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.
Dark matter/mond are fundamental to gravity, and gravity is fundamental to formation of galaxies. Sabines hair has nothing to do with whatever nonsense you're saying there in an attempt tp be funny. Try again.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
🧐 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
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!
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.
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?
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.
I keep saying we're missing something with regard to gravity and inertia. It may be why we cannot link gravity and quantum mechanics and do away with the need for dark matter...which I've never believed existed.
I've always felt that Dark Matter was arse-backwards kludge. Like a theory in search of facts bent well beyond breaking point to fit it into observed reality. Yet so many have everything staked upon it they don't want to let go.
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
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.
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.
Normal science communicators can't talk about this. Very few people ever mention MOND as a genuine competition to Dark Matter and so for years they've been preaching Dark Matter as not just our best theory, but something people should believe in (as if the only alternative was to deny science altogether). Now the alternative has lots of data to support it, but the weight of all those years of "this must be true" doesn't go away in an instant. There will be (has been) a period of silent backtracking from the hard support for Dark Matter before MOND suddenly gets a lot of attention. That you communicate the science without the dogmatism is the main reason I value your reporting so much. Thank you for being honest about the data and what it means. Love from Australia!
The falsification of climate catastrophism is far more complete and obvious than the falsification of dark matter, yet it has had almost no effect on the dominant narrative from "science communicators" and "science journalists" (most of whom have little or no STEM proficiency).
There was an ultraviolet correction which had only been applied to lower z redshift. Webb is used for much higher z and one scientist reapplied the correction and suddenly the data of Webb matched size age predictions
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.
Very true statement even if obvious people seem to forget that a lot conveniently If one proposes a new theory no doubt everyone will debunk it based on all the stuff we know, but if they were honest they’d remember we don’t understand 💩
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.🤦♂️
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.
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
Sabine, please, what are the implications of MOND? Since it now looks to me (a physics noob) that it's accurate - what can we do with it? Like Special Relativity unlocked things like GPS, Modern electronics, atomic clocks, etc. - what does MOND mean for gravity manipulation for example?
First, we don't know if it is accurate. Sabine is talking about a specific problem here. Both theories have problems. Second, for the time being MOND is not expected to have applications in Earth conditions. This is because it applies to very weak gravitational fields. You need some very, very empty space to see a difference from standard gravity clearly, for example hollows between galaxies. It might be possible to detect its effects in Solar system in the future, but these will be very small corrections.
@@foxtrotunit1269 MOND isn't really an all-encompassing theory like SR and GR were. It's more a high-level description of how gravity/accelleration should work in such a theory. In essence MOND is what Newton's laws of motion and gravitation are to relativity. So if it is true and we do find a good theory that makes these MOND-like predictions, it could very well have tangible differences relevant here on Earth. Tho if there are any I guess we would probably find them first and only then be able to form a good theory that simplifies to MOND.
Thanks for the video! I find the press releases from national observatories and labs are typically pretty science-free and use a lot of meaningless superlatives.
The Bible says the world existed from long ago. This isn’t normally observed unless you look at the Hebrew or pay close attention. The very first verse throws people off because they think that it’s saying God created the heavens and the earth right then and there, when Hebrew often will give an overall statement and then proceed to go into further detail of how it happened. At least theologically, it’s interesting because it’s saying the earth is very old. Light is also called into existence which makes the darkness which was over the earth logically older than the light. I wonder how this was changed into the theology of believing the earth was created in 7 days. It was rather already there and completed with everything functional and planned by the seventh day.
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.
It is very important to mention that MOND is not z theory without flaws, which is why it has not seen as much widespread acceptance as Lambda-CMD model. MOND is a theory that attempts to explain galaxy formation by modifying Newton's second law and not invoking dark matter as a possibility. And while it sees success here and there, it has far less explanatory power compared to the standard model. MOND cannot explain relativistic effects such as gravitational lensing and gravitational waves, as well as properties of the CMB. It also fails to explain the mass discrepancy present in galaxy clusters that persist even when analyzed using MOND. In general MOND is just not as good of a theory compared to Lambda-CDM. And although this is undeniably a win for MOND, it still needs a lot more to overcome Lambda-CDM as tge prevailing model.
i read papers about relativistic version of MOND, but yeah, a newtonian version isn't good enough tho i read someone talking about how the minimal acceleration is related to another constant of nature, i think it was Erik Verlinde if i'm not wrong and they said that's the most fascinating aspect about MOND.
Q: Does MOND contradict General Relativity? A: It generally seems to be assumed that it must, but this is not true. GR and MOND apply in very different regimes. Relativity is what happens as v → c; MOND is what happens as a → 0. Empirically, these regimes couldn't be further removed.
Just to clarify, mainly what both mond and dark matter try to do is explain how fast galaxies spin, mainly they spin too fast. So for example, if the sun weighed more then the planets would spin around it faster, and galaxies spin too quickly to be explained by all the stuff we can see (i.e. 'luminous matter'). So based on Newton's laws, there must be mass that isn't glowing, therefore 'dark' matter. But "Dark Matter" is just a question, not an explanation the question could be asked "what's this extra mass" or "what's with this extra gravitational pull" MOND says it's not matter but tweaks to the equations of gravity at large distances that cause it. But we also get additional gravitational lensing which MOND doesn't explain, and the rotation curves for different galaxies are different (which would mean they'd all need to have their own formula, with MOND or they have different amounts of dark matter, with dark matter. Also, studies of 'wide binaries' have shown they all behave the way you would expect based on Newtonian dynamics.)
