What Is Dark Matter? An Astrophysicist Explains | Edge Of Knowledge | Ars Technica
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- We see evidence for dark matter everywhere we look but proving hypotheses around it has been exceptionally difficult. Astrophysicist Paul Sutter explains everything about this mystery in a way almost anyone can understand - what we know about dark matter, what don’t, and how we’re trying to find out more.
Read more here: arstechnica.com/science/2022/...
Find more with Dr. Paul Sutter here:
Website: pmsutter.com
UA-cam: / paulmsutter
Twitter: / paulmattsutter
Facebook: / paulmattsutter
Instagram: / paulmattsutter
Tiktok: / paulmattsutter
Video courtesy of:
ESA and the Planck Collaboration
www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Im...
CC BY-SA IGO 3.0ESO/L. Calçada
www.eso.org/public/unitedking...
Connect with Ars Technica:
Visit ArsTechnica.com: arstechnica.com
Follow Ars Technica on Facebook: / arstechnica
Follow Ars Technica on Google+: plus.google.com/+ArsTechnica/...
Follow Ars Technica on Twitter: / arstechnica - Наука та технологія
Imagine a dark matter version of our world trying to figure out luminous matter lol
And they getting mad over the fact in doesn't interact with the non-light!
They wouldn’t know it is “light” as for them we would be “dark”!
Spirits
@@DivineHellas what an appropriate name!
The dark matter periodic table over here looking edgy
Even if I take nothing else from this video, the notion that *neutrinos are dark matter so we have proof some of it exists* is mind-blowing.
Mostly mind-blowing because it's the first time I've heard this, I still thought dark matter was only hypothesized, while I very well knew about neutrino-detecting labs.
Neutrino's aren't dark matter in the Dark Matter sense . They have been predicted to be and are an integral part of physics since the 1930's.
Yes, it baffles me how rare that is for someone to say that simply and clearly, because it is the only thing precluding more fundamental questions like "isn't it possible that your models are just wrong?" that many people naturally have upon hearing everything else commonly said about Dark Matter and Energy.
Well neutrinos are more like dark-matter’s less shy relative. Even if neutrinos rarely interact with the other matter - they still do interact. The “true” dark matter doesn’t interact yet has a large gravitational impact on the normal matter - that’s what makes it a lot more strange than neutrinos!
@@Boris99999 Thank you!! That gave me the clarity I was looking for
Maybe the real dark matter were the friends we made along the way
That's deep.
That's what she said-Michael Scott
Nice 👍
stupid is intelligent
That’s racist
I'm grateful for y'all's contagious excitement. Personally, this vid is an important and beautiful reminder that we're all starstuff, figuring things out one mystery at a time. It made me proud of humans, and not many things have done that lately. I appreciate your time and knowledge! 🙏🌌
Dr. Sutter! That guy is everywhere and and that is AWESOME!
This guy can literally wake me up in the middle of the night and lecture me about this stuff and I would not mind it at all. Such a pleasant way of teaching
He's everywhere like Dark Matter
I would love being friends with a guy like him.
Hey new friend!
Me too
I wanna go dark matter hunting with him. If we plan right and are really, really, sneaky-we just might catch a glimpse.
Play D&D more.
Hey new friend!
You did a wonderful job with the explanations. It was funny and informative, which is a hard line to walk.
Oh...i am studying english online
be my friend
@@Imaworldstar-jw3yj How are your studies going?
Awesome vid, love your passion and the wacky camera action keeps it exciting.
liked subscribed and belled.....this guy is really fun and entertaining in his delivery, and that helps complex information go down much more easily 👏 👍 super cool video and lesson!!!! 🤩
The fact that dark matter doesn’t interact with matter , just breaks my brain , and I love it 😂
Its kinda black magic
Actually it does
This is a such a cool video, the intro makes this feel like it's an HBO special! The rest feels like a seminar haha but an interesting one
💯
good presentation of the material
It reminds me during undergrad astronomy class, professor basically said we know a lot about the baryonic matter, only a little about dark matter and almost nothing about dark energy...
What a wonderful video, and Paul Sutter is always smart, fun, and entertaining,
His awesome energy makes me highly aware that I'm sitting and stuffing my face
Wow! Amazing episode. Great overview of DM and the efforts to find it. Also, fantastic production qualities but one small comment - lose the overhead camera.
