparted by an
independent force. In the cosmologicalization of the
principle of equivalence in the expanding spherical
distribution of matter, it is spacetime itself that is the
accelerating frame of reference of the inertial mass of object
2
m, wherein the acceleration is parametrized by c 3 R
thus obviating the need for an independent force to impart
acceleration. In the principle of equivalence the acceleration
of the inertial mass object in 1(b) is uniform; in the
cosmologicalization, the inertial mass of object m is subject
2
to non-uniform acceleration parametrized by c 3 R .
In the principle of equivalence the momentary equivalence
between inertial force on the inertial mass of an object and
gravitational force on the gravitational mass of an object is
demonstrated by considering the object in two distinct
frames of reference once as a static gravitational mass, in
1(a), and then as a dynamic inertial mass, in 1(b); while in
the cosmologicalization, the momentary equivalence
between the gravitational and the inertial force on the
gravitational and inertial mass of an object m on the surface
of an expanding sphere is available at a certain radial
distance with the same dynamic object m.
The correlation between inertial mass and the
cosmological constant can be clearly demonstrated by
considering eq. (1) for a static universe.
In a static universe, a 0 , and assuming a pressureless
universe, we have
..

19

c 2 4 G m

0
3
3
Here the negative term

(3)

represents gravitational mass,

and is counterrelated to the positive antigravitational term.

Now if the m term is shifted RHS, we have

c 2 4 G m

(4)

Here, the fact that the antigravitational term is correlated

to the gravitational term is physically contradictory. This can
be resolved, however, by recalling the equivalence of
gravitational and inertial mass, whereby we can then
consider the m term in terms of inertial mass, which then
presents no physical contradiction in its correlation with the
term in eq. (4).
It is proposed that the inertial mass of an object in the
spacetime accelerating frame of reference is manifested in
the materiality of the object, and that such objects are the
visible matter in the universe.

3. Dark Matter
Dark matter continues to elude direct detection. If this
situation should persist, however, we would then have to
consider if dark matter may in fact be directly undetectable.
The following proposes how dark matter may be impossible
to detect directly.
Direct detection requires the collision between the inertial
mass of visible and dark matter and the scattering of visible
matter particles. For direct detection not to occur scattering
of inertial mass of visible matter would have to not occur.
The question then becomes: Could there be something
different between the inertial mass of visible and dark
matter?
Visible matter and dark matter both possess gravitational
mass. The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is
manifested in the universality of freefall. The universality of
freefall is contained in the weak principle of equivalence.
The weak principle of equivalence considers a gravitational
mass in freefall. Apart from momentary equivalence
between gravitational force and inertial force, the principle
of equivalence also recognizes momentary equivalence
between: 2(a) A gravitational mass object in freefall and 2(b)
a stationary inertial mass object with respect to a uniformly
accelerating frame of reference, and whereby the impression
of acceleration of the inertial mass object is created.
Since the impression of acceleration of the stationary
inertial mass object with respect to an accelerating frame of
reference in 2(b) is equivalent to the gravitational mass
object in freefall in 2(a), the acceleration of the gravitational
mass object can therefore also be considered to be
impressional; and, since the freefalling gravitational mass
object in 2(a) possesses equivalent inertial mass, the

