This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1732292036103x306283825152773060 You can now also create your own quizzes on my website. We are constantly working on bug fixes and extensions!
Sabina, I am a school dropout due to my financial situation, I am currently 31 years old, I watch your videos regarding string theory and before I met you I also had a problem with the way dimensions are mentioned in the string theory and the m theory. I made a new graph on the dimensions using the Euclid model as my base line and did some modifications there, from negative 2 to 9th dimension, out of which 7 to 9 are theoretical and mathematics stupid, but from negative 2 to the 6th dimension holds important stuff.
If you are interested please let me know, don't worry I live in Bangladesh, so it is not possible for me to get near you even if I want to, unless the 6th dimension of mine says otherwise.
Why don't they mix the LHC detector with those kinds for neutrino detection like Kamiokande or IceCube and build a hybrid detector for these really small particles like gravitons and axions that the LHC cannot detect (but can generate)? That way they could generate and detect at the same time. The LHC should have been like that.
i liked this episode, it explained some science, showed the connections between particle physics and astrophysics, and discussed experiments designed to test hypotheses. It had the right amount of Sabine pepper to make me chuckle several times and i learned something. Skepticism was there but so was humility. The right approach to science. thankyou!
Some commenters are complaining that Sabine´s videos are too short. But she puts more content and information in seven minutes than you normally get served in a boring hour.
🤔 That is a generalization, many longer videos are not boring and are not overly condensed. Really depends upon the topic, the presenter and the “attention span of the consumer”.
You should have mentioned that tiny, invisible neutrinos were discovered by noting missing energy after some fundamental particle interactions, so a missing energy approach to axion detection isn’t a new idea.
If they are so light that a single particle is smeared all over the Milky Way, I can hardly imagine the precision required to detect it. Doing the calculation in my head, it's about 30th decimal place on the mass of electron.
@@maladyofdeath That's always the issue. In my opinion it's highly likely that at some point.......the means of detection will never have a margin of error small enough to detect something that's the absolute smallest, massless, least energy carrying "particle" to exist. On some level how could it? All tools will have a limit and that limit is always higher than the thing that needs to be observed because the tool needs to be physically made of MANY of those things. The analysis of the reality of the universe may never be fully possible.
To be honest, the dragons from the Third Sally (also known as the Dragons of Probability) in Stanislaw Lem's book "The Cyberiad" are reminiscent to WIMPS and Axions. "Everyone is aware that there are no dragons. The layman may be satisfied by this straightforward formulation, but the scientific mind is not satisfied. By taking an analytical approach to the problem, the brilliant Cerebron identified three different types of dragons: completely speculative, chimerical, and mythical. One could argue that they were all nonexistent, but they each did so in a unique way.
Going through Physics graduate school in the 1980s was a nightmare. It was obvious that these ideas were gibberish. So I left the field after passing the PhD exam and did my doctorate molecular biology instead. It still pains me that so many of my brightest hard working friends wasted their lives on this. I hope today's physicists have some kind of hope.
You don't understand research if you think finding nothing is achieving nothing. People who work in this field know exactly what they are doing, they are not stupid and waste their lives, shame on you to judge other peoples' decisions like that.
@@misterphmpg8106 It's not unreasonable to expect research to produce results some proportion of the time. In the last forty years, fundamental physics probably has the worst return on investment.
@@misterphmpg8106 Most of them were unemployed in science after their doctorate and post-doc. They lived in poverty. Unlike yourself I had great respect for them.
I can relate to that! Studied grad physics in the 1980s, worked at SLAC on instrumentation, came back to pass the PhD qualifier but decided, nah, too much of physics is this theoretical stuff, though interesting, doesn't give any day to day satisfaction or lead to a solid career unless you're very lucky. OTOH, working on the electronics and instrumentation was great, debugging device driver software and writing up test and calibration procedures and wringing the last bit of accuracy out of cheap sensors - yes, this is the life for me! So I dropped out, maybe two or three credits short of a Master's, and went back to Michigan (home state) for job hunting in the auto industry or other manufacturing or science roles.
I remember a Scientific American article, 1976. I remember that WIMPS were the most likely candidate at that time. Also about that time there were attempts to estimate the “mass” of the universe and thus estimate its future-contraction or endless expansion-prior to dark energy. Now that it is becoming clear that the founding observations leading to dark energy hypothesis are at best problematic (thank you Subir and Sabine), and that much other supporting evidence appears to be somewhat (entirely?) circular, we seem to be cast back to concerns that observers were trying to resolve in the 1990s. In any event, it is clear that there has been no real progress towards explaining the processes that lead to dark energy since its “discovery”. There seems to be so little enthusiasm for releasing the core data before adjustments for local movements resulting in that has resulted in supposed supporting measurements, that these publications can be dismissed out of hand. I might have once been more measured in my evaluations-I was once a science writer, among other subjects-but at 77 I am impatient and more than a bit grumpy. Produce and explain your data in reproducible form. Explain reasonable difficulties, supported by evidence. Evade and be intellectually dismissed; preferably also barred from other grants for incompetence at the least. There don’t seem to be any remaining theories of dark energy that aren’t rotting with age or starved of supporting evidence. Within the next 5 to ten years the evidence will be in demonstrating that billions of scarce research dollars and several decades-a generation-of researcher’s efforts have been mostly wasted due to a misinterpretation based on an incorrect assumption-that the universe at large scales is the same in all directions at large scales. The assumption had been already called into question by the early 1990s because of indications of directional movement with respect to the cosmic microwave background. Explanations based on a great attractor called out for extensive investigation and at least a common recognition that this is a hypothesis and that simplifying assumptions were clearly in error, at least in the then observable universe. It turns out to be in continuing challenge as observation ranges increase. Come on folks. It now appears that dark energy is about to be tossed into the dustbin of science along with epicycles. Get on with it and stop wasting everyone’s time. It is increasingly clear what the last batch of data will indicate along with the 4.9 sigma evidence demonstrated to date. Already a pretty slender thread to justify your continuing professional careers upon without now being open to a myriad of other possibilities.
Cosmologists have become inflexible, it seems. They are unable to accommodate new data that contradicts current theory, and unwilling to revise current theory to fit/predict the data. Sad state of affairs. Only Penrose and a few others are making efforts at escaping the current bind. Everybody else leans on plug-ins to gloss over the glaring contradictions.
Cz_Už 50 let tvrdím že "velký třesk " je omyl který odporuje nejen poslední pozorování ale také popírá termodynamický zákon, zákon o zachování energie, rychlost světla.....
As an aside there’s an image in this video of a bike parked beside a worker at the LHC @3:01 illustrating one of the challenges of maintaining something with a circumference of 27km. Imagine the Future Circular Collider populated with hard hatted workers screaming to the sites of the next maintenance ticket in a Formula One car.
