3 ms·
It's a placeholder in the sense that we don't know specifically what it is though, right? No cosmologist uses "matter" when they mean "protons" for example.
by danparsonson 2y ago
It's a placeholder in the sense that we don't know specifically what it is though, right? No cosmologist uses "matter" when they mean "protons" for example.
- the__alchemist 2y agoYes; it's still reasonably broad. (MACHOs? WIMPs?) But this is still, in terms of all possible explanations for observations re rotation curves, and the Bullet Cluster etc, well defined. It includes a lot of possibilities, but also excludes.
- uoaei 2y agoUnreasonably narrow, rather! We have not convinced anyone, much less done the proper science, to stick to our guns so long that it is truly matter we are hunting to explain this phenomenon.
- elashri 2y ago> No cosmologist uses "matter" when they mean "protons" for example. They will call that "baryonic matter".
- danparsonson 2y agoNo, they'd call them protons; baryons are a class of particles, of which protons are a member.
- elashri 2y agoThis is what a particle physicist use the term for. But for cosmologist on the question of matter composition they will use the term in different way. I was replying to exactly the quote from your reply.
- uoaei 2y agoThe point is, it's already a theory to even suggest it's "matter" and not any other explanation.
- devoutsalsa 2y agoIt certainly doesn't matter yet. I'll see myself out.
- floxy 2y ago>No cosmologist uses "matter" when they mean "protons" for example. Don't astronomers call elements like neon metals? Maybe cosmologists don't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity