Fascinating discussion and I am in amazement that so few people have watched this. This discussion is at the forefront of current physics and needs hundreds of thousands of views. Not only does this greatly diminish the idea of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) capturing the spot light and replacing Dark Matter but it offers other intriguing theories that might reveal the truth of the matter.
I always enjoy watching Katy Freese. Oddly enough I'm currently about 3/4 of the way through her book "The Cosmic Cocktail" right now, and also about half way through Brian Greene's book " Until the End of Time" so this video was a special treat. Thank you to both Katy and Brian. 😀
Dude. Im a regular guy that enjoys this kind of thing. Im glad I was around before and after UA-cam really took off. World Science Festival, this is immense shit your doing. I can only imagine the next generation of kids that grow up with this at their fingertips. Inspiring stuff.
The ability of humans to devise experiments that dissect the thin red line into what actually is from what we want to be, but is not, is one of the marvels of our specie. It’s good for young students to see this process up close and personal, as in the dialogue of this video, so they know it is possible and don’t get discouraged. Thanks.
There's no reason to brag about it. Does nothing but inflate the human ego. Fact is that aren't we aware of the kind of technologies and scientific discoveries that have been made in the other parts of the universe by beings far more intelligent and evolved than humans. Neither are we aware of what's happened in the 13 billion years so far and that which is to happen in the trillions of years to go in the future. Not to mention, this only applies to the universe that we are part of.
I only hope that mankind eventually and collectively unites to focus upon what lies beyond the void veil. That is the most important, unknown journey of all, and yet humanity hasn't really bothered with it for at least 1200 years. Sure, perhaps PRIOR to that, the concept may have been on certain beings' minds, but if so, that data is either lost or being kept extremely secure and secret under proverbial lock & key. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
The standard model of particle physics has been so successful that people think everything in terms of particles even the dark matter. I think dark matter effects could be just some unknown features of the space-time fabric and believe that can potentially help in understanding gravity.
"I think dark matter effects could be just some unknown features of the space-time fabric" I. e. one has to modify General Relativity. Did you miss the fact that people have been trying that for several decades already, so far, without any success?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 yes but we know GR isn't 100% correct given Q Mechanics, so a new theory (maybe spacetime related) could explain this and would when/if we have the understanding.
@@PhilipHurrell Again: People have been trying to find such a new theory for several decades, so far, without any success. And that doesn't change the fact that your sentence above ("people think everything in terms of particles even the dark matter") was simply wrong. Yes, lots of physicists think like that, but by _far_ not all of them.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 "one has to modify General Relativity. Did you miss the fact that people have been trying that for several decades already, so far, without any success?" Did you miss the fact, that people have been trying to find dark matter for at least as long -- without any success? Dark matter does really only exists on paper -- in form of gravity adjustment distributions in space.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 they haven’t tried having energy fields move in time only except when displaced by matter which moves in space. They don’t think a star’s past trajectory has to coincide with their location for them to see the star. They think everything revolves around their frame of reference.
As a non-scientist, the thing that baffles me is that whilst both matter and dark matter warp the 'fabric' of spacetime (a warping whose effects we call gravity), what *is* this fabric? Surely it must be a 'thing' of some kind, or else how can it be warped? But what 'thing'?
From the gate, I've resisted the notion of both simulations and multiple universes, but the more I learn about dark energy and dark matter, the less resistant I become.
The Bike Wheel analogy is deceptive in an overall mental way for most people. It is about gravity being active over time.. long long time, with billions of other mass/stars adding mass to the entire galaxy system... bike wheel causes a person's attention to other reasons a block in intellect. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
I have studied mathematics in schools for more than 20 years in my now distant youth, but not once was I smart enough to add a fictitious factor or term when my equations did not add up and declare this factor/term necessary and existent. Most of my teachers weren't geniuses, but none were stupid enough to be convinced by such a thing.
@@soppaism Ptolemy''s numbers were correct, too, thanks to his epicycles. There's a difference between a fundamentally flawed theory "saved" by fudge factors, and a sound physical theory.
@@soppaism I feel that adding 5x of invisible undetectable mass to make your math match the observations seems like a big stretch. My personal, naive and non-scientific view is that our math needs rethinking, the math that "conjures" up dark matter might be based on math that falls apart in edge cases just as certain physics seem incompatible with quantum mechanics. We'll eventually figure it out and it will be a "doh!" moment compared to the usual "eureka!".
I love these shows. It's good work. Brian, I'm sure you have little time for reading comments but I wanted to say, I appreciate your efforts. You are an excellent educator.
He saved my life during the dark days of the pandemic. I listened to every last one of his Daily Equation podcasts. What a treasure and a treat they are. I still can’t believe he took the time to do that for us - for FREE. . .
Alma materHarvard University (BS) Magdalen College, Oxford (DPhil). At Columbia, Greene is co-director of the university's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP) and is leading a research program applying superstring theory to cosmological questions. Greene has lectured outside of the collegiate setting, at both a general and a technical level, in more than twenty-five countries. In 2012, his teaching prowess was recognized when he received the Richtmyer Memorial Award, which is given annually by the American Association of Physics Teachers. - from Wikipedia
@@chaoticmoh7091 They are right in every other case. We don't have any other evidence that supports the fact that they're wrong. And if they are wrong, they shouldn't also be right in a billion ways. The simplest explanation is that there is a ton of diffuse matter there.
Big Bang theory says DM has to exist, in a certain precise amount, so it exits; and the existence of DM proves the Big Bang theory. Circular reasoning.
Dark matter remains one of the biggest mysteries in our understanding of the universe, making up the majority of its mass, yet we still haven’t directly detected it. Have we really failed to identify most of the cosmos, or are we just missing the right tools or theories to fully grasp what dark matter is? What new approaches or experiments are being considered to finally solve this cosmic puzzle, and how might it change our understanding of the universe if we do?
We know nothing about the quantum world and practically nothing about gravity. Dark matter is simply the manifestation of all that we don't understand about the universe all around us. A great start to solving this mystery would be to first acknowledge that string theory is not the solution and will never be... for anything!
People have been looking for modifications of General Relativity for several decades. So far, they have not been able to come up with a better alternative.
@@quantumhype9839 Both are totally wrong. We know _lots_ about both gravity and the quantum world. Don't project your own ignorance of the subjects unto the scientists.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 actually we know absolutely nothing about quantum mechanics and that you would argue otherwise shows your ignorance. If you believe Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive in that box, it's because you are confused by the data. If you observe a double slit experiment and conclude that photons act as both a wave and a particle simultaneously, you are clearly missing something. And don't even start with many worlds philosophical nonsense. Nobody understands how to make sense of these observations because we know so little about the physical world we live in, particularly at the quantum level. In fact, these ideas that I touch on each have more than one interpretation because there is no common consensus even among the experts in the field. A little humility would serve you well lol but that's asking a lot I'm sure.
Something is not clicking for me, in the collision part you have red zones (visible stuff) in the middle becasue of interactions but blue zones are on the edges because they interact less, but what kind of interaction you have is gravitational one (as we know in the case of collision of galaxies phisical interactions are extremely rare) but dark matter is postulated based on gravitational effect they produce, so they have a gravitational effect on visible matter but gravity has little effect on them In the end in the image presented with the collision in the right side you have 2 galaxies 1 of "red" matter and one of "blue", that means in time in the Universe you would have galaxies of visible matter and galaxies of dark matter (invisible), but the origin of theory is based on speed of the stuff in visible galaxies. Like String theory Dark matter theory become more close to faith then science like believing in Santa Klaus. My theory about dark is that more than dark matter in Universe are dark spots in our knowledge about how gravity works and other stuff related to particles and interactions in Universe.
Here seems to be your misunderstanding: "... they have a gravitational effect on visible matter *but gravity has little effect on them* ..." According to the model/hypothesis: dark matter is affected by the gravity as much as the visibly matter.
@@EneriGiilaan This is my view as well, but in the image they showed what they say is dark matter was more distant from the center of gravity then visible matter, if gravity efect is the same for both type of matter why that difference in spread ?
@@raulepure9840 Because - as she says in the video - the normal matter has also other types of interactions. In this case practically electromagnetic forces.
@@EneriGiilaan Do you know how big are distances betwen stars, can emf have an impact at that scale, it seems ridiculous for me, but im no phyzicist. Gravity can impact things at year light distances, how emf can be relevant at that scale?
@@raulepure9840Stars have magnetic fields and stellar wind halos that extend way out into the interstellar space. However - the issue here is not the stars or individual galaxies but two galaxy clusters each containing thousands of galaxies. And specifically the collision between the dust and gas halos of these clusters.
Two questions: If dark matter exists within our galaxy and is five times more abundant than normal matter, should we not be seeing its effects on the motions of the planets and even artificial satellites like GPS? Second, is dark matter being sucked into the black holes at the center of the Milky Way and other galaxies?
Planets are on a sufficiently small scale to make detection difficult. We’ve been talking about galaxies, galaxy clusters, and supermassive black holes
Yes DM would be entering central black holes. However it may be a small contribution compared to normal matter. DM would mostly orbit at a distance, without sinking into the hole, if it has little friction or collisions with other particles. Friction in the accretion disk disperses the energy of orbiting gas and dust, allowing them to sink to smaller orbits and eventually go inside the horizon.
However, if every galaxy is within a filament, what is called a Birkeland Current, which is a self-organizing Electromagnetic field capable of transmitting a flow of ions, electrons and neutrons. Because these filaments rotate, they contribute to the rotational velocity of the galaxy within. Easy peasy.
6:40 but i have a question, if time itself is variable and we know it is, wouldn't the speed difference of time alter what we perceive as velocity looking from the outside? This would also explain a lot of event horizons... and make the entire dark matter concept wrong, right?
We know that matter beyond a certain density collapses to a black hole. We also know that the early universe was beyond that density. It seems possible to me that there would have been a point where the densest areas of the early universe would have been above that threshold while the less dense areas in between were below it. The dense pockets could have collapsed into PBHs and further lowered the density of the rest, allowing it to spread more freely.
I agree. There should be many primordial black holes including tiny and huge ones. But it seems to me that WIMPS and Axions could also contribute. I see no reason why Dark Matter is only one thing.
@@Tstopmotion If that is true then why not assume that the majority of the 'missing mass' of the universe is trapped in black holes? It's a scam, mate; 'we' don't know _anything_ for certain.
Since the early universe was beyond that density, could it be that the universe is actually inside a black hole of some kind? It may not be the usual kind of black hole though, due to expansion. A normal black hole, everything (almost) is going inward...
The assumption that actually requires the existence of Dark Matter is the assumption that the Big Bang/LCDM hypothesis is correct. And that assumption is based on another assumption, that our interpretation of Redshift is correct. That assumption is then supported by the corroborating evidence of the CMBR. But again, that is based on the assumption that our interpretation of the CMB is correct. There is a major problem with this assumption, as the CMB has some features that make that assumption highly suspect. For example, when the data is analyzed and the regions of the CMB are divided, depending on how the regions are separated, an axis used to divide the regions actually matches the axis of our galaxy. This is extremely troubling, because not only should there be no relation between the CMB and our galaxy, the CMB was emitted long before our galaxy even existed. That is problematic. But it gets worse. In another permutation, when an axis is used to divide the regions of the CMB, that axis matches the axis of our Solar System. And there definitely should be no relationship between the CMB and our Solar System. These are extremely problematic results, yet you will never hear anyone talk about these well known issues. Not even in Brian Greene's World Science Festival - which is an amazing accomplishment, by the way. I wish that I could attend. Thank you, Brian Greene. So the CMB is highly suspect. It is not sufficient to corroborate our assumptions about Redshift. The coincidences of the CMB cannot just be swept aside. Though that's exactly what physicists do. And that is bad form. And it is autodeceptive. So the CMB is out. It cannot represent the claim if it just coincidentally has some intrinsic relationship with our galaxy and our Solar System. That's ridiculous. We've gotten that wrong. So we're back to Redshift via the distance ladder. And we are assuming that the speed of light is unaffected by the vacuum of space. That seems logical. Light cannot penetrate the depths of the ocean because of the medium of water. But space is a vacuum and therefore light should be unimpeded. Except that we have known for a very long time that light is polarized by an effect called Faraday Rotation, and that occurs only in areas of very high mass. This would imply that the effects of Faraday Rotation would be most noticeable around galaxies in the foreground, or galaxy clusters, just like Gravitational Lensing. But then, how would we differentiate between light distortion from Gravitational Lensing and distortion from Faraday Rotation? Fortunately, that's fairly easy. Gravitational Lensing requires that the distortion flips and mirrors the light. Faraday Rotation does not. Similarly, the hypothesis of a similar effect called Vacuum Birefringence has recently been verified in the lab. Here is the important difference between Faraday Rotation and Vacuum Birefringence: Faraday Rotation requires the presence of plasma in the medium. Vacuum Birefringence does not. This is a natural effect of the vacuum itself. But again, it is most noticeable around areas of high mass. But again, this light distortion does not necessitate a flipped mirror image, unlike Gravitational Lensing. Interestingly, when reviewing many of the distortion effects in JWST images, we see what many claim are expressions of Gravitational Lensing. But upon closer examination, for many images, we don't see the expected flipped mirror image. Instead we see distortion without any mirror of the elements in the image. It appears that we are seeing the effects of Faraday Rotation and Vacuum Birefringence. Not Gravitational Lensing. Another implication, particularly of Vacuum Birefringence, is that every time a photon is polarized within the vacuum of space, it's speed is slightly affected. The greater the distance that the light has to travel to reach us, the more that the speed of the light has been affected on its way to us. That, of course, means that if the light has been slowed down by the medium of the vacuum, the greater the distance, the more that it has been slowed. If we don't account for this effect, then it would appear as if objects were moving away from us, and the further away the object is, it would appear as if it was moving even faster away from us. The only conclusion that we could reach is that the universe is expanding away from us, and it is accelerating faster the further you look. But if you are aware of this optical illusion, then we would realize that this is only an illusion, and the universe is not expanding and accelerating as it expands. Once we realize that light is affected by the medium of the vacuum of space, then the warnings of Edwin Hubble about our assumptions about Redshift appear quite prescient. And if the universe is not expanding, then there is nothing to lead us to the Big Bang. And without the Big Bang, there is no Dark Matter, which would explain why we haven't found it. Of course, there are many, many other implications that come from the realization that our interpretation of Redshift is wrong. But this would simultaneously solve many issues regarding our cosmology and create new questions regarding our cosmogony. However, what this does demonstrate is that evidence typically employed to support the Redshift interpretation has been found to be less than helpful. The CMB is not at all a reliable indicator. Similarly, Gravitational Lensing is a distortion effect rendered by other means, and these other explanations fit the observations when no mirroring is observed, and without the mirrored effect, Gravitational Lensing is not an adequate explanation. So, it would appear that the universe is not expanding, which means that we should not expect to find any Dark Matter, and that fits the data. Without a Big Bang, we can wipe the slate clean and begin again. However, there is much we already know about a non expanding universe, with unseen connections, the Cosmic Network, between every object in space. Likely, its evolution is not driven by Gravity, but is instead driven by a constant state of thermal imbalance, or thermal non equilibrium, with a constant flow of ions, electrons and neutrons, creating an Electromagnetic potential across all bodies in the universe. This appears to be the evolving model, as we see the growing discrepancies between the GR, Big Bang hypothesis and our latest observations, including fully formed galaxies only three hundred million years after the proposed Big Bang, galaxies already on their second generation of stars. So the chasm between the LCDM hypothesis and direct observation grows, but another model, one grounded in provable physics, is already in place. Can't wait to get started...