Please, please, please do a video on spacetime solitons! After reading Einstein’s biography, I’ve become fascinated by this idea, but oddly there is almost nothing about it online. I assumed some obscure bit of QMs ruled it out, but hearing you mention it has given me hope to learn more. I think it’s such a novel idea. I mean do we really know what the fabric of reality is capable of. We know it’s different than the other forces. Maybe it is matter is some stable form void of space and time? 🤷♂️ I realize it’s fashionable to say that spacetime is doomed, and that seems likely to me too, but even if it’s not fundamental it could be where matter comes from, no?
Why do you think it was named that way? I was recently reading the PhD thesis of an HAYSTAC researcher and the origin of the name as a pun is openly acknowledged 😉
It's hinted as being an energy potential defined by relativistic terms, and there are things right there in the electric properties of a vacuum that tie-in as well.
If 'Hannes Alfven' were still alive, it would be fun to get his interpretation of 'modern astrophysics'. And for those unaware, he managed a Nobel prize. Back when they were give out for experimental evidence to theory.
Because their masses are so low, we are all kinda living in their hypothetical probability cloud. It's kind of interesting to think about a single particle that could appear anywhere in the galaxy... is that affected by SR at all? I suppose the same thing happens with incredibly low energy photons as well, around a nanohertz.
this is one of those videos that made me humble, extremely humble. Physics in a humanistic secondary school in Germany of the late 1960ies clearly stuck me "pedestrian" vis a vis such stratospheric concepts. Even ChatGPT could not tutor me up a few baby steps to some initial understanding. Even the Dunning Kruger inside me gave up. Nonetheless, thanks for a lesson in modesty.
@@ernstgumrich5614 Since we very VERY likely live to see the era where physics is hitting it's final impenetrable wall (but of course will refuse to acknowledge it for some more decades, before it finally dissolves into a mere religion) - it is not much of a pity that the layman lost the ability to follow the mathematical juggling that most of modern physics has been reduced to decades ago already.
@@mikloscsuvar6097 Und ich sage: die Regeln eines Spiels zu lernen, detailliert zu verstehen, sie optimal anzuwenden und ein Meister darin zu werden - macht das Spiel noch lange nicht zur Realität. Es spielt dabei keine Rolle wieviel uns die Physik in der Vergangenheit an Erkenntnissen und Technologien gebracht HAT. Uns muss vor allem interessieren wie gross die Chance ist, dass sie weitere grundlegend neue Durchbrüche bringen WIRD. Und da sieht es nicht wirklich gut aus - wie Sabine in gefühlt jedem zweiten Video ja auch bereits andeutet...
Good Presentation, interesting stuff. However, we always remain Curious as to How a "Name" can be given Anything In Physics --- IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT EXISTS?
When it comes to the question of technological progress and scientific progress, there are 3 main possibilities: 1. Technologically, we are near the limit of what we can achieve. We are reaching technological limits imposed by complexity and chaos, and the “low-hanging fruit” has already been picked. 2. We are nowhere near the limit of what we can achieve technologically even based on our existing understanding of natural laws. 3. We are nowhere near the limit of what we can achieve technologically even based on our existing understanding of natural laws, AND there are additional natural laws or fundamental breakthroughs in science that will allow us to go even further technologically than we could if our current understanding of basic science has already been maximized. Which of these possibilities, Sabine, do you think is closest to reality (1-3)? And why?
My knowledge in this field is non-existent, but it can never hurt to assume that 'our existing understanding of natural laws' is by no means correct or complete. It can never be wrong to search for more knowledge, even when we can't fully grasp what we have learned already.
I enjoyed this episode since it included experiments meant to verify theories, illustrated various scientific concepts, and illustrated the links between particle physics and astronomy. It taught me something and had just the proper amount of Sabine pepper to make me laugh multiple times. There was skepticism, but there was also humility. The proper way to do science. Many thanks!
Speaking only for myself, this one is right on the dot! Great mix of exploration of what's what, plus building up from my desired beginning point of evidence, rather than question. (Both are needed. And they interact like espresso and milk. I just like beginning with evidence.) I feel like I was exactly ready for this one, too. So maybe you guys are writing these in sets now, and I'm tracking along okay. That would be cool! Great sponsor. I'm gonna subscribe to that. And it's time for lunch. So somehow this is hitting my day exactly right! Keep going! And thank you!
I recall that back in the 1970s we used to regularly collide Axion detergent molecules suspended in dihydrogen monoxide, with short to medium length fatty acid molecules suspended in a fiber matrix, utilizing turbulent chaos colliders set to so-called wash cycles. After successful wash cycles, we would then subject the “loads” to ultra-high speed centrifugation (aka: “spin cycles”) followed by a “heavy rinse” cycle employing pure dihydrogen monoxide, followed by yet another ultra-high speed centrifugation. We were quite successful utilizing the above procedure to change “dark matter” fabrics into “clean, bright” fabrics. So, what’s with all the new “hubbub” about Axions?
I'm still unable to understand why Dark Matter (tm) and MOND are supposed to be mutually exclusive? To quote that old viral TV ad "Why not both?" Specifically, Axions seem unlikely to be numerous enough to account for most of the mass in the universe, but at the same time >>something
We have too many dark matter models and modified gravity theories as is. The number of combined theories would be astronomical. The big problem is this: There are so so many possible explanations, you need some criterion to distinguish good from bad ones. That criterion cannot be experimental evidence, because most modern experiments are highly specialized and very expensive; so often you need to know what you want to test before building the experiment. At the very least you need to know where to look. What other criteria are there? "Beauty" is one of them, whether it is a good one or not is up for debate. A "simple" explanation that explains multiple open questions is another one. Mixing and matching different explanations, while possible, fulfills none of those criteria so is unlikely to lead to success. But what if the objective truth is a mixture? Then we just need to hope that we find experimental evidence of one of the contributors and can then solve the remaining discrepancies with another explanation.
There is an astrophysics group at my local university who have supposedly detected a strong signal (as in above 5 sigma) in the CMB data that may point towards axion dark matter (the main professor told me it was related to the possible detection of the effect of conversion/extinction of CMB photons into axions in the magnetic fields around galaxies. But I don't know the details). They are in the process of writing and publishing papers about it. I don't know if something will come out of this, or whether it will receive much attention (the physics departments in my university are quite unknown internationally), but I thought it was interesting to mention.
A couple of photons of incredibly high energy have also been detected in coincidence with gamma ray bursts by measuring the resulting EM showers. Since such exaelectronvolt-scale photons have never been observed otherwise, we can assume the source to be the same. If we do so, we find that a photon could not have travelled in the interstellar medium for so long, so that's another hint of them possibly being converted to some axion-like particles and then back to photons interacting with the galactic magnetic field. Obviously nothing conclusive though, as is customary with indirect evidences
No joke. Last night i dreamt I was camping. This rv pulls up and out of it pops professor Hossenfelder. I pointed saying "that is Sabine... she's famous". You looked at me and told me to shush 🤫 Strange dream. Thanks for your vids professor ❤
dark matter seems equivalent to the concept of the Vedic avyaktam. Because dark matter has no unit of measurement about it the uncertainty principle applies until a force of levity or gravity presents an effect into the Vedic sankhya of a measurably detectable object
>particle is energetic >particle needs nothingness to be energetic >(nothingness x types particles) x over-lap (pass-thru) ..and it goes on to either deduce that either we live in a simulation or particle theory is wrong. RFT is a better more symbiotic model.