Sabine - Love your content and your sense of humor. Are there hard and fast constraints that prevent us from revising our estimates of the age of the universe?
The problem with MOND is that is correct only in some cases. And it contradics other well established and tested theories like General Relativity. So it is not "MOND wins, DM looses" but "in this MOND works better, however in general...". JWST does the same to a lot of astrophysics and cosmology and such debates are still ongoing. Starting with "Hubble friction" which grows or dissapears depending on observations. It is still vibrant and evolving field and will produce new, better thoeries. That is why noone mentions it that way: such situations are quite common in the field. No controversy here hence no one cares.
It's odd that Sabine ignores the only self-contained physical theory of the universe, Plasma Cosmology, and sees the debate as one between two curve-fitting theories with no physical basis for "dark" stuff or tweaking gravity.
There IS controversy because very obviously the theory which is "better" is not decided on any objective, standard science criteria whatsoever. If your theory doesn't match observations, throw it in the fire. I could understand if the DM theory was wrong in a fashion that suggested we just need to shift the graph up or down or something, and then it will fat the data. But no, it's not only wrong by orders of magnitude, but the whole curvature in its graphical prediction, is wrong. MOND at the very least hits the key data points, even if it isn't perfect in this observation, and painfully wrong in others. Why are you so afraid to say that both theories are probably incorrect, and that the science communicators and papers are definitely not doing their job?
Q: Does MOND contradict General Relativity? A: It generally seems to be assumed that it must, but this is not true. GR and MOND apply in very different regimes. Relativity is what happens as v → c; MOND is what happens as a → 0. Empirically, these regimes couldn't be further removed.
Not exactly the issue is the measurements are outdated by the time the data gets printed that should obvious if they understand the factorials they can adjust it based on pattern what the next phase will be with increased accuracy
Well done. This also helps us understand that ideas only change when the people holding them die off, leaving some space for those with new ideas to emerge--one of the arguments against increasing longevity.
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 didn't think there was sufficient evidence for Dark Matter as an explanation for the rotation of galaxies when I first heard the term. I assumed we didn't understand gravity properly before I heard of MOND. I'm glad a simpler explanation is being explored.
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)
Sabine, one of the issues with Newtonian Dynamics is that it only takes into consideration the state of things now. What happened in the early universe would likely be wildly different: Time compression, magnetic saturation, the rules would have been different, but modern science must shoehorn everything into their equations, like me into my college jeans. When your surroundings don't match the map, get yourself a new map.
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.
Once again: why are we so sure that those early, large, bright galaxies are not supermassive dark stars glowing stronger that a supernova? I mentioned this very same hypothesis under a recent video of Anton, too. There must have been much more dark matter clumps back then, which gave rise to galaxy-like supermassive dark stars, which later ended up as supermassive black holes, according to a fresh new hypothesis.
I've always said that Dark Matter exists in exactly the same way I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. And if you give me a billion dollars, I'll be able to turn the unicorn visible for you. Maybe 5 billion. Maybe 10!
it does exist though... or at least something does exist and it's definatly dark (edit: well okay it is invisible really as well as dark) and giving gravity like matter..... hence "dark matter" it's really not making anything up.... it's channels unlike sabine's sometimes i think might make things less clear, Sabbine has some videos
A quick search and i found lots of scientists talking about it. And lots if theories too. The issue with MOND is that is doesn't work for all cases we can see already. If you tune it fir galaxies, then galaxies with no dark matter halo are unexplainable. If you tune it for long period binaries then galaxies don't work right. What the James Webb results show us that the early universe doesn't match our expectations. That might mean dark matter is not the right answer, but MOND doesn't work with everything we knew before James Webb, whereas dark matter does.
@williamschlosser er no it doesn't. It reveals that we don't know everything about galaxy formation, but the results are not incompatible with dark matter. Galaxy rotation vs long period binaries is incompatible with MOND. It only works for one at a time, not both at once.
He's not afraid to have anyone on his show. He's had reputable scientists and crackpots. Liberals and conservatives He's willing to listen and converse with anybody and that's a big part of why he's so popular.
Yeah. Joe Rogan is afraid. Yeah. Very afraid. Doesn't sleep at night thinking about Sabine spanking Elon with an Ivermectin tablets family format blister. Yeah. Whatever.
Dark matter sounds like a programmer not understanding what is causing the problem in the code and instead doing a bandaid fix to modify the output of the code to make things work... Until everything breaks again with slightly different inputs.
@@СашаЧерный-э2т Both DM and MOND are curve-fitting theories, to which Kisoku's comment applies. There is only one self-contained physical theory of universe, and that's Plasma Cosmology. No "dark" stuff or unexplained gravity-tweaking.
Possibly Einstein's gravity theory is wrong but MOND is not convincing me. First thing - there are some galaxies where dark matter was not discovered. It means that velocity of stars are exactly as expected for the given distance from galaxy center. So if classic Newton theory work then MOND can't. Second thing: MOND is not relativistic theory. Which is bad because constant speed of light was verified in many different ways. It was also verified that in the past it hasn't changed
Do you actually need General Relativity to have Special Relativity? But also, as far as I understand it, MOND doesn't claim anything about the speed of light. It just says "dividing by r² doesn't work at large distances". It's even in the name. "Modified _Newtonian_ Dynamics", as opposed to "Newtonian dynamics" which we don't use for gravity anymore, but oh do we use it for gravity. (But yeah, I am quite perplexed as to why MOND tries to contest the Second Law of Motion and doesn't just directly go for the Universal Law of Gravitation. It's weird. I guess I still need to learn more about this. But then there are these galaxies rotating as if no Dark Matter was needed, so maybe MOND is plain wrong.)