I heard from another presenter you probably know (Dr. Gay) that in addition to the lack of mass neutrinos are too hot to be a candidate for DM. Is there some theory that says massive neutrinos would be colder and a better candidate? One last question: Do you lecture at your university and are your lectures on-line?
Hello i am studying english online
be my friend
...A new must watch channel...
Love your work ❣️
Thank you
Loved the video ❤️🙏
When we were first starting to look at the quantum world. One of the 1st questions we asked were thing discreet ( like peas ) or was it continuous ( like mashed potatoes). Should we be asking the same questions when looking at dark matter or dark energy? Just a thought 🤔
Is it possible that dark matter doesn't consist of particles? Could gravitational effects be more akin to fields interacting in some unknown way?
The presenter ruled out the modified gravity explanation at the beginning. However, I remember Sabine Hossenfelder talking about it in this video: ua-cam.com/video/4_qJptwikRc/v-deo.html . It might answer this question for you (or give more questions to ask).
I was wondering something similar.
Fields interacting is matter.
@@frosted1030 that's why I said in an unknown way.
@@noahtipton7302 It would be known if there was an answer. Could it? Who knows. No way to tell.
Great video. I get it now.
Excellent, thanks 😊
I've always wondered: what happens to dark matter when it hits a black hole? Since black holes are just extremely curved spacetime this should affect dark matter as well...
great dear! you nailed it
Thank you!
Can we try a different light source? Like a UV vs LED vs florescent.🤷🏾♀️but maybe at a specific temperature
One of my fav astrophysicist
Ha! Cash register sound when his book appears... Hilarious... Well done.
Seriously, it is hard for me to understand what they said in this video. But i am just fascinated by the name dark matter. Recently got interested in the science stuff. Got a google many of the things they have mentioned in the video.
I really want to everything about the universe. It seems so interesting,scary and fun.
where can I buy this book
4:48
Damn ok I was never expecting to be flexed on by a chalkboard
Bro wtf. First he says dark matter cannot interact with "our" matter. Then suddenly it can and we are supposedly hunting for it.
we don't believe it interacts with light in a way we can observe. neutrinos don't interact with light and we can detect them, and are dark matter. we're looking for more or different types of dark matter to explain the excess or remainder. we haven't found out how to detect it yet. those statements weren't made abundantly clear.
dark matter does not interact electromagnetically, so it cannot collide with other matter and does not affect light, but it does interact gravitationally which is why we can detect it in the first place (the example of galaxies spinning faster than expected). Gravity is by far the weakest force so this makes it very hard to detect dark matter particles but easy to see their combined effects on galaxy scales.
They should call this "theory" dork matter.
The earth is Flat. Dark matter is the aether and waters above. Space is not an infinite vacuum. Earth is the center of the cosmic universe which rotates around Polaris
What if it's just a function of the formulas governing the code of the planet-sized supercomputer our universe is simulated in?
I keep thinking "reticulating splines" every time I see a graphic of the expansion of our universe.
I like the idea that dark matter is gravity bleeding through from the other dimensions where the laws of physics are ever so slightly different.
That's a great theory.
Thanks, other dimensions with different laws of physics seems likely because our universe has certain values tied to the laws of physics (stong force, weak force, etc) that make our universe with it's stars and planets possible. Now that could be because of intelligent design (sounds nice, but unlikely), or there are multiple universes and we happen to be in the one where these values make everything we know possible.
this is more or less the answer staring the overthinkers in the face.
wait so if dark matter were to prove the matter/anti-matter symmetry, would it be somewhat like anti-matter?
So can you explain away the dark matter viscosity problem?
My brain melted. But it's is an interesting topic.
The only Astrophysicist I wouldn't mind having a beer with.
Why do stars form like pearls on a necklace? Can you measure the fields located between the stars from this string of pearls? This incredibly powerful Birkeland Current is missing from your equation.
The weight of the stuff in the fish tank includes or excludes the dark matter in the tank?