Love your videos! They are short, and I enjoy your sense of humor. These physicists resemble medieval theologians counting the number of angels on the head of a pin.
A collider experiment could find something unexplained in an experimental result, which if explained by the theory, tends to be seen as support for the theory.
Proving something exists is straight forward, proving the lack of it requires innovation. So they look for dark particles because it just seems easier. But, when the wavelength is like a galaxy, we could as well says that it's a local constant. Just like how we see tides as a phenomena instead of an ocean wave the size of halve the globe.
Yes, ignoring opinions in opposition to your own? And blanket-accusing them of corrupt motives? Is the most scientific one can get. Graham Hancock endorses that message.
It seems physics has devolved from finding theories that explain the universe to finding theories that COULD explain the universe, even though there is no evidence for them.
If everything we "see" in the Universe, is a contradiction of what we know... wouldn't that mean, either we know nothing or that the Universe, as we theorize, doesn't actually exist...
@@t.c.2776 What we "see" is what we get. It's interpretations of what we see that go into models to explain what we see and how it got there through rigorous experimentation and falsifications. They're always updating to better models, even if a model takes over a century or more to be complete.
That wavelength -to- mass -to- uncertainty correlation seems a lucky coincidence, one that is key to "blurring out" the locality or "point-i-ness", of the mass, so that now, somehow, our observations fit the spread-out "axionic paradigm". I didn't follow how that worked. Shouldn't it have ruled out wavelengths expected from WIMPs right away? without needing corroboration by the LHC? Why did we need the blur? I'm gonna get an F if I take this quiz... It seems like for any wavelength, then, we can dream up a particle and posit properties. If that's the case.... we're gonna have to build a bigger..... collider? Or some sort of new fangled matter densifier that gets us creating, well, if not miniature black holes, at least neutron stars in the lab. If there's aliens, this is totally what we want from them!
Yes, excellent point. There is a huge range of masses for axions, and it works for some of them. Basically, the larger the wavelength, and the smaller the mass, the harder to rule out.
When I was in progress of obtaining my PhD I talked with other young scientists who worked in this area. Probably I'm stupid but none of them managed to explain me what is an axion in simple terms… I get elementary particles, force carriers, and other minor particle zoo. But when they say that introduction of this pastiche is a way to save some vector flux or current, or something in some reaction… I can't even remember their explanation because it was SO theoretically nerdy! And now they want to explain the unknown thing through the thing that exist on paper and we have zero evidence of it… I'd rather believe in wimps or relic neutrinos or MOND, or some other shenanigans, but not the axions.🤷
Imagine all the things in the universe we'll never be able to discover and study because they fall outside our ability to perceive them and measure them.
@kyoai That's an assumption. There's nothing that says that "everything has an effect on reality". It just seems that way to us because of observer's bias.
Until it's physically proven, it's still just a theory, that's just basic level science something that the current era of physicists seem to have forgotten.
Here's why "i" think dark matter is a Bose Einstein Condensate😅... Thee rotation curves of low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies are a crucial observational aspect in the study of dark matter, particularly in the context of alternative dark matter models like the Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) model. Here’s what it means: Low Surface Brightness Galaxies These are galaxies that have a lower than average surface brightness, meaning they emit less light per unit area compared to other galaxies. This is often because they have fewer stars and more diffuse stellar distributions. Rotation Curves The rotation curve of a galaxy is a graph that shows how the speed of stars or gas clouds orbiting the galaxy changes with distance from the galactic center. In the context of LSB galaxies: Expected Behavior: According to Kepler's laws, if the mass of the galaxy were concentrated in the central region (like in the Solar System), the rotation velocity would decrease as you move further away from the center. Observed Behavior: However, observations show that the rotation curves of LSB galaxies remain flat or even increase slightly at larger distances from the center. This indicates that the mass distribution in these galaxies extends far beyond the visible light, suggesting the presence of a large amount of non-luminous (dark) matter125. Implications for Dark Matter The flat rotation curves of LSB galaxies are a strong evidence for dark matter. The BEC dark matter model, in particular, provides a good fit for these observations: Core-Cusp Problem: The BEC model predicts a core-like density profile for dark matter halos, which is consistent with the observed flat rotation curves of LSB galaxies. This contrasts with the standard cold dark matter (CDM) model, which predicts a central density cusp that is not observed. Better Fit: The BEC model describes dark matter halos as an assembly of light bosons that form a condensate, preventing the formation of central density cusps and providing a better match to the observed rotation curves of LSB galaxies. In summary, the rotation curves of low surface brightness galaxies are flat, indicating a widespread distribution of dark matter that extends far beyond the visible parts of the galaxy. The BEC dark matter model offers a promising explanation for this phenomenon by predicting core-like density profiles that align well with these observations. Here's Sabine Describing this ua-cam.com/video/468cyBZ_cq4/v-deo.htmlsi=19BjM0qvAMUNPKd_
I'm totally on your side. All this sounds so reasonable and 'beautiful'. But if I understand SH and the paper, she published with T.Mistele and S.McGaugh correctly, it doesn't reproduce all observations. But who am I half educated "idiot", to give a judgement high above my intellectual horizon😂?
It would be great to get an update on the Superfluid Dark Matter video, I would love to know if the idea has been ruled out by subsequent observations and/or theory development, or if Sabine you still feel it is a viable hypothesis.
It may turn out that they don't but no new theory has emerged from existing research. As we find out more a new theory may in fact come out of the new knowledge.
Easy to say. Hell, I sometimes say it, too, but by definition “dark” particles-if that’s what 20% of matter is-are going to be hard to “see.” Sometimes modifying your theory after experiment is not overfitting, but the right thing to do. Something to consider, cheers.
Not all particles physically exist in our dimension. Their presence can effect matter in our dimension even if their physical form cannot cross dimensional boundaries. The same holds true for particles that only exist physically in our dimension, they are the "dark matter" of other dimensions.
It's like physicists are living in the Bronze Age. When prediction fails, just make up new ad-hoc reasons to try to explain it away. Just like way back in the day when Aristotle's model couldn't explain planetary motion, Ptolemy came up with epicycles to try to explain away the flaws in Aristotle's model.
Ptolemy's model did a decent job within the error margin. Heliocentrism was rejected very early do to the lack of perceived stellar parallax. Bronze (or actually solidly past iron age in your example) age people weren't idiots, nor are physicists.