Oh dear, I thought I had managed to weed out this myth. I wrote about this here: backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html
I've never hear about the "bulle cluster" I had to search it, and I didn't found anything right away, no apparent issue or something, so I'm confused of what you even mean
Your doubts about Science self-correcting are well founded. The great philosopher and thinker about science Thomas Kuhn said exactly this. His well-supported idea is that science does not progress linearly and steadily but that dominant paradigms become entrenched by majority consensus and that this usually only changes when the evidence becomes overwhelming or most of the older supporters of the dominant paradigm die. Scientific truths are not wholly objective, evidence based, nor absolute and final, but are held by agreement among the leaders in a field. Experts or high status individuals will almost never abandon ideas upon which their expertise or status is based! Keep subverting the paradigm and throwing doubt Sabine!
Science only self corrects when the old crowd dies off. We saw this in nutritional science. The old established scientists who have hundreds/thousands of papers published and sit at the top of journals and Universities have built their careers around Dark Matter. That's their legacy. They aren't exactly going to be thrilled about their life's work being shown as a waste of time. Popular science likes to cover sensational science. Things that sound magical and amazing. Dark Matter fits that category. MOND does not. There is also politics involved in this where non-scientific people have been screaming "Trust the Science!" for years. Especially in regards to certain topics. So something as big as Dark Matter potentially getting debunked would undermine their claims of absolute certainty in areas like Climate Science (I know you're still on that side of it). The weird thing is that Dark Matter was always a fudge factor. It was a way for them to get their models of mass and gravity to work correctly. Then they turned around and tried to pretend it was a real physical entity. Reminds me of religions and how they were started. Complex thing that doesn't make sense within their understand, fabricate a mysterious magical force that explains it.
Since I don't have the knowledge to judge it, I choose to believe the Anton Petrov opinion on this mater. But both Sabine and Anton are my favorite science communicators 😅 even when they desagree.
I love your science vids but ever since I started watching, my UA-cam ads changed to perpetual motion machines, quack medicine, impossible gadgets etc.
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.
Thank you Sabine! Here's my question, does this mean MOND is right? Or does it mean DM is wrong? Just because one is wrong, it doesn't mean the other is right? Love your videos!
I believe science does self-correct, just very slowly. There is quote that is often attributed to Max Planck (though it really just paraphrases him), that contains a lot of truth: “science progresses one funeral at a time”.
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.
I think this highlights a different problem. No one wants to contradict "established science." If this confirmed some outlandish mainstream idea (like aliens) it would get published without checking the accuracy. Since it conflicts something taught in textbooks, everyone wants someone else to publish it.
@Sabine It’s always been this way because scientists are people, and human nature hasn’t changed much. As a physics student I read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. He called it out. So I finished my physics degree and went into computer science. Maybe I should have started a UA-cam channel.
It is not like MOND does not have a free parameter to tweak too. For me Dark matter is bad and MOND is worse yet: "let's tweak laws of physics until it fits better". Both are curve adjustments not theories. But at leas Dark matter shows a mechanism. MOND just changes the coefficient of gravitational force in an ad hoc manner. Dark Matter supposed a kind of matter that does not follow our expectations for matter in general what we call baryonic matter). Both are extremely difficult to swallow. And no theory is abandoned because one observation, just when the dirt under the rug has about half a meter height. Relativity was not accepted just because the famous Eclipse pictures. And Lorentz Electron theory was forgotten because it made predictions about QM while GR did not. Science is a social activity and has much to do with convincing others instead of just facts Popper and Kuhn describe this behavior in detail. It is not surprising it follows the same pattern many theories followed. In hindsight we may think the acceptance of new theories and the debunking of old ones seem easier than it was as we see the time compressed: several decades in a few hundred pages.
You are correcting something that was never an issue, a hypercorrection. The key aspect of being a scientist is that the evidence leads the way. If contrary evidence doesn't make one's hypothesis change, it is not science anymore, it is ideology, which has no place in science. Having said that, most scientists are in the field to have a better understanding of reality, not to be stuck in dogma. This is unlike any other field out there where you can yap nonsense and win a debate. Every scientist knows when to concede when the evidence is overwhelming against their ideas, _and rejoice when he is proven wrong_
not really. it's science journalists saying "this thing shouldn't exist". scientists say "look, we found something interesting! this might not agree with our theory, but there are 5 different things that could have gone wrong or be unusual about the data we looked at. we need to make new measurements to figure out if it's one of those before we jump to conclusions" but of course that doesn't make for catchy headlines. in addition to that, your normal news websites or papers only pick stories that sound remarkable and clickbaity, even when it's a miniscule advancement and don't report on important discoveries if they don't sound catchy at first glance. then they only read the abstract at best and often misrepresent the findings because they didn't understand it. that's why i (as someone with a background in research) have given up on reading any science news from mainstream media and only follow a few people who are experts in their fields for science news.
