<p><em>As a disclaimer: This answer does not include references, and is mostly based on my first intuition when reading the question. I can see that it can potentially be an interesting question to discuss.</em></p>

<p>First, we live in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a galaxy cluster. That in itself means that there is a lot of matter around. We are also (at least very likely) living in an <em>overdensity</em> in the universe, meaning that there is extremely much matter where we are compared to the average in the universe. </p>

<p>If we assume that we do live in an underdensity of the universe, that would mean that there is more matter present in the universe on average compared to where we are. However, if <em>pockets</em> of space in a distribution of regular matter was dark matter, then it sounds like there would be a larger amount of regular matter than dark matter in the universe, something which does not agree with our estimates. </p>

<p>If we assume for a minute that it is the other way around (that we live in an area with a lot of <em>matter</em>, not a lot of <em>space</em>), then this theory will struggle with explaining some of the things that point towards the existence of dark matter. One such thing is the rotation curves of galaxies, which indicate that there is more mass presence than there is seen. I expect that there would not be enough space within a galaxy to create such "pockets" of space. Say, however, that we assume this was possible, then the voids we observe between galaxies and galaxy clusters would be even more gigantic pockets of space, which would mean that there would be an enormous amount of dark matter, which I would think would be inconsistent with what we see from the CMB. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-05T17:46:40.640Z
2016-07-05T17:46:40.640Z
nataliaeire
<p>Where we are, and in the conventional galaxies etc. that we see, there is a whole lot of relatively uniform space but in isolated places within that space, there are pockets of concentrated "mass" which is highly organised into all the objects we observe and study, and out of which we are made.</p>

<p>Now suppose that there were regions of space where that is all turned on its head, and there were huge vast swathes of relatively uniform matter, and within that matter there are pockets of "space" which is highly organised into some other form of object, out of which other objects and beings are made.</p>

<p>Obviously on the first, and simplest test - the question of "how much" dark matter there is, this theory passes the empirical test of reality with flying colours, i.e. astronomers seem to observe much more mass in the regions of hypothesised dark matter in accordance with what this conjecture implies.</p>

<p>What other testable predictions does this conjecture make, and how well do they fit our observations?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-05T09:15:21.530Z
I think one downfall of this theory is that gravity is only an attractive force, thus matter only attracts, and to form the sort of structure you're talking about would require a repulsive element. Just my first thought, but good idea!
Dean
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-05T09:18:25.220Z
@Dean Gravity attracting is equivalent to space attracting. As the distribution of each may only be measured in relation to the distribution of the other. That's a fact of relativity.
Robert Frost
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-05T09:41:27.300Z
So your saying that rather than have flat space with deep potential wells caused by mass, your saying there is flat distribution of mass with deep potential "hills" where space is concentrated?
Dean
<dark-matter><dark-energy>
Could dark matter be "inside-out" reality?
Robert Frost
# Could dark matter be "inside-out" reality?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-05)

Where we are, and in the conventional galaxies etc. that we see, there is a whole lot of relatively uniform space but in isolated places within that space, there are pockets of concentrated "mass" which is highly organised into all the objects we observe and study, and out of which we are made.

Now suppose that there were regions of space where that is all turned on its head, and there were huge vast swathes of relatively uniform matter, and within that matter there are pockets of "space" which is highly organised into some other form of object, out of which other objects and beings are made.

Obviously on the first, and simplest test - the question of "how much" dark matter there is, this theory passes the empirical test of reality with flying colours, i.e. astronomers seem to observe much more mass in the regions of hypothesised dark matter in accordance with what this conjecture implies.

What other testable predictions does this conjecture make, and how well do they fit our observations?

**Tags:** dark-matter, dark-energy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think one downfall of this theory is that gravity is only an attractive force, thus matter only attracts, and to form the sort of structure you're talking about would require a repulsive element. Just my first thought, but good idea!  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Gravity attracting is equivalent to space attracting. As the distribution of each may only be measured in relation to the distribution of the other. That's a fact of relativity.  
> **username_1**: So your saying that rather than have flat space with deep potential wells caused by mass, your saying there is flat distribution of mass with deep potential "hills" where space is concentrated?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-07-05. Score: 1

*As a disclaimer: This answer does not include references, and is mostly based on my first intuition when reading the question. I can see that it can potentially be an interesting question to discuss.*

First, we live in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a galaxy cluster. That in itself means that there is a lot of matter around. We are also (at least very likely) living in an *overdensity* in the universe, meaning that there is extremely much matter where we are compared to the average in the universe.

If we assume that we do live in an underdensity of the universe, that would mean that there is more matter present in the universe on average compared to where we are. However, if *pockets* of space in a distribution of regular matter was dark matter, then it sounds like there would be a larger amount of regular matter than dark matter in the universe, something which does not agree with our estimates.

If we assume for a minute that it is the other way around (that we live in an area with a lot of *matter*, not a lot of *space*), then this theory will struggle with explaining some of the things that point towards the existence of dark matter. One such thing is the rotation curves of galaxies, which indicate that there is more mass presence than there is seen. I expect that there would not be enough space within a galaxy to create such "pockets" of space. Say, however, that we assume this was possible, then the voids we observe between galaxies and galaxy clusters would be even more gigantic pockets of space, which would mean that there would be an enormous amount of dark matter, which I would think would be inconsistent with what we see from the CMB.


---