I'm not sure if I've seen an explanation for this concept before, but is it possible that Dark Matter is simply "peaks and valleys" in spacetime caused by spacetime being twisted circularly by the black hole at the center? Could matter just be getting stuck in a "valley" in the spacetime that's causing it to "roll" in an orbit instead of being flung outward? Maybe there are a bunch of observations that rule something like this out, but I haven't really seen anyone discuss it yet.
The problem there is that it is observed far away from massive black holes. But i could be primordial black holes. Lots of them, acting much like little invisible dust particles.
There’s a colossal amount of wildly speculative theorizing, extrapolative conclusions and complicated math often based upon shaky observations and falling far short of what’s needed for valid inductive reasoning--and from that we’ve constructed a conception of reality. We’re essentially like ants crawling about in the fruit bowl on someone’s dinner table in a huge banquet hall. The more we think we know, the more we should realize what we don’t know. And while wasting resources, effort, money on trips to Mars, particle study, quantum computing, AI, and entertaining ourselves, we’re destroying the only known habitable planet, and the plants and animals we share it with. We are not wise.
The inconvenient problem with dark matter is that in order to make the galaxy spin as observed, it cannot have a disk-shaped distribution around the center of the galaxy. It must be more spherical. A disk can rotate and maintain an orbit. A spherical cloud has to collapse. Dark matter does not appear to have collapsed, or is doing so very slowly. or it is magical since it is attracted to normal matter but not itself. This is an elephant in the room that i don't hear a lot of discussion about.
Cz_"Velký třesk" je největší omyl po Galileovu "a přece se točí" neboť popírá nejen termodynamický zákon ale i zákon o zachování energie(informace v ní obsažené) ale také zákon o maximální rychlosti hmotou v prostoru dosažené(rychlosti světla). Stačí obrátit šipku času a vše začne dávat smysl expanze(velkého třesku) se promění v pád do černé díry našeho vesmíru v donutu před horizontem událostí.Bude také sedět vzdálenost primodiálního záření a kosmologická konstanta........A snimky Jamese Weba z hlubokého vesmíru začnou dávat smysl.
Thinking that any missing 'mass' must be something like normal matter but 'just invisible' speaks to a massive failure of imagination and a lack of open mindedness. We really should not call it dark 'matter' at all. It drives thinking and takes it somewhere that may be fruitless.
Dark matter is metaphysics, not physics. The only self-contained physical theory of the universe is Plasma Cosmology. No "dark" stuff needed to make the numbers come out.
Tell me if I am missing something but how do we know that so called dark matter is not just ordinary matter which (in the center of galaxies) has not just exhausted its fusion material and stopped emitting light?
Over half an hour and the only somewhat true claim I heard was that” We don’t have a clue about 95% of what’s going on “. I think 95 is even a stretch. When they do realize they don’t have a clue, it is labeled dark matter, or another one of their favorites, singularity. The source of their revenue must always be considered, especially regarding anything to do with climate change. They say what they are paid to say, and that is a fact. And those that do not follow the program are quickly dealt with accordingly.
"Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning, wondering if everything I've ever done is wrong," wrote Allison Kirkpatrick, an astrophysicist at the U. of Kansas. She soon recanted, as did Galileo, saving her career.
Dude, when scientists say that... They dont mean they dont have a clue. They have many clues. In fact they have completely well-working models of whats going on. But certain parts of it requires more evidence to know for sure if its this or if its that... But this leads a lot of uneducated bewildered fools to thinking if the top scientists dont know 95%, well then that leaves plenty of room for anyone to just GUESS and think their opinion is just as good as the best international team of scientists. Well, no... Thats not how science works. And these guys should really stop saying they dont know what 95% even is. Because they do.
Dark matter is not a euphemism but an accurate description of what it does. Matter in that it has mass & interacts through gravity, and Dark because it doesn’t interact with light. You don’t need a conspiracy to explain that. Singularity is a mathematical term and you can derive it for yourself if you want verification.
W=(8.809/8.753)^2*80.42939=81.5 Gev : weak interact massive particle[WIMP] for dark matter ch/3=pl*pm*c^2/2 by electron decay from strong force g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=g*(pl/4.1888*l)^2=1.13*10^28 which by graviton g*m^2=ch/2pi : solution of GR field equation ch=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4 oscillating between Planck scale l=g*m/c^2=(h*g/2pi*c^3)^0.5=1.616231*10^-35 meter which can deduce ch=2pi*g*m^2=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4=(4.9154)^3*pm : vacuum energy : solution of GR field equation under critical mass [6^3*pm] as dark energy can expand our universe, proton scale pl=g(p)*(4pi*pm/3)/c^2=8.809*10^-16 meter which can deduce ch/3=pl*pm*c^2/2 shrink proton radius to 8.753*10^-16 meter , produce r=En=ch/L=chR=me*(c/137.036)^2/2=13.6*e=W*p*6pi for regular matter ch/6pi can emit light spectrum r=13.6*e*((1/1^2-1/2^2)+(1/2^2-1/3^2)+...+(1/n^2-1/(n+1)^2))=(h/2pi)*(f1+f2+..+fn) from vacuum ch=(2*A1*137.036*pm*c^2)*(4pi*A*137.036)=En*L where A1=A*(128.4980143128.51991), A=5.29177282*10^-11 meter : hydrogen Atom radius, pm=1.672621868*10^-27 kg : proton mass, deduce ch +ch/3 + ch/6pi = En[100%] : oscillation between dark energy ch[72.13%], dark matter ch/3[24.04%], regular matter ch/6pi[3.83%], deduce experiment data from Planck satellite at bullet cluster when two galaxies collide emit blue light indicate hot dark matter have 26.8% from WIMP, cold regular matter 4.9% by 3.83=(4.9-3.83)+(26.8-24.04), dark energy 68.3%=72.13-3.83.
Why would anyone be so surprised as to write this article and put it on UA-cam in Visual and audio when ago I believe, just a few decades ago human beings didn't even know that galaxies were galaxies and that we lived in one that the Milky Way was the universe and the galaxies out there are nebula and they are blurry you can look at the Andromeda in the sky it's blurry the reason you see galaxies is the way you do on TV and media is because the images have extremely long exposures collect as much light as possible and then you can see the structure of the Galaxy more clearly but when you fly out into space it looks like it looks from here pretty much everywhere unless you're very close and nothing is very close in space it's ridiculous to think that we would have even a tiny fraction of knowledge of our universe or what it even is we think we do and we think we do and then we change all the time because we have to church didn't like that though and there are scientists that disagree holy with new information discoveries and truths some are so pompous they remind me of art so-called experts that can tell you if a painting was done by a certain artist or not and they are often wrong but no one argues against it because they're an art expert but no there are no swirling galaxies out there that we can visually conceive of unless we have long light exposed photos or computer altered images or space telescopes to collect the light. Some people still don't know that the sun is a star some people don't know all the planets listed in our solar system I am just shocked everyday at the lack of knowledge people accumulate during their life I hope they're having fun at least
Sorry everybody I have to use voice to do anything online and since I connected to AI for my voice to text it makes me sound insane when you read something I post
I love that Brian Greene explains how odd it is that people think of "dark matter" and explains why there are indications that there is this "dark matter". But I miss the critical question about exactly where does the calculations begin to be projections instead of "proof". Fx. if you crash two neutrons against each other and get something else, you could argue that it is what you would expect, but then NB neutrons are not billardballs, but some other kind of processes, - not static! so every "newtonian" parabel on quantum particles is bound to be "strange", and perhaps they are more wrong than right. Truth is never absolute in these questions. Allow me to be sceptical about the human understanding of gravity and dark matter. ❤
Dark matter is dilated mass. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. It's the "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.
@@Tstopmotion I had a video made on the subject "dark matter is dilated mass". The best way to understand dilation is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the graph shows nothing has changed at that point. When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point. When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer. This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere.
@@shawns0762 I’m a mathematician with a youtube channel myself. I’d be very interested in a link to published research on this idea. My channel only covers published reseaech.
@@Tstopmotion I am an older science/physics nerd. I realized dilation explains dark matter a few years ago. Over a thousand people agree with me. It is provable. The video has more information. If you agree perhaps you can help me post onto arxiv.
@@shawns0762 It is an intriguing idea, but the actual mathematics needs to be written up to complete a proof. If you have written it out, then you can post it on the arxiv and try to publish it.
Thanks again to Prof. Freese for more insight on her 5 objects found by John Ma and John Gardener. The talk of bubble observations is important as our research group has observed also how bubbles can be associated with black hole removal from the Milky Way Galaxy as an energetic way they are not allowed to interfere with the supermassive as smaller individual black holes. Prof. Freese, it is a very long way from Austin to travel for a talk with Prof. Greene. Thanks for your research on how axions may power dark stars. There are cosmology realities when only fusion exists before the elements started clumping, and it is good you finally got time with the JWST to look back upon the 5 objects, or the three. Thanks again to the WSU staff for another incredible show. Prof. Freese spent time in Nordik Institute areas, so does she know their challenge of 10x greater North radiation than we have in the non- polar regions? When do we have our radiation shielding in place that protects our moonbase Astronauts? They are too vulnerable. CLG
Novel Dark Matter Hypothesis Dark Matter is simply unaccounted for gravity. GR states that gravity is the consequence of the curvature of spacetime. Is it possible that the structure of spacetime itself could be warped without the presence of matter? Spacetime has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independently of mass, and all have been proven with observations from gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves! Fabrics can also be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of causing a deformation and losing its elastic nature. All of these conditions were extreme during inflation, so it is plausible that the “fabric” of spacetime analog could extend having its elastic property have hit a yield point leaving pockets of inelastic spacetime geodesic that cause gravity without the presence of matter? Therefore, if gravity is strictly the consequence of the warped of spacetime, and fabrics can be permanently overstretched, then those empty warped geodesics would create gravitational wells independent of mass. My hypothesis of DM is subatomic black hole imprints of the quarks durong inflation. The CMB shows where the hot dense regions were they created the galaxies. They would have been the initial cause and location of the warping. These imprints would be clouds of quark sized floating fixed geodesics, so they couldn’t expand or evaporate. Perhaps nothing has been detected because there is nothing to detect. GR wouldn’t require modification because DM would just be an extension of how spacetime behaves at extreme conditions. No MOND, no WIMPs, and no parallel universes, just empty spacetime deformations that produce gravitational wells to help jump start galaxy accretion processes. Zwicky may have named is Missing Mass correctly since he detected some gravity without mass present to cause it…
Your hypothesis is based off a metaphor. That's not how science works. The mechanics of fabric cannot be applied to spacetime. You need to provide some solid data/evidence to back your claim.
This is the problem that I have with the rubber sheet metaphor of gravity "bending" space. It was perhaps used because of a lack of any other visual reference, but it is definitely not an accurate representation of what is occuring. Therefore it is misleading for future speculation on the subject. A perhaps more proper representation would be a globular shape surrounding the matter which is caused by the gravitational force. Try to imagine 360 "rubber sheets" all inclined 1 degree from the previous sheet, and the resultant image. Of course an even more accurate representation would have 1080 rubber sheets representing three different planes of rotation. Yet even that is only a partial representation of the reality of the situation, but I feel a much better description of what happens to anything that is affected by the gravitational force associated with a mass. The situation becomes even more complex when you consider that any particle with mass has an associated gravitational force. That requires that you need to take into account many interacting gravitational forces, at different locations, when you consider an object composed of more than one particle that has mass. Mathematics has a lot of these forces cancelling each other out. But is that what actually happens physically? Is it possible that our mathematically based description of the universe is lacking something, due to the differences between mathematics and physical reality?