Una MOND especifica no es válida en todos los ámbitos. Los agujeros negros primordiales pueden explicar esa curva de crecimiento...no solo MOND. Gracias por el canal y por ti.👍🏼
Physicists for the most part demean religious explanations for the universe as just "made up". But when their models did not work to explain the evolution of the universe, they just "made up" two things, dark matter and dark energy to make it all add up. There is nothing in the standard model that gives a satisfactory answer for dark matter. There is no empirical proof of its existence, only an unexplained gravitational effect. I remember the late Dr. Sagan remarking about the theories concerning Venus before 1960. "I can't see a thing on Venus.....conclusion? Dinosaurs!"
I've been supporting the dark horse of MOND for twenty years now since I had both explained to me. As a writer who needs to use semi-accurate hand-waves for my Sci-fi, I feel pretty smug knowing I'm ahead of many people on this subject with much more academic achievement behind them than me.
Galaxy formation simulations are sensitive to the assumptions one makes about feedback from baryons, which is very complicated relative to dark matter. These assumptions were fine tuned to reproduce the old data we had from Hubble. I think the reason physicists don’t care much about the Webb data is they can just spend the next few years re-tuning their assumptions about the baryon physics to reproduce it. The lesson, I think, is that the galaxy formation simulations aren’t very useful for this debate. Although the MOND predictions are interesting in their own right.
Science is nothing like I was taught at school. Late: 1950's. The teacher told us that science knew everything except a few minor mysteries. Those mysteries would be solved in the very near future. Now it seems the more they discover the less they know.
On the other hand, the standard model of particle physics has been very robust for a long time so although we don't know everything we might know an awful lot.
That's BS and you know it. Gravity, chemistry, physics as we experience it has not changed at all since you were taught and the continued marvels of technology made using the Standard Model are proof of that. You just want to be anti-establishment for your feelings' sake.
yeah its a real anti-science establishment take to say "science is nothing like it was before". Like duh, we've learned so much more since 1950 it's not even a damn conversation. Like did you comment on youtube videos in 1950? Come on, use your noodle broski.
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
Sabine is a gem for pointing out how poorly scientists communicate important discoveries and how the mainstream media will do its best to silence the findings.
I am still on the "Never attribute to malice which can be explained by incompetence" train. Thus I won't call it silencing. It's simply not realizing the importance.
Really? I think she is selective. There is a whole range of predictions regarding the Big Bang that never came true. But the big bang is holy and untouchable.
If anything, Sabine's primary audience has become a gem for proving how little care the general public gives about honest research if it allows for a position of contrarianism. It's just lazier to blame others. MOND has been the talk of the town for years now for just about anyone who has kept up even with astrophysics headlines alone over the last handful of years.
The slow galaxy formation models never made sense to me. The early universe was much smaller, and thus had a vastly higher mass density, meaning once a gravity well gets started, it can pull in a LOT of matter very fast. I would expect galaxies to form RAPIDLY in the early universe, and then slow down as the universe expands. And THAT agrees with the observations!
I didn't realize that this myth is still making the rounds, sorry, otherwise I'd have mentioned it backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html
We have come a very long way. In olden days folks would be forced to agree with the official views using methods that are painful. Today they only cut the funding and ignore the results.
I’m so glad we have a science communicator like yourself to call out these issues in academia. It’s a shame the politics of academia seem to impede true scientific progress
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
Dark matter/mond are fundamental to gravity, and gravity is fundamental to formation of galaxies. Sabines hair has nothing to do with whatever nonsense you're saying there in an attempt tp be funny. Try again.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
🧐 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.
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!
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.
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 !!!
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.
I keep saying we're missing something with regard to gravity and inertia. It may be why we cannot link gravity and quantum mechanics and do away with the need for dark matter...which I've never believed existed.
I've always felt that Dark Matter was arse-backwards kludge. Like a theory in search of facts bent well beyond breaking point to fit it into observed reality. Yet so many have everything staked upon it they don't want to let go.
I wrote 2012 the book “Calculation ERROR” about problems of economic science. Not the smallest discussion about 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.
Albert had a reasonable idea at all of the times, so far.
Wow... Just wow... Stellar comparisons!
It is almost like nobody cares about the reality unless their paycheck depends on it.
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.
I’m reminded of a quote from Adam Savage:
“I reject your reality… and substitute my own”
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.
0:55 nice, looks very like my own beloved bright red leather sofa 😀
Normal science communicators can't talk about this. Very few people ever mention MOND as a genuine competition to Dark Matter and so for years they've been preaching Dark Matter as not just our best theory, but something people should believe in (as if the only alternative was to deny science altogether). Now the alternative has lots of data to support it, but the weight of all those years of "this must be true" doesn't go away in an instant. There will be (has been) a period of silent backtracking from the hard support for Dark Matter before MOND suddenly gets a lot of attention.
That you communicate the science without the dogmatism is the main reason I value your reporting so much. Thank you for being honest about the data and what it means. Love from Australia!
The falsification of climate catastrophism is far more complete and obvious than the falsification of dark matter, yet it has had almost no effect on the dominant narrative from "science communicators" and "science journalists" (most of whom have little or no STEM proficiency).
There was an ultraviolet correction which had only been applied to lower z redshift. Webb is used for much higher z and one scientist reapplied the correction and suddenly the data of Webb matched size age predictions
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.
To be honest, nobody has the slightest idea what is going on out there.
Indeed. And they will not know for the next million years.
Very true statement even if obvious people seem to forget that a lot conveniently
If one proposes a new theory no doubt everyone will debunk it based on all the stuff we know, but if they were honest they’d remember we don’t understand 💩
Ive been a fan of MOND for years now. Even though it was never covered whwn I went through physics in college. Everything was about dark matter.
