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.
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”.
It does little to counterbalance the obscene statements such as "I do not trust scientists", "science is dead" and the way she calls it bullying when someone criticizes her. She is doing what is too common nowadays where you yourself are allowed to be blunt towards even groups of people but when someone gives a hint of criticism, you go into victim hood mode.
Definitely one of the main reasons I watch this channel. I can get opinions basically everywhere else, but finding good hard facts on the internet is a rare thing.
@@hubbeli1074 I don't know, i seen her take critique, admit mistakes and make corrections. And as for the titles, if you don't want exaggerated or sensationalistic click bait titles then take it up with the majority of people that they work on. I have the same issue with commercials, i hate them with a passion. But if people didn't make sales increase based on advertisement, companies wouldn't pay millions to annoy me with sales pitches for crap i don't need in the middle of my favorite shows. I don't understand why we collectively reward that kind of behavior.
@@1112viggo She certainly did not respond well to criticism from Dave. The titles Sabine have are meant for the science denial type, and as there are many of them, they get a ton of attention especially as Sabine is perceived as a "scientist", however little actual science she has done. Even if her actual content would be more neutral, which it isn't as when it comes to state of science they are mostly opinions based on her personal feelings and bad data. The titles themselves are truly harmful. Consider if we would be talking about immigration problem in US and the "clickbait title just for getting more money" would demean whole groups of people, akin to what Sabine is doing with science. Would you still approve? I care about science. I care about people. I dislike anyone who causes harm in our society, no matter the reason why they do it. It is sad that some people apparently are too easily willing to give a pass for bad actions.
Frankly, WIMPS and Axions remind me of the dragons from the Third Sally (or the Dragons of Probability) from Stanislaw Lem's book "The Cyberiad': "Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way." EDIT: I see a bot has appeared to copy and rephrase my comment.
Or that’s what they have us believe, remember that science is GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED, anything thing they show us is what the government wanted to show us
Scientists got $3 billion to study what "nothing" really is. I'd like to hear their pitch. And to have them sell things for me. Those billions eventually add up to be a lot of money.
OK...all sarcasm aside, I think we need to be practical as well. The sole reason we prefer Dark Matter, is because it allows us to built new colliders, new investments new jobs. It is all about money nowadays. The challenge then is that we come up with the correct physics underlying MOND, and show how the new physics that would help us to commercially explore and 'mine' nearby space itself. We need to not sob on the commercial focus of academia, but accept it and translate alternatives into useful fields of investment and exploration....,it's what it is...
In this video I learned that experimental physicist pay $5 billion for haystacks. I live where they grow hay - I think they’re probably being overcharged.
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!
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.
Axions are perfect because they are practically impossible to detect, making them ideal for fueling particle physics research until the heat death of the universe...
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?
A very fascinating video, this brings back painful memories which i have been enduring. My relationship of 6 years ended 3 months ago. The love of my life decided to leave me, I really love her so much I can’t stop thinking about her, I’ve tried my very best to get her back in my life, but to no avail, I’m frustrated, I don’t see my life with anyone else. I’ve done my best to get rid of the thoughts of her, but I can’t, I don’t know why I’m saying this here, I really miss her and just can’t stop thinking about her .
Parting ways with someone you deeply cherish is an agonizing experience. I understand firsthand, having encountered a parallel situation at the end of my 7-year relationship. Driven by an unyielding determination, I explored every avenue to salvage our bond. Seeking guidance from a spiritual counselor proved pivotal, as their intervention played a crucial role in rekindling our love
I wonder what website or software you are using to have the data of the number of paper published each years regarding a specific topic like axion 00:27 or WIMPS 1:47 in the video ?
So, we're replacing a particle we never saw by another particle we never saw and that was designed specifically to be compatible with lack of observation, which is required to hold on to the absurd idea that the observed gravitational anomalies are explained by matter. Check. Makes perfect sense...
@@jacksonmacdYou're right, the idea itself is not absurd. It's the disproportional nearly unchallenged attention it has received as an explanation and it making it to scientific literature for children as fact that is absurd. I stand corrected.
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.....
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.