Is dark matter so diffuse that its spread across the solar system in even density? Or does it interact with gravitational waves in such a way that it can orbit bodies or even sink inside of them? Am I made entirely of baryonic matter, or is there a certain amount of dark matter clinging to my mass? Are there experiments we can do with things like testing angular momentum/ launching a projectile in a vacuum to see expected arcs and movement if we only accounted for baryonic matter? I got so many questions
I feel like it's more like a state between solid and liquid with property of a blanket if you stretch it out it when you put a object in the middle then it will have a equal amount of mass to hold it
No James, that's not it. Watch the video again. Dark matter can't be explained by wild random guesses.
Dr. Thomas Charles Van Flandern, an expert in celestial mechanics, but apparently politically constrained in what he could say, indicated different frequencies are due to different light speeds, and at the time it made no sense to me as I took it to mean he was saying there were multiple light speeds at the same point in space. Eventually it became apparent to me that lightspeed could be gravity sensitive, that it gravitationally speeds up to gravitationally blueshift. After that, what Van Flandern said made perfect sense to me, he was talking about the same photon under different gravities. The only argument against variable light speed might as well be attributed to a revolutionary flatworm creation of bent-spacetime groomers, a theoretical decay effect of light bending, as if light and gravity fields cannot exchange energies directly.
Puffs blunt, we are in a giant neutrino
Combine:
1. Nxy = number of superpositions per m^2= wave function frequency
2. Cosmological constant in Dxy stretching spacetime [m^-2] = lp^2/λ^4= lp^2 Nxy ^2 [m^2] [m^-4]
3. Schrodinger solution
4. Einstein E= m c^2
Result: dark matter = superpositions (recoherence) of the neutrino (Axion?) which gives the neutrino extra mass
Dxy = lp^2/λ^4= lp^2 Nxy^2
Nxy = sqrt(Dxy / lp^2)= (Dxy / lp^2) ^0.5
Nxy = sqrt ( 1.1056 10^-52 / 2.612 10^ -70) = 0.65 10^9
Schrodinger solution:
Nxy^2 h^2 / ( 8 m L^2) = m c^2
8 m L^2 m c^2= Nxy^2 h^2
m ^2= Nxy^2 h^2 /( 8 L^2 c^2)
m = + - (Nxy^2 h^2 0.125 L^-2 c^-2)^0.5
m= (0.42 10^18 43.9 10^-68 8.99 10^-16)^0.5
= 166 10^-33 kg
= 0.931 Mev/c^2 ( all superpositions).
1 particle = 166 10^-33/ ( 0.65 10^9) = 255 10^-42 kg = 0.143 10^-3 eV/c^2 Axion?
dark matter = superpositions (recoherence) of the neutrino (Axion ?) which gives the neutrino extra mass
Recoherence foton = dark matter?
ua-cam.com/video/5YDBS7xagwA/v-deo.html
Strictly speaking, at 8:02 it'd not be "proving one of these hypotheses right", it would be "eliminating many of these hypotheses". I always understood scientific theory to mean that a hypothesis can be proven wrong, but it can't be proven right
making a repeatable experiment with observable and replicable results most certainly proves a theory to be correct or incorrect or at least correct to our level of measurement and understanding. think about something simple like theorizing how gases change volume at different temperatures. do a bunch of experiments, plot the data, and you'll see the relationship is PV=nRT. before Boyle conducted experiments to prove his ideal gas law, it was a theory as to how the items functioned.
A hypothesis will be shown to either hold or not hold, i.e. be correct or incorrect. If it is shown to be incorrect, a new hypothesis is formed.
Once you gather enough understanding of a phenomenon, you can formulate a theory - a logical/mathematical model of how that phenomenon behaves. The theory should be able to explain observed behavior and accurately predict future behavior as the parameters change.
If behavior is observed that does not fit with an established theory that's worked reliably up until that observation is made, a lot more investigation, measuring and examination needs to take place to make sure the observed results are accurate. At that point, the theory will need to be adjusted (maybe it was missing a parameter that had very little contribution up until now?) or a new, better theory needs to be formed.
Even theories that don't work in extreme scales can be useful for normal needs, as they are usually simpler than a more correct theory that works over a greater value range - such as Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. If you go very large (planetary/stellar scale), Newtonian mechanics will give incorrect results, whereas general relativity will match reality better. Newtonian mechanics will still be accurate enough if you need to figure out the mechanics of a car on a hill, or the trajectory of a cannonball.
