What We Know and Don't Know about Dark Matter - Neal Weiner
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- Solutions of the Strong CP Problem: An Assessment - Michael Dine
Prospects in Theoretical Physics
Particle Physics at the LHC and Beyond
Topic: What We Know and Don't Know about Dark Matter
Speaker: Neal Weiner
Date: July 17th, 2017
This is BRILLIANT! I am envious of your wisdom. You are a true benefactor to human knowledge and its future in such an important field. I wish you all the luck and hope to, one day, share it with you.
Thank you for posting.
An excellent presentation providing a framework for limits of what DM may or may not be.
It seems, this guy does not know physics at all (this is typical for the majority of modern physicists, unfortunately...)
Love this lecture !!
More please
This is wonderful! I am new to cosmology and this type of advanced physics and absolutely hooked now. Watched it several times and took notes then googled the notes ..lol. Awesome and thankyou
RonnieD1970 Nice to hear! Look up Verlinde and perimeter institute (he hives a great talk there)here on UA-cam. His theory on gravity and its possibly emergent nature will fit nicely with your studies of dark matter. Dont worry, hes not a wacko, quite mainstream. Its good to hear from someone who has cultivated in himself a love of learning! The perimiter institute has many great lectures. Also one of my fav. Professors ,on youtube as well, is Caroline Crawford cosmology professor(former) at Gresham College in the U.K. many of her wonderful lectures are here on youtube as well. ENJOY your studies!
@@mkultra8640 Oh yeah. Yeah, I love those Perimeter Institute lectures.
RonnieD1970 Ok 👌 GEEK 🤓 hahahahaha
Being stupid isn't cool bro. You're supposed to call him a geek under your breath and laugh quietly to yourself like a civilized male.
Also I'd like to point out the effeminate man teaching is wearing chick jeans
@@cryptoshi9636 OK 👌 $#it for brains! Hahahahaha
AWESOME
Valuable.
Excellent lecture. Brings us near to development of knowledge from the first principles. The quantum field is more fundamental than space, time, energy, inflation, dark matter/energy, big bang, big bounce. etc. I wonder why physicists doesn't focus on the role of QF.
Penrose suspects dark matter/energy are proof of cyclic cosmology.
What we do know: 1st two minutes
What we don’t know: rest of the 1 hour 10 minutes show..
We're a bit short on our knowledge of regular matter as well.
Has anyone tried to talk to it?
20:02 I thought that was a Japanese kanji character and I was about to cry 😂
Taking seriously the number of comments is useless. I sometimes catch these lectures on Utube via Apple receiver, and there.....there is no place for comments
Shirley Mason so, you is a douchebag)
❤️❤️❤️❤️
Fermion graviton having 750 proton mass and neutral.
The flat-earthers of cosmology have taken over the comment section.
Keep being totally surprised by each new observation. Ancient galaxies found at the "beginning of time", galaxies found past the opacity barrier, etc... it's time to wake up. The universe is not a few billion years old. It is fractal. At any point in time, you could look back and see the same thing. We can just see to our horizon, and it doesn't define age or help us find a co-moving frame. Sir Roger Penrose has some good ideas.
To be fair, EVERYbody who is not at the IAS must seem like a "flat-earther" to an IAS researcher, intellectual-wise.
@@onehitpick9758 "The universe is not a few billion years old. It is fractal. At any point in time, you could look back and see the same thing."
That sounds like a possibly testable claim. So, test it. Show us the many peer-reviewed papers which confirmed it & others which reproduced those tests & confirmed it again & again & again.
@@onehitpick9758 "it's time to wake u" "do your own research"
The gigantic red flag & calling-card/catchphrase of the ignorant CONSPIRITURD.
+Reductionist This is a very typical, expected comeback with zero substance. You will be shown to be very wrong, yet again, in just a few decades as our observations get better. Just hold. Did you even understand anything I said about co-moving frames/etc, or are you just a random flamer/bb-worshiper? There is a massive amount of new, regular matter being discovered all the time that we could never detect before. My assertion is that we should work on enhancing observations before we make additional claims about models and model parameterizations.
Prospects. Theories.
and this is why this video only has 44,237 views.
