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.
The idea is that spacetime is a structure of dark matter with dark energy circulating in it, the presence of dark matter distinguishing false vacuum from true vacuum, and it being difficult to detect them for reasons analogous to it being difficult for a computer program to computationally detect the structure of the computer's CPU. No papers that I or chatgpt know of:
chatgpt speaks as if someone besides me has bandied the idea about, but doesn't seem eager to tell me who.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8113/40/25/S32/meta
seems like it might be kicking around something in the space; since its proposed hypothetical particle is immediately compared to the axion, that drives in the direction of esotericism.
@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.
@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.
@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
@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'
@mariopasquato Wait, what was your original intention? (There's a bunch of things you could be responding to there, not sure which you mean)