The third term in this group is "law" - and a law of mathematics or physics is usually a (relatively) simple observation that has never been shown to be false. For example, energy in a closed system will remain constant - it can be moved around and it can change form, but no new energy can be created and no energy can be destroyed.
There's a multitude of international physics prizes you can win if you can demonstrate a law of physics being incorrect.
Dark matter is key to observing different points in time at the same space.
What are the products of fusion? Do they produce something that when they travel to deep space where temperature goes down they form dark matter and dark energy?
What if it has really low frequency or really high frequency wave that we can't achieve yet.
Paul sutter : I'm so excited omg i have so many questions 🥹
Janna: Calm down bro 🤦🏽♂️
Way above my level but, hey! Least I have one of them fancy flipping chalkboard too
If space time twist like galaxies, it will be more dense towards the center, or dark matter is another space time structure, same particles, but different structure.
I'm glad he mentioned 'theory' at one point.
theory doesn't make it automatically untrue. In fact quite the opposite. People say "evolution is just a theory" like it's some kind of gotcha, when in reality, they don't understand what the word theory actually means and just look even more foolish.
the lady was really excited on telling science stuff, you can see her smile
I have a few theories that I don't usually see on the internet
Given what I've learned about dark matter over the years none of the detection methods make sense anymore, we're trying to detect a matter type we cant see or interact with by looking for it and seeing if it interacts with normal matter. We know it interacts with gravity and therefore time because spacetime but we dont see it interacting with much else. Unless it interacts electromagnetically, say by causing chaotic perturbations in electromagnetic fields then gravitational detection may be the only way. My personal theory is that it's either just a new form of matter created by black holes and replacing normal matter as a new study suggests, a form of matter which sits in a higher dimension therefore it only interacts with certain fields such as gravity or it is a form of matter which isnt even in our universe, that we see actual matter but only the gravitational shadow of it from another universe overlapping with ours in a weird almost metaphysical way
Also what if there are many different types of dark matter akin to our normal matters periodic table
It’s a math “fudge” we’re pretending is real until we figure out a better understanding of what gravity is. Like claiming you just sailed over an edge and vanished if you sailed in a straight line long enough before we learned the Earth was round.
Brainiacs make great friends they would figure out a number of outcomes for a situation if you needed concrete anwsers, great conversations, you never be bored if you wanted to explore and do stuff with US ect 🙂
The apparent effect of Dark Matter might 'just' as well be our complete lack of understanding of some key aspect of the Universe. Like that story some time ago with the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Mind you ,I will never doubt the knowledge and education of a professional astrophysicist, but it's not like Dark Matter hasn't been searched for!
Yes because we are not in an infinite vacuum. The Earth is Flat.
All matter and energy hold the potentiality for spawning life which leads to variables whose actions can be altered based on their observation of the universe. Dark matter cannot form in such a way that it’s byproduct (life) can become affected by observation of the universe. If we break all life down as nothing more than matter and energy with varying degrees of behavioral predictability, we find that reacting to the universe is itself the missing variable in the equations.
Why is this not on Paul Sutter channel?
I have many questions mainly to do with observable phenomena that we should see more of that we don't, or so I believe.
1. If dark matter interracts with gravity, should it or why does it not attract itself to create dark matter bodies like planets or stars? If it does, shouldn't we possibly see galaxies with invisible cores or with significantly less stars for their size than they should?
2. If it doesn't react with its own gravitational field, then why would they interact with gravitational fields from visible matter. Would that then make dark matter a universal filler like aether? If so, why would galaxies stay connected since the force of gravity would be diffused throughout the universe and galaxies are only traveling through clusters that make them stable but then they're annihilated once they leave the higher concentrated areas?
3. Assuming that dark matter cannot react to the gravity fields of itself but can react with with those made by visible matter, then wouldn't we see different concentrations in planetary cores? Why wouldn't we see celestial bodies with significantly more gravitational force than others of a similar or exact same mass? Would it even be possible to calculate a universal gravitational constant associated with visible matter? On that note, if it makes up 80%-90% of the universe, wouldn't we also be able to detect more black holes and even black holes that don't have enough mass to sustain the gravitational force necessary to sustain one to begin with? Even if they're small enough that the Hawkin's Radiation, then shouldn't we be able to detect smaller spontaneous black holes being created all the time?
