3 ms·
Agreed. But we have to keep in mind that this is how science works. For example, if were strict, we could not say "there is an exoplanet orbiting that star", we
by yiyus 7y ago
Agreed. But we have to keep in mind that this is how science works. For example, if were strict, we could not say "there is an exoplanet orbiting that star", we could only say "there are a bunch of observations that make it seem as if there is an exoplanet orbiting that star". And if you take this to the extreme, we do not know if the star is there. It is the same for laws: nobody has observed gravity or GR, just their effects. We can get philosophic and wonder if we are here...
At some point, we have to assume that observations correspond to an external reality or everything gets meta. While I agree that it may be convenient to make more clear what we know about dark matter, it is not easy to find the perfect name and, it seems to me, not a task for physicist, who just need a name for the terms in their equations.
- pests 7y agoI completely agree with you. But what if these terms we're giving names to are just flat out just nonsense in the equations? Just a term to assign to the error to make the numbers work out?
- yiyus 7y agoThat is precisely the hypothesis of the article. It looks indeed like a plausible possibility. And a scary one, because we cannot just solve the equations with total precision. From my layman point of view, it looks like a very interesting but very difficult problem.