@@innocentsmith6091Most bronze/age people *were* idiots. Most people alive today, including most physicists, *are* idiots. I'm an idiot a lot of the time. It's a tiny minority of people that make great discoveries, and the majority of people can't even _understand_ those discoveries even if it's explained to them directly, let alone have the capability to make the discovery themself.
The uncertainty in position is as large as a galaxy? Maybe there should be a principle against taking uncertainty to such absurd lengths. So when an Axion's wave function pops, does that take millions of years or does it propagate faster than light speed?
Exchange between Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent in HHGTTG: “I have detected disturbances in the wash.' 'The wash?' 'The space-time wash.' 'Are we talking about some sort of Vogon laundromat, or what are we talking about?' 'Eddies in the space-time continuum.' 'Ah...is he. Is he.' 'What?' 'Er, who is Eddy, then, exactly?”
It makes some sense. You could see it as electrons vibrating in space between star system. eV/c2 pretty much is this in empty space except space is not empty in reality. c2 is essentially the propagation of a wave in a plane, which explains why galaxies are on a plane. Newton is not on a plane, it's like charged particles and can't explain this. So basically it's the effect of the electro-magnetic field between objects with bosons that would add to the attraction and the electrons in-between are excited by light that goes back and forth, stronger in a straight line, but always on a plane. If that's true, you will never find them in a particle accelerator. You might find something similar, but not quite the same because it's not really a particle unless you want to say that any wave is composed of particles, the frequency composing them. Calling an electron vibrating "matter" is pretty misleading and it will always be "dark". Electricity is dark too.
i was at middle school in 80ies when i first saw a diagram of an atom, hmm i said electron.. it is energy, but it is solid, how can that be? then i began asking what is it made of, what is the core made of? what is the atom made of? of course my village school science teacher didnt have a clue.. and there was no such thing as internet, nor widely accessible information as to why the fuk things do what they do! so i began thinking inwards, since i cannot get info, i have to figure it myself.. eventually perhaps towards 17 yrs old i decided everything is made of energy... then in time, that became a question as to energy is a result, not a start.. so what causes the energy? at 50 years of age now, being literally a "backyard thinker" that 90 percent of my ideas belong solely to me,. or perhaps the universal trade of existing knowledge, the universes FM.. i have better ideas. i find scientists going backwards, trying to dissect things to measurable outcome, which is perhaps fair enough.. but it is the wrong way of trying to figure out how the fuk universe became what it became.. i have a good hypothesis,. and will share eventually but hopefully to someone like you before the public... its not about shame, or sounding dumb, i give absolutely no crabs about those. but its about having the information assessed and pushed further to reveal its potential before submitting to everyone's mind..
Please do an episode on Chris Langan and his CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe). He's been billed as the smartest man in America with an IQ supposedly above 180 and claims to have discovered the theory of everything and proven the existence of god.
What if photons, despite being massless, produce gravity as if they do? In other words what is the gravitational effect of all the photons flying around in the universe?
Intermediate size rocks could mimic dark matter. Rocks as small as dust will scatter light and be detected. Very large rocks could occult stars and be detected. My calculations show that rocks larger than a house but smaller than Io neither scatter light significantly nor cause detectable obstructions or occultations. Thus, rocks could cause the gravity we attribute to dark matter.
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here:
quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1732292036103x306283825152773060
You can now also create your own quizzes on my website. We are constantly working on bug fixes and extensions!
"financed by BigPharma", these quizzes are refreshing, I hope Ed Witten is part of the community. Thanks and all the best, Dr. Sabine
DO AXIONS PROVE AETHER?
Sabina, I am a school dropout due to my financial situation, I am currently 31 years old, I watch your videos regarding string theory and before I met you I also had a problem with the way dimensions are mentioned in the string theory and the m theory.
I made a new graph on the dimensions using the Euclid model as my base line and did some modifications there, from negative 2 to 9th dimension, out of which 7 to 9 are theoretical and mathematics stupid, but from negative 2 to the 6th dimension holds important stuff.
If you are interested please let me know, don't worry I live in Bangladesh, so it is not possible for me to get near you even if I want to, unless the 6th dimension of mine says otherwise.
Why don't they mix the LHC detector with those kinds for neutrino detection like Kamiokande or IceCube and build a hybrid detector for these really small particles like gravitons and axions that the LHC cannot detect (but can generate)? That way they could generate and detect at the same time. The LHC should have been like that.
i liked this episode, it explained some science, showed the connections between particle physics and astrophysics, and discussed experiments designed to test hypotheses. It had the right amount of Sabine pepper to make me chuckle several times and i learned something. Skepticism was there but so was humility. The right approach to science. thankyou!
So the universe runs on invisible particles named after laundry detergent?
yes, or maybe they don't exist
The rhythmic rise and fall of water levels on the shores of rivers and lakes does exist and has a laundry detergent named after it too.
lol. thanks
@@SabineHossenfelder You know your videos should be just over 10 mins long for increased Ad Revenue & increased push by the Algo yeah?
Great channel 👍
Damn! Shut up and belive!
"Except the needle is invisible and the haystack costs five billion dollars..." Almost made me spit out my breakfast laughing.
Obviously this is a scam. Physicist's gravy train keeps moving on to deliver big money.
@@antoniolopezmagpayo5328the discovery of the Higgs is hardly a scam.
Some commenters are complaining that Sabine´s videos are too short. But she puts more content and information in seven minutes than you normally get served in a boring hour.
agreed, though I still preferred the 20 min vids. Perfect length
🤔 That is a generalization, many longer videos are not boring and are not overly condensed. Really depends upon the topic, the presenter and the “attention span of the consumer”.
Let's praise everyone who doesn't include both advertising AND stretch videos artificially over the magic 10 minute mark to increase ad revenue.
Naja
@@BlueSideUp Most people even Creators don't realise this.
It's why so many videos are 10m 14s long lol. Or 8 mins with a 3 min outro music filler
It's commendable that you can talk so fairly about something you don't personally support. I salute your ability to do so.
You should have mentioned that tiny, invisible neutrinos were discovered by noting missing energy after some fundamental particle interactions, so a missing energy approach to axion detection isn’t a new idea.
But is the missing energy within the error limit of the instrumentation?
If they are so light that a single particle is smeared all over the Milky Way, I can hardly imagine the precision required to detect it. Doing the calculation in my head, it's about 30th decimal place on the mass of electron.
@@maladyofdeath That's always the issue. In my opinion it's highly likely that at some point.......the means of detection will never have a margin of error small enough to detect something that's the absolute smallest, massless, least energy carrying "particle" to exist. On some level how could it? All tools will have a limit and that limit is always higher than the thing that needs to be observed because the tool needs to be physically made of MANY of those things. The analysis of the reality of the universe may never be fully possible.
Cool - IKEA gave you a spark plug.
With instructions where to put it?
