The Final Destination of Energy: Origin of Dark Matter and Dark Energy via Energy‑Level Degradation

Author: Zhang Suhang

Affiliation: Luoyang, Henan

Date: August 2026

Abstract

In the standard Λ‑CDM cosmological model, ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy are treated as three mutually independent, non‑interconvertible cosmic components. Dark matter is postulated to be undiscovered new elementary particles, while dark energy is approximated as a constant cosmological constant. Although this static‑component framework can fit portions of large‑scale observations, it has long suffered from three major theoretical crises: decades‑long null detection of dark‑matter particles, the 120‑order‑of‑magnitude vacuum‑energy catastrophe for dark energy, and the mass‑divergence paradox arising from the apparent superluminal expansion of distant galaxies.

Taking “energy is the sole physical reality” as the underlying postulate, this paper establishes a cosmic energy‑level‑degradation spectrum. Cosmic evolution is essentially a dynamic process in which a unified energy system continuously cools, de‑excites, dissipates, and undergoes phase transitions from high‑energy bound states. Ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy are not three distinct species of substance, but three steady‑state phases of the same energy ontology at different temperature energy levels.

Upon cooling and de‑excitation, matter first freezes the electromagnetic and weak‑interaction degrees of freedom and transforms into the Baryonic Dark Remnant (BDR) state. It exhibits the gravitational signatures of dark matter while evading particle‑detection signals entirely. When degradation proceeds further and temperature approaches absolute zero, the sign of the gravitational source term flips; gravitation switches from attractive to repulsive, giving rise to dark energy that drives cosmic accelerated expansion.

This paper further uncovers deep coupling between large‑scale cosmic evolution and local material properties. The negative‑pressure background of dark energy suppresses the gravitational binding energy of matter and simultaneously induces effective‑mass attenuation for celestial objects, thoroughly resolving the relativistic divergence paradox of superluminal expansion. Requiring no ad‑hoc exotic particles and no fine‑tuned cosmological constant, this self‑consistent continuous temperature‑driven degradation mechanism accounts coherently for core modern‑cosmology puzzles and yields two exclusive, quantitative, falsifiable observational predictions. Constrained by primordial‑nucleosynthesis bounds, BDR baryonic dark matter can contribute at most 18.4 % of the total dark‑matter budget; the model is compatible and complementary to existing particle‑dark‑matter scenarios.

Keywords: dark matter; dark energy; energy‑level degradation; gravitational reversal; effective mass; superluminal paradox; BDR

1. Introduction

The Λ‑CDM model is built upon static‑component partitioning. It divides cosmic energy into ordinary baryonic matter, cold dark matter, and a constant cosmological constant, and successfully reproduces the cosmic microwave background, large‑scale‑structure formation, and late‑time cosmic acceleration. Nevertheless, high‑precision surveys over the past decade (DESI, DES, XENONnT, LZ) keep exposing structural defects at the model’s foundation, yielding deep contradictions that cannot be resolved by parameter tuning or ad‑hoc patches.

First, the nature of dark‑matter puzzle. Leading candidates such as WIMPs and axions have yielded no definitive signals after decades of high‑precision underground searches. Tension between theoretical expectations and null experimental results keeps growing, suggesting that dark matter may not be a new particle but a special low‑temperature phase of known baryonic matter.

Second, the origin‑of‑dark‑energy catastrophe. Vacuum‑energy density computed from quantum field theory exceeds the observationally‑favoured cosmological‑constant value by 120 orders of magnitude, constituting the most severe theoretical mismatch in physics. Existing dynamical‑dark‑energy models only fit data a posteriori and lack first‑principles mechanisms rooted in material evolution.

Third, the superluminal‑expansion logical paradox. Hubble’s law yields apparent recession velocities for distant galaxies exceeding the speed of light. Special‑relativistic mass‑velocity relations would then predict mass divergence and disruption of cosmic structures. Cosmology attributes expansion to coordinate‑space stretching, which is merely a phenomenological evasion rather than a fundamental resolution of the mass‑divergence contradiction.

The shared root of all these difficulties is the static‑cognition fallacy embedded within Λ‑CDM: different evolutionary phases of energy are misidentified as intrinsically distinct material species. This paper proposes the energy‑level‑degradation paradigm: the universe possesses no fixed components and no immutable constants. All cosmic structures and evolution arise from continuous cooling‑driven de‑excitation and phase transitions of energy. Degradation of matter produces dark matter; deep degradation yields dark energy; the dark‑energy background in turn modulates the effective mass of matter, forming a dynamically‑closed‑loop universe with bidirectional matter‑spacetime coupling.