Imagine if scientists kept on with the WIMP paradigm at full speed into 2020 and began speculating that each WIMP must be roughly the size of the Hindenburg.
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?
Good idea. Hundreds of other scientists have been doing it for decades. Just try to falsify "The Multiverse", or the claim that Free Will doesn't exist!!
Dark Mater is like Santa Claus - If you never have seen Santa Claus doesn't mean, that he does not exist. Its just you have not found him jet. Yes - let that sink in for some seconds, please. Could we please come back to times, when Physik was logical and not believe driven, that would be awesome.
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.
And many people laughed at the idea of The Invisible Man, but at least suspended their disbelief because there was no serious attempt to create science for it.
Well presented Sabine and I liked the point about having a reason for a particular dark matter particle choice. With the end of the Big Bang theory we have the freedom to make different starting assumptions. The universe is finite with a space boundary and matter forms in galaxy formation events starting closest to the centre of the finite universe. In a galaxy formation event, intense gamma radiation decays into neutrons some of which immediately bond in pairs to form the very stable dark matter particle. The neutrons left over from the pair bonding process (about 15%) decay to form protons and electrons and then hydrogen. These dark matter particles provide neutrons for star formation so they will not be found within the solar system. The dark matter forming closest to the centre falls under gravity to create a super massive neutron star with an event horizon. Further out the dark matter forms a halo to the galaxy detected by its gravitational effect. In between dark matter can accumulate to form neutron stars of various sizes without going through star formation. A neutron star of more than 3.4 solar masses will form an event horizon which results in a black hole. There are no singularities in physics.
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.
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.
Wouldn't our neutrino detectors be able to "see" these, and how are they different from neutrinos? Or is this just another solution in search of a particle....again?
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.
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.
What has always been true in physics becomes more apparent every day: the way we do physics is much more a mirror of the way the human mind works and more often than not much more reflects the personality of the practitioners - than it has to say about the REAL nature of reality. To clarify what I mean: shouldn't it be OBVIOUS that the limits of our "capacity for understanding" have no inherent correlation with the nature of 'reality' or what it might truly be? However, confronting this abyss-one that, by definition, will forever remain beyond our reach-is something many scientists are too afraid to face. If things were different, scientists wouldn't so readily dismiss philosophy, metaphysics, or even religion-this, coming from someone who abandoned organized religion decades ago. In my view, it will become increasingly clear with each passing year that what holds true in everyday life also applies to science: beyond a certain point, the narrative becomes far more important than the facts-especially because, in principle, the facts lie beyond our grasp.
I have really enjoyed some science fiction authors that explore this idea. Sometimes I wonder if anything the human mind creates is more than tangentially connected to reality.
@edwardlulofs444 If you are a philosopher, you can delve deeply into these ideas, as Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and many others did long ago. However, if you are a modern physicist, you are likely to avoid their perspectives at all costs. This avoidance is unfortunate-not only for the physicists themselves, whether they realize it or not, but also for humanity as a whole. And by the way... My nickname can give you a hint who the science fiction author is that - imho - has circled the boundaries of all questions and answers about the true nature of reality more profoundly than any other...
I don't really see what the alternative to continuing along with the most promising if seemingly still unlikely options for expanding or rewriting parts of the Standard Model would be, that is, until someone or a group of people stumble upon a more easily testable idea that fits better than what we have? Of course, it's possible we hit a wall that we are incapable of overcoming, but I find it doubtful that we are anywhere near that if you take a multigenerational perspective.
@@zlzenith6880 Admittedly we may not have reached 'the end of physics' yet. But: at the other end of the spectrum, many physicists act as if a 'Theorie of everything' is just waiting right around the corner. Which, IMHO, is even MORE unlikely from your multigenerational perspective, isn't it? And if we don't agree on that the solution to all this is NOT building one or two or even ten increasingly large and expensive colliders, then we don't have enough common ground to continue this discussion...
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.
I'm thinking the same since 10 years. When something is unobservable, can not be measured, does not interact with light and seems not to exist in our close vicinity (which it would need if it were such an abundant particle in the universe), then most probably, it doesn't exist after all...
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.
