@@omegaman66 to expand on just how well / badly each one actually fits with the data, as well as to better establish how much and where people are or aren't taking this into account, as well as any other experiments / data collection which may be lined up. Also, possibilities for mixed and/or other solutions. The graph she shows with both predictions has two clusters of points which to me look like they bear absolutely no relation to the MOND prediction, either - maybe I'm misreading it, but still it was just brushed too quickly. Similarly, the whole "no one cares" needs to be actually substantiated, especially for a recent result.
I have been able to precisely calculate the age of the Brilliant promo by calculating the difference in Sabine's hair length from the main video. Was the sudden jump in hair length more precisely predicted by MOND or Dark Matter? I'll be publishing my results soon.
the world must be really bland and sad to people without an ounce of humour. at least humour (good or bad) exist, now we are not so sure about dark matter, we are left in the dark. not that it matter anyway.
Exactly. Newton isn't wrong just because Einstein came along, it's just that Newton is an approximation that fails under some circumstances. Einstein is the next approximation that fails under fewer but new circumstances. There will probably be countless more iterations that improve our understanding and that's fine.
@amanofnoreputation2164 No, he wouldn't likely be upset. But he _would_ likely protest to make sure he *_really_** was* wrong. You know... like Bell's inequality and the Hubble constant. 😅
Well, Einstein had a very hard time accepting quantum mechanics... for years! His theories becoming damaged goods after 10 years only was hard to swallow.
@DR_1_1 That's quite a bit of an oversimplification, tbh. The claim the Einstein was "opposed to quantum physics" that is. I mean, quite a few of it's implications for reality were things that he died being opposed to, and his most famous theory is _infamous_ incompatible with QM (or second, technically, because more people seem to know about special relativity than general... E=Mc²'s the most famous equation more or less), so it's not like I don't understand where it comes from. But he's actually almost up there with Schrödinger, Pauli, and even Planck in terms of being one of its fathers. It was what he got his Nobel prize in, even. 😅
Dark Matter was always a magic hand wave to try to fix the problems caused by repeatedly tinkering with the value of the Hubble "constant". If the visible universe really were that big and therefore the galaxies larger than previously observed, they would fling apart without some magic gravity machine inside that generates over 90% of their gravity. Such a thing has never been observed and never will, because it was always an intentional mistake and they don't want to admit it.
For those who missed it, Sabine did an interview with Subir Sarkar, regarding data collection, and the interpretation of it, from the LIGO observations 4 years ago. I cannot do it justice here so please watch the video; its excellent, and digs into the the subject matter discussed here. Sarkar is a Prof at Oxford U.
I would like to see her do an interview with the teams that found the Bullet Cluster falsified _MOND._ It seems, to follow her logic, that we now have _two_ falsified families of theories attempting to explain the various anomalies. We have no MOND and no DM. I cannot accept such a reductio ad absurdum, and I believe overall that MOND is the worse for falsification wear.
But the very nature of LIGO data pretty much contradicts MOND and its relativistic big brother TeVes, doesn't it? Bit surprising to declare it the "winning theory". Tough I completely agree it should be mentioned much more (or: at all) in the Webb context
If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is - if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it. Richard Feynman
If you want things that agree with experiment & simulation, go see Anthony Peratt at Los Alamos. He'll set you straight. Also go read his "Evolution of the Plasma Unniverse I & II" (c. ~1983, I think?). Galactic rotation curves [roughly matching actual observations from real-life galaxies] fall directly out of Plasma Cosmology simulations, no "dark matter" required. It's time for a real, non-hand-waving revisit of plasma cosmology, which is, IMO, getting to the real heart of what's actually out there in the cosmos, which is 99.999% matter in the plasma state, and behaving as such, doing "plasma" things that aren't typically done by "strictly-neutral matter"...
Assuming all necessary parameters are accounted for accurately then yes. In other words, the experiment must be flawless to draw that logical conclusion.
@@technomage6736 The JWST's data is observational, not experimental. It does not depend on experimentation, only on photons from the very early universe. And it's multiple observations contradict the dark matter hypothesis. Feynman would agree, and substitute "observation" for "experiment". He was very practical and fact based.
I went to college as a physics major back in the 90s. I was extremely excited when I began, but totally disenchanting by the end. What I found was that modern physics is assumption built upon assumption built upon assumption. The only argument for the existence of DM is that it needs to exist for our theory of gravity to be correct. When a theory requires that 97% of the universe be made up of something that we can't find any evidence of other than it needing to exist for the theory to be correct, the theory is probably wrong. It's ridiculous how few physicists are even willing to consider this possibility.
_" modern physics is assumption built upon assumption built upon assumption."_ Wrong. I can only conclude that whatever you studied wasn't physics. _"The only argument for the existence of DM is that it needs to exist for our theory of gravity to be correct. "_ Wrong. Want to deal with the lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters? The morphology of the cosmic web? The evidence from the CMB? Here's a hint: MOND, which is a near dead as makes no difference, explains none of those things.
> The only argument for the existence of DM is that it needs to exist for our theory of gravity to be correct. That was the case with planets and moons, until we built telescopes powerful enough to actually see them. What else is new ?
@@zograf4572The Big Bang theory of today look a bit different then the original one. It isn't so much a fall as a constantly ongoing revision process.
Max Planck wrote this in his autobiography: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth." The behavior of human scientists has not changed in the last 100 years.
You forget they aren’t allowed to make discoveries or breakthroughs. The people who pay for the research only want certain results. Go against that and you’ll be working at Burger King or floating face down if its too big.
My hot take is that Dark Matter sounds sexy and mysterious and MOND sounds like boring mathy stuff so there’s no incentive for the science press to cover MOND when they can just continue to hype up the mystery of DM.
Did you guys watch the video? The fact that the press isn't mentioning MOND isn't the core issue. The issue is that the Physice community ITSELF is completely disregarding the successful MOND predictions while they scramble to gerrymander dark matter back onto the data. This is why she said that she's unconvinced that **science** is self correcting, not that she's unconvinced that science **journalism** is self correcting.
I saw one video about 3 super-massive galaxies forming earlier than the models predicted, which may be what Sabine was talking about. I found it interesting that the read on the speed of formation of these galaxies was not that they formed faster than the dark matter predictions, but that they formed stars "more efficiently", i.e. faster than we expected and we have no way of explaining. That was followed up by saying that newer galaxies, ones that formed after the super-massive galaxies, form stars less efficiently, without offering any explanation for how that could happen. They are apparently working on explaining how dark matter behaved differently in the early universe, thereby making star formation "more efficient" I can't wait to hear they explain it. Good call Sabine. It is an example of how scientists will stubbornly hold on to a theory because they don't want to say it is hopelessly broken.
The model also assumes modern star distributions of sizes and the like which, frankly, doesn't make any sense (not saying that they did something wrong we just don't have good data on how to correct for this shift to higher Luminousity per mass stars). We know metal poor stars can be larger and there were less metals in the early universe. Doesn't mean the paper's wrong but it does explain why people aren't rushing to a theory that we can't run large scale simulations on (the mond bars in the paper aren't full universe simulations of the early universe like the lambda-cdm ones are because we don't have single relativistic model of how mond would work that we can plug into a computer so they made simplifying assumptions about galaxy growth) Once again, doesn't mean it's wrong but any small amount of evidence doesn't tip the needle immediately when we have more accurate universe simulations with lambda cdm still and we already knew it was likely oversimplified for the early universe because of the above assumptions both models made when simulating. Ok, ramble over I hope this clears up to at least one person why most people think it's probably not as big a deal as Sabine is thinking. It could be, and that'd be cool but we need to do more work to establish that this holds even with better simulations of both models. Otherwise we'd end up accepting that there's life on Venus because one team took a reading that looked off of phosphine one time.
Nice one, thanks! Like you say, I've heard about how the big, old galaxies "shouldn't exist", but didn't hear much about how with MOND instead of dark matter they should exist. Every day where I learn something new is a good day 😊 - thanks for making my day (good).
@@AstroGremlinAmerican Well it has to lose gravitational potential energy. If it only self interacts through gravity that won't help. If it has an interaction with ordinary matter, gravitational or non gravitational, it could transfer energy to ordinary matter and this energy could then be lost through electromagnetic radiation.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican black holes do swallow dark matter, but it supposed to not even interact with each other(other dark matter), so it just goes through like a ghost, unlike real matter which can collect and form start then black holes.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican _"I would like to know why dark matter doesn't make black holes"_ - it's because dark matter is predicted to not stick together much (no electromagnetic forces). They basically just fly straight through other matter, and therefore don't grow enough density to make black holes.
My "multibrane" explanation explains this anomaly by showing how large black holes can exist BEFORE the big bang, allowing large galaxies to form way earlier than expected.
All I'm gonna say. That despite the slow news of a big correction. I'm just glad JWST exists. It's a big technological step for astornomy and would like to see more of this so we can see the universe as it is. Not as we predict it is.
Here here. We spend decades theorizing about exoplanets, and then we got a bunch of data, and turns out most of all that theory was wrong. Hopefully JWST can do similar things for cosmology.
@@derrickthewhite1 People nowadays are forgetting how to appreciate being shown they are wrong. - I am grateful if something lets me be less wrong, but I understand it's painful if you spent many years of research on details that .. just not real. :D
Folks who work on Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology said for years that once JWST came online, it would soon invalidate dark matter. Wal Thornhill (RIP) made predictions many times for them to be borne out by new instruments bringing more accurate data.
As long as the data is there, it will be decoded eventually. Even if it takes decades for the truth to be properly analyzed and published. It took 50 years to debunk the Stanford Prison Experiment, after all.
@@Nphenthere’s nobody who “works on” electric universe theory. It’s pseudoscientific nonsense. There’s no “work” being done. Go get an actual education
Spending huge amounts of money and time looking for something, convinced that it exists when it it seems increasingly likely that it doesn't, is not just peculiar to physicists.
This is exactly the kind of content that made me subscribe to and follow Sabine. I hardly hear anything about MOND on other "scientific" channels here, and even when they do mention it, they treat it like those speculative models of cyclic universes or multiverses. But science isn't a religion. Newton was wrong, even though people believed for 300 years that he was right. And being slightly wrong didn't take away anything from Newton's greatness.
A bit unfair to call him 'wrong'. Incomplete, rather than wrong; within observations available to him, he was right. After all, we navigated to the moon and back, on Newtonian gravity! But (as you say) there's more to it than that.
That is because mond onlys explain a very small subset of phenomenons, but LCDM model has a much greater explanatory power. In othee words, LCDM might be a flawd theory, but mond is even worse. One thing I agree though, from my limited layman understanding. Astronomers habit of building huge models that has so many parameters that you can make any data fit, making bad predictions and then "refining" them to fit the new data possibly without understanding why the old prediction was wrong, that is the path to perdition
Here's a dumb question, but I love the way you handle these, so here goes: What else is there, except matter and energy? I mean, if mass arises from (I'm not sure that's even the right way to say it?) energy, does that mean there are just the two states? Like... (1) "heat" or (2) mass? At this point, I'm not even sure what "heat" would be, if it's different from "energy"... So I'm questioning not just my understanding but also appropriateness of my vocabulary...? Help?
@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv Some animals can see in the infrared. Most notably some reptiles and certain insects. However I'm not sure how relevant that is.
@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv heat is molecular motion, an energy that matter possesses, transmitted between masses _by way of_ radiation in the infrared band
I can't answer the rest, but "heat" isn't "real". Heat is just how we talk about the random movement of a whole bunch atoms in a material. Like, imagine a bunch of marbles in a cardboard box. If you don't shake the box, the "temperature" is at absolute zero. If you shake the box, then it now has heat energy, which is just the random kinetic energy of atoms. "Temperature" is how quickly the marbles bounce around. So heat is a kind of energy.
Wait. I think it's coming back to me: We assume mass is "Higgs Condensate" ... but then I've forgotten the current model for how that "precipitates out" of the Higgs Field... by cooling, right? So the massless neutrinos are too hot... And I keep coming back to wanting some kind of "medium" in which (or through which) these fields propagate... not energy? not "ether" and having no mass itself? I can hold this in my head for a few seconds at a time... I'll try again.🤦♂️
All there really is is energy- of different types and forms. Even matter is just bound energy. Energy can be used to create matter and energy is produced when matter is annihilated. Most of the energy isn’t in matter itself but in the bound energy that matter holds. Just as a compressed spring is heavier than a non-compressed spring, but imagine it’s a spring the size of a grain of sand and the compression energy is megatons of TNT. All that bound energy has a mass to it, and that’s what most matter is- just constrained energy. Then you have other types of energy like electromagnetic radiation, chemical energy, gravitational energy, etc. These are all interconvertible things.
I am a scientist, I love the philosophy of science, and would offer that the problem with self correction in science is not the philosophy of science itself, but the fact that science is conducted by people. And, true facts, becoming a scientist does not falsify the human ego.
Did some reading & watching. MOND doesnt successfully predict - large scale universe structure. Microwave background. The bending of starlight by gravitational lensing and other stuff like dark matter does. So.....it sounds like to me its 4 vs 1. Both theories need some modification if they are to be right?
Both are curve-fitting theories with no physical explanation for tweaking gravity on one hand, and DM, DE and inflation on the other. The only self-contained physical theory of the universe is Plasma Cosmology, based on EM forces proved in the lab and by data from space probes.
You're absolutly right. If one wants to draw a conclusion now, then both theories have lost. Don't know where Sabine pulls winning MOND from, or why she is such a fan of this theory at all. In the end, the MONDists do exactly the one thing she hates so much: If it doesn't fit the data, it is modified (TeVeS etc.) until it does so. Until the next discrepency occurs, which starts the next modification round...
You have to understand that all these theories are formed around the failed BigBong theory and listening to the promoters of such is but a circular argument. The best predictor of everything happening in the Uni is Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe model] Me, I'm a triple engineer, researcher and prolific inventor among other things.
What do you make of Dr Becky's explanation? If I remember her video correctly, MOND didn't exactly predict the JWST results, because those graphs were made with simplified assumptions about the conditions of the universe at a certain advanced time, rather than from an earlier time frame that dark matter simulations start from.
While the original data was aligned to MOND in some respects, it also conflicted with the theory in other regards. We now have more data from JWST than that original limited set, and multiple research groups are working on it. They are well aware of MOND, but neither MOND nor Dark Matter can perfectly explain the results, so with more data they can hopefully get a bit closer to the correct approach. This is very much work in progress. To claim that the preliminary data represented some clear-cut “MOND is right” statement is disingenuous. Press articles are not research papers after all.
And we know since a long time, that there is something in the early universe we do not understand correctly. Black holes and Galaxies grow too fast. But the nice thing, that is at least something we can watch directly - with Webb and the telescopes that come after it.
What's disingenuous is that she doesn't mention that 1) MOND has its own discrepancies, and 2) she acts like nobody's talking about the inconsistencies or they're just trying to cover it up. "No one even mentions the winner!" she claims right after screenshotting the McGaugh paper that does exactly that. She insists on pushing her pet narrative that modern science research is moribund, while the evidence is right before us that astrophysicists are actively wrestling with these brand new discoveries.
@@pataplan She has dozens of videos dunking on MOND. She said in this particular case, MOND predicted early formation of galaxies near perfectly while Dark Matter Halo models failed badly. That is important. It's less important about MOND, and more important that Dark Matter is the go to fudge factor for most of the scientific community.
It's almost like people have been talking about it in the astrophysics community or something. It's almost like Sabine is using a special case where certain data that's meant to align with any data ends up aligning with an observation, and using that to exaggerate a need for contrarianism against the scientific community as a whole. It's a bit ridiculous, yes?
I mean people aren't exactly wrong not to take MoND seriously because it can't even in principle explain a lot of data like galactic collisions or galaxies with wildly varying amounts of mass relative to the amount of visible matter. How is MoND supposed to explain away you being able to see through gravitational lensing cases where the distribution of regular matter and the distribution of mass are wildly different? As this other physicist points out dark matter isn't even a theory it's a set of observations: ua-cam.com/video/PbmJkMhmrVI/v-deo.html
I have talked about this topic so many times, I don't want to repeat myself too much when I do a short update. But maybe it's worth doing a longer video about this again at some point, thanks for the suggestion.