If time and space are separate we see the past trajectory of matter and not the present trajectory of matter but I understand the Big Bang is bigger than my hypothesis.
"Is it possible that the structure of spacetime itself could be warped without the presence of matter? " Yes, that's called the "cosmological constant", and that is one possible explanation for dark _energy_. This does _not_ work for dark matter. "Spacetime has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independently of mass" Spacetimes is neither twisting nor propagating, what are you talking about? (And even "warping" is not entirely right; the actual term is "curving".) Gravitational waves are _not_ "propagating spacetime"! "Fabrics can also be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of causing a deformation and losing its elastic nature." So because spacetime acts _vaguely_ like a fabric concerning some of its properties, you now claim that it also has to have _other_ properties of a fabric? " inelastic spacetime geodesic" What is that supposed to mean? Are you sure you know what the word "geodesic" means? "subatomic black hole imprints of the quarks" What is that supposed to mean? "The CMB shows where the hot dense regions were they created the galaxies." These regions actually were cold, not hot. "clouds of quark sized floating fixed geodesics" Again, are you _really_ sure you know what the word "geodesic" means? "GR wouldn’t require modification because DM would just be an extension of how spacetime behaves at extreme conditions. " Err, that _would_ require a modification of GR!!! Because GR, as it is, says _nothing_ about spacetime behaving differently at such extreme conditions!
I wholeheartedly applaud the brilliant efforts of our best scientists to tackle the NON-TRIVIAL problem of decoding nature. I would caution those who accept the current belief that 95% nature is “dark”… that science has a history of conquering up “dark” stuff to make current incomplete or incorrect understanding work. Remember “Caloric” or the “Luminiferous Aether”…
You ignore the many, many examples where physicists tried to explain observations by something "dark", and it later turned out that they were actually right.
From a pure science standpoint the work of cosmologist and theoretical physicist is awesome and inspiring. As an applied scientist working for the US government I cannot get funding for basic laboratory equipment, instruments and people while watching billions of dollars going to yet another space-based satellite, program or sensor array that supports the tireless work of multiple PhDs who could not care less about the rest of science. I support what WSF is trying to do, education is fundamental to science, but the politics in play are applied with brutality to those of us whose names will never matter to anyone but our fellow laboratory friends and family.
@@mrhassell What a little mean one, you went straight to the typing error so you can happily evade the essence of the comment. The new type of "science" so used today.
Your comment was excellent use of word play and highly amusing. 😆 You could not have delivered that in any possibly better context. I'd assumed being intentional, as it's quite clever. (Having some idea for the reason). You guy's (Government funded Scientists) do so much for Science (which in turn means all of humanity benefits), yet are rewarded abysmally! (How the rates are justified as set out in policy, is even more bizarre.) Doing the real work that, if was not for I.T (information tech/computer science/engineering), being so highly in demand today (and the past 30+ years), often stealing Scientists away, before ever working in their vocation studied, happening more than anyone would reasonably assume), everybody would otherwise be doing exactly what you are! With these 2 facts, I'd say this places yourself as being worthy of recognition. Possibly, this makes you one of the most noble men of Science, in a World that's guided by Science, by proxy this means in all of the World and amongst every possible forms of highly noble roles, humanly possible! The humor in your wordplay, made it impossible not to react (absent friends, and I would find ourselves engaging in exactly this for entertainment... quite a long time ago now but remain amongst my personally fondest memories, at least in this life). So, I figured by responding in detail, I was showing a level of respect, rather than making a hit and run smart remark (implied, in another comment), yet apparently, not everyone shares the same sentiment, ha! Proof, right there. Pleasing everyone, is highly over rated. Anyways... Thanks for your reply Neil! I'm a bit of a fan (sincerely). I too worked in multiple Australian government department's, computer science field, for around a decade (closer to 2), it might be fair to say, with one or two things in common being gifted to us both, with a sense of humor! Very useful quality, sometimes absent in modern perception (although, quite rarely). 😁 P.S - What are the chance's? If you're interested in an exact figure, I can calculate this to 2% of 100% accuracy. Highly accurate statistical figure, you won't obtain from any A.I. Evaluated manually, by combining set theory/types with a partial differential equation. The polynomial distribution, Bayesian modelling is based in Lorentz's Chaos theory, used in Deep Learning-Machine Learning (A.I - ChatGPT - Gemini), provide best case certainty, 94% as an optimistic outcome. 4% - nothing between friends. If millions of dollars was at stake, easy to see how 98% is a better start, aiming to reduce 2% to 0% - anyways - Should you ever have needs for anything of this kind, for yourself, it would be my pleasure! let me know (also the reason, why A.I will never replace gifted individuals, regardless of their flaws).
With the discovery of DM and DE what physical, astronomical, and mathematical definitions of Time, Space, Energy, Gravity and on and on must or will change? If any, please make a show about this subject,. Brian Greene has been a great explorer of hardest subject in layman's language with wonderful guests. Thank you.
People claim that the bullet cluster and other similar examples of cluster collisions rule out modified gravity as an explanation for the “dark matter” problem but I think we should not draw such a conclusion so quickly. It is possible that the gravitational lensing we see near the bullet cluster which is offset from the matter is due to a large scale propagating gravitational disturbance which radiated out from the collision. We know that gravitational waves are generated from the collision of massive objects. This is just my own speculation, I am bringing it up just to point out that there is at least a possible mechanism to explain the gravitational lensing around the bullet cluster collision in a modified gravity theory without dark matter.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I hear your frustrations. Gravity is a consequence of space-time curvature, so it’s not a “force.” either. Gotta go big with this one, so we must look for inspiration away from Einstein and towards the scientist who is the only person to have 2 unshared Nobel Prizes, that person is Linus Pauling. Pauling was a quantum chemist and molecular biochemist. The ability of one atom to recognize another atom is the foundational principle of electronegativity, so this concept has to encompass what describes the “strong nuclear force” as it relates to electronegativity and that’s where Wolfgang Pauli’s exclusion principle helps negotiate that barrier. Making sense out of a unified field theory of quantum gravity must take into account electromagnetism, then again, as Feynman said “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
A deeper understanding of gravity gives you a deeper understanding of the universe. The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and the converse of things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving. So causation is faster outside of a galaxy and things happen slower inside of a galaxy. The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. The measured speed can’t change. When time and distance used to measure the speed change the actual speed changes. Do the following thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance between your hands saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.*
"Dark matter particles annihilating with each other"??? We don't know anything about the dark matter particles, so how can we suggest that they "annihilate with each other" which is not all that common in normal matter.
How can they NOT suggest it? It's possible, so it should be suggested. Electrons and positrons annihilate. It is not common to see it in a cup of juice, but it is ubiquitous. All matter particles do it afaik, but not sure about neutrinos...
*literary cooking TV show* Brian: “So, in 1915, Albert Einstein predicted that, if someone is cooking stuff, that stuff, we can say that matter, is cooked.” 💀 P.S. I love both Albert and Brian ❤
These people have families. They have property, house, car & maybe a boat. They need money to survive. That is why they don't talk about the elephant in the room; Halton Arp. They ignore a massive body of work performed by the Swedish Physics Professor Hannes Alfvén & the Norwegian Physicist Kristian Birkeland. We are facing a crisis in cosmology, and they fight like dogs to keep their money/jobs.
Very well said! Without a paradigm shift, science eventually stagnates. Defining dark matter as unobservable and then going out looking for it is about as stagnant is it gets.
It’s dark energy that is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. That’s pretty impactful in that in hard to imagine timeframe of the future there will be nothing. Recommend Brian’s Until the End of Time.
Dark matter seems like an afterthought-- like someone started the simulation and everything was flying apart so- they stuck dark matter in arbitrarily as a fix. That way then didn't have to go back through and reset all the masses and constants to make it all work- they just stuck some duct tape on it. Then someone else was like "Wait, now it's all going to collapse in the far future- I know- Dark energy!" Then someone else was like "We need a recycling bin- somewhere to hide the left-over parts we couldn't figure out where to put- blackholes."
White holes eject whatever it is that black holes "absorb". Not that anyone will listen, but... that's perfectly predictable and consistent with the past 1200+ years. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
29:28 That's an interesting statement. Inflation creates vacuum and vacuum energy coverts into matter. If there was no energy to drive inflation to create vacuum energy, then what was driving inflation? Or to put it another way, what was before vacuum energy if there was no energy? > Of all the possible forces that can drive the universe which one has no physical/material manifestation?
How do we know the extra gravity isn't being caused by the Tooth Fairy? What's the difference between Dark Matter and the Tooth Fairy? ..oh wait, no one has spent billions of dollars and almost 100 years looking for the Tooth Fairy only to fail with every single experiment and every single observation. But if you decided that you are right - no matter what the evidence proves, - the facts. the proof and reality mean nothing to you.
Going with the analogy... it would work if: 1. teeth often disappear from under pillows 2. coins often appear under pillows 3. these two events are highly correlated 4. event 1 usually comes before event 2 5. fairies are common in everyday life 6. fairies trade objects for money, in fairy theory 7. fairiy theory explains most experiments and has led to most technology 8. BUT there are not enough KNOWN fairies to account for all the teeth and coins. 9. Therefore, there is an Invisible Fairy Hypothesis in science, and many experiments trying to detect them.
@@nmarbletoe8210 1. We used leaches and blood-letting on a sick person and they got better. 2. Therefore there is a direct correlation between blood-letting and leaches and people recovering from illness. This is how it works when you only see what you want to see and only hear what you want to hear. When you can't find 96% of the universe, and the 4% that can be observed tells you the universe can't exist.... but you are 100% sure you are right about your theory of imaginary things performing miracles is correct... What good does it do to explain the flaw in this logic?
What about a new state of the vacuum? Maybe at a certain temperature or mass, the vacuum has a phase transition to a new, undiscovered phase/state. Or how about magnetic monopoles?
Stop insulting the aether by comparing it to DM. We can detect an "aether" -- the quantum field via the Cashmir effect. It just doesn't produce a drag on photons.
The best artists don't do it just for money. If money is the driver, the creative output is driven by money. Don't say you "believe" in science and then tell me it's not an art, or a business.
The bias in this speaker is honestly frustrating. She gave off the same vibes on startalk and clearly is sold on her own theories. I also have to point out the certainty in which she asserts HOTLY debated subjects is frowned upon in science communication and rightfully so- the most informed scientists of our time will always say things like “as we understand it now” or point out that there isn’t a consensus within the community but she never will.
Agreed, she's wildly irresponsible in dismissing other approaches, which is especially galling given the DECADES of failures to find the dark matter. One would almost think she's perfectly happy with this outcome and is advocating for decades more of the same.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe! A different paradigm that explains almost everything that happens in the Cosmos, through observations and laboratory tests. No contradictions or hypothetical inventions never provable or ad-hoc mathematical demonstrations.
@@ddtt1398 Please tell me how exactly her case was ruled out. And please tell me in which scientific journal the "electro-aether energy" was published.
What would Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance" play into the structure as it's seen compared to how it appears to be? The experiences people have don't align with how things appear to be, and we call it a miracle. Are those experiences just taking place in those spaces that we can't 'see' but for the effects. As in; 'The Light shines in the Darkness but the Darkness beholds it not.' Is there no hint yet that that Dark Mass is nothing more than an Infinite Ocean of Awareness/Consciousness. That's what IT said It was and what we see as 'the Universe' is the least of IT's Mass, just a thought expressed to express IT'l Glory and Wonder. Our consciousness is but a drop of IT. For that reason our consciousness has dominion over the whole of IT at this level of awareness. Many are becoming aware that ten thousand years ago persons had said just this as a direct experience. How could they have said such things without having 'science' applied but rather saying it's knowledge that came from expanded awareness of Being and finding that 'It is all Consciousness, call It what you will. The term God got zeroed in on.
Dark matter is the observation that my homework is gone. You can explain it in many ways. But it is gone. So there is a reason. One theory is dog. One is wind. One is fire. Etc.
I dont know about you guys but what i see in the red-pink color at time 34:15 to me looks that its a so called GALACTIC WAVE - the kind of half circle that its formed cause of the out put of a system say galaxy etc. that throws matter-light-plasma by a or through an electromagnetic cone those of which Halton Arp speaks of in the book SEEING RED. - Could be that as matter-light-plasma-gas as it refracts from the encounter with electromagnetism of the same galaxy that throw out the matter-light-plasma divide into two major groups as seen in the red-pink part. In no way the red-pink part belongs to the back of the picture it is a very front of the picture.
Very interesting discussion from BG and Katy Freese, showing clearly, that our cosmology is in a serious crisis. This crisis was mostly induced by JWST data coming to us and showing, that almost everything we thought was certain about the Universe, has to be reconsidered and most probably radically changed. It looks like everything that constitutes the world that we can see and touch is only byproduct of the unvisible and intochable world made of dark energy and dark matter, making around 95% of the Universe we can observe. Frustrating, will we ever know the truth? I personally doubt that.