IKEA Combustion Engine BRUMMA
@@phonkey I'm pretty sure it's from the MØTORBØT flatpack
To be honest, the dragons from the Third Sally (also known as the Dragons of Probability) in Stanislaw Lem's book "The Cyberiad" are reminiscent to WIMPS and Axions. "Everyone is aware that there are no dragons. The layman may be satisfied by this straightforward formulation, but the scientific mind is not satisfied. By taking an analytical approach to the problem, the brilliant Cerebron identified three different types of dragons: completely speculative, chimerical, and mythical. One could argue that they were all nonexistent, but they each did so in a unique way.
Holy crap, Cyberiad mentioned in youtube comments
@@tamasburik9971 It's a bot that rephrased and reposted my older comment.
There are different levels of reality , according to their permanence.
@@MrTrancelator Lol, that sucks. What was your original comment?
@@MrTrancelator The account is 5 hours old and made the comment 4 hours ago 😅😂
A Sabine Video a day, keeps the melancholy away 😄
Love your style love the content love the honesty. Thx sabine
Going through Physics graduate school in the 1980s was a nightmare. It was obvious that these ideas were gibberish. So I left the field after passing the PhD exam and did my doctorate molecular biology instead. It still pains me that so many of my brightest hard working friends wasted their lives on this. I hope today's physicists have some kind of hope.
You don't understand research if you think finding nothing is achieving nothing. People who work in this field know exactly what they are doing, they are not stupid and waste their lives, shame on you to judge other peoples' decisions like that.
Too many people pursuing weak ideas and not enough people coming up with new ideas.
@@misterphmpg8106 It's not unreasonable to expect research to produce results some proportion of the time. In the last forty years, fundamental physics probably has the worst return on investment.
@@misterphmpg8106 Most of them were unemployed in science after their doctorate and post-doc. They lived in poverty. Unlike yourself I had great respect for them.
I can relate to that! Studied grad physics in the 1980s, worked at SLAC on instrumentation, came back to pass the PhD qualifier but decided, nah, too much of physics is this theoretical stuff, though interesting, doesn't give any day to day satisfaction or lead to a solid career unless you're very lucky.
OTOH, working on the electronics and instrumentation was great, debugging device driver software and writing up test and calibration procedures and wringing the last bit of accuracy out of cheap sensors - yes, this is the life for me!
So I dropped out, maybe two or three credits short of a Master's, and went back to Michigan (home state) for job hunting in the auto industry or other manufacturing or science roles.
I remember a Scientific American article, 1976. I remember that WIMPS were the most likely candidate at that time. Also about that time there were attempts to estimate the “mass” of the universe and thus estimate its future-contraction or endless expansion-prior to dark energy. Now that it is becoming clear that the founding observations leading to dark energy hypothesis are at best problematic (thank you Subir and Sabine), and that much other supporting evidence appears to be somewhat (entirely?) circular, we seem to be cast back to concerns that observers were trying to resolve in the 1990s. In any event, it is clear that there has been no real progress towards explaining the processes that lead to dark energy since its “discovery”. There seems to be so little enthusiasm for releasing the core data before adjustments for local movements resulting in that has resulted in supposed supporting measurements, that these publications can be dismissed out of hand. I might have once been more measured in my evaluations-I was once a science writer, among other subjects-but at 77 I am impatient and more than a bit grumpy. Produce and explain your data in reproducible form. Explain reasonable difficulties, supported by evidence. Evade and be intellectually dismissed; preferably also barred from other grants for incompetence at the least. There don’t seem to be any remaining theories of dark energy that aren’t rotting with age or starved of supporting evidence. Within the next 5 to ten years the evidence will be in demonstrating that billions of scarce research dollars and several decades-a generation-of researcher’s efforts have been mostly wasted due to a misinterpretation based on an incorrect assumption-that the universe at large scales is the same in all directions at large scales. The assumption had been already called into question by the early 1990s because of indications of directional movement with respect to the cosmic microwave background.
Explanations based on a great attractor called out for extensive investigation and at least a common recognition that this is a hypothesis and that simplifying assumptions were clearly in error, at least in the then observable universe. It turns out to be in continuing challenge as observation ranges increase. Come on folks. It now appears that dark energy is about to be tossed into the dustbin of science along with epicycles.
Get on with it and stop wasting everyone’s time. It is increasingly clear what the last batch of data will indicate along with the 4.9 sigma evidence demonstrated to date. Already a pretty slender thread to justify your continuing professional careers upon without now being open to a myriad of other possibilities.
Cosmologists have become inflexible, it seems. They are unable to accommodate new data that contradicts current theory, and unwilling to revise current theory to fit/predict the data. Sad state of affairs. Only Penrose and a few others are making efforts at escaping the current bind. Everybody else leans on plug-ins to gloss over the glaring contradictions.
Cz_Už 50 let tvrdím že "velký třesk " je omyl který odporuje nejen poslední pozorování ale také popírá termodynamický zákon, zákon o zachování energie, rychlost světla.....
You are conflating dark energy and dark matter, this video isn't even tangentially related to dark energy.
As an aside there’s an image in this video of a bike parked beside a worker at the LHC @3:01 illustrating one of the challenges of maintaining something with a circumference of 27km. Imagine the Future Circular Collider populated with hard hatted workers screaming to the sites of the next maintenance ticket in a Formula One car.
Most important part: nothing was detected yet.
Whether theory looks good or not is not that important if it was not confirmed by observations.
It's almost like punchline to a bad joke nowadays
Dark matter was invented *because* it was observed.
Please, please, please do a video on spacetime solitons!
After reading Einstein’s biography, I’ve become fascinated by this idea, but oddly there is almost nothing about it online. I assumed some obscure bit of QMs ruled it out, but hearing you mention it has given me hope to learn more. I think it’s such a novel idea. I mean do we really know what the fabric of reality is capable of. We know it’s different than the other forces. Maybe it is matter is some stable form void of space and time? 🤷♂️ I realize it’s fashionable to say that spacetime is doomed, and that seems likely to me too, but even if it’s not fundamental it could be where matter comes from, no?
I enjoy your videos, even though I rarely completely understand them.
Thanks Sabine.
Was the needle in a Haystack joke about the HAYSTAC experiment 💀
Why do you think it was named that way? I was recently reading the PhD thesis of an HAYSTAC researcher and the origin of the name as a pun is openly acknowledged 😉
Sabine needs a T-shirt that says Show Me The Particle
Thank you, Sabine.
Maybe we need to refine our understanding of gravity?
Ya think?
It's hinted as being an energy potential defined by relativistic terms, and there are things right there in the electric properties of a vacuum that tie-in as well.
Thank you for the video.
If 'Hannes Alfven' were still alive, it would be fun to get his interpretation of 'modern astrophysics'. And for those unaware, he managed a Nobel prize. Back when they were give out for experimental evidence to theory.