Was waiting for this video
An informationbased reality doesn‘t need dark matter to model reality. Hard times for hardliners in physics.
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?
Heat is infrared energy.we can't see it but we feel it.
@@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.🤦♂️
I love that red couch! Nice job whoever picked that image.
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?
More people should talk about this, thank you Sabine!
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.
Seems a simple case of MOND of Matter. Thanks Sabine for all your wonderful videos. :)
Sabine, please, what are the implications of MOND?
Since it now looks to me (a physics noob) that it's accurate - what can we do with it?
Like Special Relativity unlocked things like GPS, Modern electronics, atomic clocks, etc. - what does MOND mean for gravity manipulation for example?
First, we don't know if it is accurate. Sabine is talking about a specific problem here. Both theories have problems. Second, for the time being MOND is not expected to have applications in Earth conditions. This is because it applies to very weak gravitational fields. You need some very, very empty space to see a difference from standard gravity clearly, for example hollows between galaxies. It might be possible to detect its effects in Solar system in the future, but these will be very small corrections.
@@Tablis0 Oh,
so MOND is just a slight correction to special relativity - not a completely new theory unlocking new tech?
well that was a record on my longest "pfff" on my life
Absolutely nothing. MOND is ad hoc convenient tweaking of gravity to try to match data. No physical theory there.
@@foxtrotunit1269 MOND isn't really an all-encompassing theory like SR and GR were. It's more a high-level description of how gravity/accelleration should work in such a theory. In essence MOND is what Newton's laws of motion and gravitation are to relativity.
So if it is true and we do find a good theory that makes these MOND-like predictions, it could very well have tangible differences relevant here on Earth. Tho if there are any I guess we would probably find them first and only then be able to form a good theory that simplifies to MOND.
Thanks for the video! I find the press releases from national observatories and labs are typically pretty science-free and use a lot of meaningless superlatives.
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
The Bible says the world existed from long ago. This isn’t normally observed unless you look at the Hebrew or pay close attention. The very first verse throws people off because they think that it’s saying God created the heavens and the earth right then and there, when Hebrew often will give an overall statement and then proceed to go into further detail of how it happened.
At least theologically, it’s interesting because it’s saying the earth is very old. Light is also called into existence which makes the darkness which was over the earth logically older than the light. I wonder how this was changed into the theology of believing the earth was created in 7 days. It was rather already there and completed with everything functional and planned by the seventh day.
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?
A few billion years... I clearly have to show this to our sofa, so it adjusts its timing.
😅
It is very important to mention that MOND is not z theory without flaws, which is why it has not seen as much widespread acceptance as Lambda-CMD model.
MOND is a theory that attempts to explain galaxy formation by modifying Newton's second law and not invoking dark matter as a possibility. And while it sees success here and there, it has far less explanatory power compared to the standard model.
MOND cannot explain relativistic effects such as gravitational lensing and gravitational waves, as well as properties of the CMB. It also fails to explain the mass discrepancy present in galaxy clusters that persist even when analyzed using MOND.
In general MOND is just not as good of a theory compared to Lambda-CDM. And although this is undeniably a win for MOND, it still needs a lot more to overcome Lambda-CDM as tge prevailing model.
huh? gravity lensing? I kee now issues with Newtonian gravity and lensing. gravity pulls light, duh
i read papers about relativistic version of MOND, but yeah, a newtonian version isn't good enough
tho i read someone talking about how the minimal acceleration is related to another constant of nature, i think it was Erik Verlinde if i'm not wrong and they said that's the most fascinating aspect about MOND.
@michaelocchipinti8265 I'd reply to what you said, but that would imply your English is comprehensible, which it isn't.
Q: Does MOND contradict General Relativity?
A: It generally seems to be assumed that it must, but this is not true. GR and MOND apply in very different regimes. Relativity is what happens as v → c; MOND is what happens as a → 0. Empirically, these regimes couldn't be further removed.
Just to clarify, mainly what both mond and dark matter try to do is explain how fast galaxies spin, mainly they spin too fast. So for example, if the sun weighed more then the planets would spin around it faster, and galaxies spin too quickly to be explained by all the stuff we can see (i.e. 'luminous matter'). So based on Newton's laws, there must be mass that isn't glowing, therefore 'dark' matter. But "Dark Matter" is just a question, not an explanation the question could be asked "what's this extra mass" or "what's with this extra gravitational pull" MOND says it's not matter but tweaks to the equations of gravity at large distances that cause it. But we also get additional gravitational lensing which MOND doesn't explain, and the rotation curves for different galaxies are different (which would mean they'd all need to have their own formula, with MOND or they have different amounts of dark matter, with dark matter. Also, studies of 'wide binaries' have shown they all behave the way you would expect based on Newtonian dynamics.)
Sabine - Love your content and your sense of humor.
Are there hard and fast constraints that prevent us from revising our estimates of the age of the universe?
The problem with MOND is that is correct only in some cases. And it contradics other well established and tested theories like General Relativity. So it is not "MOND wins, DM looses" but "in this MOND works better, however in general...".
JWST does the same to a lot of astrophysics and cosmology and such debates are still ongoing. Starting with "Hubble friction" which grows or dissapears depending on observations. It is still vibrant and evolving field and will produce new, better thoeries. That is why noone mentions it that way: such situations are quite common in the field.
No controversy here hence no one cares.
This comment should have been included in the video word for word.