I have only a layman's knowledge of quantum physics, but my intuition tells me we're heading in the wrong direction identifying all these dozens of different particles. I can't help but think that, in the end, we'll discover they're all just different aspects or variations of a mere handful of particles, or perhaps even just one. I sometimes wonder if creating all these particles isn't akin to some sort of 'Rube Goldberg' device, where we keep slapping on more bells and whistles to try to make the thing work, when it would make more sense to just replace the framistat with a whatchamajig.
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.
@@Roman8707 What we "see" is usually and interpretation and mathematical probability based on our best understanding... which is limited.... we still don't even agree that Einstein's theory is actually correct... it's just the best we have... so if it's inaccurate, so isn't everything that is derived from it... every inaccurate theory builds on itself... we are just GUESSING... and even or climate models are inaccurate and we are basing trillions of dollars on unknowns...
@@t.c.2776 They're the best tools we have right now which helped us to make devices and ways to communicate such as what we're doing right now. If it's inaccurate to the underlying ways of how the universe actually works, then we update the models when we're able to figure it out. Also it's not that physicists disagree wholly on Einstein's relativity, it's just it only works up to a certain point of scale. You don't throw out a 12mm socket wrench when you find a 10mm, or adjustable wrench. You keep all your tools and use them for the right circumstance. Hell Newton's laws still work up to a certain degree, and then with Einstein's theory you can derive Newtonian physics from that still. If everything is wholly inaccurate then none of what we're doing would work. To discredit all of science just because one thing *may* be inaccurate is folly. We build on top of what we have the best we can for what we have at present.
@@Roman8707 you are mostly correct... One of my pet peeves is trying to comprehend things that may be irrelevant... like The Big Bang or was there something before it... what difference does it make if the Universe is expanding faster than we can see it, and therefore we really have no clue how old it actually is, or if it's going to reverse and collapse on us... LOL... either way it's meaningless... we are basing our measurements on photons of like that have crossed BILLIONS OF YEARS OF SPACE and collided and mixed with photons from Billions of Galaxies and Trillions of Stars that could affect the intensity and speed of those photons... not to mention the gravitational effect a black hole would have on them... if we even knew what a black hole does... how many "theories" are there about what a black hole is or isn't and how it functions or doesn't?
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.
Ah, the never-ending search for dark matter - kind of like the never-ending attempts to show that every force is somehow particulate in nature - seen any gravitons lately? How about weakatrons, strongatrons, magnatrons, timeatrons, etc. - is it necessary that dark matter and/or dark energy are particulate - if they even exist?
Weak force is mediated by W and Z Bosons, whereas the Strong force is mediated by Gluons. They have all been "seen", indeed. Magnetism is really electromagnetism, and is mediated by photons. Time is not a force...
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.
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.
Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. It isn't new -- academic cosmologists have been ignoring it for decades.
It's quite sad. The scientific method calls for observation to confirm hypothesis, but cosmologists bypass that step in favor of complex theories. Halton Arp's books have actual photos showing luminous connections between low-redshift galaxies and high redshift quasars, disproving BBT -- but who cares about observational evidence anymore?
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.
It's an incomplete theory of gravity/space/time. Their egos will not allow them to admit that they have something wrong that is so fundamental. Instead they create a fairytale particle that happens to be undetectable and doesn't interact with anything. How convenient
I'm curious about this too. I understand inferring the existence of something you can't observe based on its effects on observable stuff, and I also understand picking a new hypothesis when your old one doesn't work, but how does picking something even less provable help?
Every physicist you ask will tell you that we have an incomplete theory of gravity. You're not some genius for pointing that out. All these theories are attempts at trying ro understand it. Stop with the conspiracy "us vs them mentality" and talk to someone outside your echo chamber.
@@robertl6196the previous video literally talks about webb disproving the dark matter model and confirming that the MOND model predictions work. So there is no trust me bro. There's dozens of years of research and hundreds of millions of dollars of equipement wasted. There isn't any other field in which you can imagine 97% of magically undetectable stuff so that your equations fit your observations, except maybe religion, as it's nothing else than a belief at this point. But physicists have been doing that for years. Nonsense.
