Zero point energy vs Dark energy

So I was watching a video on Zero point energy and the speaker mentioned that the so-called "Dark Energy" was the same thing as Zero point Energy, He also mentioned that he couldn't fathom "why" astronomers changed the "name" and now pretend that "dark energy" is all mysterious.

I have to say that it does seem a bit curious that Astronomy had to "invent" two new things (Dark energy, dark matter) to attempt to explain something that is covered rather nicely by two physics terms; Zero point energy and Quantum foam.

Any thoughts, comments...




It just seems to me that Astronomy is trying to obfuscate the reality of the Universe. And, it would seem that perhaps science knows more than some might like.

it is my understanding that there is no such thing as dark energy, because you cannot measure darkness, only lack of light. you won't see anyone shining a dark flashlight, so to speak and covering up light with it simply because it's has no source of energy to do it with.

tanka418
"dark energy" is all mysterious.

It is to some extent, even though it could very well be the same as ZPE or vacuum energy.

The problem is described to a limited degree in this explanation about how there are 5 different ways to describe it in physics, and you get different answers with different approaches. Unfortunately, no model calculates the value observed, and this is what it will probably take to solve the mystery:

What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?

People talk a lot about "vacuum energy" or "zero-point energy" - that is, the energy density of empty space. In cosmology, people also call this quantity the "cosmological constant", or "dark energy". Sometimes kooky people get really excited about the idea that if we could only use this energy somehow, all our problems would be solved. But first things first! Does this energy really exist? And if so, how much of it is there? ...

So, I've given you 5 answers to the same question:

VERY CLOSE TO ZERO
INFINITY
ENORMOUS BUT FINITE
ZERO
NOT DETERMINED

Which should you believe? I believe 1) because it is based on experiment and fairly conservative assumptions about general relativity and astronomy. Answers 2)-4) are based on somewhat naive theoretical calculations. Answer 5) is the best that quantum field theory can do right now. Reconciling answers 1) and 5) is one of the big tasks of any good theory of quantum gravity.

So according to Baez, a theory of quantum gravity should aspire to solve the mystery, and hopefully will give us a model that can predict the observed value. Then we might be able to say the mystery is solved, but until then, there is some mystery. Don't forget this involves one of the largest unsolved problems in physics known as the vacuum catastrophe.