2. Energy‑Degradation Spectrum: Continuous Phase Transitions among Baryonic Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy

2.1 Baryonic Dark Remnant (BDR) and Global‑Energy Structure

All macroscopic cosmic‑matter energy can be decomposed into three fundamental topological‑energy‑storage terms, constituting a unified energy ontology:

E = \gamma m c^2 + \frac{e^2}{k_e} + \frac{g_s^2}{k_s}

The first term denotes relativistic mass‑energy associated with gravitation; the second term is electromagnetic topological‑energy from electric charge; the third term is strong‑interaction topological‑energy from colour charge.

‑ Ordinary high‑temperature matter: all three energy terms are fully activated; electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions are fully switched on; observable, detectable and coupled.

‑ BDR dark‑matter state: electromagnetic‑ and weak‑ and strong‑interaction topological energies freeze to zero. Only gravitational mass‑energy is retained. Gravitation remains active while all non‑gravitational interactions are silenced.

‑ Dark‑energy phase: all material binding‑energy dissolves and is fully converted into spacetime vacuum tension, giving global repulsive behaviour.

To quantify the degree of energy‑level activation of matter, we define the de‑excitation factor \zeta\in[0,1], representing the fraction of effective local energy relative to the fully‑activated state:

\zeta = \frac{E_{\text{local}} - E_{\text{ground}}}{E_{\text{active}} - E_{\text{ground}}}

Cosmic matter undergoes continuous de‑excitation via radiative dissipation and dynamical relaxation, following exponential‑relaxation time evolution:

\zeta(t) = \zeta_0 e^{-t/\tau}

where \tau is the cosmic characteristic de‑excitation timescale, matched to the decay of star‑formation rate and cosmic‑cooling timescale.

When \zeta drops below the dark‑matter critical threshold \zeta_{\text{DM}}, interaction cross‑sections are power‑law‑suppressed by the de‑excitation factor:

\sigma_{\text{EM}} \propto \zeta^2,\quad \sigma_{\text{weak}} \propto \zeta^4

Matter enters the Baryonic Dark Remnant (BDR) state, forming a dark‑matter component that emits no light, does not participate in electromagnetic or weak interactions, yet retains a gravitational skeleton.

This mechanism naturally accounts for two observational facts:

1. Null dark‑matter detections: underground particle searches rely on weak‑interaction signals. In BDR all non‑gravitational degrees of freedom are frozen, yielding no detectable signatures.

​

2. Cosmic baryon‑missing problem: part of the 30 %‑40 % missing cosmic baryons do not reside solely within warm‑hot intergalactic media; some cool and de‑excite diffusely into BDR and reside within galactic dark haloes.

Constrained by Planck‑satellite primordial‑nucleosynthesis results, the maximum possible fraction of dark‑matter contributed by fully‑degraded baryons is 18.4 %. This model does not exclude non‑baryonic dark‑matter candidates; it supplements a long‑neglected baryonic low‑temperature degradation channel for dark‑matter origin.

2.2 Gravitational Reversal: Deep‑Phase Transition from BDR to Dark Energy

Within general relativity, cosmic evolution is uniquely governed by the effective gravitational source term \rho+3P. The acceleration equation for the scale factor reads:

\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho+3P\right)

During matter‑ and BDR‑dominated epochs, pressure is non‑negative, \rho+3P>0. Spacetime is gravitationally attractive and the universe expands deceleratingly.

As BDR continues cooling and undergoes deep energy‑level degradation, the de‑excitation factor falls below the second critical threshold \zeta_{\text{DE}}. Material binding‑energy is fully released and converted into spacetime vacuum negative‑pressure fields satisfying:

P_{\text{DE}} = -\rho_{\text{DE}}

Substituting into the gravitational source term yields:

\rho_{\text{DE}}+3P_{\text{DE}} = -2\rho_{\text{DE}} < 0

The sign of the gravitational source term flips completely. Global gravitation turns repulsive and the universe enters the accelerated‑expansion epoch.

Core innovation of this paper: dark energy is not an extrinsic cosmic background, but the energy end‑state of deeply‑degraded matter. Dissipated binding‑energy of matter does not vanish; it is transformed into vacuum tension intrinsic to spacetime itself, accomplishing energy‑conserving flow from material energy to spacetime energy.

