Is "dark matter is what false vacuum is made of" mundane or esoteric?

Can you elaborate? Any papers on this?

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.

Dark energy and the false vacuum - IOPscience

Dark energy and the false vacuum, P Q Hung

This does not look like a mundane explanation

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?

@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

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)

@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

@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'

That was my original intention.

@mariopasquato Wait, what was your original intention? (There's a bunch of things you could be responding to there, not sure which you mean)

That “Other resolves YES if the answer is mundane according to the market description but doesn't meet any of the other options submitted”