If a mundane explanation for the phenomena thought to be due to dark matter is found, what will it be?
31
243
1.3k
2034
46%
Something related to stellar physics
45%
Other
36%
Something related to Shape Dynamics
31%
Unexpected GR solutions
17%
Weird effects in N-body dynamics
12%
Primordial asteroid sized black holes
12%
Large scale electromagnetic fields
7%
Instrumental errors in observations
Resolved
N/A
Axions

Mundane means no new particles, no new forces, no upheaval of GR, no major changes in our understanding of textbook cosmology. For instance dark matter somehow being allowed to be baryonic goes against textbook cosmology. Somehow generating primordial black holes does not, imo.

Feel free to add your answers.

In ten years from now I will resolve NA if a non-mundane explanation is found (e.g. MOND or some suitable DM particle) or if dark matter is still an unsolved problem.

Otherwise I will resolve yes the answer(s) that I deem to be correct in my interpretation of the scientific consensus of the time.

IMPORTANT: Axions were added as an option. IMO they are NOT a mundane explanation. Change my mind or I will have to resolve that option NA

Resolved axions to NA. Reasoning: axions are not mundane.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

To those who are betting up “something related to stellar physics” keep in mind that interstellar gas also follows non-keplerian rotation curves

Shouldn’t this be the type of market where all the percentages add up to 100? Only 1 of these, if any, can resolve right?

bought Ṁ2 Something related to... NO

@Rocks No, I don't think so. What if an unexpected GR solution is found that is also a weird effect in N-body dynamics? I can see options overlapping and contributing to a solution, especially if new options are added freely.

Are axions mundane? Debate

@mariopasquato IMPORTANT: in my opinion (as an astrophysicist) axions are not a mundane solution to dark matter. But maybe they are to theoretical or particle physicists. Absent a compelling argument for axions being mundane I will NA this one in a week.

@mariopasquato I agree with you

@Fion I mean, they are a new particle after all

bought Ṁ1 Instrumental errors ... NO

Unfortunately the new fees structure heavily distinctivises participating in conditional markets, especially if you believe NA is the most likely outcome (which I do). I've made some token bets, but I won't do more than that.

@Fion Right… I also believe NA is quite likely.

Can you check your question type? There's no option to add anything (and more specifically no "Other" to bet on)

bought Ṁ5 Large scale electrom... NO

@JureSmolar Added :)

@JureSmolar I thought I selected the type of question where anyone can add an answer. Does that not work for you?

@mariopasquato I see it now, though I have a feeling it’s in a different place than I remember it; did the ui change (at least on the mobile website which I’m guessing not many people use)? Or I was just blind earlier haha

bought Ṁ5 Other NO

@TheAllMemeingEye How exactly does Other resolve though?

@Nat I assume Other resolves YES if the answer is mundane according to the market description but doesn't meet any of the other options submitted

@TheAllMemeingEye I mean that was my assumption as well I just have no idea why it was at such a high probability if that's the case, especially given the existence of broad answers like "Something related to stellar physics", and given the fact that anyone can just add the correct answer when it starts to become clear that we might have found a solution.

@Nat right, it didn't occur to me that since new answers aren't splitting out of Other it doesn't equate to any answer that hasn't been added yet, I guess for that we just have to bet no on everything

On a side note I do kinda feel that too broad answers should be n/a'd, otherwise we'll get options like 'something'

More related questions