Looking at the graphics of this collision, I assume that dark matter doesn't even interact with itself? Or are there fainter signs to be found? I bring this up because it seems to me, that if dark matter is composed of some type of dark particles, then some of them would collide with others. This should at least produce something of a trail leading back to the strike zone. Conversely, no trail whatsoever, would indicate that this is a 'force', and not a 'thing'. (No, I haven't thought about the type of forces that could be disguised as things, and behave as things in a gravitational manner. Refer here to the famous line by the character Sherlock Holms about seeming impossibilities.😁) ADD: if I think of spacetime as a seafloor, and consider that the Universe is expanding in every direction from every point at Hubble's (inconsistant) Constant, then that force which is emergent is like a bubbling up into and through the brane, (if that's what it is), it looks like 'dark matter' is the fabric we don't see but exists just the same. Okay, now my head hurts as a result of 'Dark Matters'.🤣
If you are tired of headaches. try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. No "dark" stuff needed to make the numbers come out right.
DM can interact with itself, in most models, i think. Certainly some candidates could do that. If it was made somehow in the early universe, it can be unmade, since Quantum Mechanics is time reversible. Probably. And thus would have to release some kind of energy or particle, due to conservation of energy. Probably.
Disappointing. This episode was like listening to two 13 century monks discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Both with blinkers on.
Err, there are lots of actual experiments looking for dark matter. It would be news to me that 13 century monks every used experiments for looking how many angelsare on the head of a pin. So your analogy makes no sense at all.
This might be a dumb question, but can gravity be multiplicative in the sense that mass near other mass is greater than the sum of the gravitational influence of the masses individually?
Adding mass simply makes the gravity add like superposition. So acceleration due to gravity is proportional to the mass; therefore, if you double the mass you double the acceleration due to gravity.
"can gravity be multiplicative in the sense that mass near other mass is greater than the sum of the gravitational influence of the masses individually" Why would you call that "multiplicative"? And no, according to everything we know so far, that hypothesis is _not_ true.
To achieve a multiplicative nature of gravity, it is essential to recognize that it cannot be derived from mass or energy, as these factors exhibit a linear relationship with gravitational strength. Conversely, if one seeks to derive gravity from electric or magnetic fields, it is important to note that gravity is proportional to the energy or energy density associated with these fields. Notably, the energy density correlates with the square of the electric or magnetic field. Consequently, for gravity to exhibit a multiplicative relationship, one must consider electric or magnetic fields; however, it remains true that gravity is still proportional to the squares of the electric and magnetic fields.
"This might be a dumb question ..." as others have said the text book says no. That being said their are (fringe) concepts that can create false gravity. The more important question above all is "What is gravity?" Is it a fundamental force, or even a force or is it something that exist or just an emergent appearance from some other mechanism.
I give u credit for at least mentioning MOND. (14 minute mark ish). But no, we do not need any dark matter with MOND. When u lie about the MOND position then u lose credibility on everything else as well
Err, MOND was conclusively disproven by examining binary stars. How did you manage to miss that? Additionally, MOND already had a _lot_ of problems before, it never was able to explain a _lot_ of the observations which DM _can_ explain (e. g. gravitational lenses, the Bullet Cluster, the BAOs).
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 We have been studying the wide binary data. The first paper published showed that MOND fit very well with the data. Then the 2nd paper discarded most of the data due to concerns with "high uncertainty", and the little data they had left did not fit MOND. We are not convinced by this since u can't just disgard data u don't like. DM is not an explanation. U are naming the problem "DM", but that is not an explanation. More like an excuse. "There must be more matter". No actually there doesn't need to be more matter if u are using the wrong law of gravity in your calculations. It's not like MOND can't be explained with DM as well. Both can be correct. But the MOND effect is 100% legit. Regardless of wether the (never detected) DM turns out to be real or not.
MOND also needs to be explained. The a0 is derived from the rotation speed of the galaxies but what is it? Why should it be that value? What is it caused by?
@@synx6988 "Then the 2nd paper" There were more than only 2 paper, and you misrepresent what the papers actually did do. Additionally, you contradict yourself. First you admit yourself that the data was discarded due to concerns with high uncertainty, but then you simply make up the claim that the data was discarded because someone did not like it. The analysis which disproved MOND was actually done by a _proponent_ of MOND, so claiming that he didn't like the data makes absolutely no sense. "DM is not an explanation." Yes, it is. You simply ignore all the explanations which are available. "U are naming the problem "DM", but that is not an explanation." And you go on not only misrepresenting the analysis which disproved MOND, but also misrepresenting what DM proponents actually say. Say, are you only dumb, or are you willfully lying? ""There must be more matter"" There is much, much, ___MUCH___ more to the idea of DM than only that sentencen. Again, are you only dumb, or are you willfully lying? "No actually there doesn't need to be more matter if u are using the wrong law of gravity in your calculations." People have been looking for decades how one could modify the laws of gravity. So far, no one has succeded in coming up with a modification which actually explains the observations, and even proponents of MOND admit now that it won't work without dark matter. "It's not like MOND can't be explained with DM as well. Both can be correct." Well, that's the first thing we can agree on. (If you not mean MOND directly, but relativistic extensions like e. g. TeVeS. Do you even know what that is?) "But the MOND effect is 100% legit." Again: It has been disproved by binary stars. And one of the analyses disproving that was done by a MOND proponent.
What if we find out that after light travels far enough, light existing just beyond a usual horizon is incapable of reaching us no matter how static the approximation of the source, is right beyond something understood as familiar? Haven't watched the video yet, I have a feeling I'll get hit with a synchronicity in some shape or form... Afterall, its not like anything we seem to believe about the universe stays set in stone for too long.
Stale photons. 26 Sept 2016 - Researchers at the Australian National University (ANU) have done something similar by using a cloud of very cold atoms to stop light moving. The photons of light you perceive in daylight, coming from the Sun right now, formed in the interior of the Sun roughly 100,000 years ago. Light does not encounter any resistance moving through the vacuum of space. Photons are observed at ages approaching 14 Billion years, every day by the JWST amongst others.
@@mrhassell Thanks for sharing that with me I appreciate it. Does this mean you're lead to believe its impossible for a particle/wave set in motion (unperturbed by forces in the vacuum of space) to transform or behave enigmatically? My aforementioned whimsical speculation toys around with playful hypotheticals, insinuating the observable universe is merely a celestial droplet residing within a vast cosmic ocean. I say "insinuating" because I imagine I might catch a bit of flak for suggesting such a thing. I enjoy amalgamating metaphysical propositions with quantum prospects... Just for fun might I add... When I consider our unfathomably large universe (observable and beyond) I'm left thinking about quirky quantum realms portrayed across cosmic macrocosms, or in other words, "As above, so below".
@@BlitzBlade-t6l No, that's an actual phenomena and it can be observed. The local interstellar cloud (LIC), 14 supernovae remnants that the Sun was formed from (and all this systems planets, including Earth only consumed, slightly less than 2%). Putting that in perspective, 98% is the Sun. I challenge anyone to find anything more enigmatic, with exception of "Charm" Quarks.
@@mrhassell Might I ask you to elaborate upon this phenomena? I'm especially curious what you think it hypothetically entails, feel free to imagine beyond anything familiar that's definitely my thing.
A very interesting discussion, as it always is with World Science Festival. The credits misspelled dr.Freese's first name. Keep up the good work, I can't wait for the next discussion!
No one said that there is mass that does not interact at all with other mass. Dark matter only does not interact with other particles _electromagnetically_.
Novel Dark Matter Hypothesis Dark Matter is simply unaccounted for gravity. GR states that gravity is the consequence of the curvature of spacetime. Is it possible that the structure of spacetime itself could be warped without the presence of matter? Spacetime has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independently of mass, and all have been proven with observations from gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves! Fabrics can also be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of causing a deformation and losing its elastic nature. All of these conditions were extreme during inflation, so it is plausible that the “fabric” of spacetime analog could extend having its elastic property have hit a yield point leaving pockets of inelastic spacetime geodesic that cause gravity without the presence of matter? Therefore, if gravity is strictly the consequence of the warped of spacetime, and fabrics can be permanently overstretched, then those empty warped geodesics would create gravitational wells independent of mass. My hypothesis of DM is subatomic black hole imprints of the quantum fluctuations that popped in at the moment of inflation. The CMB shows where the hot dense regions were they created the galaxies. They would have been the initial cause and location of the warping. These imprints would be clouds of quantum sized floating fixed geodesics, so they couldn’t expand or evaporate. Perhaps nothing has been detected because there is nothing to detect. GR wouldn’t require modification because DM would just be an extension of how spacetime behaves at extreme conditions. No MOND, no WIMPs, and no parallel universes, just empty spacetime deformations that produce gravitational wells to help jump start galaxy accretion processes. Zwicky may have named is Missing Mass correctly since he detected some gravity without mass present to cause it…
Please put the date of talk in future episodes.
there is no future haha
World Science Festival in New York City on Saturday, June 1, 2024
When did this actually happen
There is no spoon
@@schwingstelle8974 "The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Fascinating discussion and I am in amazement that so few people have watched this. This discussion is at the forefront of current physics and needs hundreds of thousands of views. Not only does this greatly diminish the idea of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) capturing the spot light and replacing Dark Matter but it offers other intriguing theories that might reveal the truth of the matter.
Well said. This particular discussion is outstanding in a field of fascinating discussions on the topic.
I always enjoy watching Katy Freese. Oddly enough I'm currently about 3/4 of the way through her book "The Cosmic Cocktail" right now, and also about half way through Brian Greene's book " Until the End of Time" so this video was a special treat. Thank you to both Katy and Brian. 😀
Dude. Im a regular guy that enjoys this kind of thing. Im glad I was around before and after UA-cam really took off. World Science Festival, this is immense shit your doing. I can only imagine the next generation of kids that grow up with this at their fingertips. Inspiring stuff.
Great interview! Please have Katherine Freeze on again!
I agree especially if it's zero Kelvin.
@@xizilionyizzexeliqer3897 I see watcha did there.
@@xizilionyizzexeliqer3897 we’re getting clever now -physicist influence dad jokes😂
The most engaging WSF -from start to finish-I've seen in some time. :)
That is unfortunately extremely sad for all the other WSF.
@@budweiser600 :)
The ability of humans to devise experiments that dissect the thin red line into what actually is from what we want to be, but is not, is one of the marvels of our specie. It’s good for young students to see this process up close and personal, as in the dialogue of this video, so they know it is possible and don’t get discouraged. Thanks.
There's no reason to brag about it. Does nothing but inflate the human ego. Fact is that aren't we aware of the kind of technologies and scientific discoveries that have been made in the other parts of the universe by beings far more intelligent and evolved than humans. Neither are we aware of what's happened in the 13 billion years so far and that which is to happen in the trillions of years to go in the future. Not to mention, this only applies to the universe that we are part of.
I only hope that mankind eventually and collectively unites to focus upon what lies beyond the void veil. That is the most important, unknown journey of all, and yet humanity hasn't really bothered with it for at least 1200 years. Sure, perhaps PRIOR to that, the concept may have been on certain beings' minds, but if so, that data is either lost or being kept extremely secure and secret under proverbial lock & key.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
The standard model of particle physics has been so successful that people think everything in terms of particles even the dark matter. I think dark matter effects could be just some unknown features of the space-time fabric and believe that can potentially help in understanding gravity.
"I think dark matter effects could be just some unknown features of the space-time fabric"
I. e. one has to modify General Relativity. Did you miss the fact that people have been trying that for several decades already, so far, without any success?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 yes but we know GR isn't 100% correct given Q Mechanics, so a new theory (maybe spacetime related) could explain this and would when/if we have the understanding.
@@PhilipHurrell Again: People have been trying to find such a new theory for several decades, so far, without any success.
And that doesn't change the fact that your sentence above ("people think everything in terms of particles even the dark matter") was simply wrong. Yes, lots of physicists think like that, but by _far_ not all of them.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514
"one has to modify General Relativity. Did you miss the fact that people have been trying that for several decades already, so far, without any success?"
Did you miss the fact, that people have been trying to find dark matter for at least as long -- without any success? Dark matter does really only exists on paper -- in form of gravity adjustment distributions in space.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 they haven’t tried having energy fields move in time only except when displaced by matter which moves in space. They don’t think a star’s past trajectory has to coincide with their location for them to see the star. They think everything revolves around their frame of reference.
As a non-scientist, the thing that baffles me is that whilst both matter and dark matter warp the 'fabric' of spacetime (a warping whose effects we call gravity), what *is* this fabric? Surely it must be a 'thing' of some kind, or else how can it be warped? But what 'thing'?
Look in the direction of quantum mechanics
@@resarfw OK, but meaning what, more specifically?
From the gate, I've resisted the notion of both simulations and multiple universes, but the more I learn about dark energy and dark matter, the less resistant I become.
Is this a repeat? I am sure I have watched this episode before. Can you put the date of the recording somewhere?
June 1, 2024. All the info you need to find it is in the background of the video, "world science festival" "the biggest mysteries of the big bang"
The Bike Wheel analogy is deceptive in an overall mental way for most people. It is about gravity being active over time.. long long time, with billions of other mass/stars adding mass to the entire galaxy system... bike wheel causes a person's attention to other reasons a block in intellect. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
I have studied mathematics in schools for more than 20 years in my now distant youth, but not once was I smart enough to add a fictitious factor or term when my equations did not add up and declare this factor/term necessary and existent. Most of my teachers weren't geniuses, but none were stupid enough to be convinced by such a thing.