4. Assuming dark matter has the properties of the 3rd point, then we could assume that in the creation of the solar system that there would be a ring of it orbiting around the Earth or any of the other planets or even sun (or a sphere if it can't collide with itself) creating a gravitational field that would be easiest to detect with a sensor on a satellite? On that note, if it can't collide with itself, wouldn't there be a similar sphere around the galaxy that would have the mass necessary to rip stars and systems out of their current orbits around all galaxies, in different vectors so that disc-shaped galaxies would be rare?
5. How do we explain the existance of galaxies without dark matter, ones where their mass is sufficient to sustain orbit? Theories persist that their dark matter was stripped by nearby galaxies, but- considering the abundance of it-why would it leave any of the visible matter behind instead of the galaxies merging?
Please help me understand the theoretical properties of dark matter since I've had a ridiculously hard time finding any information on the subject, instead, just the evidence we've seen that leads us to assume its existence.
The NFW model made me lol hahahaha
I might know a location where it can be found
I wish he is my Professor back then in highschool :)
Assuming the assumptions made in interpreting the measurements are correct, which implies there is a lot of "extra invisible mass" in the universe, then that "dark matter" is simply ordinary matter which is too dark to observe by current instruments! For example, comparing old photographs of galaxies, with modern deep imaging, reveals far more faint material in the outer parts of all of the galaxies. This explains that the "discrepant" galaxy rotation curve rates found by Vera Rubin are due to faint ordinary matter, not some elusive exotic "dark matter" which extensive search has failed to identify.
I want that book. Imma get that book.
I wonder if dark matter could actually be bumps in the curvature of spacetime.
Hello, im doing some research into why dark matter is predicted. I understand that the origin is the discrepancy of galactic rotation curves or simply the speeds of the orbits dont calculate correctly taking into account the mass density. My question is this, is dark matter solely based on that and that only, the speeds were measured and its not normal. Anything else or is that it?
We are beginning from the assumption that Relativity is correct. But if it can't explain the existence of 85% of matter of the universe, is it possible that the theory is fundamentally wrong? Instead of looking at the mystery of the 'dark matter', could it be that our glasses with which we were looking at them was faulty in the first place?
Perhaps, if you account that Matter and Antimatter werent the only ones in the beginning of the universe, you may know why it wasnt annihilated.
In the beginning there was 5 types of matter:
1. Very Heavy-Matter ( Interacts with Strong Force / Magnetism ) / 50%
2. Heavy-Matter ( Interacts with Weak Force / Gravity ) / 30 %
3. Common Matter ( Projects Magnetism / Gravity ) / 20 %
4. Very-Light Matter ( Dont interact with Matter/Antimatter )
5. Antimatter ( Rarely interact with Matter, due to Heavy Matter forces, and does not have forces property. )
You know that you cannot destroy matter, so you are missing that when an Anti-Particle hits its Particle,
It unleashes energy which decays to Very-Heavy Matter / Dark Matter. This can be proved with the expansion of the universe itself.
I thought that was Sean Evans from Hot Ones for a second... well this is different lol
It has to be equivalent to gravitational pull of the planets like a tug of war stalemate
It's unmeasured light
If regular matter equals energy then antimatter also equals anti-energy. What if this anti-energy state doesn't interact with the regular matter/energy, the way anti'matter' does, but it behaves like dark energy instead? What if dark energy is anti-energy form of antimatter?
Antimatter is “regular matter” in this sense and still “equals” energy. It’s just normal matter with opposite electric charge to what we are mostly surrounded by and made up of.
I like this guy. Almost like a new Bill Nye but very much his own vibe
Is Dark Matter attracted by stars and other gravity, does it interact with gravity?
I still don’t get it
I encourage people to check out Pavel Kroupa's latest interview on how the dark matter community is now more cultlike than ever (see Axioms on Trial for the video)
The earth is flat. Dark matter doesn't exist because space is not an infinite vacuum
As complex and varied as the world of matter (that we presume we know) is, it seems that the world of dark matter would be just as, if not more diverse, with many varying gravitational and density complexities. The con"cern" is (like what I did there?) we find one...or two particles lets say out of hundreds, or thousands, or millions and get excited and start playing with forces we are ignorant to and presumptuous in our small scope of knowledge. I just hope zeal doesn't overtake patient, prudent science
Maybe Dark Matter is simply The Void (vaacum) of Space where there is no pressure at absolute 0.