It's odd that Sabine ignores the only self-contained physical theory of the universe, Plasma Cosmology, and sees the debate as one between two curve-fitting theories with no physical basis for "dark" stuff or tweaking gravity.
There IS controversy because very obviously the theory which is "better" is not decided on any objective, standard science criteria whatsoever. If your theory doesn't match observations, throw it in the fire. I could understand if the DM theory was wrong in a fashion that suggested we just need to shift the graph up or down or something, and then it will fat the data. But no, it's not only wrong by orders of magnitude, but the whole curvature in its graphical prediction, is wrong.
MOND at the very least hits the key data points, even if it isn't perfect in this observation, and painfully wrong in others.
Why are you so afraid to say that both theories are probably incorrect, and that the science communicators and papers are definitely not doing their job?
Q: Does MOND contradict General Relativity?
A: It generally seems to be assumed that it must, but this is not true. GR and MOND apply in very different regimes. Relativity is what happens as v → c; MOND is what happens as a → 0. Empirically, these regimes couldn't be further removed.
Not exactly the issue is the measurements are outdated by the time the data gets printed that should obvious if they understand the factorials they can adjust it based on pattern what the next phase will be with increased accuracy
Well done. This also helps us understand that ideas only change when the people holding them die off, leaving some space for those with new ideas to emerge--one of the arguments against increasing longevity.
Ah maybe soon we will live in a universe where sprinkling dark matter on things does not solve all the problems.
5:07 Sometime, the winner doesn't get mention. Many news say that Yusuf Dikec win in silver medal 10m air pistol but never say who is winner.
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 💯
Thank you for the great video Sabine.
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
I didn't think there was sufficient evidence for Dark Matter as an explanation for the rotation of galaxies when I first heard the term. I assumed we didn't understand gravity properly before I heard of MOND. I'm glad a simpler explanation is being explored.
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)
Sabine, one of the issues with Newtonian Dynamics is that it only takes into consideration the state of things now. What happened in the early universe would likely be wildly different: Time compression, magnetic saturation, the rules would have been different, but modern science must shoehorn everything into their equations, like me into my college jeans. When your surroundings don't match the map, get yourself a new map.
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.
Once again: why are we so sure that those early, large, bright galaxies are not supermassive dark stars glowing stronger that a supernova? I mentioned this very same hypothesis under a recent video of Anton, too. There must have been much more dark matter clumps back then, which gave rise to galaxy-like supermassive dark stars, which later ended up as supermassive black holes, according to a fresh new hypothesis.
The scale of your charts is critical. If they show one trilllionth of a percentage point, then I'm not bothered.
I never heard about MOND. Did you do a video about it before? If not I would be very interested:)
I've always said that Dark Matter exists in exactly the same way I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.
And if you give me a billion dollars, I'll be able to turn the unicorn visible for you.
Maybe 5 billion. Maybe 10!
it does exist though... or at least something does exist and it's definatly dark (edit: well okay it is invisible really as well as dark) and giving gravity like matter..... hence "dark matter" it's really not making anything up.... it's channels unlike sabine's sometimes i think might make things less clear, Sabbine has some videos
A quick search and i found lots of scientists talking about it.
And lots if theories too.
The issue with MOND is that is doesn't work for all cases we can see already.
If you tune it fir galaxies, then galaxies with no dark matter halo are unexplainable. If you tune it for long period binaries then galaxies don't work right.
What the James Webb results show us that the early universe doesn't match our expectations. That might mean dark matter is not the right answer, but MOND doesn't work with everything we knew before James Webb, whereas dark matter does.
So what? JWST reveals that DM is wrong.
@williamschlosser er no it doesn't. It reveals that we don't know everything about galaxy formation, but the results are not incompatible with dark matter. Galaxy rotation vs long period binaries is incompatible with MOND. It only works for one at a time, not both at once.
joe rogan is too afraid to have sabine on his podcast because she would roast so many of his lying physicist friends LOL
He's not afraid to have anyone on his show.
He's had reputable scientists and crackpots.
Liberals and conservatives
He's willing to listen and converse with anybody and that's a big part of why he's so popular.
Yeah. Joe Rogan is afraid. Yeah. Very afraid. Doesn't sleep at night thinking about Sabine spanking Elon with an Ivermectin tablets family format blister. Yeah. Whatever.
And she blamed him rightly so in his video about Terence Howard.
@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xvthat's ok, but he shouldn't promote the crackpots
@@7Little701She’s a serious scientist. I don’t think she would visit a format like that.
I care greatly, Sabine. I always believed this would happen.
Dark matter sounds like a programmer not understanding what is causing the problem in the code and instead doing a bandaid fix to modify the output of the code to make things work... Until everything breaks again with slightly different inputs.
and it is literally exactly that (as a programmer and physicist with a functional brain)
MOND matches this explanation ever more
@@СашаЧерный-э2т Both DM and MOND are curve-fitting theories, to which Kisoku's comment applies. There is only one self-contained physical theory of universe, and that's Plasma Cosmology. No "dark" stuff or unexplained gravity-tweaking.
Possibly Einstein's gravity theory is wrong but MOND is not convincing me. First thing - there are some galaxies where dark matter was not discovered. It means that velocity of stars are exactly as expected for the given distance from galaxy center. So if classic Newton theory work then MOND can't. Second thing: MOND is not relativistic theory. Which is bad because constant speed of light was verified in many different ways. It was also verified that in the past it hasn't changed
Do you actually need General Relativity to have Special Relativity? But also, as far as I understand it, MOND doesn't claim anything about the speed of light. It just says "dividing by r² doesn't work at large distances". It's even in the name. "Modified _Newtonian_ Dynamics", as opposed to "Newtonian dynamics" which we don't use for gravity anymore, but oh do we use it for gravity.