Well yes, that's mathematics. In physics, the whole idea is adjust the equations until you get the correct answers (that fit the observations).
@@soppaism Ptolemy''s numbers were correct, too, thanks to his epicycles. There's a difference between a fundamentally flawed theory "saved" by fudge factors, and a sound physical theory.
@@soppaism I feel that adding 5x of invisible undetectable mass to make your math match the observations seems like a big stretch.
My personal, naive and non-scientific view is that our math needs rethinking, the math that "conjures" up dark matter might be based on math that falls apart in edge cases just as certain physics seem incompatible with quantum mechanics.
We'll eventually figure it out and it will be a "doh!" moment compared to the usual "eureka!".
@@VIceBox Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. No "dark" stuff needed.
@@VIceBox That's easy to say but no one who grasps the red/blue segment about 10 minutes in would agree.
I love these shows. It's good work. Brian, I'm sure you have little time for reading comments but I wanted to say, I appreciate your efforts. You are an excellent educator.
Isn't he though?
He saved my life during the dark days of the pandemic. I listened to every last one of his Daily Equation podcasts. What a treasure and a treat they are. I still can’t believe he took the time to do that for us - for FREE. . .
Alma materHarvard University (BS)
Magdalen College, Oxford (DPhil).
At Columbia, Greene is co-director of the university's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP) and is leading a research program applying superstring theory to cosmological questions.
Greene has lectured outside of the collegiate setting, at both a general and a technical level, in more than twenty-five countries. In 2012, his teaching prowess was recognized when he received the Richtmyer Memorial Award, which is given annually by the American Association of Physics Teachers.
- from Wikipedia
What we have actually failed to do is, find something to fill up the gap in the equations we created. The equations we so much don't want to change.
The equations are correct in 8 million places. They don't exactly have a record of being wrong.
@@jamesmcjamesington631 . Except that they predicted huge amount of matter and energy? The very fabric from which they are created.
@@chaoticmoh7091 They are right in every other case. We don't have any other evidence that supports the fact that they're wrong. And if they are wrong, they shouldn't also be right in a billion ways.
The simplest explanation is that there is a ton of diffuse matter there.
@@jamesmcjamesington631 We don't have any other evidence except decades of negative results and tweeked theories.
Big Bang theory says DM has to exist, in a certain precise amount, so it exits; and the existence of DM proves the Big Bang theory. Circular reasoning.
Thanks for posting another great video. Bg explains everything so well. I find your channel very interesting and inspiring ❤
Great to hear an audience again 👏👏👏
Yes! Me too! Like the good old days, four years ago!😊
Dark matter remains one of the biggest mysteries in our understanding of the universe, making up the majority of its mass, yet we still haven’t directly detected it. Have we really failed to identify most of the cosmos, or are we just missing the right tools or theories to fully grasp what dark matter is? What new approaches or experiments are being considered to finally solve this cosmic puzzle, and how might it change our understanding of the universe if we do?
Not really. They found it a long time ago. Its known, identified etc... sterile neutrino.
Plasma cosmology is the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. No "dark" stuff needed.
We know nothing about the quantum world and practically nothing about gravity. Dark matter is simply the manifestation of all that we don't understand about the universe all around us.
A great start to solving this mystery would be to first acknowledge that string theory is not the solution and will never be... for anything!
Maybe we just don’t understand gravity at large distances!
People have been looking for modifications of General Relativity for several decades. So far, they have not been able to come up with a better alternative.
Maybe? lol we know practically nothing about gravity and absolutely nothing about the quantum world.
@@quantumhype9839 Both are totally wrong. We know _lots_ about both gravity and the quantum world. Don't project your own ignorance of the subjects unto the scientists.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 actually we know absolutely nothing about quantum mechanics and that you would argue otherwise shows your ignorance.
If you believe Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive in that box, it's because you are confused by the data.
If you observe a double slit experiment and conclude that photons act as both a wave and a particle simultaneously, you are clearly missing something.
And don't even start with many worlds philosophical nonsense.
Nobody understands how to make sense of these observations because we know so little about the physical world we live in, particularly at the quantum level. In fact, these ideas that I touch on each have more than one interpretation because there is no common consensus even among the experts in the field.
A little humility would serve you well lol but that's asking a lot I'm sure.
@@quantumhype9839
Maybe you dont know anything about it, but they do.
The high quality of the guests makes all these interviews truly unique. Thank you for working hard to post more often than before.
Something is not clicking for me, in the collision part you have red zones (visible stuff) in the middle becasue of interactions but blue zones are on the edges because they interact less, but what kind of interaction you have is gravitational one (as we know in the case of collision of galaxies phisical interactions are extremely rare) but dark matter is postulated based on gravitational effect they produce, so they have a gravitational effect on visible matter but gravity has little effect on them
In the end in the image presented with the collision in the right side you have 2 galaxies 1 of "red" matter and one of "blue", that means in time in the Universe you would have galaxies of visible matter and galaxies of dark matter (invisible), but the origin of theory is based on speed of the stuff in visible galaxies.
Like String theory Dark matter theory become more close to faith then science like believing in Santa Klaus. My theory about dark is that more than dark matter in Universe are dark spots in our knowledge about how gravity works and other stuff related to particles and interactions in Universe.
Here seems to be your misunderstanding: "... they have a gravitational effect on visible matter *but gravity has little effect on them* ..."
According to the model/hypothesis: dark matter is affected by the gravity as much as the visibly matter.
@@EneriGiilaan This is my view as well, but in the image they showed what they say is dark matter was more distant from the center of gravity then visible matter, if gravity efect is the same for both type of matter why that difference in spread ?
@@raulepure9840 Because - as she says in the video - the normal matter has also other types of interactions.
In this case practically electromagnetic forces.
@@EneriGiilaan Do you know how big are distances betwen stars, can emf have an impact at that scale, it seems ridiculous for me, but im no phyzicist. Gravity can impact things at year light distances, how emf can be relevant at that scale?
@@raulepure9840Stars have magnetic fields and stellar wind halos that extend way out into the interstellar space. However - the issue here is not the stars or individual galaxies but two galaxy clusters each containing thousands of galaxies. And specifically the collision between the dust and gas halos of these clusters.
The best series on the internet!!!!
Two questions: If dark matter exists within our galaxy and is five times more abundant than normal matter, should we not be seeing its effects on the motions of the planets and even artificial satellites like GPS? Second, is dark matter being sucked into the black holes at the center of the Milky Way and other galaxies?
You can keep racking your brain with unanswerable questions about dark matter, or you can decide that DM is fake.
Planets are on a sufficiently small scale to make detection difficult. We’ve been talking about galaxies, galaxy clusters, and supermassive black holes
Yes DM would be entering central black holes. However it may be a small contribution compared to normal matter.
DM would mostly orbit at a distance, without sinking into the hole, if it has little friction or collisions with other particles. Friction in the accretion disk disperses the energy of orbiting gas and dust, allowing them to sink to smaller orbits and eventually go inside the horizon.
Such a privilege to listen to this
However, if every galaxy is within a filament, what is called a Birkeland Current, which is a self-organizing Electromagnetic field capable of transmitting a flow of ions, electrons and neutrons. Because these filaments rotate, they contribute to the rotational velocity of the galaxy within. Easy peasy.
that makes sense
6:40 but i have a question, if time itself is variable and we know it is, wouldn't the speed difference of time alter what we perceive as velocity looking from the outside?
This would also explain a lot of event horizons... and make the entire dark matter concept wrong, right?
We know that matter beyond a certain density collapses to a black hole. We also know that the early universe was beyond that density. It seems possible to me that there would have been a point where the densest areas of the early universe would have been above that threshold while the less dense areas in between were below it. The dense pockets could have collapsed into PBHs and further lowered the density of the rest, allowing it to spread more freely.
I agree. There should be many primordial black holes including tiny and huge ones. But it seems to me that WIMPS and Axions could also contribute. I see no reason why Dark Matter is only one thing.
@@Tstopmotion If that is true then why not assume that the majority of the 'missing mass' of the universe is trapped in black holes? It's a scam, mate; 'we' don't know _anything_ for certain.
Since the early universe was beyond that density, could it be that the universe is actually inside a black hole of some kind?
It may not be the usual kind of black hole though, due to expansion. A normal black hole, everything (almost) is going inward...
The assumption that actually requires the existence of Dark Matter is the assumption that the Big Bang/LCDM hypothesis is correct. And that assumption is based on another assumption, that our interpretation of Redshift is correct.
That assumption is then supported by the corroborating evidence of the CMBR. But again, that is based on the assumption that our interpretation of the CMB is correct.
There is a major problem with this assumption, as the CMB has some features that make that assumption highly suspect.
For example, when the data is analyzed and the regions of the CMB are divided, depending on how the regions are separated, an axis used to divide the regions actually matches the axis of our galaxy.
This is extremely troubling, because not only should there be no relation between the CMB and our galaxy, the CMB was emitted long before our galaxy even existed. That is problematic.
But it gets worse. In another permutation, when an axis is used to divide the regions of the CMB, that axis matches the axis of our Solar System. And there definitely should be no relationship between the CMB and our Solar System.
These are extremely problematic results, yet you will never hear anyone talk about these well known issues. Not even in Brian Greene's World Science Festival - which is an amazing accomplishment, by the way. I wish that I could attend.
Thank you, Brian Greene.
So the CMB is highly suspect. It is not sufficient to corroborate our assumptions about Redshift. The coincidences of the CMB cannot just be swept aside. Though that's exactly what physicists do. And that is bad form. And it is autodeceptive.
So the CMB is out. It cannot represent the claim if it just coincidentally has some intrinsic relationship with our galaxy and our Solar System. That's ridiculous. We've gotten that wrong.
So we're back to Redshift via the distance ladder. And we are assuming that the speed of light is unaffected by the vacuum of space. That seems logical.
Light cannot penetrate the depths of the ocean because of the medium of water. But space is a vacuum and therefore light should be unimpeded.
Except that we have known for a very long time that light is polarized by an effect called Faraday Rotation, and that occurs only in areas of very high mass. This would imply that the effects of Faraday Rotation would be most noticeable around galaxies in the foreground, or galaxy clusters, just like Gravitational Lensing.
But then, how would we differentiate between light distortion from Gravitational Lensing and distortion from Faraday Rotation?
Fortunately, that's fairly easy. Gravitational Lensing requires that the distortion flips and mirrors the light. Faraday Rotation does not.
Similarly, the hypothesis of a similar effect called Vacuum Birefringence has recently been verified in the lab.
Here is the important difference between Faraday Rotation and Vacuum Birefringence: Faraday Rotation requires the presence of plasma in the medium. Vacuum Birefringence does not. This is a natural effect of the vacuum itself.
But again, it is most noticeable around areas of high mass. But again, this light distortion does not necessitate a flipped mirror image, unlike Gravitational Lensing.
Interestingly, when reviewing many of the distortion effects in JWST images, we see what many claim are expressions of Gravitational Lensing. But upon closer examination, for many images, we don't see the expected flipped mirror image.
Instead we see distortion without any mirror of the elements in the image. It appears that we are seeing the effects of Faraday Rotation and Vacuum Birefringence. Not Gravitational Lensing.
Another implication, particularly of Vacuum Birefringence, is that every time a photon is polarized within the vacuum of space, it's speed is slightly affected.
The greater the distance that the light has to travel to reach us, the more that the speed of the light has been affected on its way to us.
That, of course, means that if the light has been slowed down by the medium of the vacuum, the greater the distance, the more that it has been slowed.
If we don't account for this effect, then it would appear as if objects were moving away from us, and the further away the object is, it would appear as if it was moving even faster away from us.
The only conclusion that we could reach is that the universe is expanding away from us, and it is accelerating faster the further you look.
But if you are aware of this optical illusion, then we would realize that this is only an illusion, and the universe is not expanding and accelerating as it expands.
Once we realize that light is affected by the medium of the vacuum of space, then the warnings of Edwin Hubble about our assumptions about Redshift appear quite prescient.
And if the universe is not expanding, then there is nothing to lead us to the Big Bang. And without the Big Bang, there is no Dark Matter, which would explain why we haven't found it.
Of course, there are many, many other implications that come from the realization that our interpretation of Redshift is wrong.
But this would simultaneously solve many issues regarding our cosmology and create new questions regarding our cosmogony.
However, what this does demonstrate is that evidence typically employed to support the Redshift interpretation has been found to be less than helpful.
The CMB is not at all a reliable indicator. Similarly, Gravitational Lensing is a distortion effect rendered by other means, and these other explanations fit the observations when no mirroring is observed, and without the mirrored effect, Gravitational Lensing is not an adequate explanation.
So, it would appear that the universe is not expanding, which means that we should not expect to find any Dark Matter, and that fits the data.
Without a Big Bang, we can wipe the slate clean and begin again.
However, there is much we already know about a non expanding universe, with unseen connections, the Cosmic Network, between every object in space.
Likely, its evolution is not driven by Gravity, but is instead driven by a constant state of thermal imbalance, or thermal non equilibrium, with a constant flow of ions, electrons and neutrons, creating an Electromagnetic potential across all bodies in the universe.