Early high energy physics was amazing, Einstein relativity and QM. Now, like the ancients that argued about how many angels that could dance on the head of a pin, modern physicists argue about things we can't quite detect yet.😂
Makes sense, until we have evidence that we don't live in a material universe, it makes sense to assume that everything unknown is either an unknown particle, a unknown fundamental force, or an unknown manifestation of energy. There is no other options, unless you enter spirituality, religion, or psuedo-science.
But there are maybe possibilities to explain physical facts, like dark matter, without postulating new particles. And all this without entering religion or spirituality. But how? Just by discovering new laws and mechanisms instead new particles. So did the Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom with his MOND theory wich can formally nearly solve the dark matter problem without new particles.
@@TOMAS-oj9hx Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Both BBT and MOND are curve-fitting theories, with no physical explanation for DM, DE, or tweaking gravity.
Yes, you are right. MOND is not really a theory and has itself no explanation for DM. But the curve fitting, as you said, is partly that good that maybe there is some deeper reality behind it.
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.
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
@@Mentaculus42 Yes, agree
It's commendable that you can talk so fairly about something you don't personally support. I salute your ability to do so.
It does little to counterbalance the obscene statements such as "I do not trust scientists", "science is dead" and the way she calls it bullying when someone criticizes her. She is doing what is too common nowadays where you yourself are allowed to be blunt towards even groups of people but when someone gives a hint of criticism, you go into victim hood mode.
Definitely one of the main reasons I watch this channel. I can get opinions basically everywhere else, but finding good hard facts on the internet is a rare thing.
thank you!
@@hubbeli1074 I don't know, i seen her take critique, admit mistakes and make corrections. And as for the titles, if you don't want exaggerated or sensationalistic click bait titles then take it up with the majority of people that they work on. I have the same issue with commercials, i hate them with a passion. But if people didn't make sales increase based on advertisement, companies wouldn't pay millions to annoy me with sales pitches for crap i don't need in the middle of my favorite shows. I don't understand why we collectively reward that kind of behavior.
@@1112viggo She certainly did not respond well to criticism from Dave. The titles Sabine have are meant for the science denial type, and as there are many of them, they get a ton of attention especially as Sabine is perceived as a "scientist", however little actual science she has done. Even if her actual content would be more neutral, which it isn't as when it comes to state of science they are mostly opinions based on her personal feelings and bad data. The titles themselves are truly harmful. Consider if we would be talking about immigration problem in US and the "clickbait title just for getting more money" would demean whole groups of people, akin to what Sabine is doing with science. Would you still approve? I care about science. I care about people. I dislike anyone who causes harm in our society, no matter the reason why they do it. It is sad that some people apparently are too easily willing to give a pass for bad actions.
Frankly, WIMPS and Axions remind me of the dragons from the Third Sally (or the Dragons of Probability) from Stanislaw Lem's book "The Cyberiad': "Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way."
EDIT: I see a bot has appeared to copy and rephrase my comment.
Stan is my all time hero
Or that’s what they have us believe, remember that science is GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED, anything thing they show us is what the government wanted to show us
Very good!!! Well done, good sir!
Or that’s what they have us believe, remember that science is government controlled
I like your funny words, magic man~
"Except the needle is invisible and the haystack costs five billion dollars..." Almost made me spit out my breakfast laughing.
@@antoniolopezmagpayo5328the discovery of the Higgs is hardly a scam.
Scientists got $3 billion to study what "nothing" really is. I'd like to hear their pitch. And to have them sell things for me. Those billions eventually add up to be a lot of money.
Soon that breakfast may cost 5 billion dollars.
OK...all sarcasm aside, I think we need to be practical as well. The sole reason we prefer Dark Matter, is because it allows us to built new colliders, new investments new jobs. It is all about money nowadays. The challenge then is that we come up with the correct physics underlying MOND, and show how the new physics that would help us to commercially explore and 'mine' nearby space itself. We need to not sob on the commercial focus of academia, but accept it and translate alternatives into useful fields of investment and exploration....,it's what it is...
In this video I learned that experimental physicist pay $5 billion for haystacks. I live where they grow hay - I think they’re probably being overcharged.
