And what do "quanta" and "cosmology" have in common?  Energy.  To simply categorize physics as "the study of everything" is imperceptive.  When modeling sand falling into a pile (or nuts sorting in a jar) a physicist doesn't really care about the identity of the particles at hand, just certain "bulk" properties that relate to its energetics.  The chemist tries to understand how the material composition in turn generates those energetic qualities, but then usually isn't capable of formulating the dynamic description of what happens when it's shaken (or spilled).  A physicst usually could care less about why niobium is better for a collider than copper, just that it is.  And chemists don't just care about chemical elements and compounds, there is a whole field of chemistry dedicated to monitoring interactions of nuclei with nucleons (nuclear chemistry)  still matter.  As a point of culture, chemists tend to focus on the diversity of matter and how that affects interactions with energy and physicists focus on the unity of energy, and how that affects matter.  Physical chemists very nicely bridge this  they put quite a bit of energetics while still caring deeply about the identity of that which is being studied.  While the duality may sound a bit contrived, there is definitely some truth to the statements, and while not perfect, it's more meaningful than what's there now.