My hypothesis that Dark Matter is not a WIMP, but maybe is a deformation of space-time by which the curvature of space-time ALONE is the cause of the gravitational effect. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time. It may be possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass. Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that space-time’s elastic nature could have hit its yield point and permanently deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently deformed, then a deformation could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Thus, the unidentified dark "matter" that seems to be so elusive to modern science may not be matter at all but merely warped deformities causing gravitational effects. DM could be a microscopic black hole with no mass at the center...
Prediction: Spacetime's elastic property hits a yield point, so only that part of geodesic's "stretch marks" would remain after inflation stopped. These steep gravitational wells would not follow the inverse square law. I am looking for Theorists or Experimentalists to help me develop ways to test this hypothesis. Is there a way observationally to test it’s gravity does not follow the inverse square law?
Are you suggesting that, much like water waves can crest and foam, that space time is not purely linear? This is blasphemy.
Jason Gruber your understanding of GR and what space-time is in relation to energy/matter/time is pretty much non existent as what you've said is pretty much flat out wrong and not even the right way of speaking of these things.... that's fine... your "prediction" has been tested and actually many times over and every time no matter what statics are applied to these galaxy surveys it always ends up showing that the best fit for the data lies with current cosmological models, theories like MOND's are not very compelling for many good reasons and your "prediction" points in exactly that direction which is also another statement on where your mind is when thinking about these problems which is very troubling and only supportive of my initial statements. It's troubling bc if one wants to support a MOND theory you better be coming to the table with an overwhelming amount of evidence for your modification, which is something you certainly do not have otherwise you would have stated that right off the jump. Try reading some of the actual literature on the physics and if you have trouble understanding mathematics as it is the literal description of physics picking up physics for laymen written by physicists who have a strong grasp of language and writing are perfectly fine to at least get an idea of what is going on in the mathematics of the various physics theories that we have.
Holy crap I can feel my brain straining trying to actually understand everything
Look up a lecture series, they’ll expain things more thouroughly.
😂
If I was still alive, I would be happy to help you........
Dark Matter is in CounterSpace.
particles travel by postulate, gradients to the speed of light, density forms, can break up or explode or condense. This is matter and energy.( thus time, flow, the direction of flow, etc. Space is the viewpoint of Dimension. Simple. Viewpoints can be an anchor point, remote, or otherwise postulated. That is what they should be studying. All the mathematical symbols just add way too much complexity, but a good game if you like numbers and symbols.
And the dark energy probably originated( and continue to do so) from existing atoms in the universe, in the form of beta radiation, thus completing a cosmic cycle of matter and energy. This is the Steady State theory of Hoyle, Gold and Bondi in the 1950's, which describes an universe constantly changing, but on the whole always looks the same whatever the position of the observer is, and in whatever epoch he looks at it.
We can solve how to solve if we know what to solve
Ill save ya the lecture. Heres what we dont know, what the hell it is? Im liking Verlinde on this one, his theory makes the most since to me. But what do i know. Im just some goofball in the comment section!
Bryan Case verlinde is an idiot.
He lost me at hello!
After watching this entire lecture, even though I don't subscribe to young universe models like BB, it was an excellent lecture and provided objective results and analyses. There are a few things to consider. 1) CMB data should not be considered until all, and I mean all, the non-background sources have been cancelled. This means until we have identified and cancelled all trillions of galaxies and point sources, CMB is not true background but highly, highly corrupted by foreground. 2) Galaxy rotation curves have several viable alternate explanations including electromagnetic force drive, and out-sourcing instead of in-flow. 3) Grav lensing is always declared, where normal, everyday, common lensing is completely disregarded. Spectroscopic and dispersion arguments against why regular expected lensing isn't happening don't add up. The matter and states involved in the lensing regions should not cause significant amounts of dispersion as argued. We need to start incorporating regular lensing into analyses. If you've ever looked over a car hood in the summer, you will realize that there is plenty of lensing going on with no color prism/dispersion generation.
Despite my "flat universer" comments, I have always thought that there is a ubiquitous fluid out there that is not currently detectable or understood. It's like the water vapor in our atmosphere that we cant see, or even like the atmosphere itself, yet is the source of all condensations of hurricanes, storms, snow, clouds, rain, etc...
onehit pick moron.