@@SabineHossenfelder I think short videos for short updates are fine. Maybe add a link or two from the description to the older related videos for more context?
She works on MOND and it's niche for a reason. There's no grand conspiracy, it's just most people work in dark matter and there aren't that many MOND proponents publishing papers. It's also not like the data fits MOND perfectly and MOND has other drawbacks. It's just an interesting outcome that literally just came out and doesn't matter much until MOND addresses its other issue, some of which still require the existence of dark matter or parametric changes to what we know about the universe.
Well done Sabine, I read Stacy's paper, amazing and detailed work. I have been following the dark matter and MOND debate for awhile, and the JWST discoveries have consistently confirmed the MOND predictions while refuting the LCDM predictions. Stacy and his team have done a great job analyzing the data and showing how this works in MOND'S favour.
It never ceases to amaze me how particle physicists think it is a simpler theory to posit a whole new magic particle nobody has ever seen, instead of simply finessing GR. These are smart people. I guess they can't see the forest for the trees.
@@EternalStarVoyager "You can't teach a man something when his job depends on not knowing". If your whole career was built on Dark Matter, you'll find it difficult to change course.
@@EternalStarVoyagerIf you don't have a mysterious particle to search for, you don't get your NSC (Next Sexy Collider), and you don't get your unlimited funding. Simple as that.
@@EternalStarVoyager In fairness, it is actually quite hard to finesse GR without creating contradictions. Especially now that the data seems to be against f(R) gravity.
if anything everything is pointing out to a mix of both, because neither theory explain all observations. until now LCDM was clearly ahead, but JWST gives MOND more evidence. but there is still a lot MOND doesn't explain. so we refine MOND to fit observations ? or we refine LCDM to fit observations ? both will need a lot of work to fit observations.
Ive been saying dark mater followed the same pattern of the way scientists used to believe in aether for years. Its a plot device so the model stays intact. Been expecting something like this.
Who'd have thought that there is more to mass induced space time curvature at large distance and time scales than we currently understand? Einstein would have been thrilled to have something new to apply his intellect to. Maybe we also need to rethink our understanding of quanta of energy at large distance and time scales.
Sabine pretty much validated everything I've seen with physics (as a mildly-interested former chemist) with the phenomenon known as the "Decoupling of Scales." ua-cam.com/video/AqwSZEQkknU/v-deo.html I used to call it something like "Time dilation on the magnitude axis" i.e. "the bigger things are, the more it seems physics just works differently," but I never was the best with branding or putting things succinctly. "Decoupling of Scales" is WAY better.
My totally physics uneducated guess is that at large enough distances, the difference between experiencing the curvature of space created by that large mass and not experiencing it is like a quantum tunnel jump or below Planck Length.
@@atlucas1 thinking about it slowly..."Time dilation on the magnitude axis", "Time dilation on the magnitude axis", "on the magnitude axis", "the magnitude axis", "MAGNITUDE AXIS!" why have i never thought of it as an axis before?
@@chris-st6sm Well you probably have, subconsciously. Like whenever the Y-axis is in meters, you've effectively got an axis of magnitude, especially if it's logarithmic (and I'll just assume 99.9% of people watching Sabine have seen and understood a basic scatter plot or line graph). And of course, magnitude isn't limited to distance. I just used the term "magnitude" to cover all bases - the more/less mass, the more/less size, the more/less distance, etc. I think that's why I like "Decoupling of Scales" better. It's just more succinct while even being more articulate and precise, IMO. Much more efficient way to communicate the thought.
I was somehow excited to see this video. I recently stumbled over the book "Quantized accelerations" by Micheal McCulloch. The theory in there seems a bit unfinished but the basic principle is very charming. It tries to explain inertia of masses and a MOND-like behaviour can be derived from first principles in very few steps.
@@ramonacosta2647 I don't know. The concept in McCulloch's book is based on something similar to the Casimir effect. The Rindler horizon behind an accelerated particle and the cosmic horizon in front lead to a gradient in possible vaccum fluctuations. For very small acceleration the effect gets smaller and smaller and so the inertia is becoming smaller. This is similar to MOND as far as I know but the minimal acceleration is a function of nature constants in stead of a fitting parameter.
Keep telling it like it is Sabina! We human beings seem to have a hard time letting go of long held theories. I love how you just want to get to the truth in scientific endeavors.
_Tends to be a human behavior it seems where we take our educated guesses as gospel._ _Reminds me of how in the past, talking about the heliocentric theory would be so controversial because the geocentric theory was the dominant and accepted truth._ _But as it turns out, the Earth was not the center of the universe._
I am very surprised that you claim that "no one cares", because I have heard a lot of discussion around this in the past 2 years. It has been the big issue that every astrophysicist talks about, and there have been quite a number of papers on the issue. The problems with both Dark Matter and MOND, is that neither of them predict all phenomena that seem to deviate from General Relativity correctly, and both them only work by fine-tuning multiple parameters. You should watch more Dr. Becky, to get up-to-date with astrophysics. Especially watch the episode in which she compares MOND with Dark Matter.
Astrophysicists have talked a lot about the dark matter part of the "too big galaxies" problem, but very little about the MOND side. If you have any papers about the latter (except the one that this video is about), please do share.
But that would shatter her narrative about science and scientist being wrong, lazy and dumb, and we can't have that, eh? Ditto with accelerators, if LHC discovers something important tomorrow you can be sure Sabine will NEVER mention it due to her collider crusade, Don Kichot style...
Dr Hossenfelder also said that climate modellers don't want to talk about models having difficulty modelling the absolute temperature of the Earth. That isn't true either - it isn't difficult to find climate modellers with blogs were they explain it in detail, and why it isn't very important. It is click bait to generate views (and doesn't do the channel much good IMHO)
This reminds me of a quote from a book I read... "The press took the cosmologists, the existing authorities, at their word. None seem to have doubted the overblown claims, questioned exactly how these ripplies dispelled all the theory's problems, or asked any of the dozens of critics of the theory to comment. In an uncertain time, journalists were all too willing to report that the authorities had the cosmos well in hand, that final truths were now known, that science and religion spoke with one voice. This new entanglement of science, authority, and faith, this attemped Scientific Counterrevolution, is dangerous to the whole scientific enterprise. If the wildest theoretical claims are accepted on the word of scientific authority alone, the link to observation is broken. And if appeals to authority extend to scripture, if one accepts Judeo-Christian doctrine, then attacks on this scientific theory become heresy...." - The Big Band never happened, preface, page 21 I can't say Eric is right about Plasma cosmology, but he certainly was right that cosmology and science in general suffers from serious problems when it comes to observation and theory as Sabine has (multiple times) recently rediscovered...I've met Eric, and I can completely understand why he, and others are disillusioned with the greater community and would rather work by themselves. It's a shame people will become pariah's if they don't follow modern dogma. @SabineHossenfelder many of the video topics you post about in regards to this bullshit version of science are things Eric has written about extensively, I can suggest having a look :)
My impression of dark matter has always been, "Our math isn't describing the universe the way we thought...thus the universe is wrong." I do believe science is self-correcting. Scientists, however, are not. They are subject to the same internalised biases as the rest of us.
It's not an unreasonable thing to propose a solution to observations that fits with other well tested theories AND solves multiple problems at once. The universe isn't obligated to make itself easy for us to test our theories against. That said, i agree dark matter always felt a little like "aether". A convenience we created to fit our models as opposed to something that you'd predict to happen directly as a result of our models
@@NotMyActualName_ I kinda feel like it's a placeholder, tbh. Waiting for a more clever, in depth explanation. After all, from what I've heard the data doesn't prove _either_ to *_remotely_* the relative flawlessness of something such as general relativity, let alone something like QFT. And interestingly enough, it's not because GR doesn't have a similar number of problems in explaining astro-physics, but because it was a paradigm shift, and makes the current main solutions look ad-hoc by comparison. Maybe we've about tapped what we can reasonably discover without astro-physical experimentation or a super-intelligence, but I still think there should probably be a few more theories drawn up. And I'll use this as a chance to acknowledge that theoretical physics is hard enough as is _without_ trying to make new theories from scratch, so it's not like I blame them for now trying as hard on that. 🤷🏾♂️
One thing that smacked me in the head - an explanation to why time dilation exists, in it's entirety, can be described by momentum, inirtia, and the entire relationship between mass and energy. It goes from a "We just can't" to "objects that gain mass, literally take more to accelerate". Anything that has greater inirtia do to greater mass will functionally move... slower, everything within the space will move... slower: And so, objects outside the frame of reference appear to move faster through time. And the inverse is true. Another smack dab thing that I want to dive into is the fact that something like 1/5th of the universe within the bubble that is observable, is blocked from our view do to the centre of the milky way galaxy. What is going on there? We can guess - we can do models, but if we use the wrong basic model for gravity: The assumptions will be totally wrong. And the fact that an object accelerating away from you, is functionally the same result as you accelerating from another object starts to beg some questions: What is going on? The only thing I am fed up with - is the politicization of science funding that took place starting to a fair extreme in the 90's. That was likely one of the greatest stall outs to science research, and technological development in a generation. The willingness to tell overly simplified truths, or fail to actually go through the formal connections between concepts - it's a disservice. The only conclusion I can come to - is something rotten sits at the heart of the matter: And it needs to be cleaned out; The sun must brighten the room and cast away the shadows so we might find the truth.
@@formes2388 But oversimplified truths are how 90+ percent of information is conveyed: heuristically. I'm actually one of the most nuance craving individuals you'd meet, and yet _even _*_I_* acknowledge that it's _practically _*_impossible_* to learn anymore that a specific portion of a wider field without it. 🤷🏾♂️
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear that you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small Investment, thank you Jihan Wu you're such a life saver
As a beginner in this, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Jihan Wu is also my trade analyst, he has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
Jihan Wu Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love him here in Canada 🇨🇦 as he has been really helping in changing a lots of life's
Neither Dark Matter nor Mond explain all the observations so I don’t think you can say “dark matter doesn’t work” without also saying “MOND doesn’t work” (eg bullet cluster, etc). The fact is there are unknowns about both and we just don’t have a theory that explains ALL the observations. So you can either work on modifying MOND to fit all the data or you can work on modifying dark matter to fit all the data or you can come up with another alternative. Those are the options.
It’s so weird that many layman MOND fans critique dark matter for filling in the gaps when MOND has gaps that could only be explained by invoking a different, uncommon, dark matter.
@@IUsedToBeANiceGuy Sure, and if anyone comes up with one that can explain all the observations and make prediction, they;ll win the nobel prize. But until then, despite it not being able to explain everything, it does explain a lot and those clumps out there sure do behave a lot like mass.
I still think that mond says "we need to modify our math" and dark mater says "there are new types of matter that we cant seem to produce or find". Since 100 years ago, Newtons gravity was all we had, i think we should be leaning towards "we could need different math" over "invisible stuff". Reminds me of how a 10th planet we can never see, exained the orbit of Mercury until Einstein said, "wait, our math needs an update" and suddenly we didnt need an invisible mass pulling things out of alignment Math
@@mattmackay76sure. We do know that particles exist. We are pretty sure there are likely to be particles we haven’t detected yet. So to say “there is a particle that we can’t detect yet but we can detect the effects from its interaction with the Higgs field” is necessarily that big of a leap. But I see your point too - let’s see - I think you can work on both and see which one can explain all the observed phenomena as well as make testable predictions. In the end, until something actually explains all the observed phenomena, it’s all conjecture about which is the best route of study. It only becomes obvious in retrospect.
@@lokhtar "But I see your point too - let’s see - I think you can work on both and see which one can explain all the observed phenomena as well as make testable predictions" that is not the spirit of what he just said did you even read what he said or just stopped were you wanted to.
Sabrina is famous for disinformation. We have literally observed dark matter bend light through gravitional lensing. Even if Webb falsified results we have mountains of evidence.
Thank you so much Sabine, for covering MOND. Of course MOND is the clear winner in the gravity arena. But although MOND makes the right mathematical corrections, it is however not the case that there would be something wrong about the working of gravity itself (Newtonian or Einsteinium for that matter), rather there is something wrong with our assumption that the medium it operates in (spacetime) would be homogeneously distributed inside our galaxy. If spacetime is the fabric through which gravity operates (as per Einstein's 1920 Linden lecture closing words, then it is an ESSENTIAL to include the assumption of a homogenous ST grid into GR. The reason we see MOND working precisely in the galactic distances only (not on the smaller solar system scale, nor on the bigger cosmic scale), is because spacetime is not distributed equally throughout our galactic plane as it is emergent around stars. Thats why the area between galactic arms has far less spacetime density (but more energy as the grid) and as a result outer galactic arms are actually less far away in spatial terms then we observe it to be , explaining the erratic galactic rotation curves. But regardless, yes MOND is correct in its math, but we might want to call it Modified Spacetime Density instead. Nonetheless big thumbs up to you, spending time on unsung heroes like Stacey and Mordehai. We need more honesty to restore trust!
If spacetime is not distributed equally, and is provably so, that disproves Einstein's theory of relativity since it is based on the assumption that all gravitational vector fields are covariant. I think gravitational lensing proves this point rather nicely.
@@toms7114 Einstein's theories of relativity work fine in both the area outside of our galaxy as it does in our wider solar system, as both areas are dominated by evenly distributed spacetime as the grid. It does NOT work inside the interior of galaxies, nor in the subatomic realm (the area between a nucleus and its outer electron orbits) where energy dominates as the grid and mass as the clock (as per Penrose). We need to admit to what we see. If there were spacetime within the atom, how come for 100 years we have never observed anything moving in terms of space and time there? So; it is not that our classical theories 'break down' there, it is just the the GRID they work in is no longer there. We cherish so many inconsistencies preventing us to see the obvious truth. For example; Herr Einstein stressed in 1920 spacetime must be a real fabric, otherwise GR couldn't work, yet het refused to acknowledge ST as a fabric in his SR. How can you have both a grid and no grid at the same time? Another example; To this day , in SR, we stick to saying unhinged terms like speed cause ' length contraction and time 'dilation' whilst we should just say speed contracts frontal spacetime. And to this day we refuse to see restmass for what it is; namely a concentrationn speeding and vibrating subatomic particles. It is their (unaligned) speeds in restmass that causes radial ST contraction around it as per SR. SR and not GR is the fundamental theory of gravity. I am afraid we cherish so many physical falsehoods and inconsistencies that we are quite limiting our own potential...
@@RWin-fp5jn What I got from your comment is that space time as defined by Einstein exists intergalactically, but intragalactically it doesn't exist. This makes no sense to me. If the fabric in which everything exists (space time) is only outside of the areas where most objects exist then our understanding of space time must be changed to match the observable data.
You half get it. Indeed we need to indeed match our physics to observations. The fact we never seen anything move in terms of space and time at the subatomic level means we need to assume the default stance that there is no spacetime there (hence of course no gravity which is about curving spacetime. Thats not hard to understand I hope? Next inside the galactic fabric, there is spacetime but only emergent around the stars, so we get overlapping collections of spacetime inside the galactic plane. The region where we have almost no stars (the gaps between the spiral arms) thus have very LOW density of spacetime, which is why the stars in the outer galactic arms only appears to be further away then they actually are. If we subtract the open gaps from the observed distance of furthest galactic arms, then the galactic rotation curves are all corrected to correct values, solving the entire mystery of the seemingly too fast rotation curves for which we invented the epicycle of DM. So we must indeed adjust our implicit assumptions ( in this case our erroneous assumption of a omni present equally distributed ST grid) to observed reality. It is tough to let go of our programming....