This appears to be the evolving model, as we see the growing discrepancies between the GR, Big Bang hypothesis and our latest observations, including fully formed galaxies only three hundred million years after the proposed Big Bang, galaxies already on their second generation of stars.
So the chasm between the LCDM hypothesis and direct observation grows, but another model, one grounded in provable physics, is already in place.
Can't wait to get started...
Impressive. Do you mean Plasma Cosmology, which is the only self-contained physical theory of the universe?
What's up with the bullshit?
@@williamschlosser And why are you playing with a sock puppet? ;-)
Sounds like a version of Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble With Physics.” Fascinating!
6:25 the animation is wrong. The water doesn't form "arms" like the galaxies,I spills the water all around equally.
It was just an example that's such a simple thing to observe
You've got a lot of criticism in your mind bro
Your right! lol
Dark big bang and dark stars... this is great. Thanks WSF
Really nice talk 👏👏
I'm not sure if I've seen an explanation for this concept before, but is it possible that Dark Matter is simply "peaks and valleys" in spacetime caused by spacetime being twisted circularly by the black hole at the center? Could matter just be getting stuck in a "valley" in the spacetime that's causing it to "roll" in an orbit instead of being flung outward? Maybe there are a bunch of observations that rule something like this out, but I haven't really seen anyone discuss it yet.
The problem there is that it is observed far away from massive black holes. But i could be primordial black holes. Lots of them, acting much like little invisible dust particles.
Maybe dark matter is the friends we made along the way
There’s a colossal amount of wildly speculative theorizing, extrapolative conclusions and complicated math often based upon shaky observations and falling far short of what’s needed for valid inductive reasoning--and from that we’ve constructed a conception of reality.
We’re essentially like ants crawling about in the fruit bowl on someone’s dinner table in a huge banquet hall.
The more we think we know, the more we should realize what we don’t know.
And while wasting resources, effort, money on trips to Mars, particle study, quantum computing, AI, and entertaining ourselves, we’re destroying the only known habitable planet, and the plants and animals we share it with. We are not wise.
A theory that says 96% of the universe is made-up "dark" stuff and only 4% is real, is metaphysics, not physics. Physics deals with real stuff.
i don't think the ants consider who owns the bowl or bait they are taking, they are reacting to the one with the magnifying glass burning them alive
@ You miss the point, but if you feel around the top of your cranium, you will find it, timmy.
The inconvenient problem with dark matter is that in order to make the galaxy spin as observed, it cannot have a disk-shaped distribution around the center of the galaxy. It must be more spherical. A disk can rotate and maintain an orbit. A spherical cloud has to collapse. Dark matter does not appear to have collapsed, or is doing so very slowly. or it is magical since it is attracted to normal matter but not itself. This is an elephant in the room that i don't hear a lot of discussion about.
Why does a spherical cloud have to collapse?
I would literally sit at this woman's feet and listen to her all day. Incredibly interesting person.
Our ever shortening lifespan that we have on this planet 😭😭😭 dunno why that struck me so much.
A Very interesting Video 👍🏻
The only dark matter that is important is coffee. 😂
And green tea.
why u commenting
And Guiness!
Dark Fluid theory 😂
Cz_"Velký třesk" je největší omyl po Galileovu "a přece se točí" neboť popírá nejen termodynamický zákon ale i zákon o zachování energie(informace v ní obsažené) ale také zákon o maximální rychlosti hmotou v prostoru dosažené(rychlosti světla). Stačí obrátit šipku času a vše začne dávat smysl expanze(velkého třesku) se promění v pád do černé díry našeho vesmíru v donutu před horizontem událostí.Bude také sedět vzdálenost primodiálního záření a kosmologická konstanta........A snimky Jamese Weba z hlubokého vesmíru začnou dávat smysl.
Thinking that any missing 'mass' must be something like normal matter but 'just invisible' speaks to a massive failure of imagination and a lack of open mindedness.
We really should not call it dark 'matter' at all. It drives thinking and takes it somewhere that may be fruitless.
Dark matter is metaphysics, not physics. The only self-contained physical theory of the universe is Plasma Cosmology. No "dark" stuff needed to make the numbers come out.
They never mentioned the search for missing mass at CERN.
Just like Neutrinos - that's how we could find Dark matter.
Clear Matter would be better. Or Gravitationally Anomalous Regions?
Tell me if I am missing something but how do we know that so called dark matter is not just ordinary matter which (in the center of galaxies) has not just exhausted its fusion material and stopped emitting light?
because it also doesn't absorb or scatter light.
Over half an hour and the only somewhat true claim I heard was that” We don’t have a clue about 95% of what’s going on “. I think 95 is even a stretch. When they do realize they don’t have a clue, it is labeled dark matter, or another one of their favorites, singularity. The source of their revenue must always be considered, especially regarding anything to do with climate change. They say what they are paid to say, and that is a fact. And those that do not follow the program are quickly dealt with accordingly.
"Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning, wondering if everything I've ever done is wrong," wrote Allison Kirkpatrick, an astrophysicist at the U. of Kansas. She soon recanted, as did Galileo, saving her career.
@@williamschlosser Galileo probably surmised that live incineration would not be a good day.
@@brianw8963 Quite correct. But the academic equivalent would have happened to Kirkpatrick.
Dude, when scientists say that... They dont mean they dont have a clue. They have many clues. In fact they have completely well-working models of whats going on. But certain parts of it requires more evidence to know for sure if its this or if its that... But this leads a lot of uneducated bewildered fools to thinking if the top scientists dont know 95%, well then that leaves plenty of room for anyone to just GUESS and think their opinion is just as good as the best international team of scientists. Well, no... Thats not how science works.
And these guys should really stop saying they dont know what 95% even is. Because they do.
Dark matter is not a euphemism but an accurate description of what it does. Matter in that it has mass & interacts through gravity, and Dark because it doesn’t interact with light. You don’t need a conspiracy to explain that. Singularity is a mathematical term and you can derive it for yourself if you want verification.
W=(8.809/8.753)^2*80.42939=81.5 Gev : weak interact massive particle[WIMP] for dark matter ch/3=pl*pm*c^2/2 by electron decay from strong force g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=g*(pl/4.1888*l)^2=1.13*10^28 which by graviton g*m^2=ch/2pi : solution of GR field equation ch=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4 oscillating between Planck scale l=g*m/c^2=(h*g/2pi*c^3)^0.5=1.616231*10^-35 meter which can deduce ch=2pi*g*m^2=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4=(4.9154)^3*pm : vacuum energy : solution of GR field equation under critical mass [6^3*pm] as dark energy can expand our universe, proton scale pl=g(p)*(4pi*pm/3)/c^2=8.809*10^-16 meter which can deduce ch/3=pl*pm*c^2/2 shrink proton radius to 8.753*10^-16 meter , produce r=En=ch/L=chR=me*(c/137.036)^2/2=13.6*e=W*p*6pi for regular matter ch/6pi can emit light spectrum r=13.6*e*((1/1^2-1/2^2)+(1/2^2-1/3^2)+...+(1/n^2-1/(n+1)^2))=(h/2pi)*(f1+f2+..+fn) from vacuum ch=(2*A1*137.036*pm*c^2)*(4pi*A*137.036)=En*L where A1=A*(128.4980143128.51991), A=5.29177282*10^-11 meter : hydrogen Atom radius, pm=1.672621868*10^-27 kg : proton mass, deduce ch +ch/3 + ch/6pi = En[100%] : oscillation between dark energy ch[72.13%], dark matter ch/3[24.04%], regular matter ch/6pi[3.83%], deduce experiment data from Planck satellite at bullet cluster when two galaxies collide emit blue light indicate hot dark matter have 26.8% from WIMP, cold regular matter 4.9% by 3.83=(4.9-3.83)+(26.8-24.04), dark energy 68.3%=72.13-3.83.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Why would anyone be so surprised as to write this article and put it on UA-cam in Visual and audio when ago I believe, just a few decades ago human beings didn't even know that galaxies were galaxies and that we lived in one that the Milky Way was the universe and the galaxies out there are nebula and they are blurry you can look at the Andromeda in the sky it's blurry the reason you see galaxies is the way you do on TV and media is because the images have extremely long exposures collect as much light as possible and then you can see the structure of the Galaxy more clearly but when you fly out into space it looks like it looks from here pretty much everywhere unless you're very close and nothing is very close in space it's ridiculous to think that we would have even a tiny fraction of knowledge of our universe or what it even is we think we do and we think we do and then we change all the time because we have to church didn't like that though and there are scientists that disagree holy with new information discoveries and truths some are so pompous they remind me of art so-called experts that can tell you if a painting was done by a certain artist or not and they are often wrong but no one argues against it because they're an art expert but no there are no swirling galaxies out there that we can visually conceive of unless we have long light exposed photos or computer altered images or space telescopes to collect the light. Some people still don't know that the sun is a star some people don't know all the planets listed in our solar system I am just shocked everyday at the lack of knowledge people accumulate during their life I hope they're having fun at least
Sorry everybody I have to use voice to do anything online and since I connected to AI for my voice to text it makes me sound insane when you read something I post
"just a few decades ago human beings didn't even know that galaxies were galaxies "
That was 100 years ago, not "a few decades".
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 we'll see how you feel when you get to 53
@@richardkohlhof Do you mean my age? I'm not far away from 53, I'm already 49. Do you really want to claim that makes a big difference? :D
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 LOL
I love that Brian Greene explains how odd it is that people think of "dark matter" and explains why there are indications that there is this "dark matter". But I miss the critical question about exactly where does the calculations begin to be projections instead of "proof".
Fx. if you crash two neutrons against each other and get something else, you could argue that it is what you would expect, but then NB neutrons are not billardballs, but some other kind of processes, - not static! so every "newtonian" parabel on quantum particles is bound to be "strange", and perhaps they are more wrong than right. Truth is never absolute in these questions. Allow me to be sceptical about the human understanding of gravity and dark matter.
❤
Dark matter is dilated mass. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. It's the "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.
Any links to articles about this theory?
@@Tstopmotion I had a video made on the subject "dark matter is dilated mass".
The best way to understand dilation is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the graph shows nothing has changed at that point.
When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point.
When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer.
This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere.
@@shawns0762 I’m a mathematician with a youtube channel myself. I’d be very interested in a link to published research on this idea. My channel only covers published reseaech.
@@Tstopmotion I am an older science/physics nerd. I realized dilation explains dark matter a few years ago. Over a thousand people agree with me. It is provable. The video has more information. If you agree perhaps you can help me post onto arxiv.
@@shawns0762 It is an intriguing idea, but the actual mathematics needs to be written up to complete a proof. If you have written it out, then you can post it on the arxiv and try to publish it.
Thanks again to Prof. Freese for more insight on her 5 objects found by John Ma and John Gardener.
The talk of bubble observations is important as our research group has observed also how bubbles can be associated with black hole removal from the Milky Way Galaxy as an energetic way they are not allowed to interfere with the supermassive as smaller individual black holes.
Prof. Freese, it is a very long way from Austin to travel for a talk with Prof. Greene.
Thanks for your research on how axions may power dark stars. There are cosmology realities when only fusion exists before the elements started clumping, and it is good you finally got time with the JWST to look back upon the 5 objects, or the three.
Thanks again to the WSU staff for another incredible show. Prof. Freese spent time in Nordik Institute areas, so does she know their challenge of 10x greater North radiation than we have in the non- polar regions?
When do we have our radiation shielding in place that protects our moonbase Astronauts? They are too vulnerable.
CLG
Novel Dark Matter Hypothesis
Dark Matter is simply unaccounted for gravity. GR states that gravity is the consequence of the curvature of spacetime. Is it possible that the structure of spacetime itself could be warped without the presence of matter? Spacetime has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independently of mass, and all have been proven with observations from gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves! Fabrics can also be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of causing a deformation and losing its elastic nature. All of these conditions were extreme during inflation, so it is plausible that the “fabric” of spacetime analog could extend having its elastic property have hit a yield point leaving pockets of inelastic spacetime geodesic that cause gravity without the presence of matter?
Therefore, if gravity is strictly the consequence of the warped of spacetime, and fabrics can be permanently overstretched, then those empty warped geodesics would create gravitational wells independent of mass. My hypothesis of DM is subatomic black hole imprints of the quarks durong inflation. The CMB shows where the hot dense regions were they created the galaxies. They would have been the initial cause and location of the warping. These imprints would be clouds of quark sized floating fixed geodesics, so they couldn’t expand or evaporate. Perhaps nothing has been detected because there is nothing to detect. GR wouldn’t require modification because DM would just be an extension of how spacetime behaves at extreme conditions. No MOND, no WIMPs, and no parallel universes, just empty spacetime deformations that produce gravitational wells to help jump start galaxy accretion processes. Zwicky may have named is Missing Mass correctly since he detected some gravity without mass present to cause it…
Your hypothesis is based off a metaphor. That's not how science works. The mechanics of fabric cannot be applied to spacetime. You need to provide some solid data/evidence to back your claim.
This is the problem that I have with the rubber sheet metaphor of gravity "bending" space. It was perhaps used because of a lack of any other visual reference, but it is definitely not an accurate representation of what is occuring. Therefore it is misleading for future speculation on the subject. A perhaps more proper representation would be a globular shape surrounding the matter which is caused by the gravitational force. Try to imagine 360 "rubber sheets" all inclined 1 degree from the previous sheet, and the resultant image. Of course an even more accurate representation would have 1080 rubber sheets representing three different planes of rotation. Yet even that is only a partial representation of the reality of the situation, but I feel a much better description of what happens to anything that is affected by the gravitational force associated with a mass.