Any takers?
it’s almost like we’re fish trying to detect water
For me it looks more in favor to a mond theory. It seems like the gravity force as we know doesnt fit for distances for far beyond 10k light years. Everything actually and simply fails after that, therefore the anomalies with all galaxy rotation curves, clusters and deep universe - therefore dark matter, therefore dark energy. Additionally, we still cant combine gravitational force with other fundamental forces of nature. Thats very obvious for me that our thought of gravity is simply wrong. I am very sure of that. I think gravity as we understand so far with all its calculations is just simply a side effect caused by something else that we havent discovered yet, but requires to extend. The gravitational lense must be caused by some other effects, if you compare it in the bullet cluster, the fields at that scale must be influenced differently than the gravity field of Xray smooth distribution, and the momentum could also work differently, also the expansion of universe could cause some anomalies in between them. Sticking on dark matter and dark energy is like sticking on a geocentric view. I think the accelerated expansion of the universe is a normal thing, just our understanding of gravity is simply wrong. As there was no ether either, same also no dark matter
Your grammar is atrocious. Where'd you go to school?
My first thought exactly. Most probably you don't need to invent an imaginary material to explain unexpected gravitational behavior.
*Speaking of thought experiments,* The speed of light is merely a mathematical construct. In reality gravity drops off exponentially outside of a galaxy allowing for time to speed up and the other thing that happens, which people seem to forget, is that less gravity also allows for distance to be expanded, which results in less distance compared to our contracted distance inside of a galaxy. So less gravity allows for our observation of the light to travel 186,000 miles at a faster rate of time over an inflated measure of distance relative to where we are inside of the galaxy causing the speed of light to be greatly increased relative to where we are in a more contracted measure of distance and a slower rate of time if GR is true and GR is now more of an observation than a theory. No dark matter and no dark energy required.
We can't see because it doesn't interact with light but the particles of gravity called gravitons.. see gravitons and you one step closer to seeing dark matter. Thank you
So the Victorian idea of a sea of "ether" was at least not too far off the mark.
Nice try. thank you a lot. What about MOND? RCs don't prove DM...
We ppl don’t have to know all things in just one breathe, let the universe surprise us, in the universe perfect time.
what if dark matter exist in a different dimension so even if we all know it exist even in our very own room, it can't interact with other matters because it is on a higher or different dimension plane?
Dark matter is like cold fusion--a failure (to understand the dynamics of spiral galaxies and the meaning of GR
I thought dark matter was completely invisible, cold, and collision-less because it was an atom(s) that was at the temperature 0 kelvin, so it didn’t have any energy to give off in the form of movement or light or anything that can be measured.
So the reason why the neutrinos isn't the dark matter is that there isn't enough of it? Could it be that there isn't a single dark matter particle but a whole group of dark matter particles? If so then the neutrinos could be one of them.
That’s exactly what we currently think. Neutrinos are sort of just one tiny bit of dark matter that we can actually detect. Sort of.
Has to be something like this. Similar to how we have paired particles with (let’s say for fun) “the positive scale” of protons, neaturons, etc. it stands to reason that dark matter will have a multiple particles. Truly we may never be able to understand it.
Electric Universe theories do not require dark matter.
scrap gravity replace with density…dark matter is possibly a denser molecule/particle than air similar to water.
It's funny that many of the commenters here think they can explain astrophysical phenomenons better than most astrophysicists
By looking at UA-cam comments you can clearly see how humanity ignored Darwinism
Its funny that you think Newtonian physics should be a basis to explain reality.
@@noanyobiseniss7462 and where, exactly, did I say that?
“we just haven’t seen any yet!!”
What do you meannnnn you just said it was everywhere!!! So waiting a really long time for the flash of heat to be detected doesn’t make any sense, because dark matter should be EVERYWHERE (according to what you’re saying)
I don’t understand anything he’s saying but I’m still interested
Galaxies spin like singular circular objects, like records on a turntable - or like CD roms.
Maybe Susskind is correct. Galaxies are really holograms, spinning around the event horizon of a black hole?
Or maybe we're just in the matrix, spinning around some disc in a quantum computer..
What I'm interested in (being a power hungry General) is can we weaponize it?