Talk:Dark fluid

Super-Flexible-Continuum [SFC] may be the most appropriate name for the 'Dark Fluid'

By the term 'fluid' we generally mean some water-like substance composed of atoms; the constituent atoms of the fluid glide over one-another making the substance 'fluid'. Whereas 'continuum' is not composed of atoms which can move independently of their neighbouring atoms. In the 'continuum' whenever a small, labelled portion of it moves in any direction, the neighbouring parts also have to move, and complete a closed loop. Whenever a labelled portion in a continuum starts moving cyclically, coming back to its original position after every cycle, then such a motion gives rise to a spherical standing-wave in the continuum. The so called 'particle' of 'matter' is nothing but such a spherical-standing-wave generated in a super-flexible-continuum according to Hasmukh K. Tank [Ref. Some conjectures on the nature of 'energy' and 'matter', published in Science and Culture April, 1988. Published by Indian Science News Association, Kolkata] Formation of the spherical-standing-wave causes the surrounding continuum to shrink; and if there are two or more spherical-standing-waves, then the continuum between them has to suitably get stretched to compensat for the shrinking near the 'particles'. Tank has used the term 'super-flexible-continuum' SFC for that 'continuum' which is all-pervading in space and everpresent in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.215.239 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. PianoDan (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Very strong statement without citation

"Dark fluid goes beyond dark matter and dark energy in that it predicts a continuous range of attractive and repulsive qualities, under various matter density cases. Indeed, dark fluid reproduces various other gravitational theories as special cases within it, e.g. inflation, quintessence, k-essence, f(R), Generalized Einstein-Aether f(K), MOND, TeVeS, BSTV, etc. It also suggests new models such as a certain f(K+R) model, which suggests intriguing corrections to MOND depending on redshift and density[citation needed]."

This is one of those statements that should really have a paper attached to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8a0:7382:f601:1070:8bce:57a5:958c (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Happy New Year! Paine  19:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Undone Heh, you cited PediaPress, citeception :-) --174.116.141.16 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis

I suspect this concept is a Wikipedia original. Now, I'm sure some ideas have been published under the name "dark fluid", but Wikipedia claims (lead sentence): "In astronomy and cosmology, dark fluid is an alternative theory to both dark matter and dark energy and attempts to explain both phenomena in a single framework." Wikipedia is claiming some sort of overarching theory/definition for people who use the term "dark fluid", and I find this claim suspicious. --174.116.141.16 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

inSPIRE-HEP references 73 papers with "Dark Fluid" in their titles, and most of them discuss unification or coupling of dark energy and dark matter, so it is clearly not a Wikipedia original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.65.59.209 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Most of them do, meaning many of them don't? Well that's already a problem. And the ones that do, are they all talking about the same theory? Looking at the first three items in the search result, I think the answer is no. Note that it is not sufficient to use the tag "dark fluid" and be talking about unifying the dark sector. For starters, this article currently claims dark fluid is an alternative to GR. I don't think the first two items on the search result modify GR. The article goes on to tell us more about what "dark fluid" is all about. Apparently it accomodates inflation, quintessence, MOND, TeVeS... truly conceptually ergodic! --God made the integers (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (the unregistered first poster in this section is me)

References

Closer to truth

Dark fluid is closer to truth, but without a relativistic equilibrium mechanism it makes no sense. Be more analytical and write types. This article is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C800:2871:4943:BCD5:341C (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

add dark seesaw types. That seesawness is fundamental to dark fluid theory; otherwise we have again the old separate darkmattenergic theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C800:2871:4943:BCD5:341C (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

A mistake

A mistake to explain galactic dark matter, is that the outter stars of a galaxy, are also affected by the void, the void has faster flow of time, thus these afar stars look to move faster in relation to us. Others claim that "flow of time" leaks out from the outter stars, simply because are at the final frontier; thus don't move faster in general, but relativistically faster in relation to us. These people did claim that in our solar system, the phenomenon doesn't occur, because it affects only larger scales, as a bigger level of magnitude gravity, or gravity B. Some ideas like that are silly, but we must find the types and add them. This is an encyclopedia, thus we should reveal all opinions. If you don't like a silly opinion, write few words. Even say it's a mistake. Because some students might claim that we humans weren't able to try in the past; but it's a big lie!