I actually have some indirect connection to this. My undergrad advisor examined galactic rotation curves under GR and concluded Dark Matter wasn't actually necessary. Cannot find the paper for the life of me now. He was looking at MOND as a possible alternative. He had me conduct some preliminary research into the feasibility of some of his ideas on how to test it. As far as I know it didn't really go anywhere: essentially the noise was too high, and what was needed to reduce it was not within budgetary constraints. My problem here is, what then is causing the gravitational lensing observed in certainly areas poor in luminous matter? I don't THINK MOND in the typical formulation works there, though I haven't run the numbers.
Dark matter has become reified. What started as a vague hand wavy idea to make the maths fit the data has turned into something that many physicists seem to think actually exists, when in fact there’s absolutely no evidence it exists at all. I agree with you that by and large science isn’t interested in falsifying itself. Partly because a lot of research money has been spent chasing dark matter, and partly because some researchers have pinned their careers on it. I suspect that dark matter will remain the dominant theory for some years to come, despite contrary evidence. Scientific revolutions happen very slowly
Dark matter 'evidence' always ends up being more gravitational anomalies that they can't explain any other way. But there has been ZERO detection of any dark matter particles, and the candidates are running out. In desperation, I see a resurgence of the idea of primordial black holes, which would be very tiny... ignoring the fact that if black holes are what we think they are, then those tiny black holes should have evaporated billions of years ago. For them to still exist would mean we're utterly wrong about what black holes even are, which then rams a HUGE hole in all the prevailing theories!
Well, there is still the Bullet Cluster which is tough to explain with MOND alone. I grant you we have been looking for dark Matter for decs ades and found nothing we expected, but there still is evidence for it.
The problem with MOND is that it cannot explain the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222. So that combined with the results reported in this video means that neither dark matter nor MOND can be full explanations of the phenomena that brought about the dark matter theory in the first place.
I don't think MOND ever was intended as perfect a theory, it was just an attempt to show that our observations could just as well be explained by modifying the laws of gravity. Therefore the fact that there exist observations against MOND, doesn't make the fundamental idea behind it wrong: Rather than trying to find dark matter, we should re-evaluate our understanding of gravity.
@@williamschlosser I'm not saying that one of them is right -- I said above that neither dark matter nor MOND can be full explanations -- but the proponents of each one sound an awful lot like they are saying their theory is right.
The only "phenomenon" that brought about the dark matter excuse/hypothesis was the observation that Einstein's field equations gave blatantly inaccurate predictions. Saving those field equations is the ONE AND ONLY reason to believe in dark matter. Admit that the equations are just mathematical approximations that are ultimately incorrect and the need for dark matter just goes away.
@@williamschlosser Tell that to the rest of this comments section who are all suddenly claiming the knew dark matter was a crock of nonsense since the day they were born lol. this channel has, predictably, created an audience of non-critical thinkers. Sabine's cashing in her rapport for cash. I'm honestly surprised brilliant is still sponsoring her.
Why you haven't mentioned that MOND fails to explain many other observations in the same serious way as DM fails to explain large galaxies in early universe? But it is indeed wrong to pretend we don't see the contradiction with lambda-CDM model and I'm glad you pointed it out, just don't understand the ''MOND hype'' in this video
And science is our tool to fight it. Come up with an idea you like, and then, instead of trying to prove it true, you try to prove it false. That's science at its core. But not anymore.
@@LeoStaley Well, ideally yes. But scientists are people too, and no less prone to falling victim to confirmation bias if they don't constantly acknowledge it exists and try to compensate. There are far too many examples throughout history of old disproven theories continuing to hold sway until the old scientists who held them died off.
@@LeoStaley what are people even talking about lol. this wasn't even an experiment. It was an observation and her complaint is that no one is talking about a MOND paper that came out, a theory she herself prescribes to and works on (and did not disclose in this video) lol. Literally nothing was falsified, let alone by Webb, a space telescope that agnosticly spits out data without bias and gives it to scientists to interpret, which they did lol..
We've added prestige, and awards and accolades for scientific breakthroughs that were.. your idea. It's provided a loss to the idea of questing for the truth by disprooving yourself and encouraged self promotion. Much like music. Even Steven hawking has had many things wrong but people still worship every word cause he's a hot name.
I've always been Team MOND. I've always said that Dark Matter is like seeing something you can't explain and then just making something up, like magical pixie dust that somehow fixes everything, even though there's nothing even remotely suggesting that such pixie dust exists.
But pixie dust does exist. I’ve seen it used dozens of times. Every time I saw Peter Pan as a kid. Now you may discount that due to my age at the time, but I’ve also seen it used another dozen or so times as an adult - also while watching Peter Pan with my kids. So, several dozen observations both as a child and as an adult proves it exists.
MOND may be incorrect as well. It may not be gravity, it may be another fundamental force that is only observable across vast distances. Imagine we existed at the atomic scale, would we be aware of gravity at all? I was always annoyed by Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Absolutely no experimental evidence of it, and it just seemed like a fudge to make the Big Bang work - which is probably is. However, I'm not convinced it's just that "gravity is wrong" either.
I mean dark matter was hypothesized exactly because there are many independent reasons why it should exist. MOND can not even explain the Cosmic Microwave Background, which we have observed since the 1970s. And do you really think "we have already discovered every single particle species that exists" is more realistic than "there is an unknown particle species out there"?
@@Vark321 MOND doesn't have to explain Cosmic Microwave Background. MOND doesn't have to explain every phenomena out there for that we have no solution yet. But MOND is developed on the principle to adopt our calculations to our observations and that is how all science has worked for over 4000 years. Dark Matter is based on no scientific principle but on "Let's just make something up, so we can make observations fit to our formulas". By this principle, Einstein would just had to make up Graviton Particles that magically solve all problems with Newton's physic but that we would still be looking for today without ever finding them.
MOND is interesting, but I find Mike McCulloch's Quantised Inertia theory more convincing because it doesn't need any adjustable parameter (like MOND does), but instead predicts observations from first principles only. It assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh radiation made inhomogeneous in space by relativistic horizons. Would be interesting to hear your take on it!
Take a seat and wait. The study of binaries stars is a tremendously complicated task, and there are several conflicting results, depending of the samples used and the methods applied. Is necessary more time and study before any conclusive can be said about this.
You should read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It essentially describes this exact phenomenon as how science develops. This is the precursor of a paradigmatic crisis
I expect she's read it. I read it when I was a PhD student and what was hilarious to me was whenever I'd cite it in my writing, my professors would dismiss my arguments thereof by arguing that although Kuhn's work was seminal, it was also outdated. The irony being, of course, that they were all, almost to a person, Marxists.
I think I should specify that this is not meant to be a "trust the process to self-correct" statement, more that it should expected for this type of minimization to occur as the implications for the invested interests of this new data is destabilizing. But the destabilization will not go away and eventually a crisis will occur, and it will bring down a lot of big names when it does
@@mysticone1798 Nothing is collapsing, you can send people to the moon using Newton's math. Relativity built on and included it. The current theory just needs expanded, extended, grown... choose a word, but certainly not collapsing.
I've always kind of wondered if MOND and GR do have a meeting point, because as V --> C, A --> 0. I've no idea what the implications are, I just find it interesting.
The mond-o-meter works again. Thanks a lot for this interesting video. I love the open-minded Albert. What about another player, superfluid DM? Does it fit JWST´s data?
ah yes, I need to bring back the mond-o-meter! Regarding superfluid dark matter. The issue is that this is a question of large scale structure formation and it's not something that can easily be calculated with pen on paper. I remember that about 5 years ago someone told me they were working on this, but I never saw a paper coming out of it. So basically, I don't know, sorry.
Today i have heard about "ultraheavy “dark-zilla” dark matter" - Freese and Winkler: Dark matter and gravitational waves from a dark big bang. Are they kidding?
Do you realize how many Dark Matter projects will have to be scuttled because of this? Of course scientists who wrote the papers, got the grants, and are busy building the kilometer-sized cubes of sensors deep underground are going to try to keep doing what they are doing. Love your content!
@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 When it's clear a hypothesis is exhausted & debunked it's time to devote resources, manpower, and energy to a new hypothesis. Unfortunately, our university system has older professors who have staked their reputations on things like Dark Matter, and scuttled any dissent from students. Compliance is valued over new ideas. Reading this comment section, it's clear there are some dark matter scientists here who simply come in and call everyone with an alternative explanation (like Plasma Cosmology) "not serious" and "not critical thinkers." But they keep doing experiments destined to fail. A waste of money when many more worthy experiments can't get funding.
@@Nphen Dark matter is not debunked. Particle dark matter can explain a lot of observations and the fact that it leads to galaxies forming very slowly can point out that there is some unknown mechanism that leads to galaxies forming in a faster way. By the way MOND fails very badly at explaining the CMB data and also other data.
....WELL,I ACTUALLY care BUT IVE SPENT ACTUALLY so much of resources TO FINALLY GET A GRASP ON UNDERSTANDING WHERE THINGS ARE overlooked....SO I DONT WANNA TO JUST sacrifice myself ......YUP,A colossal OVERLOOK WHICH LEADED TO..... *_creating of quantum mechanics_* .........HEEHEEHEEHEE .....YUP,I CAN not TO WRITE FORMULAS.....BUT I DONT need TO,HEHE......LIKE "WHAT'S THE POINT IF YOU DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE EVEN WRITING",ISNT THAT???....OR LIKE "EVEN IF YOU'RE HAVING LEGS,YOU'LL COME nowhere IF YOU'RE BLIND AND DONT KNOW WHERE TO GO"........HEHE....... ...SO...OKOKOK....I'M LIKE......"in world of physics"....HAVE EYES BUT HAVE NO LEGS.....ALL OTHER PHYSISUSTS ARE HAVING LEGS BUT THEY'RE blind........BUT I'VE GOT MOUTH BUT DOES SOMEONE GOT ears??????...
we're on one planet, in one system, in one galaxy, trying to discern truths about the entire universe. its like trying to understand an entire continent by standing at a street corner with binoculars. educated guesses are nice, but ultimately we're like ants in an apartment contemplating why food crumbs often appear in a metal bowl that has dishwashing liquid next to it, and thinking the entire universe is a collection of metal bowls with dishwashing liquid nearby. MOND, dark matter, they're worth contemplating but ultimately we're all cranks, making wild assumptions based off extremely limited data, some of us have access to slightly better data, but its all gathered from earth. its important to remember that we "know" almost nothing.
@@snowballeffect7812 It doesn't matter. The Dark Matter theory is a placeholder for the lack of understanding of gravitation on the galactic scale. There is some invisible, intangible substance everywhere in space that only interacts with gravitation... OK. I don't know if MOND is right, but every theory is better than one whose foundation is literal magic.
@@snowballeffect7812 MOND is created to show how pointless is Dark Matter, and everything can be explained with adjusting some parameters which we did not really confirm but just assume because we expect universe to work the same at everywhere and every distance. So it does not intend to fix physics but to show what is broken. It is the theory of heretics.
Part of the problem could be that every sports journalist in the world has heard of Dark Matter. For Dark Energy this is certainly less the case. MOND is something they have all never heard of. Apart from that, Dark Matter makes up a nice mystery story - something invisible that nobody can see, hiding away like some sort of shimmering phantom slipping through our fingers and then disappearing through the castle wall. MOND, on the other hand, is more like having to go back to school to get your algebra right. 🥰🥰🥰
Also all the political scientists too and they have big money with enough money they will find this magical matter that nobody can see or experimentally verify other then with a lot of star treky words and statistical mumbo jumbo that proves the *Nutrofatatron* floats above and below galaxys and there is hundred of them for every other particle you just cant see them but they derr brah. Edit 98 percent of scientist now agree.
As a layman who has heard the explanation for DM and DE many times it always seemed unconvincing. If you need to imagine a huge amount of new stuff for your equation to work maybe it’s your equation that needs to change?
In science, NOTHING is (or should be) sacred, but it's almost as if Einstein has been canonized. It 's good to push back on nonconforming results, but only to a certain extent. You MUST follow the data (with a critical eye of course).
I agree with that. Overall, I feel like it's problematic when physicists outshine the physics itself. If someone is regarded as too much of a "genius" to be wrong, then they're simply regarded as too much of a genius.
It's like the cosmological constant. Einstein added his to stabilize his universe because the knowledge of his time was wrong and he wanted his theory to match this wrong knowledge so he purposefully modified his theory based on nothing. Now years later there actually seems to be something like that constant but with a wildly different value and effect (acceleration instead of stabilization) and somehow people make the argument that Einstein somehow predicted that. The dude was smart but could not predict the future.
I had an argument with a friend once who believed that people involved in scientific research were all above reproach because of their noble goal of finding the truth, wherever it may lead. Now, I don't know if he honestly believed that, but scientists are humans, susceptible to the spectrum of emotions just like the rest of us. Emotions that get in the way of reasoning, logic and most importantly, conceding when we are wrong. It has become more blatant over the past few years. So much so that many people have lost confidence in the scientific community to deliver accurate information without any external or internal influence. I, for one, am happy you are here to help guide us through the nonsense and help us decipher the good from the not so good. Thank you. Just don't let them sink their talons into you.
@@tchevrier Actually I think you can prove that a theory is wrong. Which is what Sabine is trying to do. Note that I'm not saying she's having a lot of success.
@@Milan_Openfeint that would be a disproof. lol. I'm not quite sure what exactly she is trying to do with this video. But it sure has stirred up all the anti-science and conspiracy people.
Dark matter always reminded me of the luminiciferous ether claim. It invokes vast amounts of stuff that nobody can see or directly detect to explain basic phenomenon, when other models do it just fine without it. Storks might also deliver babies, but there are a lot more babies than observable storks. Perhaps mommies and babies manage it on their own somehow? I’m quite curious why gravity works differently at long range, but I suspect there is another term in there that is generally pretty tiny, but when you fall off at 1/r^2 eventually becomes most of it, precisely because it doesn’t fall off at 1/r^2. I am looking forward to physicists telling me why in time. Sabine, I wouldn’t worry about science being self correcting. It is widely said we move forward one death at a time, and this principle should work in science too, if nothing else does. Eventually all these dinosaurs that invested their career in the wrong theory will either change their mind and research focus, or die trying not to. I expect the grant money will lead the way.
MOND is a workaround hack; QI looks mathematically somewhat like MOND but explains and calculates the arbitrary constant that has to be guessed in MOND
There are way too many coincidences: 1) Age of the universe is the same age as SGR A* 2) The expansion rate of the universe equals the growth rate of SGR A* 3) The average amount of ionizing radiation emitted by local galaxies and average universe density can be used to calculate how much energy you would expect to see breaking past a lightspeed horizon assuming only ionizing radiation can break past it. There's your CMBR. No dark matter needed. I haven't read enough into MOND to fully understand what they're doing. But I do know a lot of Einsteinian ideas are correct, so at very least I have a lot of time for Special Relativity. But perhaps GR was a miss. I'm not sure. Like most other people, I have a hard time trying to wrap my head around the GR mathematics. SR is a cinch for me, GR just isn't an intuitive way for solving anything.
I never believed in the concept of dark matter. It’s the equivalent of living in a world that’s 75% covered in water and a person having never gotten his feet wet.
Oh WOW I definitely didn't know this! But I wished she address the results on gravitational lensing and dark matter that's been observed on its own in the absence of normal matter; I thought that was the real nail in the coffin for MOND and other modified gravity theories!
🧐 very interesting; personally, it seems a lot more _prima facie_ reasonable that “there’s stuff we don’t see” than that “gravity works differently at large scales in a way even Einstein couldn’t come to grips with”, but maybe that’s just because I grew up hearing about DM... very educational video
Establishment academia's reluctance to account for electricity in the universe AT ALL is absolutely asinine. The EU guys may not be right about everything but at least they're asking questions and making predictions that tend to be borne out by both old and new data.
Does MOND explain gravitational lensing, too? As far as I know only dark matter could explain why there is gravitational lensing in some regions where not enough "normal" matter is present.
Currents through plasma filaments can cause lensing. (We know the filaments are real. It doesn't matter if anyone has said silly things about them in the past.)