A Spark Plug as an IKEA spare part??? 🤣
Motorized drinks trolley.
whoever does her graphics has never assembled Ikea furniture
Every time I hear Axion I face a sudden Narcolepsy.
Watching your channel is like meeting a good friend who always knows how to cheer you up. Keep making us happy with your colorful videos!💪🐺💥
Because their masses are so low, we are all kinda living in their hypothetical probability cloud. It's kind of interesting to think about a single particle that could appear anywhere in the galaxy... is that affected by SR at all? I suppose the same thing happens with incredibly low energy photons as well, around a nanohertz.
Sounds as credible as the ManyWorlds of QM, for me at least.
Yes, it does, but very hard to measure!
I find it in any case a more rational explanation than many worlds' interpretation of QM, being QM incomplete.
I guess it would if they existed
@@SabineHossenfelderSABINE SHUT UP !!!
this is one of those videos that made me humble, extremely humble. Physics in a humanistic secondary school in Germany of the late 1960ies clearly stuck me "pedestrian" vis a vis such stratospheric concepts. Even ChatGPT could not tutor me up a few baby steps to some initial understanding. Even the Dunning Kruger inside me gave up. Nonetheless, thanks for a lesson in modesty.
@@ernstgumrich5614
Since we very VERY likely live to see the era where physics is hitting it's final impenetrable wall (but of course will refuse to acknowledge it for some more decades, before it finally dissolves into a mere religion) - it is not much of a pity that the layman lost the ability to follow the mathematical juggling that most of modern physics has been reduced to decades ago already.
Sabine sagte, benutze Brilliant!
@@mikloscsuvar6097
Und ich sage: die Regeln eines Spiels zu lernen, detailliert zu verstehen, sie optimal anzuwenden und ein Meister darin zu werden - macht das Spiel noch lange nicht zur Realität.
Es spielt dabei keine Rolle wieviel uns die Physik in der Vergangenheit an Erkenntnissen und Technologien gebracht HAT. Uns muss vor allem interessieren wie gross die Chance ist, dass sie weitere grundlegend neue Durchbrüche bringen WIRD. Und da sieht es nicht wirklich gut aus - wie Sabine in gefühlt jedem zweiten Video ja auch bereits andeutet...
Those IKEA sparkplugs will work great in my Diesel SAAB.
Good Presentation, interesting stuff. However, we always remain Curious as to How a "Name" can be given Anything In Physics --- IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT EXISTS?
Somewhere there is an advanced alien civilization that monitors our scientists and they are rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter.
When it comes to the question of technological progress and scientific progress, there are 3 main possibilities:
1. Technologically, we are near the limit of what we can achieve. We are reaching technological limits imposed by complexity and chaos, and the “low-hanging fruit” has already been picked.
2. We are nowhere near the limit of what we can achieve technologically even based on our existing understanding of natural laws.
3. We are nowhere near the limit of what we can achieve technologically even based on our existing understanding of natural laws, AND there are additional natural laws or fundamental breakthroughs in science that will allow us to go even further technologically than we could if our current understanding of basic science has already been maximized.
Which of these possibilities, Sabine, do you think is closest to reality (1-3)? And why?
My knowledge in this field is non-existent, but it can never hurt to assume that 'our existing understanding of natural laws' is by no means correct or complete. It can never be wrong to search for more knowledge, even when we can't fully grasp what we have learned already.
I enjoyed this episode since it included experiments meant to verify theories, illustrated various scientific concepts, and illustrated the links between particle physics and astronomy. It taught me something and had just the proper amount of Sabine pepper to make me laugh multiple times. There was skepticism, but there was also humility. The proper way to do science. Many thanks!
The Axion.
A barrel, scraped
Speaking only for myself, this one is right on the dot! Great mix of exploration of what's what, plus building up from my desired beginning point of evidence, rather than question. (Both are needed. And they interact like espresso and milk. I just like beginning with evidence.)
I feel like I was exactly ready for this one, too. So maybe you guys are writing these in sets now, and I'm tracking along okay. That would be cool! Great sponsor. I'm gonna subscribe to that.
And it's time for lunch. So somehow this is hitting my day exactly right! Keep going! And thank you!
Thanks for your support, much appreciated!
I recall that back in the 1970s we used to regularly collide Axion detergent molecules suspended in dihydrogen monoxide, with short to medium length fatty acid molecules suspended in a fiber matrix, utilizing turbulent chaos colliders set to so-called wash cycles. After successful wash cycles, we would then subject the “loads” to ultra-high speed centrifugation (aka: “spin cycles”) followed by a “heavy rinse” cycle employing pure dihydrogen monoxide, followed by yet another ultra-high speed centrifugation.
We were quite successful utilizing the above procedure to change “dark matter” fabrics into “clean, bright” fabrics.
So, what’s with all the new “hubbub” about Axions?
HAve you ever asked Sean Carroll to be on your program, if you haven't why not. I love watching your program!!!
Video suggestion: What is a measurement?
I'm still unable to understand why Dark Matter (tm) and MOND are supposed to be mutually exclusive? To quote that old viral TV ad "Why not both?"
Specifically, Axions seem unlikely to be numerous enough to account for most of the mass in the universe, but at the same time >>something
We have too many dark matter models and modified gravity theories as is. The number of combined theories would be astronomical.
The big problem is this: There are so so many possible explanations, you need some criterion to distinguish good from bad ones. That criterion cannot be experimental evidence, because most modern experiments are highly specialized and very expensive; so often you need to know what you want to test before building the experiment. At the very least you need to know where to look.
What other criteria are there? "Beauty" is one of them, whether it is a good one or not is up for debate. A "simple" explanation that explains multiple open questions is another one. Mixing and matching different explanations, while possible, fulfills none of those criteria so is unlikely to lead to success.
But what if the objective truth is a mixture? Then we just need to hope that we find experimental evidence of one of the contributors and can then solve the remaining discrepancies with another explanation.
6:00 IKEA won't give you this, it's one of the most recognizable car parts when there's no context.
THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS,,,IF THEY CANT BE FOUND BY OUR DIMENSIONAL PHYSICS THEN HOW DO THEY INTERACT,,,
There is an astrophysics group at my local university who have supposedly detected a strong signal (as in above 5 sigma) in the CMB data that may point towards axion dark matter (the main professor told me it was related to the possible detection of the effect of conversion/extinction of CMB photons into axions in the magnetic fields around galaxies. But I don't know the details). They are in the process of writing and publishing papers about it. I don't know if something will come out of this, or whether it will receive much attention (the physics departments in my university are quite unknown internationally), but I thought it was interesting to mention.