The situation becomes even more complex when you consider that any particle with mass has an associated gravitational force. That requires that you need to take into account many interacting gravitational forces, at different locations, when you consider an object composed of more than one particle that has mass. Mathematics has a lot of these forces cancelling each other out. But is that what actually happens physically? Is it possible that our mathematically based description of the universe is lacking something, due to the differences between mathematics and physical reality?
If time and space are separate we see the past trajectory of matter and not the present trajectory of matter but I understand the Big Bang is bigger than my hypothesis.
Plot twist space and time are as separate in actual physics as they are in the cottage industry of entanglement.
"Is it possible that the structure of spacetime itself could be warped without the presence of matter? "
Yes, that's called the "cosmological constant", and that is one possible explanation for dark _energy_. This does _not_ work for dark matter.
"Spacetime has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independently of mass"
Spacetimes is neither twisting nor propagating, what are you talking about? (And even "warping" is not entirely right; the actual term is "curving".) Gravitational waves are _not_ "propagating spacetime"!
"Fabrics can also be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of causing a deformation and losing its elastic nature."
So because spacetime acts _vaguely_ like a fabric concerning some of its properties, you now claim that it also has to have _other_ properties of a fabric?
" inelastic spacetime geodesic"
What is that supposed to mean? Are you sure you know what the word "geodesic" means?
"subatomic black hole imprints of the quarks"
What is that supposed to mean?
"The CMB shows where the hot dense regions were they created the galaxies."
These regions actually were cold, not hot.
"clouds of quark sized floating fixed geodesics"
Again, are you _really_ sure you know what the word "geodesic" means?
"GR wouldn’t require modification because DM would just be an extension of how spacetime behaves at extreme conditions. "
Err, that _would_ require a modification of GR!!! Because GR, as it is, says _nothing_ about spacetime behaving differently at such extreme conditions!
I wholeheartedly applaud the brilliant efforts of our best scientists to tackle the NON-TRIVIAL problem of decoding nature. I would caution those who accept the current belief that 95% nature is “dark”… that science has a history of conquering up “dark” stuff to make current incomplete or incorrect understanding work. Remember “Caloric” or the “Luminiferous Aether”…
You ignore the many, many examples where physicists tried to explain observations by something "dark", and it later turned out that they were actually right.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Such as?
@@williamschlosser Neutrinos and Neptune off the top of my head.
Thank you World Science Festival💚🦋🌸🎶☀🌈
Thank you guys!
From a pure science standpoint the work of cosmologist and theoretical physicist is awesome and inspiring. As an applied scientist working for the US government I cannot get funding for basic laboratory equipment, instruments and people while watching billions of dollars going to yet another space-based satellite, program or sensor array that supports the tireless work of multiple PhDs who could not care less about the rest of science. I support what WSF is trying to do, education is fundamental to science, but the politics in play are applied with brutality to those of us whose names will never matter to anyone but our fellow laboratory friends and family.
"From a purse science standpoint" - what is 'purse science'? - Is that the kind you only ever do, when paid?
@@mrhassell Thanks, my vision is starting to fail. Nice catch though, "purse science", no pun intended but terminated with extreme prejudice.
@@mrhassell What a little mean one, you went straight to the typing error so you can happily evade the essence of the comment. The new type of "science" so used today.
Your comment was excellent use of word play and highly amusing. 😆
You could not have delivered that in any possibly better context. I'd assumed being intentional, as it's quite clever. (Having some idea for the reason).
You guy's (Government funded Scientists) do so much for Science (which in turn means all of humanity benefits), yet are rewarded abysmally! (How the rates are justified as set out in policy, is even more bizarre.)
Doing the real work that, if was not for I.T (information tech/computer science/engineering), being so highly in demand today (and the past 30+ years), often stealing Scientists away, before ever working in their vocation studied, happening more than anyone would reasonably assume), everybody would otherwise be doing exactly what you are!
With these 2 facts, I'd say this places yourself as being worthy of recognition.
Possibly, this makes you one of the most noble men of Science, in a World that's guided by Science, by proxy this means in all of the World and amongst every possible forms of highly noble roles, humanly possible!
The humor in your wordplay, made it impossible not to react (absent friends, and I would find ourselves engaging in exactly this for entertainment... quite a long time ago now but remain amongst my personally fondest memories, at least in this life).
So, I figured by responding in detail, I was showing a level of respect, rather than making a hit and run smart remark (implied, in another comment), yet apparently, not everyone shares the same sentiment, ha! Proof, right there. Pleasing everyone, is highly over rated.
Anyways...
Thanks for your reply Neil! I'm a bit of a fan (sincerely). I too worked in multiple Australian government department's, computer science field, for around a decade (closer to 2), it might be fair to say, with one or two things in common being gifted to us both, with a sense of humor! Very useful quality, sometimes absent in modern perception (although, quite rarely). 😁
P.S - What are the chance's?
If you're interested in an exact figure, I can calculate this to 2% of 100% accuracy. Highly accurate statistical figure, you won't obtain from any A.I. Evaluated manually, by combining set theory/types with a partial differential equation. The polynomial distribution, Bayesian modelling is based in Lorentz's Chaos theory, used in Deep Learning-Machine Learning (A.I - ChatGPT - Gemini), provide best case certainty, 94% as an optimistic outcome.
4% - nothing between friends. If millions of dollars was at stake, easy to see how 98% is a better start, aiming to reduce 2% to 0% - anyways - Should you ever have needs for anything of this kind, for yourself, it would be my pleasure! let me know (also the reason, why A.I will never replace gifted individuals, regardless of their flaws).
@@raulepure9840 Are you always so quick to misjudge? How rude.
With the discovery of DM and DE what physical, astronomical, and mathematical definitions of Time, Space, Energy, Gravity and on and on must or will change? If any, please make a show about this subject,.
Brian Greene has been a great explorer of hardest subject in layman's language with wonderful guests.
Thank you.
17:03 Really ‽ Seems like “Self-Interacting DM” Has been getting some attention lately. So …
34:00 That is warm and fuzzy 😮
People claim that the bullet cluster and other similar examples of cluster collisions rule out modified gravity as an explanation for the “dark matter” problem but I think we should not draw such a conclusion so quickly. It is possible that the gravitational lensing we see near the bullet cluster which is offset from the matter is due to a large scale propagating gravitational disturbance which radiated out from the collision. We know that gravitational waves are generated from the collision of massive objects. This is just my own speculation, I am bringing it up just to point out that there is at least a possible mechanism to explain the gravitational lensing around the bullet cluster collision in a modified gravity theory without dark matter.
6:51 Strong nuclear force of every particle is entangled with quantum mechanics to produce gravity needed that governs orbiting bodies
It makes no sense at all to say that a force is "entangled with quantum mechanics". If you think otherwise, show the math describing that.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I hear your frustrations. Gravity is a consequence of space-time curvature, so it’s not a “force.” either.
Gotta go big with this one, so we must look for inspiration away from Einstein and towards the scientist who is the only person to have 2 unshared Nobel Prizes, that person is Linus Pauling.
Pauling was a quantum chemist and molecular biochemist.
The ability of one atom to recognize another atom is the foundational principle of electronegativity, so this concept has to encompass what describes the “strong nuclear force” as it relates to electronegativity and that’s where Wolfgang Pauli’s exclusion principle helps negotiate that barrier.
Making sense out of a unified field theory of quantum gravity must take into account electromagnetism, then again, as Feynman said “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
A deeper understanding of gravity gives you a deeper understanding of the universe. The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and the converse of things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving. So causation is faster outside of a galaxy and things happen slower inside of a galaxy.
The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. The measured speed can’t change. When time and distance used to measure the speed change the actual speed changes. Do the following thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance between your hands saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.*
"Dark matter particles annihilating with each other"??? We don't know anything about the dark matter particles, so how can we suggest that they "annihilate with each other" which is not all that common in normal matter.
We know a lot about the many candidate particles; we just don’t know which ones are actually the dark matter…probably a zoo of them
How can they NOT suggest it? It's possible, so it should be suggested.
Electrons and positrons annihilate.
It is not common to see it in a cup of juice, but it is ubiquitous. All matter particles do it afaik, but not sure about neutrinos...
*literary cooking TV show*
Brian: “So, in 1915, Albert Einstein predicted that, if someone is cooking stuff, that stuff, we can say that matter, is cooked.” 💀
P.S. I love both Albert and Brian ❤
Dark matter is simply natures way of saying, you're way off.
That's what makes science interesting. The day we aren't off, anymore, we can close shop. ;-)
It’s actually saying you’re finally on to something
Great talk.
These people have families. They have property, house, car & maybe a boat. They need money to survive. That is why they don't talk about the elephant in the room; Halton Arp. They ignore a massive body of work performed by the Swedish Physics Professor Hannes Alfvén & the Norwegian Physicist Kristian Birkeland. We are facing a crisis in cosmology, and they fight like dogs to keep their money/jobs.
Very well said! Without a paradigm shift, science eventually stagnates. Defining dark matter as unobservable and then going out looking for it is about as stagnant is it gets.
@@williamschlosser .. 100%
Well dark matter has never knocked me over so maybe the 5% of matter we have identified is the most important and impactful matter.
It’s dark energy that is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. That’s pretty impactful in that in hard to imagine timeframe of the future there will be nothing. Recommend Brian’s Until the End of Time.
The universe is 100% real. Try Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened". Enough mythology.
Dark matter seems like an afterthought-- like someone started the simulation and everything was flying apart so- they stuck dark matter in arbitrarily as a fix. That way then didn't have to go back through and reset all the masses and constants to make it all work- they just stuck some duct tape on it. Then someone else was like "Wait, now it's all going to collapse in the far future- I know- Dark energy!" Then someone else was like "We need a recycling bin- somewhere to hide the left-over parts we couldn't figure out where to put- blackholes."
White holes eject whatever it is that black holes "absorb".
Not that anyone will listen, but... that's perfectly predictable and consistent with the past 1200+ years.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
When astrophysicists stop looking for dark matter, they will have to start thinking.
@@williamschlosser They find it all over, so why would they stop looking? The hard part is to find it in the lab. But not everything is easy.
29:28 That's an interesting statement. Inflation creates vacuum and vacuum energy coverts into matter.
If there was no energy to drive inflation to create vacuum energy, then what was driving inflation?
Or to put it another way, what was before vacuum energy if there was no energy?
>
Of all the possible forces that can drive the universe which one has no physical/material manifestation?
How do we know the extra gravity isn't being caused by the Tooth Fairy?
What's the difference between Dark Matter and the Tooth Fairy?
..oh wait, no one has spent billions of dollars and almost 100 years looking for the Tooth Fairy only to fail with every single experiment and every single observation. But if you decided that you are right - no matter what the evidence proves, - the facts. the proof and reality mean nothing to you.
Going with the analogy... it would work if:
1. teeth often disappear from under pillows
2. coins often appear under pillows
3. these two events are highly correlated
4. event 1 usually comes before event 2
5. fairies are common in everyday life
6. fairies trade objects for money, in fairy theory
7. fairiy theory explains most experiments and has led to most technology
8. BUT there are not enough KNOWN fairies to account for all the teeth and coins.
9. Therefore, there is an Invisible Fairy Hypothesis in science, and many experiments trying to detect them.
@@nmarbletoe8210
1. We used leaches and blood-letting on a sick person and they got better.
2. Therefore there is a direct correlation between blood-letting and leaches and people recovering from illness.
This is how it works when you only see what you want to see and only hear what you want to hear.
When you can't find 96% of the universe, and the 4% that can be observed tells you the universe can't exist.... but you are 100% sure you are right about your theory of imaginary things performing miracles is correct...
What good does it do to explain the flaw in this logic?
What about a new state of the vacuum? Maybe at a certain temperature or mass, the vacuum has a phase transition to a new, undiscovered phase/state.
Or how about magnetic monopoles?
How would these two things explain dark matter?
You forgot to mention aether, santa clause and God(s) that we can’t see or detect and therefore must exist, right?
Stop insulting the aether by comparing it to DM. We can detect an "aether" -- the quantum field via the Cashmir effect. It just doesn't produce a drag on photons.
@@paulthomas963 It doesn't produce a drag on ANYTHING. (unless it is accelerating, in which case it may produce inertia?)
The best artists don't do it just for money.
If money is the driver, the creative output is driven by money.
Don't say you "believe" in science and then tell me it's not an art, or a business.
The bias in this speaker is honestly frustrating. She gave off the same vibes on startalk and clearly is sold on her own theories.
I also have to point out the certainty in which she asserts HOTLY debated subjects is frowned upon in science communication and rightfully so- the most informed scientists of our time will always say things like “as we understand it now” or point out that there isn’t a consensus within the community but she never will.
Agreed, she's wildly irresponsible in dismissing other approaches, which is especially galling given the DECADES of failures to find the dark matter. One would almost think she's perfectly happy with this outcome and is advocating for decades more of the same.
@@caboosekiller39 So do you know of any other approaches which did not _also_ have decades of failure to find evidence for them?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe! A different paradigm that explains almost everything that happens in the Cosmos, through observations and laboratory tests. No contradictions or hypothetical inventions never provable or ad-hoc mathematical demonstrations.