@@lithostheory Then describe, precisely, how the CMB is not corrupted with galaxy emission/absorption spectra, especially since there are far more galaxies that were ever anticipated, and far more than are cancelled out of the CMB. The ultra deep field is approaching solid galaxies, yet somehow they are not contributing to the CMB measurement? Absurd -- and this is becoming increasingly recognized in the literature.
onehit pick why don't you just go read how the survey is taken? that would answer question quite quickly..... if you disagree with what the survey has produced than show what specifically and how so... there are a few good theories on what the survey means after the interpretation of the data is conducted and structured into a cohesive theory but no one actually contest the actual observations themselves which is what you seem to be doing with your argument here,which certainly does not help your case since there is no good reasons not to be
I eve the observations made by the telescopes and the surveying methods used to do so. Even people who take a radical departure on the standard interpretation of cmb data like Penrose for instance with his theory of the BB and they still aren't arguing about observation... so like I said show your work there bud if you disagree, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on there with.
1:42 - "The first thing to know about the Universe is that it is a homogeneous and isotropic Universe..." - Wait! That's only an assumption (on which the whole cosmology is based)! Now, there are some indications that these assumptions may be wrong. But you say: "The first thing to know about the Universe...". I don't think that this is a good approach, i. e. to present our assumptions as observational facts. The observational facts are saying something a little bit different...
So the lecture is right from the beginning based on an assumption that we are not sure if it holds on the largest scales. I am not saying that it is bad to make assumptions, I am just saying that it is important to remember that we have made some. After all this, it doesn't surprise me that cosmology is in crisis...
All of mathematics is based on assumptions so any theory that involves mathematics will require them.
@@abebuckingham8198 First of all, cosmology isn't mathematics. Second, mathematics isn't based on assumptions. Third, you didn't read what I wrote.
@@will2see All of mathematics is based on assumptions and it's been that way since antiquity. They'll called axioms or postulates but they're just assumptions. Rejecting reality doesn't advance your position.
@@abebuckingham8198 As you have surely noticed, I am not talking about mathematics. Don't compare mathematical axioms with what I am saying - there is a huge difference.
I have a theory: dark energy and dark matter are radiations of ultra low frequencies and long wavelengths, so low and so long that they cannot be detected. Dark energy condenses into dark matter, which in turn condenses into visible, ordinary matter:- hydrogen, which is of detectable frequencies and wavelengths. My theory is supported by recent discovery by astronomers of a "bridge" of hydrogen connecting the two neighboring galaxies:- Andromeda and Triangulum, and also of a wall of hydrogen at the outskirt of the solar system.
Low frequency photons mean low energy, since E = hf. Also, low frequency EM (electromagnetism) does not have a probability of generating real positron-electron pairs out of the vacuum, so this doesn't appear to work as an energy to mass mechanism. Low energy neutrinos, however, are still a possible constituent of undetectable particles with "rest mass" that have no emission/absorption spectra. How they would condense to baryons or leptons is another matter.
Also radiation enery density evolves differently with scalefactor a(t) (and thus time) and it would be inconsistent with the CMB, BBN, rotation curves, clusters and structure formation... basically it is a dumb suggestion!
You have no theory unless you can make precise numerical values. And you can't do that without going to grad school and learning how to do advanced math and physics. What you have is an immature idea. Not a theory.
Too much show off formulas, the ideas are more important.
@markmd9 you’re an idiot.
The ideas are the mathematics itself there bud, get with the program of what physics is....
My hypothesis that Dark Matter is not a WIMP, but maybe is a deformation of space-time by which the curvature of space-time ALONE is the cause of the gravitational effect. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time. It may be possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass. Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that space-time’s elastic nature could have hit its yield point and permanently deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently deformed, then a deformation could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Thus, the unidentified dark "matter" that seems to be so elusive to modern science may not be matter at all but merely warped deformities causing gravitational effects. DM could be a microscopic black hole with no mass at the center...
Prediction: Spacetime's elastic property hits a yield point, so only that part of geodesic's "stretch marks" would remain after inflation stopped. These steep gravitational wells would not follow the inverse square law. I am looking for Theorists or Experimentalists to help me develop ways to test this hypothesis. Is there a way observationally to test it’s gravity does not follow the inverse square law?
"Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. " has it? Can you link the evidence for this please.
there is no "curvature of space-time" at all . This is only a mathematical model of GR. Gravity is made by gravitons, whitch are particles of Standard Model without any "curvutures".