A couple of photons of incredibly high energy have also been detected in coincidence with gamma ray bursts by measuring the resulting EM showers. Since such exaelectronvolt-scale photons have never been observed otherwise, we can assume the source to be the same. If we do so, we find that a photon could not have travelled in the interstellar medium for so long, so that's another hint of them possibly being converted to some axion-like particles and then back to photons interacting with the galactic magnetic field. Obviously nothing conclusive though, as is customary with indirect evidences
Eric Dollard and Thomas Brown VHS Footage
No joke. Last night i dreamt I was camping. This rv pulls up and out of it pops professor Hossenfelder. I pointed saying "that is Sabine... she's famous". You looked at me and told me to shush 🤫
Strange dream. Thanks for your vids professor ❤
😂
Since when does IKEA sell spark plugs? And why does nobody understand what it is? So many questions in the field of physics ...
dark matter seems equivalent to the concept of the Vedic avyaktam. Because dark matter has no unit of measurement about it the uncertainty principle applies until a force of levity or gravity presents an effect into the Vedic sankhya of a measurably detectable object
Love the post video quizzes!
Dan
>particle is energetic
>particle needs nothingness to be energetic
>(nothingness x types particles) x over-lap (pass-thru)
..and it goes on to either deduce that either we live in a simulation or particle theory is wrong.
RFT is a better more symbiotic model.
So should we not search for these particles??
So, how long before pulsar observations test the axion theory?
short videos are great! Even so, I still run them at 1.5x speed. Really looks like dark matter is probably not "matter" after all.
5:58 Loved the "spare IKEA part" photo! I'm pretty sure that didn't come from IKEA so it fits perfectly here.
Love your videos! They are short, and I enjoy your sense of humor. These physicists resemble medieval theologians counting the number of angels on the head of a pin.
well there they go, again
You are so funny. Thank You so much for the updates.
Can a collider find them, if we don’t know what we are looking for?
A collider experiment could find something unexplained in an experimental result, which if explained by the theory, tends to be seen as support for the theory.
6:08 If you still haven't found what you're looking for, you're probably Bono.
"a little bit too on the nose" - laughed out loud
Proving something exists is straight forward, proving the lack of it requires innovation.
So they look for dark particles because it just seems easier. But, when the wavelength is like a galaxy, we could as well says that it's a local constant. Just like how we see tides as a phenomena instead of an ocean wave the size of halve the globe.
Makes you wonder how many other of our constants are of the same nature - simply phenomena we are observing at the wrong scale.
@@diamondthree There's phenomenons that scales by bounds of observation, speed of light or example.
Thinking where Axion name comes from, one can tell a lot about the current state of physics as a science.
Wasn't it Noble winner Frank Wilczek, who invented the name?
Sabine, please ignore your haters
She´s a fearless lady. Happily all they achieve is that her influence grows.
haider
Haters? I don't believe
Haters drive revenue too
Yes, ignoring opinions in opposition to your own? And blanket-accusing them of corrupt motives?
Is the most scientific one can get.
Graham Hancock endorses that message.
It seems physics has devolved from finding theories that explain the universe to finding theories that COULD explain the universe, even though there is no evidence for them.
If everything we "see" in the Universe, is a contradiction of what we know... wouldn't that mean, either we know nothing or that the Universe, as we theorize, doesn't actually exist...
@@t.c.2776 What we "see" is what we get. It's interpretations of what we see that go into models to explain what we see and how it got there through rigorous experimentation and falsifications. They're always updating to better models, even if a model takes over a century or more to be complete.
That wavelength -to- mass -to- uncertainty correlation seems a lucky coincidence, one that is key to "blurring out" the locality or "point-i-ness", of the mass, so that now, somehow, our observations fit the spread-out "axionic paradigm". I didn't follow how that worked. Shouldn't it have ruled out wavelengths expected from WIMPs right away? without needing corroboration by the LHC? Why did we need the blur? I'm gonna get an F if I take this quiz...
It seems like for any wavelength, then, we can dream up a particle and posit properties. If that's the case.... we're gonna have to build a bigger..... collider? Or some sort of new fangled matter densifier that gets us creating, well, if not miniature black holes, at least neutron stars in the lab. If there's aliens, this is totally what we want from them!
Yes, excellent point. There is a huge range of masses for axions, and it works for some of them. Basically, the larger the wavelength, and the smaller the mass, the harder to rule out.
Was it Albert who said "The universe is stranger than we *can* imagine"?
When I was in progress of obtaining my PhD I talked with other young scientists who worked in this area. Probably I'm stupid but none of them managed to explain me what is an axion in simple terms… I get elementary particles, force carriers, and other minor particle zoo. But when they say that introduction of this pastiche is a way to save some vector flux or current, or something in some reaction…
I can't even remember their explanation because it was SO theoretically nerdy! And now they want to explain the unknown thing through the thing that exist on paper and we have zero evidence of it…
I'd rather believe in wimps or relic neutrinos or MOND, or some other shenanigans, but not the axions.🤷
Imagine all the things in the universe we'll never be able to discover and study because they fall outside our ability to perceive them and measure them.
Everything that exists has an effect on reality and thus can be measured, it's just that we need a way to actually measure it.
@kyoai That's an assumption. There's nothing that says that "everything has an effect on reality". It just seems that way to us because of observer's bias.
Until it's physically proven, it's still just a theory, that's just basic level science something that the current era of physicists seem to have forgotten.
Here's why "i" think dark matter is a Bose Einstein Condensate😅...
Thee rotation curves of low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies are a crucial observational aspect in the study of dark matter, particularly in the context of alternative dark matter models like the Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) model. Here’s what it means:
Low Surface Brightness Galaxies
These are galaxies that have a lower than average surface brightness, meaning they emit less light per unit area compared to other galaxies. This is often because they have fewer stars and more diffuse stellar distributions.
Rotation Curves
The rotation curve of a galaxy is a graph that shows how the speed of stars or gas clouds orbiting the galaxy changes with distance from the galactic center.
In the context of LSB galaxies:
Expected Behavior: According to Kepler's laws, if the mass of the galaxy were concentrated in the central region (like in the Solar System), the rotation velocity would decrease as you move further away from the center.
Observed Behavior: However, observations show that the rotation curves of LSB galaxies remain flat or even increase slightly at larger distances from the center. This indicates that the mass distribution in these galaxies extends far beyond the visible light, suggesting the presence of a large amount of non-luminous (dark) matter125.
Implications for Dark Matter
The flat rotation curves of LSB galaxies are a strong evidence for dark matter. The BEC dark matter model, in particular, provides a good fit for these observations:
Core-Cusp Problem: The BEC model predicts a core-like density profile for dark matter halos, which is consistent with the observed flat rotation curves of LSB galaxies. This contrasts with the standard cold dark matter (CDM) model, which predicts a central density cusp that is not observed.
Better Fit: The BEC model describes dark matter halos as an assembly of light bosons that form a condensate, preventing the formation of central density cusps and providing a better match to the observed rotation curves of LSB galaxies.
In summary, the rotation curves of low surface brightness galaxies are flat, indicating a widespread distribution of dark matter that extends far beyond the visible parts of the galaxy. The BEC dark matter model offers a promising explanation for this phenomenon by predicting core-like density profiles that align well with these observations.
