3 ms·
Does this remove the need for WIMPs and other exotic explanations for dark matter?
by philipov 1y ago
Does this remove the need for WIMPs and other exotic explanations for dark matter?
- om2 1y agoThis study accounts for missing ordinary matter, not dark matter. The linked article makes this clear in the first paragraph. Sometimes I wonder if the first commenters (and often top commenters) on HN read the article at all or just respond based on the headline, because these comments often seem barely related to the actual article content.
- BeetleB 1y ago> Sometimes I wonder if the first commenters (and often top commenters) on HN read the article at all ... From the HN guidelines: "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article."
- philipov 1y agoI had read the entire article, and it was not clear.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago> Unlike dark matter, ordinary matter emits light of various wavelengths and thus can be seen. But a large chunk of it is diffuse and spread thinly among halos that surround galaxies as well as in the vast spaces between galaxies. > Due to its diffuse nature, roughly half of ordinary matter in the universe went unaccounted for and had been considered "missing"—until now. Not being mean, genuine question: How would you improve the clarity of this?
- jbotz 1y agoThis has nothing to do with dark matter, it's about the missing baryonic matter. And this result just confirms what most people thought anyway, but it's still rather important because it's a very solid result so we don't need to call it "missing matter" anymore.
- nxpnsv 1y agoNo.