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
Damn! Shut up and belive!
We should force them to pay for the equipment and experiments out of their own money.
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.
Axions are perfect because they are practically impossible to detect, making them ideal for fueling particle physics research until the heat death of the universe...
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!
All I hear is that physicists seem to become desperate in finding a mathematical artifact that probably doesn't even exist.
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?
Phosphates changed everything. Zeolites are the way forward.
Excellent - a masterpiece!
This should be pinned.
I LIKE IT WHEN YOU TALK DIRTY
This is actually the origin of the name. They are called such because they clean up certain aspects of theory.
A very fascinating video, this brings back painful memories which i have been enduring. My relationship of 6 years ended 3 months ago. The love of my life decided to leave me, I really love her so much I can’t stop thinking about her, I’ve tried my very best to get her back in my life, but to no avail, I’m frustrated, I don’t see my life with anyone else. I’ve done my best to get rid of the thoughts of her, but I can’t, I don’t know why I’m saying this here, I really miss her and just can’t stop thinking about her .
Parting ways with someone you deeply cherish is an agonizing experience. I understand firsthand, having encountered a parallel situation at the end of my 7-year relationship. Driven by an unyielding determination, I explored every avenue to salvage our bond. Seeking guidance from a spiritual counselor proved pivotal, as their intervention played a crucial role in rekindling our love
That's fascinating! How did you come across a spiritual counselor, and what's the best way for me to contact her?
Meet Suzanne Ann Walters, an outstanding spiritual counselor with the power to restore your relationship with your ex.
I'm grateful for this valuable information; I've just taken a moment to find her online.
Love your style love the content love the honesty. Thx sabine
I wonder what website or software you are using to have the data of the number of paper published each years regarding a specific topic like axion 00:27 or WIMPS 1:47 in the video ?
I enjoy your videos, even though I rarely completely understand them.
A Sabine Video a day, keeps the melancholy away 😄
So, we're replacing a particle we never saw by another particle we never saw and that was designed specifically to be compatible with lack of observation, which is required to hold on to the absurd idea that the observed gravitational anomalies are explained by matter. Check. Makes perfect sense...
I agree 95%, other than including the word "absurd". That said, you've summarized my thoughts much better than I could have done.
@@jacksonmacdYou're right, the idea itself is not absurd. It's the disproportional nearly unchallenged attention it has received as an explanation and it making it to scientific literature for children as fact that is absurd. I stand corrected.
Thanks Sabine.
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
@@phonkeyno, it's the BRÄMM
Thank you, Sabine.
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.
Danke!
We have not achieved anything in detecting these particles but we have made GREAT strides in creating backcronyms.
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.
Thank you for the video.
Imagine if scientists kept on with the WIMP paradigm at full speed into 2020 and began speculating that each WIMP must be roughly the size of the Hindenburg.
incredibly laughable how expensive the research would be the search of a invisible needle in a haystack , well said Sabine Hossenfelder
QM & Sabine led me to believe that, "if you continue to look for it, you'll find it even if it doesn't exist!"
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...
After the Invisible Pink Unicorn, physicists managed to make things worse by introducing the Undetectable Invisible Pink Unicorn
How can something invisible have a color? 🤔
@@cg21 mathematicians are working on it
I do hate when I’ve finished building my IKEA furniture and without fail, there is always a spark plug left over
It sounds like when I am programming. Whenever something is not quite right, just add another “If” statement.
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.
@@Milan_Openfeint dark matter was invented because our observation doesn't match our current model
First, your presentation and commentary are informative. I enjoy your "humour noir".
This channel has definitely turned me against particle colliders.
'for very small masses the uncertainty can extend across galaxies' wow sounds great
Most astrophysicists should be sacked for wasting money and time on dark anything..
How would one copyright this Ambiance 🤔
🌊🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🫧🛸
Still chasing non-existent objects.
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?
"Any solution is better than none" No thank you.
WIMPS were appealing candidates for grant applications
3:15 "the needle is invisible and the haystack costs $5B" ... DOH!!! I just *hate* when that happens :(
As a scientist I'd explain the world with things that are impossible to observe, so no one could prove me wrong
Good idea. Hundreds of other scientists have been doing it for decades. Just try to falsify "The Multiverse", or the claim that Free Will doesn't exist!!