I heard her several times, but her case is long ruled out. Look for "electro-aether energy" for a working option.
@@ddtt1398 Please tell me how exactly her case was ruled out. And please tell me in which scientific journal the "electro-aether energy" was published.
What would Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance" play into the structure as it's seen compared to how it appears to be? The experiences people have don't align with how things appear to be, and we call it a miracle. Are those experiences just taking place in those spaces that we can't 'see' but for the effects. As in; 'The Light shines in the Darkness but the Darkness beholds it not.' Is there no hint yet that that Dark Mass is nothing more than an Infinite Ocean of Awareness/Consciousness. That's what IT said It was and what we see as 'the Universe' is the least of IT's Mass, just a thought expressed to express IT'l Glory and Wonder. Our consciousness is but a drop of IT. For that reason our consciousness has dominion over the whole of IT at this level of awareness.
Many are becoming aware that ten thousand years ago persons had said just this as a direct experience. How could they have said such things without having 'science' applied but rather saying it's knowledge that came from expanded awareness of Being and finding that 'It is all Consciousness, call It what you will. The term God got zeroed in on.
You have to be able to believe in Santa Claus to believe something you can't see, can't touch, can't measure in any way.
Wrong because there's evidence of "dark matter" while there's 0 evidence of Santa Claus......
I hope Brian hosts these talks until the end of the universe. 🤘🏽🙂↕️
They have no clue what is going on. Billions spent for chasing an invisible rabbit.
Take away their funding!
Nice video, great discussion. Too bad Dr. Freese's name is spelled wrong in the closing credits.
Dark matter is basically a lazy excuse 🤢🤢🤢😒
My dog ate my homework = dark matter did it.🤷♀️
Dark matter is the observation that my homework is gone.
You can explain it in many ways. But it is gone. So there is a reason. One theory is dog. One is wind. One is fire. Etc.
I dont know about you guys but what i see in the red-pink color at time 34:15 to me looks that its a so called GALACTIC WAVE - the kind of half circle that its formed cause of the out put of a system say galaxy etc. that throws matter-light-plasma by a or through an electromagnetic cone those of which Halton Arp speaks of in the book SEEING RED. - Could be that as matter-light-plasma-gas as it refracts from the encounter with electromagnetism of the same galaxy that throw out the matter-light-plasma divide into two major groups as seen in the red-pink part.
In no way the red-pink part belongs to the back of the picture it is a very front of the picture.
Dark matter is the womb that holds the birth of knew matter.
Okay now prove it with equations. Good theory but is time to test it and prove it. Good luck!
That kinda makes sense but like dude above said now you gotta prove it
Consciousness that underlies All.
@@tanakaren1822 cool theory, gotta prove it now
You meant "new". 🙄
Very interesting discussion from BG and Katy Freese, showing clearly, that our cosmology is in a serious crisis. This crisis was mostly induced by JWST data coming to us and showing, that almost everything we thought was certain about the Universe, has to be reconsidered and most probably radically changed. It looks like everything that constitutes the world that we can see and touch is only byproduct of the unvisible and intochable world made of dark energy and dark matter, making around 95% of the Universe we can observe. Frustrating, will we ever know the truth? I personally doubt that.
Use science that is fact-based, not fantasy-based like this.
Looking at the graphics of this collision, I assume that dark matter doesn't even interact with itself? Or are there fainter signs to be found?
I bring this up because it seems to me, that if dark matter is composed of some type of dark particles, then some of them would collide with others. This should at least produce something of a trail leading back to the strike zone.
Conversely, no trail whatsoever, would indicate that this is a 'force', and not a 'thing'.
(No, I haven't thought about the type of forces that could be disguised as things, and behave as things in a gravitational manner. Refer here to the famous line by the character Sherlock Holms about seeming impossibilities.😁)
ADD: if I think of spacetime as a seafloor, and consider that the Universe is expanding in every direction from every point at Hubble's (inconsistant) Constant, then that force which is emergent is like a bubbling up into and through the brane, (if that's what it is), it looks like 'dark matter' is the fabric we don't see but exists just the same.
Okay, now my head hurts as a result of 'Dark Matters'.🤣
If you are tired of headaches. try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. No "dark" stuff needed to make the numbers come out right.
DM can interact with itself, in most models, i think. Certainly some candidates could do that.
If it was made somehow in the early universe, it can be unmade, since Quantum Mechanics is time reversible. Probably. And thus would have to release some kind of energy or particle, due to conservation of energy. Probably.
Disappointing. This episode was like listening to two 13 century monks discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Both with blinkers on.
Err, there are lots of actual experiments looking for dark matter. It would be news to me that 13 century monks every used experiments for looking how many angelsare on the head of a pin. So your analogy makes no sense at all.
Ok be upset about a science talk??
This might be a dumb question, but can gravity be multiplicative in the sense that mass near other mass is greater than the sum of the gravitational influence of the masses individually?
Adding mass simply makes the gravity add like superposition. So acceleration due to gravity is proportional to the mass; therefore, if you double the mass you double the acceleration due to gravity.
No. An object that has a mass of 50,000kg has 5x the gravitational force of an object of 10,000 kg. It's linear.
"can gravity be multiplicative in the sense that mass near other mass is greater than the sum of the gravitational influence of the masses individually"
Why would you call that "multiplicative"? And no, according to everything we know so far, that hypothesis is _not_ true.
To achieve a multiplicative nature of gravity, it is essential to recognize that it cannot be derived from mass or energy, as these factors exhibit a linear relationship with gravitational strength. Conversely, if one seeks to derive gravity from electric or magnetic fields, it is important to note that gravity is proportional to the energy or energy density associated with these fields. Notably, the energy density correlates with the square of the electric or magnetic field. Consequently, for gravity to exhibit a multiplicative relationship, one must consider electric or magnetic fields; however, it remains true that gravity is still proportional to the squares of the electric and magnetic fields.
"This might be a dumb question ..." as others have said the text book says no. That being said their are (fringe) concepts that can create false gravity. The more important question above all is "What is gravity?" Is it a fundamental force, or even a force or is it something that exist or just an emergent appearance from some other mechanism.
I give u credit for at least mentioning MOND. (14 minute mark ish). But no, we do not need any dark matter with MOND. When u lie about the MOND position then u lose credibility on everything else as well
Err, MOND was conclusively disproven by examining binary stars. How did you manage to miss that?
Additionally, MOND already had a _lot_ of problems before, it never was able to explain a _lot_ of the observations which DM _can_ explain (e. g. gravitational lenses, the Bullet Cluster, the BAOs).
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 We have been studying the wide binary data. The first paper published showed that MOND fit very well with the data. Then the 2nd paper discarded most of the data due to concerns with "high uncertainty", and the little data they had left did not fit MOND. We are not convinced by this since u can't just disgard data u don't like.
DM is not an explanation. U are naming the problem "DM", but that is not an explanation. More like an excuse. "There must be more matter". No actually there doesn't need to be more matter if u are using the wrong law of gravity in your calculations.
It's not like MOND can't be explained with DM as well. Both can be correct. But the MOND effect is 100% legit. Regardless of wether the (never detected) DM turns out to be real or not.
MOND also needs to be explained. The a0 is derived from the rotation speed of the galaxies but what is it? Why should it be that value? What is it caused by?
@@synx6988 "Then the 2nd paper"
There were more than only 2 paper, and you misrepresent what the papers actually did do. Additionally, you contradict yourself. First you admit yourself that the data was discarded due to concerns with high uncertainty, but then you simply make up the claim that the data was discarded because someone did not like it. The analysis which disproved MOND was actually done by a _proponent_ of MOND, so claiming that he didn't like the data makes absolutely no sense.
"DM is not an explanation."
Yes, it is. You simply ignore all the explanations which are available.
"U are naming the problem "DM", but that is not an explanation."
And you go on not only misrepresenting the analysis which disproved MOND, but also misrepresenting what DM proponents actually say. Say, are you only dumb, or are you willfully lying?
""There must be more matter""
There is much, much, ___MUCH___ more to the idea of DM than only that sentencen. Again, are you only dumb, or are you willfully lying?
"No actually there doesn't need to be more matter if u are using the wrong law of gravity in your calculations."
People have been looking for decades how one could modify the laws of gravity. So far, no one has succeded in coming up with a modification which actually explains the observations, and even proponents of MOND admit now that it won't work without dark matter.
"It's not like MOND can't be explained with DM as well. Both can be correct."
Well, that's the first thing we can agree on. (If you not mean MOND directly, but relativistic extensions like e. g. TeVeS. Do you even know what that is?)
"But the MOND effect is 100% legit."
Again: It has been disproved by binary stars. And one of the analyses disproving that was done by a MOND proponent.
@@sego001 good point and good question!
What if we find out that after light travels far enough, light existing just beyond a usual horizon is incapable of reaching us no matter how static the approximation of the source, is right beyond something understood as familiar? Haven't watched the video yet, I have a feeling I'll get hit with a synchronicity in some shape or form... Afterall, its not like anything we seem to believe about the universe stays set in stone for too long.
Stale photons. 26 Sept 2016 - Researchers at the Australian National University (ANU) have done something similar by using a cloud of very cold atoms to stop light moving.
The photons of light you perceive in daylight, coming from the Sun right now, formed in the interior of the Sun roughly 100,000 years ago. Light does not encounter any resistance moving through the vacuum of space. Photons are observed at ages approaching 14 Billion years, every day by the JWST amongst others.
@@mrhassell Thanks for sharing that with me I appreciate it. Does this mean you're lead to believe its impossible for a particle/wave set in motion (unperturbed by forces in the vacuum of space) to transform or behave enigmatically? My aforementioned whimsical speculation toys around with playful hypotheticals, insinuating the observable universe is merely a celestial droplet residing within a vast cosmic ocean. I say "insinuating" because I imagine I might catch a bit of flak for suggesting such a thing. I enjoy amalgamating metaphysical propositions with quantum prospects... Just for fun might I add... When I consider our unfathomably large universe (observable and beyond) I'm left thinking about quirky quantum realms portrayed across cosmic macrocosms, or in other words, "As above, so below".
@@BlitzBlade-t6l No, that's an actual phenomena and it can be observed. The local interstellar cloud (LIC), 14 supernovae remnants that the Sun was formed from (and all this systems planets, including Earth only consumed, slightly less than 2%).
Putting that in perspective, 98% is the Sun. I challenge anyone to find anything more enigmatic, with exception of "Charm" Quarks.
@@mrhassell Might I ask you to elaborate upon this phenomena? I'm especially curious what you think it hypothetically entails, feel free to imagine beyond anything familiar that's definitely my thing.
Once the Music Industry goes down, Academia is next.
A very interesting discussion, as it always is with World Science Festival. The credits misspelled dr.Freese's first name.
Keep up the good work, I can't wait for the next discussion!
It’s always to listen to Dr Freese K
Can anyone tell what song is end of these videos? And thanks for another great and interesting conversation
a very good video
this was great!
Can you still frame in hertz for a dispersion method
This was really excellent!
Love this talk! Thank you 😊
is the percentage of dark matter the same in the closest galaxies to the furthers?
No. The asymmetry is of huge significance and is a puzzle to be solved. Do it!
@@mrhassell Easily done. Get rid of the fantasy of DM.
@@williamschlosser It's fantasy to want to cling to the idea it doesn't exist. The evidence is overwhelming.
Katherine Freese is a great guest.
How can mass nor interact with mass ???
No one said that there is mass that does not interact at all with other mass. Dark matter only does not interact with other particles _electromagnetically_.
When scientists can solve problems by definition, not by observation, that makes for a very flexible science. If you can call it science.
@@williamschlosser This has nothing at all with "solve problems by definition", what on Earth are you talking about? :D
Similar to the weak and strong force fields, has anyone considered that dark matter arises because the spacetime field itself has mass.
Wouldn't that be ~uniform everywhere?
That actually is a possible explanation for dark _energy_ (the "cosmological constant"), not for dark _matter_.
Novel Dark Matter Hypothesis
Dark Matter is simply unaccounted for gravity. GR states that gravity is the consequence of the curvature of spacetime. Is it possible that the structure of spacetime itself could be warped without the presence of matter? Spacetime has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independently of mass, and all have been proven with observations from gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves! Fabrics can also be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of causing a deformation and losing its elastic nature. All of these conditions were extreme during inflation, so it is plausible that the “fabric” of spacetime analog could extend having its elastic property have hit a yield point leaving pockets of inelastic spacetime geodesic that cause gravity without the presence of matter?
Therefore, if gravity is strictly the consequence of the warped of spacetime, and fabrics can be permanently overstretched, then those empty warped geodesics would create gravitational wells independent of mass. My hypothesis of DM is subatomic black hole imprints of the quantum fluctuations that popped in at the moment of inflation. The CMB shows where the hot dense regions were they created the galaxies. They would have been the initial cause and location of the warping. These imprints would be clouds of quantum sized floating fixed geodesics, so they couldn’t expand or evaporate. Perhaps nothing has been detected because there is nothing to detect. GR wouldn’t require modification because DM would just be an extension of how spacetime behaves at extreme conditions. No MOND, no WIMPs, and no parallel universes, just empty spacetime deformations that produce gravitational wells to help jump start galaxy accretion processes. Zwicky may have named is Missing Mass correctly since he detected some gravity without mass present to cause it…
At 8:49 Dr. Freese says "The definition of mass is that it feels gravity", but photons are massless and feel gravity!