Here's Sabine Describing this
ua-cam.com/video/468cyBZ_cq4/v-deo.htmlsi=19BjM0qvAMUNPKd_
I'm totally on your side. All this sounds so reasonable and 'beautiful'. But if I understand SH and the paper, she published with T.Mistele and S.McGaugh correctly, it doesn't reproduce all observations. But who am I half educated "idiot", to give a judgement high above my intellectual horizon😂?
@Thomas-gk42 if you watched the video, it seems like Ms. Sabine says it is likely to be true despite it's not being possible everywhere.
@@aaronjennings8385 it´s one of my favorite Sabine-scenes, when she´s tipping the ice cubes...
Yes, it's a good idea in principle. The devil is in the details...
It would be great to get an update on the Superfluid Dark Matter video, I would love to know if the idea has been ruled out by subsequent observations and/or theory development, or if Sabine you still feel it is a viable hypothesis.
Couldn't the dark matter be right-handed neutrinos?
axion can covert to photon? can photon convert to axion?.. so when i see my sofa, it that reflection of photons or is it axions?
Good Ikea analogy.
I prefer small Axion just because I found large Axion has no trade mark nor back label, though both of them can still be fake.
I think the reason these particles haven't been detected is because they don't exist. The astrophysicists need to come up with a new theory.
It may turn out that they don't but no new theory has emerged from existing research. As we find out more a new theory may in fact come out of the new knowledge.
Easy to say. Hell, I sometimes say it, too, but by definition “dark” particles-if that’s what 20% of matter is-are going to be hard to “see.” Sometimes modifying your theory after experiment is not overfitting, but the right thing to do. Something to consider, cheers.
Thanks most interesting
Not all particles physically exist in our dimension. Their presence can effect matter in our dimension even if their physical form cannot cross dimensional boundaries. The same holds true for particles that only exist physically in our dimension, they are the "dark matter" of other dimensions.
you irritate me when you "do politics" but I'm starting to fall in love when you 'do science politics'
Maybe it's connected? Anyhow, I think it's impossible not to love her.
So is this an example of science self-correcting or just laziness by reusing a failed idea differently?
It's like physicists are living in the Bronze Age. When prediction fails, just make up new ad-hoc reasons to try to explain it away. Just like way back in the day when Aristotle's model couldn't explain planetary motion, Ptolemy came up with epicycles to try to explain away the flaws in Aristotle's model.
Ptolemy's model did a decent job within the error margin. Heliocentrism was rejected very early do to the lack of perceived stellar parallax. Bronze (or actually solidly past iron age in your example) age people weren't idiots, nor are physicists.
@@innocentsmith6091Most bronze/age people *were* idiots.
Most people alive today, including most physicists, *are* idiots.
I'm an idiot a lot of the time.
It's a tiny minority of people that make great discoveries, and the majority of people can't even _understand_ those discoveries even if it's explained to them directly, let alone have the capability to make the discovery themself.
"Any solution is better than none" sounds like God of the gaps.
The uncertainty in position is as large as a galaxy? Maybe there should be a principle against taking uncertainty to such absurd lengths. So when an Axion's wave function pops, does that take millions of years or does it propagate faster than light speed?
Exchange between Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent in HHGTTG:
“I have detected disturbances in the wash.'
'The wash?'
'The space-time wash.'
'Are we talking about some sort of Vogon laundromat, or what are we talking about?'
'Eddies in the space-time continuum.'
'Ah...is he. Is he.'
'What?'
'Er, who is Eddy, then, exactly?”
Is it possible that the Higgs field is not uniform and gives more mass to matter in areas where it is concentrated?
You just said Webb proves there is no Dark Matter. But I guess you need to fill airtime.
Nautilus seems quite interesting...
Thank you we love Germany ❤
I would love to hear more about "Matter" as a property of space and time (Einstein)if you could. I have never heard that explained.
It makes some sense. You could see it as electrons vibrating in space between star system.
eV/c2 pretty much is this in empty space except space is not empty in reality.
c2 is essentially the propagation of a wave in a plane, which explains why galaxies are on a plane. Newton is not on a plane, it's like charged particles and can't explain this.
So basically it's the effect of the electro-magnetic field between objects with bosons that would add to the attraction and the electrons in-between are excited by light that goes back and forth, stronger in a straight line, but always on a plane.
If that's true, you will never find them in a particle accelerator. You might find something similar, but not quite the same because it's not really a particle unless you want to say that any wave is composed of particles, the frequency composing them. Calling an electron vibrating "matter" is pretty misleading and it will always be "dark". Electricity is dark too.
If you find a spare spark plug in your table after assembly, you went to the wrong Ikea
I laughed at the comparison at 3:08 :)
i was at middle school in 80ies when i first saw a diagram of an atom, hmm i said electron.. it is energy, but it is solid, how can that be? then i began asking what is it made of, what is the core made of? what is the atom made of? of course my village school science teacher didnt have a clue.. and there was no such thing as internet, nor widely accessible information as to why the fuk things do what they do! so i began thinking inwards, since i cannot get info, i have to figure it myself.. eventually perhaps towards 17 yrs old i decided everything is made of energy... then in time, that became a question as to energy is a result, not a start.. so what causes the energy? at 50 years of age now, being literally a "backyard thinker" that 90 percent of my ideas belong solely to me,. or perhaps the universal trade of existing knowledge, the universes FM.. i have better ideas. i find scientists going backwards, trying to dissect things to measurable outcome, which is perhaps fair enough.. but it is the wrong way of trying to figure out how the fuk universe became what it became.. i have a good hypothesis,. and will share eventually but hopefully to someone like you before the public... its not about shame, or sounding dumb, i give absolutely no crabs about those. but its about having the information assessed and pushed further to reveal its potential before submitting to everyone's mind..
The dark matter can be found in the hearts of every human being!
A ‘graph’ without units on one of its axis is simply an abstract picture.
The thing I don't understand about dark matter is that if it interacts with gravity why does it stay in the outskirts of the galaxy?
I wonder if Dark matter might be the modern day Phlogiston.
Sabine, I’m working on a paper regarding cumulative gravitational effects as an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.
I added you on LinkedIn if you’re curious
Please do an episode on Chris Langan and his CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe). He's been billed as the smartest man in America with an IQ supposedly above 180 and claims to have discovered the theory of everything and proven the existence of god.
Ad hoc eXciting Invisible Or Nonexistant particles hmmm?
What if photons, despite being massless, produce gravity as if they do? In other words what is the gravitational effect of all the photons flying around in the universe?
Intermediate size rocks could mimic dark matter. Rocks as small as dust will scatter light and be detected. Very large rocks could occult stars and be detected. My calculations show that rocks larger than a house but smaller than Io neither scatter light significantly nor cause detectable obstructions or occultations. Thus, rocks could cause the gravity we attribute to dark matter.