Dark Mater is like Santa Claus - If you never have seen Santa Claus doesn't mean, that he does not exist. Its just you have not found him jet.
Yes - let that sink in for some seconds, please.
Could we please come back to times, when Physik was logical and not believe driven, that would be awesome.
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 !!!
And many people laughed at the idea of The Invisible Man, but at least suspended their disbelief because there was no serious attempt to create science for it.
"a little bit too on the nose" - laughed out loud
Turns out that WIMPS aren’t “harmless”…. so long as it’s in physics.
Wimps usually hide when trouble appears. :D
Well presented Sabine and I liked the point about having a reason for a particular dark matter particle choice.
With the end of the Big Bang theory we have the freedom to make different starting assumptions. The universe is finite with a space boundary and matter forms in galaxy formation events starting closest to the centre of the finite universe.
In a galaxy formation event, intense gamma radiation decays into neutrons some of which immediately bond in pairs to form the very stable dark matter particle. The neutrons left over from the pair bonding process (about 15%) decay to form protons and electrons and then hydrogen.
These dark matter particles provide neutrons for star formation so they will not be found within the solar system.
The dark matter forming closest to the centre falls under gravity to create a super massive neutron star with an event horizon. Further out the dark matter forms a halo to the galaxy detected by its gravitational effect. In between dark matter can accumulate to form neutron stars of various sizes without going through star formation.
A neutron star of more than 3.4 solar masses will form an event horizon which results in a black hole. There are no singularities in physics.
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.
there is a big difference between neutrinos and axions: there was a real reason to think neutrinos should be real.
It was never a new idea. It's the way thinking works. If something is missing, it's somewhere else.
Pink invisible unicorns are just too heavy to be observed in an accelerator, but they are the best candidates, so we need a bigger accelerator.
So is this an example of science self-correcting or just laziness by reusing a failed idea differently?
Physicists are always talking about needing a larger particle accelerator and the cost is becoming prohibitive.
Every time I hear Axion I face a sudden Narcolepsy.
I have already a huge pile of spark plugs at home and have no idea what to do with them. I should add them to the collection of the dark matter.
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.
We already know that this is needed. Gravity does not play well with the whole quantum thing where they collide (singularities).
I’m gonna have AI generate a million papers saying leprechauns makeup dark matter. Then leprechauns will be the new leading theory of dark matter.
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.
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?
"Any solution is better than none" sounds like God of the gaps.
Wouldn't our neutrino detectors be able to "see" these, and how are they different from neutrinos? Or is this just another solution in search of a particle....again?
Many angels dancing on many heads of pins.
Love the post video quizzes!
Dan
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.
You are so funny. Thank You so much for the updates.
The Axion.
A barrel, scraped
Your videos are getting more like social media arguments over the last 6+ months than science.
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.
I wonder if Dark matter might be the modern day Phlogiston.
What has always been true in physics becomes more apparent every day: the way we do physics is much more a mirror of the way the human mind works and more often than not much more reflects the personality of the practitioners - than it has to say about the REAL nature of reality.
To clarify what I mean: shouldn't it be OBVIOUS that the limits of our "capacity for understanding" have no inherent correlation with the nature of 'reality' or what it might truly be? However, confronting this abyss-one that, by definition, will forever remain beyond our reach-is something many scientists are too afraid to face. If things were different, scientists wouldn't so readily dismiss philosophy, metaphysics, or even religion-this, coming from someone who abandoned organized religion decades ago. In my view, it will become increasingly clear with each passing year that what holds true in everyday life also applies to science: beyond a certain point, the narrative becomes far more important than the facts-especially because, in principle, the facts lie beyond our grasp.
"Ah, but what do you mean by 'human', 'mind', and 'reality', _really?"_
-S. Wolfram
I have really enjoyed some science fiction authors that explore this idea.
Sometimes I wonder if anything the human mind creates is more than tangentially connected to reality.