Physical correspondence with Riemannian geometry: in Riemannian formulations, the sign of spacetime curvature is not an a‑priori geometric prescription but a geometric projection of material‑energy distributions. Positive curvature corresponds to spacetime inward‑bending and gravitational attraction. Negative curvature is mathematically allowed yet long lacked concrete physical realisation. This framework assigns a definite physical entity to negative curvature:

\boxed{\text{Positive curvature }(k=+1)\leftrightarrow \text{Gravitational attraction (matter fully‑activated energy‑level)}}

\boxed{\text{Negative curvature }(k=-1)\leftrightarrow \text{Dark‑energy repulsion (fully‑degraded matter)}}

Thus the sign of Riemannian curvature is no longer an initial condition set at cosmic birth, but a real‑time geometric readout of evolving material energy levels. The long‑standing gap in general relativity — negative curvature possessing mathematical existence but no physical carrier — is filled by dark‑energy physics.

2.3 Temperature as the Unique Order Parameter for Cosmic Phase Transitions

Cosmic temporal evolution strictly correlates with global cooling. The time‑dependent de‑excitation factor can therefore be rewritten as an explicit function of temperature:

\zeta(T)=1-\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^\alpha,\quad \alpha>0

‑ T_c: global critical de‑excitation temperature, 10^{-3}\sim10^{-2}\ \text{K}, calibratable by next‑generation radio surveys.

‑ \alpha: phase‑transition exponent determined by material composition, ranging from 1 to 2.

Three cosmic phases are strictly temperature‑controlled:

1. T\gg T_c,\ \zeta\approx1: ordinary visible matter, all interactions fully active.

​

2. T\approx T_c,\ \zeta=\zeta_{\text{DM}}: BDR dark‑matter forms; gravitational structural skeleton is established.

​

3. T\ll T_c,\ \zeta\to0: gravitational reversal occurs; dark‑energy‑dominated cosmic acceleration sets in.

Since dark energy is dynamically produced by continuous material degradation, its density cannot be constant. A dynamical dark‑energy evolution equation naturally emerges (key observable prediction):

w(z)=-1+\epsilon\cdot(1+z)^{-\beta},\quad \epsilon>0,\ \beta>0

\epsilon\approx0.05 matches recent DESI observational offsets; \beta is set by the cosmic de‑excitation timescale. At high redshift (early universe), w\to-1 (matter‑dominated). At low redshift (late universe), w>-1 and dark‑energy strength keeps rising, in good agreement with modern dynamical‑dark‑energy observational trends.

2.4 Microphysical Self‑Consistency: Temperature‑Scale Coupling in Particle Annihilation

Microscopic QED processes supply bottom‑level support for energy‑level‑degradation theory:

‑ High‑temperature regime: photon pair production locks thermal energy into particle rest‑mass energy; T\uparrow\Rightarrow\zeta\uparrow (energy‑level excitation).

‑ Low‑temperature regime: electron‑positron annihilation converts mass‑energy into radiative heat; T\downarrow\Rightarrow\zeta\downarrow (energy‑level degradation).

Microscopic particle thermal‑energy‑coupling rules are homologous to macroscopic cosmic cooling‑de‑excitation mechanisms. This proves that the framework connects microphysics and cosmology without theoretical discontinuities or scale‑driven fractures.

3. Complete Resolution of the Superluminal‑Expansion Paradox (Central Causal Closed Loop of the Paper)

ΛCDM contains a fatal fracture: dark‑energy pushes space while material masses remain permanently fixed; the two do not interact. It cannot physically explain why apparent superluminal recession does not trigger mass divergence.

This paper constructs a complete causal chain: material degradation → dark‑energy generation → modification of gravitational background → effective‑mass attenuation. The century‑old paradox is fully resolved.

3.1 True Physical Nature of Cosmological Redshift

Cosmological redshift is not Doppler shift from space stretching. Instead, photons passively lose frequency as the global cosmic energy‑level declines:

\frac{\nu_{\text{obs}}}{\nu_{\text{emit}}}=\frac{\zeta(t_{\text{obs}})}{\zeta(t_{\text{emit}})}=\frac{1}{1+z}

Distant galaxies do not possess genuine superluminal bulk motion. Large redshifts are cumulative signatures of cosmic energy‑level degradation along the photon path.