(But yeah, I am quite perplexed as to why MOND tries to contest the Second Law of Motion and doesn't just directly go for the Universal Law of Gravitation. It's weird. I guess I still need to learn more about this. But then there are these galaxies rotating as if no Dark Matter was needed, so maybe MOND is plain wrong.)
How does MOND deal with the Bullet cluster? I was taught the Bullet cluster is evidence for dark matter.
Oh dear, I thought I had managed to weed out this myth. I wrote about this here: backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html
I've never hear about the "bulle cluster" I had to search it, and I didn't found anything right away, no apparent issue or something, so I'm confused of what you even mean
Your doubts about Science self-correcting are well founded. The great philosopher and thinker about science Thomas Kuhn said exactly this. His well-supported idea is that science does not progress linearly and steadily but that dominant paradigms become entrenched by majority consensus and that this usually only changes when the evidence becomes overwhelming or most of the older supporters of the dominant paradigm die. Scientific truths are not wholly objective, evidence based, nor absolute and final, but are held by agreement among the leaders in a field. Experts or high status individuals will almost never abandon ideas upon which their expertise or status is based!
Keep subverting the paradigm and throwing doubt Sabine!
Science only self corrects when the old crowd dies off. We saw this in nutritional science. The old established scientists who have hundreds/thousands of papers published and sit at the top of journals and Universities have built their careers around Dark Matter. That's their legacy. They aren't exactly going to be thrilled about their life's work being shown as a waste of time.
Popular science likes to cover sensational science. Things that sound magical and amazing. Dark Matter fits that category. MOND does not. There is also politics involved in this where non-scientific people have been screaming "Trust the Science!" for years. Especially in regards to certain topics. So something as big as Dark Matter potentially getting debunked would undermine their claims of absolute certainty in areas like Climate Science (I know you're still on that side of it).
The weird thing is that Dark Matter was always a fudge factor. It was a way for them to get their models of mass and gravity to work correctly. Then they turned around and tried to pretend it was a real physical entity. Reminds me of religions and how they were started. Complex thing that doesn't make sense within their understand, fabricate a mysterious magical force that explains it.
And, seeing is believing^^ You can SEE the work of "dark matter" so it MUST be true, this is better than church, but hey you can see "wonders", too 🙂
Since I don't have the knowledge to judge it, I choose to believe the Anton Petrov opinion on this mater. But both Sabine and Anton are my favorite science communicators 😅 even when they desagree.
I love your science vids but ever since I started watching, my UA-cam ads changed to perpetual motion machines, quack medicine, impossible gadgets etc.
I read about it and was taken aback. Also, the differences discovered in the Hubble tension that are not convenient to conventional models.
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.
Thank you Sabine!
Here's my question, does this mean MOND is right? Or does it mean DM is wrong?
Just because one is wrong, it doesn't mean the other is right?
Love your videos!
Both are mere curve-fitting theories and both are wrong.... if they are even that.
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 believe science does self-correct, just very slowly. There is quote that is often attributed to Max Planck (though it really just paraphrases him), that contains a lot of truth: “science progresses one funeral at a time”.
4:31 yo Mama is in the top right of this figure.
Sabine in the title: "No one cares"
Sabine at 3:53: "Here is a recent paper from people who are actually writing about this"
Did you listen? She talked about articles in the science press.
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.
I think this highlights a different problem. No one wants to contradict "established science." If this confirmed some outlandish mainstream idea (like aliens) it would get published without checking the accuracy. Since it conflicts something taught in textbooks, everyone wants someone else to publish it.
Cosmic inflation is another example
MOND lost on the measurement of the speed of gravitational waves and does not explain galaxies where the dark matter has been quenched.l
@Sabine It’s always been this way because scientists are people, and human nature hasn’t changed much. As a physics student I read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. He called it out. So I finished my physics degree and went into computer science. Maybe I should have started a UA-cam channel.
Long live the mon-dometer!
Indeed!
It is not like MOND does not have a free parameter to tweak too.
For me Dark matter is bad and MOND is worse yet: "let's tweak laws of physics until it fits better".
Both are curve adjustments not theories. But at leas Dark matter shows a mechanism. MOND just changes the coefficient of gravitational force in an ad hoc manner.
Dark Matter supposed a kind of matter that does not follow our expectations for matter in general what we call baryonic matter).
Both are extremely difficult to swallow.
And no theory is abandoned because one observation, just when the dirt under the rug has about half a meter height. Relativity was not accepted just because the famous Eclipse pictures.
And Lorentz Electron theory was forgotten because it made predictions about QM while GR did not.
Science is a social activity and has much to do with convincing others instead of just facts Popper and Kuhn describe this behavior in detail. It is not surprising it follows the same pattern many theories followed. In hindsight we may think the acceptance of new theories and the debunking of old ones seem easier than it was as we see the time compressed: several decades in a few hundred pages.
How we talk about being wrong: Me: “I was wrong”
Scientists: “this thing shouldn’t exist!”
Life isn’t wrong, you are.
indeed......
You are correcting something that was never an issue, a hypercorrection.
The key aspect of being a scientist is that the evidence leads the way.