@edwardlulofs444
If you are a philosopher, you can delve deeply into these ideas, as Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and many others did long ago. However, if you are a modern physicist, you are likely to avoid their perspectives at all costs. This avoidance is unfortunate-not only for the physicists themselves, whether they realize it or not, but also for humanity as a whole.
And by the way... My nickname can give you a hint who the science fiction author is that - imho - has circled the boundaries of all questions and answers about the true nature of reality more profoundly than any other...
I don't really see what the alternative to continuing along with the most promising if seemingly still unlikely options for expanding or rewriting parts of the Standard Model would be, that is, until someone or a group of people stumble upon a more easily testable idea that fits better than what we have? Of course, it's possible we hit a wall that we are incapable of overcoming, but I find it doubtful that we are anywhere near that if you take a multigenerational perspective.
@@zlzenith6880
Admittedly we may not have reached 'the end of physics' yet. But: at the other end of the spectrum, many physicists act as if a 'Theorie of everything' is just waiting right around the corner.
Which, IMHO, is even MORE unlikely from your multigenerational perspective, isn't it?
And if we don't agree on that the solution to all this is NOT building one or two or even ten increasingly large and expensive colliders, then we don't have enough common ground to continue this discussion...
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.
New particles are like the God of the gaps. When it fails, they add an ad hoc hypothesis.
Yeah, the fact that our current frameworks are even amenable to such modifications suggests to me that they're more epicycle than fundamental.
It is atheism of the gaps.
Ad hoc doesn’t mean what you think it does. Or you just have your physics PhD from a former poly. 😂
What ISN'T ad hoc?
neutrinos were ad hoc. so was color charge. heck, the higgs boson was ad hoc.
I'm thinking the same since 10 years. When something is unobservable, can not be measured, does not interact with light and seems not to exist in our close vicinity (which it would need if it were such an abundant particle in the universe), then most probably, it doesn't exist after all...
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.
I have only a layman's knowledge of quantum physics, but my intuition tells me we're heading in the wrong direction identifying all these dozens of different particles. I can't help but think that, in the end, we'll discover they're all just different aspects or variations of a mere handful of particles, or perhaps even just one.
I sometimes wonder if creating all these particles isn't akin to some sort of 'Rube Goldberg' device, where we keep slapping on more bells and whistles to try to make the thing work, when it would make more sense to just replace the framistat with a whatchamajig.
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.
@@Roman8707 What we "see" is usually and interpretation and mathematical probability based on our best understanding... which is limited.... we still don't even agree that Einstein's theory is actually correct... it's just the best we have... so if it's inaccurate, so isn't everything that is derived from it... every inaccurate theory builds on itself... we are just GUESSING... and even or climate models are inaccurate and we are basing trillions of dollars on unknowns...
@@t.c.2776 They're the best tools we have right now which helped us to make devices and ways to communicate such as what we're doing right now. If it's inaccurate to the underlying ways of how the universe actually works, then we update the models when we're able to figure it out. Also it's not that physicists disagree wholly on Einstein's relativity, it's just it only works up to a certain point of scale. You don't throw out a 12mm socket wrench when you find a 10mm, or adjustable wrench. You keep all your tools and use them for the right circumstance. Hell Newton's laws still work up to a certain degree, and then with Einstein's theory you can derive Newtonian physics from that still. If everything is wholly inaccurate then none of what we're doing would work.
To discredit all of science just because one thing *may* be inaccurate is folly. We build on top of what we have the best we can for what we have at present.
@@Roman8707 you are mostly correct... One of my pet peeves is trying to comprehend things that may be irrelevant... like The Big Bang or was there something before it... what difference does it make if the Universe is expanding faster than we can see it, and therefore we really have no clue how old it actually is, or if it's going to reverse and collapse on us... LOL... either way it's meaningless... we are basing our measurements on photons of like that have crossed BILLIONS OF YEARS OF SPACE and collided and mixed with photons from Billions of Galaxies and Trillions of Stars that could affect the intensity and speed of those photons... not to mention the gravitational effect a black hole would have on them... if we even knew what a black hole does... how many "theories" are there about what a black hole is or isn't and how it functions or doesn't?
Didn't there used to be an alternative to WIMPs called MACHOs? At least they produced nice inter-theoretical symmetry.
