Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2009.03890

Dark Matter = Modified Gravity? Scrutinising the spacetime-matter distinction through the modified gravity/ dark matter lens

Niels C. M. Martens·Dennis Lehmkuhl
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper scrutinises the tenability of a strict conceptual distinction between space(time) and matter via the lens of the debate between modified gravity and dark matter. In particular, we consider Berezhiani and Khoury's novel 'superfluid dark matter theory' (SFDM) as a case study. Two families of criteria for being matter and being spacetime, respectively, are extracted from the literature. Evaluation of the new scalar field postulated by SFDM according to these criteria reveals that it is as much (dark) matter as anything could possibly be, but also$-$below the critical temperature for superfluidity$-$as much (of a modification of) spacetime as anything could possibly be. A sequel paper examines possible interpretations of SFDM in light of this result, as well as the consequences for our understanding of (the importance of) the modified gravity/ dark matter distinction and the broader spacetime-matter distinction.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-phastro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Niels C. M. Martens, Dennis Lehmkuhl. 2020-09-08. Dark Matter = Modified Gravity? Scrutinising the spacetime-matter distinction through the modified gravity/ dark matter lens. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03890

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Price of Removing the Scaffolding: Maxwell wrote something about Ampère that years later would be done to him

In the history of physics, the name scaffolding has been given to whatever served to raise a theory and is afterwards removed because, it is said, it is no longer needed. This article documents, from the originals, what it cost Maxwell's theory when that method was applied to it: what was removed from it, who did it, with what argument, and how over the years it had to be recovered because it was understood that it was needed after all. It also records what Maxwell himself missed in Ampère, what he calls the traces of the scaffolding: the template with which Ampère himself had given shape to his work.

physics.hist-ph↗
arXiv2026

Piezoelectricity: A Brief History of its Discovery and Physical Principles Using the Example of Low Quartz

Piezoelectricity is a key phenomenon in solid-state physics and has significant technological relevance. In teaching, however, it is often treated either without a historical context or an explicit link to the microscopic crystal structure, meaning that a crucial level of understanding remains untapped. This study combines the history of the discovery of piezoelectricity with its physical description within a didactically coherent framework. Building on the work of the brothers, Jacques and Pierre Curie (1880 - 1882), it demonstrated how investigations into pyroelectricity led to the identification of polarization induced by mechanical compression in hemihedral crystals such as tourmaline and quartz. The development from early qualitative experiments towards the first quantitative determination of piezoelectric constants is traced in a structured manner. Using low quartz as an example, the microscopic cause of piezoelectricity was attributed to the asymmetric displacements of silicon and oxygen ions within the orthosilicate ion tetrahedral network. This leads to the formation of macroscopic polarization owing to uncompensated dipole moments in the crystal lattice. The direct and reciprocal piezoelectric effects are qualitatively distinguished and discussed in the context of mechanical-electrical coupling. The article is aimed at students in physics and engineering as well as lecturers. It was conceived as a didactic review article (tutorial article) and serves as a structured introduction to the physical and historical foundations of piezoelectricity.

physics.hist-ph↗
arXiv2026

$δ$-flatness and its natural extension

What, if anything, makes Minkowski spacetime a privileged local reference geometry in General Relativity? Recent work by \cite{WeatherallFletcher} argues: nothing. In response, I proposed a criterion of ``$δ$-flatness'', which bounds the magnitude of tidal acceleration within a tubular neighborhood by $δ$, and showed that Minkowski uniquely saturates the bound. Here I ask how $δ$-flatness generalises, and distinguish two kinds of extension. Reference-metric generalisations compare physical tidal acceleration with a reference tidal-force term constructed from another metric. Lorentzian signature obstructs every such comparison in which the reference fails to share the lightcones of the physical metric. Criterion modifications instead build the criterion from the physical geometry alone. The space of such modifications is wide, and I focus on those closest to $δ$-flatness, where one bounds the deviation of tidal acceleration from a non-zero target. The minimal candidate, which I call $δ$-MSS, has a singular limit that picks out the maximally symmetric spacetimes (Minkowski, de Sitter, Anti-de Sitter) via Schur's theorem. A restricted variant, which compares $g$ with a conformal rescaling of itself, either collapses to $δ$-MSS or fails to pick out a unique geometry. The chief result is that $δ$-flatness distinguishes Minkowski with no free parameter. $δ$-MSS, a weaker variant, picks out the maximally symmetric family at the cost of an externally supplied scalar.

physics.hist-ph↗