Of course, this may not bе actualized until many years in
the future, but consider the many spectacular physical
phenomena that are believed to bе true at this early point
in the 21st century.
To make the leap from that premise, to practical utilization of even the most grounded phenomenon from the paper's title, Dark Energy, is essentially "magical thinking" at best, and at worst, a deliberate waste of time.
Consider that dark energy isn't even an assuredly verifiable phenomenon. Dark energy is a place holder in equations with a theoretical gap in understanding for the fundamental mechanisms driving the behavior of observable systems. We can't explain certain noticeable details, but, the difference between conflicting concepts that do explain disparate observations, is where the assumption of a hypothetical dark energy to bridge the difference, as an idea to help resolve conflicting observations, comes into play. On paper.
A thousand years ago, we did not know that microbial life was responsible for fermenting food, but we weren't ready to tackle that gap in awareness, until the microscope was invented. Prior to the invention of the microscope, ideas like spontaneous generation were still plausible. Without the proper equipment to declare dark energy or extra dimensions or worm holes as tangible, grounded facts founded in direct evidence, these ideas themselves are simply grasping at straw to reconcile known truths.
Given that these concepts deal in cosmological theory, there isn't even a lab to test or prove facts in. Such ideas are based on connecting the dots between imagery gathered from telescopes, for the purpose of studying astronomy. We probably wouldn't be able to construct a laboratory, until we graduate to a space-faring civilization and succeed at it for a couple of generations.