20

Ranku Kalita: The Nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

acceleration of the inertial mass of the object can be

considered to be impressional as well.
Inertial mass of an object is defined as the resistance of an
object to acceleration, as in 1(b). It is not necessary, however,
that 1(b) has to be the first principle description of resistance
of an object to acceleration. We may equally well consider
2(a) or 2(b) as the first principle description of an object that
is offering resistance to acceleration, since the principle of
equivalence itself recognizes it is sufficient for an object to
offer resistance to impressional acceleration in 2(a) or 2(b)
for its inertial mass to be described, and for the inertial mass
to be equivalent to the gravitational mass of the object. Now
this opens up the possibility of considering an object that
only offers resistance to impressional acceleration in 2(a) or
2(b). If such an object were to exist, its inertial mass would
then have to be described as impressional as well we may
call such an object an impressional inertial mass object.
To recap: An inertial mass object offers resistance to
acceleration, as in 1(b), as well as to impressional
acceleration, as in 2(a) and 2(b). While the here-proposed
impressional inertial mass object only resists impressional
acceleration, as in 2(a) and 2(b) and cannot therefore be
considered as an inertial mass object resisting acceleration,
as in 1(b).
It is proposed that a freefalling impressional inertial mass
object in 2(a) of the principle of equivalence is
cosmologicalized in an expanding spherical distribution of
matter, whereby an impressional inertial mass object on the
surface of the sphere experiences cosmological freefall,
2
whose acceleration is parametrized by c 3 R .
In the principle of equivalence, an inertial mass object is
considered in distinct accelerating frames of reference, once
in 1(b), and then in freefall in 2(a). In the
cosmologicalization, because the spacetime accelerating
frame of reference is the same for both an inertial mass
object and the here-proposed impressional inertial mass
object, it is only an impressional inertial mass object that is in
cosmological freefall while an inertial mass object is in
cosmological acceleration.
In the principle of equivalence in 2(a) the gravitational
mass of the object is in the accelerating frame of reference of
gravitational freefall with respect to background spacetime.
In cosmological freefall it is spacetime itself that is the
accelerating frame of reference of the impressional inertial
mass of an object.
An inertial mass object has been here-proposed to be
material and therefore visible. It is proposed that an
impressional inertial mass object is immaterial, and would
therefore be invisible. Since an impressional inertial mass
object possesses equivalent gravitational mass the object
would of course be gravitationally detectable. It is proposed
that impressional inertial mass objects are the dark matter in
the universe.
Since inertial mass objects are here-proposed to be
material, they can therefore collide with and scatter inertial
mass objects; while since impressional inertial mass objects

are proposed to be immaterial, they therefore cannot scatter

other impressional inertial mass objects or inertial mass
objects. Also, inertial mass objects, being material, are able
to exert pressure, while immaterial impressional inertial
mass objects should not be able to exert pressure.
Collisionless dark matter in colliding celestial systems [4],
may be seen to imply the inability of immaterial
impressional inertial mass of dark matter to scatter the
material inertial mass of visible matter. Also, the acoustic
oscillations peaks profile in the power spectrum of the
CMBR [5], implies the pressurelessness of impressional
inertial mass of dark matter. It remains to be seen if the null
result in natural conditions continues to hold in ongoing and
future experimental efforts to directly detect dark matter.

4. Conclusions
The present proposition explains the nature of dark energy,
but does not make any unique prediction to prove the theory.
Thus the proposition of dark energy belongs to the class of
theories in physics which are in themselves unprovable
rather they can only be either disproved by another theory
that does make a unique prediction, or, gain acceptability due
to their utilization in other works which do make unique
predictions and are experimentally/observationally verified.
The proposition of direct undetectability of dark matter is
also in itself unprovable it can only be disproved, if dark
matter is indeed directly detected.
The present proposition adopts a classical mechanical
paradigm, wherein the accelerating expansion of the
universe is due to the cosmologicalization of a physical
principle that of the principle of equivalence.
In the quantum mechanical paradigm, on the other hand,
the accelerating expansion of the universe is hypothesized to
be due to a physical phenomenon that of vacuum energy.
In the present classical mechanical paradigm, objects
which are proposed to possess impressional inertial mass,
and which are in cosmological freefall are the dark matter in
the universe. While in the quantum mechanical paradigm,
the most popular hypothesis considers dark matter as
supersymmetric particles.
It appears that both classical and quantum mechanical
paradigms are necessary for a complete theory of dark
energy and dark matter.

REFERENCES
[1]

A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A.

Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha,
R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P.
Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C.
Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, and J. Tonry, Observational evidence
from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a
cosmological constant, Astrophys. J, vol. 116, pp.
1009-1038, 1998.

International Journal of Astronomy 2014, 3(1): 18-21

[2]

[3]

21

Wollack, J. Dunkley, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S.

Tucker, and E. L. Wright, Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: final maps and
results, astro-ph/1212.5225, 2013.

S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P.

Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E.
Groom, I. M. Hook, A. G. Kim, M. Y. Kim, J. C. Lee, N. J.
Nunes, R. Pain, C. R. Pennypacker, and R. Quimby,
Measurements of and from 42 high-redshift
supernovae, Astrophys. J, vol. 517, pp. 565-586, 1999.

[4]

C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G.

Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, M.
Halpern, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, E.

D. Clowe, M. Brada c , A. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S.

Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, A direct empirical proof
of the existence of dark matter, astro-ph/0608407v1, 2006.

[5]

W. Hu, CMB temperature and polarization anisotropy

fundamentals, astro-phy/0210696v1, pp. 12, 2002.