Is the dark fluid theory a different theory or simply a different way to say things?

Some people claim that both separatists (dark matter vs dark energy) and darkfluidists are correct (if all of them improve their maths). They claim that we can express these phenomena as separate or continual. Others claim that a separation does occur, iff observed from the correct order of magnitude. For a Planckian observer there is a continuum of phenomena with some regional statistical characteristics, and for a human observer who is lager and of a way slower perceptual rate, these statistical phenomena accumulate as "particles". It is crucial to mention that also! It is so crucial, that if you don't mention it, there is no point to write the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C800:2871:4943:BCD5:341C (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat seems like electromagnetism, to me. At times, we only look at the components, while at other times we consider them as one. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why "dubious"?

AFAIK, the statement that "attempts to explain both phenomena in a single framework."[1][2][dubious – discuss] is not the very least dubious. The edit of 174.116.141.16 adding [dubious - discuss] says "(remove PediaPress reference, {{Synthesis}})" but the links are both arxiv links and they very clearly claim that "Dark Energy and Dark Matter as a same", it seems that this edit misunderstands the usage of {{Synthesis}}. I propose that the dubiosity is removed. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

But there was another link that I removed in that edit, which was PediaPress. And you are right about 'explain both phenomena in a single framework'. But the sentence as a whole is dubious. Because it claims 'dark fluid is an alternative theory' (singular) while it looks to me like there are multiple (incompatible) proposals being cited. I said 'Synthesis' basically because Wikipedia is trying to present this as if there were only one theory. See above in the 'synthesis' talk page section. Wikipedia should make clear that there are multiple proposals, and which parts of the article correspond to which proposals. Contrast with the quantum gravity article. --99.238.163.176 (talk) (formerly 174.116.141.16) 23:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that is being overly nitpicky over words. The word "theory" is often used in a broad sense: when one talks of "the such-and-such theory" or "the theory of so-and-so," that can often include multiple different versions or models of said theory. "String theory," "germ theory," etc.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Firejuggler86. Case in point, the article for Quantum Field Theory does exactly the same thing: it refers to itself as one single theory, when in reality the word “theory” in this case is meant much more broadly, closer to a theoretical framework or basis in which various other more specific theories are based upon. String theory is a quantum field theory, as is the Standard Model, as are electron gas models in condensed matter physics, and as are topological quantum field theories. They all share the same core premise and mathematical framework QFT provides, but apply it differently.

If the dubious flag on this article is valid, then it needs to be added for the exact same reason on a similar sentence in the introduction that also refers to QFT as simply a single theory.

Likewise with string theory, which itself is a broad class of theories.

Likewise with dozens of other articles that are using theory in a broader but understood and acceptable way.

Or perhaps those articles are fine and do not need any dubious tag simply for using the word theory in a broader sense - and so too with this article.

Here, the theory is that dark energy and dark matter are ultimately two aspects of one mechanism. The papers share this same basic premise and thus are simply variations on an underpinning theory. If they were compatible, then they wouldn’t be variations.

Regardless, unless you’re prepared to mark a good deal of other articles introductions as dubious for exactly the same reason, this tag should be removed.

Metacollin (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Well it looks like the article has been cleaned up. I am still a bit 'dubious'. I accept the QFT analogy. What if you saw some Theory on the QFT page that involves the word Quantum, and the word Field, but, say, has no Lagrangian?

Reading the rest of the talk page above, I think what most concerned me in the first place was the claim that it 'reproduces inflation, quintessence, MOND' etc etc. That claim still remains, and it is still uncited. Does that actually fit into this theoretical framework? Because nothing in the rest of (what's left of) this article appears to modify GR. Maybe we should just delete that claim.

I restore the tag onto this claim. --2607:FEA8:86DC:80E0:D16A:E0AF:A138:F913 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) (formerly 174.116.141.16)