"Dark Matter" shouldn't be "Transparent Matter"???

[martillo]

It s said "Dark Matter" occupies about 90% of the Universe. If it was dark we would see quite nothing from the Universe in telescopes. We wouldn't see stars nor galaxies.
Actually it should be "Transparent Matter"!

 

[joigus]

Neither term would be precise in defining its properties. Dark matter is actually even weirder than transparent. Ordinary matter goes right through. It's not just transparent. Ghostly is more like it.

Edit: But you're right that "transparent" is more suggestive of what it is. There's a tradition in the wording of physics. It's more like book-keeping than concept-suggesting.

Edited July 22, 2020 by joigus
Addition

[Strange]

Perhaps this is an extension of Stigler's law of eponymy, which "states that no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy

[swansont]

It has murder in its soul. Very dark.

[Janus]

18 hours ago, martillo said:

It s said "Dark Matter" occupies about 90% of the Universe. If it was dark we would see quite nothing from the Universe in telescopes. We wouldn't see stars nor galaxies.
Actually it should be "Transparent Matter"!

 

I'll reiterate what I said elsewhere.  "dark matter" can be either MACHOS (objects like black holes) or WIMPs ( non-electromagnetically interacting particles).

While the majority is expected to be the later, this does not rule out some of it  even if only a small part, consisting of the former.  And it is only the latter that would be truly "transparent".

 

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

It has murder in its soul. Very dark.

That would be grave matter.