From my early days in college when they brought up "Dark Matter," something about it just felt wrong to me. It didn't seem scientific. Saying that we have a discrepancy in our understanding is one thing. Call it a delta or simply error; some form of variable that represents the difference between theory and observation. What has instead been done is that said delta was called "matter" and then actually regarded as such literally by the apparent scientific dogma -- "matter" the likes of which we have never actually detected -- and the only "evidence" for is really just a discrepancy between the observations and prediction. At what point do we do the correct thing and simply consider that we were simply wrong? To fill in the gap between theory and observation with something we've basically made up and then to waste our time looking for that specific made-up thing (as opposed to literally anything else which might explain the discrepancy) just seems bonkers to me. See also: Dark Energy. While open-minded about the possible existence of either, I've been expecting one or both of these "dark" variables to simply fall apart at some point.
just because gravity is incorrect over a long distance... and btw also the red shift has been wrong for ages, no-one can explain it's acceleration well anyway just because of that doesn't disprove "dark matter" i wouldn't just write it off that easy... im sorta not surprise gravity doesn't behave normal over a long distance with the red shift discrepency personally
They posited a HYPOTHESIS. It snow balled. Then most people forgot it was still a HYPOTHESIS, without validating experiments or proofs. This is how myths are born.
More than happy with this! I am not sure this is the final nail in the coffin for dark matter, but I don't really like the idea of trying to explain something we cannot explain, with hypothetical entities which no one is able to detect. It sounds a lot like the aether concept for explaining light movement. Or Zeus to explain lightnings.
I hear about Dark Matter, and I am reminded of the Earth centered universe. After a time, errors show up in the predictions, so the theory of astronomy changes- epicycles get added to epicycles that were already added to cycles. And then somebody comes along, a Galileo, a Kepler, an Einstein, who says, "That's NOT right! This is-!" I think that's the place where we are. ( And forgive me, please, if I got those names wrong. I have no detailed knowledge, just a general schooling in astronomy, physics, and math from a lifetime ago.)
It's more a modern version of the hypothetical Planet Vulcan used to explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion (before Relativity explained it properly) than it is of phlogiston.
Layman's perspective here. But it seems like at some point physicist bought the wrong part for the fix. Instead of admitting that they've gone down a rabbit hole of adapters and modifications to try and make the part fit.
This is always what happens right before a big breakthrough - there is an old and established theory that used to work, then new observations/experiments start to accumulate that do not fit in, an old theory is then modified and complicated to make that new data fit, until is is stretched so far, that everybody understands it's bullshit, just doesn't admit it, then there come some people, who look at whole thing with fresh eyes and open minds and a new theory is born that fits everything. Happened, for example, right before Copernicus and Einstein.
@@ivankuzin8388 Except that isn't what happened. Dark matter never made sense as a particle and everyone knew that calling it a particle was stupid for a hundred years. Only in recent years did we accumulate enough idiots in physics to get a large portion of physicists thinking it must be a particle. Let's remember that these are the same people who can only describe magnetism in terms of virtual photons. We have lost the distinction between physicists and bean counters.
Both predictions rely on assumptions that, although derived from well documented data, are not well understood by the public and many of the commentators. Sometimes popular press is more like watching a tennis match than anything else.
I think you're probably right. And it would seem many cling to those models not because they are good science but because, for whatever reason, their self-esteem and world view are tied to them. "Climate change" should be revisited for the very same reason.
Yep, I’m utterly convinced in this. People forget that scientists are just as capable of hubris and “fudging the numbers” than any other field when their reputations are based on their own theories.
They're really just terms for observations that don't fit the current theoretical framework. There are various proposals about how to solve the problems, but none of them are really satisfactory yet.
@@bradnelson3595 Making the Big Bang compulsory belief was a HUGE mistake IMO. Due to that, our universe has had more patches than Windows 10. We are well & truly at the bottom of the barrel with DM & DE & multiverses etc. What a waste of minds!
@@williamschlosser Plasma Cosmology is straight up bullshit, at least Dark Matter and MOND don't flat out deny what we already actually know for a matter of fact.
@@williamschlosser If Dark Matter and MOND are crap and bunk, what does that make Plasma Cosmology, which instead of trying to fit with what we've already observed (+Plus make new predictions), instead opts for trying to flat out deny what we already know for a matter of fact, like how planetary impacts happen and how the sun works?
PROBABLY we are a little arrogant in thinking we're close to a theory that explains any model this grand? I mean, just think about sub-atomic particles. Massive objects move in a predictable way. Then we get down to Quantum levels and things are significantly different. How do we know we aren't only six layers deep into a TRILLION layer onion? Because if there was a "Big Bang" with matter more dense then our calculations DEPEND on knowing these interactions. Since we're just extrapolating using the current calculations we have. This applies to many parts of Cosmology. Even if we get a MODEL that explains everything we OBSERVE it doesn't really mean that's how things work at a deeper level. It just means we are unable to OBSERVE anything deeper.
I wish that I had a good way of convincing people, particularly those enamored of their, or others education, that not trusting a particular narrative coming out of the scientific community does not mean that you distrust the scientific method. It just means that you doubt that some people, including professional scientists are following the scientific method.
Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" is great on the science but also on the history and sociology of science.
Your thinking is too high level for physicists to understand. That's not a joke. It's literally beyond the horizon of what they're willing to consider.
@@manlyadvice1789 One can not simply rebut the currently accepted theory willy nilly; one has to provide an alternate theory that explains observations better, otherwise one is just a charlatan.
@@lightbearer313 The "currently accepted theory" (big bang) amounts to guess work and personal preference. What's there to refute when there's no reason one should have to accept the theory in the first place? Every bit of evidence for the big bang can be interpreted some other way. If you'd like to have a closer look at the shenanigans surrounding the big bang "cosmology," a channel called "See the Pattern" has done some great videos on that in the last couple of months.
@@lightbearer313 Read Eric Lerner's 2022 paper, "Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Cosmology". If he's wrong, prove it.
@@manlyadvice1789 So, some (probably) cranks know better than most cosmologists. Or they are at best some random you tubers. When will they be getting their Nobel Prizes?
Our institutions have gotten old, tired, and lazy. In a word, corrupt. It's not personal, it seems to be a function of institutions throughout history. It is a function of the brave revolutionaries and truth-tellers to knock off the corrosion and help move us into the future. This dynamic is why we should always permit opposition.
There’s a gap between MOND predictions and observations in clusters like the Buller Cluster, and that gap in the math is essentially no different than “dark matter”
I know this video will appeal to the anti-establishment mob, but I didn't hear anything about "falsifying"... did I miss it or is the title just pandering clickbait?
@@openhorizon1162 The published graphs clearly SHOW that MOND matches and dark matter doesn't. Even if they showed these graphs and wrote "so obviously dark matter is correct" it would still only be bad scientific conclusion, not falsifying data.
If obervations don't match with theory, there are only two possibilities: The observations are wrong or the theory has been falsified. One good observation is sufficient to falisfy a theory, though if we have a lot of trust in a theory, we often demand more than that to throw away our belief in it, just to be very sure it's that our observations are correct.
@@jeffevarts8757I'm confused by your reply. Are you confusing the 2 senses of "falsify"? Sabine said the dark matter theory is falsified by this data, not that someone is making up (falsifying) data. She's also not saying that someone is making bad scientific claims, such as that the data shows something it doesn't.
@@openhorizon1162 I believe that Sabine is misusing the term, and you may be lending her credibility. To falsify is to replace quantifiable facts (numbers in a spreadsheet, table, or graph) with fiction, usually to support the author's thesis statement. Writing "2+2 =4, which proves that the world is flat." isn't falsifying data, it' manifestly poor thinking. It's academically embarrassing, but not academic FRAUD. That's the difference between this (bad) paper purporting to support a theory it doesn't, and falsification, which would be lying about where the dots (didn't liner up) were. Sabine is a top flight academic with a (very!) solid grasp of English. I expect her to use a term as loaded as "falsify" correctly, not sling it around like an angry kid from grade school.
Well it can also mean that the formation of galaxies didn't start when they assume it did, but earlier. IRK there has been other evidence of black holes being too massive or galaxies being too big too long ago..
I attended an astronomy club meeting in MD some years ago and the featured guest speaker was none other than Vera Rubin! I asked her directly if she thought that MOND was possibly real and she said yes.
Most physicists would also give you the same answer. We still dont know which model explains the observations. MOND can still be a possibility despite all its shortcomings and how it fails at explaining some data by taking other versions of it. Most poeple in the field are working on dark matter however.
The problem of galaxies forming too quickly was widely known decades before JWST. It is not a problem with dark matter. It is a problem with a lack if understanding of the early universe. For example there could have been primordial gravitational waves left over from inflation that focused dark matter into black holes to seed galaxy formation. MOND fails in much more direct ways. Using iit as an explanation of galaxy formation is not going to save it.
I said before the Webb launch. It won't be what webb proves that will be the most worth while. What it disproves will be worth the most. I believed it will disprove basic ideas. Now we keep learning!!
I follow the DM debate for like 14 years. It is very prominent here in Bonn. I never understood, why we uphold DM and ΛCDM as if it is more than a hypothesis. There is a lot of stuff that can be described better in other ways. I am glad to have listened to a lecture about galaxies by Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa about a decade ago seeing clear evidence of the problems with DM.
@@Thomas-gk42 Kinda. I don't even know how you would test it without ΛCDM assumptions. I mean if ΛCDM is wrong the derived implications on cosmology need to be reevaluated aswell obviously.
@@54321eclipse12345Yes, indeed. Strucuture formation in the early universe would work quite different without infaltion and the Webb data shows that the predictions seem to be wrong. Happily, fearless Dr. Sabine keeps us informed😊
This is the modern version of when the first telescopes blew up the geocentric model. Dark matter and dark energy are the modern-day epicycles. When the model doesn't work, make something up to make it work again, because they have too much time and personal reputation invested in the failed model to admit it failed.
it’s getting harder and harder to “trust the science” lately i was previously concerned about too many studies designed to support pre-determined conclusions of whoever finances the study now this?
I trust science (The Scientific Method), but not many of the ways in which it has been done in recent decades. I think new scientists are more concerned about making a name for themselves (publish or perish) than about finding truth. Note that special and general relativity were discovered not by a Professional Scientist grubbing for university grant money, but by a Swiss patent clerk. I can't tell you what the next big breakthrough in physics will be; but I can tell you that it will be by someone who cares more about actual truth than about grubbing for fame and fortune or appeasing authorities.
@@RobbieHatley You are right about "who will make the next big breakthrough" It is really a person from outside! - Check the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" the breakthrough is there.
@@RobbieHatley Seems like breakthroughs always come from outsiders (see: Galileo). Try Plasma Cosmology. Can't tell you how many times I've read "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner. Great on the science, but also on the history and sociology of science.
This video isn't long enough, and doesn't go into enough detail. More, we needs it.
Yessssssss, preciousss, we doessssss.
Why? They don't report on the theory that doesn't fit what they want. That is the what the video is about. Why would it need to be longer?
It surely will not be her last one. and she tells more in six minutes, than others do in a boring hour. She talks the less, but says the most
@@omegaman66 to expand on just how well / badly each one actually fits with the data, as well as to better establish how much and where people are or aren't taking this into account, as well as any other experiments / data collection which may be lined up. Also, possibilities for mixed and/or other solutions.
The graph she shows with both predictions has two clusters of points which to me look like they bear absolutely no relation to the MOND prediction, either - maybe I'm misreading it, but still it was just brushed too quickly. Similarly, the whole "no one cares" needs to be actually substantiated, especially for a recent result.
Like any 'drug', you get a free sample - then you need to pay "Join" LOL
I have been able to precisely calculate the age of the Brilliant promo by calculating the difference in Sabine's hair length from the main video. Was the sudden jump in hair length more precisely predicted by MOND or Dark Matter? I'll be publishing my results soon.
My data processing method only detects the "For me, science is more than" cue
the world must be really bland and sad to people without an ounce of humour. at least humour (good or bad) exist, now we are not so sure about dark matter, we are left in the dark. not that it matter anyway.
@@Jareb-cu4cf I see what you did here. LOL
Dark Matter is the name of her hair dye
Will that demand a newer, bigger hair-collider?
I don't think Einstein would be upset that his theory would be in danger of being discredited. If anything, he'd ask us what took us so long.
Exactly. Newton isn't wrong just because Einstein came along, it's just that Newton is an approximation that fails under some circumstances.
Einstein is the next approximation that fails under fewer but new circumstances.
There will probably be countless more iterations that improve our understanding and that's fine.
@amanofnoreputation2164
No, he wouldn't likely be upset. But he _would_ likely protest to make sure he *_really_** was* wrong. You know... like Bell's inequality and the Hubble constant. 😅
Well, Einstein had a very hard time accepting quantum mechanics... for years!
His theories becoming damaged goods after 10 years only was hard to swallow.
@DR_1_1
That's quite a bit of an oversimplification, tbh. The claim the Einstein was "opposed to quantum physics" that is.
I mean, quite a few of it's implications for reality were things that he died being opposed to, and his most famous theory is _infamous_ incompatible with QM (or second, technically, because more people seem to know about special relativity than general... E=Mc²'s the most famous equation more or less), so it's not like I don't understand where it comes from. But he's actually almost up there with Schrödinger, Pauli, and even Planck in terms of being one of its fathers. It was what he got his Nobel prize in, even. 😅
Dark Matter was always a magic hand wave to try to fix the problems caused by repeatedly tinkering with the value of the Hubble "constant".
If the visible universe really were that big and therefore the galaxies larger than previously observed, they would fling apart without some magic gravity machine inside that generates over 90% of their gravity.
Such a thing has never been observed and never will, because it was always an intentional mistake and they don't want to admit it.
For those who missed it, Sabine did an interview with Subir Sarkar, regarding data collection, and the interpretation of it, from the LIGO observations 4 years ago. I cannot do it justice here so please watch the video; its excellent, and digs into the the subject matter discussed here. Sarkar is a Prof at Oxford U.
That was for Dark Energy, right? I remember that. I'd love more videos like that. It was extremely interesting.
"digs into the the subject *dark* matter"
I would like to see her do an interview with the teams that found the Bullet Cluster falsified _MOND._
It seems, to follow her logic, that we now have _two_ falsified families of theories attempting to explain the various anomalies. We have no MOND and no DM. I cannot accept such a reductio ad absurdum, and I believe overall that MOND is the worse for falsification wear.
But the very nature of LIGO data pretty much contradicts MOND and its relativistic big brother TeVes, doesn't it?
Bit surprising to declare it the "winning theory". Tough I completely agree it should be mentioned much more (or: at all) in the Webb context
thank you, I was unaware.
If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is - if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
Richard Feynman
If you want things that agree with experiment & simulation, go see Anthony Peratt at Los Alamos. He'll set you straight.
Also go read his "Evolution of the Plasma Unniverse I & II" (c. ~1983, I think?). Galactic rotation curves [roughly matching actual observations from real-life galaxies] fall directly out of Plasma Cosmology simulations, no "dark matter" required.
It's time for a real, non-hand-waving revisit of plasma cosmology, which is, IMO, getting to the real heart of what's actually out there in the cosmos, which is 99.999% matter in the plasma state, and behaving as such, doing "plasma" things that aren't typically done by "strictly-neutral matter"...
I think we need a new ether theory😁
@@MrThomashorst "Detection of the Ether Using the Global Positioning System Stephan J. G. Gift"
Assuming all necessary parameters are accounted for accurately then yes. In other words, the experiment must be flawless to draw that logical conclusion.
@@technomage6736 The JWST's data is observational, not experimental. It does not depend on experimentation, only on photons from the very early universe. And it's multiple observations contradict the dark matter hypothesis. Feynman would agree, and substitute "observation" for "experiment". He was very practical and fact based.
I went to college as a physics major back in the 90s. I was extremely excited when I began, but totally disenchanting by the end. What I found was that modern physics is assumption built upon assumption built upon assumption. The only argument for the existence of DM is that it needs to exist for our theory of gravity to be correct. When a theory requires that 97% of the universe be made up of something that we can't find any evidence of other than it needing to exist for the theory to be correct, the theory is probably wrong. It's ridiculous how few physicists are even willing to consider this possibility.