Somewhere there is an advanced alien civilization that monitors our scientists and they are rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter.
'Uncertainty' is one of many quantum ideas I I keep execting Sabine to expose as quantum quackery.
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.
I’m allergic to theories that are designed to be untestable.
Ah, the never-ending search for dark matter - kind of like the never-ending attempts to show that every force is somehow particulate in nature - seen any gravitons lately? How about weakatrons, strongatrons,
magnatrons, timeatrons, etc. - is it necessary that dark matter and/or dark energy are particulate - if
they even exist?
Weak force is mediated by W and Z Bosons, whereas the Strong force is mediated by Gluons. They have all been "seen", indeed. Magnetism is really electromagnetism, and is mediated by photons. Time is not a force...
it's the Aether story all over again!
Our generation's phlogiston.
So we need larger colider to prove dark matter. Who knows maybe we will prove luminiferous aerher while we are at it.
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.
We should combine these two theories and call it the Miyagi Principle. Waxion and Waxioff.
Thank you we love Germany ❤
None is better than a wrong solution....
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.
Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. It isn't new -- academic cosmologists have been ignoring it for decades.
People are working on just about every theory they can think of to solve this problem. All of them have a lot of issues. It's not for lack of trying.
Since when does IKEA sell spark plugs? And why does nobody understand what it is? So many questions in the field of physics ...
The dark matter can be found in the hearts of every human being!
After a few decades of "almost anything goes", I do have to doubt astrophysics is even science or has anything to do with physics.
It's quite sad. The scientific method calls for observation to confirm hypothesis, but cosmologists bypass that step in favor of complex theories. Halton Arp's books have actual photos showing luminous connections between low-redshift galaxies and high redshift quasars, disproving BBT -- but who cares about observational evidence anymore?
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.
It is remarkable that something which is supposed to have such a great influence on ordinary matter is so hard to detect - if it is there at all.
It's an incomplete theory of gravity/space/time. Their egos will not allow them to admit that they have something wrong that is so fundamental. Instead they create a fairytale particle that happens to be undetectable and doesn't interact with anything. How convenient
Trust me, bro.
I'm curious about this too. I understand inferring the existence of something you can't observe based on its effects on observable stuff, and I also understand picking a new hypothesis when your old one doesn't work, but how does picking something even less provable help?
Every physicist you ask will tell you that we have an incomplete theory of gravity. You're not some genius for pointing that out. All these theories are attempts at trying ro understand it. Stop with the conspiracy "us vs them mentality" and talk to someone outside your echo chamber.
They should have called them Ego^n (where n is the number of citations they have divided by their number of publications)
@@robertl6196the previous video literally talks about webb disproving the dark matter model and confirming that the MOND model predictions work. So there is no trust me bro. There's dozens of years of research and hundreds of millions of dollars of equipement wasted. There isn't any other field in which you can imagine 97% of magically undetectable stuff so that your equations fit your observations, except maybe religion, as it's nothing else than a belief at this point. But physicists have been doing that for years. Nonsense.
Early high energy physics was amazing, Einstein relativity and QM.
Now, like the ancients that argued about how many angels that could dance on the head of a pin, modern physicists argue about things we can't quite detect yet.😂
This confirms a old wisdom: every time physicists don’t know how to move on they declare a new particle. Hmmm.
Makes sense, until we have evidence that we don't live in a material universe, it makes sense to assume that everything unknown is either an unknown particle, a unknown fundamental force, or an unknown manifestation of energy. There is no other options, unless you enter spirituality, religion, or psuedo-science.
But there are maybe possibilities to explain physical facts, like dark matter, without postulating new particles. And all this without entering religion or spirituality. But how? Just by discovering new laws and mechanisms instead new particles. So did the Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom with his MOND theory wich can formally nearly solve the dark matter problem without new particles.
@@TOMAS-oj9hx Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Both BBT and MOND are curve-fitting theories, with no physical explanation for DM, DE, or tweaking gravity.
Yes, you are right. MOND is not really a theory and has itself no explanation for DM. But the curve fitting, as you said, is partly that good that maybe there is some deeper reality behind it.