If contrary evidence doesn't make one's hypothesis change, it is not science anymore, it is ideology, which has no place in science.
Having said that, most scientists are in the field to have a better understanding of reality, not to be stuck in dogma. This is unlike any other field out there where you can yap nonsense and win a debate. Every scientist knows when to concede when the evidence is overwhelming against their ideas, _and rejoice when he is proven wrong_
@@xantiom This is an ideal that is, unfortunately, not borne out in reality. It *should* be that way, but that does not mean that it always is.
not really. it's science journalists saying "this thing shouldn't exist".
scientists say "look, we found something interesting! this might not agree with our theory, but there are 5 different things that could have gone wrong or be unusual about the data we looked at. we need to make new measurements to figure out if it's one of those before we jump to conclusions"
but of course that doesn't make for catchy headlines.
in addition to that, your normal news websites or papers only pick stories that sound remarkable and clickbaity, even when it's a miniscule advancement and don't report on important discoveries if they don't sound catchy at first glance. then they only read the abstract at best and often misrepresent the findings because they didn't understand it.
that's why i (as someone with a background in research) have given up on reading any science news from mainstream media and only follow a few people who are experts in their fields for science news.
Una MOND especifica no es válida en todos los ámbitos. Los agujeros negros primordiales pueden explicar esa curva de crecimiento...no solo MOND. Gracias por el canal y por ti.👍🏼
Physicists for the most part demean religious explanations for the universe as just "made up". But when their models did not work to explain the evolution of the universe, they just "made up" two things, dark matter and dark energy to make it all add up.
There is nothing in the standard model that gives a satisfactory answer for dark matter. There is no empirical proof of its existence, only an unexplained gravitational effect.
I remember the late Dr. Sagan remarking about the theories concerning Venus before 1960. "I can't see a thing on Venus.....conclusion? Dinosaurs!"
I've been supporting the dark horse of MOND for twenty years now since I had both explained to me. As a writer who needs to use semi-accurate hand-waves for my Sci-fi, I feel pretty smug knowing I'm ahead of many people on this subject with much more academic achievement behind them than me.
Astronomers weren't candid about an observation that disproves the model?! No way! That had NEVER happened before xD
I believe that most astronomers are Aquarius or Virgins.
But I am only sure about the Virgo part.
who would have guessed; that scientists often look for markers that fit the model.
@@carlosgaspar8447 Yup so much for the so called "unbiased" truth, really makes one wonder just how far back this sort of nonsense goes...
@@bobdole27 i think it goes as far back as the saying "you have to be really smart to be a good liar"
I think the electric universe model is very interesting, more than MOND, IMHO.
Galaxy formation simulations are sensitive to the assumptions one makes about feedback from baryons, which is very complicated relative to dark matter. These assumptions were fine tuned to reproduce the old data we had from Hubble. I think the reason physicists don’t care much about the Webb data is they can just spend the next few years re-tuning their assumptions about the baryon physics to reproduce it. The lesson, I think, is that the galaxy formation simulations aren’t very useful for this debate. Although the MOND predictions are interesting in their own right.
Science is nothing like I was taught at school. Late: 1950's. The teacher told us that science knew everything except a few minor mysteries. Those mysteries would be solved in the very near future. Now it seems the more they discover the less they know.
On the other hand, the standard model of particle physics has been very robust for a long time so although we don't know everything we might know an awful lot.
@@davegold Except for the fact that most easily observable implications have yet to be derived.
The more we know; the more questions we can ask.
That's BS and you know it. Gravity, chemistry, physics as we experience it has not changed at all since you were taught and the continued marvels of technology made using the Standard Model are proof of that. You just want to be anti-establishment for your feelings' sake.
yeah its a real anti-science establishment take to say "science is nothing like it was before". Like duh, we've learned so much more since 1950 it's not even a damn conversation. Like did you comment on youtube videos in 1950? Come on, use your noodle broski.
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
Sabine is a gem for pointing out how poorly scientists communicate important discoveries and how the mainstream media will do its best to silence the findings.
Sure, mainstream media's very existence depends on MOND being silenced. Makes sense... to some people.
I am still on the "Never attribute to malice which can be explained by incompetence" train. Thus I won't call it silencing. It's simply not realizing the importance.
I don't think msm is silencing anything. They just don't know anything cuz they're not scientific.
Really? I think she is selective. There is a whole range of predictions regarding the Big Bang that never came true. But the big bang is holy and untouchable.
If anything, Sabine's primary audience has become a gem for proving how little care the general public gives about honest research if it allows for a position of contrarianism. It's just lazier to blame others.
MOND has been the talk of the town for years now for just about anyone who has kept up even with astrophysics headlines alone over the last handful of years.
The slow galaxy formation models never made sense to me. The early universe was much smaller, and thus had a vastly higher mass density, meaning once a gravity well gets started, it can pull in a LOT of matter very fast. I would expect galaxies to form RAPIDLY in the early universe, and then slow down as the universe expands.
And THAT agrees with the observations!
Ok and what about the Bullet Cluster? that observation tipped the scale pretty heavily towards dark matter
I didn't realize that this myth is still making the rounds, sorry, otherwise I'd have mentioned it backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html
We have come a very long way. In olden days folks would be forced to agree with the official views using methods that are painful. Today they only cut the funding and ignore the results.
I’m so glad we have a science communicator like yourself to call out these issues in academia. It’s a shame the politics of academia seem to impede true scientific progress