Big bang will also fall eventually
_" modern physics is assumption built upon assumption built upon assumption."_
Wrong. I can only conclude that whatever you studied wasn't physics.
_"The only argument for the existence of DM is that it needs to exist for our theory of gravity to be correct. "_
Wrong. Want to deal with the lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters? The morphology of the cosmic web? The evidence from the CMB? Here's a hint: MOND, which is a near dead as makes no difference, explains none of those things.
> The only argument for the existence of DM is that it needs to exist for our theory of gravity to be correct.
That was the case with planets and moons, until we built telescopes powerful enough to actually see them. What else is new ?
@@zograf4572The Big Bang theory of today look a bit different then the original one. It isn't so much a fall as a constantly ongoing revision process.
@@davejones7632 But neither does DM work. So we need something else.
Max Planck wrote this in his autobiography:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."
The behavior of human scientists has not changed in the last 100 years.
You forget they aren’t allowed to make discoveries or breakthroughs. The people who pay for the research only want certain results. Go against that and you’ll be working at Burger King or floating face down if its too big.
I guess it's human nature. It must be pretty hard to just give up on a theory you've been working with for many years.
For a change in ideas to be accepted, a lot of insults must be forgotten.
Wry grimace
Which, importantly, does not mean the system simple doesn't work. Just means it's not instant.
My hot take is that Dark Matter sounds sexy and mysterious and MOND sounds like boring mathy stuff so there’s no incentive for the science press to cover MOND when they can just continue to hype up the mystery of DM.
The job of popular science writing is to get people to pause a while on their way to reading about political bickering and celebrity pregnancies.
They should rename it to quantum string mondo. That should help!
MOG sound heartwarming and friendly and so maybe that will have a chance in Science press alongside pictures of kittens.
Did you guys watch the video? The fact that the press isn't mentioning MOND isn't the core issue. The issue is that the Physice community ITSELF is completely disregarding the successful MOND predictions while they scramble to gerrymander dark matter back onto the data.
This is why she said that she's unconvinced that **science** is self correcting, not that she's unconvinced that science **journalism** is self correcting.
IMO it's much easier to poist a new kind of "stuff" than to admit that the laws of gravity might need to be modified
I saw one video about 3 super-massive galaxies forming earlier than the models predicted, which may be what Sabine was talking about. I found it interesting that the read on the speed of formation of these galaxies was not that they formed faster than the dark matter predictions, but that they formed stars "more efficiently", i.e. faster than we expected and we have no way of explaining. That was followed up by saying that newer galaxies, ones that formed after the super-massive galaxies, form stars less efficiently, without offering any explanation for how that could happen. They are apparently working on explaining how dark matter behaved differently in the early universe, thereby making star formation "more efficient" I can't wait to hear they explain it.
Good call Sabine. It is an example of how scientists will stubbornly hold on to a theory because they don't want to say it is hopelessly broken.
The model also assumes modern star distributions of sizes and the like which, frankly, doesn't make any sense (not saying that they did something wrong we just don't have good data on how to correct for this shift to higher Luminousity per mass stars). We know metal poor stars can be larger and there were less metals in the early universe.
Doesn't mean the paper's wrong but it does explain why people aren't rushing to a theory that we can't run large scale simulations on (the mond bars in the paper aren't full universe simulations of the early universe like the lambda-cdm ones are because we don't have single relativistic model of how mond would work that we can plug into a computer so they made simplifying assumptions about galaxy growth)
Once again, doesn't mean it's wrong but any small amount of evidence doesn't tip the needle immediately when we have more accurate universe simulations with lambda cdm still and we already knew it was likely oversimplified for the early universe because of the above assumptions both models made when simulating.
Ok, ramble over I hope this clears up to at least one person why most people think it's probably not as big a deal as Sabine is thinking. It could be, and that'd be cool but we need to do more work to establish that this holds even with better simulations of both models.
Otherwise we'd end up accepting that there's life on Venus because one team took a reading that looked off of phosphine one time.
Nice one, thanks! Like you say, I've heard about how the big, old galaxies "shouldn't exist", but didn't hear much about how with MOND instead of dark matter they should exist. Every day where I learn something new is a good day 😊 - thanks for making my day (good).
A lot of us depend on the popular press. I would like to know why dark matter doesn't make black holes. Unless it does.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican Well it has to lose gravitational potential energy. If it only self interacts through gravity that won't help. If it has an interaction with ordinary matter, gravitational or non gravitational, it could transfer energy to ordinary matter and this energy could then be lost through electromagnetic radiation.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican black holes do swallow dark matter, but it supposed to not even interact with each other(other dark matter), so it just goes through like a ghost, unlike real matter which can collect and form start then black holes.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican _"I would like to know why dark matter doesn't make black holes"_ - it's because dark matter is predicted to not stick together much (no electromagnetic forces). They basically just fly straight through other matter, and therefore don't grow enough density to make black holes.
My "multibrane" explanation explains this anomaly by showing how large black holes can exist BEFORE the big bang, allowing large galaxies to form way earlier than expected.
All I'm gonna say. That despite the slow news of a big correction.
I'm just glad JWST exists. It's a big technological step for astornomy and would like to see more of this so we can see the universe as it is. Not as we predict it is.
Here here. We spend decades theorizing about exoplanets, and then we got a bunch of data, and turns out most of all that theory was wrong. Hopefully JWST can do similar things for cosmology.
@@derrickthewhite1 People nowadays are forgetting how to appreciate being shown they are wrong. - I am grateful if something lets me be less wrong, but I understand it's painful if you spent many years of research on details that .. just not real. :D
Folks who work on Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology said for years that once JWST came online, it would soon invalidate dark matter. Wal Thornhill (RIP) made predictions many times for them to be borne out by new instruments bringing more accurate data.
As long as the data is there, it will be decoded eventually. Even if it takes decades for the truth to be properly analyzed and published. It took 50 years to debunk the Stanford Prison Experiment, after all.
@@Nphenthere’s nobody who “works on” electric universe theory. It’s pseudoscientific nonsense. There’s no “work” being done. Go get an actual education
Spending huge amounts of money and time looking for something, convinced that it exists when it it seems increasingly likely that it doesn't, is not just peculiar to physicists.
Like a cure for cancer?
This is exactly the kind of content that made me subscribe to and follow Sabine. I hardly hear anything about MOND on other "scientific" channels here, and even when they do mention it, they treat it like those speculative models of cyclic universes or multiverses. But science isn't a religion. Newton was wrong, even though people believed for 300 years that he was right. And being slightly wrong didn't take away anything from Newton's greatness.
He was not wrong. We only discovered the limitations, boundaries of applicability. It still works, useable and practical within those limits.
A bit unfair to call him 'wrong'. Incomplete, rather than wrong; within observations available to him, he was right. After all, we navigated to the moon and back, on Newtonian gravity! But (as you say) there's more to it than that.
That is because mond onlys explain a very small subset of phenomenons, but LCDM model has a much greater explanatory power.
In othee words, LCDM might be a flawd theory, but mond is even worse.
One thing I agree though, from my limited layman understanding. Astronomers habit of building huge models that has so many parameters that you can make any data fit, making bad predictions and then "refining" them to fit the new data possibly without understanding why the old prediction was wrong, that is the path to perdition
No. Einstein was charlatan and Newton was a real genious. Einstein's relativity theory is just a hokum.
@@Alkis05well I would like to hear more about that kind sir ^^
Here's a dumb question, but I love the way you handle these, so here goes:
What else is there, except matter and energy? I mean, if mass arises from (I'm not sure that's even the right way to say it?) energy, does that mean there are just the two states? Like... (1) "heat" or (2) mass? At this point, I'm not even sure what "heat" would be, if it's different from "energy"... So I'm questioning not just my understanding but also appropriateness of my vocabulary...? Help?
@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv Some animals can see in the infrared. Most notably some reptiles and certain insects. However I'm not sure how relevant that is.
@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv heat is molecular motion, an energy that matter possesses, transmitted between masses _by way of_ radiation in the infrared band
I can't answer the rest, but "heat" isn't "real". Heat is just how we talk about the random movement of a whole bunch atoms in a material.
Like, imagine a bunch of marbles in a cardboard box. If you don't shake the box, the "temperature" is at absolute zero. If you shake the box, then it now has heat energy, which is just the random kinetic energy of atoms. "Temperature" is how quickly the marbles bounce around.
So heat is a kind of energy.
Wait. I think it's coming back to me: We assume mass is "Higgs Condensate" ... but then I've forgotten the current model for how that "precipitates out" of the Higgs Field... by cooling, right? So the massless neutrinos are too hot... And I keep coming back to wanting some kind of "medium" in which (or through which) these fields propagate... not energy? not "ether" and having no mass itself? I can hold this in my head for a few seconds at a time... I'll try again.🤦♂️
All there really is is energy- of different types and forms. Even matter is just bound energy. Energy can be used to create matter and energy is produced when matter is annihilated. Most of the energy isn’t in matter itself but in the bound energy that matter holds. Just as a compressed spring is heavier than a non-compressed spring, but imagine it’s a spring the size of a grain of sand and the compression energy is megatons of TNT. All that bound energy has a mass to it, and that’s what most matter is- just constrained energy. Then you have other types of energy like electromagnetic radiation, chemical energy, gravitational energy, etc. These are all interconvertible things.
I am a scientist, I love the philosophy of science, and would offer that the problem with self correction in science is not the philosophy of science itself, but the fact that science is conducted by people. And, true facts, becoming a scientist does not falsify the human ego.
That's called Natural Philosophy.
The problem is rather that a lot of fundamental science is funded by government.
MOND predicts this correctly, but from my understanding fails elsewhere. Both theories seem to be a bit off
Combine the two?
a broken watch is right twice a day
@@johnsherfey3675 Two wrongs don't make a right.
@@slaphead90 but three lefts do.
@@johnsherfey3675They are totally incompatible. 2 different kinds of math, you simply cannot combine them.
Did some reading & watching. MOND doesnt successfully predict - large scale universe structure. Microwave background. The bending of starlight by gravitational lensing and other stuff like dark matter does. So.....it sounds like to me its 4 vs 1. Both theories need some modification if they are to be right?
It's also entirely possible that nether theory is correct and that MOND is just "less wrong" as a model for some predictions.
Exactly, DM has much more solid proofs than early galaxy formations.
Both are curve-fitting theories with no physical explanation for tweaking gravity on one hand, and DM, DE and inflation on the other. The only self-contained physical theory of the universe is Plasma Cosmology, based on EM forces proved in the lab and by data from space probes.
You're absolutly right. If one wants to draw a conclusion now, then both theories have lost. Don't know where Sabine pulls winning MOND from, or why she is such a fan of this theory at all. In the end, the MONDists do exactly the one thing she hates so much: If it doesn't fit the data, it is modified (TeVeS etc.) until it does so. Until the next discrepency occurs, which starts the next modification round...
You have to understand that all these theories are formed around the failed BigBong theory and listening to the promoters of such is but a circular argument. The best predictor of everything happening in the Uni is Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe model]
Me, I'm a triple engineer, researcher and prolific inventor among other things.
What do you make of Dr Becky's explanation? If I remember her video correctly, MOND didn't exactly predict the JWST results, because those graphs were made with simplified assumptions about the conditions of the universe at a certain advanced time, rather than from an earlier time frame that dark matter simulations start from.
While the original data was aligned to MOND in some respects, it also conflicted with the theory in other regards. We now have more data from JWST than that original limited set, and multiple research groups are working on it. They are well aware of MOND, but neither MOND nor Dark Matter can perfectly explain the results, so with more data they can hopefully get a bit closer to the correct approach. This is very much work in progress. To claim that the preliminary data represented some clear-cut “MOND is right” statement is disingenuous. Press articles are not research papers after all.
She spoke about the press articles stuff and confronted it with the paper of Stacy McGaugh a.t. What is "disingenuous"?
And we know since a long time, that there is something in the early universe we do not understand correctly. Black holes and Galaxies grow too fast. But the nice thing, that is at least something we can watch directly - with Webb and the telescopes that come after it.
What's disingenuous is that she doesn't mention that 1) MOND has its own discrepancies, and 2) she acts like nobody's talking about the inconsistencies or they're just trying to cover it up. "No one even mentions the winner!" she claims right after screenshotting the McGaugh paper that does exactly that. She insists on pushing her pet narrative that modern science research is moribund, while the evidence is right before us that astrophysicists are actively wrestling with these brand new discoveries.
Dark Matter is a joke.
@@pataplan She has dozens of videos dunking on MOND. She said in this particular case, MOND predicted early formation of galaxies near perfectly while Dark Matter Halo models failed badly. That is important. It's less important about MOND, and more important that Dark Matter is the go to fudge factor for most of the scientific community.
MOND just keeps rising form the grave like Nemesis form Resident Evil.
STARS!!! 🧟♂️
It's almost like people have been talking about it in the astrophysics community or something. It's almost like Sabine is using a special case where certain data that's meant to align with any data ends up aligning with an observation, and using that to exaggerate a need for contrarianism against the scientific community as a whole.
It's a bit ridiculous, yes?
The only problem I have, is that MOND looks exactoy like the german word for moon.
Until it dies again and rises again and dies again and ...
@@TheLethalDomain Doesn't science need skepticism and contrarianism?
I mean people aren't exactly wrong not to take MoND seriously because it can't even in principle explain a lot of data like galactic collisions or galaxies with wildly varying amounts of mass relative to the amount of visible matter. How is MoND supposed to explain away you being able to see through gravitational lensing cases where the distribution of regular matter and the distribution of mass are wildly different? As this other physicist points out dark matter isn't even a theory it's a set of observations: ua-cam.com/video/PbmJkMhmrVI/v-deo.html
Great video. Though I felt like it ended abruptly without enough depth on the topic. I want to hear more!
I have talked about this topic so many times, I don't want to repeat myself too much when I do a short update. But maybe it's worth doing a longer video about this again at some point, thanks for the suggestion.
@@SabineHossenfelder Comparing the two theories against one another, the pros and cons? Maybe?
@@SabineHossenfelder I think short videos for short updates are fine. Maybe add a link or two from the description to the older related videos for more context?
@@SabineHossenfelder You can mention the earlier videos and link them - nobody will fault you for that.
She works on MOND and it's niche for a reason. There's no grand conspiracy, it's just most people work in dark matter and there aren't that many MOND proponents publishing papers. It's also not like the data fits MOND perfectly and MOND has other drawbacks. It's just an interesting outcome that literally just came out and doesn't matter much until MOND addresses its other issue, some of which still require the existence of dark matter or parametric changes to what we know about the universe.
Well done Sabine, I read Stacy's paper, amazing and detailed work. I have been following the dark matter and MOND debate for awhile, and the JWST discoveries have consistently confirmed the MOND predictions while refuting the LCDM predictions. Stacy and his team have done a great job analyzing the data and showing how this works in MOND'S favour.
It never ceases to amaze me how particle physicists think it is a simpler theory to posit a whole new magic particle nobody has ever seen, instead of simply finessing GR. These are smart people. I guess they can't see the forest for the trees.
@@EternalStarVoyager "You can't teach a man something when his job depends on not knowing". If your whole career was built on Dark Matter, you'll find it difficult to change course.
@@EternalStarVoyagerIf you don't have a mysterious particle to search for, you don't get your NSC (Next Sexy Collider), and you don't get your unlimited funding. Simple as that.
@@EternalStarVoyager In fairness, it is actually quite hard to finesse GR without creating contradictions.
Especially now that the data seems to be against f(R) gravity.
if anything everything is pointing out to a mix of both, because neither theory explain all observations. until now LCDM was clearly ahead, but JWST gives MOND more evidence. but there is still a lot MOND doesn't explain. so we refine MOND to fit observations ? or we refine LCDM to fit observations ? both will need a lot of work to fit observations.