3.2 Bidirectional Coupling: Dark‑Energy Negative‑Pressure Background and Material Effective Mass

In the late universe, ongoing BDR‑to‑dark‑energy phase transitions establish negative‑pressure dominance where \rho+3P changes sign. This macroscopic spacetime background acts back upon local matter, lowering gravitational binding‑energy and weakening gravitational‑coupling strength.

Energy liberated by material degradation becomes dark‑energy vacuum tension; conversely the dark‑energy negative‑pressure environment induces “effective‑mass reduction” in matter, forming a conservation‑closed loop:

m_{\text{eff}}=m_0\cdot\left(1-\frac{\rho_{\text{DE}}}{\rho_{\text{DM}}+\rho_{\text{DE}}}\right)=m_0\cdot\zeta(T)

This relation represents the most innovative causal result of this paper:

1. The higher the dark‑energy fraction, the weaker the global gravitational background.

​

2. The deeper the material de‑excitation, the smaller the effective gravitational mass.

​

3. Apparent superluminal motion corresponds to extreme cosmic cooling‑de‑excitation: \zeta\to0 and m_{\text{eff}}\to0.

Relativistic mass‑divergence is completely eliminated. Distant objects are not moving at relativistic explosion‑like velocities; they undergo cooling‑driven degradation and effective‑mass reduction. The superluminal illusion is a natural observational outcome of late‑universe dark‑energy dominance, global gravitational‑field attenuation, and overall mass‑lightening of cosmic objects.

Gravitational reversal, dark‑energy dominance, effective‑mass reduction, and resolution of the superluminal paradox are unified within one single degradation mechanism, repairing logical dead‑ends of old‑style cosmology.

4. Two Falsifiable Observational Predictions

The model yields two exclusive, quantitative, discriminative astronomical predictions distinct from all existing dark‑matter / dark‑energy frameworks, satisfying strict scientific testability.

4.1 Prediction 1: Redshift‑Gradient Evolution of the Dark‑Energy Equation‑of‑State

w(z)=-1+\epsilon\cdot(1+z)^{-\beta}

Key criterion:

\left.\frac{dw}{dz}\right|_{z=0}>0

With increasing redshift, w departs further from -1. As cosmic time proceeds, dark‑energy strength increases with prominent dynamical behaviour.

If future Euclid / Roman‑telescope observations confirm that w is strictly constant, the degradation‑driven dark‑energy mechanism of this paper is falsified. Current DESI data already show significant dynamical offsets consistent with this model.

4.2 Prediction 2: Small‑Bias Gravitational Lensing for Extremely‑Cold Compact Objects

Ancient cold white dwarfs and interstellar compact remnants approaching absolute zero undergo local deep de‑excitation and produce weak repulsive corrections:

\theta=\theta_{\text{Newton}}\cdot\left(1-\eta\zeta^2\right)

Prediction: compact objects cooler than 1000 K exhibit systematically smaller gravitational‑lensing deflection angles than Newtonian expectations. Deviations lie in the 10^{-5}\sim10^{-4} arc‑second range, testable by next‑generation GAIA and VLBI high‑precision astrometry. Absence of such bias would rule out the low‑temperature gravitational‑degradation mechanism.

5. Conclusions

Discarding static‑component dogmas of Λ‑CDM, this paper establishes a temperature‑governed cosmic energy‑level‑degradation paradigm, yielding four transformative conclusions:

1. A baryonic origin channel for dark‑matter: ordinary baryonic matter, upon cooling, freezes non‑gravitational interactions and forms BDR dark‑matter. It naturally explains null‑detection results and baryon‑missing puzzles while respecting BBN observational bounds.
​
2. First‑principles physical origin for dark‑energy: dark‑energy is neither a cosmological constant nor an external exotic field. It represents spacetime vacuum tension after deep material cooling and gravitational reversal, the ultimate energy‑degradation endpoint of matter.
​
3. Bidirectional coupling between spacetime and matter: rising dark‑energy weakens the global gravitational background and simultaneously attenuates celestial‑object effective masses. The relativistic mass‑divergence paradox of superluminal expansion is fundamentally resolved, establishing a dynamically‑conserved universe.
​
4. Strict scientific testability: two exclusive quantitative predictions can be decisively checked by upcoming surveys; the theory is confirmable, falsifiable and iteratively improvable.

This theory upgrades patch‑work static old‑cosmology to a unified, dynamic, closed‑self‑consistent evolutionary cosmology governed by energy‑phase transitions. If observationally validated, cosmology will depart permanently from static‑component classification and enter a new paradigm centred upon energy‑level‑phase‑transition evolution.