Ive been saying dark mater followed the same pattern of the way scientists used to believe in aether for years. Its a plot device so the model stays intact. Been expecting something like this.
Who'd have thought that there is more to mass induced space time curvature at large distance and time scales than we currently understand? Einstein would have been thrilled to have something new to apply his intellect to.
Maybe we also need to rethink our understanding of quanta of energy at large distance and time scales.
Sabine pretty much validated everything I've seen with physics (as a mildly-interested former chemist) with the phenomenon known as the "Decoupling of Scales." ua-cam.com/video/AqwSZEQkknU/v-deo.html
I used to call it something like "Time dilation on the magnitude axis" i.e. "the bigger things are, the more it seems physics just works differently," but I never was the best with branding or putting things succinctly. "Decoupling of Scales" is WAY better.
My totally physics uneducated guess is that at large enough distances, the difference between experiencing the curvature of space created by that large mass and not experiencing it is like a quantum tunnel jump or below Planck Length.
@@wuokawuoka So that's how quantum physics and relativity will be unified?
@@atlucas1 thinking about it slowly..."Time dilation on the magnitude axis", "Time dilation on the magnitude axis", "on the magnitude axis", "the magnitude axis", "MAGNITUDE AXIS!" why have i never thought of it as an axis before?
@@chris-st6sm Well you probably have, subconsciously. Like whenever the Y-axis is in meters, you've effectively got an axis of magnitude, especially if it's logarithmic (and I'll just assume 99.9% of people watching Sabine have seen and understood a basic scatter plot or line graph). And of course, magnitude isn't limited to distance. I just used the term "magnitude" to cover all bases - the more/less mass, the more/less size, the more/less distance, etc. I think that's why I like "Decoupling of Scales" better. It's just more succinct while even being more articulate and precise, IMO. Much more efficient way to communicate the thought.
I was somehow excited to see this video. I recently stumbled over the book "Quantized accelerations" by Micheal McCulloch. The theory in there seems a bit unfinished but the basic principle is very charming. It tries to explain inertia of masses and a MOND-like behaviour can be derived from first principles in very few steps.
I wonder if they got any proof for quantized inertia. My take is - it'll go down the same path as LQG.
Is this related to György Paál and William G. Tifft's ideas about quantized redshifts?
@@ramonacosta2647 I don't know. The concept in McCulloch's book is based on something similar to the Casimir effect. The Rindler horizon behind an accelerated particle and the cosmic horizon in front lead to a gradient in possible vaccum fluctuations. For very small acceleration the effect gets smaller and smaller and so the inertia is becoming smaller. This is similar to MOND as far as I know but the minimal acceleration is a function of nature constants in stead of a fitting parameter.
Have you considered quantized inertia? It's like MOND but more predictive.
And is utter nonsense.
Keep telling it like it is Sabina! We human beings seem to have a hard time letting go of long held theories. I love how you just want to get to the truth in scientific endeavors.
_Tends to be a human behavior it seems where we take our educated guesses as gospel._
_Reminds me of how in the past, talking about the heliocentric theory would be so controversial because the geocentric theory was the dominant and accepted truth._
_But as it turns out, the Earth was not the center of the universe._
I am very surprised that you claim that "no one cares", because I have heard a lot of discussion around this in the past 2 years. It has been the big issue that every astrophysicist talks about, and there have been quite a number of papers on the issue.
The problems with both Dark Matter and MOND, is that neither of them predict all phenomena that seem to deviate from General Relativity correctly, and both them only work by fine-tuning multiple parameters.
You should watch more Dr. Becky, to get up-to-date with astrophysics. Especially watch the episode in which she compares MOND with Dark Matter.
Astrophysicists have talked a lot about the dark matter part of the "too big galaxies" problem, but very little about the MOND side. If you have any papers about the latter (except the one that this video is about), please do share.
literally said this to myself during the video. Dr Becky has spoken ad nauseam about this because it directly affects her body of research
But that would shatter her narrative about science and scientist being wrong, lazy and dumb, and we can't have that, eh? Ditto with accelerators, if LHC discovers something important tomorrow you can be sure Sabine will NEVER mention it due to her collider crusade, Don Kichot style...
@@alexanderthegreat4103 Read Dr. Sabines comment.
Dr Hossenfelder also said that climate modellers don't want to talk about models having difficulty modelling the absolute temperature of the Earth. That isn't true either - it isn't difficult to find climate modellers with blogs were they explain it in detail, and why it isn't very important. It is click bait to generate views (and doesn't do the channel much good IMHO)
This reminds me of a quote from a book I read...
"The press took the cosmologists, the existing authorities, at their word. None seem to have doubted the overblown claims, questioned exactly how these ripplies dispelled all the theory's problems, or asked any of the dozens of critics of the theory to comment. In an uncertain time, journalists were all too willing to report that the authorities had the cosmos well in hand, that final truths were now known, that science and religion spoke with one voice. This new entanglement of science, authority, and faith, this attemped Scientific Counterrevolution, is dangerous to the whole scientific enterprise. If the wildest theoretical claims are accepted on the word of scientific authority alone, the link to observation is broken. And if appeals to authority extend to scripture, if one accepts Judeo-Christian doctrine, then attacks on this scientific theory become heresy...."
- The Big Band never happened, preface, page 21
I can't say Eric is right about Plasma cosmology, but he certainly was right that cosmology and science in general suffers from serious problems when it comes to observation and theory as Sabine has (multiple times) recently rediscovered...I've met Eric, and I can completely understand why he, and others are disillusioned with the greater community and would rather work by themselves. It's a shame people will become pariah's if they don't follow modern dogma. @SabineHossenfelder many of the video topics you post about in regards to this bullshit version of science are things Eric has written about extensively, I can suggest having a look :)
My impression of dark matter has always been, "Our math isn't describing the universe the way we thought...thus the universe is wrong."
I do believe science is self-correcting. Scientists, however, are not. They are subject to the same internalised biases as the rest of us.
It's not an unreasonable thing to propose a solution to observations that fits with other well tested theories AND solves multiple problems at once.
The universe isn't obligated to make itself easy for us to test our theories against.
That said, i agree dark matter always felt a little like "aether".
A convenience we created to fit our models as opposed to something that you'd predict to happen directly as a result of our models
@@NotMyActualName_
I kinda feel like it's a placeholder, tbh. Waiting for a more clever, in depth explanation. After all, from what I've heard the data doesn't prove _either_ to *_remotely_* the relative flawlessness of something such as general relativity, let alone something like QFT.
And interestingly enough, it's not because GR doesn't have a similar number of problems in explaining astro-physics, but because it was a paradigm shift, and makes the current main solutions look ad-hoc by comparison. Maybe we've about tapped what we can reasonably discover without astro-physical experimentation or a super-intelligence, but I still think there should probably be a few more theories drawn up. And I'll use this as a chance to acknowledge that theoretical physics is hard enough as is _without_ trying to make new theories from scratch, so it's not like I blame them for now trying as hard on that. 🤷🏾♂️
One thing that smacked me in the head - an explanation to why time dilation exists, in it's entirety, can be described by momentum, inirtia, and the entire relationship between mass and energy. It goes from a "We just can't" to "objects that gain mass, literally take more to accelerate". Anything that has greater inirtia do to greater mass will functionally move... slower, everything within the space will move... slower: And so, objects outside the frame of reference appear to move faster through time. And the inverse is true.
Another smack dab thing that I want to dive into is the fact that something like 1/5th of the universe within the bubble that is observable, is blocked from our view do to the centre of the milky way galaxy. What is going on there? We can guess - we can do models, but if we use the wrong basic model for gravity: The assumptions will be totally wrong. And the fact that an object accelerating away from you, is functionally the same result as you accelerating from another object starts to beg some questions: What is going on?
The only thing I am fed up with - is the politicization of science funding that took place starting to a fair extreme in the 90's. That was likely one of the greatest stall outs to science research, and technological development in a generation.
The willingness to tell overly simplified truths, or fail to actually go through the formal connections between concepts - it's a disservice. The only conclusion I can come to - is something rotten sits at the heart of the matter: And it needs to be cleaned out; The sun must brighten the room and cast away the shadows so we might find the truth.
@@formes2388
But oversimplified truths are how 90+ percent of information is conveyed: heuristically. I'm actually one of the most nuance craving individuals you'd meet, and yet _even _*_I_* acknowledge that it's _practically _*_impossible_* to learn anymore that a specific portion of a wider field without it. 🤷🏾♂️
Hit 240k today. Appreciate you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started with 24k in September 2024
I would really love to know how much work you did put in to get to this stage
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear that you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small Investment, thank you Jihan Wu you're such a life saver
As a beginner in this, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable.
Jihan Wu is also my trade analyst, he has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
Jihan Wu Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love him here in Canada 🇨🇦 as he has been really helping in changing a lots of life's
His guidance allowed me to restructure my retirement plan, resulting in an estimated $700,000 more by the time I retire.
Neither Dark Matter nor Mond explain all the observations so I don’t think you can say “dark matter doesn’t work” without also saying “MOND doesn’t work” (eg bullet cluster, etc). The fact is there are unknowns about both and we just don’t have a theory that explains ALL the observations. So you can either work on modifying MOND to fit all the data or you can work on modifying dark matter to fit all the data or you can come up with another alternative. Those are the options.
It’s so weird that many layman MOND fans critique dark matter for filling in the gaps when MOND has gaps that could only be explained by invoking a different, uncommon, dark matter.
@@IUsedToBeANiceGuy Sure, and if anyone comes up with one that can explain all the observations and make prediction, they;ll win the nobel prize. But until then, despite it not being able to explain everything, it does explain a lot and those clumps out there sure do behave a lot like mass.
I still think that mond says "we need to modify our math" and dark mater says "there are new types of matter that we cant seem to produce or find". Since 100 years ago, Newtons gravity was all we had, i think we should be leaning towards "we could need different math" over "invisible stuff". Reminds me of how a 10th planet we can never see, exained the orbit of Mercury until Einstein said, "wait, our math needs an update" and suddenly we didnt need an invisible mass pulling things out of alignment
Math
@@mattmackay76sure. We do know that particles exist. We are pretty sure there are likely to be particles we haven’t detected yet. So to say “there is a particle that we can’t detect yet but we can detect the effects from its interaction with the Higgs field” is necessarily that big of a leap. But I see your point too - let’s see - I think you can work on both and see which one can explain all the observed phenomena as well as make testable predictions. In the end, until something actually explains all the observed phenomena, it’s all conjecture about which is the best route of study. It only becomes obvious in retrospect.
@@lokhtar "But I see your point too - let’s see - I think you can work on both and see which one can explain all the observed phenomena as well as make testable predictions" that is not the spirit of what he just said did you even read what he said or just stopped were you wanted to.
I'm glad to see the theory of Magic Space Dust headed for the dustbin of failed hypotheses. At long last.
Sabrina is famous for disinformation. We have literally observed dark matter bend light through gravitional lensing. Even if Webb falsified results we have mountains of evidence.
Thank you so much Sabine, for covering MOND. Of course MOND is the clear winner in the gravity arena. But although MOND makes the right mathematical corrections, it is however not the case that there would be something wrong about the working of gravity itself (Newtonian or Einsteinium for that matter), rather there is something wrong with our assumption that the medium it operates in (spacetime) would be homogeneously distributed inside our galaxy. If spacetime is the fabric through which gravity operates (as per Einstein's 1920 Linden lecture closing words, then it is an ESSENTIAL to include the assumption of a homogenous ST grid into GR. The reason we see MOND working precisely in the galactic distances only (not on the smaller solar system scale, nor on the bigger cosmic scale), is because spacetime is not distributed equally throughout our galactic plane as it is emergent around stars. Thats why the area between galactic arms has far less spacetime density (but more energy as the grid) and as a result outer galactic arms are actually less far away in spatial terms then we observe it to be , explaining the erratic galactic rotation curves. But regardless, yes MOND is correct in its math, but we might want to call it Modified Spacetime Density instead. Nonetheless big thumbs up to you, spending time on unsung heroes like Stacey and Mordehai. We need more honesty to restore trust!
If spacetime is not distributed equally, and is provably so, that disproves Einstein's theory of relativity since it is based on the assumption that all gravitational vector fields are covariant. I think gravitational lensing proves this point rather nicely.
@@toms7114 Einstein's theories of relativity work fine in both the area outside of our galaxy as it does in our wider solar system, as both areas are dominated by evenly distributed spacetime as the grid. It does NOT work inside the interior of galaxies, nor in the subatomic realm (the area between a nucleus and its outer electron orbits) where energy dominates as the grid and mass as the clock (as per Penrose). We need to admit to what we see. If there were spacetime within the atom, how come for 100 years we have never observed anything moving in terms of space and time there? So; it is not that our classical theories 'break down' there, it is just the the GRID they work in is no longer there. We cherish so many inconsistencies preventing us to see the obvious truth. For example; Herr Einstein stressed in 1920 spacetime must be a real fabric, otherwise GR couldn't work, yet het refused to acknowledge ST as a fabric in his SR. How can you have both a grid and no grid at the same time? Another example; To this day , in SR, we stick to saying unhinged terms like speed cause ' length contraction and time 'dilation' whilst we should just say speed contracts frontal spacetime. And to this day we refuse to see restmass for what it is; namely a concentrationn speeding and vibrating subatomic particles. It is their (unaligned) speeds in restmass that causes radial ST contraction around it as per SR. SR and not GR is the fundamental theory of gravity. I am afraid we cherish so many physical falsehoods and inconsistencies that we are quite limiting our own potential...
@@RWin-fp5jn What I got from your comment is that space time as defined by Einstein exists intergalactically, but intragalactically it doesn't exist.
This makes no sense to me. If the fabric in which everything exists (space time) is only outside of the areas where most objects exist then our understanding of space time must be changed to match the observable data.
You half get it. Indeed we need to indeed match our physics to observations. The fact we never seen anything move in terms of space and time at the subatomic level means we need to assume the default stance that there is no spacetime there (hence of course no gravity which is about curving spacetime. Thats not hard to understand I hope? Next inside the galactic fabric, there is spacetime but only emergent around the stars, so we get overlapping collections of spacetime inside the galactic plane. The region where we have almost no stars (the gaps between the spiral arms) thus have very LOW density of spacetime, which is why the stars in the outer galactic arms only appears to be further away then they actually are. If we subtract the open gaps from the observed distance of furthest galactic arms, then the galactic rotation curves are all corrected to correct values, solving the entire mystery of the seemingly too fast rotation curves for which we invented the epicycle of DM. So we must indeed adjust our implicit assumptions ( in this case our erroneous assumption of a omni present equally distributed ST grid) to observed reality. It is tough to let go of our programming....
I actually have some indirect connection to this. My undergrad advisor examined galactic rotation curves under GR and concluded Dark Matter wasn't actually necessary. Cannot find the paper for the life of me now. He was looking at MOND as a possible alternative. He had me conduct some preliminary research into the feasibility of some of his ideas on how to test it. As far as I know it didn't really go anywhere: essentially the noise was too high, and what was needed to reduce it was not within budgetary constraints.
My problem here is, what then is causing the gravitational lensing observed in certainly areas poor in luminous matter? I don't THINK MOND in the typical formulation works there, though I haven't run the numbers.
Dark matter has become reified. What started as a vague hand wavy idea to make the maths fit the data has turned into something that many physicists seem to think actually exists, when in fact there’s absolutely no evidence it exists at all. I agree with you that by and large science isn’t interested in falsifying itself. Partly because a lot of research money has been spent chasing dark matter, and partly because some researchers have pinned their careers on it. I suspect that dark matter will remain the dominant theory for some years to come, despite contrary evidence. Scientific revolutions happen very slowly
Dark matter 'evidence' always ends up being more gravitational anomalies that they can't explain any other way. But there has been ZERO detection of any dark matter particles, and the candidates are running out. In desperation, I see a resurgence of the idea of primordial black holes, which would be very tiny... ignoring the fact that if black holes are what we think they are, then those tiny black holes should have evaporated billions of years ago. For them to still exist would mean we're utterly wrong about what black holes even are, which then rams a HUGE hole in all the prevailing theories!
Well, there is still the Bullet Cluster which is tough to explain with MOND alone. I grant you we have been looking for dark Matter for decs ades and found nothing we expected, but there still is evidence for it.
I wish I could give this more thumbs up. This is exactly what has happened. This should be written on every dark matter video
Surely the ether... cough* dark matter is real though
Money like dark matters, dark materialists like money.
What's worse is I don't even have a theory on the sudden change in haircut in 5:20
Dark scissors obviously
Is there a textbook or non-research paper print book about MOND? I want to read more about it, but I can't find anything available on Amazon.
Wow... Just wow... Stellar comparisons!
The problem with MOND is that it cannot explain the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222. So that combined with the results reported in this video means that neither dark matter nor MOND can be full explanations of the phenomena that brought about the dark matter theory in the first place.
I don't think MOND ever was intended as perfect a theory, it was just an attempt to show that our observations could just as well be explained by modifying the laws of gravity. Therefore the fact that there exist observations against MOND, doesn't make the fundamental idea behind it wrong: Rather than trying to find dark matter, we should re-evaluate our understanding of gravity.
I recommend you put aside the implied assumption that one of them is right. Then begin searching with an open mind.
@@williamschlosser I'm not saying that one of them is right -- I said above that neither dark matter nor MOND can be full explanations -- but the proponents of each one sound an awful lot like they are saying their theory is right.
The only "phenomenon" that brought about the dark matter excuse/hypothesis was the observation that Einstein's field equations gave blatantly inaccurate predictions. Saving those field equations is the ONE AND ONLY reason to believe in dark matter. Admit that the equations are just mathematical approximations that are ultimately incorrect and the need for dark matter just goes away.
@@williamschlosser Tell that to the rest of this comments section who are all suddenly claiming the knew dark matter was a crock of nonsense since the day they were born lol. this channel has, predictably, created an audience of non-critical thinkers. Sabine's cashing in her rapport for cash. I'm honestly surprised brilliant is still sponsoring her.
Why you haven't mentioned that MOND fails to explain many other observations in the same serious way as DM fails to explain large galaxies in early universe? But it is indeed wrong to pretend we don't see the contradiction with lambda-CDM model and I'm glad you pointed it out, just don't understand the ''MOND hype'' in this video
Confirmation bias is arguably humanity's greatest fault.
And science is our tool to fight it. Come up with an idea you like, and then, instead of trying to prove it true, you try to prove it false. That's science at its core. But not anymore.
@@LeoStaley Well, ideally yes. But scientists are people too, and no less prone to falling victim to confirmation bias if they don't constantly acknowledge it exists and try to compensate.
There are far too many examples throughout history of old disproven theories continuing to hold sway until the old scientists who held them died off.
@@LeoStaley what are people even talking about lol. this wasn't even an experiment. It was an observation and her complaint is that no one is talking about a MOND paper that came out, a theory she herself prescribes to and works on (and did not disclose in this video) lol. Literally nothing was falsified, let alone by Webb, a space telescope that agnosticly spits out data without bias and gives it to scientists to interpret, which they did lol..
@@MarleyTravels the irony in this statement on a Sabine video lol.
We've added prestige, and awards and accolades for scientific breakthroughs that were.. your idea. It's provided a loss to the idea of questing for the truth by disprooving yourself and encouraged self promotion. Much like music. Even Steven hawking has had many things wrong but people still worship every word cause he's a hot name.
I've always been Team MOND. I've always said that Dark Matter is like seeing something you can't explain and then just making something up, like magical pixie dust that somehow fixes everything, even though there's nothing even remotely suggesting that such pixie dust exists.
But pixie dust does exist. I’ve seen it used dozens of times. Every time I saw Peter Pan as a kid. Now you may discount that due to my age at the time, but I’ve also seen it used another dozen or so times as an adult - also while watching Peter Pan with my kids. So, several dozen observations both as a child and as an adult proves it exists.
Exactly!
MOND may be incorrect as well. It may not be gravity, it may be another fundamental force that is only observable across vast distances. Imagine we existed at the atomic scale, would we be aware of gravity at all?
I was always annoyed by Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Absolutely no experimental evidence of it, and it just seemed like a fudge to make the Big Bang work - which is probably is. However, I'm not convinced it's just that "gravity is wrong" either.
I mean dark matter was hypothesized exactly because there are many independent reasons why it should exist. MOND can not even explain the Cosmic Microwave Background, which we have observed since the 1970s.
And do you really think "we have already discovered every single particle species that exists" is more realistic than "there is an unknown particle species out there"?
@@Vark321 MOND doesn't have to explain Cosmic Microwave Background. MOND doesn't have to explain every phenomena out there for that we have no solution yet.
But MOND is developed on the principle to adopt our calculations to our observations and that is how all science has worked for over 4000 years. Dark Matter is based on no scientific principle but on "Let's just make something up, so we can make observations fit to our formulas". By this principle, Einstein would just had to make up Graviton Particles that magically solve all problems with Newton's physic but that we would still be looking for today without ever finding them.
MOND is interesting, but I find Mike McCulloch's Quantised Inertia theory more convincing because it doesn't need any adjustable parameter (like MOND does), but instead predicts observations from first principles only. It assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh radiation made inhomogeneous in space by relativistic horizons. Would be interesting to hear your take on it!
But then when star pairs are observed. They follow general relativity and not MOND. So something is wrong with MOND. We're clearly missing something
Plasma cosmology predicted the increased number of binary stars we see.
Take a seat and wait. The study of binaries stars is a tremendously complicated task, and there are several conflicting results, depending of the samples used and the methods applied. Is necessary more time and study before any conclusive can be said about this.
You should read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It essentially describes this exact phenomenon as how science develops. This is the precursor of a paradigmatic crisis
Bingo. Current cosmology theory is collapsing. Something big will take its place, hopefully sooner rather than later.
I expect she's read it. I read it when I was a PhD student and what was hilarious to me was whenever I'd cite it in my writing, my professors would dismiss my arguments thereof by arguing that although Kuhn's work was seminal, it was also outdated. The irony being, of course, that they were all, almost to a person, Marxists.
I think I should specify that this is not meant to be a "trust the process to self-correct" statement, more that it should expected for this type of minimization to occur as the implications for the invested interests of this new data is destabilizing. But the destabilization will not go away and eventually a crisis will occur, and it will bring down a lot of big names when it does
BBT the clock is ticking......
@@mysticone1798 Nothing is collapsing, you can send people to the moon using Newton's math. Relativity built on and included it. The current theory just needs expanded, extended, grown... choose a word, but certainly not collapsing.
I've always kind of wondered if MOND and GR do have a meeting point, because as V --> C, A --> 0.
I've no idea what the implications are, I just find it interesting.
The mond-o-meter works again. Thanks a lot for this interesting video. I love the open-minded Albert.
What about another player, superfluid DM? Does it fit JWST´s data?
ah yes, I need to bring back the mond-o-meter! Regarding superfluid dark matter. The issue is that this is a question of large scale structure formation and it's not something that can easily be calculated with pen on paper. I remember that about 5 years ago someone told me they were working on this, but I never saw a paper coming out of it. So basically, I don't know, sorry.
This swings back and forth. Last time it sort of supported dark matter but looked dodgy.
@@seriousmaran9414 indee,😉
Today i have heard about "ultraheavy “dark-zilla” dark matter" - Freese and Winkler: Dark matter and gravitational waves from a dark big bang. Are they kidding?
@SabineHossenfelder
Please a video on thermodynamics computing new trend !!!
Do you realize how many Dark Matter projects will have to be scuttled because of this? Of course scientists who wrote the papers, got the grants, and are busy building the kilometer-sized cubes of sensors deep underground are going to try to keep doing what they are doing. Love your content!
I agree but what other experiments should they do? Why stop experimenting? Why not do all experiments possible?
@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 When it's clear a hypothesis is exhausted & debunked it's time to devote resources, manpower, and energy to a new hypothesis. Unfortunately, our university system has older professors who have staked their reputations on things like Dark Matter, and scuttled any dissent from students. Compliance is valued over new ideas. Reading this comment section, it's clear there are some dark matter scientists here who simply come in and call everyone with an alternative explanation (like Plasma Cosmology) "not serious" and "not critical thinkers." But they keep doing experiments destined to fail. A waste of money when many more worthy experiments can't get funding.
@@Nphen Dark matter is not debunked. Particle dark matter can explain a lot of observations and the fact that it leads to galaxies forming very slowly can point out that there is some unknown mechanism that leads to galaxies forming in a faster way. By the way MOND fails very badly at explaining the CMB data and also other data.
Grazie.
It is almost like nobody cares about the reality unless their paycheck depends on it.
....WELL,I ACTUALLY care BUT IVE SPENT ACTUALLY so much of resources TO FINALLY GET A GRASP ON UNDERSTANDING WHERE THINGS ARE overlooked....SO I DONT WANNA TO JUST sacrifice myself
......YUP,A colossal OVERLOOK WHICH LEADED TO..... *_creating of quantum mechanics_* .........HEEHEEHEEHEE
.....YUP,I CAN not TO WRITE FORMULAS.....BUT I DONT need TO,HEHE......LIKE "WHAT'S THE POINT IF YOU DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE EVEN WRITING",ISNT THAT???....OR LIKE "EVEN IF YOU'RE HAVING LEGS,YOU'LL COME nowhere IF YOU'RE BLIND AND DONT KNOW WHERE TO GO"........HEHE.......
...SO...OKOKOK....I'M LIKE......"in world of physics"....HAVE EYES BUT HAVE NO LEGS.....ALL OTHER PHYSISUSTS ARE HAVING LEGS BUT THEY'RE blind........BUT I'VE GOT MOUTH BUT DOES SOMEONE GOT ears??????...
Nobody cares because MOND has other problems which Sabine conveniently leaves out lol. She also convenient leaves out the fact that she works on MOND.
we're on one planet, in one system, in one galaxy, trying to discern truths about the entire universe. its like trying to understand an entire continent by standing at a street corner with binoculars.
educated guesses are nice, but ultimately we're like ants in an apartment contemplating why food crumbs often appear in a metal bowl that has dishwashing liquid next to it, and thinking the entire universe is a collection of metal bowls with dishwashing liquid nearby.
MOND, dark matter, they're worth contemplating but ultimately we're all cranks, making wild assumptions based off extremely limited data, some of us have access to slightly better data, but its all gathered from earth. its important to remember that we "know" almost nothing.
@@snowballeffect7812 It doesn't matter. The Dark Matter theory is a placeholder for the lack of understanding of gravitation on the galactic scale. There is some invisible, intangible substance everywhere in space that only interacts with gravitation... OK.
I don't know if MOND is right, but every theory is better than one whose foundation is literal magic.
@@snowballeffect7812 MOND is created to show how pointless is Dark Matter, and everything can be explained with adjusting some parameters which we did not really confirm but just assume because we expect universe to work the same at everywhere and every distance. So it does not intend to fix physics but to show what is broken. It is the theory of heretics.
Part of the problem could be that every sports journalist in the world has heard of Dark Matter. For Dark Energy this is certainly less the case. MOND is something they have all never heard of. Apart from that, Dark Matter makes up a nice mystery story - something invisible that nobody can see, hiding away like some sort of shimmering phantom slipping through our fingers and then disappearing through the castle wall. MOND, on the other hand, is more like having to go back to school to get your algebra right. 🥰🥰🥰
If you look deeper - neither MOND nor dark matter match our observations and as such neither hypothesis in their current state explains the reality
Also all the political scientists too and they have big money with enough money they will find this magical matter that nobody can see or experimentally verify other then with a lot of star treky words and statistical mumbo jumbo that proves the *Nutrofatatron* floats above and below galaxys and there is hundred of them for every other particle you just cant see them but they derr brah. Edit 98 percent of scientist now agree.
As a layman who has heard the explanation for DM and DE many times it always seemed unconvincing. If you need to imagine a huge amount of new stuff for your equation to work maybe it’s your equation that needs to change?
In science, NOTHING is (or should be) sacred, but it's almost as if Einstein has been canonized. It 's good to push back on nonconforming results, but only to a certain extent. You MUST follow the data (with a critical eye of course).
I agree with that. Overall, I feel like it's problematic when physicists outshine the physics itself. If someone is regarded as too much of a "genius" to be wrong, then they're simply regarded as too much of a genius.
exactly, but we are the only ones like this, so nothing will change, want to cry in the corner with me?
@@NeroDefogger Things change daily, faster each day. Maybe do some research and produce something rather than crying over nothing.
It's like the cosmological constant. Einstein added his to stabilize his universe because the knowledge of his time was wrong and he wanted his theory to match this wrong knowledge so he purposefully modified his theory based on nothing. Now years later there actually seems to be something like that constant but with a wildly different value and effect (acceleration instead of stabilization) and somehow people make the argument that Einstein somehow predicted that. The dude was smart but could not predict the future.
I had an argument with a friend once who believed that people involved in scientific research were all above reproach because of their noble goal of finding the truth, wherever it may lead. Now, I don't know if he honestly believed that, but scientists are humans, susceptible to the spectrum of emotions just like the rest of us. Emotions that get in the way of reasoning, logic and most importantly, conceding when we are wrong.
It has become more blatant over the past few years. So much so that many people have lost confidence in the scientific community to deliver accurate information without any external or internal influence. I, for one, am happy you are here to help guide us through the nonsense and help us decipher the good from the not so good. Thank you.
Just don't let them sink their talons into you.
How exactly has "it become more blatant over the past few years"?
@@tchevrier The more Sabine repeats that claim, the more true it becomes. Proof by repeated assertion, a classic method of proof.
@@Milan_Openfeint no such thing as "proof" in science. If you want proof, go see a mathematician.
@@tchevrier Actually I think you can prove that a theory is wrong. Which is what Sabine is trying to do.
Note that I'm not saying she's having a lot of success.
@@Milan_Openfeint that would be a disproof. lol. I'm not quite sure what exactly she is trying to do with this video. But it sure has stirred up all the anti-science and conspiracy people.
Dark matter always reminded me of the luminiciferous ether claim. It invokes vast amounts of stuff that nobody can see or directly detect to explain basic phenomenon, when other models do it just fine without it. Storks might also deliver babies, but there are a lot more babies than observable storks. Perhaps mommies and babies manage it on their own somehow? I’m quite curious why gravity works differently at long range, but I suspect there is another term in there that is generally pretty tiny, but when you fall off at 1/r^2 eventually becomes most of it, precisely because it doesn’t fall off at 1/r^2. I am looking forward to physicists telling me why in time.
Sabine, I wouldn’t worry about science being self correcting. It is widely said we move forward one death at a time, and this principle should work in science too, if nothing else does. Eventually all these dinosaurs that invested their career in the wrong theory will either change their mind and research focus, or die trying not to. I expect the grant money will lead the way.
_"when other models do it just fine without it."_
No, they don't. That is the point.
MOND is a workaround hack; QI looks mathematically somewhat like MOND but explains and calculates the arbitrary constant that has to be guessed in MOND
“Alas! Another beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact.”
- (originator unknown to me)
There are way too many coincidences:
1) Age of the universe is the same age as SGR A*
2) The expansion rate of the universe equals the growth rate of SGR A*
3) The average amount of ionizing radiation emitted by local galaxies and average universe density can be used to calculate how much energy you would expect to see breaking past a lightspeed horizon assuming only ionizing radiation can break past it. There's your CMBR.
No dark matter needed.
I haven't read enough into MOND to fully understand what they're doing. But I do know a lot of Einsteinian ideas are correct, so at very least I have a lot of time for Special Relativity. But perhaps GR was a miss. I'm not sure. Like most other people, I have a hard time trying to wrap my head around the GR mathematics. SR is a cinch for me, GR just isn't an intuitive way for solving anything.
I never believed in the concept of dark matter.
It’s the equivalent of living in a world that’s 75% covered in water and a person having never gotten his feet wet.
Meh, more like being surrounded by air and not being able to see it.
not the best analogy but, I agree conceptually.
Was waiting for this video
Oh WOW I definitely didn't know this!
But I wished she address the results on gravitational lensing and dark matter that's been observed on its own in the absence of normal matter; I thought that was the real nail in the coffin for MOND and other modified gravity theories!
🧐 very interesting; personally, it seems a lot more _prima facie_ reasonable that “there’s stuff we don’t see” than that “gravity works differently at large scales in a way even Einstein couldn’t come to grips with”, but maybe that’s just because I grew up hearing about DM... very educational video
Always worth considering possibility one doesn't know everything.
It's not binary. They are both wrong.
@janetsanders5356 > "Always worth considering possibility one doesn't know everything."
... outrageous! .. just which culture are you from, exactly?
I just learned that the Electric Universe guys were predicting this. Now everything I look at... I see PLASMA... It's crazy...
Establishment academia's reluctance to account for electricity in the universe AT ALL is absolutely asinine. The EU guys may not be right about everything but at least they're asking questions and making predictions that tend to be borne out by both old and new data.
I am very glad that someone takes up this problem. Everybody is still hunting for dark matter and that does not exist.
Does MOND explain gravitational lensing, too? As far as I know only dark matter could explain why there is gravitational lensing in some regions where not enough "normal" matter is present.
Another option is that General Relativity is simply wrong.
Currents through plasma filaments can cause lensing. (We know the filaments are real. It doesn't matter if anyone has said silly things about them in the past.)
From my early days in college when they brought up "Dark Matter," something about it just felt wrong to me. It didn't seem scientific. Saying that we have a discrepancy in our understanding is one thing. Call it a delta or simply error; some form of variable that represents the difference between theory and observation. What has instead been done is that said delta was called "matter" and then actually regarded as such literally by the apparent scientific dogma -- "matter" the likes of which we have never actually detected -- and the only "evidence" for is really just a discrepancy between the observations and prediction.
At what point do we do the correct thing and simply consider that we were simply wrong? To fill in the gap between theory and observation with something we've basically made up and then to waste our time looking for that specific made-up thing (as opposed to literally anything else which might explain the discrepancy) just seems bonkers to me.
See also: Dark Energy.
While open-minded about the possible existence of either, I've been expecting one or both of these "dark" variables to simply fall apart at some point.
They are fantasies. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. No "dark" cheating required.
just because gravity is incorrect over a long distance... and btw also the red shift has been wrong for ages, no-one can explain it's acceleration
well anyway just because of that doesn't disprove "dark matter" i wouldn't just write it off that easy... im sorta not surprise gravity doesn't behave normal over a long distance with the red shift discrepency personally
They posited a HYPOTHESIS. It snow balled. Then most people forgot it was still a HYPOTHESIS, without validating experiments or proofs.
This is how myths are born.
Very well stated.
More than happy with this! I am not sure this is the final nail in the coffin for dark matter, but I don't really like the idea of trying to explain something we cannot explain, with hypothetical entities which no one is able to detect. It sounds a lot like the aether concept for explaining light movement. Or Zeus to explain lightnings.
Dark matter physicists: we need a bigger collider!
Science Communicator: I need more views!
at least some Quadrillions!
You've got 10,000+ people with pHds in dark matter. I wouldn't want my degree to be in phlogiston.
Would be interested to learn what the actual numbers are.
It will.
I hear about Dark Matter, and I am reminded of the Earth centered universe. After a time, errors show up in the predictions, so the theory of astronomy changes- epicycles get added to epicycles that were already added to cycles. And then somebody comes along, a Galileo, a Kepler, an Einstein, who says, "That's NOT right! This is-!"
I think that's the place where we are. ( And forgive me, please, if I got those names wrong. I have no detailed knowledge, just a general schooling in astronomy, physics, and math from a lifetime ago.)
As a man of the MOND, I've always thought that Dark Matter was a contemporary version of Phlogiston
Inflation, too.
MOND is a theory for dark matter
And MOND is just a rehash of luminferous aether.
It's more a modern version of the hypothetical Planet Vulcan used to explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion (before Relativity explained it properly) than it is of phlogiston.
Agree! Never could take "Dark matter" seriously! MOND might be wrong, but I still won't believe in such an obvious ad-hoc construct!
Layman's perspective here. But it seems like at some point physicist bought the wrong part for the fix. Instead of admitting that they've gone down a rabbit hole of adapters and modifications to try and make the part fit.
Common sense is dangerous to "authorities."
We laymen only use hammer and saw when we try to make our puzzles work.
Dark Matter is way more fun though .
This is always what happens right before a big breakthrough - there is an old and established theory that used to work, then new observations/experiments start to accumulate that do not fit in, an old theory is then modified and complicated to make that new data fit, until is is stretched so far, that everybody understands it's bullshit, just doesn't admit it, then there come some people, who look at whole thing with fresh eyes and open minds and a new theory is born that fits everything.
Happened, for example, right before Copernicus and Einstein.
@@ivankuzin8388 Except that isn't what happened. Dark matter never made sense as a particle and everyone knew that calling it a particle was stupid for a hundred years. Only in recent years did we accumulate enough idiots in physics to get a large portion of physicists thinking it must be a particle. Let's remember that these are the same people who can only describe magnetism in terms of virtual photons. We have lost the distinction between physicists and bean counters.
Finally a great video!
Thx for this one.
MOND needs more love
Both predictions rely on assumptions that, although derived from well documented data, are not well understood by the public and many of the commentators. Sometimes popular press is more like watching a tennis match than anything else.
the only assumption on MOND is 1/r, and it solves literally everything
@@NeroDefogger That's why the people working on it got the Nobel Prize in Physics.
@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 I'm sorry... people working on MOND got a nobel prize?
@@NeroDefogger I believe sarcasm is at play here
@@brodude7194 sarcasm where? I'm confused
Thanks, Sabine!!! 😊
About the critics, if you love science you need to criticize it. Science demands it!
Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Exactly 💯
I was stunned and speechless when I saw a popular and very reasonable scientific channel celebrating LCDM and saying Webb confirms it.
Dark matter & dark energy is basically Fairydust for mending broken modules, lets face it!
This is exactly right! Every time I hear people claiming it's real I keep scrolling.
I think you're probably right. And it would seem many cling to those models not because they are good science but because, for whatever reason, their self-esteem and world view are tied to them. "Climate change" should be revisited for the very same reason.
Yep, I’m utterly convinced in this. People forget that scientists are just as capable of hubris and “fudging the numbers” than any other field when their reputations are based on their own theories.
They're really just terms for observations that don't fit the current theoretical framework. There are various proposals about how to solve the problems, but none of them are really satisfactory yet.
@@bradnelson3595 Making the Big Bang compulsory belief was a HUGE mistake IMO. Due to that, our universe has had more patches than Windows 10. We are well & truly at the bottom of the barrel with DM & DE & multiverses etc. What a waste of minds!
But hasn't MOND already been rules out?
So we just stay where we were: both don't describe what's actually going on.
Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. You aren't limited to choosing between bunk and crap.
@@williamschlosser Plasma Cosmology is straight up bullshit, at least Dark Matter and MOND don't flat out deny what we already actually know for a matter of fact.
@@williamschlosser If Dark Matter and MOND are crap and bunk, what does that make Plasma Cosmology, which instead of trying to fit with what we've already observed (+Plus make new predictions), instead opts for trying to flat out deny what we already know for a matter of fact, like how planetary impacts happen and how the sun works?
PROBABLY we are a little arrogant in thinking we're close to a theory that explains any model this grand? I mean, just think about sub-atomic particles. Massive objects move in a predictable way. Then we get down to Quantum levels and things are significantly different. How do we know we aren't only six layers deep into a TRILLION layer onion? Because if there was a "Big Bang" with matter more dense then our calculations DEPEND on knowing these interactions. Since we're just extrapolating using the current calculations we have.
This applies to many parts of Cosmology.
Even if we get a MODEL that explains everything we OBSERVE it doesn't really mean that's how things work at a deeper level. It just means we are unable to OBSERVE anything deeper.
@@williamschlosserisn’t that the one that ‘doesn’t need the Higgs boson to work’ and predicted no Higgs field
Anton Petrov did report on that. He is a good source of reports on various scientific topics.
He did, but on the other hand he is also claiming that science agress that dark matter is a particle, which... well... he should know better.
@@danielmantione He is not claiming anything but reporting an different scientific papers, and what their conclusion is.
So another unobservable model necessary substance goes the way of the aether.
Dark matter sounds too cool to be dismissed by mere predictions that can be "fixed" ad-hoc. How else can we have bigger colliders? 😜
I wish that I had a good way of convincing people, particularly those enamored of their, or others education, that not trusting a particular narrative coming out of the scientific community does not mean that you distrust the scientific method. It just means that you doubt that some people, including professional scientists are following the scientific method.
I really hope we got it all wrong, there was no big bang to begin with, and that there are some amazing findings to be discovered.
they got it wrong, I was just wrong for blindly believing them for some years, I found some new cool stuff and I'm sure there is much more to learn
Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" is great on the science but also on the history and sociology of science.
@@NeroDefoggerenlighten us about this "cool new stuff"
Am I a bot magnet now?
@@black-snow No, you are looking for "amazing findings" but closed-minded about the ones already discovered.
I never believed in "Dark Matter". However, MOND is problematic. Perhaps a third theory will arise from this.
It is obvious nonsense.
Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe.
I've always had sceptisism regarding theories that requires one to invent stuff to patch'em.
Sabine, try to imagine the James Webb Telescope is showing us a universe without a Big Bang.
Your thinking is too high level for physicists to understand. That's not a joke. It's literally beyond the horizon of what they're willing to consider.
@@manlyadvice1789 One can not simply rebut the currently accepted theory willy nilly; one has to provide an alternate theory that explains observations better, otherwise one is just a charlatan.
@@lightbearer313 The "currently accepted theory" (big bang) amounts to guess work and personal preference. What's there to refute when there's no reason one should have to accept the theory in the first place? Every bit of evidence for the big bang can be interpreted some other way. If you'd like to have a closer look at the shenanigans surrounding the big bang "cosmology," a channel called "See the Pattern" has done some great videos on that in the last couple of months.
@@lightbearer313 Read Eric Lerner's 2022 paper, "Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Cosmology". If he's wrong, prove it.
@@manlyadvice1789 So, some (probably) cranks know better than most cosmologists. Or they are at best some random you tubers. When will they be getting their Nobel Prizes?
But what about the evidence against MOND?
I think all MOND thoeries are based on MOND + dark matter. So where MOND doesn't work they still use dark matter to explain things.
Irrelevant to this new result, covered in other videos.
you mean this: " "
@@SkyGodKing they literally don't lol, imagine making dumb sheet up just because you can lol, imagine not having a life
Our institutions have gotten old, tired, and lazy. In a word, corrupt. It's not personal, it seems to be a function of institutions throughout history.
It is a function of the brave revolutionaries and truth-tellers to knock off the corrosion and help move us into the future.
This dynamic is why we should always permit opposition.
Waiting for a Dark-MOND, or D-MOND theory. Cthulhu gravity.
gravity is fear? interesting...
There’s a gap between MOND predictions and observations in clusters like the Buller Cluster, and that gap in the math is essentially no different than “dark matter”
I know this video will appeal to the anti-establishment mob, but I didn't hear anything about "falsifying"... did I miss it or is the title just pandering clickbait?
isn't that the whole point of showing the graphs (@ 3:51) from the recent paper?
@@openhorizon1162 The published graphs clearly SHOW that MOND matches and dark matter doesn't. Even if they showed these graphs and wrote "so obviously dark matter is correct" it would still only be bad scientific conclusion, not falsifying data.
If obervations don't match with theory, there are only two possibilities: The observations are wrong or the theory has been falsified. One good observation is sufficient to falisfy a theory, though if we have a lot of trust in a theory, we often demand more than that to throw away our belief in it, just to be very sure it's that our observations are correct.
@@jeffevarts8757I'm confused by your reply. Are you confusing the 2 senses of "falsify"? Sabine said the dark matter theory is falsified by this data, not that someone is making up (falsifying) data. She's also not saying that someone is making bad scientific claims, such as that the data shows something it doesn't.
@@openhorizon1162 I believe that Sabine is misusing the term, and you may be lending her credibility. To falsify is to replace quantifiable facts (numbers in a spreadsheet, table, or graph) with fiction, usually to support the author's thesis statement. Writing "2+2 =4, which proves that the world is flat." isn't falsifying data, it' manifestly poor thinking. It's academically embarrassing, but not academic FRAUD. That's the difference between this (bad) paper purporting to support a theory it doesn't, and falsification, which would be lying about where the dots (didn't liner up) were. Sabine is a top flight academic with a (very!) solid grasp of English. I expect her to use a term as loaded as "falsify" correctly, not sling it around like an angry kid from grade school.
Well it can also mean that the formation of galaxies didn't start when they assume it did, but earlier. IRK there has been other evidence of black holes being too massive or galaxies being too big too long ago..
I attended an astronomy club meeting in MD some years ago and the featured guest speaker was none other than Vera Rubin! I asked her directly if she thought that MOND was possibly real and she said yes.
Most physicists would also give you the same answer. We still dont know which model explains the observations. MOND can still be a possibility despite all its shortcomings and how it fails at explaining some data by taking other versions of it. Most poeple in the field are working on dark matter however.
The problem of galaxies forming too quickly was widely known decades before JWST. It is not a problem with dark matter. It is a problem with a lack if understanding of the early universe. For example there could have been primordial gravitational waves left over from inflation that focused dark matter into black holes to seed galaxy formation. MOND fails in much more direct ways. Using iit as an explanation of galaxy formation is not going to save it.
I said before the Webb launch. It won't be what webb proves that will be the most worth while. What it disproves will be worth the most. I believed it will disprove basic ideas. Now we keep learning!!
I follow the DM debate for like 14 years. It is very prominent here in Bonn. I never understood, why we uphold DM and ΛCDM as if it is more than a hypothesis. There is a lot of stuff that can be described better in other ways. I am glad to have listened to a lecture about galaxies by Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa about a decade ago seeing clear evidence of the problems with DM.
Same case with inflation
@@Thomas-gk42 Kinda. I don't even know how you would test it without ΛCDM assumptions. I mean if ΛCDM is wrong the derived implications on cosmology need to be reevaluated aswell obviously.
@@54321eclipse12345 Yes indeed, hopefully we get informed by fearless Dr.Sabine.😊
@@54321eclipse12345Yes, indeed. Strucuture formation in the early universe would work quite different without infaltion and the Webb data shows that the predictions seem to be wrong. Happily, fearless Dr. Sabine keeps us informed😊
what explains CMB better? or lensing?
MOND lost on the measurement of the speed of gravitational waves and does not explain galaxies where the dark matter has been quenched.l
This is the modern version of when the first telescopes blew up the geocentric model. Dark matter and dark energy are the modern-day epicycles. When the model doesn't work, make something up to make it work again, because they have too much time and personal reputation invested in the failed model to admit it failed.
it’s getting harder and harder to “trust the science” lately
i was previously concerned about too many studies designed to support pre-determined conclusions of whoever finances the study
now this?
I trust science (The Scientific Method), but not many of the ways in which it has been done in recent decades. I think new scientists are more concerned about making a name for themselves (publish or perish) than about finding truth. Note that special and general relativity were discovered not by a Professional Scientist grubbing for university grant money, but by a Swiss patent clerk. I can't tell you what the next big breakthrough in physics will be; but I can tell you that it will be by someone who cares more about actual truth than about grubbing for fame and fortune or appeasing authorities.
@@RobbieHatley You are right about "who will make the next big breakthrough" It is really a person from outside! - Check the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" the breakthrough is there.
@@RobbieHatley Seems like breakthroughs always come from outsiders (see: Galileo). Try Plasma Cosmology. Can't tell you how many times I've read "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner. Great on the science, but also on the history and sociology of science.